There is a price to pay for going against the global elite. I reported how GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy sued the World Economic Forum and won. Shortly after, his plane lost oxygen mid-flight and was forced to make an emergency landing. “Due to an unexpected cabin depressurization issue in his plane, Vivek Ramaswamy was forced to return to campaign headquarters this morning,” the press release stated.
I am not saying that this was an assassination attempt by the global elite or American intelligence agencies. I do find the timing odd. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been pleading for Secret Service protection to no avail. We all know that John F. Kennedy Jr., 38, died in July 1999 after he allegedly lost control of his plane and crashed into the ocean near Martha’s Vineyard. Kennedy was an experienced pilot, and the circumstances surrounding the crash remain peculiar.
Are the other presidential candidate in danger as well? Ramaswamy has openly discredited the New World Order and shares ideas that are considered dangerous by the mainstream media. I must also mention that Ramaswamy began openly discussing his personal belief that the US government began funding Ukraine due to Hunter Biden’s special interests there. This is now only a conspiracy, but it would not be unimaginable if it were true.
The Financial Times estimates that European companies have lost at least €100 billion ($110 billion) since the Russia-Ukraine war began. Around 176 European companies noted significant losses in their fiscal year reports for 2022, and the future remains grim as tensions continue to grow.
Naturally, energy-related industries faced half of those losses, followed by banking, chemicals, industrial, and automotive. BP, TotalEnergies, and Shell lost 40.6 billion euros due to the war, but the spike in energy costs helped them to post favorable earnings reports. Numerous European companies cited “asset impairments, foreign exchange-related charges and other one-off expenses as a result of the sale, closure or reduction of Russian businesses.” Britain, Germany, and France reported the steepest losses, attributing to at least 20 billion of the 100 billion euros lost.
Half of the 1,871 European companies previously operating in Russia are still conducting full or limited business there, according to the Kyiv School of Economics. Russia has since required foreign companies fleeing Russia to pay a 10% exit fee and sell their assets to Russian companies at a 50% discount. It is nearly impossible for companies to operate in Russia due to high sanctions, logistics, and public pressure. Businesses that did not flee will be faced with massive charges from Moscow and are practically stuck between forfeiting their businesses or attempting to operate amid an escalating war.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 8, 2023Sundance
Appearing with Sebastian Gorka, Kash Patel puts some excellent context on the issue of Dircuit Court Judge Chutkan presiding over the special counsel case against President Trump. {Direct Rumble Link Here}
I was unaware of the detail where Judge Chutkan originally presided over the case when Fusion GPS tried to block Devin Nunes and Kash Patel from revealing the source of the payments for the Chriss Steele dossier. This is a big datapoint. WATCH:
TRANSCRIPT – Kash Patel: “Judge Chutkan, for those who don’t know, represented Burisma, Hunter Biden’s fraudulent consulting firm, she was a lawyer at the same law firm with Hunter Biden. But Seb, let’s put that aside. What other matters are there for her recusal? In 2017 when Devin Nunes and I were running the Russiagate investigation, we figured out who paid for the Steele dossier. Fusion GPS, the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele millions of dollars and they laundered it through the FBI and the FISA court to unlawfully surveil Donald Trump. That’s big-time stuff.
On the eve of us winning that disclosure, before the world knew, Fusion GPS took us to federal court and that case landed in JUDGE CHUTKAN’S COURT ROOM. … After a month of heavy litigation where Judge Chutkan knew the ins and outs of Fusion GPS, our proceedings, all possible witnesses, etc., when she could not prevent us from prevailing, she recused -on her own- from that case. Why?”
“We found out her law firm, Boies Schiller, represented Fusion GPS. The very client that was in front of her in federal court was one of her former clients. That is rule #1 for disqualification.”
GORKA: “Boies Schiller Flexner is the same company where Chutkan and Hunter Biden worked!”
PATEL: “You gotta ask yourself, Seb, how come it took Chutkan a month [to recuse herself]? … She wanted to block the bank records.
Imagine if we never found out who paid for the dossier. … She set the precedent. She cannot neutrally and arbitrarily preside over Donald Trump’s criminal trial when she recused herself from the very representation of the Democratic entrenchment: the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, because she was so biased because of her prior representation from Boies Schiller.
How could she possibly be allowed to stay on this case? And it wasn’t us, Seb. We got her off because of her own history. That precedent is what Donald Trump’s lawyers must apply this week.”
Perhaps this recusal issue is why four other district court judges including Boasberg sat in the back of the courtroom for President Trump’s appearance last week. Perhaps the judges were proactively contemplating who would meet the DC recusal threshold.
Posted Originally on the CTH on August 7, 2023 | Sundance
Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon denied a DOJ request to keep evidence sealed in the Mar-a-Lago documents case against President Donald J Trump. Additionally, Cannon has demanded that Special Counsel Jack Smith explain why he is using an out of district grand jury to construct additional charges against the defendant. [2-page ruling pdf here]
Cannon has presided over the document issues even before the indictment against Donald Trump was unsealed. As a result, she has a good frame of reference for the Lawfare tactics the Special Counsel is attempting to deploy.
Apparently, the DOJ doesn’t want defendant Waltine Nauta to have the same attorney as someone who might also be a co-defendant or witness in the case. A “Garcia Hearing refers to hearing held under criminal procedure to ensure that a defendant who is one of two or more defendants represented by the same attorney realizes the following:
1.that there is a risk of conflict of interest inherent in the joint representation; 2.that s/he is entitled to the services of an attorney who does not represent anyone else in the defendant’s case.”
Judge Cannon denied the DOJ request to keep filings sealed in the case and she removed sealed filings from the record. Cannon also asked for prosecutors to provide additional explanations about their continued use of a DC jury in the case, which is situated in Florida.
Planned Parenthood released its annual report for 2021-2022, congratulating themselves for the work they have done. Bans off our bodies – sure. I do not take the authoritarian route on any personal choice. But there is no mistaking the targeted eugenics program at the foundation of Planned Parenthood. They have been openly targeting Black and Brown babies since the beginning. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who Hillary Clinton calls her idol, openly believed that minorities were unfit to have children. Sanger attended KKK rallies to promote abortions and gain funding. She endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision that allowed the US government to forcibly sterilize “unfit” mothers without consent, resulting in thousands of women losing their right to reproduce.
It could not be more obvious. Sanger began the “Negro Project” in 1939, where she hired Black nurses and doctors to eliminate fears of racism. She even recruited Black religious leaders. Sanger opened clinics in the South in predominately Black neighborhoods, and to this day, Planned Parenthood clinics are in predominately Black neighborhoods.
In 2022, Planned Parenthood ACTIVELY MARKETED its services to “reach new audiences,” predominately in the Black and Latino communities. Page 25 of their report discusses how they enrolled the help of Black, Latina, and non-binary creators to reach minorities and successfully received over 20 million views and 135,000 new followers. They specifically want minorities to walk through their doors. They make no mention of marketing to the White or Asian communities for a reason. This is not merely about abortion; it’s a eugenics program.
So in 2021, Planned Parenthood performed 374,155 abortions, amounting to 1,200 abortions per day. Only 1,803 women opted to put their babies up for adoption. The clinics saw fewer clients but performed more abortions, meaning the education piece is not a priority. They now offer the abortion pill through telemedicine as well. They are promoting gender transitioning services to reduce further the number of people who can reproduce, and even have a guideline on how to talk to your PRESCHOOLER about gender identity.
So sure, make your decision based on your own circumstances. The government need not tell us what to do on any level. That is between you, your doctor, and God. But this organization was never intended to empower women. From the beginning, their mission has been to rid the world of those deemed undesirable and unfit to live by the founders. Hence, the US government supplements 35% of its funding as reducing the global population is the goal.
World War III continues to heat up as the US Marines have been deployed to the Strait of Hormuz. The military also plans to deploy F-16 and F-35 warplanes and an Amphibious Readiness Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit containing 3,000 troops. France24 says that Iran has attempted, sometimes unsuccessfully, to take control of 20 internationally flagged ships containing oil over the past two years. But the Associated Press reported last month that Iran had seized five ships over the same period.
Coincidentally, this news of the Marine deployment comes days after the ISW announced that Iran plans to build a drone factory in Belarus. Russia has admitted that it was having some difficulties importing weapons from Iran. The US Navy has already been positioned in this area to combat Iranian forces. Around 20% of all crude exports pass through this area of the Gulf, so of course it must be guarded. However, why send in the Marines and fighter jets?
Iran has been building its nuclear capabilities, claiming it is purely peaceful. US-Iran relations deteriorated further in 2015 when Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement and slapped Iran with sanctions. Iran produced its Abu Mahdi cruise missile in 2020 that has the capacity to target ships 620 miles away. There has not been a Marine presence in the Persian Gulf since November 2021. They claim this recent deployment is to secure energy prices. Yet, the US, French, and British naval forces have ramped up their presence in recent months. Could they be preparing for a larger event?
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
This guy really is the worst of the worst. I do not think I could dislike him more. Remember, Bill Barr appointed John Durham officially as a special counsel quietly without informing the public in October of 2020, specifically intended to block President Trump from declassifying any documents prior to the 2020 election. We do not discover the official appointment until December, after the 2020 election.
The intent of the Durham appointment was to create the oft used silo of an “ongoing investigation” to block inquiry and/or action by President Trump. The entire process of the DC silo deployment is one long continuum, as we have previously outlined. Michael Horowitz was an investigative silo (blocking document release), Robert Mueller was an investigative silo (threats of obstruction blocking document release), John Durham was an investigative silo (blocking document release), and ultimately, now Jack Smith is an investigative silo, retrieving documents from Mar-a-Lago and blocking document release.
You will note that every single one of John Durham’s investigative pathways was to look at Trump-Russia fabrication and corruption outside government, outside Washington DC. None of the Durham investigation was focused inside government or inside the institutions that he and Bill Barr were protecting. Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham was the spray paint.
Today, Bill Barr when asked if he would testify against President Trump, says “of course” he would. WATCH:
MAJOR GARRETT: We turn now to Bill Barr, who served as former president’s attorney general until he resigned following the 2020 election. Bill, it’s good to see you.
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Good to see you.
MAJOR GARRETT: Last time you’re on the show, you said “the January 6 case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interest.” Having read the indictment, is that still your view?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, it’s- it’s certainly a challenging case, but I don’t I don’t think it runs afoul of the First Amendment. There’s a lot of confusion about this out there. Maybe I can crystallize it. This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress. The allegation essentially by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.
MAJOR GARRETT: To disenfranchise people?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Right. And there were a number of things that were alleged. One of them is that they tried to bully the state authorities to withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud and what the- and what the indictment says is, the stuff that they were spouting, they knew was wrong, and false. This is not a question of what his subjective idea was as to whether he won or lost. They’re saying what you were saying consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong. But it’s not- if that was all it was about, I would be concerned on First Amendment front, but they go beyond that. And the other elements were the substitution of bogus panels, that were not authorized panels, to claim that they had alternative votes. And then they- and that was clearly wrong, and the certifications they signed, were false. But then pressuring the Vice President to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes, and reject the Biden votes, or even to delay it, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s to delay it, or to adopt it, or to send it to the House of Representatives. You have to remember, a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it’s agreed to and the first steps are taken.
MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: That’s when the crime is complete.
MAJOR GARRETT: From a prosecutor’s point of view, is this a case you would have brought?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I think it’s a legitimate case.
MAJOR GARRETT: But from an Attorney General’s point of view?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account. But I’ve also said consistently, really, the rubicon was passed here, when- when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don’t bring the case, really have to be made by the Attorney General. And he picked a prosecutor. And I think at that point, the decision was, if there’s a case, we’re going to bring it. That’s when the rubicon was passed.
MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the Special Counsel?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I’m not going to get into any discussions–
MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness if called?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Of course.
Major Garrett: Could you describe your interactions with the President on this question about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I wasn’t discussed- well, I go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions, at least, and I- I told him in no uncertain terms, that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome that we–
[CROSSTALK]
MAJOR GARRETT: — One of those associated with a Trump’s defense team had said, if you were called as a witness, they would cross examine you, and pierce all of that by asking you questions that you couldn’t, to their mind, credibly answer about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the President what you told him? How thorough was that investigation?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I- I think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances. Some of them are obvious, okay. One that he keeps on repeating is, you know, that there were more- that more people voted then absentee ballots that were requested, and that was mixing apples and oranges. And once that was explained to him, we should- we should have heard no more about that. Others required further investigation, interviews and so forth and those were done.
MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden. On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said, “I think it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department.” This is the Hunter Biden investigation. “And to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel.” Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, because the–
MAJOR GARRETT: To which? To which? Should one be appointed now?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: When I was the attorney- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have, a conflict of interest. I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict it would be Garland’s, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary. I felt that if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably, or the administration, would have just canceled the investigation, and I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place. But once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done and was being done fairly.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has- has been conducted?
[CROSSTALK]
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well I did agree with the- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.
MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there’s not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously. And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he’s done–
MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah. Yes.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden, and if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Okay, well remember- one thing I stress is those are two different questions. Right? And, you know, things can be shameful without being illegal. And I- yes, I thought- I think it’s grotesque, cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I- I think it’s legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that’s one of the things I’m concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.
MAJOR GARRETT: You’re concerned still, whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I don’t know. I would like to hear about it. I mean, some of the whistleblowers raised concerns in my mind, there’s reasons- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy, but after the election, I don’t see reasons for deferring investigative steps. And apparently someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics? You know, after the election, that it was the president elect’s son, that’s not a reason not to investigate.
MAJOR GARRETT: William Barr, we thank you for your time very, very much. “Face the Nation” will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
President Trump attorney John Lauro continues running the gauntlet against the narrative engineers with this interview on NBC’s Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
An intellectually deficient Todd attempts to justify the Biden administration targeting of Donald Trump and is countered by John Lauro. WATCH:
.
During the CNN interview below, it was very important to narrative engineer Dana Bash to assert that Joe Biden has nothing to do with the decisions of the DOJ, which is a rather remarkable position considering the same Dana Bash has been asserting for the previous four years that Donald Trump controlled decisions of the DOJ.
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 