Forget Russia, what about George Soros!

For at least the last year we have heard almost nothing but, “The Russians… this that or the other.”

The Russian collaboration investigation in the States has come up with nothing so far and there is little more than hearsay here in the UK. There is the odd talk of Russian bots, or of Ukrainian hackers, but we are more than aware that any good hacker would be covering their tracks very well.

What we know very well is that George Soros IS definitely doing his best to interfere with the democratic proses here in the UK, just as he often does in the USA, and in many other countries around the world.

While we should be wary of Russian or any other foreign countries interfering with our or other countries democrat prosses, we must not overlook the open and declared interference of a foreign national, just because he is a billionaire.

Iain Duncan Smith demanded Best for Britain, hand back the £400,000 (that Soros has funneled to them). He told the Sun: “He’s not a British citizen and therefore can’t even vote. Therefore I expect by tomorrow all decency demands they hand the money back and say ‘No thank you’.”

I think that the government should call George Soros before something like a select committee or the like and reprimand him for this interference and tell him that if there are more attempts at manipulating the British political system, we will put sanctions on him.

House Intelligence Committee memo.

In mid-January reports started to surface of a potential bombshell classified report, (the memo), created by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence launched a social media campaign asking the committee to #releasethememo. Until today only members of the USSenatee and a few other people have been able to see the memo. Until today it could only be read in a scif, (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility), in the Capital building.

Today, Friday 2nd February, the House Intelligence Committee released the controversial document, which alleges surveillance abuses by the FBI.

House Intelligence Committee memo

The official PDF is available here, the first two pages are a covering letter.

Much of the memo focused on the use of the unverified Christopher Steele dossier to not only obtain a FISA warrant, (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. a Warrant to spy on the Trump campaign), against Trump 2016 campaign adviser Carter Page but to renew that warrant several times. The dossier, containing salacious allegations against President Donald Trump, was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton 2016 campaign.

We will, God willing be having our long awaited interview with Joe Hagmann and Jon Robberson of the Hagmann Report this weekend in The Red Pill Podcast.

Catch it here Monday morning.

Full text below


January 18, 2018

To: HPSCI Majority Members

From: HPSCI Majority Staff

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Purpose

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.

Investigation Update

On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §,1805(d)(l)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard—particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

4) According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—“salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.

One thing I have against Donalds Trump’s State of the Union address.

As part of Trump’s immigration policy, he said,

“It is time to begin moving towards a merit-based immigration system — one that admits people who are skilled, who want to work, who will contribute to our society, and who will love and respect our country.”

On the whole, fantastic, I am just a little cautious about three words, “who are skilled”.

It has been the way of powerful and prosperous societies for, well probably almost all time. Strong armies and nations have been taking property, land, people and even ideas.

In Daniel chapter one verses 3-4 we read, “And the king, [Nebuchadnezzar], spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”

And it is far more than just Donald Trump or even Americans. Many, many UK politicians have said something very similar. Even Nigel Farage said,

“This is why UKIP wants to see a Migration Control Commission – with a remit to bring down net immigration while assuring the right number of highly skilled workers from across the globe are able to enter.”

“Highly skilled workers from across the globe!”

So what do I have against highly skilled workers coming to Britain or going into America?

Well in many ways nothing, it sounds great, just what we want! But if you give it some thought…

Unintended Consequences

When you take an action like this, such a big and powerful action as, the first world sucking skills gifts and determination from what we used to be permitted to call the third world, then there are going to be consequences.

The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.

Short-term consequences.

There may well be some positive short-term consequences that may look like they would be good for our countries.

  • Increased skilled worker bass that employers can recruit from.
  • Companies, (generally the better off of society), able to reduce employment costs and make bigger profits and even, maybe pass savings on to customers.
  • Our economy may grow and become more competitive against those of other nations.

Longer-term consequences.

As well as these positive short-term consequences, there are other knock-on outcomes that we should think about. The increase of skill for our country is the depletion of skills for other poorer countries.

The depletion of skill and motivated educated people from poorer countries is likely to lead to these poor countries becoming even poorer and their population becoming even more desperate.

The motivated, skilled and educated people who we are thinking of taking from poor countries are the people who are more likely to:

  • Improve their own society.
  • Create employment for others.
  • Be motivated to bring political improvement/reform to their own countries.
  • Raise the economic state of their own countries, and thereby raise the stability of their countries but also provide a market for our good and services.
  • The creation of employment within their county is likely to motivate the population of that country to seek an education, employment, political reform and the like. In other words, we might say that this country is likely to move towards a middle-class lifestyle. Employed, middle-class people are less likely to get involved in crime or to become radicalised.

On top of this, there is the effect on our country.

  • Depression of wages.
  • The demotivation of our young people.
  • Resentment of migrants and immigrants legal and illegal.
  • Loss of a possible market for our goods, by the depression of the economy of the counties that we take skilled migrant from.
  • Increased economic migration because their counties had been impoverished by us taking their skilled people.

Please add to these lists in the comments.

TruNews at Davos 2018

Davos Day Two – The end of mankind!

This is only an intro to day two, there is not the time to cover it all. They are very restricted on studio time, but wow!

Day Two.

The most startling statement of the day was a speaker who claims we are on the edge of the end of humanity.