During a discussion about Latino/Hispanic views on immigration, the polling stunned the CNN narrative engineers. Host Anderson Cooper sits jaw agape as the CNN pollster shows the results. WATCH:
.
This is a good opportunity to emphasize a key point that is often missed. In the research and discussion outline yesterday, about Joe Biden’s EPA publishing new regulations for the auto industry, we dove deep into the background of what actually creates the issue. {GO DEEP}
The issue that should concern everyone is not the Joe Biden administration and their ideology around climate change, or the EPA, or even the viability of EVs themselves. The issue that should draw the biggest concern is how the regulation originates; what is the impetus; who are the beneficiaries?
The regulation itself did not originate in the EPA, nor was it created from an origination process amid climate ideologues in the administration. Everything starts with BlackRock positioning their assets. From that empirical point, all political activity then takes place, which includes the regulations to support the BlackRock objective.
A massive, multinational investment firm is in control of political outcomes in the USA. That should be the emphasis, not necessarily the regulation that flows as an outcome of that control, and certainly not the debate over whether EVs are a viable alternative to combustion engines.
BlackRock, and the control agents of finance, banking and investment, would like nothing more than to see Congress have debates about climate change, the viability of EVs as an alternative to combustion engines, the nuances of power grid generation from alternative energy sources, the scale of energy need as estimated and debated for the next two decades, etc.
All these points of debate become useful political policy issues that divide and contrast. Sure, Congress would love to hold hearings about EV viability, U.S. grid compliance, the need for subsidized charging stations, etcetera, etcetera. Because what is not discussed in this debate is where the subject matter comes from.
Dan Goldman is a Lawfare trust fund millionaire who was installed in Congress specifically to construct Lawfare arguments during testimony and defend Obama/Biden’s interests. Before taking office, Goldman was the outside government Lawfare counselor selected by the impeachment committee to question witnesses. That’s his sole purpose, and the reason for existing.
After entering Congress, via New York, Goldman continues his Lawfare objectives from inside government. Today, Goldman’s target was former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski, who was giving testimony about the Biden family financial schemes. At the conclusion of Goldman’s parseltongue, Bobulinski called him “a liar.” The Lawfare leftists are big mad. WATCH:
.
It’s a little funny, but trying not to be outdone, AOC applied the same confrontational style. The problem is that AOC is at an intellectual disadvantage; it didn’t go too well.
The backstory is so transparently corrupt it requires an explanation, so we’ll go down the full rabbit hole and explain how China knew – to a demonstrable certainty – their multi-billion dollar investment in Mexican EV plants would be useful.
First, who was installed in the Biden White House in charge of all personnel and staffing? Catherine Russell. {SEE HERE} Who is Catherine Russell? She’s the wife of Tom Donilon, a long-time aid and advisor to Joe Biden who served in the Obama White House.
After serving as Obama’s National Security Advisor (prior to Susan Rice), Tom Donilon then went on to become “Chairman of the BlackRock Investment Institute {SEE HERE}.” His job was literally to “leverage the firm’s expertise and generate proprietary research to provide insights on the global economy, markets, geopolitics and long-term asset allocation.”
In essence, the Donilon family represented the interests of Blackrock in the White House.
Second, Tom Donilon’s brother, Mike Donilon is a Senior Advisor to Joe Biden {link} providing guidance on what policies should be implemented within the administration. Mike Donilon guides the focus of spending, budgets, regulation and white house policy from his position of Senior Advisor to the President.
In June of 2022, Blackrock’s Tom Donilon was then appointed to be co-chair of U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board {SEE HERE}, in charge of U.S-China policy. Can you see where this is going?
Blackrock, a massive multinational investment firm with assets in the tens-of-trillions, was essentially guiding/constructing the policymaking of the White House, through Tom Donilon, Mike Donilon and Catherine Russell (Tom’s wife). Blackrock then took out massive investment stakes in China, including in the Chinese auto-making industry, with specific focus on EVs. Tom Donilon, now shifting to the State Dept and guiding US-China policy, was the Blackrock government embed, ensuring policy that would keep their investments lucrative.
Atlanta Judge Scott McAfee ruled today that President Trump, and eight other co-defendants in the Georgia election fraud case, can proceed with an emergency appeal of his decision last week. That decision allowed lying Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to stay on the prosecution despite her affair with the special prosecutor she hired to oversee it, and despite the lies she told trying to hide it.
[SOURCE]
In a brief order issued Wednesday, Judge Scott McAfee granted the certificate of immediate review requested by President Trump. They are now expected to ask the Georgia Court of Appeals to take up the disqualification battle before the case goes to trial. (media)
Within the U.K the timing of the 2024 election is decided by the Prime Minister [LINK]. “Prime Minister Rishi Sunak can call an election at any time up to Dec. 17, with the election taking place 25 working days later.” Most political followers expect PM Sunak to hold the election in the Autum of this year.
Now watch:
[Transcript] – “GB News is under threat. The other broadcasters don’t like it. Adam Boulton, long-time veteran of Sky News, said that GB News was damaging the ecosystem of broadcasting, by which he means it’s our little club and we don’t question climate change or mass immigration. We thought EU membership was wonderful, how dare you come along and give us a hard time.
Now the problems are getting very, very real. The industry is regulated by Ofcom. They have decided to put my programme under investigation on the basis they say that I’m a politician. Well, you know what? Even I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here had me as an ex-politician. I am not actively involved in politics at all, but they don’t like it. And some more of the great and the good are hosting a conference in Sheffield. Have a look at this. It’s absolutely bizarre.
Oral arguments were heard today in the appeal of the government against the states of Louisiana, Missouri and seven plaintiffs who claim that Biden officials, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to suppress or delete content about COVID-19 that federal officials found objectionable.
The Biden administration had an extensive communication pipeline into Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and various subsidiary tech companies where instructions, the government says “encouragement”, were/was given about the removal of content critical of the government position, and the removal of content providers – American citizens. Full Hearing Audio:
Making the case for the Biden administration, Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher led the way. “We don’t think it’s possible for the government — through speech alone — to transform private speakers into state actors,” he said.
Fletcher said the government didn’t engage in coercion — which he said would be unconstitutional — just encouragement and persuasion for the social media platforms to enforce their existing rules at the time barring Covid-19 misinformation. “If it stays on the persuasion side of the line — and all we’re talking about is government speech — then there’s no state action and there’s also no First Amendment problem,” he said. “I think it’s clear this is exhortation, not threat.”
Louisiana state Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, arguing for the plaintiffs, said the speech the platforms were suppressing wasn’t their own speech but those of third parties, ordinary Americans. Aguiñaga also said the users often had no idea they were being impacted by the federal effort to prod the platforms to take down content. “The bulk of it is behind closed doors. That is what is so pernicious about it,” he said.
The questioning by the majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared to favor the government, in large part due to the inability of the plaintiffs to outline direct actionable harm to them as an outcome of the regulation of their speech by the tech platforms. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the case by late June.
For some reason CBS Sunday Morning put Christine Blasey-Ford back into the media cycle with an interview about her life after accusing Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh of sexual assault. {Full Interview Here} The CBS motive appears to be restimulating the gender vote in an election year.
Blasey-Ford comes across as she did in the original 2018 fiasco; detached from the information and regretting she ever participated. For those who know the entire deep weeds backstory of the Rehoboth “beach friends,” former and current DOJ people who are now constructing political Lawfare, it is well accepted Blasey-Ford was a tool for their use. Heck, the accuser never even penned the letter she was conscripted to write to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Hook, WATCH]
The resurfacing of Blasey-Ford may be intended to stimulate the gender vote, but has the potential to backfire if people start to dig deep into this prior storyline. Within the 2018 background, and with the application of hindsight, all of the Lawfare “beach friends” become visible.
Names like Mary McCord, David Laufman, Monica McLean and Michael Bromwich all swirl around the construct that used Blasey-Ford as the vessel for their hit against Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee. The Senate investigation into the Blasey-Ford accusations was quickly dropped by the media after the investigative staff began to discover the network and connections.
A contrast that highlights how far the west has fallen. Russia holds transparent elections and Vladimir Putin wins 87% of the vote, resoundingly being reelected; yet Biden calls it a dictatorship. Meanwhile Ukraine cancels all elections, Zelensky declares the political opposition party unlawful; yet Biden calls it a democracy.
The totalitarian areas and liberty areas are inverting, a direct outcome of western governments cleaving the globe. What they now call “globalism” or “multinationalism” is a fracturing of the international compact, where the “western democracies” separates from the rest of the world. This reality is increasingly obvious to the ordinary person, and the Ukraine vs Russia war narrative stands as evidence of how abusive Western government gaslighting has become.
(Via Reuters) – President Vladimir Putin won a record post-Soviet landslide in Russia’s election on Sunday, cementing his already tight grip on power in a victory he said showed Moscow had been right to stand up to the West and send its troops into Ukraine.
[…] The outcome means Putin, 71, is set to embark on a new six-year term that will see him overtake Josef Stalin and become Russia’s longest-serving leader for more than 200 years if he completes it.
Putin won 87.8% of the vote, the highest ever result in Russia’s post-Soviet history, according to an exit poll by pollster the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM). The Russian Public Opinion Research Centre (VCIOM) put Putin on 87%. First official results indicated the polls were accurate. The United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and other nations have said the vote was neither free nor fair due to the imprisonment of political opponents and censorship.
Having previously written about the issue of three major Chinese EV makers putting massive investment into production facilities, the remarks by President Trump in Ohio warning of a “bloodbath” in the auto industry are exactly accurate. {Background Context Here}
According to media, last December the three Chinese auto manufacturers, MG, BYD, and Chery, announced they were going to spend billions building new EV manufacturing plants in Mexico. Each Chinese auto manufacturer was going to spend between $1.5 to $2.0 billion. The Chinese don’t make that much of an investment in something unless they are sure the U.S. government is going to force the EV market to exist. These manufacturing plants would crush the U.S EV market.
Drawing attention to the issue, President Trump said he can stop the pending crisis. However, if he did not win the election the American auto industry would end up with a “bloodbath” of closed plants, lost jobs and diminished labor union workforce. Trump is not wrong. WATCH:
.
Showcasing the absolute lying fake news that most American media have become, all of the news agencies reported these comments to be about general “violence, retribution and retaliation” by Trump if he lost the election. Reuters even twisted the comments to say, “Trump predicts the end of U.S. democracy if he loses 2024 election.”
Last December, when the original reports of the big three Chinese automakers were released, the headline was, “Chinese EV giants are planning factories in Mexico, and it’s alarming US officials.” Yet somehow, drawing attention to that exact same issue three months later is the end of democracy or something.