George Webb is doing some very interesting work at YouTube connecting the dots concerning current events in North Africa, all within the context of Clinton Foundation machinations.
The links and contacts go very deep inside the U.S. government, extend outside the U.S. government to private armies, and can all be rolled up into one theme. Follow the money, weapons and oil.
Everything that has happened has happened for a purpose. Everything has been planned for a lot longer than you might imagine.
I do have two problems with his analysis. First of all, I hate to use Seymour Hersh or anything he writes as a source for anything, but concerning the information he presents, the allegations are backed by independent journalistic reports on the ground (e.g., the rat lines of weapons and oil). Second, he sees Benghazi as an accident, a curve ball in the plans of TCF. Perhaps so, but I have always believed that the event was planned in its entirety by nefarious actors to accomplish exactly what happened. I’d like to see George consider that in the context of his analysis.
It all makes sense, and without context like this, it’s rather like reading #Pizzagate code language (pizza, chicken, handkerchief, walnut sauce, etc.), code that no adult on the face of the planet uses in real life without trying to hide something. If George is wrong about his analysis (and I’ll entertain disagreements), then you have to supply your own context that puts the pieces of the puzzle together in a way that makes some sense.
This is extended watching, and it will take you a little over an hour if you watch all of the videos I’m embedding. But I suspect that these videos will be removed at some point, so instead of watching idiot television shows one night, watch these videos.
George tackles all of this by starting with the question, “Where is Eric Braverman,” who eventually tracked the money back to its sources and attempted to get out of said swamp.
EASLEY, S.C. (AP) — Pickens County deputies say a man killed this week in an Easley house was a burglar who was caught by the homeowner stealing several guns.
Chief Deputy Creed Hashe said in a news release that the homeowner fought with 27-year-old Justin Smith and managed to get a rifle from him and fired several shots at the intruder.
Deputies say Smith tried to leave, but collapsed and died on a deck.
Hashe says evidence collected agrees with the homeowner’s story. Prosecutors are reviewing the investigation to see if the homeowner should be charged or can legally claim self-defense.
I have just two comments about this. First of all, if a man is in your home, you have a right to treat him as a threat to your life. You don’t know otherwise, and it’s foolish and dangerous to pretend you do or to wait for validation of that assumption.
Second, the homeowner interacted with the police. As I’ve observed before, here are the steps. (1) I shot in self defense, my life was being threatened, and (2) any further communication will have to occur with my lawyer.
But there’s more to it than meets the eye. It wasn’t just an equipment malfunction. According to the reddit/r/firearms discussion thread, this modification was done to the firearm.
He installed an aftermarket hammer and sear that were labeled “gunsmith installation only”.
He disabled the firing pin block safety on his firearm for a shorter reset.
So here are the moral(s) of the story. First, the rules of gun safety are considered “defense in depth.” Follow all of them, all of the time.
Second, if you cannot properly do sufficiently complex modifications to your firearms, then don’t do them at all and let a gunsmith tackle the job. That’s their job.
Tom McHale has a very good article at Ammoland on AR-15 rifle barrel lengths and whether it matters.
Remember that you have two competing effects on muzzle velocity. First, it’s advisable to get as much work out of expanding gases as feasible in order to increase muzzle velocity. Second, there is friction in the barrel, which is a detriment to the work being done by the expanding gases.
So there is a turnover point on the curve of barrel length versus muzzle velocity, where you no longer gain muzzle velocity with increased barrel length. So McHale performed some testing of barrel lengths, and this is what he came up with.
The difference between the 16″ and 18″ barrel is greater than the difference between the 18″ and 20″ barrel. But barrel lengths greater than 18″ doesn’t buy you much. McHale also has some data on the .300 Blackout round that looks interesting.
The one thing he didn’t give us is the effects of 14.5″ barrels (as with the M4), or pistol length barrels (e.g., 10″ barrels). I would like to see some test data on that, and unless persuaded otherwise I have to believe that the SpecOps trend to use shorter and shorter barrels lengths along with suppressors is adversely effecting muzzle velocity.
John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, suggested Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin was indeed “personally involved” in the election email hacks because Russia wanted Donald Trump as its “lap dog” in the White House.
“Russia clearly intervened,” Podesta said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” in a series of carefully worded responses about who was behind the hacked emails and their impact on Clinton’s losing campaign.
Podesta’s “lap dog” comment was an apparent reference to New York Times op-ed columist Nicholas Kristof implying Saturday in the paper that Trump would be a “lap dog — a Russian poodle.”
Podesta, whose personal email account was hacked, also said Sunday that he has been contacted by the FBI only once about the ordeal, two days after WikiLeaks began publishing on Oct. 7 the trove of electronic messages.
He said that “NBC revealed that Putin was personally involved” and that the “CIA, FBI and (Director of National Intelligence James Clapper) all agree that the Russians did it to help Trump.”
I haven’t watched the interview since I don’t watch the MSM in any capacity whatsoever. But I’m willing to bet that the interviewer didn’t challenge him on the lie he told. The FIB and the ODNI have certainly not said any such thing.
Meanwhile, much of the media has ignored the rather salient fact that the FBI is by no means in agreement with the anonymous and secret CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the election in order to help elect Donald Trump.
Nor, for that matter, is the Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI), which has declined to endorse the CIA report. This is perhaps less surprising than it first might seem, considering that as recently as November 17 ODNI Director James Clapper testified before the House Intelligence Committee and acknowledged that “as far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.”
See also a Fox News report. The national intelligence community has said the opposite of what Podesta claimed they said. Furthermore, as we’ve discussed before, the CIA is alone in this assessment and lacks the reputation to say such things. No reputable party is asserting that the emails given to Wikileaks came from anywhere but insider leaks.
John Podesta is a bitter clinger, we must conclude. But consider for a moment what he wants you to believe. He wants you to believe that release of his emails, by whatever method at all, caused the American public to reject the Clinton campaign because of its nefarious contents, and therefore that those contents should never have been released.
Ögmundur Jónasson, previously an Icelandic minister, became aware of an illegal framing attempt on the part of the U.S. government. Here he is in his own words.
You are “the minister” who refused to cooperate with the FBI because you suspected their agents on mission in Iceland were trying to frame Julian Assange. Do you confirm this?
Yes. What happened was that in June 2011, US authorities made some approaches to us indicating they had knowledge of hackers wanting to destroy software systems in Iceland. I was a minister at the time. They offered help. I was suspicious, well aware that a helping hand might easily become a manipulating hand!
Later in the summer, in August, they sent a planeload of FBI agents to Iceland seeking our cooperation in what I understood as an operation set up to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
Since they had not been authorised by the Icelandic authorities to carry out police work in Iceland and since a crack-down on WikiLeaks was not on my agenda, to say the least, I ordered that all cooperation with them be promptly terminated and I also made it clear that they should cease all activities in Iceland immediately.
It was also made clear to them that they were to leave the country. They were unable to get permission to operate in Iceland as police agents, but I believe they went to other countries, at least to Denmark. I also made it clear at the time that if I had to take sides with either WikiLeaks or the FBI or CIA, I would have no difficulty in choosing: I would be on the side of WikiLeaks.
This was published on December 7, 2016. None of this is surprising. But ask yourself about the notion of “fake news,” what the American MSM is telling you, and whether you heard this before?
This is the largest disinformation and propaganda campaign in American history, with the U.S. government, Facebook, Google, and the MSM on one side, and you on the other. You understand that, right? The target is you.
Step 3) Show that scary NFA items aren’t inherently more dangerous and their deregulation doesn’t increase crime
Step 4) Remove SBRs from NFA
Step 5) Repeat step 3
Step 6) Allow new registration of post-86 MGs under NFA
Step 7) Repeat step 3
Step 8) Remove MGs from NFA, repeal NFA
Yep. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. It has to be done in stages, boys and girls. Be patient, but diligent. Keep pressing, never give up. Grass roots activism is our friend. Inch by inch, step by step.
Travis prints only a little bit with his appendix carry, and I admit that he makes a very good case for the superior tactical advantage of appendix over 3:00 carry.
But I also have to say that I cannot get comfortable with appendix carry. My carry is more like 2:00 – 2:30. I just can’t move it around any more and be comfortable.
There were multiple email dumps to Wikileaks, in at least two broad categories, first the DNC email cache and then the Podesta email cache (not all released at the same time). It’s easy to conflate the two, and that may be some of the recent confusion over who really leaked the emails to Wikileaks.
So let’s start with William Binney. It has been speculated that the NSA or someone in the intelligence community leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, and that they have all of them. I say speculated because I believe that Binney is fairly far removed from current activity within the intelligence community. Nonetheless, he’s probably right about the NSA having all of the emails. Here we are talking about the emails appurtenant to the DNC.
More recently, Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed that members of the “American intelligence community” (whatever that is) leaked the emails to Wikileaks.
The CIA and FBI examined the exact same data that was produced for them by the NSA. The CIA analysts said the Russians are behind this. The FBI analysts said there is no evidence that the Russians are behind this. We do know this was leaking. This was not hacking. Leaking is the unauthorized exposure of something to a person to whom it wasn’t intended. Hacking is th altering of an operational system… You can’t affect the outcome of the election if you hack Clinton and the DNC. You can affect the outcome of an election if you affect those who register the voters or count the voters.
There is NO EVIDENCE that this was done by the Russians. But there is evidence for this. Who was harmed by Mrs. Clinton’s extremely careless use of state secrets? Whose agents’ lives were jeopardized by her failure to keep these state secrets? The American intelligence community. It is more likely than not that members of the American intelligence community leaked this to Julian Assange than that the Russians did… The suggestion comes from members of the intelligence community.
Well of course the Russians didn’t do it. But the question for the Judge is this – are you being trolled by someone inside the NSA/CIA/FBI/DIA?
There is also this from someone who should be a very reliable source.
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by ‘disgusted’ whisteblowers – and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.
‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.
But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.
‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ Murray said. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’
He said the leakers were motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.’
Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.
[ … ]
‘I don’t understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn’t true,’ he said. ‘Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.’
Because the CIA is comprised of professional liars. Concerning this last report, among the citizen researchers it is taken as an article of faith that Seth Rich is the source of the email leak, and he was killed for it. But there is a wrinkle in the fabric. It is this email from John Podesta.
From:ntanden@americanprogress.org
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-08 19:48 Subject: Re: Tweet from @JoeNBC
Holy Moses.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 8, 2015, at 5:23 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote:>
> Eric Braverman
>
> JP> –Sent from my iPad–> john.podesta@gmail.com> For scheduling: eryn.sepp@gmail.com> >> On Mar 8, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Neera Tanden <ntanden@americanprogress.org> wrote:
>>
>> @JoeNBC: A source close to the Clintons tell @ron_fournier to “follow the money” and find the real HRC scandal. http://t.co/lPTQY0L0o4
>>
>> I’m hoping someone is keeping tabs on Doug Band. Quote in here is from someone who worked in Clinton Foundation.
Eric Braverman was the CEO Chelsea Clinton hired to “clean up” The Clinton Foundation, and his last tweet was October 12th. He hasn’t been seen or heard from since then.
This last wrinkle makes a mess of the narrative, because it’s possible that Eric Braverman is the source of some of the emails concerning TCF. It has been speculated (and even hinted) that he is in the custody of Federal Marshalls in the witness protection program.
We may never know exactly how this all transpired. But suffice it to say that the narrative that seems most likely is that someone with legal, insider information leaked the emails to Wikileaks. No one who is reputable is suggesting otherwise, and the CIA’s claim that the Russians did it is farcical.
And just to keep you up to date on the recent finds of the citizen researchers at Voat, here is a video of the pedophile rings in France and the depths and breadths to which it extends. It’s sickening listening, but nonetheless necessary if you want to be informed.
What I learned, through the process of becoming a firearms license holder, trying out several types of shooting sports, and—for the sake of comparison—joining the National Rifle Association in the US, is that Canadian gun culture is quieter and far more anal than American gun culture. And most Canadian gun owners seem to be just fine with that.
[ … ]
The Americans I spoke with generally consider having to get a license an affront to their personal liberty, but on a practical level, unless you have a criminal record or something to hide, I don’t see the issue.
[ … ]
Not long after, I shot a long-range rifle—a beast of a gun, that I’m told is used by snipers in the military. I hated it. It felt like a literal bomb going off …
[ … ]
In late May, I headed to Louisville, Kentucky for the NRA convention after signing up to become an NRA member. I had never—and probably never will again—see that many guns (or old white men) in one place. There was an exhibition space the size of two large airplane hangars filled with every type of gun and gun accessory possible, even special bedside holsters. The NRA is an extremely slick operation with a tightly controlled message. Everywhere I looked, there were television screens showing various gun advocates who spoke about protecting the Second Amendment, and protecting themselves against “terrorists” and the other evils of the world. Inside one of the auditoriums, waiting for then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to speak, a gentleman beside me started showing me photos of all his guns on his phone. He assumed I was black and said it was “nice to see an African-American here for a change.” When I asked why he thought there weren’t many black people in the NRA, he replied: “They’ll tell you that they don’t have the money for it. But they have money for rims. They have money for Air Jordans.” With my first racist experience under my belt, I proceeded to watch Trump get the NRA’s official endorsement. Most NRA members I spoke to said Donald Trump was not their ideal choice but that they would still vote for him, because they truly believed that Hillary Clinton would take away their guns. One woman, who runs a gun school for women, asked me how I would react to being attacked if I wasn’t armed. I responded that where I’m from, it’s not really something that I often have to think about it.
To all of my Canadian readers, I’m sure you’re proud of her, as proud as we are about our MSM. Well there you have it. All of the money quotes in one minute. I’m willing to bet that she has never had a real bomb “go off” in her hands. No, I’m sure of it.
It’s nice to hear that there’s no crime in Canada. At all. Ever. Otherwise she might have to thing about things like self defense.
As for Hillary Clinton taking away my guns, I’ve never worried about that in the slightest. All she could have ever done is declare civil war, and the shooting goes both ways when that happens. I’m certain that she wouldn’t think of us as old white men if that happened.
9 years, 3 months ago
