kansascity | Under federal law, Burlison is not permitted to reveal classified information to the public. But after the classified briefing, he still appeared frustrated with how little the federal government is revealing about what it knows.
“Regardless of what it is – aliens, angels, or just us, right?” Burlison said. “Regardless of what it is, I think that Grusch, what he said in the public hearing, that we are being blocked from information, that the information is being specifically compartmentalized, that’s violating federal law.”
He’s not alone. Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of representatives including Burlison and Moskowitz formed the Congressional UAP Caucus. The caucus wrote a letter to Monheim in August seeking more answers about the government’s UAP program.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, attempted to get a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act allowing the National Archives to collect information on UAPs and reveal it to the public after a certain period of time – similar to how the government handled information about former President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.
But the provision was weakened in the final version of the NDAA. The National Archives can still collect the information, but there will be no committee to go through the papers and authorize what can and can’t be revealed.
“It is really an outrage the House didn’t work with us on adopting our proposal for a review board, which of course by definition here is bipartisan in the Senate,” Schumer said in December. “Now it means that declassification of UAP records will be largely up to the same entities that have blocked and obfuscated their disclosure for decades.”
Burlison said he believes the public has a right to know more about UAPs – or at the very least the representative the public elected to Congress has a right to know. He compared it to the development of the nuclear bomb during World War II, saying some information should be private, but the basic information should be available to the public.
“You can go study nuclear physics, you can go study how power plants operate, but at the end of the day if you are interested in making a bomb, that is top secret information and we should hold that information to the highest level of security,” Burlison said. “But I think the same thing should apply to any of this UAP technology.”
In the meantime, he plans to push to get stronger language in next year’s NDAA and to keep pushing for briefings from people with better knowledge of the UAP program.But he was tight lipped as to whether people will soon learn whether aliens exist and have visited Earth.
“If you believe that aliens existed, there’s nothing that I’ve seen or heard that proves that,” Burlison said. “Also, I’ve not seen anything that proves that it’s not.”
rutherford | “There were relatively few secret police, and most were just
processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It
wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and
hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who
were informing on their neighbors.”—Professor Robert Gellately, author
of Backing Hitler
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the government and flagged for heightened surveillance and preemptive intervention.
Let that sink in a moment.
If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution
(namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with
like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the
government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or
searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government,
racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you have just been promoted to the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
I assure you I’m not making this stuff up.
So what is the government doing about these so-called American “extremists”?
The government is grooming the American people to spy on each other
as part of its Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, or CP3
program.
As Hohmann explains, “Whether it’s COVID and vaccines, the war in
Ukraine, immigration, the Second Amendment, LGBTQ ideology and
child-gender confusion, the integrity of our elections, or the issue of
protecting life in the womb, you are no longer allowed to hold dissenting opinions and voice them publicly in America. If you do, your own government will take note and consider you a potential ‘violent extremist’ and terrorist.”
leohohmann | The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced
on September 6 that $20 million in federal grants (your tax dollars)
will be handed out to 34 organizations to “prevent targeted violence and
terrorism.”
Since today is the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, you might think
these 34 organizations will be focused on al-Qaeda, ISIS or the Iranian
Republican Guard Corps. But you would be wrong. They are focused on
Americans who dissent from the prevailing narratives coming out of the
federal government and its collaborating partners in the corporate media
and major social media platforms.
Whether it’s Covid and vaccines, the war in Ukraine, immigration, the
Second Amendment, LGBTQ ideology and child-gender confusion, the
integrity of our elections, or the issue of protecting life in the womb,
you are no longer allowed to hold dissenting opinions and voice them
publicly in America. If you do, your own government will take note and
consider you a potential “violent extremist” and terrorist.
The $20 million is going to universities, behavioral and
mental-health providers, youth services organizations, schools, churches
and faith leaders, and state law enforcement agencies. Their job will
be to identify political dissidents and foster interventions among those
Americans considered to be “going down a path toward violence.”
This money comes from the Department of Homeland Security Center for
Prevention Programs and Partnerships, or CP3. The program was started in
fiscal 2020 and has to date awarded $70 million in grants to private
nonprofits, state and local government agencies.
The following is from the Department of Homeland Security press release announcing the $20 million in new grants (notice the emphasis on public health, which is the same emphasis used by the U.N. World Health Organization, an emphasis also used by New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham in her recent declaration suspending the Second Amendment).
“Created in 2021, CP3 is tasked with strengthening our country’s
ability to prevent acts of targeted violence and terrorism nationwide.
To help accomplish this mission, CP3 cultivates partnerships across
every level of government and within local communities, provides grant
funding and prevention training, and promotes greater awareness and
understanding of TVTP (Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention)
strategies and best practices. Leveraging a public health-informed
approach, CP3 brings together behavioral and mental health providers,
educators, faith leaders, social service providers, nonprofits, law
enforcement, and other state, local, and community partners to address
systemic factors that can lead to violence while strengthening
protective factors at the local level that support the safety,
well-being, and resiliency of communities in the United States.”
The CP3 program, according to the release, “helps to prevent targeted
violence and terrorism through funding, training, increased public
awareness, and the development of partnerships across every level of the
government, the private sector and in local communities across our
country. Leveraging an approach informed by public health research,
CP3 brings together mental health providers, educators, faith leaders,
public health officials, social services, nonprofits, and others in
communities across the country to help people who may be escalating to
violence.”
This all sounds wonderful, until you figure out that it’s not focused
on actual terrorists or drug cartel members who slip into our country
every day from across wide-open borders with intent to harm Americans.
It’s focused on spying on law-abiding Americans who the government
considers dangerous simply because of their views on various political
or social issues.
This program, administered by DHS and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) with the full support of Congress, is “the only
federal grant program solely dedicated to helping local communities
develop and strengthen their capabilities in this area.”
DHS.GOV | Today, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro
N. Mayorkas, Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)
Ken Wainstein, and Counterterrorism Coordinator Nicholas Rasmussen
announced the establishment of the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group
(Experts Group). The group is comprised of private sector experts who
will provide their unique perspectives on the federal government’s
intelligence enterprise to DHS’s I&A and the Office of the
Counterterrorism Coordinator.
“The security of the American people depends on our capacity to collect,
generate, and disseminate actionable intelligence to our federal,
state, local, territorial, tribal, campus, and private sector partners,”
said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas.
“I express my deep gratitude to these distinguished individuals for
dedicating their exceptional expertise, experience, and vision to our
critical mission.”
“The Homeland Intelligence Experts Group is being formed at a time of
unprecedented challenge, with the U.S. intelligence enterprise facing
threats from a range of malign actors, to include foreign nation-state
adversaries, domestic violent extremists, cyber criminals,
drug-trafficking cartels and other transnational criminal
organizations,” said Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis Ken Wainstein.“The
Experts Group will be an invaluable asset as we navigate through this
evolving threat and operating environment and continue to strengthen our
efforts to protect the Homeland.”
“The homeland threat environment is more diverse, dynamic, and
challenging than at any point in our post 9/11 history, with threats
tied to an array of different terrorist and violent extremist ideologies
and narratives,” said Counterterrorism Coordinator Nicholas Rasmussen.
“The experience, expertise, and perspective offered by Experts Group
members will undoubtedly put the Department in a strong position to
confront this threat landscape, and we are grateful for the willingness
of the Experts Group members to serve in this important capacity."
The Experts Group will provide DHS with a wide range of views and
perspectives, with a membership that includes former senior intelligence
officials, journalists, and prominent human rights and civil liberties
advocates.
The Experts Group members are the following:
John Bellinger, Partner, Arnold & Porter (Former Legal Advisor, Department of State and National Security Council)
John Brennan, Distinguished Fellow, Fordham
University School of Law and University of Texas at Austin (Former
Director, Central Intelligence Agency)
James Clapper, CNN National Security Analyst (Former Director of National Intelligence)
Rajesh De, Partner, Mayer Brown (Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy and NSA General Counsel)
Thomas Galati, Senior Vice President, East Coast
Security Operations, NBC Universal (Former New York Police Department,
Chief, Intelligence and Counterterrorism)
Tashina Gauhar, Senior Director, Compliance,
Strategy and Policy, The Boeing Company (Former Associate Deputy
Attorney General and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National
Security Division, Department of Justice)
Asha M. George, Executive Director, Bipartisan
Commission on Biodefense (Former Subcommittee Staff Director, House
Committee on Homeland Security)
Karen Greenberg, Director, Center on National Security, Fordham University School of Law
Emily Harding, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director
of the International Security Program, Center for Strategic and
International Studies (Former Deputy Staff Director, Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence)
Paul Kolbe, Senior Fellow and former Director of
the Intelligence Project, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center (Former
Operations Officer, Central Intelligence Agency)
David Kris, Co-Founder, Culper Partners LLC (Former Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, Department of Justice)
Michael Leiter, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Former Director, National Counterterrorism Center)
Elisa Massimino, Executive Director, Human Rights Institute, Georgetown Law
Gregory Nojeim, Senior Counsel and Director, Security and Surveillance Project, Center for Democracy & Technology
Francis Taylor, Principal, Cambridge Global Advisors (Former Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, DHS)
Caryn Wagner, Former Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, DHS
Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution, and Co-Founder and Editor in Chief, Lawfare
The Experts Group will meet four times annually and leverage the
expertise of each member to provide input on I&A’s most complex
problems and challenges, including terrorism, fentanyl, transborder
issues, and emerging technology.
mises | In all the media and regime frenzy over the Janaury 6 riots and the Pentagon Leaker in
recent months, it is interesting to examine the contrast between how
the regime treats "crimes" against its own interests, and real crime committed against ordinary private citizens.
Witness, for example, how the Biden administration and corporate
media have treated the January 6 riot as if it were some kind of
military coup, demanding that draconian sentences be handed down even to
small-time vandals and trespassers. Regime paranoia has led the Justice
Department to ask for a 30-year sentence for Enrique Tarrio, a man who was convicted of the non-crime of "seditious conspiracy" even though he wasn't even in Washington on January 6. In recent months, Jacob Chansley, the "QAnon Shaman," received a sentence of three-and-a-half years,
even though prosecutors admit he did nothing violent. Riley Williams
was given three years for simply trespassing in Nancy Pelosi's office.
Members of the Capitol Police force have been lionized in the media as
great protectors of "sacred" government buildings, and any threat to the
property or persons of Washington politicians has been equated with an
assault on "democracy."
The situation is quite different when it comes to protecting the
state, its agents, and its property from any threat. During urban riots,
such as those which occurred in Ferguson, Missouri and Minneapolis, Minnesota,
the police went to great lengths to protect themselves and government
property. If you were just a private shopkeeper or ordinary citizen,
however, you were on your own. At the Uvalde School shooting in 2022,hundreds of law enforcement officers from all levels of government
chose to protect themselves rather than the children who were being
murdered inside. When Uvalde parents demanded the police act, the police
attacked the parents.
We find similar phenomena at the federal level. There are, of course,
special federal laws against violence perpetrated against federal
employees. Ordinary taxpayers receive no such consideration. Note how
federal agencies move to arm themselves to the teeth while also seeking to disarm the private-sector. Federal agents will spare no expense finding someone who put his feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk,
but it's another matter entirely when we're talking about serious
violent crime against regular people. Federal agents, of course, allowed 9/11 to occur right under their noses,
they refused to investigate known rapist Larry Nasser, and shrugged off
reports about the man who would end up slaughtering children at a high
school in Parkland, Florida. Contrast this with how long the federal
government has been conniving to get revenge on Julian Assange for
merely telling the truth about US war crimes.
Naturally, law enforcement officers rarely face any sanctions for their failures to bother themselves with private property, life, or limb. The federal courts have made it clear that law enforcement officers are not obligated to actually protect the public. In other words, the taxpayers must always pay taxes to hold up their end
of the imagined "social contract" or face fines and imprisonment. But
the other side of that "contract," the state, has no legal obligation to
make good on its end. This, of course, is not how real contracts work.
TNR | The
provision comes from Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the
Enforcement Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act. Radical Republicans in
Congress and President Ulysses S. Grant pushed it through at the height
of Reconstruction to strengthen protections for recently freed Black
Americans living in the South. Section 1983 is most often
associated with lawsuits over policing tactics and prison conditions
since those interactions are far more likely to involve a person’s
constitutional rights than, say, getting your driver’s license renewed
at the DMV. But it can apply to all sorts of state and local officials,
making it a valuable tool for Americans to vindicate their rights in
court.
In response to Rogers’s lawsuit, the prison
officials disputed the facts of the case and also invoked qualified
immunity for their actions. As its name suggests, qualified immunity is a
partial shield for state and local officials against Section 1983
claims. It falls short of the absolute immunity enjoyed by judges,
prosecutors, and lawmakers for their official duties. But it can still
be a potent barrier against lawsuits. An investigation by Reuters in
2020 found that courts were increasingly likely to use it to defeat excessive force claims against police officers.
Under
the Supreme Court’s precedents, qualified immunity kicks in when a
state or local official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established
law” at the time of the violation. A federal district court ruled in
favor of the prison officials in Rogers’s case and held that their
conduct did not meet that threshold. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld that decision in a March ruling.
“What happened to Rogers
was unfortunate,” the panel concluded. “Maybe it was negligent. But was
it the product of deliberate indifference? Not on this record. And even
if it were, these officials did not violate clearly established law on
these facts.”
But one of the Fifth Circuit panel’s three members,
Judge Don Willett, wrote a separate concurring opinion. He explained
that he agreed with his colleagues as a matter of precedent. He then
took aim more broadly at qualified immunity, pointing to recent
scholarship that cast serious doubt on its lawfulness and its historical
basis.
“For
more than half a century, the Supreme Court has claimed that (1)
certain common-law immunities existed when Section 1983 was enacted in
1871, and (2) ‘no evidence’ suggests that Congress meant to abrogate
these immunities rather than incorporate them,” Willett wrote. “But what
if there were such evidence?”
That evidence, he wrote, can be found in a February article published in California Law Review
by Alexander Reinart, a law professor at Yeshiva University in New
York. Reinart, as Willett explained, noted that the Supreme Court had
consistently read Section 1983 in the U.S. Code to not exclude so-called
“common-law immunities,” which it then revived in the form of qualified
immunity. But that reading was flatly contradicted by the text of
Section 1983 itself when enacted in 1871.
“In between the words
‘shall’ and ‘be liable,’ the statute contained the following clause:
‘any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the
State to the contrary notwithstanding,’” Reinart explained. “And it is a
fair inference that this clause meant to encompass state common law
principles.”
How
had the courts missed this part of the text over the last 150 years? It
was not removed by Congress itself in subsequent legislation. The
answer lies in a scrivener’s error. The United States Code is,
technically speaking, not actually the law: It is merely a compilation
of the laws enacted by Congress that is presented in a more readable and
usable format. When it was first compiled almost a century ago, Reinart
noted, it drew upon an earlier official attempt at codification known
as the Revised Statutes of the United States, which were published in
1874.
The Revised Statute’s first edition was somewhat notorious
for its errors, which prompted repeated updates and eventually a
wholesale replacement. “Although the Revised Statutes were supplemented
and corrected over time until the first United States Code was published
in 1926, the Reviser’s error in omitting the Notwithstanding Clause
from the reported version of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 was never
corrected,” Reinhart noted.
This is the civil rights lawyer’s
equivalent of double-checking the stone tablets that Moses brought down
from Mount Sinai and finding that one actually says, “Thou shalt commit
adultery.” Reinart’s discovery—and he does appear to be the first person
to discover this—was a sensational find when his paper was published
earlier this spring, even garnering coverage in The New York Times.
The missing text upends the origin story for qualified immunity as a
doctrine and indicates that it may be fundamentally flawed.
“These
are game-changing arguments, particularly in this text-centric judicial
era when jurists profess unswerving fidelity to the words Congress
chose,” Willett wrote in his concurring opinion. “Professor Reinert’s
scholarship supercharges the critique that modern immunity jurisprudence
is not just atextual but countertextual. That is, the doctrine does not
merely complement the text—it brazenly contradicts it.”
askapol |Last Thursday, July 27, the day after UFO whistleblower David Grusch testified before the House Oversight Committee, Ask a Polbrought
it up to Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Marco Rubio (R-FL)
who hadn’t caught the testimony but was quick to say he wasn’t
dismissing it.
“We’re not ignoring it,” Rubio says, adding
the Senate Intelligence Committee is trying to deal with it “in a very
different way” than their House counterparts.
Rubio also pulls the veil back a tad on his thinking as he describes the Senate focus on UAPs (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena).
“You
have to bifurcate this issue. The stuff that they're seeing over
restricted airspace, which everyone admits is real and needs to be
addressed,” Rubio says. “And then the stories about historic programs.
I mean, I don't know, that's gonna take—if that's even true—that's
gonna take a long time to unpack. And I'm not ignoring that either.”
As for if their investigation is bearing any fruit?
“Am I
getting answers? Like are people—no. We're getting a lot of information,
I'm not sure we're getting a lot of answers yet,” Rubio says. “But
these things take time.”
The Shadow Government is a combination of big energy, aerospace, and technology. These private sector contractors for the
military industrial complex have taken over control of a lot of the spy
programs as well as research and development on highly classified technology. This gives
those who are in an official government position plausible deniability
and the majority of the money being spent is from the private sector so
Congress is held out of the loop. Elected officials and unelected military and civilian bureaucrats are all still on a big
corporate pay roll as an insurance policy not to step outside the box of permitted discourse.
Grusch isn't asking anyone to trust him; he's asking Congress to investigate his claims. Grusch provided all of the evidence accumulated in his investigation,
including the names and testimonies of first hand witnesses, locations
where alleged craft and biology are held, and documentary evidence (e.g.
photos) to the Inspectors General of Defense and Intelligence and to
the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Apparently everyone involved in the public hearings ALREADY HAVE THE INFORMATION THEY ASKED FOR. if anything seems like a
ploy to cause the shadow government to reveal itself more. It worked.
Look at the reprisals - attacks on the witnesses, the complete lies from AARO, the clear
blackout of MSM media coverage, or if it’s covered, only ridicule.
The fact that WE the citizens have to DEMAND our government represent
our interests, when they were created for that purpose. The blockage of
House Oversight Committee investigations by obfuscation of evidence or outright denial
of access. The public’s firm grasp of the stigma and psy-op main points i.e., don’t look up, “trust us, nothing to see here.”
The ICIG’s finding that Grusch’s allegations of UAP information being illegally withheld
from Congress is “urgent and credible” (credible enough to proceed for
further investigation). Many in the public can name the contractors,
where craft are keep, and some of the 40 witnesses who have likely
previously made public statements. I do not doubt for a moment that Grusch is presenting
what he believes to be the “truth”. I do not believe that he is intentionally participating in a
psyop. I think he believes what he has been told, read, and I credit him
for his investigative efforts.
We need the public to trust the process;
people of a free and open society to trust what to date has be a very
closed hearing process. We
need clarification. To date we do not have examples because of “spy
craft”, nor access to scif debriefings, names of witness, or clear
definitions of terms like aliens, non-human intelligence, spacecraft,
off-world, crash retrieval, etc… and this is exactly how a public psyop
would work by effectively creating misunderstanding and fear through
omission. While Grusch is not using the word “extraterrestrial”, the
headlines are. He is using the
term “inter-dimensional”, a relatively modern concept but one that is
not reflected in the longer nazi, paperclip and mkultra history.
I want to trust they’ll get it right but
we have questions.
What we are witnessing is the results
of years of hard work by more than a few brave souls that have been
working (and risking) their asses off to bring about more transparency
to this issue.
I recently put
together a timeline of some of what I consider the most important events
that I feel have led us here. I share it in case some of you reading
find it useful or interesting. Just keep in mind these are but a handful
of remarkable events in an ongoing process that arguably has decades in
the making.
2017 - The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) — previously known as the Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Applications Program (AAWSAP) — hits the public stage.
An
unclassified but unpublicized investigatory effort funded by the United
States Government to study unidentified flying objects (UFOs) or
unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP).
2017 - The Pentagon declassifies and releases 3 videos of confirmed Unidentified Flying Objects — obtained from credible military instruments and sources (Now renamed to “UAPs”, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). The NY Times reports on the story.
2020 - Fighter pilot Commander David Fravor reveals he had an aerial interaction with an UPA
— which displayed tech capabilities far beyond what we currently have.
An incident related to the operations involved to one of the videos
released by the Pentagon, which were recorded back in 2004.
2021 - Lt. Cmdr. Chad Underwood, Navy Weapon Systems Officer corroborates Commander Favor's testimony — and comes forth as the person who recorded the “Tic Tac Video”, one of the Pentagon's declassified UFO/UAP videos.
2022 - The US Department of Defense announces the establishment of AARO,
the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, an office within the United
States Office of the Secretary of Defense to investigate unidentified
flying objects (UFOs) and other phenomena in the air, sea, and/or space
and/or on land: sometimes referred to as "unidentified aerial phenomena"
or "unidentified anomalous phenomena" (UAP); after mounting evidence of
the potential existence of these technologies.
AARO
was succeeding the "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force" (UAPTF), a
program within the Office of Naval Intelligence used to "standardize
collection and reporting" of sightings of UFOs
2022 - The US senate passes the "Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act of 2021"
— UFO Whistleblowers would get immunity under new amendment, giving
government employees and contractors immunity from reprisal for coming
forward about UFO encounters and secret programs.
June 5, 2023, - U.S. Air Force (USAF) officer and former intelligence official David Grusch testimony
— a decorated combat officer within the USAF during the War in
Afghanistan and is a veteran of the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), publicly
claimed, based upon information he alleged to have received from other
officials, that the U.S. federal government maintains a highly secretive
UFO retrieval program, is in possession of non-human spacecraft, and
has seen pilot corpses belonging to another intelligent species.
*A USAF Officer and former Intelligence Official comes out publicly stating Non-human intelligent beings are real, we have their tech, and bodies, and not telling congress about it.
*The Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General signs a letter saying his statement are "urgent and credible".
*Several US Senators talk about it openly to the public,
including statements about how several high-ranking US military
officials with top clearances have corroborated his claims in close-door
briefings, and that they even fear for their lives.
*The senate works and proposes legislation
with clear language that all but orders private enterprises and
military contractors—in no uncertain terms— to disclose and report any
and all pieces of tech and research made around any potential exotic or
non-earth origin tech handed to them by the government within six month
after approval, and they have do so to the official governmental body
tasked to investigate UAPs (AARO).
*Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Mike Rounds reveal a 64 page amendmet to the 2024 defense appropriations bill
titled the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023. The
bill is understood to have been worked for months in collaboration with
the white house and several high-profile and credible whistleblowers
with insider knowledge on the topic. The bill defines things like
"Non-human intelligences" and UAP observable capabilities.
IRAD abuse - defence contractors misappropriating funds with govt collusion. Mention of “self-funding”
Grusch has spent 11 hours with both intel committees
US govt / contractors have craft and non-human biologics
US govt / contractors have intimidated, hurt, and potentially murdered would-be whistleblowers
Individuals in charge of classification (access to information) are both senior executive officials in both military / dod and defence contractors - unelected officials
Satellite imagery of crashes, tests, retrievals exists
US govt / contractors could have advanced tech that has been made from reverse engineer efforts
Grusch and his wife were intimidated in a disturbing way
Grusch knows people who have seen the non-human biologics
Grusch has seen photos and documents
Gaetz saw footage of orb UAP
Grusch saw footage of shootdown and said craft was otherworldly
It’s potential for this to also be inter-dimensional - mention of holographic principle
People will get fired or have pay cut if they don’t get access to a SCIF for next hearing
People have been injured working on ufo legacy reverse engineering programs and pontentially hurt by NHI
Grusch will tell congress everything classified they would like to know in a SCIF
Grusch will give AOC list of involved individuals directly after the hearing
According to Grusch, statement made by Dr. Fitzpatrick of aaro that there is no evidence of extraterrestrial visitation or objects defying known science are innacurate - Grusch was under oath, Fitzpatrick was not
When asked about communication with nhi, grusch stated he can only talk about this in a classified setting
Boeing allegedly engaged in incident involving red cube size of football field
Grusch cannot confirm or deny dept of energy involvement
twitter | The Department of Homeland security is officially out of their fucking mind.
Check out the “reasons” they’re labeling Americans as right wing extremists now:
• Combat veterans who are quote unquote “disgruntled about the takeover of their country.” (Well, at least they’re saying the quiet part out loud now.)
• Anyone that opposes war…because as you know, nothing is more “extreme” than not wanting to drone bomb kids and fight by proxy wars for Lindsay Graham and the rest of the murderers over at the banks and the military industrial complex.
• People that don’t think they should be paying income taxes because Congress violated the Constitution in the first place to push it through by lying to everyone…which is actually 100% accurate. They did the same thing with the Federal Reserve.
• Anyone that opposes the Feds restricting their 2nd amendment rights, even though it’s literally within our rights to.
• Anyone with a better explanation to all these mass shootings and domestic terrorist attacks than our lying ass government who blatantly committed some of them and allowed others to happen while poorly covering it up. (9/11, Oklahoma Bombing, Ruby Ridge, Las Vegas shooting, anyone?)
• Anyone who opposes open borders, which is most people…so good luck with that.
• Anyone against abortion because hey…Planned Parenthood isn’t buying off politicians for nothing.
• Anyone that considers themselves a “Patriot” because….well, you’re getting in the way of them destroying the country you love, silly!
• Anyone that brings up the US Constitution, you know…that thing that restricts these assholes from doing the exact same things they’re doing now.
• Supports a 3rd party candidate, because how dare you not vote for the useless, shit candidates the parties shove down our throats every election cycle! These people need to maintain their privileged status quo!
• Anyone that wants to audit the Federal Reserve… because how dare you want to know how they keep losing track of trillions of dollars! (Meanwhile they hired 87,000 IRS agents to nickel and dime the rest of us about what we sell on EBay.)
• Anyone that opposes a carbon tax to a World Bank. (Yes, that’s literally how they word it too, but I’m glad that was also considered just a “conspiracy theory.”)
• And finally…anyone that opposes the United Nations or the WHO, even though the UN has been raping women and children in 3rd world countries for decades and the WHO just tried to kill everyone with a poisoned shot over a virus they also illegally made in a lab to kill and control everybody.
If I had been a war veteran…I would have dinged for all 13 out of 13 of these. Read between these lines and it becomes clear that our country has been taken over by bad actors, and this is the “defense” against honest Americans and patriots from being vocal in wanting to take it back.
No one is coming to save us and we’re not voting our way out of this. A war of misinformation and manipulation can only be won with the truth…and with FOX dead in the water between firing Tucker and apparently donating money to literal Satanists…we must defend alternative sites like Twitter, Bitchute, Rumble, and GAB with everything we have.
Stop complying to tyranny, stop paying taxes to the people trying to kill you and rape your kids, and stop letting these people get away with doing whatever the hell they want.
They only have “power” because we let them…and I no longer consent to this illegitimate, out of control government that hates me.
intelligence.senate.gov | What ever happened to the folks from the Senate Intelligence Committee? The House yokels are not nearly as important as Rubio, Gillibrand etc.
So, I went looking, and if you look at their calendar, you'll see they have a classified closed briefing the same day as the Burchett hearing. Which makes sense because you don't invite witnesses to Congress and then waste their time. So when the hearing ends, you'll know what is happening at 2pm.
public | Social media companies, including TikTok, Snap, and Twitter, caused
people in France to riot and so the government should shut them down,
say French President Emmanuel Macron and the European Union’s top
censor, Thierry Breton.
Said Macron, “When things get out of hand, we may have to regulate them or cut [social networks] off.” The reason, Breton explained today,
is that “Social media didn’t do enough” to remove "content that is
hateful, that calls to revolt and to kill.” Warned Breton, "If they
don’t do it, they will be sanctioned immediately.”
The
comments made by Macron and Breton are shocking, and anybody who cares
about freedom of speech should denounce them as a clear and present
threat to the fundamental human right to freedom of expression as
enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the French
Constitution, and the European Constitution.
It’s
true that there are legal protections for removing "content that is
hateful, that calls to revolt and to kill.” Such immediate incitement to
violence is even illegal in the United States, which has much stronger
free speech protections than France and Europe.
But neither
Macron, Breton nor their defenders have presented any evidence showing
that hate speech or incitement to violence rather than outrage over a
police killing, combined with a large and restless immigrant population
that France has failed to integrate and assimilate, caused the riots.
And their calls for greater censorship come at the same moment that the Macron government has passed a new law allowing police to spy on people by secretly taking control of their phones and laptop computers
and activating the microphone, camera, and GPS. The government says a
judge will have to approve all spying, but it is reasonable to worry
about abuses of power. In 2013, military contractor Edward Snowden
revealed mass US government spying without a warrant.
What’s
more, the attack on privacy and the demand for censorship is worldwide.
The British parliament is expected to pass legislation in the next few
weeks that will allow the government to spy on private and encrypted
text messages. The Irish Senate is expected to pass legislation in
October that will allow the police to enter homes without a warrant and
search phones and laptops for evidence of hate speech. And Australia is on the cusp of passing a new law
that would require social media companies to remove any speech that
causes “harm” to “health” or “the environment,” which would allow
government censorship of criticisms of its climate and energy policies.
Why is the attack on free speech and privacy happening in so many nations simultaneously? And what can be done about it?
ET | Censorship
is the cudgel that is out there. Censorship and cancellation are the
two cudgels that are being used against us. It’s absolutely remarkable
how easily we’ve gone from free speech to asking, “How can I make my way
around the censorship that’s here?” We have skipped over the outrage
phase, which might have led us to a more vigorous protection. Granted, a
lot of boiling frog-type dynamics were built into the censorship
regime.
But
if you’ve been looking for the last 20 years at our press, September
11th brought a quantum leap in this need to marshal people into
categories and to prohibit certain things and certain words and certain
positions from entering into the public sphere. In 2001, Susan Sontag,
one of the great American intellectuals, wrote about having some
questions about the way the new war on terror was being pursued, and she
was hooted down.
We’re
beginning to see that a lot of this hooting down is not as spontaneous
as many of us would like to believe. With the recent Twitter Files, and
the case that the attorney generals of Missouri and Louisiana are trying
now, we’re finding out that this was anything but spontaneous. There
were a number of government actors working in concert with private
actors to achieve a censorship that, frankly, for those of us of a
certain age, is unimaginable.
You
used to be able to say, “I have the First Amendment. Screw you. I’m
going to say what I’m going to say.” We’ve gone from that to, “I have to
be on guard because someone’s always watching me.” We went down this
hole fairly quickly, and it’s very troubling.
Mr. Jekielek:
This is the treason of the experts, I suppose.
Mr. Harrington:
Yes. If you have been lucky enough to have a mentor in your life, what
is a mentor? A mentor is someone who leads you along, who suggests, who
looks at you and says, “What skills does this young person have that
they are not aware of ?” They do an inquiry into that person and suggest
and lead along, and then say implicitly, “How can I help this young
person be the best version of themselves as I see it?” That is what an
expert does. They do not impose a reality on anyone.
They
are very aware of the power they have through their social title, but
more often through their moral force. They realize that it’s a sacred
thing that they have, and that it needs to be treated with the care that
you treat treasures in your life, and that you don’t abuse it. They
need to be very rigorous and be able to look at and check some of their
ego impulses, and then ask, “Am I using this power to satisfy my ego
gratification, more than I am to help the people that I say I am
helping?”
It
seems that that line has been crossed. There’s a lot of ego
gratification that is interfering with what should be a real sober
taking of responsibility for a gift of power. Power is a gift in a
democratic society. It’s not something you own, and it’s not something
there to make people obey you. It’s a gift you have that hopefully you
can use in constructive ways that preserve the dignity of those who
don’t have as much power as you do.
With
the term treason of the experts, I’m playing with history a bit here
with the title. It’s from a famous book that was written by Julien Benda
after the First World War. He was an intellectual. As you know, the
First World War was one of the great cataclysms in the history of the
world, with violence that few people had ever seen.
When
you go back and study it, you can look at what the violence was about,
and the cynicism with which the violence was employed. Leaders marched
their hundreds of thousands of troops so that they could get a tiny
strip of land. It was an open auctioning of soldiers to be fed into the
machine.
Benda
wrote this book in 1927 called, “La Trahison des Clercs,” the Treason
of the Clerisy. What he’s playing with is that in the world after the
late 19th century, the church clerisy began to recede as an important
element in society, to be superseded by the intellectual. The
independent intellectual was made possible through newspapers and the
publishing industry. The new clerisy, as he’s suggesting, are the free
intellectuals.
He
suggests that the role of the free intellectual is to always be
rigorous and to always place themselves above their passions to the best
extent they can and say, “What’s really going on here?” He wrote a
devastating critique in the mid-1920s in which he takes on both the
French intellectuals and the German intellectuals. He said, “They
betrayed our trust. They acted as cheerleaders. They sent young men off
to war to get destroyed, and became cheerleaders of gross propaganda.”
He said, “Come on. We’ve got to reassume the responsibility that goes
with having been granted a credential or a moment in power.” The first
thing I thought about when this began three years ago was World War I.
Mr. Jekielek:
This being Covid?
Mr. Harrington:
Covid. The Covid triennial that we’re in now. In March of 2020, and
you’ll see it in the first essay in the book where I say, “What’s going
on here?” My mind immediately went to World War I. There were big forces
that were pushing us in ways that didn’t add up. There were hidden
hands in places making us do things that simply were not justified at
the level of pure rational analysis. I was very grateful that I had
studied a bit of World War I.
There’s
another wonderful book where you can see some of the madness. It’s by
Stefan Zweig, who was a wonderful intellectual back in that time. He
talks about what happened in 1914 in Vienna. He thought, “We’ve reached
the highest civilization that the world has ever seen.” He was a
Viennese Jew. His friends had been integrated into Viennese life, and
they were leading Viennese life in many ways.
All
of a sudden, they were saying, “Don’t you want to go off to the
trenches? Shouldn’t you be going off to the trenches? Shouldn’t you be
excited? I’m going to go. Isn’t it wonderful?” He began to say, “What’s
going on in this world that I thought was civilized?” I had the very
same reaction in March of 2020.
Mr. Jekielek:
Some people think that this is being done for their own good. It’s not
that there are nefarious forces with their own agendas. A lot of these
folks genuinely believe in this incredibly dystopian vision of the
world, that this is really the right thing to do, and that it will be
good for me and good for you. There is a line that I flagged in the
book, “Ever more open disdain for the intelligence of the citizenry.”
There’s hubris here. That’s particularly infuriating, isn’t it?
Mr. Harrington:
Absolutely. It’s condescension, and I’ve always had a very thin skin for
people being condescending to me. One of the nice things that my
parents did in general was they talked to us as sentient beings almost
from the beginning. It’s one of the things I’ve sought to do with both
my children and with my students.
The
condescending idea is that you need to dole it out and say, “If I told
you, you might not understand. I’m coming from a place of complexity
that you can’t understand. You’ll just have to trust me.” This is very
insulting to people, and it’s antidemocratic. That’s just a fact.
The
premise of democracy, as we understand it, and as it was formed in this
country in the late 18th century, was that the farmer, the worker, and
the lawyer were all citizens in the same measure. Granted, there would
be a natural pecking order in terms of certain skill sets that would
emerge. But in the public space, no one was inherently better or in a
place to tell someone else what they need to know and how they need to
live. It’s one of the great things about this country.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...
