Saturday, October 5, 2024

The Failing Conceits of the Globalist


Then and now, a global agenda which calls for massive human displacement, death and domination runs its course like any other human effort—in the end, you only end up with what you’ve paid for.

We do not have the exact faces yet of the globalist(s) who are bringing our country, and many others, to their knees. The lens of history will eventually provide the name(s).

A few historic examples include the conquests of Genghis Khan, overwhelmingly paid in bloodshed and human decimation in nomadic Mongolia, and the European Napoleon Bonaparte, more characteristically paid in public works, civic culture, and an early version of subsequent French military colonialism; Khan was the Mongolian warrior-ruler of the great Mongol Empire in the 13th century, and Napoleon Bonaparte, militarized  and “organized” Western and Central Europe in the 19th century.

First, Mr. Khan, from Britannica:

Genghis Khan was a warrior and ruler of genius who, starting from obscure and insignificant beginnings, brought all the nomadic tribes of Mongolia under the rule of himself and his family in a rigidly disciplined military state. He then turned his attention toward the settled peoples beyond the borders of his nomadic realm and began the series of campaigns of plunder and conquest that eventually carried the Mongol armies as far as the Adriatic Sea in one direction and the Pacific coast of China in the other, leading to the establishment of the great Mongol Empire.

Khan oversaw a swathe of territory that “spanned from the Pacific Ocean in the east to the Danube River and the shores of the Persian Gulf in the west” and at its height, was roughly “9 million square miles” in size. As Britannica notes, it was “the largest contiguous land empire in world history.”

Khan’s empire came into dissolution rapidly after his death, a fate that later befell Europe under Napoleon; both globalists represent a powerful conceit which eventually fell before the resurrection of strong tribal, native, and subsequent national identities bolstered by strong and common social consciousness.

Although Khan himself was not formally attached to any “religion,” his two sons converted the Mongols to Islam. While Islam is commonly associated with Mohammed, its massive, historical and present livelihood is more in truth sourced with military incursions; there is little freedom under Islam, unless you’re a Muslim male, so it’s a perfect vehicle for conquest. Islam is, historically, more about the ideology of territory, commerce, and economics. On the Mongol Empire:

The idea of a heavenly mission to rule the world was certainly present in Genghis Khan’s own mind and in the minds of many of his successors, but this ideological imperialism had no foundation in nomadic society as such. It was most probably due to influences from China where the ‘one world, one ruler’ ideology had a long tradition. The creation of nomad empires in the steppes and the attempts to extend their rule over the more settled parts of central Asia and finally over the whole known world may also have been influenced by the desire to control the routes of intercontinental land trade. The desire for plunder also cannot be ignored, and it was certainly not by accident that the first attacks by nomad federations were usually directed against those states which benefited from the control of trade routes in central Asia such as the famous Silk Road.

Secondarily, Napoleon Bonaparte, whose empire “was the last great supra-regional European empire to embrace the pre-industrial cultural boundaries of Western and Central Europe.” From Bonaparte’s efforts and conquest arose a “clear French identity” that became “cultural imperialism in a European context.”

Yet, in due time, Napoleon’s Empire collapsed, and Europe was reformed again, back into its respective national identities—mostly along preexisting borders, in the early 19th century.

Khan’s and Napoleon’s ultimately failing ambitions, five centuries apart, were for far different sorts of globalism—yet in crucial aspects, both are reminiscent of what is now going on at our borders and increasingly throughout the United States, and in the streets of London, Paris, and all of Europe.

Yet there is scant moral equivalency between the methods of these two men, divided by centuries, and by East and West.  Both were architects of global expansion, yet a moral and violent dysfunction may be seen in any attempted marriage of the two strategies of these two military geniuses; while Khan advanced his empire through brutal and merciless slaughter, Bonaparte expanded through a European mindset of warfare and civic conquest.

Understanding the present can be done when we recognize history’s patterns, but that would include waking up to our current reality: invasion at the bidding of the “new” globalists, who are sowing ruin everywhere. They are mostly faceless now—we’re aware of a few, like Ursula von der Leyen and Kamala Harris—but the others will be clarified in history, or perhaps sooner.

We see a violent dysfunction in Europe now, and fast moving into America, as the legacy of a centuries-old battle between antipathetic cultural and moral systems. It is only the naivete of the West which blinds it to the historical mismatch that urges it to artificially contrive a “globalism” to suit its own ends. It will not work, as Khan’s and Napoleon’s did not.

Europe today is being repatriated, as it were, in a very significant part by the historic descendants of Mongols, now Muslims—in massive immigrations far exceeding any from the Napoleonic global strategy. Napoleon’s strategy was, more or less, to leave the invaded peoples to go about their own emerging proto-national business and buy a militarized, French “peace,” along later colonial lines, with civic order and enhanced infrastructure.

Modern “globalism” is reaping violent eruptions and deathly clashes, pitting rapidly imported “cultures” against the traditional values and survival of national citizens of the West—and like Khan and Bonaparte, it’s a failing conceit.



at

Historic Butler PA speech, X22, and more- Oct 5

 




at

Who Is Going to Vote Democrat?


At least 40% of Americans who vote this year are almost sure to vote for Harris/Walz and other Democrats down ticket. That’s a history lesson that I have written about before.  Even the woefully incompetent Jimmy Carter received 41% of the popular vote in 1980 after four years of miserable failure.  I guess some people like failure.

But who are these people?  Who in their right mind would vote for Kamala Harris for President?  Well, again, millions will do it.  Why?  Let’s look at who these people are.

But before I do that, I want to mention the countless Americans who won’t vote for anybody.  They never do.  And for various reasons, probably mainly because they don’t think it does any good.  They might tell you, “Nothing ever changes except to get worse,” “There is little or no difference between Democrats and Republicans,” or “It’s a waste of time.”  And there might be some truth to these complaints, though not totally.  Some people just don’t care and don’t want to participate, and “freedom” gives them that right.  Of course, if they don’t vote, they don’t really have a right to complain about the consequences, but the feeling that one vote among millions isn’t going to have any effect disincentivizes them as well.  Probably, there are as many “Republicans” who feel this way as “Democrats,” so I doubt the “non-voters,” if they did vote, would swing the election one way or another.  But if we could only convince all the “non-voting Republicans” to vote (and the “non-voting Democrats” to stay at home), then Trump would surely win, and the House and Senate would become Republican.  I’m sure Democrats feel the same way about that, too.  Millions aren’t going to vote.  That’s just the way it is.

But who is it who votes for Democrats?  That’s my main question.

1.  Low-information voters.  Some multitudes aren’t terribly interested in politics, but they vote anyway.  They’re not much better than the non-voters (maybe even worse) because they don’t know or care much more than the totally apathetic.  There is some practicality to this.  Life is difficult at the best of times, and people (should) work hard to succeed.  This does limit our time to study history, become knowledgeable in civic affairs, and truly investigate and research candidates to decide who would be the best for the country.  

Kamala Harris is putting a lot of faith in this coterie of voters.  Her far-left past needs to be hidden because most Americans aren’t radical, at least not as radical as she is.  So, she repeatedly lies about her record and hopes the Democratic media can cover for her, reach these low-information voters, and convince them she’s the “moderate,” and Trump is the “extremist.”  It will undoubtedly work for millions because they’ll vote for her.  They don’t study, they don’t read, they don’t think, they don’t know.  The Left, through its control of America’s education system, has done yeoman work in producing legions of these ignorant, low-information voters.  “Joy” and “brat” will appeal to many of them.  It’s...democracy.

2.  Government dependents.  As Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler so poignantly wrote, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury.”  Democrats buy votes.  Republicans do, too, but it certainly has been a foundation of the Democratic Party as far back as Franklin Roosevelt, perhaps the greatest vote-buyer of all time.  It’s why the American government is over $34 trillion in debt, and it won’t stop.  

Listen to Kamala.  She has a plethora of projects to buy votes.  The more people are dependent upon the government, the less free they are, and the more they will continue to vote for the politicians who will keep them enslaved to the government.  As strange as it may sound, many people, perhaps most, prefer slavery (dependence, security) to freedom (personal self-government, responsibility, virtue).  The Democratic Party has created countless millions of such people, and they will vote for Harris.  Trump—freedom—scares them to death.

3.  The immoral and mentally aberrant.  The Democrats have a vested interest in producing as many of these people as possible, too, and they have done a marvelous job in accomplishing it.  These people are similar to point two, government dependents.  People who lack self-control won’t take care of themselves.  They live selfishly, and create societal chaos.  That is tailor-made for totalitarians, who want as much societal disturbance as possible so that the government can step in and take control.  

Again, history teaches that sacrificing freedom to have security is not uncommon, and when criminals, perverts, and mentally aberrant people are running loose and threatening virtue and social order, we either buy guns and protect ourselves or we get government to do it—which is, frankly, (supposed to be) its main function (“to secure these rights”). These are people who have no moral compass, who root and ground their lives in hedonistic nihilism, who are adrift like a buoy in a vast ocean of nothingness, with no sense of purpose or direction in their lives.  Just what Democrats want.  

America’s education system, having replaced God and ultimate reality for the aimless, pointless fantasy of atheistic materialism, is largely responsible for this.  We have raised too many generations like this, and they are now teaching America’s children what to believe—and not believe.  If this doesn’t stop, there is absolutely no hope for the country.  At least, no hope for freedom.  A non-virtuous people who have no self-control will always need totalitarian government to oversee them.  That is exactly what the Democrats want, and exactly the kind of voters they appeal to.

Such people, and others, will vote Harris/Walz.  

 



at

This Is What Real Chaos Looks Like


For years, Democrats and their allies in the media have accused former President Donald Trump of being “chaotic.” In fact, they wasted no time between Election Day in 2016 and Trump’s January 21, 2017, inauguration making this claim. 

“Inside Donald Trump's Chaotic Transition,” Newsweek published as a headline. 

“How Trump's messy transition led to a chaotic presidency,” the Washington Post claimed. 

In fact, dozens of House Democrats refused to certify the election results and boycotted his swearing in at the U.S. Capitol. 

They’ve never stopped making the argument, and breathlessly warn Trump is "too chaotic" to sit in the Oval Office again. 

“A Trump Victory Would Mean Transition Chaos,” Bloomberg said just this week about the potential aftermath of the 2024 presidential election. 

And yet, just this week, we saw what actual chaos really looks like. Former President Trump has nothing to do with it. 

First, the first major dock strike in 40 years went into effect on Tuesday, putting supply chain reliability and the country’s economic future in question. 

“J.P. Morgan estimated the daily cost of a port strike by East and Gulf Coast port workers would cost the U.S. economy between $3.8 billion and $4.5 billion per day as operations slow,” Fox Business reported. 

Americans, fearing shortages of everything from toilet paper to canned goods, raced to the stores to stock up. 

Down south across a number of states, Americans are still without help from the federal government a week after Hurricane Helene crashed into the coast and made its way inland. Worse, while government incompetence is costing people their lives, private enterprises are being prevented from doing the work.

“The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) clarified a message that warned civilian drone pilots not to fly near Hurricane Helene recovery and rescue efforts — or risk penalty, fines or ‘criminal prosecution’ — after facing intense backlash online,” Fox News reports. 

Private helicopter pilots have also been threatened with arrest — even after conducting a number of rescues and delivering life saving supplies. 

As for President Biden, he doesn’t remember what storm caused the chaos.

“I’m wondering what storm you’re talking about,” Biden said to a reporter upon arriving to the White House after visiting disaster areas in North and South Carolina. 

On the foreign policy front, war is again raging in the Middle East as a result of the weak Biden-Harris appeasement of Iran and its terrorist proxy groups and Ukraine is still getting pummeled by Russia — despite hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funded military aid for its defense. It’s the largest war in Europe since World War II. 

"Nearly half of Ukrainians believe the war with Russia is at a stalemate, according to a new poll,” the Washington Post reported in June. “Some 44 percent of respondents said they believed that neither Ukraine nor Russia was winning the war, while 41 percent said that Ukraine was winning and just 5 percent that Russia was winning.”

This is actual chaos, and the Biden-Harris administration has been in charge for all of it. 



at

🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


at

Yes, the Government Sees People Helping People as a Threat and Here's Why


The government response to Hurricane Helene has been nothing short of horrific. As RedState has been covering, everything that should be functioning normally to help the American people in terms of rescue efforts and assistance has been a colossal failure due to our inept and corrupt government. 

Amid all of this failure of government has been an incredible display from private citizens who are lining up to help those in trouble in the affected areas. They're willing to put their time, money, resources, and skills at the disposal of those in need. It truly is a stunning display of humanity. 

(The Government's Failure to Help After Helene Goes Far Beyond What the Media Is Willing to Tell You)

But among all of this are reports that there are government officials attempting to halt the people's efforts in various ways. They threaten to arrest helicopter pilots who are rescuing the stranded. Reports that FEMA has told people to stop giving supplies out privately and direct them to FEMA camps have been made. 

As former Army Ranger and MMA fighter Tim Kennedy told a local news agency, the government is actively hampering attempts to help. Federal officials have taken up entire hotels, stopping citizens from finding shelter, and rescue efforts had to be halted so that Vice President Kamala Harris could have what amounted to a glorified photo op. FEMA has also sent notifications informing citizens that they won't travel down roads that are too difficult to traverse, leaving some rural residents stranded. 

Then, there was Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg telling people to stop taking to the skies with aircraft and drones in order to keep the sky clear for rescue aircraft. People use drones in order to search for people who are trapped or stranded, and these pilots gather to rescue them. It's pretty clear that no one else is coming, or at the very least, they won't get there in time, and it's these civilian pilots who are going to get the job done. 

It's the most bizarre decision not to use civilians to help, but it makes sense when you realize a few things. 

For one, this government response to Helene's victims is one of the most scandalous and atrocious things that's happened in recent history... and it's almost time to vote in the next election. 

The last thing the Biden-Harris government wants you to see is the depth of their failure. It looks really bad for the Harris campaign, especially when you learn that a lot of the disaster funding from FEMA has reportedly been used up helping illegals at the border. 

(It Sure Seems Like the Government Is Trying to Censor Civilian Footage to Cover Up Its Ineptitude)

But here's the other colossal issue that, if widely realized, would affect the government for far longer than a single Harris administration would. 

As one woman points out very articulately, the size and scope of government maintaining itself as it exists is entirely dependent on you believing it's justified being that way. 


Summarized, her point is this. 

If the media were to begin accurately reporting on the civilian effort to help the people and how successful it's been, operating on a shoestring budget with supplies gathered here and there, and all without government assistance, then you'd likely start wondering what the point of the government is. 

The government wants you to believe that without it, you're entirely vulnerable and at the mercy of everything around you. It wants you to believe that you need it for your protection and survival. To be sure, there are elements of it that should exist for that very reason. Police forces and the military are necessary to maintain safety from both domestic and foreign threats. 

However, it's pretty clear that the extraordinary amount of taxpayer dollars that we pay to it in order to keep the country functioning as it should are being wasted continuously. Even with all the billions and billions of dollars it takes from us, it can't seem to prioritize it well enough to be utilized properly. You start to realize you don't need the government as much as you think you do, and before long, you're enthusiastic about shrinking it, giving it less of your money, and reducing the number of people who work there. 

This is a nightmare scenario for the government. If you know your own power, it highlights the weakness of the government. So they warn, threaten, and punish people who take it upon themselves to help. They work to censor and silence where they can. They release propagandistic narratives that make it seem like they're confidently in charge and handling the situation. The media keeps quiet about the real story, and the hope is that you'll sit, shiver, and wait for daddy government to come help you. 

If anything, Helene is a wake-up call. It's a full-on display of the power of the people, and a perfect example of how government should always be small and minimally funded based on basic need. 

(Become Ungovernable, Save People)



at

Our Government Serves At The Pleasure Of Everyone Except Americans


Biden and Harris’ hatred for rural Helene victims couldn’t be more obvious than if it was painted on Hillary Clinton’s white pantsuit.



Right now, an untold number of Americans throughout several southeastern states are still struggling to acquire basic necessities after Hurricane Helene ripped through the region a week ago — and our government is largely indifferent.

The devastation is nothing short of horrific. As of this article’s publication, officials reported that at least 202 people have died in the disaster, with many more still missing and awaiting rescue.

Among the areas hardest hit are Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina, the latter jurisdiction of which has racked up more deaths than any other state.

Some segments of southern Appalachia were completely submerged. Small towns have been swept away in the catastrophic flooding, leaving entire communities in shambles.

In years prior, the fallout from such a disaster would warrant national, wall-to-wall media coverage and devoted attention from America’s heads of state. But the United States is not the same country it once was.

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris had to be practically dragged into disaster response mode after relaxing on the beach and attending campaign fundraisers, respectively, while the Category 4 storm wreaked havoc across the South. The same media that dishonestly and viciously attacked President George W. Bush for his response to Hurricane Katrina seemingly have no problem with Biden and Harris taking nearly a week to visit with victims of Helene’s rampage.

The situation couldn’t be anymore despicable if Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas wasn’t begging Congress to provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with more cash after it shelled out more than a billion in taxpayer dollars servicing illegal aliens. Yes, you read that correctly: our government is claiming it can’t help Americans in need because it spent its disaster relief money on illegal immigrants who willingly violated U.S. sovereignty.

But let’s not pretend this is some kind of random, one-off incident.

The chief guiding principle of the Biden-Harris administration is its deep-seated hatred for the Americans they’re supposed to serve — particularly those who reside in rural areas and love God and their country. As is often the case, this results in the demands of foreign nationals taking precedence over the needs of the U.S. citizenry.

The administration tells us it only has $750 for the North Carolinian mom who just lost her house to Helene but has been more than happy to ship tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Ukraine to fight an indefinite war against Russia. When the White House dumped 20,000 Haitians into Springfield, Ohio, it wasn’t the native residents whose livelihoods were upended that got Biden and Harris’ sympathy — it was the Haitians who refused to conform to American culture and caused chaos within the community.

And while unrelated to illegal immigration, the chemical spill that poisoned East Palestine, Ohio, last year was similarly ignored by the Biden-Harris regime. As The Federalist’s Elle Purnell reported, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg waited a week and a half before finally acknowledging the crisis,” telling a reporter he was too busy to offer a message to suffering Ohioans because he was “taking some personal time.”

Got that? The chemical spill is problematic not because East Palestine residents don’t have safe drinking water or clean air, but because it interferes with Buttigieg’s “personal time.” How dare those filthy Ohioans inconvenience him!

The administration’s disdain for these communities and the Americans within them could not be more obvious than if it was painted on one of Hillary Clinton’s white pantsuits. The Marxists running our government hate America, and by extension, the people conserving the values that built her.

Unless your small town or community’s name starts with “Ukraine,” expect these soulless monsters to ignore your cries for help, no matter how dire. But given their level of incompetence, you may not want it anyways.



at

J.D. Vance’s ‘Mansplaining’ Sends Feminists To The Fainting Couch


J.D. Vance’s reasonable argument with the debate moderators over their unprofessional conduct is sending left-wing feminists into fits.



Republicans celebrated J.D. Vance’s crushing victory over Tim Walz in Tuesday’s debate with a flurry of hilarious memes. Meanwhile, Democrats and the liberal media went to work to spin Walz’s pathetic performance, branding his lies over Tiananmen Square as mere matters of misspeaking and recasting the fear seen in his eyes as “passion.”

In addition to their efforts to prop up Walz, the Left also sought to damage Vance’s winning performance — and particularly the positive connection he made with women over the course of the 90-minute debate.

Vance’s calm demeanor, respectful tone, and serious discussion of the bread-and-butter issues that worry all Americans, contrast sharply with the image women had been sold by the leftist press of a knuckle-dragging neanderthal. The Ohio senator lovingly bragging on his wife while discussing challenges she faces in balancing her career as a successful lawyer and mom to their three kids further warmed women to the Republican candidate.

But Democrats and the party’s unofficial press corps couldn’t have that — not with women being one of the only groups where the Harris-Walz ticket still has a net favorable rating. So, the Left quickly invented a narrative to attack Trump’s running mate, with MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace, soon after the debate ended, claiming Vance’s “worst moment” came when “he attempted to ‘mansplain’ over muted mics.”

Wallace claimed that “if you’re a woman, that might be the worst moment JD Vance had, because he was going to mansplain right over that mute button. He was, and again, I don’t pretend to know how everyone will react to this. I think that a lot of women, in positions of authority that should command respect just by virtue of that dynamic, will see themselves and some do, the disrespect of them and talked over.”

But as I posted on X in response to a similar framing from a self-described “gender-bias expert,” as a woman, let me explain what these supposed feminists are saying: They and the female moderators are so weak and incompetent, they can’t handle being challenged when they are wrong and must instead resort to whining about purported “mansplaining.”

And make no mistake, that was precisely what J.D. Vance was doing: He was correcting the moderators following their inappropriate interjection into the debate following a discussion on the immigrant crisis in Springfield, Ohio.

Following an exchange between the candidates on the topic, moderator Margaret Brennan added: “And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status.”

Vance sought to reply, saying “Well, Margaret, Margaret, I think it’s important,” before Brennan and her fellow moderator Norah O’Donnell cut him off.

The Ohio senator was having none of it and continued: “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years … That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.”

The moderators then cut Vance’s microphones as Walz and Vance continued the debate, with Walz claiming “those laws have been in the book since 1990,” but Vance countered, albeit muted by the silencing of his microphone, “[t]he CBP app has not been on the books since 1990. It’s something that Kamala Harris created.”

That was no mansplaining: That was a vice-presidential candidate in a debate properly and respectfully handling the unprofessional conduct of a moderator. Had Margaret Brennan been Michael Brennan, the same scene would have unfolded. And the only reason anyone would criticize Vance for his handling of Ms. Brennan’s breach of the debate rules is because they want to bash the Republican candidate.

Well, that, or they believe women really can’t handle the tough job of moderating high-profile debates, in which case, there are two options: Female moderators either need to man up or if they can’t take heat, stay in the kitchen.



at

Homeland Security Warns That Upcoming Oct. 7 Attacks Anniversary Could Spark Hate Crimes, Violence


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

Just when you thought things were already as interesting as possible: On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security released a warning that the upcoming first anniversary of the heinous October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israel could spark violence in the United States. 

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security on Friday warned that the upcoming one-year anniversary of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel could motivate some people to engage in violence within the United States.

In a public service announcement, authorities said the anniversary may motivate extremists and others to engage in hate crimes and provoke violence.

"Over the past year, we have observed violent extremist activity and hate crimes in the United States linked to the conflict," the PSA states. 

"Jewish, Muslim, or Arab institutions—including synagogues, mosques/Islamic centers, and community centers—and large public gatherings, such as memorials, vigils, or other lawful demonstrations, present attractive targets for violent attacks or for hoax threats by a variety of threat actors, including violent extremists and hate crime perpetrators," it said. 

That last sentence is something of an understatement. These are, of course, precisely the kinds of institutions and gatherings that we should expect to be targeted, just as the Re'im music festival was targeted in Israel in October 2023. Note, though, that Homeland Security, other than this rather broad statement, offers no idea from which quarter we might expect such acts to come - although we may very well guess that it would most likely come from the same sort of ideology that drove the October 7th attack on Israel, sparking a conflict which continues even today.

Maybe one more good "Queers for Palestine" parade will settle things down.

While this warning is serious and we should take it as such, the one thing the opposition in this current conflict of civilization vs. savagery has taught us is that their leadership is evil but not necessarily stupid. There is a saying in military circles that we are always training and preparing to fight the last war, and that applies as well to the current clash; the use of airliners on 9/11, the use of pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, the use of paragliders to infiltrate terrorists on October 7th - all of those tactics were unexpected. And on our side, nobody in Hezbollah before September expected to be killed by an exploding pager or hand-held radio. These kinds of... innovations, will no doubt continue.

Here's the elephant in the room: It's going to happen here.

Yes, I said it's going to. Not "it might." There may be small attacks here and there; or, there may be an Oct 7th-style attack, coordinated, planned, and carried out on one or two days, scaled up to the United States. But it's going to happen here. We've as much as guaranteed it by throwing open our borders and allowing in millions, many if not most of them young, single, military-age men, unscreened, unvetted, largely unknown. We let them in and sent them on their way into the United States with no idea where they came from, where they were going, or what they intended to do when they got there. There are roughly 11 million - minimum - illegal aliens present in the United States right now, and if one percent of them harbor ill intent toward America and the American people, that's an army of 110,000, ready to engage in offensive operations. 

If - when - it happens, Homeland Security's dire warning is going to look like wild, cheery optimism.



at

The Mary McCord Discussion Enhances So Many Questions About DOJ Targeting of President Trump



A recent soundbite shared on the Twitter platform aligns with so many aspects about how the IC targets their enemies, and how the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) then weaponizes the opportunities provided by the U.S intelligence apparatus.

Notice in this short video how Mary McCord positions the power structure of the DOJ-NSD silo in deference to the Intelligence Community (IC). This is a critical path within the next step to American’s “great awakening.” In the past we have outlined how the DOJ-NSD weaponizes their Lawfare by using “National Security Information,” or what the insiders call “NSI.”

As an outcome of the way our checks and balances have been modified against our interests, the judicial branch has repeatedly deferred to the DOJ around the issue of “national security.” In fact, if the DOJ labels any Lawfare approach as a national security matter the subsequent evidence therein, the NSI (even when not seen) is accepted by the judicial branch without question. The judicial branch defers to the executive on all matters defined by the executive as “national security.”

This is the area of exploit being discussed by Mary McCord in this segment. However, notice there is one apparatus that can supercede the DOJ-NSD’s ability to weaponize Nat Sec Information, that’s the power of the intelligence apparatus. WATCH:




McCord notes how she and Andrew Weissmann navigate through the process of using NSI as they move toward their target; the most common reference is their political opposition, Donald J Trump.

If there is one Lawfare operative who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord. More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts when the Dobbs decision was leaked.

When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’).  That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important.  It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.

When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin.  Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016 just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016).  John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.

♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.

A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents.  The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.

♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson.  In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ.  Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.

♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission.  Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint.  It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules.  Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General?  Michael Atkinson.

When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to?  Mary McCord.

Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment.   As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.

♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith.  Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.

When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.

♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith.  In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome.  Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.

As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.

Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus?  Mary McCord.

♦ SUMMARY:  Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier.  Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn.  Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee.  Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.

You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.

What happened next….

November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)

That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.

First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court?  ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application.  In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing.  See how that works?

Now, let’s go deeper….

When Mary McCord went to the White House with Sally Yates to talk to white house counsel Don McGhan about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.

The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.

Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?

This is where a big mental reset is needed.  Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue.  In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so.  There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.

So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?  Why did the DOJ-NSD even care?  This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle.  People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.

Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls.  They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts” as described within internal documents, and later statements.

After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked.  Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey.  Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.

Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor.

Obama’s plausible deniability of the Trump surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.

That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “buy the book” three times.

It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; the problem was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge.

The January 5th meeting documented by Susan Rice was quickly organized to mitigate this issue.

Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House.  [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]

So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.

But wait, there’s more…. 

Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.

Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts.  The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job, to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts.  The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.

In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.

At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states.  Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel.  By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.

After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened.  Sheldon Snook left his position.   If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.

Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility.  In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.

If you were Chief Justice John Roberts and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount.  Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly.  Which is exactly what happened.

The timeline holds the key.

Remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff all going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump?   Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her background efforts continue today as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team that is still attacking Donald Trump.

To give you an idea of the scope of influence of Mary McCord as a key functionary, consider what we can document.

♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.

♦ McCord created the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.

♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler.

♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.

♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.

♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.

♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.

♦ McCord is working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.

In short, Mary McCord is the lawfare string that winds through every legal ‘stop Trump’ effort, and her primary partner in this endeavor is Andrew Weissmann.  In this next video segment, notice what the “how to use that” quote is referencing.



It’s not Jack Smith per se’, any more than it was Robert Mueller.

Jack Smith and Robert Mueller are/were simply the front men of the Lawfare band.


at