Every Left-Wing Attempt To Prosecute Trump Has Failed

From impeachment to tax evasion charges, desperate attempts to criminalize the former president have fallen flat

Now They Are Saying That The Republican Party Is The #1 “National Security Threat To The United States Of America”

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

When one major political party starts labeling the other major political party as a “national security threat”, that should set off major alarm bells because that means that total tyranny is very near. Needless to say, Democrats and Republicans have always had bitter words for one another, but when you start calling the other side a “national security threat” that is taking things to an entirely different level. Al-Qaeda was a “national security threat”, and so we invaded Afghanistan. ISIS was a “national security threat”, and so we bombed them into oblivion. The full weight of U.S. power is often used to “neutralize” national security threats, and so when a former Department of Homeland Security official went on MSNBC and said that the Republican Party is now a more serious national security threat than either Al-Qaeda or ISIS, that sent chills down the spines of a whole lot of people…

Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official, made the comment during a Thursday interview on MSNBC’s “The Reid Out.”

Political prosecutions are not new in America. Political pogroms are. It is sad to watch the Democratic Party embrace such third-world practices as policy. It is sadder to note there has never in history been a more sustained yet unsuccessful political effort to oust or destroy one man.

Even before Donald Trump took office, Democrats claimed Russia elected him as the Manchurian candidate. The intelligence community-Democratic Party-media tripartite axis then swung for the fences, using wiretaps obtained through FISA fraud, honeytraps, Australian and Israeli cutouts, intel scrubbed by GHQ, and every other trick in the spy business.

They came up so empty-handed even a Deep State O.G. like Robert Mueller could not find anything indictable. Mueller is a forgotten hero, knowing he had nothing and willing to let his legacy fade to black, rather than be remembered as the guy who took a dump on the rule of law. You won’t see such courage in failure again; keep reading.

Despite their beat down over Russiagate’s failed putsch, post-Mueller the Democrats almost immediately set out to impeach Trump on much of nothing. An anonymous whistleblower was planted and then dug up among the intel community, and impeachment hearings kicked off with the speed of a prefabbed barn erection. A long string of State Department clones and one sad-sack warrior-bureaucrat basically said they didn’t care for Trump’s Ukraine policy—so let’s impeach him.

The whole thing collapsed because a) there was no impeachable offense and b) the more Democrats rooted in the pigsty for evidence against Trump the more they kept ending up with the Joe and Hunter Biden Ukraine scandal in front of them.

Not content with one failed impeachment, the Democrats impeached Trump a second time, as a private citizen after he had left office. The set up was to exaggerate unorganized vandalism at the Capitol into a full-on coup attempt. Left out was that the vandals had no path whatsoever to overturning the election, were quickly chased out of the building, and then just went home. The imagined Reichstag moment was then pasted onto Trump’s back like a “kick me” sign in full defiance of established speech-as-incitement rules. A silly show trial failed. Again.

In the background were political assassination attempts so pathetic they never made it to full-failure: the Emoluments Clause cases, Stormy Daniels, all things Michael’s Avenatti and Cohen, E. Jean Carroll’s rape-cum-defamation case—that one so egregiously lousy even the Biden DOJ took Trump’s side—25th Amendment shenanigans, plus all the sideshow accusations, including incest. The Southern District of New York leading the current case already failed in 2012 to indict Trump’s children and failed to prosecute Paul Manafort. All the smoking guns fired blanks.

But why quit now? The state and city of New York have filed criminal fraud charges against Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg and the Trump Organization for failing to pay taxes on fringe benefits such as lodging and transportation offered to Weisselberg. Most of the alleged acts took place years ago, before Trump was even president.

Feel bad for the poor CNN intern whose weekend was ruined after being told to read through New York tax code and “look for dirt.” What he’ll find is a complex mess of taxable and non-taxable fringe benefits. For example, a company car is not taxable when used for business trips but is taxable, on a per mile basis, when used to commute. You’re supposed to keep records. That is, of course, unless you elect to use the ALV rule, or if the fair market value exceeds set amounts in the year the vehicle was assigned. Imagine the jury spending days sorting this out only then to also be asked to assess intent; did the Trump Organization intend to commit criminal fraud by mistakenly applying the cents-per-mile standard instead of the ALV? No proven intent means no criminal conviction. And when you’re done with that, members of the jury, move on to the equally dense text covering fringe benefits such as lodging, tuition, and parking. This is the hill for Dems to die on?

The sad thing is all of this is usually dealt with via a tax bill and perhaps an administrative penalty—the point in every previous (non-Trump) case was simply for the state to collect the tax revenue owed. Even NYT admitted it is “highly unusual to indict a company for failing to pay payroll taxes on fringe benefits alone.” But in this case and this case alone prosecutors went further, criminalizing the affair claiming it was intentional fraud. That raised the specter of jail time, and sent the case into the headlines for maximum political impact.

As for the jail time, that is designed specifically to pressure the only person actually accused of anything here, Trump accountant Allen Weisselberg, age 73, to trade dirt on Donald Trump for leniency in his golden years. Amid all the tiresome Godfather cliches is the certainty there has to be more, and Weisselberg this time instead of Cohen, Manafort, Flynn, et al., knows everything and will flip.

For those tracking third world touch points, ask yourself how that all looks, the full power of the government being screwed against the aged Weisselberg for the sole purpose of coercing him to testify against his will. If they’d used wooden clubs to beat him instead of law books we would call it torture.

That one of the key prosecution witnesses is Weisselberg’s son’s acrimonious ex-wife is only where questions raised will begin. The defense, in explaining the blatant political nature of the case, will no doubt ask why here and why now? Some of the alleged infractions go back 15 years. Why didn’t the state, or the IRS, uncover any of this a decade earlier? The IRS has had the Trump Organization under audit since 2010 yet somehow never noticed a thing?

Why is this prosecution only happening at the state and city level in Democratic New York, safe from the federal level where it could more clearly backfire on Biden? And by the way, did multi-millionaire Trump CFO Weisselberg himself sit down each year with TurboTax to do his own taxes? If not, why isn’t his accountant on trial? The key question is since these tax cases have solely been handled as administrative matters in recent memory, why in this case alone are criminal charges stacked on?

Of course, since this indictment is the result of over a year of investigation and involved two trips to the Supreme Court, the amount of money in question must be H-U-G-E. Except it’s not. The government says the total amount of undeclared benefits over a 15-year period is only $1.7 million. Assuming it is all truly taxable, at a 20 percent tax rate that’s $22,000 a year. To the rubes it sounds like a lot, but it is not.

Of course, the MSM is a Twitter claiming this is just the tip of the iceberg, Weisselberg will flip, the walls are closing in, etc. Don’t believe it. You heard all that before with Russiagate and two impeachments and it amounted to zilch. And as with Russiagate, if the prosecutors actually had something real to work with (i.e., Trump was a Russian spy, here’s the evidence) they would have led with that, not some piddle of a tax case.

But Al Capone! Yes, yes, 90 years ago mobster Al Capone went to jail on tax evasion (and prohibition charges) but that was based on his failing to file any federal taxes at all for 11 consecutive years on income fully illegally obtained to include murder for hire, and the Feds’ need for a test case to show for the first time they could tax illegal income. Not quite the same thing here.

In the end, the “jury” that really matters here is not the one who’ll like assign some sort of tax penalty against Weisselberg. The real jury will be the voters, because even if Trump does not run he will be a kingmaker who decides who will.

There are of course those True Blues who live to see Trump disemboweled on TV by progressives wearing George Floyd masks. For them, every misfortune is a declaration of victory. But if purple voters see this prosecution as petty, then the risk is in making Trump a martyr.

Just wait for Trump at his next rally exclaiming, “I told you they were out to get me!” Meanwhile Democrats are trying to make a people’s hero out of…the taxman? Coupled with Biden’s crumbling agenda, it is a bad moon rising into the midterms. Trump is not going to jail and anything less than that makes him stronger. Again.

This level of paranoid vengeance is scary, a sign that a portion of the electorate’s critical thinking skills have been eaten by political syphilis. The Democrats should carefully consider the secondary effects of their actions, and ask (as voters will) if the goal is law enforcement or a political kill shot. If it is the latter, they better not miss. Again.

Peter Van Buren 

read entire artcle:



41 thoughts on “ENEMY OF THE STATE

      1. CNN Host Brian Stelter Gets HUMILIATED on his Own Show

        If there’s no rest for the wicked, then there’s no end to the ongoing humiliation for members of the fake news media. CNN — widely considered the least credible media outlet on cable television — goes to great pains to bend and contort the truth. Especially when it comes to Donald Trump. They are OBSESSED with him.

        And when that fails to effectively brainwash its few remaining liberal viewers, show hosts such as Brian Stelter flat out lie.

        Although this propaganda platform of the Democratic Party has exercised extreme control over guests, one just let Stelter have it, big league. On this Fox News report, Tucker Carlson piles on to Stelter’s nationally-televised humiliation.

        CNN recently invited author Michael Wolff on Stelter’s “Reliable Sources” to do what it does best: take meaningless pot-shots at former President Donald Trump. Wolf penned yet another book that tries to paint the former president in a poor light. Whether Wolff was angry about poor sales from his previous “Hoax” book, or truly got fed up with having to pander to CNN remains an open question.

        What is not a matter of speculation is that Wolff shocked Stelter by calling him a complete hack. Stelter is so taken aback by the lengthy and unexpected attack he just sits there in utter humiliation with an awkward smile on his face.

        It’s no secret that Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity have mocked Stelter and the fake news crew before. This time around, the celebrity takes it on the chin and Carlson turns this Reliable Sources clip into a must-watch Stelter roast. Enjoy!



      2. William WhittenWrites https://thedissedent.page/blog ·just now
        Ex-Obama Doctor Predicts Biden To Resign Or Face 25th Amend: ‘A National Security Issue At This Point’

        Former White House physician Ronny Jackson, who served in the role under both Presidents Obama and Trump, told Fox News on Thursday night that he believes that President Joe Biden will be forced to resign or will face the 25th Amendment over issues related to his fitness for office.

        Jackson, who now represents Texas’ 13th Congressional District, told Fox News that he has been saying for a while that “something’s going on here.”

        “And I’ve been saying that it’s only going to get worse, and guess what? We’re watching that happen right before our eyes right now,” Jackson said. “And I’m at the point right now where, you know, I went from, you know, telling people, we should be concerned about what might potentially be going on, to now saying, hey, what is happening right now?”

        “Where are the people in our academic medicine that were out there calling for President Trump to have a cognitive test? Where are these people?” Jackson continued. “There’s something seriously going on with this man right now. And you know, I think that he’s either gonna, he’s either gonna resign, they’re going to convince him to resign from office at some point in the near future for medical issues, or they’re going to have to use the 25th Amendment to get rid of this man right now. There’s some serious stuff going on right now.”

        Jackson said that members of Biden’s cabinet are likely looking at Biden and wondering if he is able to effectively carry out his duties as President of the United States. Jackson added that “this is a national security issue at this point … it really is.”

        Jackson later posted the video clip of the segment to Twitter, writing: “Something’s SERIOUSLY wrong with Biden – and it’s only going to get WORSE! It’s past the point of embarrassment. He’s lost. He’s confused. He can barely put a coherent sentence together. He MUST have a cognitive exam and release the results!”



      1. Breitbart reported the 17 Republicans that caved to Chuck Schumer were:

        Roy Blunt (R-MO)

        Richard Burr (R-NC)

        Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)

        Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

        Mike Crapo (R-ID)

        Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

        Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

        Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

        Rob Portman (R-OH)

        Jim Risch (R-ID)

        Mitt Romney (R-UT)

        Thom Tillis (R-NC)

        Todd Young (R-IN)

        Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

        John Hoeven (R-ND)

        Kevin Cramer (R-ND)

        Susan Collins (R-ME)

        Democrats are using the Republican votes to give red and purple state senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema cover to support the massive socialist spending bill.

        By voting for the infrastructure package Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, and the rest of these RINO Senators are expressing their support for trillions more in tax increases, welfare state spending and the Green New Deal.




      2. 2017 Personality 11: Existentialism: Nietzsche Dostoevsky & Kierkegaard


        Bill Maher
        How bad does this atmosphere we’re living in have to get before the people who say cancel culture is overblown admit that it is in fact an insanity that is swallowing up the world? #WokeOlympics
        3:45 / 7:40
        12:00 AM · Jul 31, 2021
        Share this Tweet


      1. Bill Maher
        How bad does this atmosphere we’re living in have to get before the people who say cancel culture is overblown admit that it is in fact an insanity that is swallowing up the world? #WokeOlympics
        3:45 / 7:40
        12:00 AM · Jul 31, 2021
        Share this Tweet


      2. Carl Rogers (1959) believed that humans have one basic motive, that is the tendency to self-actualize – i.e., to fulfill one’s potential and achieve the highest level of ‘human-beingness’ we can. … Carl Rogers believed that for a person to achieve self-actualization they must be in a state of congruence.

        Carl Rogers (1902-1987) was a humanistic psychologist who agreed with the main assumptions of Abraham Maslow. However, Rogers (1959) added that for a person to “grow”, they need an environment that provides them with genuineness (openness and self-disclosure), acceptance (being seen with unconditional positive regard), and empathy (being listened to and understood).

        Without these, relationships and healthy personalities will not develop as they should, much like a tree will not grow without sunlight and water.





    Pelosi bars Trump allies from Jan. 6 probe; GOP vows boycott

    WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two Republicans tapped by House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy to sit on a committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, a decision the Republican denounced as “an egregious abuse of power.”

    McCarthy said the GOP won’t participate in the investigation if Democrats won’t accept the members he appointed.

    Pelosi cited the “integrity” of the probe in refusing Wednesday to accept the appointments of Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, picked by McCarthy to be the top Republican on the panel, or Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. The two men are outspoken allies of former President Donald Trump, whose supporters laid siege to the Capitol that day and interrupted the certification of President Joe Biden’s win. Both of them voted to overturn the election results in the hours after the siege.

    Democrats have said the investigation will go on whether the Republicans participate or not, as Pelosi has already appointed eight of the 13 members — including Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, a Trump critic — and that gives them a bipartisan quorum to proceed, according to committee rules.




  2. We hear constantly about the systemic racism coursing through America. Everything, we’re told, is shot through with hate. It does not matter if no white person ever has actually thought a hateful thought. The structure, or system, these innocents inhabit and profit from was designed by those who hated with abandon; the hate is baked into the edifice and walls and rooftops. It constitutes an architecture of oppression, and the persistence of that architecture amounts to an indictment of its beneficiaries. They’re fools or, more likely, willing participants who go to inordinate lengths to camouflage their complicity—Dean Armitage of Get Out declaring he would have voted for Barack Obama a third time while living on a latter-day plantation.

    Of course, if a system is nefarious, it must be blown up, and the bricks and rubble must be redistributed to the politically favored, and anyone who opposes that—anyone who does not loudly and enthusiastically embrace the new dogma—must be a tool of white subjugation.

    This is the not so hermetic logic of most every blue-chip multinational, tech behemoth, university, studio, streaming service, and media conglomerate, which, in the past year, have committed to even bolder and brasher equity targets meant to inoculate those institutions against charges of systemic racism.

    The radicals, always livid, always demanding more, insist that all this is window dressing. A sham. It does not matter how much money retailers spend on black-owned suppliers, or what percentage of Princeton’s class of 2025 is BIPOC, or how many movies we watch starring a correctly hued Afro-Dominican. The radical does not negotiate with an eye toward arriving at some peaceful coexistence, but a weakening—a razing—of the old order.

    There’s something mystifying about all this endless, unctuous yammering about “systemic racism,” and that is its unverifiability. When the radicals call something “systemic” or “structural,” what they really mean is invisible or, better yet, incapable of being experienced. They are referring to the racism that must exist by dint of our many inequities. They assume a causation they cannot assume. Yes, there is disparity between racial groups. No, we cannot declare that the opinions of dead white people caused that disparity. David Hume was skeptical of asserting that contiguity in time and space was the same thing as causality. In this case, we can’t even go so far as to assert a contiguity in time. We can simply assert a vague contiguity in space. We can say that in America—like many, if not most, places—people once believed reprehensible things. We certainly can’t experience systemic racism, not in the way that “experience” is understood by philosophers or, for that matter, judges. We can’t see or hear or taste or feel it, the way an electric current coursing through a live wire can be felt. Which means we can’t be sure it exists. All we can do is assert, with great conviction, its existence and insist that other people believe in it, too, and threaten them with censure or exile if they believe inadequately.

    Alas, if one points this out, if one so much as suggests that we consider other explanations for racial disparity, one inevitably risks being charged with racism. Serious inquiry is verboten.

    All of which is to say we are dispensing with the empirical, and conflating truth and belief, and migrating from the logical to the religious, from the rational to the arational. In the context of organized religion, we’re unbothered by arationality. We expect it. We bracket it. We say, This is separate from everything else. This is how we reconcile our technocratic and spiritual identities, the modern self and the self that stretches back to our mythical-primal state.

    Until recently, this bracketing enabled us to be simultaneously logical and illogical. Logical in our everyday lives. Illogical while exercising our faith.

    Alas, most major institutions in America right now are making important decisions about hiring, firing, investment, programming, content, syllabi, and so forth, on the basis of a religious claim—systemic racism permeates the whole of our existence—that is necessarily unverifiable. They are being illogical when we expect them to be logical.

    The people who run these institutions, one imagines, would respond that they’re doing what the market demands of them. Their decisions, far from being illogical, are calculated and strategic. You idiot, they’d spout, we’re responding to shifting expectations. We’re acknowledging that the way we used to do things does not comport with the way we think now.

    The problem is the way we think now. We are not so good at bracketing anymore. Our two selves, our modern self and our mythical-primal self, intertwine and bleed together. We like to believe that the modern self will soon obliterate the mythical-primal self, that an ever expanding reason will inevitably banish from the human experience any vestige of the old drug. That we will finally molt our ancient, religious longings.

    How funny, the conceit of the modern.

    It turns out that those longings—while arational, while residing outside the realm of reason—are not irrational. They do not run counter to reason. There is a basis for our religion. Religion exists because humans possess the cognitive furniture to think philosophically. We are not content with simply existing. We want to know why we exist, and we want to know why we have the cognitive furniture to ask the question in the first place. We find it unimaginable to contemplate the possibility that there is no reason, that the whole of humanity is an unplanned pregnancy. It’s true that organized religion has lost much of its numinous glow, but the underlying spiritual impulse, or longing, is the same as ever. It cannot be snuffed out.

    So, we try to reconcile our belief that the modern will eclipse the mythical-primal with our belief that we exist for a reason. That we have meaning. Today, that reconciled belief is reflected, with greater frequency, in a stripped down spirituality, a spirituality devoid of religion. In our meditation, veganism, environmentalism, identitarianism, wokeism—whatever we require to feel anchored to something bigger than us. We want to believe that we are not just bookended by eternities, that our existence rises above the darkness that makes a mockery of the very idea of human meaning.

    Enter the radicals, who pride themselves on their atheism. When the radicals declare that there is a mysterious, omnipotent force controlling the whole of America, we are more susceptible to their fire and brimstone than we should be. We believe. Or, at least, many of us do. In the not-so-distant past, we would have relegated religious belief to the realm of the formally religious. We would have intuited that one makes leaps of faith in a church or temple or wherever one does those things. One does not make leaps of faith in, say, a boardroom. Today, we do.

    It is—let’s not kid ourselves—a tad embarrassing. The whole world, including many Western countries that have reined in or remained mostly impervious to their more intemperate elements, is watching America and wondering what is happening to us. Most Americans, one hopes, one suspects, are still sober. Most (but not all) of these people are those who retain their religion or some semblance of it, those who grasp that there is value in a confined arationality coexisting with the rationality of modern life, who have not lost sight of the distinction between the religious and the merely spiritual. The religious, or religious-adjacent, know that, in its most distilled form, faith elevates and deepens and forces that great existential confrontation of the self that is a precondition for growth. It propels us. It should, although it often does not, make us better.

    But then there is the Plurality of the Unwell. Those who are the loudest and most desperate and dangerous. Those behind the new discourse. Those who corner or lobby the people who make the decisions—the CEOs, university presidents, studio chiefs and so on—to pretend that there is a ghost in the machine. That we are being orchestrated by an unverifiable hate. That it is their role, their mandate, to overthrow the veil of false consciousness and lead us to the light. These people, one suspects, are true believers. Their faith is real, but they do not realize it is faith. They would deny vehemently that it is anything of the kind. They believe that they simply know what the old, the dumb, the wicked cannot know. That we cannot make any meaningful distinction between Jim Crow America and America right now. That all of the so-called progress of the past half-century is a distraction and a farce. That we are trapped inside a vast web of manipulations that must be decimated, loudly and with an unbelievable fervor.

    Peter Savodnik is a journalist in Los Angeles. He writes for Vanity Fair, Tablet, the Guardian and other venues. He can be found on Twitter at @petersavodnik.




    1. Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.


  3. The late author and columnist Charles Krauthammer once observed the greatest drawback of “settled science.” “There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.”

    Over the past year, examples of Big Tech censorship have multiplied, particularly around the topic of COVID-19. Questioning the wisdom of forcing children to wear masks, or even sharing news articles that challenged social distancing rules were enough to engage the social media giants’ censors. Facebook, Twitter, and others flagged posts, blocked certain content, and even banned some users for daring to question the established positions.

    What has become apparent only in the last few weeks, however, is the involvement of the Biden White House in calling the shots on Big Tech’s COVID censorship. The White House has now admitted to monitoring private citizens’ Facebook pages, and asking Facebook to block content it finds objectionable.

    Silencing debate, keeping tabs on private citizens, and creating lists of individuals who dare to disagree with the government? These tactics are better left to totalitarian regimes.

    The White House and the Big Tech platforms have provided the same justifications for their censorship – that the content they seek to block is misinformation, and it deviates from the settled science on COVID.

    The alarming partnership between Big Government and Big Tech should serve as a wake-up call to all Americans about the growing threat to free speech.




    1. Dr Peter McCullough – Urgent Warning About Poisonous Jabs

      Dr Peter McCullough MD is a Professor at Texas A & M College of Medicine, President, Cardiorenal Society of America, Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology and others. He has written 46 peer-reviewed publications on COVID-19 and is considered among the world’s experts on the topic, testifying in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in November 2020, and throughout 2021 in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, in the Colorado General Assembly, and in the New Hampshire Senate, concerning many aspects of the pandemic response.

      Dr McCullough also practices internal medicine in Dallas and he was initially a proponent of the vaccine, until the many adverse reactions among his patients changed his mind completely. He has since come out adamantly against the jab.

      He says, “Like most physicians looking at the data coming out of the registrational trials, the products looked like they were effective, ‘90% vaccine efficacy’…Through December, January, February, probably 70% of my patients here at Baylor in Dallas received the COVID-19 vaccine…looking backwards, now, on January 22nd, we had actually already had 186 deaths that had occurred after the vaccine. The threshold of concern is about 150 or so. In general, we get about 150 [deaths] for all the vaccines combined. 500 million shots per year, across 70 vaccines but for a single vaccine…

      “I think if we had had a data and safety monitoring board, they would have shut down the vaccine in February of 2021.”

      “The proposition, now of coming in or of even being pressured or forced or coerced into a vaccine, which, for some people, it looks like it will be fatal is an agonizing situation. I’ve never seen it in my career.”

      Dr McCullough says that in a report published by the American Journal of Science and Law, it looks like the non-fatal events that occur go along 4 organ systems: the brain, the heart, the immune system and the hematologic system.

      “My analysis of this, for instance, the cardiac myocarditis – there’s now an official FDA warning on this – that appears to relatively immediate, in the data that the CDC and the NIH reviewed – and the FDA reviewed – it was in about two days of the second shot…I’ve seen these cases in my clinic and they’re frightening.

      “The CDC has now certified 2,000 of these cases. They tended to hit younger individuals…I’m becoming very worried that the messenger RNA or the adenoviral DNA is taken up and it’s not disposed-of and that the spike protein is continuing to be produced locally in the tissues and causing damage.

      “Senator [Ron] Johnson held the first vaccine injury…press briefing and I was amazed at what the late-onset and the emergence of the neurologic symptoms that you mentioned. And it really depends – and we know – the lipid nanoparticles are taken up into the brain, the messenger RNA and the adenoviral DNA is taken up into the brain and it probably depends on how much and where the seeding occurs…

      “I have a patient in my practice who has a very prominent cerebellar syndrome…she has imbalance and also has tremendous memory loss, tremor. She is absolutely not right, Stew. I’ve had her ten years in my practice and she was perfectly normal. She took a vaccine and within about a month, now it’s progressing to the next level, she has this horrific neurologic syndrome.”

      Stew asks him if he wold ever recommend the vaccine for a child and he responds, “Under no circumstances…at this point in time, I really can’t recommend it to anybody…I think, at this point in time, it’s fair to warn against it…I’d say, take the risks with a natural infection right now and let’s treat early. We have EUA on monoclonal antibodies. They have just as good of an approval as the vaccines. We should give monoclonal antibody infusions…The vaccine, once it’s in the body, we can’t get it out and we don’t know how to manage these complications, some of which are fatal.”

      More at;




    2. Daniel Horowitz: Data from India continues to blow up the ‘Delta’ fear narrative

      Rather than proving the need to sow more panic, fear, and control over people, the story from India — the source of the “Delta” variant — continues to refute every current premise of COVID fascism.

      The prevailing narrative from Fauci, Walensky, and company is that Delta is more serious than anything before, and even though vaccines are even less effective against it, its spread proves the need to vaccinate even more people. Unless we do that, we must return to the very effective lockdowns and masks. In reality, India’s experience proves the opposite true; namely:

      Delta is largely an attenuated version, with a much lower fatality rate, that for most people is akin to a cold.
      Masks failed to stop the spread there.
      The country has come close to the herd immunity threshold with just 3% vaccinated.
      Most people are now getting cold-like symptoms from Delta, but to the extent countries hit by Delta suffered some deaths and serious illness, they could have been avoided not with vaccines and masks, but with early and preventive treatment like ivermectin.
      In other words, our government is learning all the wrong lessons from India, and now Israel and the U.K. Let’s unpack what we know occurred in India and now in some of the other countries experiencing a surge in cases of the Indian “Delta” variant.

      The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recently conducted a fourth nationwide serological test and found that 67.6% of those over 6 years old in June and July had antibodies, including 85% of health care workers. This is a sharp increase from the 24.1% level detected during the December-January study. What we can conclude definitively is that strict mask-wearing (especially among health care workers) failed to stop the spread one bit. Yet now they have achieved herd immunity and burned out the virus with just 3% vaccination (now up to 6%) with roughly one-sixth the death rate of the U.S. and the U.K. and less than one-half that of Israel.




      1. Authored by Jordan Schachtel via ‘Dossier’ substack,

        Zero Covid, the idea that heavy-handed government edicts and population controls can permanently eliminate a coronavirus from a country, is now failing spectacularly everywhere it is being tried.

        You might not read about it in western corporate press agencies, but Zero Covid nations are seeing explosions in Covid-19 cases across the board. The widely praised “success story” countries that followed the radical ideology that is Zero Covid have not only failed to contain a virus, but are now witnessing the uncontrolled spread of that virus in their population centers. The governments committed to this pseudoscientific, totalitarian adventure are scrambling for options, and responding by locking down their nations and further violating the rights of their citizens. The lid has flown off the Zero Covid pressure cooker, revealing the shortcomings of such a reckless ideological endeavor.

        Let’s take a look at how “Zero Covid” nations are holding up:

        Australia is arguably the most dedicated large nation to a Zero Covid strategy. The country has been closed off from the vast majority of the world since the beginning of COVID Mania. Even many Australian citizens have been unable to enter or leave the country.

        Australia has pursued so many lockdowns that it’s pretty much impossible to keep track of what number we’re currently at. Zero Covid has been an unmitigated disaster, as Canberra’s elimination strategy has unsurprisingly failed to permanently move cases to zero.

        Australia’s lockdowns have been infamously ruthless. In some places, lockdowns meant citizens were only allowed to leave their homes for one hour a day, and they were not allowed to travel outside of a certain radius from their homes. In many places, the act of protesting is illegal, and it will be met with by riot police. Australia has also enacted mandatory quarantine camps for citizens who are privileged enough to be allowed to return to the country.

        Labeled a Zero Covid “success story” by the corporate press for its ultra stringent policies, cases are now exploding in Vietnam.
        The government, in full panic mode, has responded by locking down major cities, only for the case count to continue to move upwards.

        South Korea
        Seoul set up one of the most intrusive Covid surveillance regimes in the world. Applauded by authoritarians as a country that had its priorities in order, South Korea was supposedly the model “contact tracing” nation. Today, South Korea is seeing record numbers across the board
        This week, the country has seen record case loads. Zero Covid has failed, and the government has responded by restricting rights even further.

        Once a Zero Covid nation in good standing with the radical ideologue “public health experts,” the government in Singapore wised up and decided last month to drop the idea of forever eliminating a minimally threatening endemic virus.

        China is lying about its COVID numbers and just about everything else. The Chinese Communist Party claims to be a Zero Covid participant, but in reality, Beijing has been fooling the world about mitigation and suppression “successes” since day one of Covid Mania.

        Thailand, a widely praised “success story” for its strict lockdowns and other draconian policies in pursuit of Zero Covid, is setting its own Covid case records.

        New Zealand
        New Zealand, which has been in a self siege since the beginning of 2020, remains completely committed to its Zero Covid elimination strategy. Like Australia, the country has set up quarantine camps for people who have been granted access to the nation. Due to isolation-related Covid “immunity debt,” the country is seeing skyrocketing hospitalizations among children, who are not threatened by Covid-19.

        Free from Covid (for now), emergency rooms are said to be at a “breaking point” in the country, with the country dealing with unknown “winter illness.” It seems the Zero Covid fanatics have forgotten that there are still other ways to get sick.

        Kiwi officials have not even commenced discussions over how long they will remain committed to their self siege strategy. Their closed borders have resulted in a massive shortage among hospital staff.

        Every country that has embraced the radical notion of Zero Covid has ended up failing to contain a virus and/or failing to accept that the costs of attempting to contain a virus have been exponentially worse than the benefits of containing the virus. The promised “cures” have been infinitely worse than the disease. There are no longer any “success stories” involving nations using tyrannical means in an attempt to stop a virus. Zero Covid, as any rational person could have predicted a long time ago, has failed in spectacular fashion.




  4. Dear Fellow American,

    Who will be silenced next? You?

    Leftist censors started with President Trump. But they won’t stop there.

    They’re utterly determined to criminalize conservatives… and silence anyone who dares disagree with them.

    It’s up to you and me to stop Big Tech’s outrageous abuses of conservatives.

    It’s a tough job standing up to such powerful forces. But with your best gift now, Judicial Watch will continue to deliver because we have what it takes to defend your First Amendment rights and those of every other American.

    Judicial Watch has already exposed how the Left censored conservatives and shut down legitimate debates over coronavirus response, immigration law enforcement and election security.

    A Judicial Watch investigation in California exposed collusion between Biden campaign officials, California government leaders, and Big Tech.

    We caught them red-handed, demonstrating they were in constant communication with Facebook, Twitter, and Google, to alert them to what they called “misinformation” or “disinformation” about mail-in ballots and ballot security.

    Then after the government requested it, Facebook and Google acted! Slapping “unreliable claims” labels on some posts and outright removing others. This happened at least two dozen times.

    Judicial Watch was among those targeted.

    After California officials complained about one of our YouTube videos about election security on September 24th, YouTube removed it on three days later!

    These documents blow up the big lie that Big Tech censorship is “private.” They show collusion between a whole group of government officials in multiple states to suppress speech about election controversies.

    We received other eye-opening documents as well, which demonstrate that a firm linked to the Biden campaign prepared its so-called “Misinformation Daily Briefings” then shared them with Twitter, Google, and Facebook every day.

    In other words… the Biden team made a list of speech that should be censored, then got their friends in Big Tech to follow their marching orders.

    Judicial Watch made this target list too. They called out one of my tweets that read “Mailing 51 million ballots to those who haven’t asked for them increases risk of voter fraud and voter intimidation.”

    How is that misleading or deceptive? It’s a legitimate point, made by a well-known organization with experience to back it up. Why on earth is it suddenly OK to censor something like that?

    The government’s act of reporting such posts to social media companies in hope they would be censored is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

    Government cannot regulate speech or the press… and nor should it be able to get the private sector to do its dirty work!

    This is a serious, serious scandal. And only Judicial Watch has what it takes to educate Americans about the depths of the collusion that robbed so many Americans of their First Amendment rights.

    With your support, we’ll stay on the trail of this outrageous abuse and reveal how other government officials around the country were involved. We’ll file more FOIA requests — and take these free speech-killing politicians to court if and when we have to.

    You’ll also help Judicial Watch call for an end to the special treatment granted to Big Tech. No longer should they be shielded by law for their bullying ways.

    Please help Judicial Watch stand up for the banned and the silenced… and for you. Thank you for standing up for what you believe in. Together, you and I will never be silenced.


    Thomas Fitton

    Judicial Watch, Inc.
    425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
    Washington, DC 20024



    1. Schmitt: Funny how Dems take credit for inheriting Trump’s economy
      Despite a roaring economy – which Biden inherited – we have an employment problem in this country, says Rob Schmitt – via ‘Rob Schmitt Tonight’ on Newsmax



      1. Wednesday night during a CNNLOL town hall, His Fraudulency Joe Biden added 9mm pistols to his growing list of gun bans, which once again proves America’s fact checkers are stone-cold liars.

        Biden said, “The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether it’s a 9mm pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things.”

        And there it is… The 9mm. Just like that, the 9mm, one of the most popular handguns in America, is sitting right there on the table.

        Also on the table now is “20 shots.” Many 9mms carry a standard 16 round magazine, and with one more chambered, you got 17. So now, we’re only three measly shots away from a standard, everyday 9mm being labeled a “weapon of war.”

        This kind of mission creep is par for the course for the extreme left.

        Yep, one day, they just want to allow same-sex couples to get married. The next day, drag queens read to prepubescent kids at the local library, and naked men walk around your daughter’s locker room.

        One day, it’s “two weeks to slow the spread,” and here we sit, more than a year later, right back talking about mask mandates and shutdowns.

        One day, it’s DACA. The next day, the borders are wide open.

        Biden targeting the 9mm is no accident, no slip of the tongue, and no senior moment. As the government seeks to impose its rule over our everyday lives, seeks to exploit things like the coronavirus to strip us of our everyday liberties, disarming us is a necessary component of that.

        Another necessary component is a corporate media who lie and lie and lie to gaslight the American public into believing fanatics like Biden are perfectly reasonable people with perfectly reasonable proposals to make our country a more perfect union…. Hey, what’s wrong with restrictions on those huge banana clips that hold dozens of rounds? What’s wrong with background checks? What’s wrong with banning Weapons of War? What’s wrong with a buyback program? What’s wrong with a little tweak here and a little tweak there?




    2. “Hi William Whitten,

      Your account, @William56487250 has been locked for violating the Twitter Rules.

      Specifically for:

      Violating our rules against hateful conduct.

      You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

      William Whitten


      @billyeichner Maybe Matt Damon is using “Pussyboy” instead of “faggot”—what does it matter? This political correct bullshit has gone to far with you Libtards.



      “NoSuchCommentator20 min ago

      You can’t threaten people who have a ‘serious disease’, but it is presumably OK to threaten people who have a less serious disease. Where does Twitter draw the line?”


      William WhittenWrites https://thedissedent.page/blog ·2 min ago

      “Where does Twitter draw the line?”

      Where ever they want.

      Matt Damons used the word “faggot” at his own dinner table. HIs political correct daughter wrote him a letter explaining that he was a homophobic asshole….It all got expsoed on Twitter. Now EVERYBODY in the universe is calling Damon and homophobic asshole. That’s just the way the world works in dystopia 2021.

      Anyone with a ‘classical perspective’ does not pass ‘GO’ and does not get a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card. You know the game—MONOPOLY, like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, the new Masters of the Universe



    1. “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”–Edward Bernays



      1. “The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition,” Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, told the nine justices in a new court filing.
        This is constitutional fact, and Roe v Wade must be overturned to stop the murder of defenseless babies.
        abortion is homocide.




      Why Republican Leaders Ignored the January 6th Hearing
      The House select committee’s task is to establish who knew what about the insurrection—but most Republicans don’t seem to want to find out.

      By Sue Halpern

      Shortly after the insurrection, R. P. Eddy, a former director of the National Security Council, suggested on NPR that the reason the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. had missed every glaring sign of what some members of the group that Donald Trump liked to call his “army” were planning for the sixth had to do with “the invisible obvious.” It was difficult for officials, Eddy explained, “to realize that people who look just like them could want to commit this kind of unconstitutional violence.” Representative Adam Kinzinger, of Illinois, one of two Republicans who joined the committee, against the wishes of the House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, noted something similar in his opening statement. “We never imagined,” he said, “that this could happen: an attack by our own people fostered and encouraged by those granted power through the very system they sought to overturn.”

      When Officer Hodges used the word “terrorist,” he was demanding that the obvious be made visible. This is also the essential task of the committee: to assemble a comprehensive record of January 6th showing that those who entered the Capitol were not, as Trump said, “a loving crowd” but political extremists, incited by the President and abetted by Republican members of Congress and other government officials, whose deference to a seditious demagogue represents an ongoing threat to the country.

      The insurrectionists, however, called themselves “patriots,” seeming to believe that bearing the American flag earned them that title. To most people, the flag symbolizes the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. But at the Capitol it was brandished as a weapon—along with the Trump flag, the Confederate battle flag, and the thin-blue-line flag—in an attempt to undermine what the committee’s chair, Representative Bennie Thompson, called “the pillar of our democracy”: the peaceful transfer of power. The insurrectionists, in calling themselves patriots, had absorbed a fundamental lesson of the Trump Presidency—how to pervert language so that the things you say are the opposite of what they actually mean.


      How Will Americans Vote During a Crisis?

      That lesson was on display on the morning of the hearing, when Representative Elise Stefanik, who was once a vocal critic of the former President but has since become his willing enabler, stepped up to a bank of microphones outside the Capitol, alongside McCarthy. “The American people deserve to know the truth—that Nancy Pelosi bears responsibility, as Speaker of the House, for the tragedy that occurred on January 6th,” Stefanik said, alleging that Pelosi had “prioritized her partisan political optics” over the safety of the police. The Speaker of the House is not, in fact, in charge of security. But at least, one could argue, the woman who is now the third-ranking Republican member of the House recognizes that the events of January 6th were tragic.

      Stefanik ascended to the leadership position because Representative Liz Cheney was ousted from it by her fellow-Republicans, this spring, for challenging Trump’s lies that the election had been stolen. “No member of Congress should now attempt to defend the indefensible, obstruct this investigation, or whitewash what happened that day,” Cheney, who joined Kinzinger as the only other Republican on the committee, said at the hearing. Or, as Sergeant Gonell put it, “What do you think people considering becoming law-enforcement officers think when they see elected leaders downplaying this?” Nevertheless, both McCarthy and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, said that they had been too busy to watch the officers’ testimony.

      Meanwhile, members of the now defunct America First caucus—a small cadre of House Republicans led by Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose attempt to promote “Anglo-Saxon political tradition” proved too retrograde even for other Trump loyalists in Congress—gathered outside the Department of Justice. Before hecklers could chase them away, they championed the more than five hundred people who have been charged so far in connection with the assault. Paul Gosar called those still in jail awaiting trial “political prisoners,” following the lead of Louie Gohmert, who, in May, on the House floor, said that they were “political prisoners held hostage by their own government.” This theme has become a talking point on the far right. Trump, too, has embraced it. Recently, on Fox News, he questioned why such “tremendous people” had been incarcerated.

      The House select committee will reconvene sometime in August. Before that, according to Thompson, it is likely to begin issuing subpoenas to people, including some in the government, who may have known about events leading up to and surrounding the insurrection. Now that the Justice Department has allowed former officials to provide “unrestricted testimony,” Trump’s Attorney General William Barr and his acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen are likely to be called. So are members of Trump’s inner circle, including Representative Jim Jordan, who spoke with him that day. (Jordan was one of two Republicans nominated to the committee by McCarthy and rejected by Pelosi, for having challenged the legitimacy of the election and for calling the committee “impeachment round three,” after which McCarthy pulled all five of his nominees.) It’s unclear if officials will honor subpoenas or ignore them, as happened during Trump’s two impeachments, potentially forcing a protracted legal battle.

      If they choose to obstruct the committee, the obvious—an invitation to incite and carry out future acts of insurrection—will be visible for all to see. The pillar of American democracy may yet be the final casualty of January 6th. ♦




    1. Jul 21, 2021

      Kevin McCarthy GOP Press Conference Transcript: January 6 Committee

      Leader McCarthy : (00:02)
      Thank you for coming on short notice. Speaker Pelosi has taken the unprecedented step of denying the minority parties’ picks for the select committee on January 6th. This represents something that has not happened in the House before for a select committee by the historian. It’s an egregious abuse of power. Pelosi has broken this institution, denying the voice of members who have served in the military. Jim Banks, a Navy veteran who served in Afghanistan, he serves on HASC, chair of the largest caucus of the Republican Conference, as a leader of a standing committee. Jim Jordan isn’t ranking of just his first committee, he’s done it before. Jim Jordan has served on a select committee and serves on one now. Made it undeniable this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility, and it shows exactly what I warned back at the beginning of January, that Pelosi would play politics with this. For more than six months, you have a better example of the Senate, bipartisan. Schumer didn’t pick who went on as the Republicans, they already have the report done by two different committees.

      Leader McCarthy : (01:36)
      Two main questions, why was the Capitol so ill prepared for that day when they knew on December 14th they had a problem? And what have we done to make sure that never happens again? Pelosi has created a sham process. Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republicans, we will not participate. But we think it’s too important, that those two questions, why were we ill prepared? Why did they know on December 14th? Why would they jeopardize the lives of the Capitol police? We will run our own investigation. We have law enforcement. We have military. We have doctors. We have people from all walks of life. They want to know the answer and the American people deserve that. They don’t deserve politics. They don’t deserve destroying the institution. No committee in Congress will work if one person is picking all who can serve, this has not happened before.

      Leader McCarthy : (02:52)
      House Democrats must answer this question, why are you allowing a lame duck speaker to destroy this institution? This is the people’s House, not Pelosi’s House. We will do our job though. We asked to do our job. We want to do our job. I may object to the people that she put on the committee, but I respect her right to do it just as every leader has done before, destroy an institution for your own political gain, America expects more and deserves more. With that, I want to bring up Congressman Jim Banks, an individual who served his country in Afghanistan, who served in his state’s legislature, who serves in Congress. Is the chair of the largest caucus in the Republican Conference. Jim Banks.

      Jim Banks: (04:02)
      Thank you. I thank the Leader first and foremost for his trust that he placed in me as a leader of our party to put me in charge of this Republican effort. This just goes to show how partisan of an exercise we said this was all along, that Nancy Pelosi would take me and Jim Jordan first off of this committee and the rest of us as well by rejecting the first two of us. She knows that we were prepared to fight to get to the truth, to find the facts about what happened on that day to make sure that January 6th would never happen again, but she doesn’t want to go down that path. She knows that we’re already asking questions in just the first couple of days, that Leader McCarthy appointed us to this task, questions that Democrats have never asked about why the Capitol was vulnerable on that day when we had intelligence for weeks leading up to January 6th, that told us that something dangerous would happen on January 6th.

      Jim Banks: (04:57)
      She knew we would fight back against their political games, and that’s why she didn’t want us to participate in this committee. It just goes to show, this is entirely a political exercise on her part. It’s a shame. The American people deserve better. They demand answers about January 6th because the American people demand that their leader step up to make sure that never happens again. But we all know that this is an exercise in politics, it’s not an exercise in finding the facts and that’s what’s unfortunate about the Speaker’s move. It just goes to show… It begs the question that all of us should be asking, what is the speaker afraid of? I’ll leave you with that. Jim Jordan.

      Jim Jordan: (05:37)
      Thank you, Jim. The leader and Jim are exactly right, this has always been about politics, and today’s actions of the Speaker just confirm that. But frankly, and I’ve said this before, what else are they going to talk about? I mean, they’ve been so focused on the January 6th Committee, what else are they going to… Are they going to talk about crime, the fact that crime is up in every major urban area in this country? Are they going to talk about the border crisis? I mean, think about this, March was the highest month on record for illegal crossings until April, April was the highest month on record until May, May was the highest month on record until June, they can’t talk about that. Are they going to talk about inflation? Are they going to talk about the fact that the price of eggs is up, the price of milk is up, the price of bread is up, the price of gas is up, the price of the an airline ticket is up, the price of a used… The price of everything is up.

      Jim Jordan: (06:19)
      They can’t talk about that, so they’re going to be partisan and they’re going to focus on this. But as the Leader said, and as Mr. Banks said, I don’t think they’re going to address the fundamental question. The fundamental question of, why wasn’t there a proper security presence at the Capitol that day? They’re not going to address that. And only one person can answer that question, only one, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. My hunch is, my hunch is, the reason they don’t want to address that question, my hunch is, is because what happened all last year? The Democrats normalized anarchy, they normalized riding and looting. And when rioters and looters attacked our law enforcement personnel, when rioters and looters destroyed small businesses, what did Democrats do? They went out and raised money to bail them out of jail, and they continue to talk about defunding the police. And in fact did that in all these major urban areas, which is why crime is up.

      Jim Jordan: (07:16)
      So they don’t want to talk about that stuff, they just want to be partisan. They just want to continue to attack the former president. They want to play their political games. So I applaud Leader McCarthy for saying we’re going to do our job… We’re going to continue to work and get to the bottom and answer the questions that the Leader raised, the questions that, frankly, the American people want answers to. With that I [inaudible 00:07:37].

      Rodney Davis: (07:42)
      On the evening of January 6th when we reconvened to take the certification of the election results from our States, I actually spoke with Speaker Pelosi on the dais, and she brought up a bipartisan, bicameral commission to me at that point in time. I introduced a bill to create a bipartisan, bicameral commission. We had some questions about how this would be implemented and Speaker Pelosi decided instead to put forth her own select committee that we now know is a completely partisan process. It’s very disappointing because I think all of us were looking forward to our first hearing next week to be able to getting answers to some of the questions that were raised by Leader McCarthy, by ranking member Banks and by Jim Jordan. But we’re not going to get those answers in even a partisan manner on this committee because she chose to take the unprecedented step to try and veto our own members.

      Rodney Davis: (08:41)
      We are going to continue to ask questions, and frankly, there are many unanswered questions about why this Capitol was so unprepared. And the key question, as Leader McCarthy said, is, are we in a better position now, security wise? There are many issues that we saw in Capitol police IG reports and others that laid out reasons why our officers didn’t have the equipment, they didn’t have the training and they didn’t have the preparation and the backup to adequately address what happened on January 6th. Why? And what have we done? What has the speaker done? And more importantly, what has she asked the Capitol police board that is made up of her own appointee? What have they done to put this Capitol complex in a situation to address another security issue? Those questions would have been asked. Those questions will still be asked regardless of whether or not she continues to play politics.

      Rodney Davis: (09:37)
      And I’ll end with this by saying, I’ve seen and witnessed political violence personally out on a baseball field in Virginia just a few short years ago. I’ve seen what well-trained Capitol police officers like David Bailey and Crystal Griner were able to do to run toward gunfire as we ran away from it. And it’s disappointing to see that our Capitol police officers, who I witness that bravery that day are still not put in a position to be able to make sure that another type of January 6th would not happen again. She needs to answer questions. We were hoping to get those answers, but unfortunately, we’re not going to. I’d like to introduce Kelly Armstrong.

      Kelly Armstrong: (10:19)
      Thanks, Rodney. I agree with everything that’s been said. I’ve served for two years with Jim Jordan on oversight and judiciary. We’ve been through a lot of tough hearings together, a lot of hearings that were going to be similar to this, and we know how to do this, we have credibility with the American people. And to strike Jim Banks and Jim Jordan from this committee is just unacceptable.

      Kelly Armstrong: (10:39)
      And I think it’s important to recognize that every time Speaker Pelosi uses the word unprecedented, it happens to consolidate absolute power in the Speaker’s office. It was unprecedented build a glass cage in order to make sure she got the gavel. It was unprecedented to put metal detectors on the floor of the House. It’s unprecedented to have a proxy voting. And it sure unprecedented for the Majority Leader to strike minority members for a committee.

      Kelly Armstrong: (11:03)
      I don’t think this committee is about the last election. I don’t even think it’s about the next election. It’s about the Speaker’s office maintaining an absolute iron grip on her conference and the people’s House for the next 18 months. And I’m concerned that after 200 years of precedent we are completely altering how things are done in the people’s House, but you know what else? I’d be concerned if I was a majority member right now, because the [inaudible 00:11:26] in their policies are going to help us take back the majority in two years, and these things never go back to the way they were once they started. So we need to be calling out what’s going on. Every member of the US House of Representatives is elected by their district and they have a right to serve, and the minority has a right to put the people on the committees they want, and we shouldn’t be changing those for this committee or any other committee. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Sheriff Nehls.

      Sheriff Nehls: (11:52)
      When I was chosen by Leader McCarthy to serve on this select committee, I assured him, I told him, I said, “I will take the 30 years of law enforcement experience I have, the eight years as sheriff to uncover, find out exactly what took place on January 6th. To find the truth as to why this Capitol was so unprepared.” I spent countless hours. I brought this binder up. I’ve examined the Senate report, examining, talking, looking at witness statements, looking at the Capitol Hill’s policies and procedures. And I was alarmed, truly alarmed at what I uncovered. I was certainly prepared to help this committee get to the truth, I wanted to get to the truth. But unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi has shown that she’s more interested in playing politics. I stand with Leader McCarthy and the other colleagues on this committee. I assured the Leader that I will continue to play a role and do everything I can to make sure that what took place on January 6th can never ever happen again in this great country of ours. I made that commitment. I will remain strong in that commitment to the Leader. Thank you.

      Leader McCarthy : (13:14)
      Yes, sir.

      Speaker 7: (13:15)
      Mr. Leader, you’re complaining that you don’t have a bipartisan opportunity here to investigate January 6th, but you stood in the way of a bipartisan commission that would be made up of independent members, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, your conference voted against that, at least a majority of your conference voted against that and it was blocked in the Senate. Why did you not allow that to go forward if what you say you want is a bipartisan investigation to what happened on January 6th?

      Leader McCarthy : (13:43)
      For the same politics Pelosi played then, at the same time when she used the scope of that. Remember how long it took, on January 13th, Rodney Davis and myself, both requested a 9/11 commission, even those who ran the 9/11 commission criticized Nancy Pelosi for what you wanted to do. We had Officer Evans killed on Good Friday, she said you couldn’t look at that. If you studied the 9/11 Commission, they didn’t study what happened on September 11th, they studied what built up to it, but she said, “No, you could not do that.”

      Leader McCarthy : (14:18)
      Why would she make a scope that you couldn’t get the answers to? Why would an officer’s life not matter? That’s why people objected. People asked for it before, she played six months with this. While she played her games and continued to do so, the Senate acted, two committees. The report is done. The FBI has arrested more than 500 people. The architect of the Capitol has $10 million. And what does she do today? Continue the sham she’s done all along. Never, never in the history of this institution for a select committee, and she admitted it to me when she called, have they ever done something like this.

      Leader McCarthy : (15:05)
      Think for one moment, Jim Banks is a Naval officer, he defended his nation, served in Afghanistan, elected by his peers to the largest conference in the committee. But she wants to say, predetermined that he can’t serve, that Pelosi can pick and choose. Jim Jordan, is she afraid of a question from Jim? Is she afraid what he might ask or fight for? He’s a ranking member, not his first committee, but his second. Why would she be afraid? Does she set the committee itself to be one sided? Yes. More so than any select committee before? Yeah, she did. We warned you from that moment in time she was playing politics, today just showed the American people exactly what everybody was warning. It’s the American people who lose in this, but we’re not going to allow that to happen.

      Speaker 7: (16:06)
      But what would you say-

      Leader McCarthy : (16:07)
      We’re going to get to the answer of the question, why were we ill prepared? Why if they knew why December 14th? Why if they found IEDs earlier in the morning? Why were not the National Guard here at the Capitol, but they were running street signs down in the city? Who made that judgment? Yes, sir.

      Speaker 8: (16:28)
      Leader McCarthy, you said in your statement that Republicans will, Instead pursue our own investigation of the facts,” What does that look like, first off? And secondly, is this your final move, pulling your appointees or is there a chance to reverse this?

      Leader McCarthy : (16:42)
      The only way to reverse is seat these five, that’s the only thing. But I will add to this, to be able to look at the challenge of what happened and answer those two questions, why were we ill prepared and made sure it never happens again.

      Speaker 8: (16:59)
      But in terms of an actual body, what is that investigation?

      Speaker 9: (17:02)
      In addition to those questions, do you intend to look at why this happened? Not the security failure, but why there was an attack on the Capitol and what led up to it?

      Leader McCarthy : (17:09)
      We’ll answer all the questions.

      Speaker 10: (17:10)
      Mr. Leader, I want to know more specifically, what do you say to these families and to these officers, including officers that you’ve met with about this? And more specifically, many of them they’re just frustrated, they see this as politics, but at the end of the day you-

      Leader McCarthy : (17:25)
      It’s true, it is politics by Pelosi.

      Speaker 10: (17:26)
      … and the Speaker are pointing fingers at each other, so how does that help them if you guys are just pointing fingers at each other?

      Leader McCarthy : (17:31)
      What helps them is we will go forward just as I promised them, and we’ll get the answer to those questions.

      Speaker 11: (17:34)
      Mr. Leader.

      Speaker 12: (17:34)
      Mr. Leader.

      Leader McCarthy : (17:35)
      The ones that should have been protected, just as we’ll talk about Officer Evans too, who died on Good Friday.

      Speaker 10: (17:39)
      But how-

      Leader McCarthy : (17:40)
      We’ll go through and get the answers to those. Yes, sir.

      Speaker 13: (17:43)
      Mr. Leader, on May 20th in this room, I think you told us that you were prepared to about your conversation with President Trump on the afternoon of January 6th. Do you still stand by that? Are you still prepared to testify about your conversation?

      Leader McCarthy : (17:57)
      My phone call is out there. The question is you make a phone call after people are in the Capitol to advise the President of what’s going on, it doesn’t get to the answer of why were we ill prepared? That’s really playing politics, and it really shows that that’s the issue that they want to go to and where they want to drive, we want to get all the answers.

      Speaker 14: (18:15)
      [crosstalk 00:18:15]. Mr. Leader.

      Speaker 15: (18:15)
      Your own ranking member, John Katko said the scope of the bipartisan independent January 6th commission that he crafted had the ability to have a wider scope outside of January 6th-

      Leader McCarthy : (18:29)
      Unfortunately, Democrats and Pelosi said no to that.

      Speaker 15: (18:33)
      … and you and Republican leaders still opposed it. The question is, what would you need to have it in it? You oppose any kind of commission, what would it take for you to sign onto something similar to that?

      Leader McCarthy : (18:49)
      It’s very easy, exactly what was said on the 13th of January. But Pelosi played politics, make it just like the 9/11. Let us discover what built up to it. Why was that decision made the National Guard were not here when on December 14th [crosstalk 00:19:03]-

      Speaker 15: (19:02)
      But that’s what Katko said, he said it was similar to [inaudible 00:19:04].

      Leader McCarthy : (19:03)
      Okay, let me answer the question. So on December 14th they became aware that there was a problem. They made a decision to have National Guard without weapons down on the streets to do traffic, but not in the Capitol. They found IUDs earlier in the morning. We had an officer killed beyond that day on Good Friday, but Pelosi would only let us with a scope this far, I don’t believe it allowed to go further and I think we need to… Yes, ma’am.

      Speaker 16: (19:33)
      Mr. Leader, Speaker Pelosi didn’t actually enumerate her objections when she sent in her official notice about rejecting your members, but-

      Leader McCarthy : (19:42)
      [inaudible 00:19:42].

      Speaker 16: (19:42)
      That’s what I was going to say, what did she tell you? Democrats have told us that among their objections, and I’d like you to respond to this, are that Republican members recently were photographed with someone who was here and broke into the Capitol on January 6th. And also they complained-

      Leader McCarthy : (19:53)
      No, she never said nothing about that.

      Speaker 16: (19:54)
      Okay, well, this is something that we’re being told is an issue.

      Leader McCarthy : (19:57)
      She said her members didn’t want her to put these people on.

      Speaker 16: (19:59)
      Okay, could you speak to that idea though, that members, including Mr. Jordan participated in-

      Leader McCarthy : (20:04)
      I don’t know what you’re [crosstalk 00:20:05] I don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Speaker 16: (20:05)
      Okay. And then the idea that some of your words about needing an investigation of last summer’s protests and riots, as you say, the Democrats object to that, yeah.

      Leader McCarthy : (20:14)
      No, let me be clear. They shouldn’t object to that. If they want a 9/11 commission, the 9/11 commission looked at September 11th, but they look what’s built up and caused 9/11. Should we not look at what buildup and caused this? Should we not question why the National Guard was not allowed onto the Capitol? Should we not question, why the Capitol police were not fully trained? You’re putting their lives in danger. Why were the riot gear stuck and locked in a bus down the street? We need these answers for these officers. We need to not ever put them in this place again. Yes, sir.

      Speaker 17: (20:52)
      Mr. Leader.

      Speaker 18: (20:52)
      Yes, sir. Will the Republican committee look at President Trump’s actions leading up to and on January 6th?

      Leader McCarthy : (21:00)
      We’ll look at anything that built up of what caused this place to not be protected, and we’ll look to make sure that it never happens again. Yes, sir. At you.

      Speaker 19: (21:10)
      [inaudible 00:21:10], sorry it’s my first presser. You mentioned Mr. Banks and Mr. Jordan not being allowed on, but at the same time, given that Mr. Jordan is a ranking member and Mr. Banks also is a leader of a large caucus, Representative Davis is also a ranking member and Speaker Pelosi didn’t object to it. And then Representative Nehls also voted to object, along with Representative Banks and Representative Jordan, why do you think there was a difference between objecting to Representative Banks and Representative Jordan, as opposed to a Representative Davis and Representative Nehls?

      Leader McCarthy : (21:51)
      I don’t know, but she named a chairman to object to the presidential, and she has Raskin who objected and asked for impeachment too, so I don’t know if the objection matters because her members have objected before.

      Speaker 20: (22:01)
      [inaudible 00:22:01].

      Leader McCarthy : (22:01)
      Yes, sir.

      Speaker 21: (22:01)
      Leader McCarthy, the locked bus with the gear on it, that’s a finding from-

      Leader McCarthy : (22:06)
      The Senate.

      Speaker 21: (22:06)
      … the Senate report. I mean, that’s exactly what they investigated. What do you want to find out, who locked the bus?

      Leader McCarthy : (22:12)
      Why was it there? Why didn’t they have the gear on? Why didn’t they have a better position?

      Speaker 21: (22:16)
      Isn’t the answer that they were just incompetent. I mean, what more do you need to know about that?

      Leader McCarthy : (22:20)
      Well if that’s incompetent, then what’s the solution? We want to find solutions. This is why, when you look at Sheriff Troy Nehls, 30 years of law enforcement. First, what did he do that day? He’d been a member for three days. He’s inside the chambers. People are breaking in. First, he joins other members and they barricade the door. People are breaking the glass, officers have their weapons drawn to protect from people coming in. A member for only three days, we didn’t call him Congressman that day, we called him sheriff.

      Leader McCarthy : (22:55)
      You may have watched the photos. He looks through the glass, he doesn’t have a weapon, but he calms the situation. He talks to those who are on the other side, that’s a leader. He sat through the entire Senate report, he’s laid out every chronological order of what has taken place. He used his own experience of being a sheriff from eight years, preparing for situations just as what he was drawn in, and he has even more questions. That’s why he wanted to serve. That’s why we put him on. This is a microcosm of our conference, we have a right to name, but this is what Nancy Pelosi is denying. Yes ma’am.

      Speaker 22: (23:40)
      When you initially laid out your reasoning coming out against the bipartisan commission, you had kind of raise concerns about any additional investigations here-

      Leader McCarthy : (23:48)
      Scope. No, it was the scope.

      Speaker 22: (23:49)
      … interfering with other federal investigations that are ongoing [crosstalk 00:23:53]. How does this committee differ from-

      Leader McCarthy : (23:53)
      Now you’re getting individuals that are… Decisions being made whether they’re serving time or not, you do not want to interfere with that, so the language matters. But from the very beginning, remember, I asked for a commission back in January, just like 9/11, Pelosi played games all along the way. She’d deal with the scope, and it was very clear of what we laid out, equal number, equal subpoena power, equal scope, and don’t interfere with any law enforcements going forward. She could not agree to that. And we watched today, even when the sides were separated, even when the power went to one, she went further than anyone’s gone before. I think it’s very clear to the American public, this is a sham, but we will make sure we get to the real answers. Thank you very much.

      Speaker 23: (24:44)
      Leader McCarthy, did Congresswoman Cheney step down from the committee?




  5. Hypothetical Planet X

    Caltech researchers have found mathematical evidence suggesting there may be a “Planet X” deep in the solar system. This hypothetical Neptune-sized planet orbits our Sun in a highly elongated orbit far beyond Pluto. The object, which the researchers have nicknamed “Planet Nine,” could have a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbit about 20 times farther from the Sun on average than Neptune. It may take between 10,000 and 20,000 Earth years to make one full orbit around the Sun.

    The announcement does not mean there is a new planet in our solar system. The existence of this distant world is only theoretical at this point and no direct observation of the object nicknamed “Planet 9” have been made. The mathematical prediction of a planet could explain the unique orbits of some smaller objects in the Kuiper Belt, a distant region of icy debris that extends far beyond the orbit of Neptune. Astronomers are now searching for the predicted planet.

    In Depth
    In January 2015, Caltech astronomers Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown announced new research that provides evidence of a giant planet tracing an unusual, elongated orbit in the outer solar system. The prediction is based on detailed mathematical modeling and computer simulations, not direct observation.

    This large object could explain the unique orbits of at least five smaller objects discovered in the distant Kuiper Belt.

    “The possibility of a new planet is certainly an exciting one for me as a planetary scientist and for all of us,” said Jim Green, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division. “This is not, however, the detection or discovery of a new planet. It’s too early to say with certainty there’s a so-called Planet X. What we’re seeing is an early prediction based on modeling from limited observations. It’s the start of a process that could lead to an exciting result.”

    The Caltech scientists believe Planet X may have has a mass about 10 times that of Earth and be similar in size to Uranus or Neptune. The predicted orbit is about 20 times farther from our Sun on average than Neptune (which orbits the Sun at an average distance of 2.8 billion miles). It would take this new planet between 10,000 and 20,000 years to make just one full orbit around the Sun (where Neptune completes an orbit roughly every 165 years).

    When was it Discovered?
    Planet X has not yet been discovered, and there is debate in the scientific community about whether it exists. The prediction in the Jan. 20 issue of the Astronomical Journal is based on mathematical modeling.

    What is its Name?
    Batygin and Brown nicknamed their predicted object “Planet Nine,” but the actual naming rights of an object go to the person who actually discovers it. The name used during previous hunts for the long suspected giant, undiscovered object beyond Neptune is “Planet X.”

    If the predicted world is found, the name must be approved by the International Astronomical Union. Planets are traditionally named for mythological Roman gods.

    Why Do They Think It’s There?

    Astronomers studying the Kuiper Belt have noticed some of the dwarf planets and other small, icy objects tend to follow orbits that cluster together. By analyzing these orbits, the Caltech team predicted the possibility that a large, previously undiscovered planet may be hiding far beyond Pluto.

    They estimate the gravity of this potential planet might explain the unusual orbits of those Kuiper objects



    Globalist extermination window to wipe out humanity is rapidly closing – John Moore interviewed by Mike Adams


  6. Best Pro 2nd Amendment Argument So Far:

    CNNisFakeNewsWrites CNNisFakeNews’s Newsletter ·Jul 30
    The black and women gun owning can be found:



    I am “playing reverse identity politics” because I wanted to give you a taste of the medicine your sanctimonious type progressives parrot.

    Your comments are “emotionally manipulative” because in the previous post, you claimed that you wanted to take away guns because you wanted to save lives – as if pro-2A people don’t want to save lives or as if the 800K-3 million lives saved from defensive gun use don’t matter. Stop claiming to want to save lives because you don’t.


    You have your talking points as usuall, so I will take time to debunk all of it.

    In 2021, as of July 13:

    US Population: 330 million

    US total guns: 420+ million

    US Total non-suicide shootings so far: 21305 – 12804 = 8501

    US non-suicide deaths so far: 10788

    Chicago population: 2.7 million (0.8 %)

    Chicago non-suicide shootings so far: 2195 (25.8%)

    Chicago non-suicide deaths so far: 405 (3.8%)

    25.8% from a 0.8% population city. WHY?????????? Do you really think 25.8% of shootings coming from a 0.8 population is because of legal gun owners? Add Baltimore, St Louis etc to this and you will get an even bigger elephant in the room.

    Instead of ackowledging the absolute failure of democrat leadership in these cities for over 6 decades, you want to blame the problem on law abiding citizens. Keep ignoring the gang problem in Chicago. As if criminals care about what laws you put in lmfao.

    Then you will claim that it must be the guns from other states being brought it while ignoring the fact that somehow the surrounding states do not have this problem at all.

    1. Even the hyper liberal anti-gun Gifford Law Center gives their second highest score of A- to Illinois and A to New Jersey.


    Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago. All this despite Texas having neighbours with cartels south of border.

    2. The age for purchasing handguns (pistols and revolvers) in Illinois is 21 years old. Vast majority of the gang violence and shootings happen using handguns.

    3. The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks as well as imposing waiting periods on firearms purchases. They also have red flag laws.

    For some peculiar reason more people die from gunshot wounds in Giffords A+ rated regions than Giffords F- rated regions. WHY??????????


    It’s absolutely hilarious that you claim to want to save lives while wanting to let all the over 800K lives which are saved each year be defenseless. 2008 study by National Academy of Sciences showed 500,000 to more than 3 million “Defensive Use of Guns”. Simply having the gun on your or brandishing it prevented crimes from happening. This was in 2008. That numbers is even higher now.



    Page 15 of the study talks about the defensive use part. You can download the PDF by using the “guest” option and entering any random email (doesn’t have to be real). Another related source:


    > “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

    > “In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole CDC’s survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.”

    > “One CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.” Given that history, I can’t dismiss Kleck’s critique.”


    You say “You have also failed to cite a study showing that flooding the U.S.-Mexico border region with firearms would make the area safer.”

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I am asking you how do you propose these people – wives/daughters/elderly/handicapped/living close to cartels/over 800K-3 million defensive uses should defend themselves?

    My comment was talking about those living close to the border with cartels. You start pulling up your david brock sources about illegal immigration instead of answering me how these people should be defending themselves.


    You want to claim illegal immigrants, the very people who break the fucking law to enter the country, are committing less crimes? That’s an oxymoron. When you enter the country illegally, you are by very definition a criminal. Jesus christ dude. I am a legal immigrant myself and have plenty of legal immigrant friends. There’s no one I as well as us legal immigrants despise more than the savior liberal who wants to let illegals jump the line ahead of us who go through the legal process. We literally spend a decade of hard work and money to get legal immigration and you want to let illegals jump ahead.

    Illegals take up the jobs for much lowwer salaries & under the table – jobs which could have gone to people in need – including minorities. Then they don’t report any work place illegalities because they don’t want to get caught. You are essentially advocating for exploiting illegals for cheap labour. You claim to be a progressive yet fail to see that Bernie Sanders himself used to be completely against illegal immigration until Trump came. He also used to complain about illegal immigration being a “koch brothers right wing proposals”. Until 2016. We all know what changed in 2016 when trump announced his run. Bernie used to hate illegal immigration, called it a “right wing proposal” “using a dollar or two wages to drive down wages of Americans”. And then he did a flip calling trump a racist and xenophobic etc and became open border advocate. Just listen to his own words in this VOX interview and tell me how what he used to say was any different from Trump and how he’s now done a full 180:

    Same with the immigrant folks who get brought in on H1B visas are basically exploited for work on lower wages. Liberals often think they are more virtuous for supporting H1B because companies like Apple and Google have lectured them about how H1B visas bring diversity. Anyone seriously thinks FAANG tech companies care about diversity? They care about low labour cost, employees who won’t complain and won’t report shady stuff going on in the company. H1B visas are perfect for that.

    H1B visas is pretty much modern day slavery (bit hyperbole in a way) but it essentially gives full power over an immigrant to the employer because these employers have work rules that if you don’t get promoted every 1-2 years, you get fired – which means H1B visa employees get deported back. So these immigrants end up working much harder for lower pay to not get deported. Meanwhile the companies get cheap labour while virtue signaling about diversity. This is also a reason why immigrants are hesitant to report work illegalities and thus the company prefer hiring them even more. This is also why all the tech companies were so against Trump – he cut their supply of H1B visas.

    Here’s another proof that this isn’t about “diversity” or caring about immigrants but more about exploitation:

    76% of the h1b go to Indians and 10% goes to China. Do you think this is about diversity? Does diversity only come from India and China? Source:


    Democrats use us as pawns and then abandon us when push comes to shove.

    These 2 videos explain it well:

    Also when you get immigrants from India and China on H1B visas, they are less likely to complain about work place illegalities. Us Indians and Asians are often quite timid plus don’t want to get stir shit which gets us deported.


    I will wait for you to answer how you propose to save the 500,000 to more than 3 million “Defensive Use of Guns” (2008 stat, even higher now 13 years later).



  7. “consequences but binary thinking isn’t the answer so stop demanding it of others,”–CTE

    You use the term “binary thinking” as though it were a magic talisman that makes your spurious rhetorical sophistry turn into profound utterances of universal truths.

    Binary thinking in reality means the ability to tell the distinction between good and bad behavior. Knowing that a woman is capable of being a mother and not a “birthing person”.

    It includes the simple ability to tell up from down, pain from pleasure. the difference between love and hate. The difference between the floor from the ceiling, the open wound from the healing. Off from on.

    The world is a study in metaphor and distinction: Thus is this because That is not.

    The gray scales matter as well, but they are transitions between two extremes which must first be acknowledged.

    Perhaps you should study epistemology and get your own thoughts in order.



  8. John Kerry on the Unfathomable Stakes of the Next U.N. Climate-Change Conference
    Ahead of a major summit, the first special Presidential envoy for climate discusses the diplomatic tightrope he faces post-Trump, and the best outcome he can hope to achieve.

    As wildfires, floods, and extraordinary storms ravage parts of the globe this summer, as glaciers cleave and collapse and the Siberian permafrost softens and releases methane into the atmosphere, it is becoming increasingly evident that John Kerry, the first special Presidential envoy for climate, holds the most consequential job in the Biden Administration after Joe Biden himself.

    Kerry is seventy-seven and, not long ago, seemed headed for a cushy retirement after a long career in government. He first gained public notice as a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War who became a spokesman for the antiwar movement. He served in the U.S. Senate from 1985 to 2013––a stretch interrupted by a narrow loss of the Presidency, to George W. Bush, in 2004. He was Secretary of State during the Obama Administration, following Hillary Clinton at the Department. In that office, Kerry was routinely faulted for a kind of quixotic insistence on pursuing lost causes. He failed in his attempt to broker any meaningful agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but he played a pivotal role in concluding a nuclear agreement with Iran––an agreement that Donald Trump upended upon reaching the White House.

    In his new role, Kerry faces an even more complicated and essential diplomatic challenge. From October 31st to November 12th, he will lead a U.S. delegation to Glasgow, where the United Nations will host, in diplo-speak, cop26, a long-awaited multilateral climate-change conference. Kerry is confronted not only with the undeniable evidence of an ever-intensifying global climate crisis but with an enormous set of political challenges. The U.S. delegation will arrive in Glasgow with its prestige radically diminished by Trump, who abandoned U.S. support of international efforts to fight climate change. Kerry is also faced with the delicate task of trying to convince China to restrain carbon emissions even as the U.S. rightly criticizes the country for its ruthless treatment of the Uyghurs.

    I spoke with Kerry last week by Zoom for The New Yorker Radio Hour. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.



    Let us put this article together with an earlier revelation by John Kerry:

    John Kerry reveals Biden’s devotion to radical ‘Great Reset’ movement

    In June 2011, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy.

    The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes.

    The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).

    According to the Great Reset’s supporters, the plan would fundamentally transform much of society. As World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

    Internationally, the Great Reset has already been backed by influential leaders, activists, academics and institutions. In addition to the World Economic Forum and United Nations, the Great Reset movement counts among its the International Monetary Fund, heads of state, Greenpeace and CEOs and presidents of large corporations and financial institutions such as Microsoft and MasterCard.
    This isn’t the first time Kerry has thrown his weight behind the Great Reset. At a June World Economic Forum virtual event, Kerry said the coronavirus pandemic was “a big moment” that opened the door for the Great Reset and that, “The World Economic Forum – the CEO capacity of the Forum – is really going to have to play a front and center role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity — all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.”

    The evidence is now crystal clear about Biden’s connection to the Great Reset. He, John Kerry and the rest of the Biden administration are planning to bring the Great Reset to the United States. And if they are successful, the country will never be the same.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: