Why Don't You Trust Us Like Your Breathtakingly Naive Parents Used To Do.....?

WaPo |  Our family wasn’t much for heirlooms.

My mother, especially in her years as a busy young wife of an Air Force officer, tended to shed things, rather than save and curate them, as we moved every year or two.

So when I was going through her belongings after she died in 2015, I wasn’t surprised to find that there were not very many artifacts of my early years.

One of the few items she thought was important enough to keep was a little yellow booklet, a small document with many addendums, held together by staples that rusted decades ago.

On the front cover, above my name, it says, “International Certificates of Vaccination as Approved by the World Health Organization.” Inside are page after page of records of the immunizations and boosters I received — for typhus, typhoid, polio, flu, cholera, smallpox.

There are those on the right today who would call this a “vaccine passport.” Demanding that people show evidence of their covid-19 vaccination status has become a front in the raging culture wars. States across the country are moving to restrict schools and other institutions from requiring people to demonstrate their vaccination status or immunity to the virus.

How did we come to this? Immunizations have long been required for international travel. Do residents of this country deserve any less transparency and protection? There exist vaccines that are safe and effective against a virus that has killed more than 600,000 in the United States and whose new strain is turning its fury on the unvaccinated.

The stipulations of my own immunization record were unbending: “It is the responsibility of the traveler to have the ‘approved stamp’ applied to the smallpox vaccination certificate or the cholera vaccination certificate. The certificate is not valid without the stamp and may not be accepted when required in international travel.”

Fourth Branch Continuity IS Elite Political Security

 CTH  |  Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the Intelligence Branch put into the false Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange, monitor all activity, and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the EDVA grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018.

The DOJ sat on the indictment while the Mueller/Weissmann probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller/Weissmann probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange.  The Weissmann/Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes for justification, and that narrative was contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

♦ This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC and FBI contractor.

The CIA holds a self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim; the FBI holds an interest in maintaining that claim; the U.S. media hold an interest in maintaining that claim. All of the foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This “Russian hacking” claim was ultimately important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus, it forms the corner of their justification. With that level of importance, well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Julian Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Weissmann/Mueller report was going to be public.

…. and that’s exactly what they did.

Why No Consequences When CIA Hacked Senate Select Intelligence Committee Computers?

CTH  |  The contrast of ideological alignment between the HPSCI, SSCI and Intelligence Branch is crystal clear when viewed through the prism of cooperation.  You can see which legislative committee holds the power and support of the Intelligence Branch.   The SSCI facilitates the corrupt existence of the IC Branch, so the IC Branch only cooperates with the SSCI.  It really is that simple.

♦ The Intelligence Branch carefully selects its own members by controlling how security clearances are investigated and allowed (FBI).  The Intelligence Branch also uses compartmentalization of intelligence as a way to keep each agency, and each downstream branch of government (executive, legislative and judicial), at arms length as a method to stop anyone from seeing the larger picture of their activity.  I call this the “silo effect“, and it is done by design. I have looked the at stunned faces when I present silo product from one agency to the silo customers of another.

Through the advise and consent rules, the Intelligence Branch uses the SSCI to keep out people they consider dangerous to their ongoing operations.  Any appointee to the intelligence community must first pass through the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, before they get a full Senate vote.  If the SSCI rejects the candidate, they simply refuse to take up the nomination.  The president is then blocked from that appointment.  This is what happened with President Trump over-and-over again.

♦ Additionally, the Intelligence Branch protects itself, and its facilitating allies through the formal classification process.  The Intelligence Branch gets to decide unilaterally what information will be released and what information will be kept secret.  There is no entity outside the Intelligence Branch, and yes that includes the President of the United States, who can supersede the classification authority of the Intelligence Branch.  {Go Deep} and {Go Deep}  This is something 99.9% of the people on our side get totally and frustratingly wrong.

No-one can declassify, or make public, anything the Intelligence Branch will not agree to.  Doubt this?… ask Ric Grenell, John Ratcliffe, or even President Trump himself.

♦ The classification process is determined inside the Intelligence Branch, all by themselves.  They get to choose what rank of classification exists on any work-product they create; and they get to decide what the classification status is of any work-product that is created by anyone else.  The Intelligence Branch has full control over what is considered classified information and what is not.  The Intelligence Branch defines what is a “national security interest” and what is not.  A great technique for hiding fingerprints of corrupt and illegal activity.

[For familiar reference see the redactions to Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages. The Intelligence Branch does all redactions.]

♦ Similarly the declassification process is a request by an agency, even a traditionally superior agency like the President of the United States, to the Intelligence Branch asking for them to release the information.  The Intelligence Branch again holds full unilateral control.  If the head of the CIA refuses to comply with the declassification instruction of the President, what can the president do except fire him/her?   {Again, GO DEEP}  How does the President replace the non-compliant cabinet member?… They have to go through the SSCI confirmation… See the problem?

The Fourth Branch Funds Itself From Multinational Private Sector Partnerships

CTH  |  Here we pick up the intelligence issues as they manifest after 9/11/01, and highlight how the modern version of the total intelligence apparatus has now metastasized into a fourth branch of government.  If we take the modern construct we can highlight how and why the oversight or “check/balance” in the system has become functionally obsolescent.

Factually, the modern intelligence apparatus uses checks and balances in their favor.  The checks create silos of proprietary information that works around oversight issues. That’s part of the problem.

Ironically the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created in the aftermath of 9/11/01 expressly to eliminate the silos of information which they felt led to a domestic terrorist attack that could have been prevented.  The ODNI was created specifically upon the recommendation of the 9/11 commission.

The intent was to create a central hub of intelligence information, inside the executive branch, where the CIA, NSA, DoD, DoS, and DIA could deposit their unique intelligence products and a repository would be created so that domestic intelligence operations, like the DOJ and FBI could access them when needed to analyze threats to the U.S.   This, they hoped, would ensure the obvious flags missed in the 9/11 attacks would not be missed again.

The DNI office created a problem for those who operate in the shadows of proprietary information.  You’ll see how it was critical to install a person uniquely skilled in being an idiot, James Clapper, into that willfully blind role while intelligence operatives worked around the office to assemble the Intelligence Branch of government.

♦ The last federal budget that flowed through the traditional budgetary process was signed into law in September of 2007 for fiscal year 2008 by George W Bush.  Every budget since then has been a fragmented process of continuing resolutions and individual spending bills.

Why does this matter?  Because many people think defunding the IC is a solution; it ain’t… not yet.  Worse yet, the corrupt divisions deep inside the U.S. intelligence system can now fund themselves from multinational private sector partnerships (banks, corporations and foreign entities).