Home Blog

Portland Hell: Entire Police Riot Squad Quits!

(Breitbart) – The Portland police riot squad of 50 resigned Thursday to protest charges against a police officer who allegedly hit an independent journalist in the Black Lives Matter riots that lit a federal building ablaze in August, 2020.

The police union said nearly 200 rioters set upon the voluntary rapid response team and that, reportedly, Officer Corey Budworth unintentionally struck the activist in the head with a baton, believing the activist was a part of the riot.

Activist Teri “Jacobs was not charged with any crime, and was awarded a $50,000 settlement by the City of Portland over the incident,” the Daily Mail first reported . “Jacobs says she was attacked despite carrying a press card.”

The Portland Police Bureau wrote in a statement Tuesday, “Unfortunately, this decorated public servant has been caught in the crossfire of agenda-driven city leaders and a politicized criminal justice system.”

The Portland Police Association also stated in defense of the charged officer that the night “escalated” and “was declared a riot; community members and police officers were at risk of serious injury and someone from the crowd launched a Molotov cocktail into the Multnomah Building, setting it ablaze.”

“After nearly 75 consecutive nights of violence, destruction, and mayhem, a small group of RRT officers – including Officer Budworth – were again tasked with dealing with the riot,” the Associated continued. “Per PPB Command Staff orders, RRT officers cleared the rioters from the area to allow the Fire Bureau to extinguish the blaze.”

“Once the full picture is revealed, we are confident that justice will prevail, and Officer Budworth will be exonerated of all charges,” the statement conceded.

ABC KATU reported activist Jacobs “was helping a friend who had fallen down when she felt an officer pushing her from behind during the August 2020 incident. She has said she was working as an independent journalist at the time and was wearing a press badge.”

KATU also reported in April, activists Jacobs also told KATU in April, “I’m doing my very best to get to the sidewalk, and it feels like it doesn’t matter where I am, what I do, these police officers are going to run me over, ram into me.”

“I really wasn’t aware of what was happening or the pain that I was in until I was on the sidewalk, and then I realized like, whoa, my back, my head, like what just happened there,” she said.


Just In: Biden’s IRS Targets Christian Group, Associates Bible With GOP

(NOQReport) – A top Internal Revenue Service official told a Christian group that “Bible teachings are typically affiliated” with the Republican Party as a rationale for denying its application for tax-exempt status.

Article by Fred Lucas from Daily Signal .

The Texas-based Christians Engaged filed an appeal on Wednesday to the IRS’ denial, objecting to the tax agency’s assertion that it is partisan.

In a May 18 denial letter , IRS Exempt Organizations Director Stephen A. Martin said Christians Engaged is involved in “prohibited political campaign intervention” and “operate[s] for a substantial non-exempt private purpose and for the private interests of the [Republican Party].”

A “legend” at the top of the letter shows nine letters of the alphabet being used as shorthand to represent something. In this letter’s example, oddly, “D” represented “Republican.”

“Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where they can be instrumental, including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, and borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations,” Martin wrote. “The Bible teachings are typically affiliated with the D party and candidates. This disqualifies you from exemption under lRS Section 50I(c)(3).”

Christians Engaged first applied for tax-exempt status in late 2019. First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom public interest law firm, is representing the Christian group in its appeal.

“We just want to encourage more people to vote and participate in the political process,” Christians Engaged President Bunni Pounds said in a statement . “How can anyone be against that?”

The IRS’ characterization of the Bible might be inconsistent with that of Democratic President Joe Biden, said Lea Patterson, counsel for First Liberty Institute.

“The IRS states in an official letter that Biblical values are exclusively Republican. That might be news to President Biden, who is often described as basing his political ideology on his religious beliefs,” Patterson said in a statement.

Patterson appeared to make a vague reference to the tax-exempt unit that was at the center of the IRS targeting scandal during the Obama administration. The ruling also comes amid Biden’s push for an $80 billion expansion of the IRS over 10 years, and the latter could be complicated if the tax agency appears to be more politicized.

“Only a politicized IRS could see Americans who pray for their nation, vote in every election, and work to engage others in the political process as a threat,” Patterson said. “The IRS violated its own regulations in denying tax-exempt status because Christians Engaged teaches biblical values.”

In its administrative appeal, Patterson contends the IRS made three legal errors:

By finding that Christians Engaged does not meet the operational test, Director Martin errs in three ways: 1) he invents a nonexistent requirement that exempt organizations be neutral on public policy issues; 2) he incorrectly concludes that Christians Engaged primarily serves private, nonexempt purposes, rather than public, exempt purposes because he thinks its beliefs overlap with the Republican Party’s policy positions; and 3) he violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech, and Free Exercise, and Establishment clauses by engaging in both viewpoint discrimination and religious discrimination.


Four Pilots Dead in One Week But Airline Obfuscates on Vaccine Connection

(NOQReport) – There’s an easy way to know when a narrative is being fabricated. One needs only look closely at the wording of statements and oftentimes the subsequent fact-checks to see when a coverup is in process. Such is the case with British Airways and their claims that four pilots who have died in one week are not “linked.”

Reuters quickly came to their rescue and did a “fact-check” on the claims that are circulating across social media. They, of course, determined that it was “false” but just like the British Airways statement, Reuters conspicuously avoided the topic of vaccines. First, let’s look at the wording of BA’s Tweet:

“Sadly four members of our pilot community passed away recently. Our thoughts are with their family and friends. However, there is no truth whatsoever in the claims on social media speculating that the four deaths are linked. Julie”

No mention of vaccines or Covid-19. The deaths may not be technically “linked” at this time because when it comes to post-vaccine adverse reactions, transparency is bad enough in the United States but even worse in the United Kingdom. They have been particularly opaque about post-vaccination deaths ever since the so-called “Delta Variant” began spreading around the country like wildfire. Scientists have speculated that the new variant not only circumvents the minimal protections offered by the vaccines, but in some cases seems to be more potent on those who have been vaccinated.

The Reuters “fact check” does as fact-checks often do. They take the entirety of a story and determine its validity based on a single component. This makes it easy for them to “debunk” stories that go against the mainstream narrative by isolating one false statement and condemning the entire story as a result.

In this case, they barely skimmed over claims that all four pilots had been vaccinated recently and instead honed in on a conspiracy theory spreading on social media that British Airways is in emergency talks with the government to prohibit vaccinated pilots from flying. There’s even a recording of the claim made of an anonymous source discussing specifics that clearly make very little sense. But it’s the meat of the Reuters fact-check, giving them the ability to disregard the entire story because of the single false component.

As The Gateway Pundit reported:

A recording (unconfirmed) of a male discussing the deaths is circulating social media.

“They’ve had the third BA pilot die in the last seven days, yeah? Third pilot dead in the last week,” says the man heard in the recording. “The first two guys were in their forties and fifties; this guy, mid-thirties, perfectly fit, no underlying conditions. He gets his second jab and he’s dead within days, exactly the same with the first two.

“Because of this, BA are now in crisis talks with the government about whether to allow vaccinated pilots to fly. The issue with that of course is that about 80%, according to my friend in BA, 80-85% have been injected.”


As TGP rightly noted, this is unconfirmed. It is also almost certainly false. That’s not to say that the person who sent the audio wasn’t being sincere, but BA would not be in talks about reducing their pilot workforce by 90%. One might even think it’s intentional disinformation to make the story less plausible and to give it a “debunking” out for fact-checkers.

One more note about the Reuters ” fact-check .” The statements they posted specifically did not deny that the pilots were recently vaccinated, claiming only that the deaths were not connected to vaccines, according to BA. They also posted a very carefully worded statement from the MHRA that also did not deny the pilots were recently vaccinated, claiming only they had not been made aware of the deaths.

“We have not been made aware of deaths of BA pilots after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine and have not had discussions with BA or other airlines, about preventing pilots from flying after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Sarah Branch, the director of vigilance and risk management of medicines for the MHRA.

We have reached out to BA and MHRA asking for confirmation that the pilots were vaccinated. As of the posting of this article, neither has replied, though BA replied to a “nice” question almost immediately that was sent after the vaccine question.

We are still attempting to confirm that all four pilots were vaccinated. Thus far, we have received some confirmation on three of the four, though the confirmations have not been corroborated. This has been an exercise in journalistic futility; nobody is willing to say they were not vaccinated yet getting confirmation that they were vaccinated has been challenging. However, one would think that if any of the four pilots had not been recently vaccinated, that would be very quickly and loudly stated by BA, the MHRA, and Reuters. Instead, they continue to keep the information obscured with statements that the deaths were not connected.

This is a story that will not get any play on mainstream media. They’re already suppressing it on social media. Yet, nobody is willing to answer the very simple question, “When were these four pilots vaccinated?”


Watch: Mike Pence Called A “Traitor” By Hecklers At Faith & Freedom Coalition

(InfoWars) – Supporters of President Trump let former Vice President Mike Pence know he’s lost their approval during a Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in Kissimmee, Florida on Friday.

Hecklers booed, interrupted and called Pence a “traitor” during his speech.

Some of the disrupters were allegedly removed from the premises following their outbursts.

The protesters are likely upset with Pence for his split with President Trump on the handling of the January 6th march on the Capitol.

“You know, President Trump and I have spoken many times since we left office,” Pence said of the incident. “And I don’t know if we’ll ever see eye to eye on that day. But I will always be proud of what we accomplished for the American people over the last four years.”


Texas Governor Signs Bill Allowing Residents to Carry Guns Without Permits

(InfoWars) – Texans will soon be permitted to carry handguns without a license, with Governor Greg Abbott signing a bill into law that scraps most of the state’s permit requirements despite vocal opposition from police groups and the public.

After passing through the state Senate late last month, Abbott put his name to HB 1927 on Wednesday, legalizing what proponents call “Constitutional Carry,” which allows residents to possess pistols with no license or mandatory training.

While the law exempts those already prohibited to carry firearms under state or federal law, such as convicted felons, all other state residents aged 21 and up will be free to tote handguns, openly or concealed, once the legislation takes effect on September 1.

The bill passed both the state House and Senate despite objections from law enforcement groups, gun control advocates and even the public at large, with a recent poll showing some 59% of Texans surveyed are opposed to permitless carry.

A group of five police orgs led by the Dallas Police Association lobbied strongly against the bill, though ultimately compromised after state Senators included a number of amendments to the law to address their concerns, which largely centered on officer safety. Without the amendments, the groups said “many dangerous and unstable Texans will have unfettered access to weapons and face little or no punishment when apprehended.”

Former Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, who now serves as chief to Miami, Florida’s PD, also came out against the law last month, saying “From chiefs to sheriffs to police labor, we do not support permit-less, open carry.”

The compromise bill that was ultimately passed retained a provision that allows police to question residents solely based on their possession of a handgun, and also boosts criminal penalties for felons found to be carrying. State Senators also introduced a measure requiring the Texas Department of Public Safety to offer a free online gun safety course, in line with calls from other policing groups for residents to receive training.

Some police departments, such as those in Texarkana and Hooks , say they have no problem enforcing the new ‘Constitutional Carry’ law, with Texarkana police spokesman Shawn Vaughn stating “We enforce the law, whatever the legislature sees fit.”

“We’ve had no major issues [with handguns]. There are some people who will still be prohibited from carrying guns, such as felons, and those are the main ones we are concerned about,” he said.

Pro-gun groups have cheered the new bill, with the National Rifle Association deeming it “the most significant pro-Second Amendment measure in Texas history.” When the law passed the Texas state House, the Gun Owners of America hailed it as a “historic moment,” calling it a “strong bill with strong protections.”

Texas lawmakers have also passed a bill to make the state into a “Second Amendment sanctuary,” which will exempt it from any new federal gun legislation. Governor Abbott has already declared his intent to enact the law, saying “I look forward to signing it” in April, though it has yet to reach his desk.

Darren Beattie of Revolver.news joins The Alex Jones Show to break down his story exposing the FBI’s involvement in organizing the Jan. 6th D.C. Capitol riot.

U.S. News Poll: 58% of Americans Hold ‘Unfavorable’ View of Critical Race Theory, 38% ‘Favorable’


Supreme Court Rejects Obamacare Challenge over Standing Issues, 7-2

(Breitbart) – The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Obamacare on Thursday in California v. Texas on technical grounds, holding 7-2 that the plaintiffs – some 17 Republican-led states – lacked the standing to bring a suit against the law.

The states wanted the courts to overturn Obamacare, arguing that since the “individual mandate” penalty for not buying health insurance – which the Court, controversially, redefined as a “tax” in 2012 – had been set to zero by President Donald Trump’s tax reforms, the entire law was unconstitutional. Moreover, since the “individual mandate” was integral to the functioning of Obamacare, it could not be severed from the law, and therefore the whole law had to be discarded.

In a majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court held:

The Constitution gives federal courts the power to adjudicate only genuine “Cases” and “Controversies.” Art. III, 2. To have standing, a plaintiff must “allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 547 U. S. 332, 342. No plaintiff has shown such an injury “fairly traceable” to the “allegedly unlawful conduct” challenged here.

Though the individual mandate is no longer enforceable, the Court held, “Unenforceable statutory language alone is not sufficient to establish standing.”

In a dissent, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch protested against the Court’s apparent bias: “Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue.”

Alito wrote: “Texas and the other state plaintiffs have standing, and now that the “tax” imposed by the individual mandate is set at $0, the mandate cannot be sustained under the taxing power. As a result, it is clearly unconstitutional, and to the extent that the provisions of the ACA that burden the States are inextricably linked to the individual mandate, they too are unenforceable.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, noted the double-standard of Obamacare’s defenders, “who argued in first instance that the individual coverage mandate is the Act’s linchpin, yet now, in an about-face, contend that it is just a throwaway sentence.” However, he said, the plaintiffs had not been injured by unlawful action under Obamacare in a way that would give them standing to sue, and so he cast his vote with the majority.

Breyer’s role in the majority opinion is interesting, as it comes while left-wing Democrats are insisting that he retire so that President Joe Biden can appoint a younger, liberal replacement. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s last appointee, joined the majority opinion; her potential ruling on the case came up during her confirmation hearing last year.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election . His recent book, RED NOVEMBER , tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak .


What If The Mainstream Media Had Told The Truth?

(Zerohedge) – Authored by PF Whalen via TheBlueStateConservative.com,

What If the Media Had Told the Truth? Five MSM Lies for Which Trump Has Been Vindicated, and the Damage They Caused

Remember that time when the mainstream media lied about former President Donald J. Trump, only to have Trump proven correct afterwards?

“Can you be more specific,” you ask?

Good point.

There are so many to mention, we need to be more precise, so let’s narrow the list down to five, and let’s consider the true impact of their dishonesty.

While the media may have been successful in sustaining political damage against Trump, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement – which was their ultimate goal, no doubt – they also caused significant collateral damage, either unwittingly or uncaringly.

1. The Russia Hoax

For those of us on the political right, it’s easy to forget the magnitude of this farce. We were bombarded with nonsense every day, we agonized over the ridiculousness of it all, and many of us have tried to put this circus behind us. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

What made this charade so absurd was the media’s complicity in it. This wasn’t just a situation of the media tilting a storyline and inserting opinions into supposed news articles, they actively hyped the story ad nauseum and actively participated in the misinformation. “The walls are closing in on Trump,” they told us. “We have another bombshell regarding President Trump and Russia,” they promised. It was all a lie, as the Mueller Report clearly proved.

For almost three years, our government was virtually gridlocked with its attention focused squarely on a fairytale.

So, what if the media had told us the truth from the beginning with Russia?

As the media was hyping the hoax, the divisiveness it brought along still lingers. We must conclude that the country would be far less divided had they been honest, and the value of that possibility cannot be overstated. Our current national discord is awful, and the media is largely to blame.

Considering the actual direction the country was headed in back in 2018, there would’ve been a good chance that Republicans would have kept control of Congress, but even if they hadn’t, our Federal Government would have likely been much more productive without this sideshow, and items like President Biden’s recently unveiled Infrastructure Plan could have been moot.

It’s amazing how productive Trump’s Administration was with efforts such as his foreign policy initiatives despite the distractions of the Russia Hoax, and we can only speculate how much more effective they could have been if they hadn’t had to focus resources on defending Trump with Russia. Instead of only four Israeli treaties , we could have seen double digits, and the situations in North Korea and Iran could have been much better as well.

2. Hydroxychloroquine

Last year at this time it was verboten to even bring up the name of the drug and doing so was enough to get you booted off Twitter or Facebook. President Trump frequently touted hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy in battling COVID, and it was that advocacy which sent the media into conniptions on the subject. If Trump supports the drug, it must be bad. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

With modern news cycles, our attention spans are merely fractions of what they once were, but we must remember the context with which the attacks on Trump and hydroxychloroquine were being made. The media was whipping up everyone into a full-blown panic with COVID. “It’s highly infectious to the point you can’t go to church or walk around the park. If you get it bad enough to be sent to the hospital, you’re probably going to die. And there’s no cure; we’re doomed.” Meanwhile Trump was right all along, and this treatment was available the whole time.

So, what if the media had told us the truth from the beginning with hydroxychloroquine?

Patients who died having refused the drug because of the media’s lies need not have perished. How many thousands of patients died because of the media’s deceit? We’ll never know.

Doctors who refrained from administering the drug based on the treachery of so-called experts and the menaces in the media had patients die for no reason other than politics. Again, how many thousands of Americans died because of their fraudulence? We’ll never know.

For many patients who survived severe cases of COVID, they will carry the long-term effects of the virus around with them for the rest of their lives. Severe, long-lasting damage to both the lungs and hearts of severe COVID patients is common, and it’s likely many of those folks must now endure shortened life expectancies as a result. There were undoubtedly scores of them, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic, who could have been treated with hydroxychloroquine but weren’t. If the media had told the truth, many of those patients would now be living normal lives.

3. St. John’s Church and Lafayette Square

In addition to hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness, we also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

Again, the left and their media engaged in a blatant lie, and this incident was used by the media to paint Trump as an authoritarian who used force to shut down political opponents. He’s a fascist who dispatched his goons on innocent protesters, they said, when in reality the clearing of the square had been planned two days before the church was set aflame, and the White House had nothing to do with that decision.

So, what if the media had told us the truth from the beginning with St. John’s Church?

It is the totality of all the media’s lies that is politically problematic, and such is the case with this incident. It was the repeated attacks on Trump as being unhinged and fascistic. As Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts on its shoes.” Millions of Americans undoubtedly continue to believe this invention because they were too ignorant to question its validity, and that ignorance continues. If the media had been honest, this absurdity would have gone nowhere.

There were a lot of factors that impacted the election, and we don’t need to discuss election fraud here, but there were unquestionably voters who were affected by this untruth, and it’s certainly possible that this lie could have been a difference maker.

The St. John’s Church story wasn’t limited to American consumption. This fabrication was reported around the world, and we can bet that Europeans, Australians, Asians, and everyone else who read it came away with a sickening feeling about our great country. And we can also bet most of them are unaware of last week’s report from the Inspector General. Our country’s reputation was once again damaged by a media that cares more about their political agenda than they do about accuracy.

4. Hunter Biden

Everyone knew Hunter Biden was a cad, and we also had a pretty good idea that he was on-the-take with foreign actors, particularly in Ukraine. President Trump knew it as well, made no secret of his thoughts, and got impeached for an unprecedented second time for his efforts. The media, meanwhile, pooh-poohed the whole story for as long as the could, which just happened to be until after the election in early-December when the validity of the story became clear.

During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

So, what if the media had told us the truth from the beginning with the Hunter Biden Scandal?

This scandal was obvious going back to the Democratic primaries. If the media had reported accurately on it from the beginning, and Biden had been held to account for his possible illegal associations with his son’s business partners, there’s a good chance Biden never would have been nominated and another Democrat would have ran against Trump.

As with the other gaslighting the media has participated in, the cumulative effect of the lies on the electorate can’t be overstated, and the credibility for those telling the truth, most of whom work at conservative media outlets, would likely enjoy more trust from many Americans who turned them off as a result.

Hunter Biden’s shenanigans weren’t just potentially criminal, they quite possibly could have jeopardized national security. The investigations into whatever it is he did are no doubt continuing, but if the media had done their jobs, we would likely already be aware of the whole story.

5. Wuhan Lab was the origin of COVID

The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the fa ade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us.

So, what if the media had told us the truth from the beginning with the origins of COVID?

Of all the items on this list, this may be the most egregious. China is an imposing threat to America: militarily, economically, and diplomatically. China absolutely must be held accountable, and if they are not, the more likely we will have a similar pandemic in the future. If the media had been forthright, steps could have already been taken to ensure it never happens again.

If the media had been honest about the beginnings of COVID, Presidents Trump and/or Biden could have already been drumming up support for sanctions against China, and the wheels could have been in motion for the global community to hold China’s feet to the fire.

If the media had shown actual journalistic curiosity with this story, from the beginning of its origins, it’s quite possible the trajectory of the virus’ spread could have been much different. If, for instance, the media had called out the World Health Organization’s malpractice and unholy allegiance to China, more stringent steps could have been taken worldwide to limit travel from China in January and February 2020.


The damage caused by the media’s fraudulence is far reaching and undeniable. But perhaps the most significant harm they have caused has been to their own credibility. The press has long been referred to as ‘The Fourth Branch of Government,’ and for good reason. A thriving democracy must have a vibrant and trustworthy press. While the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches strive to hold each other accountable, the media should be there to shed light on those checks and balances by informing the citizenry.

We need a believable and reliable press, but we don’t have one. And unless we get one soon, problems such as those we’ve examined will not only persist, they’ll worsen.


The Tucker Carlson Solution to Deal With a Corrupt Intelligence Apparatus and FBI Will Not Work, Here’s Why

(TreeHouse) – Last night and tonight, Fox News host Tucker Carlson led off the show with discussion of the “January 6th Insurrection” narrative.

On Tuesday night Carlson and Darren Beattie suggested some form of senate Church Committee 2.0 should be initiated in order to investigate the U.S. intelligence community, and specifically the FBI for their role in coordinating or facilitating the January 6th events. On Wednesday night Carlson again recommended the U.S. congress should start investigating.

Putting aside the background motives of Tucker Carlson; and accepting he is making these recommendations in good faith; there is a fatal flaw in his suggestion – and the support from anyone else who would suggest the same or similar approach. The fatal flaw is an obvious one that unfortunately too many people just will not, and cannot, accept….

The Legislative Branch of the federal government is part of the Intelligence Community corruption. The oversight “gang of eight” (pictured above), are enablers and participants in the corrupt endeavors that Carlson wants them to investigate.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) led by Chairman Adam Schiff, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) led by Chairman Mark Warner, are part of the institutional corruption. This is the problem , the core issue in the background, that too few people are recognizing as they begin to see the corruption within the intelligence community. The legislative branch and the executive branch are working together ; there is NO functioning oversight. { CLIFF NOTES }

The American people cannot currently expect congress to investigate the Intelligence Community (Church Committee 2.0) in the same way as historical reference may suggest, because the Senate (SSCI) is working in coordination with the exact corrupt intel system they are supposed to oversee. In essence, the *check* in the system is facilitating the intel corruption.

I can give you examples, actual empirical examples, of how this is currently constructed. We have recent references, several of them, to prove the Senate Intel Committee (SSCI) is working hand-in-glove with the agencies they are supposed to oversee. However, CTH is not alone in this depth of understanding; the executive branch of the United States government also knows this, and their behavior actually highlights their intent to cover up this issue.

That exact issue is why the U.S. Dept of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland, recently announced they will not permit any investigation of members of the intel committee for leaks (ie. compromises in national security). “Garland on Monday also met with news media executives about restricting the ability of leak hunters , after the disclosure that the Trump Justice Department secretly seized phone records of reporters. A New York Times lawyer called the meeting positive.” [ LINK ]

The presented narrative for justification of the DOJ blocking any leak investigations surrounds a false image of press freedom and points to prior action by the Trump era DOJ to “hunt” leaks that come from inside the legislative branch intel committees (HPSCI and SSCI). However, that justification is a ruse. AG Garland and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco are not stupid. They know Adam Schiff (HPSCI) and Mark Warner (SSCI) are facilitating corruption that exists within the intel agencies. As a result “leak hunters” in the Biden administration are forbidden from exposing the corrupt legislative coordination.

This is what I have been highlighting for two years, including when I wrote THIS long before Garland made that protective announcement. Sources inside the DC apparatus gave me specific information about how the legislative branch (intel committees), judicial branch (FISA and federal courts) and executive branch (FBI, DOJ-NSD, DNI, DIA, CIA etc) work together to continue allowing the intelligence apparatus to avoid any oversight.

Congressional oversight has been compromised. The intel system is self-aware and they have structured the current system (through the legislative branch) to protect themselves. Quite simply, they are working together. This is why the proposal (Church Committee) by @DarrenJBeattie unfortunately cannot work. The SSCI and HPSCI are part of the intel corruption. Put another way, the oversight “gang of eight”, is in on it .

The system they created is now self-protecting, self-aware, and every member in both the executive agencies and legislative oversight committees are dependent on it. An example is the “advise and consent” process within the Senate confirmation process for Intel leaders.

The SSCI will not allow any (non corrupt) intel nominee who might disrupt the controlled system. This is why Trump nominees to ODNI (example) were blocked by the SSCI * even though * Republicans held the chair (Richard Burr). Preservation of a corrupt system is not a party specific issue.

This is also why the SSCI facilitated the installation of Michael Atkinson as Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). Atkinson was the DOJ-NSD chief legal counsel to John Carlin and later Mary McCord; both were at the center of the Carter Page FISA issues.

Michael Atkinson had a vested interest in keeping the corrupt system protected (including the FISA Court). When Atkinson left the DOJ-NSD he was nominated to the ICIG position (earworm Pence recommendation), confirmed by the SSCI and then Atkinson immediately went to work to facilitate changing the rules of the Office of The Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to modify what was allowed for whistleblower complaints. Those changes facilitated the first impeachment effort from an anonymous person inside the CIA. { Go Deep }

Simultaneously, the former head of the DOJ-NSD, Mary McCord [a Lawfare ally], had left the DOJ and assumed a position as the lead lawyer on Chairman Jerry Nadler’s judiciary committee where the articles of impeachment were created. McCord was awaiting the complaint that Atkinson facilitated. It was a coordinated effort.

I share that specific example as evidence of how the corruption between multiple agencies in the intel establishment are coordinated. The legislative branch, executive branch & judicial branch all worked at the behest of the larger control forces with the Intelligence Community. A unified ideology was the motive, remove Trump.

[ SIDE NOTE . Notice where Mary McCord is now in 2021. McCord, the person who went with former DAG Sally Yates to confront White House Counsel Don McGahn about Michael Flynn, is still working inside the system to keep the intelligence corruption activity monitored, hidden and protected { Go Deep }].

This is how the system protects itself. There is no possibility for a Church Committee oversight approach to work because the House (HPSCI) and Senate (SSCI) are part of the intelligence corruption. This was done (over years) by design. The oversight is part of the problem. They are participating; actively participating. The senate is not going to investigate or expose intelligence corruption they themselves are a part of.

While I don’t know the exact solution to this specific problem, because we are not at the point where solutions can even be debated, I do know what it will take to solve the first part of the issue….

THE ISSUE? The American people don’t know the scale of the problem yet, as evidenced by Carlson’s suggestion.

We live in this bizarro world where people debate the hypocrisy of a “dual justice system”, without ever accepting that it is not hypocrisy – it is by design. The double standards are a feature, not a flaw. Remember, actual, real-life, Domestic Violent Extremists called Black Lives Matter & Antifa, tried to burn Washington DC in the summer of 2020. Not a single arrest. Not one. Not a single FBI tweet about “help us find those arsonists who attempted to burn St. John’s church”. Nothing.

The DOJ and FBI willfully and purposefully turn a blind eye to literal acts of domestic violence, shootings, beatings, arson, murder, riots and chaos -even attacks on federal buildings- and do nothing. There will be NO HELP from federal law enforcement in the confrontation of corruption. There will be NO HELP from legislative oversight in the confrontation of corruption. We The People are the people we have been waiting for; it’s up to us.

In the background I have been giving advice to some solid patriots about how to structure the baseline of information distribution that will be needed to break through the media firewall. However, the key is to accept we are insurgents now. We cannot expect federal law enforcement to support ANY endeavor to push sunlight to the surface.

If you know the police are actively supporting the drug dealers, perhaps even facilitating the distribution itself, it does you no good to take your information about drugs being sold in your neighborhood to those same police. This is the issue with information about the 2020 election fraud. There is a way to do it, but it requires outside the box thinking…. The ‘truth-tellers’ need to think and, more importantly, operate like insurgents; accepting that federal law enforcement views the truth as adverse to their interests.

Until then, it is futile to expect the legislative branch to investigate the FBI or intelligence community, because the legislative branch oversight committees are helping the FBI and intelligence community carry out their corrupt activity. Meanwhile the DOJ (Garland and Monaco) are coordinating to keep the corruption from being exposed { Go Deep }.


Geneva Summit Disaster: Biden Gets Nothing Putin Gets Away with Everything

(Breitbart) – President Joe Biden gave Russian President Vladimir Putin almost everything he could have wanted at their Geneva summit. He elevated Putin above other leaders, including American allies; and failed to force any real concessions on Russian policy.

The degree to which the summit was a disaster became evident when Putin emerged for his press conference – alone with a forum all to himself.

The Biden team did not want to appear with Putin at a joint conference after the meeting- both because Biden would look frail next to Putin, and because of the media dogma that President Donald Trump had somehow done something terrible by behaving cordially when appearing alongside Putin in Helsinki, Finland, in 2018.

Putin fielded softball questions from Russian news agencies, but he also welcomed hostile questions from the U.S. media. (In fact, Putin, an enemy of press freedom, was more polite than Biden would be, and took far tougher questions.)

The opportunity to defend his own position, and to attack the United States, without fear of contradiction was a massive gift to the Russian president. He used the old Soviet tactic of pointing to American problems as a way of deflecting from questions about human rights and political opposition.

He did so without fear of contradiction: when he cited the Black Lives Matter movement as an example of human rights abuses in the U.S., he knew no American journalist would object.

Biden tried to use his own press conference to make all kinds of claims about tough talk to the Russian president during their two-hour meeting. (Biden claimed, falsely, that a meeting of that length was unprecedented between two heads of state: in fact, Trump met with Putin for two hours in 2017.)

It was impossible to verify Biden’s claims without Putin there to respond – and Biden has a history of exaggerating his own bravery when citing conversations with foreign leaders.

Reporters pressed the two leaders, separately, to reveal what commitments, if any, Putin had made to change Russia’s aggressive behavior. But there were none.

Putin walks away from Geneva with no significant response to cyberattacks; with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which Trump had opposed; and with no real pushback against his aggression in Ukraine. Notably, Biden met with Putin before meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – meeting TBA.

The response of the American media echoed Biden’s posture of appeasement. CNN, which had raised the alarm when Trump and Putin appeared to get along with one another, gushed about Biden’s “optimistic” tone at the summit, and how wonderful it was that Biden and Putin seemed to have had a friendly conversation.

At one point, the two leaders were so cozy that the White House had to walk back an apparent nod by Biden when he was asked if he trusted Putin.

Biden seemed unwilling to use any leverage against Putin – a fact that even the American media noted, with one journalist desperately asking whether the administration might consider using the U.S. military to stop cyberattacks. Biden’s strategy toward Putin seems to be that he can be convinced to behave more responsibly if he is told that he needs a better global image if he wants to be taken seriously by the media and American investors.

What Biden does not get – and what President Barack Obama did not get, and then-Secretary of State John Kerry did not get – is that Putin does not care. Putin cares about oil, and guns, and currency, and power. He plays by what Kerry once complained – after the Russian invasion of Crimea – are “19th century” rules. Biden does not know how to do the same.

During the 2020 campaign, Biden claimed that Trump was “unwilling to take on Putin.” But Putin leaves Geneva a winner, and Joe Biden got nothing.



Video: Biden Loses It After CNN Reporter Shouts Putin Question

(Zerohedge) – President Biden finished fielding questions following his solo press conference after today’s some two-and-a-half hour long bilateral summit with Putin in Geneva (shorter than widespread expectations). Just as he was walking away from the podium, reporters in the press pool continued shouting him down with questions. It seems many weren’t satisfied with his apparently more amicable and conciliatory than expected stance on Putin and Russia generally.

Specifically it seems some were disappointed that he didn’t personally condemn Putin with harsher language, and that’s when this unexpected scene played out… ‘What the Hell?’ the US President shouted back at CNN’s Kaitlan Collins after she got his attention by calling out his saying he was ‘confident’ about the future trajectory of US-Russia dialogue.

‘What do you do all the time?… If you don’t understand that, you’re in the wrong business,’ a clearly agitated and angry Biden followed with, appearing to immediately ‘get personal’ instead of dealing directly with the question.

The clip went viral in the moments after if happened, with some quipping that ‘Biden needs to take anger management classes.’

It’s hilarious and just a tad bit ironic that it was CNN feeling the wrath of the Democratic president. It seems perhaps the ‘never-Trumper’ mainstream media honeymoon with Biden could finally be over with this moment.

And we hardly have to imagine the collective pundit class outrage! that would ensue if this had been Trump – though journalist Glenn Greenwald comes close to capturing the avalanche of accusations that would surely come if this had been the former president…

Only days ago, Biden was being heralded as the ‘cool man under pressure’ who would finally stare down Putin and ‘win’.

But apparently it’s his own traveling White House press pool that got under his skin more than his Russian counterpart ever did.

Biden later expressed regret for the exchange, which he chalked up to simply acting like ‘a wise guy’: