Non-Binary Nuclear Waste Official Arrested for Stealing Womans Luggage and Clothes


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 28, 2022 | Sundance 

Hire weird and sketchy clowns and don’t be surprised when the office turns into a circus.  Dept of Energy Nuclear Waste official Sam Brinton made headlines months ago for being an odd duck hired into a senior DoE position.

His resume’ included teaching a “Kink 101” workshop at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, and his qualifications included several degrees from MIT and a non-binary gender fluid identity.  However, stories are now surfacing of Mr/Ms Brinton stealing luggage containing women’s clothing from the Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) International Airport.

(New York Post) – […] Brinton — who serves as the DOE’s deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition — allegedly took a Vera Bradley suitcase worth $2,325 from the luggage carousel at the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport (MSP) on Sept. 16, according to a criminal complaint filed on Oct. 26 in Minnesota state court and obtained by Fox News Digital. Brinton had traveled from Washington, DC, to MSP that day.

After the suitcase’s owner alerted police, officers reviewed video surveillance of the carousel and identified Brinton taking the luggage before removing its tag identifying the owner, the court filings stated. Law enforcement observed Brinton using the luggage during at least two other trips to Washington, D.C., on Sept. 18 and Oct. 9. (read more)

A good accounting of the entire sequence of events is also AVAILABLE HERE.

Neil Oliver asks “I Wonder What Would Happen If”…


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 26, 2022 | Sundance

Jumpin’ ju-ju bones, Neil Oliver is going to that place publicly and loudly, that many of us have contemplated and discussed quietly with hushed tones and knowing nods.

What Oliver outlines in this monologue does not need much discussion amid the audience awaiting its arrival.  After all, he is basically discussing the logical consequence to the current state of political affairs not only in the U.K but also in the United States.  However, that said, it is rather remarkable in the era of government sponsored fear of rebellion, complete with labels of domestic extremism attached, to see Oliver’s voice bravely citing the outcome.

With 87,000 new IRS agents authorized by the regime quietly assembling for their assault, as Oliver notes, “there is nothing to fear if we have each other” and are willing to stand the gap as an ally for our fellow man.  What Oliver is saying is profound, true and could – in the most significant of ways, lead to a new beginning.  Yes, it is talk of a united rebellion, and that’s exactly what we need.  WATCH: 

[Transcript] – People write to me every day to tell me they fear the future. People from all over the world, all ages, all walks of life. I say this: we should not be afraid. If anyone should be afraid it is our government, the whole of parliament, the State and the Establishment. They should be afraid because they are in the wrong – doing wrong things and behaving unforgivably.

You can tell they are afraid by the way they keep doing more and more, faster and faster, to make the people poor, cold and hungry – also demoralised, anxious and fearful about the present, never mind the future. The fear felt by people around the world is the deliberate consequence of the actions of so-called leaders all across the West and beyond.

I say again, we should not be afraid. Those plotting and working against us, against our interests both as individuals and as sovereign states, have no power and no money other than that which we, the people grant them. They are supposed to use that power and money to protect us, to keep us free and to provide opportunities for those hard working, free people to make happy and successful lives for themselves. Instead, they are working night and day to have us welcome a state of being that is nothing less than digital enslavement.

Many of the people who contact me ask:

What should we do? How can we fight back?

I think about the answers to those questions all the time. Right now, I wonder what would happen if those who are cold in their homes – millions of people – just turned on their heating and turned off their direct debits and standing orders. What would happen if, when the bills came, we all just agreed to toss them on the fire? All of us together? What would happen, if millions of us, peacefully acting as one just stood together in quiet defiance? I could be wrong, but I don’t think there’s enough cells in the prisons, enough judges to hear the cases. If the system wasn’t already broken – by them – such actions would break it.

What would happen if we all withdrew our money from the banks on the same day? What would happen if we all asked, as we are entitled to, for the cash? The banks don’t have the money to meet all those demands and so presumably they would close their doors. Then what? Would their inability to pay out all that cash be evidence of the fraud that is fiat money? I wonder.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the social contract – that notion by which we surrender power to the state in return for services and safety – is broken beyond repair. They broke it, not us. Successive governments – not just the present bunch of cardboard cut-outs … have, over decades, knowingly and deliberately betrayed every aspect of that contract. It is null and void and we, the blameless party, are no longer bound by its conditions.

We the people – the sovereign people of this country – don’t just hold the power: we ARE the power. We loan some of it – a short-term loan – to governments. And those governments are supposed to serve us, do our bidding. NEVER the other way round. We tell them what to do.

Hundreds of years’ worth of governments has quietly and secretively presided over a financial system that is no more than state-sanctioned fraud. Power to create money out of thin air was put in the hands of an entirely private, unelected, unaccountable business and this power has been abused to make a tiny group unimaginably rich by enslaving all of US with debt. That system is now on the point of collapse. The West is bankrupt, and governments and bankers are scrambling to solve a problem: how to subtract every last shekel from the people while still having a handful of wealthy bankers, and their enablers, left over.

Britain has no functioning border against the rest of the world. Hundreds are arriving in this country every day and night, many ferried across the Channel by agencies paid for by British taxpayers. British people have to wait longer for health and social care and accommodation – to make way for economic migrants with their eyes on a soft touch, who have paid illegal gangs thousands of pounds a head to get here. They send their luggage on ahead and collect it at their hotels. We are at the back of the queue while anyone else, from anywhere else, is looked after hand and foot. And always the loudest calls are not for stopping it, but for more money and faster processing. I wonder if the illegal immigration isn’t just convenient for the State … softening up the citizens for a supposed solution … like digital ID perhaps? And then borders open once and for all. I wonder.

The British people are no longer kept safe by the police force they pay for. Burglaries of properties and assaults on the person are barely investigated, while officers prioritise thought crimes on social media. Uncounted thousands of little girls are abandoned to organised gangs of rapists up and down the country, because the State turned a blind eye to the relentless raping of children rather than ruffle community feathers.

A tenth of the population is on the waiting list for treatment by the NHS. The National Health Service is not keeping the nation healthy. All this about free at the point of delivery is about as much use as a magic spell. You can call a lunch a free lunch – but you’ll still be left hungry if you can’t get into the restaurant. So-called free steaks won’t fill you up if you have to wait so long in the queue you starve to death in the meantime. Free becomes another word for something you’ve heard about but can’t have.

I say again, though – we have nothing to fear. Not if we decide to be unafraid. In many ways, the worst has already happened: we have been shown where we stand, in the eyes of the State – which is beneath their contempt.

I don’t have the answers to all of the questions, but I know this much – even just asking them, airing the thoughts, should make the government, the State, the Establishment – sit up and pay attention.

More and more strikes are happening – rail workers, teachers and university lecturers, nurses next. What about the self-employed who were abandoned for the last two years? They can’t strike. What would happen if they withheld their taxes, all at the same time? I wonder.

But history tells us we should never underestimate the power of the many.

Just over a hundred years ago, during World War I, thousands of workers were pulled into the City of Glasgow to work in the munitions factories. At that time there wasn’t a single council house or flat in the whole of Britain. Private landlords owned 100 percent of homes for rent. They could and did raise rents as often as they wanted. Tenants either paid up or were evicted.

In February 1915, landlords across the city told tenants their rents were going up by as much as 25 percent. This was against a backdrop of the steeply rising cost of living generally, food scarcity and the rest. There was a war to win – remember – and sacrifices were expected from the people if the enemy was to be defeated.

In the case of many homes, the man of the house was away fighting in the war, leaving just women and children.

Into this crisis for poor people stepped Mary Barbour, an ordinary Glasgow woman with two children. She and others realized their only hope lay in sticking together. A mass non-payment campaign got under way. Arrears built up and soon Sheriff’s Officers were turning up to demand back rent or to evict non-payers.

But whenever anyone got wind of an eviction, hundreds of women would descend on the address and block the entrance to the home. A Glasgow MP, Willie Reid, described a typical incident:

“A soldier’s wife in Parkhead, had an eviction notice served on her, with a warning that if she failed to vacate her house by 12 noon the Sheriff’s Officer would call to enforce it. The strike committee got busy. They instructed every mother in the district with a young child to be there for 11 am on D-Day, complete with prams.

“Long before noon the close and street were packed with prams, and every pram had at least one youngster in it. No raiding party could have got near the house. Moreover, the men of Parkhead Forge and other works in the district decided to down tools at 11.30 am and lend a hand if necessary…”

People began to talk about Mary Barbour’s Army. On 17 November, 18 tenants appeared in court for eviction. Tens of thousands of Glasgow people lined the streets outside. In the end, on 25 November 1915, rents were frozen at pre-war levels. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Act 1915 was passed and some elements of it remained in force as late as 1989.

I wonder what would happen if all of us … opposed to what is going on now … came together like those Glasgow women of 1915 – AND JUST SAID NO.

I wonder.

When thinking about that time, I am reminded of real leaders. I’ve been talking again this week about Ernest Shackleton who, when all seemed lost – his ship sunk beneath the Antarctic ice and with nothing but flimsy tents, three little boats, and 28 men trapped on the pack ice and depending on him for life itself he said,

“Well … now we’ll go home.”

Our so-called leaders tell us our lives must be filled with hardship while they warm themselves in centrally heated homes paid for with our taxes … and look forward to Christmas parties and food and drink and decorations paid for by all of us. That is not leadership. That is an abusive relationship.

Shackleton put himself through every hardship he expected his men to endure. He did it first and for longest. What he asked of them, he did too. He said they should leave behind on the ice anything that would not help keep them alive.

Some saying he walked to a hole in that ice and dropped in his gold watch and cigarette case, to the bottom of the ocean. He led from the front, every step of the way and over nearly a thousand miles of the cruelest sea on earth. And in the end, he got every man home.

They called him The Boss.

He cared not a jot for the comforts of home. Back home once more he wrote:

“We had pierced the veneer of outside things. We had suffered, starved and triumphed, groveled down and grasped at glory, grown bigger in the bigness of the whole.”

He was a leader who saw that it was shared endeavor and shared striving that made all else possible.

Our leaders? … our leaders would pick our pockets for any gold watches and valuables before climbing aboard their private jets and flying home, leaving us behind on the melting ice.

I say we owe them nothing – not our loyalty and not our obedience. If we continue to comply, we build our own prison around ourselves, for their benefit.

They have promised us the earth while stealing it from us – raping and pillaging its resources only for their own enrichment. I say again, there is nothing to fear if we have each other.

Here’s the thing: if we set a course for ourselves and back each other every step of the way, we will cross this ocean of darkness together, all the way to where we want to be. [Transcript End]

Twitter Weaponizes Against Dems ReeEEeE Stream 11-25-22


TheSaltyCracker Published originally on Rumble on November 25, 2022

This is what the deserve

DOJ Once Again Changes Trump Seizure Evidence List Dropping “Empty Classified Folders”, and Continues Refusing to Give President Trump Lawyers the Affidavit Used for Search Warrant


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 25, 2022 | Sundance

In a recent court filing [Document Here] President Trump through his legal counsel has requested Judge Cannon to unredact and unseal the search warrant affidavit used as the predicate for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.  Apparently, the DOJ have yet to provide President Trump with the constitutionally required predicate documents to support their search.

Additionally, the DOJ previously leaked to media about “empty folders with classified banners” as part of the evidence cache they collected.  According to the filing the DOJ has since presented three different versions of their evidence collection list, with the most recent list dropping any claims of “two empty folders with classified banners.”

[Source, page 4]

While asking the court to provide the affidavit to the defense team, the lawyers for President Trump are noting the fourth amendment protects everyone against warrantless searches and seizures, and that same protection also guarantees the target the right to receive and review the claimed justification for the warrant.

The unredacted affidavit is obligated to be supplied so that it can be determined if the search warrant was legally valid and predicated.  General search warrants are not legally permitted.  The warrant must specify what is being searched and why.  The DOJ is fighting against this affidavit release.  The Trump lawyers are asking the judge to make a decision.

[Source with complete filing]

The issue of compartmented (siloed) information, specifically as a tool and technique of the aloof DC system to retain control and influence, is a matter we have discussed on these pages for several years.

Quite literally anything can be classified as a ‘national security interest’ in the deep state effort to retain the illusion of power over the proles, ie us. It is the exact reason why congress exempts themselves from laws and regulations written for everyone else.

In this case we are watching the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) deny the production of the material that supports the framework of their search warrant.  Again, if Main Justice has nothing to hide, then why are they not willing to stand openly behind the predicate for their search.

Tucker Carlson Accurately Cites the Source of U.S. Inflation, Biden Energy Policy


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 26, 2022 | Sundance 

The true cause of inflation, and yes that includes ‘global inflation ‘, is the collective western economic jump into climate change energy policy known as “build back better.”  Stopping the use of oil, gas and coal as the source for cheap energy, has resulted in every element of the inflation now outlined.

As an outcome of their ideology, the central banks of the western economies began desperately to lower economic activity to reduce energy consumption.  The goal was/is to lower human economic activity to the point where windmills and solar farms can sustain it.  Everything else is pretending.  Tucker Carlson finally points this out. WATCH:

Coming out of the pandemic, western oil, coal and gas energy development was blocked.  Immediately energy prices skyrocketed, driving up the costs of everything.  Using the justification of “too much demand” the central banks (including the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank) are raising interest rates to lower the need for energy.

Western political leaders are pretending this is not a collective intention.  However, their prior promotion of the Build Back Better agenda belies their current protestations.

If You Have Not Been Taught to Think for Yourself, Then Disinformation is Scary


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 25, 2022 | Sundance 

CTH has encountered criticism for our position on information.  Perhaps it is important to step back and explain exactly why we should not be playing by rules established to control us while engaged in the battle of ideas.  First, my position:

…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”.  There is only information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”… 

There are only two elements within the public discussion of information, truth and not truth.

In an era filled with “fact-checkers” and institutional guardians at the gates of Big Tech, let me explain exactly why it is important not to accept the speech rules of the guards.

When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades.  You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey.

When your mind works in the grey zone, you are, by direct and factual consequence, saying there is a problem.  You are correct; however, this is where people may make a mistake. The problem is supposed to be there.

It is not a solution to the problem to try and remove the grey simply because it takes too much work to separate the white pixels from the black ones.  You were born with a gift, the greatest gift a loving God could provide.  You were born with a brain and set of natural instincts that are tools to do this pixel separation, use them.

If you define the grey work as a problem you cannot solve on your own, you open the door for others to solve that problem for you.  You begin to abdicate the work, and that’s when trouble can enter.

The sliding scale of Pinocchio’s is one of the most familiar yet goofy outcomes.

Put more clearly, when you accept the terminology “disinformation”, you accept a problem.

The problem is then the tool by which authorities will step in to make judgements.

Speech, in its most consequential form, is then qualified by others to whom you have sub-contracted your thinking.

When you willingly sub-contract information filters to others, you have lost connection with the raw information.

CTH was founded upon the belief that truth has no agenda, nor does it care about you, your feelings, or your opinion of it.  It just sits there, empirically existing as evidence of information in its most pure form.

The search for truth, in all things, is the mission objective of this assembly.   Often, we don’t like the truth; often, the truth is bitter, cold, challenging and even painful to accept.  However, the truth doesn’t care.  Information in its most raw form is ambivalent to your opinion.  If you struggle to accept these things, that’s when you need grey.  The New York Times is not called the “grey lady” accidentally.

Personally, I am an absorber of information – perhaps on a scale that is unusual.  But I do not discount information from any form until I can put context to it and see if the information makes sense given all the variables present.  When something doesn’t feel right, it’s almost always because it isn’t right.

Often, I find myself struggling in the grey and complex.  It is not unusual to spend days researching, digging, clarifying a situation, only to discover the path to finding the truth is in another direction entirely.   Erasing everything and starting over is frustrating, but it is genuinely the only approach that works; and often finding truth is supposed to be difficult, that’s why it is rewarding.

In the digital information age, we are bombarded with information.  It is easy to be overwhelmed and need to find something or someone who has better skills at separating the black grains from the white ones.  All opinions in this quest should be considered; thus, it is important to allow the free flow of information.

I am not necessarily a speech absolutist.  There is some language that needs to be constrained if we are to participate in a respectful society, with grandma’s rules and knowing the audience.  The CTH has guidelines for comments for this exact reason.  However, those constraints need to be based on a set of inherent values.   When it comes to information it is important to draw a distinction from speech.

There needs to be an open venue for all information. Unfortunately, when we begin to apply labels or categorization to information, there’s an opportunity for information to be manipulated – even weaponized.  Saul Alinsky spent decades pondering the best techniques to weaponize information and speech.  Alinsky’s intentions in the endeavor to change society by changing how language and information was used were not good. He devoted his completed rulebook book to Lucifer.

Be careful about anyone saying we need to label or categorize information in order to control or remove speech from the discussion.

You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a God-given brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.

Important Discussion – Let’s Talk About 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision with a Decade of Hindsight


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 25, 2022 | Sundance

I have given a great deal of thought to this in the past several years and I am welcoming all opinions.  Just to let you know I intend to read every single comment, because ultimately this is important. AND I believe it will become a silent topic in the next two years [As did the recent conversation of Ballots -vs- Votes].

In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled on a campaign finance legal challenge known colloquially as The Citizens United decision.  The essence of the decision was a speech issue. In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech.

Prior to CU corporations were limited in financial spending on behalf of political campaigns just like individuals.  However, unions were not.  Organized Labor Unions could spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates.  Corporations were limited like individuals.

At the time of the January 2010 Supreme Court ruling Democrats and Barack Obama were furious.  Corporations could not form SuperPACs and spend unlimited amounts of money ‘independently’ supporting candidates.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules on coordination and communication between the political campaigns and the independent SuperPACs was/is supposed to create a firewall.  However, the obscure nature of that effort has failed miserably.

Real World Example. A SuperPAC can organize a pro-Ben rally, spend on the venue, spend on the banners, t-shirts, rally material etc., and then advertise it.  If Ben shows up to deliver a speech, he’s not breaking the rules so long as Ben and the SuperPAC didn’t coordinate the event.  Ben just shows up to share his support for the effort, thank everyone and everything is legal in the eyes of the FEC.  Yeah, it’s goofy.

More commonly as a result of the Citizens United (CU) case, massive corporate advertising (considered speech) is permitted in support of the candidate; or the corporation can organize ballot collection or get out the vote efforts, etc.  Again, as long as they do not coordinate with any “official campaign” ie. Mark Zuckerbucks, yeah, goofy.   As a result, expanded corporate spending has massive influence over U.S. elections.

♦ Oppose CU – Democrats opposed the CU decision because they had an advantage with organized labor.  Labor unions were considered a representative body of collective individual membership interests and could spend without limit on campaign support.  Organized labor unions supported democrats.   Factually, Barack Obama won his 2008 election specifically because the SEIU, AFSCME, UFCW, AFL-CIO and other organized labor supported him over Hillary Clinton.

The CU decision watered down this overall Democrat advantage because now corporations funding Republicans could counterbalance the spending support of the labor unions.  Democrats stated the CU decision would inject billions into politics and would increase corruption.

♦ PRO CU – Republicans, in a general sense, supported the CU decision mostly because it did level the field with labor unions and also because the corporate lobbyist connections to the republican party meant a lot of corporate money was available to fuel republican Super Political Action Committees (SuperPACs).  Factually, the CU decision created the ability of SuperPACs to exist.

The business of politics expanded with the CU decision and ultimately both the DNC and RNC clubs evolved to enjoy this unlimited donor spending.

The business sector of politics expanded as the financial aspects to the it grew.  SuperPACs could now fund consultants, polling firms, campaign systems and the money inside politics as a business exploded.

Now we have political campaigns where spending tens-of-millions on a single race is commonplace.  The modern ballot collection (harvesting etc) is now funded by this same flow of unlimited financial resources.

At the time of the 2010 Citizens United decision, I personally was in support of the ruling.  However, in hindsight the benefits of leveling the field with organized labor have become overshadowed by the negatives associated with corporations now in control of which candidates achieve office.

Money was always a corrupting issue and politicians working on behalf of their donors was always problematic, long before the Supreme Court CU decision.  However, CU exploded that problem on a scale that was/is almost unimaginable at the time.

A previous several million-dollar presidential campaign is now a multi-billion-dollar venture, and the corporations are purchasing every outcome.

So, here’s the question….

Knowing what you know now, how do you feel about the Citizens United decision?

Twitter Alternative BACKFIRES On Woke, Leftists Start Getting Banned For Being Whiny Babies


TimcastIRL Published Originally on Rumble on November 24, 2022 

Twitter Alternative BACKFIRES On Woke, Leftists Start Getting Banned For Being Whiny Babies