Sunday, October 16, 2022

You Say You Want a Revolution?

James Pastor’s book offers a comprehensive assessment of the groups and ideologies destroying America and the actions and core beliefs needed to save it.



Our great nation and its traditions, values, and institutions continue to be attacked from within. We live in a perilous time. A revolution isn’t coming—it’s already here. The all-out assault by the progressive elites has shattered major parts of American culture—chief among them, the rule of law. We are in the midst of a life and death struggle.

While the radical Left has captured virtually all major institutions, the final outcome is still in doubt. It is imperative that we have clear insights into the true nature of the conflict and identities, tactics, and ideologies of the organized groups and forces that mean to destroy America. James Pastor’s book helps provide these insights with a comprehensive summary and analysis of the current crisis.

 As many of my generation will immediately recognize, the book’s title, You Say You Want a Revolution, are the opening lyrics from The Beatles’ 1968 song Revolution. At the time, The Beatles took a lot of heat from left-wingers who resented the song’s core message—that it might be a good idea for people to slow down and think before they tear down society. In his opening chapter, Pastor echoes this message, advising readers to “Be Careful What You Ask For.”

James Pastor grew up in a Chicago neighborhood known as East Side, located in the extreme Southeast side part of the city, bordering Lake Michigan and adjacent to Northwest Indiana. The East Side was a predominantly white ethnic working-class community once dominated by the giant steel mills of the Calumet Region. The work ethic was strong. It wasn’t uncommon to see three generations of the same family—grandfather, father, and son working together in the same steel mill.

The East Side was a tight-knit community of traditional families, patriotic American values, and a lot of churches. Pastor’s values were formed by his family, community, and Annunciata Catholic church. He joined the Chicago Police Department (CPD) and in 1985, through his outstanding performance, was selected as a member of CPD’s elite Gang Crime Enforcement Unit.

Being an effective policeman in CPD’s Gang Unit required special traits. One was courage combined with skill to take on the biggest, most dangerous gangs in America during the 1980s. Another was sincerity and dedication to protect the most vulnerable citizens—the victims of these vicious predators. Pastor’s isn’t a “cop book,” but many of his insights describing the intersection of race, religion, and politics have been profoundly shaped by his work and life experience.

Providing an overview of the dangerous revolutionary climate in which America finds itself, Pastor places our present situation within historical context.

The 2020 riots, perpetrated by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, were an actual armed insurrection. The planned and deliberate violence was unprecedented in American history. The subversion included 574 riots, 624 acts of arson, 2,385 looting incidents, 26 people killed, 97 police vehicles burned, $2 billion in property damage, and 2,000 police officers injured. The death of George Floyd sparked the violence, but it wasn’t the cause. 

The violence and hatred of America had been sown with the seeds of racial division for many years by leftist groups, university elites, and perpetuated by the media. Black Lives Matter ideology, an offshoot of critical race theory, was a crucial element. 

Critical race theory (CRT) is a radical ideology derived from Marxist critical theory. The twist with CRT is using racial conflict, rather than class struggle, to undermine the foundations of society. CRT teaches that the United States is an illegitimate and irredeemable racist country with a constitutional framework designed to maintain white supremacy. It maintains that all whites are born as perpetual oppressors, and all blacks are born to be perpetual victims.

The myth of “white privilege” is a basic tenet of CRT that is pushed relentlessly through all social institutions and propaganda outlets controlled by the Left. Everyone can recall the images of spoiled, upper-middle class and wealthy, white college students prostrating themselves before BLM mobs in 2020 to confess their self-induced white guilt and atone for their “privilege.”

Spectacles of white self-flagellation are great for headlines, but they don’t reflect reality. Blacks make up 13 percent of the U.S. population. Whites still make up 60 percent and Asians constitute six percent. For most people in the latter two groups who are non-elites, their racial identity is not a benefit, but a detriment to workplace, educational, and social advancement. This unfair treatment breeds resentment. Pastor questions what will happen when the vast majority of two-thirds of the country—average people who work for a living—get fed up with being marginalized and vilified. He warns of the dangerous backlash that inevitably will come.

Pastor considers Barack Obama’s presidency to be a pivotal point in American race relations. Obama’s 2004 Democratic Convention speech put his presidential aspirations on a fast track when he proclaimed, “There is not a black America and a white America, but a United States of America.” Millions of Americans bought in, hoping that our first black president would prove to be the leader who would transcend race. He proved to be just the opposite. 

Under Obama, black and white race relations significantly deteriorated. This wasn’t the result of a racist backlash from whites, but instead was engineered by the Obama Administration. They exploited every racial controversy to inflame animosity, demonize police, marginalize white people, and advance the myth of “systemic racism.” Pastor notes “The problem now is that many want racism . . . they want to use race as a wedge to divide society.”

Pastor also confronts another issue that is taboo to discuss in leftist culture—the reality of black crime. He deconstructs the myth that disparities in black arrest rates are proof of racism. Higher black arrest rates are the result of higher rates of crime committed by blacks.

Probing deeper into the root cause of disproportionate black crime—he connects the catastrophe of fatherless families in the black community—now at 75 percent. 

Pastor provides a thorough summary of the Black Lives Matter movement and connected leftist strategies which have almost completely undermined the rule of law. This subversion includes the ascension of George Soros-financed district attorneys; the elimination of cash bail; early prison releases of violent criminals; and the defunding, dismantling, reimagining, and remaking of the police. The unprecedented waves of crime and lawlessness this has caused further drives the development of revolutionary activity. This chaos is not the result of well-intentioned ideas gone wrong—it was intended.

The American public has a limited understanding of who these ultra-radical groups are and what they believe. Pastor explains both and provides a “window into the mind of extremist thinking.” And there are a lot of them out there.

In the golden age of Major League Baseball, vendors would sell scorecards to serious fans entering the ballpark declaring, “You can’t tell the players without a scorecard!” With his comprehensive classification and summary of the ideologies of almost 20 active groups, Pastor provides us with an extremist scorecard. He classifies them into specific categories: single-interest groups, left-wing communists and socialists, anarchists, right-wing Fascists, and racist nationalists (both black and white).

In 1986 and 1987, Pastor’s gang unit was part of the FBI-led team that took down the notorious El Rukns. The El Rukns were a sophisticated criminal organization that had originated as a common street gang on the Southside of Chicago, had become radicalized in Sunni Islam, and contracted with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi for $2.5 million to shoot down a passenger airliner at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport with a rocket launcher. The plot was thwarted, arrests were made, and a rocket launcher was seized.

Pastor expects similar things to happen again as the current conflict intensifies. Today’s criminal street gangs will be recruited into the leftist revolutionary movement. I concur with his assessment. In 2020, gang members played a significant part in the BLM rioting, looting, and attacks on the police. They could easily transform into a more formal role in the future—especially if the money is right.

The current crime wave sweeping across America is deliberate and intended to collapse our society and institutions. The destruction of America is a top priority on the globalist agenda. Pastor notes, “A lawless society will not survive. It will either be toppled by organized hostile forces or descend into chaos and disintegrate by its own weight. Policing is not the answer to all of our nation’s social problems but without the rule of law, we can’t even begin.”

To maintain the rule of law, Pastor proposes a concept he terms “Public safety policing” to control crime and provide a defense against extremist violence. Public safety policing will be achieved through the integration of three elements—order maintenance, surveillance, and protective methods. 

Order maintenance requires a return to proactive policing. Pastor presents evidence showing that order maintenance is essential to reducing homicides and the positive results will particularly benefit black urban communities. Making arrests for quality-of-life crimes (currently almost exclusively ignored in Democrat-run cities) has a direct impact upon reducing homicides. Hiring more police officers makes a difference too. Every 10 additional officers results in the reduction of one homicide.

Surveillance includes enhancing local police departments’ ability to collect and analyze raw information and actionable intelligence. Traditional methods of utilizing human information through officer observation and police-citizen contacts will always remain the most essential element of good policing, but a full utilization of available technologies is needed to take it to a new qualitative level. These include public and private camera systems, facial recognition technology, crime mapping programs, license plate readers, surveillance drones, traffic enforcement cameras, and global positioning systems. A challenge will be to ensure access to the full range of technology for medium and small size police departments because of their limited budgets.

The purpose of protective methods is to “control the environment in order to protect the community.” Methods include “hot spot” policing to apply police resources on high crime areas, problem-oriented policing to identify and find long-term solutions to specific crime problems, and holistic approaches to develop positive life skills for young people.

Training and tactics must be improved to better protect individual officers, enhance police-citizen partnerships, and ensure that the public’s constitutional rights are protected. To better respond to the increased levels of violence and mass shooters, Pastor proposes increasing the numbers of SWAT teams for more availability.

These proposals are diametrically opposed to the timid, reactive, soft-on-crime approaches currently employed by many police departments. In order to even consider these changes, entirely new policing philosophies must be embraced.

Any policy that is founded upon a belief in the legitimacy of our nation, support for the role of the police to defend the Constitution and protect the safety of citizens, and is pro-victim and anti-criminal—must have the unequivocal support of a jurisdiction’s political leadership if it is to succeed.

Pastor recognizes this reality—particularly in Democrat-run big cities. He observes that “Policies are driven by the leadership within each department. Since leaders in local police departments are appointed by the politicians in each city, one can expect that police leaders are politically or ideologically in accord with those who selected them . . . If progressive leaders pick police leadership, one can expect police department policies will reflect the values and mindset of the political leadership.”

Unfortunately, cities that have been taken over by anti-American and anti-police ideologies will be doomed to suffer the misery of crime, disorder, and fear—until their citizens elect leaders who will reverse this self-destructive course.

Pastor identifies the principles and values which will inspire and unite patriots to embark upon the path that will reclaim America. Drawing upon his working-class roots and the eternal truths that have always sustained our communities, he presents them to us—God, family, and country. The progressive revolutionaries and the elites who control our institutions are well aware of the importance of these values—this is why they are obsessed with eradicating them.

America is under attack. The revolutionary forces intent upon her destruction are powerful. James Pastor has written an important book that provides a sobering assessment of the fight we are in and a plan for patriots to win it. 




X22, Badlands Media, and more- Oct 16

 




Christmas movie marathons start this Friday!! 🌲 Here's tonight's news:


The Federal Government is Treating Pro-Lifers Like They’re Al Qaeda

Federal law enforcement has too much time on its hands, can use vague and expansive laws to go after nearly anyone, and is too close to our ruling class in Washington, D.C. to restrain itself.


In the run-up to the midterm election, a quick review of the Democrats’ rhetoric shows that they think the country hates the pro-life movement. They have now gone beyond mere talk and are criminalizing dissent. 

My personal experience is that while the country is fairly evenly divided on the question of abortion, many people in the middle have complex views. Pro-choice people often feel ambivalent about abortion, and no one likes to see the police treat mere protesters like common criminals.

The Biden Administration is trying to marginalize the pro-life movement, and one of the biggest sources of humiliation and demoralization is to bring the hammer of law enforcement down on otherwise law-abiding people. While this seems entirely unreasonable to everyone but the fiercest partisans, it also will have some of its intended effect by discouraging the movement’s activists. 

People with jobs, families, and reputations to maintain generally don’t want to end up in handcuffs or in prison. 

The FBI Has Acted Like This Before

This template has been there for a while. This is how the FBI treated left-wing activists (with some justification) in the days of Huey Newton, the Weather Underground, and COINTELPRO. When that movement retreated, they dusted off the same playbook (with much less justification) against the militia movement in the 1990s, assorted Muslim Americans in the 2000s, and, more recently, January 6 defendants, COVID lockdown protesters, and now the pro-life movement. 

In the earlier cases of alleged Islamic terrorist plots and the recent Governor Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the crimes were basically invented by the FBI, because the accused were neither dangerous, nor capable of completing a crime on their own. Maybe the accused technically violated laws against conspiracy after being encouraged and cajoled by FBI informants, but this is like saying someone has committed attempted murder by sticking needles in a voodoo doll. In these FBI-controlled, informant-driven cases, most of the criminal intent remained merely that; these marginal people could not ever complete the crimes in question without government encouragement and assistance. 

Like the fireman-arsonist praised for putting out the fires he himself secretly started, these tactics let the FBI say they bagged a terrorist and pat themselves on the back. But since these suspects were not much danger on their own, the country is no safer after their convictions. As with the War on Terror more generally, this is a case of activity, but not progress.

Unlike the murderers, rapists, bank robbers, and other real criminals with real victims, who tend to occupy local law enforcement, much of the “anti-subversion” stuff is exclusively federal and driven by politics—specifically electoral politics and whatever is the moral panic du jour. 

The Left’s ongoing rage is palpable. After Obama’s election, the Left believed it had won the culture war, including the abortion issue. Trump’s election in 2016 was a major aberration, as was the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs. Instead of the “arc of history” moving towards left-wing justice, Trump and his supporters were symbolic anti-progress and completely anathema for this reason. 

Many on the Left lost their minds in response. 

The Left Treats the Right Like Heretics

It should be pretty clear that the Left, for all their talk about “Our Democracy™,” consider anything outside the managerial class consensus to be an affront and a threat—something both offensive and dangerous. They used to reserve this talk primarily for racism, as anti-racism was thefoundation of the domestic security state’s growth in the 1960s, as well as being the foundation of the Left’s jaundiced, conditional love for America and its history. 

But the Left has had less success trying to convert other ideas to the same low status as racism, including anti-gay and anti-trans beliefs, vaccine criticism, election skepticism, and lately the pro-life cause. While people on both the Left and Right find actual racism distasteful and mean-spirited, most people also know that charges of racism have sometimes been used to abuse people, such as the recent campaign against “white privilege.” More important, most people do not think election skepticism or pro-life views, even if they dispute those opinions, are on the same level as real racism. 

In giving pro-life activists like Mark Houck the SWAT team treatment, the real message from the powers-that-be is not one about ideas, but rather a signal that their plan is to marginalize beliefs and label the believers marginal. It is the opposite of debate. The SWAT raids and federal charges are meant to make clear that merely considering certain ideas is damaging both to the observers and to society, and thus, these ideas and their proponents need to be suppressed. 

Since the 1960s, abortion has been debated. Like many interminable culture war debates, it involves the intersection of many conflicts: family life versus feminism, modernity versus tradition, religion versus secularism, convenience versus duty, and right versus wrong. The debate about abortion is ultimately a debate about who we are and what we value. 

Abortion is going to become a more relevant debate now that the Supreme Court has overruled the fraudulent Roe precedent. But, instead of allowing this issue to be resolved through local debate and discussion, Joe Biden, his lackeys in the Department of Justice under Merrick Garland, and their muscle in the FBI are working together to treat the pro-life movement the same as al Qaeda and the KKK. 

This is why pro-life activists are being given the Gestapo treatment for misdemeanor crimes, such as trespassing, under the ill-conceived FACE ACT. Needless to say, there is no reason to use a SWAT team to arrest someone under this statute other than to intimidate and humiliate. 

The FBI Does Not Deserve Respect or Support

There are two important lessons from recent events. 

One, the federal government, and particularly federal law enforcement, have become an enemy of right-leaning Americans, because they willingly and gleefully treat us like common criminals for engaging in ordinary political activity. The major goal of these efforts, along with the January 6 overreaction and the social media bans, is to discourage any real-life networking, activism, organizing, or effective political action on the Right. 

The second takeaway is that the Right needs to reconsider how it feels about the FBI and other organs of federal law enforcement. The Right generally and habitually defers to law enforcement, particularly local enforcement who deal with real crimes and real criminals. We are the ones with the “Back the Blue” flags. But this deference should not apply to the FBI, ATF, or the IRS, for that matter. 

Local law enforcement is kept accountable by the surplus of aggrieved victims; they do not have nearly as much time to go looking for dragons to slay. Federal law enforcement, by contrast, has too much time on its hands, can use vague and expansive laws to go after nearly anyone, and it is too close to our highly ideological ruling class in Washington, D.C. to restrain itself. 

The cast of FBI characters we saw during the fake Russian collusion scandal, including Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andy McCabe, and the preening Jim Comey, did nothing to improve the FBI’s image—instead showing us how venal, cringe, and dishonest the FBI’s leadership was. Current Director Chris Wray is cut from the same cloth; putting him in charge was one of Trump’s many mistakes in personnel. 

There is no reason to back the blue, when the blue in question is federal law enforcement reflecting blue state values and blue check Twitter and all the other pseudomorality championed by our overbearing political leaders. 




New Poll Not Only Shows Good News for Election, but for the Health of Nation as Well


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

The polls seem to be showing a lot of good things for Republicans right now.

One example of this trend is the new Harvard-Harris poll, which has some fascinating things in it that show why Democrats are going to be in big trouble in the November elections. But even more than the midterms, I think it bodes well for the country; because there are signs that the radical nature of the Democrats is driving more people to the center or the right in this poll, as well.

Most respondents — 57 percent — say their financial situation is worsening. Also, 84 percent disagree with Joe Biden and think we are in a recession right now. Approval of Biden’s management on issues was weak across the board. Meanwhile, GOP approval has risen in the last four months – by four points – to 49 percent; Democrat approval is only at 46 percent. President Donald Trump is the most favored politician.

Political writer Eddie Zipperer hit on some of the highlights of the poll in an illuminating Twitter thread. He noted how the police are the third most highly thought of institution, 24 points ahead of the FBI, 33 ahead of the DOJ, and 84 points higher than Antifa. This would explain why Democrats have been running away from their support of defunding the police. Unfortunately for them, Americans remember who was behind that.

Inflation, the economy, and immigration are the top three issues for voters, in that order. They’re the top issues voters think that the GOP cares about. Meanwhile, voters see Democrats as disconnected on the issues–and the voters think the top three issues Democrats care about aren’t the top issues voters care about.

On top issues facing the country, people said they were more likely to vote for GOP on those issues with inflation (GOP+12), crime (GOP+12), and immigration (GOP+11). They didn’t have the economy in that particular graph of “How will each of the following issues affect your vote in the midterms for Congress.” Crime is the fourth most important issue to voters, according to the poll.

One of the highlights of the poll was this stunner.

If 64 percent think the problem is woke politicians and even the majority of Democrats get it, that means Americans are right on top of what’s going on.

Voters are more attracted by the Republican platform that involved law and order, and putting breaks on government spending versus the Democratic platform of subsidized electric cars, subsidized college loans, and pardoned marijuana offenders.

60 percent were in favor of this, including 45 percent of Democrats.

The poll showed that while Democrats are always screaming about “threats to democracy,” 36 percent of the GOP think Joe Biden’s election was illegitimate, and 32 percent of Democrats think Trump’s election was illegitimate.

55 percent of Americans have doubts about Joe Biden’s fitness, and 68 percent think Biden is too old. I’ve written about this before, and it’s not going away as a big issue.

In a hypothetical match-up, Trump beats both Biden (45 to 43 percent) and Kamala Harris (49 to 38 percent).

Most blame Biden for inflation, don’t have faith in how the Democrats are dealing with it, and 43 percent said that’s pushing them more toward the Republicans.

54 percent oppose the energy and gas policies of the Biden administration. 80 percent think that lower gasoline prices and energy independence should be emphasized over higher gasoline prices and climate change.

62 percent hold Biden responsible for the energy problems; 65 percent are for increasing our output, and are against lifting sanctions on Venezuela and Iran.

42 percent think Biden’s foreign policy is pushing them more toward Republicans.

The majority think the student loan bailout should have been done with Congressional authorization, and 41 percent said Biden’s action was more likely to make them vote for Republicans.

A plurality of voters also said abortion laws should be set by the states. There are a lot of eye-openers here, but that caps it off and shows that the American people, at least as shown in this poll, have their heads screwed on straight.

That’s good for America–and great news for Republicans in this poll




Russell Brand Discusses the Common Sense and Pragmatism of Trump on Subject of Ukraine

It appears our friend Neil Oliver has the week off. So, we will visit another, albeit saltier, U.K. voice who is also grounded in pragmatic common sense.  Russell Brand recently discussed how “President Trump is Right” about the issues around the Ukraine war and the conflict with Russia.

Mr. Brand notes a few bold nuances that are mostly lost in the media conversation and uses his sarcastic humor to point out the current reality. WATCH:




Biden's Serial Lying Is One Thing, His 'Logic' Is Not Only Bizarre but Dangerous


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

In this episode of Riddle Me This, Batman…

How in the world can a logical person — let alone the president of the United States — intentionally create a domestic oil and gas crisis, by first canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline permit on his first day in office, then begging Saudi Arabia to increase oil supplies, as pump prices skyrocket and his approval ratings plummet, and finally, threatening the Saudis with “consequences” after they instead decide to dramatically cut oil supplies in an effort to stabilize prices? Unless that “logical” person is Joe Biden.

Biden’s illogical logic, in conjunction with his incessant serial lying, continues to wreak havoc, from out-of-control inflation to the southern border crisis to the worsening fentanyl pandemic to his foreign policy ineptness. Now, we have his talk of nuclear war with clearly-deranged Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, as the war in Ukraine continues to deteriorate. As I suggested in the headline, Biden’s serial lying is one thing, but his never-ending illogical missteps are not only bizarre; they’re downright dangerous.

Angered by last week’s decision by the Saudi-led OPEC+, which includes Russia, to scale back petroleum supplies on the market by up to two million barrels per day to bolster the price of oil, Biden vowed retaliation on Tuesday during a segment with CNN’s Jake Tapper, as reported by The New York Times:

There’s [sic] going to be some consequences for what they’ve done with Russia. I’m not going to get into what I’d consider and what I have in mind. But there will be consequences.

What Biden has “in mind”? Oh, please.

The only thing Biden has in mind — for mere nanoseconds at a time — is trying to follow simple, written instructions from his handlers about when to talk, when to shut up, when to sit down, get up, and walk away from media questions. Oh, and to cluelessly sign any pieces of paper shoved in front of him by his left-wing puppet masters.

Play Stupid Games — Win Stupid Prizes

Let’s cast our minds back to May when Biden — who often refers to pretend-anthropomorphically-caused climate change as “the existential threat of mankind” — appeared to praise out-of-control gas prices as a necessary part of the left’s hellbent drive to eliminate fossil fuels in favor of so-called “green” energy:

Here’s the situation. When it comes to gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels.

That’s insane on multiple levels. One look at California’s recent ban on the sale of new gas-powered passenger vehicles by 2035, and the current — and projected — capacity of the no-longer-Golden State’s energy grid proves the delusion of such a decision.

Spread that insane “logic” across the country, and where would we be? (rhetorical question.) Nonetheless, Bidden’s obsession with a future magical world of EVs continues.

The Bottom Line

While Joe Biden is the current poster boy of the illogical logic of the left, he’s far from alone.

A political party that anoints itself as the “party of women and children,” yet supports on-demand abortion-until-birth, the irreversible mutilation of “transexual” kids’ bodies, and promotes the “right” of biological males to kick the hell out of biological females in women’s sports, is not only illogical; it’s a direct threat to the future of America.

While the upcoming midterm elections are likely to return House Republicans to the majority, and the Senate somewhere between a 60-40 chance of a Republican takeover and a toss-up, the 2024 presidential election is critical if we are to restore sanity to America.

You know the rest: Let’s not purposely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory–served on a silver platter by Biden and the Democrats, okay?




More Troubling Info at Danchenko Trial About Dem Operative Connected to Clinton


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

There have been numerous whistleblower reports over the past few months about FBI bias regarding the handling of the cases against President Donald Trump, Hunter Biden, and domestic terrorism cases.

Special Counsel John Durham has been putting the FBI on trial during his prosecution against Igor Danchenko for lying to the FBI about his sourcing of the Democratic-funded dossier.

Perhaps one of the most shocking things discovered during the trial so far is that the FBI knew the dossier was bunk but they were so seemingly so desperate to get Trump that they were willing to pay Christopher Steele up to one million dollars if he could verify the dossier. But he couldn’t do so, according to the testimony of FBI senior analyst Brian Auten. Despite that, they still used it in applications to get FISA warrants, knowing it couldn’t be verified.

The testimony on Friday in the Danchenko case revealed some more troubling news. Two people who worked on Robert Mueller’s team revealed they tried to get an investigation into Democratic operative Charles Dolan, the Clinton-connected main source of the dossier, but they were turned down.

A current FBI special agent and a former bureau analyst who both served on Robert Mueller’s team testified that the special counsel’s office declined to investigate and never interviewed Charles Dolan, the Clinton-allied business associate of the main source for Christopher Steele, despite their urging.

Supervisory special agent Amy Anderson and former FBI intelligence analyst Brittany Hertzog both testified Friday that, as members of Mueller’s team who were specifically tasked with scrutinizing the allegations within the Trump dossier, they believed the FBI should interview and further investigate Dolan, a longtime ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton, partly due to his business connections with Igor Danchenko, a Russian national whom the bureau had made a paid informant. Danchenko has been charged by special counsel John Durham with lying to the FBI about his sourcing for the Democratic-funded dossier.

The Mueller team members also testified that they were concerned about Dolan’s links to Danchenko’s friend Olga Galkina, who had been identified as a sub-source for Danchenko related to the dossier, although she denies being such a source. Danchenko introduced Dolan and Galkina in 2016.

Dolan had spent many years, including 2016, doing business in Russia and with the Russian government. Anderson and Hertzog said they were also concerned about Dolan’s potential dossier links combined with the fact that he had a history of working closely with Russian officials, most notably Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

So we had a fruitless investigation against Trump for years based on rumor, hearsay, and lies, using a dossier the Clinton team paid. But when there’s a Clinton-connected person involved with connections to Russia, can’t have any investigation of that.

Anderson tried to get an investigation opened but her request sat for three to four weeks before she was told they weren’t going to do anything about it by supervisory special agent Joe Nelson.

Hertzog also wanted an investigation. She had been looking into Galkina and was concerned about there being a national security threat from Dolan’s connections to sub-sources for the dossier.

The former FBI analyst said she put together a report on Galkina that referenced Dolan and that she filed the electronic communication to the FBI’s Sentinel system. Hertzog said she “serialized” it in three case files in an effort to get it reviewed by the Washington Field Office, FBI Headquarters, and the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.

Hertzog testified that she had been instructed not to take further action on the Dolan-Danchenko link but that she wanted higher-ups to see the Galkina information because of what she saw as an important Dolan connection.

Durham said Dolan and Galkina “discussed their political views and their support for Hillary Clinton.” Dolan allegedly gifted Galkina an autobiography of Hillary Clinton, which he inscribed with a message, “To my good friend [Olga], A Great Democrat.” In July 2016, Galkina allegedly wrote to Dolan, “Tell her please [Clinton] has a big fan in” Russia.

Durham said Galkina sent a message to another Russian in August 2016 describing Dolan as an “adviser” to Clinton and claimed in September 2016 that Dolan would “take me to the State Department if Hillary wins.” The day before the November 2016 election, Galkina wrote to Dolan, “As a big Hillary fan, I wish her and all her supporters to have a Victory day.”

Galkina claims she wasn’t a source.

Dolan testified this week that he fabricated some of the sourcing, another problem that should have called the dossier into question. Foreign Agents Registration Act filings from November 2011 and May 2012 show he was paid for working for the Russian Federation and their state-owned energy company, Gazprom.

Durham previously said the Clinton-allied Dolan “interacted with senior Russian Federation leadership whose names would later appear in” the dossier, and also “maintained relationships with” Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. and the head of the Russian Embassy’s Economic Section in Washington, D.C., “both of whom also would later appear by name” in the dossier.

Shutting down an investigation into Dolan also threw a roadblock to discovering that the dossier was full of nonsense. They didn’t want to find out the truth, they wanted to push the lie.

Journalist Eli Lake asked Andrew Weissman who was Mueller’s main guy why they refused to investigate.

As far as I can tell, he got no answer.




Joe Biden Sniffs and Creeps on Another Young Girl, and It’s Not Fine


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

I regret to inform you that the President of the United States is a creeper. I also regret to inform you that we’ve known that for far longer than anyone should be comfortable with. Joe Biden has been sniffing and inappropriately invading the space of young girls for much of his career, and that continued on Friday during a meet and greet in Irvine, CA.

RedState reported on Biden’s speech at the event, but the video I’m about to share didn’t come out until later that evening. It was filmed by Kalen D’Almedia of TPUSA, and the Secret Service agents present apparently didn’t take too kindly to the exposure of the president’s…habits.

If you watch the video, there are several things to note, and none of them are acceptable for any man to do, much less the President of the United States.

First, before Biden grabs the teenage girl’s shoulder, you can see Biden lean in to sniff her hair. He’s been caught many times doing that over the years and no viable explanation has ever been offered to explain his behavior. You’d think the news industry, which claims to care about stuff like this, would have some curiosity, but I guess not.

Secondly, after the sniff, he grabs her shoulder without her consent. It’s a really odd action that any normal, fully-sentient man would avoid. I would never lean in to grab a young girl (or any girl) I don’t personally know, even during a photo op. That’s not endearing, and it’s not just “ole Joe.” It’s creepy and highly concerning. You can tell by the way she tilts her head away as she turns around that she feels uncomfortable with his touching.

Lastly, as if the physical aspects of Biden’s invasion weren’t bad enough, he then tells her “no serious guys until your 30.” For starters, that’s terrible advice on a moral level. Is the suggestion that she only sees non-serious guys until she’s 30? But I digress, why is Biden concerned about a teenage girl’s romantic life? The girls in the frame seem genuinely surprised at his comment, with one sarcastically responding “I’ll keep that in mind” after asking him to repeat himself.

For context, he’s used some variation of that line multiple times in the past. You may recall a recent outburst where he told a woman in the audience of a speech that “she was 12, I was 30” when they first met.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: It is not difficult to not be creepy around young girls. Normal men have no problem respecting boundaries, but physically and verbally. The sniffing, the touching, and the borderline sexual comments are weird at best and extremely telling at worst. I would never let a man, especially a non-family member she doesn’t even know, touch and talk to my daughter in that way. At some point, a father is going to lose his cool with Biden’s behavior, and it’s not going to end well for anyone involved.




“The Force for Change” Twitter During the Arab Spring was a Beta Test for Deep State Control of Public Opinion and Elections


This is very weedy but also very interesting to me, perhaps you.  Completely unrelated to my own years of research into “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop,” aka Twitter, and the intelligence community use of the platform to shape public opinion, another research group has looked at the tentacles & data points and come to the exact same conclusion.

For years CTH has outlined how the Obama administration leveraged social media networks as part of a larger objective to shape public opinion, ultimately leading to the shaping of U.S. elections.

It’s a long arc of modern assembly, but the bottom line reached by EDIFY, an independent research group, is that the ‘Arab Spring’ was the beta test for deploying the same system to shape U.S. elections.

Remarkably, that is the exact same conclusion reached by CTH several years ago as highlighted in the story of how Obama shifted the mission of new agencies (ODNI, DHS, DOJ-NSD) and assembled the fourth branch of government.

Writing in his Substack [SEE HERE], Dr Robert Malone draws attention to the EDIFY research.

EDIFY – […] “”At the time, Egyptians and Tunisians were rising up, facilitated by technology, in what the media dubbed a Twitter Revolution. “It was a no-brainer for me, because I wanted to be part of a company that was really dramatically changing the world,” Gadde says. She credits her boss at Juniper, General Counsel Mitchell Gaynor, for being supportive.”   – NYU Law Magazine [1] 

What are the chances that then President Obama did nothing to promote and ensure success for the Arab Spring because its true purpose was to serve as a beta-test for the use of the Twitter platform in future censorship and color revolution applications in the U.S.?

The application of Occam’s reveals that this is likely the case and Vadde’s testimony here is evidence suggestive of this position.

WSGR product and central node Alex Macgillivray threads the Obama and Biden White Houses together. Macgillivray currently serves as the Biden White House CTO. Macgillivray appointed WSGR product Gadde to be his successor at Twitter and whereby Gadde was central both to the de-platforming of then President Trump and the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop affair. It further aggravates the position on Twitter relative to engagement in color revolutions.

At the time, President Obama said this,

“The United States has supported the forces of change.” – President Obama [2]

Obama did not say that he supported the countries of change but rather the forces of change; citing the countries as “inspiration”.

Those are carefully constructed statements with specific word choice and when discernment is applied, we understand the “forces of change” to be digital ones, like Twitter. This comports with the Arab Spring being a Twitter Beta test. The same general people are now positioned to serve the Biden Administration on the follow-through. (read more

Yes.  A million-fold YES.

We cannot fight our way through the issues until we first realize what lies at the root of the problem.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act.  What Obama and Holder did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.

This point is where many people understandably get confused.

Elevator Speech:

(1) The Patriot Act turned the intel surveillance radar from foreign searches for terrorists to domestic searches for terrorists.

(2) Obama/Biden then redefined what is a “terrorist” to include their political opposition.

DEEP DIVE:

In the era shortly after 9/11 the DC national security apparatus, instructed by Vice President Dick Cheney, was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.

After 9/11/01 the electronic surveillance system that was originally created to monitor threats from abroad was retooled to monitor threats inside our country.  That is when all of our electronic ‘metadata’ came under federal surveillance.

That inflection point, and the process that followed, was exactly what Edward Snowden tried to point out.

What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their political opposition became the target of this new national security system.

The problems we face now as a country are directly an outcome of two very distinct points that were merged by Barack Obama. (1) The post 9/11 monitoring of electronic communication of American citizens; and (2) Obama’s team creating a fine-tuning knob that it focused on the politics of the targets.  This is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01.  The Department of Homeland Security came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was formed.

When President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus: a domestic surveillance state. However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology.

The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution. Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.

We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake. However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design. By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath. The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.

As time passed, and the system operators became familiar with their new tools, technology allowed the tentacles of the system to reach out and touch us. That is when we first started to notice that something very disconcerting was happening. Those four pillars are the root of it, and if we take the time to understand how the Fourth Branch originated, questions about this current state of perpetual angst will start to make sense.

Remember, it is not my intent to outline the entire history of how we got to this place where the intelligence community now acts as the superseding Fourth Branch of Government. Such an effort would be exhausting and likely take our discussion away from understanding the current dynamic.

History provided enough warnings from Dwight D. Eisenhower (military) to John F. Kennedy (CIA), to Richard Nixon (FBI), to all the modern versions of warnings and frustrations from HPSCI Devin Nunes and ODNI Ric Grenell.

None of those prior reference points are invalid, and all documented outlines of historic reference are likely true and accurate. However, a generational review is not useful, as the reference impacting us ‘right now‘ gets lost.

Instead, we pick up the expansive and weaponized intelligence system as it manifests after 9/11/01, and my goal is to highlight how the modern version of the total intelligence apparatus has metastasized into a Fourth Branch of Government. It is this superseding branch that now touches and influences every facet of our life.  We The People are under surveillance.

If we take the modern construct, originating at the speed of technological change, we can also see how the oversight or “check/balance” in our system of government became functionally obsolescent.

After many years of granular research about the intelligence apparatus inside our government, in the summer of 2020 I visited Washington DC to ask specific questions. My goal was to go where the influence agents within government actually operate, and to discover the people deep inside the institutions no one elected, and few people pay attention to.

It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.

After days of research and meetings in DC during 2020; amid a town that was serendipitously shut down due to COVID-19; I found a letter slid under the door of my room in a nearly empty hotel with an introduction of sorts. The subsequent discussions were perhaps the most important. After many hours of specific questions and answers on specific examples, I realized why our nation is in this mess. That is when I discovered the fourth and superseding branch of government, the Intelligence Branch.

I am going to explain how the Intelligence Branch works: (1) to control every other branch of government; (2) how it functions as an entirely independent branch of government with no oversight; (3) how and why it was created to be independent from oversight; (4) what is the current mission of the IC Branch, and most importantly (5) who operates it.

The Intelligence Branch is an independent functioning branch of government, it is no longer a subsidiary set of agencies within the Executive Branch as most would think. To understand the Intelligence Branch, we need to drop the elementary school civics class lessons about three coequal branches of government and replace that outlook with the modern system that created itself.

The Intelligence Branch functions much like the State Dept, through a unique set of public-private partnerships that support it. Big Tech industry collaboration with intelligence operatives is part of that functioning, almost like an NGO. However, the process is much more important than most think. In this problematic perspective of a corrupt system of government, the process is the flaw – not the outcome.

There are people making decisions inside this little known, unregulated and out-of-control branch of government that impact every facet of our lives.

None of the people operating deep inside the Intelligence Branch were elected; and our elected representative House members genuinely do not know how the system works. I assert this position affirmatively because I have talked to House and Senate staffers, including the chiefs of staff for multiple House & Senate committee seats. They are not malicious people; however, they are genuinely clueless of things that happen outside their silo. That is part of the purpose of me explaining it, with examples, in full detail with sunlight.