BREAKING: China-Backed Satellite TV Network Reporting that Kim Jong-un Is Dead

Article by Rick Moran in "PJMedia":

A female vice-director of HKSTV Hong Kong Satellite Television, a Beijing-backed broadcast network in Hong Kong, claims that Kim Jong-un is dead, citing a “very solid source.” TMZ reports the woman is a niece of the Chinese foreign minister.

HKSTV is not owned by the Chinese government, nor is it an official media outlet of the government. But it allowed the Hong Kong-based network to broadcast its programming into mainland China.

The report is not on the HKTV website. It appeared on the Chinese messaging app Weibo. There is a viral image that includes a picture of Kim supposedly lying in a glass coffin, but that appears to be a faked image from 2017.

There are other unconfirmed reports that Kim's heart surgery was so botched that he slipped into a coma and is now in a vegetative state.

The outlet reports -- citing a Chinese medical expert privy to the situation -- that Kim had clutched his chest in early April and fell down while visiting the countryside there. He needed a stent procedure done, but apparently ... it either wasn't done rapidly enough, or it was botched completely by the surgeon -- with some reports saying he had shaky hands.

There's a lot of rumors swirling about the guy's condition -- and the fact is ... he hasn't made any major public appearances looking to be okay in several weeks now. About a week or so ago, CNN reported Kim was in "grave danger" after a medical procedure.

How good is this rumor? The fact that the woman's own network isn't reporting the story says something. And you would expect some outward manifestation -- a change in NoKo's military readiness perhaps -- if the rumor were true. When a Soviet leader died, they played funeral dirges on the radio all day before the announcement.

 Enough media outlets around the world are running with the story, which makes it news anyway. But it's doubtful the regime is ready to go public with the news that their "dear leader" is dead.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/china-backed-satellite-tv-network-reporting-that-kim-jong-un-is-dead/ 

It’s Time to Stop Paying Government Salaries

 L.A. Mayor Garcetti

Article written by Kira Davis in "RedState":

On March 1st I left the CPAC 2020 conference in Washington D.C. and  traveled back to my home in southern California. The trip was uneventful…pleasant, even. I have a memory of being in the Uber on a sunny afternoon, watching the scenery go by, not thinking about much at all besides the trip ahead. I guess it’s burned in my memory because it was the last truly “normal” day I had…although I couldn’t have imagined such a benign day would be so precious in mere weeks.

The first days of hashtag-quarantine-life were terrifying. The models were terrifying. Watching the President and Mr.Pence look more and more fatigued with each briefing was terrifying. Hearing how every nation in the world was shutting down their economy was terrifying. The United States was in the middle of the most thrilling economic boom in modern history and Donald Trump is a business man. If he was saying we need to shut it all down, that meant we must be on the brink of something historically dangerous. We were facing millions of deaths. It seemed unthinkable but to “bend the curve” to merely hundreds of thousands of deaths would be a victory and it would require an enormous sacrifice on the part of the American people.

So that’s what we did. We reported for duty to our couches and home offices. We accepted the layoffs and turned to each other for help. We watched business after business close. We watched unemployment skyrocket overnight. We lost our savings, our futures and our retirement plans. We gave up everything because that’s what Americans do when it comes to preserving our nation. We sacrifice.

But then we started noticing something. The numbers weren’t adding up. Oh sure, when we heard Dr.Birx telling us those percentages it was sobering, but when we started looking at what that meant in real-time the concern didn’t seem to match the increase. In Los Angeles the mayor fretted over a doubling of the mortality rate in just a few days but a look at the numbers showed that doubling meant they went from around 200 to 400…in a population of four million. Considering the horrific homeless problem that still remained it seemed almost impossible that the number would be that low. As of today the mortality count in the City of Angels stands at 848.

In Orange County and Ventura County (LA county’s closest neighbors) the mortality counts currently stand at 36 and 16 respectively.

We’re not even close to the level of horror we were told to expect even with social distancing measures. Certainly social distancing has helped bend the curve. You don’t need to be a scientist to understand the mechanics of that. But even so, particularly in a place like Los Angeles shouldn’t we have at least seen a giant leap in pre-quarantine infection rates? After all, until early March Californians were still going to Laker games and arena concerts and hockey games and Disneyland…millions and millions of people were still gathering in close quarters. If the threat of COVID were really that pronounced shouldn’t we be seeing a large swath of the population infected during that time?

848 COVID deaths in Los Angeles. In a population of four million.

Yet, the state remains closed. Almost every state does. Not only that, our local and state leaders seem to be relishing their newfound powers over free people. While the American economy spirals and people wonder how they’ll pay rent next week, governors and mayors across the nation have reached new levels of petty…closing beaches and parks, ordering “non-essential” parts of stores roped off, arresting people for surfing or playing basketball alone.

At this point it feels vindictive.

The numbers aren’t matching up. I’ve been holding my tongue on this lest I be labeled an “anti-science granny-killer” by the Quarantine-for-Life crowd but enough is enough. At some point common sense must see the light of day. I’m a grown woman. I’m an intelligent woman. I’ve lived a lot of life and I’m not an idiot. What I see does not add up in the light of what is happening in this country. Even the numbers in New York – the hardest hit of our cities – though tragic, are nowhere near the numbers that would justify destroying the strongest economy in the world.

Two months ago we were looking at millions dead. Today it’s thousands. Sure, we’ve been social distancing like crazy but even factoring in for that…we’re still not seeing it.

Anecdotally I’ve noticed that the people who keep insisting on extended lockdowns are the people who are still getting paid. And you know which huge group is still getting paid? Government employees. I don’t know if there is something about being one of the lucky people to still have a paycheck that makes one grossly incurious, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of empathy coming from the people in government right now. If you have a friend with a government job ask them if they think the economy should reopen or we need to quarantine through the summer. I’m willing to bet the majority will say we need to stay quarantined.

My own governor Gavin Newsom has been on television every day looking concerned and somber and telling us we may need to get used to this new normal. Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti is saying Angelinos cannot look forward to any kind of large gatherings until at least 2021. The entertainment capital of the world can’t have a sporting event until 2021? That’s half of Los Angeles’ economy right there.

You may say that they’re just making the tough choices to keep us safe, but these people aren’t living our lives. Perspective is everything and the perspective of these people is one from an ivory tower. So it’s time to start testing their resolve, their commitment to the health of the American people. It’s time to stop paying public employees. It’s time to stop paying Congress, stop paying the governors, stop paying Eric Garcetti and his bloated city council. Let them go two months without a paycheck and let’s see how that changes their perspective (and don’t be fooled, a lot of these people live paycheck-to-paycheck to fund their extravagance). If we’re still being quarantined like this after they’ve missed their rent, their mortgages, their car payments, their fees for their concierge doctors then we know the problem is worth the solution after all.

But I’m willing to bet the opposite will happen. The virus numbers might not look as scary when you’re facing the prospect of losing your livelihood. And none of these people have any other usable skills. They’re talking heads, empty suits. They live for the spotlight. They need these jobs.

It’s time to open up. We’re not all New York City. The models have been woefully off from the start and yet our leaders continue to govern as if we’ve lost the millions of lives to COVID originally predicted. We don’t have to be medical experts to see with our own eyes that the price we’re paying far exceeds the threat. Summer is creeping up and it is entirely unreasonable to expect Americans to sit in their homes and stare at empty beaches, pools, restaurants and streets during the most economically productive time of the year in most parts of the nation. Will we see infection spikes? Surely. Will they match the models? If real life is any proof (and dammit, it should be the ultimate proof), not at all. California remains “closed” even as Governor Newsom sent off thousands of PPEs to NYC, as well as sending ventilators and doctors. We don’t need them and yet we’re still locked down?

Enough.

Yank the salaries of these jokers. And yes, I’m fully aware that some of you lower level employees will suffer too and I’m sorry for that but welcome to real America, where your job is not secure and your pain doesn’t matter. Maybe you’ll start pressuring your bosses to end this madness and we can all get on with picking up the pieces. It’s not too late to save this economy, but we need to get going.

Cut them all off and watch how fast all this ends.

 https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2020/04/25/825502/

White House looking into Kim Jong Un health reports

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:40 AM PT — Saturday, April 25, 2020

White House intelligence is looking into reports regarding the health of North Korea’s leader. According to recent reports, Kim has been in a “vegetative state,” significantly declining in health, following his absence from the state anniversary event for his grandfather’s birthday.
While speaking with the press Saturday, White House officials confirmed they are aware of the ongoing situation.
“We’re definitely aware of those reports, the intelligence community is looking very closely at that,” stated Kayleigh McEnany. “We don’t have any updates on that at this time.”
Kim’s last confirmed public appearance was on April 11th, when he attended a politburo meeting.
Earlier this week, the White House dismissed initial reports regarding his health. President Trump called the reports “fake” and is hoping they are incorrect.
“I’ve had a very good relationship with him,” added the president. “I wish him well.”

https://www.oann.com/white-house-looking-into-kim-jong-un-health-reports/

Media Spreads Fake News About Trump on Wuhan Virus, But Poll Indicates Americans Aren’t Buying It and Have The Media’s Number

Nick Arama reporting for RedState

In the wake of the crazy mainstream media furor over President Donald Trump’s remarks about light and disinfectant, this story seems all the more important and relevant.

First, let’s start with the fact that Trump did not tell anyone to inject themselves with bleach, chlorox or disinfectant. Yet all those things were claimed by media as though that was reality. And they talk about Trump.

What he was doing was asking questions and speculating with Dr. Deborah Birx about how the evidence had shown the the benefits of the value of light as a disinfectant to help kill the virus. 

From Daily Wire: 

So, I’m going to ask Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing when we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.

He’s asking: can you have a treatment that acts like the light to disinfect because of the nature of what the sunlight study had Bill Bryan, the DHS official, had just shown destroyed the virus quickly?

He also made it clear immediately he wasn’t talking about injecting disinfectants like bleach or alcohol, that that was for sterilization of areas.

A few moments later, ABC News reporter Jon Karl asked Bryan, “The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”

“No, I’m here to talk about the finds that we had in the study,” Bryan responded. “We don’t do that within that lab at our labs.”

Trump then clarified his remarks: “It wouldn’t be through injections, you’re talking about almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big affect if it’s on a stationary object.”

As this shows, UV light is used as a disinfectant.

"Harness the power of light...The purpose of UV LEDs is primarily for disinfection...

"Which can be a game changer." pic.twitter.com/xlaomnnwVE

— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) April 24, 2020

Scientists are even exploring the possibility of inserting the light into the body.

"I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there's anyway you can apply light and heat to a cure.

"Maybe you can, maybe you can't.

"I'm not a doctor, but I'm a person that has a good you know what."

President @realDonaldTrump's instincts correct again! pic.twitter.com/YqJfu800fn

— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) April 24, 2020

But of course had they known that, they’d say Trump was “recommending an unproven treatment.”

But this insanity has taken over a whole news cycle because of media’s attitude toward Trump, as Greg Gutfeld points out. Because it’s about beating Trump over the head with whatever he says, right, wrong or indifferent.

Reporters are so dense and hyper-literal. It's unbelievable. @greggutfeld nails it

"What matters is that anyone would actually believe that he was saying you should inject Clorox bleach into people."

And turn it into an entire news cycle. What is wrong with them! pic.twitter.com/nU2dcUROhN

— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) April 24, 2020

But in case media thinks the effort to continually attack Trump is successful, a new poll indicates that they may have to think again.

American voters, polled about Trump, China and the virus, said something that the media isn’t going to like to hear.

According to the Washington Examiner, a plurality of Americans said that they believed that there was an anti-Trump bias in the media trying to move the blame for the virus away from China to help defeat the president in November. Not only that, a plurality said the media was disrespectful to the president.

The latest McLaughlin& Associates poll found that 49% of voters believe the media is helping the Democrats take out Trump in the current crisis.

Said the poll analysis shared with Secrets, “The plurality of voters, 49%, agreed with the statement, ‘The Democrats and liberal national media are trying to move the blame for the spread of coronavirus away from China to President Trump for partisan political gain just to win the November elections’; only 42% disagreed. Republicans overwhelmingly agreed 80% to 15%. Independents agreed 47% to 43% and even 22% of Democrats agreed.”

48% also beloved that media was being “unfair, biased and even disrespectful” to the president. 42% said the media was fair. 

56% watched the briefings regularly and of those, 59% said the media was unfair, biased and disrespectful. 

So media folks, you’re trying, but people know what you’re doing and they aren’t buying what you’re trying to sell.

Pinkerton: ‘Essential Workers’ Point the Way to a Republican Workers Party

Article written by James P. Pinkerton in "Breitbart":

On April 12, tornadoes tore across eight Southern states, killing 33. Chattanooga, Tennessee, was especially hard hit. An EF-3 twister killed nine, injuring dozens, and destroying or damaging 150 buildings.

Yet within minutes, there was hope. First responders were soon on the scene, and at 6 a.m. the following day, 500 workers began conducting a “grid search”; as Hamilton County Emergency Management Communications Director Amy Maxwell explained to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, “We’re still in the rescue mode and that’s pretty much going through the area which was affected, going door to door to make sure that we got everyone accounted for.”

At the same time, emergency rooms at local hospitals were receiving new patients, such as four-year-old Grayson Meadows, who suffered a grave brain injury when the storm ripped through his home. 

Given the size of the response, one might almost forget that at the same time, the nation is in the grip of the coronavirus epidemic—although, of course, nobody is forgetting. As of April 15, Hamilton County has had 110 Covid-19 infections, and 11 deaths; nationwide, more than 26,000 have died. 

So we can see: Many public servants are putting their lives on the line on a routine basis. Some are on duty when the storm breaks, others work their way through the wreckage—risking hazards as they search for victims—and some treat patients afterward. In the meantime, of course, all know that a highly contagious virus lurks. 

It’s hard to think of any job categories more essential than these; this isn’t just essential work, it’s the Lord’s work. 

We might note that the median salary for an emergency medical technician (EMT) in Chattanooga is $33,000; for a police officer, the median is a bit more than $50,000, and for a registered nurse, the average salary is a little over $60,000. 
  
The pay scales for these workers seem low, especially in relation to the personal risk to them and the social value for the rest of us. Sometimes these incomes are beefed up by overtime, and yet even so, they seem meager next to many white-collar jobs that now seem, well, un-essential.

The New Meaning of Work

As we think about the first responders and frontline health workers in Chattanooga, and across the nation, we might wonder whether perhaps the pay-system itself is out of whack. Why do those who work so hard, at such risk, and do so much good get paid so little, especially relative to those who contribute little or nothing to society?  

Moreover, we might also give some thought to all the other workers who are keeping our society going these days. We might ask ourselves: Why is the power still on? Why do the police still patrol the streets? Why do firefighters still come when called? Why do the traffic lights still work? Why do our phones still work? And the Internet?
  
And let’s not stop there: Let’s also ask: Why are many stores still open? Who’s stocking the shelves? Who’s working the cash registers? Who’s making deliveries? And behind those workers, who’s driving the trucks, operating the trains, and flying the airplanes? We could go on and on, listing all the many millions of workers, in the public and private sectors, who are proving themselves essential, helping us to get through this virus crisis.

Indeed, in a different vein, we might further ask: Where have all these people been? Why have these working-class heroes been so invisible for so long? The answer, of course, is that both the political and popular culture has devalued, even disdained, the toil of ordinary people.

Once upon a time, America lauded GI Joe and Rosie the Riveter; in 1942, the vice president of the United States declared that the 20th century should be remembered as the “the century of the common man.”  

Yet weirdly, in the last few decades, an inordinate amount of praise has gone to billionaire tech tycoons and even to Wall Street plutocrats—once seen as the arch-enemy of the working class—especially if they’re progressive and woke. 

So now, in the Covidean Era, we realize that we need police service more than we need the carried-interest tax loophole, and so this ridiculously rich-worshiping cultural-value system is changing.  We now know about those working stiffs who are actually keeping us safe and fed—and we need them more than some billionaire with his money invested in China. 

One who makes this point well is Maurice Glasman, a thoughtful British critic of neoliberalism and globalism. Writing in the New Statesman on April 12, he argued that one bright spot of the current crisis has been “the visibility and necessity of the working class.” Indeed, Glasman continued:

The crisis has clarified a distinctive aspect of the meaning of labour: it is something you can’t do from home. It requires real physical presence, leaving home and doing something, usually involving your hands, for other people.

One immediately might insist that yes, of course, some people do real and important work at home. And yet at the same time, Glasman has a point. As this virus stalks the world, the man or woman who goes outside to work seems braver than those who stay at home.

And yet here’s something interesting: The wages that such workers receive do not at all line up with the risk they take on the job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, fewer than a tenth of workers in the bottom income quartile can work from home. By contrast, more than half of workers in the top income quartile can do so.  

To put the matter another way, the working class is taking risks—taking the hit, one might say—for the benefit of the well off.
  
A Better Deal for Workers 

For decades, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has been charting wages and wealth in this country. For example, here are nine charts EPI released about American wages and income inequality back in 2015, well before Donald Trump’s election; as we can see, they make two key points about conditions under Trump’s predecessors:

First, productivity has soared much faster than median wages, which is to say, American workers are no longer gaining the benefit of their own hard work as a factor in rising productivity and wealth; the benefits are being captured by others. And that leads us to …

Second, the income of the top one percent has risen nine times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent. And much of the reason, of course, is that the one percent typically gets its income from capital and investments, and so one percenters make their money from the stock market. And big corporations have found it easy, and profitable, to outsource production overseas, especially after China opened up in the ’90s.   

We might add that EPI admits there’s been some improvement in the years since 2015, which is to say, Trump’s policies have made a positive difference. And yet still, it’s obvious that the gap between labor and capital has widened vastly.  

So let’s think about what the nation owes working Americans. And then let’s think about narrowing the gap.

In the short term, the key issue is protecting worker health, as well as, of course, the health of all Americans. And that entails everything from face masks now to a cure or vaccine tomorrow. In other words, we need the full mobilization of the United States for the sake of working people, for the economy they have built—and for everyone else. 

In the longer term, we should be thinking about raising wages for those at the low end of the scale, and also about guaranteeing them the basics of dignity and safety on the job. This author, as well as others here at Breitbart News, having taken note of hazardous working conditions at Amazon facilities, as well as of rising protests among the e-commerce giant’s employees.
  

Then, on April 14, came the news that Amazon had fired three more workers for their activism. On April 21 came more protests; as one worker in Michigan told New York magazine, “We are essential workers, but we’re not receiving essential protection.” Admittedly, the protests reportedly amounted to only 300 workers out of some 250,000 at Amazon nationwide, and yet it’s a safe bet that there will be many more protests. Indeed, it’s only a matter of time before labor inspectors—and tort lawyers—take a good long look at Amazon’s facilities. So while Amazon can claim success in the short run, the long run prospects for the company’s defiant stance are cloudier. 

Yes, it’s an easy prediction that such corporate high-handedness will be met, soon, with a stern legal and political response. And that’s as it should be. After all, as Abraham Lincoln declared in 1859, “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital … capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed … labor is the superior—greatly the superior—of capital.”

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is not the first American tycoon to think that he can run roughshod over his workers. And yet most likely, soon enough, he will be reminded of what happened to those earlier tycoons; they were brought to heel by a popular upswell of congressional oversight, regulation, unionization, and anti-trust action. In our republic, the people rule.  

Yet there’s no need to worry about Bezos; during the current crisis, his fortune has actually increased by $24 billion, so he’ll still be fabulously rich, even if he has to spend more to keep his workplaces safe and pay his workers higher wages. 

Indeed, Amazon, as well as the nation, will actually do better if workers feel that they are being cut in on the action. Social stability, after all, is good for business. 

A Nation Fit for Heroes

When this war—this World War Virus—is over, we, as a nation, will have to stake stock. We will mourn our losses, we will regret our economic calamity, and we will thank our essential workers.

And then we will have to figure out how to secure that better deal for all American workers. 

It’s no longer possible to kid ourselves. We can no longer live with the illusion that the forces of globalism—who outsourced all those jobs to China and who devalued work here at home—have our best interests at heart. We won’t get fooled again. 

Instead, for inspiration, we should look to labor—the labor that the great Lincoln told us was always superior to capital. Let’s look, for instance, to the frontline workers in Chattanooga, to all essential workers, and to working people across the country.
  
If we see the world through their eyes and respect their best values, we’ll be reminded that hard work brings something that money can’t buy—honor. And a politics that celebrates earned honor is an effective politics—as in, winning elections.

So here’s the opportunity for conservatives, for populists, and nationalists, and all the rest of the right and center-right: The Republican Party should always abide by its core principles, and yet at the same time, it should return to its Lincolnian roots, becoming the avowed party of first responders, blue-collars, and other frontline workers—and joined by, of course, soldiers, homemakers, and believers.  

And yes, of course, entrepreneurs, small businesses, venture capitalists, and even fatcats would be fully welcome into this party; they should understand that if ordinary Americans are doing well, then they, too, will do well. After all, what a business needs most is a customer.  

If we can we organize our economy around the well-being of the middle class—just as we once did—then we can all have a healthy, strong, and secure country.
   
By contrast, if we are weak as a nation, and either viruses or China rule the world, then nobody—and nobody’s wealth—will be safe.
  
The nation is ready to reward the party whose platform reflects the hard lessons we have learned these past few decades—and the even harder lessons we have learned in the past few months. 

Can this happen? Can the Grand Old Party become the Grand Worker Party? We’ll have to see.  

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/04/25/pinkerton-essential-workers-point-the-way-to-a-republican-workers-party/ 

When Communism Is OK in America, Patriots Must Resist Harder

Article by E. Jeffrey Ludwig in "The American Thinker":

With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the Cold War virtually disappeared.  In the 1990s, the People's Republic of China (PRC) was admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Under Deng Xiaoping (premier of China, 1978–1992), the PRC had begun to set up empowerment zones and allowed capitalist multinational corporations to operate within their borders.  McDonald's has some nice fast food outlets in China, and many of our medicines as well as our Barbie dolls are manufactured there.  Chinese restrictions on child-bearing won the hearts of Western liberals, who are convinced that over-population combined with climate change (formerly "global warming") is the cause of poverty on our planet.  "Sustainable" use of resources became a new mantra.  For many, sustainability means capitalism and communism working together side by side.  How else can we arrive at the fulfillment of the Marxian principle "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"? 

The highly educated of the West neatly combined all these avenues of discourse — climate change, population control, compatibility of communism and capitalism — with the widely accepted utilitarian doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number (believed by most if not   all of Western Civilization).  Our own left-wing/liberal elite easily accepted Mill's belief that the "greatest good" could best be discerned by the more educated, informed classes of people.  What a neat package!

The only snag is that it leaves out of the equation two important dimensions of the problem.  Dimension One: What happens to the individual in this process, and in particular, what happens to the liberty of the individual?  Dimension Two: What is the role of God and of individual morality in this collective vision?  Does subjecting oneself to the decisions of the new experts of the greatest good (sic) become a "new morality"?  There is one paradigm of morality presented to Western civilization for 3,400 years.  It's called Judeo-Christian values.  At many points, it conflicts directly with the new Sino-Technocratic-Marxist/Utilitarian morality.  There is one paradigm of capitalist economics where private ownership and management of one's assets is justified, and another opposing paradigm where ownership, product design, prices, wages, and uses of goods and services are governmental.  There is one paradigm where God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, is mainstream, and there is the more recent paradigm, where the human caretaker model — taking care of society and nature — is the end-all and be-all. 

Those, like this writer, who grew up before 1991 were brought up in a world that was anti-communist.  The majority view, held by both our major parties, emphasized private ownership of property and individual liberty restrained by Judeo-Christian morality.  Despite the banning of prayer in our schools in 1962, faith in God was perceived as legitimate (varying on an individual-by-individual basis), and not as a somewhat out-of-date interest merely to be tolerated.  We had "rights," and those in the USSR didn't.  We had prosperity, and the commies did not.  We were good guys, and they were bad guys.  People wanted to become citizens and emigrate to the USA, and nobody wanted to go to commie countries.  We were in a fight against those who sought to disrupt all the positives of the USA and looked to the Soviets for leadership in doing so.  Eugene Debs was their candidate in 1912.  Henry Wallace was their candidate in 1948.  Then there was George McGovern in 1972.

However, once the USSR collapsed, it seemed that the idea of two sides in the world also evaporated from American consciousness.  A paradigm shift began to take place.  Now we are struggling through a great identity crisis between leftist programs and policies and programs and policies based on private property and liberty.  The crisis has intensified with this virus pestilence.  The left, following the example of Mao's Long March, has kept pushing forward, pushing forward, and now has taken over one of our two major parties. 

The under-30 crowd does not know — yes, know — about communism, about Castro, about Mao, about Lenin, about Stalin, about murder of the kulaks in Ukraine, about the Cultural Revolution, about the boat people risking all on the high seas to get to Florida from Cuba.  These people do not know about the murders, torture, or imprisonments in communist countries.  They do not know about the rampant bribery in communist countries or the long hours in line to buy chicken, meat, eggs, and produce.  They do not know that the government told people when and where they could move to another apartment and what occupation to study for in school.  They never met my former colleague, who had a Ph.D. in mathematics in the USSR, but was told that because he was Jewish, he could teach only in a remote city, not in Moscow.  They do not know about a society where the government produces all clothing, and there was no variety of colors or styles to choose from.  Another friend, now retired from a career as a leading architect, returning from a trip to the USSR in 1990, noticed how all clothes were brown, dark blue, or charcoal grey.

Sadly, we are at a point where learning about these things is in books or articles, and books and articles are being read less than ever because of the declining literacy and attention span of the population.  We are all becoming increasingly addicted to sound bites; texts; and Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter posts as legitimate sources of ideas and information.  These modes are becoming central media for communication rather than marginal pastimes for less significant communications.  Previously, in our new computer age, these communications were for fun, but not to be taken as seriously as other more substantial, lengthier forms of communication.  Therefore, the possibility of challenging the left through books and articles becomes less and less viable with each passing year. 

The communist threat in an earlier era also was not only to be considered in books and articles, but was more part of everyday consciousness.  When I was growing up in the fifties and sixties, you might well understand that communism was wrong or, at the very least, suspect that it was wrong without reading articles and books on the subject.  Today, that pervasive, in-the-air understanding that communism is unacceptable is not there.  The leftocratic position described above is the norm for many, including our college-educated under-30 generation.  The left has made tremendous progress, especially since 1991.  Thus, in the face of the fact that the path of private property, natural rights and liberty, Judeo-Christian morality, belief in the primacy of the individual rather than the collective, and America as a republic and not a socialist global village has been dominant for a few hundred years, we must fight for these ideas as never before.  Because of the invasion of leftism from Europe in the late 19th century, we have been fighting those Marxist views for over 100 years and have, in the past thirty years, lost ground.  By prayer and resolve, we must fight even harder against the scourge of the enemy both within and without.  Our heritage cannot be taken for granted.  Resistance is needed.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/04/when_communism_is_ok_in_america_patriots_must_resist_harder.html#ixzz6KdCSEp00

'The Pretense of Knowledge' has Cost America Dearly

Article written by Nicholas J. Kaster in "The American Thinker":

Recently, Brit Hume, the sober and understated Fox News commentator, voiced the thoughts of millions when he said,

“I think its time to consider the possibility… that this lockdown, as opposed to the more moderate mitigation efforts… is a colossal public policy calamity.”

The financial extent of the calamity was quantified by economist Scott Grannis when he observed that “almost overnight, we have wiped out all the net job gains of the past 14 years.” He made that comment on April 12 and the losses aren’t over yet. Grannis bluntly concluded that, “The shutdown of the U.S. economy will prove to be the most expensive self-inflicted injury in the history of mankind.”

The loss of liberty incurred as a result of shutdown is not as easily quantifiable, but is no less significant.

Epidemiological “models” have provided the scientific basis for this large-scale abrogation of personal and economic liberty. Now that the models have been shown to be grossly inaccurate, some are demanding accountability.

In a recent op-ed, Georgia congressman Jody Hice wrote:

“Public health experts, scientists, and government officials all warned that millions would die unless strict measures were put in place… So, we willingly took unprecedented steps to save the most vulnerable among us, even at the cost of wreaking unparalleled economic damage. The experts said it was necessary, that the coronavirus was especially deadly, and our medical systems were in danger of being overwhelmed… Now, weeks into the pandemic, the dire outcomes foretold by experts have failed to come to pass. The models used to justify the closure of society have been shown to be wildly inaccurate… We need to examine why the models failed us, why their creators have been so far off the mark, and why these projections were used to justify policies that have resulted in unparalleled economic disruption.”

It is worth having that discussion. In retrospect, and despite their air of authority, the experts never had enough knowledge about this virus to make reliable calculations about the future.

But the real problem with the models weren’t that they proved to be false, but rather that they were promoted with false certitude.

“I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge,” economist Friedrich Hayek once said, “to a pretense of exact knowledge that is likely to be false.”

Hayek’s remark, given as he was accepting the Nobel Prize in 1974, was that thinking of economics as a “science” might lead to “a pretense of knowledge,” the idea that any one person might know enough to engineer society successfully, unmindful of unintended consequences.

But Hayek went on to note that his reasoning applied to the physical sciences as well:

“There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, ‘dizzy with success’… to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will. The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society--a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

These observations, made over 40 years ago, look prescient today.

How might we have acted if the models didn’t exist? Most likely, we would have chosen a more traditional approach to fighting the pandemic: quarantine and protect the sick and vulnerable, institute some sensible mitigation policies, and otherwise get on with life.

This is essentially the approach Sweden has chosen, and for which it has been pilloried in the American media. Yet, Sweden’s policies are based on thinking that is quintessentially American.

In an article in the UK Spectator, Fredrik Erixon, the director of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels, explained that,

“We worry about Covid-19 a lot. Many people work from home. Restaurants are open, but not bustling. Keeping two metres apart at bus stops is something Swedes were pretty good at before the crisis: we don’t need much encouragement now. We’re careful. But our approach to fighting the pandemic starts from something more fundamental: in a liberal democracy you have to convince and not command people into action. If you lose that principle, you will lose your soul.”

So far, the Swedish strategy of allowing some exposure to the virus in order to build immunity among the general population while protecting high-risk groups like the elderly appears to be paying off. The country’s chief epidemiologist reported that “herd immunity” could be reached in the capital of Stockholm in a matter of weeks. Moreover, Sweden has achieved this while taking less of an economic hit than other countries in Europe.

Sweden’s approach was a mixture of epidemiology and principle. Erixon noted that the concept of a national lockdown is “deeply illiberal -- and, until now, untested.”

He allowed that Sweden may change if facts warrant. “But,” he wrote, “the vast majority, for now, want Sweden to keep its cool. We don’t want to remember 2020 as the time when we caused irreparable harm to our liberties -- or lost them entirely.”

Sweden instructing the U.S. on liberty. Who would have thought?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/04/the_pretense_of_knowledge_has_cost_america_dearly.html 

Democrats to Replace Biden at Convention Over Tara Reade Sexual Assault Allegations?

 
Article written by Matt Margolis in "PJMedia":

While the mainstream media has mostly kept a lid on this story, the sexual assault allegations by Tara Reade against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden aren't going away soon. As PJM's Rick Moran reported earlier this week, the D.C. police are treating the allegations as an "active and ongoing" investigation. Many liberals are turning a blind eye to the story, but there are some who have a vested interest in keeping this story alive and front and center: Bernie Bros.

In fact, Briahna Joy Gray, Bernie Sanders' former campaign press secretary, who has been a vocal critic of Biden, suggested in an interview with The Atlantic that the allegations might just thwart Biden's nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

Gray told Emma Green that the Democratic primary is far from over. "The Democratic Party would like us to believe [we're now in the general election season], and they behaved that way even before Bernie Sanders dropped out of the race. But we are, in fact, still in a Democratic-primary season. Biden is only the presumptive nominee," she said, before adding, "And there’s all kinds of whispers and rumors about whether or not something might happen at the convention, which might mean Joe Biden isn’t even the nominee."

"Are you talking about the Tara Reade allegations?" Green asked.

"There’s a lot of reasons why Democrats might want to substitute a different person for Joe Biden as the nominee," said Gray. "The Tara Reade allegation has been handled abysmally by the press. If anyone looks at this closely, then they will see reason for concern."

Obviously, Gray is correct that there are reasons to be concerned. Unlike the allegations made against Brett Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford, which were uncorroborated and had all sorts of holes in it, Tara Reade filed a complaint at the time of the alleged incident, and told her mother, her brother, and a friend who worked in Sen. Ted Kennedy's office. By virtually any standard, her allegations are more reliable than any made against Brett Kavanaugh. That's plenty of reason for Democrat insiders to be whispering about a Plan B for the convention.

"My preferred outcome is for the Democratic nominee to support the bedrock policies that will make them electable against Donald Trump in the fall," Gray explained. "And my preferred outcome is for that nominee not to be so saddled with a historical record that it’s difficult for him to really run on anything. The party made a choice. Democratic officials and Barack Obama made a number of phone calls after South Carolina, convincing other people in the race to drop out and coalesce behind Joe Biden, knowing that Joe Biden had these vulnerabilities."

Gray suggests that Democrat voters were conned into believing that Joe Biden was the most electable candidate while Reade's allegations were ignored for over a year. A new report from The Intercept published on Friday says that new evidence supports the credibility of Tara Reade's allegations against Biden.

I think it's clear, based on Gray's comments in her interview, that Bernie Bros who are not happy about Biden being the presumptive nominee are going to make sure the Tara Reade allegations don't get swept under the rug, in the hopes that they can pull off getting a different candidate on the ballot. While this is highly unlikely, in my opinion, I'm inclined to believe that there are enough Bernie Sanders supporters who will do anything they can to thwart Biden's nomination. Even without the Tara Reade allegations, there's enough for Democrats to be concerned about. Biden has an enthusiasm gap that is likely not going to change, and his cognitive decline will likely become a huge liability in the fall.

Last month there also seemed to be some momentum for a Draft Cuomo movement after he received praise for his early handling of the coronavirus pandemic in New York. The situation in New York has deteriorated significantly since then, and perhaps disenchanted Democrats are no longer looking at Cuomo as an alternative, but the fact that such an alternative was considered suggests there might be buyer's remorse over Biden—remorse that can be exacerbated by the Tara Reade allegations gaining traction in the media.

Something is definitely brewing amongst Bernie loyalists, and it could re-shape this election.

https://pjmedia.com/election/democrats-to-replace-biden-at-convention-over-tara-reade-sexual-assault-allegations/ 

Benefits vs. Costs and COVID-19

Article written by Walter E. Williams in "mrcNewsBusters":

One of the first lessons in an economics class is everything has a cost. That's in stark contrast to lessons in the political arena where politicians talk about free stuff. In our personal lives, decision-making involves weighing costs against benefits. Businessmen make the same calculation if they want to stay in business. It's an entirely different story for politicians running the government where any benefit, however minuscule, is often deemed to be worth any cost, however large.

Related to decision-making is the issue of being overly safe versus not safe enough. Sometimes, being as safe as one can be is worthless. A minor example: How many of us before driving our cars inspect the hydraulic brake system for damage? We'd be safer if we did, but most of us just assume everything is OK and get into our car and drive away. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 40,000 Americans lose their lives each year because of highway fatalities. Virtually all those lives could be saved with a mandated 5 mph speed limit. Fortunately, we consider costs and rightfully conclude that saving those 40,000 lives aren't worth the costs and inconvenience of a 5 mph mandate.

With the costs and benefits in mind, we might examine our government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first thing to keep in mind about any crisis, be it war, natural disasters or pandemics, is we should keep markets open and private incentives strong. Markets solve problems because they provide the right incentives to use resources effectively. Federal, state and local governments have ordered an unprecedented and disastrous shutdown of much of the U.S. economy in an effort to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

There's a strictly health-related downside to the shutdown of the U.S. economy ignored by our leadership that has been argued by epidemiologist Dr. Knut Wittkowski, formerly the head of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at Rockefeller University in New York City. Wittkowski argues that the lockdown prolongs the development of the "herd immunity," which is our only weapon in "exterminating" the novel coronavirus -- outside of a vaccine that's going to optimistically take 18 months or more to produce. He says we should focus on shielding the elderly and people with comorbidities while allowing the young and healthy to associate with one another in order to build up immunities. Wittkowski says, "So, it's very important to keep the schools open and kids mingling to spread the virus to get herd immunity as fast as possible, and then the elderly people, who should be separated, and the nursing homes should be closed during that time, can come back and meet their children and grandchildren after about 4 weeks when the virus has been exterminated." Herd immunity, Wittkowski argues, would stop a "second wave" headed for the United States in the fall. Dr. David L. Katz, president of True Health Initiative and the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, shares Wittkowski's vision. Writing in The New York Times, he argued that our fight against COVID-19 could be worse than the virus itself.

The bottom line is that costs can be concealed but not eliminated. Moreover, if people only look at the benefits from a particular course of action, they will do just about anything, because everything has a benefit. Political hustlers and demagogues love promising benefits when the costs can easily be concealed. By the way, the best time to be wrong and persist in being wrong is when the costs of being wrong are borne by others.

The absolute worst part of the COVID-19 pandemic, and possibly its most unrecoverable damage, is the massive power that Americans have given to their federal, state and local governments to regulate our lives in the name of protecting our health. Taking back that power should be the most urgent component of our recovery efforts. It's going to be challenging; once a politician, and his bureaucracy, gains power, he will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/walter-e-williams/2020/04/23/benefits-vs-costs-and-covid-19

Coronavirus pandemic inspires demand for UV airplane cleaner

April 25, 2020
(Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestion that ultraviolet light could be inserted into coronavirus patients was widely panned on Friday, but a California company thinks it’s a perfect solution for decontaminating airplanes.
Dimer UCV Innovations created a UV-C-emitting cleaning machine called GermFalcon for the airline industry in 2014 – but it’s only with the coronavirus that demand has really taken off.
“We didn’t want it to take a pandemic to create the demand in this industry. That’s the situation we’re in and we’re building our units as quickly as we can,” said Elliot Kreitenberg, president and cofounder of Dimer UCV Innovations.
He did not give details on sales of the unit, but said use of the machine had been offered to the industry for free during the pandemic.
GermFalcon is a food cart-sized robotic tool that is pushed down the aisle of the plane. Mechanical wings expand and emit UV-C light onto cabin surfaces.
A protective barrier shields the operator from the ultraviolet light, which can be harmful.
Kreitenberg said the GermFalcon can clean a typical narrow body aircraft in three minutes.
UV-C can damage the nucleic acids within an organism and prevent it from replicating. Its use as a disinfectant is fairly common in hospital and laboratory settings, experts have said.
But elsewhere, such as in aviation, it is uncommon.

There are three types of ultraviolet light: UV-A, UV-B and UV-C, and UV-C is the most damaging. About 95 percent of the UV radiation from the sun comes in the form of UV-A.
While UV light is known to kill viruses in air-borne droplets, health professionals said it could not be introduced into the human body to target cells infected with the novel coronavirus.
Organizations like CHEO Research Institute in Canada have looked at using UV-C to disinfect personal protective equipment such as N95 masks, but not surfaces.
According to University of California Santa Barbara, Seoul Semiconductor Co Ltd has been working on UV LEDs for the purpose of decontaminating surfaces. That company reported “99.9% sterilization of coronavirus in 30 seconds.”

https://www.oann.com/coronavirus-pandemic-inspires-demand-for-uv-airplane-cleaner/

“No evidence” that recovered COVID-19 patients cannot be reinfected: WHO

April 25, 2020
GENEVA (Reuters) – The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently “no evidence” that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
In a scientific brief, the United Nations agency warned governments against issuing “immunity passports” or “risk-free certificates” to people who have been infected as their accuracy could not be guaranteed.
The practice could actually increase the risks of continued spread as people who have recovered may ignore advice about taking standard precautions against the virus, it said.
“Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘risk-free certificate’ that would enable individuals to travel or to return to work assuming that they are protected against re-infection,” the WHO said.
“There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection,” it said.
Chile said last week it would begin handing out “health passports” to people deemed to have recovered from the illness. Once screened to determine if they have developed antibodies to make them immune to the virus, they could immediately rejoin the workforce.
The WHO said it continued to review the evidence on antibody responses to the virus, which emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan late last year. Some 2.8 million people have been reported to be infected by the novel coronavirus globally and 196,298 have died, according to a Reuters tally.
 Most studies have shown that people who have recovered from infection have antibodies to the virus, the WHO said. However, some of them have very low levels of neutralizing antibodies in their blood, “suggesting that cellular immunity may also be critical for recovery”, it added.

https://www.oann.com/no-evidence-yet-that-recovered-covid-patients-cannot-be-reinfected-who/

Flynn Defense Files Supplement For Motion to Dismiss – New Evidence of Mueller Blackmail Using Threat Against Flynn Jr

sundance at cth

In a supplement to the defense motion to dismiss [pdf here] we discover some of the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct turned over by the DOJ to the Flynn defense. Specifically Lt. General Michael Flynn’s plea was based on a threat against Michael Flynn Jr. if his father didn’t sign the plea.  This will very likely get the plea dismissed.

Because the exhibits had to be filed under seal, they are heavily redacted; however, Flynn’s defense counsel, Sidney Powell, has asked the court to release & unredact the full content of the exhibits so the world can see the coercion behind the corrupt plea agreement.

The Mueller prosecution team lead by Brandon Van Grack put the agreement and threat in writing, but they also made a deal with the former defense team to hide the terms in an effort to cover-up their misconduct.  Coercion to force a plea is unethical and unlawful.

The full filing is below.

View this document on Scribd

.

Filing by Sidney Powell proves what CTH originally outlined in April 2019:  

Reposted Below:

The original authorization for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was May 17th, 2017.  However, the released Weissmann report shows there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting of the Mueller probe.  The first scope memo was August 2nd, 2017, OUTLINED HERE, and is an important part of the puzzle that helps explain the corrupt original purpose of the special counsel.

The second scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017.  The transparent intent of the second scope memo was to provide Weissmann and Mueller with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes.  One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.

As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:

This second scope memo allowed Weissmann and Mueller to target tangentially related persons and entities bringing in Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Jr.  Additionally and strategically (you’ll see why), this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.

With Paul Manafort outlined as an investigative target in the original authorization and the first scope memo, the second scope memo authorizes expansion to his business partner Richard Gates and their joint businesses.   This memo also permits the investigation of Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen and all of his interests; and in ultimate weasel sunlight, Rosenstein authorizes an investigation of his boss, AG Jeff Sessions.

Before getting to more targets, notice the underlined passage about starting with a lot of investigative material because the special counsel was picking up a Russian interference  investigation that had been ongoing for “nearly 10 months.”

I would also note that our CTH research indicates all of the illegally extracted FISA-702(16)(17) database search results would be part of this pre-existing investigative file available immediately to Weissmann and Mueller.  However, in order to use the search-query evidence, Weissmann and Mueller would need to backfill some alternate justification; or find another way to “rediscover” the preexisting results….. I digress

The four identified targets within the original July 2016 investigation, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, were George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. (See HPSCI report):

General Flynn was under investigation from the outset in mid-2016. The fraudulent FBI counterintelligence operation, established by CIA Director John Brennan, had Flynn as one of the early targets when Brennan handed the originating electronic communication “EC” to FBI Director James Comey.

The investigation of General Flynn never stopped throughout 2016 and led to the second investigative issue of his phone call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016:

Back to the Page #12 October 20th Scope Memo:

The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” is unknown; however, The second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.

In combination with the October timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father, General Michael Flynn, for: (1) possible conspiracy with a foreign government; (2) unregistered lobbying; (3) materially false statements and omissions on 2017 FARA documents; and (4) lying to the FBI.

This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and attempting to force him into a guilty plea. 

Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.

The October 20th, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Weissmann wanted.  After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby.  

The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening.  A month later, General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:

And don’t forget, Andrew McCabe was also likely the person who leaked the content of the Mike Flynn phone call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak.  A massive leak of classified information:

Within the case against Michael Flynn…. Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, and the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, 2017, and then again on May 31st, 2017.

To explain the FBI delay, Van Grack claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL” (screen grab)

What the special counsel appeared to be obfuscating to the court was there was factually a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the Flynn interview.  Likely how best to word the FBI notes for maximum damage.

In late 2018 Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations within the FBI. It seems he did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written.

We know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: See below (note the dates):

The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017.

The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:

Obviously the interview took place on January 24th, 2017. The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.

It was a deliberative document from the outset. Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading.  The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it.

May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.

This level of overt corruption, and corrupt intent within the special counsel, is one of the many reasons why Rosenstein apologists and the ‘trust the plan’ crew should be collectively slapped across the face with a cold fish.  

Moving on….

♦ Another issue is reconciled on Page #13 of the Weissmann/Mueller reportsurrounding why FBI Director Chris Wray asked DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente to become chief legal counsel of the FBI. 

Look at the investigative structure as outlined by the Weissmann report:

Technically the 40 FBI agents remained under FBI supervision at all times.  Additionally the assigned FBI attorney worked under the FBI legal supervision; not the supervision of the special counsel.

[ie. Mueller retains plausible deniability for criminal investigative wrongdoing]

Initially in May 2017 this meant FBI chief legal counsel James Baker, part of the original small group, was coordinating the FBI roles and legal responsibilities.  However, by the end of 2017 James Baker was in trouble as congress highlighted his corrupt endeavors.

Remember what was going on in late 2017?

In addition to the FBI issues with Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surfacing internally, by December 2017, immediately after Michael Flynn signed the guilty plea… all hell broke loose.

Can you imagine an institutional idiot like FBI Director Chris Wray watching all of the information about McCabe, Strzok, Page, Kortan and Baker start erupting in the headlines and all around his office?… and simultaneously he has 40 corrupt FBI investigators attached to the corruptly organized Weissmann/Mueller detail?

That reality is exactly why Chris Wray needed to get one of the corrupt DOJ insiders to take over as FBI legal counsel.  Director Wray saw the need for massive ass-covering; and the perfect man for the job was the guy who participated in the FISA application fraud, Dana Boente.

Exactly six months later FBI Director Christopher Wray was telling a national audience there was no political bias, misconduct or corruption within the FBI; but hey, we’re going to go through bias training because we’re good enough, strong enough, and doggone it – people like us… or something.  [IG Report June 14th, 2018]

Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that every person identified in this outline is still in their position of authority to this day.  Including the 40 FBI agents who participated in three years of corrupt investigations of a non-existent Russia conspiracy.

Today, with the latest revelations, FBI Director Christopher Wray looks like: