A PRAGMATIC AND GRANULAR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW AND WHY COVID-19 FUNCTIONS AS A POLITICAL CONSTRUCT – Examining how the enemy operates by comparing COVID-19 to failed impeachment

23 Mar 20 (SIXTEENTH article in a series)

Here’s the downside to using a global viral pandemic as cover for a nefarious Globalist agenda – viral pandemics are natural occurrences that have and will continue to manifest over the course of human history. I suppose that it’s akin to something like blaming an earthquake on someone. Those, too, have and will continue to happen over time as natural events. That poses a problem for these people and it leads to our key word: transfer (of authority). It’s redundant throughout because it’s the fulcrum point in both COVID-19 and the failed impeachment as political constructs.

What we’re really focusing on here today (and in all of this, really) is the subtlety and nuance in politics whereby one entity is leveraging legal mechanisms applicable to designated targets so as to trigger those mechanisms and cause certain, predetermined outcomes to manifest. Subsequently, the target is exposed to the dynamics of the predetermined outcome/s. When the target interfaces with those dynamics as coupled with the target’s response, the details of those events are normally used to set, adjust or alter the narrative in predetermined, chosen ways. The public’s interface with this is through the MSM – that’s the delivery point for the end product, which is essentially manufactured and shaped propaganda (see SMITH-MUNDT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2012.)

That’s what a construct is and it’s nothing new. It’s an archaic strategy. In both cases – the COVID-19 construct (our hypothesis) and the Democrats’ failed impeachment effort – the political constructs were designed to cause a TRANSFER of authority, but in different ways; for different reasons and with entirely different outcomes, other than furthering the treasonous and seditious effort against this duly elected president. In the case of the COVID-19, the transfer functions to usurp emergency powers granted to the President of the United States while also establishing a landscape of controversy to be used to further extend the unrelenting attack on him. In the case of impeachment, the transfer functioned to impede and obfuscate that same President’s right to timely due process as a function of the broader effort to undermine and attack him and his administration as much as it worked for campaign, political and self-preservation purposes. It’s all different, but it’s all the same and it’s all rooted in transferring authority to hi-jack authority or impede it.

The global pandemic is a clever choice for the context of a political construct and for many significant reasons (look around you right now); especially the fluidity and adaptability aspects of it. As a construct, this pandemic functions in a very real and deliberate capacity so as to compel a US president to defer to “experts” as predicated on the concept that “virology,” “epidemiology,” and “pandemic response” are relatively beyond the reasonable scope of the President’s “expertise.” In this case, there are aspects of the President’s authority under emergency declarations that are essentially being transferred to others; in-part or in-full; and due to their relative expertise superseding his. This represents the nuanced, subtle strategy of real politics where a transfer of authority is the crucial mechanism. If you own those who are receiving aspects of the President’s authority, you now own that authority (read the last article to understand why that should worry the hell out of you and as you do, recall that the last major false flag event [9/11] you’ll recall that it, too, occurred under a Republican administration and for good reason.)

Think back to the failed impeachment. It was much the same in the sense that the President’s enemies maneuvered to shift to the Senate the House’s investigatory onus and its duty to present a complete case. By doing so, it opened an extra-constitutional; if not unconstitutional, vector to facilitate hyper-partisan politics and thus deliberately muck up the entire process; possibly grinding it to an excruciatingly slow pace and all of the way up to and past the election (see THIS for deeper understanding). But what is the fundamental aspect (the mechanism) of it all? It’s the mechanism of transfer. With impeachment, the House intentionally sent weak articles to the Senate to force an extra-constitutional transfer of the House’s authority and investigatory onus to the Senate. Technically, that was the strategy (to drag it through the election…. and then he beat it all. On to the next strategy? You better believe it.)

This hypothetical COVID-19 political construct we are exploring is no different as it too has a transfer mechanism embedded in it. Just like the House>Senate transfer opened a vector for engagement in hyper-partisan politics as it delayed and prevented due process, the Trump>Fauci/Birx transfer opened a legal portal whereby aspect of the President’s legal oversight and response authority can be justifiably transferred to others; namely Fauci and Birx. It’s Fauci and Birx who are leading-out on the oversight of pandemic response and they are doing so as partnered-up with Bill Gates and China; both funding and steering the World Health Organization. This was all as established in the Obama/Trump transition meeting on 13 Jan 17 during administrative transition meetings.

So, it’s the transfer mechanism aspect is most important. This is politics. The playing field is regulated by the broad, vast and deep body of law surrounding it and within it; and the minutia of details therein. It’s how those details are leveraged and exploited for gain that represent the finer points of playing hardball in DC. Constructing ways to trigger such a transfer of authority like we are seeing right now is a perfect example.

Understand that all of this – from the transition meeting to the President’s compulsory deference to experts – is a function of law. The President has no choice here – morally, ethically and legally he is bound to play by the rules and by that, the law; and thankfully so (see Obama administration for an analog of the opposite.) So, in this case, Trump takes his backseat as he is bound to do and he adjusts course to shape the landscape through the alternative vectors that he can control. This dynamic explains why you see Fauci and Birx kind of, sort of playing nice with a testy Trump but with real, noticeable and palpable tension between all the players as I demonstrated with video in this ARTICLE.

Although the fluidity and adaptability of a viral pandemic allows bad actors with nefarious intentions to have the capacity to essentially act with impunity while ushering-in myriad draconian response measures and justifying and rationalizing them to an accepting American people eager to find any form of relief, it’s awfully difficult to blame a virus on a President. So then, how do you package it and make it palatable for the American people and such that they understand that it is 100% the fault of “orange man bad?”

Here’s how. In order to hang someone with the viral pandemic rope, there has to be a constructive element to it and for the reason of establishing pretext. If you have read my stuff, you know that establishing pretext is both a) something I talk about regularly and b) a function of politicians and the MSM. Identifying pretext accurately is a useful strategy in finding truth and meaning because in order to do that, any construct would have to come full circle and back to pretext to close the loop fully. Understand that the primary purpose of pretext is establishing the foundation for future criticism. In this case and through one lens, it’s to insert the basis for, “We told you about this and you chose not to listen!”

Look no further that what we are seeing today in the MSM – all of the criticism is rooted in failure to prepare, failure to heed warning, failure to craft an effective response plan, failure to meet needs, failure to act in a timely manner, failure to act appropriately before the outbreak, etc. In order to attack the President on this issue, his enemies are forced to narrow their scope tightly. They will be prevented from baseless attacks because as they predetermined, epidemiology, virology and pandemic response are not within the scope of his area of expertise. That’s right. Sometimes the political details that are leveraged have two sharply honed edges and one of them cuts oppositely back against the grain. This dynamic will drive how they are required to attack the President.

So, here’s what you can do, though. You can force him to stand down to your own people. Sound familiar? See Birx and Fauci (and see the last several articles.)

The President’s scope of responsibility pertaining to his legal authority, his policy decisions and his moral and ethical obligations are the only vectors through which his opponents can criticize him on this matter. Consequently, his opponents and enemies are relegated to attacking these policy decisions and actions; but not him alone aside from the normal insanity we regularly hear anyway. And I’m not saying they won’t try, but that it won’t be effective if they do.

To effectively persuade the American people that the broader COVID-19 matter is somehow the President’s fault, understand that prima facie baseless attacks will be highly ineffective outside of only the most ardent, irrational Kool-Aid drinkers on the Left. Poll numbers and event crowd sizes for POTUS rallies relative to Democratic campaign events suggest that the President’s enemies are forced to attack him only in specific ways otherwise those efforts will bear no fruit and they know it.

Therefore, they MUST attack the specific areas of his policy, legal, moral and ethical responsibility germane to the dynamics this pandemic presents. That precise political force (and reality) shapes the form of that criticism takes in the MSM. That’s an important indicator supportive of the construct hypothesis – how the source narrative aligns with the MSM narrative. And what do you know? The current MSM criticism EXACTLY MIRRORS the 13 Jan 17 transition pretext that Obama and his Globalist masters inserted into President Trump’s then incoming administration. It’s exactly what we’ve been seeing in the MSM all along; almost by design, if not by design….. it’s by design.

In order to set this construct in place, some form of pandemic seed (PRETEXT!) must have been sown into the Trump administration and early on. Referring to the last several ARTICLES, through one hypothesis I’ve demonstrated unequivocally that seed was sown on 13 Jan 17 during the Obama/Trump transition meeting and converging with the MSM’s revelations of the cooked-up Flynn/Russia allegations; and with Flynn taking part in said transition meeting. As they do with everything else, they hid the construct among all of the other topics and scenarios that were presented in the transition meeting that day. It’s not like a viral pandemic was the only topic; far from it.

The messaging from Obama officials was virtually instant. The criticism began almost immediately you can see from the press at that time and as you’ll not in MSM coverage today.

Before we go, recall what the Left was doing as COVID-19 was unfolding in real time: standing down and pushing impeachment. For one, the Bill Gates and China controlled WHO was downplaying the entirety of it all as were the usually suspect Democrats. At that time, early on, when the President did take appropriate action, said remedies were used as openings for cheap shots using company lines like “racist!” Why?

What about impeachment. It sure seems to me that impeachment was a distraction from a grander scheme unfolding in parallel fashion. As the WHO was downplaying the emergence of the virus, American politicians, with an ulterior agenda and a nasty “orange man bad” disposition, vitriolically peddled a fraudulent impeachment narrative with the effect of grinding the federal apparatus to a halt. Why? Like I said. It sure seems that impeachment may have been cover for a grander scheme.

Consider everything I’ve outlined in the previous 15 articles and here in this piece and then ask yourself this – How in the world did we end-up in a scenario where the planet is on lock-down, an historic Republican presidency (economy, populist approach, etc.) evaporated overnight and by means of a compulsory meeting on 13 Jan 17, the President is riding shotgun to two Globalists – one a long-timer circa Reagan and the other a long-tenured, Obama-appointed DSSG/MIC’er – running point on a global pandemic as none of us can leave our homes, go to work, go to school, visit our grandparents; and on the eve of one of the most historic and significant elections ever?

And how is this mind-blowing convergence of globally destructive events – all favorable to the broader agenda of the Globalists and them being deeply and widely enmeshed and entangled in all of it – not a POLITICAL CONSTRUCT?

Or, it all happened by chance. In hypothetical summary – we are currently being ushered-into a ‘new normal’ in what appears to be the next 9/11; but on a global scale.

Let’s hope co-opting this construct and leveraging us back to reality but in a profoundly freer state; in what may be the year of the BOOMERANG, is a part of the Trump administration’s contingency plan to remedy this tragedy in which we currently find ourselves.

For another independent lens with a similar perspective, see THIS American Thinker item as recommended by Shazlandia.

HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS:

Requisite disclaimer – this is now the 16th article in a series on the COVID-19 coronavirus. All of this began with some curiosity about whom may stand to gain or benefit with the discovery of a promising treatment identified as Remesdivir – no more and no less; it’s that simple.

There was never an intent to write a single article; much less a series of them. The rabbit hole into which I placed myself diverged many times over transitioning into a mess of global entanglements that converted this work from an exploratory exercise to one hunting for evidence to scaffold an hypothesis. The content, therefore, is affected and takes a different tone and direction. For deeper understanding, here is the CATALOG of all articles in this series.

At this point, I’ve covered so much ground that attempting to recapitulate it to introduce each new article has become too cumbersome. Please refer back to the catalog for a deeper contextual backdrop to what appears above. To save time, I would encourage you to start with the NINTH ARTICLE (it serves as a recapitulation of the first eight and launches the effort in another direction, which is where we are right now and which is seemingly in the midst of a global 9/11; assuming the fulcrum point of the truth continues to shift in favor of my suspicions relative to the evidence uncovered thus far.)

INCREDIBLE EVIDENCE CORRELATING COVID-19 WITH POLITICAL CONSTRUCT: Dirty Harvard Professor, Spies and Wuhan, China

23 Mar 20 (FIFTEENTH article in a series)

Since evidence suggests that we are sitting plumb in the middle of the next 9/11, which is ushering-in the latest version of the ‘new normal,’ let’s just get right to it.

To begin, if this is your first read from me on this topic, please start with the ‘HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS’ at the bottom, otherwise you’re jumping into the middle of the ocean with no shoreline in sight. In the search for more evidence in support of my hypothesis (see work linked below which includes 14 previous articles and two more I can’t seem to finish), I often look backwards. In that light, I revisited a DOJ press release from 28 Jan 20 that was also linked by QAnon.

For context and in short, my hypothesis asserts that COVID-19 is a political construct that was inserted into the incoming Trump administration by the outgoing Obama administration during compulsory transition meetings on 13 Jan 17; and as part of a broader Globalist agenda to remove President Trump and/or undo his historic administration; and which included actually releasing the virus strain in Wuhan, China.

Let’s revisit some important dates:

First – the COVID-19 outbreak is currently linked back to 17 Nov 19. It is important to note is that this is a revised date backed-up from initial reports: SOURCE SOURCE SOURCE

Second – the first reported US case of COVID-19 was 19 Jan 20: SOURCE

Third and most importantly – the initial reporting on the first case in China, from which the current timeline was revised backwards, is 27 Dec 19. The sourced information below demonstrates the revised timeline that is critical in terms of understanding how the historical epidemiology is possibly being changed to potentially align with the timeline of a political construct. Consider this information sourced HERE,

In a report by Zhu and colleagues, investigators with the China CDC describe three adults who were admitted to a hospital in Wuhan on December 27, 2019; the two patients for whom clinical information was available had pneumonia. One of the patients died and the other two recovered. 2019-nCoV was detected in bronchoalveolar lavage specimens by whole-genome sequencing, direct polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and culture. Phylogenetic analysis showed that the virus falls into the betacoronavirus genus, which besides SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV also includes a bat SARS-like coronavirus.

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

With what is outlined above, we’ll throw-out the revised timeline marker date and use the remaining two as bookends to our argument: 27 Dec 19 (first report of COVID-19 in China) and 19 Jan 20 (first report of COVID-19 n US.)

Now, let’s consider the 28 Jan 20 DOJ press release, which I have reproduced in full and with EMPHASIS ADDED (SOURCE).

Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases

The Department of Justice announced today that the Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and two Chinese nationals have been charged in connection with aiding the People’s Republic of China.  

Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement.  Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts.

Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. 

Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China.  On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements.  He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019.

Dr. Charles Lieber

According to court documents, since 2008, Dr. Lieber who has served as the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group at Harvard University, which specialized in the area of nanoscience, has received more than $15,000,000 in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD).  These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities. Unbeknownst to Harvard University beginning in 2011, Lieber became a “Strategic Scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China and was a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from in or about 2012 to 2017.  China’s Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity and national security.  These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information.  Under the terms of Lieber’s three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT.  In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT “not less than nine months a year” by “declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of” WUT.

The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT.  On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he “wasn’t sure” how China categorized him.  In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China’s Thousand Talents Plan.  Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber “had no formal association with WUT” after 2012, that “WUT continued to falsely exaggerate” his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber “is not and has never been a participant in” China’s Thousand Talents Plan. 

Yanqing Ye

According to the indictment, Ye is a Lieutenant of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People’s Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).  On her J-1 visa application, Ye falsely identified herself as a “student” and lied about her ongoing military service at the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), a top military academy directed by the CCP.  It is further alleged that while studying at Boston University’s (BU) Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering from October 2017 to April 2019, Ye continued to work as a PLA Lieutenant completing numerous assignments from PLA officers such as conducting research, assessing U.S. military websites and sending U.S. documents and information to China.

According to court documents, on April 20, 2019, federal officers interviewed Ye at Boston’s Logan International Airport. During the interview, it is alleged that Ye falsely claimed that she had minimal contact with two NUDT professors who were high-ranking PLA officers.  However, a search of Ye’s electronic devices demonstrated that at the direction of one NUDT professor, who was a PLA Colonel, Ye had accessed U.S. military websites, researched U.S. military projects and compiled information for the PLA on two U.S. scientists with expertise in robotics and computer science.  Furthermore, a review of a WeChat conversation revealed that Ye and the other PLA official from NUDT were collaborating on a research paper about a risk assessment model designed to decipher data for military applications.  During the interview, Ye admitted that she held the rank of Lieutenant in the PLA and admitted she was a member of the CCP.

Zaosong Zheng

In August 2018, Zheng entered the United States on a J-1 visa and conducted cancer-cell research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston from Sept. 4, 2018, to Dec. 9, 2019. It is alleged that on Dec. 9, 2019, Zheng stole 21 vials of biological research and attempted to smuggle them out of the United States aboard a flight destined for China.  Federal officers at Logan Airport discovered the vials hidden in a sock inside one of Zheng’s bags, and not properly packaged.  It is alleged that initially, Zheng lied to officers about the contents of his luggage, but later admitted he had stolen the vials from a lab at Beth Israel.  Zheng stated that he intended to bring the vials to China to use them to conduct research in his own laboratory and publish the results under his own name.

The charge of making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.  The charge of visa fraud provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.  The charge of acting as an agent of a foreign government provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of conspiracy provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.  The charge of smuggling goods from the United States provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.  Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Field Division Joseph R. Bonavolonta; Michael Denning, Director of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Boston Field Office; Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Special Agent in Charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Northeast Field Office; Philip Coyne, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General; and William Higgins, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Export Enforcement, Boston Field Office made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorneys B. Stephanie Siegmann, Jason Casey and Benjamin Tolkoff of Lelling’s National Security Unit are prosecuting these cases with the assistance of trial attorneys William Mackie and David Aaron at the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.

The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

These case are part of the Department of Justice’s China Initiative, which reflects the strategic priority of countering Chinese national security threats and reinforces the President’s overall national security strategy. In addition to identifying and prosecuting those engaged in trade secret theft, hacking and economic espionage, the initiative will increase efforts to protect our critical infrastructure against external threats including foreign direct investment, supply chain threats and the foreign agents seeking to influence the American public and policymakers without proper registration.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS RELEASE

Let’s now take our previous dates and see where the most important date in the DOJ press release inserts:

  • ***09 Dec 19: Evidence of Chinese spies smuggling “vials of biological research” to Wuhan
  • 27 Dec 19: First report of COVID-19 in China
  • 19 Jan 20: First report of COVID-19 n US

From the same press release, let’s consider which agencies assisted (EMPHASIS MINE):

  • Assistant Attorney General for National Security
  • FBI Boston Field Division
  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection
  • Defense Criminal Investigative Service
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Office of Inspector General
  • U.S. Department of Commerce
  • Office of Export Enforcement
  • DOJ National Security Unit
  • National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section

Those are heavy-hitting agencies for “biological research;” in fact, those are the types of agencies you’d expect to see if perhaps someone were trying to smuggle a bio-engineered, weaponized and highly virulent strain of virus; perhaps a coronavirus, to Wuhan, China. That the timeline has been revised backwards to encompass this arrest date is concerning and perhaps telling.

In summary, the veneer level work here overlaying the body of work in the catalog of articles I’ve already written, assembles to suggest a converging timeline relevant to our hypothesis. We now have evidence that Harvard affiliated spies were working to export “vials of biological research” to Wuhan, China whereby those efforts preceded the first known documented case in Wuhan, as first reported; and encompassed or included within it, the first report as given in the revised timeline of 17 Nov 19.

There is no evidence in my possession to link this in ways beyond what I’ve demonstrated here. I do find it highly peculiar that QAnon would post this very press release on 07 Feb 20 in #3842 and that it ties directly to Wuhan, China; and for obvious reasons.

No matter, the continued examination of Harvard, China, Wuhan and “biological research” smuggling is a worthy one given the current state of affairs.

Beyond that, WAKE-UP AMERICA! COVID-19 is functioning like a new 9/11 to usher-in the ‘new normal.’

HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS:

Requisite disclaimer – this is now the 15th article in a series on the COVID-19 coronavirus. All of this began with some curiosity about whom may stand to gain or benefit with the discovery of a promising treatment identified as Remesdivir – no more and no less; it’s that simple.

There was never an intent to write a single article; much less a series of them. The rabbit hole into which I placed myself diverged many times over transitioning into a mess of global entanglements that converted this work from an exploratory exercise to one hunting for evidence to scaffold an hypothesis. The content, therefore, is affected and takes a different tone and direction. For deeper understanding, here is the CATALOG of all articles in this series.

At this point, I’ve covered so much ground that attempting to recapitulate it to introduce each new article has become too cumbersome. Please refer back to the catalog for a deeper contextual backdrop to what appears above. To save time, I would encourage you to start with the NINTH ARTICLE (it serves as a recapitulation of the first eight and launches the effort in another direction, which is where we are right now and which is seemingly in the midst of a global 9/11; assuming the fulcrum point of the truth continues to shift in favor of my suspicions relative to the evidence uncovered thus far.)