The entire theory of the Petrodollar dares back to the collapse of Bretton Woods and the subsequent oil embargo protesting US support for Israel and the price shock of raising prices. Those were the days when everyone was obsessed with gold and the whole idea of a floating currency that was popular to say will crash and burn for money had to be backed but some commodity. Those were indeed the days when that theory was very popular and it dominated the thinking process of the 1970s.
Here is an advertisement from my past days as a market maker in gold during 1970s to about 1983. I too believed in all those theories until the crash came in 1975. I too had bought into all that nonsense. Gold was going to be legalized in the United States in 1975 for the first time since 1934. Being a very large dealer domestically and internationally, all my European clients were talking up the scenario that gold was going to $500 if not $1000 once Americans could buy.
Because Teddy Roosevelt was an ancient coin collector, when Franklin Roosevelt, who was a stamp collector, recognized that gold coins existed from ancient times thanks to Teddy, he confiscated gold on deposit at the banks but exempted collector coins. That was the reason why we have rolls of $20 gold coins trading to this day.
As a result, those who were really believers in gold would buy common date American $20 gold coins by the roll in those days. So when the Europeans were talking themselves into gold was going to explode in 1975 as soon as it was legalized in the United States, as a dealer, I never got a single call about buying gold from anyone other than those who already owned it. The gold crowd was only looking at gold and had no idea that any American who wanted gold bought it in coin form. They were cheering gold without understanding the reality of the marketplace.
I went short gold in January 1975 not using even technical analysis. The hype was so much and I knew that there was no line standing at the door to buy gold. My gut feeling was that gold was going to decline – not rally. I saw that in 1970 when the two-tier gold market they created in 1968 saw gold drop below the official price of $35 in 1970 – something that was not supposed to happen.
Even the Senate of New Jersey came to me and I wrote the law on sales tax regarding gold in 1974. Gold peaked in December 1974 at $197.50. It fell to $97.70 while inflation continued but economic growth declined and they called it STAGFLATION. I learned back then that all the scenarios and theories that gold rises with inflation and the dollar would not survive without some backing. I was confronted by the reality that exposes all these theories to be a throwback to times long since passed. This all only inspired me, even more, to investigate everything in detail. By 1979, I published what I called the WHY REPORT. I later republished this in 1981 and again in 1983.
To explain the survivability of the dollar since it rose between 1972 and 1976 against the British pound, with the collapse of Bretton Woods, the rise in gold, and the entire oil embargo, that is when they came up with this idea that the dollar was backed by oil. They had to explain why their theories were wrong just as they changed global warming to climate change to explain away global cooling.
All the theories were wrong. The dollar rose, and inflation soared, as did gold. None of this made sense under their theories. Something had to be done. It became obvious that it was impossible to make investment decisions based upon these theories that people just made up to sell gold which are still being used today. I also remembered that in January 1970, gold fell in the London market to $34.70. Gold was not supposed to sell below the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate of dollars to gold. It was like being smacked in the face and told to wake up!
Without question, the dealers could not sell gold if it did not rise with inflation and against the dollar since it was no longer backed by anything. They had to invent something new. That is when the sophistry specialists stepped in and boy did they succeed in bullshitting everyone.
The explanation was ah ha – the dollar is really backed by oil because it is priced in dollars. That’s it. It is really the Petrodollar! Suddenly the dollar became de facto-backed by oil. They needed an explanation to explain why all the old theories were wrong. They sold this theory and it made the front cover of Newsweek. Everyone said YES! That must be the reason. OPEC priced oil in dollars! Naturally, everything was priced in dollars because, under the fixed exchange rate of Bretton Woods, everything from wheat and corn to copper and gold was all priced in dollars.
Many people are now calling for the collapse of the dollar all because Saudi Arabia has confirmed that they will be selling oil in various currencies. Hence, relying on this old fictitious their of the Petrodolarr from the ’70s, they are telling everyone the dollar will collapse and gold will soar. They never get tired of kicking the same theories down the road without EVER just once being honest and looking if they have any validity whatsoever.
The value of any currency is NOT some commodity. It is the people. You can have all the gold in the world, but if the people do not produce, it means nothing. Indeed, Russia had the largest gold reserve of any nation ahead of the Communist Revolution. They took the gold reserves and hid them so the communists would never find them. They are still missing to this very day. Likewise, Germany and Japan has no gold reserves post-WWII yet they rose to the strongest economies in their respective regions. How is that possible? It is very simple. The true backing of a currency is the total productive capacity of its people. The US became the largest economy in the world NOT because of gold, but because the US had a consumer-based economy built of freedom rather than Marxism as the problem with Europe. China, Japan, and Germany, all focused on the old-world mercantile economic model. Produce to sell to someone else. They failed to follow the strength of the United States in building a consumer economy.
China understands the difference and has shifted to develop that type of economy whereas Germany oppresses its people with high taxes on its citizens to sell manufactured goods to everyone else. That is why they wanted the Euro to expand their European economic marketplace. Germany’s high taxes have put it near the bottom insofar as the German people have less net worth than Italians. The more Marxist the country, the lower the economic standard of living.
For his weekly monologue, Neil Oliver outlines the insufferable fools that are constructing the path to Agenda 2030 and the World Economic Forum dictates that form the baseline to “save the planet” from climate change.
As you listen or read the word picture that Oliver paints, you might remember the CTH article from over a decade ago about what the “fundamental change” Barack Obama was outlining, really meant. Well, here we are, a decade closer to the utopian goal – and the picture is now close enough for all to see. WATCH:
[Transcript] – Nothing less than our way of life is under threat now. A population distracted by propaganda about one existential threat after another – pandemics, nuclear war, climate crisis – is being herded into an unrecognizable future.
What was done in the name of Covid was grotesque – a violation of the rights of billions of people. Having seen what they can get away with, our so-called leaders have moved on, broadening their scope, as greedy for more as kids left unsupervised in a sweetie shop.
What is happening now, all around us, is the relentless erosion not just of our rights and liberties, but of our lives. It is so blatant – what’s happening – it’s hard to see it for what it is, which is bare-faced daylight robbery.
After Covid, the C-word that’s supposed to be on everyone’s lips … drummed into us night and day by the same complicit media that drives everything else … is climate – Climate crisis, in fact. Two c-words for the price of one.
From all sides, we are bombarded with predictions of the end of the world. Predictions, remember? Computer modelling … the crystal-ball-gazing of the scientific world.
If you believe the predictions and “the science” … by which I mean the pronouncements of scientists and global corporations … the same corporations champing at the bit for all the government grants and contracts to get all tooled up for making expensive wind turbines, solar panels, liquid hydrogen processing plants … and all those batteries … gazillions of batteries filled with the Earth’s rarest metals and minerals.
The important word to notice there is rare, in that, if they’re rare now what’s it going to be like in 20 years’ time when all the existing stuff needs replaced and multiplied in number by a factor of 10 or 100, or a thousand?
if you believe that science, unquestioningly, if you can’t or won’t see vested interests at work, it may already be too late for you.
We are to sacrifice everything on the promise of jam tomorrow. Pain for a decade until the as-yet non-existent technology is invented and fills all the yawning gaps … try selling that business pitch on Dragon’s Den. “I don’t know what I’m going to invent, but if you all give me your money, your way of life and your children’s futures, this time next decade we’ll all be farting through silk.”
They get away with it, because of the message relentlessly pumped out. The message pumped out morning, noon and night that we filthy, mostly white creatures of the West have, with our greedy consumption of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution, all but set the world on fire.
If we don’t stop now … or preferably yesterday, they squeal … the blue planet will shortly be a blackened lump of charcoal leaving only a smoking trail as it hurtles lifeless through the universe.
By now, generations of people in the West have been raised to accept this grim premonition as holy writ.
Children are crying themselves to sleep at night on account of their certainty that the planet won’t continue to exist long enough for them to grow up.
This ingrained, endemic terror is the breeding ground for the insanity of Net Zero … and the suicide note for millions that is Agenda 2030.
Generations alive today have been raised to believe that the planet and entire populations YET TO BE are far, far more important than THEY are now. Those alive today are of no concern whatever when compared to the well-being o fantasy people of the future, who will inhabit a Utopia made possible by the impoverishment and immiseration of all of us here right now.
Collectively we are the first pancake – the throw-away.
When I say we are being robbed of our way of life, I could as justifiably say our children are being raised to accept that their being alive AT ALL is the biggest part of the problem. What the planet wants most of all, we are told, is to be rid of most of us, like too many flies in summer.
All around the world, birth rates are dropping as fast as a piano falling out of a window.
The living populations of many nations are not producing enough people to replace them after they die. If nothing is done to slow this run-away train … to drive the birth of many, many more babies every year … entire nations face inevitable extinction.
Worse than our way of life being under threat, life itself is being sacrificed to ensure the future of planet Earth.
The message fed to our children is Satanically dark – that they are nothing more than blight upon the world … meat-eating, resource-consuming, fossil-fuel-dependent parasites.
Once you contemplate the consequences of those poisonous seeds, the motivations behind anti-human notions like Agenda 2030 and Net Zero become obvious.
Look around now:
Take, for instance, the idea of the 15-minute city (20-minute cities in Scotland because First Minister Nicola Sturgeon always has to convince herself she’s doing something different from England). That’s another foot in the door by Mr Global.
Together with the clamp down on cars … the ideology that started with congestion zones but that has metastasised into a multi-faceted determination to make the privacy and convenience of independent travel a thing of the past … the idea of limiting our horizons to within walking distance of our houses is about preparing us for smaller, meaner lives lived under perpetual scrutiny. Papers, please!
Critics say it’s all very well if you actually already live in a city but ask “What about those in small towns, villages, or in isolated homes in the countryside?”
If you ask me, that’s to miss the point of 15-minute cities entirely. If you ask me, the evolution in the minds of the powers that be, like those little emperors gathered in Davos, where the Alpine air must be thick with the smell of spent aviation fuel from hundreds of private jets and, if reports are to be believed, the cologne worn by the thousands of sex-workers who have arrived in town for no apparent reason whatsoever.
The Daily Mail ran with the headline: Prostitutes gather in Davos for annual meeting of global elite – where demand for sexual services rockets during economic summit … The grand plan of those priapic masters of the universe will see us herded out of the countryside, out of the villages and into those cities already built and others yet to be.
The direction of travel I detect will set aside the countryside for other purposes that us little people ought not to bother our pretty little heads about. Probably growing all the biofuel required for all those private jets, who knows?
In the future we’ll all be city mice and the country mice will be just another extinct species, like the cattle, pigs and sheep.
The fear works best on children – and so much of the rest of the change to our way of life targets children first.
Last week I read about Edinburgh being the first city in Europe to commit to getting meat off the menu in schools. Choice about what we eat is, obviously, another fundamental part of life that is being set aside without so much as a by your leave.
But the Utopian future is meatless, make no mistake, at least for the likes of us that can’t afford to attend Davos in our private jets, or else made of some abomination grown in 3-D printers in labs and sold to us as meat.
And who’s going to go meat-free first? The kids of course. Those of us with kids know the truth of school meals, especially in primary schools. Jamie Oliver can bang on all he likes about revolutionising that aspect of the school day, but the reality of meat-free lunches in most primary schools will be chips, pizzas, more chips, and those hyper-processed chemistry set experiments they call vegan sausages, the ones with the ingredients list of unpronounceable additives on the back that’s as long as the Old Testament. And more chips.
Like rising damp that creeps, or an airborne virus, new laws are being conjured into existence all around us, all of them shaped to profoundly alter our lives while we’re conveniently distracted by a suspicious new pathogen and the threat of Armageddon caused either by nuclear war or the planet bursting into flames on account of too many burping cows and homes that are warm in the winter.
As well as a way of life, old certainties dictated by nature herself are being erased. Always, always it’s about attacking the foundations of the family. Mothers are not necessarily women anymore. Women are certainly not a sex anymore, at least not as far as our elected representatives in Parliament are concerned. In a move so fast you might break your neck trying to keep up with it, women are designated as something men can choose to be when it suits them, less an adult human female, more a state of mind in a dress and a pair of court shoes.
When I was a lad, the future was going to be about world peace and teleporting to Mars for summer holidays. Instead, it’s turned out to be about no more plane flights unless you’re a billionaire, mass vaccinations not for health but to qualify for a digital ID, burgers made of insects, bikes instead of cars, a forever war in Europe and biological men urinating next to little girls in the Ladies toilets.
The reams of new legislation are creeping up on us from all sides. They’ve demonised those on strike just in time to secure public support for new laws against striking.
Oil billionaires funded the climate crisis glue-downs and soup-throwing performances in art galleries just long enough to usher in new laws limiting the right to public protest.
Sliding in as well is the Online Harms Bill, a full-throated attempt to take freedom of speech by the scruff of the neck and throw it down the waste chute as well.
The World Health Organisation – second biggest funder, the Bill Gates Foundation, don’t forget – together with member states, is working towards a new Pandemic Treaty that might mean that next time – and Gates has put a hard pencil line around the year 2025, in which he predicts there will be a real doozie – it will be the WHO and not the elected governments of sovereign nations that call the shots when it comes to vaccine mandates, lockdowns, travel restrictions and all the rest.
They’re legislating about how we heat our homes – or rather how we don’t heat them: heat pumps that everyone with even a sketchy understanding of the laws of physics and the nature of the climate in the Northern latitudes knows won’t work, no more gas boilers.
How long before they really do come for the wood burners, the coal fires and the gas stoves as well? How long before they decide they really will deny us every last one of the things that give us independence … herding us away from a past in which our heating and cooking is powered by fuels that can’t be cut off remotely with just the flick of a switch on a Smart Meter. How long have we got?
Health, freedom to move around our towns – and around our world – the right to protest and dissent, the right to withhold our labour, freedom of speech, the nature of the food we eat, the right to refuse to accept a medical intervention, what it means to be women and men.
The race is on. Our so-called leaders, all pumped up on the adrenaline of lockdowns and mandates, have sprinted out of the blocks for the ultimate round of Supermarket Sweep. Into their trolleys, they plan to heap every last aspect of the lives we have had.
They think they’ve got us scared enough to accept the whole damned lot of it.
This coming Wednesday, January 25th, Ronna McDaniel, Harmeet Dhillon, and Mike Lindell will participate in an RNC Chairman candidate forum/debate before committee members vote by secret ballot on Friday January 27th to elect their next leader. The event will air LIVE from 4–5:15pm ET on Real America’s Voice.
Ronna McDaniel had a last-minute reversal of her position and will now participate in the debate. Last Thursday Mike Lindell explained to Emerald Robinson why he wanted to become Chairman and what he had been doing to receive support from the state RNC electors. The interview was conducted before Ronna’s reversal. Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:
.
No one has put more on the line than Mike Lindell, in order to support the grassroots MAGA movement. Lindell knows what the UniParty is all about. Personally, I do not see much difference between Ronna McDaniel and Harmeet Dhillon. Both Ronna and Harmeet are entrenched RNC figures, and both are focused on the donor side of the RNC apparatus.
The RNC wants money, the DNC wants power. The RNC uses power to get money, the DNC uses money to get power. The ideology of the DNC drives their donor contributions, whereas the donor contributions to the RNC drives their ideology. This outlook explains the subtle difference between the two wings of the UniParty and also explains why Republicans have no ideological goals.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 22, 2023 | Sundance
West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin appears with his good friend Chuck Todd for an interview about ongoing political events to include the debt ceiling.
As Manchin and Todd finish each other’s sentences, the discussion hits on the upcoming debt ceiling battle. Manchin surprisingly pulls out the purple card and states the super-secret thing that no one in DC will admit. The last federal budget was signed into law September 2008, for fiscal year 2009. From that moment forward, there has been nothing except continuing resolutions and omnibus spending bills [SIDENOTE: this approach was by design by Obama/Pelosi].
This 12-year timeline includes the entire tenure of House Speaker Paul Ryan, former Budget Committee Chair, who now uses the absence of the budget as a tool to advance his outside impression that DC is fiscally reckless, insert pearl clutching here. I digress. Manchin is positioning himself as the ‘purple’ option for 2024. WATCH (or read):
[Transcript] – CHUCK TODD: And joining me now is Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Senator Manchin, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Chuck, it’s always good to be with you.
CHUCK TODD: Look, I want to get into the debt ceiling. I want to get into all this stuff. But I — we got some developments overnight with those classified documents, an FBI search — the White House said it was coordinated with the FBI. But we’ve now had an FBI search of former President Trump. Now we have an FBI search into President Biden’s residence. What’s your assessment of how the president has handled the situation?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Well, I mean, it’s just hard to believe that in the United States of America, we have a former president and a current president that are basically in the same situation. How does this happen? You know, only thing I can tell you, Chuck, is when I go into the SCIF with the secure documents, they always ask, “Are you clean?” when you walk out. They want to make sure you’re not carrying anything out. You know, and it might be a mistake. You might just put it in your other papers, but you double-check right there. To be held accountable and responsible is what we all are. And to put those in unsecured spaces is irresponsible.
CHUCK TODD: Do you see similarities, or do you see more differences in how President Trump versus how President Biden —
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: I’m not going to make —
CHUCK TODD: — has handled this?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: — that decision, but I think that Merrick Garland did the right thing by putting the special counsel.
CHUCK TODD: You do?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: And I think that we should wait until the special counsel, rather than making this a political circus. Let them find out the facts. What — was one more damaging? Are they both about the same, did not cause any problem, or is one more reckless and irresponsible than the other? I can’t answer that question, but I think the special counsel will do a better job than the politicians and the political circus that is going to follow.
CHUCK TODD: President Biden said he had no regrets in how he handled this. Do you have any advice for him on how he should handle this going forward?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Oh, I think he should have a lot of regrets. Yeah. I would —
CHUCK TODD: What are those —
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: I would think that. I said, “Whoever’s responsible.” I mean, if I hold people accountable, and I use — whether my chief of staff or, you know, my staff, who, that were doing this, that I’m looking at, then I’m going to hold someone accountable. But basically, the buck stops with me.
CHUCK TODD: So you think he should be out there, “Look, I mess — I messed up –”
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: That’s all. Just say —
CHUCK TODD: “Maybe I didn’t do it.” Just say it —
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: — “I made a mistake.”
CHUCK TODD: Just fall on your sword here?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: We’re all human.
CHUCK TODD: Yeah.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: We make mistakes. I can tell you I don’t think anyone intended, he sure didn’t intend for it to fall in wrong hands and use it against our country. I know they didn’t intend that to happen. Could it have happened? I don’t know. And yeah, you just might as well say, “Listen, it’s irresponsible. It was something we should’ve had a better check and balance on.”
CHUCK TODD: Now, former President Trump defied a subpoena. So in that sense, the, the way each has handled it is different.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Yes.
CHUCK TODD: Do you acknowledge that?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Absolutely. Much different than the other. One’s saying, “Okay, I hope I didn’t make any mistakes.
CHUCK TODD: Right.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: — I hope no one’s compromised. I hope we didn’t hurt our country.” And the other one says, “Ugh, no. I know it didn’t. Believe me.” Well, you know what? What they said, verify? You have to verify.
CHUCK TODD: Trust but verify?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Trust but verify. Let’s find out. And that’s what the special counsel’s —
CHUCK TODD: And that’s what you want here? Both special counsels to sort of resolve this?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: First of all, every one of us, in our life, have to be held accountable and responsible for our actions because people want accountability. And they want basically when you’re held accountable, are you responsible or not? If you are, would you — can you fix that? Did you make a mistake? Fine. You’re, you know —
CHUCK TODD: And that’s what you think – the president needs to get out there and just get in front of this?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Cicero, Cicero said, “To err is human.” You’re a human being. You’re going to make mistakes. Did you intend to make it? Did you intend to harm somebody? Did you intend to basically do an irresponsible thing? I don’t think — hopefully, neither one of them did.
CHUCK TODD: Right.
SEN. JOE MANCHIIN: But it sure turned out to be irresponsible.
CHUCK TODD: Let’s talk about the debt ceiling. You’re — as always, you’re trying to find a compromise, middle ground.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Yeah.
CHUCK TODD: I know your instinct here. But why should Republicans get the benefit of the doubt on the debt ceiling here, considering that it’s a — that they’re sort of manufacturing a crisis that’s a bit unnecessary right now?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Well, first of all, if one side thinks that the other one’s more responsible for the debt at $31.4 trillion, that’s, that is totally not accurate and it’s deceptive. We’re all responsible. We’ve got a $31.4 trillion debt. It’s a runaway debt, and no one’s holding themselves accountable. And basically, I think you said it, use the budget process. I’ve been here 12 years. We haven’t had a budget yet.
CHUCK TODD: Yeah. I — that’s what I don’t get here.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: We haven’t had a budget yet.
CHUCK TODD: And that’s what I question —
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Yeah, you should.
CHUCK TODD: — you want to do this special committee here.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: I’m —
CHUCK TODD: And I’m sitting here going, “Why add more “bureaucracy?” We have a budget committee. We have two budget committees. We have a Joint Committee on Taxation. We have all these different committees that have already been created to deal with this process. Why can’t we use the congressional bureaucracy that exists?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: We have 12 appropriations committees —
CHUCK TODD: They’re —
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: They’re supposed to do their job. Why don’t you basically put a time certain on —
CHUCK TODD: Right.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: — what you can do and what you can’t and when you do it? I can’t speak for that. I was a former governor of the state of West Virginia.
CHUCK TODD: Right.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: I was responsible for a balanced budget amendment and basically staying within the realms of my Constitution. So, you know, I met every week. Every week like clockwork they walked in my office on a Tuesday or Wednesday and sit down and go over it. You’re either going to be — have to make some cuts now, make some adjustments now, so we end the year with a balanced budget or a surplus. There’s nothing that holds us accountable. Nothing at all. We can say, “Oh, we’re going to do it.” As I’ve said before, 12 years, haven’t had a budget. That’s ridiculous.
CHUCK TODD: So, let me — you want to do this sort of, that you and Senator Romney, to have committee that deals with the trust fund issues. But right now, neither party wants to touch – I mean, in that sense, Donald Trump came out, and certainly Democrats, nobody wants to touch Social Security or Medicare.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Well, first of all —
CHUCK TODD: So how do you separate those two out and deal with our fiscal problems?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Why would you scare the bejesus out of people that are basically going to say — in West Virginia, I’ve got 60% of my population that that’s all they have is Medicare and Social Security. You think I’m going to go down that path and put them in jeopardy? No. But there are so much other things, the basically wasteful spending, that can be corralled in without scaring the bejesus, depending on what political side you’re on.
CHUCK TODD: Let me ask you about wasteful spending, because one of the three most hypocritical words I hear are “waste, fraud and abuse.” Right. Everybody says, “Oh, waste, fraud, and abuse.”
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: And it’s all there. It’s all there.
CHUCK TODD: Okay, but waste, fraud, and abuse aren’t going to balance the budget, ok? At the end of the day, there are going to have to be choices that have to be made. What is something that ought to be on, on, in the decision of, “You know, maybe we’re spending too much”?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Well, we know we’re spending too much because we’re not balancing our budget and —
CHUCK TODD: But on what?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: — we have more debt. The bottom line is, it’s in the eyes of the beholder. That’s the problem that we have. Five-hundred-and-thirty-five people said, “Well, yeah. What you’re doing is wasteful, Chuck. I think you ought to cut that.” And you’re going to say, “Okay, Joe. How about yours?”
CHUCK TODD: But your, your spending that you think is mandatory, another person thinks is wasteful or abuse.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Yeah. Just think, for every dollar, just get it down, break it down to the dollar. Is there any savings within that dollar you think that is wasteful or abuse that we could at least have a target to set? Is it a penny? Is it five pennies? Is it a nickel? Where is it?
CHUCK TODD: But here’s what gets lost here, is nobody will put anything on the table. Everybody says, “We’ve got to cut spending.” Well, what? And nobody wants to articulate —
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Well, the process —
CHUCK TODD:– the what.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Chuck, you hit it dead on the head. The process isn’t working. How come we’re not held accountable to have – to have the appropriation bills done at a certain time before the end of the fiscal year?
CHUCK TODD: You tell me.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Well, that’s what I —
CHUCK TODD: I mean –
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: You know –
CHUCK TODD: – what does Chuck Schumer say? What does Mitch McConnell
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: You know what happens? It rolls over into an omnibus bill at the end and everything’s thrown into it. “Okay. Here we got it, guys. That’s it.” It makes no sense.
CHUCK TODD: So what should – it sounds like you actually think the debt ceiling is a moment we should use to focus on —
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Well, if you’re going to use the debt ceiling for anything except for theatrics, okay, which is what probably might happen for a while, we’re going to pass the debt ceiling. You are exactly correct.
CHUCK TODD: Right.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: It has to pass. You know, we have the currency of it, you know – the good faith of the United States dollar and the currency of the world. You just can’t let it default and basically hold us in jeopardy from where we stand in the world, world order. With that being said, is how do you get to it? Do you use this moment? Do you come to a reason – responsibility? What are we paying for interest now? For ten years, it was zero. It was funny money. Were not – you know, it doesn’t put any burden. We’re just raising debt, but we’re not basically harming how we have to meet that debt through our interest payments. Now we’re talking real money on an interest basis. We’re almost, up to what our defense budget is, paying in interest.
CHUCK TODD: I guess I come back to, and I don’t think you have the answer either, which is what is the moment to force this conversation?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: This is a moment if, if Kevin McCarthy coming in – coming in new says, “Okay, this is – it’s serious,” and he takes it from the standpoint. And he knows —
CHUCK TODD: What does he need to do that you would take him seriously in this?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Well, you know, Chuck —
CHUCK TODD: Do you know what I mean by that? Like, how do you know when he’s being serious, and how do you when he’s paying politics?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Well, the bottom line is he has a hell of a – heck of a political hand that’s not, not very good right now. He’s not holding a lot, if you will. And he has ten or 12 that’s pretty much out there. He has to make a decision how he wants to govern and how he ought to these next two years in this 118th Congress. You know – I just – it was amazing. I just saw that the Ohio legislature, I don’t know if you paid any attention to that —
CHUCK TODD: I did. Yeah.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: The Ohio legislature, which is Republican-controlled –
CHUCK TODD: Yeah.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: – basically chose their new speaker, a Republican, with as many, if not more votes, from the Democrats because they wanted someone they can work with. That’s a coalition. Why can’t we put coalitions together here?
CHUCK TODD: Well, that’s —
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: The moderate, centrist Democrats coming over and working, whoever’s the majority, and saying, “You don’t have to bow and cow-tail to the extremes.”
CHUCK TODD: Yeah. You don’t have to worry about primaries. A lot of your colleagues have to worry about primaries. Isn’t that why this —
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Let me tell you —
CHUCK TODD – doesn’t happen?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: – one more thing. I’ve got to be honest with you, Chuck. If it’s all about the election, the next election, you know, that’s the worst thing that could happen to us.
CHUCK TODD: You just came from Davos.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Yeah.
CHUCK TODD: There’s a moment, I don’t know if you realized, that went viral between you and Senator Sinema. I want to show the moment here. I want to ask you about it. You guys are high-fiving. I think we’ll show it again here. It was right after she was talking about the filibuster.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Yeah.
CHUCK TODD: Is that what you were high-fiving about?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Yeah, that was – I think, you know, after that. I saw her hand go up and I said, “Sure” because here, the two of us are committed to protecting the filibuster, which I think protects checks and balances on the executive branch. So if you have a Democrat, Democrat, Democrat – president, House and Senate – and you have a strong president, basically leader of the party, then you don’t have a check and balance because I can guarantee you the House and Senate will roll wherever the president wants. I – and I’ve said this before. I appreciate the Republican senators and the leadership of the minority leader at that time, McConnell, majority leader at that time – with Donald Trump every day beating on him, “Get rid of the filibuster.” You’ve got 53, 54 Republicans, and he would not. And I appreciate that. And I told Harry Reid we should not have done it when we did it in 2013. But to come back now, the checks and balances aren’t there. It makes and forces them to work together. Think what we’ve accomplished in the 117th, the most divided Congress we’ve ever had, and we did more substantial bills, I think that’s going to be transformational.
CHUCK TODD: You think those first two years of Biden and this Democratic Congress is going to be historic?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: I think it’s going to be transformational and historical, yes, because here you had a bipartisan infrastructure bill we haven’t done for years.
CHUCK TODD: Yeah.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: You had then on top of that the CHIPS Act, which will bring manufacturing back so we don’t have supply chains that we’re depending on that aren’t loyal and trustworthy. And then we have the Inflation Reduction Act, which is going to give us – it’s been misaligned because this administration basically said it’s environmental, environmental, environmental. That bill is designed to be energy security, Chuck. And energy security is exactly what we need.
CHUCK TODD: And you’re frustrated that the White House won’t say the phrase “energy security”?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: They will not use the word, and they haven’t. I’m begging you all, please. Energy security. We have to have fossil. We do it better and cleaner than anywhere in the world. And we can be energy secured for ten years, and also be able to invest in technology of the future.
CHUCK TODD: Is this an agenda you can run for reelection on in West Virginia?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Oh, most certainly because we’re seeing right now, I’ve got a battery plant coming in. I’ve got basically hydrogen coming in that direction. We’ve got expansion. And we’re raising our coal with carbon capture sequestration. We’ve got basically methane capturing using gas. We have people that are fighting continuously. And you have to have the pipeline to move this product. And it’s going to be needed. If not, you’re going to end up like Europe. And that’s where I didn’t want to rub it into them, but Europe took an approach that they’re going to say, “We’re going to have cap-and-trade.” And we’re going to be basically charging you a carbon tax.” I’ve said, “I’m not going to support that and vote for it because I think it doesn’t work.” So I took the approach, and basically we wrote this bill with incentives. And it was working. And that’s why they were all upset. That’s why the chancellor and that’s why presidents of other countries were very upset on this bill and concerned about it.
CHUCK TODD: If you run for office in 2024, are you going to run as a Democrat?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Chuck, I haven’t made a decision what I’m going to do in 2024. I’ve got two years ahead of me now to do the best I can for the state and for my country.
CHUCK TODD: What are – what’s on the table? Is reelection on the table?
Posted originally on the CTH on January 22, 2023 | Sundance
CTH has predicted the most significant political revelation in 2023 will be the exposure of the Washington DC UniParty, and one of the largest moments for this sunlight is going to come with the “debt ceiling” extension.
The background to understand this level of sunlight, comes specifically because 20 House Republicans have taken a stand with bold contrast. Whenever there is a bold contrast situation, the UniParty is exposed because the lavender hues where red and blue overlay is not possible. The House20 have created a situation where Speaker Kevin McCarthy cannot hide, and there are enough MAGA Republicans to expose how the conniving UniParty apparatus really works.
Within the CBS political discussion, Robert Costa puts the upcoming ‘debt ceiling’ discussion into context while revealing how the White House is approaching the issue. Costa is a vested weasel, but what he says in this segment is accurate. Joe Biden will work with Mitch McConnell in the Senate to subvert the House of Representatives, because the House -as structured by the MAGA coalition- is now viewed as the enemy to both the White House and Senate republicans.
OMG, guys, like how lucky are we right now?
You don’t have to guess if Costa is correct on this, because the evidence is already in place. What Costa is describing is exactly how and why the 2023 Omnibus spending bill was put together by the White House, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer before the Republican control of the House took place. Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, are structurally aligned with Democrats against the House Republicans.
The CBS panel is essentially having a conversation saying, ‘How lucky are we’ that Mitch McConnell is a Democrat right now? And this is the truest nature of the UniParty in action.
[Transcript, video at 02:21] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I’m glad you bring that up, because the other thing that the departure of the chief of staff raises questions about is this looming policy and political conversation about the debt ceiling.
Who runs point on that? Obviously, the Treasury secretary has a huge role. But in terms of talking to the Hill and the negotiations, who’s doing that if the chief of staff is leaving?
ROBERT COSTA: What I’m told from people inside the West Wing is that President Biden himself has a relationship with Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, of course, with Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader.
They are in some ways going to try to cut out Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the House Republicans. There’s not an appetite among Democrats to put spending cuts on the table at all. They would like to see a clean debt limit extension. And Jim Clyburn, one of the top Democrats in the House, recently told me he could see a scenario where centrist House Republicans band together with House Democrats for a clean debt limit extension.
[…] ROBERT COSTA: Privately, I’m told President Biden and Senator McConnell have chuckled behind the scenes with longtime friends about how at this stage in divided government, it’s these two men who have long been friends who are being counted upon to perhaps cut a deal.
I remember, when I first started covering Congress a decade ago, I would remember Vice President Biden was the one…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
ROBERT COSTA: … who came to the Capitol to meet with Senator McConnell to cut a deal on that so-called fiscal cliff way back then.
So, they have that history, and they were recently in Kentucky together, showing at least, not political solidarity, but in terms of a personal relationship, there’s a real rapport.” Video Prompted:
Posted originally on the CTH on January 22, 2023 | Sundance
The likely Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Mike Turner (R-OH), appears on CBS Face the Nation with DC stenographer for the regime, Margaret Brennan.
You know the left wing of the DC political operation is riddled with angst, when Margaret Brennan goes tilt, stomps her heels and throws the proverbial coffee pot across the table. The only thing missing was Margaret pounding the table and yelling ‘curse you villain.‘ The unbiased pretenses are chucked right out the window here. The interview is a little funny. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Ohio Congressman Mike Turner, he is expected to head up the House Intelligence Committee. Good morning to you.
REP. MIKE TURNER: Good morning Margaret, thank you for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So we have this development in regard to the further materials that were found at President Biden’s Delaware home. What is your reaction? And what does it signify to you that no one realized that this classified material was missing, some of it dating back to his Senate years?
REP. TURNER: This is really incredible. And as you know, congratulations to you, we would not know anything about this if it hadn’t been that CBS had broken this story. The White House nor the Department of Justice had shared any of the information with the public. And this really is one matter, we wouldn’t have this issue if it hadn’t been for Biden’s Attorney General did- making the decision to raid former President Trump’s house looking for- for classified documents that were being held there. What’s amazing about all this is it takes us to the question of why were these documents here? Well, now that we learned that some of these go back to his Senate time, you know, clearly he’s- he’s become a serial classified document hoarder. Why did he have these? Who did he show them to? I mean, the only reason you can think of as to why anyone would take classified documents out of a classified space at home is to- is to show them to somebody. Who did he show them to? This is going to be crucial, I think, to the special counsel’s investigation, is why did the president have these documents? Who did he show them to him? And is it connected to the Biden family businesses?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you know, the differences of course, too. I want to talk about the Biden situation. But just to clarify, when you reference President Trump, there were 300 classified documents, there was a warrant, there was refusal to comply in terms of handing things over and the White House and the president’s lawyer are pointing out that in the case of Biden, he granted permission, and this was consensual for the DOJ to come in and search. Does the fact that the Justice Department conducted the search signify anything more to you and do you have any insight into the sensitivity of the documents?
REP. TURNER: Sure, absolutely. I think this looks more like a cover up than an investigation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have any facts to back up your- your allegations that he was hoarding things in terms of intention to take classified material versus it’s been characterized that it was somehow accidental? Do you have any insight into what these materials were?
REP. TURNER: Well, they didn’t fly to his home without him. They went on a train with him from the- his Senate offices and then in boxes that he was in charge of. The chain of custody here is going to be important, because we know that these were in Joe Biden’s hands and Joe Biden’s control, then ended up behind his Corvette in his garage and in his office, that he did not control and also throughout his house, so the special counsel is gonna have to deal with the issue of what was the chain of custody? Who had these? Why did he take them to begin with? When did he get them? When was he handed these documents? And what did he do with them? And this is a real critical question to all this, why did he have these documents to begin with? And that is why the special counsel’s work is going to be really important, because I can think of no reason why the president should have taken home, as a senator or as vice president, any classified documents that clearly have no protection. They’re available and open to anybody.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have also before this development asked for a briefing from the Director of National Intelligence. You set a deadline of Thursday, do you have any further reason to believe they will meet that deadline, that you will get any insight into these materials?
REP. TURNER: Well we’ll have to see, but what’s critical here–
MARGARET BRENNAN: They haven’t responded?
REP. TURNER: –And this is very important, this is what’s very important to all of this, Margaret, and that is the FBI and the national archivists were working completely independent of the intelligence community, or the Department of Defense. They claim this was all an issue of national security, but they did not speak to anyone who’s involved in national security.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So no response yet from the intelligence community?
REP. TURNER: I have not received a response, no.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. I also want to ask you what leadership looks like with Republicans in charge. You are also on House Oversight.
REP. TURNER: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Of the 26 Republican members on the committee, 19 of them denied the results of the 2020 election. Your colleagues now include Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Scott Perry. They all played critical roles in – in the former president’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Do you have any concerns about working with these lawmakers? I mean, you’re very much a centrist.
REP. TURNER: Well, you know, even on the Democrat side, there’s been a number of people who objected to President Bush’s reelection and voted against certifying his election.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I am asking about you, your party, and your colleagues.
(CROSSTALK)
REP. TURNER: There’s a long history of both sides, having raised issues, including, you recall, the- Al Gore taking President Bush’s election all the way to the Supreme Court.
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are not an election denier by CBS standards just to be clear.
REP. TURNER: I am not, and I work with both sides of the aisle, and there are election deniers on both sides of the aisle.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are comfortable with all those individuals I just rattled off and the fact that the majority of the Republicans on this committee denied the election results. Is that what you are saying?
REP TURNER: What I’m comfortable with is -the electorate are very smart. And these people have been sent to Congress to represent their districts and to be part of the congressional debate-
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REP TURNER: -to lead us to what’s going to be bipartisan, bicameral resolutions. We have a split government right now, Republicans control the House, the Senate is controlled by the Democrats, you have a Democrat president. We’re going to have a lot of debate and discussions. And I think this is going to be a very fruitful period for- for Congress and for our country, because it’s going to have to be bipartisan, bicameral, and I believe that the president in opening negotiations with Republicans is beginning to start that process.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What is actually possible in this bipartisan, bicameral situation? What can you actually get legislation through on?
(CROSSTALK)
REP. TURNER: Depending on what the pending- what the president’s willing to do, I think it’s unlimited. Right? We have really tough issues right now. We have out of control inflation. We have an open border and record people crossing our border.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What about gun control?
REP. TURNER: We have -we have the issue of Russia, and certainly in Ukraine, and certainly China, I think we’re going to have a number of issues that we’re going to have to deal with.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Congressman Turner, we have to leave it there today.
♦ I know the key principals have read the outline, reached out, connected, seem to concur with the scale of the problem, and are discussing options.
♦ I know this is uncomfortbly outside the box for almost all involved.
♦ I know I have assembled an external small group ready, willing and capable to engage.
♦ I know the alliance group -outside govt- comprehend the larger outline (as below), and despite initial reservations now agree on goals and objectives. The human resources are there, and their ability to get things going seems solid.
♦ I know everyone inside and outside wants to do the right thing, the best thing.
The basic elements are in place, and in my opinion the goal timeline would be to have all the preliminary structural and logistical work done by Easter; then blitz with intense speed on “Operation Sunlight” for the following six months.
Beyond that, all other aspects are now contingent upon what happens inside the discussion silo of the principals.
CTH password protected posts are under the password: wolverines
Communication, discussion and step-by-step outlining is a very time consuming enterprise. If you are wondering about the light CTH posting recently, refer to the prior sentence. I cannot say much, except to say no one is more cynical than I, and yet… We live our best life and remain pragmatically hopeful. If they do this, we will all benefit.
As previously noted, the 118th Congress is expected to authorize a “Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.” The subcommittee will fall under the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee led by Chairman Jim Jordan. Additionally, Thomas Massie (R-KY) is being reported as a representative under consideration for the chairmanship of the House Subcommittee.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and potential House Subcommittee Chair Thomas Massie should have a grasp of the scale and scope of the opposition they are about to face. Assuming they have a fully prepared staff to support them – willing to take on a very consequential investigation; then we begin by first anticipating who will oppose their effort to investigate the “weaponization of government“. Which is to say, everyone!
The defensive apparatus of the DC political system will likely do everything in their power, individually and with collective assistance, to ensure this committee fails. The stakes are quite high. As readers here can well attest, DC politics is an institutional system of purposefully created compartmentalized silos.
The compartmented information silos permit plausible deniability, and this collection of weaponized institutions contains career bureaucrats who view their opposition as the American people.
Example – The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), and every Republican member therein, including SSCI Vice-Chairman Marco Rubio, will make it their willfully blind priority to obstruct any investigation that touches on how the intelligence apparatus of the United States Government is weaponized against the people.
The SSCI is the institution that facilitated the creation of the National Security State. Any effort to investigate the outcome of that system will make the House investigators adversarial to their colleagues in the Senate.
Additionally, every executive branch intelligence institution, including the DOJ-NSD, FBI, DHS, ODNI, CIA, DoD, DIA, NSC and every sub-agency within their authorities, will do anything and everything to block a subcommittee looking into their domestic activity.
A lot of bad decisions have led to really bad things. DC does not want those bad things discussed.
Every national security justification that exists, and some that have yet to be created by the DOJ National Security Division solely for the expressed interest of blocking this subcommittee, will be deployed.
Every member of the subcommittee and their staff will be under constant surveillance. Phones will be tapped and tracked, electronic devices monitored, cars and offices bugged, physical surveillance deployed, and top tier officials at every subsidiary agency of the U.S. government will assign investigative groups and contract agents to monitor the activity of the subcommittee and provide weekly updates on their findings.
The White House together with the National Security Council will also backchannel to and from these agencies doing the surveillance.
The intelligence apparatus media will be deployed, and daily leaks from the various agencies to their contact lists in the New York Times, Politico, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC will be in constant two-way communication for narrative assembly and counterpropaganda efforts.
This is the context of opposition to begin thinking about before anything moves forward.
Additionally, the national security state will demand the House investigation take place on their terms. They will demand secrecy, national security classification and require House subcommittee members to adhere to the Intelligence Community terms for review and discussion of anything.
Each agency will not voluntarily assist or participate in the investigation of any of their conduct. Every official within every agency will do the same; and they will require legal representation that will be provided to them by Lawfare, political operatives skilled in the use of “National Security” and “classified information”, as a justification for non-compliance and non-assistance. A protracted legal battle should be predicted.
Lastly, anticipate Special Counsel Jack Smith using his position to block the House Subcommittee from receiving evidence. The House should anticipate that congressional representatives are already under investigation as a result of the authorities granted to Jack Smith by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco {Go Deep}. The White House and all of the executive branch agencies will use the existing Special Counsel to block House investigation. Heck, that looks to be the primary purpose of the appointment.
As a result, expect the House Subcommittee members to be under constant threat from the DOJ, via the Special Counsel, specifically from DAG Lisa Monaco, with statements that House Subcommittee investigative efforts are “obstructing” a special counsel investigation. The aforementioned agencies and the Senate Intel Committee will work with the DOJ to use the Jack Smith special counsel as a shield to block participation with the House Subcommittee.
With all of that in mind, what is the successful path forward?
♦ First, everything has to be done in sunlight and maximum transparency, even the planning and organization of the committee construct, purpose and goals.
The committee can have no shadow operations, unknown guiding hands or secrets that can be discovered and then weaponized against the intent. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I know DC has little concept of working like this, but you can train yourself to do it. You have nothing to hide; however, those who are being investigated have everything to hide. Do not provide them ammunition by retaining secrets that can be weaponized against you.
As Andrew Breitbart said, be open with your secrets.
Your second cousin Alice will be a source for the New York Times to write about the Thanksgiving dinner three years ago when she heard the “N” word or a tasteless joke about something outrageous. Every member of the committee and staff need to prepare for a dossier completed by the FBI about them and distributed to the government allies in mainstream media.
Security clearances will be leveraged and threatened as a tool of the national security state to stop the secrecy envelope from being opened publicly. This will happen; so just anticipate it. When the security clearance of [insert_name_here] is threatened, go to the microphones and tell the public who is doing the threatening, and why.
♦GOALS – The goal needs to be crystal clear to anyone and everyone who would contemplate assisting. Yes, there needs to be a legislative intent in order to legally formulate the committee; that’s a no-brainer. However, the ultimate goal should NOT BE accountability on those who may have perpetrated or supported weaponized activity against American Citizens. The ultimate goal SHOULD BE for maximum public information, transparency and sunlight about the weaponization as it is discovered.
Let us assume the goal is accepted. Before moving forward, the subcommittee needs a professional communication strategy in place before the rules, terms and member outlines are structured or made public.
A thoughtful communication strategy so that information can come from the committee to the public without the filtration of a corrupt system that will bend and skew the findings as a weapon against the committee itself.
♦COMMUNICATION PORTAL – Hire a communication staff, and set up a website for the sharing of information directly from the committee to the public. The daily activity of the committee should be shared publicly in granular detail. The witness names as scheduled, documents requested, everything that involves the committee activity should be known to the general public. This system should be updated at least DAILY, or as information is compiled.
This communication network should also contain a separate staff assigned to solicit, accept and distribute information provided by the public to the subcommittee. Yes, you read that correctly, the subcommittee website should be able to accept information provided by the public as it relates to the ongoing committee work.
Crowdsource We The People as research leverage against the much more effective Lawfare operations you will face in opposition. This means a portal where the ‘open source’ information can be delivered by researchers, many of those on the spectrum, who hold deep knowledge of the information and system processes in the silos.
In the past several years, thousands of documents have been retrieved by FOIA and public records investigations. Hundreds of experts in the granular details of the DHS, FBI, DoD and DOJ-NSD systems have knowledge that can benefit the committee; you just need a way for them to transmit the evidence/information to you.
That ‘open source’ evidence should flow into the committee portal with address sourcing that allows the committee staff to review and locate it independently. This avoids the predictable counterargument, from the national security state, that Russia (or foreign actors) is feeding disinformation into the committee.
The documentary evidence will mostly be “open source,” extracted and then cross-referenced from within the multiple silo system the national security state uses as a shield. And the origination of the documents will be traceable and easy to duplicate, thereby providing secure provenance. The internal staff manager for this inbound portal is critical (think former HPSCI Nunes staff).
Documents found by the committee should then be uploaded to the same communication system (website), permitting the public -especially the autists- to review and then cross reference the committee material; ultimately channeling information back into the committee if important dots connect or puzzle pieces clarify. Think of this as a massive counter Lawfare operation with hundreds of Deep State subject matter experts assisting the committee.
Witness transcripts should be uploaded within 36 hours of testimony. Then let the public do the research, background review and dot connecting from the testimony. If you build it, they will come.
♦ Next, GO PUBLIC with everything. Do not use the terms and conditions of the secretive administrative state. Tell the public what you are finding as you are finding it. You can share information without violating “sources and methods.” Schedule a media appearance at the 8pm hour twice weekly with a high visibility broadcast media network to provide updates and answer questions.
These scheduled appearances should be in addition to random media press releases and press comments as pertinent information to the subcommittee arrives. What this means is that you do not wait to produce a 2,000-page final report before releasing the information. The final report should be an update and summary of all previous findings that have been released to the public along the way.
♦ At the outset, put no rules on media contacts with any subcommittee staff or member. Counter the darkness that fuels the intelligence community agenda with maximum sunlight and transparency. Use truth as a weapon against disinformation. That means no nondisclosure agreements at any part of the process.
Yes, this is radical change in approach, but this is also a radical enemy you are facing. Playing the secrecy game works in their favor, not yours. Transparency is your tool, not theirs – use it.
Use truth as a weapon.
Every member of the committee can say anything they want about any of the material or witness testimony they hear during the course of the investigation. Public hearing or closed-door sessions, it matters not. The same rule applies. Committee members are completely free to discuss any findings as the information is reviewed.
The goal should NOT BE accountability on those who may have perpetrated or supported weaponized activity against American Citizens. The goal SHOULD BE for maximum public information, transparency and sunlight about the weaponization as it is discovered. This approach makes We The People the accountability portion of the process. As a result, the next section is again rather groundbreaking….
♦ Every witness to the committee should be granted full legal immunity provided by the House and House Speaker for anything said during the testimony or admitted as being done as part of the evidence fact-finding. Again, the goal is transparency and openness, not prosecution and accountability. Use sunlight as a weapon to draw out the truth, then let the American people be the judges of what that truth means when contrasted against the constitution of our nation.
Let me repeat this… There should be ZERO legal liability for any conduct that happened as a part of any witness effort to weaponize the United States government against the American people. The immunity should cover everything *except* perjury from the witness to the committee itself (ex. Oliver North). If the witness lies, the immunity evaporates.
Why this approach? Because (a) it circumvents any issues that might impede testimony, removes hurdles; (b) immunity compels confession, honest sunlight and the urgency of the situation; (c) immunity makes the truth more likely; and finally, (d) you are not going to get legal convictions anyway. The truth has no agenda.
Another reason for the immunity is because the operation of the subcommittee should be heavily focused on witness testimony, not documents. The documents can come as part of the follow-up to the witness testimony, but it is the witness testimony needed; the publication of the transcripts then provides the public sunlight. This is key.
90% of the committee work should be focused on witnesses and questions therein. Only 10% of the committee work should be seeking documents. Avoiding the documents shortens the time needed for investigative disclosures and avoids protracted legal battles therein. If the people on the committee, those who are asking the questions, do not already know the details behind the questions and the locations of the supportive documents, then you have the wrong people on the committee.
Every response to a questioned witness should come with the following question: “How do you know this?” That is how you will discover the nature of the documents, communications, emails etc that support the fact-finding mission. “How do you know this” also leads to more witnesses. Work the issue from the bottom up. How do you know this; who told you this; why did you do this; what authority guided you; who authorized this approach? etc. etc. etc.
Use fully immunized witnesses to tell the story, then go look for the documents to corroborate the witness statements using the ‘under oath’ transcript as part of the impenetrable subpoena itself; but don’t wait, keep questioning witnesses.
♦DOCUMENTS – Once you identify the location of documents that would assist the sunlight objective, don’t only rely on the government side of the conversation as the targeted source for retrieval. If the document contains communication to external parties, ie public-private partnership, then move to gain the documents from the private side, thereby avoiding the roadblocks inside government.
Regardless of the status of the document search, and regardless of whether legal battles will be needed to retrieve those documents, keep moving forward with the witness testimony. Do not stop committee work just because internal silo opposition is being fought. Keep working the plan and bringing immunized witnesses, both inside government and outside government, forward for questioning. Leaders within organizations and agencies are important, but clerks, staff, and administrative aides in/around those same leaders could also provide important information.
This subcommittee approach, along with the people needed, will obviously take more time to assemble. However, once put together everything thereafter moves at a very rapid pace, which is also part of the strategy. Flood the information zone with maximum sunlight and keep the opposition off balance.
The goal is sunlight. Rip the Band-Aid off, call the baby ugly and start the process to fix this crap by exposing it. Restore the First and Fourth Amendments, and heal the injury.
From the Church Commission we got the secret FISA court and more tools for violations of our Fourth Amendment rights. From the 911 Commission we got The Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, DNI and many more violations of our rights and Fourth Amendment protections. We do not need any legislation as an outcome of the House “Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.”
We do not need your legislative help. All prior legislative help only ended up making things worse.
What we need is a full, uncensored, brutally honest expose’ of how bad things have become and how that system can be dismantled. The existing constitution is the protection, just remove the stuff that is violating it.
I know this approach is rather different from the norm. However, if this roadmap seems reasonable, I am certain you will find support from within the silo system that is currently operating, and from people outside the government who will volunteer time and effort to assist.
Summarized: (1) Know the scale of opposition. (2) Formulate a communication strategy around it and build a website. (3) Communicate findings by telling the story to the American people as it is discovered. (4) Grant immunity to all witnesses. (5) Don’t wait until the end to generate another useless report that few will read. (6) Make sunlight the motive of the committee. (7) Consider success when the American people can see the problem. (8) Dissolve any weaponized systems. (9) Don’t create new ones.
If you tell us the truth, We The People will fix it ourselves.
QUESTION: I thought Ukraine claimed it was independent in 1918. Was that not then a country?
PH
ANSWER: In the aftermath of World War I which began in 1914, that is when the Russian Revolution took place. That is when Ukraine first tried to assert its independence on January 26th, 1918. The Bolsheviks who seized control of Russia in November 1917 at first sought to negotiate peace with the Central Powers of Europe, which was the coalition that consisted primarily of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary, the “central” European states that were at war from August 1914. The former Russian state of Ukraine attempted to declare its total independence in the midst of this chaos, not unlike the Jews who sought independence when Nero died ending the Julio-Claudian Dynasty in 68AD. The Jews also issued coinage declaring their independence.
Because of the Russian Revolution in 1917, the paper currency of Russia was no longer valid. Russian coins were the only acceptable medium of exchange. This is the only reason why we see a brief issue of Ukrainian paper currency between 1918 and 1921. The Russian paper money was no longer valid.
Nonetheless, the Russian gold reserves, which were the largest in the world, had been hidden to prevent the Bolsheviks and Lenin from using that money. After the collapse of the Czarist government in 1917, the Provisional Russian Government and the Bolsheviks continued to issue the Czarist 5 Ruble note retaining the date of 1909 pretending they had the gold reserves when they did not. The only significant difference between the Czarist and the Bolshevik issues is that the Czarist notes had a full serial number consisting of two letters and six digits. As you can see, the Bolshevik notes had only a series number consisting of two letters and 3 digits again to hide the quantity that they were printing. The lack of serial numbers and backdating of the notes allowed them to issue large quantities of unbacked currency. The 5 Ruble note continued to feature the Romanov Imperial Eagle on both sides. The Czarist note was backed by gold which could be exchanged 3.87 grams of gold. The Bolsheviks were counting on that misconception to fund their revolution.
The very name Ukraine is meant at the border or borderland of Russia. It was flat and one of the major wheat-producing regions of Europe. It also had major deposits of coal which were a vital energy source at that time. Most of Ukraine had become part of the Russian empire after the second partition of Poland in 1793. The Eastern portion, known as the Principality of Galicia, had remained part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. It was this region that became a strategic battleground on World War I’s Eastern Front. It was a Serb who assassinated the Arch Duke in 1914 which ignited World War I.
Immediately following the overthrow of the Russian czar in February 1917, Ukraine declared independence and set up a mega-shift provisional government proclaiming itself a republic, yet within the structure of a federated Russia. When Vladimir Lenin seized power with the help of Germany smuggling him into Russia to stop the war, Ukraine, like Finland, declared its independence in January 1918.
Ukraine’s newly formed Rada government did not really have the support of the people. They also did not have any financial backing. Their first issue of money was actually postage stamp currency. It had serious difficulty imposing its rule of law on the people without their consent. Then there was the Bolshevik opposition and counter-revolutionary activity within Ukraine and the fact that it was a major source of food for Europe that Germany and Austria sent in troops in an effort to support the new government. They managed to force the Russian troops to withdraw thereby establishing a treaty at Brest-Litovsk. That treaty was then signed in March 1918. In truth, Ukraine was really just annexed while pretending to recognize Ukrainian independence. At the time, the German commander in charge of Ukraine, Wilhelm Groener, famously remarked:
“The [Ukrainian] administrative structure is in total disorder, completely incompetent and in no way ready for quick results. It would be in our interests to treat the Ukrainian government as a cover and for us to do the rest ourselves.”
The defeat of the Central Powers, Germany & Austria, followed by the signing of the armistice in November 1918 forced them to withdraw from Ukraine. At the same time, with the fall of the Austro-Hungarian empire, an independent West Ukrainian republic was proclaimed in the Galician city of Lviv. The two Ukrainian states proclaimed their union in early 1919, but independence was short-lived, as they immediately found themselves in a three-way struggle against troops from both Poland and Russia. The Ukrainian government briefly allied itself with Poland, but could not withstand the Soviet assault. In 1922, Ukraine became one of the original constituent republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR); it would not regain its independence until the USSR’s collapse in 1991.
Ukraine was NEVER a standalone sovereign nation. It was the territory of one of the major powers. That is why they joined the German Nazi movement and began their own ethnic cleansing to exterminate everyone in the region who they regarded were not pure-blood Ukrainians. It was Hitler who promised them the right to carve out their own country. This is why the first coinage of Ukraine was that of the German Nazi occupation.
And as for Kiev, it was founded by the Russ – the Russians. It was destroyed by the Mongol invasion in 1240AD and all that stands today is the golden gate. The Russians finally reestablished their capitol giving birth to Moscow. So sorry, the Ukrainians were the Cossacks which were a roaming tribe that has no actual nation-state.
While the hatred of Polish, Russian, and Austrian-Hungarian peoples in the region stems from their subservient position to one major power to another, it was Stalin who saw the failure of Communism and then stole the food from Ukraine creating the Holodomor where up to 7 million died of starvation. The hatred of anyone other than Ukrainian has been a major issue in Ukraine. Within Ukraine, there are indigenous peoples that nobody mentions. There are three ethnic groups that do not have a mother state but have occupied Ukraine for centuries. This applies to the Crimean Tatars, Karaites, and Krymchaks.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 22, 2023 | sundance
According to multiple media report [See Here and See Here] Joe Biden’s attorneys coordinated a friendly FBI search their client’s Delaware residence. Lawyers for Biden were present and overseeing the FBI review of the home, when additional classified documents were discovered.
Interestingly, the Biden lawyers seemingly admit their client had been taking classified documents home for quite some time. According to their statement (emphasis mine):
“DOJ took possession of materials it deemed within the scope of its inquiry, including six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials, some of which were from the President’s service in the Senate and some of which were from his tenure as Vice President. DOJ also took for further review personally handwritten notes from the vice-presidential years.” (link)
That statement was written by Joe Biden’s personal attorney, Bob Bauer. That’s interesting on many levels, including the fact that Bob Bauer is married to Anita Dunn. Mrs. Anita Dunn is one of the original people who helped put Barack Obama in the White House; and Dunn worked with President Obama throughout his terms. Additionally, Anita Dunn is on the short list to replace Biden’s outgoing Chief of Staff, Ron Klain.
Many people have wondered if Joe Biden was being set up for failure over this classified document scandal. In my opinion, the entire operation is being managed – but not to remove Biden, simply to control him and ensure he doesn’t run again.
When it comes to the insurance of their ideological long-term goals, democrats play cutthroat politics much better than most imagine. Ask Bernie Sanders what it’s like to be viewed as an impediment to the ideological quest, and what lengths his party will take to cut you down.
Now overlay Joe Biden’s personal lawyer, Bob Bauer. Think about who exactly it was discovering these documents and why. If Obama is the silent partner in the background of the Biden administration, then Dunn is the operational manager. If Dunn is the operational manager, then her husband is very useful as the principle’s attorney. From the big picture, it sure looks like Bauer is playing the role of Brutus.
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 