Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg is a traitor.

Mark Zuckerberg is a traitor, not just to this country, but to democracy everywhere.

As the CEO of Facebook, a business that has the attention of billions of people, Mark Zuckerberg has incredible power.

And that’s what makes the Facebook chief executive “the most dangerous person in the world,” New York University Stern School of Business professor Scott Galloway said on “Bloomberg Markets: The Close” on Wednesday, Aug 9, 2019.

Galloway, who teaches marketing and is a self-made millionaire entrepreneur, made the comment while discussing Facebook’s move to integrate the messenger services of the various platforms it owns: WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger. (Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.) While customers will still be able to use all three messenger apps individually, the three services will all be running off of the same back-end technical infrastructure when Zuckerberg’s plan is completed, either by the end of this year or in early 2020.

“Mark Zuckerberg is trying to encrypt the backbone between WhatsApp, Instagram and the core platform, Facebook, such that he has one communications network across 2.7 billion people,” Galloway said in the Bloomberg interview. “What could go wrong?”

Indeed, more than 2.7 billion people use at least one of those Facebook-owned services each month, the company says. And more than 2.1 billion use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, or Messenger every day on average, according to Facebook.

“The notion that we are going to have one individual deciding the algorithms for an encrypted backbone of 2.7 billion people is frightening — regardless of that person’s intentions,” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

That’s because a variety of public voices and perspectives should, at least in theory, help keep the democratic process healthy, Galloway tells CNBC Make It.

A “key safeguard for society is diversity of media/viewpoints, checks and balance,” Galloway says. He adds that people should be concerned by “the notion that one set of algorithms, controlled by one person who cannot be removed from office” would have a significant influence over the platform through which billions of Facebook users around the world consume information every day. Another relevant matter of concern regarding Zuckerberg and Facebook, Galloway adds, is that the social networking giant has already faced high-profile criticism regarding “bad actors” (such as Russian propagandists) using the platform to spread misinformation and sow discord through Facebook and Instagram.

″[Zuckerberg] has not demonstrated ability, or will, to ensure the doomsday machine will not be weaponized (repeatedly) by bad actors,” Galloway says.

Meanwhile, Facebook’s move to integrate its messaging infrastructure could actually be an effort to build a defense against a possible pending antitrust case, Galloway argues.

At the end of July, the U.S. Department of Justice said it was opening an antitrust review of some of the nation’s largest tech companies, and while no companies were named specifically, the DOJ is launching the review based on “new Washington threats” from Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

Zuckerberg wants to get to the point where, if the government were to attempt to break up Facebook, the company would try claim it is not possible without killing the entire social network and taking out the economic benefits with it, Galloway says. “What Facebook is doing is taking prophylactic moves against any sort of antitrust so that [Zuckerberg] could say, ‘It would be impossible to unwind this now,’” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

This argument, though, is not likely to work, antitrust lawyer Steven Levitsky tells CNBC Make It. “No one likes to ‘unscramble the eggs’ of a corporate integration. But when companies have operated separately, and only now become integrated, it’s obvious that they can be separated again,” Levitsky says. “The cost of the separation is one that the defendant would have to bear.”

Facebook may also try to claim that if it were broken into smaller pieces it won’t be able to compete with Chinese tech behemoths, such as the Chinese messaging and mobile payment app WeChat and social media video app Tik Tok, Galloway tells CNBC Make It in a follow-up phone call.

This, Galloway says, is called the “national champions’ argument” in economics: “If you, in any way, diminish our size and power, we won’t be able to defend our shores against the Chinese companies that are coming for us,” Galloway says. He doesn’t by that argument. “Smaller, more nimble, agile companies have shown an ability to be just as effective countervailing forces than large lumbering ones,” he says.

“This is absolutely bad for the planet, bad for society and it is clear where they are going,” Galloway says. He also called the federal regulators’ approval of Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram a “failure.”

“I think we all probably regret that now,” Galloway said. To this, the Federal Trade Commission had no comment, a spokesperson told CNBC Make It.

Facebook did not respond to CNBC Make It’s request for comment.


Additional Information

Mark Zuckerberg’s Pact with the Devil

This is a column about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, but it starts with an old story about Intel and Monsanto from the book Accidental Empires. Stick with me here and you’ll soon understand why…

There was a time in the early 1980s when Intel suffered terrible quality problems. It was building microprocessors and other parts by the millions and by the millions these parts tested bad. The problem was caused by dust, the major enemy of computer chip makers.

Semiconductor companies fight dust by building their components in expensive clean rooms. Intel had plenty of clean rooms, but it still had a big dust problem, so the engineers cleverly decided that the wafers were probably dusty before they ever arrived at Intel. The wafers were made in the East by Monsanto. Suddenly it was Monsanto’s dust problem.

Monsanto engineers spent months and millions trying to eliminate every last speck of dust from their silicon wafer production facility in South Carolina. They made what they thought was terrific progress, too, though it didn’t show in Intel’s production yields, which were still terrible. The funny thing was that Monsanto’s other customers weren’t complaining. IBM, for example, wasn’t complaining, and IBM was a very picky customer, always asking for wafers that were extra big or extra small or triangular instead of round. IBM was having no dust problems.

If Monsanto was clean and Intel was clean, the only remaining possibility was that the wafers somehow got dusty on their trip between the two companies, so the Monsanto engineers hired a private investigator to tail the next shipment of wafers to Intel. Their private eye uncovered an Intel shipping clerk who was opening incoming boxes of super-clean silicon wafers and then counting out the wafers by hand into piles on his super-unclean desktop, just to make sure that Bob Noyce was getting every silicon wafer he was paying for.

There is a business axiom that management gurus spout and big-shot industrialists repeat to themselves as a mantra if they want to sleep well at night. The axiom says that when a business grows past $1 billion in annual sales it becomes too large for any one individual to have a significant impact. Alas, this is not true when it’s a $1 billion high-tech business, where too often the critical path goes right through the head of one particular programmer or engineer or even through the head of a well-meaning clerk down in the shipping department. Remember that Intel was already a $1+ billion company when it was brought to its knees by desk dust.

The reason that there are so many points at which a chip, a computer, or a program is dependent on just one person is that these tech companies lack depth. Like any other new industry, this is one staffed mainly by pioneers, who are, by definition, a small minority. People in critical positions in these organizations don’t usually have backup, so when they make a mistake, the whole company makes a mistake.

Which brings us back to Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook has been getting a lot of bad press lately because its platform has been a particularly effective medium for pushing extreme political positions backed by provable lies. The problem, say Facebook critics, is the company’s resistance to controlling such posters if they are, say, the President of the United States of America. While Facebook might shut down you or me if we tried to do the same thing, they haven’t shut down or edited President Trump, which the company says is all in the interest of free speech.

Yeah, right.

Facebook is under a siege of sorts as advertisers boycott the company’s platform over this issue. Facebook lives or dies by advertising so this is a real threat to the company if it grows and endures. It would be easy to solve the problem if Facebook just took a more rational policy, treating all posters the same, Presidents and paupers alike.

Why doesn’t Facebook just make this problem go away?

One theory is that the company fears President Trump, who is always happy to threaten any outfit he perceives as throttling his political message. If Facebook can just keep shuffling its feet until the election, the thinking goes, then Trump will lose and his threats will lose with him.

But I have a different theory. My theory is that Facebook’s policy on political free speech is entirely — and deliberately — attributable to Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook’s position is Zuck’s position and it will only change when Zuckerberg feels he has made his point, whatever that is.

To understand why this is the case, just look at Facebook’s stock structure. Yes, stock structure.

Facebook has two types of shares identified as A and B. A shares are the common shares the company sold when it went public in 2012. Each A share carries one vote at the company’s annual meeting. Facebook B shares are original founder shares, which aren’t traded on any exchange, but each B share gets 10 votes at the annual meeting.

Through his B shares, Mark Zuckerberg holds 57.9 percent of all possible Facebook shareholder votes. He, as an individual, has voting control of the entire enterprise. He can’t be fired. He can’t even be effectively opposed. Facebook will never face the wrath of an activist investor.

Looking back to that story about Intel and Monsanto, Mark Zuckerberg engineered a lifetime position as Facebook’s key man with every critical path going directly through him. Like de Gaulle said of France, Facebook literally is Zuckerberg.

Jump now to 2020 and we can see that Facebook’s free speech position is Zuckerberg’s position because of this Faustian deal. So why doesn’t he change it and be less of a dick? Because power doesn’t exist if it is not wielded.

Even if Facebook changes policies, it will do so very slowly, because Zuckerberg doesn’t want to look vulnerable.

I don’t know what’s happening inside Facebook, but I’d guess that this is an instance when Zuckerberg wants to remind everyone who is the boss.

That’s how Tony Soprano might have handled it.


Additional Information

Could Mark Zuckerberg be Executed by a Firing Squad?

Legal experts weigh in on the Facebook founder’s legal jeopardy

Many people have suggested lately that Zuckerberg could face jail time for his misleading testimony to Congress over the last few years.
Jail time? Is that really enough?

If it is true that Cambridge Analytica and the Russians had enough data to determine how each and every Facebook use in America was going to vote, and they provided that information to the Trump campaign, then some jurists have suggested that the offense of undermining democracy in America is traitorous and punishable by death.

“But it is highly unlikely a firing squad would be used,” explains one of the Winkelvoss twins, sorry don’t know which, can’t tell them apart. “The firing squad hasn’t been used since 2010 in Utah when Ronnie Lee was executed. But that was by the State of Utah. The federal government hasn’t used the firing squad since the famous deserter Eddie Slovik was executed in 1945 in France by a firing squad for running away from battle.”

Then the other Winkelvoss twin chimes in (man are they tall and handsome and strapping!).

“The traitor of all traitors, Benedict Arnold, was not even executed by firing squad,” says this Winkelvoss. “He in fact escaped and lived out his life in England, but his partner in sedition and treason, Major John Andre, was hanged for his crimes. What Zuckerberg has done is fairly on a par with Andre and Arnold. America’s enemy was the beneficiary in both cases. In Zuck’s case it was Russia.”

But it is highly unlikely that Mark Zuckerberg will be hanged. According to hanging expert Evan Spiegal, “The last time someone was hanged was Rainey Bethea in 1937, for the rape of a 70-year-old woman in Kentucky. This was more or less a lynching. Although the mob is angry at Zuckerberg, I can’t really see them stringing him up.”

But what about the guillotine?

“The guillotine was only used in North America only in the French Carribean, and was discontinued in the 1890s,” says a guy with French accent, who looks suspiciously like Chris Hughes with a fake mustache. “The only people to die of guillotine in the US have been suicides, in which case the guillotines were home-made by the suicides themselves.”
So it’s not likely that Zuckerberg will face the guillotine. What about just the plain axe? Off with his head like they did in England?

“The famous pirate Blackbeard was rumored to have been beheaded in North Carolina for his crimes in 1718 but he was also shot,” says Palmer Lucky, through a virtual reality machine.

“Most of the people beheaded in the British colonies were Native Americans,” continues Mr. Lucky. “Miles Standish, the famous pilgrim, executed the chief Wituwamat by beheading him in 1623 for resisting white settlement. That’s why we dress up as pilgrims and celebrate Thanksgiving every year by cutting the head off a turkey.”

I’m not sure about this Lucky guy — he’s rumored to be a Trump supporter after all. But it does seem unlikely that any of these barbaric methods of execution will be used against the Zuck.

“If he were executed,” says an expert in jurisprudence (always loved that word) Mr. Eduardo Saverin. “It would most likely be by lethal injection.”

Well, there you have it. Mark Zuckerberg may be fined, sternly chastened, or even criminally prosecuted for his corporate misbehavior, but it is highly unlikely that he will be blindfolded, given his last cigarette, and then shot twenty or thirty times.

But at least a few people we interviewed seem like they are kind of hoping for it.


Brian J. Smith

Brian J. Smith is a traitor.

Brian J. Smith is a traitor to our Nation byway of using his position as president and chief operating officer of The Coca-Cola Company. In this role, he is responsible for leading the company’s global field operations into an unconstitutional new world of diversity, inclusion and equity, the acronym DIE aptly applies. In other words, thanks to Brian J. Smith, the Coca-Cola Company has now been forced to adopt this socialist form of left-wing ideology.

Consequently, Coca-Cola has sent out notices to law firms demanding that the company will “require diversity among law firms who bill it for work in the United States and reduce payments if they do not comply.”

Because of pressure from the Marxist, anti-American Black Lives Matter, many Fortune 500 companies have pledged to address alleged racial inequality more aggressively.

In fact, there is almost a competition among firms to see who gets the highest score of diversity and inclusion.  How is this accomplished?

To determine the Best Workplaces for Diversity, Fortune partnered with Great Place to Work® to analyze anonymous survey feedback representing more than 4.8 million US employees.

The Best Workplaces for Diversity list focuses on the experiences of women, people of color, LGBTQ people, employees who are Boomers or older, and people who have disabilities. The ranking is based on what these employees themselves report in a 60-question Trust Index© survey about the trust, pride and camaraderie they experience in their workplace, and how those experiences compare to their colleagues’ reports of the same workplaces. Great Place to Work also consider[s] employees’ daily experiences of innovation, the company’s values, and the effectiveness of their leaders, to ensure they’re consistently experienced, as well.

The remaining 15 percent of the rank is based on the diversity of the company’s overall workforce and its management, senior leadership and board, taking into account industry trends.

Lori George Billingsley.is a traitor.

Coca Cola Company’s Chief Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer, Lori George Billingsley, explains how Coca-Cola is creating a culture of diversity and inclusion.

The company that once touted “Red, White, and You,” has come a long way to now being a leading proponent of the racism that is the underbelly of diversity.

Thus, Coca-Cola’s general counsel is urging law firms to “effect real systemic change” by adhering to new requirements that [mandate that] outside counsel allocate a portion of work to diverse attorneys — specifically Black lawyers — or risk losing money or even future legal business.”

Dare I call this blackmail?  Dare I call it racist?

In essence, “Coke said it will require quarterly reporting about the makeup of legal teams that do work for it and self identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Black, women, Hispanic/Latinx, LGBTQ, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or persons with disabilities. For those working on new matters for Coke, ‘at least 30 percent of each of billed associate and partner time will be from diverse attorneys, and of such amounts at least half will be from Black attorneys.'”

It said the percentages, which are roughly equal to those of the U.S. population overall, will be adjusted over time to eventually hit at least 50 percent of billed time coming from diverse attorneys, with half from Black attorneys.

Firms that fail to meet the targets will be docked 30 percent of their fees, and those who continue to come up short may no longer be considered for Coke work.

Apparently like everything that is radically left-wing, merit does not matter. This is identity politics on steroids.

The fact that there are fewer Black lawyers must be, according to Leftist group think, because of racism. It could never be because fewer Black people choose to enter the legal profession or that because of another brainchild of left-wing philosophy, affirmative action, fewer Blacks succeed in the field.

America already has many protections against discrimination, i.e., the EEOC, and yet the legal profession is now being told it must break the law so that Coca Cola can have the final say in its virtue signaling and its adherence to Black Lives Matter demands.

Of course, the natural result of this is many more people will suddenly self-identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, LGBTQ+, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or a person with disabilities.”

Heck, I should now claim Hispanic heritage because probably an ancestor of mine was one of the Spanish conversos who were exiled or murdered during the Spanish Inquisition!

Another result will be the deep resentment among different groups because one group is being promoted not based on merit but because of identity politics.

This is just another embodiment of Marxist class warfare now redefined.

This, of course, is always the aim of the Left.  They will mouth diversity, inclusion, and equity.  But anyone who sees through this will note that “equity is not equality. It is a substitute for equal rights. Equity requires the authorities to determine who gets what according to the race, the ethnicity or other status of the beneficiaries. It is updated Marxist claptrap  in which race replaces class.”

This is because the purveyors of this racist ideology couched in alleged empathy and compassion believe that a “lower than population percentage of blacks in any desirable category must be the result of systemic racism.”

What Coca Cola is touting is Critical Race Theory, which is now rampant in schools and businesses in America. Trump banned the use of Critical Race Theory but Biden reinstated it on the first day he issued his slew of executive orders.

We are now in the throes of a hideous left-wing takeover of this country. The term ‘diversity’ now excludes white straight males. Thus, to achieve equity, you first have to take away equality for individuals who were born in the wrong identity group. Merit has no bearing on anything any longer in this country. Consider that 85% of Biden’s new political appointees to the Office of Personnel Management identify as people of color, women or LGBTQ.

It is ironic that businesses, the mainstay of our economic engine, have now taken on the face of tyranny.

I would hope that Americans decide that Coca-Cola is no longer their choice of drink. I would request that these now-designated groups perceive that they are being held to the soft bigotry of low expectations. That to gain a foothold because of something they had no control over such as their race is an abiding insult that lowers self-esteem and pride and worth.

I pray that the legal minds push back hard on Coca-Cola and their dictatorial edicts . I would appeal to the lawyers to stand up and proclaim that such demands are completely contrary to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and are merely more tools in the leftist arsenal to weaken, eviscerate and eventually destroy America.


Additional Information

Maybe Coke Should Be Cancelled for Its Nazi Past. . .

Woke Coke seems less concerned with selling sugar water these days than selling Americans on the idea that whites are not worthy of respect or equal protection under the law. A few weeks ago, a whistleblower revealed Coca-Cola’s discriminatory employee training program equating racism with “whiteness.” In a series of online work assignments, Coke goes so far as to instruct its white employees to, “try to be less white.” How does one “be less white”? Coke answers that explicitly: by being less “oppressive,” “arrogant,” “certain,” “defensive,” and “ignorant,” and being more “humble” and “break[ing] with white solidarity.” For Coke, judging people based on the color of their skin is not only tolerated but also company policy.

If the company’s “de-whitening” efforts weren’t sufficient proof that Coca-Cola prioritizes a person’s skin color over a person’s talents and individual character, it drove the point home with a letter sent to its outside legal counsel demanding that law firms assign attorneys representing the Coca-Cola Company based, not upon the quality of lawyers’ work, but rather upon lawyers’ racial classification. Going forward, Coke will penalize and reduce its fees to law firms unable to hit certain racial quotas.

Now Coca-Cola’s CEO is joining other race hucksters to claim that sensible voter ID laws meant to curb fraud in Georgia’s elections should be seen as nothing short of white Americans’ attempt to disenfranchise black voters — a loaded accusation not based in reason or analysis of the law’s merits but rather in raw emotionalism intended to pit one group of Americans against another.

Surely a company that regurgitates nasty racial stereotypes against whites so effortlessly while seeking to eliminate them from its workforce doesn’t really believe white people can ever scrub all that icky whiteness away for good, no matter how many rounds of re-education they are forced to endure. As Coca-Cola’s training materials suggest, racism is just part of whites’ DNA. Perhaps the company could have saved future employees a lot of trouble by simply hanging a sign on its front door reading, “No Uppity Whites Allowed.”

Racial stereotypes, racial classifications and quotas, explicitly racist indoctrination — why is Coca-Cola so obsessed with discriminating against people based on the color of their skin rather than evaluating all of the individual characteristics that make each person a unique member of the human race? Perhaps racism is in the company’s own DNA, not at all different from the way the beverage company judges white Americans as racists for historical injustices in which they claimed no part.

Did you know that Nazi Germany was one of Coca-Cola’s biggest markets? Have you ever seen an official Coca-Cola advertisement promoting the company’s partnership with the Nazis during the 1936 Olympics under a jingoistic tagline — “One people, one country, one drink, Coke is it” — that must of made Adolf Hitler proud?

Does Coca-Cola not highlight its financial history with Nazi Germany when crowing about its racial purity tests today? Or the fact that Germany’s inconvenient declaration of war against the United States made it sufficiently difficult for Coca-Cola to maintain its prominent reputation within the Reich that the company’s German representatives repurposed the operations of hundreds of bottling plants toward the production of a new drink called Fanta to serve thirsty German soldiers throughout the war? Does the Coca-Cola Company not brag about Fanta’s wartime genesis as a Nazi beverage? How strange.

One would think that a company so dedicated to rooting out “white supremacy” that it forces its white employees into racial re-education training seminars would first want to take a hard look at its own rather awkward historical relationship with actual white supremacists intent on building a world-dominating “master race.” That’s what “racial justice” requires, right — the punishment of one generation of Americans for the sins of generations past? So why should Coca-Cola’s questionable corporate history be off-limits when it goes out of its way to demonize white Americans for no other reason than the color of their skin?

On the other hand, everything about Coca-Cola’s racial indoctrination program today sounds as if it could be ripped right from the pages of Nazi Germany’s own race laws, with Jews and other “undesirables” being crossed out and “whites” scribbled in their place. All the racial animosity that nearly destroyed humanity last century is back in “woke” form, and some of the same companies that underestimated the Nazi threat then are underestimating the evil intent of the new racialist agendas that are taking over the corporate world today. Isn’t that, after all, why Critical Race Theory exists — so that pretend intellectuals can repackage discredited race-based theories from the past into academic language that can be used once again to justify outright racism? If so, 2021 Coke and 1936 Coke still have much in common. The only thing really differentiating the symbolism of a Nazi swastika and a Black Lives Matter clenched fist, after all, is which racial group is being targeted and which racial group is doing the targeting.

There is nothing new under the sun. Perhaps if Coca-Cola were capable of seeing the similarity between the racial grievances of its old Nazi partners and those of its new “woke” ones, it wouldn’t be so enthusiastic to repeat history all over. And maybe if Coke remains so intent on “cancelling” white Americans for the problems it sees in America’s history, then Americans should cancel Coke for the problems it overlooked in Nazi Germany’s.


Additional Information

What Was More American than Coke and Baseball?

Until very recently, it would have been hard to imagine anything more iconic of American life than Coca-Cola and baseball. Today both remind me of Benito Mussolini’s corporatist – aka, fascist — game of merging of state and corporate power. The CEOs of these operations should hang their heads in shame and fire their public-relations teams. So should the CEOs of Delta and American Airlines, Black Rock, Cisco, American Express, and American Airlines, who have promoted President Biden’s false assertions that tightening election procedures to bring them back into line — and in accord with those of civilized Western governments elsewhere — is racist voter suppression. I’m fed up with this never-ending sham: partisan power grabs to weaken the most important features of American life being cloaked in virtuous anti-racism.

The immediate target of these corporate actions was efforts by Georgia and Texas to revise their election laws, laws which in many states have resulted in widespread disbelief that the 2020 elections were conducted on the up and up. When people believe election procedures are untrustworthy, it shatters voluntary acceptance of the election results. Under pressure from racist propagandists of the left and using COVID as an excuse, jurisdictions in several states so loosened the election rules that widespread fraud was made easier. One state in particular was Georgia, where asleep at the switch (or corrupt — your choice) officials permitted the sloppy, untrustworthy, opaque, and disputed election procedures.

In an effort to prevent a repeat, Georgia enacted a new election law. (In pdf form it’s 104 pages, and that makes it unlikely to me that any of the corporate bleating about it was made with knowledge of its contents.) Their response was certainly occasioned by a weak-kneed response to a small but loud group‘s pressure. In Tom Wolfe’s words, they successfully mau-maued the companies’ flak catchers.

Almost immediately upon its passage, President Biden attacked it as “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” and “a blatant attack on the Constitution.”

“Instead of celebrating the rights of all Georgians to vote or winning campaigns on the merits of their ideas, Republicans in the state instead rushed through an un-American law to deny people the right to vote.”

He added: “This law, like so many others being pursued by Republicans in statehouses across the country, is a blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience.”

One of the key provisions of the new law ensures ID requirements for requesting mail-in ballots. Seems to me this is a rather basic rule if votes from only eligible voters are to be counted. Race baiters love loose election procedures which make fraud almost certain and regularly (contra the evidence) target ID requirements, arguing absurdly that this suppresses the black vote. It’s a preposterous argument which ignores the fact that obtaining an ID is easy everywhere and a necessity for things like COVID vaccinations, drivers’ licenses, gun purchases, welfare benefits, medical treatments, air travel, and more.

Rasmussen Reports asked, “Should voters be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote”? The answer should put paid to the claim that its unduly burdensome:

    1000 National Likely Voters – Yes

    White – 74%

    Black – 69%

    Other Non-White – 82%

    All Voters – 75%

Georgia is not the only state shocked into writing more transparent, enforceable, and sensible laws to limit election fraud. Iowa has done so and per the BBC:

“There are currently 253 similar bills in 43 states, according to the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice think tank.”

James Quincey Chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company is a traitor.

Following Biden’s lead, the CEO of Coca Cola (a company already in the spotlight for its advice to its workers to “be less white”) James Quincey chimed in with this pablum:

Voting is a foundational right in America, and we have long championed efforts to make it easier to vote.

We want to be crystal clear and state unambiguously that we are disappointed in the outcome of the Georgia voting legislation. Throughout Georgia’s legislative session we provided feedback to members of both legislative chambers and political parties, opposing measures in the bills that would diminish or deter access to voting.

Our approach has always been to work with stakeholders to advocate for positive change, and we will continue to engage with legislators, advocacy groups, business leaders and others to work towards ensuring broad access to voting is available to every eligible voter in our home state.

Additionally, our focus is now on supporting federal legislation that protects voting access and addresses voter suppression across the country. We all have a duty to protect everyone’s right to vote, and we will continue to stand up for what is right in Georgia and across the U.S.

As an aside, I abhor the corporate use of the term “stakeholders” to cover the reality of partisan pressure. Corporate officials are by law required to consider the interests of shareholders and it seems to me they are not doing so in this case.

He was not alone. Ed Bastian, the CEO of Delta Airlines, like Coke, headquartered in Atlanta, joined in covering their weakness in an unsubstantiated moral claim about a law he probably had not read:

    Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian said in a memo to employees Wednesday that the law was “unacceptable” and “based on a lie” of widespread fraud in last November’s election.

Governor Brian Kemp was having none to it:

    Georgia’s Kemp shot back on Wednesday.

    “At no point did Delta share any opposition to expanding early voting, strengthening voter ID measures, increasing the use of secure drop boxes statewide, and making it easier for local election officials to administer elections — which is exactly what this bill does.

    “The last time I flew Delta, I had to present my photo ID,” Kemp said in a statement. “Today’s statement by Delta CEO Ed Bastian stands in stark contrast to our conversations with the company, ignores the content of the new law, and unfortunately continues to spread the same false attacks being repeated by partisan activists.”

Delta declined to comment further or specify which parts of the bill it tried to change. Maybe, instead of just running with these statements, reporters should demand that Quincey and Bastian specify their complaints. (Who am I kidding?)

The shuffling parade of weak corporate leaders continued.

There was American Express CEO Steve Squeri, who announced his company stands “against any efforts to suppress voting.” Black Rock’s Larry Fink, expressed concern about efforts that could limit access to the ballot.” And Cisco’s CEO Chuck Robbins: “Governments should be working to make it easier to vote, not harder.” None of these corporate wizards points to anything in the law that suppresses voting or makes it harder to vote. Indeed, they couldn’t because it doesn’t. What the law does try to do is strengthen accountability to make certain only eligible voters can vote and that their votes are securely kept and honestly counted.

This reminds me so much of the self-congratulatory, meaningless, signs that appeared on lawn signs in my wealthy neighborhood last year, announcing. “Hate has no home here.” As if it does in the rest of the neighborhood, which lack such signaling. As if the signs don’t express contempt for and claim moral superiority over those of us who don’t dot our lawn with vapid signs like this.

The corporate kneeling to BLM and Stacey Abrams, who never accepted her election defeat, continued with Major League Baseball, which announced it’ll move the All-star Game and draft out of Atlanta because it opposed the election law. I don’t know where they plan to hold it, but it certainly must not be in New York, which provides for fewer days of permissible early voting than Georgia. Nor can it be in Delaware (Biden’s home state) which doesn’t permit no-excuse absentee ballots like Georgia’s does.

The corporatist ninnies at American Airlines also are attacking Texas’s new election law, and they should know not to mess with Texas.

    Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick slammed American Airlines on Thursday evening after the airline called out the state’s new security measures to protect elections [snip] “Earlier this morning, the Texas State Senate passed legislation with provisions that limit voting access,” American Airlines said in a statement that echoed remarks made by leftists who have attacked recent measures to secure elections across the country. “To make American’s stance clear: We are strongly opposed to this bill and others like it.” [snip] As Lt. Governor of Texas, I am stunned that American Airlines would put out a statement saying ‘we are strongly opposed to this bill’ [Senate Bill 7] just minutes after their government relations representative called my office and admitted that neither he nor the American Airlines CEO had actually read the legislation,” Patrick said. “We heard these same outcries claiming voter suppression in 2011 when Texas passed the photo voter ID bill. In fact, just the opposite occurred. Voter turnout in Texas soared from 7,993,851 in 2012 to 11,144,040 in 2020, a 39 percent increase. Gubernatorial election voter turnout has increased by 76 percent since photo voter ID was passed.”

Brian Kemp was just as dismissive of Major League Baseball’s decision to move its all-star game and draft out of Atlanta.

    As MLB caves to themes of the woke left, the public should know how Georgia’s voting laws stack up against New York’s — where Major League Baseball is headquartered. In New York there are only 10 days of early voting under the Election Integrity Act. Georgia now has 17 days of mandatory early voting, with the option of two additional Sundays. New York requires an excuse for absentee voting. Georgia does not. And while New York just enacted automatic voter registration in December, Georgia has had it in place for years. Let’s be clear: MLB’s decision is not about access to voting. It’s about a lack of courage to stand up to the lies of a radical mob hellbent on distorting the truth for political gain. If MLB is worried about access to the ballot box, they should check their own backyard. They may be afraid of Jos Biden and Stacey Abrams, but I’m not.

Punch back twice as hard, like Kemp and Patrick, against efforts to undercut stronger election integrity. I’d skip the MLB’s All-Star game, switch to another beverage, and check my stock portfolio to be sure the CEOs of the companies I invest in were smarter, stronger, and more honest than these guys are.


James E. Boasberg

James Boasberg is a traitor.

James E. Boasberg is a traitor.

James E. Boasberg a Federal District Court Judge has treasonously clarified that the FBI can falsify evidence without much fear of punishment.

The government employees of the “resistance” who never accepted Donald Trump as our president have finally performed a useful public service. Together with the judges of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, they have demonstrated for all Americans how easy it is to turn the spying tools of the federal government against domestic political opponents.

“Even after the Obama-appointed inspector general of the Department of Justice found “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in a series of approved surveillance warrant applications to spy on Trump associate Carter Page —and even after a criminal conviction of an FBI attorney for doctoring an email to make it appear that the patriotic Mr. Page had never assisted U.S. intelligence—the FISA judges are still refusing to apply any significant punishment to the government officials who misled them.

Matt Zapotosky of the Washington Post reports:

    The former FBI lawyer who admitted to doctoring an email that other officials relied upon to justify secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser was sentenced Friday to 12 months of probation, with no time behind bars.

Prosecutors had asked that Kevin Clinesmith, 38, spend several months in prison for his crime, while Clinesmith’s attorneys said probation would be more appropriate. Clinesmith pleaded guilty last summer to altering an email that one of his colleagues used in preparing an application to surreptitiously monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page…

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg said that Clinesmith’s conduct had undermined the integrity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approved the FBI’s flawed applications to surveil Page. “Courts all over the country rely on representations from the government, and expect them to be correct,” Boasberg said.

But if the representations about a Trump associate are not correct, don’t expect Judge Boasberg to actually do anything about it. This is the kind of appalling Beltway abuse of power that inspired voters to elect Mr. Trump in the first place.

Brooke Singman and Jake Gibson of Fox News have more on today’s decision:

    U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia James Boasberg on Friday during Clinesmith’s sentencing hearing said Clinesmith had suffered by losing his job and standing in the eye of a media hurricane.

Is Judge Boasberg joking when he suggests the convict has suffered from some kind of media circus? Readers wondering how often Clinesmith has been trailed by a pack of press photographers will note that the rare stories about him are generally illustrated with a years-old official photograph. In the months after his offenses were detailed by the Justice inspector general, there was an almost complete blackout of the story in major media outlets.

The Journal’s Byron Tau offers additional reporting on the judge’s decision to be lenient:

    “Mr. Clinesmith has lost his job in government service—what has given his life much of its meaning,” said Judge Boasberg.

The judge responsible for punishing an attorney who helped the FBI abuse its powers to target a political campaign and then a presidency with a collusion hoax that poisoned our politics for years is concerned about the criminal’s personal search for meaning? Instead of community service, perhaps Judge Boasberg should have just ordered Clinesmith to live, laugh and love.

On the other hand, if the judge wanted at least to pretend to be concerned about a crime that went straight to the heart of our democratic process, he might have spent a moment exploring the meaning of Clinesmith’s texts about “the crazies” who supported Mr. Trump and “la resistance” within the government.

As for the victim in this case, Carter Page really did face a media hurricane. Pete Williams of NBC News notes:

    Page himself addressed the judge before the sentence was imposed, saying the disclosures that he was being investigated had resulted in death threats.

    “This manufactured scandal and associated lies caused me to adopt the lifestyle of an international fugitive for years,” Page told the hearing, conducted by video conference because of the pandemic. “I often have felt as if I had been left with no life at all. Each member of my family was severely impacted.”

    Federal District Court Judge James Boasberg said that while Clinesmith’s actions were serious, the warrant application probably would have been approved anyway without his misstatement. Boasberg also serves as the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The judge is wrong, which suggests that Mr. Boasberg couldn’t even be bothered to read the inspector general’s report. There was a reason Clinesmith doctored the infamous email and it was only after his fabrication that another official signed off on the final renewal of the surveillance warrant.

Three years ago it was asked:

    Can it possibly be true that the evidentiary standards for obtaining a federal warrant allowing the government to spy on the party out of power are significantly lower than in a professional newsroom?… it appears either that the Obama administration engaged in historic abuse or that the FISA court cannot be trusted to protect our liberties, or perhaps both.

We now know that the answer is both. Until the abolition of the FISA court, no American’s liberty will be safe.


Additional Information

Read more at . . . Outrage: FBI lawyer who lied to FISA Court to wiretap Carter Page gets a slap on the wrist and sympathy from federal judge handing down sentence.


Lindsey Olin Graham

Lindsey Olin Graham is a traitor.

Lindsey Olin Graham is a traitor.

Lindsey Olin Graham is a treasonous American politician serving as a Republican, and also the senior United States Senator from South Carolina, a seat he has held since 2003. Since 2019, he has been the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

On August 18, 2019, Lindsey Graham called for new unconstitutional gun laws with wanting to shut down “Hate Sites” on the internet as defined by the Liberal Left.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham went on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo this morning to discuss possible legislation in the upcoming Senate session.

Lindsey discussed new gun laws and shutting down offensive websites:

Lindsey Graham: We’re not going to take people’s guns away… We want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who are hateful or mentally ill. The red flag legislation grants the states that have these red flag laws, the president is focused on that. Working with Senator Manchin we can perhaps enhance background checks. The guy is Philadelphia had been convicted 6 or 8 times. How the hell did he get a gun to begin with. The guy in El Paso was on one of these white supremacist hate sites where they radicalize each other. We should shut those sites down. The guy in Dayton was kicked out of school because he had a rape list, a kill list. He was clearly violent. Why did that guy get a gun to begin with.

The Democrats love this. Since forever they have been pushing stricter gun legislation that will make it harder for law-abiding Americans to protect themselves. The repeat felon in Philly who shot six police officers was using an illegal weapon.

How will new laws stop this guy from getting a gun?

And pushing to remove offensive “hate sites” plays right into the left’s hands. The left defines ANY conservative website as a hate site. Since 2016 the American left and tech giants have removed conservative content, conservative publishers and billions of conservative page views from social media sites and the internet. They say it’s to battle “fake news” or “offensive content.”

To sum it all up, Lindsey Graham has treasonously called for unconstitutional restrictions on the First and Second Amendments. This makes him an outright traitor and very dangerous man.


UPDATE: September 2, 2019

Senator Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), plans to introduce an unconstitutional bill that would provide grants to encourage the passage and enforcement of so-called “red flag” laws that suspend people’s Second Amendment rights without due process.

“There are plenty of judicial proceedings every day in America where somebody is adjudged to be a danger to themselves and others and they’re put into a mental health facility,” Graham told Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum. “That goes on all the time, so that process would apply to gun ownership…We have judicial hearings all over America every day, dealing with people who become a danger to themselves and others, and this is just an extension of that concept.”

Graham did not mention that the standards for involuntary psychiatric treatment are notably stricter than the standards for taking away people’s guns under unconstitutional red flag laws. Under Florida’s Baker Act, for example, the state has to show by clear and convincing evidence “a substantial likelihood” that a candidate for commitment, because of “mental illness,” will “in the near future…inflict serious bodily harm on self or others, as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm.”

Florida’s red flag law, by contrast, authorizes a judge to issue a final gun confiscation order, which lasts up to a year (and can be extended), when there is clear and convincing evidence that “the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others.” No psychiatric diagnosis is required, “significant danger” is undefined, the purported threat need not be imminent, and the judge “may consider any relevant evidence.” Those permissive standards help explain why Florida judges issue final “risk protection orders” 95 percent of the time.

“Nobody’s going to lose their gun unless they have their day in court,” Graham assured MacCallum. That is simply not true. All 17 states with red flag laws (and the District of Columbia) allow judges to issue preliminary gun confiscation orders without giving the respondent a chance to rebut the claims against him. The maximum length of such ex parte orders ranges from a week in Nevada to six months (for “good cause”) in Maryland. Fourteen days is the most common limit.

Those limits are not necessarily followed in practice. While Indiana notionally requires that a hearing be held within 14 days of a gun seizure, a 2015 study found that gun owners waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms.

In some states, the standard for ex parte orders is minimal. New York requires “probable cause” to believe the respondent is “likely to cause serious harm” to himself or others. Other states are stricter. Vermont requires showing by “a preponderance of the evidence” that the respondent poses “an immediate and extreme risk.” The experience in Florida and Maryland suggests that judges almost always agree to issue ex parte orders.

An honest defense of red flag laws would grapple with these issues. But Graham prefers to pretend they do not exist. Dismissing critics of red flag laws as “libertarians,” he told MacCallum “the Second Amendment is not a suicide pact,” which is the sort of thing treasonist politicians say when they find constitutional rights inconvenient.


UPDATE: January 8, 2021

Angry supporters yell ‘traitor’ to Lindsey Graham at airport.

Sen. Lindsey Graham was verbally harassed by supporters of President Trump at Washington’s Reagan National Airport on Friday after his public break with Trump.

Video Transcript:

– You traitor! You traitor! You traitor! You’re a traitor!

[MAN LAUGHS]

Lindsey Graham, you are a traitor to the country. You know it was rigged! You know it was rigged! You know it was rigged! You garbage human being. It’s going to be like this forever, wherever you go, for the rest of your life.

Audit the vote! Audit the vote! Audit the vote! Audit the vote! Piece of [BLEEP].

Audit the vote. Audit our vote. Audit our vote. Audit our vote!

Audit our vote! Audit our vote! Audit our vote! Audit our vote!

– You’re gonna be arrested!

– Yeah, you can try to–

– Traitor! Sell your soul out!

– You son of a [BLEEP]. You better join [INAUDIBLE]. [BLEEP]. Piece of [BLEEP].

– You don’t represent him anymore.


William Pelham Barr

William Pelham Barr is a traitor.

William Pelham Barr is a traitor.

William Pelham Barr is a treasonous American attorney who is a former United States Attorney General. Barr previously served in this position from 1991 to 1993 under the George H. W. Bush administration, and returned to the post in 2019 to December 2020 under the Trump administration.

This following article was originally published on December 12, 2018. The serious questions raised in the piece remain completely unanswered.

Why was Barr chosen, given his shocking and deeply criminal cover-up kingpin background?

For a presidential administration whose mandate was the eradication of corruption, the “draining of the swamp”, and the restoration of law?

With the nomination of William Barr for attorney general, that is what President Donald Trump wants American citizens and the world to accept.

Fawning mainstream media coverage, and streams of puff pieces laud Barr as a “respected” establishment “legal scholar”, as do Donald Trump’s Twitter posts about Barr.

The fact is, there is nothing to “respect” and everything to condemn about Barr’s work as a key inner circle operative throughout George Herbert Walker Bush’s rise to power, from CIA Director to Vice President to President. These aspects of Barr’s resume remain whitewashed by mainstream coverage. They have been amply documented by whistleblowers and those who worked directly with Barr.

The issue at hand is not Barr’s “legal mind”, but the ruthless mind that he wielded with frightening authority and expertise as George H. W. Bush’s treasonous hatchet man in the Justice Department. William Barr distorted and corrupted the law, as grossly as anyone in modern history.

Barr: CIA operative

It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.

Consider recent history: Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005),Janet Reno (1993-2001), Dick Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.

Barr, however, is a particularly spectacular and sordid case. As George H.W. Bush’s most notorious insider, and as the AG from 1991 to 1993, Barr wreaked havoc, flaunted the rule of law, and proved himself to be one of the CIA/Deep State’s greatest and most ruthless champions and protectors:

Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting in 1971. Barr’s youth career goal was to head the CIA.

CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy (Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.

When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA’s “legal office” and Bush’s inner circle, and worked alongside Bush’s longtime CIA enforcers Theodore “Ted” Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines, and others, several of whom were likely involved with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy assassination, and numerous southeast Asian operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden Triangle narco-trafficking.

Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA abuses.

Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean opposition leader Orlando Letelier.

Barr joined George H.W. Bush’s legal/intelligence team during Bush’s vice presidency (under President Ronald Reagan) Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief Legal Counsel to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.

Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also “fixing” the legal end, ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure or arrest.

In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to “attack criminal organizations”, drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr would preserve, protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use Justice Department power to escape punishment.

Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes, including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all crimes of state committed by Bush.

Barr provided legal cover for Bush’s illegal foreign policy and war crimes.

Barr left Washington, and went through the “rotating door” to the corporate world, where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies. In 2007 and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John Bolton, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys. K&E’s clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital.

A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the Bush apparatus as any other, besides Poppy Bush himself.

Iran-Contra

To understand the scope, scale, and gravity of William Barr’s central role working for George H.W. Bush, one must grasp the significance of Iran-Contra, the massive criminal operation that was the cornerstone of the Bush era, headed by the Bushes, with the Clintons as partners.

As previously written:

Originally coined “Iran-Contra” (in reference to illegal arms sales to Iran in exchange for American hostages in Lebanon and arms to the Contra “freedom fighters” in Nicaragua), the moniker hides the fact that it became a massive and permanent criminal business and political machine that went far beyond then-current political concerns.

In The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider, Al Martin describes the Iran-Contra Enterprise that a vast operation that included (and was not limited to) drugs, weapons, terrorism, war, money laundering, criminal banking and securities fraud, currency fraud, real estate fraud, insurance fraud, blackmail, extortion, and political corruption that involved countless Washington politicians of both Republican and Democratic parties.

Martin:

“Iran-Contra itself is a euphemism for the outrageous fraud perpetrated by government criminals for profit and control. Offhandedly, this inaccurate term entered history as shorthand for the public scandals of illicit arms sales to Iran coupled with illicit weapons deals for Nicaragua. The real story, however, is much more complex…When George Bush, [CIA Director] Bill Casey and Oliver North initiated their plan of government-sanctioned fraud and drug smuggling, they envisioned using 500 men to raise $35 billion….they ended up using about 5,000 operatives and making over $35 billion.” In addition, the operation became “a government within a government, comprising some thirty to forty thousand people the American government turns to, when it wishes certain illegal covert operations to be extant pursuant to a political objective” with George [H.W.] Bush “at the top of the pyramid”.

The operation’s insiders and whistleblowers place George H.W.Bush as one of its top architects, and its commander. It was carried out by CIA operatives close to Bush since his CIA directorship and even stretching back to the Bay of Pigs. These included Oliver North, Ted Shackley, Edwin Wilson, Felix Rodriguez, and others. Iran-Contra was a replication of the CIA’s Golden Triangle drug trafficking in Southeast Asia (operations also connected to Bush) but on a larger scale and sophistication, greater complexity, and far-reaching impact that remains palpable to this day.

In George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, Webster Tarpley wrote that, “many once-classified documents have come to light, which suggest that Bush organized and supervised many, or most, of the criminal aspects of the Iran-Contra adventures.”

Tarpley further points out that George H.W. Bush created new structures (“special situation group”, “terror incident working group” etc.) within the Reagan administration—and that

“all of these structures revolved around [creating] the secret command role of the then-Vice President, George Bush…The Bush apparatus, within and behind the government, was formed to carry out covert policies: to make war when the constitutional government had decided not to make war; to support enemies of the nation (terrorists and drug runners) who are the friends and agents of the secret government.”

This suggests that George H.W.Bush not only ran Iran-Contra, but much of the Reagan presidency. Then-White House press secretary James Baker said in 1981,

“Bush is functioning much like a co-president. George is involved in all the national security stuff because of his special background as CIA director. All the budget working groups, he was there, the economic working groups, the Cabinet meetings. He is included in almost all the meetings.”

Hundreds of insiders, witnesses and investigators have blown the lid off of the Iran-Contra Enterprise in exhaustive fashion. These include the investigations of Mike Ruppert (From The Wilderness, Crossing the Rubicon), Al Martin (The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider), Gary Webb (Dark Alliance), Rodney Stich (Defrauding America, Drugging America), Terry Reed (Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA), Stew Webb (and here), Dois “Chip” Tatum (The Tatum Chronicles) (summarized here), Pete Brewton (The Mafia, the CIA and George Bush), among others. The accounts of Barry Seal, Edward Cutolo, Albert Carone, Bradley Ayers, Tosh Plumley, Bill Tyree, Gunther Russbacher, Celerino Castillo, Michael Levine, Trenton Parker, Russell Bowen, Richard Brenneke, Larry Nichols, William Duncan, Russell Welch and dozens more implicate the Bushes, the Clintons and the CIA.

As described by Mike Ruppert (image left):

“It stood, and still stands today, isolated and immune from the operating principles of democracy. It is autonomous and it operates through self-funding via narcotics and weapons trafficking. To quote [former CIA director] William Casey it is ‘a completely self-funding, off-the-shelf operation.’ It, in fact, dictates a substantial portion of this country’s foreign, economic and military policy from a place not accessible to the will of a free people properly armed with facts.”

CIA deep cover agent pilot Chip Tatum, a key Iran-Contra player who flew drugs into Mena and Little Rock in Arkansas, worked alongside CIA pilot and drug smuggler Barry Seal. It is believed that Seal was subsequently murdered by the Medellin Cartel, on order of Oliver North and the Bushes, to prevent him from testifying about his activities. Before he was killed, Seal provided Tatum a list of Iran-Contra “Boss Hogs” who allegedly controlled the drug trade. The Pegasus File summaries Tatum’s activities, and features the “Boss Hog” list.

The Iran-Contra apparatus was byzantine, comprised of a network of connected government agencies, subsidiaries, and shell companies and corporations can be seen in the diagram provided by whistleblower Stew Webb:

Bush Crime Family Flow Chart

Progressive Review (1998)

Why is Iran-Contra still relevant today?

The Iran-Contra Enterprise’s overseers, criminal associates and beneficiaries, to this day, remain at large [including Barr], with most enjoying massive illegally-obtained wealth, privilege, and highest political and corporate positions. The imperial positions of the Bush and Clinton clans exemplify this.

The operation, in essence, evolved and metastasized into ever-more modern and sophisticated incarnation with even more global reach. New names, new banks, new drugs, new wars, same blueprint. It is not a “deep state” or a “shadow state” but a Criminal State that operates “in broad daylight”. It is the playbook of the New World Order. It is globalization at its finest.

All attempts to prosecute were largely unsuccessful—blocked, stalled, or given a “limited hangout” treatment. As written by Ruppert, one of many Iran-Contra whistleblowers, in Crossing the Rubicon:

“[In Congress] Iran-Contra was effectively ‘managed’ by Lee Hamilton in the House [of Representatives] and John Kerry (among others) in the Senate throughout the late 1980s to conceal the greatest crimes of the era, crimes committed by a litany of well-known government operatives.”

Which brings us to this:

Iran-Contra was also managed on both the operational and all-important judicial “legal” end by none other than William Barr.

Barr: Iran-Contra insider alias “Robert Johnson”

In his books Drugging America: A Trojan Horse and Defrauding America: Dirty Secrets of the CIA and other Government Operations, whistleblower Rodney Stich exposed in exhaustive detail the firsthand accounts of whistleblowers and insiders, who participated in the many criminal operations that stretched across the Bush and Clinton presidencies.

Some of the shocking evidence exposes Barr acting simultaneously as a hands-on covert operative, and as Bush’s judicial/political fixer:

In Drugging America, Stich wrote:

[CIA operative] Terry Reed had been in frequent telephone contact with the man he knew as Robert Johnson. Johnson directed the drug trafficking and drug money laundering, the training in Arkansas of Contra pilots and fighters, and authorized Reed to set up the CIA proprietary in Mexico. At a later date, Reed learned that Robert Johnson was really William Barr, appointed by President George Bush to be Attorney General of the United States.

Reed’s CIA contact, William Barr, known at that time by his alias Robert Johnson, told Reed that Attorney General Edwin Meese had appointed Michael Fitzhugh to be US Attorney in Western Arkansas, and that he would stonewall any investigation into the Mena, Arkansas drug-related activities. This obstruction of justice by Justice Department officials did occur.

William Barr, who Bush appointed to be the top law enforcement officer in the United States—US Attorney General—played a key role in the smuggling of drugs into the United States. [CIA pilot Chip] Tatum’s statements about reaching Barr at Southern Air Transport in Miami through the name of Robert Johnson confirmed what [CIA operative] Terry Reed, author of the book Compromised, had told me and had written. Nothing like having members of felony drug operations hold the position of US Attorney General—in control of the United States Department of Justice—and a vice president of the United States [Bush]. With this type of influence, no one needs fear being arrested. And don’t forget the Mafia groups working with the CIA who also receive Justice Department protection that is not available to US citizens.

According to Stich, Tatum also detailed to him meetings that took place in which he was present for meetings and telephone conversations between Bush, [NSC Colonel] Oliver North and Barr, discussing not only operations but the skimming of drug money by the Clintons.

The purpose of the meeting was to determine who was responsible for stealing over $100 million in drug money on the three routes from Panama to Colorado, Ohio, and Arkansas. This theft was draining the operation known as the “Enterprise”…The first call was made by [CIA agent Joseph] Fernandez to Oliver North, informing North that the theft was occurring on the Panama to Arkansas route, and “that means either [CIA pilot Barry] Seal, Clinton, or [Panamanian General Manuel] Noriega”…Fifteen minutes later, the portable phone rang, and Vice President George Bush was on the line, talking to William Barr. Barr said at one point, referring to the missing funds, “I would propose that no one source would be bold enough to siphon out that much money, but it is more plausible that each are siphoning a portion, causing a drastic loss.”..Barr told Bush that he and Fernandez were staying in Costa Rica until the following day after first visiting [CIA operative] John Hull’s ranch. Barr then handed the phone to Tatum, who was instructed by Bush to be sure that Noriega and [Mossad operative Michael] Harari boarded Seal’s plane and departed, and for Tatum to get the tail number of Seal’s plane….Tatum said that Barr dialed another number, immediately reaching then-governor Bill Clinton. Barr explained the missing money problem to Clinton…Barr suggested that Clinton investigate at the Arkansas end of the Panama to Arkansas route, and that he and North would continue investigating the Panama end of the connection, warning that the matter must be resolved or it could lead to “big problems”…(This description of missing drug money provided support to a subsequent meeting in Little Rock, described by Terry Reed, during which William Barr accused Clinton of siphoning drug money and that this had to stop.)

Tatum also described to Stich a March 15, 1985 flight, during which “Tatum met with Barr, Harari, and Buddy Young (head of Governor Bill Clinton’s security detail). Barr represented himself as an emissary of Vice President George Bush, who would be arriving soon. Tatum would note on his flight book “Bush visit/meet with Barr and had dinner at German restaurant”.

The fact is, William Barr was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra.

Cover-up of BCCI and BNL scandals

As attorney general, obviously still working for CIA/Bush purposes, Barr and Richard Thornburgh (George H.W. Bush’s previous attorney general) killed off investigations into BCCI, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the notorious CIA drug bank. Barr also stonewalled investigations in the Banca Nationale del Lavoro (BNL), another CIA drug bank.

BCCI was a leading CIA bank used by the Bush/Clinton machine for a vast array of operations, including Iran-Contra drug money laundering.

Barr himself had a personal relationship with BCCI going back to the early 1980s.

William Barr is heading the drive in Virginia to turn prisons into slave labor camps. Here he is shown during a hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee, Nov. 12, 1991, on his nomination as Attorney General in the Bush administration. Left to right: Sen. Strom Thurmond, Sen. Joseph Biden, Barr, Sen. Patrick Leahy. (Source: EIR)

According to Rodney Stich,

“before William Barr came to the Justice Department, he was an attorney with the Washington law firm of Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge. This law firm represented BCCI for several years…Barr’s former law firm also represented B. Francis Saul II, a director and powerful shareholder in Financial General Bankshares, Inc. Financial later became First American Bankshares, a covert BCCI operation…Further, Barr had been legal counsel for the CIA, the same agency that was heavily involved with BCCI corrupt activities. He was CIA counsel during the time that George Bush was Director of the CIA.”

When both the CIA and the Justice Department connections and cover-up of BCCI were exposed by the dogged investigations of Congressman Henry Gonzalez, then-FBI Director William Sessions [note: not related to recent Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions] promised an investigation. This prompted Attorney General Barr, who himself was engaged in the cover-up and the obstruction of justice, to remove Sessions on trumped-up ethics charges, replacing him with someone more malleable.

Also, as part of the BCCI “negotiation” as well as to maintain control over the Iran-Contra drug operations, Barr allegedly also crafted a legal justification for then-President Bush to invade Panama and kidnap their associate General Manuel Noriega, in order to imprison and silence him before he could expose the operation.

Cover-up of Inslaw and PROMIS software theft.

Barr stonewalled investigations and assisted the cover-up of the theft of Inslaw, and PROMIS software by the Department of Justice and the CIA. The otherworldly power of PROMIS software was and still is so coveted that extreme criminal measures have been get it.

    PROMIS (Mike Ruppert, From the Wilderness publications)

    PROMIS part 2 (Mike Ruppert, From The Wilderness publications)

    The Undying Octopus: the FBI and the PROMIS affair

    NSA surveillance: PROMIS

According to Rodney Stich in Defrauding America,

“by misusing the power of their office…three US attorney generals in the Reagan-Bush administrations, Edwin Meese, Richard Thornburgh, and William Barr misappropriated, or aided and abetted, the theft of the software called PROMIS.”

When the scandal became too noisy, Barr

“appointed a former Justice Department crony to conduct an “investigation” of the Inslaw matter, and then report back to him. The special counsel would be selected by Barr; would be subservient to him; and would report to him. Barr could then ignore the recommendations if, in the remote possibility the special counsel did not cooperate in the expected cover-up.”

The Iran-Contra pardons

In the most brazen insult to the American people and the entire world, Barr facilitated George H.W. Bush’s infamous 1992 Christmas Eve pardons of six Iran-Contra co-conspirators Caspar Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert McFarlane, Dewey Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George,

With the stroke of a pen, Bush gleefully set free six of his Iran-Contra criminal flunkies, and effectively decapitating Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh’s six-year long Iran-Contra probe.

It was Barr who closed the lid on Iran-Contra, freeing virtually the entire Bush/Clinton network, including himself, from punishment.

It was Barr who, with this move, “saved their asses”.

The New World Order could not have asked for a better henchman, fixer, and spook than William Barr.

Trump’s nomination of Barr: insanity or “part of the plan”?

Trump won the presidency in 2016 on the power of the single mandate to “drain the swamp”, and Destroy the Deep State. A vicious global struggle continues to be waged on every front between populist reformers led by Trump and the Deep State New World Order. This war is taking place in every nation and on every continent. The stakes are deadly. Time is running short.

The Justice Department has been ground zero in this war. Jeff Sessions’ tenure as attorney general was opaque and riddled with uncertainties. His interim replacement, Matthew Whittaker, is true Trump loyalist who has the unenviable task of taking immediate action on FISAgate and other investigations into Obama/Clinton administration spying/treason, ending the Robert Mueller’s manufactured anti-Trump “Russian Collusion” witch hunt hoax, and do it all before January 2019, when a new Congress full of emboldened Democrats (who will come into office via rampant mid-term election fraud) pursue new avenues to further attack Trump. Numerous critical and potentially explosive congressional testimonies, including investigations into the Clinton Foundation, are all scheduled to take place before January, which could well decide the course of Trump’s presidency, and the movement behind him.

Why is William Barr—the antithesis of a “patriot” and the swampiest of swamp monsters— now being inserted into the middle of what is supposed to be a “white hat” anti-corruption operation? The move is baffling.

Why did Trump make the pick—the sole pick—so immediately, seemingly without thorough vetting?

Who recommended Barr for the job? The “white hats”, or the “black hats” that have never stopped planting assassins into Trump’s inner circle?

Is it significant or coincidental that the Barr pick came shortly after the death of George H.W. Bush?

Does Trump, who made the pick but claims that he “does not know” Barr (do we believe this?) realize that Barr—“Robert Johnson”—is the Deep State swamp’s most loyal operators and protectors? And that Barr is deeply connected and loyal to everyone and everything that Trump opposes?

What role could Trump possibly envision for Barr? Will Barr go after Bill and Hillary Clinton? Jeb and George W. Bush, with whom Barr managed numerous Iran-Contra operations? Will he go after Robert Mueller and James Comey, and dozens of members of Congress, who were also deeply connected to the “Enterprise”?

Why would Barr go against everything he helped create and everything he stood for? Why would he undo his own criminal handiwork by prosecuting his own lifelong criminal colleagues and friends? Barr’s career has been about saving the Deep State and the New World Order that he helped make invincible. Why would he do any differently now?

For reasons known only to him, Trump has surrounded himself with bad actors, too many to count. Mike Pence (longtime Bush loyalist), John Bolton, H.R. McMaster, etc. etc. Trump’s cabinet has been in constant flux, with many shakeups underway. But William Barr is an entirely different level of criminal. What next? Will Trump invite Dick Cheney to his administration? Bring back Henry Kissinger?

Is Trump being a genius, or is he a dupe and/or a sell-out?

Have Trump and his forces “turned” or leveraged Barr? Is it even possible to control someone like him? “Once CIA, always CIA.”

Imagine the spectacle of the pending “confirmation hearings”. Will any member of this corrupt Congress grill Barr about Iran-Contra or BCCI? Will anyone stand up and ask “Robert Johnson” to tell the truth? Or will Barr look across at a room full of frightened politicians (many of whom he knows too well) and chortle, knowing that no one in the chamber will dare.

Is this the “draining of the swamp”, or is Barr the swamp’s ultimate victory, and the end of Trump?

Of limited hangouts and deceptions

In recent interviews, Barr issued noises that seemed supportive of Trump. Barr obviously caught the Trump team’s attention based on these comments. (Humorously, the CIA-managed corporate mainstream media has labeled Barr, an actual CIA criminal conspirator, a “conspiracy theorist”for his statements.)

While the mainstream media has latched on to quotes in which Barr said that he supports “some” investigations into the Clintons, he also insists that “throwing Hillary Clinton in jail is inappropriate”.

In other words, Barr does not want the swamp to be drained. In other words, Barr only supports limited investigations and limited hangouts.

Barr should be disqualified for the job simply based on this.

Or does the nomination of Barr suggest that President Trump also does not want to fully “drain the swamp”? Is his goal to merely co-opt the New World Order and co-opt the Bush Republican apparatus, in order to take down the Clinton/Obama side of it, while leaving the Bush side intact?

Given that Bush-Clinton/Obama are two sides of the same coin, it is ridiculous and impossible to “go after” one side without “going after” the other, and then claim that any real swamp draining is taking place.

It is also possible that Barr and/or his Bush/CIA colleagues have baited the Trump team with his statements, in order to place him in Trump’s administration as a Trojan Horse.

Muted reaction

It is too much to expect the masses, remain uninformed and controlled by propaganda, to understand the significance and danger posed by the reappearance of Barr.

The few who seem aware of Barr’s background are alarmedfor good reason. But even the more informed observers aren’t getting it. Most of those who “trust Trump” and “trust the plan” have not aggressively questioned the move. Even the research-intensive Internet Anoncommunity has been quiet about Barr.

Some Trump optimists are stretching, trying to convince themselves that Trump is using the Barr nomination to “troll”, and to point attention back to the Bush history, thus forcing the public to research, recoil and awaken to the truth.

They would like to believe that Trump is continuing to play a game of deception. The “4-D chess player”, is merely “keeping enemies close”; manipulating, co-opting, and leveraging compromised figures to his personal bidding; and turn one of the Deep State’s own into a weapon against the Deep State. Perhaps they believe that Trump is purposely elevating Barr, in order to fire him later, as he has already done with numerous others in his administration.

Some argue that Barr is useful because he “knows where the bodies are buried”. Barr himself helped bury them—literally in many cases.

If Trump thinks that he can control or leverage someone as dangerous as Barr, then Trump is taking the biggest risk of his presidency, and of his life.

He is also placing the country and the world at risk.

All in the crime family

The atrocities and crimes of the Bushes and Clintons are unspeakable and unimaginable in depravity and scale.

These atrocities were facilitated by William Barr.

Barr, a hands-on participant, is guilty. Furthermore, he poisoned and manipulated the judicial system—“law enforcement”— to get himself and his friends off the hook.

Barr must be exposed and condemned, along with the entire Bush/Clinton/Obama network, and all must be denied and removed from all positions of influence and power.

In an unguarded moment in 1992, George H.W. Bush said to reporter Sarah McClendon:

    “If people ever knew what we had done, we would be chased down the street and lynched.”


Additional Information – January 18, 2019

Read about how: William Barr Defends Blanket Immunity For FBI Agents Who Kill American Citizens.


Additional Information – March 14, 2019

Latest reports show dishonesty and corruption are endemic at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and William Barr has done nothing to stop it since he took office as our nation’s Attorney General. Furthermore, he refuses to review their actions and present the evidence of wrongdoing to federal prosecutors, and/or a grand jury.

Read about how: Latest Reports Offer More Proof The FBI Is Corrupt And Dishonest.


News Update – March 21, 2020

Justice Department Reportedly Asks Congress for Indefinite Detention Powers To Fight Coronavirus is extremely troubling and would raise a whole host of constitutional concerns,” says Scott Bullock, president and general counsel for the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm. “History demonstrates again and again that governments use a crisis to expand power and violate vital constitutional principles. And when the supposed emergency is over, the expanded powers often become permanent.”

Congress should loudly and unanimously reject this treasonous act of insanity.


Additional Information – Updated November 30, 2020

Injustice: Tracking Bill Barr’s Misconduct as Attorney General

The Department of Justice, led by the attorney general, has a unique role in our government. The attorney general, as the nation’s top law enforcement official, is entrusted with ensuring that the department acts with impartiality and independence to uphold the rule of law. And although the attorney general is presidentially appointed and works within the executive branch, the Justice Department’s mandate is to treat the people of the United States, not the president, as its client. Inherent in the department’s and the attorney general’s responsibilities is also to act in accordance with reasonable checks and balances.

Under Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department has repeatedly strayed from its commitment to independence and the rule of law. Barr has demonstrated a disregard for these values, putting personal and political priorities first and undermining the constitutional separation of powers—in short, he has acted in a manner unbefitting the powerful position of attorney general.

Looking at Barr’s tenure since his February 2019 confirmation, we’ve identified a long string of actions that constitute serious misconduct, and may inflict lasting damage to the Justice Department. These actions generally fall into four key categories of misconduct that are antithetical to the department’s responsibilities to the public and to the Constitution. Namely, Barr has on numerous occasions interfered with impartial prosecutions, prioritized politics over justice, undermined the independent special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and hindered congressional oversight. Below, subject matter experts explain the significance of each theme in greater detail.

POGO has produced a timeline to provide a thorough look at the improper actions Barr has taken, their impact, and how they form an escalating pattern of undermining the Justice Department’s proper role in the executive branch. As Barr continues to oversee activities such as pending investigations that he has politicized, it is critical to examine the breadth of his misconduct thus far, and view any potentially improper actions he may take in the context of this pattern of wrongdoing.

A few notes on format and content: The timeline does not exclusively track Barr’s misconduct. In order to provide a more complete picture, it begins with a small set of relevant events prior to Barr’s appointment, and also tracks related developments, such as other officials’ responses to Barr’s actions; the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and other high-profile investigations; indictments, convictions, and sentences; and more. The timeline also includes a number of isolated acts of misconduct that may not be part of a series of actions, but are nonetheless necessary to highlight given their implications for critical issues such as civil rights and civil liberties.

Focused primarily on the four categories of misconduct discussed above, the timeline also tracks activities centered on five key areas and contexts in which many important interconnected events took place:

Types of Misconduct

Undermining the Special Counsel
It is a fundamental tenet of the law, as Edward Coke put it almost 400 years ago, that “no man can be a judge in his own case.” All the more so when the man is president of the United States. And that is why having some independent investigative authority to stand as a bulwark against presidential criminality is important. The special counsel provisions that authorized Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump are a response to the age-old question: Who will watch the watchmen? How do we make sure that those who are responsible for leading us are not a threat to the citizens of the very union they are bound to protect? In an independent special counsel, our nation hoped it had found the answer.
—Paul Rosenzweig, Senior Fellow, R St. Institute, and former Senior Counsel, Whitewater Investigation

Prioritizing Politics over Justice

A fundamental premise of a fair justice system is that all Americans are treated equally. The Justice Department, which is charged with investigating and prosecuting federal crimes, can only be effective if it not only is perceived as conducting its work free of political influence, but actually conducts its work in a nonpartisan and independent manner. Although policy priorities may shift from administration to administration, a fundamental commitment to enforcing the law and protecting national security without regard to inappropriate political influence has traditionally been baked into the culture of the department. When public confidence begins to erode in the department’s independent exercise of its substantial powers, public safety and national security are weakened, and our collective societal fabric begins to fray.
—Carrie Cordero, Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security, and former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security

Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was also the chief prosecutor of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunals. Before these positions, he served as attorney general and spoke to a group of United States Attorneys about the discretion a prosecutor has over a person’s “life, liberty and reputation.” He deemed the power as good if used properly but if driven by improper motives, the prosecutor becomes “one of the worst”. Having been a state, military, and federal prosecutor, I attest to the non-negotiable requirement that prosecutions must be based solely on the evidence and the law. Given the enormous power prosecutors wield, politics cannot play a part in charging decisions. Any deviation from this historical practice is anathema to the rule of law
—David Iglesias, Former United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico.

Hindering Congressional Oversight

Checks and balances are the immune system of our democracy, vital to its functioning and survival. Our Constitution designed Congress to be a rigorous check on the executive – in creating laws that set the bounds of executive power, in passing a budget to fund what it can (and cannot) do, and in providing direct oversight over the executive and its officers. Ability to question officials, to obtain relevant documents, and to investigate without obstruction and delay are critical to Congress’ role. Efforts to undermine Congressional oversight are incompatible with a democratic society in which the executive is subject to checks, limits, and judgment by both the people and its coequal branches of government.
—Danielle Brian, Executive Director of the Project On Government Oversight.


News Update – December 14,, 2020

US Attorney General William Barr will be stepping down just before Christmas and Deputy Attorney General Jeff Rosen will become acting attorney general, President Donald Trump has announced.

Barr, in a letter to Trump posted by the Republican president on Twitter, said he would leave his post on December 23.