Vigilant News

Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty.

Ryan Delarme

10 Food Additives You Should Cut From Your Diet

By ,

Ryan DeLarme,
11/22/2021

A myriad of dubious chemicals has been introduced into our food supply in the last 120 years. This is a difficult truth that many can’t seem to reconcile, as most of us have been consuming ultra-processed foods since birth.

Even everyday household products and cosmetic items that are inhaled, applied to the skin, or absorbed through the scalp, can contain a bevy of harmful chemicals. The sum total of the overwhelming presence of these chemicals has been linked to nearly every modern chronic affliction and disease, particularly various forms of cancer and neurodegenerative disorders. Two recent examples of everyday products which were finally admitted to being carcinogenic are Monsanto’s pesticide Round-Up (Glyphosate) and Johnson and Johnson’s baby talc powder (asbestos).

There are many off-ramps on the highway to truth. When faced with an inconvenient truth, most people will search for confirmation of their preferred reality, and the AMA, the FDA, the chemical/ pharmaceutical companies in conjunction with the colleges and media outlets they fund are all too willing to provide that comfortable numbing to the truth. The most notable example that comes to mind is an extremely neurotoxic chemical called fluoride which has been added to the public water supply in most municipal areas. Fluoride is known to interrupt the basic function of nerve cells in the brain, causing more docile and submissive behavior as well as IQ devastation.  Fluoride has never been proven to prevent tooth decay, according to Dr. Robert Carton, a former scientist for the EPA, “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not all time.”

But fluoride isn’t the only harmful additive that exists in our food and water, not by a long shot. Let’s take a look at 10 lesser-known additives that also have a negative effect on our wellbeing:

  1. Artificial Sweeteners (Aspartame, Sucralose, Acesulfame, Saccharin, Neotame, )

There are at least 5 artificial sweeteners that have been outed as neurotoxic, carcinogenic, and/or allergenic; Aspartame being the most prevalent and possibly the most damaging of them all. When searching for information on aspartame, depending on which search engine you’re using, you will find (as with most controversial topics) two separate realities: the reality where huge corporations, the medical institutes, and media outlets that they fund dismiss all negative claims directed at aspartame or the reality where current and former MD’s around the world as well as former EPA scientists are trying to raise awareness about the dangers of said sweetener.

You’ll find testimonials by all manner of “experts” and important-sounding people endorsing aspartame while denouncing those “aspartame alarmists” as lunatics, citing studies conducted by the same pharma funded institutes giving the illusion of unbiased science; but you will also find scientific papers the world over showing the exact opposite. Since only one of these realities can be objectively true you have to ask yourself, who is more incentivized to lie? The corporations profiting from hazardous products or the folks who are putting their careers on the line to raise awareness?

Aspartame is an excitotoxin, a substance that overexcites cells to the point of damage or death, and is commonly found in diet/zero sugar sodas, jello, sugar-free gum, drink mixes, sugar-free sports drinks, baking goods, tabletop sweeteners like Nutrasweet, kool-aid, ice tea, chewable vitamins, breath mints, toothpaste, and mouthwash. It was listed as a potential biochemical weapon by the Pentagon. In the peer-reviewed journal, Aspartame: Methanol and the Public Health, Dr. Woodrow Monte wrote: “When diet sodas and soft drinks, sweetened with aspartame, are used to replace fluid loss during exercise and physical exertion in hot climates, the intake of methanol can exceed 250 mg/day or 32 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s recommended limit of consumption for this cumulative poison.” The effects of aspartame are documented by the FDA’s own data. In 1995 the agency was forced, under the Freedom of Information Act, to release a list of aspartame symptoms reported by thousands of victims. From 10,000 consumer complaints, the FDA compiled a list of 92 symptoms, including death.

A report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, confirmed that aspartame  “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, that is until establishment Republican and American Businessman Donald Rumsfeld, while president of  G.D. Searle (the company that originally held the aspartame patent) vowed that he’d “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Eventually, Monsanto bought out Searle and was untroubled by aspartame’s clouded history. You can read more about Rumsfeld here.

This information barely attempts to scratch the surface when it comes to the dangers and shady history associated with aspartame.

 

  1. High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

High Fructose Corn Syrup is a highly-refined artificial sweetener which has become the number one source of calories in America. HFCS is found in just about all processed foods, packs on pounds faster than any other ingredient, increases your LDL Cholesterol levels, contributes greatly to the development of diabetes and tissue damage, promotes cancer, stimulates fat accumulation in the liver, increases the risk of heart disease, and increased mercury intake. Here are some statistics as of September 2016:

  • Americans consume an average of 50 grams of HFCS every day.
  • HFCS now represents more than 40 percent of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the U.S.
  • HFCS has been shown to increase the risk of developing high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease.
  • Consumption of HFCS increased more than 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the intake changes of any other food or food group, and is a main factor in our current obesity epidemic.
  • HFCS can cause leaky gut syndrome.
  • HFCS contains up to 570 micrograms of health-hazardous mercury per gram.
  • HFCS has been shown to promote cancer.
  • The average 20-ounce soda contains 15 teaspoons of sugar, all of it high fructose corn syrup.

To create HFCS, caustic soda is used to shuck the corn kernel from its starch, and corn syrup is then created. Enzymes (commonly GMO) are introduced to convert the corn syrup’s sugars to super-sweet fructose. HFCS contains no enzymes, vitamins, or minerals; only sugar and calories. Since HFCS is produced from corn, a natural vegetable, some people try to say that it’s a natural sugar; but there is so much processing that goes on to produce and chemically alter corn to make it into HFCS that it’s so far from natural. On top of that, so much of the corn today isn’t natural because it’s being genetically modified by growers for bigger crop yields and more money.

  1. Trans Fat

The fiscal incentives for companies to include trans fat in their products are numerous. It’s used to greatly extend the shelf life of processed foods and is among the most dangerous substances you can consume. Found in deep-fried fast foods as well as processed foods that have been made with margarine or vegetable oils. Numerous studies show that trans fat increases LDL (bad) cholesterol while decreasing HDL or “good” cholesterol; it has also been shown to increase the risk of heart attacks, heart disease, stroke, and inflammation. Oils and fats are now forbidden in the Danish market if they are found to contain trans fatty acids in excess of 2 percent. Besides fast food, trans fat is also found in margarine, chips, crackers, and most commercial baked goods.

The link between trans fat and cardiovascular disease shouldn’t be ignored.  Multiple studies on Pacific Island populations who get 30-60% of their total caloric intake from fully saturated coconut oil have all shown nearly nonexistent rates of cardiovascular disease. The truth is that not all saturated fats are created equal, the operative word here being “created” because some saturated fats do occur naturally, while others are artificially manipulated into a saturated state through a man-made process called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation alters vegetable and seed oils by adding hydrogen atoms while heating the oil, producing a rancid substance that really only benefits shelf life and profits. Just about all experts finally agree that hydrogenation does nothing good for your health and actually causes harm.

  1. Monosodium Glutamate (MSG/E621)

MSG is a slow poison that hides behind numerous titles like: “natural flavoring”, “yeast extract”, “textured protein”, “disodium guanylate”, “disodium inosinate”, or “hydrolyzed pea protein”. Currently, labeling standards don’t require MSG to be listed by name, meaning it can hide behind all kinds of disarming verbiage. MSG is an amino acid used as a flavor enhancer in soups, dressings, frozen foods, seasonings, cookies, lunch meats, and many restaurants. MSG, like aspartame, is an excitotoxin. Studies show that regular consumption may result in adverse effects such as depression, disorientation, impaired vision, fatigue, headaches, and obesity.

MSG affects neurological pathways in the brain and disengages the “I’m full” response which explains the rapid weight gain. The part of MSG that negatively affects the human body is the “glutamate”, the glutamic acid in corn, molasses, or wheat is broken down by processes like hydrogenation or by fermenting with strong chemicals, bacteria, and enzymes. It has been well-established that MSG has some laudable gustatory and psychological effects as well as positive effects with regard to hypertension and iron deficiency. However, at the same time, there are abundant reports of harmful effects such as oxidative stress, DNA damage, protein modification, and lysis of stromal cells.

5. Common Food Dyes

The dangers of food coloring have been known for decades, and for decades scientists were bankrolled by the food industry to produce results that showed the contrary, tweaking details in the abstract to elicit the desired result. The food colorings that are still on the market today are linked to cancer and neurological issues. Blue 1 and 2 is found in beverages, candy, baked goods, and pet food; and has been linked to rapid cancer growth in mice. Red 3, used to dye cocktail cherries, grenadine, candy, and baked goods; has been shown to cause thyroid tumors.

Green 3, most commonly found in candy and beverages, has been linked to bladder cancer. The widely used yellow 6, added to beverages, sausages, gelatine, baking ingredients, and candy has been linked to tumors of the adrenal gland and kidneys. Multiple studies have shown that artificial colorings may contribute to behavioral problems in children and a significant reduction in IQ. Blue #1 & #2 are banned in Norway and Sweden.

6. Sodium Sulfite (E221) and Sodium Chloride

I know you might be scratching your head at the mention of sodium chloride on this list, common table salt exists in an overwhelming majority of diets the world over, but most diet-conscious individuals are aware that sodium chloride has almost nothing in common with traditional rock or sea salt. Even the mainstream media will admit that you should stay away from sodium chloride.

Sodium Sulfite, a preservative used in wine-making and other processed foods, is even more dubious. According to the FDA, approximately one in every 100 people is sensitive to sulfites in food, but some believe that this ratio is optimistic. Some medical experts have suggested a possible link between sulfites and asthma. Sulfite-sensitive individuals may experience headaches, breathing problems, and rashes. In severe cases, sulfites can actually cause death by closing up the airways altogether, leading to cardiac arrest. Sulfites are also commonly found in some brands of dried fruits as well.

7. Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Sorbate, Sodium Benzoate, and Potassium Bromate

Potassium Sorbate is one of the most prolific preservatives used in the food industry, it’s nearly impossible to find any packaged candy or ice cream without it The food industry and its “scientists” will parrot endless assurances that potassium sorbate isn’t a health threat, but conflicting data suggests otherwise. The combination of sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate with ascorbic acid in soft drinks may result in the production of benzene, a carcinogen. Potassium Bromate is used to increase volume in white flour and is found mostly in bread and rolls. Potassium Bromate is known to cause cancer and even small amounts in bread can create problems for humans.

Sodium Sorbate is known to be genotoxic (DNA damaging), As per a 2012 study:

“Results of the study revealed that SS, which is commonly used in the food industry, has genotoxic and clastogenic effects in human peripheral lymphocytes. Madle et al. (1993) reported that using human lymphocytes could provide the best results for human mutagenicity studies. According to these data, it can be concluded that SS may also cause cancer because of its mutagenic and genotoxic effects.”

8. Sodium Nitrate (Sodium Nitrite)

Sodium nitrate is used as a (drumroll) preservative, food coloring, and “flavor enhancer” in bacon, ham, fish, hotdogs, lunch meats, corned beef, and other processed foods. This ingredient, which sounds harmless, is actually highly carcinogenic once it enters the human digestive system. Once ingested, it forms a variety of nitrosamine compounds that enter the bloodstream and wreak havoc on a number of internal organs: the liver and pancreas in particular. Sodium nitrite is widely regarded as a toxic ingredient and the USDA actually tried to ban this additive in the 1970s but was vetoed by influential food manufacturers who complained that had “no alternative” for preserving packaged meat products.

Why does the industry still use this additive? Simple, this chemical (sodium nitrite) just happens to turn packaged meats bright red. It’s a “color fixer”, and it makes old, dead meats appear fresh and vibrant for an unnaturally long time. Like its nitrate counterpart, it can be found in hotdogs, bacon, ham, lunch meat, cured meat, corned beef, smoked fish, and other forms of processed meat.

9. Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) 

BHA and BHT (E320) are used to preserve common household foods and are known to be toxic. Any processed food item that has a particularly long shelf life is often filled with BHA. These preservatives are found in things like cereal, chewing gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils. BHA and BHT keep foods from changing color, changing flavor, or becoming rancid. They are also oxidants, which form potentially cancer-causing reactive compounds in your body and can affect the neurological system of the brain and alter behavior.

These additives are typically found in potato chips, chewing gum, cereals, frozen sausages, enriched rice, lard, shortening, cake, candy, and jello.  Propyl Gallate is another preservative often used in conjunction with BHA and BHT. It is sometimes found in meat products, chicken soup base, and chewing gums. Animal studies have suggested that it too could be linked to cancer growth, though other studies claim it can induce cell death to cancer cells. Propyl Gallate can also cause stomach and skin irritation, liver damage, kidney damage.

10. Sulfur Dioxide (E220)

A lot of these additives can be downplayed by clever manipulation of wording and how the more biased “studies” alter the parameters to end up with a more desired result, but Sulfur additives are undeniably toxic. In the United States, the FDA has actually completely prohibited their use in fruit and vegetables. Adverse reactions include bronchial problems, particularly in those prone to asthma, hypotension (low blood pressure), flushing, tingling sensations, or anaphylactic shock. Sulfur additives also destroy vitamins B1 and E, which can be particularly damaging to developing children.

The International Labour Organization of the UN says to avoid E220 if you suffer from conjunctivitis, bronchitis, emphysema, bronchial asthma, or cardiovascular disease. It is found in beer, soft drinks, dried fruits, juices, cordials, wines, vinegar, and potato products.

Author's Note: I hope that while you read these texts you do your own cross-referencing and learn firsthand just how split the medical and scientific communities really are on most topics. I would ask that you put your problem-solving and critical thinking skills to use and consider who has more to lose on either side of these arguments, and what could possibly cause a respected MD or scientist to commit career suicide. 
           If you still prefer to use Google for these fact-finding ventures, you will likely be provided a surplus of damage control articles and “testimonies”, if you use duckduckgo it will be closer to an even mix, and if you use Qwant you will see things you’d never find otherwise. You will no doubt come across a media outlet called “Healthline” which provides assurances that all of these claims are false despite scientific evidence to the contrary (provided below in the sources section). I’d also like to point you towards the primary funders of Healthline, a who’s who of big-money investment firms containing many dozens of corporations each. Lawsuits against these funders include everything from security fraud to violating the Clean Water Act, so consider this before placing blind trust in the words of a well-financed propaganda mouthpiece.

Sources

Artificial Sweeteners:

High Fructose Corn Syrup

Trans Fat

Monosodium Glutamate 

Food Coloring:

Sulfites/ Sodium Chloride

BHA & BHT

Preservatives

Sodium Nitrate/ Nitrite

Sulfur Dioxide

The FDA’s Cozy Relationship with the Pharmaceutical Industry
Big-Pharma couldn't do it with out the FDA, and vice versa.

By ,

Ryan DeLarme
May, 12th, 2022

People rushed to tout the FDA approval of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine back in September of 2021 as if it were some great scientific victory. The troubling part is that the institution’s shady history seems to be all but forgotten.

No matter how you slice it, the Pharmaceutical industry is the central engine of the global health establishment. The industry’s larger corporations (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, etc.) provide funding for the FDA, the CDC, and the WHO; they do this both directly and through NGOs like the EPDA. It was recently reported that pharmaceutical giants are raking in the money with the sale of their novel and inadequately tested COVID-19 vaccines. Pfizer expects to earn $33.5 billion in 2021. J&J estimates its full-year COVID-19 vaccine sales to be $2.5 billion while Moderna forecasts $19.2 billion. These enormous figures will be grossly surpassed when one considers the forthcoming round of booster shots and the profits those will yield.

When it comes to lobbying money spent in 2021, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America group ranks number three nationally. Interestingly, the fourth, fifth, and sixth positions are also members of the health establishment. These are the American Hospital Association, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and the American Medical Association, respectively. Pfizer by itself is number 15.

The ties between the FDA and Big Pharma run deep, their relationship has become so symbiotic that neither could exist without the other unless massive reforms were to take place. Big Pharma relies on the FDA to approve and rush its products to market and the FDA relies on Big Pharma to receive its funding. Not only that but there seems to be a revolving door of FDA Commissioners landing on the boards of these Pharmaceutical companies.

Scott Gottlieb, who stepped down as FDA Commissioner in the spring of 2019, soon found himself sitting comfortably on Pfizer’s board of directors.  Gottlieb’s predecessor, DR. Margaret Hamburg, landed a cushy position on the board of Directors for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Steven Hahn, the former FDA Commissioner under Donald Trump, wound up at Flagship Pioneering; the venture capital firm that launched Moderna.

The list goes on and on, in fact, 9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners —representing nearly four decades of agency leadership— have gone on to work for pharmaceutical companies. The lone exception is David Kessler, who joined the ranks in academia before eventually settling in his current position as chair of the board of directors at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Criticism of the modern medical-industrial complex has triggered many arguments, this is particularly true in the age of COVID. Regardless of whatever stance you take on any medical debate, it is undeniable that the industry operates in the same mafia-esque fashion as the Media, Big Tech, and Big Government.

Is There a Target on Your Back? Predictive AI May have Already Flagged You
Is it only a matter of time before you find yourself wrongly accused, investigated and confronted by police based on a data-driven algorithm?

By ,

Ryan DeLarme
May 11th, 2022

The level of invasive surveillance taking place each second around the globe is staggering, and that’s only referring to what we actually know about. Chances are that you or somebody you know has been assessed and assigned a threat score based on your associations, activities, and viewpoints.

It was reported back in 2016 that officers in Fresno, California have been using a controversial new software called “Beware”, which surveils citizens and calculates a citizen’s “Threat Score”.

It may sound like something out of a dystopian nightmare world, but this type of surveillance has been around for a long time. With the rapid growth of technology, they are finding new ways to keep tabs not only on you in the present, but also on your probable future.

Intrado, the company that created the threat-scoring software, says that Beware:

 “sorts and scores billions of publicly-available commercial records in a matter of seconds – alerting responders to potentially dangerous situations while en route to, or at the location of, a 9-1-1 request for assistance.”

The Washington Post was granted access to the Fresno Police Department’s $600,000 Real-Time Crime Center where Beware is being used. The Post reported:

On 57 monitors that cover the walls of the center, operators zoomed and panned an array of roughly 200 police cameras perched across the city. They could dial up 800 more feeds from the city’s schools and traffic cameras, and they soon hope to add 400 more streams from cameras worn on officers’ bodies and from thousands from local businesses that have surveillance systems.

The cameras were only one tool at the ready. Officers could trawl a private database that has recorded more than 2 billion scans of vehicle licenses plates and locations nationwide. If gunshots were fired, a system called ShotSpotter could triangulate the location using microphones strung around the city. Another program, called Media Sonar, crawled social media looking for illicit activity. Police used it to monitor individuals, threats to schools and hashtags related to gangs.

In the same fashion that the Harris Corporation keeps the details of its Stingray cell-site simulators and trackers under wraps, Intrado considers the finer details of Beware’s calculating threat scores to be a “trade secret.”

Intraldo may not be inclined to disclose exactly how the threat score is calculated, but we know that it includes information from arrest reports, databases, web searches, and yes, even social media posts. We all learned from the Cambridge Analytica scandal that today data is more sought after than gold, and we are quickly learning that data probably isn’t only harvested for marketing purposes. 

This type of technology is not limited to just law enforcement. Social Services seems to be getting in on the action as well, with computer algorithms attempting to predict which households are more likely to be found guilty of child abuse and neglect. Presumably, all it would take is an AI bot targeting a household for potential neglect for a family to be investigated, potentially landing the child in foster care.

According to the Associated Press, once an incident of potential neglect is reported to a child protection hotline, the report is run through a screening process that pulls together “personal data collected from birth, Medicaid, substance abuse, mental health, jail and probation records, among other government data sets.” The algorithm then calculates the child’s potential risk and assigns a score of 1 to 20 to predict the risk that a child will be placed in foster care in the two years after they are investigated. “The higher the number, the greater the risk. Social workers then use their discretion to decide whether to investigate.

What they consider potential neglect can include everything from inadequate housing to poor hygiene, which are far cries from verified physical or sexual abuse. Who knows what factors could play a role in this going forward, things like the January 6th Committee suggest that it’s not too far-fetched something like political affiliation could become a factor in determining whether or not you maintain guardianship over your own children.

The potential ramifications of how these programs could be used are unnerving. What’s worse is that, as we said before, this is only the tech we know about – who knows what kind of classified software is being used by Governments and the militaries of the world.

A Specter and its Shadow: Civil Disobedience in Cuba and Hong Kong

By ,

Ryan DeLarme,
August 16th, 2021

The difference between the communist system and the capitalist one is that both kick you in the ass, but in the communist one they kick you and you have to applaud, while in the capitalist one they kick you and you can scream. I came here to scream.

— Reinaldo Arenas, Antes Que Anochezca

It’s easy to understand why people are emotionally drawn to the ideals of Communism, Socialism, or what we perceive as the intentions of “the left”, because they at least seem to draw their fundamental motivational source from a place of compassion. Today, well-meaning young Americans see socialism as a chic new system, promising equality and fairness. These are admirable things to want for the world. The unfortunate truth is that this game is not new, it’s more than 100 years old, and whether it’s the rigid, murderous version of socialism put in place by the Soviet Union, or today’s nightmare scenarios in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe and North Korea, it’s an idea that has never delivered equality, more opportunity, or better lives.

To me, there’s nothing wrong with wanting everything provided for everyone, though obviously, some conservatives would disagree. The real reason we can’t have nice things isn’t that these economic systems don’t allow for it, it’s because some of the 3-5% of the population who exhibit sociopathic tendencies have long exploited the compassion that is present in most human beings. In short, all the good intentions in the world will equate to nothing when there are maniacs at the wheel.

Another glaring problem with this everlasting argument is that young people, myself included, tend to know very little about American history, in particular, the history of the radical left. How would we know? It feels eerily by design that we were never really taught about it, so why would we be concerned? It’s not mind-boggling that some would yearn for something besides an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of free enterprise (as originally intended), but rather as a return on money amassed through collusion between the business class and the political class. What I just described is called “crony capitalism” and it can certainly be seen as a negatively polarized usage of the free market system.

Communism and Socialism, however, despite the utopian light they are painted in, have historically been the source of untold death and suffering. The trauma that ALL of these systems have inflicted globally still haunts large portions of the human family. Here in the first world, we cry about crony capitalism (which has caused great suffering in more subtle ways) but we are at least still free to denounce a system that, for the time being, allows us the freedom to have a dissenting opinion.

Like many, I’ve wondered about potential socialist utopias; ways it could go right assuming you somehow had pure altruists controlling the state. But it’s hard to envision positive socialist futures when all we have to draw from in the past are the nightmares of Nazi Germany, Mao’s China, the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union, and Maduro’s Venezuela.  We can, however, learn much about modern socialism/communism, so long as we are willing, from the nearby island nation of Cuba.

Cuba

Cuba’s history has always been deeply intertwined with America’s. It was one of the last of the Spanish colonies in the Americas to declare independence, not actually becoming a Republic until 1902. Cuba enjoyed real freedom for roughly half a century, many consider this time period to be Cuba’s golden age. By and large, Cuba enjoyed a high standard of living for a long time, so much so that people were actually immigrating from Spain to Cuba. The 1950s saw Cuba’s first dictatorship by a man named Fulgencio Batista (who is rumored to have been backed by members of our own military-industrial complex).

Cuba eventually underwent a “revolution” and was labeled a soviet satellite state in the late 1950s and early 1960s. What was propped up as a revolution was simply a new brand of dictatorship devouring the old. Around this time the appearance of Cubans escaping in boats became a common sight off the coast of Florida.

Fidel Castro ruled uncontested for decades and was eventually replaced by the kinder face of Raul Castro, whose reign lasted until Donald Trump was approximately halfway through his time in office. Some had hoped that once the Castro regime ended, everything would revert back to the glory days of half a century prior. This hope was unfortunately a naive fairy tale.

The Cuban State is a monolithic system, and it did not just go away once the seat of power was vacated. Now that Cuba has one Miguel Diaz Canal at the wheel, who rose through the communist party ranks and assumed the position as the Cuban Head of State, business continues as usual.

Let’s dive into the reality of what has been touted as a “very successful socialist experiment”.

Very little exists outside of the state in Cuba, especially in the business sector. There’s a little bit of free enterprise here and there; some sole proprietors and Air Bnb’s, but aside from that everything else is run by the state, forcing Cubans to make their money abroad. Cubans do not have their own private checking accounts and most of the business has been nationalized. In the words of a Cuban immigrant:

“The Image you have of North Korea is not far off from the State of Cuba.”

A young Cuban-American girl recently took to TikTok and shared her truth about the state of Cuba. She claimed that there are no coffins, that when somebody dies in Cuba they wrap them in a sheet and take notes then leave the body to whomever they can find to claim it. In some cases, bodies would simply be tossed into backyards and left to decompose naturally in the Caribbean heat. She claims that electricity and water are cut as soon as the sun goes down each night and that if you dare to speak ill of the Communist party you run the risk of becoming a desaparecido (missing person by way of political suppression). Despite all that looming danger, the people have finally reached a boiling point and are actively protesting against their failed government.

How did these protests start?

According to Cuban American Author and entrepreneur Antonio Garcia-Martinez, the whole thing began when a bunch of disgruntled citizens decided to start yelling at a Communist Party headquarters. The protestors were apparently chanting pro-freedom sentiments and criticizing the State while waving American flags. According to actual Cuban citizens, there is a multitude of reasons for the current public uprising, but the mainstream media would have us believe the unrest is solely due to the people’s desire for better access to COVID pokes. Cuba has had a pretty rough economic situation for a long time, but the human rights violations were what pushed the general public over the edge. Despite their often praised healthcare system, poor access to medical treatment has been a symptom of the root problem, for the Cuban Government.

The people of Cuba are starting to mobilize for the first time in decades, the last time there were coordinated major demonstrations like this was nearly 30 years ago in 1994. When videos of the original protest began surfacing across the internet others were inspired to take action. It must have dawned on the State that allowing the citizens to continue having access to the internet was going to be a problem, so they did what any single party dictatorship worth their salt would do. They cut the internet, creating what in military jargon is called a communications blackout.

Sounds shocking, right? Consider this, it wasn’t actually until about 2008 that Cubans were even allowed to own cell phones, in fact, you could go to jail just for having one in your possession. Eventually, smartphones were permitted, but the internet works a little differently in Cuba. The kind of connection we enjoy here in America doesn’t really exist in Cuba; there are no private internet providers, and the State has the monopoly. To access the internet you can either go to these public access areas (which tend to be expensive and the quality of the connection is quite poor) or you can buy the popular but illegal el Paquete, which is the equivalent of putting a weeks worth of news, music, videos, etc on USB drives and selling them. In essence, it’s like viewing a tiny curated portion of the internet without actually being online. This will cost you 5 CUC (Cuban convertible peso) which in Cuba’s economy takes up a big chunk of the average citizen’s weekly earnings.

Back to the protests, which seemed to pop up, get heated, and then disappear just as suddenly as they came…  at least from our first-world perspective. The truth is that the protests are still ongoing, our Media has simply stopped reporting on them. Another factor that had a major damping effect was the State starting to really crackdown on the protestors, making arrests and even firing people from their jobs. Is any of this starting to sound familiar? On top of all that, the regime has the ability to just shut off the internet, one of the benefits of having everything centralized and controlled by the State.

Then you have BLM; one of several Marxist proxy armies, unironically blasting the United States for what’s happening in Cuba while completely ignoring the failed communist state they seem to love so much. Lest there be any doubt remaining that the Black Lives Matter crew has nothing to do with actual racial justice in America, look no further than their reaction to Cuba’s protests. The group put out a statement, not to condemn the authoritarian regime in Cuba for violently suppressing its people, but to berate the United States for its long-existing sanctions on the Communist state.

“Black Lives Matter condemns the U.S. federal government’s inhumane treatment of Cubans, and urges it to immediately lift the economic embargo,”

BLM said.()

“This cruel and inhumane policy, instituted with the explicit intention of destabilizing the country and undermining Cubans’ right to choose their own government, is at the heart of Cuba’s current crisis.”

The statement is, of course, exactly backward. The US sanctions Cuba precisely because its Communist dictators prevent the Cuban people from “the right to choose their own government.”

Reporter/commentator Nicole Hannah-Jones, who authored the 1619 project and is a staff writer at the New York Times, claims that equality in Cuba is because of socialism. Cuban American Antonio Garcia-Martinez laughs at this statement and quips, “Sure, if you make everyone poor then indeed inequality would be lower”. But even the Washington Post recently ran an article about the plight of Blacks in Cuba. Nicole Hannah-Jones and BLM are by far not the only ones singing the praises of the Cuban government for their own personal benefits. In addition, the likes of Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson-Lee have previously praised the Castro regime.

The usual pop-culture politicians like Bernie Sanders and AOC hail Cuba as a highly successful example of the “socialist experiment”, citing their amazing healthcare system and literacy program. Apparently, the healthcare system isn’t as great as touted since that is one of the many things the protestors are criticizing, and as far as the literacy program being some great socialist achievement, Antonio Garcia-Martinez claims that Cuba has had a higher literacy rate since well before the revolution.

The rhetoric coming from BLM and the left is that Trump’s trade embargo is the sole cause for all of the troubles in Cuba, this is actually just simple propaganda, but let’s go there for a moment. According to Antonio Garcia-Martinez, virtually none of the protesters on the ground have mentioned nor seem to care about the embargo. Cuba can trade freely with the rest of the world and avoiding trade with the US isn’t considered some new catastrophic thing, but for a short period during the Obama era, this has been standard Cuban/US relations.

Of course, you see the shameless partisan hacks in DC virtue signaling and “standing in solidarity” with the Cuban people by acting to remove the embargo, an embargo that was placed specifically to hinder the very same communist party the Cuban people are now actively protesting against. If you wanted to actually “Stand in Solidarity” and not just stand on the backs of a silenced and oppressed people, then you would try to bring more awareness to the human rights violations instead of warping a tragedy to fit your agenda. While Cuban Americans may claim that changing the Embargo isn’t going to do very much for the people,  it would, however, greatly benefit the State.

How long can these first-world pundits use Cuba as a shining example of a socialist experiment when you can now see (for the moment) videos of Cubans being beaten and arrested in the streets for dissention? Hundreds of Cubans are facing charges of inciting unrest, their families are worried about trials being held without due process, and a lot of these protestors (mostly young people) cannot get independent defense lawyers. The Communist party has released Rapid Reaction Brigades to police and squash all dissent, and while these brigades are carrying out actual government-sanctioned police brutality, BLM doesn’t bat an eye because it’s such a “successful Socialist experiment”.

Suffice to say that the Cuban government is not the biggest advocate for open communication. In a nation where the government limits internet access to control the flow of information, there is no telling how much deeper the abuses run. Cuban dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel openly called for violence when instructing his followers that “the order to combat has been given. Revolutionaries need to be on the streets.” Should the pro-freedom protesters escape a beatdown by unruly communists, they certainly cannot expect fair treatment, competent media exposure, and a trial by a jury once they have been arrested. Yet, they do what they can to make their voices heard just the same.

Many Americans believe the pro-freedom uprising in Cuba is a microcosm of everything we see happening in America today. As politicians and bureaucrats seek to tighten their grip on power, the everyday joe schmoes are stepping up to make their voices heard. Pockets of concerned citizens are fighting back against the onslaught of socialism as it covertly wraps its slimy tendrils around what’s left of the foundations of our constitutional Republic.

What can we do to help, both short term and long term, outside of self-aggrandizing social media posts?

There are documents circulating on the internet that list the names and details surrounding the growing number of desaparecidos, keeping the data centralized and alive. Continuing to share this sort of content keeps the reality fresh in the minds of those who care and is another example of how internet access has shaken things up in Cuba. Ron Desantis, the Governor of Florida, has written an open letter to the Biden Administration saying that the federal government should help restore internet access to the people of Cuba. FCC commissioner Brenden Carr echoed this sentiment and explained how we have the technology to easily override this. The internet, open communication, and freedom of speech are the most disruptful things that exist in a single-party dictatorship, so I believe enabling those three things is key.

Loon LLC, which exists under Sergey Brin’s big-tech umbrella company Alphabet, once used balloons to get WIFI to Puerto Rico when they were going through Hurricane Maria. It sounds wacky but a lot of different private companies have R&D teams working on new ways to transmit WIFI long distance. Facebook was working on a way to use satellites to beam the internet all across the planet, but these supposedly “woke” tech companies would have to actually choose to do this, which will hopefully happen as soon as it benefits them to do so. These are all things that will help but will require compliance of big business and big tech. We can, at the very least, continue to apply pressure and keep the fight alive by writing letters and joining demonstrations here on US soil to raise awareness.

Why Should Americans even care?

What is happening in Cuba is a symptom of a many decades-long push for a global centralized government. If Americans care about freedom and democracy at home and abroad then they should care about the 10 million people living under the yolk of Communism just 90 miles away from US territory. There’s a huge Cuban exile community in Florida who take voting far more seriously than your average young American, and from a strictly political standpoint, people in power should want to help for that reason alone. The real big one though, the crown reason for wanting to help the Cuban people, is simply because it is the right thing to do. I personally cannot imagine an argument where anyone could successfully defend why the Cuban people shouldn’t have free access to the internet and the freedom of open communication with the rest of the world.

The perfectly timed flood of immigrants across the southern border into blue states and federally funded sanctuary cities, creating an easily launderable multi-billion dollar racket is all fine and good, yet the DHS director under Joe Biden recently decided that he didn’t want Cubans coming over. It’s as if they’re saying “Oh, we only want these immigrants over here that benefit us, not those immigrants”.

Despite the poor treatment from the current administration, the Cuban people still wave the American flag and call for freedom. Regardless of whoever is in office at the time, our flag stands for what America could and should be. To those who have been conditioned to hate the country they live in and are the stewards of, I invite you to try living in Cuba for a while.

Hong Kong

A lot of westerners don’t realize that Britain controlled Hong Kong for over a hundred and fifty years, besides a brief Japanese occupation during the second world war, and did not fully return to Chinese rule until 1997. It was ceded to Britain after the First Opium War, becoming a British colony or territory. It wasn’t until the 1970s and 1980s that conversations even began between the Chinese and the British over the future of Hong Kong.

The agreement made in 1997 was that Hong Kong would be allowed to maintain the high degree of autonomy it had enjoyed while under British rule, with all the freedom and basic rights that people in mainland China could only dream of, though Hong Kong would once again belong to China. The agreement stated that for 50 years things would remain unchanged in Hong Kong, this was ratified by the UN and supported by the US. Fifty years of democratic life, 50 years of autonomy. The relevant slogan was “One country, two systems.” Hong Kong would be the little exception in vast, Communist-ruled China. Today, however, the Joint Declaration, which was meant to protect the freedoms and autonomy of Hong Kong, has been eroded, broken, and is worth less than the paper it was printed on.

To be fair, a lot of folks were skeptical from the beginning that a single country could maintain two separate systems, especially when one system is communist and the other is to be pseudo-democratic, free-market capitalist. Actually, Hong Kong was never fully democratic. From 1982 to 1997, Hong Kong went from having no form of an elected government to having a fully elected Legislative Council (though not entirely by geographical constituencies). Under Chinese sovereignty after the 1st of July 1997, Hong Kong had regressed to its pre-democracy days as a result of establishing appointed provisional bodies in place of the elected ones.

There was still freedom of the Press, freedom of speech, freedom to a fair trial, and the freedom of assembly… all of which ran quite contrary to mainland China. These factors, which largely led to Hong Kong becoming a prime financial hub for international business, are nonexistent today. Hong Kong is actually an unprecedented situation, never before have we seen a city or state (of 7 million+ people) have their rights stripped away in such a remarkably short period of time. Hong Kong was promised 50 years of autonomy and received less than half of that.

Vivian Wang and Alexandra Stevenson of the New York Times filed a dispatch from Hong Kong in June of 2021. The subheading for their dispatch read, “Neighbors are urged to report on one another. Children are taught to look for traitors. Officials are pressed to pledge their loyalty.” Here was one detail, among many — not the most horrifying by a long shot, but striking all the same:

“Police officers have been trained to goose-step in the Chinese military fashion, replacing decades of British-style marching.”

If you are unfamiliar with the goose step, take a quick detour to IMG search in your preferred search engines to really get the full ambiance of the picture they’re trying to paint.

The pro-democracy movement is a political camp in Hong Kong that supports increased democracy, namely the universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council as given by the Hong Kong Basic Law under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. The movement has been around since before the 1997 handover and typically receives about 55-60% of the vote in each election. The pro-democracy activists emerged from the youth movements in the 1970s and began to take part in electoral politics as the colonial government introduced representative democracy in the mid-1980s. Samuel Chu, Managing Director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, has been a part of the movement for years and has seen firsthand how China has crippled the movement.

“The pro-democracy movement has been so central and vital for the 30+ years in Hong Kong, (it is) a movement that my father was a leader in, a movement that I have participated in for years, and now, today, all of those leaders of the pro-democracy movement are either in jail, under house arrest, living in exile, or just stripped of their rights to speak out.”

-Samuel Chu

So how did this happen? China was supposed to give Hong Kong 50 years of autonomy but little by little the CCP began seizing more and more control. There wasn’t much that the people could do about it, when China wants to control something it’s going to control it, and the country is historically unapologetic about its’ strong-arm tactics.

Within the aforementioned 50-year deal, it was promised that steps would be taken to ensure universal voting rights to its citizens by 2010. There was an unease among people in the movement as to whether or not even the status quo would remain intact for very long, let alone if China would allow all of Hong Kong’s citizens the right to elect their own Chief Executive and Legislative Council. Instead, by 2010 China had actually reversed its stand, deciding not to go through with the promised democratization. This reversal spurred what was known as the Umbrella Movement and the Hong Kong Democracy Protests of 2014. These protests would prove to be the largest act of civil disobedience in Hong Kong’s history up to that point.

Hong Kong Protests

In the fall of 2014, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers took to the streets. For 79 days they took over the financial district and made their discontent known, claiming China had broken its promise to the people. China responded by explaining that to them the agreement was no more than a historic document and was worth nothing. Many members of the Pro-Democracy movement were prosecuted for the peaceful protest in 2014, by the time they were sentenced in 2018 China had proposed a new law giving the CCP the ability to extradite Hong Kong citizens to the mainland to be tried in what is thought of as a highly corrupt and unfair Judicial System.

This is what led to the rise of the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement and their subsequent protests in 2019. Two million Hong Kongers once again took to the streets to voice their distrust toward the CCP and to state as loudly as possible that they did not want their citizens extradited. Samuel Chu, whose father was tried in Hong Kong for organizing the peaceful protests in 2014, claims that the two-year sentence he received from the Hong Kong courts would have been for life if he had been tried on the mainland.

Since that time, in response to the protests on the ground and overseas efforts, China implemented what is called the “National Security Law”. Within this law is article 38, which clearly states that anyone, anywhere, whether or not they be a Hong Kong or Chinese citizen, can be charged under the National Security law for saying or doing anything deemed threatening to the CCP Samuel Chu is no stranger to article 38. Even though he has been an American citizen since 1996 and is really only guilty of advocating for Basic Law in Hong Kong, he has still found himself on a list of fugitives wanted by the CCP.

Some may recall the arrest of free-press advocate Jimmy Lai, which proved that even the head of a multi-million dollar company could not stand against the Chinese Communist Party. Jimmy Lai had been overtly vocal about the CCP’s dealings worldwide, slamming the Catholic Church for signing a treaty or “Provisional Agreement” with the CCP to further the parties’ control over religious freedoms, and slammed Joe Biden prior to the election for kowtowing to party leader Xi Jinping. It didn’t take long for the CCP to completely annihilate Lai’s free press.

Apple Daily was Hong Kong’s largest independent paper for over twenty years and was arguably one of the biggest critics of the CCP still in print, that is until the aforementioned National Security law was used to destroy the entire company. Apple Daily was raided twice by Hong Kong police, once on August 10, 2020, and again on June 17, 2021. These raids and subsequent freeze of capital forced the 26-year-old newspaper to close its doors in June 2021.  As for Jimmy Lai, he has been in jail since last December without any substantial convictions, and will likely remain there indefinitely.

Despite all the slant and spin coming from Fortune 500 news outlets, this story is relevant as we see the behavior of the American mainstream media and Big-Tech platforms beginning to eerily mirror what has been commonplace in both Hong Kong and Cuba. It doesn’t bode well that we have a President who by all accounts appears to be at least in bed if not subservient to the Chinese Communist Party, and has completely neglected the plight of the Cuban people. If the systemic throttling of the free flow of information is allowed to continue unchallenged in America, chances are this type of crackdown could spread worldwide.

Should the US and the UK be more active in trying to help Hong Kong?

Xi Jinping is presiding over what has been called the nastiest and most oppressive period in China’s history since Mao’s cultural revolution. Samuel Chu believes that the US and the UK, who were instrumental in working with China to draw up the foundation for Hong Kong’s short-lived autonomy, should come back to the table and help uphold the promises made to Hong Kong. In many cases concerning the average American citizen, there seems to be a bipartisan desire to stand with the people of Hong Kong, but when it comes to elected officials or to those with the means to do something, the buck has been passed.

As Human Rights Watch noted in a recent report, the Chinese government is now pressing residents to pledge public loyalty to the government in Beijing. It is turning the police and courts into “tools of Chinese state control rather than independent and impartial enforcers of the rule of law.” Candidates considered insufficiently loyal to China have been barred from running for Hong Kong’s electoral council. Academic freedom is under attack. Websites have been blocked, museums harassed, films canceled, political slogans banned, and school curricula rewritten. Sound familiar? Rather than helping Hong Kong stop the death of democracy at the hands of a totalitarian regime, it’s starting to look as though we are copying their playbook instead.

Despite American intervention potentially being a conflict of interest for our current administration, the debate continues as to whether or not the US should do anything. Richard Haass, the former director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department under George W. Bush, has voiced the stance of the western elite:

“We don’t have the luxury of building a foreign policy that is centered on promoting the rule of democracy and human rights, so our influence is limited… We can vent, but we should have no illusions that it’ll change the situation on the ground in Hong Kong. That may seem cruel, but it’s a fact of life.”

Many have interpreted this to mean that what is occurring in Hong Kong is desirable for the international foreign policy elite. Remember, this statement is coming from a man who is now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a globalist hotbed and arguably the most influential think-tank on the planet.

In contrast to Richard Haas’ pessimism or complete disinterest toward the United States in helping the people of Hong Kong, Samuel Chu’s argument sounds a little more optimistic. Chu claims there is actually a lot that could be done: helping fight censorship and circumvent the coming internet firewall, helping activists get out of the country when China comes after them, working to strengthen the civil society groups, and pressuring businesses in Hong Kong not to go along with the repression are just a few examples. Despite Chu’s optimism, the Biden administration doesn’t seem interested in upholding the right to free speech in its own country let alone in a far-off city.

It is hard to say what’s in store for America, as it stands now the general population seems to be going for each other’s throats in a tribalist partisan pissing contest, one in which neither side would care much about a totalitarian regime in the United States, as long as their team wins. So with the figurative caution signs sounding off all around us,  we can now see that the warnings from Cuba and Hong Kong are falling on deaf ears.  Perhaps even worse, they are being intentionally ignored.

 

SOURCES:

https://justthenews.com/world/latin-america/five-high-ranking-cuban-military-leaders-die-10-day-span?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-megyn-kelly-show/id1532976305?i=1000529621052&utm_source=JangoMail&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Good+News+Friday+July+23+(342711841)&utm_content=

Click to access 4338924-42.Young.pdf

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/hong-kong-snuffed-out/#slide-1

Click to access wang_2013.pdf

https://nypost.com/2020/07/07/chinas-security-law-for-hong-kong-aims-to-block-global-criticism/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Daily_raids_and_arrests

https://www.hrw.org/feature/2021/06/25/dismantling-free-society/hong-kong-one-year-after-national-security-law

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-30/china-hong-kong-national-security-law

No Oversight: Who Does the FBI Really Work For?

By ,

Ryan DeLarme

The FBI has had a pretty murky track record in recent years, leading many to wonder if the domestic intelligence service still works with the best interest of the American people in mind. Whether it’s hatching the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer or helping to orchestrate and execute the January 6th photo op, it’s starting to appear as though the Bureau’s become a tool of the political elite.

There’s new evidence coming out suggesting that the FBI has been warped into something far-flung from its original purpose, operating by its own rules with seemingly no oversight from anyone. Inspector General Michael Horowitz recently issued a new report on the FBI’s execution of the Woods Procedures for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications, and it has been called “damning”.

Last year, Horowitz reviewed 29 random FISA applications and found that the FBI was “not meeting the expectations of its own protocols.”

The FISA court has a questionable track record for excusing government misconduct as was recently displayed by the sentencing of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. After he went to great lengths to lie to a federal court and, when caught, lied by saying he didn’t really intend to lie; Clinesmith received only a year of probation. Many have been left wondering what such leniency says about the FISA Court’s “heightened duty of candor” If there aren’t heightened punishments for violating that duty.

The FISA abuse scandal isn’t the only negative press currently directed at the FBI. During a recent Senate Judiciary hearing on how the FBI failed to investigate alleged sexual abuse by former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) interrupted the proceedings when he reported that the FBI had failed to respond to the Republican Senator’s letters and also that,  they had declined to meet with him “month after month, year after year, at any time for any reason”. This is significant considering that Grassley is a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and has been for a long time.

According to Senator Grassley:

“I’ve asked Director Wray several times to meet with me relating to a very troubling briefing that I received in August 2020 from the FBI and which was later weaponized against my and Senator Johnson’s oversight. Director Wray and his staff have ignored my request to meet.”

In short, a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee can’t get the FBI to meet with him. This begs the question: does Congress have any real oversight on the FBI? Does the Bureau serve the American people or only select establishment politicians?

Senator Grassley has recently released a letter that offers some insight to the average American citizen as to how our government really works.

On August 6, 2020, we received a briefing from the FBI which, according to the FBI, was done in conjunction with the Intelligence Community (IC). This briefing was done because of political pressure from Democratic Leadership, not because of any real threat.

We have asked to meet with FBI Director Christopher Wray to discuss our concerns and have requested records relating to the briefing; however, he and his Chief of Staff, Corey Ellis, have refused to answer our communications and have failed to provide any answers or information.

FBI leadership’s failure to respond to congressional inquiries not only undermines the FBI as an institution, it also undermines the work of its dedicated agents and staff.

On July 13, 2020, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Mark Warner, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Representative Adam Schiff sent a letter, with a classified attachment, to the FBI to express a purported belief that Congress was the subject of a foreign disinformation campaign.

In that letter, which was publicly released on July 20, 2020, they requested a briefing on foreign efforts to interfere in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The classified attachment included unclassified elements that, among other things, attempted — and failed — to tie our joint investigation into the Biden family’s foreign financial deals to foreign disinformation.  

So, Schumer, Warner, Pelosi, and Schiff were trying to slow down Grassley and Johnson’s “joint investigations into the Biden family’s foreign financial deals.” How did the Democrats do it? By using their go-to strategy of leaking to their allies in the corporate media of course. The letter continues:

Then, on May 1, 2021, the Washington Post reported on “an extensive effort by the [FBI] to alert members of Congress…that they faced a risk of being used to further Russia’s attempt to influence the election’s outcome[.]”

This statement was attributed to “several current and former U.S. officials” who remained anonymous “because the matter remains highly sensitive.”

The article then inaccurately proceeded to link Russian disinformation attempts to our investigation, which was based on Obama administration government records and records that showed extensive financial connections between the Biden family and questionable foreign nationals, including individuals connected to the communist Chinese government’s military and intelligence services.

The Washington Post reporting purported to be based, in part, on an August 6, 2020, briefing that we received from the FBI, which, as the timeline above illustrates, happened in response to pressure from Democratic Leadership. The briefing was not specific. Moreover, it consisted primarily of information that we already knew and information unconnected to our investigation.

We made clear to the FBI briefers on August 6, 2020, that the briefing was not relevant to the substance of our work.

We also made clear our concern that the briefing would be subject to a leak that would shed a false light on the focus of our investigation. Indeed, the Washington Post article did exactly that and so did the other inaccurate media articles.

During your review of Crossfire Hurricane, you identified that counterintelligence briefings for Trump campaign officials were used by the FBI as intelligence gathering operations, concerns that we raised with the Justice Department on April 25, 2019, after we discovered text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Specifically, Peter Strzok was primarily responsible for assisting the FBI agent that would be at those briefings.

In response to your findings, Director Wray established new protocols for these transition briefings to keep potential political considerations out of the decision-making process. Specifically, Director Wray noted that these briefings “should be for national security purposes and not for investigative purposes.”

Senator Grassley and Senator Ron Johnson were credited with the discovery of the now famous text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page as well as discovering that Strzok was the one of the crooked agents who used intel briefings to spy on Trump  in 2019 prior to being fired. Director Wray promised to put a stop to these phony briefings that end up getting leaked to the media, yet it happened again to Grassley and Johnson last year while investigating “the Biden family’s foreign financial dealings”.

This information is compelling regardless of which side of the political aisle one falls on. When senators start informing the people during public hearings in Congress that the FBI is setting them up with fake briefings and then stonewalling them once caught, it makes one wonder whether or not Congress is actually in charge anymore. If the FBI can engage in this sort of activity against ranking members of the Judiciary Committee, the mind shudders to think of what they might do to the average citizens of our diminishing republic.