March 24, 2024 - Mop-Up Man: Is this former ATF agent running the J6 pipe bomb cover-up?

We have long maintained that the two smoking guns of the January 6 Fedsurrection are the curious case of Ray Epps, on the one hand, and the RNC/DNC pipe bomb hoax, on the other.

(…) All of this changed when we drew attention to a certain explosive (no pun intended) surveillance video that had quietly and with great reluctance been released by the Capitol Police thanks to the persistent efforts of Thomas Massie, who has valiantly used his Congressional perch to advance our body of research on the January 6 pipe bomb.

Below, courtesy of Thomas Massie, is the most damning and explosive J6 footage yet released.

In my view this will end up demolishing the Regime’s J6 narrative and with it a major pillar of Dem’s 2024 strategy.

You paying attention Kamala? pic.twitter.com/1LuNm6pGdB

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) January 18, 2024

(…) When asked about the flagrant and explicable lack of concern in relation to the pipe bomb, a more senior Capitol Police official who spoke for the group offered the following shocking response: the nonchalant response of the Secret Service and Capitol Police to the pipe bomb was deliberately designed so as not to cause panic among the public. Think of that: we’re supposed to believe that Secret Service agents and Capitol Police stood lackadaisically within feet of what could have been a live explosive device and allowed a group of children to walk within feet of said device in order to not cause panic.

Revolver:

As it so happens, Congressman Massie and a number of other Judiciary officials had the opportunity to meet with relevant Capitol Police officials, including at least one Capitol Police officer who was present during the discovery of the DNC bomb depicted in the video above. When asked the obvious and burning question as to why Secret Service officials, as well as the Capitol Police officers on scene, were so utterly unconcerned with the recently discovered bomb just feet within their proximity, the Capitol Police responded that they and the Secret Service officials on scene reacted with such utter indifference in order not to cause panic.

Think about this. The Secret Service was notified of the presence of an explosive device within feet of themselves, the Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, whom they’re supposed to protect, and children and other passersby, and we are supposed to believe that the officials did nothing because they didn’t want to cause panic!

(…) We are now in a position to expose the identity of the most senior Capitol Police official in that meeting and the man who reportedly presented congressional officials and staffers with the absurd excuse that the Capitol Police and Secret Service allowed a group of children to walk in front of the bomb so as not to cause panic—a baffling explanation for such a flagrant breach of protocol as to be unbelievable to the point of offense. That Capitol Police official is Ashan Benedict, currently Assistant Chief of Police of the Capitol Police in charge of Protective and Intelligence Operations. Yes, you read that right. A man who would excuse the flagrant violation of security protocol as depicted in the footage of the DNC bomb discovery is the head of Protective Operations at the Capitol Police. This alone should be sufficient to cause a national scandal, but it gets far worse. Ashan Benedict’s conduct and statements in the meeting described above, together with new (yet entirely overlooked) information that has come out as a result of a recent Judicial Watch FOIA request, lead us to believe with a high degree of conviction that Ashan M. Benedict is one of the key cover-up men of the entire January 6 pipe bomb hoax.

Ashan M. Benedict, Assistant Chief of Police in Charge of Protective and Intelligence Operations, US Capitol Police (Credit: public domain)

Up until this point, Benedict remained, for the most part, an unknown figure to the public. In fact, the only public exposure of Benedict of any note occurred quite recently in the context of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) documents released as a result of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. The headline that emerged from this story is the exposure of CIA involvement on January 6. As we shall soon see, however, the documents FOIAd by Judicial Watch inadvertently expose information that serves to dramatically reinforce our belief that Benedict is a key coverup man for the January 6 pipe bomb hoax.

The ATF documents obtained by Judicial Watch run 88 pages, which includes a number of screenshots from a text group chat of various ATF officials on January 6 called the “January 7 Intel Chain.” The first thing we notice about the group chat in question is how nearly every single name is redacted—not an uncommon feature, to be sure—in FOIAd documents from three-letter agencies. Ashan Benedict’s name, interestingly, is one of the very few that is not redacted. Note that on January 6, 2021, Benedict was a senior ATF official as the Special Agent in Charge for all of Washington, D.C. (hence his presence in the FOIA documents).

(…) The location of the command center notwithstanding, one of the several damning and unanswered questions pertaining to the discovery of the DNC pipe bomb has always been how quickly it was discovered after the first pipe bomb at the Capitol Hill Club had been discovered. We learn from the surveillance footage of the discovery of the DNC bomb that this took place a mere 15 minutes after the discovery of the first bomb.

(…) So what are the chances that some Nostradamus-like figure working for the Capitol Police or ATF would somehow, after the discovery of the first pipe bomb at the Capitol Hill Club, magically intuit that there must be another bomb at the DNC and go on to discover this DNC bomb (which had been undiscovered for over 17 hours) a mere 15 minutes later?

As it so happens, this very question came up in the closed-door meeting between certain members of Congress, their staff, and Congressional officials (including Benedict as the senior officer) and was posed to one of the Capitol Police officers on the scene when the DNC bomb was discovered—in fact, he’s the partner of the plainclothes Capitol Police Officer who discovered the bomb. The answer Benedict and the Capitol Police officer provided was just as offensively implausible as the claim they didn’t attempt to warn schoolchildren of the bomb in order to avoid panic. The Capitol Police officer who was on the scene at the discovery of the DNC bomb claimed that they were at the location of the first bomb and simply had a hunch there might be something at the DNC, and sure enough, 15 minutes later they found it. Remarkable!

The impossible coincidences and absurd explanations for them don’t stop there, however. Just as the notion that the Capitol Police officers just managed to have a hunch that a second bomb would be at the DNC doesn’t add up, it is equally, if not more puzzling, as to how the same officers in question would have had the clairvoyance to know there wouldn’t be a third bomb. After all, if two bombs are discovered in relatively close proximity to the Capitol and in quick succession, wouldn’t the natural assumption be that there would be a third and possibly additional devices? And yet the same officers with sufficient clairvoyance to think to search for and discover a second bomb at the DNC, and to do so an astonishing 15 minutes after the first bomb was discovered—the same officers with sufficient clairvoyance to somehow know that the DNC bomb posed no threat to themselves or the schoolchildren passing by—are, astonishingly enough, the very same officers with the clairvoyance to know that there would be no third bomb in addition to the RNC and DNC bombs, or at least it was not worth looking at or fretting over.

As it so happens, the Capitol Police officer, whose partner was the plainclothes officer who discovered the DNC bomb and who was also on the scene at the discovery of the bomb, was asked by Congressional officials in this meeting whether they had searched for a third bomb upon discovering the second, and if not, why not? The answer, under the watchful and approving eye of Ashan Benedict (whom we now have revealed to be the senior Capitol Police official at this meeting), answered that they did not think there would be a third bomb and provided no explanation as to why. (Read much more: Revolver, 3/24/2024)  (Archive)

May 17, 2024 - Getting Played: The Demolition of Cohen on Cross Examination Reveals “The Grift” to a New York Jury

Captured photos from Michael Cohen’s TikTok livestream.

Below is my column in Fox.com on the approaching end of the Trump trial in Manhattan. With the dramatic implosion of Michael Cohen on the stand on Thursday with the exposure of another alleged lie told under oath, even hosts and commentators on CNN are now criticizing the prosecution and doubting the basis for any conviction. CNN anchor Anderson Cooper admitted that he would “absolutely” have doubts after Cohen’s testimony. CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig declared “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a star cooperating witness get his knees chopped out quite as clearly and dramatically.” He previously stated that this case would never have been brought outside of a deep blue, anti-Trump district. Other legal experts, including on CNN and MSNBC, admitted that they did not get the legal theory of the prosecution or understand the still mysterious crime that was being concealed by the alleged book-keeping errors.  The question is whether the jury itself is realizing that they are being played by the prosecution.

Here is the column:

In the movie “Quiz Show,” about the rigging of a 1950s television game show, the character Mark Van Doren warns his corrupted son that “if you look around the table and you can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.”

As the trial of former President Donald Trump careens toward its conclusion, one has to wonder if the jurors are wondering the same question.

For any discerning juror, the trial has been conspicuously lacking any clear statement from the prosecutors of what crime Trump was attempting to commit by allegedly mischaracterizing payments as “legal expenses.” Even liberal legal experts have continued to express doubt over what crime is being alleged as the government rests its case.

There is also the failure of the prosecutors to establish that Trump even knew of how payments were denoted or that these denotations were actually fraudulent in denoting payments to a lawyer as legal expenses.

The judge has allowed this dangerously undefined case to proceed without demanding greater clarity from the prosecution.

Jurors may also suspect that there is more to meet the eye about the players themselves. While the jurors are likely unaware of these facts, everyone “around the table” has controversial connections. Indeed, for many, the judge, prosecutors, and witnesses seem as random or coincidental as the cast from “Ocean’s Eleven.” Let’s look at three key things.

1. The Prosecutors

First, there are the prosecutors. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg originally (as did his predecessor) rejected this ridiculous legal theory and further stated that he could not imagine ever bringing a case where he would call former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen, let alone make him the entirety of a prosecution.

Bragg’s suspension of the case led prosecutor Mark F. Pomerantz to resign. Pomerantz then wrote a book on the prosecution despite his colleagues objecting that he was undermining their work. Many of us viewed the book as unethical and unprofessional, but it worked. The pressure campaign forced Bragg to green-light the prosecution.

Pomerantz also met with Cohen in pushing the case.

Bragg then selected Matthew Colangelo to lead the case. Colangelo was third in command of the Justice Department and gave up that plum position to lead the case against Trump. Colangelo was also paid by the Democratic National Committee for “political consulting.” So a former high-ranking official in the Biden Justice Department and a past consultant to the DNC is leading the prosecution.

2. The Judge

Judge Juan Merchan has been criticized not only because he is a political donor to President Biden but his daughter is a high-ranking Democratic political operative who has raised millions in campaigns against Trump and the GOP. Merchan, however, was not randomly selected. He was specifically selected for the case due to his handling of an earlier Trump-related case.

3. The Star Witness

Michael Cohen’s checkered history as a convicted, disbarred serial perjurer is well known. Now, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., is under fire after disclosing that “I have met with [Cohen] a number of times to prepare him.”

Goldman in turn paid Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, more than $157,000 dollars for political consulting.

Outside the courtroom, there is little effort to avoid or hide such conflicts. While Democrats would be outraged if the situation were flipped in a prosecution of Biden, the cross-pollination between the DOJ, DNC, and Democratic operatives is dismissed as irrelevant by many in the media.

Moreover, there is little outrage in New York that, in a presidential campaign where the weaponization of the legal system is a major issue, Trump is not allowed to discuss Cohen, Colangelo, or these conflicts. A New York Supreme Court judge is literally controlling what Trump can say in a presidential campaign about the alleged lawfare being waged against him.

The most striking aspect of these controversial associations is how little was done to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interests. There were many judges available who were not donors or have children with such prominent political interests in the case. Bragg could have selected someone who was not imported by the Biden administration or someone who had not been paid by the DNC.

(…) What will be interesting is how the jury will react when, after casting its verdict, the members learn of these undisclosed associations. This entire production was constructed for their benefit to get them to convict Trump despite the absence of a clear crime or direct evidence.

They were the marks and, like any good grift, the prosecutors were hoping that their desire for a Trump conviction would blind them to the con. (Read more: Jonathan Turley, 5/17/2024)  (Archive)

May 23, 2024 - Clinton hypocrisy knows no bounds when speaking of Trump "hush money" trial

It’s hard to watch the incessant gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Donald Trump trial in Manhattan without feeling like you’re traveling in a time warp back to 2016. We’re back reliving the “Access Hollywood” tape and talk of how Trump would have never been elected except porn star Stormy Daniels accepted a six-figure check to keep quiet.

The richest vein of hypocrisy on this adultery-mangles-electability question flows through the Clintons. Hillary Clinton appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to denounce Trump for squashing the bimbo stories. It was typically shameless. She said: “I think the defendant, the former president, knew exactly what he was doing when he went to such great lengths to try to squash, bury, kill stories, pay off people because he understood the electoral significance of them.”

The cast of “Morning Joe” treated Hillary Clinton as a therapist for their Trump angst, and no one interrupted and asked about all the squashing, burying and killing of stories that Hillary Clinton engaged in when she and Bill Clinton first sought the White House in 1992. On the cusp of the Gennifer Flowers allegations breaking in January of that year, Hillary Clinton was telling Margaret Carlson of Time magazine, “My marriage is solid, full of love and friendship, but it’s too profound to talk about glibly.”

But after Flowers asserted she had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton, Hillary and Bill appeared on “60 Minutes,” and Hillary claimed women being questioned about their relationship with Bill were her friends. “We reached out to them. I met with two of them to reassure them they knew they were friends of ours. I felt terrible about what was happening to them.”

In retrospect, one can smell what Hillary was cooking. She was pressuring potential accusers to stay quiet, but pitching it on national TV as just chatting things over with friends.

One can only imagine how Melania Trump processed the Stormy Daniels tale, but paying a nondisclosure agreement isn’t exactly maintaining your innocence. That’s why the Democratic prosecutors in New York are pumping this out on CNN and MSNBC, every hour on the hour. The Left thinks those religious conservatives are bothered by this, and it should cause them to vote for someone else, preferably that “devout Catholic” Joe Biden.

But Hillary has always waged war on anyone who would seek to damage her and Bill’s future in politics, and the media have always gushed over her warfare. At the end of the Year of Our Intern in 1998, Time magazine was aglow. Reporters Nancy Gibbs and Karen Tumulty oozed that “as she pursued the private rescue of a marriage and the public rescue of a presidency, she was the one person who seemed to see the larger story and shaped its telling.”

The “larger story” was the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” In this election cycle, Democratic prosecutors lobbed 91 felony charges at Trump, and the networks largely refuse to even describe them as Democrats, let alone a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Time managing editor Walter Isaacson even wrote that they wanted to name her “Person of the Year” in 1998 for her, um, “dignity.” That’s how they describe Hillary lying for months that Bill didn’t have sexual relations with That Woman. “Her strength and her almost surreal ability to assert her dignity were remarkable to some and mystifying to others.”

This kind of copy is why most Americans don’t trust the “mainstream media.” They don’t report stories as much as they “shape” them for the benefit of their political allies. (Front Page, 5/23/2024) (Archive)

Pope Francis: A dangerous advocate for open borders at the cost of Europe's Christian heritage

Pope Francis’ advocacy for what appears to be compassion through open borders is actually a dangerous agenda that threatens to dismantle Europe’s Christian heritage and accelerate the continent’s Islamization. (Credit: public domain)

Pope Francis has once again positioned himself as a staunch advocate for open borders, declaring in a recent statement that rejecting migrants is a “serious sin.” He stated, “It must be said clearly: there are those who work systematically and with every means possible to repel migrants… this is a grave sin.” This statement, however, is not merely about promoting compassion—it represents a dangerous agenda that threatens to undermine Europe’s Christian heritage and sovereignty. The Marxist Pope’s call for more immigration, particularly from predominantly Islamic countries, raises serious concerns about the future of Europe and the survival of its Christian identity.

A Pope Out of Step with Europe’s Christian Defenders

In his latest speech, Pope Francis called for the expansion of safe migration routes and condemned what he described as the “militarization” of borders. He claimed, “God is with the migrants, not with those who repel them,” and in doing so, praised non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that facilitate the entry of migrants into Europe, portraying them as heroes of humanity.

However, not everyone within the Catholic Church agrees with the Pope’s stance. Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, a leading conservative voice, has warned that using the Bible to promote migration is a “false interpretation.” He argues that it is better to help people thrive in their own cultures than to encourage them to migrate to Europe, where they may undermine the very values that have sustained the continent for centuries.

Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria has echoed these concerns, urging Europeans to stop encouraging Africans to migrate. He insists that people are better off in their homelands, an attitude that indirectly opposes the Pope’s call for open borders.

Adding to these voices, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan has criticized the Pope’s migration policies, arguing that they could lead to the Islamization of Europe and undermine its Christian roots. Schneider claims that the influx of Muslim immigrants is part of a broader agenda to dilute the Christian identity of Europe​.

Similarly, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, has accused Pope Francis of promoting a globalist agenda that prioritizes open borders at the expense of Christian culture and values. Viganò has been particularly vocal in his opposition, framing the Pope’s stance as a threat to the very foundation of Christian nations​.

Finally, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has expressed concerns about the potential consequences of mass immigration. He warns that uncontrolled migration could erode Europe’s Christian values, calling for a stronger defense of the continent’s cultural and religious heritage​.

These dissenting voices highlight a significant divide within the Catholic Church over the issue of migration, reflecting broader concerns about the cultural and religious impacts of Pope Francis’ policies.

Jesus Warned of False Prophets!

Pope embraces Imam who has…

– demanded converts to Christianity be killed
– endorsed suicide attacks against Jews
– apostates to be killed
– called homosexuality a disease
– dismissed human rights as “ticking time-bombs”https://t.co/mT9Czw2RI3 pic.twitter.com/JSbTackLZs

— Amy Mek (@AmyMek) November 20, 2019

(Read more: RAIR Foundation, 9/02/2024)  (Archive)

• @AmyMek

• Apostolic Nuncio

• Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

• Bishop Athanasius Schneider

• Cardinal Francis Arinze

• Cardinal Gerhard Müller

• Cardinal Robert Sarah

• Catholic Church

• Christian culture

• cultural heritage

• globalist agendas

• Guinea

• Islamization of Europe

• Kazakhstan

• Nigeria

• Non Government Organization (NGO)

• open border

• Pope Francis

• Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

• September 2024

September 23, 2024 - The queen of disinformation, Hillary Clinton, and her sordid history of secrecy and censorship

(…) Last Monday evening, Hillary declared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC talk show that the federal government should criminally prosecute Americans who share “propaganda“—which she made no effort to define.

Hillary has long been one of America’s foremost censorship advocates. In 2021, she announced that there must be “a global reckoning with the disinformation, with the monopolistic power and control, with the lack of accountability that the platforms currently enjoy.” Hillary made her utterance at a time when freedom in much of the world had been obliterated by governments responding to a pandemic that occurred as a result of U.S. government funding reckless experiments in Chinese government labs. The U.S. denial of its role in the lab leak was perhaps the biggest deceit of the decade but Hillary never kvetched about that scam regarding a program that contributed to millions of deaths. But that wasn’t disinformation—that was public service.

In 2022, Hillary wailed that “tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability” and endorsed European Union legislation to obliterate free speech. But “disinformation” is often simply the lag time between the pronouncement and the debunking of government falsehoods.

(…) Hillary’s own career exemplifies a political elitist righteously blindfolding all other Americans.

When she was secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, Clinton exempted herself from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), setting up a private server in her New York mansion to handle her official email. The State Department ignored seventeen FOIA requests for her emails and said it needed seventy-five years to comply with a FOIA request for Hillary’s aides’ emails. The Federal Bureau of Investigation  shrugged off Hillary’s aides using a program called BleachBit to destroy 30,000 of her emails under subpoena by a congressional committee. Federal Judge Royce Lamberth labeled the Clinton email coverup “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” An Inspector General report slammed FBI investigators for relying on “rapport building” with Team Hillary instead of using subpoenas to compel the discovery of key evidence. The IG report “questioned whether the use of a subpoena or search warrant might have encouraged Clinton, her lawyers…or others to search harder for the missing devices (containing email), or ensured that they were being honest that they could not find them.” The FBI’s treatment of Hillary Clinton vivified how far federal law enforcement will twist the law to absolve the nation’s political elite, or at least those tied to the Democratic Party.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department gave grants to promote investigative journalism in numerous developing nations as part of its “good governance” programs. But exposing abuses was only a virtue outside U.S. territorial limits. Clinton vigorously covered up debacles in the $200 billion in foreign aid she shoveled out. From 2011 onward, AID’s acting inspector general massively deleted information on foreign aid debacles in audit reports, as The Washington Post reported in 2014. Clinton’s machinations helped delude Washington policymakers and Congress about the profound failures of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan.

Pirouetting as a champion of candor is a novel role for the former secretary of State. Shortly before the 2016 election, a Gallup poll found that only 33% of voters believed Hillary was honest and trustworthy, and only 35% trusted Donald Trump. The Clinton-Trump tag team made “post-truth” the Oxford English Dictionary’s 2016 word of the year.

Hillary believes that the lesson of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is that good citizens should shut up and grovel. In her 2017 memoir, Hillary claimed that Nineteen Eighty-Four revealed the peril of critics who “sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.” Did Hillary think Orwell dedicated the novel to Stalin? Hillary’s book noted that the regime in Orwell’s novel had physically tortured its victims to delude them. Hillary is comparatively humane, since she only wants to leave people forever in the dark—well, except for the scumbags who undermine the official storyline.

Hillary was a key player in the Barack Obama administration that believed that Americans had no right to learn the facts of the torture committed by the CIA after 9/11. When she was secretary of State in 2012, she declared, “Lack of transparency eats away like a cancer at the trust people should have in their government.” But the more secrets politicians keep, the less trust they deserve.

Hillary’s vision of democracy permits only token interference by underlings. She believes that poohbahs like her have the right to rig elections to sanctify their power. In 2015, when she was running for the presidency, she condemned voter identification requirements as part of a “sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people.” A Washington Post headline aptly summarized her message: “Hillary Clinton Declares War on Voter ID.” This is the bargain Hillary offered; voters didn’t have to identify themselves and she didn’t disclose what she did in office. Subsequent Democratic Party attacks on Voter ID were more successful, leading to sixty million ballots for Biden, millions of which were counted but not verified.

To sanctify censorship, Hillary is again invoking the Russian peril. A 316-page report last year by Special Counsel John Durham noted that in mid-2016, after the shellacking she suffered from her email scandal, “Clinton allegedly approved a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to tie Trump to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” President Barack Obama was briefed on the Clinton proposal “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” FBI officials relied on the “Clinton Plan” to target the Trump campaign even though no FBI personnel apparently took “any action to vet the Clinton Plan intelligence.”

The first three years of Trump’s presidency were haunted by constant accusations that he colluded with Russians to win the 2016 election. In 2019, an Inspector General report confirmed that the FBI made “fundamental errors” and persistently deceived the FISA Court to authorize surveilling the Trump campaign.

Hillary’s scams were even too much for federal scorekeepers. The Federal Election Commission last year levied a $113,000 fine on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee for their deceptive funding to cover up their role in the  Steele dossier, which spurred the FBI’s illegal surveillance of Trump campaign officials.

In Hillary’s new improved version of the Constitution, there is no free speech for “deplorables”—the vast swath of Americans she openly condemned in 2016. But this is the same mindset being shown by the Kamala Harris presidential campaign. Harris has scorned almost every opportunity to explain how she would use the power she is seeking to capture over American citizens. Instead, she is entitled to the Oval Office by acclimation of the mainstream media and all decent folks—or at least those who drive electric vehicles and donate to her campaign.

Is “disinformation” becoming simply another stick for rulers to use to flog uppity citizens? Denouncing disinformation sounds better than “shut up, peasants!” But if politicians have no obligation to disclose how they use their power and can persecute citizen who expose their abuses, how in Hades can American freedom survive? How can we permit our rulers to selectively squelch citizens based on alleged hateful comments when, as historian Henry Adams pointed out a century ago, politics “has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.”

Ambitious politicians never lack pious pretenses for destroying freedom. But will censorship by the Biden administration steal the 2024 election for Harris? Unfortunately, according to Hillary Clinton, you are not worthy of knowing the answer. (The Libertarian Institute, 9/23/2024)   (Archive)

December 13, 2024 - Hiding The Truth: Horowitz's Modified Jan 6 'Limited Hangout'

From The New York Times:

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz (Credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Do you detect the conspicuous lack of conviction in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the Jan 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol building, which has been the central device for defeating the populist revolt against the treasonous DC blob? And did you notice that it took him four years to report on the event? Weird, a little bit, ya think?

I’ll tell you why: because when investigators genuinely interested in the truth come on the scene, soon to happen, a very different story will be revealed. The Horowitz report is a last ditch attempt, at the very last moment, to get ahead of that true story — which is that the FBI and its parent, the DOJ, have been lawlessly and in bad faith acting against their oaths to defend constitutional government.

For eight years — including the four when Mr. Trump was president — the FBI and DOJ worked tirelessly to run him out of office and make sure he could never return. The effort was prodigious and, astoundingly, it failed. It was launched initially to conceal the crimes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, especially their moneygrubbing in Russia around the Skolkovo project — Russia’s Silicon Valley — and the Uranium One scandal — which involved the sale of US nuclear assets to Russia’s state-owned Rosatom company. The Clintons’ problems became especially acute in the summer of 2016 when Hillary’s private (outside government) email server came to light with its thousands of potentially incriminating memos. Looked like trouble.

The cure for that was to accuse candidate Trump of conniving with Russia, a sort of political homeopathy. It began as a mere Hillary campaign prank — the Steele Dossier — but CIA Director John Brennan and Barack Obama dumped it in FBI Director James Comey’s lap, and asked him to run with it. Mr. Comey stupidly complied, and before long he marshaled the executive officers of the FBI into the massive hoax that became RussiaGate.

The Mueller Investigation was intended to convert all that into a prosecutable Trump crime while covering up the FBI’s own crimes, but it proved a fiasco when the Mueller report issued in March, 2019, came up empty — to the horror of the Trump-deranged public.

Inspector General Horowitz’s report on these FBI shenanigans came out in December of that year, finding little amiss besides some “errors” in FISA applications and FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith’s forgery of an email as to whether one Carter Page was ever a CIA asset. The big news media let it all slide. Mr. Trump somehow survived, to the blob’s horror, and prepared to run for re-election.

The 2020 election was a fantastic trip laid on the American public. Covid-19 allowed for drastic changes in voting rules. The Democratic Party managed in plain sight to maneuver the obviously senile Joe Biden to head their ticket, and an array of very conspicuous late-night frauds got him elected. On Jan 6, 2021, Republican legislators were poised to contest the results out of several swing states where the frauds occurred in the requisite Congressional certification ceremony. The law plainly allowed for such challenges. It could not be allowed to happen. (Read more: James Howard Kunstler, 12/13/2024)  (Archive)

From Revolver News, 12/12/2024:

DOJ Finally Releases Suppressed IG Report on Jan 6: Here’s What They’re Still Covering Up

For all of the damning vindication of its admissions, the DOJ IG report is still more damning in terms of its omissions. There is not a single word about the most damning smoking gun of all of January 6—the January 6 pipe bombs. And this is despite absolutely scandalous revelations indicating near certainty of Capitol Police, ATF, and Secret Service involvement in the cover-up of the pipe bomb scandal. As we focus on the FBI here, it is incidentally important to keep in mind that we have definitively shown that the aforementioned agencies (Capitol Police, ATF, Secret Service) and probably many more are deeply involved in the Fedsurrection scandal. Most notably in relation to the FBI, we recently learned that the head of the Washington Field Office of the FBI lied about the Bureau’s inability to receive geofencing data that would have positively identified the pipe bomber. For that matter, we also learned that as early as mid-2022, the FBI had deleted all surveillance footage of the pipe bomb location on January 6th. None of these damning questions is so much as addressed at all in this report.

Our reporting completely changed the national conversation on January 6th. We were viciously punished for it—Congress even banned our email lists from reaching their servers. One FBI agent who sympathized with our reporting had his security clearance revoked for sharing one of our January 6 articles. The mainstream media and regime cracked down on our exposure of the Fedsurrection lie with a vigor that had rarely been seen even from the criminals in the Biden regime. The DOJ’s suppressed IG report is a start, but it is far from the end. Anything that does not assist us in finalizing our exposure of the pipe bomb scandal is fake and inadequate. The pipe bomb issue implicates the FBI, Secret Service, ATF, Capitol Police, and very possibly even Kamala Harris herself. It is the most dangerous issue, and therefore it is the most important issue. It is the issue that we have put our blood and sweat into at Revolver News, and we will not rest until the full and damning truth is out no matter how ugly.

When it comes to the truth about January 6, we cannot be cheap dates. Stay tuned. There are more reports to come out.

February 27, 2025 - Kim Strassel: We Pay Dead People

At least Haley Joel Osment only saw dead people; our federal government pays them. DOGE adviser Elon Musk set off another furor by posting a screenshot of a Social Security database showing millions of Americans still “alive” past age 130—suggesting they might still be “collecting” checks. Donald Trump piled on, slamming “fraudulent” payments to “200”-year-olds. The media pushed back, saying the Social Security list reflected antiquated coding and incomplete death information—and did not reflect who was actually receiving benefits.

May 21, 2025 - Does Trump torpedo neoconservatism and neoliberalism in a single stroke?

Originally published via Armageddon Prose:

The relatively tiny elite class ensconced in Washington, D.C. — they who manufacture and service the publicly-subsidized, permanent war economy — were surely none too pleased with Trump’s truly radical, for reasons explore here, recent speech delivered to the Saudi dignitaries assembled to receive his foreign policy prescriptions during a state visit.

In 1991, sitting U.S. president — at the time, a “retired” CIA boss — George Bush declared a New World Order, a peculiar rhetorical machination by which he meant a multinational neoliberal technocracy that would ultimately subvert all national sovereignty and roll the nation-states of the world into a single dystopian administrative state.

“What is at stake is more than one small country. It is a big idea — a New World Order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause, to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind.”
-George Bush, 1991

Elsewhere, he promised in vague terms that the enforcement arm of this new globalist project would be United Nations “peacekeeping” forces — national sovereignty or national interest be damned.

“When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”

Contrarily, three decades later, delivering a speech that would have been hard to imagine any president in modern history delivering on account of its unorthodox omission of references to “human rights” or whatever other liberal rhetoric seemingly accompanies every presidential speech in recent memory, Trump went out of his way to denounce the “interventionists” (a polite term for warmongers/neocons), the “nation-builders,” and the “nonprofits” that have done so much to wreck and destabilize the world while draining the U.S. treasury to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Via WhiteHouse.gov (emphasis added)

“Before our eyes a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts of tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence…

This great transformation has not come from Western interventionists … giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation-builders,’ ‘neo-cons,’ or ‘liberal non-profits,’ like those who spent trillions failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought about by the people of the region themselves … developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies…

In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”

Case in point: Hillary Clinton’s neoliberal jihad in Libya that deposed a relatively secular dictator and turned the country into a failed state with open-air slave markets.

The Trump Saudi speech might summarized succinctly in one sentence: You can’t deliver democracy with artillery shells — and, even if it were possible, doing so is not in America’s interests, or anyone else’s save for a handful of psychopaths in Washington D.C.

Somewhere in a Wyoming mansion, Dick Cheney’s artificial heart skipped a beat when he saw his lifelong ideology tossed in the historical trash can by the man who singlehandedly ended his nepo-daughter’s political career.

But he should probably just be happy he’s not rotting in the Hague for the remainder of his miserable existence before he departs the vail and passes on to hell, back to his Father.

Speaking of rotting, somewhere in the 9th Circle, Madeleine Albright is equally apoplectic that the official policy of the U.S. government she so dutifully served is no longer to starve children with pointless and obscene sanctions regime for obscure geopolitical purposes, only to turn the very country targeted for regime change over to ISIS two decades later.

Benjamin Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile (now available in paperback), is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs.

Follow AP on X.

Subscribe (for free) to Armageddon Prose and its dystopian sister, Armageddon Safari.

Support AP’s independent journalism with a one-off, hassle-free “digital coffee” tip or GiveSendGo.

Bitcoin public address: bc1qvq4hgnx3eu09e0m2kk5uanxnm8ljfmpefwhawv

(Zero Hedge, 5/21/2025)  (Archive)