Posted originally on the CTH on April 18, 2024 | Sundance
President Trump has incredible energy, stamina and focus. While simultaneously defending himself against the insufferable lawfare attacks from NYC District Attorney Alvin Bragg, President Trump takes the time to meet with Polish President Duda for a two-and-a-half our dinner in Trump Tower.
NEW YORK – […] The dinner with Duda is the latest in a string of discussions Trump has had in recent months with world leaders. Ahead of the November elections, he has spoken with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, dined with British foreign secretary David Cameron, and met with Argentine President Javier Milei and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, according to two people familiar with the talks. Cameron has said that he discussed the question of funding for Ukraine with the former president, according to the Washington Post.
Trump and Duda have long had a warm relationship. Duda has once proposed naming a military base in Poland “Fort Trump” and he visited the White House in 2020, when Trump was in the middle of his reelection campaign.
But Duda, whose term ends in 2025, has pushed the Biden administration to provide more aid to Ukraine, which borders Poland. That position potentially puts him in conflict with Trump, who has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy.”
Last month, Duda and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk met with Biden to discuss sending weapons to Kyiv. While the conservative Duda and center-right Tusk are in the middle of a political feud back home, the Polish leaders came to Washington to press the White House and Congress to support Ukraine amid the ongoing war with Russia. (read more)
Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley to where there was a garden, into which he and his disciples entered. Judas his betrayer also knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.
So Judas got a band of soldiers and guards from the chief priests and the Pharisees and went there with lanterns, torches, and weapons. Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen to him, went out and said to them, “Whom are you looking for?” They answered him, “Jesus the Nazorean.” He said to them, “I AM.” Judas his betrayer was also with them. When he said to them, “I AM, “ they turned away and fell to the ground. So he again asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” They said, “Jesus the Nazorean.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I AM. So if you are looking for me, let these men go.” This was to fulfill what he had said, “I have not lost any of those you gave me.” Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?”
So the band of soldiers, the tribune, and the Jewish guards seized Jesus, bound him, and brought him to Annas first. He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. It was Caiaphas who had counseled the Jews that it was better that one man should die rather than the people.
Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Now the other disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus. But Peter stood at the gate outside. So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in. Then the maid who was the gatekeeper said to Peter, “You are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire that they had made, because it was cold, and were warming themselves. Peter was also standing there keeping warm.
The high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his doctrine. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken publicly to the world. I have always taught in a synagogue or in the temple area where all the Jews gather, and in secret I have said nothing. Why ask me? Ask those who heard me what I said to them. They know what I said.” When he had said this, one of the temple guards standing there struck Jesus and said, “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
Now Simon Peter was standing there keeping warm. And they said to him, “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the one whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Didn’t I see you in the garden with him?” Again Peter denied it. And immediately the cock crowed.
Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was morning. And they themselves did not enter the praetorium, in order not to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover. So Pilate came out to them and said, “What charge do you bring against this man?” They answered and said to him, “If he were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” At this, Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” The Jews answered him, “We do not have the right to execute anyone, “ in order that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled that he said indicating the kind of death he would die. So Pilate went back into the praetorium and summoned Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?” Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.” So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
When he had said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in him. But you have a custom that I release one prisoner to you at Passover. Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” They cried out again, “Not this one but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him scourged. And the soldiers wove a crown out of thorns and placed it on his head, and clothed him in a purple cloak, and they came to him and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly. Once more Pilate went out and said to them, “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no guilt in him.” So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And he said to them, “Behold, the man!” When the chief priests and the guards saw him they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him. I find no guilt in him.” The Jews answered, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” Now when Pilate heard this statement, he became even more afraid, and went back into the praetorium and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” Jesus did not answer him. So Pilate said to him, “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” Consequently, Pilate tried to release him; but the Jews cried out, “If you release him, you are not a Friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”
When Pilate heard these words he brought Jesus out and seated him on the judge’s bench in the place called Stone Pavement, in Hebrew, Gabbatha. It was preparation day for Passover, and it was about noon. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your king!” They cried out, “Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your king?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.
So they took Jesus, and, carrying the cross himself, he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle. Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.” Now many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews’.” Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top down. So they said to one another, “Let’s not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be, “ in order that the passage of Scripture might be fulfilled that says: They divided my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots. This is what the soldiers did. Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.” There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
Here all kneel and pause for a short time.
Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and that they be taken down. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may come to believe. For this happened so that the Scripture passage might be fulfilled: Not a bone of it will be broken. And again another passage says: They will look upon him whom they have pierced.
After this, Joseph of Arimathea, secretly a disciple of Jesus for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate if he could remove the body of Jesus. And Pilate permitted it. So he came and took his body. Nicodemus, the one who had first come to him at night, also came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about one hundred pounds. They took the body of Jesus and bound it with burial cloths along with the spices, according to the Jewish burial custom. Now in the place where he had been crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been buried. So they laid Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation day; for the tomb was close by.
There are three types of scientific models, as shown in figure 1. In this series of seven posts on climate model bias we are only concerned with two of them. The first are mathematical models that utilize well established physical, and chemical processes and principles to model some part of our reality, especially the climate and the economy. The second are conceptual models that utilize scientific hypotheses and assumptions to propose an idea of how something, such as the climate, works. Conceptual models are generally tested, and hopefully validated, by creating a mathematical model. The output from the mathematical model is compared to observations and if the output matches the observations closely, the model is validated. It isn’t proven, but it is shown to be useful, and the conceptual model gains credibility.
Figure 1. The three types of scientific models.
Models are useful when used to decompose some complex natural system, such as Earth’s climate, or some portion of the system, into its underlying components and drivers. Models can be used to try and determine which of the system components and drivers are the most important under various model scenarios.
Besides being used to predict the future, or a possible future, good models should also tell us what should not happen in the future. If these events do not occur, it adds support to the hypothesis. These are the tasks that the climate models created by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP)[1] are designed to do. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[2] analyzes the CMIP model results, along with other peer-reviewed research, and attempts to explain modern global warming in their reports. The most recent IPCC report is called AR6.[3]
In the context of climate change, especially regarding the AR6 IPCC[4] report, the term “model,” is often used as an abbreviation for a general circulation climate model.[5] Modern computer general circulation models have been around since the 1960s, and now are huge computer programs that can run for days or longer on powerful computers. However, climate modeling has been around for more than a century, well before computers were invented. Later in this report I will briefly discuss a 19th century greenhouse gas climate model developed and published by Svante Arrhenius.
Besides modeling climate change, AR6 contains descriptions of socio-economic models that attempt to predict the impact of selected climate changes on society and the economy. In a sense, AR6, just like the previous assessment reports, is a presentation of the results of the latest iteration of their scientific models of future climate and their models of the impact of possible future climates on humanity.
Introduction
Modern atmospheric general circulation computerized climate models were first introduced in the 1960s by Syukuro Manabe and colleagues.[6] These models, and their descendants can be useful, even though they are clearly oversimplifications of nature, and they are wrong[7] in many respects like all models.[8] It is a shame, but climate model results are often conflated with observations by the media and the public, when they are anything but.
I began writing scientific models of rocks[9] and programming them for computers in the 1970s and like all modelers of that era I was heavily influenced by George Box, the famous University of Wisconsin statistician. Box teaches us that all models are developed iteratively.[10] First we make assumptions and build a conceptual model about how some natural, economic, or other system works and what influences it, then we model some part of it, or the whole system. The model results are then compared to observations. There will typically be a difference between the model results and the observations, these differences are assumed to be due to model error since we necessarily assume our observations have no error, at least initially. We examine the errors, adjust the model parameters or the model assumptions, or both, and run it again, and again examine the errors. This “learning” process is the main benefit of models. Box tells us that good scientists must have the flexibility and courage to seek out, recognize, and exploit such errors, especially any errors in the conceptual model assumptions. Modeling nature is how we learn how nature works.
Box next advises us that “we should not fall in love with our models,” and “since all models are wrong the scientists cannot obtain a ‘correct’ one by excessive elaboration.” I used to explain this principle to other modelers more crudely by pointing out that if you polish a turd, it is still a turd. One must recognize when a model has gone as far as it can go. At some point it is done, more data, more elaborate programming, more complicated assumptions cannot save it. The benefit of the model is what you learned building it, not the model itself. When the inevitable endpoint is reached, you must trash the model and start over by building a new conceptual model. A new model will have a new set of assumptions based on the “learnings” from the old model, and other new data and observations gathered in the meantime.
Each IPCC report, since the first one was published in 1990,[11] is a single iteration of the same overall conceptual model. In this case, the “conceptual model” is the idea or hypothesis that humans control the climate (or perhaps just the rate of global warming) with our greenhouse gas emissions.[12] Various and more detailed computerized models are built to attempt to measure the impact of human emissions on Earth’s climate.
Another key assumption in the IPCC model is that climate change is dangerous, and, as a result, we must mitigate (reduce) fossil fuel use to reduce or prevent damage to society from climate change. Finally, they assume a key metric of this global climate change or warming is the climate sensitivity to human-caused increases in CO2. This sensitivity can be computed with models or using measurements of changes in atmospheric CO2 and global average surface temperature. The IPCC equates changes in global average surface temperature to “climate change.”
This climate sensitivity metric is often called “ECS,” which stands for equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, often abbreviated as “2xCO2.”[13] Modern climate models, ever since those used for the famous Charney report in 1979,[14] except for AR6, have generated a range of ECS values from 1.5 to 4.5°C per 2xCO2. AR6 uses a rather unique and complex subjective model that results in a range of 2.5 to 4°C/2xCO2. More about this later in the report.
George Box warns modelers that:
“Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity.”[15]
Box, 1976
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC has published six major reports and numerous minor reports since 1990.[16] Here we will argue that they have spent more than thirty years polishing the turd to little effect. They have come up with more and more elaborate processes to try and save their hypothesis that human-generated greenhouse gases have caused recent climate changes and that the Sun and internal variations within Earth’s climate system have had little to no effect. As we will show, new climate science discoveries, since 1990, are not explained by the IPCC models, do not show up in the model output, and newly discovered climate processes, especially important ocean oscillations, are not incorporated into them.
Just one example. Eade, et al. report that the modern general circulation climate models used for the AR5 and AR6 reports[17] do not reproduce the important North Atlantic Ocean Oscillation (“NAO”). The NAO-like signal that the models produce in their simulation runs[18] is indistinguishable from random white noise. Eade, et al. report:
“This suggests that current climate models do not fully represent important aspects of the mechanism for low frequency variability of the NAO.”[19]
Eade, et al., 2022
All the models in AR6, both climate and socio-economic, have important model/observation mismatches. As time has gone on, the modelers and authors have continued to ignore new developments in climate science and climate change economics, as their “overelaboration and overparameterization” has become more extreme. As they make their models more elaborate, they progressively ignore more new data and discoveries to decrease their apparent “uncertainty” and increase their reported “confidence” that humans drive climate change. It is a false confidence that is due to the confirmation and reporting bias in both the models and the reports.
As I reviewed all six of the major IPCC reports, I became convinced that AR6 is the most biased of all of them.[20] In a major new book twelve colleagues and I, working under the Clintel[21] umbrella, examined AR6 and detailed considerable evidence of bias.
“AR6 states that “there has been negligible long-term influence from solar activity and volcanoes,”[23] and acknowledges no other natural influence on multidecadal climate change despite … recent discoveries, a true case of tunnel vision.”
“We were promised IPCC reports that would objectively report on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, yet we find numerous examples where important research was ignored. In Ross McKitrick’s chapter[24] on the “hot spot,” he lists many important papers that are not even mentioned in AR6. Marcel [Crok] gives examples where unreasonable emissions scenarios are used to frighten the public in his chapter on scenarios,[25] and examples of hiding good news in his chapter on extreme weather events.[26] Numerous other examples are documented in other chapters. These deliberate omissions and distortions of the truth do not speak well for the IPCC, reform of the institution is desperately needed.”
Crok and May, 2023
Confirmation[27] and reporting bias[28] are very common in AR6. We also find examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect,[29] in-group bias,[30] and anchoring bias.[31]
In 2010, the InterAcademy Council of the United Nations reviewed the processes and procedures of the IPCC and found many problems.[32] In particular, they criticized the subjective way that uncertainty is handled. They also criticized the obvious confirmation bias in the IPCC reports.[33] They pointed out that the Lead Authors too often leave out dissenting views or references to papers they disagree with. The Council recommended that alternative views should be mentioned and cited in the report. Even though these criticisms were voiced in 2010, I and my colleagues, found numerous examples of these problems in AR6, published eleven years later in 2021 and 2022.[34]
Although bias pervades AR6, this series will focus mainly on bias in the AR6 volume 1 (WGI) CMIP6[35] climate models that are used to predict future climate. However, we will also look at the models used to identify and quantify climate change impacts in volume 2 (WGII), and to compute the cost/benefit analysis of their recommended mitigation (fossil fuel reduction) measures in volume 3 (WGIII). As a former petrophysical modeler, I am aware how bias can sneak into a computer model, sometimes the modeler is aware he is introducing bias into the results, sometimes he is not. Bias exists in all models, since they are all built from assumptions and ideas (the “conceptual model”), but a good modeler will do his best to minimize it.
In the next six posts I will take you through some of the evidence of bias I found in the CMIP6 models and the AR6 report. A 30,000-foot look at the history of human-caused climate change modeling is given in part 2. Evidence that the IPCC has ignored possible solar influence on climate is presented in part 3. The IPCC ignores evidence that changes in convection and atmospheric circulation patterns in the oceans and atmosphere affect climate change on multidecadal times scales and this is examined in part 4.
Contrary to the common narrative, there is considerable evidence that storminess (extreme weather) was higher in the Little Ice Age, aka the “pre-industrial” (part 5). Next, we move on to examine bias in the IPCC AR6 WGII report[36] on the impact, adaptation, and vulnerability to climate change in part 6 and in their report[37] on how to mitigate climate change in part 7.
IPCC is an abbreviation for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. agency. AR6 is their sixth major report on climate change, “Assessment Report 6.” ↑
There are several names for climate models, including atmosphere-ocean general circulation model (AOGCM, used in AR5), or Earth system model (ESM, used in AR6). Besides these complicated computer climate models there are other models used in AR6, some model energy flows, the impact of climate change on society or the global economy, or the impact of various greenhouse gas mitigation efforts. We only discuss some of these models in this report. (IPCC, 2021, p. 2223) ↑
(Manabe & Bryan, Climate Calculations with a Combined Ocean-Atmosphere Model, 1969), (Manabe & Wetherald, The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model, 1975) ↑
(McKitrick & Christy, A Test of the Tropical 200- to 300-hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models, Earth and Space Science, 2018) and (McKitrick & Christy, 2020) ↑
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” (UNFCCC, 2020). ↑
Usually, ECS means equilibrium climate sensitivity, or the ultimate change in surface temperature due to a doubling of CO2. but in AR6 sometimes they refer to “Effective Climate Sensitivity,” or the “effective ECS” which is defined as the warming after a specified number of years (IPCC, 2021, pp. 931-933). AR6, WGI, page 933 has a more complete definition. ↑
Confirmation bias: The tendency to look only for data that supports a previously held belief. It also means all new data is interpreted in a way that supports a prior belief. Wikipedia has a fairly good article on common cognitive biases. ↑
Reporting bias: In this context it means only reporting or publishing results that favor a previously held belief and censoring or ignoring results that show the belief is questionable. ↑
The Dunning-Kruger effect is the tendency to overestimate one’s abilities in a particular subject. In this context we see climate modelers, who call themselves “climate scientists,” overestimate their knowledge of paleoclimatology, atmospheric sciences, and atomic physics. ↑
In-group bias causes lead authors and editors to choose their authors and research papers from their associates and friends who share their beliefs. ↑
Anchoring bias occurs when an early result or calculation, for example Svante Arrhenius’ ECS (climate sensitivity to CO2) of 4°C, discussed below, gets fixed in a researcher’s mind and then he “adjusts” his thinking and data interpretation to always come close to that value, while ignoring contrary data. ↑
Posted originally on the CTH on January 6, 2024 | Sundance
In honor of our national gaslighting embarrassment, the third anniversary of the FBI’s fedsurrection, the FBI laughed in the faces of the general population under their control. The DC-based FBI sent out this message:
Yes, the national kidnappers have removed their masks. Y’all know what that metaphor means.
Once again, for those who just walked in…. Following the scale of manipulation within the 2020 election, those who did the manipulation, which included support from the FBI and DOJ, justified to keep their institutional agencies from being exposed, needed to do something to stop any state delegate challenge. One successful state election challenge would have upended the entire system. They needed an emergency session for the January 6th electoral certification.
The pipe bombs found in DC on January 6th, were essentially the insurance policy. The FBI was supporting the need for a stoppage of the 2020 electoral certification session in congress. If the FBI could not manipulate the crowd into entering the Capitol Building, the “discovery” of the pipe bombs would have been used to shut down the certification session. Speaker Pelosi would then gain emergency power, switch to an emergency session upon return, and any effort to challenge the delegate affirmation would be nulled. The latter described action by Pelosi is exactly what happened.
Repost Due to Current Media Cycle News
The Ring of Truth – “I am too well accustomed to the taking of evidence not to detect the ring of truth.” 1908, Edith Wharton
Much has been made of the events of January 6, 2021, and with the latest broadcast of CCTV video from inside the Capitol Hill complex, more questions have been raised.
Within the questions: the FBI and government apparatus had advanced knowledge of the scale of the J6 mall assembly yet doing nothing? Why were the Capitol Hill police never informed of the FBI concerns? Why didn’t House Speaker Nancy Pelosi secure the Capitol Hill complex, and why did she deny the request by President Trump to call up the national guard for security support? Why did the FBI have agent provocateurs in the crowd, seemingly stimulating rage within a peaceful crowd to enter the Capitol Building?
There have always been these nagging questions around ‘why’?
Long time CTH reader “Regitiger” has spent a great deal of time reviewing the entire process, looking at the granular timeline and then overlaying the bigger picture of the constitutional and parliamentary process itself. What follows below is a brilliant analysis of the federal government motive to create a J6 crisis that permitted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to trigger an emergency session and avoid the 2020 election certification challenges.
Those congressional floor challenges, known and anticipated well in advance of the morning of January 6, 2021, would have formed a legal and constitutional basis for ‘standing’ in judicial challenges that would have eventually reached the Supreme Court. The certification during “emergency session” eliminated the problem for Washington DC.
I think most, not all, but a large number of people, are totally missing what happened; and why this happened on Jan 6th. I am going to try my best to outline the events that day, blast past the commonly held assumptions and get right down to the core corruption.
I will present this as a series of questions and answers.
♦ Q1: How do you prevent congress from delaying the certification of state electoral votes?
A: It requires a crisis. A crisis that creates an “emergency” …An “emergency” that invokes special house rules.
FACTS: Remember carefully, focus please. Just moments, literally 3 minutes before two representatives issued a vote for motions to suspend the certification, the House members were “informed” by capitol police and other “agents” that a protest was about to breach the chambers. It was at this time that key people: Pence, Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconnell can be seen being walked out and escorted from the chamber. This effectively halted the Entire Chamber Process.
♦ Q2: Why was it necessary to halt the chamber process?
A: The crisis was created to eliminate the motion challenges to halt the certification and to begin voting to look into voting irregularities and fraud
FACTS: The two motions were completely legal and constitutional under at least two constitutionally recognized procedures… procedures that would REQUIRE the house to pause the certification and then vote to determine whether the motions of suspend could move forward.
♦ Q3: What was so important to refuse this motion and the subsequent votes to suspend the electoral certification?
A: It was important to remove that process entirely and continue the fraud and certify the fraud with no detractors on record. This effectively gives no standing for a SCOTUS ruling appeal! Understand this. If those two motions, even just one had successfully been voted EVEN IF THE MOTIONS were DENIED IN VOTE, this gives those who presented them with STANDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL ARGUMENT BEFORE SCOTUS.
♦ Q4: Could this have been done some other way other than creating a crisis/protest?
A: Unlikely. In order to prevent those two motions, requires that speaker of the house, minority leaders, and the president of the congress (vice president of the United States: Pence), to NOT BE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS.
Once the capitol police and other “law enforcements agents” informed the speaker and these three other individuals, Pelosi UNILATERALLY UNDER EMERGENCY RULES, suspended the business of the congress. This protest was necessary. The crisis was created because there is no other way to suspend the business of certification UNILATERALLY. By creating a crisis invokes emergency procedures. No other circumstances other than war or mass simultaneous explosive diarrhea can create such unilateral speaker delivered suspension of the certification.
♦ Q5: Why did the motions, once that the speaker RECONVENED congress, move forward back again to the floor for votes? Why were members disallowed to even consider putting forward ANY motions to the floor in when the chamber business was reopened?
A: The Speaker initiated the NEW sessions under special emergency rules. These rules abandon and make it clear that the ONLY purpose of the new session was to EXPEDITE the certification and dismiss all prior regular session procedural rules. This is why those two motions to table votes to consider a debate and pause to the certifications of state vote electors never happened later that evening when the house business was reconvened!
♦ Q6: Other than new rules, emergency rules, what other peculiar things occurred when the speaker reconvened?
A: Members were allowed to “vote” in proxy, remotely, not being present. You can use your imagination about what conditions were placed on ALL members during this time to prevent anyone from “getting out of line”.
Also clearly, it was at THIS NEW SESSION that VP Pence, President of Congress, would also have no ability to even consider pausing the electoral certification, because there were no motions of disagreements on the matter. So, in a technical legal claim, he is correct that he had no constitutional authority to address any issues of fraud or doubts about electoral irregularities. But this completely dismisses the FACT that congress created rules in this crisis/emergency that never allowed them to be floored!
Understand what happened in Jan 6, 2021. Don’t get hung up on Viking impostors, stolen Pelosi computers, podium heists, and complicit capitol police. Understand the process and what happened and what WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.
This was a coup….it was a very organized and carefully planned coup. VP Pence without a doubt as well as most members of the house were quite aware of how the certification was going to be MANAGED. It would require new rules to prevent the debate clause from occurring! New rules that ONLY AN EMERGENCY CRISIS COULD CREATE! So, they created an emergency.
•NOTED: I understand why many people have great interest in debunking the j6 event. I get that. I think it is important to dissect and examine the events of that day but please, step back and understand WHY these things happened. Examine the chain of events in congress. Why those two motions that would have at least paused the certification THAT WOULD GIVE VP PENCE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED POWER TO MOVE TO SUSPEND THE ELECTORAL CERTIFICATION AND THEN EXAMINE THE IRREGULARITIES AND CLAIMS OF FRAUD!
At the very center of this coup stands Mike Pence, the same individual who also spoiled President Trump’s first opportunities in the earlies hours of his Presidency just 4 years prior, when he created and facilitated the removal of Lt General Michael Flynn. I will not spend much time on this thread explaining why Lt Gen Flynn was so important to President Trump and why the IC was so afraid he would have advisory power to the President. That I will leave for another day, another time. But understand this clearly: MIKE PENCE WAS AND IS WORKING FOR THE MOST CORRUPT CRIMINAL TREASONOUS PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT.
•PRO TIP: If you really want to get a true understanding of this matter videos of protesters walking in the capitol is not going to address them. Actual video and timeline records of events and the specific actions taken by the speaker just moments before TWO MAJOR ELECTORAL ALTERING MOTIONS WERE ABOUT TO BE FLOORED.
This crisis was developed just in time with a precise coordination to prevent those two motions to be entered into the chamber record. The two motions do not exist. The emergency powers established in the new session made sure they never could be entered. The emergency powers could never happen without a crisis.
NOTE: “Under this scenario, the J6 pipe bombs were the insurance policy – in the event the feds couldn’t get the crowd to comply with the FBI provocations. If no one stormed the Capitol, the finding of the two pipe bombs would have then been the emergency needed to stop the process.” Which explains why the FBI has no interest in the DC pipe bomb suspects. ~ Sundance
Note from Author: “I started this effort years ago. To date, no one, and I mean no one, has replied. It’s as if everyone that can expose it that has a larger platform is either disinterested, or suspiciously withdrawn from the issue. I made several comments about this over the years right here at CTH, on article threads that are relevant to the topic.
I was watching the certification live that day. I recorded it ALL on every channel. I was doing this because no matter what happened that day, I KNEW IT WOULD BE A PROFOUND AND SIGNIFICANT EVENT TO REMEMBER. I never in my wildest imagination (and I have a pretty vivid imagination, always have), expected to see the unmistakable perfectly timed “coincidences” that occurred.
One member raises a motion (with another in waiting for his turn) those two motions were well known and advertised. These were motions to vote for a pause in the certification to examine electoral vote fraud and irregularities. I can’t speak to the veracity and substance of those motions. They were never allowed to even be floored. It was at that exact moment that the House chambers were suspended, and 4 of the key members, Pence, Pelosi, Schumer and McConnell were escorted OUT right after initiating the end of the session.
Effectively, this resulted in that motion never being floored at all. Then, when reconvened under special emergency rules, inexplicably those two motions (and perhaps more – we will never know – or will we?) were not even attempted to be motioned. That was not just peculiar to me.
It all started to make more sense when I did some study on constitutional law AND THE HISTORY of specific special authorities given to president of the Congress, Pence in this case. Not only did he have the authority and power to suspend the certification, but the duty to address the motion in the same sense that it becomes vital to the debate clause.
There really is no higher significance of weight given to the debate clause than the certification of the votes. This was more than odd to me the way that the media and Pence framed their narrative: Pence would not have the constitutional power to suspend certification. Then it hit me, like the obvious clue that was there all the time. He was right. But the reason he is right, is because there WAS NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO CAUSE HIM TO SUSPEND!
Understanding this happened for me about 4 or 5 months after this Jan 6 day. It took me this long to examine the facts, look at the video again, compare it to the arguments made by several leading constitutional academics, and again, inexplicably even some that I respect seemed to dodge that central reality. The motions were never allowed to be floored in the re-convened House rules later that evening. Most would not even venture to address the exotic coincidence that the moment those two members would stand to place the motion before the house, that the House Speaker Pelosi AND Pence ended the session – effectively blocking the motions from being heard in normal House rules.
It’s been a journey for me. A journey that was initiated because I am just a simple but curious person. Perhaps even to a point where I get obsessive in those efforts. Many days and nights combing over the details – praying and trying to make sense of what makes little sense. With over 6 states having serious well known and obvious defects in the voting process, some more credible to believe – some less, but one would not expect the house would be so deliberate in marching past the motions that were definitely going to be present to slow this process down and take the time to get it right. Even IF the claims never reached an intersection that would change the outcome.
There are two possibilities: Millions of people, against all the odds, hitting all-time records even past Obama and Clinton, voted for a naval gazing ambulatory pathological racist moron, and chose Joe Malarkey as their leader. Or this was a coup, a conspiracy, and a treasonously manipulated regime change, because President Trump could not be controlled by the deep state and globalists who OWN AND OPERATE WASHINGTON DC.
BOTH POSSIBILITIES ARE TERRIFYING.
The only way for THE PEOPLE to gain power in this country is to force the transfer of it. If truth isn’t the fuel and vehicle, we will just be replacing deck chairs and hitting the next series of expected ice bergs.
Knowing the truth is not enough; however, it is truth that makes it a righteous cause.
Julie Kelly – […] Just as the first wave of protesters breached the building shortly after 2 p.m., congressional Republicans were poised to present evidence of rampant voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Ten incumbent and four newly-elected Republican senators planned to work with their House colleagues to demand the formation of an audit commission to investigate election “irregularities” in the 2020 election. Absent an audit, the group of senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pledged to reject the Electoral College results from the disputed states.
The Hail Mary effort was doomed to fail; yet the American people would have heard hours of debate related to provable election fraud over the course of the day.
And no one opposed the effort more than ex-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
During a conference call on December 31, 2020, McConnell urged his Republican Senate colleagues to abandon plans to object to the certification, insisting his vote to certify the 2020 election results would be “the most consequential I have ever cast” in his 36-year Senate career.
From the Senate floor on the afternoon of January 6, McConnell gave a dramatic speech warning of the dire consequences to the country should Republicans succeed in delaying the vote. He downplayed examples of voting fraud and even mocked the fact that Trump-appointed judges rejected election lawsuits.
“The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken,” McConnell insisted. “If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.”
Roughly six hours later, McConnell got his way. Cowed by the crowd of largely peaceful Americans allowed into the building by Capitol police, most Republican senators backed off the audit proposal. McConnell, echoing hyperbolic talking points about an “insurrection” seeded earlier in the day by Democratic lawmakers and the news media, gloated. “They tried to disrupt our democracy,” he declared on the Senate floor after Congress reconvened around 8 p.m. “This failed attempt to obstruct Congress, this failed insurrection, only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our Republic.”
Congress officially certified the Electoral College results early the next day. (read more)
The J6 pipe bombs were the insurance policy, in the event they couldn't get the crowd to comply with the FBI provocations. If no one stormed the Capitol, the finding of the pipe bombs would have been the emergency needed to stop the process. https://t.co/JqVcGROAPN
Posted originally on Jan 5, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
COMMENT #1: “We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” “I don’t need you to get me elected.” Martin, please comment on how we overcome the blatant fraud this election cycle in November. Sincerely, Michael
COMMENT #2: Martin, Regarding your recent blog posts on the election being rigged, I think three anomalies prove that it was:
First – Trump is the first incumbent President in history to allegedly lose while increasing his vote total from the previous election. All previous incumbent Presidents who did so won reelection. And Trump’s percentage increase was more than most other Presidents and he improved his vote totals with virtually all groups.
Second – Biden severely underperformed both Hillary and Obama in all the “safe” blue states that usually vote Democrat, yet somehow miraculously overperformed both of them in precisely all the battleground states he needed to win. A statistical anomaly that has never happened in the history of our elections.
And last but not least – while most Presidents usually gain House seats after their initial win, Biden somehow lost seats while allegedly gaining the most votes in history. And not only did he lose seats, at thirteen seats, he lost more than any incoming President since at least 1928. That’s back to the earliest date I could find data on. Thanks for your information in these times Best Regards, HP
REPLY: Your statistical analysis is spot on. Here are the arrays showing that we should have had a sharp rise in voter turnout, which was also a Directional Change. Then looking at the 3rd Party we had a Directional Change, and look at 2023 – we had a Panic Cycle, which appears to be on target. 2024 was projected to be a turning point, and then another Panic Cycle for the mid-term in 2026. The major turning point will be 2028, reflecting that there is no way Democrats or Republicans will win in 2028.
This chart combines the total number of seats between the House and the Senate and plots the combined number. There is nothing in the data that would confirm that the 2020 election would be fair and correct. This is all coming to a head for 2024. The Democrats ironically claim to be defending Democracy by throwing Republicans off the ballot: totally absurd logic and completely a real insurrection against our free government. The people are supposed to decide – not Democrats trying every trick to win so they can take us into totalitarianism and World War III.
Even technically, we can see that the trend for the Republicans (RIGHT) has been punching through the Downtrend Line. The Democrats (LEFT) are clearly in a bear market. None of the statistics supports an overwhelming victory for Biden in 2020 to the point he got more votes than Hillary or Obama. If that were true, we should expect to have seen a major spike high.
As far as how to “overcome the blatant fraud this election cycle in November,” I will run the models and look at this problem closely. I fear we are in serious trouble, and the Neocons have the Uniparty behind them. Nikki Haley wants World War III. She blames Putin for everything and would have no problem launching World War III. These Neocons have seized control of both parties. They cannot live in peace and always want bloodshed. More civilians ALWAYS die in war than soldiers. This is not a video game or a football match. This will terminate the United States and alter the world economy in the process.
Posted originally on Jan 3, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Biden’s controlled Justice (JustUs) Department has sued the state of Texas regarding their new state law that would authorize local police and judges to arrest and remove undocumented immigrants. The Biden Administration is flooding the nation with illegal aliens. It (1) intends to grant citizenship by executive order to rig the 2024 election, and (2) it will require them to join the military to fight China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, just to mention a few.
The Texas statute is due to go into effect in a matter of months. Biden is claiming that this Texas law is unconstitutional, allocating powers to local officials that have been reserved for the federal government. However, the Supreme Court ruled in HARRIS V. McRAE, 448 U.S. 297 (1980) that the Constitution is NEGATIVE, not POSITIVE. That means there is no obligation by any state to provide services to illegal aliens any more than to citizens.
Biden has turned the Constitution upside down. Texas and any other state are NOT under any obligation to provide anything to illegal aliens. They should all get a free bus ticket to Washington, DC. Let the Congress members fight their way to get home and to work, stepping over all the people living on the streets. The Supreme Court was confronted with an abortion case, and the issue was whether the state should pay for it as a right. The holding is very clear and correct. The Constitution is NEGATIVE, and as such, it is a RESTRAINT upon government – not a POSITIVE instrument that compels the government to provide any social benefits whatsoever as some entitlement.
To all our readers in Texas, get a hold of your state representative and tell them NOT to provide anything to illegal aliens whatsoever. Hand them a free bus ticket to Washington, DC. That’s it.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 