Uninformed Consent is an in depth look into the Covid 19 narrative, who’s controlling it and how it’s being used to inject an untested, new technology, into almost every person on the planet. This film explores our recent loss of human rights while weaving in the devastating impact of mandates and the deeply powerful story of one man’s loss. Hear the truth from doctors and scientists unafraid to stand up against Big Pharma and the Elite Class who profit from these mandates.
Source: Librti
What were the results of the experimentation and practice of social engineering and mind-control during the Cold War? When Project Paperclip was ushered into the United States, coinciding with the inception of the CIA and the National Security Act, Nazi research and trauma based mind-control experiments were brought to the US, initiating Project MK ULTRA. These secret projects were funded through arms deals, drug operations, human trafficking and human slavery.
The ultimate goal behind this hidden agenda was to implement mind-control deeply within our government, education, healthcare and media to create compliance in the new world regime. TRANCE weaves Cathy O’Brien’s experience as one of the last surviving victims of MK Ultra and Project Monarch, into the macrocosm of past world events, and the agenda currently unfolding. An eye opening view of our world today and how we got here.
Source: YouTube & Ickonic.com
When asked if a United States CBDC would be used to control how, when and where the population spends their money, a senior vice president for the St. Louis Fed’s Research Division responded, “in life, one can’t give absolute assurance of anything…The best we can hope for, is for Congress to respond to the electorate’s concerns about privacy.” However, signals by the Biden regime and the Federal Reserve indicate they intend to move forward on a CBDC, regardless of any approval from Congress, industry leaders or the public. In fact, there are a growing number of research and pilot programs in various phases of development in America and around the world, despite public concerns of an impending digital currency enslavement system tied to a digital ID and social credit system.
The Biden Regime Presses Forward
On March 9, 2022, the Biden regime issued an Executive Order on ‘Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,’ which placed “the highest urgency on research and development efforts into the potential design and deployment options of a United States CBDC.” The EO commanded Attorney General Garland, Treasury Secretary Yellen, and Federal Reserve Chair Powell to determine if a legal path to bypass Congress is possible, stating, “within 180 days of the date of this order [by September 5, 2022], provide the President…an assessment of whether legislative changes would be necessary to issue a United States CBDC, should it be deemed appropriate and in the national interest.” The EO further directed them to provide the President with a legislative proposal within 210 days, by October 5, 2022.
A former Fed vice chair, Randal Quarles, remarked that any bill in Congress authorizing a CBDC would be unlikely to pass, noting a lack of support from the public. In July of 2021, lawmakers introduced legislation that has yet to pass, known as the ‘Digital Asset Market Structure and Investor Protection Act,‘ which appears to authorize the Fed to issue digital versions of Federal Reserve notes and to use distributed ledger technology for the “creation, distribution and recordation of all transactions involving digital Federal reserve notes.” On the other hand, legislation was introduced in January of 2022 to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a CBDC directly to individuals. In March of 2022, legislatures proposed an alternative to CBDC in a bill known as the ‘ECASH Act‘, which proposes to develop an electronic version of the US dollar issued by the US Treasury instead of the Federal Reserve, and purports to imitate the privacy and anonymity features of cash. While there is no current federal statute mandating businesses to accept cash, lawmakers introduced the ‘Payment Choice Act of 2021‘, designed to require retail businesses to accept cash as a form of payment. In all, Congress has introduced 50 bills on digital assets, blockchain, and CBDCs.
During a May 26, 2022, House Committee hearing, some lawmakers took issue with the Biden regime’s Executive Order and the ambiguity of the Federal Reserve’s comment in their January 2022 discussion paper, which states, “The Federal Reserve does not intend to proceed with issuance of a CBDC without clear support from the executive branch and from Congress, ideally in the form of a specific authorizing law.” Representative Andy Barr commented, “This to me suggests that the administration is not yet convinced that Congress has a role here.” Lawmakers were unable to seek clarity from the vice chair of the Federal Reserve during the hearing on whether the Fed would in fact proceed with the issuance of a CBDC without official Congressional authorization.
Other issues raised in the House Committee hearing on CBDCs included risks to the public of mass surveillance and targeting of citizens who are critical of the regime. Representative Warren Davidson remarked to the Fed vice chair, “The concern is the surveillance state… If you turn the Central Bank Digital Currency into this creepy surveillance tool…it literally is what China is developing and we shouldn’t imitate them. We should protect America’s way of life.” The threat of adopting China’s model for surveillance and control has become even more apparent in recent days, as China thwarted attempts by protesters to access their frozen funds by turning their QR codes red. Representative John Rose addressed his concerns to the vice chair, adding, “We saw how dangerous it can be when the government weaponizes the financial system for political purposes under the Obama Administration’s Operation Choke Point. More recently, the Canadian government instructed banks to freeze accounts linked to the trucker protests over vaccine mandates…Without appropriate safeguards, would a CBDC make it easier for the federal government to block individuals it disagrees with from accessing the financial system?” Vice Chair Brainard did not deny that CBDCs could be used to block access of individuals, stating that the use of CBDCs would essentially be no different from the current banking systems, from which accounts of political dissidents have been frozen.
Legislatures aren’t the only ones concerned about the rise of the CBDC surveillance system. Both the public and shareholders were invited to submit comments on the Federal Reserve’s plans to issue a CBDC, many of whom were resolutely opposed to the idea. One citizen wrote, “You don’t want privacy. You want to control every aspect of our lives.” Another individual replied, “I do not want government in charge of access to the kill switch to my account/money if I do not ‘tow the line.'” Yet another responded, “Stop playing games with our lives. And ignore Klaus Schwab. I fear the system completely breaking down if CBDC is enacted. Because Americans want privacy, freedom, and their work rewarded with sound money.”
In response to the Fed paper on CBDCs, the American Bankers Association warned how the disbursement of a CBDC would devastate local banks, stating, “The issuance of a CBDC would fundamentally rewire our banking and financial system by changing the relationship between citizens and the Federal Reserve,” adding, “The risks associated with issuing a CBDC are often downplayed but are real and likely to undermine any possible benefit that a CBDC would have. Most importantly, every construction of CBDC requires moving funds from banks to the Federal Reserve.” The ABA concluded, “As we have evaluated the likely impacts of issuing a CBDC it has become clear that the purported benefits of a CBDC are uncertain and unlikely to be realized, while the costs are real and acute. Based on this analysis, we do not see a compelling case for a CBDC in the United States today.”
Despite numerous dissenting voices among Congress, industry leaders and the public, the Biden regime and the Federal Reserve are pressing forward with plans to develop a United States CBDC. The Fed released yet another paper on the issuance of a retail CBDC in April of 2022. On June 17,2022, Fed Chair Powell lamented the decline of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency (driven by reckless federal spending and intentional mismanagement) and looked to a United States CBDC as a solution to the problems they’ve created, stating, “Looking forward, rapid changes are taking place in the global monetary system that may affect the international role of the dollar in the future. Most major economies already have or are in the process of developing instant, 24/7 payments. Our own FedNow Service will be coming online in 2023. And in light of the tremendous growth in crypto-assets and stablecoins, we are examining whether a US central bank digital currency would improve upon what is an already safe and efficient domestic payments system. As our white paper on this topic notes, a U.S. CBDC could also potentially help maintain the dollar’s international standing.”
There are a multitude of research and development programs for CBDCs underway. Currently, 105 countries, which represent more than 95% of the global GDP, are in various phases of CBDC exploration. Approximately 50 countries are in the advanced phases of research and development, while 28 retail CBDC pilots and 3 live retail CBDCs have been implemented. A study of 81 central banks determined that 90% are currently researching CBDCs, and over half are in the developmental or experimental phases. Several key areas of CBDC exploration are highlighted below.
China’s CBDC pilot program continues to expand since the announcement of its launch in 2020, gaining 261 million digital wallets opened in 2021. The Chinese government has extended the program to include more regions and applications. As China’s CBDC pilot program expands, so do their surveillance capabilities of Chinese citizens, multinational corporations, and other consumers around the world. On May 25, 2022, Senators introduced a bill known as the ‘Defending Americans from Authoritarian Digital Currencies Act,’ to prohibit app platforms, such as Apple and Google, from hosting apps that accept China’s digital currency. Senator Tom Cotton commented that the digital currency will provide the Chinese government with “real-time visibility into all transactions on the network, posing privacy and security concerns for American persons who join this network,” adding, “The Chinese Communist Party will use its digital currency to control and spy on anyone who uses it. We can’t give China that chance.” On June 7, 2022, lawmakers introduced a bill in the Senate known as the ‘Responsible Financial Innovation Act,’ to regulate crypto and to direct several agencies including: CISA, ODNI, and the DoD to investigate the national security implications of the use of China’s CBDC.
United States & Project Hamilton
The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and MIT Digital Currency Initiative are collaborating on a CBDC exploratory project known as ‘Project Hamilton.’ The first phase of the operation was completed, demonstrating the feasibility of a CBDC payment system similar to the scale of the US economy and the US dollar’s utilization globally. Phase 2 of the project will focus on security, programmability, “how to balance privacy with compliance,” and safeguards against cyber-attacks. Critics argue that a United States CBDC does not address the issues of cybersecurity, government abuse, privacy, and centralized control. Congressman Tom Emmer commented, “Not only would this CBDC model centralize Americans’ financial information, leaving it vulnerable to attack, but it could also be used as a surveillance tool that Americans should never tolerate from their own government,” adding that, “Requiring users to open up an account at the Fed to access a US CBDC would put the Fed on an insidious path akin to China’s digital authoritarianism.” Laying the foundation for their CBDC program, the Fed has developed “a new instant payment infrastructure” known as FedNow. The new digital interbank instant payment system is expected to launch in 2023.
The investigation phase of the Digital Euro Project began in October of 2021 and will be completed by October of 2023. As part of the investigation phase, the European Central Bank has solicited public feedback. The ECB received 8,200 public responses, a record number of participants in the survey that ended in January of 2021. The feedback from this consultation provided a clear mandate, with the majority of respondents confirming that the public wants “payments to remain a private matter.” The ECB again solicited public feedback in a survey that ended in June of 2022, which received well more than double the number of responses as the previous survey. Once again, the public survey determined an overwhelming rejection of “digital slavery,” from a CBDC “slavecoin.” One respondent wrote, “No to the digital Euro! Living in the EU is becoming a nightmare, with forced vaccinations on the horizon, and now a digital Euro. It is clear that you want to have a population with no rights and no privacy – as wanted by your overlords of the WEF.” Despite the crushing negative public responsesto a CBDC over privacy concerns, the European Central Bank is moving forward with their plans. European Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni remarked to the press that, “A completely anonymous digital euro is not desirable.” A digital euro prototype is expected to launch in late 2023.
International CBDC Projects
While central banks are exploring and developing their own CBDCs, there are a number of collaborative projects to coordinate the exchange of CBDCs globally. Between 2017 and 2019, the Bank of Canada completed a four-phased program known as Project Jasper, in coordination with the Bank of England and Monetary Authority of Singapore. The project marked, “the first time in the world that a central bank participated in a distributed ledger technology experiment in partnership with the private sector.” The Saudi Central Bank and Central Bank of the UAE announced their joint initiative known as Project Aber in January of 2019, which included the involvement of commercial banks and businesses, and aimed to develop a CBDC that could be used between commercial banks across borders.
In December of 2020, the first phase of Project Helvetia, a partnership between the Bank for International Settlements, the Swiss National Bank, and a financial infrastructure company known as SIX, was completed. Phase 2 of the project, which was completed in January of 2022, focused on integrating commercial banks and CBDCs.
In December of 2021, the Bank for International Settlements announced the conclusion of Project Jura, an experiment in transferring CBDCs between French and Swiss commercial banks on a shared third-party platform. The joint operation, designed to continue the experimentation done under Project Helvetia, included the Bank for International Settlements, the Bank of France and the Swiss National Bank.
In September of 2021, China, Thailand, Hong Kong, the UAE and the Bank for International Settlements released a report on the second phase of their mBridge Project, which included the participation of 22 private sector participants. The project aims to develop a platform for international trade using CBDCs. Also in September of 2021, the Bank for International Settlements announced Project Dunbar, in collaboration with Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa. A report released in March of 2022 outlined how the project has developed two prototypes that enable CBDCs issued by multiple banks to use a shared platform.
On June 16, 2022, the Bank for International Settlements announced a partnership on Project Sela, including the Bank of Israel and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. The joint project, which kicks off in the third quarter of 2022, aims to test the feasibility of a retail CBDC.
In September of 2020, Mastercard announced the launch of their CBDCs testing platform for central banks to simulate the “issuance, distribution and exchange of CBDCs between banks, financial service providers and consumers.” In January of 2022, Visa joined Mastercard in offering central banks a platform to test CBDCs and Visa products. More projects to develop CBDCs can be found on the BIS Innovation Hub.
In summary, the broad range of CBDC research and development projects across the globe is immense. Joint operations across borders are paving the way for international exchange of CBDCs, and ultimately a single global digital currency as promoted by the World Economic Forum.
The development and implementation of CBDCs in America and around the world is moving forward, with a multitude of projects underway and many of those projects coming to fruition within months. Central banks and global powers seem undeterred by objections from their citizens or the indecisiveness of Congress. Though there are numerous models for implementing CBDCs, they all share the same risks to our freedom. Lack of anonymity, programmability, tracking, and centralized control are the key features of CBDCs, which will enable subjugation of the masses in the most extreme ways imaginable.
The enormity of this all-encompassing initiative to implement CBDCs around the world is daunting. It seems inevitable that this end-game system of global totalitarianism will become a reality. However, we must be encouraged that the people are becoming aware of the true agenda behind this financial takeover. Their digital control system depends on our submission, and we each have the choice to not comply. By removing ourselves from the system and using cash instead of their digital wallets and debit cards, we can starve this rising beast of data and banking fees. Only together, in mass noncompliance, will their plans for digital enslavement become unrealized.
Source: Signs of the Times (SOTT)
By Patricia Tolson
While there is growing speculation that federal agents and Capitol Police were involved in instigating acts of violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 protests and recording responses for the purposes of entrapment, evidence now proves that “plainclothes” members of a special Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) were embedded among the protesters for the purposes of conducting video surveillance. Evidence also points to a day of security deficiencies and police provocation for the purpose of entrapment.
According to a report—First Amendment Demonstrations, issued Jan. 3, 2021, by Chief of Police Robert Contee of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Homeland Security Bureau, Special Operations Division, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times—the MPD began to activate Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) platoons on Jan. 4, 2021. Full activation of 28 platoons was scheduled to occur on the following two days.
According to the Department of Justice website, “A CDU is composed of law enforcement officers who are trained to respond to protests, demonstrations, and civil disturbances for the purpose of preventing violence, destruction of property, and unlawful interference with persons exercising their rights under law.”
The objective of MPD was “to assist with the safe execution of any First Amendment demonstration and ensure the safety of the participants, public, and the officers.” CDU personnel and Special Operations Division (SOD) members were to “monitor for any demonstration and/or violent activity and respond accordingly,” according to the report.
There has been speculation that federal agents and Capitol Police were involved in instigating acts of violence during the protests for the purposes of entrapment. As Red State reported in October 2021, “multiple surveillance videos show masked men opening up the doors to the U.S. Capitol Building to allow protesters to enter. In fact, one video shows them entering while Capitol Police officers simply stand around. Yet, we have no idea who those men are.”
On a Dec. 7, 2021, episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the attorney for several Jan. 6 prisoners, Joseph McBride, identified a man tagged on the internet by so-called “Sedition Hunters” as “Red-Faced 45.” The man, dressed in red from head to toe—with even his face painted red—appears in a video engaging in continuous dialogue with uniformed personnel and others whom McBride insists are agents embedded in the crowd. McBride said the man is “clearly a law enforcement officer.”
“He passes out weapons, sledgehammers, poles, mace. Some of those things come in contact with some of the other protesters who have subsequently been charged with possessing dangerous weapons and are using dangerous weapons at the Capitol. That is clearly entrapment.
That is clearly the government creating conditions of dangerousness and entrapping members of the crowd to possess weapons and possibly use them for reasons that we cannot comprehend.”
On Jan. 13, 2021, J. Michael Waller, senior analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy, published a first-hand account of his observations. Waller is also President of Georgetown Research, a political risk and private intelligence company in Washington, D.C.; and was founding editorial board member of NATO’s peer-reviewed Defence Strategic Communications journal (2015–2018), and a senior analyst with Wikistrat. He is convinced people were embedded in the crowd to execute “an organized operation planned well in advance of the January 6 joint session of Congress.”
The Epoch Times reported on Jan. 1 that senior federal law enforcement officials refused to answer questions about an Arizona man named Ray Epps, captured on video the day before the rally wearing a Trump hat repeatedly encouraging protesters to “go into the Capitol” the next day. Many were suspicious of him. Chants of “fed, fed, fed” drown him out. On Jan. 6, he is seen telling the crowd “we are going to the Capitol, where all of our problems are.”
Bobby Powell host of “The Truth is Viral” podcast, has several videos exposing two men, clad all in black, whom he believes are FBI informants. They are seen breaking windows, attacking the Capitol building, and even pushing people inside.
McBride finds it strange that these “provocateurs,” as he calls them, have yet to be charged, despite their having a much more active role in the Capitol incident than some who were charged, including some individuals who never even set foot on Capitol grounds.
Unknown to the public until now, the First Amendment Demonstrations report also reveals that an undisclosed number of “plainclothes” MPD ESU “members” were embedded into the crowd to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.”
In 2016, the MPD purchased 2,800 body-worn cameras.
It is unclear who the MPD ESU “members” were. However, they are never referred to as “officers” or “police.” Of the 37 “Specialized Units” listed as part of the MPD, an ESU is not among them. In order for other security personnel to recognize embedded ESU members among the protesters, they wore a specific “bracelet on their left wrist identifying them as MPD personnel,” the report stated.
Because he didn’t assume the job as police chief until Jan. 2, 2021, Waller believes Contee inherited rather than set up the ESU. However, Waller is confident “this report raises a lot of questions.”
“While it is admittedly an important type of unit to have in the nation’s capital, electronic surveillance requires warrants,” Waller told The Epoch Times. “The word surveillance itself implies intrusive rather than passive monitoring of people, in which case it would be required for the police to get warrants to conduct electronic surveillance on people. What kind of warrants were asked for and under which jurisdiction? Were they issued? If not, why? Are such warrants necessary for the type of surveillance this unit was doing and how does it work? This raises a huge amount of questions about an entirely new kind of surveillance unit by the police chief of the nation’s capital.”
Waller also said the reference to “members” of the unit, as opposed to “officers” or “agents,” is also very disturbing. While he said “the rest of the memorandum sounds very disciplined in it’s language and specific,” that it doesn’t identify “officers” as members of the Electronic Surveillance Unit “is very troubling.”
“Are they using private contractors? Are they using political volunteers?” Waller posed. “Are using paid agents of different types? We don’t know. This is something the public has a right to know and we need to get to the bottom of it. If the D.C Police is running electronic surveillance on American citizens without warrants, this could be a very serious breach of our civil liberties.”
An Oct. 29, 2021 report by Politico exposed that a 17-page strategy report called “The Civil Disturbance Unit Operational Plan,” showed that police made plans for plainclothes “officers” to monitor protesters and carry out five objectives:
However, because the CDU was understaffed and unprepared, it failed in all its objectives.
According to a 140-page report issued by then-Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton—”Review of the Events Surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Takeover of the U.S. Capitol”—Capitol Police’s CDU was ordered by supervisors not to use the department’s most powerful tools, like stun guns. Bolton’s report, which has not yet been widely released to the public, also contends “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership.”
The CDU was given riot shields, many locked in a bus some distance away, that “shattered upon impact.” They had expired weapons that didn’t work and inadequate training.
Bolton’s report also noted that officials were warned in an intelligence assessment three days before the protest that “Stop the Steal’s propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike” and that “Congress itself is the target.”
However, reports surfaced that then acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett sent a memo to lawmakers informing them that security officials found that “there does not exist a known, credible threat against Congress or the Capitol Complex that warrants the temporary security fencing.”
Some Capitol Police officers were reportedly told to go home amid staffing shortages, reported Business Insider.
According to the “UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR JANUARY 6, 2021 ATTACK,” also obtained by The Epoch Times, “USCP Deputy Chief Gallagher replies” to the Department of Defense (DOD) “via text” on Jan. 3, 2021, “that a request for National Guard support is not forthcoming at this time after consultation” with Chief of Police (COP) Steven Sund.
On Jan. 4, 2021, “COP Sund asked Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSAA) Michael Stenger and House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA) Paul Irving for authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event based on briefings with law enforcement partners and revised intelligence assessment.”
• COP Sund’s request is denied. SSAA and HSAA tells COP Sund to contact General Walker at DC National Guard to discuss the guard’s ability to support a request if needed.
• COP Sund notifies General Walker of DC National Guard, indicating that the USCP may need DC National Guard support for Jan. 6, 2021, but does not have the authority to request at this time.
• General Walker advises COP Sund that in the event of an authorized request, DC National Guard could quickly repurpose 125 troops helping to provide DC with COVID-related assistance. Troops would need to be sworn in as USCP.
However, the timeline shows it took over three hours and five frantic requests before the National Guard was deployed.
During his opening remarks before two Senate committees on March 3, 2021, Walker told members of Congress he received a “frantic call” from Sund in the early afternoon advising that the security perimeter of the Capitol was being breached. However, military leaders informed him that deploying troops would not be “good optics.”
During testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Piatt and Flynn denied making such comments.
At the hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene informed the committee three people were involved in turning down repeated requests for the deployment of the National Guard: “Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Nancy Pelosi in the House, and Mayor Muriel Bowser. Also involved, are the SSAA Stenger, who answers directly to Schumer, and HSAA Irving, who answers directly to Pelosi.”
On Jan. 22, 2021, reports began to surface with images of National Guard members who were forced to stay in nearby parking garages in near-freezing temperatures sparking outrage among lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle.
In stark contradiction to then acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett’s assessment that no “credible threat against Congress or the Capitol Complex” existed to warrant “temporary security fencing,” there are multiple admonishments in the First Amendment Demonstrations report of the importance “for the members to monitor the fence line” and orders that “all members” were to “monitor 16th Street and the surrounding area for any potential issues or demonstrations.”
“Members assigned to the bicycle rack” were ordered to “restrict pedestrian and vehicle movement upon making the closure of the police lines.”
“The bicycle rack, in conjunction with police cars and blocking vehicles will create a barrier in which no person or vehicle will be allowed to pass,” the report said.
However, video evidence shows police waving protesters past bike racks and even removing them to open a path into the restricted areas to encourage people to move toward the Capitol Building.
A March 2, 2021, USCP Report of Investigation regarding the incident, also obtained by The Epoch Times, confirms that on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, “an Unknown Officer violated USCP Directive 2053.013, Rules of Conduct, when they allegedly waived unauthorized persons into a restricted area secured by bike racks toward the US Capitol during an insurrection.” Evidence in the case included the “video posted to twitter, dated 01/06/21 ” and “CCTV of the East Front of the US Capitol, dated 01/06/21.”
On Monday, Feb. 1, 2021, then Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Commander of the United States Capitol Police, Inspector Michael Shaffer, sent an email with the Twitter video of the unidentified officer (UO) to Inspectors Amy Hyman (Senate Division), Thomas Loyd (Capitol Division), Kimberley Bolinger (House Division) and Acting Inspector Jessica Baboulis (Library Division) requesting assistance in identifying the UO. All parties responded to Shaffer that they were unable to identify the UO.
The recommendation was that the report “be APPROVED and the case CLOSED.”
On Feb. 4, 2021, this case was put on hold pending a review by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Public Corruption. No further information is available.
In a June 10 interview with EpochTV’s “Facts Matter,” Julie Kelly—a political consultant in Illinois and senior contributor for American Greatness—described Jan. 6, 2021, as “an inside job” and “something Democrats and some Republicans and federal agencies put together to entice” and “entrap” people who went to hear President Donald Trump’s speech. She noted that the FBI used agents to try to infiltrate the so-called militia groups.
Jeremy Brown exposed a video of FBI Terrorist Task Force agents attempting to recruit him to spy on fellow Oath Keepers.
The Department of Justice still won’t answer questions about Ray Epps, an Arizona resident captured on video encouraging protesters to breach the Capitol Building.
Video footage found at Gateway Pundit shows flash grenades being launched by Capitol Police into a group of protesters, consisting of women, children, and elderly people, who were standing peacefully behind barriers. According to American Greatness, Capitol Police were also firing on the crowd with rubber bullets. The approximate time of the confrontation was around 1:36 p.m. However, the USCP Timeline does not mention the deployment of these flash grenades.
Another video, which still exists on TeaParty.org, was filmed by Kash Kelly from ground level where the flash grenades went off. Kelly, who is now himself in prison regarding pretrial release violations regarding a previous charge and the subsequent charges related to his presence in Washington, is shown ensuring the evacuation of women in the area where the flash grenades exploded.
“The police started shooting at people,” Kelly says. “There were kids in the crowd.”
More extensive video footage, analyzed by Ray Dietrich of Red Voice Media, shows “the beginning of violence on January 6.”
An unidentified USCP officer is seen repeatedly yelling down to the crowd, assembled peacefully below his position, advising that if they “want to get a good picture” they should “go up into the bleachers.”
“The video shows the moment either stun grenades or tear gas canisters were deployed into the crowd of protestors,” Dietrich says as the video plays out. “The question I have, after a 20-year career in law enforcement, is why were these munitions deployed? I have picked this video apart and many more, and cannot see why the USCP used this force against the crowd. There is no fighting and no violence, so why did they target these people with less-lethal weapons?”
“What happened next?” Dietrich asks rhetorically. “Chaos. Violence. The crowd fought back. The Capitol was breached.”
As the stunned crowd scurries in the attack, police can be seen spraying people in the face with pepper spray. In another segment, three police officers are beating a protester who is being held on the ground. In a measure that further escalates the tension, police begin deploying tear gas into the already frantic crowd. In a course of 20 minutes, a once peaceful scene descends into total chaos.
In June 2021, reports surfaced that the Justice Department had begun to release its own video footage, including footage from body-worn cameras that allegedly show assaults against police officers defending the U.S. Capitol.
A summary of findings shows that:
Source: The Epoch Times
You know it tells you a lot about the priorities of a ruling class that the rest of us are getting yet another lecture about January 6th tonight from our moral inferiors, no less. An outbreak of mob violence, a forgettably minor outbreak by recent standards, that took place more than a year and a half ago, but they’ve never stopped talking about it.
In the meantime, in the 18 months since January 6, gas prices have doubled. Drug ODs have reached their highest point ever. The U.S. economy is now careening toward a devastating recession at best and scariest and least noted of all, this country has never in its history been closer to a nuclear war.
Yet the other networks can’t be bothered to cover any of that tonight. Instead, they’ve interrupted their regularly scheduled programing to bring you yet another extended primetime harangue from Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney about Donald Trump and QAnon. The whole thing is insulting.
In fact, it’s deranged and we’re not playing along. This is the only hour on an American news channel that will not be carrying their propaganda live. They are lying, and we are not going to help them do it. What we will do instead is to try to tell you the truth. We’ve attempted to do that since the day this happened.
We hated seeing vandalism at the U.S. Capitol a year and a half ago, and we said so at the time, but we did not think it was an insurrection because it was not an insurrection. It was not even close to an insurrection. Not a single person in the crowd that day was found to be carrying a firearm – some insurrection. In fact, the only person who wound up shot to death was a protester.
She was a 36-year-old military veteran called Ashli Babbitt. Babbitt was just over 5 feet tall. She was unarmed. She posed no conceivable threat to anyone, but Capitol Hill Police shot her in the neck and never explained why that was justified. Those are the facts of January 6, but since the very first hours, they have been distorted beyond recognition, relentlessly culminating with last night.
Last night, CBS Nightly News told its viewers that insurrectionists at the Capitol on January 6 “caused the deaths of five police officers.” That is a pure lie. There is nothing true about it, and they know that perfectly well. Here’s reporter Bob Costa, who should be deeply ashamed to say something this dishonest.
ROBERT COSTA, CBS: Thursday’s primetime hearing will take Americans back to January 6, when an estimated 2,000 rioters breached the Capitol building, causing the deaths of five police officers.
It’s hard to believe he said that. Rioters cause the deaths of five police officers. You just heard CBS News tell its viewers that. This must be the big lie theory. The more bewilderingly false a claim is, the more likely you will be to believe it. Apparently, that’s what they’re betting on. In fact, precisely zero police officers were killed by rioters on January 6, not five, none. Not a single one. So, how’d they get to five? Well, CBS is counting the suicides of local police officers that took place after January 6, in some cases, long after January 6.
Suicide, unfortunately, is pretty common among cops. Policing is a tough job, as we’ve noted. But in these specific cases, the ones CBS is referring to, the chief of Washington DC’s police department told The New York Times that actually he had no idea if his officers were driven to kill themselves by January 6. CBS just made that up.
The fifth death that CBS News is referring to is of Capitol Hill police officer Brian Sicknick. You will remember his name. Sicknick’s body lay in state at the Capitol after the media told us he’d been beaten to death by Trump voters with a fire extinguisher. Here’s what they told you.
FREDERICKA WHITFIELD, CNN: Officer Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher.
CNN REPORTER: Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher.
ANA CABRERA, CNN: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the hour-long attack.
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC: They beat a Capitol Police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the fight.
CRAIG MELVIN, MSNBC: He died at the age of 42 after he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.
Once again, that’s not true. Everything you just heard was completely fabricated. The D.C. medical examiner performed an autopsy and the autopsy report showed that Officer Brian Sicknick had not suffered any kind of blunt force trauma. He was not beaten to death. He died of a stroke in his office later. No one has been charged in Officer Sicknick’s death because Officer Sicknick wasn’t murdered.
They are lying to you. That is provable. Not a single person you just saw has apologized for lying. Not a single one. And it’s not just the news media. Here’s Congressman Pete Aguilar of California claiming that officers lost their lives on January 6.
PETE AGUILAR: These hearings will be a chance for the country to come together to rally around the truth and unite around the rule of law. We owe it to the officers who lost their lives and the officers who were injured to tell that story and to ensure that this never happens again.
Let’s rally around the truth, he says, as he lies to you. May those words burn your tongue, liar. But what did happen exactly on January 6? What’s the truth of that day? Well, that’s still unknown. From the extensive video we have of January 6, it’s clear that some in the crowd, more than a few, were encouraging protesters to breach the Capitol, to commit felonies. We’re not guessing at that, we’ve showed you the tape.
We have pictures of their faces. In the case of a man called Ray Epps, we know his name, but they’ve never been charged. Ray Epps was standing in exactly the same place that a lot of people who went to jail were standing, but he wasn’t charged. His name was taken off the FBI’s Most Wanted list. Why is that? It doesn’t make any sense at all.
The January 6 committee will not explain that after a year, millions of dollars and a thousand interviews. They won’t tell us, nor will they tell us how many FBI agents and assets were in the crowd that day and what were they doing there. Why can’t we know that? And why are they still hiding thousands of hours of surveillance footage from within the Capitol? If the point of the committee was to get the truth out there, why can’t we see the tape?
Why did authorities open the doors of the Capitol to rioters and let them walk in, usher them in the doors? That’s utterly bizarre. You saw that live. No one’s ever explained it. What’s the explanation for that? And by the way, whatever happened to the mysterious pipe bomber whose bombs we later learned many months later, Kamala Harris’ bodyguards discovered. Kamala Harris told us she was at the Capitol that day, but she wasn’t. She was at the DNC with a pipe bomb outside. Her bodyguards found that bomb, but she lied about that. She hid that. Why?
That’s got to be one of the weirdest stories ever. What does it mean, Liz Cheney? Silence. And of course, above all, they lied about the reason that January 6 happened in the first place and you know what it is. The entire country watched Joe Biden get what they claim was 10 million more votes than Barack Obama himself got. Joe Biden got 10 million more votes than Barack Obama got, and a lot of those votes arrived after the election.
In a lot of places, voting was stopped in the middle of the night. Why? In the biggest states in the country, voter ID was optional. Why is that okay? A lot of the protesters on January 6 were very upset about that and they should have been. All of us should be, but the January 6 Committee ignored all of that completely. Instead, on the basis of zero evidence, no evidence whatsoever, they blamed the entire riot on White supremacy. Here’s Joe Biden.
PRESIDENT BIDEN: We’re confronting the stains of what remains, a deep stain on the soul of the nation, hate and White supremacy. The violent, deadly insurrection on the Capitol nine months ago was about White supremacy, in my view.
What? There’s no evidence for that – none. The people at the Capitol, including the ones who broke the law by entering the Capitol, which is a crime, those people to a person said they were upset because they believed their democracy had been stolen from them and whether all of their claims are true or not, that’s a valid reason to be upset. But rather than reassure the rest of us that actually our democracy is sound, elections are fair and transparent, there’s no cheating and we can prove it, rather than do that, they call half the country names and not just names, the worst thing you can be called, a White supremacist. And then, most bewilderingly of all, virtually no Republican in Washington pushed back against any of that.
In fact, Lindsey Graham, violence worshiper to the end, said that his only regret was that the Capitol Police didn’t shoot more Trump voters in the neck and kill them. “You’ve got guns, use them,” Graham said. So here you have a sitting U.S. senator, a Republican, urging police officers to shoot unarmed Americans, many of whom were ushered into the Capitol building by law enforcement.
How can people talk like that? For more than a year, they justified rhetoric like Lindsey Graham “shoot more” by claiming that January 6 was an insurrection. That’s not a word they were used to describe, say, the monthslong siege of a courthouse in Portland, or the ongoing coordinated effort to intimidate Supreme Court justices at their homes with guns, a story they ignored today. But January 6 was different, they reminded us. It was unique because it was their offices and because it bothered Nancy Pelosi.
ADAM SCHIFF: The president incited an insurrection against Congress to prevent the peaceful transition of power.
CEDRIC RICHMOND: And then he sat back and watched the insurrection.
REP. HALEY STEVENS: Insurrection, a violent mob.
CORI BUSH: A White supremacist president who incited a White supremacist insurrection.
REP. ILHAN OMAR: A insurrection against our government.
REP. ILHAN OMAR: A insurrection against our government.
PELOSI: The insurrection that violated the sanctity of the people’s Capitol.
JIM MCGOVERN: This was not a protest, this was an insurrection.
BIDEN: It’s not protest. It’s insurrection.
We are not defending and would never defend vandalism, violence, rioting. We disapproved of it when it happened. We disapprove of it now, all riots, not just this one. But this was not an insurrection.
But, you know what will get you to insurrection? If you ignore the legitimate concerns of a population, if you brush them aside as if they don’t matter when gas goes to $5 and you say “buy an electric car.” When cities become so filthy and so dangerous that you can’t live there, when the economy becomes so distorted that your own children have no hope of getting married and giving you grandchildren, when you don’t care at all about any of that and all you do is talk about yourself, nonstop – you might get an insurrection if you behave like that, speaking of insurrection.
Source: Fox News
Kentucky U.S. Senator reacts to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on ‘Jesse Watters Primetime.
Source: YouTube & Fox News
By Daniel Turner
Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s definition of the intelligentsia — those educated beyond their intelligence — illuminates the current gathering of global powerbrokers and intellectuals in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum.
Discussing sophisticated and lofty issues like climate change and the transition to green energy, attendees nod and applaud at one another’s remarks, marveling at their own detached brilliance all while ignoring their own enormous carbon footprint spewed by their private jets and yachts.
One can only wonder if they are reading the same headlines the rest of us are.
“Much of the U.S. could see power blackouts this summer,” declares National Public Radio. “Blackouts possible this summer,” affirms CNN. And to be sure this isn’t just titillating headlines for clicks, the Biden administration’s Department of Energy has recently published a how-to guide preparing your home for a blackout.
Think about the insane and tragic irony of the “Energy” Department authoring a survival guide for no energy.
Our current energy crunch, both domestically and internationally, is a direct result of the Davos crowd, these misanthropic interlopers feigning energy expertise. It’s akin to Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee, the crow’s nest sailors on RMS Titanic, catching sight of the iceberg and deciding to engage in a lengthy debate about the Darwinism. “We are going through this incredible transition,” Biden recently bragged in response to a question about high gas prices. Iceberg? What Iceberg? Keep dancing.
What the Davos crowd will not admit — cannot — admit since it unravels their entire narrative — is that we are headed for a summer of blackouts because of their own green agenda. Biden promised to punish energy, and has he ever.
Since the first day where he signed multiple executive orders to end land access and cripple energy infrastructure projects with unaccountable bureaucracies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), he has scared off investors and caused a dwindling supply.
Biden knows we have a supply problem. It’s why he is asking for more oil from OPEC or lifting sanctions on the rogue, murderous regime in Venezuela. It’s why he has released oil from strategic reserves.
Team Biden knows only an increase in supply will bring down prices. Yet, he has done nothing to increase domestic production. That is something he will not — cannot — do since it undermines his one core campaign promise.
In their hearts, the Davos attendees know their policies have never actually worked. Not one country that has embraced the green agenda has seen success as measured by factors like prosperity, opportunity, costs, or even output. Even the holy grail of metrics, emissions, have gone up in Germany. The only measurable success is self-righteousness. Going green makes the Davos crowd feel good. Judge Davos not on its outcomes, but on the nobility of its intentions.
It is sailors Fleet and Lee shouting, “full steam ahead, Captain!”
The Davos glitterati celebrate the green agenda because they are immune from it. Bureaucrats like WEF Chairman Straus Kahn and European Central Bank Chair Christine Lagarde are safe in their cushy, bubble jobs, blithely unaware that for many $4.60 gas prices are budget busting and forcing difficult choices. Similarly, high gas prices are no problem for Joe Biden’s weekly commute home to Delaware; he’s not paying the jet fuel on Air Force One. We are.
When Davos comes to its merciful end, its cadre of highly educated global elites will have accomplished nothing which improves the life of mankind. A quilting convention has more utility than the lofty thoughts of the Davos disconnected.
Sadly, they have tremendous power and influence. As long as America is run by impressionable and weak men like Joe Biden, men longing to matter and desperate to emit the substance and principles they lack ontologically, then the rest of us are doomed to suffer Davos’ green stupidity.
Source: Daily Caller
By Bob Segal
I recently watched the Dinesh D’Souza film “2000 Mules.” At the very least, the movie makes a compelling case using what appears to be incontrovertible evidence that not only was there massive “ballot stuffing” fraud in the key swing states, but that the fraud literally stole the election from former President Donald Trump and gave it to President Biden.
“2000 Mules” bases its conclusions primarily upon cellphone tracking data provided by carriers and surveillance video of ballot drop boxes provided by multiple state governments. The only ways to dismiss the film’s conclusion that Mr. Biden’s victory derived from massive ballot stuffing is to show that the data used to track the cell phones was corrupt, the analysis of the data was flawed or the videos received from the respective governments were doctored. No one has established any such improprieties, yet the mainstream media’s knee-jerk reaction is to reject the film and its conclusions and offer absurd suggestions to explain how the data and video evidence is false.
It has been suggested that the people in the videos are election workers retrieving ballots from the boxes or that the cellphone data is of taxi drivers who happen to pass the ballot boxes. All one must do to reject such nonsense is watch the film.
In a perfect journalistic world populated by real journalists, this film would indicate a large amount of smoke worthy of investigation. But again, the same super-partisan, leftist media is making zero effort to get to the truth. I challenge any Democrat, Trump hater, any Never Trumper to watch the film and see whether their rock-solid belief in the honesty of Mr. Biden’s election remains so afterward.
Donald J. Trump: “Highly respected Dinesh D’Souza, working together with Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote, just released a trailer to their new movie, “2,000 Mules,” that shows the world exactly how the 2020 Presidential Election was Rigged and Stolen. The movie exposes the lies of the Democrats, RINOs, and Fake News who say it was the “most secure election in history.” It was, perhaps, the least secure in history. The ballot box was stuffed, and stuffed like never before—and it’s all on video. Ballots were trafficked and sold in a massive operation in each Swing State. The evidence is so damning, what will the cowards who sat and did nothing about the stolen election say now? The way our votes were taken away is a disgrace to our Nation. It must be fixed.”
Source: The Washington Times
Zelenskyy recently described Putin’s “de-Nazification” of Ukraine as “laughable” and the brainwashed flock of the mainstream media certainly must agree.
They have been told that Nazis wave the American flag and vote Republican and the brainwashed flock always believe what they are told.
But those of us still cleaving to our sanity remember that Nazis were members of Hitler’s National Socialist Party from the 1930s and ’40s.
And not only were there thousands of Nazis in Western Ukraine back then, it is still a big part of their national pride.
Nazi war criminal, Stepan Bandera is a national hero and there are actual Nazi organizations still thriving in Ukraine, including the Azov Regiment, which is now a part of Ukraine’s armed forces.
The Nazification of Ukraine is well-documented and easily-verified, as is the Nazification of America.
During the 1930s, there were many notable Americans who supported the Nazis, such as Prescott Bush, Henry Ford and Fred Koch; banks, such as JP Morgan and Chase Manhattan; companies such as General Motors, Standard Oil, Shell and IBM.
Major General Smedley Butler of the US Marines was asked by these powerful entities to install National Socialism in the United States and when that plan failed, war broke out with the support of the banks and these American entities.
After World War II, only about a dozen were brought to justice at the Nuremberg Trials.
The Catholic Church and the Vatican helped thousands of Nazis evade capture, via the rat lines, which brought them mostly to South America, where they built an entire town in Argentina.
In Operation Paperclip, the United States secretly absorbed thousands of Nazis into the US Government, where they led the NASA Space Program and helped pioneer the military-industrial complex, as well as Big Pharma.
Many believe being a Nazi is synonymous with being anti-Jewish, which may have been true in 1930s Germany but it’s complicated. Many high-ranking Nazis, themselves, including Adolf Hitler were Ashkenazi Jews, who cold be traced back to the notorious Khazars, who mysteriously mass-converted to Judaism about 1,300 years ago in the region now known as Ukraine.
Ashkenazi Jews ran the political Zionist Party in Germany and for several years, the Zionists were the only political party allowed to operate inside Germany by the Nazis.
Both the Zionists and the Nazis wanted their own ethnically-pure state and for years, before their Final Solution, the Nazis helped the Zionists in their efforts to establish the State of Israel within Palestine. It was far more complicated than mere racial hatred.
Nazism can best be described as Fascism and Fascism is godlessness. The word “Nazi” is a made-up slur but the word “Fascist” is clearly-defined. It stems from the Latin word, “Fascis”, which is a bundle of sticks banded together to form a deadly weapon; an old school meme that represents the deadly power of an organized mob, a gang.
When men lack a personal relationship with God, they inevitably band together, out of fear, submitting to the small man for a taste of dominance, they become just another beast in the jungle.
And today, we can clearly see this Fascist mentality in all of these godless groups: the woke, the Satanists, the transhumanists and the genocidal mass-murderers of the Great Reset are all merging together into one giant fascis; godless men and women banded together out of fear; Fascists serving the straw man.
Spiritually-speaking, these are the weakest among us and so far, we’re allowing them to destroy everything.
Source: Forbidden Knowledge
The current Russian invasion of Ukraine could have been avoided, and it demonstrates a failure that the U.S. leadership couldn’t effectively communicate with its Russian counterpart, according to Gen. Michael Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who briefly served as the National Security Advisor to former President Donald Trump.
“Russia, Ukraine, Europe … what’s happening? At the 60,000-foot level, this is a totally avoidable war. Totally avoidable,” Flynn recently told NTD’s “Capitol Report” program.
“It really goes back to 1994, what was called the Budapest Accords, in Budapest, Hungary, at the end of the Cold War,” said Flynn.
On Dec. 5, 1994, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed an agreement with Ukraine called The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in Budapest, Hungary. The three nuclear powers gave their assurances on independence and sovereignty of Ukraine in exchange for removing all nuclear weapons from its territory and becoming a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Two other nuclear powers, China and France, gave their assurances in separate documents.
These nuclear powers also signed identical security assurances with Belarus and Kazakhstan at the time.
“One of the big-ticket items that came out of the Budapest accords was no further encroachment of NATO against this new Russian Federation,” Flynn said, explaining that no country leaders wanted to have nuclear missiles across the boundary between Russia and European countries.
The Budapest Memo (pdf) didn’t mention the NATO expansion. However, Western leaders had promised no NATO eastward expansion throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991. The most famous one is then-Secretary of State James Baker’s “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990.
According to recently declassified documents by the National Security Archive at George Washington University published on Nov. 24, 2021, before and after the Budapest meeting in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton kept assuring then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin that any NATO enlargement would be slow, with no surprises, building a Europe that was inclusive not exclusive, and in “partnership” with Russia.
In a Sep. 28, 1994 conversation, Clinton told Yeltsin that he had never said that Russia could not be considered for NATO membership, and that “when we talk about NATO expanding, we are emphasizing inclusion, not exclusion,” and “there is no imminent timetable.”
In a Nov. 30, 1994, letter to Clinton, Yeltsin said, “We have agreed with you that there will be no surprises, that first we should pass through this phase of partnership, whereas issues of further evolution of NATO should not be decided without due account to the opinion and interests of Russia.”
The war also shows the Biden administration’s failure to communicate with Russia in an effective way to prevent the escalation of the Ukraine situation, said Flynn.
“War is a failure of policy and diplomacy,” said Flynn. “Anytime you see states, nations, nation-states, at war with each other, it’s because there’s a failure to communicate some way somehow. And that’s what happened.”
Flynn said Russian President Vladimir Putin kept saying Ukraine shouldn’t join NATO and it should declare neutrality, but “we won’t come into play here, and they never did.”
Current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had pushed for joining NATO after taking office. Joining NATO and the European Union has been put into the constitution of Ukraine during his tenure.
Last month, Zelenskyy said his country has to accept that it will not become a member of NATOIn a Mar. 26 speech in Poland, Biden said of Putin, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
“Immediately after he said it, they had to start walking it back. They had to start walking it back,” said Flynn. “Because it’s so wrong to say that.”
The White House and the State Department clarified that Biden didn’t talk about regime change.
Biden defended himself two days later.
“I want to make it clear: I wasn’t then, nor am I now, articulating a policy change. I was expressing the moral outrage that I feel, and I make no apologies for it,” Biden said.
Source: The Epoch Times
Liberty International News 