https://tinyurl.com/edav6erv
https://www.howestreet.com/2023/02/interest-rates-gold-us-dollar-lithium-cryptos-mark-leibovit/
DOES JOE BIDEN HAVE TWO MASTERS? IS HE THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE?
Authored by Rob Smith via RealClear Wire,
Here is something you won’t hear anywhere else. It is clear that Joe Biden is being ratted out in the classified document scandal, but by whom? Tucker Carlson is convinced it is a cabal of Democratic Party members who want a new presidential nominee for 2024. Tucker, I love ya, but I don’t think so. I believe foreign actors and their interests may be involved.
Joe Biden has been in politics for 50 years. He’s never had a real job. The only core conviction he has is the self-aggrandizement that comes from being able to have people suck up to him due to the power and vast resources at his disposal. He’s dumber than a doorknob. Yet, with 50 years of experience, he is on automatic pilot when it comes to self-preservation. He simply does what he is told and reads his teleprompter without really knowing what he is reading. Thus, I don’t buy Tucker’s analysis because the “powers that be” controlling him already have a pretty good gig. Why would they want to dump him?
I have great respect for anybody who risks his own money creating a product or service that others want to buy, whether it is a plumber growing his business or a software engineer creating the next new gizmo that charms Menlo Park. But people who sell influence and access to American politicians are despicable. The conspiring politicians are sewer rats. They are fiduciaries of your money, and they use their access to your money to grant favors to others so they will have the benefit of your money and in return they enrich themselves. The nation’s interests take second fiddle to their interests. Yet, the pernicious, indeed the treasonous element of all this is when they sell influence to foreign actors, bad people in charge of powerful governments that are hostile to the United States. It is sick. It is despicable. It is treasonous.
Money is money. It is a force for great good, but can also be a force for evil and corruption. Men of integrity, the type that should be our elected officials know this. They understand that they as humans are corruptible and thus studiously avoid any potential conflict which would compromise their integrity or loyalty to their principal. These are age old truisms that have been in circulation and practiced by those who are serious about preserving their character for at least the past 2,000 years. See Matthew 6:24. “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Space is limited for me to list every Biden family “crime” of influence peddling, though Hunter Biden’s laptop is a wealth of information. The Biden family took money from Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs closely associated with their country’s governments. They orchestrated Defense Department money to fund bio-labs in Ukraine to enrich themselves, as they had financial ties to these entities. We know about Burisma, Bobulinski, SinoHawk and no interest forgivable loans. Ever hear of IRS imputed interest? And by the way, forgiveness of debt is taxable as ordinary income. Then there is Hunter’s 2013 trip on Air Force II with his dad where the Biden crime syndicate walked away with $1.5 billion of communist Chinese government funding into an “equity fund” that crack-head Hunter was to manage. I always look to invest my money with crack addicts, don’t you? Then there is CEFC Energy. There were huge fees paid by China to the Bidens to secure cobalt mining in the Congo Republic in order to manufacture Chinese electrical vehicles. Jim Biden secured a $1.5 billion contract to build 100,000 homes in Iraq. He’s never driven a nail into a 2 by 4. The Penn-Biden Center, funded almost exclusively by the Chinese government and other “dark” money emanating from China, paid Joe a salary of $900,000 to basically do nothing. His cronies like Anthony Blinken got a “get paid” for doing nothing quasi-job too. By the way, he’s now the Secretary of State. Author Peter Schweizer has done excellent work thoroughly documenting Biden family corruption with hostile foreign governments, but as recent as these works are, they do not even scratch the service of what we now know as each day reveals explosive new stories.
This past week I was deposed by California and New York lawyers because I publicly ratted out a lawyer who represented both sides in a multi-million-dollar business deal. The deal went south and he was a principal on the “buy side” of the transaction where his client was the seller. Per the Matthew scripture above, one can’t serve two masters. In this instance, as despicable as the lawyer’s actions were, only one individual was harmed. But when the President of the United States serves two masters, the harm is incalculable. Corrupt governments like Ukraine and China know exactly what they are doing when they buy political influence, aka bribe American politicians. They control the politician. The politician does their bidding instead of his nation’s because the politician can be so easily blackmailed.
Why did President Biden withdraw one million barrels of oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to “sell” to Sinopec, a Chinese firm with ties to Hunter Biden?
More importantly, why are we giving $100 billion dollars to Ukraine? I understand that Putin is a bad guy, but Zelensky ain’t exactly Mother Teresa. Ukraine is as notoriously corrupt as Russia as illustrated in this recent news story of brazen thievery. Would the lives of ordinary Ukrainians (not the oligarchs) living in the breakaway republics of Donestsk and Luhansk (both with a majority of ethnic Russians) really be that much different under Russian control? One thing we have learned from this conflict is the mighty Russian armed forces are not the threat to the West that we all thought. So what is the real goal? Once the conflict ends, how will things really change? One can look at the tragedy of many wars and Monday morning quarterback. What did all the death and property destruction solve?
This week, Joe Biden announced further escalation of the war by providing Ukraine with 31 Abrams tanks. This is a massive new commitment of American servicemen, as these Americans will have to train Ukrainians; arm, supply and maintain these vehicles, which means US servicemen in Ukraine fighting Russians. Y’all may want to read Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war.
So why is the Joe Biden risking nuclear war by escalating this conflict?
Miranda Divine in the New York post printed an April 12, 2014 email off of Hunter Biden’s laptop which Hunter wrote to his business partner Devon Archer (currently in jail for fraud) in which he knew an amazing amount of detailed information about Ukraine, the type of information one might well have learned from reading top secret classified reports given to him by his father to help their influence peddling racket. He clearly implicates his father in their influence peddling and concludes his email in Tony Soprano fashion by instructed Devon to buy a “burner phone.”
So who ratted Joe out? Could it have been the Russians? They have a pretty good intelligence system. They certainly have good reason to rat Joe out and expose his ties to Ukraine. Then again, suppose Zelensky said “Joe, either give me the tanks or I will take you down,” and wanted to fire a shot over Joe’s bow to get him to act? Certainly, Zelensky has a dossier on all the Biden activities in Ukraine and is willing to use it. Our president is bought and compromised. He and his family are scoundrels and traitors. Call me a conspiracy nut, but it is absolutely reasonable to ask such questions when someone has betrayed his country.
I suspect that these classified documents have something to do with Ukraine and exposing the Biden family corruption that has jeopardized the security of the United States and of course put us closer to a nuclear war. Slow Joe’s personal attorneys were trying to nab these files to do what with them? Almost certainly to keep their contents and subject matters from implicating the President in criminal activities. Merrick Garland named a Special Prosecutor. Is he in on the cover up? Watch my friends. He will almost certainly refuse to disclose the content of the files seized and aid the National Archives to evade Congressional subpoenas by claiming “disclosing any information will jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation.” You can fool the Washington press corps, but you can’t fool Rob Smith.
To quote young Alice of Wonderland fame, this is getting “curiouser and curiouser.” We don’t know all the answers, but one thing is for absolutely sure, one can’t serve two masters.
https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://tinyurl.com/mr2ekskf
$858 BILLION DEFENSE BILL SIGNED INTO LAW BY BIDEN INCLUDES “UNPRECEDENTED” LEGISLATION ON “UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA”
However, another controversial portion of the bill signed into law on Friday that few in the media have covered relates to what the Pentagon now calls unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAP, encountered by the military. Specifically, the FY 2023 NDAA includes provisions that could open doorways to greater transparency in government on the issue by providing protections for whistleblowers, in addition to expanding the scope of current investigations by the DOD’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
“This is arguably the biggest story mainstream news organizations have ever failed to cover,” said Chris Mellon, a former Minority Staff Director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and also former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in a statement on his website where he characterized the UAP-related language within the FY 2023 NDAA as “unprecedented.”
Among the elements contained within the relevant portion of the bill are additions to the scope and authority of AARO, with Congress now directing the Office to report directly to Defense and Intelligence Community leadership. The bill also directs AARO to extend the scope of its inquiries further back into history to review potentially relevant government records dating as far back as 1945.
Complimenting the historical review AARO will be undertaking is language that calls for any non-disclosure agreements related to UAP in past or existing DOD, DHS, and other programs to be shared with AARO leadership.
Significantly, Sec. 1673 of the FY 2023 NDAA also outlines protections for U.S. personnel that have signed any such agreements, allowing them to come forward with any information and report their involvement with such programs to AARO, and to Congress.
Douglas Dean Johnson, an independent researcher who tracks legislation related to UAP and reports on related developments on his website, called the relevant portion of Sec. 1673 “a sweeping anti-reprisal clause, applicable both to government employees and contractors.”
“Sec. 1673(b)(1) provides that those bringing information forward into the new system are not thereby committing any violation of the laws,” Johnson wrote in early December, adding that provisions within the bill prevent those coming forward with information from being “impeded from that disclosure by any previously applicable non-disclosure agreement.”
Specifically, the language within Sec. 1673 outlines provisions for any Federal Government programs and their employees, as well as contractors within those programs, related to unidentified anomalous phenomena, “including with respect to material retrieval, material analysis, reverse engineering, research and development, detecting and tracking, developmental or operational testing, and security protections and enforcement.”
Language within the bill also states that the historical review and survey of non-disclosure agreements is to be completed by AARO within an eighteen month period following the NDAA being signed into law.
“If it seems unbelievable that Congress would pass such legislation, it is only because of the paucity of reporting on the facts that caused members of both parties in Congress to join together to pass these provisions,” Mellon said in a statement appearing on his website.
Although the FY 2023 NDAA includes what many have called unprecedented legislation toward greater government transparency on the UAP issue, there will still be limitations on how much information may be shared with the public, a point emphasized by AARO leadership in recent days.
“While we’re committed to declassifying and sharing information related to UAP to the greatest extent possible, we must, of course, balance the desire for transparency with the need to protect classified information, sources and methods in the interest of national security,” AARO director Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick said during a DOD media roundtable on December 16.
During the event, Kirkpatrick thanked Congressional leaders for their “very valuable support and partnership,” while emphasizing the necessity for rigorous collection and analysis of data over the next eighteen months, and in the years ahead, as AARO proceeds with its evaluation of information related to unidentified anomalous phenomena.
https://thedebrief.org/858-
https://nypost.com/2023/01/20/spaceship-of-non-human-origin-spotted-near-us-mexico-border-ufo-expert/
Thoughts from the brilliant mind of Victor Davis Hanson
Did someone or something seize control of the United States?
What happened to the U.S. border?
Where did it go? Who erased it? Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally over the last two years? Did Congress secretly
repeal our immigration laws? Did President Joe Biden issue an executive order allowing foreign nationals to walk across the border and reside in
the United States as they pleased?
Since when did money not have to be paid back?
Who insisted that the more dollars the federal government printed, the more prosperity would follow? When did America embrace zero interest? Why
do we believe $30 trillion in debt is no big deal?
When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal?
How did prized natural gas that had granted America’s wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become
almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature? Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared
natural gas development and pipelines near criminal?
Was it not against federal law to swarm the homes of Supreme Court justices, to picket and to intimidate their households in efforts to affect
their rulings?
How then with impunity did bullies surround the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts,
and Clarence Thomas – furious over a court decision on abortion? How could these mobs so easily throng our justices’ homes, with placards
declaring “Off with their d—s”?
Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth?
And on whose orders did the FBI contract private news organizations to censor stories it did not like and writers whom it feared?
How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call?
Of the speaker of the House tearing up the State of the Union address on national television? Of barring congressional members from serving on
their assigned congressional committees?
When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked?
Was it legal suddenly for one presidential candidate to hire a foreign ex-spy to subvert the campaign of her rival?
Was some state or federal law passed that allowed biological males to compete in female sports?
Did Congress enact such a law? Did the Supreme Court guarantee that biological male students could shower in gym locker rooms with biological
women? Were women ever asked to redefine the very sports they had championed?
When did the government pass a law depriving Americans of their freedom during a pandemic?
In America can health officials simply cancel rental contracts or declare loan payments in suspension? How could it become illegal for mom-and-
pop stores to sell flowers or shoes during a quarantine but not so for Walmart or Target?
Since when did the people decide that 70 percent of voters would not cast their ballots on Election Day?
Was this revolutionary change the subject of a national debate, a heated congressional session, or the votes of dozens of state legislatures?
What happened to Election Night returns?
Did the fact that Americans created more electronic ballots and computerized tallies make it take so much longer to tabulate the votes?
When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony?
How can thieves walk out with bags of stolen goods, without the wrath of angry shoppers, much less fear of the law?
Was there ever a national debate about the terrified flight from Afghanistan?
Who planned it and why?
What happened to the once trusted FBI?
Why almost overnight did its directors decide to mislead Congress, to deceive judges with concocted tales from fake dossiers and with doctored
writs? Did Congress pass a law that our federal leaders in the FBI or CIA could lie with impunity under oath?
Who redefined our military and with whose consent?
Who proclaimed that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that America’s president
was supposedly unstable? Was it always true that retired generals routinely libeled their commander-in-chief as a near Nazi, a Mussolini, an
adherent of the tools of Auschwitz?
Were Americans ever asked whether their universities could discriminate against their sons and daughters based on their race?
How did it become physically dangerous to speak the truth on a campus? Whose idea was it to reboot racial segregation and bias as “theme
houses,” “safe spaces,” and “diversity”? How did that happen in America?
How did a virus cancel the Constitution?
Did the lockdowns rob of us of our sanity? Or was it the woke hysteria that ignited our collective madness?
We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew.
49 Former NASA Scientists Send Letter Disputing Climate Change
Gus Lubin
Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency’s activist stance toward climate change. The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts as far back as 2012.
The letter criticizes the Goddard Institute for Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.
The joint letter to NASA; Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
- Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
- “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
- “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
- “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
SPACE STATION MOON
SPACESHIP MOON! IS THE MOON AN ALIEN SPACE STATION?