Kash Patel appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss ongoing matters of great importance to the FBI, including the chaos and insurrection efforts currently underway in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Last week CPB commander Greg Bovino was asked what makes Minneapolis different from other cities where ICE enforcement operations have taken place. Bovino noted in the Minneapolis region there is no separation between the extremists on the ground and the people in local government. Today, Vice President JD Vance concurs and expands on that sentiment:
[Source]
What Vice-President Vance says here is very important. The regional government is a stakeholder in maintaining the chaos on the streets. Why? Because for two decades a cancer of rampant financial fraud has been permitted to spread throughout the Minneapolis region and has now reached the stage of visible metastasis.
Shortly after the George Floyd incident, some of us started looking into a background issue where it seemed like local police and Floyd had a knowledgeable relationship with each other prior to the encounter on the street. The initial contact between Floyd and police was about Floyd passing off a counterfeit $20 bill to a business that was not part of the approved money laundering operation.
When you follow that trail, you end up in a really weird place where it seemed like millions of counterfeit dollars were entering the country through Mexico, going by rail into the U.S. mainland and then transitioning through the Minneapolis region. I stopped researching it {SEE HERE} when I discovered that Floyd and police officer Chauvin were friends, and worked together at one of the laundry businesses; a nightclub.
The corrupt activity in the Minneapolis area has been going on for around two decades. There are two basic components, local financial fraud and govt financial fraud. The local fraud represented millions and involved counterfeit goods/money and laundering operations. The government assisted financial fraud represents billions and involves abuses of federal tax monies.
After 20 years of this activity almost all elements of the economic and social structure are now compromised. As we have seen in the last several weeks, the HHS/CMS fraud is extensive and that illegal activity is impossible to exist without the knowledge, aid and assistance of the regional and municipal government officials.
Fraudulent day cares, fraudulent healthcare services, fraudulent transport companies, fraudulent “Health Outreach Workers” and various governmental offices all involved in bilking taxpayers for billions upon billions. At the same time there is a massive money laundering operation in the underground economy.
After two decades of this unchecked corruption, there’s no way to guess how much of the regional economic activity is actually dependent on the financial fraud. My best estimate is that over fifty percent of all economic activity -in the entire region- is based on fraud.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions are the surface level issue for the regional and state government. However, it is the widespread financial fraud that turns the activity of the leftist agitators on the street into a useful tool for the regional officials to manipulate in order to hide the true financial fraud that surrounds the area.
The “local authorities” are working with the “far left agitators” because the Minneapolis region is a network of codependent fraud.
The police are compromised. The judges and courts are compromised. The local municipal officials are compromised. The mayor’s office is compromised, and the corruption issue spreads out to the state level when Governor Tim Walz previously shut down audits of the financial crimes and then state officials ignored whistleblowers.
All of the private and public institutions -within the system of regional and state government- are connected to a statewide network of financial fraud, from counterfeit money laundering to exploitation of federal government benefits; it is all connected to the same network of fraud.
It was the ease and ability to conduct fraud that attracted the Somali migrants and the criminal aliens. These people came for the money. ICE coming to arrest the aliens has put a spotlight on the reason why they aggregated in the Minneapolis region.
How this can be corrected is anyone’s guess.
Follow the money trail and you will discover this real reason for the state and local officials to support the anarchy in the streets. They all want the federal government to leave.
[SOURCE]
Posted originally on CTH on January 23, 2026 | Sundance
Many of you may remember back in 2024 I strongly urged President Trump to consider appointing Harriet Hageman as CIA Director for very specific reasons and intents. Watch this video below and you will see why she was my preferred choice.
Representative Hageman has just found an important trail to discover the missing documents, recordings and transcripts that were destroyed by the January 6 Committee. WATCH:
Keep in mind that former AAG Mary McCord was working for the J6 Committee at the time period being discussed. When the J6 Committee closed, McCord went to work directly with Jack Smith.
McCord was inside the J6 Committee feeding information to the DOJ and Jack Smith. McCord then went to work for Jack Smith.
Always scheming, organizing and planning in the background of Washington DC, Mary McCord was conducting surveillance of an Oathkeeper chat room and sending information to the FBI following the November 2020 election, and in the runup to the January 6, 2021, protest.
This is interesting on a variety of levels, because we have documented Mary McCord working on the Trump-Russia fabrication [FISA warrant], the CIA [Ukraine] impeachment fabrication [as key staff], the January 6th Committee fabrication [again staff], and the Jack Smith fabrication. Now we see Mary McCord actively setting up the “insurrection narrative” ahead of the J6 protests.
It appears Mrs. McCord then forwarded the email to someone [REDACTED], likely within the J6 Committee or Jack Smith investigation on Sept 24, 2021.
There’s a reason why the J6 Committee deleted the records of their activity, an angle missed by most. When you understand what they hid, and why they did it, you then understand why current Speaker of The House Mike Johnson will not go near the subject.
The J6 targets were identified through a collaboration between the legislative research group and the FBI. [That’s unlawful by the way – but that’s another matter]. The FBI contracted Palantir to identify the targets using facial recognition software and private sector databases.
Once identified, the targets were then searched in the NSA database for a fulsome context of identity. All subsequent electronic metadata of the targets was retrieved and utilized in prosecution; however, no one ever discovered this was the collaborative method. That has not come out yet.
Ultimately, the J6 Committee hiding and deleting their files and operational techniques was due to several issues. They really didn’t have a choice, given the unknowns of an incoming Republican majority.
First, the collaboration with the FBI is unconstitutional. Legislative officers are not law enforcement officers. There is a separation of powers issue.
Second, ultimately – and most consequentially – all of the participants did not want the American public aware of the mass surveillance techniques that were carried out as part of the ’round up.’ That’s where FBI operation Arctic Frost appears in the conversation.
The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report, [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE], highlighting just how political the J6 Committee was. The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi structured the J6 Committee for political intents, and the longer report showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.
WASHINGTON– Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. (more)
[SOURCE]
The last bullet point has a name. The “Select Committee staff”, who met with Fani Willis, was likely Mary McCord.
If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.
More than any other Lawfare operative, within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.
When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’). That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important. It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.
When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin. Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016, just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016). John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.
♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.
A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents. The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.
♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.
♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump, for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules. Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.
When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to? Mary McCord.
Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.
KEY: Michael Atkinson was forced to testify to the joint House impeachment committee about the CIA whistleblower rule change and the process he authorized and participated in as the Intelligence Community Inspector General. Adam Schiff sealed that deposition, and no one has ever discussed what Atkinson said when questioned.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (Legislative Branch) can unseal and release that testimony to the CIA or ODNI (Executive Branch), and Tulsi Gabbard who is in charge of the ICIG can declassify Michael Atkinson’s deposition. However, Speaker Mike Johnson has to transfer it from the legislative to the executive, and unfortunately it does not appear that Speaker Johnson wants to open that can-of-worms – at least, not willingly.
Moving on…
♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith. Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.
When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.
♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith. In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome. Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.
As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.
Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus? Mary McCord.
♦ SUMMARY: Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier. Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn. Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee. Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.
You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.
What happened next….
Yes, that is correct. After seeding and guiding all of the Lawfare attacks against candidate Donald Trump, then President-Elect Donald Trump, then President Donald Trump, Mary McCord took up a key legal position inside the J6 Committee to continue the Lawfare against President Trump after he left office.
But wait…. remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump, that included the raid on Mar-a-Lago? Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her efforts continued as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team
That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.
First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court? ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application. In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing. See how that works?
When Mary McCord went to the White House, with Sally Yates, to talk to White House Counsel Don McGhan, about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.
The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.
Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?
This is where a big mental reset is needed.
Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue. In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so. There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.
So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?
Why did the DOJ-NSD even care? This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle. People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.
Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls. They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts”, as described within internal documents and later statements.
After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked. Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey. Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.
Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor. Obama’s plausible deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.
That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “by the book” three times.
It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge. The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.
Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House. [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]
So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.
Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.
Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job – to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court, and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.
In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.
At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states. Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel. By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.
After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened. Sheldon Snook left his position. If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.
Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility. In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.
If you were Chief Justice John Roberts, and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount. Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly. Which is exactly what happened.
The timeline holds the key.
BACK TO MARY in 2025 – During the question session for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.
I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14 when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should recuse.” WATCH:
Mary McCord says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative outcome related to the first impeachment effort.
Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the first impeachment effort?
Mary McCord.
Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous complaint?
Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.
In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first impeachment effort.
♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.
♦ McCord helped create the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.
♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on Impeachment Committee.
♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.
♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.
♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.
♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.
♦ McCord was working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.
♦ McCord is now coordinating outside Lawfare attacks against Donald Trump in term #2
♦ McCord also testified that AG Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating McCord.
♦ Joe Biden then pardoned Mary McCord.
Now, if you’re wondering why I spend so much time and attention on the Mary McCord issue, the information today about her sending the FBI information about the Oathkeepers chat group might clarify things.
When I look at that activity by Mary McCord, and I consider the duplicity of the FBI in conducting the Arctic Frost investigation, I also consider that I was personally targeted by the J6 team of McCord and the FBI.
It all tracks, and Mary McCord is in the very center of all of it.
So no, I am not letting it go.
The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boiled down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.
To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith previously claimed to congress that Trump knowingly understood, “believed” that Joe Biden had won the election. That President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election, and that President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him; instead choosing to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”
However, in sworn testimony in the House today, Jack Smith admitted that President Trump “was believing anything that would keep him in office.” The key word here is “believe.” Within that statement, Smith revealed he had no case against Trump because President Trump believed he won the 2020 election. WATCH:
If President Trump believed he won the election, he could not commit fraud by expressing his belief. Jack Smith’s entire predicate for the criminal investigation of President Trump was the charge of “fraud,” or intentional deception.
It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith. The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.
The case was dropped after the results of the November 2024 election, won by President Trump. However, if President Trump had not won that election, the prosecution would have continued.
Jack Smith notes in his testimony, in the most Machiavellian way, that his primary prosecution approach was to present “Republican” witnesses like Mike Pence, who Smith cunningly said he could not discuss as he was restricted from revealing grand jury testimony.
Smith was prepared to present witness testimony from Pence and other political “Republicans” who told President Trump that Joe Biden had legitimately won the election, and Trump needed to concede. This testimony then forms the baseline for the definition of “truthful information” that Trump rejected out of a malice mindset to continue clinging to power.
In essence, Smith defines what is “truth” (Biden won), then outlines how that truthful information was delivered and how President Trump dismissed it. Therefore, President Trump’s “mens-rea”, or state of mind, was one of promoting an intentional falsehood. According to the Lawfare approach selected by Smith, this mindset is the predicate that blocks President Trump from using his First Amendment right to speech as a defense.
Intentional fraud is not allowed under the protections of “free speech.” Jack Smith wanted to prove that President Trump was engaged in intentional fraud and wanted to prove his mindset therein through the use of Republican political voices who delivered information to President Trump.
Jack Smith sought to define “truth” and then counter the free speech defense by mob agreement on what constitutes the “truth.” Under this predicate, President Trump was being prosecuted for a thought crime, and Jack Smith sought to legally prove he knew his thoughts.
The only way Jack Smith could prove fraud would be to prove that President Trump believed the information about Joe Biden winning the election. Smith sought to prove Trump’s belief by presenting Republican voices who told President Trump he lost.
Whether you like or dislike President Trump, the issue here is alarming when contemplated.
A man tells you a chicken is a frog, you laugh. The man then brings 15 of your family members to tell you a chicken is a frog. You reject the absurdity of the premise, but the man brings forth hundreds more people to tell you the chicken is a frog, and if you do not accept that Chickens are Frogs, you will be defined as mentally impaired, institutionalized and become a ward of the state.
[Insert any similar metaphor needed, including “what is a woman.”]
When we consider the current state of sociological, societal or government manipulation of information, and/or the need for government to control information (mis-dis-mal-information) as an overlay, you can quickly see where this type of legal predicate can take us. Bizarro world becomes a dystopian nightmare.
Yes, it is also clear that Leftists, inside that closed-door committee hearing, are intending to impeach President Trump on these grounds if they successfully win the 2026 midterm election. However, that is not the critical takeaway from this deposition. Instead, the critical takeaway is how the Lawfare construct can be twisted and manipulated to create the legal means to the leftist ends.
Stop the Division!
We cannot allow these communist, Marxist and leftist-minded control agents get back into power.
It’s not about Trump. It’s about us.
It’s around lunchtime and I’ve spent so much time deep in the weeds of an issue that I need a break. So, here’s a little funny story from my real-world travels in the past few years that given the current Davos meeting topics you might find interesting.
I went to Russia in 2024, because what I was hearing in western media about the sanctions did not align with what I was seeing from reports inside Russia. Before I went into Russia, I spent several weeks in Northern and Eastern Europe visiting various institutions, reading material and checking to see how systems in Europe were engaging with commerce given the Russian sanctions. It wasn’t very exciting work, and sometimes I literally just sat in the lobbies of banks listening to conversations.
When I went into Russia (April, May, June and July ’24) I noticed many of the “Uber cars” were BYD brand, Chinese electric vehicles. It made sense given two years of existing sanctions and few cars from Europe or America available except under costly brokerage fees for acquisition. They like the Geely brand better, but BYDs are much cheaper. A brand new BYD costs around $5,000 to $10,000 USD, in some places even less.
Then later I noticed even more of these BYD cars in Europe. I started to pay attention to them and saw them everywhere.
When I went back into Russia a year later in 2025, there was a very noticeable increase in BYD cars. It was crazy, they were everywhere.
My travels also took me to southeast Asia and again those damned BYD’s were all over the place. In Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, these BYD’s were everywhere, maybe even 30% of total vehicle traffic at times – most certainly well over 50% of all EVs – and there are digital billboards for “Build Your Dream” (BYD) all over the place throughout Asia.
Australia is stocked full of those things, and the middle east, yup, even there too. It became increasingly weird to notice. So many were visible I was wondering how the heck China can mass produce and ship this many cheap EVs so fast.
Then as serendipity would have it, I ran into a Chinese guy, professionally an actuary, in a hotel restaurant. He explained to me that China produces the BYD not to make money from the automobile, but rather to sell the carbon credits the automobile generates within the auto industry.
The actual value to Beijing is in selling the carbon credit worthiness to various automakers who are fined or penalized by their government for producing gasoline powered vehicles.
BYD is, in essence, not a car per se’, but a mechanism to generate a carbon credit certificate that can be sold to other car companies. It’s the carbon credit certificate that generates the revenue, not the sale of the vehicle. As my dinner guest explained, the auto insurance industry was having fits about this because the actuaries couldn’t accurately put a correct figure on the cost of the insurance warrantee within the industry (that’s another story).
The bottom line is that China is manufacturing a product to create a carbon credit certificate in response to the demand for carbon credits from all the world auto-makers. Any nation that has a penalty or fine attached to their climate goals is a customer. Those are nations with fines or quotas associated with the production of gasoline powered engines if the auto company doesn’t hit the legislated target for sales of electric vehicles.
In essence, EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies buy Chinese car company carbon credits, to avoid the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN fines. The Chinese then use the carbon credit revenue to subsidize even lower priced Chinese EVs to the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car markets, thereby undercutting the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies that also produce EVs.
Big Panda brilliantly exploits the ridiculous pontificating climate scam and has an interest in perpetuating -even emphasizing- the need for the EU/AU/RU/ASEAN countries to keep pushing their climate agenda. China even goes so far as to fund alarmism research about climate change because they are making money selling carbon credit certificates on the back end of the scam to the western fear mongers. This is friggin’ brilliant.
My dinner buddy was in the business of identifying the cost/benefit equation between the climate change fines and the prices Big Panda could charge for the carbon credit certificates. If, as an example, Brussels dropped the quotas for EVs, China would need to lower the price for the carbon credit certificates. So, Beijing wants Brussels to make sure they don’t drop the quotas. See how that works?
The climate change alarmists are helping China’s economy by pushing ever escalating fear of climate change. You just cannot make this stuff up.
What does the outcome look like?
Well, in this example we see thousands of unsold BYDs piling up in countries that emphasize climate regulations with no restrictions on the import of EVs (which most don’t even manufacture), which is almost every country. Big Panda doesn’t care about the car itself; they care about generating the carbon credit certificate to sell in the various carbon exchanges.
Put this context to the recent announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about his new trade deal with China to accept 49,000 EVs this year.
Prime Minister Carney bragged about getting the Chinese to agree to only super low prices for the Canadian market. Mark Carney was very proud of his accomplishment to get much lower priced vehicles for Canadian EV purchasers. No doubt Big Panda left the room laughing as soon as Carney made his grand announcement.
1. China sells EV’s in Canada, creating credits available on the carbon exchange scheme. Europe et al will purchase the carbon credits because Bussels has fines against EU car companies.
2. With a foothold already established in Europe, China will then take the money generated by the carbon credit purchases and lower the prices of the Chinese EV cars sold in Canada.
It’s gets funnier.
3. Carney bragged about forcing China to only sell low price EV’s as part of the trade agreement. The low price of the EV’s in Canada will be subsidized by Europe. China doesn’t pay or lose a dime.
But wait….
4. Carney can’t do anything about the scheme he has just enmeshed Canada into, because Canada has a Carbon Credit exchange in law. Big Panda wins again.
[…] In a statement published Thursday, BYD said sales of its battery-powered cars rose nearly 28% to 2.26 million units.
Musk openly laughed at the mention of BYD while being interviewed on Bloomberg TV in October 2011. He said he did not see the company as a competitor to Tesla, adding: “I don’t think they have a great product.” Meanwhile, Tesla said Friday it delivered 1.64 million vehicles in 2025. [SOURCE]
Elon thinks BYD are building cars. They aren’t.
President Trump talks to the media last night as he returns to the White House. Several interesting responses to questions about Greenland, Norway, his upcoming trip to Davos and the creation of the world peace board using Gaza as the first assembly. WATCH:
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is in Davos ahead of President Trump’s visit on Wednesday and Thursday. Secretary Bessent was asked by the assembled media about current administration policy toward Greenland. WATCH:
What most people don’t understand about the strategically worded letter to Norway’s leftist Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, is how President Trump has just framed Støre as the defacto head of Brussels, representing the interests of the EU toward the framework of Greenland.
It’s not about the Nobel Peace Prize; it’s something far bigger. President Trump did not initiate contact with PM Støre; the contact was first made by Støre calling President Trump to notify him that their position was to defend Greenland against any threat from a non-NATO nation. President Trump asked how Norway was going to secure that pledge and Støre had no response.
Trump is correct; we cannot abdicate our own security to the promises of other nations. This perspective not only applies toward the USA but also applies toward the EU and is the entire reason why Trump has told NATO they need to be able to defend themselves.
Norway said it cannot defend itself from Russian threats and needs the security of the U.S. Accepting this statement Trump rightly asks: if you cannot defend yourself then how can you possibly defend Greenland. Støre had no reply. President Trump is unwilling to accept platitudes and statements in lieu of structural reality.
Prime Minister Støre previously said, “Norway’s position is firm: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Norway fully supports the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark. There is broad agreement in NATO on the need to strengthen security in the Arctic, including in Greenland.”
In context President Trump’s position makes a great deal of pragmatic sense.
President Trump will not abdicate vital USA strategic security on the hope that NATO will defend our interests if needed. In fact, the quagmire and inability of Europe to defend a European country like Ukraine proves the pragmatic point. If Europe cannot organize strategic defense of Ukraine, then why the heck would Trump believe Europe would organize the strategic defense of Greenland.
Denmark cannot protect itself from China and/or Russia. Why would the United States believe Denmark could protect Greenland?
In a stunning and rapid strategy to keep the globalists from realizing what he is assembling, it is being reported that President Trump wants the Gaza Board of Peace constitution and remittance agreement signed in Davos. However, as the United Nations, European leaders and traditional globalists who comprise the WEF assembly begin to realize what Trump is putting together, they are getting triggered.
“Hey boss, they’re catching on. Better hurry up”
In essence, as people of self-appointed political importance are starting to realize, President Trump is assembling an entirely new structure for global partnerships that will likely end up with the functional obsolesce of the United Nations. Trump is selecting world leaders through the invite to a global board of peace; Gaza merely represents the initial venue.
One of the key aspects is the new global assembly will each pay their own way. No free riders this time. You want to sit at the big table, join the big club of sovereignty, assemble with a mutually respectful team of action, then pay the entrance fee to attend.
Surprise! [Remember the “Happy Trump” pin?]
(Bloomberg) — US President Donald Trump’s proposed Board of Peace has got off to a rough start: questioned by Europe, criticized by Israel and celebrated by friends of the Kremlin.
France’s Emmanuel Macron, for one, has come right out of the gate to decline an invitation that was also extended to strongmen such as Belarus’s autocratic leader Alexander Lukashenko. Several liberal democracies are squirming, uncertain how to respond and not wanting to offend Trump.
They don’t have long to decide.
Trump wants the full constitution and remit of the committee signed in Davos on Thursday, according to people familiar with the matter. But some elements of the small print have left invitees wondering whether to accept.
Trump is demanding that nations pay $1 billion for permanent membership of the board, Bloomberg reported, a condition since confirmed by the White House. That’s blindsided world leaders and left many bewildered, according to people familiar with the matter.
Potential members of the board — conceived last year as a Trump-headed body to oversee the redevelopment of post-war Gaza — began to filter out over the weekend. Invitees include world leaders from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Much of the concern centers on the wording of the peace board’s charter, seen by Bloomberg, which appears to place its ultimate decision-making power with Trump. That raises many questions — not least over where the payments for long-term membership would go, the people said.
The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
European allies are working to modify the terms and coordinate a response, people familiar with the matter said, and are seeking to persuade Arab nations to also lobby Trump for changes.
That response encapsulates much of Europe’s approach to Trump’s second term: play for time, be seen to engage, try to talk him down. The conversations are particularly challenging as they come at a sensitive moment in negotiations over Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine and with Trump threatening to take Greenland, one of the people said. (read more)
“He can’t. He, he, wouldn’t” – “Oh yes, he bloody well can, and he bloody well is.” – “In case you haven’t noticed, he’s not asking for permission.”
And….
Wait for it….
Who/Where/What is the first voice to rise against this global alliance for peace?
“So far, only Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly pushed back against the proposal. While he’s in favor of the Board of Peace as a concept, his office said the make-up of a separate Gaza committee serving under the board, was “not coordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy,” after officials from Qatar and Turkey were included.”
Wait, so Israel is not happy…. Not just about Gaza, but about, well, everything this new structure could possibly mean.
Meanwhile, “Argentina’s Javier Milei confirmed he’ll become a founding member, and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni has pitched herself as a mediator who is “ready to do our part.””
Can you see it now?
Leftist/Globalist United Nations imperialism is diminished. While a nationalist, respectful sovereign alliance rises.
Farewell five-eyes. Giddy up freedom!
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on NBC to discuss the national security issues surrounding Greenland and the Trump administration’s face off against Europe and NATO. Additionally, Welker wants to protect Fed Chairman Jerome Powell against mounting evidence of his political bias and mismanagement of the Federal Reserve. Video and Transcript Below.
[Transcript] – KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me now is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Secretary Bessent, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Good morning, Kristen. Good to be with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s great to have you here, thank you for being here in person. Let’s start right there. President Trump threatening to impose steep tariffs against some of America’s closest European and NATO allies. The leaders of Denmark and Greenland say bluntly, “Greenland is not for sale.” What makes President Trump think it is?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Kristen, if we look for years, for over a century, American presidents have wanted to acquire Greenland. And what we can see is that Greenland is essential to the U.S. national security — we’re building the golden dome, the missile system. And look, President Trump is being strategic. He is looking beyond this year. He’s looking beyond next year to what could happen for a battle in the Arctic. We are not going to outsource our national security. We are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to other countries. In Trump 1.0, President Trump told the Europeans, “Do not build Nord Stream 2. Do not rely on Russian oil.” And guess what, Kristen? Guess what is funding Russia’s efforts against Ukraine? European purchases of Russian oil. So America has to be in control here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to delve into everything that you said. But I just want to ask you big picture: Is this a negotiating tactic, Mr. Secretary? Or is President Trump serious about annexing Greenland?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security. Because, Kristen, let me tell you what will happen, and it might not be next year, might not be in five years. But down the road, this fight for the Arctic is real. We would keep our NATO guarantees. And if there were an attack on Greenland from Russia, from some other area, we would get dragged in. So better now, peace through strength, make it part of the United States, and there will not be a conflict because the United States right now, we are the hottest country in the world. We are the strongest country in the world. Europeans project weakness. U.S. projects strength.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But just very quickly, is this a negotiating tactic, Mr. Secretary? Is the goal to get a deal to have enhanced security in Greenland, for example?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The president believes that enhanced security is not possible without Greenland being part of the U.S.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let me press you on what you have said are national security concerns, particularly as it relates to Russia and China. Senior Democrats say there are no pressing threats on Greenland’s security from Russia or China. The Danish foreign minister says there hasn’t been a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade. What evidence do you have that this is a pressing threat?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, first of all, Kristen, we have asymmetric information. And again, President Trump is being strategic here. What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea? Well, actually there was a lot of evidence that the Russians were going to go into Ukraine. And Joe Biden said, “Well, just take a little bit of it.” But what we know is that the U.S., that Greenland can only be defended it if is part of the U.S. And it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You bring up Crimea. The president, as far as I have heard, has not taken military force off the table. If the United States were to take Greenland by force, how would that be different than Russia’s annexation of Crimea?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Look, I believe that Europeans will understand that this is best for Greenland, best for Europe, and best for the United States.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But military action is still on the table?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I haven’t spoken with the president on that. And again, I believe that the Europeans will understand that the best outcome is for the U.S. to maintain or to receive control of Greenland.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, so far what we’ve heard and seen from the Europeans is alarm and outrage. In fact they’re, as you know, holding an emergency meeting today. And part of the issue, the president has already reached a trade deal with the EU. How can countries have confidence in trade deals moving forward if President Trump is prepared to blow them up?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, first of all, the trade deal hasn’t been finalized. And an emergency action can be very different from another trade deal. So we’re in a very good equilibrium right now with China. But if China did something to upset that balance, I think the president would be willing to act. You know, same thing with India. We were working on a trade deal with India. But the president, unlike the Europeans, started charging the Europeans 25% for buying Russian oil. So the president leverages his emergency powers to do this.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I hear you saying that the deal hasn’t been finalized. And yet it was moving towards finalization. Doesn’t it undercut the United States’ word by threatening these steep new tariffs?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I think it does not. What it does is it enhances United States security. And again, we have seen that Europeans are unable to push back against Russia. The U.S. — this war that never would have started in Ukraine, Kristen, we are going to settle it. But it wouldn’t have started. And what President Trump is trying to do is prevent a taking or the Russian, Chinese action in Greenland in the future. So why not be strategic? Why? Always live in the moment.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, let’s talk about being strategic. The United States has a base in Greenland. I’ve been talking to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Denmark has given the United States a green light to beef up its security as much as is needed in Greenland. Why not take that route? Why is it necessary to take over and annex all of Greenland, something that 85% of people living in Greenland oppose?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, again let’s look back. Denmark has a terrible history with Greenlanders. There were forced sterilizations up until the ‘80s or the ‘90s. So all of a sudden, now that the U.S. has expressed an interest, there is, you know, this new interest. And again, the United States needs to be in control to prevent a war. And we do not want to get dragged into someone else’s war.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, but this is about the United States relationship with its allies, NATO allies, again reacting with alarm. They are warning that this move to annex Greenland could in fact destroy NATO. So let me just put this to you bluntly. Is Greenland or NATO more essential to the United States national security?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Both. Kristen, that’s obviously a false choice. You know, that’s an absolute —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Not from the perspective of European leaders.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The European leaders will come around. And they will understand that they need to be under the U.S. security umbrella. What would happen in Ukraine if the U.S. pulled its support out? The whole thing would collapse. The U.S., Kristen, to be clear, since 1980 the U.S. military spending versus NATO military spending, we have spent $22 trillion more than the Europeans have, that we are peace through strength, and the Europeans now are only trying to play catch-up. And that is only through President Trump. President Trump believes in NATO. But he does not believe in the American people being dragged in.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, in terms of the cost that has been paid, Denmark has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States including after 9/11. In fact, it lost more soldiers per capita in Afghanistan than any other NATO nation apart from the United States itself, Mr. Secretary. Does President Trump want the United States to remain a part of NATO?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Of course, we are going to remain a part of NATO. But what President Trump does not want is for a war to start and the U.S. gets dragged in. Again, we are not going to outsource our Western Hemisphere security to others.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you, broadly speaking, about the tariff portion of this. The president, as you well know, has justified his authority to impose previous tariffs without going to Congress by declaring national emergencies. It’s an issue before the Supreme Court right now. We’re all awaiting the high court’s decision. What is the national emergency that justifies these new slate of tariffs?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency. It is a strategic decision by the president. This is a geopolitical decision. And he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war. So why wouldn’t we do that? You know, same thing that what if we had a national emergency coming with these gigantic trade balances that we had with the rest of the world — I’ve been in financial markets for 30, 45 years — much better to be strategic, avoid the emergency.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’re saying it’s a national emergency. But you’re also saying it’s a threat. It’s years away. How can both be true, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Because you are avoiding creating the emergency, Kristen. What if during the great financial crisis, someone had raised their hand in 2005, 2006 and said, “Stop the sub-prime mortgages?” But no one did. President Trump is raising his hand. And that is preventing the emergency.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think the Supreme Court will agree with that rationale, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I believe that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy. They did not overrule Obamacare. I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos. As you said earlier, we have set these trade deals. And it is very good for the United States if we are balancing our trade deficit. If you look, Europe is being overrun with Chinese goods. There is now an emergency in Europe. There is going to be an economic emergency. The Europeans will follow us. So President Trump is pre-empting this if we go back to emergencies, he put a fentanyl tariff, Mexico, Canada, China. Guess what’s happened to fentanyl deaths? If that’s an emergency, I don’t know what is. October 8th, when the Chinese threatened to put rare Earth export controls on the entire world, President Trump threatened 100% tariff. And the Chinese came to the table. And we negotiated on behalf of the whole world.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Let me move to the Federal Reserve. I want to ask you about the revelations this week that the Department of Justice is investigating Jerome Powell and the Fed for allegedly going over budget in the Fed building renovations. Chairman Powell responded. He fired back at this. I want to play a little bit and get your reaction on the other side.
[BEGIN TAPE]
JEROME POWELL:
This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is President Trump committed to the independence of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Of course, he’s committed to the independence of the Federal Reserve. But independence does not mean no oversight.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But doesn’t this undercut the independence of the Federal Reserve if the Justice Department is investigating renovations? There are renovations at the White House.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The renovations at the White House are not $700 million, more than $1 billion or $1.5 billion over budget, Kristen. And the White House, that is being paid for with private funds. If I want to buy a new chair for my office at Treasury, that is an appropriation. Just to understand, the Federal Reserve has magic money. They print their own money. So when you have no oversight, why not have a little sunlight? Kristen, I have called since last summer for the Fed to do its own internal investigation. And that has not been heeded, not been heeded. And again, I don’t know about you. If I were to receive inquiries from the Justice Department, I would answer them. They went unanswered.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, let me ask you because Axios reported that you were not happy about DOJ’s investigation, that you told President Trump as much. Axios writes, “a perturbed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told President Trump late Sunday that the federal investigation into the Federal Reserve Chair made a mess and could be bad for financial markets.” That’s according to two sources familiar with the call. Is that accurate?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
You know what, Kristen? I’m not going to discuss my conversations with the president. But if I said that, I was wrong. Financial markets, stock market went up, bond yields went down. So the markets are the ultimate arbiter of over whether the Fed’s independence is being impugned. And bond yields went down. I can tell you we had two of the best bond auctions that we have had in months for U.S. treasuries. So the market is looking beyond this. And again, maybe the market wants some transparency from the Fed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
One final question for you, Mr. Secretary. Some Republican senators, as you know, are threatening to block the president’s nominees over the Justice Department’s investigation. Do you think the investigation needs to be dropped in order for the Senate to confirm the president’s next pick to run the Fed?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I think that that will be up to the senators. I think —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But are you worried that they’ll block the president’s pick for the Fed?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I am not. I think we have four great candidates. I think that they will be quite happy with either of the four. I think we will move forward. I believe that we will probably be hearing from the banking committee soon on what they would like to see. And again, the supervision and bringing in some sunlight does not mean coercion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Thank you so much, Secretary Bessent, for being here to respond to all of the breaking
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!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
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
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 