Our mission, as God-fearing and God-loving patriots, is to defend this Constitutional Republic and to increase its greatness, in all good things and ways, by using our voices in free but courteous speech, by discussing the happenings of the world and coming to a profound understanding of those things, and by sharing and promulgating these Truths on both this platform and others.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
consecution
noun
logical sequence or progression of an argument
sequence or succession
relation of consequent to antecedent
deduction
a following, or sequel
actual or logical dependence
in logic, the relation of consequent to antecedent, or of effect to cause
Used in a sentence
Lemma 8. If the consecution check for the unrolling of length k passes in the original circuit C, the consecution check for the unrolling of length 1 passes in the k-witness circuit C’, given that L’0 is fully initialized. (LINK)
Some epic music that automatically followed the above on YouTube…..
THE STUFF
Another win for ivermectin and azole antiparasitics – but this is one you may not have heard about – a parasite of “free range” poultry. COUGH. Maybe not in the USA – yet – but just to bring you back to the reality of parasites in our world, this video is worth putting up with the too-long AI presentation. This is also a problem with insufficiently cooked freshwater fish. COUGH. Be careful out there.
Also, listen for what they say about people in Brazil, who apparently take ivermectin and azoles regularly.
There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s post for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in the discussion thread for today’s post, they must cite their source. Thank you.
Do not forget to LABEL AI articles video and such.
Just for fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl8vErrqjKY
BTW Hubby was corresponding with a Russian scientist doing similar studies in Siberia using domesticated Russian horses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In my opinion Iran was never just about the Middle East, it was about world peace and breaking the grip of the Cabal. That is why there is such a stark contrast between how the press and the rest of the world views the Ukrainian war vs the military op against Iran.
LIVE Q&A: Iran, Lawfare, and Why the Establishment Is Going All-In Against Trump
PARTIAL ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
32:00 Barbara Boyd: On a bill in Congress about merging Israeli & US technological intelligence: “ Well Hey. It’s already pretty effectively merged in terms of the Mossad and the COA and has been ever since James J Angleton created in essence the Mossad from the CIA. To me none of this has any magnitude equivalent to the complete merger of our intelligence community with MI6 and Five Eyes and NATO. Which is far, far, far more dangerous, more disgusting and more off the mark in terms of a native US-Based intelligence compared to anything Israel could think about…
36:20 Iran having a nuclear weapon is a threat to the world. Iran started off negotiations with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff by saying, we have enough nuclear material for nine bombs right now. That is a genuine threat to the world. You are seeing how the IRGC operates before your eyes. It has been that way for a very, very long time. There is no terrorist operation in the world which doesn’t benefit in some fundamental way. They are not independent. And most of what the IRGC is and everything else comes from the City of London’s long time control of every single terrorist operation in the Middle East. Be they Shiite or Be they Sunni.
Trump stopped that at the beginning of his very first term with his visit to Saudi Arabia. Trump said, the USA is out of this game PERIOD. And that in part is the long history of what this is really all about.
37:50 Mike Steger: The Middle East is the cockpit for escalated war on a Global scale. Iran was set up as part of that agenda. We have documented this. Bernard Lewis, Brzeziński, this was radical Islam used as a basic weapon to threaten the world. [And push it] into a kind of chaos which then Lloyds and others would control and profit and monetize.
Trump realizes that [and] he has dedicated more time in his presidency to stabilizing the Middle East. And there is no doubt that the situation in the Middle East on October 7th which escalated into this horrific war in Gaza came out of Iran and Iran’s interests – Largely British – but through Iran to destabilize the Middle East AND PREVENT THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS, TO PREVENT LONG-TERM PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. [Ghost in the last video on this page goes into the actual play-by-play of how the Abraham Accords were de-railed. -GC]
38:40 The reality is you have a military cult in the IRGC which controls upward of 50% of the entire Iranian economy. I do not think the clerics or the so-called democratically elected political representatives have had any real control in that country for quite some time if ever… I think the situation is far more dangerous than Iran. And I will point to just one clear evidence of that.
[Ghost goes even further and thinks Iran was all about starting a nuclear war. As I wrote in THECASEFORNUCLEARWAR I think the Cabal is crazy enough to want to start one. –GC]
Kim Jong-un and Trump could have one-on-one direct dialogue. They are having ongoing letter and other correspondence as we speak. He has had that since he came back in. There was NEVER a chance to have dialogue with the clerics or the Ayatollah because the reality is the Ayatollah has not really been holding real power. I think that is the fundamental difference. You can’t trust Iran because you actually don’t have a sense of who is really in power. That is why the negotiations have been hung up. Because there is not a real center of power in Iran to give it a coherent nation state status. [So WHO and WHERE is that center of power? In the UK where the Ayatollah and top IRGC commanders have property?? GC]
43:00 Mike Steger: I think there’s been a kind of a fight in China and it’s not been maybe a balanced one per se. What the communism of Mao was set up, largely by kind of British and globalist interests, to play, is the exact role China was beginning to play in this kind of globalist globalized economy. They became the kind of sweat shop of the world. Cheap labor supply, cheap manufacturing, and what you saw was a rise of billionaires dominating China. And that’s been a kind of corruption that China now is trying to confront and clean out.
What Trump’s challenging China is to say, look, that doesn’t function. That doesn’t work. And there are some people in China at various political levels who recognize that that is not the pathway to go. That it’s led to intrinsic corruption in China, that it leads to political instability. But China’s got a difficult problem. They’ve got to try to hold the nation together. And it’s been a 2,000-year-old problem in China. The Chinese like to break off into their own separate provinces, their own separate princedoms and kingdoms. It’s hard to hold the nation together. So that’s kind of an underlying threat that China constantly faces. And they’ve tried to nationalize with the Mandarin language. There’s all kinds of things they’ve had to do that most people wouldn’t have any idea of, to try to rectify this lack of real national unity inside China… [This agrees with the little I have learned of China. Ghost & Alpha Warrior distinguish between the CCP and Xi. The CCP being the Chinese Deep State. Also given the amount of trouble Xi has handling China, I doubt he wants to actually control anymore land except as tribute states (Belt & Road). –GC]
45:00 Trump has shown in Iran that we are killing the old system. The vestiges of this kind of divided world, this kind of a new cold war era of China, Iran, Russia, North Korea as a block. He’s saying, “We’re killing that system. You’re not going to benefit off of cheap Iranian oil, but we’re going to have a much longer term stable system led by the United States, founded on the US dollar-based system, but based on nations having the right to industrialize, build up, and to thrive. A system of nation states.” And I think there are some in China. I think probably this is the dialogue President Trump is having with Chairman Xi that this is where he’s taking the world and that chairman Xi is well aware that that would be best long-term for China because it really doesn’t have the ability to play the role of a global economic hegemon. That’s just British imperial thinking that’s made its way into China through various aspects including Maoism. So, I think that’s the presentation Trump is making. And I think he’s got to be forceful because if you don’t kill the old system, it’s very difficult for people holding on to the status quo to ever leave it and jump into the new one. I would just add that, China was essentially manipulated based on the WTO — this whole idea of globalization — to become the sweat shop of the world. That’s not really what any nation wants to be….
Steve Bannon and others who continue to insist that we have to go to war with China are not understanding what the president is actually doing and that’s why Mike is quite right…
51:00 Adam: And then here’s one from Cool Cool Roy which I think is actually a much more important question than people realize. “Would you agree that playing the hate and blame game is one of the greatest forms of self- oppression and government oppression on earth?” Before I open it up, let me just say yes. And the way that people describe it sometimes is the victim mentality. Become victimized by some other group or some other ideology, some other identity. Barbara and Mike, your thoughts on this super chat here.
51:30 Barbara Boyd: I think this is a good one. Mike’s pointing to me, so I’ll start.
Okay. Aristotle and Carl Schmidt, the German legal theorist and Nazi, basically had this idea that you don’t know who you are unless you have an enemy. In other words, you define yourself by your enemy. By something terribly negative. You don’t define who you really are, what your mission is here on this earth, and what reality actually is in terms of of how you deal with it. That is human. What Carl Schmidt and Aristotle believed is best deal because you end up in a cycle of endless wars out of all of that and kind of tribal policing of yourselves based on tribal ideas and identities rather than superseding them to actually fulfill our mission here on earth. Genesis tells us what it is. Go forth, multiply and subdue the earth. I really think that’s completely different than either Aristotle or Carl Schmidt.
Carl Schmidt, — I just went and reminded myself, his entire thesis was based on the friend – enemy distinction. That was kind of like the central thesis to it. This kind of issue of building these gangs and encounter gangs of different varieties and then having that kind of gang counter gang warfare play out in the public sphere. That in my mind is basically what’s been controlling essentially all of modern politics. It is using that control mechanism in one way or another for sure. Mike, any thoughts?
53:42 Mike Steger: Yeah, Let’s just take it into the British question, because this is how they tried to control their empire. They did it n East Africa. 👉But probably the most famous case is in India. Where Hindus were the majority, the British power would back the Muslim minority and to aggravate the sense that the Hindus had a right if they had the majority to direct where they wanted to go. But in the Muslim controlled areas near the Indus in West India which is now Pakistan they would back the Hindu minority and aggravate the Muslim majority to the point where you would get this kind of potential for a major backlash👈… It’s not parody in terms of the kind of conditions, but you get this emotional backlash that creates civil war. And that’s exactly what happened in India when the British left in 1947. A civil war broke out on religious lines, killing up to two million people. And that’s the kind of thing you see them attempting to provoke, whether it’s in Belfast or the Henry Nowak: case or the George Floyd dynamic in the United States. They’re trying to create and instigate this kind of reaction. [Crypto Rich, a Muslim, informed Mike of this in a lot greater detail in his recent podcast. -GC]
You can see this if you go to X because it’s so visceral so guttural that it dominates a lot of the social media discussion. That’s why, on Promethean Action, we focus on unifying the country. Our strength is unity and orienting towards the redevelopment of the nation. To rebuilding it just like you want to unify the church as an ecumenical mission, as a good Christian, you want to unify the nation towards a mission of industrial and scientific advancement…
AI DATA CENTERS
1:02:07 Mike Steger: I think there’s a number of things. It’s clear that this data center AI comes out of Silicon Valley. There’s very little to trust about a lot of these institutions. The way they’ve run the social media process, what they’ve run with social control, what they did with censorship, how they were back doors to the intelligence community. All of that’s true. All of that’s worth not trusting. But at the same time, there is a real viability to AI applications, but not necessarily the way that a lot of these AI firms are talking about it.
So, there’s a lot of this idea that we can deliver it to personal consumers and it’s going to be some big financial gain based like social media was broad-based consumption on every phone, every young person. The reality is that AI is probably going to be far more profitable and useful as it’s integrated into the re-industrialization of the United States because there’s real applications connecting it to an industrial robotic and high-tech process of manufacturing of logistics. So there’s real benefit to these kinds of advancements. It’s always a double-edged sword. How do you apply it? Do you apply it towards social control which has been the IC Silicon Valley modus operandi for 25, 30 40 years or is it going to be applied towards a new re-industrialized United States? There are certainly very clear aspects of Trump, of the JD Vance, of this new Republican party, who see that they’re building up the industrial firms, they’re broadening out the defense contractor base with new firms who are looking to apply these things, to integrate it into real manufacturing and production, to increase the kind of broad-based wealth of the country.
Now that said, how we deal with data centers is something that we’ve got to think through as a country. Doing it in big farmland areas doesn’t make a lot of sense. There was a proposal to do it in Buick City up in Flint, which was prior to River Rouge where Ford did the largest factory at the time. It was Buick City up in Flint. That was a massive start to finish raw material to finish automotive product in one plant.
Now that’s been laid waste for a long time and there was proposal to put data centers there. Now Flynn has knocked it out. Like to me it makes a lot more sense to put them into brown fields where you have connected water and power supply than to do it into open farmlands. Much like power centers should be integrated into city centers and industry, not just, solar panels all over our corn fields. So, I think we’ve got to think this thing through. I think that there’s plays on both sides as Barbara’s pointed out. Maybe she wants to go into more depth today.
There’s clearly other aspects. There was a lot of propaganda push from Russian news networks to target our fracking industry. You know, 15, 20 years ago, they really tried to undercut the idea of fracking. They got the whole left in America to be anti-fracking even though that’s what’s created all of this natural gas that these green environmentalists have been obsessed with. The same thing is true today with China because there is a real race for AI that’s real and largely because China sees it. China knows even maybe better than a lot of Americans that this AI is going to be a boon towards their manufacturing and productive sector and they sought to have global control of that. So I think the question is re-industrializing thinking about how we use these AI data centers. Even as Trump said making sure that these AI companies are treated like pharmaceutical companies. You can’t just release these new models. We have to know what they’re actually going to be doing. What kind of effect they have….
so we’ve got to regulate it. We might have to integrate it, but we have to be smart about it. It’s a double-edged sword. We can’t become anti-technology, but we can’t allow the model of Silicon Valley and social control to continue to dominate the way we let these companies become big major firms in the United States. And I think that’s a political question. It’s a question of political power. And it’s the kind of challenge that self-government creates because we can just either hand it to the experts and be ruled by oligarchy or if we’re going to deal with it, we’ve got to deal with it in a smart way and not just react because there are certain forces that want to control our reaction. They want us to react and shut this thing down and we’ve got to be smart about it. So that’s kind of how I think about it.
1:06:40 Barbara Boyd: I had pointed out I think last week that Kevin O’Leary who you know is famous from TV, is actually building a data center in Utah and started getting all sorts of strange stuff that he wasn’t doing in terms of zoning and everything else. Big attacks on him. He hired a firm to actually track down where all this was coming from. Unsurprisingly he proved that it was coming from China. Which makes a whole lot of sense. Okay, We’re in a race as to who is going to actually develop the useful aspects of this first and foremost. Data centers are a requirement of that. That said, you’ve got to take into account environment. You shouldn’t be building it on, farmland, which should be in agriculture at this point. And is a really big deal out there because we have problems with our farmers, which have nothing to do with AI. [Goes into food Cartels]
POLITICAL ISLAM
1:50:00 Adam: Sha says “I think you are missing the plan of Islam.” Barbara and Mike your thoughts on this one? Are are we missing the plan of Islam?
Barbara Boyd: No, we’re not missing it. You got to understand a little bit about Islam as a religion. All right? There’s two sides to it. There is so-called political Islam, which was largely an invention. And you know, some of my Muslim friends will actually get mad at me at this point, but that was actually an invention of the Arab Bureau of British Secret Intelligence for purposes of using Islam as a weapon in this whole dynamic in the Middle East to have gangs and counter gangs. Basically, revisionist Zionism versus political Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood being the biggest example of that. Obviously the Muslim Brotherhood and those who are looking to have a re-founding of the caliphate, even Turkey wants that, are looking towards proselytizing other people in the world to become part of Islam or they’re considered to be enemies of the religion that is essentially what you’re talking about when you talk about the Plan of Islam. Most Muslims do not subscribe to this at all. So, you got to be very careful here and make the distinction and figure out whether you’re being pushed into something that really is not all that big a deal. I think the last time I looked demographically, the Muslims constitute about 1% of the United States total in various areas of the country. [Google says 1.3% to 1.5% – GC] They obviously have settled, because of immigration patterns and family patterns and the religion and everything else. People get freaked out about it because they think oh my god this group of people is here and they’re not adhering to anything in the community and they haven’t been absorbed into the community. That’s a problem. It’s a problem we face across the board in terms of immigration in our country.
👉But, in order for people to actually integrate into a culture, you got to be able to define the culture they’re integrating themselves into.👈
And if you look at our culture in the United States at this point, and you asked yourself, if I was coming here and I actually am being told you need to integrate into American culture, what would I see? What would I see? Would I see Graham Platner and think that I got to integrate with that? That’s kind of a problem. It’s not as simple as the plan, which everybody’s kind of attached to at this point of, oh my god. they’re going to come here and essentially take us all over. It is a source of tension in various communities in the United States around this question of, you know, becoming an American and identifying being an American as your essential identity. But in order for people to do that, we got to do a much better job of actually defining what a citizen and citizenship in the United States actually means. So that’s how to answer your question.…
118:16 Mark Steger: And let me just go back to the last question because I think what people are missing, I mean Islam has been radically altered by a lot of the foreign funding [and] British operations over the last 50 years. What Trump’s message to a lot of these Gulf Kingdoms, the Saudis, the entire Islamic world is in 2017, knock it off. We’re not going to be funding ISIS and al-Qaeda any longer as we did under Obama. We’re not going to be funding Hamas in this operation. You guys have got to change the orientation away from this caliphate.
But the bigger question is for too long people in the United States and in Europe have taken Christian civilization for granted. There’s not a clarity of what it is, what its principles are, how it manifests as a worldview, what we’re committed to developing, what our role in the universe is. We don’t have a people [who] might go to church. They might want to oppose the kind of cultural decadence and destruction of Hollywood and the elites, the liberal elites in this country. We have not fortified in a theological and deeper cultural way, a worldview that expresses the kind of strength and beauty and the kind of power of scientific discovery that Christian civilization really means. And I think people have to have a sense that that’s what’s needed. That’s what we’re doing with Promethean Action. That’s what we’ve recognized for a long time. And we’re developing it from the standpoint of how this kind of cultural outlook has got to be strengthened and made more conscious in the minds and hearts of the American people. And if we have that, as Barbara said, we’re going to recruit a lot more of the people that are here towards a real sense of what our civilization is based on. And we’re going to counter probably the most insidious effects which has been things like the rap culture. This rap music culture, this anti-American materialist kind of culture which has recruited a lot of the immigrant communities.
Parents come in hoping to maybe integrate and be part of it, but they’ve got their traditions and cultures. It’s their children. You’ll see this in France. the second & third generations have become less and less assimilated and integrated because the culture that’s been promoted has largely been anti the very principles of our civilization. So the question is are we making clear the real principles of what a western Christian civilization represent. And I think that’s what we’ve got. That’s what Trump’s looking to revive….
Speaking of Iran, and Obama’s ‘Agreement’ There is Obama’s Handler, Valerie Jarrett.
….According to FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch, Jarrett’s father, Dr. James E. Bowman, a pathologist and geneticist, “had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals.”
The files also show that “in 1950, Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage.”
Alfred Stern and his wife, Martha Dodd Stern, “were indicted in absentia on espionage charges on Sept. 9, 1957, The New York Times reported. The indictment charged them with conspiring to act as Soviet agents, receiving American military, commercial and industrial information and transmitting it to the Soviet Union. The indictment charged that they used their house in Ridgefield, Conn., for meetings with Soviet agents.”
Dr. James Bowman “was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students,” reported Judicial Watch. “After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work.” Valerie Jarret was born in Iran on Nov. 14, 1956.
The Association of Internes and Medical Students, according to the FBI files, is a group that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line.” Bowman had “deep ties to Chicago,” reported Judicial Watch, “where he often collaborated with fellow Communists.”
Judicial Watch further stated that the Jarrett family Communist ties “also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor (1899-1957) and [Alfred] Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.”
Valerie Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett (1917-2004), “was also another big-time Chicago Communist,” according to the FBI files. “For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),” Judicial Watch said.
According to the FBI documents, Vernon Jarrett’s job was to “write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would ‘disseminate the Communist Party line among … the middle class.”
“Faithful to her roots, [Valerie Jarrett] still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Judicial Watch. “Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshall Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.”
…The federal government placed Bowman [ValJar’s Dad — GC] under special surveillance because of his involvement with the European Recovery Program (ERP)—i.e., the Marshall Plan. Historian Paul Kengor explains: “This ERP/Marshall Plan association is very intriguing, and troubling. One of the most insidious forms of Communist Party agitation in the 1940s and 1950s was to frame the Marshall Plan as a form of vile American imperialism. It was the Kremlin line, pushed by Stalin and Molotov and mimicked by [the] Communist Party USA. One of the worst peddlers of this line was Frank Marshall Davis, who characterized the Marshall Plan in his columns as a ‘device’ to maintain ‘white imperialism.’ The plan, by Davis’s rendering, was a disgusting ‘oppression of non-white peoples everywhere,’ a slavery purchased by Secretary of State Marshall’s ‘billions of U.S. dollars … to bolster the tottering empires of England, France, Belgium, Holland and the other western exploiters of teeming millions of humans.’ … Was James Bowman [promoting the same notions about the Marshall Plan]? I cannot tell from … his FBI file, but I can say that Bowman’s work for, or position on, the Marshall Plan was the item of special concern to the FBI.”
Bowman was also a member of the Association of Internes and Medical Students, a group that, according to Bowman’s FBI file, engaged in un-American activities and “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line.” …
Bowman was also very active with the communist student group American Youth for Democracy as well as the International Labor Defense and the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born (ACPFB), three of Frank Marshall Davis’s favorite organizations. Paul Kengor writes the following about ACPFB:
“This group had been so extreme that the Democratic Congress’s huge ‘Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the United States’ (published in 1944) devoted a lengthy 15-page section just to ACPFB, atop innumerable added references elsewhere in the report. Key members included prominent African-American communists Langston Hughes and Paul Robeson, the gushing admirer of Joe Stalin, plus the usual assemblage of duped liberals/progressives, ranging from theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, to the great Orson Welles, to famed movie actor Edward G. Robinson.
“As the Congressional report noted, ACPFB ‘was founded by the Communist Party in order to exploit racial divisions in the United States for its own revolutionary purposes.’ Its modus operandi was to polarize Americans along racial lines in order to advance the Soviet agenda. Closely linked to International Labor Defense, the primary (concealed) intention of ACPFB was to protect foreign communists who came to America and agitated for the Soviet Comintern. The core objective was to prevent deportation of these foreign-born communists living in America. One such figure was German communist Gerhart Eisler, who became a major CPUSA cause, and whose name was omnipresent throughout Frank Marshall Davis’s Chicago Star….
1961-1983
When Valerie Jarrett was five, her family relocated to London for one year before settling in Chicago’s elite Hyde Park neighborhood in 1963.
For additional Information on Valerie Jarrett, click here.
The Republican War mongers and Israel are NOT happy about the possibility of peace in the Middle East. Is Israel going to get Greece to fight Turkey? Israel cannot fight directly because Turkey is in NATO. Also the Israeli Draft of people into the IDF is having repercussions. It is very disruptive of business and commerce. Dual citizens are leaving Israel to escape the Draft and the Ultra-Orthodox Jews are now praying for the fall of Israel.
WARNING: Ghost does not like the expansionist plans of Israel or the Zionists. However he has facts and background not normally available. Much of it complements the information from the Promethean Action video above. The video is 1 ½ hours.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
round up
transitive verb
to collect or gather together scattered animals, persons, or things
to adjust a number to a larger value with fewer digits
round-up
noun
the act of collecting or gathering together scattered cattle by riding around them and driving them in
the act of adjustment of a number to a larger value with fewer digits
a rounding up, or upward curvature or convexity, as in the deck of a vessel
Roundup®
proper noun
a trademarked herbicide, which at one time contained glyphosate as its sole active ingredient, but now contains multiple herbicides as a substitute
Used in a sentence
Although I had originally hoped that this post might be a round-up of information about Roundup®, I settled for simply offering some observations on recent formulations of the product.
Shown in a picture (new formula)
Shown in a video
MUSIC!
Round Up! Or something like that!
THE STUFF
Consider that Democrat-donating ambulance chasers and progressive over-regulators may have actually driven America out of the frying pan, and into the fire.
So, beyond Triclopyr (non-selective broadleaf weed killer long used against poison ivy) discussed above, what are the other two chemicals that are in “new” Roundup®?
One of them is Diquat – largely duplicating the dessicant activity of glyphosate, which duplicated the dessicant activity of previously banned Paraquat – and if that one sounds familiar (like the Paraquat of Agent Orange), then you need to hear this. (Brace yourself for his annoying blue glasses.)
The other is Fluazifop-P butyl – used to kill grass weeds. Indeed, in duplicating the unique spectrum of activities of glyphosate, this one may be the least concerning chemical in the mix. (Brace yourself for the annoying AI presentation.)
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
scribable
adjective
capable of being written
capable of being written upon
something that can be written, marked, or inscribed
surfaces, materials, or objects on which writing or marking is possible and which allows for the application of ink, pencil, or other writing instruments
Used in a sentence
Something that is said to be scribable implies that it cannot be indescribable, since saying that something is scribable proves that it can be described.
Shown in a picture
Shown in a video
MUSIC!
Indescribable!
THE STUFF
Do you miss Charlie Kirk? Thankfully, he left a lot of content for us! Enjoy.
There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s post for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in the discussion thread for today’s post, they must cite their source. Thank you.
Do not forget to LABEL AI articles video and such.
Jeff points out the major failure feature of the Fake News.
…Editors should have: separated real evidence from allegations, resisted parroting the framing of biased sources, brought in neutral independent forensic and archaeological voices, and updated headlines as the picture changed. In other words, basic journalism vanished like the alleged mass graves.
It was a complete failure of what is supposedly the media’s most important function: to separate interested gossip from facts. Maybe I should say, that used to be media’s most important function. Now, corporate media’s most important function appears to be distributing clever propaganda that destabilizes countries, spurs stochastic terrorism, and permits politicians to effect massive wealth transfers…
…Government researchers enrolled extremely vulnerable infants in an experimental RSV trial, did not obtain informed consent, continued dosing even as severe cases emerged, and two children died. Nobody was prosecuted or even fired. This is serious iatrogenic harm (injury caused by medical treatment) and a research‑ethics failure on its face, full stop.
The Times did its absolute best to cloak that very disturbing and all-too-familiar story in race. The two boys were black. “Most, if not all,” of the 31 kids in the trial group were black. Thus, the Times concluded: racism. What the Times didn’t say was that by the late 1950s and into the 1960s, Washington, D.C. had become a majority‑black city; black residents were the single largest racial group, and by 1970 had peaked at about 71% of the entire population.
That’s one problem for the Times’ unfounded racial hypothesis. Second, the NIH’s RSV trial was deployed through government-run or funded clinics. Both because blacks were in the majority in DC, and because of basic economics, most patients at these public clinics were also black. So we needn’t dream up some conspiratorial racial animus to explain the trial’s demographics.
Black folks were just unlucky enough to be living in DC in large numbers at the time. That’s it.
So, once again, the NYT’s dumb, woke narrative collapses with the most trivial inspection. But more interesting is why the Times leaned so hard into the race angle, despite having not a scrap of evidence. It’s because the last thing the big health agencies need right now is more scandals.
This is exactly the institutional reform RFK Jr. and Jay Bhattacharya were hired to deliver.
🔥 At some point during the Cold War, our big health agencies contracted a deadly disease. They are infected with a mind-virus called utilitarianism. The scandal here is not that the NIH gave experimental RSV shots to black infants without informing their black parents. The real scandal is that the NIH believes you can’t make a public health omelet without breaking a few babies.
In other words, the NIH’s secret trials of experimental vaccines would not have been more acceptable if the babies had been white, orange, or green.
Classic ethical philosophy based on Judeo-Christian principles says: “You may not use people purely as a means, not even for a huge benefit to others.” Utilitarianism rudely inverts that: if the benefit is big enough, and the expected risk is small enough, almost any use of human bodies as means can be rationalized.
At some point in the recent past, our public health agencies quietly slid from “we are here to protect people” to “we are managing a herd, sorry, a population,” and those are not the same posture. In other words, instead of thinking of themselves as healers, they think they are ranchers.
The Lot 100 episode illustrates this problem perfectly. Severe harms and even deaths of infants were tolerated by elite managers because the perceived collective value of “staying the course” was so high. Even fudging the numbers to hide the harms was considered virtuous.
Stalin’s stats were great too, until they weren’t.
In classic public‑health utilitarian fashion, the stated good was enormous —preventing a leading cause of infant mortality worldwide— so the “cost” of experimenting on a few dozen vulnerable infants in D.C. could be rationalized as small in comparison.
The reason progressives and public health types (but I repeat myself) stick like limpets to utilitarianism is that it is technocratic. The philosophy —which is a necessary foundation for communism— presumes it is possible to quantify, in hard numbers, the numeric value of human lives and flourishing. That makes it possible to compare political policies: which ones produce on balance the most human flourishing?
It is both sensationally attractive and completely perverted…
In the Lot 100 case, we find scientists who explicitly or implicitly calculated that infants were less valuable than adults, and that poor folks were less valuable than more economically privileged ones. After all, the NIH investigators recruited from public children’s clinics, not from the private practices their own children or colleagues might have used.
Put even more simply and uglier: the NIH bureaucrats didn’t experiment on their own kids.
🔥 I will say it: utilitarianism is an evil, reprehensible ideology that all good people should root out and shun.
Utilitarianism isn’t a neutral “science of compassion.” It’s a license for elites to convert other people’s lives into numbers and then quietly decide which ones are expendable. Once you agree that it’s acceptable to harm a few innocents to buy hypothetical benefits for the many, you haven’t elevated morality— you’ve simply replaced “thou shalt not” with “let’s run the model and see who dies.”
Lot 100 was not a tragic mistake; it was utilitarianism doing exactly what it promises: sacrificing powerless babies in a D.C. clinic for the supposed good of a population they never got to join. [It continues]
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), the “Father” of Modern Utilitarianism and progressive saint. His preserved head, anyway.
What is interesting is I had already put the following together about the philosophies of ‘value’ because I like Mises and Gary North. Gary passed away in February of 2022, at the age of 80 due to complications from prostate cancer.
…He was by training an economic historian and had a strong commitment to Austrian economics. He greatly admired Mises and Rothbard. He once asked Mises how he had been able to publish his famous article of 1920 on socialist calculation in a journal edited by Max Weber. Mises answered, “Well, I knew him, and I sent it in.” Gary wrote a notable study of Marx, Marx’s Religion of Revolution, and a long and learned commentary on biblical economics. He was also a founder of the Christian Reconstruction movement, along with his father-in-law, R.J. Rushdoony.
He was on Ron Paul’s staff in 1976, and he and Dr. Paul were close friends. For many years, he spoke at Mises Institute conferences, and he was the best debater I have ever heard. In his speaking style, he was highly organized and relentless; but he was in conversation kind and friendly. When I saw him at conferences, we would exchange stories of the old days. Now, alas, I cannot do that anymore.
Gary’s Mises on Money is well worth the read. I featured it in an article called APRIMERONMONEY. The following article by Gary is another excellent read as he identifies the problems that are metastasizing in American thought.
The philosophical bases of Marx’s thought were laid early and remained unchanged throughout his life. As a student, Marx accepted the philosophy of Hegel as the only sound and adequate explanation of the universe. According to this philosophy, “the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement.” The one universal phenomenon is change, and the only universal form of this phenomenon is its complete abstraction. Thus, Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence; only the conceptions of them possessed by human minds were real. Ideas, not objects, were the stuff of which the universe was made.
If Objective Reality does not exist, than a little girl can become a boy or a cat or a dog. The people pushing this insanity are not going to tell you that it is based on Marxism but that is where it comes from.
Old timers will recall this title as a memorable line in a memorable comedy album, Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America, Volume 1….
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO “PROPERTY”?
The phrase, “life, liberty, and property,” does not appear in the Declaration. The phrase is incorrectly attributed to John Locke. It was implied in Locke’s Second Treatise on Government (1690), but it does not appear. Locke used the word estate rather than property. He subsumed all three words under property.
Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of Nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty, and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men, but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it (Sect. 87).
Protection of all three — life, liberty, property — is guaranteed in writing by the United States Constitution. This guarantee appears in Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791. It has proven as reliable as other government guarantees of its own performance.
A similar phrase appears in Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Burke wrote this of the revolutionaries:
To those who have observed the spirit of their conduct it has long been clear that nothing was wanted but the power of carrying the intolerance of the tongue and of the pen into a persecution which would strike at property, liberty, and life.
But there is no question that Jefferson substituted “the pursuit of happiness” for the more common term, “property.” Was there something ideological in this substitution? Was Jefferson a proto-socialist, as numerous contemporary historians argue?
Had he inserted “property,” this would have saved defenders of private property a lot of time and trouble when dealing with statist scholars, who are always searching for support for their position in the writings of famous defenders of democracy.
The pursuit of happiness is for modern academic man what the pursuit of truth is: a way to avoid the responsibility for discovering anything final. There is no objective truth for modern academic man, other than the truth against objective truth. Similarly, there is no objective happiness. There is only the subjective pursuit of such lofty goals by individuals. In this, as in virtually everything else, academics substitute process for objectivity. Defending the process is holy communion for modern academics. There is officially no holy grail, which would be much too objective.
Why this commitment to pursuit, trivial or otherwise? I suggest two reasons. First, academics do not officially believe in objective truth, which implies objective responsibility, which is decidedly old fashioned and even vaguely suggestive of the Christian doctrine of final judgment. The concept of objective responsibility implies objective standards and objective performance. Academics prefer to avoid both.
Second, modern academics control access to salaried participation in the process of the great search, especially in higher education. They control the implementation of the officially objective standards of tenure, institutional accreditation, and the flow of departmental funds. What Daniel Klein has described so well in the closed, self-certified world of Ph.D. economists operates in every academic discipline.
In contrast, “property” implies enforceable titles to identifiable units of ownership. This is altogether too objective for modern defenders of the political defense of the pursuit of happiness. They defend the democratic process, which affirms, “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.” They want to believe in Jefferson the democrat, not Jefferson the defender of free market capitalism. They want to eradicate political restrictions on the confiscation of property by the State. The suggestion that politics exists so as to defend private property is only marginally less welcome than the suggestion that the Second Amendment to the Constitution actually means that civilians possess the right to keep and bear arms.
JEFFERSON WAS NOT ALONE
It was not only Jefferson who neglected to spell out in official detail his personal adherence to the private property social order. It was also Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations (1776), four months earlier, had placed the division of labor at the forefront of its economic attack on mercantilism, an attack that Jefferson made political in the Declaration. Smith’s pedagogical strategy backfired for the next 150 years. By failing to specify in Wealth of Nations the moral and philosophical foundations for private ownership, Smith handed the seemingly high moral ground over to Godwin and the socialists. The consequences of this decision have been chronicled in considerable detail by Tom Bethell in Chapter 7 of his book, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages (1998).
Jefferson was the supreme follower of Adam Smith among the American Revolutionaries. But by failing to specify property as the third pillar of the justification for civil government — a mistake Locke had not made — he made more difficult his ideological heirs’ defense of the private property order.
The pursuit of happiness is open-ended and non-specific. Liberty is just too vague to be defended systematically. What was needed in 1776 in both of those legendary documents was the insight made by Frederic Bastiat in 1850, in the midst of a European revolution that had begun in early 1848, a few weeks before Marx and Engels’ anonymous tract appeared, Manifesto of the Communist Party. Bastiat wrote in The Law, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” Or, in the words of a previous defender of objective private property, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16b-17)
Gary North Mentions Bastiat. Here is part of an article about Bastiat and his philosophy.
Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) was one of the leading advocates of free markets and free trade in the mid-19 century. He was inspired by the activities of Richard Cobden and the organization of the Anti-Corn Law League in Britain in the 1840s and tried to mimic their success in France. Bastiat was an elected member of various French political bodies and opposed both protection and the rise of socialist ideas in these forums. His writings for a broader audience were very popular and were quickly translated and republished in the U.S. and throughout Europe. His incomplete magnum opus, Economic Harmonies, is full of insights into the operation of the market and is still of great interest to economists. He died at a young age from cancer of the throat.
LAW, Spoliation by
LAW, Spoliation by. What is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right of legitimate defense. Every man certainly has received from nature, from God, the right to defend his person, his liberty and his property, since these are the three constitutive or conservative elements of life, elements which complement one another, and which can not be understood, one without the other. For what are our faculties but an extension of our personality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every man has the right to defend, even by force, his person, his liberty and his property, a number of men have the right to concert together, to agree and to organize a common force in order to provide regularly for this defense. The collective right has its principle, and its reason of being, and bases its legitimacy upon the individual right, and the common force can not legitimately have any other end or any other mission than the isolated forces for which it is substituted. Thus, as an individual can not legitimately make any forcible attempt against the person, liberty or property of another individual, so, for the same reason, a community can not legitimately make use of force to destroy the person, liberty or property of individuals or of classes. For this perversion of force would be, in the latter case, as well as in the former, in contradiction to our premises.
Which brings us to capitalism which TradeBait2 discussed yesterday. This is looking at Capitalism from the point of view of an Atheist. For those who may not know Ayn Rand grew up in the Soviet Union.
Laissez-faire capitalism, according to Ayn Rand, is not just an ideal but an unknown ideal. Few grasp its meaning, history, economics, or moral justification. In Capitalism, Rand sets out to remedy that.
Rand argues that capitalism is “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” In practice, this means that a capitalist society is one in which the government performs a single function: it protects individual rights by banning “physical force from human relationships.”
Pure capitalism, she concludes, has never existed: but in the countries that approached it, with America in the second half of the nineteenth century leading the way, the individual was able to flourish. This is because capitalism is the only system that fully recognizes that man is the rational being who “has the right to exist for his own sake,” free from coercion by others.
There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose — claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.
The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”
There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose — claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.
The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”
The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.
The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man — and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.
GOOGLE AI: Ayn Rand intrinsic value
Value Requires a Valuer and a Purpose
Rand asked the fundamental question: Of value to whom and for what? [1]
Because she rejected intrinsic value, she maintained that an object cannot have value without someone to value it.
For a thing to have value, it must play a specific causal role in achieving a goal for an individual. [1, 2, 3]
The Ultimate Standard of Value
Rand argued that the concept of “value” only makes sense because living organisms face the alternative of life or death. Therefore, the ultimate standard of value is an individual’s own life. An object or action is considered “good” or “valuable” if it serves to sustain and further that specific individual’s life. [1, 2, 3]
Explore the Intrinsic Theory of Values in the Ayn Rand Lexicon to read her exact definitions and arguments. [1]
With the support of the Democratic Socialists, his prediction is coming true.
Also, I remember him beating his shoe on the desk in the UN saying,”We will bury you”….
A reminder of Khrushchev comments September 29, 1959: THIS WAS Russian Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev’s ENTIRE QUOTE from that day:
“Your children’s children will live under communism, You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have Communism. We will not have to fight you; We will so weaken your economy, until you will fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Do you remember or know all of what Russia’s Khrushchev said in 1959?
How do you create a Socialist State?
There are 8 levels of control; read the following recipe:
1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty – Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect (food, housing, income) of their lives because that will make them fully dependent on the government.
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to and take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion – Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools because the people need to believe in ONLY the government knowing what is best for the people.
8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. Eliminate the middle class This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Fast forward to 2021.
Is this parallel to the Democrat Socialist Agenda????
With an open mind, you can draw your own conclusions.
One last historical fact that needs to be remembered: In 1964, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Democrats held the longest filibuster in our nation’s history, 75 days. All trying to prevent the passage of one piece of legislation. You guessed it: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
Amazing how the CIA reading room hides all of this:
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
gammacism and gammicism
nouns
gammacism
inability or hardship in pronouncing letters ‘g’ and ‘k’
a speech defect characterized by the substitution of the sound “g” for the sound “k”
stuttering over “g” and “k”
not to be confused with gammicism, although, ironically, the spellings are often switched
gammicism
speech or writing characterized by use of archaisms or outdated expressions, often in a style that is overly elaborate or pretentious
Used in a paragraph
The exercises in the case of diagnosed gammacism are aimed at improving the work of the language. Exercises involving lifting the tongue, moving it to different parts of the mouth, sticking it out, licking the teeth or tapping the lower teeth with the tip are of great importance.
Shown in a picture
Shown in a video
MUSIC!
Gamma wave jazz! It’s a thing!
And if that’s not your thing, try this song…
THE STUFF
Don’t remember what Steve taught you about gamma rays? Here you go!
And here is where that knowledge is useful – some older, younger, Veritasium!
Veritasium. Useful stuff. Although, not necessarily, while fixing stuff around the house.
There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s post for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in the discussion thread for today’s post, they must cite their source. Thank you.
Do not forget to LABEL AI articles, video and such.
The second and last part of the Kash Patel transcript.
45:00 – 58:30: The FISA Fraud: How the Spying Began — CONTINUED
58:30 – 01:10:00: Modernizing the Bureau: AI vs. Terrorist Threats
First I want to draw attention to this new disclosure. I had not heard of this operation before and Google says it does not exist.
.@jsolomonReports predicts that the SPLC case is only the beginning of what's to come from this DOJ:
“I think we’re about to enter into a period of MAAA. Make America Accountable Again. I think with Pam Bondi moved aside, the speed at which the Justice Department will move on… pic.twitter.com/qM5mKne2Cj
@jsolomonReports predicts that the SPLC case is only the beginning of what’s to come from this DOJ:
“I think we’re about to enter into a period of MAAA. Make America Accountable Again. I think with Pam Bondi moved aside, the speed at which the Justice Department will move on things that have been working in the system for months is picking up.
I think in the summer and fall, we are going to talk a lot more about a case called “Operation Round River. Its goal was to neutralize anyone who would dare suggest there was a corrupt relationship between Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the Ukrainian Government or the Ukrainian company Burisma.
All the people I’ve talked to in government think that Round River may be the most JAW-DROPPING of the four codename investigations that targeted Donald Trump and his followers.”
The four investigations Kash IDed are, Arctic Frost, Plasmic Echo, Round River and of course Crossfire Hurricane.
….
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:
51:30 — Kash Patel: They lost the election. And so what they wanted to do was kneecap the presidency of Donald Trump and set him up to fail. And so they breathlessly put out that false narrative about Russia and collusion over and over and over again. Remember these same people in Trump one, the Rosensteins and Comeys and McCabes of the world were the ones that proposed wearing a wire under the 25th amendment to record Donald Trump. That’s not me saying it. That’s the documents we found. Again, their arrogance. They wrote it down. We put it out. Can you imagine if Obama or Biden’s FBI or DOJ proposed to wear a wire in the Oval Office to record the president of the United States? Would we not still be talking about that?
Sean Hannity: Well, think back again. Donald Trump is running and Hillary is paying for this dirty dossier. Unverified, unverifiable. And James Comey looks at it. Didn’t know anything about the authenticity of it. Then he makes this famous trip to Trump Tower.
First of all, I’ve known Donald Trump for 30 years. It made me laugh when I heard it because I knew it was complete utter BS. Well, there was a report, sir, that you might have been in the Ritz Carlton in Moscow and you might have had hookers in your room urinating on you. Okay, if anyone knows Donald Trump, he is the biggest germaphobe. Him and Howard Stern, the biggest germaphobes in the world. And so it wasn’t true. But Comey knew it wasn’t true.
Kash Patel: There’s something more basic to it than that. The dossier, which now everyone has seen, when I first saw it, I said, “Let’s just do some investigative 101.
” Does that hotel with that room even exist in Moscow? It doesn’t. It literally doesn’t exist.
Sean Hannity: Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is the first I’m hearing it. What? Come on.
Kash Patel: Serious. So, we looked it up. Doesn’t exist. A hotel exists. Not with that room. Not in that location. It’s available on the internet. Anybody at the FBI could have verified that. They didn’t do it on purpose because the narrative, the salacious and fake narrative against Donald Trump was what they wanted out there to kneecap his presidency because they knew we were uncovering their FISA fraud. So once we caught them doing that, what’s the next best thing? Continue the narrative anyway. Continue the narrative to make sure President Trump doesn’t succeed. And thankfully to your reporting and just a select few others, and we were vilified for it then, we got the truth out. And now the American people, when you fast forward across the four years that President Trump was out of office and now that he’s back in office for the first year, it’s right to be focused on this. It’s right to be pissed off about it because what law enforcement should be doing is what we talked about at the top of the show, doing cop work.
Sean Hannity: I want to read Dan Bongino’s famous tweet and I first I want to know what you thought. Did he talk to you before he sent it out?
Kash Patel: The..
Sean Hannity: The infamous Bongino Holy Shit… All right, let me read it to you.
Kash Patel: Yeah, read it to me.
Sean Hannity: It says, “During my tenure here as the deputy director of the FBI, I’ve repeatedly relayed to you that things are happening that may not be immediately visible, but they are happening.” He said, “The director and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations. It is a priority for us. But what I have learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessary investigations into these aforementioned matters has shocked me down to my core. I’ll continue in a minute. I’ve known Dan like I’ve known you for years. This is not written lightly.
Kash Patel: No, we talked about it.
Sean Hannity continuing to read: We cannot run a republic like this. I’ll never be the same after learning what I’ve learned. We’re going to conduct these righteous and proper investigations by the book and in accordance with the law. We are going to get the answers we all deserve. And as with any investigation, I cannot predict where it will land. But I can promise you an honest and dignified effort at truth. Not my truth or your truth, but the truth. God bless America
Sean Hannity: I’ve known this guy forever. He did not write that lightly.
Kash Patel: No, we talked about it.
Sean Hannity: Look, he talked to you about it before he sent it out. And you said send.
Kash Patel: We were the best partners. Dan was easily the best hire I’ve made or I’ll ever make. He told me he only wanted to go a year. That was the agreement. I said, “Hey, man. We need you.” When we were first talking about he said, “I can give you a year.” I said, “Give me a year. We’ll take it.”
Here’s the difference. We are doing it by the book. That’s why it takes time. That’s why it takes time to build a prosecution team in different jurisdictions to look at this, to get the grand jury subpoenas out, to put witnesses in the grand jury. We’ve put a ton of witnesses in the grand jury. That’s what they don’t do. They don’t play by the rules. They don’t play by the book, but we do because, as Dan said, we got to do this right. We got one shot at it. We’re not going to do it fast just to get the headline. We’re going to take our time and get it done right and get everybody that was involved under the microscope.
Sean Hannity: When you say, the amount of corruption, this is a priority and that we cannot run a republic like this. I interpret that to mean and I want your impression. Tell me about Comey. as Trump always refers to him as a bad dirty cop. Is he right?
Kash Patel: Yeah. Look at Russia Gate. You can’t do that if you’re stupid. He’s not dumb. You can’t go out and give that Hillary Clinton press conference if you’re stupid or dumb. It’s intentional to seed the narrative and to cover up their dirty work. And so he built a team around him, which we obviously got rid of, that would advance that narrative that crippled the credibility of the FBI. And that’s the one thing we’ve been fixing. It’s not me saying it. The FBI’s credibility before Donald Trump got back into office was cratering. Cratering because of THIS, because they didn’t tackle violent crime and didn’t tackle national security issues. I mean, just look at how fast it changed.
Sean Hannity: Well, how could they be if they’re involved in all this political intrigue and sabotage?
[From the Sundance]
Kash Patel: And that’s what hurt the mission the most. The heroes of this mission under President Trump and this FBI are in the field. That’s why we’re giving them the resources. That’s why we’re bringing in things like AI. AI was never used at the FBI till we got there. Literally, I’m using it everywhere. I’m using it in places like our criminal justice information system database so we can pop fingerprints immediately and get fugitives and arrest warrants out. I’m using it in places like our national threat operations center.
I’ll give you an example. They wanted to do it human by human. Can you imagine how many tips the FBI gets a week? Thousands. If we had just humans look at it, we would never sift through them all. I put AI in there. We stopped a school massacre in North Carolina because we got a tip and we were able to triage it with artificial intelligence. We stopped a school shooting in New York because we got a tip from our private sector partners who are building our AI infrastructure. I mean just think about the old school movies. Remember they get the fingerprint screens up and they’ll say we’ll see you in a couple days when we get a hit. Now those hits are instantaneous because we are welcoming in artificial intelligence.
The former FBI rejected that notion because they knew that wasn’t their focus. Their focus was on weaponization, not modernization. My predecessors didn’t spend one second modernizing the FBI. They kept calling it the premier law enforcement agency in the world, but they failed to give the people in the field the resources that they need. They failed to give our SWAT operators, our tactical operators, our hostage rescue teams the tools they needed.
Sean, our guys, just to give you an example, are doing dynamic hostage rescue operations on a weekly basis with night vision goggles that don’t work. That’s not that’s not hyperbole. That’s a fact. So, I called my partners at DOW and I said, “I need an assist.” They were like, “Roger that. We got you covered.” Why? The question the American people should be asking is, “Why didn’t this so-called premier law enforcement agency of the world, why didn’t they resource it? Why didn’t they build a backbone infrastructure? Why didn’t they go out to the private sector and say, “Hey, we need your help.” Donald Trump kicked that door open. I’ve got every major tech company in the world embedded in the FBI rebuilding our internet capabilities, our classified systems, and the ability for artificial intelligence to be in our counterterrorism program so we can get instantaneous results. What’s the point of collecting terabytes of data if you can’t sift through it?
They never answer that question. And the mainstream media doesn’t ask the question as to why our predecessors kept putting a band-aid on a gunshot to attempt to triage the broken system of the FBI. We spent the last year, this is one of the things I’m most proud of, rebuilding our entire backbone infrastructure because an agent in the field in Omaha should have the exact same toolkit as a guy in New York City. No different. Our SWAT operators should be using machines. They didn’t have Bearcats in the field. We got them Bearcats in the field. You guys want these guys kicking down doors and dropping fast roping off helicopters and things like that and rescuing kids like we just did in Alabama the other week in the middle of a night from a guy who’s holding a young woman at gunpoint. We got to give them the tools that they need. And none of them bothered to do it. They just kept repeating the past hyperbole and resting on the history of the FBI saying we’re great and we’re going to get there.
How come Chris Wray didn’t fight for a budget for this FBI in his five years and saw decline in funds year-over-year for his entire directorship?
Sean Hannity: If Comey is a dirty cop, I know this issue in the indictment 8647. Okay, I think he’s completely full of shit when he says that. Oh, I just thought it was an interesting shell formation. Okay, every American knows what 8647 means. What an interesting shell formation. My wife suggested that I put it on Instagram. I’m like, okay, good luck with that. But to me, that’s the low-hanging fruit for him. Which is why I want to get into what the grand conspiracy will be.
But first, if Comey was a dirty cop, Director Wray used to always warn about some type of apocalyptic meltdown in the country, but then he never did a thing to secure the borders and he kept letting these millions of people come from 200 plus countries and that frustrated me. I felt that that those were all CYA appearances before Congress or the Senate. So my question is, how do you describe Director Wray?
Kash Patel: Look, I don’t spend my days thinking about Director Wray. He paid lip service to the American people to say we have all these investigations but didn’t reduce crime. That’s the result. The results speak for themselves. In one year, in 14 months with President Trump, this FBI has done more than the prior two guys combined. That’s that shows that the mandate of the FBI has been restored by President Trump.
Sean Hannity: That shows you’re not playing politics. You’re not out to screw the next Democrat. You there to stop crime.
Kash Patel: That shows the breadth of cooperation we’re getting from people like the government of Mexico, the government of India, China, Russia even. We’re getting these fugitives from all over the world and we’re sending our people to go get them. I was there on the ground in Mexico when we got the Ryan Weddings of the world. When they said you couldn’t get them, you couldn’t find them. We created operations to go and flush these guys out and we’re getting them all in record speed. We went to the government of India and said, “Hey, there’s a gal over there on our top 10 most wanted list who murdered her handicapped 5-year-old son. They found her in a week for us and we went and brought her back.” They could have done that in the Biden administration. They could have gotten Ryan Wedding. They could have gotten the rapist in North Carolina who was our most wanted fugitive. They could have done all that work. They didn’t because they were focused on keeping the status quo. That’s what the American people hated the most. That’s why I believe they voted Donald Trump back into office again because they wanted to change the status quo in Washington DC on Capitol Hill and the way this FBI represents itself across the country.
Sean Hannity: Walk through the next level. We got all the way through 2016. They set him up like a bowling pin because they took a career senior intelligence officials assessments about there was no Russian interference. They used the dirty dossier to backdoor spy on candidate Trump, transition team Trump, and then later the Trump administration. Carter Page is a nice guy. My understanding is he was a hero. He used to work with three-letter agencies. Is that your assessment of him, too?
Kash Patel: That’s the public information that’s out there. That’s correct.
Sean Hannity: I mean, that’s public and he’s told me directly that he would always help out our government. He was a patriot. Trump has to deal with that for three years. But there’s more to the story. It’s a bigger broader case. The reason that the grand conspiracy, if which you have said you’re looking into is so critical, is because the small the low-hanging fruit on Comey 8647 while important for sure is not the worst of what this guy did. And unfortunately the statute of limitations ran out because you had the intervening Biden years. They were never going to investigate the guy that did all this work for them. However, if there is a grand conspiracy, there are no statutes of limitations.
Kash Patel: Well, and also if they did it again, right? The win here is not just holding these people accountable. The win here is making sure that the FBI, DOJ, and the entire government are never able to do this again to anyone else. That’s what President Trump has said repeatedly. He was the ultimate target, but he wants to make sure that this can never happen to anyone ever again. That is the ultimate win for our republic. And it’s not just this statute of limitations thing. These people, as I said earlier, are so arrogant that they ran back the same playbook. That’s what we uncovered.
Sean Hannity: Isn’t it then important then that those that were involved in it be held accountable?
Kash Patel: All of them. Every single one of them.
Sean Hannity: Okay. So, how do we get from it began here in 2016, July, the press conference, all the way through the setup for 2017, and Trump’s coming in and explain how it continues from there.
Kash Patel: That’s the part that I’ve got to be a little careful about. What I was saying earlier is they ran it back again. I don’t mean in 2016 and 17. I don’t mean in 2021. I mean they ran it back just now.
Sean Hannity: Explain.
Kash Patel: In the last election. In the one that just put Trump back in office. They ran the same playbook of getting regurgitated bogus information funded by political operatives seeded into the intelligence community. And that’s what we figured out and unlocked. And that is where I spend most of my time when it comes to the deweaponization of government. Focused on, collecting those bad actors, getting grand juries, getting prosecutors, and building teams around the country, not just in one location to look at that because these people haven’t stopped. The same actors were involved yet again.
And so that, when you say grand conspiracy, I think the American public thinks one thing. When I hear it, I’m talking about the breath of the entirety of it. And we are putting it all in one place and that’s the crux of what we’re doing right now.
Sean Hannity: Explain how it goes out further. My understanding is you brought Joe diGenova in?
Kash Patel: DOJ did.
Sean Hannity: He’s one tough kick-ass prosecutor.
Kash Patel: He’s been around a long time.
Sean Hannity: I would not want to go up against him. One of the few people I’m like, UH No. But I think he’s also truth oriented and he’ll want to get to the the bottom line. So there really is an effort to just… what do you think it stems from? Is it they hate him? They hate his politics. They hate what he stands for. They hate his style. What is it?
Kash Patel: They hate that he [Trump] did everything they said they were going to do and didn’t get done. Everything from ending the forever wars to securing the border to reducing crime to historic low proportions. He’s accomplished all that and so much more. And if an Obama or Harris or Biden had done it, they would be building monuments for them. But he did it. They talked about it. They ran on it. They weaponized government. He exposed it. Trump then got back into power and said, “We’re going to fix it forever. So do it the right way. Don’t go fast. Get it done and get everybody. And that’s what we’re doing. We’re only 14 months in. I know people think it should have happened yesterday. But look at the public corruption cases we’ve already brought. The work that we’re already doing, the fraud. We haven’t even talked about the fraud in Minnesota or the scam centers overseas that are plaguing the United States of America. We’re doing all of this work. At the same time, we’re doing what you and I are talking about.
Sean Hannity: So, and this is what I guess frustrated me knowing you for a long time. You walk in the door and like people are immediately like slamming you with, “Oh, wait a minute. Where are the JFK files? RFK files with MLK files and are there UFOs?” Which, by the way, I’m going to ask you all of that. I’m fascinated with the UFO part. But you’re slammed with that. But then you’re also slam with getting to the bottom of this, keeping Americans safe and secure, dealing with narco terrorists, dealing with child trafficking operations. All this has taken place in our country. It’s kind of hard to absorb that.
Kash Patel: Well, President Trump not only promised to restore law enforcement and make it better than it’s ever been, he’s also the most transparent president in the history of the United States. All the things you talked about are things other presidents could have put out but didn’t. He did. And let me give you another example of what this FBI is doing. Our constitutional oversight comes from the United States Congress. I’m a big proponent of that. The prior two directors released a total of 14,000 pages of documents to Congress in a total of 10 years. 14,000 pages of documents to oversight committees in Congress.
Sean Hannity: How many [have you released] And if if you listen to your critics, they would think that you’re hiding everything.
Kash Patel: 41,000 pages in 14 months, I don’t do math, but I think it’s like a 350% increase. And that’s just in 14 months because President Trump is driving the transparency initiative. And the documents are the best work. And whether it’s JFK or RFK or UFOs or what have you, it’s also the underlying [stuff] and that’s the balance we got to strike. People are like, “Where are the rest of the Russia gate?” You know, conspiracy documents. My balance is to release what we can while maintaining the integrity of the investigation. If we put everything out, then we jeopardize the integrity of the prosecutions that we will bring. That’s the balance that I have to strike. And I get it. We take a lot of incoming for it. Why don’t you just put it out? Why don’t you just put it out? Well, we want accountability, too, right?
Sean Hannity: But you can’t. But people don’t understand either. You take in voluminous amounts of information. A lot of it is not verified and a lot of it’s not vetted. It’s raw intel that could hurt innocent people. You have redactions that would go along with it. I would urge anyone to go through 500 pages and try to redact what you have to redact and the amount of the intensity of that work alone would be insane and you’re talking about hundreds of thousands of documents. That’s a lot. [Just editing these transcripts is a (euphemism) and I can only handle about 5 to 10 pages a day! –GC]
A random question and then we’ll get back more focused but what keeps Kash Patel awake at night
Kash Patel: Missing something. Did we miss a national security threat? Did we miss the chance at protecting another kid or another community? And I can tell the American public that just look at the month of December alone last year. We stopped four terrorist attacks in four weeks during the holidays. Four.
Sean Hannity: Slow down a second. Most Americans don’t know that.
Kash Patel: Yeah. Everything from the pumpkin tape plot all the way through the attacks that were going to happen in Texas, Florida, and New York. And we stopped them all. We, this FBI.
Sean Hannity: When you say terror attack, do you mean a real attack, a terrorist organization, [and you] stopped it? That’s got to give you a lot of personal job satisfaction and then scare the hell out of you about what else may be out there.
Kash Patel: It’s a two-edged sword, right? Like, thank God that this FBI is on mission doing it. We put it out as much as we can because the work of this FBI should be known to the American public and it should be advertised. Their wins, the sleepless nights that the agents, the intel analysts and professional staff put in. The time away from their families. We are the folks that are responsible for safeguarding America. What keeps me up at night is we’re trying to do everything we can not miss anything.
Sean Hannity: So, you have to be perfect every time.
Kash Patel: Yeah. Well, they only have to get through once.
Sean Hannity: Do you fear a 911 style attack could happen again?
Kash Patel: We’re always on the watch for that given the current circumstances we’re in. And as I said earlier, the thing about terrorists is they’re exceedingly patient. After the disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan, which led directly to the deaths of 13 of our brave soldiers at Abbey Gate. And by the way, in the first two weeks on the job, Johnny Ratcliffe and I went to the Pakistanis and got the Abbey Gate bomber who just got convicted last week. The question the American public should be asking is what was the Biden administration doing for four years not finding this guy that killed 13 American soldiers. That’s how fast we moved. And that’s how fast you can move.
The problem is, the way that Afghanistan was left by the Biden administration, allows al-Qaeda and ISIS K [ISIS-Khorasan – Terrorist Groups – GC] specifically to rejuvenate. ISIS K, which is the worst of the worst pretty much outside of the Iranian terror regime. And so they are rebuilding slowly. That’s what we’re watching. And we’re watching to see if they are moving people across continents into Africa into South America. And we’re working with our intelligence community partners, CIA, NSA overseas, and of course the DOW running targeted operations overseas, going after the drug traffickers. And the big shift that we had here was we finally equated terrorists to being terrorists. What do I mean by that? Muslim Brotherhood, they’re terrorists. Donald Trump did that. Drug trafficking organizations in Mexico, they’re terrorists. Donald Trump made them FTOs. [Foreign Terrorist Organizations] So that unlocks authorities that we have to traditionally manhunt al-Qaeda and ISIS and ISIS K on these organizations. That is a critical win that is never talked about. Moving the machine to designate these organizations as foreign terrorist organizations so the FBI the CIA the NSA and DOW can do what you’re seeing.
Sean Hannity: Are there sleeper cells… do you believe? And what degree of certainty do you have that there are sleeper cells in this country?
Kash Patel: So we can only work off the intelligence that we have and currently we are looking at that with our partners across the IC. I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m saying the intelligence that’s been produced so far doesn’t show credible information to support that. That’s the assessment of the IC.
Sean Hannity: I don’t know if I’d want to read the presidential daily briefing every day. I think that would be a pretty long when I look at all of this. I want to go back to your interpretation when you had the burn bags ‘cuz that was a big story. When I heard they left burn bags behind. I’m like, either they’re dumb — And then Dan was the one that opened my eyes by saying, I think somebody probably left them there hidden on purpose, hoping we’d find it and maybe even tipped you off that it was there. ‘Cuz you said this is in a room that nobody knew existed. Was it like a safe room?
Kash Patel: Literally, it was in a safe room.
Sean Hannity: And so you told WHO[???] go look in this room.
Kash Patel: First, we had to find it. Remember, it goes back to the arrogance. The people that authored Russia Gate and the ultimate weaponization of government and law enforcement, we caught them because we used their documents. We found their documents. I knew they had done that again. What we found was just a chunk of it. So, I knew it was elsewhere. So, I said, “We’ve got to go comb through the entire building and find a combination of two things. Their arrogance coupled with good people in the FBI who were smart enough to make sure that the material that the arrogant people assumed would be destroyed was not and that was the key for us.
Sean Hannity: We got Dan’s reaction. What was your reaction when you read it?
Kash Patel: It was something I anticipated. I wasn’t surprised by it.
Sean Hannity: Well, you were more deeply involved because you were working with Devon. So, it was just confirmation of what you already knew with more information.
Kash Patel: Yeah. That we hadn’t seen yet. with more information.
Sean Hannity: How do you explain that they put it down on paper? Because that seems pretty dumb to me.
Kash Patel: The arrogance. Why would you put down on paper that you had information that exonerated Carter Page and President Trump’s campaign? ‘Cuz they thought, “No one’s ever going to see this. Hillary’s going to win. We’re never going to see this.”
Sean Hannity: Are you convinced that there’s enough evidence that the DOJ in the future will be able to bring real strong cases against the people that are involved here?
Kash Patel: Yes. I can’t start saying names.
Sean Hannity: … [story about cops in his family] …restoring the FBI to its former greatness and restoring our intelligence community to its former greatness. Are you confident in this 4-year period, assuming we just have four years? I’m hoping longer. That’s possible?
Kash Patel: Yes. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what President Trump’s leading out on. people should really take a hard look at the last 14 months and some of the things we’ve talked about.
They said that none of that was possible. There’s no way you could reduce robberies in this country by 20%. There’s no way you could drop the murder rate in this country by 20%. We did all that. There’s no way you could tackle fraud in Minnesota. What did you see last week? FBI agents along with the inter agency executing 21 search warrants and raiding locations across Minnesota. Not just the fraud here, but the fraud that’s being manufactured and stood up by the CCP overseas in places like Cambodia, Thailand, and Burma. They’re standing up those scam center compounds that are defrauding senior citizens in America by the billions. Just last week, because of President Trump’s ability to have countries in the Middle East, Dubai specifically, the FBI, the Dubai police, and the MPS were on the ground. We shut down nine scam centers, freed 2,000 trafficked enslaved laborers, sent them back home, and shut down a $5 billion scam center fraud that was being perpetrated in the United States of America.
Sean Hannity: It’s crazy this level of crime, especially coming from abroad, is here.
Kash Patel: And [where] they headquartered it. So you have to root out the fraud like we’re doing on the ground in Minnesota. This is our operational plan that we’ve been executing the last year and go to places like Cambodia, Thailand, and Burma where the CCP is standing up villages of scam center compounds and work with our private sectors to annihilate them.
Sean Hannity: Is China the worst of all our geopolitical foes?
Kash Patel: Yeah, by far.
Sean Hannity: Let me ask you about this. So you know I work closely with John Solomon. We know about Arctic Frost. The summary I would give and maybe you can give yours. They actually spied without a warrant, without any basis. You talk about unreasonable search and seizure on congressmen and senators and others.
Kash Patel: Yeah. And others.
Sean Hannity: How’s that investigation going?
Kash Patel: It’s far down the track.
Sean Hannity: You feel you’re getting where you need to be?
Kash Patel: Yeah
Sean Hannity: Here’s the reporting of John Solomon. It’s not just Arctic Frost. What about Round River [Google denies it even exists! – GC], which deals with Ukraine. What about Plasmic Echo, which has to do with classified documents? And then of course, Crossfire Hurricane.
Kash Patel: All of it. All of it collectively is run on the same MO that was stood up by a weaponized law enforcement. And all of it is being uncovered and exposed by the same MO that President Trump came into office again with to root out corruption and weaponization of law enforcement. But how?
Get the documents, then get the witnesses, then get the grand jury subpoenas out, then put people in the grand jury, then build a case with our prosecutors at the same time to collectively hold these people responsible and find jurisdictions where we can prosecute them based on the law. That’s what we’re doing across the board.
Sean Hannity: Relatively speaking, things that have happened to me, like I had Jim Jordan come on my TV show once and say, “Oh, by the way, the government suppressed your social media account for the 2020 election. Or my own my private personal text messages are released publicly with people like Paul Maniffort, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Kayleigh McEnany, I mean, I would think I have a right to privacy. I’ve never committed a crime in my life except speeding and I don’t speed anymore. Nobody ever gets held accountable for that stuff. And nobody in the media ever cared ‘cuz it was me.
Kash Patel: Yeah, I know the feeling. Mine too.
Sean Hannity: And by the way, your FBI contacted me at least a couple of times through my lawyer, and said, “Oh, by the way, we think your client got hacked by Russia, China, and Iran.” My phone. First of all, why do Russia, China, and Iran want to hack my phone?
Kash Patel: Well, you got a pretty big audience, Sean. I don’t know if you noticed that. And our adversaries, look, but in all seriousness, our adversaries aren’t stupid. Why wouldn’t they target you? You’re one of the most powerful messengers of truth that there is.
Sean Hannity: They want him.
Kash Patel: So, they want you and me. I’m a sitting FBI director and I just figured out that the prior FBI illegally surveilled and collected my information.
Sean Hannity: Is there any way to keep your phone safe? ‘cuz I learned through the Nancy Guthrie case that you could think everything is deleted and you have equipment that can actually retrieve it, which I don’t think you guys want it out there . For example, if you delete your cloud, you delete your text, you delete your email, you wipe it clean and it’s still out there like hanging out in the air and it can be retrieved.
Kash Patel: Well, that’s that’s a whole separate conversation when it comes to how do we use technology and how do we use these tech companies, phone companies, social media companies, cloud services. Everybody wants the best of both worlds. They want to be able to use that and rightfully so. But they also want everything protected and that’s why it takes an act of Congress to come in with laws that we can utilize to safeguard these American citizens. I mean, China, Russia, Iran, and DPRK are never going to stop their espionage activities.
Sean Hannity: Ever.
Kash Patel: Ever. We shouldn’t expect them to.
Sean Hannity: We spy on them.
Kash Patel: But what we can do. What this FBI has done is turbocharge how we go after them. I mean, Sean, you cannot have a 43% increase in espionage arrests in 13 months unless you actually turbocharge and do what the president wants you to do, which is safeguard American citizens. So, we’re on that mission set. We’re also working with the private sector to say, “Hey, you guys and us have to work on a couple of things. Ultimately, safeguarding, you know, free speech and everybody’s right to it. But at the same time, our job in law enforcement is to safeguard your privacy.” That’s a tough balance because people want it both ways and it’s really hard to strike that balance.
Sean Hannity: So, a friend of mine who is pretty high ranking in the FBI, he’s now retired. I’ll never forget this conversation I had with him and I brought this up with with Dan. We were talking about the FBI and he volunteered to me, said if the FBI ever comes to your house, don’t talk to them. That goes against every instinct in my being, my natural reaction would be this is the FBI. I want to help the FBI. You know, if they need my assistance, how can I help you? He said, nuh-uh.
Kash Patel: That’s the ultimate goal we’re working towards, to go back to that. But that’s what we want our FBI and our law enforcement to get back to. That’s the degradation of trust that has happened.
Sean Hannity: This is a guy who loves his country. This guy was an agent’s agent. This guy risked his life all the time, was undercover for years in his life. And for him to say, “Whatever you do, don’t talk to them.” It’s probably a perjury trap. That’s what he told me. Well, look at what they did. I mean, he’s saying that because of the examples you and I have talked about. He left because of it.
Kash Patel: And here’s the other thing. I’ve got so many FBI agents. We created a new program for them to come back in. They were so fed up that they left. They’re all coming back in and helping us. And so the ultimate goal of not just holding everyone accountable for the past that we’ve talked about is, the law enforcement community you and I grew up in, me in New York too, that if a cop shows up or an agent shows up, you invite them in and say, “How can we help? We’re getting there. When I go across this country, when I visit the field offices, when I’m in the community, every single agent, analyst, and civilian tells me the same exact thing. We are feeling more safe under President Trump’s leadership than we ever have before. And we’re finally starting to trust the FBI again when they show up because look at what we’re doing. We’re responding in record speed. You see things like political violence. We’re taking that on. You see things like a political system that was used to target individuals. We took on the SPLC. Why do you think they started coming after me so hard just around the time we indicted the SPLC?
Sean Hannity: Weren’t you on their list? I know I’ve been mentioned by them a million times.
Kash Patel: The hate list. Yeah, I’m sure. These are things that Americans have wanted for a long time and we’re doing it with facts, and every time, and this you know this better than anyone, when they’re coming after you, they’ve come after President Trump and the louder the cauldron of baseless reporting is in Washington DC, the more you’re over the target. The only thing left to do is keep pummeling the target. And that’s what we’re doing with everything from the fraud investigations in Minnesota to SPLC to supporting and defending people’s right like those individuals that we just arrested for throwing a girl to the floor for expressing her freedom of speech right and basically attacking her. We got them too. We’re doing that across the country. That’s just one example. And so that’s what the American public wants. And that’s why we stood up our national mission center in the FBI. We literally, made another transformational change. What we did was we have 10 agencies in the FBI headquarters that have stood up just to ingest all of the information on social media and everywhere
else about people being attacked. We are responding to that in record time and go talk to the folks on social media and see, if when they’re being threatened, how fast this FBI responds. We’re running that and quarterbacking that operation out of this FBI.
Sean Hannity: So, we mentioned immigration, unfettered immigration. The president closed the borders. Those 12 million plus un-vetted illegals from over 200 countries, many with terror ties. I’ll tell you my other big fear is we now lived through the third assassination attempt of President Trump. [more like 5 or more with 25 incidents — GC] I know it’s outside of the FBI’s purview, but I’m concerned because I see three common traits in each example. And I’m not being critical. I mean, we saw the best in Secret Service that night at the White House correspondence dinner. You were there.
As a matter of fact, I was in touch with you. You were with the guy, I think, within probably less than 3 minutes, 5 minutes, but here’s what bothers me. I think we have a perimeter problem. In other words, I thought the perimeter in this case was too close to the venue. I think you need multiple perimeters. And if I’m wrong, tell me. I know it’s separate from the FBI. I am concerned that the whole entire hotel was not swept. I was concerned that Trump International, If you know that golf course where the treed areas are known for paparazzi, they would congregate there. They never swept that area. You have to sweep, secure, and then hold it. Make sure nobody goes in after you sweep it. And then Butler, how does somebody get within 130 yards of a president with a rifle and use a ladder to get on a roof? I’m concerned that while the agents themselves, the rank and file are doing a great job, and I’m not being critical of management. I’m just critical of, do we need a an examination or re-examining how we’re protecting our president?
Kash Patel: Well, look, Mark Wayne and I work closely, you know, every day together.
Sean Hannity: He just started, too.
Kash Patel: We’re getting better and better. But just going back to the White House correspondents dinner. You know what the American public should also be proud of is the inter agency showing up. We were all there, the media was all there, and in record time, we had the suspect subdued. I had a mobile command center stood up at the Hilton Hotel. I launched our NC3, our national crisis coordinate center at Hoover and I stood up our command center at the Washington field office. And you’re right, I was on scene. We stayed on scene. We made sure all the civilian population was safely exited from the building after the individual was secured, processed that individual immediately. The FBI agents are the ones that took him to the hospital and interrogated him on the way. And that’s why again with transparency while protecting the integrity of the investigation, we put out more information than any FBI would have on this individual in our investigation.
That night, we stayed up through the night. I stayed up with my leadership team, and got back early the next morning to make sure that we had adjudicated and, safeguarded the integrity of the investigation to make sure there’s accountability, but also to learn what we could. We’re always looking for what we can be doing better, especially when it comes to safeguarding the president of the United States.
Sean Hannity: I just think we need more perimeters further away from venues. And if you can’t sweep an entire hotel, then we can’t have our president there. Especially with the assassination culture. Three attempts against him. Charlie Kirk is dead. Charlie Kirk, you knew him. I knew him. Can’t have it.
All right. Now, let me ask you the fun questions. You know, one thing I want to ask you is about the Nancy Guthrie case. I got frustrated because I knew from my sources they were trying to keep you guys out.
Kash Patel: They did.
Sean Hannity: And look, time matters in an investigation.
Kash Patel: Look, the first 48 hours of anyone’s disappearance are the most critical. And here’s how these cases works. It is a state matter. It’s a state and local law enforcement matter. What we, the FBI, do is say, “Hey, we’re here to help. What do you need? What can we do?” And for four days, we were kept out of the investigation. And when we were finally let in, Sean, look what we did. We went in and got the Ring doorbell and we said, “Hey, is anyone talking to Google?” I called the leadership at Google and I said, “Look, we know that there was not a subscription service to capture all of the data that would have been captured had there been a subscription service. But can we go into the cache? Can we go into the data before it’s deleted and see what we can find?” That’s why you have that image because the FBI worked with Google to put that image out. Another thing we asked to do..
Sean Hannity: You guys got that tape which was the biggest breakthrough during that case.
Kash Patel: We could have gotten it days before. We could have also maybe gotten more data had we..
Sean Hannity: Why wouldn’t they want your help? Why did they send the DNA to a lab in Florida, not Quantico?
Kash Patel: That’s the other thing that you hit on, right? Again, we were saying we’ll process it. I launched hundreds of agents and intel staff to Phoenix and to Tucson just for this case, just to be on stand-by, just to do the canvasing. And we said we’ll take the DNA. And again, it’s a state and local matter, so it’s their call on where to send the DNA. We have Quantico, best lab in the world. I had a fixed wing aircraft on the ground ready to move it immediately through the night.
Sean Hannity: Did they just say no?
Kash Patel: And they said we’re sending it to Florida and and then I don’t know.
Sean Hannity: They have jurisdiction, so it’s their call. Bad call.
Kash Patel: Well, that’s for the American public to decide. And what we can do is continue to offer support. We would have analyzed it within days and maybe gotten better information or more information. Our lab’s just better than any other private lab out there and we didn’t get a chance to do that. So, I understand everybody’s frustrations on that.
Sean Hannity: No, I’m not frustrated with you. If I was the sheriff and you the FBI was willing to help me and time is of the essence, I would want all the help I can get. Okay. Let me ask you about this. And I think this is really important. You’re going to hate me, but I’m obsessed with it. The JFK files, some have been released. But not all of them. If you go back and watch any documentary of the doctors that took care of JFK at Parkland Hospital, They all said the entrance wound was here, the exit wound was here. All of them. That never changed. Then you came up with the Warren Commission. This whole idea of a magic bullet that goes from here to here, hits him, hits him, hits the, you know, okay, never made sense to me. Every time there’s been an attempt to release those files, there’s opposition. There’s got to be a reason.
Kash Patel: Yeah. And that opposition isn’t with the FBI. We don’t control.
Sean Hannity: Have you ever looked at them?
Kash Patel: We’ve examined and fully un-redacted everything that’s within our purview, but there are other agencies that have equities in that, that I can’t speak to. And so the opposition doesn’t come from this FBI or us. As I said, most transparent administration ever under President Trump, put out more documents on JFK, RFK than ever before. I can’t address the reasons why other agencies said we can’t release X for Y.
Sean Hannity: It’s seems crazy to me. I it just doesn’t seem possible. You know, when the Warren Commission comes up with this magic bullet theory and the doctors at the hospital that are.. that was the leading trauma hospital in Dallas and they all said the same thing. They think the entrance wound was here came out the back which exploded. Makes sense based on my knowledge of ballistics. Did the ballistic side of it tell you a story?
Kash Patel: So here’s the thing. It’s a tragic example of what the FBI does and can do. And then when individuals want to be allowed to target someone, they’ll target the FBI. And that’s okay. That’s their right to do that. But we work with the inter agency. We don’t have a unilateral decision point on that. We don’t. We have to respect their equities. we have to respect whatever they have that is ongoing sources or otherwise that have nothing to do with what actually happened but they’re doing something else later. And so that’s the decision making process that goes into it. As you said, and as I’ve said earlier, I’ve been more transparent than any FBI director literally ever and so has President Trump.
Sean Hannity: So the previous 10 years 13,000 documents they released and in less than a year or a little over a year you’ve been in office 41,000 in a year. Do you have a personal interest in like JFK, RFK, MLK that you would just say let me just take a look at it? Not that you have a lot of spare time on your hands.
Kash Patel: I got a lot of personal interests, but I’ll get to those on the other side of this. On another Saturday.
Sean Hannity: Okay. Then I got to get to the question of either it’s true, these people that I’ve interviewed, these documentaries that I’ve watched. I’m more and more convinced. Have you watched Agent Disclosure?
Kash Patel: I haven’t seen it.
Sean Hannity: Okay. You’re busy. You have a full-time job. I’m more and more convinced that probably and my faith tells me you know we have universes within universes. There’s no limit to God’s imagination. So the idea that there would be life on other planets that may have visited here would not at all shock or surprise me. Have you ever looked into it?
Kash Patel: We’re looking at it. Here’s the thing again.
Sean Hannity: Okay. I want all the details.
Kash Patel: Here’s the thing. Every other president before President Trump could have said, “Hey, let’s look at that and get the American people the information.” What did he do? He stood up an inter agency process with Department of War leading that effort to get out the documentation related to everything that you’re talking about, not just from the FBI, from the IC and everywhere else. And so what do we do? We already delivered our first tranche of information to that committee and they’re going to be publicly releasing this information very soon. We are all for it. There’s nothing in this subject that we’re talking about that we don’t want released. Our job at the FBI is to work with the White House and DOW, give them the information, and then they’re going to put that out in a methodical process and you’re going to start seeing those releases literally happening in the very near future. We just met on it.
Sean Hannity: Do you think we’ve ever recovered alien forms?
Kash Patel: I don’t have any information on that specific.
Sean Hannity: So, you know, Donald Trump is kind of verbose. He talks a lot.
Kash Patel: I’m going to let you tell him that.
Sean Hannity: Oh, I tell him anything I want. I have no hesitation. But he clams up on this issue and I don’t know why. I’ve never been interested in it. I’m like, I want you to get interested in it.
Kash Patel: Well, it’s just another example of President Trump listens to what the American public has an interest in. He’s got a a job that’s a billion times more busy than mine. I’m just focused on law enforcement, national security, and crushing violent crime. He’s got to do a million different things at once, and he still has the time to say, “Stand up an organization. The American public wants the documents. We’ve already delivered the documents. They’re coming out. That’s it.”
Sean Hannity: All right. My last thing I want to reiterate for people is in the what 14 months you’ve been the FBI director, what a dramatic shift. And the statistics speak for themselves. And you never get credit. Do you care about not getting credit?
Kash Patel: I don’t want me to get the credit. I don’t care about that. I care about restoring the FBI’s credibility, which is what President Trump is driving for. And I think at some point in the future, people are going to look back and say, “Look at what President Trump and the FBI did. Restored safety to communities across America.” We’re going to start hearing from all these families just generally speaking, not in the media. I mean, saying, “My kid didn’t have access to these illicit drugs in their school, and there was not an overdose. Our communities and playgrounds are safe. They’re back out there doing what they need to be doing. These kids are getting to go to college. There’s not senseless murders and robberies. Gang violence is at an all-time or getting to an all-time low.
These are things that take time to message from the American populace. And I think there’ll be a point in time where that starts meeting the statistics that we’ve laid out here. And that’s the ultimate win. That’s the job. It’s not about me. It’s about these guys and gals doing the work out there. And again, putting the mission first and giving the credit to the heroes in the field and not the monstrosity that was created in Washington DC by my predecessors, which we’ve taken a wrecking ball to. We didn’t come up with some super creative way on how to retool law enforcement. We just took what President Trump said, back the blue, and let good cops be cops. And you’re seeing the results. And we’re doing things like the FBI field manual. I’ll leave you with this. The FBI field manual, our operations guide book used to be like this. [hands one foot apart]
Approvals, requirements, authorities. I slashed that by 40%. I let all the state and local officers that came up to me over the last year and change said, “Hey, I want to be a task force officer with the FBI.” I’m like, “Great. Let’s do it.” I’ve been waiting 14 months. Why is that? Because the FBI had an internal policy that didn’t allow it. Gone. Now you can be a task force officer in 60 days. We cleared a 700 task force officer backlog. Gone. So now if you want the job, which we want you in on, now they’re coming. State and locals, they’re thrilled with that. Little things like the cross deputization, we no longer have to wait for the inter agency to deputize our task force guys. the FBI field offices where the power is in the field and the special agents in charge are now on their own for the first time ever allowed to deputize their own task force officers. Why didn’t the FBI do that before? The institution prevented it because the bureaucracy was so bloated.
Sean Hannity: You know what one of the saddest things Dan said to me in in his interview is that he thinks if they get back in power again, they’re going to want to arrest people like him and you, me probably, and anybody else they disagree with politically. That’s pretty scary. I mean, this is the US.
Kash Patel: It is scary.
Sean Hannity: That shouldn’t happen in our country.
Kash Patel: It shouldn’t. And that’s why we’re making sure we build this place into something that lasts forever. And that’s the job. That’s the behind the-scenes job. All the things we talked about, I probably haven’t ever talked about 80% of it before today. What we’re doing behind the scenes. Because it’s not the sexy changes that people, advertise, but it’s us listening to the guys and gals in the field that said, “I want this. We want intelligence to drive ops in the field. We don’t want intelligence driven Catholic memos from Washington DC.” And so we listen, Dan and I, and their current leadership. So we listen. We want task force officers. We listen. We want cross deputizations. We listen. We want more intel folks in the field. We listen. We want more agents in the field. We listen. We want to be able to get promoted in the field and not have to come back to Washington DC. We listened. We shrunk the dialogue. The operational guide book by 40%. We listened. And that is why we are moving at the speed with which we are moving because that is what President Trump promised the American people.
Sean Hannity: You know what? If we restore the FBI, our intel community, and we embrace law and order and safety and security, how can we not be a greater, safer country? And that prerequisite that I discussed earlier of law and order, safety, security to pursue happiness, then Americans will be better off.
Amazing story untold sadly. It needs to be told more. I know you don’t have a lot of time to do a lot of media. We really appreciate your time coming out and hanging out with us.
Kash Patel: Thanks for letting me hang out, Sean. I appreciate it.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
zufolo
noun
small flute used to train songbirds
little flute or flageolet, especially that used to teach birds
also spelled zuffolo or ciufolo, and known as friscaletto (Sicily), pipiolu or solittu (Sardinia)
Used in a sentence
By the 18th century, the zuffolo largely declined in classical music circles as more versatile transverse flutes with keys gained favor, enabling greater chromatic range and expressiveness in Baroque and Classical compositions.
Shown in a stock picture
Shown in a video
MUSIC!
Search on “zuffolo and electronica” and you get a lot of things like this. Enjoy! [And yes, it’s AI-generated!]
THE STUFF
I didn’t realize that jumping spiders are actually SMART. Not just smart as spiders go. I mean smart like many higher vertebrates.
Have some respect, the next time you see one doing its thing.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
My favorite evolutionary explainer explains something that’s (1) clickbait levels of interesting on the surface, but (2) insanely boring in actuality, so (3) the main reason to watch this is – IMO – to appreciate that evolutionary anthropology is actually very well-researched.
Useful stuff? I’ll let y’all decide that for yourselves.
