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.
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.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
President Trump attorney John Lauro appears on Face the Nation with Major Garrett to discuss and debate the Biden administration’s criminal prosecution of President Trump for contesting the results of the 2020 election. Toward that latter part of the interview, Garrett needs to enhance his leftist bona fides with a strawman argument about the 2016 election outcome. Lauro handles Garrett’s narrative engineering very well. [Video and Transcript Below] WATCH:
MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s lawyers. He joins us now from New York. John, good morning to you. I want to let you know that we spoke with former Vice President–
JOHN LAURO: –Good morning
MAJOR GARRETT: –Mike Pence and asked him specifically about your assertions made this last week that all the President did was asked him to pause the certification on January 6, 2021. He told me flatly, quote, “That’s not what happened.” Your response?
LAURO: That’s not- that’s not what I said, though, but that’s okay.
MAJOR GARRETT: What- what is it that you believe happened between the President and the Vice President? And do you have any fear of the Vice President being called as a witness in the case?
LAURO: No, in fact, the Vice President will be our best witness. What I said is the ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the count and allow the states to weigh in. That was my statement, and what- what I’ve said is consistent with what Vice President Pence is saying. The reason why Vice President Pence will be so important to the defense is the following, number one. Number two, he agrees that there were election irregularities, fraud, unlawful actions at the state level, all of that will- will eviscerate any allegation of criminal intent on the part of President Trump. And finally, what Vice President Pence believes and believed is that these issues needed to be debated on January 6. He openly called for all of these issues to be debated and objected to in the January 6 proceeding. President Trump, on the other hand, believed following the advice of John Eastman, who’s the legal scholar, that these issues needed to be debated at the state level, not the federal level. Now, of course, there was a constitutional disagreement between Vice President Pence and President Trump, but the bottom line is never- never in our country’s history has those kinds of disagreements been prosecuted criminally. It’s- It’s unheard of.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, can I ask you a couple of very simple basic yes or no questions? Is there- first, is there any condition under which the former president of the United States, your client, would accept a plea deal on these January 6 charges?
LAURO: No.
MAJOR GARRETT: Will you seek a motion to dismiss?
LAURO: Absolutely, 100 percent.
MAJOR GARRETT: When?
LAURO: Hundred percent. Well, within the time permitted. This is what’s called a Swiss cheese indictment. It has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of- of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from- from being prosecuted in this way.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you-do you have a ballpark figure of when you’ll be ready for trial?
LAURO: Well, I can tell you that in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years.
MAJOR GARRETT: Understood. Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?
LAURO: Absolutely, we would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have an expectation that will be granted?
LAURO: That reflects the- the- the characteristics of the American people. It’s up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case–
MAJOR GARRETT: — Speaking of the judge
LAURO: — very close to D.C. and a much more diverse–
MAJOR GARRETT: — Understood. Speaking of the judge’ earlier this week, your client, the former president, on his social media platform, said ‘The judge is unfair’, On what basis did he say that?
LAURO: Well, the problem with bringing a case like this in the middle of a campaign season, is statements are going to be made in the context of a campaign. We expect a fair and just trial in the District of Columbia. And- and my role- my role is simply to ensure that President Trump’s rights, just like every American’s rights, are protected every step of the way, and I’m going to do that.
MAJOR GARRETT: You mentioned discovery. In the protective order back and forth between you and the prosecutors, it says, the prosecution, that discovery will be provided, quote, ‘As soon as possible, including certain discovery to which the defendant is not entitled’. What’s wrong with that?
LAURO: We’re all in favor of protecting sensitive and highly sensitive information. But it’s unprecedented to have all information hidden in a criminal case, including, by the way, information that might be exculpatory and might be exonerative of President Trump. The Biden administration wants to keep that information from the American people.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, in the back and forth on this matter, you also said in the filing to the court that the former president would be willing to come to an agreement on this matter. And what I want to ask you is would that requirement be something where the President would agree not to release any information that was highly sensitive in this matter and would he also refrain from any speech that called for or hinted at retribution about anyone associated with the prosecution of this case?
LAURO: He’s never called for that at all. He’s going to abide by the conditions of his release. But of course, we would agree that any sensitive or highly sensitive information be kept under wraps. In fact, we made that proposition to the Biden administration, but they rejected it. They want every single piece of evidence in this case hidden from the American public.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, before I let you go, do you remember what you were doing the early morning of November 9th, 2016?
LAURO: I have no idea.
MAJOR GARRETT: Well, I remember what I was doing. I was covering President-elect Trump announcing that he had won the presidency, about 3 a.m. that morning after the November 8th election. My question to you, John, is how did he know he won?
LAURO: Well, politicians are convinced in the righteousness of their cause, including President Trump, and he certainly believed that he won and he did win in 2016- (crosstalk)
MAJOR GARRETT: — But on what basis did he know he- But on what basis did he know he won?
LAURO: — Can I finish? Can I finish?
MAJOR GARRETT: — Yeah. Sure.
LAURO: — Can I finish? And he believed in 2020 that he won based on the fact that he had 10 million more votes than in 2016. He had a situation where, somehow, President Biden, or at that time candidate Biden, received 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. And he also understood in 2020, that president- that President Trump understood that he had won all- virtually all of the bellwether counties, and 84 percent of all the counties in the country-
MAJOR GARRETT: Right. John- John, let me- let me help you with this–
LAURO: — So on that basis he believed that he was successful.
MAJOR GARRETT: — John, let me help you with this, I wasn’t asking about 2020.
LAURO: — No, let me help you with this, because the issue here- I have to help you with this.
[crosstalk]
MAJOR GARRETT: I wasn’t asking about 2020, John. John, I wasn’t asking about 2020. I was asking about 2016.
(CROSSTALK)
LAURO: The issue. Right. The issue. Right. The issue in a criminal case-
MAJOR GARRETT: Because- because the votes were still being counted in 2016. The votes were still being counted in 2016. There had been no recounts. How did he know in 2016 that he had won? How did he know? On what basis?
LAURO: The issue- the issue- let me just tell you something, the issue in this criminal case is not what happened in 2016 and whether all candidates say they won. The issue now is, in 2020, whether or not the Justice Department can weaponize criminal law to go after a political opponent and prevent that opponent from running for office. That’s the issue, not what happened in 2016.
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time.
LAURO: Do you think it’s fair- do you think it’s fair that- do you think it’s fair what the- what the Biden administration is doing to a candidate for president?
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time. We appreciate it.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
Repost Due to Current Media Cycle News
The Ring of Truth – “I am too well accustomed to the taking of evidence not to detect the ring of truth.” 1908, Edith Wharton
Much has been made of the events of January 6, 2021, and with the latest broadcast of CCTV video from inside the Capitol Hill complex, more questions have been raised.
Within the questions: the FBI and government apparatus had advanced knowledge of the scale of the J6 mall assembly yet doing nothing? Why were the Capitol Hill police never informed of the FBI concerns? Why didn’t House Speaker Nancy Pelosi secure the Capitol Hill complex, and why did she deny the request by President Trump to call up the national guard for security support? Why did the FBI have agent provocateurs in the crowd, seemingly stimulating rage within a peaceful crowd to enter the Capitol building? There have always been these nagging questions around ‘why’?
Long time CTH reader “Regitiger” has spent a great deal of time reviewing the entire process, looking at the granular timeline and then overlaying the bigger picture of the constitutional and parliamentary process itself. What follows below is a brilliant analysis of the federal government motive to create a J6 crisis that permitted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to trigger an emergency session and avoid the 2020 election certification challenges.
Those congressional floor challenges, known and anticipated well in advance of the morning of January 6, 2021, would have formed a legal and constitutional basis for ‘standing’ in judicial challenges that would have eventually reached the Supreme Court. The certification during “emergency session” eliminated the problem for Washington DC.
I think most, not all, but a large number of people, are totally missing what happened; and why this happened on Jan 6th. I am going to try my best to outline the events that day, blast past the commonly held assumptions and get right down to the core corruption.
I will present this as a series of questions and answers.
♦ Q1: How do you prevent congress from delaying the certification of state electoral votes?
A: It requires a crisis. A crisis that creates an “emergency” …An “emergency” that invokes special house rules.
FACTS: Remember carefully, focus please. Just moments, literally 3 minutes before two representatives issued a vote for motions to suspend the certification, the House members were “informed” by capitol police and other “agents” that a protest was about to breach the chambers. It was at this time that key people: Pence, Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconnell can be seen being walked out and escorted from the chamber. This effectively halted the Entire Chamber Process.
♦ Q2: Why was it necessary to halt the chamber process?
A: The crisis was created to eliminate the motion challenges to halt the certification and to begin voting to look into voting irregularities and fraud
FACTS: The two motions were completely legal and constitutional under at least two constitutionally recognized procedures… procedures that would REQUIRE the house to pause the certification and then vote to determine whether the motions of suspend could move forward.
♦ Q3: What was so important to refuse this motion and the subsequent votes to suspend the electoral certification?
A: It was important to remove that process entirely and continue the fraud and certify the fraud with no detractors on record. This effectively gives no standing for a SCOTUS ruling appeal! Understand this. If those two motions, even just one had successfully been voted EVEN IF THE MOTIONS were DENIED IN VOTE, this gives those who presented them with STANDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL ARGUMENT BEFORE SCOTUS.
♦ Q4: Could this have been done some other way other than creating a crisis/protest?
A: Unlikely. In order to prevent those two motions, requires that speaker of the house, minority leaders, and the president of the congress (vice president of the United States: Pence), to NOT BE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS.
Once the capitol police and other “law enforcements agents” informed the speaker and these three other individuals, Pelosi UNILATERALLY UNDER EMERGENCY RULES, suspended the business of the congress. This protest was necessary. The crisis was created because there is no other way to suspend the business of certification UNILATERALLY. By creating a crisis invokes emergency procedures. No other circumstances other than war or mass simultaneous explosive diarrhea can create such unilateral speaker delivered suspension of the certification.
♦ Q5: Why did the motions, once that the speaker RECONVENED congress, move forward back again to the floor for votes? Why were members disallowed to even consider putting forward ANY motions to the floor in when the chamber business was reopened?
A: The Speaker initiated the NEW sessions under special emergency rules. These rules abandon and make it clear that the ONLY purpose of the new session was to EXPEDITE the certification and dismiss all prior regular session procedural rules. This is why those two motions to table votes to consider a debate and pause to the certifications of state vote electors never happened later that evening when the house business was reconvened!
♦ Q6: Other than new rules, emergency rules, what other peculiar things occurred when the speaker reconvened?
A: Members were allowed to “vote” in proxy, remotely, not being present. You can use your imagination about what conditions were placed on ALL members during this time to prevent anyone from “getting out of line”.
Also clearly, it was at THIS NEW SESSION that VP Pence, President of Congress, would also have no ability to even consider pausing the electoral certification, because there were no motions of disagreements on the matter. So, in a technical legal claim, he is correct that he had no constitutional authority to address any issues of fraud or doubts about electoral irregularities. But this completely dismisses the FACT that congress created rules in this crisis/emergency that never allowed them to be floored!
Understand what happened in Jan 6, 2021. Don’t get hung up on Viking impostors, stolen Pelosi computers, podium heists, and complicit capitol police. Understand the process and what happened and what WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.
This was a coup….it was a very organized and carefully planned coup. VP Pence without a doubt as well as most members of the house were quite aware of how the certification was going to be MANAGED. It would require new rules to prevent the debate clause from occurring! New rules that ONLY AN EMERGENCY CRISIS COULD CREATE! So, they created an emergency.
•NOTED: I understand why many people have great interest in debunking the j6 event. I get that. I think it is important to dissect and examine the events of that day but please, step back and understand WHY these things happened. Examine the chain of events in congress. Why those two motions that would have at least paused the certification THAT WOULD GIVE VP PENCE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED POWER TO MOVE TO SUSPEND THE ELECTORAL CERTIFICATION AND THEN EXAMINE THE IRREGULARITIES AND CLAIMS OF FRAUD!
At the very center of this coup stands Mike Pence, the same individual who also spoiled President Trump’s first opportunities in the earlies hours of his Presidency just 4 years prior, when he created and facilitated the removal of Lt General Michael Flynn. I will not spend much time on this thread explaining why Lt Gen Flynn was so important to President Trump and why the IC was so afraid he would have advisory power to the President. That I will leave for another day, another time. But understand this clearly: MIKE PENCE WAS AND IS WORKING FOR THE MOST CORRUPT CRIMINAL TREASONOUS PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT.
•PRO TIP: If you really want to get a true understanding of this matter videos of protesters walking in the capitol is not going to address them. Actual video and timeline records of events and the specific actions taken by the speaker just moments before TWO MAJOR ELECTORAL ALTERING MOTIONS WERE ABOUT TO BE FLOORED.
This crisis was developed just in time with a precise coordination to prevent those two motions to be entered into the chamber record. The two motions do not exist. The emergency powers established in the new session made sure they never could be entered. The emergency powers could never happen without a crisis.
NOTE: “Under this scenario, the J6 pipe bombs were the insurance policy, in the event the feds couldn’t get the crowd to comply with the FBI provocations. If no one stormed the Capitol, the finding of the two pipe bombs would have then been the emergency needed to stop the process.” Which explains why the FBI has no interest in the DC pipe bomb suspects. ~ Sundance
Note from Author: “I started this effort years ago. To date, no one and I mean no one has replied. It’s as if everyone that can expose it that has a larger platform is either disinterested, or suspiciously withdrawn from the issue. I made several comments about this over the years right here at CTH, on article threads that are relevant to the topic.
I was watching the certification live that day. I recorded it ALL on every channel. I was doing this because no matter what happened that day, I KNEW IT WOULD BE A PROFOUND AND SIGNIFICANT EVENT TO REMEMBER. I never in my wildest imagination (and I have a pretty vivid imagination, always have), expected to see the unmistakable perfectly timed “coincidences” that occurred.
One member raises a motion (with another in waiting for his turn) those two motions were well known and advertised. These were motions to vote for a pause in the certification to examine electoral vote fraud and irregularities. I can’t speak to the veracity and substance of those motions. They were never allowed to even be floored. it was at that exact moment that the house chambers were suspended and 4 of the key members, Pence, Pelosi, Schumer and McConnell were escorted OUT right after initiating the end of the session.
Effectively, this resulted in that motion never being floored at all. Then, when reconvened under special emergency rules, inexplicably those two motions (and perhaps more – we will never know – or will we?) were not even attempted to be motioned. That was not just peculiar to me.
It all started to make more sense when I did some study on constitutional law AND THE HISTORY of specific special authorities given to president of the congress, Pence in this case. Not only did he have the authority and power to suspend the certification, but the duty to address the motion in the same sense that it becomes vital to the debate clause.
There really is no higher significance of weight given to the debate clause than the certification of the votes. This was more than odd to me the way that the media and pence framed their narrative: Pence would not have the constitutional power to suspend certification. Then it hit me, like the obvious clue that was there all the time. He was right. But the reason he is right, is because there WAS NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO CAUSE HIM TO SUSPEND!
Understanding this, happened for me about 4 or 5 months after this Jan 6 day. I took me this long to examine the facts, look at the video again, compare it to the arguments made by several leading constitutional academics, and again, inexplicably even some that I respect seemed to dodge that central reality. The motions were never allowed to be floored in the re-convened house rules later that evening. Most would not even venture to address the exotically coincidence that the moment those two members would stand to place the motion before the house, that the House Speaker Pelosi AND Pence ended the session, effectively blocking the motions from being heard in normal house rules.
It’s been a journey for me. A journey that was initiated because I am just a simple but curious person. Perhaps even to a point where I get obsessive in those efforts. Many days and nights combing over the details. praying and trying to make sense of what makes little sense. With over 6 states having serious well known and obvious defects in the voting process, some more credible to believe – some less, but one would not expect the house would be so deliberate in marching past the motions that were definitely going to be present to slow this process down and take the time to get it right. Even IF the claims never reached an intersection that would change the outcome.
There are two possibilities: Millions of people, against all the odds, hitting all-time records even past Obama and Clinton, voted for a naval gazing ambulatory pathological racist moron. And chose Joe Malarkey as their leader. Or this was a coup, a conspiracy, and a treasonous manipulation regime change because President Trump could not be controlled by the deep state and globalists who OWN AND OPERATE WASHINGTON DC.
BOTH POSSIBILITIES ARE TERRIFYING.
The only way for THE PEOPLE to gain power in this country is to force the transfer of it. If truth isn’t the fuel and vehicle, we will just be replacing deck chairs and hitting the next series of expected ice bergs.
Knowing the truth is not enough; however, it is truth that makes it a righteous cause.
Julie Kelly – […] Just as the first wave of protesters breached the building shortly after 2 p.m., congressional Republicans were poised to present evidence of rampant voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Ten incumbent and four newly-elected Republican senators planned to work with their House colleagues to demand the formation of an audit commission to investigate election “irregularities” in the 2020 election. Absent an audit, the group of senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pledged to reject the Electoral College results from the disputed states.
The Hail Mary effort was doomed to fail; yet the American people would have heard hours of debate related to provable election fraud over the course of the day.
And no one opposed the effort more than ex-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
During a conference call on December 31, 2020, McConnell urged his Republican Senate colleagues to abandon plans to object to the certification, insisting his vote to certify the 2020 election results would be “the most consequential I have ever cast” in his 36-year Senate career.
From the Senate floor on the afternoon of January 6, McConnell gave a dramatic speech warning of the dire consequences to the country should Republicans succeed in delaying the vote. He downplayed examples of voting fraud and even mocked the fact that Trump-appointed judges rejected election lawsuits.
“The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken,” McConnell insisted. “If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.”
Roughly six hours later, McConnell got his way. Cowed by the crowd of largely peaceful Americans allowed into the building by Capitol police, most Republican senators backed off the audit proposal. McConnell, echoing hyperbolic talking points about an “insurrection” seeded earlier in the day by Democratic lawmakers and the news media, gloated. “They tried to disrupt our democracy,” he declared on the Senate floor after Congress reconvened around 8 p.m. “This failed attempt to obstruct Congress, this failed insurrection, only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our Republic.”
Congress officially certified the Electoral College results early the next day. (read more)
The J6 pipe bombs were the insurance policy, in the event they couldn't get the crowd to comply with the FBI provocations. If no one stormed the Capitol, the finding of the pipe bombs would have been the emergency needed to stop the process. https://t.co/JqVcGROAPN
QUESTION: Hello Martin. I’ve been a long-time follower and one of the first subscribers to Socrates “Basic.” Your information is always valuable! I’d classify myself as a retired, middle class fellow, who has put away enough funds to be comfortable. But, I got very uncomfortable when you just posted “We cannot rule out the Biden Administration canceling the dollar before the 2024 election.” My fears for myself and my family are being caught offguard in investment, location, and security. I can’t afford going to your annual events; would you consider a large treatise or book on how to survive in the middle class?
LC
ANSWER: These are the next two books. The first, Modern Analysis for the 21st Century, dives into technical analysis and why fundamental analysis has been so wrong. I am trying to make an authoritative work that perhaps after I am dead will force academia to change the course of its methodology, particularly in economic analysis. The Geometry of Time will deal with cyclical analysis. I think we are all here for some purpose and then we get to leave. I hope this is what I leave behind.
Must be a quadruple-vaccinated conformist who rejects all freedoms. Open to all genders or non-genders! Must enjoy long plane rides to Davos, the occasional lockdown, and be interested in implementing the New World Order with me and my friends at the World Economic Forum. Absolutely no truckers or family members of truckers — swipe left if you even own a large vehicle. My friends would say I am overprotective and controlling. I will likely freeze your bank account if you break up with me. Swipe right if you want to be remembered as the next Eva Braun of Canada!
The story began by claiming Joe Biden had never once contacted Hunter’s business associates. There was a video circulating for years of Joe Biden bragging about threatening to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine until they fired prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, to help out his son. Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Biden crime family, which backfired and resulting in Trump in the hot seat.
“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Joe said at a Democrat fundraiser in Iowa in 2019. Trump asked Biden to explain what “10% to the big guy” regarding another scandal. Then too, Trump was accused of misspeaking.
Then we had the numerous trips Hunter took on Air Force II to accompany good old dad. The laptop from hell revealed everything, but intelligence agencies denied its existence up until a few months ago. Cathay Bank came out and said the Bidens were funneling money. A WhatsApp message sent by Hunter Biden was recently revealed where he threatened an executive by saying he is sitting right next to his powerful father. The evidence is overwhelming, but the Democrats and every intelligence agency have protected the Biden crime family.
This is a completely disgusting abuse of power that amounts to treason. What grown man asks his father to speak on the phone with his business colleagues? They could have at least attempted to lie. They are threatening Trump with every lawsuit under the sun while Biden, a known traitor to the United States, walks/stumbles freely.
The Canadian government does not want people sharing news stories online. The government should be the sole source of information. The Online News Act (Bill C-18) would require social media platforms and online sources to compensate Canadian news agencies for sharing news online. A report by Angus Reid found that 85% of Canadians do not subscribe to news outlets and primarily rely on the internet for information. The government cannot control what is published online (yet) but they can easily control official news agencies.
Google said the bill “breaks the way the web and search engines have worked for more than 30 years.” It prevents Canadians from freely accessing information, as those costs need to be reacquired somewhere. Any time someone interacts with a news article, the Canadian government wants a cut. In turn, major platforms such as Meta and Google have announced that they will no longer publish news articles by Canadian outlets.
“In order to provide clarity to the millions of Canadians and businesses who use our platforms, we are announcing today that we have begun the process of ending news availability permanently in Canada,” Meta said in a statement. Dictator Trudeau has made a big push toward full media censorship.
“It’s like 1984,” Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre stated. “You have a prime minister passing a law to make news articles disappear from the internet. Who would’ve ever imagined that in Canada, the federal government would pass laws banning people from effectively seeing the news? Who would’ve thought that we’d have a government that would pass a law to manipulate the algorithms of the internet?” Trudeau will continue to usurp as much power as possible at the expense of the Canadian people.
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 