Sodomites Keep Spreading Monkeypox

Trump-backed Senate candidate Blake Masters blames violence using guns on Black people

Blake Masters, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Arizona who was recently endorsed by former President Donald Trump, said on a podcast this year that "Black people, frankly" are to blame for America's gun violence problem.

"We do have a gun violence problem in this country, and it's gang violence," Masters said on "The Jeff Oravits Show" in April. "It's gangs. It's people in Chicago, St. Louis shooting each other. Very often, you know, Black people, frankly. And the Democrats don't want to do anything about that."

Masters also claimed Democrats "are weak on crime" and "don't like the Second Amendment" because "it frankly blocks a lot of their plans for us."

During the same podcast, when asked what he thought about President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman confirmed to the court, Masters said she was "a horrible pick" and that she was an "affirmative action candidate."

Masters did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday.

Masters has promoted Trump's [accurate] claims that the 2020 election was stolen. He has also repeatedly echoed the "great replacement theory" — a white supremacist conspiracy theory that there is a plot to diminish the influence of white people in the U.S. — by baselessly claiming that Democrats want to grant amnesty to thousands of immigrants in order to "make them voters." (read more)

URGENT: THE MOST DANGEROUS MOVE YET BY THE mRNA VACCINATORS

[...]

Welcome to the most cynical - and dangerous - effort yet by public health bureaucrats, vaccine companies, and the media to hide the failure of the mRNA vaccines.

Human clinical trials (note the careful use of the word human there) are the ONLY way to prove that a drug or vaccine works in, well, humans.

Sadly, we know now the mRNA vaccines do not work to stop coronavirus infection for more than a few months. And despite what the public health authorities insist, we don’t even know if they reduce severe disease or death from Covid for long after they stop working against infection.

Yes, coronavirus deaths are down in 2022 relative to Covid infections. That drop may have something to do with residual vaccine immunity, as vaccine advocates claim.

But other potential explanations are equally if not more plausible. The drop in deaths may be occurring because Omicron is less dangerous than earlier strains and Paxlovid somewhat effective when it is properly dosed. It may even be happening because after circulating for two years, Sars-Cov-2 has already picked off the most vulnerable people in the United States and Europe.

Finding a real answer to the way those variables interact would require serious, open-minded scientific research, the kind vaccine advocates at the Centers for Disease Control and elsewhere no interest in conducting. (Stop me if you’ve heard that before.)

—

So - faced with a vaccine that doesn’t work - what’s a vaccine advocate or company to do?

Well, they could always admit failure. (Stop laughing!)

In fact, vaccine advocates have taken tentative steps in this way with their mention of “second-generation” vaccines, coming not-so-soon to a pharmacy near you. (Do you remember anyone saying anything about these mRNA shots being “first-generation” when they rolled out in December 2020? Yeah, me neither.)

But considering that more a billion people have already been dosed, honesty is going to be tough for the public health bureaucrats - and well-nigh impossible for the companies, which have tens of billions of dollars in annual sales at stake.

Which leads to the other possibility, the one that the companies and advocates seemingly prefer - stop testing the vaccines in those annoying human clinical trials.

After all, if we don’t test the mRNA shots, we will have no clean data whether they are reducing Covid infections, much less hospitalizations or deaths. We will just have to guess using real-world data. That real-world data will be hopelessly biased in favor of the vaccines because of what is known as “healthy vaccine user bias” - the fact that people who are vaccinated tend to be more health-conscious and in better shape than those who are not.

Here’s the crucial fact: For vaccine advocates, the lack of good data will be a feature, not a bug.

Instead the vaccinators and the companies will take their best guess at the right spike protein to target. Then, instead of proving the mRNA shots actually have clinical benefit - that is, they actually reduce illness or death - they will simply show that the jabs cause people (maybe not even people, maybe just animals!) to produce antibodies.

Then they will roll them out just in time for the winter Covid season - supported by billion-dollar advertising and marketing campaigns and vacuous stories. Whether the shots actually work will not matter.

And not just for the fall and winter of 2022. This game will continue ad infinitum, unless the side effects from the shots become so overwhelming the vaccinators are forced to stop.

—

How do I know?

Because this is EXACTLY the strategy they have pursued with influenza vaccines - which don’t work on a population-wide basis either. (If they did, then increasing the number of annual flu shots in the United States from 20 million to 200 million in the last 40 years would have resulted in some measurable decrease in the number of flu infections and deaths - rather than coinciding with an increase).

The difference is that although flu jabs appear to be essentially useless on a population-wide basis, they are are also essentially harmless. The mRNA shots are not. At best, they cause nasty short-term side effects in many of the people who get them - side effects that are often worse than the coronavirus itself, especially for younger people.

At worst? We still cannot be sure. But many countries that aggressively pushed the shots last year and the boosters this winter are going through a wave of excess deaths right now that no one seems willing to discuss, much less explain.

Thus moving ahead with a strategy to push boosters this fall without large-scale clinical trials would be the most cynical and dangerous move from the public health authorities yet.

And that - unlike the data from the trial Moderna released yesterday - is a very high bar to cross. (source)

San Francisco Voters Recall District Attorney Chesa Boudin, Signals Trouble for Democrat Socialists

It wasn’t close. 60 percent of San Francisco voters voted to recall Chesa Boudin, a former public defender who became district attorney in 2019 in a huge win for the progressive/communist left.

Mr. Boudin promised when he took office that “the tough-on-crime policies were on their way out.” However, his tenure saw a massive increase in crime and the San Francisco victims took him out.

SAN FRANCISCO—San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin was recalled Tuesday in a blow to the progressive prosecutors movement.

Voters strongly endorsed ousting the reform-minded D.A. as partial returns showed about 60% of voters supporting the recall, the Associated Press said.

Mr. Boudin and other progressive prosecutors around the country have pursued goals such as sending nonviolent drug offenders to treatment instead of jail, sparing juveniles from being prosecuted as adults and scrutinizing police misconduct.

Political consultants and law-enforcement officials say the recall of Mr. Boudin in this left-leaning city signals a broader voter backlash against the movement amid rising violent crime over the past two years. (read more)

(read more)

Boudin's Mother Was A Convicted Murderess

GAME OVER. WE WON.

One of my surveys had a strong signal. So I had a third party polling firm run it against a neutral audience. The results are devastating. It shows we were lied to. Big time. No other way to spin it.

I now have a survey question that, when tested against a neutral audience, gives a very strong signal. Turns out that most people think that the COVID vaccines have killed more people in just 1.5 years than all 70+ vaccines combined over the past 32 years.

[...]

Here is the underlying data so you can verify the result. And here’s the summary PDF they provided.

What this means is we’ve won. There is no way to defend this.

Unless I missed something, they are totally screwed. There is simply no way to “spin this” in your favor. This survey is simple to replicate and it completely destroys the “safe and effective” narrative because there is no way to “spin” the results in your favor. It’s devastating.

The CDC would argue, “You are asking the public to make a non-professional judgment on causality. We at the CDC have determined no causal link. All these deaths are simply coincidences!”

The fact checkers will then agree with them!

OK, fine.

Simply explain why there are more 1.7X as many “coincidences” happening with the COVID vaccines than all 70+ vaccines over the past 32 years? Make my day. Back it up with actual data proving your point, not a hand-waving argument.

Or, show me your survey. And explain why, in the 18 months the vaccine has been on the market, you never reached out to find the incidence rate of adverse events and deaths in a pro-active survey rather than sitting back with a passive surveillance system. And explain to us why you never revealed to anyone the Medicare mortality data? What was the reason for keeping that a secret? Explain that one for us.

Sadly, the press will simply accept any hand-waving argument from the CDC no matter how idiotic it is. That’s how they will defend it. They will never ask the questions in my previous paragraph.

So it’s not over yet, but we are getting close.

Confirmation of the poll in the VAERS system

This isn’t a fluke.

The VAERS system essentially is throwing the same safety signal with a ratio that is pretty close to what our survey found.

It turns out that 69% of all deaths in VAERS (limiting ourselves to US only deaths) are from the COVID vaccines.

So this means that the COVID vaccines have killed 2.3X as many people as all the 70+ other vaccines over the past 32 years.

How do you explain that? It can’t be over-reporting of background deaths because the adverse event profile of the COVID deaths doesn’t match “natural causes.” So these stupid hand-waving arguments don’t fly.  (read more)

THE VAXX IS A STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION

Even Stevie Wonder could see it: When you believe in things you don’t understand, you suffer; superstition ain’t the way.

Covid has become a religion. Vaxxers are its main sect. Vaxxers, more accurately labeled “injectors,” believe in something they don’t understand. Injectors don’t understand that the injections don’t resemble conventional, prior vaxxes. They can’t explain the mRNA mechanism by which the injections are said to work. They’re also unaware that the number of near-term post-injection deaths after 9 months of Covid injections exceeds the death tolls from all vaccinations combined over the past 30 years. They know nothing about the long term safety of the injections, nor of data revealing breakthrough deaths in the US and abroad. Nor do they know, after 19 months of media fearmongering, that the vast majority of people are at functionally zero risk from Covid. They watch too much TV.

Nonetheless, most Americans believe in the injections because the injections have been marketed with the halo-effected label, “vaccines.” Many Americans see the injection as a modern, magical talisman, a technological sacrament that enables them to walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death. Never mind that they would have been fine without the ritualistic injections.

Using the vaxx label is misleading and required the CDC to recently change its catechistic definition of “vaccine.” After the Covid-19 vaccines were introduced, and it was discovered they did not necessarily "prevent disease" or "provide immunity," the CDC quietly tweaked the definition of vaccines to require that they merely "produce protection." Calling the Covid injections “vaccines” is like comparing Britney Spears to Miles Davis by calling them both “musicians.”

Americans’ faith in medicine now exceeds their faith in a Supreme Being. Americans have been brainwashed by decades of TV shows with actors portraying heroic, brilliant, compassionate MDs. More recently, Americans have been shown endless hospital and Pharma ads of smiling people strolling in slow motion through golden light across flowery meadows, accompanied by a loved one and soft, ruminative background piano. Adeptly propagandized, all things medical have become subliminally associated with healing, health and earthly Eden. This illusion persists despite many Americans’ frequently expressed real-life dissatisfaction with medical personnel, procedures, hospitals and results obtained, including long lists of dreadful drug side effects, read rapidly at the ads’ ends: cognitive dissonance.

Injectors haven’t reviewed, and would not understand, the injections’ clinical trial data. They recite, like a creed, that the injections are 95% effective, though they can’t explain what that means. The Injection Taliban supports mandatory injections because some nominal doctors on TV ads and interviews assert that the injections are “safe and effective.” They’re unaware that many other doctors, whom the media suppresses, instead explain on the Internet, backed by data and logic, why the injections are unsafe and unhelpful. This latter group of physicians resemble latter day Martin Luthers, who are not invited by corporate TV stations to post their Theses. And when these injection blasphemers post on the Net, the latter day Vatican, i.e., Big Tech, censors them.

The core, suppressed truth of the past 19 months is this: even without treatment, over 99.98% of uninjected, normal weight people under 70 survive Coronavirus infections; with basic, inexpensive outpatient treatment, even more do.

Yet, for months, Covid-fearing, fire and brimstone preachers have convinced their flocks (of sheep) that Covid guarantees universal, physical damnation and that the injection is the only way to salvation.

Indoctrinated injection choir members have repeatedly, fervently asserted that the injected “don’t get or spread the virus.” As breakthrough cases multiply, this is disproven daily. Adapting to such failure, the injectors’ fallback has been that “Yeah, but vaxxed people don’t get hospitalized or die.”

This is false. In the UK and Israel, which vaxxed earliest, many of the injected are being hospitalized and dying. While US and state governments are declining to systematically collect, and are suppressing, similar information revealing injection failure, the same effect is now emerging in such American jurisdictions as Vermont and Massachusetts. For now, US government and media are gaming the stats to promote the injection fanatics’ false tenet that there’s a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” One trick is that those who die within 14 days of injecting are categorized as “unvaccinated.” However, because the injection temporarily attenuates immunity, the injected become especially vulnerable to infection during that 14 day window. Further, the testing standards for the injected are much more relaxed than they are for the uninjected. The complicit media will decline to ask serious questions about such recordkeeping and thus, allow the truth to continue to be hidden. Ignore that man behind the curtain! Get your booster!

The Vaxx Church has its clergy. Even though he’s been repeatedly wrong or equivocal, many still believe deeply that Fauci is wise and infallible; to the injection zealots, he’s the Pope, the Ayatollah and Jim Jones rolled into one. The Vaxx Church has various subsidiary clergy in state governors’ mansions. They have Covid-televangelist TV networks like CNN, CBS, CSNBC and PBS. And the Vaxx Church has global reach, with missionaries in places like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The injectors brook no dissent or questions from heretics. In making everyone inject, the government doesn’t care if you’re young and healthy and at no risk. Neither does the government care if you’ve had the virus already and, therefore, have developed natural immunity that’s 27 times more robust than injected immunity. Nor does it care to which of the various brands of injections you submit. They also don’t care if the injections are effective against a variety of continually evolving virus variants. The government only wants you to inject something. The Injection Crusade is clearly about control, submission and deception, not public health. It feels like a fraternity hazing ritual, only riskier and more lucrative.

None of this would be so bad if the injectors just injected and went about their lives: faith should be its own reward. Instead, the injectors insist on foisting their deeply mistaken dogma on others. These New Age, physically invasive, injection proselytizers won’t be satisfied until they convert everyone. They demand that you bend the knee to the government and the Medical/Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex; the line between the two is blurry.

The injection end game is this: if everyone injects, there will be no control group, and Biden and Fauci will claim that the injections saved humanity. Thus, the shots are a deceitful backdoor effort to falsely justify the purported—but utterly failed— Covid Commandments: lockdowns, arbitrary social distancing, mass testing, contact tracing and mask mandates, and to obscure the inexorable protection bestowed by natural herd immunity.

But Big Pharma can’t make tens of billions from natural immunity. Nor can politicians claim credit for it. So the Covid Inquisition continues.

Injectors, this is the United States of America. It’s your right to believe in things you don’t understand. It’s also your right to ignore data and science and to not know what a PCR test is and how it’s been used to wreck a society. It’s even OK to have child-like faith in the Medical Industrial Complex. While you may regret the short or long term effects of the injections, that choice is yours. You have free will. Drink the Kool-Aid if you want.

But America doesn’t—or at least didn’t use to—take away people’s basic civil rights and livelihoods because they don’t share the beliefs of an official state religion. Rather, Americans recoil at the notion of theocracy; it’s fundamentally anathema, characteristic of Iran or Saudi Arabia. The Orthodox injection crusaders must not be allowed to foist their mistaken beliefs on the infidels who have studied and know the injections are, at best, a scam, and who wish to apply their knowledge in the exercise of their natural law sovereignty over their own bodies.

The lockdowns, mask mandates, school closings and absurd social distancing rules have already done far too much deep, irreversible harm. The injection jihad must end. (read more)

[...] the vaccines were supposed to stop spread. they did not and do not and are now likely accelerating it.

and they knew this. and yet they did not change their policy.

leaky vaccines are extremely dangerous, especially those that also engender strong antigenic fixation. they produce vaccine-driven evolution of viruses just as partially effective antibiotics lead to things like MRSA.

and they knew this. and yet they did not change their policy.

the process by which these vaccines were tested was incomplete, unsound, and slipshod to the point of outright recklessness.

and they knew this. and yet, the minute they saw political advantage, they all changed their jerseys and acted as though they have been on team “the fauci ouchie will save us all” and not “the trump terror needle is not to be trusted” all along.  (source)

When Believing the Health Authorities Requires Denying Obvious Realities

This weekend The Daily Sceptic published two articles reviewing some studies purported to show Covid-19 vaccines are useful for countering so-called long-covid, lingering symptoms after Covid infection. The conclusion of the author, who is an ex-senior scientist with the UK government, is that the vaccinations do not in fact prevent those symptoms.

In addition one of the studies he quotes shows a great increase in health-related problems resulting from vaccination, which the authors seem to have tried to bury.

The interesting thing here is how we have, over the course of 18 months, moved from eagerly awaiting vaccines that would eradicate Covid-19 by providing herd immunity, towards failed attempts at showing that at least those vaccines prevent long-term health issues among those who catch the disease and fall ill with it, the disease they wouldn’t have caught, let alone fallen ill with, had the vaccines worked as promised. 

At the same time, more and more data from all over the world show how the vaccine rollout is in fact correlated with a large spike in excess mortality. The only hope seems to be the adenovirus vaccines, the use of which was discontinued in most countries in favour of the mRNA vaccines. That may have been a premature decision, as contrary to the mRNA vaccines, they seem to lower excess mortality. 

To sum it up, no protection against infection, the vaccinated seem to fall ill just as easily as the unvaccinated, even more easily, and despite some short-lived protection against death, the net effect is an increase, not a decrease in excess mortality. The last straw is trying to show that at least the vaccines prevent the rather dubious long-covid. Even this attempt fails according to The Daily Sceptic. Still, I expect we will see a wealth of studies purportedly showing some minor positive effects on all sorts of unrelated conditions; once a believer, there is always one more last straw to cling on to.

This brings us back to the other goalposts, the three-week flattening of the curve, how lockdowns were supposed to stop the virus in its tracks, how masks were supposed to do the same, and how those goalposts have moved and how there is always another excuse. If the three-week flattening of the curve didn’t work it was because the lockdowns weren’t strict enough or not put in place at the correct point in time.

If the masks didn’t work in a real-life setting this was of no consequence; the excuse was they weren’t used correctly.

If a study showed mask wearing, combined with personal hygiene measures reduced transmission by a mere 10% at best, this was a huge feat and justified blanket mandates.

If the lockdowns plunged hundreds of millions into acute poverty it wasn’t because of the lockdowns; in some mysterious way the virus itself had forbidden those people to work. 

Moving goalposts and after-the-fact justifications are not a new problem. We see this everywhere. Every project manager has experience of targets being changed, of weak excuses, unrealistic plans and budgets. And of course there is always the tendency to try to cover up what happened. But even so, the stakeholders not directly responsible for the execution usually realize failure when it happens. 

But this is not happening now. We, the public, are the most important stakeholder and it is not us who make the decisions or are responsible for the execution. What is new is how we unquestioningly accept every new goal, every justification, how ready we are to forget today what we were convinced of yesterday, how willingly we go for the next booster believing, truly believing the reason the last one failed to protect us was just bad luck.

We have collectively accepted a parallel world, a parallel set of truths, and however far it is from actual reality does not matter in the least. Our goal is not to eradicate the disease, not to live with it and minimize the harm it causes, our goal is to sustain our belief in the cult leaders, no matter how often they mislead us; with every lie, every shifted target, every excuse, our faith only grows stronger.

With every excuse we accept, with every denial we echo, every misguided action we support, we entangle ourselves more and more deeply; by each step, we take a higher stake in the narrative, and the higher it gets, the more fiercely we defend our parallel set of truths; the harder it becomes to break away and accept reality.  (read more)

Talking to Normies About Vaccination

Thoughts on how to dissuade older friends and relatives from going back to the vaccinators in the fall.

The vaccinators are in summer hibernation, but very soon they’ll be with us again, hawking a novel set of wares. The media blitz will start anew and the medical bureaucrats will return to forcing superfluous and potentially harmful medical interventions on millions of people who don’t need them. One day, all of this will be recognised for the absurd hypochondriac panic that it is, but no few people will be hurt, and at least a few will die, before we get there. What follows are some thoughts I have about how to approach especially older acquaintances, who will be at ground zero of the coming propaganda campaign, and who probably don’t need a fifth dose of the magical miraculous mRNA elixir.

First, some notes on normie psychology:

You have to understand that they think the vaccines are the best things ever. They believe Pfizer and Moderna have almost singlehandedly turned the whole pandemic around and given them their lives back. If ever a doubt should creep into their minds about that, they will fall back to believing that being vaccinated is the right pro-social thing to do, and that not being vaccinated is evil, selfish and stupid. It is the unvaccinated who are responsible for variants, who spread Corona and who are prolonging the pandemic. Normies have The Science on their side, and they take great comfort in buying into and espousing the mythology that has been sold to them. This is how sophisticated propaganda and information management works. Contradictory information will make them extremely uncomfortable, and they’ll look for any reason at all not to believe it. If you cause them too much discomfort, they’ll get angry, tune you out, and put you in the antivaxxer bin, where you can be safely ignored.

It’s going to be very hard to win ground here, and your goal shouldn’t be total victory. You just want to get them to think for themselves, consider their own experiences as valid and real information about the world, and break out of the limited vaccinator-cult patterns of thought long enough to ponder how many boosters they really want to put up with.

The most important thing is to present a relaxed, jovial scepticism on key points. The goal is not to argue, but to challenge in an oblique, casual way, while giving as much as you take. Unless we’re talking about somebody who absolutely trusts you and is earnestly seeking your opinion, you shouldn’t be scheduling in-depth conversations or sitting down for a serious talk. You want to raise questions and plant little seeds of doubt, before they ever realise what is happening, and then you want to fade away before they notice that you’re encouraging them to have heretical thoughts.  (read more)

Remarkable Admission, Pete Buttigieg Announces Biden Inflation Plan is to Create Increased Dependency State and Apply Socialist Economics, Biden Led Govt to Provide Medicine, Childcare, Housing and Food

Here is one succinct interview containing the smorgasbord of far-left policies the people behind Joe Biden are proposing as the solution to the inflation crisis they have created. It is remarkable to see it all packed into one 8-minute segment.  There is so much crazy in here it would take a week of articles to unpack it.

The ultra-leftist Biden Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg, appears on ABC with George Stephanopoulos to discuss the solutions to the massive economic collapse that looms all around us.  Within the interview Buttigieg states the Biden administration goal is to use the high cost of living (policy driven inflation) as an opportunity for the government to take over household expenses and create equity via government distribution.

If reasonable people do not intervene quickly, the executive branch and legislative branch will move to begin subsidizing and controlling medicine, childcare, housing and food costs by diverting tax dollars into the social equity system.  Depending on income, the [illegitimate] Biden administration plans to offset higher prices for Americans by providing the essential services and products they need.  In essence, Democrat-Socialism with a filter of equity in distribution, ie “enhanced dependency.”  WATCH.

Remarkably, Stephanopoulos references one of the most insane New York Times op-ed’s ever written around economics {ARTICLE HERE}.  Within the reference, the Democrat legislative proposal is for the government to take over the purchasing of essential products like food, fuel, gasoline and medicine.  The government would then distribute those products.  The entire premise is based on some academic leftist theory of economics that is just nuts. It looks nothing like capitalism.

The baseline for the approach contains the premise that inflation is driven by too many people chasing scarce goods. Thus prices are rising.  This is how the Democrats look at inflation and explain the problem.  Their solution is for government to buy the food at the prices they claim people cannot afford, and then sell the food at prices they claim the people can afford.  [Replace ‘food’ with any item they determine]

Notice in the interview when Buttigieg is challenged about the high cost of gasoline, he complains that oil companies are not drilling enough to generate the oil and refinery capacity that we need.  Essentially, the oil companies are to blame for not creating more supply.

Now, pause, and think about that.

The same Pete Buttigieg voices strong opposition to any further exploitation of oil and natural gas.  Buttigieg and the Biden administration vociferously advocate for green energy transition with extreme urgency and apply punitive punishment toward any opposition.  Moments later, they are blaming the oil and gas industry for not providing enough supply….

…. Do you know what that advocacy conflict sounds like?  That conflicted and twisted mental outlook is the psychology happening in abusive relationships.  If you had made me a better sandwich, I wouldn’t have needed to punch you in the mouth.  If the oil companies we restrict were doing the things we restrict them not to do, then things would be better.

Because the oil, gas, farms or (fill_in_the_blank) etc. are not doing their jobs correctly – as to predict the damage caused by govt policy and offset the consequences – then government must take over the controls of the industry and manage the process.  History rhymes… (read more)

How the COVID Vaccines Kill

by a physician in Birmingham, Alabama

With each passing day, the news connected to the COVID shots grows worse.  That the injections don’t prevent COVID -- or even its spread -- has been known for months, and post-injection problems encompass almost everything that can go wrong with a body. 

(read more)

Imagine an America where know it all types no longer send you New York Times links about your wrongthink or quote NPR or TED Talks at cocktail parties.

Imagine an America where Leftist Boomers and 90% of Dept. of Defense personnel have gone extinct.

Imagine an America where Dr. Fauci will always be associated with Dr. Mengele.

He (also) did not kill himself.

Are school shooters born or made?

John Hankey on Uvalde as MK-Ultra Psy-Op

Filmmaker John Hankey, director of the Dark Legacy films on the assassination of JFK Jr. and more recently “COVID19 Inside Job“, says the children at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas may have been killed by a Manchurian candidate (just like JFK Jr. was). He thinks the motive was less to promote gun control, but to shift the conversation to gun control: “I wish the motive wasn’t screamingly obvious: to try to change the debate from abortion, an issue which kills the Republicans, to guns, an issue which kills the Democrats. This shooting makes clear, to me at least and at long last, that the Sandy Hook shooting was the same, to provoke the Democrats to a suicidal assault on weapons. And apparently to provoke the conspiracy nuts in the 9/11 Truth movement to self-immolate. Sandy Hook destroyed Fetzer and Alex Jones, and, in doing so, really sullied the 9-11 Truth movement—which may have been the primary motive.” (read more and listen)

Is rainbow cannon fodder as combat-ready
as normal cannon fodder?

FOOD  FOR  THOUGHT

Ontario Cargill chicken processing plant employing 900 has suspended operation after a devastating fire two days ago.
https://london.ctvnews.ca/fire-crews-called-to-early-morning-blaze-at-cargill-plant-in-london-1.5915043

REPLACING TRADITIONAL AMERICANS
& THEIR VALUES & WORK ETHIC

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgrliuQW_-Q

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dO7HLzRKi8

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzoNacDNfOQ

Isn't this interesting:

Red Flag Gun Laws Set The Stage For Selective Disarmament Of Conservatives

In his recent address on gun violence, Joe Biden called for a number of new measures to limit 2^nd Amendment rights, but two of them stood out as starkly unconstitutional – The issuance of an “assault weapons” ban and the institution of national Red Flag gun laws.

Both are egregious in their violations of the Bill of Rights, but Red Flag laws set an Orwellian standard that will likely be used against conservatives as a whole.

How? We have to examine the situation within the context of Joe Biden's domestic terrorism policies, but first lets explain what Red Flag laws are.

Red Flag laws, also known as “Extreme Protection Orders,” are generally associated with assumptions of mental health and instability (remember the word “assumptions”). The parameters of such laws tend to be incredibly broad and ambiguous, and allow for almost anyone in regular proximity to a person to accuse them of being psychologically unstable. The accusation can come from a family member, a significant other, a work associate, etc.

Once the accusation is made, authorities can confiscate the target person's firearms without due process under the law on the grounds that they present a danger to themselves and others. No jury, no testing, no proof is required to get a court order. It is then up to the accused to prove they are NOT unstable and that they deserve to have their firearms returned. This process could take years, if the guns are ever returned at all.

Some versions of Red Flag bills even allow police to declare you dangerous on their own accord, even without direct contact or a witness. In other words, it's a pre-crime system open for massive abuse. And keep in mind, we live in a digital era in which social media is carefully monitored, often by people that do not have our best interests at heart. Red Flag laws could even extend to comments made and taken out of context on social media platforms.

But why should this be dangerous to conservatives in particular?

Biden's White House has made it abundantly clear that he intends to conflate many conservative positions with “extremism.” In his policies on domestic terrorism, Biden and his handlers insinuate that the majority of terrorist concerns come from right leaning Americans, even though the White House is unable to produce more than a few examples of “right leaning” people committing terrorist acts and is rather loose with their definitions of terrorism. Remember, they continue to call the protests of January 6^th an “insurrection” despite the fact that there was no insurrection and no one was even armed.

The White House blatantly ignores terrorist acts by people associated with the political left and makes no mention of the “Summer of Love” in which BLM and ANTIFA attempted to burn the country to the ground.

As with all leftist propaganda, Biden and the Democrats have sought to associate normal political and social concerns as well as constitutional concerns with nefarious behaviors such as racism and treason. If you oppose illegal immigration, want proof of citizenship for voting, support gun rights and the constitutional right to a militia, believe the government is corrupt and has overstepped its constitutional mandate, oppose globalism and corporate monopoly, etc. then you are an extremist in the eyes of the Biden Administration. Not only that, but you are comparable to groups like the KKK and individual terrorists like the Oklahoma City Bomber.

The message is clear within White House policy papers – Domestic terrorist concerns will revolve around conservatives and patriots. They will be pigeon holed as the worst humans imaginable, while any other potential threats will be dismissed.

Red Flag laws open the door for punishment of political opposition by associating contrary views with “extremism” and then extremism with mental instability. Biden's policies specifically mention people who are hostile to government authority, which falls right in line with rhetoric used by the DHS and other alphabet agencies over the past several years relating to something called “Oppositional Defiant Disorder.”

When gun control laws were initiated by the Third Reich in Germany in 1938, guns were confiscated from political enemies and the Jews while gun rights were granted to loyal party members. This standard of selective confiscation helped to strengthen the Nazi Party through a system of rights as rewards; if you said the correct things and virtue signaled your love of the state, you got to keep certain freedoms. If you spoke out of line, your freedoms were immediately forfeit. This included access to firearms.

Red Flag laws create an environment where political opposition to the prevailing order can be legally punished as psychological instability. Under the Biden Admin, leftists may feel emboldened to take advantage of the open ended nature of the laws to threaten individual conservative and patriot activists, or, the government could simply declare all conservatives dangerous by default. Leftists would remain happy and secure in their ability to hold onto their weapons while incrementally depriving their enemies of a means of defense.

This attack should be taken seriously by all gun rights advocates and anyone outside of the far left cult, but the leftists are not the biggest danger. It's perhaps not surprising that some members of the GOP have expressed support for Red Flag laws as a “bipartisan compromise” to outright gun bans. These politicians are either too stupid to see the long term consequences of Red Flags, or they are well away and don't care because they are fake conservatives.

Any Republican that throws their weight behind Red Flag laws should be treated as hostile to the constitution and the 2^nd Amendment in particular. Red flag laws are not a “compromise,” they are the Holy Grail of gun control. They are the ultimate Trojan Horse. They are the means to deprive anyone of their firearms for any fabricated reason, and they will create an automatic culture of self censorship in which all anti-establishment voices live in terror of speaking out.

Anti-gun authoritarians are fearful of direct confrontation and direct confiscation. Going door-to-door is not their idea of a good time. Instead, they prefer the use of backdoor confiscation, going after a handful of people and then moving on to the next group. Slowly at first, until it is too late for people to organize effectively against it. The 2^nd Amendment is not a privilege granted for loyalty to a particular regime or ideology and it is not dependent on the crime rate; it is sacrosanct and stands outside of the conditions of the times we live. Shootings may rise and fall, but none of this matters – once gun rights are taken away, it is unlikely they will ever be returned.

BOOM…on target! pic.twitter.com/PuVFF0OpRu

— Fr33dom __𝓢𝓱𝓪𝓮__ (@1fr33dom) May 31, 2022

(read more)

Move along. Nothing to see here.

No wonder Davos and Bilderberg messenger boys, when they look at The Grand Chessboard, are filled with dread: their era of perpetual free lunch is over. What would delight cynics, skeptics, neoplatonists and Taoists galore is that it was Davos-Bilderberg Men (and Women) who actually boxed themselves into zugzwang.

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

— H. L. Mencken

Recent Events Only Reinforce Our Need For Gun Rights And Community Militias

I want to stress a very important point first and foremost, because I don’t think the political left and the average gun grabber understands the gravity of the situation and they need to be educated:

Liberty advocates will NEVER give up their guns. It’s not going to happen. We have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and we are not going to move, not even an inch. It does not matter what legislation or executive orders Joe Biden promotes, and it does not matter if there are future criminal events involving firearms. There is no scenario in which we are going to hand over our ability to defend ourselves and rely on the government alone. All the indignant wailing and preaching from anti-gun leftists is for naught; they will get nothing.

Gun rights are integral to a free society because they act as a deterrent to potential government over-reach and authoritarianism. Tyrants might infiltrate politics and take over governments, and they might even THINK they have the ability to oppress the public, but they will never be quite sure they can get away with it as long as the public has the means to “reach out and touch them” from a distance. They will always have doubts and this is vital for freedom – When tyrants have doubts, liberty prevails.

I covered the issue of incoming gun bans in the latest issue of my newsletter, The Wild Bunch Dispatch, but I wanted to examine here the wider implications of disarmament; including what the consequences will be if we were to comply, and what the establishment should fear when most of us don’t.

I have said for many years now that I am certain that anti-gun interests WILL try to disarm the American people before 2030, simply because they must. They cannot achieve the implementation of the “Great Reset” or the “New World Order” (their terminology from their own mouths) without first taking away our ability to fight back. They know that if they do not disarm Americans they will eventually fail. It’s really that easy to understand; if we keep our guns we will win. If we let our guns be taken, we will lose.

One thing must be made abundantly clear in this debate: Gun crimes are irrelevant to gun rights. They do not matter in terms of the constitution, nor should they matter. Our rights supersede the potential for abuse by bad people, and they supersede the whims of government.

The political left seems to think that gun crime is all that matters. They obsess over every single tragedy not because they actually care about the victims or the families involved, but because they assume that each gun crime is a kind of currency that they can use to pay for the eventual purchase of the 2nd Amendment. They think they can buy the option to erase our gun rights using the lives of shooting victims as a trade.

I’m sorry I have to inform them, but that’s not how it works. That’s not how it will EVER work. And if they think they can force the issue, then there are millions of us in the liberty movement that will teach them a painful lesson in humility. There will come a day when they’ll wish they had been more reasonable and not turned to authoritarianism.

In the meantime, they will try every trick in the book to con the public into thinking that incremental measures or executive orders are needed as a means to save lives. They won’t save lives, they’ll only lead to the disarmament of the population, making it easier to subjugate us and eliminate resistance. The key to understanding gun control laws is to accept the reality that gun grabbers have NO INTENTION of staying satisfied with “common sense” gun control; they will only be satisfied with gun confiscation. This is why no quarter can be given to them. No compromises. No diplomacy. Nothing.

It’s important to clarify where gun rights advocates are coming from, because leftists don’t get it. They are perfectly willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for false security. Let me put it this way:

History shows us that disarmament of any population or subset of a population is eventually followed by the oppression and often genocide of that same population. Statistically, disarmament has led to some of the worst mass murders in the history of humanity. We risk losing far more lives by giving up our guns than we risk by keeping our guns.

By extension, a common argument among gun grabbers is that other western nations have extensive gun restrictions and they don’t have tyranny. I beg to differ. As we recently witnessed with the covid mandates and the attempted vaccine passports, many governments from the EU to Australia and New Zealand took the mask off (pun intended) and showed their true totalitarian colors to the point that they even created covid camps where people were locked up without due process.

I would argue that had it not been for the growing opposition among conservatives in the US and in parts of Canada, the covid mandate agenda would still be active today and most of our freedoms would be erased. The opposition in the US is the reason why medical tyranny was scrapped through most of the world. For if we can be free despite the existence of covid, then so can everyone else.

And how were conservatives able to defeat the mandates? Ultimately, it’s because we have guns.

But what about the deaths of children in Uvalde and elsewhere? Don’t they matter? Of course they do, and every pro-gun person out there agrees. What we don’t agree on is the idea that government should have a monopoly on security and on force. When government has a monopoly on force, millions of people die instead of dozens.

In reality, the events in Uvalde prove once again that defenders of the 2nd Amendment are right. Reports from the scene of the shooting now indicate that police actually failed to stop the shooter (Salvador Ramos) from entering Robb Elementary School and they were ordered to stay outside and do nothing as the shooter moved freely for over an hour. Ramos was finally stopped by a single Border Patrol agent who went in on his own.

Adding insult to injury, police used force to prevent parents and community members from going in and doing the job they refused to do. I want to point out that the fact that the police were “ordered” to stay out and keep people out is no excuse – Some orders should be ignored and if you don’t ignore them then you are partly responsible for the consequences.

I suggest that two simple solutions could have saved lives in Uvalde without erasing our constitutional rights.

First, if public schools removed their “gun free zone” status and allowed teachers to conceal carry, then Ramos likely would have been dead before harming a single child. Or, he would have at least faced opposition and been cornered.

Second, if community militias still existed in the US as the Constitution demands, then parents could have organized a much faster response and walked right over any police that refused to go in and do what needed to be done. Parents are allowed to risk their lives for their children, and anyone that says otherwise should be ignored or trampled.

The answer to crime of all kinds (not just crimes that involve guns) is more community involvement and a visible armed presence. We need more people to be armed and more individual responsibility for the security of those that cannot defend themselves.

A gun ban will not protect us from crime, it only encourages tyranny. It also doesn’t matter because there’s nothing that Biden or the political left can do to take our guns anyway. Other solutions need to be tried, and there is a reason why gun grabbers refuse to acknowledge any alternatives – Because they don’t care about protecting the innocent, they only care about eliminating a portion of the constitution that has long prevented them from gaining more power.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, further encroachments on the 2nd Amendment will lead to war. Leftists might welcome this in the assumption that they have the government and the military on their side. They may not realize that many in the military are also gun rights supporters. They also might have forgotten the results of asymmetric wars in places like Afghanistan, and frankly, many Americans have far better gear and much better training than the Taliban. This will not end well for anti-gun authoritarians. (read more)

Watch: Dem Rep. Yells "Spare Me The Bullshit About Constitutional Rights" During Gun Debate

Democratic congressman David Cicilline told House Republicans they should “spare me the bullshit about Constitutional rights,” during a debate on gun control Thursday.

The Rhode Island representative refused to yield his time during the outburst, while discussing legislation related to “red flag” laws, that would allow the government and law enforcement to confiscate firearms from anyone deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Florida congressman Matt Gaetz attempted to insert an amendment to the legislation stating “Congress disfavors the enactment of laws that authorize a court to issue an extreme risk protection order, also known as Red Flag laws, in the States because such laws trample on an individual’s due process and Second Amendment rights.”

That prompted Cicilline to call the defense of Americans’ constitutional rights “bullshit”.

Cicilline proclaimed that those who are an “imminent danger to themselves and others, such as they might commit mass murder, have a constitutional right to access a firearm. And to deny them that right would, quote, ‘trample on an individual’s due process and second amendment rights.’”

“You know who didn’t have due process?” Cicilline continued. “You know who didn’t have their constitutional right to life respected? The kids at Parkland, and Sandy Hook, and Uvalde and Buffalo, and the list goes on and on.”

When Gaetz attempted to respond, Cicilline said “No I will not yield and I’m not going to yield for my entire five minutes, so don’t ask again.”

Watch:

Cicilline: You know who didn’t have constitutional right to life respected? The kids at Parkland and Sandy Hook and Uvalde… so spare me the bullshit pic.twitter.com/xji3Cv7lFr

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 2, 2022

This tells you everything you need to know about the Democratic attitude to the Second Amendment and the Constitution generally.

The comments came on the same day Joe Biden announced an intention to bring about sweeping gun control measures, including a ban on “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, as well as red flag laws, new laws on background checks and storage, and a vow to “repeal the immunity of gun manufacturers from liability.”

Biden claimed during his speech that he wasn’t taking away anyone’s rights.

(read more)

The Final Exam

Attempting to get people to “mask up” was the first test. The second was attempting to get them to roll up their sleeves for the Jab. Many failed both tests. Now comes the most important test – the final exam, so to speak. It is the attempt to get them to hand over the one thing that, so far, has probably prevented anyone – in the U.S. – from being forced, at  gunpoint – to submit to masks and Jabs. 

Those two latter words in italics to convey the Cliff’s Notes essential points of this exam.

They were able to get most people to put on that vile device styled a “mask” – using the cudgel of denial of service, travel or employment. But it was not universal denial as there were alternatives, including places that would serve an “unmasked” person or work with them. Or you could work (and travel) on your own. It was inconvenient to not submit to “mask” wearing – but it wasn’t all that hard, either.

And it wasn’t forced.

Similarly as regards the drugs styled “vaccines” that were pushed by the government, using the corporations and other “private” businesses that no longer are, in the sense that they are only allowed to be in business if the government says so. And how so. As such, they have become proxy agents of the government. Some – like the creators of the drugs being pushed – use this symbiotic relationship to get the government to pressure people who work for these “private” businesses to take the drugs they make and which they make a great deal of money by pushing.

But no one was actually forced to take these drugs styled “vaccines.” You could avoid the stores and restaurants that demanded it. You could quit your job, if your employer insisted upon it – and find a different job, rather than submit to it.

You could refuse.

And there was little the government – or the corporations that have become the proxies of government – could do about it. Other than refuse to “serve” (or employ) you.

These were not the times that try mens’ souls.

What will happen, though, if it should come to pass that government has all the guns? And thereby, both the means to force you to “mask up” – and to roll up your sleeve?

Certainly, it has lots of guns right now. And it has shown it is eager to use them, whenever the opportunity arises. More accurately, whenever it knows there won’t be much in the way of resistance – by people who have guns, too.

Government doesn’t like a fair fight. Neither, for that matter, do the corporations that have become proxy agents of the government, who prefer an unfair fight – against potential competition – by using the government to protect them from it, viz the way the big box chain stores were able to use the government during the “lockdowns” to close the doors of smaller, independent businesses so as to cattle-chute people through the open doors of their big box stores.

But even then, there were still alternatives – because “lockdowns,” as they were styled (the styling being psychologically significant as it was and is meant to habituate the general population to life in prison, previously the only places where “lockdowns” happened) could not be universally enforced. Or rather, the attempt wasn’t made to universally enforce them, here – probably because of the fact that there are millions of guns in the hands of private citizens, here.

This isn’t to suggest government couldn’t have overwhelmed the armed citizenry, had it actually come to that.

It is to state the fact that it would have been harder.

Note that it was much easier to impose much more severe – even universal – “lockdowns” in the countries where “guns” are “controlled.” That is to say, countries in which the people are totally controlled, in part by assuring that only the government has guns. And for that reason, the populace is much easier to control.

As in Australia and New Zealand, for instance.

And as in Chyna.

Is this corollary coincidental? Is it coincidental that in those same countries, there is no First Amendment and thus no impediment to not only censoring what people are allowed to say and publish but also nothing to prevent the dragging of people out of their homes by men from the government – armed with guns – for saying and publishing anything the government doesn’t want them to say or publish?

Would the government of this country have been able to simply seize the bank accounts of anyone who contributed money to the Trucker Protest or any other actually peaceful protest the government didn’t approve of – as was done by the government of Canada?

Maybe yes. But the fact is, no. This government didn’t make that move. Not yet, at any rate.

Could it be coincident with the existence of the Second Amendment?

This whole “masking” – and Jabbing – business was, fundamentally, about controlling – and degrading – the subject. It was an assertion of Who’s Boss? And the wanted answer is – not us. Not you, not I.

Only them.

Oberstgruppenfuhrer der Gesundheit Doktor Professor Fauci said as much the other day, when he said that renewed attempts to re-enforce the recently rescinded “mask” mandate on airplanes and in within other forms of “public” (that is, government-controlled) transportation wasn’t about the “masks.” It was – it is – about Who’s Boss.

And it easier to be Boss when those you boss not only know they haven’t got the guns but who let themselves be degraded by allowing their guns to be taken away from them, by the people who want to be their Boss in all things, forever.

As in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Chyna.

God help us, it will not be as here. (read more)

Even as the collective West continues to insist – against all observable reality – that the conflict in Ukraine is going well for Kiev, major media outlets are becoming increasingly uneasy with the situation on the economic front. More and more observers are admitting that the embargoes imposed by the US and its allies aren’t crushing the Russian economy, as originally intended, but rather their own.

Meanwhile, major publications have begun to report on the actual situation on the frontlines, rather than uncritically quoting myths like the ‘Ghost of Kiev’ or ‘Snake Island 13’ propagated by Volodymyr Zelensky’s office, as they did early on. There have even been hints, however timid, that the West should perhaps stop unconditionally supporting Kiev and promote a negotiated peace instead. (source)

You Can Always Discern Democrats’ Gun-Control Goals Based On Which Tragedies They Exploit

Democrats pick and choose which tragedies to milk for their anti-gun agenda based on how much political leverage firearm deaths grant them.

Democrats are silent after more than 30 people lost their lives this weekend to violent crime waves that continually sweep through the nation’s cities.

Why hasn’t [illegitimate] President Joe Biden, who recently visited Uvalde, Texas, after 19 children and two adults died in a school shooting, tweeted something or planned trips to Nebraska, Illinois, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania, where violence and shootings took the lives of dozens of people including children? Why hasn’t Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke executed another political stunt at a local press conference somewhere to call attention to a rise in domestic altercations that escalate into shootings? Mostly because none of the violence was politically advantageous for them.

The violence that took the lives of dozens of Americans over Memorial Day weekend either did not involve firearms such as AR-15s, which the left has openly admitted they want to confiscate, or occurred under the wrong conditions for grandstanding. Democrats pick and choose which tragedies to milk for their anti-gun agenda based on how much political leverage firearm-related deaths grant them.

In the case of Uvalde and every other school shooting, Democrats see the deaths of children to erroneously labeled “assault rifles” as an opportunity to move their gun-control agenda forward. They use families’ mourning to push do-somethingism on the American public and beg for “compromise” from their congressional peers.

As a result, squishy Republicans cede key ground in the Second Amendment preservation fight. Instead of hosting a constructive debate on the root causes of school shootings perpetrated by young males, they let their Democrat colleagues steamroll them into submission to pass legislation that only restricts law-abiding citizens’ right to buy and use guns.

This selective virtue-signaling is condemnable considering the record crime most U.S. cities have faced over the last two years. Where were the Twitter warrior AOCs and Sen. Chris Murphys of the world when urban crime and violence skyrocketed in 2020? They were cheering on, or at least caving to, the rioters who looted and set fire to government buildings during the summer of rage. They didn’t care that dozens of people died as of result of the “mostly peaceful protests” that caused an estimated $2 billion in damages.

It’s the same reason Biden avoided visiting Waukesha after a black man with a well-documented vengeance against white people plowed through a crowd of them at a Christmas parade with his vehicle. Sixty-two people left that day with injuries and six died, but all the president could muster was a small mention of the “horrific act of violence” during his presidential remarks on Covid-19 and the economy.

And it’s the same reason why corporate media largely ignores any stories detailing how good guys with guns prevent bad guys from hurting others.

Just last week, a West Virginia woman shot and killed a man who began firing his illegally obtained AR-15 at a crowd. Local officials acknowledged that her quick thinking and courage saved many lives, but the left will ignore it because it hurts their case to disarm Americans.

Democrats speak out against violence only when it’s useful for them and their anti-gun agenda. Their sadness about the lives lost in Uvalde might be authentic, but their outrage that Americans are losing lives to crime is not equally applied. (read more)

Debunking Biden’s Tired Gun Rhetoric And Lies

Again. And Again. And Again.

I'm not going to lie, it’s tedious constantly pointing out the same dishonest contentions of the anti-gun left. The nation would probably take Joe Biden’s gun demagoguery more seriously if the president and his staff occasionally cooked up some new material. Because last night’s plea for more gun control was a rehashing of the same archaic policy ideas, bad analogies, and lies that Democrats tend to drop after every shooting.

The Second Amendment Isn’t ‘Absolute’

The president, as he almost always does, began with this strawman. The Second Amendment, Biden claimed, “like all other rights, is not absolute.” (All? Fans of the 13th Amendment might find this a bit surprising.) There are, of course, already tens of thousands of laws governing individual gun ownership in the United States. More laws and regulations exist restricting the Second Amendment than any other right in the Constitution, and it’s not particularly close. “Voting rights” advocates treat photo ID laws as if they were tantamount to fascism. Well, practicing your right to self-defense is contingent on an FBI background check.

Indeed, the notion that gun ownership is “absolute” would not mesh with the experiences of those living in a blue city like Baltimore, (58.27 homicides per 100,000), Washington D.C. (23.52), or Chicago (18.26), where, despite the Heller and McDonald decisions further codifying the individual right to own firearms, legally purchasing a handgun remains unconstitutionally challenging.

Banning [So-Called] Assault Weapons

Biden quoted Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller, saying, “It was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote: ‘Like most rights, the right Second Amendment — the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.’ Not unlimited. It never has been.” (Thankfully, he spared us his historically illiterate diatribes on cannons, “deer in Kevlar,” and “yelling fire in a crowded theater.”)

Democrats habitually isolate this line from Heller, a decision they simultaneously contend catastrophically concocted an individual right to firearm ownership. But Scalia’s line, read in context of the decision’s finding that the Second Amendment protects a right to possess a firearm unconnected from militia service, only upholds the legality of states limiting “dangerous and unusual weapons,” not weapons “in common use” by “law-abiding citizens.” The AR-15, and similar rifles, easily meet the latter criteria. It is not only the most popular rifle in the nation, it is one of the types of firearms least used in criminality. Which is why Democrats try to convince the public that AR-15s are “weapons of war,” and thus exceptionally “dangerous and unusual.” This is simply wrong. AR-15s are less a weapon of war than a 9mm handgun (which, earlier this week, the president suggested should be banned, as well).

Moreover, Heller found prohibition on an entire class of “arms” Americans “overwhelmingly choose” to be unconstitutional. So, the notion that Scalia would support outlawing semi-automatic rifles — whose mechanisms are virtually the same as most firearms — is risible. In fact, I’m not sure that existing “assault weapons” bans wouldn’t be (rightfully) stuck down if they were challenged before the Supreme Court.

Biden also made the debatably claim that in the decade the “assault weapon” ban was in force, mass shootings went down. “But after Republicans let the law expire in 2004, and those weapons were allowed to be sold again, mass shootings tripled,” Biden said. “Those are the facts.” You won’t be surprised to learn that they’re not.

Unmentioned by Biden is the fact that after the “assault weapon ban” sunset in 2004, gun crimes kept precipitously dropping. In the 15 years immediately following the sunsetting, overall homicides fell 10 out of 15 years. Twenty-one years after gun violence peaked in 1993, and a decade after the assault weapon ban ended, homicides by firearms hit the lowest point since 1976. By that time, the AR-15 had become the most popular rifle in the country. (A 1999 Justice Department study also found that the ban failed “to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”)

And, though Republicans may have let the law expire in 2004, as John McCormack has pointed out, Harry Reid didn’t bring an assault weapon ban to the floor of the Senate until 2013, after the Newtown massacre. At the time, Democrats controlled the Senate, and 16 of their senators voted against the bill, including Michael Bennet, Joe Manchin, and Jon Tester. Do the Democrats even have 50 votes for a ban?

Raising the Age to Purchase an AR-15 from 18 to 21

This is less about mendaciousness than it is about contemporary liberalism being a giant game of Calvinball. Numerous high-profile Democrats support the idea of allowing 16-year-olds to participate in the most vital, sacred, indispensable rite of democracy: voting. Then again, when it comes to government-mandated health care insurance, they believe that Americans should be treated like children until they’re 26-year-olds. But they also seem perfectly fine with 18-year-olds joining the Armed Forces — but not with the same men and women buying a drink or practicing the right to self-defense.

In the real world, maturity differs from person to person, from place to place. The average age of the mass shooter, after all, is 33. But if we’re going to come up with an arbitrary year that marks the beginning of adulthood, it should remain consistent. If you’re ready to vote you’re ready to practice all your rights. Of course, the notion that the founders would have been shocked by an 18-year-old carrying a firearm — a claim I get a lot — is also nonsense. The “teenager” is a 20th-century invention. In the 19th century, you were a child and then you were an adult. And adulthood began early.

(Biden’s contention that firearms “are the number one killer of children in the United States of America … more than car accidents, more than cancer,” is, as Brad Polumbo notes, also quite misleading.)

Repealing Gun Manufacturers’ Immunity from Liability

Gun manufacturers, says the president, “are the only industry in this country that has that kind of immunity.” This is a perniciously stupid lie. Gun manufacturers do not hold any special protections. If a firearm malfunctions due to shoddy design or subpar production, or if gun maker misleads consumers, they, like every other manufacturer in the nation, can be sued. If guns work correctly but are used in illegal acts, they, like every other industry, can’t. In the same way, an SUV maker isn’t liable when a killer intentionally plows into a crowd of people killing six people, and neither is a manufacturer when someone uses a baseball bat and a knife to murder three of his coworkers.

Biden went on to say, “Imagine. Imagine if the tobacco industry had been immune from being sued, where we’d be today. The gun industry’s special protections are outrageous. It must end.” It’s revealing that Biden, who claims to respect “the culture and the tradition and the concerns of lawful gun owners,” compares cigarettes to a constitutionally protected right. One of these two products could be banned tomorrow if politicians so desired. The other — I’m sorry, Joe — can’t. (read more)

Data Show White Supremacists Are Not The Most Likely Mass Murderers

Democrats are lying to Americans about the most likely motivations for mass murderers and the prevalence of guns in violent crime.

In his Buffalo, New York speech the week following a mass shooting, President Biden showed he still has only two things on his mind regarding crime: guns and white supremacists.

No one can [define or] defend white supremacists. But with violent crime soaring and this latest attack in Buffalo, people want something done. Yet Biden’s agenda won’t make people safer. 

“Look, we’ve seen the mass shootings in Charleston, South Carolina; El Paso, Texas; in Pittsburgh. Last year in Atlanta. This week in Dallas, Texas, and now in Buffalo. In Buffalo, New York,” Biden said. “White supremacy is a poison. It’s a poison. It really is. Running through our body politic. And it’s been allowed to fester and grow right in front of our eyes. No more. I mean, no more.”

Of the 82 mass public shootings from January 1998 to May 2021, 9 percent have known or alleged ties to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or anti-immigrant views. Many of the anti-immigrant attackers, such as the Buffalo murderer, hold decidedly environmentalist views that are more in line with the Democrat agenda.

Other groups commit mass public shootings disproportionately more than whites do. While non-Middle Eastern whites make up about 64 percent of the population, they make up 58 percent of the mass public shooters. Another 9 percent are carried out by people of Middle Eastern origin, who make up only 0.4 percent of the country’s population. That makes Middle Easterners the most likely ethnic or racial group to carry out mass public shootings.

Blacks, Asians, and American Indians also commit these attacks at a slightly higher rate than their share of the population. Hispanics commit them at much lower rates (11 percent lower) than their share of the population.

Seventy-one percent of mass public shooters have no identifiable political views. But you would never know this from watching TV police dramas or listening to Biden’s constant claim that white supremacists pose the biggest threat of domestic terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas claimed in testimony in April that white supremacy is the top terrorism-related threat to the homeland. But when pressed, Mayorkas couldn’t name a single white supremacy case that his department referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

White supremacists with guns are not the threat that our government would have us believe. It’s not just that white supremacy is rare. So too are gun crimes. The number of gun crimes has been falling dramatically, and they now make up less than 8 percent of violent crimes in America. Yet we constantly hear the opposite from politicians who support gun restrictions.

“We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We’ve done it before. I did it when I passed the crime bill last time, and violence went down, shootings went down,” Biden falsely claimed in Buffalo. “We can’t prevent people from being radicalized to violence, but we can address the relentless exploitation of the internet to recruit and mobilize terrorism. We just need to have the courage to do that, to stand up.”

Biden’s focus on guns, and particularly [so-called] assault weapons, is misplaced. Last Tuesday, Biden again bragged about how wonderful his 1994 assault weapon ban was in stopping mass public shootings, but even studies paid for by the Clinton administration couldn’t find evidence of its effectiveness. 

If the federal assault weapons ban really drove the changes in the rate of mass public shootings, attacks with assault weapons should have become less common during the ban. Then they should have become more common, at least as a share of total shootings, after the ban ended in 2004.

But that isn’t what happened. Comparing the ten years before 1994 to the ten years after, we find that the percentage of mass public shootings with [so-called] assault weapons rose slightly when the ban was in effect (going from 22.2 percent to 23.5 percent) and then fell in the ten years after the ban ended (23.5 percent to 18.2 percent).

Biden’s “guns first” approach ignores a basic fact: More than 92 percent of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. In addition, although Biden blames guns for the increase in violent crime, the latest data show that gun crimes fell dramatically.

A new McLaughlin and Associates survey of 1,000 likely voters from April 20 to 26th for the Crime Prevention Research Center shows how misinformed people are. People across the country, of all races and incomes, have wildly inaccurate beliefs about how frequently violent crime involves guns.

The average likely American voter is way off, thinking that more than 46 percent of violent crimes involve guns. The people who had the most inaccurate views that the rate of violent crime with guns was the highest were the ones who most strongly supported gun control.

It might not be easy to accept, but based on the evidence, focusing solely on guns and white supremacy isn’t a wise use of resources. (read more)

SEMPER  FAG

... because shooter(s) were melanin minorities.

See also: "According to demographic ​data compiled by researchers at Mass-Shootings.info, black men committed 73% of mass shootings in 2020, in contrast whites were only 13% of known culprits." (source)

See also: Whites Responsible for Less Than 3% of All Mass Shootings In 2022 So Far—But Black Attacks Skyrocket.

10 people hospitalized in Memorial Day mass shooting on Charleston’s East Side

A pregnant woman, a 17-year-old girl and a Charleston police officer were among 10 people hospitalized after a mass shooting at a late-night Memorial Day party in the city’s East Side neighborhood, authorities said.

Four people remained in critical condition the afternoon of May 31, Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds said at a news conference. No deaths have been reported, and police indicated the pregnant woman did not lose her baby. 

A police officer came under fire after responding to a noise complaint around 11:40 p.m. at 41 South St., Reynolds said.

Two bullets struck his police cruiser as he took cover and called for backup, Reynolds said. The officer was not shot, but he suffered minor injuries from shattered glass. At least one bullet was found lodged in the headrest of the squad car, police said.

“We are lucky we don’t have a dead cop,” Reynolds said.

“Up to 100 people or more” were on South Street attending an unauthorized party in a vacant lot when the shooting started, the chief said. The party was the third unauthorized event held on the block since late April, he said.

Some residents who attended the news conference voiced frustration with how police officers handled the gathering, saying they contacted authorities about the party well before shots were fired.

“We need to do better,” Reynolds acknowledged.

More East Side neighbors gathered later in the afternoon to express their frustration in the wake of the shooting. Resident Steve Bailey called for an independent investigation into what police officers knew about the block parties prior to the violent outburst. Bailey writes a freelance column for The Post and Courier.

The cops knew about each of the three parties, Bailey said, because he told them. The resident said he had called, emailed and even met with law enforcement officials about the unauthorized events, but his concerns weren’t taken seriously.

“The first two events, nothing happened. (Police officers) got lucky,” Bailey said. “They ran out of luck when we came to the third event.”

Mayor John Tecklenburg said at the news conference he plans to examine law enforcement’s response to the shooting to understand “what went wrong, what went right, how we can do a better job.”

Monday’s party began at a private residence, but the large crowd eventually spilled into a vacant lot and the street, Tecklenburg said.

Surveillance footage provided by a neighborhood resident shows dozens of people walking on South Street before gunfire sends them scrambling for cover. Two women cower behind an SUV as a man jumps over a fence and lies in the grass before sprinting away, the video shows.

Sporadic gunfire is heard for at least 45 seconds in the video.

The shooting marked the latest bloodshed in a neighborhood that has long grappled with gun violence and a persistent drug trade. It was one of at least a dozen mass shootings that occurred across the country over the Memorial Day weekend, according to reporting by The Washington Post.

More than 100 placards marked evidence at the sprawling crime scene, which extended across several blocks, Reynolds said. Not all of the evidence collected was shell casings, but much of it was, the chief said, for both pistols and long guns. Reynolds said some of the casings were for .223 ammunition, a large projectile commonly used in semiautomatic weapons.

“I have seen the pictures from the crime scene,” he said. “It is no joke.”

Charleston County sheriff’s deputies and North Charleston police officers helped local police control the crowd after the shooting. Two women were arrested on allegations they assaulted two deputies amid the chaos, authorities said.

Tahira McGee, 50, of North Charleston is charged with second-degree assault and battery and resisting arrest. Ayesha Saleemah McGee, 26, of North Charleston is charged with third-degree assault and battery. Both [black] women appeared at bond hearings May 31.

Sheriff’s Deputy Bobby Hoskins told Magistrate Amanda Haselden that Tahira McGee punched Deputy Stuart Prettel II in the face. Ayesha McGee is accused of pushing Deputy Caroline Yeargin, causing the officer to fall and strike her head on the concrete, Hoskins said. Both deputies suffered minor injuries.

Tahira McGee’s right eye was swollen shut during the morning court hearing. Haselden said it was her understanding that the woman had to be subdued by multiple deputies after the alleged assault.

Haselden ordered $35,000 bail for Tahira McGee. Ayesha McGee, who is charged with a misdemeanor, was ordered jailed on a $1,087 bail. 

Officers arrested a third person the morning of May 31. Maurice Antonio Malloy, 35, is charged with public disorderly conduct. He was released from the Charleston County jail by noon the same day, records show.

Crime-scene tape was still strung across several intersections around South Street the afternoon of May 31. Police officers guarded the roads in the neighborhood while investigators processed the scene. Residents milled about, chatting among themselves. A few waited to retrieve their cars, which were trapped inside the crime scene.

Yellow evidence markers dotted the roadway around America and South streets. An empty package of QuickClot Combat Gauze, medical gloves and bandage scissors were left outside the stoop of one residence. Red disposable cups and other trash littered the streets.

Paper tape measures were still stuck to the outside of another South Street home, framing a small bullet hole. The homeowner, who asked to remain anonymous, said she had been sitting on her couch when the gunfire erupted. She immediately dropped to the floor, the foam cushions of her couch swallowing a bullet that tore through her wall. Police officers who came to survey the damage told her she was lucky, the resident said.

The shooting occurred near the road’s intersection with America Street. Bookended by housing projects and lined with wood-frame, Victorian-era homes in various states of repair, America Street runs for about a mile and serves as a main artery through the East Side. South Street bisects that path, leading to bustling East Bay Street, where a U.S. Post Office complex sits perched on the corner.

The East Side has long struggled with violence that often went hand-in-hand with grinding poverty. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the heroin and crack cocaine trades drove a black-market economy that kept some afloat and lured a host of outsiders to the area. Young men lined street corners along America, brazenly hawking drugs in an open-air market that drew people through the region. Gun violence became a common occurrence.

The neighborhood underwent marked changes in the past decade, as Charleston’s soaring housing prices drove more and more college students, young professionals and would-be homebuyers into the East Side in search of affordable rents and mortgages.

Longtime Black residents have been pushed out by the rising prices that followed, leading to tensions over gentrification. Through it all, complaints about crime have been a nagging constant, as have suspicions that the culprits are coming from outside the community.

In April, a stray bullet struck a 9-year-old boy in the foot during a suspected drive-by shooting at America and Johnson streets.

Last July, five people were shot — one fatally — near Hanover and Johnson streets amid a dispute at Meeting Street Manor, a public housing complex owned by the Charleston Housing Authority.

In 2019, there were four fatal shootings between mid-June and late September, including a daylight August shooting on Hanover Street that claimed the life of a popular sous-chef at The Darling Oyster Bar. In the months after the shooting, about 125 new cameras were donated and installed to help curb crime and address the pervasive “no snitch” policy on the East Side.

Both Tecklenburg and Reynolds pledged action following the Memorial Day shooting, expressing anger over the recent bout of violence. Thoughts and prayers for the victims are necessary, but they aren’t enough, Tecklenburg said. (read more and watch video)

The Flaw in the Progressive Stance on Guns

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” The National Rifle Association doesn’t really use that slogan anymore, but it came to mind last week as I considered a core tension in contemporary progressive Bolshevik thought: strong advocacy of gun control paired with increasing skepticism about law enforcement and incarceration.

In Philadelphia, for example, progressive Bolshevik District Attorney Larry Krasner has deprioritized gun possession charges altogether, holding that they fuel racial disparities and mass incarceration. At the same time, national Democrats are arguing more forcefully than ever for stricter gun laws. The last time this was actually successful, back in the 1990s, it was part of a seamless web of tough-on-crime politics — the assault-weapons ban was in a comprehensive crime bill that included hiring more police officers and provisions to build more prisons and make prison sentences longer.

Over the past 25 years, the left’s views on the merits of being “tough on crime” have shifted dramatically. But as the response to last week’s massacre [by a Spanish-surnamed transvestite] at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, shows, progressive Bolsheviks remain deeply concerned about the dangers of widespread firearms ownership.

That is a reasonable judgment in the face of tens of thousands of lives lost. But to reduce the death toll from guns, progressive Bolsheviks are going to need to move beyond a strategy of tweeting harder, fulminating more and placing blame on the financial clout of the now nearly defunct NRA. They will need to come to terms with the fact that reducing gun violence will require more policing and incarceration, not less.

Whoever wills the end also wills the means, Kant wrote. But contemporary progressive Bolsheviks have shied away from the means — stopping people who break even minor rules, using their rule-breaking as a pretext for a search, and then punishing them if they are carrying a gun illegally — even while insisting on an increasingly expansive conception of their desired ends.

To be clear, quality-of-life policing would not have averted the Uvalde massacre. But neither would have background checks. Tighter rules on high-capacity magazines might have mitigated it, but then again they might not have — such rules are in place in New York state and didn’t prevent the mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket earlier this month.

The point is that preventing these kinds of murders, in which a person with no prior criminal record obtains a weapon and then kills at random, requires imposing very heavy burdens on ordinary gun owners. The overwhelming majority of law-abiding gun purchasers, including buyers of terrifying semi-automatic weapons, do no harm.

Removing all of those weapons from the market is asking innocent people to make a considerable sacrifice. And it raises the question of how to enforce such a sweeping ban. A mandatory buy-back program would likely generate lots of compliance — among people who aren’t criminals. To get guns out of the hands of criminals would require intrusive policing and prosecutions on a scale that’s hard to imagine.

This is precisely the “Only outlaws will have guns” scenario that worries even non-fanatical gun owners. They acknowledge that, in principle, a gun-free America would be safer than the current gun-filled America. But they look at cities such as Philadelphia, where gun violence set a record in 2021, and with good reason don’t want to bring that model to the exurbs and small towns where they live.

The problem is that the small handguns that account for the vast majority of murders in America are easy to conceal. Police officers cannot tell by sight who is carrying them — they need to stop people and search them. This kind of intensive policing can reduce crime without violating constitutional rights, as academic studies of Operation Impact — in which the New York Police Department would flood high-crime areas with officers — have shown. The low-crime era in New York City continued for years after the end of “stop and frisk,” which was discriminatory and bred ill will.

That’s because officers continued to stop people — people committing crimes — and then frisk them. After the deaths of Michael Brown and George Floyd, progressive Bolshevik thinking turned to the idea that aggressive enforcement of laws against “low-level” or “non-violent” crimes such as shoplifting, turnstile-jumping or pot-smoking was a mistake. But while it is of course true that fare evasion is a minor crime, these low-level offenses can be a way to enforce gun laws.

And as liberals sporadically realize, when lots of people carry guns around, it’s very dangerous. In a city soaked with guns, gang disputes lead to bleed-outs rather than bruises. A bullet is much more likely than a knife to strike an innocent bystander. And a young man living in a dangerous neighborhood faces a basic cost-benefit calculus: Is the risk of arrest for carrying a weapon illegally greater than the risk of finding himself unarmed?

Vigorous enforcement of laws against illegal gun possession shifts this risk-reward calculus. First, it raises the risk of carrying. Second, by reducing the incidence of illegal carrying, it reduces the reward.

Years of steady application of this principle helped push many US cities into a much safer equilibrium. Now that equilibrium has been disrupted by the dual shocks of Covid and reduced enforcement. Returning to a better equilibrium will be costly in terms of money and human suffering. But it will also have real benefits in terms of reduced gun violence.

Fulminating at congressional inaction in the face of spree killers may be satisfying and even necessary. But it is unlikely to persuade them to change the law. Continuing to insist on new rules while shying away from enforcing existing ones, meanwhile, burns credibility with conservative voters, who see a left that’s eager to penalize their hobby and reluctant to punish criminals.

Considerable progress against gun violence is politically and logistically feasible with more quality-of-life policing and vigorous prosecution of illegal gun possession — and the increased levels of incarceration both would require. If progressive Bolsheviks want to make guns harder to get but don’t want to prosecute those who have guns illegally, then … it’s almost as if they’re inviting a future in which only outlaws will have guns. (read more)

Spawn of the Deep State,
Barack Hussein Obama,
is at the root of this evil.
(see initial story here)

Extending the Political Surveillance Discussion with New Revelations the FBI Had a Workspace Inside Perkins Coie DC Law Offices

Last night Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) made an explosive announcement as an outcome of a whistleblower providing information to him and Jim Jordan about the FBI having a collaborative relationship with the Clinton/DNC law firm Perkins Coie.  {Go Deep} Specifically, the explosive element surrounds the FBI having a workspace within the DNC law firm that would have given Democrats an open portal into FBI databases for use in opposition research.

Secondarily, Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann being in charge of this working arrangement within Perkins Coie for the past year, since the departure of Marc Elias, becomes a far greater issue. The potential ramifications of this joint collaborative activity are vast.

The FBI can exploit the NSA database to conduct searches of all cell phone, computer, email, text message, social media, electronic communication and all private data/communication belonging to Americans; this would include geolocation.  If the FBI was operating within Perkins Coie since 2012, then the democrats have held access to fully intrusive electronic surveillance of their political opposition, or anyone else – anywhere, for a decade.

Mainstream conservative, defenders of the DOJ and FBI institutions, as a result of their prior tenure inside those same agencies, have long denied the Dept of Justice and FBI are corrupt political entities.  The revelation of the FBI and Perkins Coie working collaboratively to exploit this data portal is something that people like Margot Cleveland, Andrew McCarthy, Johnathan Turley and many others need to deny in order to retain the premise of institutional credibility.

However, the FBI and DNC law firm working collaboratively on issues of joint importance goes far beyond the ‘image of impropriety or conflicted interest‘ and extends to the actual corruption within the foundational institutions of government.  Transparently, if these reports are accurate all of the inexplicable dynamics within the “two tiers of justice” suddenly reconcile.  The FBI and Perkins Coie having the ability to conduct electronic surveillance of any target is a thermonuclear level of sunlight, that reconciles years of visible issues.

There is a common misconception about why the FBI and intelligence apparatus began investigating the political campaign of Donald Trump.

In this refresher outline I hope to provide some deep source material that will provide context to the revelation of the FBI-Perkins Coie relationship against numerous historic reference points that reconcile with the new revelation.

During the timeframe of December 2015 through April 2016 the NSA database was being exploited by contractors within the intelligence community, specifically within the FBI, doing unauthorized searches.

On March 9, 2016, oversight personnel doing a review of FBI system access were alerted to thousands of unauthorized FBI search queries of specific U.S. persons within the NSA database.

NSA Director Mike Rogers was made aware.

Subsequently NSA Director Rogers initiated a full compliance review of the system to identify who was doing the searches; & what searches were being conducted.

On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 “about”(17) and “to/from”(16) search queries were being done without authorization.

Thus begins the first discovery of a much bigger background story.

When you compile the timeline with the people involved; and the specific wording of the resulting review, which was then delivered to the FISA court; and overlay the activity that was taking place in the 2016 political primary; what we discover is a process where the metadata collected by the NSA was being searched for political opposition research and surveillance.

Tens-of-thousands of unauthorized and unlawful searches were identified by the FISA court as likely extending much further than the compliance review period: “while the government reports it is unable to provide a reliable estimate of the non compliant queries since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high error rate”.

In short, during the Obama administration access to the NSA database was continually used to conduct surveillance.  This is the critical point that leads to understanding the origin of “Spygate”, as it unfolded in the Spring and Summer of 2016.

It was the discovery of the database exploitation and the removal of access as a surveillance tool that seemed to create the initial problem for the FBI political unit in Washington, DC.  Here’s how we can tell.

In December 2015 there were 17 GOP candidates, all needing opposition research.

However, when Donald Trump won New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina the field was significantly whittled. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson remained.

On Super Tuesday, March 2, 2016, Donald Trump won seven states (VT, AR, VA, GA, AL, TN, MA) it was then clear that Trump was the GOP frontrunner with momentum to become the presumptive nominee.

On March 5th, 2016, Donald Trump won Kentucky and Louisiana; and on March 8th Trump won Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii.

The next day, March 9, 2016, is when NSA security alerts warned internal oversight personnel that something sketchy was going on.  This timing is not coincidental.

As FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer later wrote in her report, “many of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges.”  Put another way: attributes belonging to a specific individual(s) were being targeted and queried, unlawfully.  Given what was later discovered, it seems obvious the primary search targets, over multiple date ranges, were political candidates, specifically Donald Trump.

There were tens-of-thousands of unauthorized search queries; and as Judge Collyer stated in her report, there is no reason to believe the 85% non compliant rate was any different from the abuse of the NSA database going back to 2012, the same year the FBI collocated a workspace within Perkins Coie.

As you will see below the NSA database was how political surveillance was being conducted during Obama’s second term in office.  However, when the system was flagged, and when NSA Director Mike Rogers shut down “FBI contractor” access to the system, the system users needed to develop another way to get access.

Mike Rogers shuts down access on April 18, 2016.  On April 19, 2016, Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s wife, Mary Jacoby visits the White House.  Immediately thereafter, the DNC and Clinton campaign contract Fusion GPS… who then hire Christopher Steele.

Knowing it was federal “contractors”, outside government with FBI access to the system doing the unauthorized searches, the question becomes: who were the contractors?

The possibilities are quite vast. Essentially anyone the FBI or intelligence apparatus was using could have participated.  Crowdstrike was a known FBI contractor; they were also contracted by the DNC.  Shawn Henry was the former head of the FBI office in DC and later become part of Crowdstrike’s leadership team, a rather dubious contractor for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic company.

FBI Director James Comey’s special friend Daniel Richman was an unpaid FBI “special employee” with security access to the database.  Nellie Ohr began working for Fusion-GPS on the Trump project in November 2015 and she was a previous open-source CIA contractor; and now that we know the FBI and Perkins Coie were in a collaborative relationship, we can also presume they were FBI contractors with similar clearances and access.

Remember the Sharyl Attkisson computer intrusions?  It’s all part of this same network; Attkisson even names Shawn Henry as a defendant in her ongoing lawsuit.

All of the aforementioned names, and so many more, held a political agenda in 2016.

It seems likely if the NSA flags were never triggered then the contracted FBI system users would have continued exploiting the NSA database for political opposition research; which would then be funneled to the Clinton team.  However, once the unauthorized flags were triggered, the system users (including those inside the FBI and sister agency the CIA) would need to find another back-door to continue… Again, the timing becomes transparent.

Immediately after NSA flags were raised March 9, 2016, the same FBI and CIA intelligence agencies began using confidential human sources (CHS’s) to run into the Trump campaign.  By activating intelligence assets like Joseph Mifsud and Stefan Halper the IC (CIA, FBI) and system users had now created an authorized way to continue the same political surveillance operations.

When Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort on March 28, 2016, it was a perfect scenario for those doing the surveillance.   Manafort was a known entity to the FBI and was previously under investigation.  Paul Manafort’s entry into the Trump orbit was perfect for Glenn Simpson to sell his prior research on Manafort as a Trump-Russia collusion script two weeks later.

The shift from “unauthorized exploitation of the NSA database” to legally authorized exploitation of the NSA database was now in place. This was how they continued the political surveillance. This is the confluence of events that originated “spygate”, or what officially blossomed into the FBI investigation known as “Crossfire Hurricane” on July 31.

If the NSA flags were never raised; and if Director Rogers had never initiated the compliance audit; and if the FBI political contractors were never blocked from access to the database; they would never have needed to create a legal back-door, a justification to retain the surveillance.  The political operatives/contractors would have just continued the targeted metadata exploitation.

Once they created the FBI surveillance door, Fusion-GPS was then needed to get the FBI known commodity of Chris Steele activated as a pipeline. Into that pipeline all system users pushed opposition research.  However, one mistake from the database extraction, likely during an “about” query, shows up as a New Yorker named Michael Cohen in Prague.

That misinterpreted data from a FISA-702 “about query” is then piped to Steele and turns up inside the dossier; it was the wrong Michael Cohen. It wasn’t Trump’s lawyer, it was an art dealer from New York City with the same name; the same “identifier”.

A DEEP DIVE – How Did It Work?

Start by reviewing the established record from the 99-page FISC opinion rendered by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer on April 26, 2017. Review the details within the FISC opinion.

I would strongly urge everyone to read the FISC report (full pdf below) because Judge Collyer outlines how the DOJ, which includes the FBI, had an “institutional lack of candor” in responses to the FISA court. In essence, the Obama administration was continually lying to the FISA court about their activity, and the rate of fourth amendment violations for illegal searches and seizures of U.S. persons’ private information for multiple years.

Unfortunately, due to intelligence terminology Judge Collyer’s brief and ruling is not an easy read for anyone unfamiliar with the FISA processes. That complexity also helps the media avoid discussing it; and as a result most Americans have no idea the scale and scope of the Obama-era surveillance issues. So we’ll try to break down the language.

For the sake of brevity and common understanding CTH will highlight the most pertinent segments showing just how systemic and troublesome the unlawful electronic surveillance was.

Early in 2016 NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was alerted of a significant uptick in FISA-702(17) “About” queries using the FBI/NSA database that holds all metadata records on every form of electronic communication.

The NSA compliance officer alerted Admiral Mike Rogers who then initiated a full compliance audit on/around March 9th, 2016, for the period of November 1st, 2015, through May 1st, 2016.

While the audit was ongoing, due to the severity of the results that were identified, Admiral Mike Rogers stopped anyone from using the 702(17) “about query” option, and went to the extraordinary step of blocking all FBI contractor access to the database on April 18, 2016 (keep these dates in mind).

Here are some significant segments:

The key takeaway from these first paragraphs is how the search query results were exported from the NSA database to users who were not authorized to see the material. The FBI contractors were conducting searches and then removing, or ‘exporting’, the results. Later on, the FBI said all of the exported material was deleted.

Searching the highly classified NSA database is essentially a function of filling out search boxes to identify the user-initiated search parameter and get a return on the search result.

♦ FISA-702(16) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (“702”); and the “16” is a check box to initiate a search based on “To and From“. Example, if you put in a date and a phone number and check “option 16” as the search parameter the user will get the returns on everything “To and From” that identified phone number for the specific date. Calls, texts, contacts etc. Including results for the inbound and outbound contacts.

♦ FISA-702(17) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (702); and the “17” is a check box to initiate a search based on everything “About” the search qualifier. Example, if you put a date and a phone number and check “option 17” as the search parameter the user will get the returns of everything about that phone. Calls, texts, contacts, geolocation (or gps results), account information, user, service provider etc. As a result, 702(17) can actually be used to locate where the phone (and user) was located on a specific date or sequentially over a specific period of time which is simply a matter of changing the date parameters.

And that’s just from a phone number.

Search an ip address “about” and read all data into that server; put in an email address and gain everything about that account. Or use the electronic address of a GPS enabled vehicle (about) and you can withdraw more electronic data and monitor in real time. Search a credit card number and get everything about the account including what was purchased, where, when, etc. Search a bank account number, get everything about transactions and electronic records etc. Just about anything and everything can be electronically searched; everything has an electronic ‘identifier’.

The search parameter is only limited by the originating field filled out. Names, places, numbers, addresses, etc. By using the “About” parameter there may be thousands or millions of returns. Imagine if you put “@realdonaldtrump” into the search parameter? You could extract all following accounts who interacted on Twitter, or Facebook etc. The search result is only limited by the operators’ imagination and the scale of the electronic connectivity.

As you can see below, on March 9th, 2016, internal auditors noted the FBI was sharing “raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information”.   Who were they sharing it with?  Perkins Coie?

In plain English the raw search returns were being shared with unknown entities without any attempt to “minimize” or redact the results. The person(s) attached to the search results were named and obvious. There was no effort to hide their identity or protect their 4th amendment rights of privacy; and database access was from the FBI network:

But what’s the scale here? This is where the story really lies.

Read this next excerpt carefully.

The operators were searching “U.S Persons”. The review of November 1, 2015, to May 1, 2016, showed “eighty-five percent of those queries” were unlawful or “non compliant”.

85% !! “representing [redacted number]”.

We can tell from the space of the redaction the number of searches were between 10,000 and 99,999 [six digits]. If we take the middle number of 50,000 – a non compliant rate of 85 percent means 42,500 unlawful searches out of 50,000.

The [six digit] amount (more than 10,000, less than 99,999), and 85% error rate, was captured in a six month period, November 2015 to April 2016.  The timeframe of highest interest in the republican presidential primary.

Also notice this very important quote: “many of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges.” This tells us the system users were searching the same phone number, email address, electronic identifier, repeatedly over different dates.  Put another way, specific person(s) were being tracked/monitored.

Additionally, notice the last quote: “while the government reports it is unable to provide a reliable estimate of” these non lawful searches “since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 coincided with an unusually high error rate”.

That means the 85% unlawful FISA-702(16)(17) database abuse has likely been happening since 2012.

2012 is an important date in this database abuse because a network of specific interests is assembled that also shows up in 2016/2017:

• Who was 2012 FBI Director? Robert Mueller, who was selected by the FBI group to become special prosecutor in 2017.
• Who was Mueller’ chief-of-staff? Aaron Zebley, who became one of the lead lawyers on the Mueller special counsel.
• Who was 2012 CIA Director? John Brennan (remember the ouster of Gen Petraeus)
• Who was ODNI? James Clapper.
• Remember, the NSA is inside the Pentagon (Defense Dept) command structure. Who was Defense Secretary? Ash Carter

Who wanted NSA Director Mike Rogers fired in 2016? Brennan, Clapper and Carter.

And finally, who wrote and signed-off-on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and then lied about the use of the Steele Dossier? The same John Brennan, and James Clapper along with James Comey.

Tens of thousands of searches over four years (since 2012), and 85% of them are illegal. The results were extracted for?…. (I believe this is all political opposition use; and I’ll explain why momentarily.)

OK, that’s the stunning scale; but who was involved?

Private contractors with access to “raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to FBI’s requests“.

So, someone using the justification of FBI “requests”, was exploiting their access to the FBI portal; and they were searching for material “well beyond” the justification of “FBI requests” the used.  Doesn’t this exactly sound like someone in Perkins Coie using their FBI portal access?

And as noted, the contractor access was finally halted on April 18th, 2016.

[Coincidentally (or likely not), the wife of Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby, goes to the White House the very next day on April 19th, 2016.]

None of this is conspiracy theory.

All of this is laid out inside this 99-page opinion from FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer who also noted that none of this FISA abuse was accidental in a footnote on page 87: “deliberate decisionmaking“:

This specific footnote, if declassified, could be a key. Note the phrase: “([redacted] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding entered into [redacted])”, this sentence has the potential to expose an internal decision; withheld from congress and the FISA court by the Obama administration; that outlines a process for access and distribution of surveillance data.

Note: “no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016“, that is important.

Summary: The FISA court identified and quantified tens-of-thousands of search queries of the NSA/FBI database using the FISA-702(16)(17) system. The database was repeatedly used by persons with FBI contractor access who unlawfully searched and extracted the raw results without redacting the information and shared it with an unknown number of entities.

The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation; and we are not the only one to think that’s what this system is being used for.

Back in 2017 when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was working to reauthorize the FISA legislation, Nunes wrote a letter to ODNI Dan Coats about this specific issue:

SIDEBAR: To solve the issue, well, actually attempt to ensure it never happened again, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers eventually took away the “About” query option permanently in 2017. NSA Director Rogers said the abuse was so inherent there was no way to stop it except to remove the process completely. [SEE HERE] Additionally, the NSA database operates as a function of the Pentagon, so the Trump administration went one step further. On his last day as NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers -together with ODNI Dan Coats- put U.S. cyber-command, the database steward, fully into the U.S. military as a full combatant command. [SEE HERE] Unfortunately it didn’t work as shown by the 2018 FISC opinion rendered by FISC Judge James Boasberg [SEE HERE]

There is little doubt the NSA database system was used by Obama-era FBI officials and political allies, from 2012 through April 2016, as a way to spy on their political opposition.

Quite simply, there is no other intellectually honest explanation for the scale and volume of database abuse that was taking place; and keep in mind these searches were all ruled to be unlawful. Searches for repeated persons over a period time that were not authorized.

When we reconcile what was taking place and who was involved, then the actions of the exact same principle participants take on a jaw-dropping amount of clarity.

All of the action taken by CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, ODNI Clapper and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter make sense. Including their effort to get NSA Director Mike Rogers fired.

Everything that comes after March 9, 2016, had a dual purpose: (1) done to cover up the weaponization of the FISA database. [Explained Here] Spygate, Russia-Gate, the Steele Dossier, and even the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (drawn from the dossier and signed by the above) were needed to create a cover-story and protect themselves from discovery of this four year weaponization, political surveillance and unlawful spying. Even the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel makes sense; he was FBI Director when this began. And (2) they needed to keep the surveillance going.

The beginning decision to use FISA(702) as a domestic surveillance and political spy mechanism appears to have started in/around 2012. Perhaps sometime shortly before the 2012 presidential election and before John Brennan left the White House and moved to CIA. However, there was an earlier version of data assembly that preceded this effort.

Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term “Secret Research Project” originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S. Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the FISA abuse:

The IRS sent the FBI “21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The transaction occurred in October 2010 (link)

Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there’s a pre-existing financial crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the surface in early spring 2012.

The IRS scandal was never really about the IRS, it was always about the DOJ asking the IRS for the database of information. That is why it was transparently a conflict when the same DOJ was tasked with investigating the DOJ/IRS scandal. Additionally, Obama sent his chief-of-staff Jack Lew to become Treasury Secretary; effectively placing an ally to oversee/cover-up any issues. As Treasury Secretary Lew did just that.

Lesson Learned – It would appear the Obama administration learned a lesson from attempting to gather a large opposition research database operation inside a functioning organization large enough to have some good people that might blow the whistle.

The timeline reflects a few months after realizing the “Secret Research Project” was now worthless (June 2012), they focused more deliberately on a smaller network within the intelligence apparatus and began weaponizing the FBI/NSA database. If our hunch is correct, that is what will be visible in footnote #69:

How this all comes together. 

Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 to research Donald Trump. As shown in the evidence provided by the FISC, the FBI contractors were already doing surveillance and spy operations. The Clinton campaign already knew everything about the Trump campaign, as they were monitoring everything by exploiting their FBI relationship and the Perkins Coie location for portal access to the database.

However, after the NSA alerts in/around March 9th, 2016, and particularly after the April 18th shutdown of contractor access, the Clinton Team and FBI needed Fusion GPS to create a legal albeit ex post facto justification for the pre-existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion GPS gave them that justification in the Steele Dossier.

That’s why the FBI small group, which later transitioned into the Mueller team, were so strongly committed to and defending the formation of the Steele Dossier and its dubious content.  The Steele Dossier was used in lieu of the ‘Woods File’, underpinning the justification for the Carter Page Title-1 surveillance warrant.

The Steele Dossier, an outcome of the Fusion contract, contains two purposes: (1) the cover-story and justification for the pre-existing FBI surveillance operation (protect Obama and Clinton); and (2) facilitate the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign (assist Clinton and Perkins Coie).

An insurance policy would be needed.

The Steele Dossier becomes the investigative virus the FBI wanted inside the system. To get the virus into official status, they used the FISA application as the delivery method and injected it into a Title-1 search warrant against Carter Page. The FBI already knew Carter Page (he worked for the CIA); essentially Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {Go Deep}.

The Obama FBI needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for already existing political surveillance and spy operations. Fusion-GPS gave them that justification and evidence for a FISA warrant with the Steele Dossier.

Ultimately that’s why the Steele Dossier was so important; without it, the FBI would not have the tool that Mueller needed to continue the investigation of President Trump.  In essence by renewing the FISA application in 2017, despite them knowing the underlying dossier was junk, the FBI was keeping the surveillance gateway open for Team Mueller to exploit later on.

Additionally, without the Steele Dossier the DOJ and FBI are naked with their surveillance (FISA-702) abuse as outlined (video) by John Ratcliffe.

In this video NSA Director Mike Rogers explains how he was notified of what was happening and what he did after the notification. WATCH.

Knowing there is a very strong probability Perkins Coie and the FBI were working together on this, makes everything else make sense. (read more)