Saturday, July 10, 2021

The Founding Elite vs. The Current Elite

Talk about disparate visions.


In an insightful Independence Day Twitter thread, Emily Zanotti expressed her partiality for this provision of the Declaration of Independence:

[T]his is my favorite part: ‘And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.’ Can you imagine writing that? Signing your name to that? Acknowledging that this document means you will come out of this broke, dead, and remembered as a traitor if you do not win. Signing your own death warrant. Man, that took balls . . . 

In recognizing and celebrating the signatories’ fortitude, Zanotti illuminated the stark contrast between the visions of America’s founding elite and its current elite.

Without a doubt, the founding generation’s leading figures were from the colonies’ elite. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and their fellow preeminent revolutionaries were wealthy and celebrated in their time. These were not hardscrabble peasants yearning to commit regicide and confiscate wealth.

As the Declaration makes clear, they already had their fortunes and honors. They could have ridden out the troubles with the English crown in comfort, occasionally petitioning the king for parliamentary representation or the repeal of offending acts. Thus, their stand for independence and liberty was as incongruous as it is inspiring.

The founding elite rebelled to expand the freedom of their fellow human beings. Patently, the expansion the founding generation sought wasn’t completed in their time. And while many of them tried mightily, they ultimately failed to abolish slavery and grant, without qualification, the franchise to all men and women. But to denounce the seminal victory for human freedom by comparing it to the current blessings it has borne is, at best, preposterous. It is injurious, at worst, because it masks the venality, mendacity, and cynicism of America’s current elite.

While the founding elite’s goal was the expansion of human freedom, the current elite’s aim is the curtailment of human freedom. Proselytizing its mantra of “diversity, inclusivity, and equity,” (DIE) the current elite, through Trojan horse maneuvers, seeks to coerce the citizenry into the DIE cult. Once there, this racist, Manichean ideology subsumes and subordinates the individual to the collective, which determines the status of all people based upon a subjective ranking of physical characteristics (“intersectionality”), rather than the content of their respective characters. Inevitably, this trajectory of events results in the erosion of rights and, finally, loss of freedom for the individual. 

Unlike the founding generation whose luminaries believed in the universal aspiration if not always the universal practiceof liberty and God-given rights, the current elite espouses that DNA is destiny; and they will decide whose DNA is more favored than others on the intersectionality spectrum of grievances and victimhood.

Why would the current elite attempt to impose this heinous curtailment of liberty and God-given rights upon their fellow citizens in a country whose very freedom allowed them to grow wealthy, powerful, and privileged?

Why, to protect their wealth, power, and privilege, of course.

In an era resounding with cries against elitists, the current ruling class knows they are in the populist crosshairs—and this targeting is coming from elements within both major parties. The situation is still manageable for them, but only if Left (Sanders supporters) and Right (MAGA) do not combine to curb the elitists in both the private and public sectors. 

So how best to divide the opposition? Become strange bedfellows with the only party willing and able to go all the way to crony socialism: the Democrats and their DIE cult.

As noted previously, the Democratic Party’s powerbrokers aren’t democratic. Despite their professed concern for the downtrodden, today’s Democratic Party leaders hold that such “concern” can only be exercised by a top-down administrative monolith governed by a ruling elite who arbitrarily and capriciously dole out patronage and privileges and redistribute wealth to expand and perpetuate their power. The current elitethe vast majority of whom already identify with them and participate in the schemecould find no better partner than the Democrats’ powerbrokers onto which to graft themselves in the pursuit of transforming our republic into “our oligarchy.”

Further, offering public paeans and sacrifices to the DIE cult by trashing “systemically racist” America, notably the founding elite, the current elite can pretend they are better than their predecessorsa narrative the corrupt media is more than happy to propagate. And, having denigrated and canceled the past, the current elite will have no bar to measure their promises of creating a more “diverse, inclusive, and equitable”though not more free, equal, and justnation and world. 

For instance, how “equitable”let alone freecan the current elites’ desired nation be when they engage diplomatically and do business with genocidal Communist China? The current elite is cynical, not stupid. Thus, they self-righteously condemn America’s past slavery to distract from the fact they will not condemn the Beijing regime’s state policies of genocide, slave labor, and totalitarianism. 

It is just common sense, however cruel: the current elite must prevent Left- and Right- populists from combining and devising and implementing the means to bring elites to heel; and, consequently, safeguard liberty, equality, and prosperity in our republic. In defiance of both parties’ populist movements, one witnesses the incestuous marriage of America’s current elite and the Democratic Party’s power brokers in the temple of the DIE cult. You weren’t invited. But they expect you to visit the registry and send a giftor else.

Talk about disparate visions. The founding elite risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to rebel against a tyrannical government to expand human liberty. The current elite has protected its wealth, power, and privilege by abetting a tyrannical government to curtail human liberty. 

Of course, some may say that the current elite passing themselves off as the protectors of democracy at the very time they covet an oligarchy to curtail American liberty and protect their own wealth, power, and privilege does, indeed, take “balls.” I am not so sure. For even if the current elite fails in their oligarchic aim, they will still retain their lives and much of their fortunes. 

And they have no honor to lose.


New Evidence Indicates Enough Illegal Votes In Georgia To Tip 2020 Results

In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount allegedly confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.



New evidence indicates that more than 10,300 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — a number that will continue to rise over the next several months, potentially exceeding the 12,670 votes that separated Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

While this evidence does not change the fact that Joe Biden is our president, all Americans who genuinely care about free and fair elections and the disenfranchisement of voters should demand both transparency and solutions to prevent a repeat in future elections. This evidence also vindicates former President Trump and his legal team for the related public (and private) comments and legal arguments made in challenging the Georgia election results.

Under the cover of COVID-19, Georgia, like many other states, flooded residents with absentee ballot applications. Also like sister states, Georgia ignored various legislative mandates designed to prevent fraud and to ensure the integrity of the vote. These facts, coupled with the closeness of the presidential contest in Georgia and other states, led to a flurry of accusations and litigation charging vote fraud, illegal voting, and violations of the Elector’s Clause of the constitution.

In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.

Under Georgia law, residents must vote in the county in which they reside, unless they changed their residence within 30 days of the election. As Jake Evans, a well-known Atlanta election lawyer, told me, outside of the 30-day grace period, if people vote in a county in which they no longer reside, “Their vote in that county would be illegal.”

Soon after the November general election, Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues, obtained data from the National Change of Address (NCOA) database that identified Georgia residents who had confirmed moves with the U.S. Postal Service. After excluding moves with effective dates within 30 days of the general election, and by using data available from the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, Davis identified nearly 35,000 Georgia voters who indicated they had moved from one Georgia county to another, but then voted in the 2020 general election in the county from which they had moved.

Casting Doubt on Potential Illegal Votes

Some of those moves could have been temporary, involving students or members of the military, Davis stressed, adding that under Georgia law temporary relocations do not alter citizens’ residency status or render their votes illegal. But, given the margin separating the two presidential candidates, approximately one-third of the votes at issue could have altered the outcome of the election.  Yet the media, the courts, and the Secretary of State’s Office ignored or downplayed the issue.

“It was disconcerting to see the media and the courts largely ignore serious issues like these, especially since the data I was seeing showed very legitimate issues,” Davis said. “In fact, I heard members of the Secretary of State’s team admit some votes were cast with residency issues, but then claimed there weren’t enough of them to cast the outcome of the election in doubt,” Davis added. “That was not at all what I was seeing, and as far as I am aware the Secretary of State’s Office has never put an actual number on the ones they did see.”

While frustrated, Davis told me that he never stopped working on these issues. “In May I received an updated voter database from the Secretary of State’s office, and I imported the data and compared voter’s addresses to the NCOA information I processed in November.”

The Data Speaks for Itself

When Davis ran the data, he found that, of the approximately 35,000 Georgians who indicated they had moved from one county to another county more than 30 days before the November general election, as of May, more than 10,300 had updated their voter registration information, providing the secretary of state the exact address they had previously provided to the USPS. Those same 10,000-plus individuals all also cast ballots in the county in which they had previously lived.

“That number continues to increase every day as more and more people update their registrations,” Davis said. “I have little doubt that the total number will eventually meet and then exceed President Biden’s margin of victory in Georgia.” Davis, who has testified as an expert witness multiple times in disputed election cases, believes Trump might have won a challenge to the Georgia election results had a court actually heard his case.

“Under Georgia law, a judge can order an election be redone if he or she sees there were enough illegal, irregular, or improperly rejected votes to cast the results of the election in doubt, or if they see evidence of ‘systemic irregularities,’” Davis said.

“These issues were absolutely systemic,” Davis stressed, noting “they occurred in every county in the state, in every state house, state senate, and in every congressional district in the state.”

Evans, who holds the distinction of being the only lawyer in Georgia history to successfully overturn two elections in the same race, concurred. Under Georgia law, Evans explained, “an election should be overturned either if (1) more votes than decided the election were illegal, wrongfully rejected or irregular, or (2) when there were systemic irregularities that cast in doubt the results of the election.”

“In the case of the 2020 general election,” Evans told me, Davis’s analysis indicates both factors could have been in play.

Davis’s data proves significant because critics of Trump’s challenge to the certification of Georgia’s election results framed the NCOA information as either unreliable or of an insufficient magnitude to cast the outcome of the election in doubt. But by updating their voter registration information with the same address as contained in the NCOA database, the voters themselves have established the reliability of that information.

Further, by updating their address for purposes of their voter registration, these same voters are confirming their move is not temporary. “When a person updates their voter registration to a new address, they are informing the county board of elections and correspondingly the Secretary of State that they regard the new address as their legal residence,” Evans explained.

What Do Georgia Officials Know?

Upon learning of this new development, the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office quietly opened an investigation into potentially illegal voting by residents who had moved between counties. Davis provided his data to the office in May, with a detailed explanation of his analysis.

During my interview last week with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, there was confusion over which, of the many investigations opened by his office, I had sought further information. Immediately following the interview, both his press secretary, Walter Jones, and his deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, called me back to follow up on my questions on the status of that investigation.

While Jones spoke favorably of Davis, he suggested that Davis’ figure included “false-positives” because Davis lacked access to social security numbers and birth dates of voters, and thus Davis’ list likely included different individuals bearing the same name.  Fuchs suggested a similar issue with Davis’ analysis.

“There is no need to have access to Social Security numbers or birth dates,” Davis told me. “Every voter has a unique eight-digit voter identification number,” Davis explained that these voter identification numbers tie to the voters’ names and addresses and to vote-history data, which documents when and where their votes are cast and comes from the secretary of state’s own data.

Davis provided access to that data, following the execution of a non-disclosure agreement, and I confirmed Davis’s representation. Davis also provided processing certification verifying receipt of the NCOA data.

“I provided this exact same information to Frances Watson, the chief investigator for the secretary of state,” Davis told me, sharing a copy of the email sent to Watson.

When asked for the status of Watson’s investigation and other details, while both were receptive to questions, neither Jones nor Fuchs could provide definitive answers. While on Friday Fuchs promised to give Watson permission to speak with me, and while both the deputy secretary of state and the press secretary promised to arrange an interview with Watson and to track down answers to several questions, to date, no further information has been provided and no interview has been arranged, notwithstanding several follow-up communications.

Hopefully, that is because Watson is busy investigating the strong evidence of illegal voting and not because the Secretary of State’s Office is attempting to bury the story — and the fact that Trump might have been right after all — until after Raffensperger fights off a primary challenge.

Clarification: This original article stated, “Yet during my interview last week with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, he seemed unfamiliar with this most recent evidence of illegal voting.”  

Since publication, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office confirmed he is aware of the latest in the investigation, and that during his interview he was responding to questions posed about out-of-precinct voting.  


A Treatise on the Stop The Steal Sentiment…


I think I've had discussions w/enough Boomer-tier Trump supporters who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent to extract a general theory about their perspective. It is also the perspective of most of the people at the Capitol on 1/6, and probably even Trump himself. 1/x

Most believe some or all of the theories involving midnight ballots, voting machines, etc, but what you find when you talk to them is that, while they'll defend those positions w/info they got from Hannity or Breitbart or whatever, they're not particularly attached to them. 2/x

Here are the facts - actual, confirmed facts - that shape their perspective: 1) The FBI/etc spied on the 2016 Trump campaign using evidence manufactured by the Clinton campaign. We now know that all involved knew it was fake from Day 1 (see: Brennan's July 2016 memo, etc). 3/x

These are Tea Party people. The types who give their kids a pocket Constitution for their birthday and have Founding Fathers memes in their bios. The intel community spying on a presidential campaign using fake evidence (incl forged documents) is a big deal to them. 4/x

Everyone involved lied about their involvement as long as they could. We only learned the DNC paid for the manufactured evidence because of a court order. Comey denied on TV knowing the DNC paid for it, when we have emails from a year earlier proving that he knew. 5/x

This was true with everyone, from CIA Dir Brennan & Adam Schiff - who were on TV saying they'd seen clear evidence of collusion w/Russia, while admitting under oath behind closed doors that they hadn't - all the way down the line. In the end we learned that it was ALL fake. 6/x

At first, many Trump ppl were worried there must be some collusion, because every media & intel agency wouldn't make it up out of nothing. When it was clear that they had made it up, people expected a reckoning, and shed many illusions about their gov't when it didn't happen. 7/x

We know as fact: a) The Steele dossier was the sole evidence used to justify spying on the Trump campaign, b) The FBI knew the Steele dossier was a DNC op, c) Steele's source told the FBI the info was unserious, d) they did not inform the court of any of this and kept spying. 8/x

Trump supporters know the collusion case front and back. They went from worrying the collusion must be real, to suspecting it might be fake, to realizing it was a scam, then watched as every institution - agencies, the press, Congress, academia - gaslit them for another year. 9/x

Worse, collusion was used to scare people away from working in the administration. They knew their entire lives would be investigated. Many quit because they were being bankrupted by legal fees. The DoJ, press, & gov't destroyed lives and actively subverted an elected admin. 10/x

This is where people whose political identity was largely defined by a naive belief in what they learned in Civics class began to see the outline of a Regime that crossed all institutional boundaries. Because it had stepped out of the shadows to unite against an interloper. 11/x

GOP propaganda still has many of them thinking in terms of partisan binaries, but A LOT of Trump supporters see that the Regime is not partisan. They all know that the same institutions would have taken opposite sides if it was a Tulsi Gabbard vs Jeb Bush election. 12/x

It's hard to describe to people on the left (who are used to thinking of gov't as a conspiracy... Watergate, COINTELPRO, WMD, etc) how shocking & disillusioning this was for people who encourage their sons to enlist in the Army, and hate ppl who don't stand for the Anthem. 13/x

They could have managed the shock if it only involved the government. But the behavior of the corporate press is really what radicalized them. They hate journalists more than they hate any politician or gov't official, because they feel most betrayed by them. 14/x

The idea that the press is driven by ratings/sensationalism became untenable. If that were true, they'd be all over the Epstein story. The corporate press is the propaganda arm of the Regime they now see in outline. Nothing anyone says will ever make them unsee that, period. 15/x

This is profoundly disorienting. Many of them don't know for certain whether ballots were faked in November 2020, but they know for absolute certain that the press, the FBI, etc would lie to them if there was. They have every reason to believe that, and it's probably true. 16/x

They watched the press behave like animals for four years. Tens of millions of people will always see Kavanaugh as a gang rapist, based on nothing, because of CNN. And CNN seems proud of that. They led a lynch mob against a high school kid. They cheered on a summer of riots. 17/x

They always claimed the media had liberal bias, fine, whatever. They still thought the press would admit truth if they were cornered. Now they don't. It's a different thing to watch them invent stories whole cloth in order to destroy regular lives and spark mass violence. 18/x

Time Mag told us that during the 2020 riots, there were weekly conference calls involving, among others, leaders of the protests, the local officials who refused to stop them, and media people who framed them for political effect. In Ukraine we call that a color revolution. 19/x

Throughout the summer, Democrat governors took advantage of COVID to change voting procedures. It wasn't just the mail-ins (they lowered signature matching standards, etc). After the collusion scam, the fake impeachment, Trump ppl expected shenanigans by now. 20/x

Re: "fake impeachment", we now know that Trump's request for Ukraine to cooperate w/the DOJ regarding Biden's $ activities in Ukraine was in support of an active investigation being pursued by the FBI and Ukraine AG at the time, and so a completely legitimate request. 21/x

Then you get the Hunter laptop scandal. Big Tech ran a full-on censorship campaign against a major newspaper to protect a political candidate. Period. Everyone knows it, all of the Tech companies now admit it was a "mistake" - but, ya know, the election's over, so who cares? 22/x

Goes w/o saying, but: If the NY Times had Don Jr's laptop, full of pics of him smoking crack and engaging in group sex, lots of lurid family drama, emails describing direct corruption and backed up by the CEO of the company they were using, the NYT wouldn't have been banned. 23/x

Think back: Stories about Trump being pissed on by Russian prostitutes and blackmailed by Putin were promoted as fact, and the only evidence was a document paid for by his opposition and disavowed by its source. The NY Post was banned for reporting on true information. 24/x

The reaction of Trump ppl to all this was not, "no fair!" That's how they felt about Romney's "binders of women" in 2012. This is different. Now they see, correctly, that every institution is captured by ppl who will use any means to exclude them from the political process. 25/x

And yet they showed up in record numbers to vote. He got 13m more votes than in 2016, 10m more than Clinton got! As election night dragged on, they allowed themselves some hope. But when the four critical swing states (and only those states) went dark at midnight, they knew. 26/x

Over the ensuing weeks, they got shuffled around by grifters and media scam artists selling them conspiracy theories. They latched onto one, then another increasingly absurd theory as they tried to put a concrete name on something very real. 27/x

Media & Tech did everything to make things worse. Everything about the election was strange - the changes to procedure, unprecedented mail-in voting, the delays, etc - but rather than admit that and make everything transparent, they banned discussion of it (even in DMs!). 28/x

Everyone knows that, just as Don Jr's laptop would've been the story of the century, if everything about the election dispute was the same, except the parties were reversed, suspicions about the outcome would've been Taken Very Seriously. See 2016 for proof. 29/x

Even the courts' refusal of the case gets nowhere w/them, because of how the opposition embraced mass political violence. They'll say, w/good reason: What judge will stick his neck out for Trump knowing he'll be destroyed in the media as a violent mob burns down his house? 30/x

It's a fact, according to Time Magazine, that mass riots were planned in cities across the country if Trump won. Sure, they were "protests", but they were planned by the same people as during the summer, and everyone knows what it would have meant. Judges have families, too. 31/x

Forget the ballot conspiracies. It's a fact that governors used COVID to unconstitutionally alter election procedures (the Constitution states that only legislatures can do so) to help Biden to make up for a massive enthusiasm gap by gaming the mail-in ballot system. 32/x

They knew it was unconstitutional, it's right there in plain English. But they knew the cases wouldn't see court until after the election. And what judge will toss millions of ballots because a governor broke the rules? The threat of mass riots wasn't implied, it was direct. 33/x

a) The entrenched bureaucracy & security state subverted Trump from Day 1, b) The press is part of the operation, c) Election rules were changed, d) Big Tech censors opposition, e) Political violence is legitimized & encouraged, f) Trump is banned from social media. 34/x

They were led down some rabbit holes, but they are absolutely right that their gov't is monopolized by a Regime that believes they are beneath representation, and will observe no limits to keep them getting it. Trump fans should be happy he lost; it might've kept him alive. /end


It's Official: Patriotism Is Conservative — and Bad

 

 

Yup, Bad to The Bone


Article by Steve Feinstein in The American Thinker


It's Official: Patriotism Is Conservative — and Bad

This has been building for some time now, but it's finally out in the open: To be overtly patriotic and show public support for the American flag is now a sign of conservatism.  Not the longstanding traditional "good" conservatism of small government, fiscal discipline, and a strong military.  No, these days, to be a flag-respecting, America-first patriot is to reveal oneself to be a white-privileged, Trump-supporting, LGBT-phobic, terminally non-woke ignoramus of the lowest kind.  Rehabilitation from such a position is impossible in the eyes of the enlightened Progressive.  In the current social climate, to be patriotic is a permanent brand of both cultural illiteracy and personal ignorance.

Hardcore liberals and radical activists have long had serious issues with patriotism and public displays of national support.  One of the first examples to be widely seen by a worldwide television audience was when American track medalists Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists in a black power salute during the playing of the U.S. national anthem at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City.

Various memorable anti-American personal protests have followed through the ensuing years, but for whatever reason, it's the kneeling during the National Anthem by NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick during the 2016 preseason that seems to have sparked the current surge in anti-American social demonstrations.  Kaepernick—a singularly undistinguished NFL quarterback whose career had been marked by a continual downward spiral of dramatic underachievement in spite of his impressive college football accomplishments — is accused by many of simply being transparently opportunistic, trying to confer some personal notoriety upon himself in order to offset his rapidly diminishing professional prospects.

However, regardless of Kaepernick's actual motivation for kneeling, his actions seemed to serve as the pivot-point leading to the stark increase in today's liberal anti-American sentiment.  Being anti-flag/anti–American history has become a virtual litmus test for anyone seeking to prove the legitimacy of their woke credentials.  The degree and depth to which progressive politicians, entertainers, and liberal news sources denounce and demean traditional U.S. historical figures and symbols makes Obama's "apology tour" very early in his presidency seem tame by comparison.

With the enthusiastic backing of Big Tech, the liberal mainstream media and powerhouse corporate entities desperate to not offend what they foolishly think is their core customer base, the woke/anti–traditional American movement, have taken hold.  According to them, what was previously regarded as good about America is now bad:

  • The Revolutionary War was fought by slave-owning white men desperate to further their advantageous positions in life.  It was not, as popularly and erroneously reported in the past, fought by American patriots looking to bravely forge a self-sufficient new nation, free from the economic and religious oppression of British royalty.  Therefore, in light of what the Progressive left now purports, our Founding Fathers should not be accorded any credit or honor.
  • According to NPR, the Declaration of Independence is a "flawed" document with "deeply ingrained hypocrisies," the station said after its on-air reading this year.
  • Despite the Civil War having been fought to end slavery, in the minds of the woke left, the fact that black Americans continued to face hardship and discrimination for decades following totally negates any good intent on the part of the country or President Lincoln.
  • America played a huge role in two world wars — without any intent on annexing more land or taking resources — ridding the world of evil regimes bent on conquest and domination.  While this is somewhat admirable on the surface, America's deep, structural racism, which prevented the racial integration of fighting units or the promotion of minorities to high command positions, largely cancels out any good accomplished by our military and instead only highlights America's continued moral shortcomings.  The teaching of U.S. history like Pearl Harbor, the Doolittle Raid, Midway, D-Day and more is now largely ignored, because for Progressives, those were battles fought by white men mainly for the benefit of other white men.

New York Times board member Mara Gay did an excellent job recently of summing up the woke left's present-day anti-American flag position when she said, " I was really disturbed to see dozens and dozens of American flags on pickup trucks" while she was on Long Island.  The Utah chapter of BLM just declared that anyone flying the American flag is a racist.

This is exactly how the left now feels about overtly patriotic displays.  The woke left hates the very idea of Make America Great Again.  These people intentionally lie and say it's code speak for "Make America White Again."

Then you have people like New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who said, "America was never that great," safe in his governor's mansion, with his high pay and guaranteed cushy lifestyle.  To the left and the liberal media, the American flag is rapidly becoming a symbol of evil conservatism, specifically Trump-supporting conservatism.  It's no longer acceptable for a Progressive to be supportive of the flag or American history without first making explicit, obligatory statements condemning what the left currently feels are this country's past sins.  Only when the country's historical flaws are cited is it even marginally acceptable to show any kind of approval for this nation.

To the left, people who are loyal to the country, respect the American flag, stand for the National Anthem and appreciate its founders, heroes, and history are unsophisticated, unenlightened bigots who've willingly and ignorantly bought into the lies perpetuated by hateful conservatives like Donald Trump.

That's where we are now.  Patriotism = ignorant, bigoted conservatism.  The Progressive left regards its dismissive condescension toward its own country as an essential prerequisite to achieving the current Holy Grail of woke approval and acceptance. 

 

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/07/its_official_patriotism_is_conservative__and_bad.html

 





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Part 3 – The Fourth Branch of Government, The Intelligence Branch


People want examples of work the Intelligence Branch conducts, specifically how it protects itself.  Here is an example before going further tomorrow.

Mark Steyn and Glenn Greenwald discuss the surveillance state weaponized by Barack Obama, and why Julian Assange had to be taken down.

Yes, the history of the U.S. national security apparatus goes back decades; however, the weaponization of that apparatus, the creation of an apex branch of government, the Intelligence Branch, originated under President Barack Obama.

Obama took the foundational tools created by Bill Clinton and George Bush and used the intelligence system architecture to create a weapon for use in his fundamental transformation. An alliance of ideologues within government (intel community) and the private sector (big tech and finance) was assembled, and the largest government weapon was created.  Think about this every time you take your shoes off at an airport.

After the weapon was assembled and tested (Arab Spring), the legislative branch was enjoined under the auspices of a common enemy, Donald J Trump, an outsider who was a risk to every entity in the institutional construct of Washington DC.

Trillions were at stake, and years of affluence and influence were at risk as the unholy alliance was put together.   Again, Steyn and Greenwald discuss the result, but overlook the critical cornerstone that Obama set. WATCH:


To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to U.S. Intelligence Branch interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the FBI/CIA were in 2016.

It is within the network of foreign and domestic intel operations where Intelligence Branch political tool, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, was working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI counterintelligence operations.

By now, people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor generally identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the FBI/CIA to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion the FBI tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.

HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes outlined how very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. The FBI also fabricated information in the FISA.

However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the international intelligence apparatus; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies was important.

Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok had a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and Peter Strzok wrote the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane.”  Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief allied intelligence officials connected to the Australian Ambassador to the U.K, Alexander Downer.

In short, Peter Strzok acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for the Intelligence Branch and CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons, the 2015 GOP candidates for President.

It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskaya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan died in a helicopter crash.

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s private sector handler [NOTE: remember, the public-private sector partnership], it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Patrick Byrne the instructions on where to send Butina. {Go Deep}

All of this context outlines the extent to which the FBI/CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that eventually settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.  The international operations of the Intelligence Branch were directed by the FBI/CIA; and the domestic operations were coordinated by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Donald Trump Jr (FBI).  All of these activities were coordinated.

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. However, Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this foreign and domestic engagement was directly controlled by collaborating U.S. intelligence agencies from inside the Intelligence Branch. And all of this coordinated activity was intended to give a specific Russia influence/interference impression.

♦ The key point of all that background context is to see how committed the Intelligence Branch was to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ and DOJ-NSD, put a hell of a lot of work into it.

We also know that John Durham looked at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talked to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

On Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigationApril 2019.

Why the delay?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the Intelligence Branch put into the false Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange, monitor all activity, and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the EDVA grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018.

The DOJ sat on the indictment while the Mueller/Weissmann probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller/Weissmann probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange.  The Weissmann/Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes for justification, and that narrative was contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

♦ This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC and FBI contractor.

The CIA holds a self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim; the FBI holds an interest in maintaining that claim; the U.S. media hold an interest in maintaining that claim. All of the foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This “Russian hacking” claim was ultimately important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus, it forms the corner of their justification. With that level of importance, well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Julian Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Weissmann/Mueller report was going to be public.

…. and that’s exactly what they did.