Netflix’s Leftist Cuties


Like the Clintons, the Obamas have amassed a considerable fortune from politics. Also like the Clintons, they’re not going away. They continue to have an influence over politics and American culture. By becoming Netflix producers, the Obamas made sure their leftist propaganda gets attention.

Neither Michelle nor Barack have said anything about the Netflix program titled “Cuties,” in which young girls are shown in sexually charged poses on a glitzy stage. Susan Rice, a former Obama advisor, is on the Netflix board. She has also been reticent about what many are calling ‘pedophilia.’ Some say their silence is complicity. I agree.

Under Obama’s administration, the ‘trans’ mania began. Boys at high schools could pretend they were girls and win awards in athletic events. Restrooms suddenly became a problem. Then came the claim that there were dozens of genders and various sexual identifications. Anyone who objected got labeled as haters. Eventually, people became fearful. If they used the wrong pronoun or offended an easily offended trans-whatever, they could be fired, banned, or expelled.

I don’t know if Michelle Obama is a transgender or not. The matter is a long-running internet meme. That meme was reinforced when Joan Rivers casually said Michelle was a ‘tranny’ and that it was ‘okay.’ Days later she was dead. Maybe it was okay to her, but not to other powerful people who wanted to keep it under wraps. Even Barack himself has referred to Michelle as “Michael” on several occasions. There have been many who have said Barack Obama is gay. It’s plausible, but such speculation can also easily lead to social media bans.

Now the lying mass media are denouncing Q and his followers. They ridicule those who think there is such as thing as child trafficking and pedophilia occurring among the elite and powerful. Anyone who claims there are plenty of pedophiles pulling top levers of power must obviously be a conspiracy theorist, according to CNN, MSNBC, and all the rest. Yet a lot of evidence does exist. Epstein’s “Orgy Island,” for example.

The fact that the Obamas did not exert influence to stop a show containing obvious pedophilia can only mean they are complicit. Perhaps they want pedophilia to be normalized just as they wanted sexual dysphoria normalized. Meanwhile, they and their colleagues are doing their best to shut down Christians who object.

—Ben Garrison

Clinton Emails and FBI Activity Back in News as NY FBI Agent Talks – Fills-in CTH Background Research…


The Washington Examiner has an interesting article based on a book excerpt by Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett: “October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election.”

CTH readers will remember Devlin Barrett was Lisa Page & Peter Strzok’s favored journalist to receive FBI leaks from Clinton email investigation known as the “mid-year-exam;” during the time when the ‘small group’ was framing the preferred narrative.

According to the article the NY FBI Agent who raised the alarm bells was a man named John Robertson.  Robertson was cited in the IG report, but not named.  According to the recent discoveries…

“Robertson wrote a “Letter to Self” in late October after an Oct. 19, 2016, meeting, during which he implored Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Kramer of the Southern District of New York to push FBI leadership to look at the thousands of emails he had unearthed.”

“I have very deep misgivings about the institutional response of the FBI to the congressional investigation into the Hillary Clinton email matter. … Put simply: I don’t believe the handling of the material I have by the FBI is ethically or morally right. But my lawyer’s advice — that I simply put my SSA on notice should cover me — is that I have completed CYA [Cover Your Ass], and I have done so,” Robertson wrote. “Further, I was told by [Kramer] that should I ‘whistleblow,’ I will be prosecuted.” (read more)

Robertson fills in the background to our earlier research.  CTH identified how the FBI never actually investigated the emails, as the FBI and specifically former FBI Director James Comey, claimed: “due to the wizardry of technology.”

 

Within this earlier interview Mr. Comey is questioned about the announcement of re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation on October 28th, 2016.

In his response about why there was a delay between the FBI being notified by New York on September 28th, and waiting until October 28th, James Comey revealed a very important nugget.

The New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) called Main Justice in DC to ask about why they were not receiving authority for a search warrant. We knew that call took place on October 21st, 2016. Now we know “why” and who New York called at DOJ HQ.

Listen closely to James Comey at 06:06 to 07:30 of the interview (prompted):

Baier: “Did you know that Andrew McCabe, your deputy, had sat on that revelation about the emails”?

Comey: “Yeah, I don’t know that, I don’t know that to be the case. I do know that New York and FBI headquarters became aware that there may be some connection between Weiner’s laptop and the Clinton investigation, weeks before it was brought to me for decision – and as I write in the book I don’t know whether they could have moved faster and why the delay”

Baier: “Was it the threat that New York Agents were going to leak that it existed really what drove you to the ‘not conceal’ part?

Comey: “I don’t think so. I think what actually drove it was the prosecutors in New York who were working the criminal case against Weiner called down to headquarters and said ‘are we getting a search warrant or not for this’? That caused, I’m sorry, Justice Department Headquarters, to then call across the street to the FBI and poke the organization; and they start to move much more quickly. I don’t know why there was, if there was slow activity, why it was slow for those first couple of weeks.”

There’s some really sketchy stuff going on in that answer. Why would SDNY need to get authorization for a search warrant from DC, if this is about Weiner’s laptop?

Yes, you could argue it pertains to a tightly held Clinton investigation run out of DC but the Weiner prosecution issues shouldn’t require approval from DC.

But let’s take Comey at face-value…. So there we discover it was justice officials within SDNY (Southern District of New York) who called Main Justice (DOJ in DC) and asked about a needed search warrant for “this”, presumably Weiner’s laptop by inference. Now, let’s go look at the Page/Strzok description of what was going on.

Here are the messages from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surrounding the original date that New York officials notified Washington DC FBI. It’s important to note the two different entities: DOJ -vs- FBI.

According to the September 28, 2016, messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue. Pay close attention to the convo:

(pdf source for all messages here)

Notice: “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s attorney to SDNY”.

Pay super close attention. This is not an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner. This is Weiner’s attorney going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. The emails were not turned over to the FBI in New York, the actual emails were turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District.

Key point here: Weiner’s attorneys turned over “emails”.

♦If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016? (Comey’s call explanation)

♦Why would Weiner’s attorney be handing over evidence?

Think about this carefully. I’ll get back to the importance of it later; but what I suspect is that Weiner had material that was his “insurance policy” against anything done to him by Hillary Clinton. Facing a criminal prosecution Weiner’s lawyer went to the U.S. Attorney and attempted to exploit/leverage the content therein on his client’s behalf.

Fast forward three weeks, and we go back to FBI in DC.

On October 21, 2016, this is the call referenced by James Comey in the Bret Baier interview. Someone from New York called “Main Justice” (the DOJ National Security Division in DC) and notified DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General George Toscas of the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails via the “weiner investigation”.

[I would point out again, he’s not being notified of a laptop, Toscas is notified of “emails”]

George Toscas “wanted to ensure information got to Andy“, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe…. so he called FBI Agent Peter Strzok…. who told George Toscas “we know”.

Peter Strzok then tells Bill Priestap.

Of course, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe already knew about the emails since September 28th, 2016, more than three weeks earlier.

In his Bret Baier interview FBI Director James Comey says this call is about a search warrant. There is no indication the call is actually about a search warrant. [Nor would there be a need for a search warrant if the call was actually about the emails that Wiener’s attorney dropped off on 9/21].

However, that phone call kicks off an internal debate about the previously closed Clinton email investigation; and Andrew McCabe sitting on the notification from New York for over three weeks – kicks off an internal FBI discussion about McCabe needing to recuse himself.

Now it’s October 27th, 2016, James Comey chief-of-staff Jim Rybicki wants McCabe to recuse himself. But Rybicki is alone on an island. Lisa Page is furious at such a suggestion, partly because she is McCabe’s legal counsel and if McCabe is recused so too is she.

At the same time as they are debating how to handle the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails, they are leaking to the media to frame a specific narrative.

Important to note here, that at no time is there any conversation -or hint of a conversation- that anyone is reviewing the content of the emails. The discussions don’t mention a single word about content… every scintilla of conversation is about how to handle the issues of the emails themselves. Actually, there’s not a single person mentioned in thousands of text messages that applies to an actual person who is looking at any content.

Quite simply: there is a glaringly transparent lack of an “investigation”.

Within this “tight group” at FBI, as Comey puts it, there is not a single mention of a person who is sitting somewhere looking through the reported “600,000” Clinton emails that was widely reported by media. There’s absolutely ZERO evidence of anyone looking at emails or scouring through laptop data…. and FBI Agent Peter Strzok has no staff under him who he discusses assigned to such a task…. and Strzok damned sure ain’t doing it. So what gives?

Moving on – Note to readers. Click the graphics and read the notes on them too:

It’s still October 27th, 2016, the day before James Comey announces his FBI decision to re-open the Clinton investigation. Jim Rybicki still saying McCabe should be recused from input; everyone else, including FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, is disagreeing with Rybicki and siding with Lisa Page.

Meanwhile the conversation has shifted slightly to “PC”, probable cause. Read:

While Lisa Page is leaking stories to Devlin Barrett (Wall Street Journal, now with the Washington Post), the internal discussion amid the “small group” is about probable cause.

The team is now saying if there was no probable cause when Comey closed the original email investigation in July 2016 (remember the very tight boundaries of review), then there’s no probable cause in October 2016 to reopen the investigation regardless of what the email content might be.

This appears to be how the “small group” or “tight team” justify doing nothing with the content received from New York. They received the emails September 28th and it’s now October 27th, and they haven’t even looked at it. Heck, they are debating if there’s even a need to look at it.

Then on October 28th, 2016, the FBI and Main Justice officials have a conference call about the entire Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton email issue. Here’s where it gets interesting.

George Toscas and David Laufman from DOJ-NSD articulate a position that something needs to happen likely because Main Justice is concerned about the issue of FBI (McCabe) sitting on the emails for over three weeks without any feedback to SDNY (New York).

Thanks to Deputy Director McCabe, Main Justice in DC, specifically DOJ National Security Division, now looks like they are facilitating a cover-up operation being conducted by the FBI “small group”. [which is actually true, but they can’t let that be so glaringly obvious].

As a result of the Top-Tier officials conference call, Strzok is grumpy agent because his opinion appears to be insignificant. The decision is reached to announce the re-opening of the investigation. This sends Lisa Page bananas…

…In rapid response mode Lisa Page reaches out to Devlin Barrett, again to quickly shape the media coverage. Now that the world is aware of the need for a Clinton email investigation 2.0 the internal conversation returns to McCabe’s recusal.

Please note that at no time in the FBI is anyone directing an actual investigation of the content of the Clinton emails. Every single second of every effort is devoted to shaping the public perception of the need for the investigation. Every media outlet is being watched; every article is being read; and the entire apparatus of the small group is shaping coverage therein by contacting their leak outlets.

So let’s go back to that Comey interview:

♦What exactly would SDNY need a search warrant for?

♦Anthony Weiner’s lawyer has delivered SDNY actual emails. Why would he do that?

Now lets connect those questions to an earlier report.

According to ABC News Comey writes in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” that he became the public face of the investigation partly because of a mysterious development which he felt could cast “serious doubt” on Lynch’s independence.

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, according to ABC. He calls the material a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” (ABC Link)

On page six of the IG report on Andrew McCabe (point number 4) we find a conference call between Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and the FBI field office in New York where the subject of the Weiner/Abedin/Clinton email findings overlap with: the Clinton Foundation (CF) investigation; the Clinton Email investigation; pressure for Asst. Director McCabe to recuse himself, and Washington DC via Loretta Lynch using DOJ Main Justice leverage from the Eric Garner case against the NY FBI office and New York Police Department.

From the OIG report:

4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26, 2016)

McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks.

On October 26th, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.”

According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation.

(Page #6 and #7 – IG Report Link)

What makes this explosive is the timing, and what we now know about what was going on amid the FBI “small group” in DC.

On September 28th, 2016Andrew McCabe was made aware of emails given to New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) directly from Anthony Weiner’s lawyer. Again, the information relayed to DC is not about a Weiner laptop, it’s about actual emails delivered by Weiner’s lawyer. The laptop was evidence in the Weiner “sexting” case involving a minor; however, the laptop did, reportedly, also contained thousands of State Department documents from Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s wife.

When Weiner’s lawyer walked into SDNY to deliver his leverage emails, Preet Bharara, a Clinton-Lynch ally, was the United States Attorney.

Again, look at the text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Inbox) and FBI Special Counsel to Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page (Outbox):

[The letter to “Congress” at the end of the text exchange relates to notification of the re-opening of the Clinton investigation – Actual date of notification 10/28/16]

According to later reporting, FBI Director James Comey was not notified of the emails until after October 21st, 2016. However, in late October and early November, there were reports from people with contacts in New York police and New York FBI, about Washington DOJ officials interfering with the Weiner investigation.

On the same date (October 26th, 2016) as the Lynch, McCabe and NY FBI phone call, former NY Mayor Rudy Giuilani was telling Fox News that an explosive development was forthcoming. Two days later, October 28th, 2016Congress was notified of the additional Clinton emails.

However, a few more days later, November 4th, 2016, an even more explosive development as Erik Prince appeared on radio and outlined discoveries within the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner/Hillary Clinton email issues that was being blocked by AG Lynch.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said. (Link)

An earlier Grand Jury in New York had refused to return an indictment against the NYPD in the Garner case. As an outcome of that grand jury finding, and as an outcome of their own investigation, the local FBI office and Eastern District of New York DOJ office was not trying to pursue criminal charges against the NYPD officers involved. This created a dispute because federal prosecutors (EDNY) and FBI officials in New York opposed bringing charges, while prosecutors with the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in Washington argued there was clear evidence to do so.

On October 25th, 2016, Loretta Lynch replaced the EDNY New York prosecutors:

New York Times (Oct. 25) – The Justice Department has replaced the New York team of agents and lawyers investigating the death of Eric Garner, officials said, a highly unusual shake-up that could jump-start the long-stalled case and put the government back on track to seek criminal charges.

With that move – on Oct. 25th, 2016, AG Lynch was now in position to threaten criminal prosecutions against the NYPD, and repercussions against the NY FBI and EDNY using the Garner case as leverage, just like Erik Prince outlined in the phone interview above.

Additionally, we see confirmation from the IG report, the Garner case was brought up in the next day (Oct 26, 2016) phone call to the NY FBI field office; just as Erik Prince outlined. Obviously Prince’s sources were close to the events as they unfolded.

The NY FBI and Eastern District of New York (EDNY) were threatened by Washington DC Main Justice and FBI, via Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe to drop the Clinton/Abedin/Weiner email investigation matters, or else the Garner DOJ Civil Rights Division would be used as leverage against the NYPD. And Loretta Lynch had SDNY U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as the enforcer waiting for her call.

And so it was…

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, according to ABC. He calls the material a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” (ABC Link)

The emails Anthony Weiner’s lawyer brought to Preet Bharara was Weiner’s leverage to escape prosecution. Likely those emails were exactly as Eric Prince sources outlined. However, the SDNY responding to upper level leadership buried those emails.

In DC the FBI (Comey and McCabe) created the appearance of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation to keep control and ensure the investigative outcomes remained out of the hands of the Eastern District (EDNY) and New York FBI field office. They had no choice.

However, once the FBI opened the investigation October 28th, they did exactly the same thing they had done from September 28th to October 28th… they did nothing.

A few days later they declared the second investigation closed, and that was that.

They never expected her to lose.

Peter Strzok, the FBI’s lead Investigator in the Clinton email investigation, never intended to investigate the laptop before the election. The evidence, in his own words, is in the report by the Inspector General. In addition, the IG report includes a jaw dropping contradiction regarding the investigation of the laptop. Strzok says one thing; the FBI’s computer experts say another. It calls into question the entirety of the laptop investigation.

Reading Chapter 11 of the IG Report reinforces an acceptance that not only is there a need for a special counsel, but there is a brutally obvious need for multiple special counsels; each given a specific carve-out investigation that comes directly from the content of the Inspector General report. This issue of the handling of the Weiner/Abedin laptop screams for a special counsel investigation on that facet alone. Why?

Well, consider this from page #388 (emphasis mine):

Midyear agents obtained a copy of the Weiner laptop from NYO immediately after the search warrant was signed on October 30.

The laptop was taken directly to Quantico where the FBI’s Operational Technology Division (OTD) began processing the laptop. The Lead Analyst told us that given the volume of emails on the laptop and the difficulty with de-duplicating the emails that “at least for the first few days, the scale of what we’re doing seem[ed] really, really big.”

Strzok told us that OTD was able “to do some amazing things” to “rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that the Midyear team would have to individually review. Strzok stated that only after that technological breakthrough did he begin to think it was “possible we might wrap up before the election.” (pg 388)

The key takeaway here is two-fold. First, the laptop is in the custody of the FBI; that’s important moving forward (I’ll explain later). Also, specifically important, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, the lead investigative authority in the Hillary Clinton MYE (Mid-Year-Exam), is explaining to the IG how they were able to process an exhaustive volume of emails (350,000) and Blackberry communications (344,000) in a few days; [Oct 30 to Nov 5]

Note: “OTD was able “to do some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop.

OK, you got that?

Now lets look at the very next page, #389 (again, emphasis mine):

[…] The FBI determined that Abedin forwarded two of the confirmed classified emails to Weiner. The FBI reviewed 6,827 emails that were either to or from Clinton and assessed 3,077 of those emails to be “potentially work-related.”

The FBI analysis of the review noted that “[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation” and therefore the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear investigation. (pg 389)

See the problem? See the contradiction?

Strzok is saying due to some amazing wizardry the FBI forensics team was able to de-duplicate the emails. However, FBI forensics is saying they were NOT able to de-duplicate the emails.

Both of these statements cannot be true. And therein lies the underlying evidence to support a belief the laptop content was never actually reviewed. But it gets worse, much worse….

To show how it’s FBI Agent Peter Strzok that is lying; go back to chapter #9 and re-read what the New York case agent was saying about the content of the laptop.

The New York FBI analysis supports the FBI forensic statement in that no de-duplication was possible because the metadata was not consistent. The New York FBI Weiner case agent ran into this metadata issue when using extraction software on the laptop.

CHAPTER 9: The case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation was certified as a Digital Extraction Technician and, as such, had the training and skills to extract digital evidence from electronic devices.

The case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices upon receipt on September 26. The case agent stated that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000 emails on the laptop.”

The case agent told us that on either the evening of September 26 or the morning of September 27, he noticed the software program on his workstation was having trouble processing the data on the laptop. (pg 274)

The New York Case Agent then describes how inconsistent metadata within the computer files for the emails and Blackberry communications, made it impossible for successful extraction. The FBI NY case agent and the Quantico FBI forensics agent agree on the metadata issue and the inability to use their software programs for extraction and layered comparison for the purposes of de-duplication.

Both NY and Quantico contradict the statement to the IG by FBI Agent Peter Strzok. However, that contradiction, while presented in a factual assertion by the IG, is entirely overlooked and never reconciled within the inspector general report. That irreconcilable statement also sheds more sunlight on the motives of Strzok.

Next up, there were only three FBI people undertaking the October Clinton email review. To learn who they are we jump back to Chapter #11, page #389.

The Midyear team flagged all potentially work-related emails encountered during the review process and compared those to emails that they had previously reviewed in other datasets. Any work-related emails that were unique, meaning that they did not appear in any other dataset, were individually reviewed by the Lead Analyst, [Peter] Strzok, and FBI Attorney 1 [Tashina Gauhar] for evidentiary value. (pg 389)

Pete Strzok, Tash Gauhar and the formerly unknown lead analyst we now know to be Sally Moyer. That’s it. Three people.

This is the crew that created the “wizardry” that FBI Director James Comey says allowed him to tell congress with confidence that 1,355,980 electronic files (pg 389), containing 350,000 emails and 344,000 Blackberry communications were reviewed between October 30th and the morning of November 6th, 2016.

Three people.

Pete, Tash, and Sally the lead analyst. Uh huh.

Sure.

The Inspector General just presents the facts; that’s obviously what he did. Then it’s up to FBI and DOJ leadership to accept the facts, interpret them, and apply their meaning.

No bias?

But FBI is committed to bias training?

FUBAR.

There is an actual hero in all of this though. It’s that unnamed FBI Case Agent in New York who wouldn’t drop the laptop issue and forced the FBI in DC to take action on the laptop. Even the IG points this out (chapter #9, page 331):

We found that what changed between September 29 and October 27 that finally prompted the FBI to take action was not new information about what was on the Weiner laptop but rather the inquiries from the SDNY prosecutors and then from the Department. The only thing of significance that had changed was the calendar and the fact that people outside of the FBI were inquiring about the status of the Weiner laptop. (pg 331)

Those SDNY prosecutors only called Main Justice in DC because the New York case agent went in to see them and said he wasn’t going to be the scape goat for a buried investigation (chapter #9, pg 303) “The case agent told us that he scheduled a meeting on October 19 with the two SDNY AUSAs assigned to the Weiner investigation because he felt like he had nowhere else to turn.” … “The AUSAs both told us that the case agent appeared to be very stressed and worried that somehow he would be blamed in the end if no action was taken.”

On October 20, 2016, the AUSAs met with their supervisors at SDNY and informed them of their conversation with the Weiner case agent. The AUSAs stated that they told their supervisors the substantive information reported by the case agent, the case agent’s concerns that no one at the FBI had expressed interest in this information, and their concern that the case agent was stressed out and might act out in some way. (pg 304)

Why would the New York Case Agent be worried?

Consider Page 274, footnote #165:

fn 165: No electronic record exists of the case agent’s initial review of the Weiner laptop. The case agent told us that at some point in mid-October 2016 the NYO ASAC instructed the case agent to wipe his work station. The case agent explained that the ASAC was concerned about the presence of potentially classified information on the case agent’s work station, which was not authorized to process classified information.

The case agent told us that he followed the ASAC’s instructions, but that this request concerned him because the audit trail of his initial processing of the laptop would no longer be available. The case agent clarified that none of the evidence on the Weiner laptop was impacted by this, explaining that the FBI retained the Weiner laptop and only the image that had been copied onto his work station was deleted. The ASAC recalled that the case agent “worked through the security department to address the concern” of classified information on an unclassified system. He told us that he did not recall how the issue was resolved.

 

⇑ These Cannot Both Be True ⇓

Who pays for the damage brought by Black Lives Matter/Antifa?


Question: What American political entity has that relationship to BLM/Antifa? 
Answer: The Democrat National Committee, et. al.  And you might as well sue Mao.

Lee Cary image

Re-Posted from the Conservative Tree house By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 20, 2020

 

Who pays for the damage brought by Black Lives Matter/Antifa?

Three posts from July 23-August 8, from this author, compare China’s Cultural Revolution to Black Lives Matter/Antifa.  The series began with:

“The Chinese Communist Party’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) was the precursor to today’s urban protests involving Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa. As America’s Cancel Culture spread into several Big Blue Cities, largely governed by Democrat politicians for decades, city officials stood back and let it happen.” (Links to parts 12, and 3.)

China: During the winter of 1978-79, many victims of the Red Guards’ violence against people and property led to “a spate of highly personalized appeals for redress of grievances written by (or on behalf of) ordinary citizens who had suffered abuse at the hands of Leftists during the Cultural Revolution.’’ (”Burying Mao, Chinese politics in the Age of Deng Xiaoping,” Richard Baum, Princeton University Press, ©1994, p. 76)

Frustrated by long delays in receiving any response from Beijing, “thousands descended upon Beijing personally to press their grievances.  With official channels clogged and response times painfully slow, many petitioners took to the streets, posting handwritten appeals (known as xiaozibao, or ‘small character posters’) at Xidan, Tiananmen, and elsewhere…Most of the petitioners who descended on Beijing were poor, many were in dire straits. Some had traveled long distances on foot, carrying their possessions in knotted bundles; others had hitched rides into the cities on freight trains or trucks…In all, more than 100,000 out-of-towners descended upon Beijing and Shanghai in 1979, hoping to have their cases reopened…Despite government pledges to review all appeals objectively and impartially, many petitioners complained of receiving unfair treatment.” (Baum, p.76)

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), led by Chairman Mao Zedong, planned and launched the Cultural Revolution.

America: In the wake of the 2007-08 financial failure in America the saying that applied to the big banking institutions was: “Too big to fail.”
In the wake of the damage done by China’s Cultural Revolution, it was: “Too big to blame.”

What will we say when BLM/Antifa is over?

In the wake of the on-going damage to people and private property brought upon many of America’s Big Blue Cities (BBC) at the hands of (1) BLM street posters involving many white, both male and female, virtue-signalers between 17-27 years old, march through residential neighborhoods late at night, stall daytime traffic in downtown areas, and verbally intimidate evening diners in outdoor restaurants, paired up with (2) Antifa thugs dressed in all black who excel at destroying property and beating-up weaker people, we wonder: What will be America’s version of “The Petitioners’ Movement” in post-Cultural Revolution China?  

China: The Petitioner’s Movement happened when Chinese victims of the Red Guard sought redress for damages done to them and their property.  They eventually went to Beijing for redress, because they knew that’s where it all started.

The unspoken mantra for China’s Petitioners’ Movement was, essentially: “We can’t blame any one person, because that would mean blaming Chairman Mao. And he lives above blame.”

America: Can we count on the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute and, when guilt is proven, punish those in the BLM/Antifa movement who injured persons and damaged private property?

Can we expect the Democrat-elected prosecutors in the BBCs to indict and try those who injured persons, and destroyed property? Perhaps a few—those not elected with Soros money.

So, who will hold those accountable for the carnage that continues to mount-up in the run-up to the General Election, and may escalate after November 3?

China: The CCP led by Mao Zedong gave the green-light to China’s Cultural Revolution.  Then stood back, and watched it unfold assuming a life of its own, free of any one person’s control.

It was to the CCP that many of the Cultural Revolution’s victims petitioned for redress for the physical and material damages they sustained. They knew the source, but prudence meant not saying it out loud.

America: Who will Americans petition for redress for the damages that BLM/Antifa brought into their communities?

Shall claims be directed at the big corporations, foundations, and wealthy individuals who seek to buy virtue by donating big money to the BLM/Antifa Movement? (Operationally, the organizations are two heads of the same snake.)

Should victims of the BLM/Antifa movement petition the U.S. Government for damages?  That would be like suing the United States Postal Service if one of their trucks hits your new car.

Perhaps those insurance companies that pay out tens-of-millions in damages to looted chain stores will consider recouping part of their loss by suits aimed at BLM’s growing financial assets?  But, no, that would tarnish their corporate image by putting the patina of white supremacists on their brand.

That leaves those small, independent businesses that sustained damage to seek redress at the local level. The same local level that let it happen.

Those physically and materially injured by BLM/Antifa may sue their local Blue government for not dispatching their tax-funded Police Departments to bring order to the chaos when it first began, instead of letting it get out of control. Perhaps some of the defunded police money could go to the destroyed small businesses. Or not.

Problem is, more than a few of those municipalities run perilously close to bankruptcy.  (See Chicago and NYC.)

To restate the question: How will America’s version of China’s “Petitioners’ Movement” seek to redress the damages done to persons and property by BLM/Antifa

In short, who pays?

In China, little was done for the victims of the Cultural Revolution. It was born a child of the one-and-only political party, and conceived in the mind of its near deity, Chairman Mao.

Question: What American political entity has that relationship to BLM/Antifa? 

Answer: The Democrat National Committee, et. al.  And you might as well sue Mao.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Short-List


Appellate Judge Amy Coney Barrett is at the top of the list for replacements for Justice Ginsberg. Like hydroxychloroquine, simply because Trump nominates her she will be vilified. She is a Catholic and already the Democrats are preparing to tear her apart based on her religions. After graduating from the University of Notre Dame’s law school at the very top of her class. In fact, in 1997, she graduated first in her class, which earned her the Hoynes Prize, the Law School’s highest honor which was very impressive with respect to her thinking process.

Amy then worked as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who was a strict constructionist. It was Scalia who pushed for reform in the way the courts were treating those charged. The jury was not determining every fact, and Scalia saw this as unconstitutional and argued this position until the rest of the court saw his constitutional argument. Finally, in APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY No. 99—478. Argued March 28, 2000–Decided June 26, 2000, Scalia defended the citizen’s right to a jury trial which had been eroded by the procedure.

In the Spirit Justice Ginsberg, Amy was the only female law clerk in the Supreme Court at that time. Besides being sitting on the court of appeals, she was also a University of Notre Dame law professor. Ironically, because she has been a dedicated mother of seven, her Catholic faith was turned against her by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein who questioned whether or not she could separate her religious faith from her duty as a judge. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said during the confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeals hearing. Barrett insisted that her professional beliefs and her religious beliefs would be kept separate. Ironically, the right to an abortion is deeply entangled with the right to privacy. In the recent case involving the anti-abortion law in Louisiana(1), even conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. struck it down saying that respect for precedent compelled him to do so.

Roe vWade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. To understand the foundation of Roe v Wade and why it cannot be overturned without jeopardizing our right to privacy in the face of this contrived pandemic is critical. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning the distribution of birth control to married couples, ruling that the law violated their implied right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). How do you enforce that a married couple illegally used a condom during sex? Does an FBI agency have to watch? And in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults. Again, there is no way to enforce such laws without a government agent observing every sexual act.

To overturn Roe v Wade, would mean that the government can order you to take vaccines that violate your religion that even alter your DNA. While I would never condone an abortion personally, my personal belief cannot blind me to support overturning Roe v Wade opening the door to absolute tyranny. To do so would allow someone like Bill Gates to bribe politicians to pass laws to compel women to have Chips inserted to prevent pregnancy. It would be just one tiny step to then compel you to obtain permission from the government to have a child. They could just as easily impose an IQ test and determine you are not qualified to have children. Gates has already funded remote control birth-control by implanting chips into women. He is obsessed with population control.

The US Supreme Court actually upheld the eugenics views of the in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), where the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., actually ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court actually wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell,  274 U.S. 200 (1927). This case has not been overturned, but if it were challenged, then the same right to privacy from which Roe v Wade stands would come into play. Overturn that case, and a lot more tyranny will follow. The only possible way to overturn Roe v Wade must involve the Due Process Right to life and liberty without somehow overturning the right to privacy. That can be a real Pandora’s Box.

Suspension and Delegation Amy Coney Barrett

After reading some of her decisions and this article she wrote regarding the Suspension Clause, I believe she would NOT overturn Roe v Wade simply because of her religion. Here she clearly states that she believes that the statutes involved, which have never been activated since the Civil War domestically, delegate too much discretion to the President. Her reasoning falls in line with Strict Construction championed by Scalia, and therefore I would support her.  I believe the far more important question turns on her view of the power of government. She is not a rubber stamp and that is vital to our liberty in the future. I will note, for those who will say I support here only because she is a conservative nominated by Trump, I reviewed the decisions of Brett Kavanaugh and stated on this blog that I would have voted against his nomination.

POLITICO, the leftist view, as usual, states: “Barrett has stated that “life begins at conception,” according to a 2013 Notre Dame Magazine article. She also said that justices should not be strictly bound by Supreme Court precedents, a deference known as stare decisis, leaving open the possibility that she could vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if seated on the court.” Their view is to hell with every other issue, it’s all about abortion exclusively.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi who is in the House, not the Senate which decides appointments to the Supreme Court, has bluntly stated that she doesn’t rule out impeachment to delay Trump’s picks for the Supreme Court. She is so out of her mind and is clearly engaging in the Obstruction of Justice. She is in the House – not the Senate. The House does not preside of these appointments. As a matter of law, she or any senator is not allowed to ask a judge how they would vote on abortion. The Senate is not permitted to nominate a person based upon a prearranged vote. Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative appointed by President Bush, upheld Obamacare. It is often a matter of constitutional law and trying to guess how Barrett will vote exclusively on abortion is impermissible constitutionally. This assumption is discrimination based upon the fact that she is Catholic and has 7 children, two of whom are adopted from Hati.

Diane Feinstein is running again and she 87 while Nancy Pelosi is 80. These two women liberationists from the 60s no longer represent women today. They are traditionally anti-religion and Feinstein’s question of Barrett before illustrates her hatred of not just religion, but the fact that Barrett even has 7 children which she finds obviously disgusting.


  1. JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. ET AL. v. RUSSO

Prosecute George Soros for Plotting Anarchy,  Violating U.S. Code § 2383. Rebellion or Insurrection


Fox Weirdly Defends Ultra-Evil Tycoon Soros Funding Antifa Riots & Progressive DA’s

Kelly OConnell image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 18, 2020

 

Prosecute George Soros for Plotting Anarchy,  Violating U.S. Code § 2383. Rebellion or Insurrection

Intro: George Soros, Violently Ambitious Progressive

Silence fell at Fox News as Newt Gingrich asserted the main problem facing US riots was billionaire George Soros buying DA races. The  female hosts immediately howled to censure Gingrich, who said: “It’s verboten?!!” So is Fox beholden to Soros? Why? Meanwhile, crime skyrockets in liberal states and cities that elected Soros DAs. Soros is accused of plotting to control the globe through shadow officials in various countries. Soros and devotees offer a classic study of folie à deux, sharing the mad belief they’re called to convert the globe to Marxism

Open Society

Soros started Open Society Foundation, donating $30 billion to “upgrade” world democracy, Soros is condemned in native Hungary, his university banned, and rejected for insisting mass illegal migrants be housed, Soros currently funds leftist US District Attorneys.  “The Soros groups dump large amounts of money in the final moments of the campaign. The Soros funds are only discovered after the election.”

Nonagenarian Soros Desperate to Transform America

90-year-old Marxist Soros oozes delusions of grandeur seeing himself a leader of world revolution, his leftist mania drives his American DA project. For years Soros regularly invested in DA races. Observe incompetent Kim Foxx & $2 million Soros funds, dismissing without comment Jesse Smollett’s case with overwhelming evidence of guilt. Such abuse of justice tells average citizens fairness is impossible.

US Liberal District Attorney Project

Investing in important DA races, Soros waits to inject last minute blasts of cash for liberal candidates. Over yearsSoros spent millions in races like Chesa Boudin, San Francisco; Larry Krasner, Philadelphia; Houston’s Kim Ogg, and Diana Becton, Contra Costa County. All “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commissions” idealists. Florida’s Soros financed State Attorney Aramis Ayala announced no death penalties would be sought for any case. Portland’s Mike Schmidt, Soros DA refuses to prosecute 110-day Portland rioters.

San Francisco, Liberal Hell

Boudin, the SF Public Defender, promised before his election: “We will not prosecute cases involving quality-of-life crimes, such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc., should not and will not be prosecuted. We have a long way to go to decriminalize poverty and homelessness. There can be no justice when we utilize prison and jail as the solution to all of our problems.” Overall, Soros DAs have helped turn the biggest West Coast cities into third world countries as residents despair and flee.

Soros’ Mental Health & History
Jewish Soros diabolically admitted the zenith of his life was carting off innocent Jew’s property after dispatch to concentration camps. Is he a Sociopath or Psychopath? Why does Soros undermine American law? Marxists know an increasingly out-of-control a society begs for more government intervention. Liberal Soros Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner of St. Louis watched her city’s crime spike to highest in America.

Conclusion: DOJ Should Prosecute Soros for Bribery, Undue Influence & Undermining Constitution

Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán likened Soros to Soviet propagandists: “We old warhorses recognize them by their smell.” The DOJ must prosecute the megalomaniac for attempting to overhaul the US Justice SystemSoros is bribing candidates to follow his law-enforcement ideas in exchange for campaign funds and future support. If Soros’ groups break down society by organizing and funding treason, etc, they are violating U.S. Code § 2383. Rebellion or Insurrection, punishing anarchy undermining the law. It’s time Soros is finally stopped in his insane bid to castrate the US Constitution and supplant America’s justice system with devilish Marxism.

OWS Using Sound to Drum America Into Revolution


Meanwhile, the air being rent with piercing screams from the street mobs, the throbbing of OWS activist drums over the next 48 days serve as a reminder that the globalists want to keep a locked down humanity in their manufactured Twilight Zone

Judi McLeod image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 16, 2020

OWS Using Sound to Drum America Into Revolution

While their Comrades in Arms within Black Lives Matter and Antifa keep Americans aghast with cold-blooded cop-killing, rioting and looting in Democrat-controlled cities, and with fires still ravaging much of California and Oregon, noisy OWS (Occupation Wall Street) activists are counting on sound to blast the Republic into Election Day Revolution.

Organized by Canadian AdBusters.org, OWS will take over Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C, tomorrow and vow to remain there in occupation right up to Election Day:

Their warning about how they intend to celebrate their 9th anniversary is downright hippy-dippy, proof that they’ve never grown up or matured in any other way since their “yoga days” at Zuccotti Park in New York City:

“Tactical Briefing #4 (AdBusters.org)

“Hey all you activists, artists, musicians out there,

“Picture this: On street corners across America, a few musicians gather here, a few there . . . a brassy riff starts drifting, lilting above city thoroughfares and suburban byways . . . a swell of drums tumbling, trumpets crooning, basses thumping, saxophones wailing. As the thrum reaches a melancholy crescendo, the air itself becomes steeped in a deep blue revolutionary hue.

“The sound implores you to give in to its evolving, swirling pull . . . to respond, to step out, trust your instincts — and act.

“It’s the sound of jazz:

“bold, soulful, joyous, collaborative, improvisational.

“And, with a bit of luck, it’s going to swallow up the whole country for 50 days, starting this Thursday, September 17th — and remind it of the revolutionary mettle that it’s made of.

“Bring courage and wits — and your musical chops — to a street corner near you . . . and to pop-up sieges in front of federal buildings across the nation . . . and as the election approaches, to the White House in Washington, D.C.

“America doesn’t know what it’s about to hear.

“See (and hear) you starting September 17th.”

“Wisdomkeepers” and “global transformationalists”

Only far left, radical activists could think that their tailor-made Sound and Fury could “swallow up the whole country for 50 days”.

These activists even fail at simple Math. As of tomorrow, there are 13 days left in September, 31 days in October and 3 days in November, making swallowing up the whole country for 47 not 50 days.

As for the cacophony of noise, haven’t any of them heard of ear plugs?

If the promised “swell of drums tumbling” sounds familiar, it should.

It’s happened before twice, courtesy of the One World Order-seeking, American tax dollar-supported United Nations, the first time when Hanne Strong, beat her drums for three weeks straight.

“Hanne Strong,  used constant drumbeats to hold the “energy pattern” when her aging UN Poster Boy husband Maurice Strong led the 1992 Rio de Janeiro United Nations Earth Conference. (Canada Free Press Nov.13, 2009)

“Not one media jumped in to ask: “Constant drumbeats to hold the energy pattern?”

“Interesting that even back then the group Mrs. Maurice Strong led in a three-week vigil with “Wisdomkeepers”, were called “global transformationalists”. The round-the-clock sacred fire, drumbeat and meditation was what the transformationalists told the world was holding the “energy pattern” paving the way for the success of her husband-led Earth Summit.”

Mumbo jumbo magic and the birth of Agenda 21

“This mumbo jumbo ‘magic’ was the setting for the birth of Agenda 21, the plan now forcing the United States of America and the rest of the Free World into Communist One World Government. “

The second time U.N poohbahs called on sound to gainsay One World Order Revolution was with church bells.

“Church bells around the world,  which call Christians worldwide into church on Sundays, will join the din of drums and gongs to sound a UN ordered message 350 times on December 13 during the Copenhagen climate change summit.  The church bells are a call to action on global warming. (CFP Nov.13, 2009)

“The leading council of Christian and Orthodox churches also invited places of worship for other faiths to join a symbolic “chain of chimes and prayers” stretching around the world from the international date line in the South Pacific.” (Breitbart, Nov. 12, 2009).

“By sounding their bells or other instruments 350 times, participating churches will symbolise the 350 parts per million that mark the safe upper limit for C02 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere according to many scientists.”

And you thought only Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat presidential seeker Joe Biden were the only crazies.

No mumbo jumbo from Maurice and Hanne Strong, BLM, Antifa and OWS will save the world from the human misery about to be inflicted by the evil plan which robs nations of their sovereignty and makes serfs of the entire human population.

“While Hanne was out there beating her drums, hubby Maurice Strong said in his opening address to thousands of Rio delegates: “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.”  If these words sound chillingly familiar it’s because they are the same ones uttered by Satanists Alice Bailey and Helena Blavatsky before her, both of whom in their writings state that the “force of darkness” are those who adhere to the “out-dated” Judeo-Christian faith.  Those who continue along their “separative” paths of the one true God.  The “Force of Light” (Lucifer) in their view, is the inclusive new age doctrine of a pagan pantheistic New World Religion. (CFP)

And if Christian congregations aren’t having any of this evil served up from the pulpit, many of their religious leaders have already bought into it.

Today fear of Covid-19 has shut down all churches.

“The ringing of the bells, drums and gongs from churches is being used to boost the UN summit in Copenhagen Dec. 7 to 18,  which seeks to promote a new global treaty to broaden cuts in emission of greenhouse gases blamed for Al Gore-touted climate change. (CFP, —, —)

Meanwhile, the air being rent with piercing screams from the street mobs, the throbbing of OWS activist drums over the next 48 days serve as a reminder that the globalists want to keep a locked down humanity in their manufactured Twilight Zone.

But their own desperation is driving them towards another Big Fail.

Is A Cover Up over Clinton’s 2000 Interference in Russia’s elections still Going On?


QUESTION: Marty; You said that not even Fox News will report the story that the US interfered in the 2000 Russian election. Do you have any idea why?

EK

ANSWER: No not really. Perhaps it would admit things that the US government does not want to admit that even under the Clinton Administration which let the bankers do whatever they wanted from exempting student loans from bankruptcy to repealing Glass Stegall which enabled the bankers to see the mortgaged back security time bombs. I do not know. The movie Forecaster has been banned in the USA. Netflix wanted it but then the last minute the board said no. They seem to have gotten a phone call. Amazon will stream it but only outside the USA. Why?

Here is Hillary here in 2020 still claiming the Russians interfered when that has been totally been unsupported and the entire Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary. She then erased all her emails. A Trump victory will mean the Democrats will still claim only because of Russia when it was the Clintons who allowed the bankers to blackmail Yeltsin, forced him to step down, but he turned to Putin. Look at Bill’s expression. He trashed her book and that became public. Hillary will never admit people did not trust her. In her mind, it was Putin BECAUSE she stood by while the bankers tried to take over all the resources of Russia – gold, diamonds, and oil.

Safra, head of Republic National Bank, was assassinated by Russians (see Vanity Fair). But they tried to cover that up blaming his nurse, who was then released simply saying he never received a fair trial. The guy the bankers were trying to install as president was Berezovsky, which fled to Britain but later hanged himself.

So I have no idea why Fox News will not report this issue, especially when the Democrats are already claiming Trump can’t win without Russian interference. I do not know. It seems there is a coverup still in play.

Why Cops Sometimes Shoot “Unarmed” Citizens


Abroad, the military is our country’s sheepdog; here at home, the law enforcement community is. God bless them all

John Eidson image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 15, 2020

Why Cops Sometimes Shot Unarmed Citizens

On August 23, a combative black suspect named Jason Blake was shot by a Kenosha, Wisconsin police officer who thought Blake might be reaching into his SUV to retrieve a deadly weapon. In a shameful rush to judgment by a national media that salivates when unarmed black people are shot by white police, the incident was portrayed as an outrage where another unarmed black man was shot just for the hell of it by a rogue white cop in this “systemically racist” nation of ours. Was the shooting of Blake justifiable? The legal system has yet to answer that question. But as shown in the video below, determining the answer is not as easy as you might think.

What cops face every time they put on the uniform

Self-produced by a man obviously familiar with defensive firearms training, the homemade video explains why police officers sometimes shoot suspects who turn out to have been unarmed. This eye-opening presentation refers to the “OODA Loop.” OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) is an information processing tool used to train law enforcement officers to make faster and better decisions that not only help reduce the number of unwarranted police shootings of unarmed suspects, but also reduce an officer’s chance of getting killed due to a delayed response to a potentially lethal threat.

Because the video is homemade, watching it requires a bit more concentration than if it had been professionally produced. It may be helpful to watch it twice, but understanding its message will forever change your thinking about police shootings of unarmed suspects.

How do Police make shooting decisions?

Policing is one of the most difficult jobs in America. And thanks to race-baiting politics, it is also one of the most thankless. Every day and every night, law enforcement officers have to make life and death decisions in the blink of an eye, decisions that can determine whether their family ever sees them again.

“Random Stop” is an award-winning reenactment of the 1998 execution shooting of a Laurens County, Georgia sheriff’s deputy who hesitated when threatened by a mentally deranged man he’d pulled over for reckless driving. The recreation is based on actual dash cam footage that documented the initial part of the encounter in real time. Since the murder occurred at the rear of the officer’s patrol car and therefore was not recorded on dash cam, a recreation was made to convey the unimaginable terror the rookie officer experienced as he was executed in cold blood after begging in vain for mercy. Click here to view this intensely realistic depiction of the last moments of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller’s life, and then click here to see another chilling example of the kind of danger cops face every time they put on the uniform.

Cops: Our society’s domestic sheepdogs

In the movie “American Sniper,” Bradley Cooper told the story of the sheep, the wolves and the sheepdogs:

There are three types of people in this world: sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. Some people prefer to believe that evil doesn’t exist, and if it ever darkened their doorstep, they wouldn’t know how to protect themselves. These are the sheep. Then you’ve got predators who use violence to prey on the weak. They’re the wolves. And then there are those blessed with the gift of aggression, an overpowering need to protect the flock. These are the rare breed who live to confront the wolf. They are the sheepdogs.

Abroad, the military is our country’s sheepdog; here at home, the law enforcement community is. God bless them all.

Fans Do Not Like Political Statements in Games


There are a lot of people who object to politicizing sports games or Broadway plays. Here, this call for national equality when both teams locked arms invoked a lot of booing. I for one found it offensive when they stopped the Broadway play “Hamilton” to criticize Vice President Pence who was there in the audience. When people pay for such entertainment, they should not be subjected to the political ideas of those being paid for entertainment.

Early Look of the “Woke” NFL Game Plan


The NFL took a major hit in their ratings for opening week. Rating were down 16% with many fans tuning out the social justice lectures from virtue signaling millionaire players.

We have not watched a minute of the NFL and don’t plan on watching these over paid ingrates raising their fists in the air and kneeling during the anthem.

Look like it is true that the left wants to ruin everything, including pro-sports.

Turn the NFL off!

GrrrTeam

De Oppresso Liber

The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

America-Wake-Up

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

TOTT News

Australia's Front Line

CherriesWriter - Vietnam War website

See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors

Nwo Report

Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News

Scott Adams' Blog

De Oppresso Liber

Robert David Steele

Intelligence with Integrity

Stella's Place

Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com

livingbyathread

Exposition and Encouragement

Disrupted Physician

The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction

Easy Money

Featuring Socio-Economic-Financial News Topics Followed by Martin Hladyniuk

all thoughts connected

"Feel free to associate..."

keithgarrettpoetry

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Saints in the Spirit

Empowered with Insperational Qoutes,Spiritual Qoutes, Prayers and laughter.

Bob's Opinion

Conservative Christian and Political Opinion Site. exposing corruption in the church and politics.

Laura Bon

Inspiring the world

%d bloggers like this: