Wednesday, January 25, 2023

The Environmentalist Assault on Civilization

With prosperity, we can adapt as we always have. With tyranny, we can do nothing. Climate alarmism is tyranny with green wrapping, delivered with terror.


No reasonable person would deny the importance of protecting the environment. The accomplishments of the environmental movement over the past 50 years are undeniable: cleaner air and water, protected wildernesses, and more efficient use of resources. The list is endless and illustrious. Environmentalist values are an integral part of any responsible public policy agenda. But the pendulum has swung too far.

Environmentalism, which once challenged corporate power, is now its useful puppet. And “climate change,” once a peripheral concern, is now a “climate crisis”—the self-proclaimed unassailable foundation of all environmentalism. Put another way, 60 years ago, environmentalism was a mostly good and courageous movement, but slowly transitioned to the point where today it serves as a front for plutocrats, relying on a big lie to sustain its momentum.

In an illuminating video posted earlier this month, Jordan Peterson interviewed Dr. Richard Lindzen on the topic of climate science. Lindzen, whose credentials are almost ridiculously germane and comprehensive, offered a withering perspective on contemporary environmentalism. He explained that in the 1960s, there was a lot of hunting around for an issue that would give environmentalists power over the energy industry. In the 1960s, environmentalists started tracking atmospheric carbon dioxide and determined it was increasing.

These CO2 measurements, initially begun out of mere scientific curiosity, gave environmentalists the issue they’d been looking for. As Lindzen put it, “If you wanted to control the energy sector, CO2 was the one pollutant that no matter how clean you make it, there will still be CO2. You can’t get rid of that if you burn fossil fuel.”

The essence of environmentalism today is to control and ration the energy supply on which human civilization depends. Since every amenity of civilization uses energy, this control and rationing extends to every human activity. It is a recipe for total control over every individual, every business, and every nation in the world. Which is the point.

It’s easy enough to speculate as to the identity of these ultimate puppeteers who have unleashed this grandiose plot on the world. We were just treated to a host of them flocking to Davos, Switzerland, for the annual conference of the World Economic Forum. It’s even easier to identify the hidden agenda; power and profit. Micromanage the world, and only the biggest or the most anointed players survive. It’s a gigantic trickle-up economic scheme, robbing the poor and giving to the rich.

Regardless of who pulls the strings behind the scenes, however, the marionettes are in plain sight. The entire state legislature in California, where nearly every “representative” is wholly owned by an alliance of public sector unions and tech billionaires, offers a perfect example. With every regulation, another unionized public bureaucracy is created, and another tech company finds new captive consumers.

The result is a soft fascism, a soul-destroying tyranny masquerading as an enlightened green utopia. California, sprawling across 164,000 square miles, has vast resources of farmlandtimberoil and gas, direct access to ocean fisheries, and valuable mineral resources. With barely 40 million people, the state is sparsely populated compared with most developed nations and should be delivering the most affordable cost of living in the world to its residents. The opposite is true.

In the name of protecting the environment and fighting climate change, California has declared war on its own people. The state’s policymakers have neglected a once remarkable water infrastructure and as a result, millions of acres of the most productive farmland on earth are being turned into a dust bowl, driving thousands of farm operations out of business and destroying the livelihoods that sustained millions of people. They have reduced the timber industry to less than one-quarter the size it was as recently as the 1990s. They have declared war on oil and gas, banning most new drilling and tightening restrictions on existing wells.

Critics of California’s authoritarian progressives too often focus on the easily mockable so-called woke agenda while safely refraining from challenging policies that derive from the alleged “climate emergency.” This is understandable, and woke ideology and the policies it spawns are ridiculous, destructive folly that must be crushed. But the highly visible depredations of woke activists become even more dangerous if they distract us from the encroachments green policies are making into every detail of individual private lives. The harmful impacts of the green machine are, in many ways, far more substantial and comprehensive.

The Upside of Green Policies for Big Business

When California, and then the entire nation, bans the production of incandescent light bulbs, that is an obvious intrusion into the market and the quality of life for everyday Californians. But less obvious is the inversion of incentives that drive the push for energy efficiency at the expense of health or affordability. As Californians pay exorbitant prices to bathe themselves in high wavelength light, disrupting their circadian rhythms, and as Californians endure the unhealthy micro-flickers of LEDs hooked to inadequate transformers, manufacturers gain new customers and sell higher-priced goods.

A more subtle green inversion of economic incentives, but just as contrary to the public interest, is when electric utilities convert to “renewables” (i.e., wind farms, solar farms, and battery farms) at staggering cost, while decommissioning fully paid-for nuclear power plantshydroelectric dams, and natural gas power plants. As the electricity price to the consumer soars, the regulated public utilities earn more profits, since their pricing and hence their profits are based on a percentage markup over their costs. If your profit is limited to 9 percent, you’ll make a lot more money if you’re billing 30 cents per kilowatt-hour than if you’re billing 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. That’s an easy business decision.

It is obvious when dams are removed instead of new ones being built that farmers get less water. But less obvious are the ripple effects. Without a guaranteed water supply, new housing construction can’t get approved, limiting the supply of new homes and driving up the price for all housing. Then again, housing in California is too expensive anyway, thanks to green policies that limit where new homes can get built, absurdly overwritten building codes requiring “energy neutrality,” obscenely expensive costs for building permits, a capricious approval process that—without exaggeration—can take decades to navigate, and the constant threat of litigation by environmentalists to stop any new construction.

For every fundamental necessity, gasoline, natural gas, water, electricity, and housing, California’s green policies have created artificial scarcity. Everything costs more. The poor have lost all hope of achieving private financial independence, the middle class shrinks, and the rich get richer. A frustrated lobbyist in Sacramento recently summed it up: “Most environmentalists don’t care about people,” he said, “the old Democratic Party wanted to use government to make people’s lives better, but today their solution is to use government to make life harder then hook them to make them dependent on government. They want to use government to destroy the incentive to be productive. But if you kill off all the productive people, eventually society collapses.”

What’s Happening in California Is Happening Everywhere

It’s one thing to impose green scarcity on California, a state that can coast a while longer on the infrastructure investments of 50 years ago and rely on tapping the stupefying accumulation of wealth concentrated in its high-tech industry. But the marionettes that are implementing the green assault on civilization are everywhere. 

One of the most recent fronts in their widening war on prosperity is the farming sector, from Canada and Spain to the Netherlands and Sri Lanka and elsewhere. Based on the contention that farm fertilizer is a factor in causing climate change, policymakers have decided to shut down huge sectors of commercial agriculture. The new regulations that will permit continued operations, of course, will be far too expensive for all but the largest global agribusiness concerns.

It’s not hard to see what’s happening here. There is no economic activity, anywhere, that doesn’t create greenhouse gas. Make it impossible for all but the wealthiest corporations to comply with the new edicts, and you roll up the world.

Unfortunately, when a rare thunderstorm delivers atomic-sounding sonic blasts to uninitiated Californians whose only previous experiences with sound that kinetic were the occasional punk driving by with his subwoofer turned up, they’re ready to believe the storm porn that pours out of every establishment news source. “Bomb cyclone.” “Polar vortex.” “Atmospheric River.” “Supercell.” “Snowpocalypse.” It’s all part of the “new normal,” as we allegedly encounter more and more “extreme weather events.” 

Except we aren’t.

Old-timers can remember the 1960s, when storms pulverized California, causing floods and freezes, but back then we didn’t listen to climate agenda-driven news. Storms were “storms.” And there weren’t ubiquitous high-resolution satellite images and video editing tools to allow every local weatherman to splash terrifying images onto our screens of cloud formations covering half the Pacific Ocean. But that doesn’t mean such cloud formations didn’t exist.

Around the world, the same game is played. Pakistan’s recent floods, despite the doomsday spin from PBS, were not abnormal because of “climate change.” They were an abnormal catastrophe because in just 60 years, the population of that nation has grown from 45 million to 240 million people. They’ve channelized their rivers, built dense new settlements onto what were once floodplains and other marginal land, they’ve denuded their forests which took away the capacity to absorb runoff, and they’ve paved thousands of square miles creating impervious surfaces where water can’t percolate. Of course a big storm made a mess. The weather didn’t change. The landscape changed.

The disaster story repeats everywhere. And contrary to the narrative, the primary cause is not “climate change.” Bigger tsunamis? Maybe it’s because coastal aquifers were overdrafted which caused land subsidence, or because previously uninhabited tidelands were settled because the population quintupled in less than two generations, and because coastal mangrove forests were destroyed which used to attenuate big waves. What about deforestation? Perhaps because these nations have been denied the ability to develop natural gas and hydroelectric power, they’re stripping away the forests for fuel to cook their food. In some cases, they’re burning their forests to make room for biofuel plantations, in a towering display of irony and corruption.

The Biggest Big Lie in the World

And behind it all is a big lie: the “climate emergency.” It’s not true. 

Anyone hoping to stop the environmentalist assault on civilization must realize that it isn’t enough to challenge the individual policies that are supposedly designed to save the climate. It isn’t even enough to expose the preposterous, nihilistic, catastrophic, civilization-destroying absurdity of them—as if it is possible to transition to nothing but biofuel, wind, and solar energy and still deliver prosperity to 8 billion people within a decade or two.

What could work, however, would be to challenge the core premise of the climate alarmist movement. Learn the facts, evaluate the arguments of contrarian experts, and make up your own mind. If you no longer believe we actually face a climate emergency, say so, without reservations, in every venue and to every person and institution you can possibly influence.

Doing this may be deemed antisocial, and it may be suppressed, but it is a healthy expression of sanity. It used to be that when someone ran about claiming the world is about to end, that person was considered a lunatic. Let’s go back to those days. Human civilization could be entering a golden age of progress and prosperity, but it cannot get there without producing carbon dioxide.

With prosperity, we can adapt as we always have. With tyranny and poverty, we can do nothing. Climate alarmism is tyranny with green wrapping, delivered with terror.



X22, And we Know, and more- Jan 25

 



Having a nice assortment of stuff to watch is nice, though. That means the risk of indecisiveness increases.

Here's tonight's news:



COVID Vaxes – It’s Not ‘The More the Merrier’

The expression, “If some is good, more must be better” might apply to chocolate, vacations, and American Thinker articles, but not to everything in life. I speak of COVID vaccines, a hot topic in personal discussions and on social media.

The corporate media and government, including most world health authorities follow a similar quote, attributed to May West, ““If a little is great, and a lot is better, then way too much is just about right!” Is that so? Are an endless series of mRNA “vaccines” really in the best interests of virtually all Americans for whom they are recommended?

I know many individuals who have been fully vaccinated against COVID, and had three additional boosters, including the newest bivalent vaccine, who have come down with COVID. Not hospital or ICU COVID as we saw three years ago, but bad flu-like COVID, the type that lands one in bed for several days.

This is not surprising as viruses mutate to be more contagious and less lethal, independent of vaccines, making the vaccines less important than this natural mutation course. But are they making things worse?

The CDC subscribes to “the more the merrier” approach. From their website, updated a few weeks ago the, “Updated (bivalent) Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine also became available on December 9, 2022 for children aged 6 months–4 years to complete the primary series.”

How at risk are children? CDC data shows fewer than 650 children ages 0-4 years have died of COVID. How many had medical comorbidities such as immunodeficiencies or malignancies versus otherwise healthy children? How many died “with” rather than “from” COVID, testing positive for COVID incidentally while they died of an unrelated cause?

Medical authorities know the difference between “with” and “from”, right? Perhaps not. In Colorado, the deaths of a murder-suicide couple were included in the state’s COVID death numbers, “because the two tested positive for COVID-19 within 30 days before their death.” How’s that for good science?

Are more vaccine dosages of net benefit or harm? Is there any thoughtful discussion among physicians and the medical establishment of the risk benefit ratio, instrumental in any medical intervention recommendation?

Again from the CDC, “The updated (bivalent) boosters are called ‘bivalent’ because they protect against both the original virus that causes COVID-19 and the Omicron variant BA.4 and BA.5.” Are these the COVID variants we need to be concerned about today? Or are they extinct?

The original Wuhan strain, which caused havoc in early 2020, is long gone. As are most of last year’s Omicron variants. The current version of COVID is a variant called XBB.1.5, also known as the Kracken variant, growing “from about 1% of cases nationwide [in December] to 43% as of Jan. 13, according to data from the CDC.”

This means that we are boosting against variants that are or will soon be extinct. This would be like taking the flu vaccine from two years ago, this year, offering some protection against influenza variants of the past, not the present.

Yet health authorities recommend continued boosters. When will enough be enough? When will we have confidence that natural immunity, as most Americans have been exposed to COVID by now, will offer not perfect, but sufficient protection? Are endless boosters making things worse for people?

At this point, I must add the necessary disclaimer that I am not “anti-vaccine”, having been inoculated against COVID in late 2020 and I am not offering any medical advice. COVID decisions should be made in conjunction with your healthcare provider. I am simply observing and asking questions, both necessary in the advancement of medicine and science.

Cleveland Clinic answered the question about endless boosters in a December 2022 paper. It has not been peer reviewed yet, but given its conclusion, most medical journals would likely reject it, preferring to publish “peer reviewed” papers that they had to subsequently retract, as did the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. Peer review may not be all that it’s touted to be.

The Cleveland Clinic paper reached a simple conclusion as summarized by Steve Kirsch in his January 19 newsletter, “Top study shows people with more jabs were more likely to get COVID than people with fewer jabs.”

This study included over 51,000 Cleveland Clinic employees who were followed over  a 98 day period. Results were plotted by the incidence of test positive COVID versus number of vaccine doses, ranging from zero to more than three. At the end of the observation period, the differences were statistically significant between number of doses and infection for all groups except the 3 and >3 doses.

Cleveland Clinic is not some right-wing conspiracy theory Q-anon Twitter account but one of the premier medical institutions in the world. These results should be newsworthy, with honest and inquisitive journalists asking Drs Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky to explain this data. Instead, the media is chasing Rep George Santos, leaving it to independent journalists on Substack to actually report these results.

Another Chinese study in humanized mice found that, “Extended immunizations impaired the serum neutralization activity.” While this animal study has not been confirmed in humans, their conclusion was worrisome, to say the least, “We found that the protective effects from the humoral immunity and cellular immunity established by the conventional immunization were both profoundly impaired during the extended vaccination course.”

Alex Berenson, formerly of the vaccine happy New York Times, in his newsletter, offered a concise summary of this paper including this conclusion, “The finding may help to explain why large epidemiological studies keep finding that people who have received multiple boosters are at higher risk for Omicron infection than unvaccinated people.” Although not a human study, the results are similar to the Cleveland Clinic paper on humans.

Both papers are dutifully ignored by the corporate media, preferring to stick to their “safe and effective” narrative despite conflicting data that at a minimum warrants further analysis and discussion

Physicians practice, or at least should, under the mantra “First do no harm”. New data must be considered, and hypotheses and recommendations changed in response to new information. Doing otherwise may lead to harm and erosion of trust in the medical system, which in America has previously been the best in the world.

How will history view those who looked the other way out of fear or hubris, daring not to ask questions and think beyond the pronouncements of government health agencies? And how many Americans will have their lives upended by dutifully adhering to government pronouncements?



Republicans, It’s Time To Get Our Act Together On Early And Mail-In Voting

The Republican Party must mobilize a national early and mail-in voting strategy in key states to be competitive in 2024.



For months leading up to the 2022 midterm election, pundits with crystal balls emphatically declared, “The red wave is coming!” To their credit, a perfect storm was brewing: The party out of power historically performs well during a midterm. President Joe Biden’s approval rating was underwater, and working-class families were suffering from the highest inflation rate in more than 40 years. Nonetheless, Republicans only won a narrow majority in the House and lost a Senate seat in Pennsylvania. 

What turned the supposed red tsunami into a scarlet trickle? Simply put, the Republican Party failed to adopt a national early and mail-in voting strategy. If Republicans utilized in-person early voting and mail-in voting in Arizona, as they did in Florida, then Kari Lake would almost certainly be governor today.

Since 2020, election integrity has been a top concern for voters. While the general consensus was that Republicans should vote in person on Election Day, this backfired disastrously in 2022: An hour into the election, an estimated 30 percent of Maricopa County polling locations reported problems with machines. Conservative voters who had waited until the last day to cast their ballots were disenfranchised in the ensuing confusion. Ultimately, Lake lost by a mere 17,000 votes. If Republicans had voted early, then they would not have experienced these problems, would have been able to get more Republicans to the polls, and, most importantly, would have won.

In Nevada, Republican senatorial candidate Adam Laxalt lost by only 8,000 votes. Despite there being 654,145 registered Republicans in the state, he earned only 490,388 votes. If we assume that not a single independent vote was cast for Laxalt, this means that 163,757 registered Republicans were not mobilized to vote for their party’s candidate. When every registered Republican in Nevada had a ballot in their mailbox 20 days before the election, and ballot harvesting is entirely legal under state law, there is no excuse for not achieving near-record Republican turnout — especially in a state that was forecasting snow and inclement weather on Election Day.

Republican officials did not use every electoral tool to their advantage, and Republican voters suffered because of it.

For all of the post-mortems citing candidate quality as the reason for losing Pennsylvania, they are missing the point: It is a cold numbers game. By the time Republican senatorial candidate Mehmet Oz debated his opponent, more than 500,000 Pennsylvanians had already turned in their mail-in and absentee ballots. Moreover, of those ballots, 407,062 were returned by registered Democrats and 107,086 from Republicans. It didn’t matter that Oz received more votes on Election Day because Democrats were locking in votes and chasing ballots 50 days prior. 

And with those 50 days of possible early voting, it is inexcusable that by the end of Election Day, more than 1 million registered Republicans had not voted. Voters and activists should be livid about these failures and vow never again to waste a single day of early voting.

Republican voters should vote as early as possible so that campaign money is spent targeting an increasingly dwindling number of voters every day as the election nears. For the party that supposedly respects the laws of economics, it is the clear economical way to spend valuable campaign cash since more dollars to fewer people means more dollars spent per voter!

Republicans need our dedicated voters voting early, and then they need activists and leaders working to utilize every day as an opportunity to drive turnout — if Republicans refocus their campaigns into logistical machines, they are never going to lose an election again.

This problem — this fixable, albeit tediously difficult problem — is the genesis of the creation of Early Vote Action PAC. EVA is going to organize and mobilize, devoid of insider political drama plaguing the RNC and the D.C. swamp, and lead the way in ensuring that every right-leaning American is registered to vote and excited to vote early, whether by mail or in person. And by achieving this goal, Early Vote Action PAC is going to ensure that 2024 is a year of Republican victories.

Early Vote Action PAC is focused on helping Republicans win in Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina in 2024. If Republicans can win these states, they will have the necessary 270 electoral votes to take back the White House, the Senate, and a southern governor’s mansion. House seats will be flipped, then state house and state senate seats will be flipped, then local seats will be flipped — in an ode to the Gipper, we will call it “Trickle-Down Organizing.”


Last, Early Vote Action is going to be setting up shop around the country, finding committed, excited Republican activists to help drive turnout in key states so that underutilized Republican voters in deep-red districts and deep-blue districts alike, men and women ignored by leaders and consultants because their districts are impossibly lost or unimaginably safe, can take part in flipping swing states through letter writing, phone banking, and whatever else it takes to get out the vote by Election Day.

It is time for the Republican Party to get back to its organizing roots. It is time to think about nothing other than early Republican mobilization. And it is time to stop losing to the Democrats.



Report: Biden Would Veto GOP Bill to Ban Sale of Oil to China From U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden’s near hatred — although we can probably safely delete “near” — of fossil fuels has been an albatross around the necks of the American people since Day One of the intentionally worst presidency in the history of the United States. No joke, Jack — and Biden’s war on (U.S.) oil continues.

Now, according to ever-smug Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, Biden will veto a House bill to ban the sale of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China if the measure passes the Democrat-controlled Senate, as reported by Just the News.

So I’ll be very clear: If Congress were to pass [H.R. 22], the president would veto it. He will not allow the American people to suffer because of the backwards [sic] agenda that House Republicans are advancing.

Backward agenda, Ms. Granholm? How so?

The clueless Energy secretary also dismissed the sale of oil to China as a “non-issue.”

As I reported in September, Biden, after driving up the cost of energy to the point of out-of-control gas prices and subsequent outrage among tens of millions of hardworking Americans, continued to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to dangerous levels — in a desperate effort to insulate the Democrats from him and his dumpster fire disasters in the then-upcoming midterm elections.

In an effort to protect U.S. interests and the American people from further SPR recklessness from Biden, the Strategic Production Response Act [H.R. 22] was introduced in the Republican-controlled House, earlier this month. The bill would require the Energy Department to develop a plan to increase the percentage of federal areas leased for gas and oil production before releasing oil from the reserve.

To anyone not a Democrat, the proposed requirement is not only logical; it could also be strategically critical in the event of a national disaster, including war with, oh, let’s say Communist China. Yet Sino Joe Biden remains perfectly fine with continuing to drain U.S. reserves for sale to the ChiComs. Question: clueless and driven by his war on energy, kowtowing to China, or both?

Next up, Mensa member [sarc] White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about the Protecting America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act at the same briefing, and “brilliantly” responded:

So, look, I think this is a little bit of what the secretary was talking about just moments ago. This bill addresses a non-issue; we’re very clear on that.  We focus — we’re focused on advancing legislation that would lower costs for American families, not raise them.

Oh, please. First, KJP has zero understanding of the SPR bill or anything else. Second, Biden has demonstrated from his first day in office when he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline that he doesn’t give a damn about lowering energy costs for hardworking Americans, and third, how does conditioning the sale of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve on increasing the number of federal areas leased for gas and oil production raise energy costs, KJP. Take your time — I’ll wait.

Incredulously, Granholm used an increase in oil demand from China due to its easing of draconian COVID lockdowns as an excuse to continue the sale of U.S. oil reserves to the ChiComs.

The whole point of this is that this Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a tool that we have, that we can control. We may not be able to control the weather. We may not be able to control what happens at OPEC+ or China. But we can control what we have access to, and that’s why this tool is so incredibly important.

Huh? Was Granholm channeling Kamala Harris with that word-salad explanation of the SPR, or what? She then topped off her idiocy with this gem:

[P]rices would go up [if the bill were to become law] because we would have lost this tool [because of the reserve’s ability to] provide supply.

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the nature of supply and demand knows Grandholm’s claim is a complete crock of crap.

Then again, Madam Energy Secretary — like all “good” Democrats — isn’t interested in the least about what rational knowledgable people understand; the only people who matter to Democrats are low-information rank-and-file Democrat voters — alive, dead, or somewhere in between.




Biden Lawyer Has History of Finding and Releasing Elusive Documents


In his own discreet way, President Joe Biden’s “personal” attorney Bob Bauer is back in the news again. On Saturday, Bauer released a statement about a new discovery of documents chez Biden.

According to Bauer, the Justice Department "took possession of materials it deemed within the scope of its inquiry, including six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials, some of which were from the President's service in the Senate and some of which were from his tenure as Vice President."

This same CBS News report notes that this new find comes after 10 or so classified documents “were discovered by Mr. Biden's personal lawyers at the Penn Biden Center on Nov. 2.” Others were found at his home on December 20.

Bauer goes unmentioned in those earlier finds, but he almost surely had to be one of those “personal lawyers.” Six days before the midterms, these attorneys made the strategic decision not to go public with their find. In Bauer’s case, I suspect the decision to go public after the election was strategic as well—but not necessarily on Biden’s behalf.

Bauer, of course, has a history of blocking the release of certain documents and then strategically releasing them. In the way of background, on August 21, 2008, a week prior to the Democratic National Convention, Democrat attorney Philip Berg filed a federal suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president.

A former deputy attorney general for the State of Pennsylvania and a credible pro-choice gubernatorial candidate in a Democrat primary against sitting governor Robert Casey, Berg expected to be taken seriously. He wasn’t. The media expressed zero interest in his suit.

Obama and the Democratic National Committee took a good deal of interest. Defending Obama’s interest was Bauer, then a top gun from the Deep State’s go-to law firm, Perkins Coie. Bauer served as general counsel to the DNC and as personal lawyer to Obama during the 2008 campaign. In that capacity Bauer led the legal fight against Berg.

On November 12, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit. The day after the suit was dismissed, the New York Times reported that White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, was stepping down from his job. An anonymous source told the Times that Bauer would be taking over, and the source knew whereof he spoke.

Bob Bauer in the Oval Office 20101 as White House Counsel

Extracted from a photo by White House official photographer Pete Souza(public domain)

With the media averting their collective gaze, a federal judge felt free to dismiss Berg’s narrowly tailored suit without a hearing. “I was deprived of my due process rights to be heard,” Berg would write. “Judge Surrick made some outlandish comments claiming Obama had been properly vetted, and that was completely untrue.” Berg’s claim here is accurate. The media’s failure to investigate Obama’s background is a scandal in its own right.

After blocking the release of his birth certificate for more than two years, Obama decided in April 2011 to produce the certificate or at least something like it. Donald Trump was giving him fits.

“Finally I decided I’d had enough,” Obama writes of Trump’s challenge in his memoir, A Promised Land. “I called in White House counsel Bob Bauer and told him to go ahead and obtain the long-form birth certificate from its home in a bound volume, somewhere deep in the bowels of the Hawaii Vital Records office.” Bauer dispatched Obama’s personal attorney Judith Corley, also of Perkins Coie, to secure two copies.

Overriding staff objections, Obama went live on national TV in late April 2011 to address the birth certificate issue. The timing was strategic. Planning was well underway for the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout.

Still failing to appreciate how gingerly the media treated him, Obama writes, “I began by remarking on the fact that the national TV networks had all decided to break from their regularly scheduled programming to carry my remarks live—something they very rarely did.”

Yes, very rarely. Arguably, the last comparable breakaway for a personal matter took place on July 25, 1969, when the networks gave Ted Kennedy fifteen minutes to assure America there was “no truth whatsoever” to any rumors of immoral conduct between him and the late Mary Jo Kopechne.

After explaining the problems America faced, Obama scolded the “carnival barkers” for distracting its citizens. “We do not have time for this kind of silliness,” he said angrily. “We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve. And I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them—not on this.”

Less than a week after the announcement, Osama bin Laden was killed, and the birther controversy was buried along with him. A month later, Bauer returned to private practice so he could once again represent the Obama campaign and the DNC. Said Obama of Bauer at the time, “He has exceptional judgment, wisdom, and intellect, and he will continue to be one of my close advisers.”

Bauer would offer that advice from the plush offices of the firm to which he returned, Perkins Coie. In April 2016, when the DNC learned that its computers had been hacked, its staff alerted Perkins Coie, and the firm, in turn, recommended a private cyber security outfit called CrowdStrike to clean up the mess. No need to bring in the FBI. (As shall be seen, it was CrowdStrike that took control of Seth Rich’s laptop. More to come,)

That same memorable year, 2016, it was Perkins Coie that retained Fusion GPS to create the infamous Steele dossier. Would a firm capable of commissioning the Steele dossier have trouble dummying up a birth certificate?

Would an attorney whom Obama called “one of my close advisers” be one Biden would want to trust? As Joel Gilbert has warned in his prescient book and documentary, Michelle Obama 2024, the Obamas may have other plans for the White House than Biden’s continued occupancy.



James O’Keefe Confronts FBI Stenographer Adam Goldman



The New York Times and Politico represent the best interests of the DOJ and FBI.  The Washington Post represents the interests of the CIA and ODNI.  CNN represents the interests of the U.S. State Dept.   These are the public-private media partnerships that have evolved over decades, and the outcomes are consistent.

Adam Goldman is a man of notoriously slimy disposition, who operates as a New York Times stenographer for the administrative state.  Goldman loves to see the targeting of Americans by the DOJ and FBI apparatus and is intoxicated by his perceived assistance in the destruction of others.  Goldman genuinely gets pleasure in seeing his targets suffer under the weight of the U.S. justice system. It brings him joy.

After Adam Goldman and the DOJ/FBI worked together in the operation to target James O’Keefe (Ashley Biden diary), O’Keefe is dragging the relationship out into the open. Goldman does not like it when the tables are turned, and he becomes the target of sunlight.  WATCH: