WASHINGTON, D.C.– Yesterday, America First Legal sent a letter to the Chair of the Fairfax County School Board in Fairfax County, VA informing the board its proposed changes to Student Rights and Responsibilities handbook, Regulation 2601.36P, contribute to an unconstitutional disciplinary regime targeting young elementary school students, those in 4th through 6th grades.
Today, following receipt of the letter, the Fairfax County School Board has punted and delayed the vote until June 16, 2022.
The changes in the handbook increase already vague and overbroad penalties for young and older students that misgender other students, including suspensions up to five days and potential referral to the Division Superintendent.
The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees parents and students freedom of speech, religion, and association and protects against vague and overbroad policies that infringe upon or chill such rights. In this case, the now-delayed proposed amendment by FCPS creates unfettered discretion to apply a vague and overbroad regulation that could result in abuse based on the subjective interpretation of staff, in violation of the First Amendment. This is a breathtaking overreach demonstrating both a deep-seated arrogance and indifference to students’ rights of conscience, free speech, and the right of parents to raise their child as they see fit.
In yesterday’s letter, AFL urged the FCSB to withdraw its proposed amendments, putting the board on notice that should it decide to redraft the text, the board must do so in strict compliance with federal and state laws, and only in a manner that advances and ensures the legal rights and interests of all FCPS students and their families. Now that the board has moved review of the proposed amendments to its June meeting, AFL will continue to closely monitor the actions of the board.
Depending on whose esteemed works one chooses to read, the Trilateral Commission was either created by the New World Order conspirators as a natural extension of their network of control, or it emerged through the sheer will of David Rockefeller, after his proposals to admit Japan to the Bilderberg Group were rebuffed by his transatlantic colleagues. As an example of the former claims, one need look no further than the final book of the late Jim Marrs, The Illuminati: The Secret Society that Hijacked the World (2017). Marrs claimed the decision to create the Trilateral Commission was largely because of the need to create an alternative organization to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) because it was seen as an “instrument of control by the ‘liberal eastern establishment’” (The Illuminati, p.81). To remedy this, in 1973, plutocrat David Rockefeller and national security academic Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission. According to Marrs:
Plans for a commission of trilateral nations were first presented by Brzezinski during a meeting of the ultra-secret Bilderberg group in April 1972 in the small town of Knokke, Belgium. With the blessing of the Bilderbergers and the CFR, the Trilateral Commission began organizing on July 23-24, 1972, at the 3,500 acre Rockefeller estate at Pocantico Hills, a subdivision of Tarrytown, New York (The Illuminati, p.82; emphasis added).
Although Marrs cites no source for this raft of claims, the specific allegation of a Bilderberg “blessing” is echoed in numerous other accounts of the Trilateral Commission’s origins. One of the earliest accounts, cited by None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1972) author Gary Allen in his final book, Say “No” to the New World Order (1987), comes from an article in New York magazine (Dec. 13, 1976) by Aaron Latham:
David Rockefeller went to a meeting of the Bilderberg Group…The Chase Manhattan bank Chairman trotted out his [Trilateral] idea once more for old times sake. The Bilderberg members loved it. Soon thereafter the Trilateral Commission was conceived…(quoted in Say “No” to the New World Order, p.35).
Journalist Robert Eringer presented a similar, more detailed account in his book The Global Manipulators (1981), noting that Rockefeller was apparently “delighted” with Brzezinski’s idea of a trilateral brains trust:
[Rockefeller] tossed the idea around at several Chase Manhattan board meetings and saw to it that Brzezinski was invited to the next Bilderberg Conference. There in April 1972 in the small Belgian town of Knokke, Rockefeller proposed the formation of a Trilateral Commission. Bilderberg participants responded enthusiastically and urged him to press forward with the plan (Global Manipulators, p.56; emphasis added).
Other accounts include Holly Sklar’s edited volume, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management (1980), for a long time the only substantive academic text about the group. In her chapter giving a chronology of the origins of the Trilateral Commission, Sklar notes that in spring 1972, after Rockefeller had been giving speeches before Chase Manhattan Financial Forums, promoting his idea to establish an “International Commission for Peace and Prosperity”:
[T]he most enthusiastic and most crucial response came…when Rockefeller and Brzezinski presented the idea of trilateral grouping at the annual Bilderberg meeting. Michael Blumenthal, then head of the Bendix Corporation, strongly backed the idea (Trilateralism, p.78; emphasis added)).
Sklar’s account was most likely drawn from an interview with Trilateral Commission Coordinator George S. Franklin by The Freeman Digest (February-March 1979); this report is cited in Sklar’s bibliography. According to Franklin’s account, in 1972:
[David Rockefeller] went to a Bilderberger meeting. Mike Blumenthal was there (now Treasury Secretary), and he said, “You know, I’m very disturbed. . . Cooperation between these three areas — Japan, the United States and Western Europe — is really falling apart, and I foresee all sorts of disaster for the world if this continues. Isn’t there anything to be done about it?” David then thought, “I’ll present the idea once more,” which he did, and he aroused great enthusiasm. The next eight speakers said that this was a marvelous idea; by all means, somebody get it launched [emphasis added]
John B. Judis, in an article in The Wilson Quarterly (Autumn 1991), also suggested Rockefeller’s idea met with approval when he proposed it at Bilderberg:
In the spring of 1972, Brzezinski, Rockefeller, and [C. Fred] Bergsten attended the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Society, held at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, The Netherlands… According to one participant at the meeting, Rockefeller proposed a tripartite or trilateral organization, and then Brzezinski, acting as if he were hearing the idea for the first time, enthusiastically seconded his suggestion. That July, 17 men, including Brzezinski, Bergsten, Owen, and McGeorge Bundy, met at Rockefeller’s Pocantico Hills estate in the New York suburbs to plan what came to be called the Trilateral Commission (p.48).
A somewhat vaguer account was provided by academic Stephen Gill in his book, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (1991). He noted that the Trilateral Commission had been “launched from within the Bilderberg meetings by David Rockefeller” (p.137) and that: “After David Rockefeller’s 1972 Bilderberg speech, the Commission was constructed” (p.140). But Gill mysteriously provides no actual detail of Rockefeller’s Bilderberg speech.
It is from the late David Rockefeller that we find a somewhat different version of events. Addressing the Trilateral Commission on the occasion of its 25th anniversary, as part of a program of speeches and toasts for their event, held at New York Historical Society on December 1, 1998, Rockefeller explained how he and:
Zbig Brzezinski…went to a Bilderberg Conference in Knokke, Belgium. I thought that the best thing to do, rather than start another organization, would be to persuade the members of Bilderberg to include Japan. I proposed this at the meeting, but was shot down in flames by Dennis Healey, then Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer and a very articulate person.
So, my tail between my legs, I left. Zbig and I flew back to the United States and talked about our options. We decided that if Bilderberg didn’t understand the importance of this idea, we’d have to start a new organization ourselves (The Trilateral Commission at 25: Between Past…And Future, Speeches and Toasts, December 1, 1998, pp.1-2; emphasis added).
In his autobiography, Memoirs (2002), Rockefeller gave yet another version of his quest to establish “an organization including representatives from North America, Europe, and Japan”, noting how in 1972:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, then teaching at Columbia University, was a Bilderberg guest that year, and we spoke about my idea on the flight to Belgium for the meeting. I had been urging the Steering Committee to invite Japanese participants for several years, and at our session in April, I was again politely but firmly told no. Zbig considered this rebuff further proof that my idea was well founded and urged me to pursue it (Memoirs, p.416; emphasis added).
Save for the words of Franklin (even though Franklin was not at the 1972 Bilderberg meeting) and Rockefeller, until recently there were few avenues for confirming either of these accounts about the Bilderberg’s role in the formation of the Trilateral Commission. But with the trove of Bilderberg documents on the Public Intelligence website, and recent academic research undertaken into the origins of the Trilateral Commission, it is now possible to examine this claim with greater precision.
Referring to the minutes of the Bilderberg Meeting in question, held over April 21-23, 1972 in Knokke Belgium, we find David Rockefeller’s intervention, during a discussion on the “crumbling community of purpose”:
In the introduction to his working paper, the American author had asked, “Who is going to define the road ahead … the common direction in which we must move?” A suggestion in this regard was offered by a fellow American participant, who summarized a proposal he had recently made for the establishment of an “International Commission on Peace and Prosperity”. This idea had grown out of a conviction that national governments – and even international organizations, such as the UN – were so preoccupied with the day-to-day business of managing the complex problems of society that they had little time to think about the future, to try to anticipate the issues of a decade or two hence, and to initiate some thinking about them now (Bilderberg Meetings, Knokke Conference, 21-23 April 1972, pp.55-56; emphasis added).
The “fellow American participant” was indeed Rockefeller, who had already been promoting his “International Commission for Peace and Prosperity” before captive audiences. The plutocrat then took the opportunity to elaborate on his proposal:
Rockefeller envisaged the Commission producing a report that might deal with issues such as “environmental control vs. economic growth; individual freedom vs. egalitarianism; problems of urban life (housing, crime, drug addiction, financing urban education); and so on.” Ultimately the Commissions’ report would be “given to governments and to the public in a manner designed to produce the maximum impact” (ibid p.56). More importantly was how this idea was received. The Bilderberg minutes seem to leave little doubt:
The only discordant note, at least according to the minutes, came from another American speaker (p.57), who warned that the Commission’s work could be still be ignored:
Nevertheless, these minutes, to the extent they can be relied on, seem to highlight a discrepancy between Rockefeller’s version, which seems to fixate on rejection of his proposals to admit the Japanese into Bilderberg, and the other accounts, which stress that Bilderberg had supported his broader scheme to create a “Commission” representing Europe, North America and Japan. Rockefeller claims that his proposal to admit Japan had been “shot down in flames by Denis Healey” are also difficult to verify, with Healey not listed in the meeting minutes as a participant (see p.6), in fact he appears to have been in London for the duration of the meeting.[*] And the meeting minutes also do not record any dissenting opinions from any British attendees.
The obvious answer – one highlighted in Dino Knudsen’s recent deeply researched study The Trilateral Commission and Global Governance: Informal elite diplomacy, 1972-1982 (2016) – is quite simply that Rockefeller was conflating the two proposals. Knudsen suggests that the Bilderberg Steering Committee had again rejected Rockefeller’s push to admit the Japanese to Bilderberg, but at the same time meeting participants had supported his proposal to create an entirely separate organisation bringing the three regions together. Rockefeller, possibly for reasons of ego, chose to embellish his account, to present the Trilateral Commission as his bold answer to Bilderberg’s refusal to admit Japan rather than concede that Bilderberg had in fact given his “Commission” its blessing (ibid, p.39).
As for Bilderberg, it did not host a Japanese participant until 2009 when Nubuo Tanaka, as Executive Director of the International Energy Agency attended, though he was categorized as an “International” participant rather than Japanese. Chinese representatives, in a remarkable contrast, have been repeatedly invited to Bilderberg in the past decade, with Chinese senior diplomats and academics attending in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. In this case, the Steering Committee is either bowing to geopolitical realities or the Chinese have more effective champions within Bilderberg than the Japanese did back in the 1970s.[†]
****
[*] For example, on the second day of the Bilderberg Meeting (April 22), Healey, as Shadow Chancellor, was reported in the British media as attending an official reception at the West German Embassy in London for visiting West German Chancellor Willy Brandt (The Times, Apr. 22, 1972, p.4). Knudsen suggests that Healey’s objections may have been omitted because the Bilderberg minute writers usually seek to downplay disagreements and emphasise consensus or they were given “off the record” (The Trilateral Commission and Global Governance, pp.38-39). But Knudsen fails to address why Healey is not listed as a participant or consider that Healey, as Shadow Chancellor, may not have been able to attend Bilderberg given that the Leader of the Opposition, James Callaghan, was visiting the United States at the time.
[†] One obvious and persuasive candidate for arguing on China’s behalf is well-connected Sinophile and long-term Bilderberg participant, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
Mark Zuckerberg was hired by the CIA through his cousin Edward Snowden, to create a CIA database like Myspace and Google + in over 190 countries. Jeff Rothschild VP of CIA Facebook and CIA asset, suggested to Mark Zuckerberg that Edward Snowden (which is a CIA invented alias) should pretend to leave to China then Russia, in order to act as a second secret agent whistleblower like Julian Assange (Australian Secret Serviceman recruited by the CIA), who is also an anarcho-capitalist like Jeff Rothschild and Snowden. Their job is to pretend the world is free, and that “heroes” can still get their information to light. This is not the reality, the reality is that governments in over 190 countries working for the City of London Corporate Interests, can now censor any story they want in the media, by making it seem unpopular, uninteresting, or because “people are all brainwashed” (not being massively censored in order to be brainwashed). The idea is to keep people in a state of lethargy, while they are constantly being suggested by nazi tyrants like Jeff Rothschild, that if they really wanted to they could find the truth.
Jeff Rothschild arranged the marriage between Mark Zuckerberg and his chinese wife Priscilla Chan, who’s parents got very rich in China by helping the CIA install capitalism there after the fall of communism. Jeff Rothschild also is the one who suggested to Mark that he hire his sister to look less sexist, even though that just made him look more sexist, as well as nepotist (nepotism is illegal in the state of California except for CIA agents).
Jeff Rothschild is funding all sides of WW3 and his associates include Priscilla Chan’s father, Larry Ellison, Peter Thiel, Jordan Belfort, Bush family, Bin Laden family, Sarcozy, Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Richard Branson, Putin, Obama, Li Keqiang, Wen Jiabao, Ban Ki-moon, the british royal family, the pope, and many more members of the global crime organization. They are all planning to move to Australia and NZ, while those countries play a neutral role in WW3, just like the US did at the start of WW2. They are planning to mass murder 90% of humanity if they can, by doing the same thing Jeff Rothschild’s ancestors have been doing since Napoleon, which is genocide and international banking for profit.
They need to be stopped now before it is too late…
Western Media Run Blatant Atrocity Propaganda for the Ukrainian Government
The Ukrainian government is quickly learning that it can say anything, literally anything at all, about what's happening on the ground there and get it uncritically reported as an actual news story by the mainstream western press.
The latest story making the rounds is a completely unevidenced claim made by a Ukrainian government official that Russians are going around raping Ukrainian babies to death. Business Insider, The Daily Beast, The Daily Mail and Yahoo News have all run this story despite no actual evidence existing for it beyond the empty assertions of a government who would have every incentive to lie.
"A one-year-old boy died after being raped by two Russian soldiers, the Ukrainian Parliament's Commissioner for Human Rights said on Thursday," reads a report by Business Insider which was subsequently picked up by Yahoo News. "The accusation is one of the most horrific from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but is not unique."
At the end of the fourth paragraph we get to the disclaimer that every critical thinker should look for when reading such stories in the mainstream press:
"Insider could find no independent evidence for the claim.
CHILD TRAFFICKING, DRUG TRAFFICKING, HUNTING THE HUNTERS, INVESTIGATIONS, LEARN HOW TO..., MONEY LAUNDERING
There are many kinds of hunters, but they all operate from similar playbooks, and once you recognize the “elites” corrupt strategy, symbolism, and what they are ultimately after, the game can be turned…and you become the hunter. The following will break down how to track theNESTSandWEBS.These are two very different things, but the games they play are similar in nature, so the research strategy just shifts a bit to a larger scale. All of this can be done through open source research without any access to paid databases or boots on the ground, though if one has access to those, your search would be significantly sped up and you may garner additional information, especially a goodbackground search database.
Hunting NESTS
Nests are localized fronts that portray themselves as saviors of children. It is a group of people working together to build a nest in their local community that has all the makings of a child trafficking front. These are well designed with a system in place, and are more than likely using the children for more than pedophilia, such as running various tests, mind control, possibly DNA altering, and other nefarious things.
They always have people on the inside, such as through the local courts, social workers, law enforcement, and child protective services. They generally have connections with churches as well, and oftentimes are directly linked to domestic abuse shelters and homeless shelters. There is almost always a connection with a dentist. One can only speculate as to why, but potential possibilities may be access to anesthesia to put someone under, perform dental work and establish medical records with a new identity and add them into the medical database, extracting DNA, or inserting a small tracking device. The medical database can be used for a multitude of reasons, organ harvesting being just one of them.
There are many people that make up the nest. Generally there is someone or multiple people fostering children. Sometimes there will be local charities of some kind that assist with children, but not always because that can draw too much attention for these types of nests. Instead, there may be homeless shelters and/or domestic violence shelters, making the prey easily available to the hunters. A psychologist or some form of therapist is always necessary in this case. And make no mistake, there are almost always family members involved, whether it be husband and wife, parents and children, or siblings.
A doctor, attorney, local politicians, and teachers also play their roles in these nests. They have to have someone who is very computer savvy to monitor, surveil, and cover all fronts of false narratives, while having access to plenty of databases. If it’s a big nest, you can count on some high ranking individuals with surveillance backgrounds.
In order for the nest to function under the radar while out in the open, they need people from most of these fields to have protection from all angles. Oddly enough, oftentimes these churches, dental offices, shelters, and other connections, are setup in strip malls. Another oddity is that many times there is a storage facility directly connected to these strip malls or very nearby. One can only speculate on what these might be used for.
When you come across someone you are suspicious of being a hunter, dig into their family and friends, place of work, where they live, and what’s nearby. Search all social media sites for quick hits, and run background checks for additional insight. Always go back in time to try to find when these people first met because oftentimes you will find bigger connections you may have missed. If red flags are going up, start creating a map, zoom in on nearby locations and start investigating those. Look into the local NGOs, politicians, churches, people, and so on. Creating a map creates a visual that allows you to see from a birds eye view. It’s amazing what you can find from this perspective. It’s also important to create a timeline as you go, because inevitably you will come across a date that stands out, and when you cross reference it to other events you were researching, you will find the connection.
It’s important to note that many of these places, such as shelters and NGOs, have Board Members, and you will find that their Board Members and Directors often operate as Board Members of each other’s organizations. That’s when you know you are on the right path. Once you make this connection, look into their 990s (if available), and seek out the CEO, trustee, other board members that may have not been listed on their website, and of course study the money flowing in and out. If you have a Pacer account, you can dig into their past court records and see what pops.
To Recap
The bigger nests have a very strategic system in place. They typically have a skilled IT person, doctor, dentist, psychologist, court connections, law enforcement, foster and/or social workers, foster care families, domestic violence and/or homeless shelters, churches, and family members make up these nests. All of this research can be open sourced investigations, as there are plenty of resources available right at your fingertips, and you may opt to subscribe to a paid background search database, because it will cut your time down significantly.
Always take caution and be sure that your computer is secure when hunting the hunters, as oftentimes there are individuals monitoring their sites. Search from mock accounts instead of your own, and use a good virtual private network (VPN) when searching. In fact, a VPN should be used on all devices at all times, especially when banking and shopping online. If you have someone you can absolutely trust in law enforcement, you may consider passing your findings on to them for investigation. Be careful with publicly doxing people, as different states have different rules when it comes to ousting individuals. Private citizens are protected by privacy laws and may sue for releasing their personal information online. If there is a story on MSM pertaining to an individual you are looking into, that is fair game, but always be careful about posting their addresses and phone numbers. Politicians and some public officials are generally fair game as well.
Hunting WEBS
Webs are an entirely different beast. These are fronts for several nefarious dealings, such as money laundering, child trafficking, drug trafficking, land resources, and pay-to-play style actions. Oftentimes a single web consists of several of these actions. These are larger scale networks that often operate across global territories. You cannot research a web without understanding the mind of the elite corrupt players involved, being familiar with their strategies and tactics, and at least having some knowledge of their end game. This is a whole different level of strategy whereby they operate in webs, the planning spans years, and they all have common goals.
There are webs within webs, and yet they all connect. Each web is an operation with multiple players, and those players inevitably are also involved in other webs that all intersect at some point along the way. The elite corrupt are the bugs spinning these webs. They have a very strategic process to how they go about building them and hunting their prey.
Spinning The Web
1) They begin the planning stages of their web and part of this strategy often involves setting up shell companies. This goes up to the highest levels and they require large cover, so Executive Orders, Bills, and Acts are often put in place far in advance. They begin rallying for their “cause”.
2) They create an “initiative” that will act as the front. Some good may come of this initiative because they have to maintain the front. However, oftentimes the “initiative” is merely an illusion.
3) They promote the name, build a website, cite scary statistics in the first two sentences which are typically false, have their MSM buddies push the narrative, and they are off spinning their web.
4) They announce fundraisers and events to raise money for this new cause, and everyone jumps on board. Some know the inner workings, some don’t, but they all want to be buddies with the “Elite”.
5) They draw in multiple governments to partake in this front, who knowingly get involved.
6) They have now raised millions from governments, NGOs and billionaires that all want a slice of the pie. They already have the organizations in place to manage the flow of money, such as the multiple arms of the World Bank or USAID for example. There are many involved.
7) They now brag and pat themselves on the back for such brilliant advocating to raise money and awareness about their new “initiative”.
8) The funds begin disbursing, and low and behold, they go right back into the vary NGOs of those that were doing the advocating.
9) The governments get their slice of the prearranged pay-to-play, the NGOs get their funding to carry out their nefarious actions, the funding agencies take their cut, and the taxpayers have no clue where their money just went, as they gaze off into the sunset thinking “what a nice initiative” we helped with.
10) The web has been spun and the hunters begin their hunt. These elite corrupt pocket portions of the funding, use a portion to maintain the “front”, and spend the rest on raping minerals from other countries’ lands, drug trafficking, child trafficking, organ trafficking, slave labor, scientific experimentation on populations, building their underground worlds and paradise islands, and God knows what else. All a non-believer need do is look at the salaries of any of the current or former politicians were making throughout their life-long careers and do the math. How is it that they are all millionaires now?
11) Each web is a circulation of money: NGOs = advocators for funding, governments and other NGOs = funders, funding management agencies = money laundering. And all of the NGOs work together to provide the funds, receive the funds, and circulate the funds amongst themselves.
12) Next web: Begin at number one and repeat the cycle.
Hunting The Hunters
These webs are big, so there are always governments, NGOs, billionaires, and organizations running portions of the operations. The MSM and celebrities are always involved in pushing their “initiatives” as saviors of the world. Other organizations, individuals and staff oftentimes involved in the overall scheme, may include universities, ports, banks, shipping companies, chemical and equipment companies, construction companies, aircraft, and retail product companies.
Once you feel you have a solid understanding of the players within a specific web, and you come across a potential scheme you believe them to be involved with, start hunting the hunters. They make a lot of mistakes, they don’t cover their tracks as well as they believe they do, and they are loose with their money. Since the bulk majority of those involved in the webs have non-profits, it’s a quick search to locate their 990s and see who the board members are, where they are sending grants to, and the breakdown of their financials. There are endless resources available on the internet to pull up specific information about any given thing. Look into every individual and organization involved in the scheme, and remember…nearly all NGOs are subsidiaries of other companies, all of which fall under a parent company. So dig deep.
As always, track the location in which this “initiative” is supposedly taking place. Map it. Review everything around that immediate location and see what else pops. What are they up to and what are they really after? Did you find that the school they claim to be running doesn’t even exist? No surprise, as that’s a common theme. Are they supposedly shipping product, selling product, or making product somewhere? Does the address match up? Does the building exist? If so, does it appear to be big enough to house what they claim? Use critical thinking and get down to the nitty gritty to find the holes in the web. Are they stating statistics throughout their websites? Yes, they always do. Can you find other data that contradicts these numbers? Can you find articles that paint a different picture, and perhaps even show photos or offer testimony? Did they really require that much funding for what they claim they need it for? Where did all of the funds go? Follow the money. Do the math. Who all is involved with the funding, because that is your first clue.
Trace the timeline. They always have a starting point. It’s easier to find than one may think. When did they put out their press releases? This is where the MSM comes in handy, and can be used against itself. Find when it began, then trace back the meetings between those involved. Be sure it is the very beginning stages of the discussion. Now search for executive orders, bills, and acts that were passed within a couple years of the “initiative’s” inception. Search press releases from all NGOs and even the funding agencies, for they are famous for announcing themselves as saviors.
Google is not your friend, therefore use it against itself and all of the “elite corrupt” to expose them for what they truly are. Use keyword searches wisely, pair names with companies, names with other names, and use the search tools to narrow things down, such as the time tool where you can set a custom date range for example. They offer a lot of advanced search tools to expedite your search, plus some basic searches that may come in handy. Use Google earth to zoom in on areas they may not want you to see.
All of this requires critical thinking and analysis. Never make assumptions, and don’t jump to conclusions. There are generally several layers to all of this, so dissect it very closely. Sometimes things are exactly as they seem, while others, there is far more going on than meets the eye.
Use the weapons the “Elite” have provided for all to use, and hunt the hunters!
The Committee plotted with JPMorgan and its lawyer, former Obama AG Loretta Lynch, to obtain a citizen's financial records with no possibility of judicial review.
In its ongoing attempt to investigate and gather information about private U.S. citizens, the Congressional 1/6 Committee is claiming virtually absolute powers that not even the FBI or other law enforcement agencies enjoy. Indeed, lawyers for the committee have been explicitly arguing that nothing proscribes or limits their authority to obtain data regarding whichever citizens they target and, even more radically, that the checks imposed on the FBI (such as the requirement to obtain judicial authorization for secret subpoenas) do not apply to the committee.
As we have previously reported and as civil liberties groups have warned, there are serious constitutional doubts about the existence of the committee itself. Under the Constitution and McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases interpreting it, the power to investigate crimes lies with the executive branch, supervised by the judiciary, and not with Congress. Congress does have the power to conduct investigations, but that power is limited to two narrow categories: 1) when doing so is designed to assist in its law-making duties (e.g., directing executives of oil companies to testify when considering new environmental laws) and 2) in order to exert oversight over the executive branch.
What Congress is barred from doing, as two McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases ruled, is exactly what the 1/6 committee is now doing: conducting a separate, parallel criminal investigation in order to uncover political crimes committed by private citizens. Such powers are dangerous precisely because Congress’s investigative powers are not subject to the same safeguards as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
And just as was true of the 1950s House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that prompted those Supreme Court rulings, the 1/6 committee is not confining its invasive investigative activities to executive branch officials or even citizens who engaged in violence or other illegality on January 6, but instead is investigating anyone and everyone who exercised their Constitutional rights to express views about and organize protests over their belief that the 2020 presidential election contained fraud. Indeed, the committee's initial targets appear to be taken from the list of those who applied for protest permits in Washington: a perfectly legal, indeed constitutionally protected, act.
This abuse of power is not merely abstract. The Congressional 1/6 Committee has been secretly obtaining private information about American citizens en masse: telephone records, email logs, internet and browsing history, and banking transactions. And it has done so without any limitations or safeguards: no judicial oversight, no need for warrants, no legal limitations of any kind.
Indeed, the committee has been purposely attempting to prevent citizens who are the targets of their investigative orders to have any opportunity to contest the legality of this behavior in court. As we reported in October, the committee sent dozens if not hundreds of subpoenas to telecom companies demanding a wide range of email and other internet records, and — without any legal basis — requested that those companies not only turn over those documents but refrain from notifying their own customers of the request.
If the companies were unwilling to comply with this "request,” then the committee requested that they either contact the committee directly or just disregard the request — in other words, the last thing they wanted was to enable one of their targets to learn that they were being investigated because that would enable them to seek a judicial ruling about the legality of the committee's actions.
But now the committee is escalating its aggressive investigative actions. They have begun sending subpoenas to private banks, demanding the banking records of private citizens, and doing so such that either the person never finds out or finds out too late to obtain a judicial order about the legality of the committee's behavior. In one case, they targeted JP Morgan with these subpoenas while knowing that that bank is being represented by former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Lynch — unsurprisingly — then directed her client not to accommodate any requests from its own customers to ensure they can seek judicial review.
On November 22, the 1/6 Committee served a subpoena on Taylor Budowich — a former spokesman for the Trump campaign who never worked for the U.S. Government — that requested a wide range of documents as well as his deposition testimony. On December 14, Budowich voluntarily complied by handing over a large amount of his personal records, and then, on December 22, he flew to Washington at his own expense and submitted to questioning.
There is no suggestion that Budowich was engaged in any violence or other illegal acts at the Capitol on January 6. Their only interest in this private citizen is his connection to the Trump campaign and his stated view that he believed the 2020 election was marred by fraud.
After he furnished the committee with those documents and then testified, Budowich learned from others that the committee was issuing subpoenas directly to the banks used by other individuals for their personal accounts. He thus requested that his lawyer notify his own bank, JPMorgan Chase, that he would object to their cooperation with any subpoena without first providing notice to him so that he can have time to seek a legal ruling in court.
Typically, citizens learn when law enforcement agencies such as the FBI serve subpoenas to third-party providers such as banks or internet companies.
That allows a crucial right: to contest the legality of the action in court before the documents are supplied. But when such a subpoena is concealed from the person, it prevents them from obtaining judicial review. In general, citizens learn of FBI subpoenas, and the FBI (with rare exceptions) has the power to impose a "gag order” or otherwise prevent the person from learning about it only if they first persuade a court that such an extreme measure is warranted (by arguing, for instance, that a terror suspect will flee or destroy evidence if they learn they are being investigated). That safeguard ensures that in most cases, a citizen has the right to seek judicial protection from an illegal act by an investigative body.
But the 1/6 Committee recognizes no right of any kind and no limits on its power. On November 23 — the day after it served a subpoena on Budowich himself — it served a subpoena on Budowich's bank, JPMorgan. The original date for the bank to produce the records was December 7, but JPMorgan — advised by Loretta Lynch as its legal counsel — bizarrely requested that the deadline be extended until December 24: the day before Christmas, knowing that courts would be closed that day and the next. It was only on December 21 — when Budowich was in Washington for his testimony before the committee — did JPMorgan send him notice at his home that it had received a subpoena and intended to produce the requested documents on December 24: just three days later. As JPMorgan and Lynch knew would happen, Budowich did not see the letter until he arrived home on the evening of December 22: less than forty-eight hours before the bank told him they were going to give up all of his financial records to the committee.
Upon discovering that the committee had subpoenaed his bank, Budowich's lawyers immediately advised JPMorgan that they had legal objections to the subpoena, and requested that — given it was about to be Christmas Eve and the courts would be closed — the bank seek an extension from the committee to enable Budowich to seek a judicial ruling. But the bank, advised by Loretta Lynch, refused — and told him they intended to turn the documents over on Christmas regardless of whether that gave him time to request judicial intervention. The bank even refused to provide a copy of the subpoena they received from the committee, which Budowich, to this very day, has not seen.
Budowich's lawyers did everything possible to seek judicial intervention before JPMorgan gave all his financial documents to the committee, but the timing agreed to by the committee, Lynch and the bank — documents produced on Christmas Eve, with notice to him arriving just a couple days before when he was testifying in Washington — made it impossible, by design. As a result, JPMorgan gave all of his banking records to the committee without even seeking an extension.
Budowich was therefore left with no alternative but to file an after-the-fact lawsuit against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the committee members, seeking an emergency injunction against the committee's use of his banking records. In response, both the committee and JPMorgan argued that the entire question was “moot” given that they already handed over the documents.
In other words, lawyers for the committee and Loretta Lynch created a plot whereby JPMorgan would notify Budowich of its intent to hand over the documents right before Christmas, so as to purposely deny him time to seek a court ruling, and then used the fact that he was "too late” in filing as a ground for arguing that the court should shut its doors to him and refuse to even give him a hearing. The court agreed that Budowich's request for an emergency injunction was “moot” given that the bank already supplied the documents, but agreed to rule on the merits of the arguments about whether the subpoena was legal.
The parties’ briefs on this question were submitted to an Obama-appointed federal judge, James Boasberg, in Washington. The oral argument on Budowich's request to enjoin the use of his banking records by the committee was held earlier on Thursday, and Judge Boasberg quickly rejected Budowich's objections to the subpoena. It will now be appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the issues presented by the committee's arguments are chilling.
At the hearing, the committee's lawyers essentially repeated the same argument they advanced in their legal brief: namely, that none of the legal safeguards imposed on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to guard against abuse of power apply to this Congressional committee, which therefore enjoys virtually absolute power to do what it wants.
That is not an exaggerated summary of the committee's argument.
The primary law on which Budowich is relying is The Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”), which prohibits any “financial institution, or officers, employees or agent of the financial institution” from "provid[ing] to any Government authority access to or copies of, or the information contained in, the financial records of any customer” unless they have first complied with the requirement of that law. Among the key requirements is that a “financial institution shall not release the financial records of a customer until the Government authority seeking such records certifies in writing to the financial institution that it has complied with the applicable provisions of this chapter.”
As Budowich's lawyers argued, the key to the law is that a person whose financial records are sought must receive notice of that attempt and be given sufficient time to challenge it in court:
Both 12 U.S.C. §§ 3405 (administrative subpoena or summons) and 3408 (formal written request) require that a copy of the subpoena or request “have been served upon the customer or mailed to his last known address on or before the date on which the subpoena or summons was served on the financial institution” together with a formal statutory notice allowing ten (10) days from the date or service or fourteen (14) days from the date of mailing the required notice. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 3405, 3408.
Additional provisions of RFPA establish the right of a financial institution customer to challenge a request for their financial records in an appropriate United States District Court, and that proceedings involving such challenges should be completed or decided within seven (7) calendar days of the filing of any Government response.
See 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a)-(b).
The committee did not deny that it failed to meet these requirements. Obviously, they could not argue that, given that the plan they created with JPMorgan and its lawyer, Loretta Lynch, was designed to ensure that Budowich have no time to obtain a judicial ruling before his bank records were handed over. Instead, the committee's response is they do not have to comply with this law.
“The Act restricts only agencies and departments of the United States, and the Select Committee is neither,” the committee's lawyer contended. In fact, they explicitly argued that these safeguards were meant to be imposed only on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but were intended to exempt Congress even when, as here, they are clearly engaged in investigating private citizens for potential crimes. “Multiple provisions of the statute underscore that Congress intended 'Government authority' to mean an executive branch agency or department,” the committee's lawyers wrote in an assertion of power breathtaking in its scope and limitlessness.
All of the other committee's arguments are similarly designed to bestow on itself absolute and unlimited power in how it investigates private citizens, and to insist that the judiciary is without power to impose limits on it. The committee insists, for instance, that it can investigate anyone it wants in connection with 1/6 even if its motive is not to enact new laws and even if the documents it seeks (Budowich's financial records) have no relationship to any proposed new laws. That is because, it says, “Congressional committees are not required to identify a specific piece of legislation in advance of conducting an investigation of the pertinent facts. It is sufficient that a committee’s investigation concerns a subject on which legislation 'could be had.'"
Such a principle, if accepted, would destroy any limits on Congress’s ability to investigate citizens (clearly, it was possible for the McCarthy-era Congressional investigations to lead to new laws even though, as the Supreme Court twice ruled when striking them down, that was clearly not its primary purpose). But Judge Boasberg nonetheless accepted the committee's argument on the ground that an appellate court had already ruled that the 1/6 Committee had a valid legislative purpose and he was therefore bound by that decision.
The committee's other arguments are even more extreme: namely, that “the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides absolute immunity to Members and committees when performing legislative acts" and that “sovereign immunity prohibits litigation against Congress to which it has not consented, and no such consent has been.” That would mean that the 1/6 Committee could literally do whatever it wanted to citizens, and no court would have the right even to review the legality or constitutionality of what it is doing let alone put a stop to it.
What happened during the first War on Terror — and so many other events that were perceived as traumatic — is instructive here. So many Americans were so horrified by the carnage of that day that, for years, many did not care or want to hear about legal niceties, constitutional limits or civil liberties regarding the government's actions. Anything the government did in the name of responding to or retaliating for 9/11 became inherently justified, and anyone who objected — no matter the principles cited — was deemed to be on the side of the terrorists.
The same dynamic is prevailing here. There are serious constitutional limits on the ability of Congress to investigate private citizens. It is blatantly abusive to scheme with JPMorgan and its counsel Loretta Lynch to ensure that a citizen has no time to seek judicial relief regarding the committee's attempt to obtain mounds of his personal and financial records. And, in general, the committee has been on a rampage targeting not only Trump officials or people who engaged in criminal behavior at the Capitol on January 6 but a wide group of citizens whose only crime appears to be their political beliefs and associations — exactly what the Supreme Court cited when striking down the excesses of Congress’s McCarthy-era probes of citizens.
But with the media overwhelmingly cheering anything done in the name of stopping the Trump movement and those who supported 1/6 in any way, all of these civil liberties concerns and constitutional protections are run roughshod over in the name of safety. The latest arguments from the Congressional 1/6 Committee amount to little more than an assertion of unfettered power for Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney and the rest of the committee members to dig into the lives of anyone they want without limits.
Before we get into the Purdue Univerity’s experiment, I first want to bring people up to speed on what a quantum computer is. Wayne Mcroy sums the technical concepts up quite concisely below, whitout insulting the intelligence of the reader:
In order to better understand what it is designed to do, let’s define some specific quantum mechanical terms that relate to its operation. Once we simplify the complex language, we can garner a basic understanding of what this machine is intended to do, and also what it may be doing unintentionally.
“Adiabatic” is defined as “occurring without loss or gain of heat”. The D-Wave computer requires a special cooling mechanism to allow quantum effects to take place in the processor.
This cooling mechanism is called a pulse tube dilution refrigerator. This device cools the ambient air temperature around the processor to near absolute zero (-459 degrees Fahrenheit, or for scale, about 180 times colder than interstellar space).
The actual quantum system has virtually no energy loss, and requires less electrical power than a traditional “super-computer” by a magnitude of about on thousand times. The cooling system is a necessary part in order for quantum effects to function, in particular, an effect called “superposition”.
“Superposition is the quantum property that allows matter to extist in multiple states simultaneously. In this case, it allows the “qubit” (short for quantum bit, a quantum computer’s counterpart to a traditional computer bit) to function as both a 1 and a 0 (zero) at the same time interchangeably, where by comparison, in a classical computer, a bit can only be a 1 or a 0 (zero) and can never change to the other.
This allows for unparalleled computational speed. The quantum computer uses a process called combinatorial optimization to solve problems. This method calculates all possible solutions to a multifaceted problem simultaneously, and picks the optimal (best) solution to the problem.
Quantum computers can use this process to arrive at an answer to a problem much more quickly than a classical computer, in some cases up to 3600 times faster.
Quantum computing uses a function called “quantum annealing” to perform this combinatorial optimization. Quantum annealing can be simply described as an algorith used to find the lowest energy state of a system. This relates to an optimal solution for a mathematical problem.
Quantum annealing can be combined with another concept called “quantum tunneling” to achieve results not obtainable by classical computers.
Quantum tunneling takes advantage of a quantum particle’s ability to act like a wave, and thus be able to pass through barriers that would normally stop a particle in its tracks. This makes for a much faster solution to a problem. This also denotes some very “spooky” physics taking place.
Another concept that requires our attention is called “quantum entanglement”. Quantum entanglement can be described as a physical phenomenon that occurs when groups of particles act in a way in which they can not be described independently of the others.
They mirror each other’s properties and function as a ststem, even at great distances from each other. They function more like a wave than a particle, even when seperated.
They also function simultaneously regardless of distance, creating an interesting paradox in thought. This denotes no time seperation between these particles which leads to some interesting theoretical concepts.
Quantum computers are changing our reality in ways that may seem incomprehensible. To better understand what is expected from these machines, let’s look at what the experts are saying about them.
“In a quantum computer, that device (a qubit) can be in a strange situation where these two parallel universes have a nexus, a point in space where they overlap, and when you increase the number of these qubits, you double the number of these parallel universes that you have access to, unitl such time when you get to a chip like this (D-Wave’s 512 qubit Vesuvius chip), which is about five-hundred of these bits, you have something like two to the five-hundreth power of these guys living in that chip. So, the way I think about it is, that the shadows of these parallel worlds overlap with ours, and if we’re smart enough, we can dive into them, and grab their resources and pull them back into ours, to make an effect in our world…” – Geordie Rose, foiunder and CTO of D-Wave – Idea city tech conference June 20, 2013
“By 2028, intelligent machines will exist that can do anything humans can do; quantum computers will have played a critical role in the creation of this new type of intelligence.” – Geordie Rose – Idea City 2013
“It feels like an altar to an alien god…” – Geordie Rose describing being in the proximity of the D-Wave Adiabatic Quantum computer – Idea City 2013.”
It can be inferred from the statements of Geordie Rose and David Deutsch that these machines can access parallel universes.
It is entirely possible that these machines are indeed affecting our reality in peculiar ways… It is also a forgone conclusion that quantum computers will play a major role in the advent of artificial intelligence“. (Wayne Mcroy, “The Alchemical Tech Revolution” p. 46-51).”
On an interesting side note, for long time readers and those savvy in esoteric symbolism, its curious that the “altar of an alien god” referenced by Rose is a black cube, which is one of the prime symbols of Saturn. As we have previously noted in one of our previous articles, Saturn is the equivalent of Set/Baal Hammon/Kronus/Satan in respective religions. Hence, the presence felt by Mr. Rose may have not been an alien one, but an all to familiar one…
Adiobatic D-Wave Quantum Computer, the first commercially available quantum computer.
But I digress.
So what are these terrifyingly potent quantum computers up to? Well, they are used among other things for utilizing all the near infinite amounts of data points being data mined on all of our personal lives at every moment of our technologically immersed lives. Want an example of this? Ever heard of the Sentinent World Simulation by Purdue University? Here is from the experiment proposal explaining their stated goal:
“Modeling and simulation quickly becomes out of sync with new events, the emergence of new forces, and newly proposed theories. The goal of the Sentinent World Simulation (SWS) is to build a synthetic mirror of the real world with an automated continuous calibration with respect to current real-world information, such as major events, opinion polls, demographic statistics, economic reports, and shifts in trends. The ability of a synthetic model of the real world to sense, adapt, and react to real events distinguishes SWS from the traditional approach of constructing a simulation to illustrate a phenomena. Behaviors emerge in the SWS mirror world and are observed much as they are observed in the real world. Basing synthetic world in theory in a manner that is unbiased to specific outcomes offers a unique environment in which to develop, test and prove new perspectives.
SWS consists of components capable of capturing new events as they occur anywhere in the world, focus on any local area of the synthetic world offers sufficient detail. In other words, the set of models that make up the synthetic environment encompass the behavior of individuals, organizations, institutions, infrastructures and geographies while simultaneously capturing the trends emerging from the interaction among entities as well as between entities and the environment. The multi-granularity detail provides a means for inserting new models of any temporal and spatial scales, or for incorporating user-supplied data at any level of granularity. Therefore, SWS can be continuously enriched and refined as new information becomes available.”
The idea behind why this will be useful is the philosophical concept of the “wisdom of the crowd“, which is “the collective opinion of a group of individuals rather than that of a single expert.” To quote wiki on the famous Plymouth experiment used to illustrate the concept:
“The classic wisdom-of-the-crowds finding involves point estimation of a continuous quantity. At a 1906 country fair in Plymouth, 800 people participated in a contest to estimate the weight of a slaughtered and dressed ox. Statistician Francis Galton observed that the median guess, 1207 pounds, was accurate within 1% of the true weight of 1198 pounds.[6] This has contributed to the insight in cognitive science that a crowd’s individual judgments can be modeled as a probability distribution of responses with the median centered near the true value of the quantity to be estimated“
Let that sink-in and realize that this concept is one of the fundamental guiding principles in developing these AI systems and predictive modelling. Now, ponder the fact that the above mentioned example was just 800 data points of people on one topic. Now multiple that by the near infinite data points on an almost infinite amount of topics from the individuals to world level that is being gathered at every moment. Then realize that this project to collect that and use it to project future behaviors from an individual to global scale got funded and given a quantum computer. Here is from an article by a consult that explains the implications of AI on businesses for CEO’s:
“Amidst all of the publicity surrounding the leaks, journalist Christopher Ketcham (who previously won acclaim by covering the tragic events on 9/11) released a relevant new article discussing the secretive exploits of a governmental unit which gathers boundless amounts of information on Americans. Ketcham details programs by the government designed to fight crime by predicting criminal behavior before it is committed and to predict behavioral responses to propaganda and government-inflicted terror.
A snapshot of Ketcham’s article, highlighting some of the alleged data points taken into account in the NSA’s surveillance efforts.
Both programs rely on keeping tabs on citizens and gathering data by tracking phone calls, credit card receipts, social networks, GPS tracks, Internet searches, Amazon purchases and E-Z pass records.
The program based out of Purdue University’s Synthetic Environment for Analysis and Simulation Laboratory is titled Sentient World Simulation (SWS). This 9-page PDF released by Purdue itself describes the project in adequate detail.
The simulator has taken the spying that Snowden publicized, one step further. The program has amassed databases so profound they can now look so deep into a person’s life they can predict their thoughts and future actions with relative certainty. Although this system is incredibly intrusive and raises many moral concerns, it provides valuable insight into questions which could be extremely beneficial. It’s unclear as to weather all the private-sector efforts towards transparency (including some noteworthy AI projects at Microsoft) will have any effect on the direction and intensity of public-sector surveillance.“
Minority report anyone?
“By gathering enough intelligence SWS is capable of producing realistic simulations of various different scenarios such as natural disasters, foreign and domestic attacks, resource shortages, and hazardous economic trends. The program, once finished will utilize the information from its colossal database to create these hypothetical situations, predict possible outcomes, and test the effectiveness of various responses. Researchers hope the system will be able to provide effective answers to complex questions which baffle the most skilled thinkers and will create more efficient methods of responding to catastrophes.
Even with the tremendous advantages SWS will offer, we must be wary that the NSA – a government program which is top-secret and has access to an abundance of private information – does not abuse its authority and violate privacy acts with extracurricular motives. The program must be scrupulously overlooked so that it does lead other government programs and companies to believe that it is acceptable to disregard moral and ethical code in replacement for efficiency.”
Its a foregone conclusion that this will be used for nefarious means. Any pretense of “helping out” when natural disasters occurs is a farce that anyone with half a brain can see through. Also, the huge implications of “knowing” the future most likely future, together with a near total information control on the past and present is 1984 on steroids:
Oh boy, you could not imagine in your wildest dreams what we have now.
