Follow the Money

Did China yank the central cog of corruption out of the old Obama-era Globalist crime network and install that retread in the White House for 2020 to resume old operations and begin new ones? With a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the realities of the U.S. geopolitical landscape – not those proffered in the MSM – as overlaid by an honest and accurate account of COVID-19 as an undeniable false flag political construct leveraging a real and bioweaponized virus to underpin a pandemic resting entirely on a foundation of propagated fraudulent data, one can determine that there is no other plausible answer to this question than, “yes.”

[Author’s Note: Working alone, this massive article has currently only undergone a first round of proofing so apologies for any errors.]

That’s precisely what China did. The Obama bag man Joe Biden and is now China’s bag man and he’s on point to resume moving money relative to all of the seedy, shady and treasonous deals that has this Republic on the way out and China and the CCP’s brand of totalitarian, communist Marxism on deck.

What about the money, though? How are all of these corrupt, criminal and treasonous Globalists moving the money? I think it’s deeply complex and within a behemoth network that can be simply described as Globalists using private equity deals in the legitimate energy sector as a conduit to illegitimately move money relative to their crimes. Capturing the full scope of this nebulous construct and assembling the evidence cogently to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt is far beyond the scope of reason for a singleton without access to those investigative tools and resources.


Unfortunately and in a manner that seems to have most Americans oblivious to it and perhaps because public education has failed to inculcate them with the requisite set of independent and critical thinking skills just as it has failed to provide a robust and accurate foundation of civics to which those skills can be applied, this terrifying dynamic goes unseen by most. With no break in the momentum of the status quo, it will be far too late by the time it is realized unless something occurs to upend things positively; like an August Trump reinstatement, as the NY Times is now beginning to report.

This dynamic frighteningly situates the U.S. in the midst of an asymmetrical and undeclared World War III as underpinned by the Chinese infiltration of U.S. institutions writ large and commenced by the launch of a bio-WMD devised to initiate the first strike so as to remove a sitting president, overthrow the U.S. government and install a Chinese proxy in Biden. My shiny nickel rests squarely on the bet of Biden taking a dive in this war.

Quick Sidebar: China is a nightmare of an adversary and they are of the highest order in terms of capabilities and effectiveness – just look around you. In this regard and solely on the merits of maintaining appropriate levels of respect for ones adversaries, I hold China the highest of regards here and tip my hat to them accordingly. I digress.

Like I said – it’s a terrifying dynamic.

Our discussion today is launched by two things but ultimately, it falls back on old work in the vein of future proves past. A recent DOJ press release links us to the old work while a message from one of the individuals in the backdrop of Political Moonshine, who possess a particular and contextually expert skill set that is driven by an unrivaled intellect. The two combine to set our table in private equity and energy.


Private equity and energy are not new to our discussion table as I’ve spent untold sums of hours figuratively chasing Joe Biden all over the globe and all relative to what I believe to be crime, corruption, bribery, blackmail, money laundering, kickbacks, etc. Are they using energy to move money? That’s what I think and care to establish.

It also has all of our eggs in the energy sector basket while acknowledging that plenty other baskets exist. In the eyes of a fraud investigator and reverting back to being a 70s-80s, free-range kid and BMX rat (at that age, your rig was your prized and only real valuable possession!), it looks something like this (thanks to Mongoose’s mag wheel).

Statecraft entails all of these treasonous criminals being locked into a sort of playing field and more broadly it’s the geopolitical landscape as it manifests nationally and extends internationally. In a game, there is an arena, a playing surface, players and officials to enforce rules. This analog works well to help explain many vectors including how the energy sector may be (is?) the interface for rampant international fraud, corruption and crime; or so I think.

In our case here, we have the energy sector (arena); finance and private equity (the playing surface); politicians, energy officials and energy finance entities (players); and regulators and law enforcement (officials) to enforce regulations and laws (rules.)

In an organization chart, which is what I roughly outlined above, the energy sector is thrust to the center to become the launch point for investigative work.

This overall dynamic forces the players to play inside of a box that is restrictive with firm boundaries. This box dictates the nature of the engagements inside of it and those leave discoverable but limited evidence behind. Finding it is tedious, arduous and impossible to completely and effectively do without access to the right information and investigative tools, neither of which I (nor any other civilian) have.

At this point, it should be noted that the following broader position on the role of the energy sector was identified and developed while initially examining Biden’s corruption in the Ukraine back around the same time a lot of folks were. My work caused me to believe that the Ukraine matter was not isolated but rather it represented the mapping over of a particular type of construct that was occurring in locations the globe over. That’s how these people operate.

Doing that work, I got suspended from Twitter and later lost (backed-up) some substantial content on Biden and Ukraine when things really began to boil over in the MSM. We take that censorship as confirmation.


Our premise contends that evidence may demonstrate a wide swath of crime and corruption and including but not limited to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccinations, the stolen election, the removal of a sitting president, the overthrow of the U.S. government and the installation of a Biden Chinese proxy, all converges into an overarching construct functioning as a continuum. Picture a river flowing in one forceful direction with all of its interlaced tributaries merging, diverging, crossing-over and eventually terminating, but ultimately moving to one end for an explicit purpose.

On this continuum, the energy sector was/is being used as a legitimate conduit to illegitimately move money. Therein, energy partnerships, private equity deals, multilateral cooperation, the contextual merger of national governments and corporations, etc., all serve to facilitate crimes like fraud, money laundering, bribery, blackmail, kickbacks, etc. (think RICO).

As noted, it is important to note that the work here is limited by available open resources and because the broader structure to all of this is immensely burdensome, complex and expansive. Therefore, recapitulating and/or describing a lot of existing work and linking those articles for independent consumption and deeper understanding will be our best option to save space in this otherwise enormous article.

What follows is well short of any level of legal threshold for the evidentiary burden. Rather, the work is better characterized as descriptions of observations against a backdrop of “knowns” to which logical deduction is being applied to formulate positions.

Our wheel analog provides a good means for explaining how the work was conducted. Beginning at the hub of our wheel (energy sector), I ran down many of the spokes (Biden and international co-cospirators) to examine where, how and why those spokes interlaced and terminated at the rim (Globalist network).


Biden’s wrangling up of the energy sector began under Obama’s first term. This next finding only contributes circumstantially and anecdotally, but it demonstrates the draw back to and direction of Obama/BIden relative to energy. From the Department of Energy (emphasis mine),

Adam Sieminski was sworn in on June 4, 2012, as the eighth administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). From March 2012 to May 2012, while awaiting confirmation as EIA administrator, Mr. Sieminski served as senior director for energy and environment on the staff of the National Security Council. From 2005 until March 2012, he was the chief energy economist for Deutsche Bank, working with the Bank’s global research and trading units. Drawing on extensive industry, government, and academic sources, Mr. Sieminski forecasted energy market trends and wrote on a variety of topics involving energy economics, climate change, geopolitics, and commodity prices.

From 1998 to 2005, he served as the director and energy strategist for Deutsche Bank’s global oil and gas equity team. Prior to that, from 1988 to 1997, Mr. Sieminski was the senior energy analyst for NatWest Securities in the United States, covering the major U.S. international integrated oil companies.

He also had acted as a senior adviser to the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan policy think tank in Washington, DC. He is a senior fellow and former president of the U.S. Association for Energy Economics, and served as president of the National Association of Petroleum Investment Analysts.

In 2006, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman appointed Mr. Sieminski to the National Petroleum Council (NPC), an advisory group to the secretary of energy, where he helped author the NPC’s Global Oil and Gas Study: The Hard Truths.

In addition to his affiliation with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he was also an advisory board member of the Global Energy and Environment Initiative at Johns Hopkins University/SAIS. He had also served as chairman of the Supply-Demand Committee of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and as an advisory member of the Strategic Energy Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a member of the Washington, DC, investment professional society, and holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation. He received both an undergraduate degree in civil engineering and a master’s degree in public administration from Cornell University.

EIA Duties

EIA is responsible for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating independent and impartial energy information to promote sound policy-making, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. EIA provides a wide range of information and data products covering energy production, stocks, demand, imports, exports, and prices. EIA also prepares analyses and special reports on topics of current interest.

How helpful would that guy be if you were looking to exploit the energy sector fraudulently? A laughably rhetorical question.

Examine how the highlighted aspects about Adam Sieminski (formerly at EIA/DOE) directly overlay our work here and in precisely all of the right areas. It even includes ties to John’s Hopkins (COVID-19). He presents as a Deep State fixer but my speculation on him is just informed conjecture. He served from 2012-2017, though, which overlays our precise timeline, so I’d love to see him on the stand because I bet he knows a lot. I also bet there are plenty more just like him.

How about Sieminski’s ties to Deutsche Bank? The same Deutsche Bank that gave up records on Trump last August around the same time that the CDC revised away 94% of it’s bulk mortality and infection data that were used to justify the federal issuance (for state, county and local enforcement [federalism]) of COVID mitigations and guideline? Revisions that left only 6% of the data valid and reverting actual mortality right back to smack dab in the middle of a generally regular flu season? Deflection strategy? Hey, look here, not there!?

Digressing and as Bloomberg reported at the time (emphasis mine),

Deutsche Bank AG handed over detailed records related to dealings with U.S. President Donald Trump’s family business after receiving a subpoena from prosecutors last year, the New York Times reported.

The subpoena demanded documents that Trump and the Trump Organization had provided to the lender, the newspaper reported, citing four people familiar with the matter. The German firm complied, turning over records including financial statements and other materials it had received as Trump sought loans, the paper said.

It’s part of an investigation by New York prosecutors into the president’s business affairs, the paper said. The lender has worked with Trump for two decades, providing him and his company with more than $2 billion in loans, the Times reported.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. suggested in a court filing earlier this week that his office may be investigating potential bank and insurance fraud by the Trump Organization. He asked a federal judge on Monday to throw out the president’s latest effort to block a subpoena for documents from his accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP.

Spokespeople for Deutsche Bank and Vance’s office declined to comment on the reported subpoena when contacted by Bloomberg. A representative for the Trump Organization didn’t respond to a message seeking comment.

More on Deutsche Bank from CNN Business (emphasis mine),

New York (CNN Business) The private bankers responsible for lending to President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner have resigned from Deutsche Bank, the bank said.

“Rosemary Vrablic and Dominic Scalzi have tendered their resignations to Deutsche Bank effective as of year-end, which was accepted by the bank,” Daniel Hunter, a spokesman for the bank said in a statement.

Vrablic and Scalzi have worked closely together for years since joining Deutsche Bank a decade ago. Vrablic was a trusted contact to the Trump Organization and Kushner and assumed the bank’s lending relationship with Trump in the private side of the bank after the commercial lending division stopped doing business with Trump.

Deutsche Bank (DB) has loaned the Trump Organization more than $300 million.

It’s as much political projection (fraud?) as it is the usual bullshit from the usual suspects.

It gets worse for Deutsche Bank, though. Consider this which is extracted from my previous work,

“What is reasonably thought to have been a professional hit has occurred targeting federal Judge Esther Salas, who was just appointed to the Epstein/Deutsche Bank case two days before. Tragically, it resulted in the wounding of the judge’s husband, Mark Anderl, and the killing the couple’s 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl.

This example is a mere sip from an ocean of evidence and representative of the breadth, depth and complexity I offer warning about in all of this. It only continues to get more complex; way more complex.

For more context going forward, this an extract from the article referenced below, that is pretext which Joe Biden established on 22 Nov 14 at the Atlantic Council Energy and Economic Summit in Istanbul.

There he said (emphasis mine,)

“First is a new development, the use of corruption and oligarchy-kleptocracy as a tool of international coercion (interesting word choice, Joe.) Second, is use of energy as a weapon, undermining the security of nations. Global energy security is a vital part of America’s national security. In East Asia, President Obama and President Xi just signed a historic agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the United States has launched an initiative to double the access to electric power. We call is Power Africa. And in the Caribbean and Central America, our administration has launched a new, regional energy strategy to help boost sustainable economic growth and diversity of energy sources. (Look out for Haiti/Carribean and Africa below – I tie them back, too.)

Note the nexus between Presidents Xi and Obama relative to the context of using energy as a “weapon.” Note how energy overlaps locations that bear down in other story lines like human sex trafficking and vaccination research.

Note reference to global energy security because it’s critical. We know what happens when these people change the rules or rewrite them.

What about the referenced overlap to vaccination research angles? Yes, the Bidens were caught between COVID-19, vaccination development, energy and China. I wrote an article on it entitled ‘CONVERGING LANDSCAPES: HOW THE BIDEN FAMILY FINDS ITSELF BETWEEN ENERGY CORRUPTION AND ANTI-MALARIA VACCINATION PROGRAMS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC‘, that ties back to our energy sector theory origins.

What about Biden running point on energy for Obama? There is nothing I could find in the way of a formal appointment of then Vice President Biden to an energy-specific post by Obama, but the Obama White House archives includes these as extracted directly from Biden’s page (emphasis mine) and note again the similar overlaps to other areas of interest; especially geographically,

Launched the Caribbean Energy Security Initiative in January 2015 and chaired the U.S.-Caribbean-Central America Summit in May 2016, which advanced the diversification and integration of the region’s energy sectors.

The Vice President has been a leading architect of the U.S. strategic vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace. During his time in the Senate, the Vice President led the effort to enlarge NATO to include the former Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern and Central Europe after the collapse of the Iron Curtain. The Vice President’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2015 laid out a vision for how to revitalize NATO, strengthen democratic institutions in Europe, prioritize investments to bolster energy security, and grow trade and investment ties across the Atlantic. The Vice President has been leading the Administration’s effort to support a sovereign, democratic Ukraine, visiting the country three times in 2014.

Led U.S. efforts to focus on increasing European energy diversification and security.

Engaged regularly with King Abdullah to sustain our vital strategic partnership with Jordan and promote counterterrorism and energy cooperation with regional partners.

Even on then the Vice President’s own page, these statements were made,

“The Vice President’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2015 laid out a vision for how to revitalize NATO, strengthen democratic institutions in Europe, prioritize investments to bolster energy security, and grow trade and investment ties across the Atlantic. The Vice President has been leading the administration’s effort to support a sovereign, democratic Ukraine, visiting the country three times in 2014. ”

Note how this ties contemporaneously to the current narrative to push Ukraine to join NATO as another incursion on Russia’s regional security and national sovereignty and note the context of SECURITY; and remember, these people are playing in a box – energy – and now ENERGY SECURITY is bearing down. I described it this way previously,

Let’s also not forget that China is leveraging these programs in part to infiltrate NATO, as outlined by the Lithuanians, and that the current drive from the Obama/Biden/Deep State is rekindling trouble (a coup under Obama/Clinton/Kerry) in Ukraine and pushing it to join NATO relative to NATO’s continued encircling of and pressure campaign on Russia (previously covered in Volume 8 of The Still.)

More from Biden on ENERGY SECURITY in the earlier article,

This is about energy security. To achieve it, Europe needs to ensure it diversifies its resources, its routes and its suppliers.”

More from my article, this hits on a monumentally critical component to understand, which I began emphasizing aboveENERGY SECURITY.

Overlaying our timeline on a 2014-2016 span, Obama leveraged a false flag construct and other means to rewrite U.S. SECURITY in another very important area – biosecurity rules. These changes preceded and permitted the export of gain of function research, which was being exposed by internal U.S. whistleblowers. The export destination was the Wuhan Lab of Virology in China. China/CCP/PLA was then aided with samples, proprietary knowledge and funding from Fauci’s NIH and elsewhere and specific to SARS-CoV-2.

So then, why did Biden arrange to place his hands on ENERGY SECURITY and in the precise locations where we are documenting all of this crime, corruption, fraud and treason; and where the locations for other sorts of documented and related crimes like human trafficking, possible vaccination research, etc. overlap?

What happens when these people change the rules? Rhetorical questions.


Returning to the thrust of the article and starting with the message from my guy, we can see that he’s telling us that, for someone (can’t imagine Merrick Garland’s DOJ/FBI has an interest) with the requisite investigative resources, the evidence exists inside of private equity deals.

He also reminds us that Peter Schweitzer’s book ‘Secret Empires’ (I’ve yet to read it) lays a granular foundation for our quote here, which has been reproduced from the message and augmented to polish it up a bit for the article; but not in ways to change the content or meaning.

Bribery: Prime equity funds typically charge 2% of the assets under management and 20% of the profits when a deal is sold. They (Bidens) ran $1.5 billion deal (an energy deal with China, the CCP and the CEFC). There were 3 partners: Whitey Bulger’s nephew (James Bulger), John Kerry’s step son (Chris Heinz) and Hunter (Biden.) The 2% is annual.

Blackmail: I searched for the photos (derived from Biden’s controversial laptop) of Hunter with under age Chinese kids – and there were some horrifying ones – and they have since been scrubbed from the search engines – Bing, Google and even Duck Duck Go. There was one of him pressed up against kid that was no more than 12 years old and she was wearing fishnets and long pressed on fingernails. Can’t find any of them anywhere.

The Victim: It was a selfie he (Hunter) took (of the victim described above.) She was pressed between Hunter and what looked like a stripper pole. Her face had a look of absolute terror.

With quite a bit alleged in that quote, let’s focus on the empirical bits and for good reason.

Before we do, recall what it is we’re actually discussing and for the sake of clarity in the dialogue, we’ll consider some older work. First, let’s throw-down an empirical data point to demonstrate that we are justified in even having this dialogue.


It’s this simple. In 2016 and upon exiting office (VPOTUS), Joe (and Jill) Biden’s income was $396,456.

For 2017-2019 and aligning on the same timeline as the deliberate release of a bio-WMD in Wuhan China; and dating back to October 2019 (as per the FBI); and as being first reported in the MSM on 27 Dec 19; the Biden’s income exploded exponentially to $16, 596,979.

Overall, that represents a 4086.34% increase in income for those 3 years combined; equating to an average annual increase in income of $5,532,326.33 at 1295.45%.

That change is what we call a hockey stick line statistically and it is a hallmark indicator of fraud, just like these hockey sticks were.

Where did that money come from? Private equity? Yes.

Suffice it say that we have $16 million dollars worth of room to make our assertions begin to stick within $1.5 billion dollar box. That’s a lot of room.

This is where the $1.5 billion dollar deal bears down greatest. The one that Hunter brokered with China/CCP/PLA/CEFC (the latter being a CCP energy company) after “THE BIG GUY” chauffeured him across the pond on Air Force 2; where upon landing, they split ways. Days later when they re-boarded AF2, the deal was in Hunter’s pocket right next to is crack pipe and his selfie-porn-generating device.

For shits, giggles and satisfaction, you can even take our timeline back to 05 Jan 17 and the Susan Rice memo; and even long before that; as in back to the 1960s and arguably, that’s not even the very beginning of it all.

It’s as simple as this – did this absurd increase in the Biden’s annual income flow into their accounts through energy sector and for the reasons I’ve outlined?

It’s time to follow the money and to begin that murky, convoluted and banal process, we’ll introduce the second point from above and it’s the DOJ press release, which I remarked on the other day.

Importantly, I think the easiest way to bring all of this together is to start with this most recent DOJ press release, show you what grabbed my my attention, draw it back appropriately and then walk you backwards through it all while linking you to the accompanying research along the way.


This introduces it.

The red flags in that were fairly obvious: money laundering, U.S. financial system, bribery, Brazil, world governments, global construction (think looming U.S. infrastructure bill and how infrastructure overlaps energy in so many places; each being a potential portal for fraud; and if you know anything about the construction industry…). All of that caught my attention.

Pay special attention to the concept of laundering money inside of the U.S. financial system because it comes to bear in light of two things: 1) someone would be needed to steer corruption through the U.S. system – was it Biden? and 2) closed and coveted financial systems require getting access to them (in other nations), which is accomplished by engaging with the political leaders in those countries.

What was contained in that press release that that really made me stand-up, though, was Odebrecht and here’s why.


Odebrecht backs us up to a 26 Nov 19 article examining Biden relative to Ukraine. It was a build on work from the previous day that had identified a circular flow of money I characterized as: Obama/Biden <> Ukraine/Iran <>Iran/Ukraine <> Biden Obama. Ukraine and Iran factor in heavily in the research vectors and that work delivered Brazil and a bunch of other nations of which there are presumably more to identify.

We fall even further back on a 29-31 May 13 timeline where, in Brazil, Biden called for the “start of a new era of U.S.-Brazilian relations,” and of course energy is specifically central to it. You can consider that the launch point to a new era of crime and corruption to be contained within the rewrite for the “new era.”

Biden then stated (emphasis mine),

“On energy, we discussed how we can build a partnership that reflects the ambition of both our countries in this area.  As some of you know, two days ago, I spent time at your state-owned, and actually now private and state enterprise, going through a deep briefing on the promise of pre-salt oil that is immense.  The find is immense.”

Did you catch the reference to a “state-owned” energy firm? As in Brazil being the state, Biden partnering with the leaders of Brazil and specifically as it relates to energy and more specifically as it relates to a corrupt company that has an established history of corruption with politicians?

Grab a hold of “state-owned” because it will bear down as a constant much like biosecurity and energy security.

While Biden was in Brazil, he met with Petrobras.

What do we know about Petrobras? It’s an energy company owned by Odebrecht SA, our notoriously corrupt entity and whose CEO was arrested for corruption in 2015. 

Consider that Odebrecht was charged in July with corruption and money laundering and declined to respond to specific questions about the price fixing and political kickback case focused on state-run oil firm Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras.

It gets worse. Consider the political element alone (emphasis mine), “Among dozens of executives under investigation for overcharging Petrobras on contracts and using the excess to bribe politicians, Odebrecht had an especially close relationship to former President Lula.

By 18 Jun 19, Odebrecht had filed bankruptcy. Doesn’t this all coincide with the same relative time-frame as Hunter Biden’s departure from Burisma?


“Odebrecht and petrochemical company Braskem SA in 2016 struck parallel agreements with authorities in three countries to pay up to $4.5 billion, as part of the largest anticorruption settlement in history. Braskem is partly owned by Odebrecht and Petrobras.

The settlements with U.S., Brazilian and Swiss authorities spawned corruption probes in other Latin American countries where the two companies operate. Last month, Odebrecht filed for chapter 15 bankruptcy in the U.S. shortly after it filed for bankruptcy in Brazil in June.”

On 20 Nov 19, the DOJ issued a press release stating (emphasis mine),

“An indictment was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging Jose Carlos Grubisich, the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Braskem S.A. (Braskem), a publicly traded Brazil-based petrochemical company, for his role in a massive bribery and money laundering scheme involving Braskem and its parent company, Odebrecht S.A. (Odebrecht). The scheme allegedly resulted in the diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars from Braskem to a secret slush fund used, in part, to pay bribes to government officials, political parties and others in Brazil to obtain and retain business. Grubisich, who also served as a member of the Board of Directors of Braskem, and in various capacities for Odebrecht, was charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), one count of conspiracy to violate the books and records provisions of the FCPA and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.”

Odebrecht, right? Understanding why I stood-up to the latest release from the DOJ?

According to the Brazil Business Council, BUSBC member companies, which includes Braskem, were present when Biden made his speech in Brazil. As stated, Braskem’s parent company is, Odebrecht. Braskem happens also to be the US’s largest domestic producer of polypropylene.

That places the corrupt parent company, by proxy vis-à-vis Braskem, in proximity of Biden at the time of his speech.

Joe Biden himself is the central cog of corruption linking the nations we’re mentioning here because on varying levels, he engaging with them all in the context of energy. Even so, some of the nations have their own bilateral arrangements and otherwise. We could easily take Biden’s spoke in our wheel diagram, make it a hub and build a wheel around him (actually, that’s what we’re doing in this article.)


Let’s follow the money. Moving forward from the Ukraine, Iran, Brazil tangent used to establish the basis of our discussion to introduce the energy sector as a legitimate conduit to illegitimately move money, we arrive at a substantial article outlining Biden’s crimes. We focus our attention on the 2013 Hunter/China/CCP/PLA/CEFC $1.5 billion dollar deal in private equity and we do this with our stronger understanding of the energy sector conduit.

The CEFC China Energy Company, which filed for bankruptcy in March 2020, was a CCP owned and controlled energy company just much like Petrobras in Brazil. Remember, these criminals map the same constructs and schemes over different areas to commit the same crimes.

Patrick Ho, who is a Chinese Deep State asset, will bear down as the nexus between the CEFC, it’s chairman Ye Jianming, where Hunter Biden entered an agreement to serve as an “attorney.” Although Biden graduated from Yale Law School in 1996, he has no qualifications in energy.

These are extracts and images from previous work that help paint the picture.

More evidence of the Biden China deal emerged including these, which outlined previous revelations that the Bidens were charging fees of $10 million just for introductions to then Vice President Joe Biden.

This document above is notable due to its draw back on the CEFC, which factors-in the recently emerged Patrick Ho as cooperating with Rudy Giuliani in the Biden matters and at the behest of then President Trump.

In a leaked conversation, Hunter Biden describes Ye as “his partner” characterizing him as the richest man in the world and chairman of the CEFC, a private Chinese outfit to mysteriously appear in the Global Fortune 500 beginning in 2013. Here, it’s important to reflect back on what former Biden associate Tony Bobulinski recently stated and namely that the CCP serves as China’s political arm while the CEFC serves as its capitalist arm.

In other words, Hunter Biden’s $1.5 billion private equity deal is with the CCP’s capitalist arm.

It’s President Xi Jinping’s alignment with China’s “One Belt One Road” geopolitical and infrastructure development directive, which invests in foreign nations, that leverages the CCP political arm and CEFC economic arm and remember, I recently identified infrastructure as the means by which China intends to leverage its proxy to apply Chinese doctrine to America using the looming U.S. infrastructure bill.

It ties directly to One Belt One Road and half of that is energy – CEFC, the capitalist arm of the CCP.

The leaked conversation showed how it’s important to acknowledge the two the primary players in the CEFC – Chairman Ye Jianming, with whom Hunter Biden entered into an agreement to serve as his “personal attorney” and who he calls his “partner” in the deal; and Patrick Ho, who was, “the fucking spy chief of China,” as Hunter described him, and the individual responsible for founding the CEFC.

Curiously but not surprisingly, Biden and Ye only communicate in person. There are reasons for that and one of them is that the play inside of a box.

As this timeline moves forward, Ho had relatively recently disappeared; having been arrested and charged in the U.S.; only to reemerge as a cooperating witness in Rudy Giulani’s effort to expose The Biden Crime Family. Also, Ye was arrested by the CCP in March 2018. We can view Ye’s arrest as the CCP enveloping him to control the fall-out and damage for what I’m outlining here and more.

The leaked conversation also contains Hunter stating his concerns over Ye’s undetermined location relevant to a “$4 billion deal” to “build the fucking largest fucking LNG port (liquified natural gas) in the world.” Once again, there’s another natural gas point as referenced way back at the beginning.

Recapitulating the nature of the deal as succinctly as we can, we see that Hunter Biden was representing Ye, the CEFC chairman, as his personal attorney. On the weekend of 04 July 17, former CEFC director Zang Jian Jun and Xi met in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin and specifically discussed the purchase of one of the largest oil conglomerates in the world, the Russian corporation Rosneft. Hold on to Rosneft.

The deal being discussed was the purchase of a 14% share and Hunter put a $4 billion price tag on it. This deal is derived from the 2013 $1.5 billion Hunter deal and in it, Joe Biden, was represented by his son Hunter Biden in an arrangement where funding was earmarked for Joe in percentages and whereby he was compelling Hunter to forfeit to him half his salary in acting as the family bag man.

A state-owned Russian global oil conglomerate was being purchased and at this particular time, Russia was under Obama-imposed sanctions for it’s actions relative to the Ukraine and Russia’s capture of the Crimean Peninsula, which is home to its prized Black Sea Fleet (naval) in Sevastopol.

According to Bobulinski, $10 million dollars had been earmarked by CEFC to capitalize Sinohawk. Oneida Holdings was the shell firm designated to receive the funding, which never arrived and without any notice. From Bobulinski’s statement, he described it like this.

“I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “JB” referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.”

Bobulinski gave special attention in his interview to delineate two tranches of $5 million funding each and he did so carefully. One tranche was earmarked for capitalization while the second was earmarked as a personal loan to the Biden familyA PERSONAL LOAN TO THE BIDEN FAMILY.

Returning to Rosneft from several paragraphs up, now consider this from the USA Today as we begin to drag-in familiar names that add to the complexity (emphasis mine),

The most troubling issue that (Christopher) Wray may face is the fact that his law firm — King & Spalding — represents Rosneft and Gazprom, two of Russia’s largest state-controlled oil companies.

Rosneft was prominently mentioned in the now infamous 35-page dossier prepared by former British MI6 agent Christopher Steele. The dossier claims that the CEO of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, offered candidate Donald Trump, through Trump’s campaign advisor Carter Page, a 19% stake in the company in exchange for lifting U.S. sanctions on Russia. The dossier claims that the offer was made in July while Page was in Moscow.

Rosneft is also the company that had a $500 billion oil drilling joint-venture with Exxon in 2012, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was Exxon’s CEO. However, the deal was nixed by President Obama in 2014, when he imposed the sanctions that crippled Russia’s ability to do business with U.S. companies. The lifting of sanctions by the Trump administration would enable Exxon to renew its joint venture agreement with Rosneft, and the law firm of King & Spalding could end up in the middle of the contract negotiations between those two companies.

The law firm’s representation of Gazprom raises even more serious conflict issues for Wray. Gazprom was a partner in RosUkrEnergo AG (“RUE”), which is controlled by Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash. He is under federal indictment in Chicago for racketeering charges, has had numerous financial dealings with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and is generally considered to be a member of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

Rosneft delivers Obama, sanctions, Ukraine, Paul Manafort, Russia, Putin, Exxon, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, an enmeshed Christopher Wray, King & Spalding, Gazprom, the U.K., MI6, Christopher Steele, the Steele Dossier, Carter Page, FISA warrants, Donald Trump, an alleged bribe in private equity in the energy sector.

What are the chances we can link all of this William Barr and the stolen election while threading it through California politicians and directly back to China? Is it 100%? Yes it its.

Watch what happens.

Let’s tug on another state-owned energy company enmeshed with the Bidens. This is from another article and it references a DOJ press release from November 2020.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice issued a press release that we began taking to task in the previous article, which is necessary backdrop for what follows. From that article, here’s a brief recapitulation of what the DOJ outlined.

According to the DOJ press release (emphasis added),

Natalino D’Amato, 61, of Venezuela, was charged in an 11-count indictment filed in the Southern District of Florida.  D’Amato was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, four counts of international money laundering, three counts of promotional money laundering, and three counts of engaging in transactions involving criminally derived property.

The indictment alleges that, beginning in January 2013 and continuing through December 2017, D’Amato conspired with others, including officials at joint ventures between PDVSA and various foreign companies in the oil-rich Orinoco belt of Venezuela, to launder the proceeds of an illegal bribery scheme to and from bank accounts located in South Florida.  These joint ventures were majority owned and controlled by PDVSA.  According to the indictment, D’Amato offered and paid bribes to numerous Venezuelan officials who worked at the PDVSA joint ventures in order to obtain highly inflated and lucrative contracts to provide goods and services to the PDVSA joint ventures.  The indictment further alleges that over the course of the conspiracy, companies controlled by D’Amato received approximately $160 million from the PDVSA joint ventures into accounts he controlled in South Florida.  According to the charges, D’Amato used a portion of those funds to make payments to or for the benefit of the Venezuelan officials.

Notably and importantly, this ties us back to the DOJ press release underpinning our discussion here and specifically, fraud and money laundering through Odebrecht and in the U.S. financial system, ergo Florida.

I warned you early that this was burdensome and complex and most importantly, incomplete by far.

We immediately grab on to the nature of the crimes and Venezuela and PDVSA, Venezuela’s “state-owned” energy company.

Doing so has falling back on old work,

The first order of business is finding entities resting in between the Bidens and those associated with the press release: Natalino D’Amato, Venezuela, South Florida and PDVSA.

To demonstrate the complexity here, consider the two primary corporations that link to the Biden crime family – Rosemont Seneca and Boahai HarvestBohai Harvest alone has 680 offshore entities, 101 officers, 12 intermediaries and 35 global locations that span Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Singapore, Jersey, Switzerland Guernsey, UK, Isle of Man, China, Panama, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Malta, Seychelles, Bahamas, and more.

Here is one example from Bohai Harvest’s 12 intermediaries that serves as an exemplar of how this all peels back like an onion and whereby each layer diverges like a spiderweb. In this case, Grand Harvest Consultants LTD depicts how each of the Bohai Harvest entities generates this type of hub and spoke map.

This type of hub and spoke map can be generated for each of the remaining 11 Bohai Harvest intermediaries and each of its 680 offshore entities and the 101 officers. For each of those, which totals 793 altogether, a hub and spoke map would be generated and each spoke would be run to its end point, which in turn would create another hub and spoke map. Rinse/repeat. You could do this for a very long time.

All of this would represent the tip of the iceberg and as you can see, it is a daunting task and so we stay cursory in our examination.

Thorough efforts to tie D’Amato directly to Biden were fruitless, as expected, and so it made sense to vector from known Biden interfaces: Bohai Harvest and Rosemont Seneca.

Starting there and vectoring back towards Venezuela, our focus naturally drew upon PDVSA (we assert that the Biden’s were leveraging energy markets and natural gas, specifically, to move money relative to their criminal enterprises) and PDVSA is state-owned [Venezuela], has Russian entanglements and ties to Dominion/Smartmatic by it’s state ownership [Venezuela.]

After several hours of work, the best laid evidence can be found in work that brings PDVSA to light relative to an established and known entity is Rosneft – Russia’s largest oil producer.

The entanglements are remarkable, no? They include Bohai Harvest, Rosemont Seneca, Venezuela, PDVSA, Russia, Dominion/Smartmatic and Rosneft.

Let’s pause, breathe for a moment and then give due diligence to a direct reference above that draws us back to specific names and entities introduced at the beginning.

Remember this from the message? “There were 3 partners: Whitey Bulger’s nephew (James Bulger), John Kerry’s step son (Chris Heinz) and Hunter (Biden.)”

Here’s the due diligence drawing us back on the Bidens, China, energy and private equity.

In 2013, two Chinese-registered asset managers (Bohai Industrial Investment Fund and Harvest Fund Management) founded BHR with two U.S. enties (Thornton Group LLC and Rosemont Seneca Partners.) The Chinese registered asset managers are Bohai Industrial Investment Fund Management as backed by BOC International Holdings and Harvest Fund Management as back by none other than Deutsche Bank (another draw-back).

Thornton Group was co- founded by James Bulger and Rosemont Seneca was founded by Devon Archer, Christopher Heinz, and Hunter Biden. A memorandum of understanding was signed to create the fund named BHR Partners, which was followed by the signing of contracts.

Picking back up and continuing from the same,

This is Rosneft.

Rosneft should sound familiar to you and we’re moving in that direction. What connects us to Rosneft is Hunter Biden (Joe Biden), China, the CCP, Patrick Ho and his entity, CEFC, which we first brought to your attention in March. The takeaway here to keep things succinct is viewing CEFC as the linkage between the Bidens and China ergo we draw down on how PDVSA may link to CEFC/China.

The following two extracts represent a tapestry of nexuses outlined in the source article that deeply enmesh Venezuela and PDVSA in all of this and ultimately right back to the Bidens and China.

06 Nov 19Geopolitical Monitor reported in October 2019 that “Russian media suggested that Russian energy conglomerate Rosneft has plans to consolidate Venezuela’s National Oil Company PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela) under Rosneft’s corporate structure in exchange for debt relief. This would seem to keep U.S., Canadian, and Mexican oil and natural gas firms from satisfying natural gas demand from non-OECD Asia. Additionally, it allows Moscow to use Rosneft’s acquisition of Venezuelan natural gas as a geopolitical coercion tool by acquiring a piece of some of the largest recoverable oil and natural gas reserves in the world. The Maduro regime will also need to navigate the $20-$60 billion in debt owed to ChinaWill the Chinese also have a stake in PDVSA? If so, how does that play into the current US-China trade negotiations? What these geopolitical decisions point to is a Rosneft-PDVSA merger that brings more questions than answers. Military troops and hardware were used to save the Assad regime, and now in Venezuela it will be oil, natural gas, and petrochemicals that gives Russia a solid foothold in the western hemispherePDVSA is one of the world’s most prolific oil companies with the largest extractable oil and gas reserves in the world – estimated at 300 billion barrels, and PDVSA’s estimated worth is “approximately $186 billion.”

08 Dec 19World Oil reports that a “subsidiary of Rosneft has taken over some contract discussions with local service providers in Venezuela, stepping in for PDVSA on joint projects with the state-owned oil company, according to people familiar with the matter; representing a major turnabout for PDVSA, which in the past typically operated all aspects of the joint ventures, said the people, who asked not to be named because the talks with the service providers aren’t public. Rosneft now trades much of Venezuela’s oil from an office in Panama staffed with former PDVSA employees. Rosneft receives oil as part of its joint ventures with PDVSA, and also as repayment for loans. It’s not subject to U.S. sanctions that restrict American refiners from importing Venezuelan crude.”

Moving on and relaunching from Venezuela with the idea that its state-owned energy company PDVSA may be a conduit to move money in the broader overarching construct, how else does the nation tie-in directly? Dominion-Smartmatic and the stolen 2020 election is the easy answer.

In addition to having funded the stolen election alongside China and Cuba and as per Sidney Powell, Venezuela was draws back on Hammer and Scorecard as interface for Dominion Smartmatic relative to stealing elections. This occurred in the contexts of both initial ownership and the utilization thereof so as to us guarantee “elections” for the Maduro regime.

This is from Powell’s Georgia filing.

Consider this from previous work and note the obvious tie backs,

Consider this from the Financial Times and take note of the countries named relative to the ones already outlined while also recognizing Mr. Trump’s primary motivation.

Here is a look at what prompted the US action, what it could mean for Venezuela and how Russia has reacted. Why has the US imposed sanctions on Russia’s biggest oil company, Rosneft? The Trump administration wants to force Mr. Maduro to step down and agree to fresh elections, as it considers his 2018 election victory fraudulent. Venezuela’s once wealthy economy has collapsed over the past four years, with GDP shrinking by more than two-thirds, but Mr Maduro has so far clung to power with the support of his key allies: Russia, CubaTurkey and China.

Venezuela and PDVSA are in – lock, stock and barrel.

Now watch.

We’ve already dragged-in Wray without sharing most of his background and that long article also enmeshes former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, Mueller and others; so now watch me enmesh former Attorney General William Barr as deeply as it gets.

Did you know this about Barr? In 1974 he received his MA in government and Chinese Studies. Between 1973-1977, he served in the Central Intelligence agency. In 1990 he was Deputy AG to George H.W. Bush before becoming his AG. He has roots. Deep and specific roots and this is only a glimpse of his backdrop.

Most critically, Barr served law firm Kirkland & Ellis at a very specific time. Consider this from old work,

The last article focused on the timing and placement of Attorney General William Barr as it relates to Dominion Voting Systems, which is obviously at the heart of this stolen 2020 election. Therein, we discussed how the enigmatic Mr. Barr, after having served as AG previously when appointed by by George H.W. Bush, had returned to the private sector after he left the DOJ. I outlined his background in the All Holds Barred article wherein we learned that Barr had returned to work at Kirkland & Ellis in 2017.

It’s Kirkland & Ellis that binds Barr to Dominion Voting Systems as the firm guided its acquisition by Staple Street Capital during the time Barr was working at Kirkland & Ellis and before he left the firm to return to the DOJ for a second stint as AG and at the behest of President Donald J. Trump.

In order to do this and perhaps for fun, we must drag James Comey into this. Before entering the FBI, Comey was a known Clinton fixer and in 2013 was appointed .

On 30 Jan 13, Comey was appointed Director of HSBC Holdings effective 04 Mar 13. This overlaps Comey’s appointment as FBI Director spanning 04 Sep 13 to 09 May 17.

Now consider this from old work,

Staple Street Capital, which had acquired Dominion in 2018 and whereby AG William Barr had been positioned at Kirkland & Ellis, the law firm advising Staple Street on the acquisition. It’s also important to note here that HSBC Toronto managed to secure 18 different Dominion patents that represent the technical and functional capacity to effectively penetrate and manipulate US elections by means of Dominion/Smartmatic systems and software. HSBC is Chinese-owned ergo China bought those patents.

More old work to complete the picture,

The following work is from BillLawrenceOnline and it completes this picture for us so I’m relying on it entirely. Picking back up with Staple Street we take a short journey straight to China. Here’s what we learn.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.


Remember, HSBC is a Chinese bank and a functionary of the capitalist arm of the CCP. The capitalist arm of the CCP is the CEFC and the CEFC is ENERGY.

So you tell me. Half of the Chinese One Belt One Road doctrine is energy; Biden the Chinese proxy is enmeshed in energy corruption the globe over; and the primary source of the energy corruption is China. Given the slice of pie – that’s right, a mere slice – we devoured here, is there any other way to see it? Not for my nickel.

I don’t think there is any question that the energy sector is being used to move money relative to the overarching criminal and treasonous construct. There’s also no question that I don’t have the time or resources to prove it.

Somebody can, though. After all, private equity deals that entail prime equity funds typically charge 2% of the assets under management and 20% of the profits when a deal is sold. These people are playing in boxes and inside of them; for the properly equipped investigator, is that evidence.

Can we make that evidence work? Yes, and we have $16 million worth of room inside a 1.5 billion dollar box.




Two More Coffin Nails and 100% Certainty of COVID-19 Fraud – Can Anyone Prove It Isn’t?

Care to understand how COVID-19 is a false flag political construct that was intentionally developed as a bio-WMD to facilitate the overthrow of the U.S.? Then this article is for you and it includes an abundance of links and other resources to verify positions and provide you with all of the evidence you need for a deeper and clearer understanding of what is being done to us. That’s right – done to us.

On a date conveniently saddled between Christmas and New Year’s Eve 2019, when the majority of the Western world was occupied and distracted with both holiday recovery and preparation, the world fundamentally changed on 27 Dec 19 when the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (not yet a “pandemic”) was first announced in the mainstream media news. They eased it in and perhaps many missed it.


Curiously and by means of evidence later provided to me by an epidemiologist, we confirmed that the U.S. and other Western nations were ordering “COVID”-specific test kits and supplies by a name that technically wouldn’t exist until 11 Feb 20, when the WHO/CDC cohort would officially apply the “COVID-19” moniker to it. Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that the U.S. and those other nations were making such “COVID-19” purchases dating back to 2017 and in each and every year up to 2019. How does that happen outside of a planned event? It doesn’t – period.

I caught the breaking China viral outbreak story in real time and immediately became suspicious of it so I began paying attention and collecting evidence and data points as best I could. Those instincts were on-point and with deadly precision because the first infection and mortality data that arrived in February-March 2020 initially verified that position and placed us on an investigative track that’s still ongoing today; and like a fine wine, the complete body of work only improves as time passes; and in many critical ways not identified by anyone else. That was a year and a half and hundreds of articles and videos ago.

A day before the story broke back on 26 Dec 19 and moving forward in that general time; and in review of my pre-COVID-19 work, the focus then was diversified on topics like President Trump’s fraudulent impeachment (the first) over a completely legitimate and appropriate diplomatic phone call to Ukraine and tying that directly to the 2020 election timeline; Joe Biden and the Biden crime family’s energy corruption in Ukraine; developments, crime and corruption within the FBI; continued research into Q for vetting and establishing veracity; detailing efforts in institutional preservation relative to self-preservation (corrupt politicians); FISA abuse and especially against Lt. General Michael Flynn and President Trump; the 2015 cybersecurity bill relative to impeachment; the 2020 election; John Brennan; developments in Iran; the 25th Amendment; the coup d’etat in general; and more.

In the backdrop of most of what I’ve written and shared publicly, there has been a years-long private conversation with a cohort of informed, intelligent and fiercely patriotic people; one of whom provides me unique access to three particular sources I often cite without naming. In that dialogue, I began detailing my suspicions over the outbreak and even some of those individuals thought I was off the mark, but I continued to make my case over time. I didn’t; however, have anything beyond anecdotal and circumstantial evidence as supported by rational and logical thought and deduction that would permit me to publish and present cogent thoughts on COVID-19 being a false flag political construct and do so without looking mostly insane, which some friends and relatives already think anyways. So I withheld those thoughts until something would arrive into which I could sink my teeth.

It would end-up being the first data sets for infection and mortality that arrived in February-March 2020 that did it. My position on the “fake pandemic” was partly verified by what I found inside those data sets and now, I had to continue working to prove it, which constituted a long path forward.

The simple concept of inverse proportions on a single timeline and with hockey stick relationships (a hallmark indicator of fraud) made for some straight forward parsing out of data to confirm positions.

Notably and dating back to mid-December (pre-COVID), I was focused on this curious need for Adam Schiff (HPSCI) and Nancy Pelosi (Speaker) to ensure that President Trump were impeached before Christmas. Why? Who enforces a due date – like it’s some sort of overdue library book – rather than giving full fidelity to conducting a thorough, proper, fulsome and accurate investigation to provide full and accurate summary findings for public consumption?

No one. That’s who. No one who has a modicum of appreciation for the gravity of a presidential impeachment or fidelity for the work therein and sure as hell not Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler (House Judiciary Committee.)

It would lead to one of the most substantial and exclusive findings that everybody else missed but I nailed down precisely – that the first impeachment was devised primarily as a deflection mechanism to usher-in COVID-19 while distracting the world from it. The COVID and impeachment timelines braided together like a rope in light of actions coming from the WHO/CDC cohort.

Everybody missed this. I didn’t and its fundamental importance can’t be overstated. What delivered it was a method of applying timeline overlays in search of overlaps. This timeline work is absolutely essential and it delivered throughout the investigation.

As impeachment dominated the news cycle, I continued to work on COVID in the backdrop; privately sharing thoughts and collecting what evidence I could. The MSM was essentially easing us along and letting the COVID pot come to a simmer on the back burner right up until the impeachment verdict was reached. Following the announced Senate trial acquittal, the COVID narrative was kicked into overdrive and that pot started towards a boil.

As best I can tell my first COVID post on social media was on or around 02 Feb 20 but really, I think I was chiming in on it as soon as days after the first news of it. I’m uncertain because my primary social media account – Twitter – is now deleted due to my banishment and I’ve not accessed the archive file.

On 05 Feb 20, the Senate acquitted President Trump in his impeachment trial and our COVID pot begins to boil. On 09 Feb 20, I had acquired enough evidence to publish my first article.

By mid-March, I had a galvanized position with substantial evidence that COVID-19 was a false flag political construct and we were set to continue making that case.

From early February moving forward, I had investigated and written about virtually every angle you could conceivably identify and using open sources to do it.

By mid-April 2020 and 28 articles into it, we were locked in for the first comprehensive article entitled Cause of Death for Sale, which delineated the broader premise and included examining financial incentives in federal dollars for medical providers complying with federally issued COVID policies (Fauci/CDC); all within the outlined construct for the criminal predicate (fraud), which I later diagrammed (below) to include a lengthy report I’ve yet to make public. That report assumes the same quality, format and detail relative to what I formerly used to submit to law firms and insurance companies as a high-value fraud investigator.

That article also contains the actual slides from the 13 Jan 17 presidential transition meetings whereby an outgoing Obama administration inserted the pandemic construct into the Trump administration by means of those same compulsory transition meetings.

Presidential transition meetings are framed in longstanding legislation that Obama augmented with an executive order on 18 Mar 16 when he included “pandemic preparedness” as a topic for the meetings. Obama’s White House also coordinated the initial leak of the Flynn/Russia lie releasing it to the MSM for publication immediately prior to the transition meetings and as a deflection or distraction.

Note this redundant pattern of tactics of using one event to detract from another.

Moving forward, note two critical elements. For one and relative to both the 2020 election and his eventual refusal in January 2021 to execute his electoral duties as President of the U.S. Senate, Mike Pence was previously assigned by President Trump as the point man for COVID-19. Then, in April 2020 during a legendary press conference, President Trump dragged Anthony Fauci to the podium and required him to correct the record that Trump had accepted all of his recommendations, mitigations and guidelines the first time they were presented to him and on each and every occasion.

This is a fundamental component that, once again, seems to have escaped everyone and it’s one I’ve hammered home in this context; alongside the use of the same tactic as identified in other contexts. With these critical maneuvers, President Trump sagely and entirely compartmentalized the culpability for COVID-19 and the accompanying genocide with the Pence/Fauci cohort. Having done so will allow Trump to walk away from a modern day holocaust with no strings attached and rightfully so. Pence and Fauci own it all.

Dating back to this general time period (spring into summer) last year, much effort was spent outlining the treasonous aspects of both former President Barack Obama’s presidency and a full slate of corrupt bureaucrats, officials and politicians.

In late August 2020, I reported that on 26 Aug 20, the most significant confirmation to-date was received relative to the underlying premise underpinning the entire COVID-19 “pandemic” – that the pandemic was nothing more than the deliberate propagation of patently fraudulent infection and mortality data harvested and curated from an average of 2.6 underlying comorbidities. Therein, they stated that 94% of the data used to justify guidelines and mitigations were unreliable and that only 6% was valid. This put the number of “COVID deaths” under 10,000 and precisely in the range of seasonal flu/pneumonia; not what the MSM is and has been reporting. Fraud. Through and through – fraud.

More recently I reported that on 12 May 21, the CDC made the same revisions but exacerbated the situation by increasing the numbers. It now stands such that for all “COVID deaths,” only 5% of the data remains valid, 95% of it has been revised away and the average number of underlying co-morbidities (primarily flu, pneumonia, heart disease, diabetes and obesity) was increased to 4.0. That’s even worse fraud.


As it stands now, there is no chance that the positions and work are in error or, in other words and as I’ve been hollering for about a year and a half and long before anybody else, the entire pandemic is one of fraudulent data. Every bit of it; except for the real virus, the real bio-weaponization of it, the real and intentional release of it and sadly, the real Americans and others who died from it. That’s all real. Very real. As in modern day holocaust real.

Let’s pause. Some of you are calling me out saying I’m contradicting myself but that would only be in absolute terms. Yes, the virus is real and it killed people and yes it’s entirely a pandemic of fraudulent data – they’re not mutually exclusive; rather, they serve one another. Look at what that nasty little bug has delivered. But here’s the data point that the CDC can’t escape.

Moving forward from October 2020 and focusing more closely on electoral politics, of which there has been and continues to be plenty, the effort continued to focus on enmeshing the established COVID-19 fraud as a known China mechanism within a broader effort from China, the CCP and the PLA; and then establishing all of the nexuses and linkages tying it all together. Again, there was no shortage of work and it can be consumed independently.

In November, I identified a particular aspect of COVID-19 respective to the stolen election and the need for President-elect Biden to enter office with momentum established to reverse course on it. Who unleashes a bio-WMD to steal an election only to let that bio-WMD continue to wreak havoc with your own presidency? No one. That’s who. That explains why Fauci began to pivot-out of COVID in late November; after the stolen election but before Biden entered office.

Keep the above in mind as I front-load the next data point. The front-load is this – the CDC/WHO cohort was using deliberately and anomalously high cycle thresholds (35-40 v. 17-25 and as an indicator of viral load) relative to PCR testing. Now, bear in mind that the virus was never isolated relative to PCR testing and moreover, the developer of the PCR test – who is now deceased circa 2019 – how convenient? – advised that the PCR test was never intended as a diagnosis tool implying that it’s being misused and delivering unreliable data relative to COVID.

Do you know what PCR tests with faulty high cycle thresholds deliver in absolute abundance? False positive test results. FALSE POSITIVE TEST RESULTS! Remember how I framed the “pandemic” as one of propagated fraudulent data? The intentionally faulty PCR tests, as determined by the CDC/WHO cohort, became the primary data driver for the pandemic.

Remember what occurred around mid-April 2020? The CDC/WHO moved away from the historical and conventional pandemic measurement of mortality data, which was in decline at the time, to the measurement of “new case data.” That’s never been done before and it allows them to leverage the faulty high CTs in the PCR test; remembering that beginning in January 2020, the Democrats were howling about expanded testing. Now you know why.

Following the mid-April shift, the PCR tests delivered the pandemic as designed and now, everywhere we see cases of expanded testing and vaccination, we see explosions in COVID “cases.” India and Seychelles are perfect examples of this dynamic and that of vaccinated people subsequently testing positive (Seychelles.)

I asked you to keep in mind the Fauci pivot out of COVID four paragraphs up and it applies to PCR testing. This is why. Knowing what you know now about PCR tests and acceptable cycle thresholds, consider this.

Do you know what the WHO/CDC did within one hour of Biden’s oddly early 20 Jan 21 inauguration? They revised the CT for PCR tests back down to a conventional range presumably at or near 17-25. WITHIN AN HOUR!

The COVID “variant” has become the 2021 version of the 2020 shift to new cases and in both instances, these deliberate spring-time maneuvers serve as bridges to drag the “pandemic” through the annual seasonal die-off of the co-morbidities (primarily flu/pneumo) being leveraged for data and taking us right back to peak flu season, which the CDC indicates as beginning every 01 Dec and running for two months. Rinse, repeat.

People not catching onto what I was shouting over a year ago was a nightmare come true – none of us are getting our lives back until someone makes these people stop.

After taking a stab at podcasting (9 volumes) followed a brief hiatus to take a needed break, I came back with several hard-hitting articles recently; saving the best for last. In the first, I provided a complete recapitulation and explanation of the pandemic while reinforcing the notion that the country seems to be oblivious to the fact that we find ourselves in an undeclared third world war and with a Chinese proxy occupying the White House in preparation for taking a likely dive.

In an another, I built on existing work to zero back in on the longstanding position that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is the genesis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; that the virus was bio-engineered and bio-weaponized; that it was released deliberately; and that Fauci and the NIH collaborated on and funded the research.

A third article delineates how China may use their Biden proxy to legislatively apply Chinese doctrine to the U.S. with the looming infrastructure bill.

The fourth one identifies a substantial shift in the broader narrative and whereby I have identified the exit plan for Biden and China whereby a carve-out is being made for China to assume responsibility for a “leak” by sowing a fraudulent narrative around internal lab sloppiness. This apparent and odd assumption of culpability by China permits the compartmentalization with China itself and that is beyond a big deal.

China is making this compartmentalization as a means of excluding the U.S. from and completely controlling the explaining narrative. It allows China to determine the exact explanation of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and to provide all of the requisite evidence (or not) they want (after they fabricate to meet needs.) It should a surprise to no one that Biden recently ended former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s investigation into the same rather preferring to defer to the WHO, which China (and Gates and others) own and have owned by means of funding. No sooner did I hit publish than did Joe Biden announce today that he’s opening is on inquiry. Joe can’t even find his house shoes.

What are the chances that Proxy Joe and the CCP sing the same song in their summary findings?

For deeper understanding of how and why that is important (and it is and in fundamental ways), take-in the linked above-linked article because once again, China is leveraging the strategy of compartmentalization just as the U.S. used it as outlined in the next article and relative to U.S. biosecurity.

The fifth article is the most recent and it appears to be an absolute haymaker; catching the attention of others. Lin Wood, John Here to Help and I all recommend that you consume it independently and fully for it identifies and delineates something that few if any are talking about – the 2009-2016 timeline.

The 2009-2016 timeline featured an outgoing Bush handing off another executive order to an incoming Obama and for the express purpose of remaking U.S. biosecurity writ large at U.S. biocontainment facilities. It was all predicated by a Department of Defense initiative and further, it appears that Obama leveraged a potential false flag construct created by a memo co-issued by Lisa Monaco (Department of Homeland Security) in the form of a national “security stand down” at U.S. biocontainment facilities. The security stand down permitted the capture of necessary labs to prevent further exposure in an internal whistleblower scare and may have been a mechanism to off-shore dangerous and unethical GOF research to China.

In backtracking all of the documents and reports – hundreds and hundreds of pages – I identified a specific timeline along with its components and established that the beginning of this particular effort occurred during “Phase 1” in 1999 during the Clinton presidency. I then link from Clinton through every administration right up to Biden. For the record and according to my work, you can draw all of it back to at least George H.W. Bush and prior to the time he entered the CIA in the 1960s.

Who bridges the presidencies of GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden? Anthony Fauci. He entered the federal apparatus un-elected in 1984 during the Reagan administration. Who was VPOTUS then? GHW Bush. Full circle and closed.

In this monster article eclipsing 8,000 words, I identify how the Obama DoD initiative served to underpin a complete rules re-write for biosecurity to install a philosophical change that featured moving away from more robust biosecurity to a system that compartmentalizes biosecurity at the individual scientist and laboratory level; just like the stolen election compartmentalized voter fraud at the individual state and voter precinct level.

Are you now coming to understand how these people operate?

Importantly, it should be understood that internal U.S. whilstleblowers came forward to report U.S. gain of function research which the Obama administration halted in 2015 before they off-shored the effort to China in 2016. Again, it was the Monaco memo and the subsequent national “security stand down” that may have been the false flag mechanism to envelop and facilitate the off-shoring of U.S. gain of function work to China.

That brings us to the present and with new coffin nails en route for bad people and entities.


Perhaps pause for a moment and let all of the above sink-in to marinate because two new story lines further validate our positions and the full body of work. They also provide for two additional nails in the coffins of Fauci, China, Biden, the fraudulent COVID-19 construct and the treasonous rest of them all.

For one, we now have two widely known and highly regarded virologists who previously and similarly provided work and evidence, which we then cited and worked from, and which identified SARS-CoV-2 as bioengineered as a bio-WMD. The evidence is derived from the existence of six artificial HIV inserts, which can not in any way be accounted for as occurring in nature. This was a primary and underpinning premise to scaffold our overarching position(s) on the COVID-19 “pandemic” and this further verification of it is of great consequence.

Consider this from Zero Hedge,

British professor Angus Dalgleish – best known for creating the world’s first ‘HIV vaccine’, and Norwegian virologist Dr. Birger Sørensen – chair of pharmaceutical company, Immunor, who has published 31 peer-reviewed papers and holds several patents, wrote that while analyzing virus samples last year, the pair discovered “unique fingerprints” in the form of “six inserts” created through gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

They also conclude that “SARS-Coronavirus-2 has “no credible natural ancestor” and that it is “beyond reasonable doubt” that the virus was created via “laboratory manipulation.”


For brevity’s sake and understanding that other teams of virologists and their findings were also discussed, including this quote, “If I was trying to engineer a virus strain with a higher affinity and infective potential to humans, I would do exactly that…”, we’ll exclude the balance of the article and recommend that it be consumed in full.

It should also be noted that up until now and based upon previous research, we understood the number of artificial HIV insertions to be four (4), which they now update to six (6.)

The second story line is about fully explainable from the headline alone; also sourced at Zero Hedge – Fauci In 2012: Gain-Of-Function Research ‘Worth Risk Of Lab Accident Sparking Pandemic’.

From Zero Hedge quoting Fauci,

“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” Fauci wrote in the American Society for Microbiology in 2012, adding “Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?”

“Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks,” Fauci continued. “It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.”


Really, Tony?

It seems to me, rather, that based upon evidence and not Fauci’s always incorrect rhetoric, it is more likely that a pandemic would occur in U.S. and Chinese laboratories and with compromised scientists and treasonous politicians serving an evil Deep State and with Fauci running point.

The intelligence community is the spine to the overarching coup d’etat effort just as Anthony Fauci is the bridge connecting every presidency from George H.W. Bush through Joe Biden’s stolen, illegitimate and fraudulent presidency.

We began this article by asking if you cared to understand how COVID-19 is a false flag political construct that was intentionally developed as a bio-WMD to facilitate the overthrow of the U.S.?

Let’s rewrite that question and make it rhetorical for our closing – Can anyone prove that it isn’t?


Dangerously Changing Inconvenient Rules

Have you ever noticed that whenever the Deep State/Democrats change inconvenient rules, which is often accompanied by a move to better and enhanced technologies, it creates a portal permitting rampant fraud?

Have you ever noticed that such rules changes are normally executed by executive order, which equates to unilateral decision making, which equates to tyranny?

What are the chances that then President Barack Obama would inherit an outgoing George W. Bush executive order (#13486) devised to overhaul U.S. biosecurity in its biocontainment facilities and by means of a hand-picked “working group?” Rhetorical question; the chances are 100%.

Is it possible that Obama changed the rules pertaining to biosecurity beginning immediately upon entering office in 2009?

Did Obama use a 2014 “security stand down” issued unilaterally by Lisa Monaco (Department of Homeland Security) to alter rules and protocols for the purpose of loosening U.S. biosecurity measures writ large and in advance of underpinning the off-shoring of gain of function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China beginning on a 2014 (halted research) – 2015 (off-shored and funded) timeline?

History helps answer these questions.

The nation’s most sensitive FISA rules (laws) were deliberately broken to spy on then candidate and later President Donald J. Trump along with other critical personnel under the Trump umbrella, like Lt. General Michael Flynn.

Impeachment rules were changed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to reassign impeachment oversight from Jerry Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee – the lawful impeachment body – to Adam Schiff’s HPSCI; serving to further compartmentalize the fraudulent action within the treasonous intelligence community, which is essentially the spine to all of this corruption, treason and potential genocide (for the record, it’s actual; not potential, and the term ‘modern day holocaust’ is appropriate.)

State election rules (laws) were changed, broken or circumvented in multiple states to permit the theft of the 2020 election.

Elections rules (laws) were changed to ensure that precincts used preferred electronic voting machines that feature enhanced and better technologies like cellular modems, which can be leveraged by things like Hammer and Scorecard.

On 18 Mar 16 and with executive order Public Law 114-136, Obama changed longstanding presidential rules (law) by augmenting them to include pandemic preparedness; later inserting a political false flag construct (the COVID-19 pandemic) into the Trump administration during those same statutorily compulsory presidential transition meetings on 13 Jan 17.

So, again, I ask – Have you ever noticed that whenever the Deep State/Democrats change inconvenient rules, which is often accompanied by a move to better and enhanced technologies, it creates a portal permitting rampant fraud? This frames the basis of our long and intense discussion today.

In the same vein of rules changes and to recapitulate our premise, it appears that right from the very beginning of his first term in early 2009, Obama leveraged a biosecurity executive order inherited from an outgoing Bush (11 days before Obama’s inauguration) to make substantial rules changes in biosecurity writ large. Those changes eventually permitted the off-shoring of gain of function research relative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. It appears Obama then leveraged an apparent manufactured biosecurity crisis created by a DHS memo issued by Lisa Monaco in 2014 that cited three unrelated incidents as justification for issuing a national “security stand down” at U.S. biocontainment facilities, which created the entities and processes to make the rules changes. The Monaco memo coincides with internal U.S. whistleblowers who, on the same 2014 timeline, shined the light on U.S. gain of function research causing Obama’s administration to halt it and then, in 2015, off-shore it to China and fund it with Fauci’s NIH, et al.


Here is contextual backdrop information for this work that explains the emergence of the U.S. into this bio-warfare dynamic and it should be understood for the rest of our discussion. It is extracted from a May 2009 Department of Defense report that we continue to examine throughout and which overlaps Obama’s first term.

Biological Select Agents and Toxins and Bio-Safety Level Laboratories: After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the anthrax letters mailed later that same year, Congress recognized the threat of terrorism and enacted the USA Patriot Act in 2001. The Patriot Act makes it illegal for an individual to possess BSATs for any reason other than bona fide research. The act states: “Whoever knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose.” In response to these events, DoD and the service Inspector General teams inspected DoD biological RDT&E laboratories and advocated development of a surety program for biological agents, similar to existing surety programs for nuclear and chemical programs. In 2002, Congress enacted the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act that tasked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prepare a list of select agents and toxins based on the criteria specified in the act; the current version of that list is found in Table 2 along with the associated bio-safety levels (BSL).

Taking it back even further, know that Phase I of this broader effort dates back to 1999 during Bill Clinton’s presidency and further, Hillary Clinton will bear down in this momentarily. The 1999 timeline abuts to the 2001 9/11 timeline, which is not coincidental or by accident.

Another important contextual backdrop item, of which there are too many to include, from the DoD report is that of all of the identified viable threats to biosecurity systems, the one posing the greatest threat is the “insider threat;” and not without a sense of irony, that is the precise threat that bears down in the fraudulent COVID-19 pandemic (emphasis mine).

There was general agreement that an insider could remove BSAT material without detection. However, there was also considerable skepticism that an insider could use a DoD laboratory to proceed with weaponization steps undetected, other than in cases where the planned legitimate work involved equipment or processes that might enable weaponization; in such cases, additional security measures and monitoring should be provided and carefully observed.

Attempting to manipulate large quantities of agents (or weaponization) with steps that require specific equipment (e.g., lyophilizers) is much more likely to arouse suspicion and be detected by an alert management. On the other hand, these further steps (weaponization and quantity) could be accomplished in a garage, basement, or a less-protected lab, such as in a school, with some risk to persons nearby. Any individual who intends to employ a pathogen as a weapon is unlikely to be inhibited from using makeshift facilities that lack the full suite of safety practices utilized by the biodefense labs.

Our focus is being narrowed to something called the “two-person rule” relative to video monitoring systems and other important safeguards. The narrow focus allows us to demonstrate what appears to be a broader fundamental and deliberate shift to move U.S. biocontainment facilities and the regulations and rules framing their handling of BSATs and their interactions with foreign facilities and individuals, in the direction of a less robust biosecurity system; not a more robust one.

Note that the report indicates that the “two-person rule,” which is expanded on below, is of higher cost relative to lower value. Throughout the reports we examined, there is a firm, consistent and detracting message representing an effort to move away from the two-person system, which makes for a second, knowledgeable and objectively impartial set of eyes in the lab at all times.


Why not move in the other direction and mandate both the 2-person system and the video system? Why not make it a 3-person system including an international representative?

Simple logic tells us that the 2-person system matched to other effective biosecurity measures enhances biosecurity but the underpinning philosophical approaches being ushered-in by Obama’s administration curiously cause for a less robust and more vulnerable biosecurity system.

Look around you and ask yourself if that was an accident?

This is from the same DoD report (emphasis mine),

Two-person Rule and Video Monitoring: The current view on thwarting an attempt to steal weaponizable BSATs is typically to apply a two-person rule for working in the lab. In addition, most labs have some degree of video monitoring with a bank of display screens at some central point (e.g., guard post). The two-person rule is considered onerous, and potentially dangerous as it requires someone other than the active scientist to be present in the lab. It is also costly in terms of dollars and personnel. The video monitor is typically thought of as a forensic tool after the fact, but in real time it is only a bank of screens occasionally observed by people who are not experts in lab techniques. Table 7 outlines some of the pros and cons of the two approaches. The task force judged neither approach to be effective as they are used today. Even as a forensic tool, the video is generally retained for short periods of time and the need for forensics may occur months or years after the theft.

Note how the 2-person rule is hammered with negative connotation and devalued relative to cost, which repeats in additional reports and documents as follows. In typical propaganda form, it’s also book-ended by a criticism of the video system they recommend and prefer; constituting the classic propaganda tactic mixing of info and disinfo.

In actuality, though, it’s more than that. I assume it’s also likely to be a specific weakness they intended to exploit in order to operate in darkness and with no one else to see – literally. It’s a simple as saying a 1-person system only has one set of real eyes in the lab.

With the backdrop in place – lets get into it.


Our discussion begins with recent work revisiting the WIV as the origin of the fraudulent data-driven COVID-19 pandemic; especially since it’s resurfacing in the broader narrative and making Trump and then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (and the rest of us “conspiracy theorists” who have had this precisely dialed all along) appear as prognosticating geniuses (accurate intelligence helps.)

I’ve also recently summarily rehashed the COVID-19 construct to provide a succinct but thorough explanation of it; examined how China may leverage the pending U.S. infrastructure bill to apply Chinese doctrine to America; and I identified the Deep State/China/CCP exit plan from the attribution of the COVID-19 genesis to the Wuhan lab, which is manifesting as an emerging carve-out in the broader narrative.

Let’s start with James LeDuc from the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston; which is only about 55 or so miles from the now shuttered Chinese consulate in Houston that is known as a hotbed for Deep State/CCP activity and which was recently observed (last summer) burning documents on its rooftop. Notably, our reporting has previously covered how the UTMD was enmeshed in the COVID-19 pandemic in troubling ways.

It was LeDuc’s long-tenured relationships with the CDC, UTMB and Anthony Fauci; including being the recipient of substantial funding from Fauci, that when matched with his with his recommendation to examine the WIV using a pro-China narrative (that such a possibility is “less likely”) that is causing us to scrutinize him more closely.

LeDuc set us on this course and that work grew some legs; potentially long ones.

What really holds our attention with LeDuc is this – his advisement to upper echelon scientists in the area of biosecurity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2008 and as an overlap to Obama’s first term beginning in 2009; and emphasizing our position that Obama has been and continues to run point on all things and whereas Biden is his (and China’s/CCP’s) proxy in an otherwise shadow government (video below).

Beyond the philosophical shift to replace or diminish the 2-person system in favor of a fallible video system and the pitfalls inherent to that, there were other significant philosophical approaches being taken that also appeared to counter a robust biosecurity system.

Specifically, the philosophy of driving a “culture of responsibility” bearing down at the individual scientist level achieves a specific tactical and strategic purpose. It compartmentalizes biosecurity system within the individuals. That is important when you come to understand that individuals can be (have been) compromised and leveraged for nefarious reasons. Just ask Mike Pence. We’ll talk more about the Deep State vernacular always used to do this sort of thing.

I was able to identify 23 prior publications from LeDuc and I looked at several of them more closely. Our attention is drawn to one in particular that was authored in 2011 and it rests on his prior positions; including his 2008 advisement to the WIV, as I previously reported and noted. The co-authored piece is entitled ‘Balancing Our Approach to the Insider Threat.’

LeDuc’s introduction to this item should be consumed alongside my established position on the status quo, which is that 9/11 is a previous and sequential step with a bridge to COVID-19 and existing on a generational timeline. That said, LeDuc’s introduction to this item is unsurprising given that he’s of Fauci’s ilk.

First, here’s that description of the status quo, which exists in what I believe may be a divided government with the military recognizing Trump as president and the Judiciary and Congress recognizing Biden (because they helped install him.)

With confidence, it can be and has been demonstrated that individuals within the U.S., some with ties back to Nazi-era Germany (Bush family, et al.), conspired with China/CCP/PLA to research, fund, develop and then deploy a bio-WMD taking the form of SARS-CoV-2, which has genetic markers indicating four artificial HIV insertions and gain of function indicators, to exploit its previous deep and broad infiltration of the U.S. to remove its sitting president, overthrow its government, install a Chinese proxy (Biden) and destroy the nation from within by dividing its people with a fraudulent systemic racism campaign and by destroying its economy with a fraudulent pandemic; and all of it leverages treasonous politicians, officials and CEOs in the United States.


Here’s LeDuc’s ominous introduction to the piece (emphasis mine),

Bioterrorism was a concern of some in government even before Al Qaida–manned planes took down the World Trade Center towers. The anthrax letters greatly heightened that concern and extended it to our citizens as well. The nation responded with billions of dollars: bio- defense research and development, medical countermea- sures, equipment, training first responders, and funding construction of numerous high-containment laboratories. A next generation of scientists began working with what had been called, just since the mid-90s, ‘‘select agents’’; these were generally ‘‘high-risk’’ pathogens, including some that had been studied in state-sponsored biological warfare programs during the Cold War.

LeDuc’s co-authored piece would be foreboding (emphasis mine),

The commission’s report raised the risk of biological terrorism above nuclear terrorism and stated that the nation should ‘‘be more concerned that scientists will become terrorists than that terrorists will become scientists.’’ About the same time, Congressional testimony and concern in the science community resulted in 4 national level studies generally addressing what we now call ‘‘the insider threat’’ in biology.

The following quote is the initial aspect that fully caught my attention and set us on this course (emphasis mine),

A Defense Science Board study, Department of Defense Biological Safety and Security Program (May 2009), acknowledged the insider threat as a very difficult problem, noted that the Department of Defense had the most stringent laboratory security regulations, recommended laboratory video cameras in labs rather than a 2-person rule (1 person to watch another scientist at work), encouraged tailoring the Personnel Reliability Programs (PRP) in bio- logical labs to avoid having a negative impact on research, and underscored the importance of public awareness regarding risk reduction.

Why is LeDuc recommending that this change be made and why did he provide the exact same recommendation to scientists at the WIV in 2008? Why did this overlap Obama’s first term?

For clarity, Obama’s presidency began following the noon inauguration on 20 Jan 09. For more clarity, understand that LeDuc is a Fauci lackey and that Fauci entered service under Reagan (George H.W. Bush was VPOTUS) in 1984. He – Fauci – bridges George H.W. Bush to Clinton to George W. Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden.

So, why does LeDuc put a robust biosecurity system in the backseat in favor of a fallible video system and why do they prefer to address ideological concerns such as “negative impact on research” or scientists being “negatively affected?” Are those appropriate priorities?

Wouldn’t a robust biosecurity system entail informing the scientists that they’re conducting arguably the world’s most sensitive and dangerous research and if they can’t handle the requisite rigors and strict protocols of an effective and robust biosecurity system because it causes them emotional, psychological or professional harm, then they are not qualified for the job.

Hire someone else. Problem solved – unless, of course, your goal is to have and leverage a problem you designed yourself.

The company line offered here by Obama’s administration is an excuse that such a robust system and its restrictive measures interfere with recruiting the best scientific talent. Does that mean that the best scientific talent prefers to work without stringent guardrails to protect against possible deliberate or otherwise but most certainly unethical catastrophes?

Or is it a measure pertaining to the “best” scientific talent being perhaps the scientific “talent” that is willing to engage in bio-weaponization and gain of function work?

Moving forward relative to the quotes that follow, study how the Deep State makes patently obvious policy decisions that equate to more lax biosecurity and then explains it all away with flowery academic language pulling on about any string that is not common sense, human nature or actual science (their favorite tactic.)

The following is a perfect example of how this Fauci cohort is using their own vernacular to compartmentalize biosecurity with individual scientists. Remember that an individual scientist can be leveraged and compromised much more effectively than an entire robust biosecurity system.

In this instance and as he makes his remarks, LeDuc is pulling from a report we’ll visit momentarily (emphasis mine) when he says, “…the importance of strong leadership and a culture of personal responsibility in laboratories.”

That small fragment is a driving force in the broader Obama biosecurity philosophy. They conveniently compartmentalize biosecurity in two specific ways: at 1) the laboratory level and 2) the level of the individual scientist. Do you see the parallel to election fraud, which similarly occurred at state and precinct levels?

This notion of compartmentalization can’t be overstated. Culpability for curating all of the COVID-19 infection and mortality data was compartmentalized with medical providers. Enforcement for COVID-19 mitigations and guidelines leveraged federalism to be compartmentalized at the state and local levels.

A great analog for compartmentalization can be found in cancer. Which is easier to remove? Cancer metastasized throughout the entire body or an individual tumor in an accessible location? Compartmentalization is critical.

Just like compartmentalization permitted the theft of the election at specific accessible locations, compartmentalizing the biosecurity system within the individual scientists and laboratory leadership, permits entities to compromise the entire U.S. system essentially undetected by leveraging specific accessible locations and individuals.

Consider the similarities with how China is now compartmentalizing the culpability for the genesis of COVID-19, which was actually a bio-WMD strike against the U.S., in a false narrative being constructed around faulty lab sloppiness.

LeDuc, Fauci, et al. are recommending policies that compartmentalize biosecurity arguably because it lends toward a more vulnerable system that is more easily (and deliberately) compromised.

Otherwise, can anyone explain the rationale behind moving off a more robust 2-person biosecurity system, which leverages an unaffiliated third-party scientist (and that scientist’s human conscience) as an objective and methodological surveillance procedure to personally monitor the activities of another scientist at any/all times when inside the lab; and especially so since they are doing the world’s most dangerous work?

Not I. There is not one iota of common sense that prevails there.

Why do teachers walk around the room and from behind, look over the shoulders of students as they take their tests? Rhetorical question.

Examine the following as to whether it is representative of robust biosecurity measures or Deep State, bureaucratic, nonsense vernacular that explains away actual biosecurity in favor of something intentionally and deliberately inadequate and vulnerable (emphasis mine)?

Finally, the National Academies of Science released a study, Responsible Research with Biological Select Agents and Toxins (September 2009), leading with the call for building a culture of trust, engaging stakeholders, requiring government inspectors to have technical and laboratory experience, and pointing out the futility of attempting to implement an overly stringent agent accountability program.

The reports from the science community, the National Academies of Science, and the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, in particular, emphasized the importance of building a ‘‘culture of responsibility’’ and the value of leadership in making laboratories safe and the conduct of science responsible.

None of that is actual biosecurity but rather bullshit philosophical ideas about it. Once you know what to look for, finding it becomes relatively easy and here’s more (emphasis mine).

We have greatly increased security, installed cameras and stationed armed guards, and implemented PRPs at our government laboratories. We have implemented select agent rules—which have negatively affected our scientists’ ability to share microbial isolates with colleagues at collaborating facilities here and abroad—and we have required scientists to keep even more detailed records in an attempt to account for unmeasurable quantities of readily multiplying microbes. But what have we done to positively change the culture in our laboratories? We’ve done the easy part—the part that can be readily purchased or that lends itself to regulation and checklist management.

“Here and abroad?” Abroad, like China?

Does that translate to, “we are loosening up rules and protocols on sharing BSATs (SARS-CoV-2?) including sharing with overseas labs (China?).”

It even appears that they care for the reader to feel bad about it with those poor scientists being “negatively affected” and the concern for the “culture in our laboratories,” as if this is some liberal arts project on multiculturalism and race.

Here is more of the same flowery, bullshit vernacular angling for about anything other than a robust biosecurity system (emphasis mine).

We hear little of the value of ‘‘leadership’’ as a measure of safety and security in our select agent labs. Successful, enlightened leaders lead with quality science, an emphasis on safety, vision, education, responsibility, accountability, honesty, transparency, and ethics. From this, a culture of trust and accountability virtually always results. Regulatory oversight may call for varying levels of physical security, ‘‘lists’’ and pathogen controls, background checks and psychological evaluation of workers. These, without effective leadership, may only slow research progress and lead to a culture of frustration and mistrust.

“May call” for varying levels of physical security? “Individual responsibility?” It’s absolute tripe and by design. It’s garbage; bullshit as stated; talking out ones own ass; whatever you care to call it, which can be anything but effective and robust biosecurity.

Trust “always results? That is Deep State vernacular explaining away something they can’t control with an absolute – “always.” Red flag.

In this day, time and place, who in ones right mind blindly trusts the Chinese with bio-WMD proprietary knowledge and samples because of belief in ones own made-up “culture of responsibility?”

Fauci admitted he was essentially too lazy to vet his Chinese grant (think access) recipients against the CCP. He actually said that. How dumb does he think we are?

Having spared you several segments of LeDuc’s short piece, it ends with this (emphasis mine).

Our life science enterprise, ever more important to our nation’s well-being in this global economy, will never be risk free. Official biosecurity policy must include means of fostering enlightened leaders; with the leadership approach comes better science, better safety, and, we believe, even better security. Without it, the other measures be- come little more than the appearance of security. Troubled scientists have and will come to an engaged and enlightened leader for help, where openness has been built and trust is the currency. There are too little data to know if he or she will go to a ‘‘regulator’’ in a laboratory where trust is lacking.

“The appearance of security?” “Trust is lacking?

Nope. Rather, what’s lacking is the robust biosecurity system that would have prevented the FAUXVID-19 horse from ever leaving the barn.

Let’s focus more precisely and dial this down on Obama where in earlier reporting I previously remarked, “that is how Obama’s administration stopped (in 2014) and then off-shored and funded (in 2015) its gain of function research by sending it to the National Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.”

It’s important to remember that the ONLY reason the Obama administration paused GOF research in 2014 is because several folks internally suddenly sprouted a conscience – the same human conscience that all of these recommendations are suggesting be eliminated from labs due to high cost and low value – and shined a light on it. Otherwise, they would have continued uninterrupted with GOF work in the U.S.

From our May 2009 Department of Defense Biological Safety and Security Program report, we note that it overlaps another Obama/DOD effort that was also begun in the same 2009 timeframe; and on the same treasonous political continuum. The latter Obama effort produced the U.S. landscape we see today and it was discussed in detail in a previous article, which describes Obama’s application of his counterinsurgency doctrine to America. It served to function as a blueprint framing the overthrow of a sitting president and the U.S. government, which is a practice perfected overseas by the U.S. military and intelligence communities (again, see Hammer and Scorecard.)

The DoD report begins with an ominous tone,

Based on a series of briefings and site visits, and the experience of task force members, the single overarching finding of this investigation is that a determined adversary cannot be prevented from obtaining very dangerous biological materials intended for nefarious purposes, if not from DoD laboratories, then from other sources. The nation needs to recognize this reality and be prepared to mitigate the effects of a biological attack. Today, we as a nation are not prepared.

The report contains two important pieces of information. For one,

Overseas regulations: Use Department of State background investigations for host country personnel working in BSAT labs outside the United States. Issue waiver authority so that laboratory commanders can determine appropriate security measures for shipments into these facilities.

Falling back on the apparent objective of loosening biosecurity and the tactic of compartmentalizing it individually, the compartmentalization is extended to “laboratory commanders” who have “waiver authority” relative to shipping BSATs (SARS-CoV-2?) to bio-containment facilities; including overseas facilities (China?).

Further, keep an eye out for the Department of State angles because in addition to the origins of the biosecurity shift drawing back to Bill Clinton’s presidency in 1999, at the time of this 2009 DoD report, the Secretary of State is none other than Hillary Clinton. We’ll discuss her in more detail below.

Relative to “overseas regulations,” remember that the NIH/Fauci were funding the WIV after off-shoring its gain of function research there in 2014-2015. In consideration of that, we continue to wonder if these 2009 DoD changes were devised to set the landscape to permit all of that? After all, they began in 1999 while Bill Clinton – as Commander in Chief – was steering the DoD and they were gifted to Obama by Bush’s EO with the expectation that Hillary would win in 2016.

The 2-person policy continues to bear down.

BSAT transport: Review the usefulness of the two-person rule in preventing insider threats. Use “lost in the crowd” approach for shipments into laboratories. And consider the potential use of flight safe, tamper-resistant shipping containers.

The DoD report provides more similar evidence of concern elaborating on the identified and primary “insider threat” (emphasis mine).

The insider threat dominates internal security concerns: An insider could probably transfer BSAT out of the facility or supply chain without being discovered, regardless of defensive countermeasures. One can only make it difficult and uncertain for the insider. Detection of an insider threat is difficult even with extensive monitoring of the emotional and mental state of BSAT-certified employees, including transport personnel.

Improved video monitoring of labs can be superior to the two-person rule for detecting or deterring nefarious activities in the lab and can be valuable in assuring good safety practices.

BSAT transport works well today using the “lost in the crowd” approach, and may be worse with a two-person rule.

These positions appear to be the foundation for the loosening of biosecurity rules and regulations; noting that the “lost in the crowd” approach in transporting BSATs to labs is interpreted to be that BSATs are included in shipments with other similar but different samples and whereas they are “hiding” in plain sight being “lost in the crowd” of other samples. Is that a secure manner to transport, handle and ensure the chain of custody uniquely, separately and explicitly or is that more bullshit vernacular to explain away robust biosecurity?

Is that a way to circumvent strict inventory and auditing controls that would be found in a robust biosecurity system – to just throw them in with the rest?

Interestingly, a precise definition for “in the crowd” could not be located so if the inference is wrong, I’ll happily walk that aspect back. I’m not wrong.

From the DoD report (emphasis mine),

Rather than steal BSAT from a DoD lab, other paths would appear preferable for an adversary (e.g., natural sources, non-DoD labs, non-U.S. labs, genomic synthesis) except possibly in the case of a blackmailed or disgruntled employee working from the inside. DoD should avoid those measures that are significantly detrimental to the laboratory mission, onerous, or detract from morale unless the measure significantly improves security or safety. Covert external threats are unlikely and layers of defensive measures serve to deter further. An external “attack” by a demonstration mob or explosives, coupled with inflammatory media, could panic the surrounding populace.

From the Recommendations section of the DoD report,

Monitoring Activities: Make minor changes to monitor activities in labs to improve effectiveness without introducing significantly obtrusive measures that are unwarranted by the threat.

Again, it’s the same sacrifice of robust biosecurity for vague and ambiguous descriptions proffered in Deep State vernacular.

With the Clintons deeply enmeshed and Hillary at State, consider this recommendation below permitting State to inherit the authority to conduct background investigations for foreign (China?) recipients of BSATs.

That’s the same Hillary Clinton that maintained a private and unsecured server in her personal residence to deliver SAPs and highly classified and protected intelligence to China/CCP/PLA. See the repeated pattern of tactics and specifically relative to China? Rhetorical question.

OCONUS Regulations: Issue a blanket waiver for use of Department of State background investigations (conducted by U.S. Embassy Regional Security Office), in place of National Agency Check with Local Agency Check and Credit (NACLC), among host country personnel working with BSATs in DoD labs outside the continental United States (OCONUS).

Below, the rubber begins to meet the road with the recommendation to dispatch the 2-person biosecurity system for BSAT shipments to DoD labs (smuggling could be a possible synonym.)

BSAT Transport: Review use of the two-person rule for BSAT shipments; threat is unlikely. Continue to use “lost in the crowd” approach used for the shipments involving DoD labs. As a future option, investigate potential of flight safe, tamper-resistant shipping containers.

The DoD report concludes its recommendations (emphasis mine),

In summary, the recommendations in these seven areas will enhance current bio-safety and bio-security operations at the DoD laboratories while minimizing the impact of regulatory processes on the missions of those laboratories. The cost of implementing these recommendations is believed to be modest, but should not be imposed on the research programs that affect the missions of the labs.

That gives the appearance of a fundamental redirection from the priority from operational biosecurity to operational mission objectives, does it not? In both instances above – operational biosecurity and cost – mission objectives are given the priority over biosecurity.

Would “missions” include gain of function research relative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

From the DoD report (emphasis mine).

With respect to monitoring lab work to detect nefarious activities, the task force concluded the following: The two-person rule for security has many disadvantages but may be effective in certain, limited circumstances, primarily for safety while working with highly pathogenic materials or laboratory animals. In the long run, costs associated with the two-person approach are excessive and the effectiveness for security is highly questionable. Surveillance with the two-person rule is not likely to be continuous over an extended period and a perpetrator can know when he is not being observed (the other person’s back is turned). (See Figure 1 for an example of a typical lab floor plan). In addition, most labs have very constrained working areas and the observer would not be in a position to continuously observe the worker. Video surveillance of the labs can be much more effective than the two-person rule if enhanced with better procedures, better tools for monitoring, longer retention of recordings, and management participation. In addition, it probably results in lower long-term cost. Video has the advantage of constant surveillance; the malefactor doesn’t know when he is being monitored or not. Data overload problem of video should be dealt with by spot checking and random supervisory audits, and with tools developed for that purpose. Video surveillance has potential cross-benefits in checking for adherence to safety procedures and should be seen by the staff as dominantly for that purpose Video recordings are usually kept for 30–45 days at most labs while others save them for up to a year. They should be kept longer.

Video monitoring of labs for security is preferred over the two-person rule and could be much more effective than it is today. The primary concern is the disgruntled or stressed employee and the combination of video monitoring and BPRP should be integrated to detect such individuals. In monitoring, whether by video or by a second person, the question is where the focus should be for detecting problems most effectively. The following are examples of possible unauthorized acts that would be indicative of malfeasance: intentional concealing of containers or vials transfer of BSAT containers through showers, locker areas, or air locks preparation of live, dried BSATs unauthorized personnel in restricted areas manipulation of unregistered or undocumented BSAT cultures or containers tampering with freezer, incubator, or pass-through window locks manipulating BSAT cultures outside of bio-safety cabinets or outside of approved labs conducting animal studies without an approved protocol manipulating BSATs without appropriate safety procedures or equipment inadequate decontamination or destruction of working BSAT cultures at study conclusion.

Is there any science backing the claims proffered in their slick vernacular? No, hence the need for slick vernacular.

More importantly, it’s the same bullshit dialogue detracting from the fact that the rules are being changed towards more lax biosecurity. Look here; not there.

The explanation is simple and about anyone can comprehend it. Given that these scientists are conducting research of the highest risk and consequences, policy should dictate that biocontainment facilities BE DOING ALL OF IT – taking all of the reasonable measures; not bickering about and selecting over the options.

Instead, though, they are using this detracting dialogue to reduce biosecurity measures and cleverly push it in the wrong direction.

Regarding individuals cleared to handle BSATs, the FBI conducts SRA background investigations on all individuals but moreover, in those security clearance considerations, the Secretary of State, who was Clinton at the time, bears down again with authority,

“…is an alien who is a national of a country as to which the Secretary of State has made a determination (that remains in effect) that such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.”

Does China qualify by those terms? Factoring in Clinton’s State Department considerations, why did this report not mention China once? It mentioned countries in the Middle East but not China. It’s a small data point worth the mention.

The DoD report goes on to elaborate on the balance of the background investigations for BSAT handlers that go beyond the requisite FBI’s SRA and they can be consumed independently (linked below).


We turn our attention to the 2014-2015 time frame and the Monaco memo.

Our source here is an 29 Oct 15 memorandum issued by the Obama White House and it’s complimented by an October 2015 report entitled Fast Track Action Committee Report: Recommendations on the Select Agent Regulations Based on Broad Stakeholder Engagement.

From the 29 Oct 15 memorandum, there is an attached “Tab A,” which contains an 18 Aug 14 memorandum co-issued by Lisa Monaco (Department of Homeland Security.) This memo advises all national labs/biocontainment facilities to conduct a “security stand down” within 30 days and curiously overlaps the 2014 Obama decision to end gain of function research in the U.S., as previously discussed. This would be followed by the 2015 off-shoring and funding (NIH) of gain of function (SARs-CoV-2?) research to the WIV in China.

Recall how they care to ship BSATs with the “lost in the crowd” approach?

Well, what if suddenly there were a biosecurity crisis because internal whistleblowers delivered revelations and shined the light on U.S. bio-warfare and gain of function research?

How could one manage that crisis without drawing attention to any one particular (or more) lab (scene(s) of the crime)?

Could one use the “lost in the crowd approach” to expand the crisis to all similar biocontainment facilities and therein attribute the reason to three unrelated cited incidents while also following through with the rules rewrite that began with the Bush EO; while at the same time compartmentalizing the fallout and damage by shutting it down and off-shoring it to China?

Could one do that essentially without losing a step and falling behind in the work?

The tactic is analogous to the concept of opening a federal investigation for the express purpose of vacuuming-up evidence to cover-up a crime rather than exposing the evidence and prosecuting the crime (defendants.)

I think that’s what they may have done here with the Monaco memo.

The Monaco memo further and conveniently includes directives for international collaboration and the use of multinational venues (venues would be labs.) Like labs in China?

The obvious million dollar question is whether the Monaco memo served as the false flag event to implement final biosecurity policy changes to loosen U.S. biosecurity systems and to permit the off-shoring of U.S. gain of function research (SARS-CoV-2?) to the WIV in China; while simultaneously concealing the evidence of it.

Following the Monaco Memo, we get the October 2015 Fast Track Action Committee Report: Recommendations on the Select Agent Regulations Based on Broad Stakeholder Engagement. That report continues to identify the same persisting biosecurity recommendations (problems.)

It will be important to weigh what was recommended v. what was considered but not recommended (or not not considered at all) (emphasis mine),

Gaps in the Select Agent RegulationsSome respondents believed that the potential risks posed by novel organisms and new techniques are significant and inadequately addressed by existing regulatory approaches. The rapid pace of advances in genetic engineering and molecular biology has lowered barriers to the ability of researchers to use recombinant technologies to potentially increase an organism’s virulence or synthesize a biological select agent de novo. The ability to translate biological data into digital form and back again raises questions about regulatory oversight measures, such as the SAR, that rely on the physical presence of a pathogen. It was argued that additional consideration should therefore be given to regulatory approaches that anticipate technological challenges and are flexible enough to keep pace with them.

As we consider the report’s Recommendations, we focus on items considered but omitted: 1) creating a uniform and robust federal biosecurity system (instead preferring to create a “task force” to further explore and make recommendations), 2) a second uniform federal system to vet personnel and determine personnel reliability (background investigations and clearances) and 3) constructing a direct safety and oversight program for bio-WMD and gain of function research specifically.

As for keeping the human element in tact – otherwise known as the barrier to fraud and more specifically as the 2-person bio-security measure – the report only mentioned it once buried in a section entitled “Summary Comments from Listening Sessions” in the sub-section “Gaps in the Overarching SAR Approach or Process.” Little of value was said.


Now, take what we know and apply it to the timeline presented below. We do this remembering that on 09 Jan 09, eleven days before his exit and Obama’s entry, George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13486, which,

“…established a Working Group (WG) co-chaired by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or their designees. Other members of the WG included designees of the Secretaries of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Directors of National Intelligence and the National Science Foundation, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Attorney General.”

That objective was to strengthen U.S. laboratory biosecurity.

What it really did was permit the incoming Obama administration the requisite mechanism to revamp U.S. biosecurity, which permitted the necessary and eventual 2015 off-shoring of GOF research to China.

Note a common theme occurring in statecraft where something specific will transit multiple presidential administrations. In these cases, there are tendencies for an outgoing president to function by executive order for the purpose of setting-up the incoming administration for particular vectors of work. This is a passive tactic to conceal evidence and attribution and divide the work to avoid having a single fall guy ergo it permits easier hand washing and deniability.

Building on the aforementioned executive order, consider this broader timeline relative our established fact set and U.S. biosecurity more broadly.

This timeline information is exclusively sourced with (my emphasis) added,

1996: The select agent program launched by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which prohibited the transfer of some “select” agents from one laboratory to another without registration with the CDC

2001: Anthrax letter attacks expose “a gap” in biosecurity.

2003: The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, along with the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001, led to a new select agent program (ushered in by 9/11?).

2003: In October 2003, the National Research Council published Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism, which is known as the Fink Report. The com­mittee described an initial set of seven types of experiments of concern that, while not prohibited, would merit review and discussion before being under­taken or published in detail.

2004: The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity was established in 2004 as a federal advisory committee and has been chartered continuously to date at two-year intervals by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The NSABB has offered guidance for handling dual-use re­search of concern (DURC), a modified form of the Fink Report’s experiments of concern, and has provided input on the publication of several papers in ad­dition to the H5N1 papers, including one on the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus, for which they recommended publication.

2008: World at Risk, the report of the Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (WMD Commission), was released on December 2, 2008. In the report, the WMD Commission rec­ommended that the U.S. should “conduct a comprehensive review of the do­mestic program to secure dangerous pathogens, tighten government oversight of high-containment laboratories and promote a culture of security awareness in the life sciences community.”

2009: Working Group on Strengthening the Biosecurity of the United States report re­leased on October 23, 2009; established by Executive Order 13486, which was signed on January 9, 2009, by George W. Bush.

2009: National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) Report: Enhancing Personnel Reliability among Individuals with Access to Select Agents released April 30, 2009

2009: The Trans-Federal Task Force on Optimizing Biosafety and Biocontainment Oversight, co-chaired by HHS and USDA, released a report that examined gaps in the oversight framework for laboratories and options for improvement to biocontainment oversight. Among its recommendations: there should be training standards and core competencies for personnel at high and maxi­mum containment research laboratories, and there should be a phased-in re­quirement for credentialing of biosafety professionals at high and maximum containment laboratories.

2009: Defense Science Board task force report Biological Safety and Security Program for Research Involving Biological Select Agents and Toxins publicly released May, 2009. They identi­fied areas for action, including computer security enhancements such as video monitoring of laboratory workers, which they determined to be superior to the “two-person rule,” transporting pathogens with a “lost in the crowd” approach vs. a two-person escort; and avoiding security measures that are significantly detrimental to the mission, particularly for overseas laboratories.

2009: Government Accountability Organization (GAO) report High Containment Laboratories: Issues related to Oversight released in September 2009.

2009: National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences) report Responsible Research with Biological Select Agents and Toxins Released.

2009: National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats released November 2009. The strategy includes a series of objectives that are intended to “protect against the misuse of the life sciences to develop or use biological agents to cause harm.”

2010: Executive Order 13546, Optimizing the Security of Biological Select Agents and Toxins in the United States, was released on July 2, 2010. The EO stated that there was an “absence of clearly defined, risk-based security measures” for the select agent program, which “has raised concern about the need for optimized security and for risk management.”

2011: On June 13, 2011, the federal experts security advisory panel released Recommendations Concerning the Select Agent Program, as called for in EO 13546. It created a tier 1 of pathogens and recommended that 25 pathogens be removed from the select agent list. The panel also recommended the removal of a number of animal and human pathogens from the select agents list and recommended against the inclusion of SARS.


On 02 July 10, Obama issued EO 13546 and on 13 Jul 11, as noted in the timeline above, federal experts were responsive to it with their report entitled ‘Federal Experts Security Advisory Panel Recommendations Concerning the Select Agent Program.’

Buried at the bottom of this report are two footnotes (emphasis mine).

The first footnote reads, “Revised 1/10/11: Recommendation regarding inclusion of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) virus on the list of BSAT.”

The second footnote provides an enormous plot shift in this drama and it reads, “The FESAP does not recommend inclusion of SARS on the list of BSAT.”

That’s right. After all of the designed uncertainty and years of discourse, committees, indecisiveness, lack of clarity, bullshit vernacular and more; and all over biosecurity and the bickering over which systems and guardrails are best, rather than combining them all into one comprehensive and robust biosecurity system, Obama’s executive order took the additional step of recommending the removal of SARS from the BSAT list.

Does that equate to a deliberate maneuver to avert active surveillance on gain of function research on SARS and does that include SARS-CoV-2?

Here’s a reminder about SARS: the entire COVID-19 pandemic is a fraudulent construct resting on a platform of propagated infection and mortality from SARS-CoV-2; the same SARS Obama sought to have removed.

I believe we’ve uncovered the broader basis – and the cover-up mechanism – for the ending of gain of function research in the U.S., its off-shoring and funding to China and as attributable on a timeline extending from George H.W. Bush through Joe Biden and with Anthony Fauci as the bridge linking them all start to finish.

No wonder Joe Biden shut down the investigation into the genesis of COVID-19.

If the rules are inconvenient, just change them.



A Carve-out Is Being Made in the Broader COVID-19 Narrative

There is a carve-out being made in the broader COVID-19 narrative and it’s a slick approach that to some extent is sure to gain traction and be effective. The carve-out is a typical blend of information, misinformation and disinformation including appetizing talking points that will unfortunately appease a segment of the population seeking real answers.

Wall Street Journal

That population segment could likely be characterized as MAGA/Trump supporters who have doubts about COVID-19 but consume primarily mainstream media sources.

Wall Street Journal

Unfortunately, as satisfying and “I told you so” as the answers they receive may be and to the extent that this segment becomes effectively appeased, these folks will only be receiving just enough of the truth to get them to believe the balance of it all and wherein the sowers have enmeshed the misinfo/disinfo in the parts that taste best.

Our source linked at the bottom is the Wall Street Journal and it explores the importance and relativity of an abandoned mine (think bat feces) associated with the WIV. They almost got it right when they speculated to pin attribution for the pandemic on Chinese internal lab sloppiness.

It wasn’t Chinese sloppiness; however, rather it was Chinese bio-warfare.

That the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a CCP/PLA facility bears down fully and as I’ve asserted dating back for over a year, we’ve been in an undeclared World War III since at least Oct 2019, as previously demonstrated and relative to the existence of the November 13, 2019 FBI Tactical Intelligence report serving as the source of the time frame.

Now consider that in the broader scope of things, a carve-out is being made within the narrative to attribute the fraudulent COVID-19 pandemic directly to China, but characterized as internal lab sloppiness. This approach stands a real chance of appeasing low information consumers.

The carve-out permits China to use a fraudulent narrative to characterize as “accidental” and fully compartmentalize the culpability for an asymmetrical strike; a strike that is comprised of an act of war by means of the the release of a bio-WMD. It was an act of war designed to launch a fraudulent pandemic devised to begin the destruction of America from the inside-out.

In so doing, this carve-out will attribute China’s asymmetrical bio-warfare strike to a narrative of fraudulent lab sloppiness permitting China to further enshroud its broader construct that included leveraging a deep and broad infiltration of America’s institutions to remove a sitting U.S. president, overthrow the U.S. government and insert a Chinese proxy into the White House in Joe Biden.

This carve-out will also permit China to directly control the narrative, which answers a question some readers are sure to have – Why would China assume responsibility for the release of the bio-WMD (they won’t call it that but the FBI did)?

By assuming responsibility for the “leak” from it’s CCP/PLA WIV, China removes the U.S. from the dialogue and positions itself to take a full and commanding lead in controlling the narrative as it explains exactly how the “leak” occurred. Within this explanation, China can fabricate whatever story line and evidence it needs to serve it accordingly and it will do so with the WHO (and the CDC, NIH, NIAID) in its back pocket and with the U.S. otherwise left impotent. Those entities are sure to toe the Chinese company line.

Sure, China takes a hit but a self-imposed hit placed exactly where you want it and with full control over everything associated with it is a solid bet – just ask those Americans incriminated in the events of 9/11 and what that event has permitted them to do to the American people. Even more so for China, the feel especially emboldened since its proxy Joe Biden is already installed and positioned to drive it home.

China is betting this allows them to avoid taking WWIII hot (for the time being as Taiwan still looms) but achieving a similar result – global dominance.

From the WSJ, here’s what James LeDuc had to say about it all.

Wall Street Journal

This is James LeDuc who gives the appearance of being a bought and paid for Fauci lackey; #FalseFlagFauci, that is.

The Liberty Beacon (click to read)

Look back-up at LeDuc’s statement above and specifically the last line about following the science. Then be reminded of what I offered up the other day.

A carve-out is being made in the narrative attributing the COVID-19 outbreak to Chinese internal lab sloppiness. That’s Kool-Aid induced inebriation, folks, because what we’ve endured is an asymmetrical bio-WMD strike in an undeclared World War III.

Paging President Trump and his rebuilt military.



That Number 17…

This is not an article about Q but rather a high-brow dig into exactly how China/CCP/PLA may interface with the Biden administration as Joe Biden – the installed Chinese proxy – serves his principals accordingly as they maneuver to apply Chinese doctrine to America and as evidenced by China’s One Belt One Road and 17+1 programs; bearing similarity to it’s Thousand Talents program that entangled corrupt coronavirus smuggling Harvard University professor, Charles Lieber.

Herein, we’ll examine communications from the Council on Foreign relations as informed by a recent Zero Hedge item relative to China/CCP and its geopolitical and economic aspirations, policies and programs. Of course, it all neatly envelops our existing COVID-19/WWIII positions and the full catalog of work while also dragging Q to front and center anyways.

And of course, the launch point for this discussion begins with the number [17] and specifically, China’s program, “17+1.”

We are beginning with Q, though, and it’s for the sake of perspective.

That number seventeen [17] – it can’t be escaped in the backdrop of the past several years and specifically in the range of 28 Oct 17 to the present. Those of you who are like me and suffer from some level of Qtardation need no further explanation.

This number curiously manages to appear symbolically and cryptically all over the place and often in the most obscure and coincidental ways.

Whether it be that “Q” is the 17th letter of the alphabet or that President Trump has never appeared to disavow or debunk Q or, for that matter, acknowledge or verify Q, which makes this all very gooey to parse out.

Even gooier is that President Trump has a track history of appearing to point at Q signage/shirts and signaling Q by tracing the letter in the air as a gesture when interacting with others. Moreover, you can also mix in the fact that the MSM is still panicking over Q and most recently in the past few days; while Q hasn’t posted since 08 Dec 20.

I’m not giving you the plentifully full list of Qincidences involving the number [17] because the magic of research is finding it on your own. If you’re unfamiliar, take a dig if for no other reason then entertainment value.

For the Qtarded, the particulars of the “17+1” program may provide a different lens through which to review and interpret [17] or at least better inform the current understanding of it. Or not.

No matter because what is presented herein stands alone and is independent from anything related Q and so positions should be consumed that way because they are weighty.

For the record, my Qtardedness is best described as having found the original Q post in virtually real time while exploring alternative research vectors on 28 Oct 17; having followed and engaged in the content intensely since then; having transitioned from firm belief in Q’s veracity to leaving the door open to it and with legitimate doubts on board (but still holding on to hope); to – most importantly – using Q as a routinely reliable source for research topics that when effectively explored, often deliver reliable evidence routinely neglected by the MSM.

So, Q functions like a topic generator for research and is used accordingly as a tool; and that stands in acknowledgement of the abundance of collateral misinformation and disinformation threading through the entire Q fabric and right alongside a litany of predictive misses.

But this isn’t about Q, it’s about [17]+1 and China and the CCP and relative to the fact that since China released a bio-WMD on the United States (world) in October 2019, we’ve been in the throes of an undeclared WWIII. All of this will support these positions.

It’s the Zero Hedge item on Lithuania’s withdrawal from the program serving as our catalyst here and they define the 17+1 program as (emphasis mine),

“The Chinese regime officially launched the platform—which was initially named the “16+1” platform—in April 2012 to intensify cooperation with 11 European Union member states and five Balkan countries. The platform was renamed “17+1” after Greece signed up for the initiative in April 2019.

“The initiative calls for participating countries to cooperate with China in many fields, including finance, health, trade, and technology. Modeled after the platform, Beijing rolled out another project in 2013, which is called the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI, also known as “One Belt, One Road), in an effort to build up trade routes linking China and other parts of the world.”

Zero Hedge

Take note of the “One Belt, One Road” tangent because it’s a critically important one that I introduced back in October 2020 in the broader context of this extract from the article The Promise of Dark Winter,

“Recall that we maintain longstanding positions that the Bidens were exploiting global energy markets and specifically in natural gas. We tracked the Bidens’ global enterprising efforts from Ukraine – my best bet for QAnon’s KEYSTONE – which I characterized like this in an older article, “Buckle-up, this goes from the US to Ukraine, Iran, Brazil, Russia, Switzerland, Argentina and back to the US….. and Joe Biden.”

“Listen again and carefully to what Hunter Biden is saying here (visit article to linked media if you care to listen.)

“For one, he’s drawing attention to “his partner,” whom he characterizes as the richest man in the world and chairman of the CEFC, a private Chinese outfit to mysteriously appear in the Global Fortune 500 beginning in 2013. Here, it’s important to reflect back on what former Biden associate Tony Bobulinski recently stated and namely that the CCP serves as China’s political arm while the CEFC serves as its capitalist arm.

“It’s President Xi Jinping’s alignment with China’s “One Belt One Road” geopolitical and infrastructure development directive, which invests in foreign nations, that leverages the CCP political arm and CEFC economic arm.

“Here is where it’s important to acknowledge the two the primary players in the CEFC – Chairman Ye Jianming, with whom Hunter Biden entered into an agreement to serve as his “personal attorney” and who he calls his “partner” in the deal outlined below; and Patrick Ho, who was, “the fucking spy chief of China,” as Hunter described him, and the individual responsible for founding the CEFC. Curiously but not surprisingly, Biden and Ye only communicate in person. There are reasons for that.”

Political Moonshie

Now consider this from the ZH article indicating the reasons for Lithuania’s withdrawal from 17+1, which not only factors in support for Taiwan in that ongoing conflict, but it indicates significant concerns about espionage the likes of which plague the Biden crime family,

“From Lithuanian citizens, Chinese intelligence may seek to obtain sensitive or classified national or NATO and EU information,” stated Lithuania’s 2019 National Threat Assessment report, according to the Estonian newspaper The Baltic Times. “Chinese intelligence-funded trips to China are used to recruit Lithuanian citizens.”

“Chinese intelligence looks for suitable targets—decision-makers, other individuals sympathizing with China and able to exert political leverage. They seek to influence such individuals by giving gifts, paying for trips to China, covering expenses of training and courses organized there,” the report stated.”

Zero Hedge

Sound familiar?

You now likely see my point with 17+1 being entangled with One Belt One Road, which functions to leverage the CCP political arm and CEFC economic arm – and it all ties directly to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, China and the CCP.

Examining the relative objectives and parameters provides greater clarity and we turn to the Council on Foreign Relations for some details.

We’re beginning with One Belt One Road (BRI) and with the understanding that the Council On Foreign Relations should be viewed as anti-Trump and adversarial (emphasis mine),

“China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), sometimes referred to as the New Silk Road, is one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever conceived. Launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping, the vast collection of development and investment initiatives would stretch from East Asia to Europe, significantly expanding China’s economic and political influence.

“Some analysts see the project as an unsettling extension of China’s rising power, and as the costs of many of the projects have skyrocketed, opposition has grown in some countries. Meanwhile, the United States shares the concern of some in Asia that the BRI could be a Trojan horse for China-led regional development and military expansion. Under President Donald J. Trump, Washington has raised alarm over Beijing’s actions, but it has struggled to offer governments in the region a more appealing economic vision.”

Council on Foreign Relations

The 17+1 program fits within the overarching BRI as a mechanism to expand BRI to Central and Eastern European countries (CEE.) From The Diplomat,

“The spotlight of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is usually on the Asian (be they Central Asian, South Asian, or Southeast Asian) or African participants. Yet the post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe form an important part of the BRI. In fact, the CEE region was among the best represented regions at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum: of the 28 heads of state or government, four were from the region (representing the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Serbia), while Romania sent a delegation led by the country’s deputy prime minister. This reflects the very intense development of the China-CEE cooperation under the auspices of the BRI.

“This cooperation is better known as the “16+1,” referring to the 16 CEE states with which China (the “+1”) is developing ties: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The 16+1 mechanism involves quite a heterogeneous group of countries. Of the 16 participating CEE states, 11 are EU member states (five of which are also members of the single currency eurozone), four are EU candidate countries, and one is a potential candidate state. To many observers, therefore, the multiple high-level summits, business meetings, and statements by representatives of the CEE countries and China seem to be framing a new regional context in the European continent.”

The Diplomat

Here, it’s important to factor in Russia’s own political and economic (and military) objectives which overlap and possibly conflict with China’s European ambitions relative to the fact that President Trump had normalized relations with Russia and tightened positions on China and whereby the Obama/Biden/Deep State immediately pivoted away from China and back to Russia as the current and necessary deflection point boogeyman.

Surprisingly or not and for reasons perhaps not completely understood, the CFR article indicates either as propaganda or as truth that the Russians view China’s expansion into CEE favorably in light of opportunities for its own economic expansion.

Let’s also not forget that China is leveraging these programs in part to infiltrate NATO, as outlined by the Lithuanians, and that the current drive from the Obama/Biden/Deep State is rekindling trouble (a coup under Obama/Clinton/Kerry) in Ukraine and pushing it to join NATO relative to NATO’s continued encircling of and pressure campaign on Russia (previously covered in Volume 8 of The Still.)

From the CFR article, now consider this description from UE officials and apply my positions toward China relative to COVID-19/WWIII. Then ask yourself it it sounds like things here at home.

“In the past three years, EU officials have lambasted China for allegedly undermining the European integration process by turning the CEE countries into “Trojan horses” and sowing division in the continent.”

Council on Foreign Relations

Infiltration as a means to sow division across the continent (country)? Sound familiar?

It’s the same strategy here in the U.S. and with COVID-19 as the mechanism to do so by first creating the requisite landscape permitting the theft of an election followed by the subsequent removal a sitting president so as to overturn an historic electoral victory and overthrow the government. All of that is underpinned by the Antifa/BLM/manufactured and fraudulent systemic racism narrative/violence/riots/brownshirts component.

With focus back on Russia and from the the CFR article, consider the BRI objectives in more detail (emphasis mine),

“Xi’s vision included creating a vast network of railways, energy pipelines, highways, and streamlined border crossings, both westward—through the mountainous former Soviet republics—and southward, to Pakistan, India, and the rest of Southeast Asia. Such a network would expand the international use of Chinese currency, the renminbi, and “break the bottleneck in Asian connectivity,” according to Xi. (The Asian Development Bank estimated that the region faces a yearly infrastructure financing shortfall of nearly $800 billion.) In addition to physical infrastructure, China plans to build fifty special economic zones, modeled after the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone, which China launched in 1980 during its economic reforms under leader Deng Xiaoping.

“Xi subsequently announced plans for the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road at the 2013 summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Indonesia. To accommodate expanding maritime trade traffic, China would invest in port development along the Indian Ocean, from Southeast Asia all the way to East Africa and parts of Europe.

“China’s overall ambition for the BRI is staggering. To date, more than sixty countries—accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population—have signed on to projects or indicated an interest in doing so. Analysts estimate the largest so far to be the estimated $60 billion* China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a collection of projects connecting China to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea. In total, China has already spent an estimated $200 billion on such efforts. Morgan Stanley has predicted China’s overall expenses over the life of the BRI could reach $1.2–1.3 trillion by 2027, though estimates on total investments vary.

China has both geopolitical and economic motivations behind the initiative. Xi has promoted a vision of a more assertive China, while slowing growth and rocky trade relations with the United States have pressured the country’s leadership to open new markets for its goods.

Experts see the BRI as one of the main planks of a bolder Chinese statecraft under Xi, alongside the Made in China 2025 economic development strategy. For Xi, the BRI serves as pushback against the much-touted U.S. “pivot to Asia,” as well as a way for China to develop new investment opportunities, cultivate export markets, and boost Chinese incomes and domestic consumption. “Under Xi, China now actively seeks to shape international norms and institutions and forcefully asserts its presence on the global stage,” writes CFR’s Elizabeth C. Economy.”

Council on Foreign Relations

So, how do we fully align all of this with our positions on COVID-19 and World War III? It all begins with the economy and geographic economic expansion where China takes a backseat only to the U.S. Or, in other words, Chinese hegemony.

By going down the contemporary redux of its Silk Road approach with BRI and 17+1, China’s economic expansion is obvious to see. What remains is identifying how those doctrines have been applied to the U.S.

The key there is understanding that as China’s proxy, Joe Biden’s job is to ensure that the application of Chinese doctrine to the U.S. is made to stick. That horse is long out of the barn as demonstrated by Biden’s presidency itself and this “infrastructure” project that is going to factor in relative to it all.

In order to assert itself in alignment with its own hegemonic and economic doctrines, China must accomplish two fundamental objectives: 1) China must be positioned to expand while 2) the U.S. must be reciprocally positioned to contract.

Do you think that the release of a bio-WMD against the U.S. to shutter it’s entire society and economy would be sufficient enough to position the U.S. to contract?

Would that be made easier with a full slate of U.S. individuals – politicians, officials and CEOs at all levels and in copious amounts and in all institutions and in all of the right places – compromised, infiltrated and positioned to assist?

The following quote from the CFR article depicts the technical interface for China and Biden to potentially collude in ways antithetical (treasonous) to the best interest of the U.S. and it hinges on two things that directly apply to America – the looming infrastructure bill and it’s favorite past time of being a substantial borrower of money.

“The Belt and Road Initiative has also stoked opposition. For some countries that take on large amounts of debt to fund infrastructure upgrades, BRI money is seen as a potential poisoned chalice. BRI projects are built using low-interest loans as opposed to aid grants.”

Council on Foreign Relations

The keyword here is “infrastructure” given the pending behemoth bill and China’s proxy Joe Biden appears to be messaging his principals accordingly as reported by the Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine),

Lurking just behind the domestic debate breaking out over President Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plans is a powerful foreign force: China.

“The Biden team sees the plan—and wants the Chinese to see the plan—as a sign the U.S. intends to put itself in better position to compete with Beijing economically. Thus, infrastructure marks just the latest example of how the specter of a long competition with China is beginning to color all manner of American policy moves, in both parties.

Significant pieces of the package have been constructed with the express purpose of trying to put the U.S. on a better footing to compete with China and its own giant investments in infrastructure and key industries. The administration doesn’t want this to go unnoticed in Beijing. When President Biden unveiled the plan, he mentioned China six times, including this reference: “That’s what competition between America and China and the rest of the world is all about. It’s a basic question: Can democracies still deliver for their people?””

Wall Street Journal

That sounds very much like a cryptic message to Biden’s principals (China/CCP) indicating that we’re open for business.

Do you think it’s an accident that China’s hegemonic aspirations are rooted in “infrastructure” at the same time Biden was installed by them and whereby he immediately placed such an enormous infrastructure bill on the table?

Do you think it was an accident that Hunter Biden (and Joe Biden, who delivered him on Air Force 2, and others under the Biden umbrealla) was enveloped in the energy sector (natural gas) in Ukraine and China and other nations and that corruption and crime occurred in those instances, too; and to the tune of $1.5 billion (and certainly more) with China?

Things like “infrastructure” and “energy,” in addition to serving as interfaces for collusion, are cover constructs that serve as conduits to move money within criminal fraud; just like the Paris Climate Accord launders and moves U.S. tax money that is for designated recipients and there is a long list of other similar fraudulent constructs.

For timeline considerations here relative to COVID-19, recall that in 2014, Obama shifted his relevant foreign policy as noted by the CFR article (emphasis mine),

“The United States has shared other countries’ concerns about China’s intentions. Developing the economies of South and Central Asia is a long-standing U.S. goal that intensified after the start of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and President Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia. The Obama administration frequently referenced the need for the Afghan economy to move past foreign assistance, and in 2014 then-Deputy Secretary of State William Burns committed the United States to returning Central and South Asia “to its historic role as a vital hub of global commerce, ideas, and culture.””

Council on Foreign Relations

Do you know what else happened at this precise time from 2014 to 2015? Obama’s federal apparatus suddenly grew a conscience over gain of function research and off-shored it to China and then funded it through Anthony Fauci and the NIH; and all of that occurred at the national lab (CCP/PLA) in Wuhan.

What happened in 2016? Obama issued an executive order on 18 Mar 16 called Public Law 114-136 that augmented longstanding presidential transition law to include “pandemic preparedness.” Obama did this before his transition team leveraged it to insert a pandemic construct into the Trump administration during transition meetings on 13 Jan 17.

Biden, Fauci and Obama all forewarned of President Trump’s unpreparedness for a pandemic or disease outbreak before the world learned of what would become “COVID-19” (as named such on 11 Feb 20) on 27 Dec 19; two days after Christmas when the world was distracted with post-impeachment (the first) and New Year’s.

With confidence, it can be and has been demonstrated that individuals within the U.S., some with ties back to Nazi-era Germany (Bush family, et al.), conspired with China/CCP/PLA to research, fund, develop and then deploy a bio-WMD taking the form of SARS-CoV-2, which has genetic markers indicating four artificial HIV insertions and gain of function indicators, to exploit its previous deep and broad infiltration of the U.S. to remove its sitting president, overthrow its government, install a Chinese proxy (Biden) and destroy the nation from within by dividing its people with a fraudulent systemic racism campaign and by destroying its economy with a fraudulent pandemic; and all of it leverages treasonous politicians, officials and CEOs in the United States.

Summarily, what we have outlined today is the exact interface for how China may (will) begin to leverage the back end of its infiltration efforts. It is shaping up to begin with the infrastructure bill as the portal for the application of Chinese hegemonic doctrine to the U.S. and by its proxy in Joe Biden. That began with China’s One Belt One Road doctrine, building off the program named after that number, [17] and specifically, 17+1.

Paging President Trump. We desperately need your return and sooner than later.


Wuhan Lab Is Conspiracy No More?

What is it or should I say, who is it, that serves as the needle to thread COVID-19 through three consecutive presidential administrations from Obama to Trump to Biden?

Who is it that’s the highest paid official in the federal government at $400,000 annually and having entered service in 1984 during the Reagan Administration? Who is it that has a questionable history of false attributions relative to disease outbreaks? Who had a history of ethically controversial recommendations with experimental drugs? Who is the “expert” claiming to know so much and be so, well, “expert” in all things but who has gotten so much so wrong and so often and sometimes in ways antithetical to his own previous positions? Who is it that altered positions on longstanding and universally accepted medical practices, policies and knowledge to adapt them for a false flag political construct driven by manufactured fraudulent data harvested from an average of 4.0 co-morbidities? Who stands to gain financially and otherwise from global vaccination?

Who is it that has contradicted himself in absurd ways from don’t worry>worry, no travel ban(s)/travel ban(s), just flatten the curve/just a few weeks> now going on two years, no masks> 1 mask, 2 masks more than two masks? Who knew that masks didn’t work because it’s one of the aforementioned universally accepted medical positions rooted in peer-reviewed and established research findings? Who even said that “homemade” masks would work?

Who….you can complete that with a long list of other questions which, like all of these, are rhetorical and we all know the answer – it’s the individual I branded #FalseFlagFauci a long, long time ago.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who should stand trial for crimes against humanity for his role in engineering and propagating a fraudulent pandemic as a sequential step in an overthrow effort that ousted a sitting president by design and occurs within the context of an undeclared World War III, which commenced with the release of a bio-WMD against the U.S. in October of 2019, has repeatedly denied allegations of entanglements with China, the CCP, military and PLA labs relative to funding and gain of function research.

As I indicated in the previous article, wherein the section covering COVID-19 provides an excellent and comprehensive summary update to underpin what is being delivered here, Mike Pompeo has recently turned his attention to work previously covered over a year ago and mainly, the bioweaponization aspects of COVID-19 as occurring in the controversial national and military laboratory in Wuhan, China. This represents a circle back to remarks last year about China/CCP having evaluated a long list of Americans (politicians, governors, etc.) important to them.


If you’ve been drinking your Moonshine, you know that I’ve been covering the COVID-19 pandemic from its very beginning circa 27 Dec 19 and at a granular level essentially unmatched; especially with regard to some very important positions such as Impeachment 1.0 serving as the deflection point/cover mechanism for the ushering in of COVID-19. A second position is one that we’ll review again today – that President Trump fully compartmentalized the culpability for COVID-19 entirely with the Anthony Fauci/Mike Pence cohort and he did so in a legendary press conference.

Resting on that, we now have some older story lines relative to our existing work that are either rehashing or just now making their way into the broader narrative.

In April and May, the CDC took measures revising cycle threshold ranges relative to PCR testing once again stacking another empirically valid data point firmly in my camp of this entire pandemic being one of propagated fraudulent data as curated and harvested from co-morbidities and whereby intentionally flawed PCR tests utilizing anomalously high and unconventional cycle threshold ranges serve as the primary data driver. What permits the PCR tests to be the pandemic’s data driver was the mid-April (2020) moving of the goal post/measuring stick of mortality data, which was in decline, to “new case” data, which is created by abundant false positive test results caused by said faulty and high cycle thresholds.

Further complicating matters for the official CV19 narrative and the Fauci cohort (Fauci, Birx, NIAID, NIH, CDC, et al.) is yet another aspect that has been long reported by the likes of us and others, but ignored writ large in the MSM and that is how Obama’s administration stopped (2014) and then off-shored and funded (2015) its gain of function research by sending it to the National Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. Again, it’s Senator Tom Cotton (AR) shining light on it.

Relative to the Cotton comments, it now appears as if Fauci (#FalseFlagFlipFlopFauci) is reversing course AGAIN and admitting that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in a lab. This is a substantial pivot for Fauci surpassing his pivot out of the pandemic back in December 2019 during peak flu. Here’s the slithery snake oil statement from which we can deduce that Fauci is essentially confirming that SARS-CoV-2 was possibly (likely) bioengineered (bio-weaponized) in collaboration with China and as funded by the US.

No actually, that’s the point that I said. And I think that the real unfortunate aspect of what Senator Paul did was he was conflating research in a collaborative way with Chinese scientists which was — you’d almost have to say that if we did not do that then we’d be almost irresponsible because SARS-COVI-1 clearly originated in China… So we really had to learn a whole lot about the viruses that were there, about whether or not people were getting infected with bad viruses. So in a very minor collaboration as part of a sub-contract as part of a grant, we had a collaboration with some Chinese scientists. And what he conflated that was that we were involved in creating the virus. Which is the most ridiculous majestic leap I’ve ever heard of.

Dr. Anthony Fauci

With Pompeo refocusing attention on COVID-19 and the national lab in Wuhan and Fauci now working hard to avoid but eventually confirming what we all knew and just outlined, it all presents with a sense that the broader narrative is beginning to bend back on them as the fake pandemic continues to fall apart. It bears asking whether or not carve-outs are being made to begin the exit away from CV19 and whereby culpability will be assigned.

Now pair these culpability considerations with the work above where Trump compartmentalized all of COVID-19’s culpability with the Fauci/Pence cohort (detailed in a comprehensive review in the last article.) Doing so allows us to see the board and how the pieces are being moved.

As for moving pieces, President Trump also recently issued a statement that referenced his personal aircraft and through a discerning lens, we can ascertain some relatively concrete timeline markers. Here’s the relative post.

Let’s wrap up with a question and a prediction.

When is the next false flag coming?

It has to be coming soon, right; with AZ bearing down hard as the first domino in a series of election dominoes positioned to fall?

Contemporary history tells us we’re due. Consider that COVID was covered by the first impeachment, Obamagate was derailed by riots, Hunter’s laptop was set off course by an explosion in COVID cases and Biden’s stolen election was covered by a fake insurrection and a second impeachment. And now we have AZ on the horizon coinciding with a failing COVID narrative.

Something is en route – it has to be unless they find an ulterior means by which to derail AZ and the series of states following suit with election audits.

I’d suggest that’s an easy prediction given what is known about the people who will thrust it upon us.


Standing on the Truth and Staring WWIII in the Face

The hiatus is over. This is the first proper article I’ve written since the 19 Dec 20 piece “CRITICAL: The Pending Pivot Back to Russia” examining the Biden administration’s (and China’s/CCP’s) objective of deflecting the building momentum focused on them during President Trump’s remaining days in office so as to resume the prior of Russian-predicated constructs that have underpinned much of their criminality and treason.

Or, in other words, they need the old boogeyman to be the new boogeyman to cause the people to look away from the REAL boogeyman – them.

Let’s get right back into it with a simple rhetorical question that everybody refuses to answer – where did the flu go?

We know where the flu went and I’ve been delivering that data copiously since very early 2020. Kicking that long dead horse and simply stated the flu, or rather its infection and mortality data, has been curated, harvested and propagated as COVID-19.

Much has happened since the last article and much of that was put forth in 9 episodes of The Still – a first attempt at a video/podcast style of content delivery. I had the graphics for episode 10 prepped and ready before hitting a wall, tapping the brakes and taking a moratorium – just a regular guy here and all of this periodically takes a toll that sometimes requires a moratorium. It’s good to be back to old school writing.

Ever try to sit down to have a complex and interesting conversation alone with your inanimate laptop while recording it to post publicly? Let’s just say it ain’t easy and kudos to those who produce this type of video content with both regularity and high production quality (MonkeyWerx, X22 Report, Tore and several others come to mind). The amount of work in the backdrop to prepare a single episode for posting is crazy – hat tip to all of them. With the groundwork in place, perhaps we’ll visit the format again soon.


So where do we stand? Where do Americans realistically and objectively find ourselves 121 days into the Biden/Harris administration?

The answer presents in two basic and plausible ways as best it can be interpreted, understood and applied:

1) As Commander-in-Chief, an outgoing President Trump fulfilled his sworn Constitutional onus to defend the Republic against all enemies foreign and domestic and therefore he took any and all necessary steps to effectively advise military leadership accordingly. This would include the delineation of a commenced and asymmetrical World War III begun by leveraging biowarfare by means of launching of a bio-WMD (as classified by the FBI) against the U.S. This would include the objectives of infiltrating the America’s institutions writ large for the purpose of removing a sitting president to overthrow the U.S. government. Logically this advisement occurred prior to the 2020 election and even possibly leveraged the newly minted U.S. Space Force in response. Therefore, we would find ourselves resting in a state with a divided government where the military recognizes President Trump while the Congress and Judiciary recognize President Biden. This division


2) We are in real trouble likely facing the end of America and the beginning of Amerika.

For the sake of the dialogue, let’s further define “real trouble” as the Biden/Harris administration being installed by China and the CCP by leveraging COVID-19 as a bio-WMD and with Biden, as a placeholder, proxy and pawn, serving both them and Obama and the Deep State/Shadow Government. Thus far, Biden has functioned largely by means of an unprecedented level of executive orders despite possessing all three requisite components to pass legislation constitutionally – the Democrats posses the Executive and both chambers of Congress. It all means that the United States has been flipped right back over to this broader and long-tenured plan that is playing out as a de facto Obama third term.

Actually, if all had gone according to plan, it would be a Hillary Clinton second term and Amerika would look much different than it does today; and not for the better. Even worse, that’s given how utterly shitty and contemptible the state of Amerika is right now. All of it has led to this, which is my new favorite mantra – “Amerika is a shit hole banana republic. All of the good banana republics are laughing at us.”

But therein we see hope in the form of a bit of light peering through a slight crack in the door.

The hope is simply this and it’s really a reminder – in order for President Trump to have secured his 2016 victory, there had to have been a preexisting military-based plan of intervention to “un-rig” a rigged election so actual could authentically stand with fidelity and deliver a legitimate and historic win. This is what gives us hope so long as military leadership hasn’t fallen alongside the rest of the traitors.

It bears this question. Who “un-rigs” an election to win only to stand in the middle of the voter fraud train tracks staring down the headlight for 4 years – never even flinching, much less moving – waiting for the election theft train to plow him over; and especially when he’s known as a savvy and highly intelligent political street-fighter the likes of which our times have never seen?

“Nobody” would be my answer while reminding folks that it doesn’t sound very Trump-like, does it?

So although it’s anecdotal and circumstantial at best, we can see that the door is cracked for some light to shine through. What remains are questions about who, what, when, where and how. But with no tangible evidence suggesting an immediate reversal of course, that is all we have for now; however, that alone encapsulates the importance of the Arizona election audit in Maricopa County in what is hoped to become the first domino in a series of audits in other states.

A long-tenured and previously covered position is that Mr. Trump must exhaust all of his means of civil redress before moving on to unconventional and by default, military ones. We’re nearing if not at the end of that rope and it stands to reason that a logical threshold in all of this is the presentation to the people of clear and irrefutable evidence of the scope of election fraud as asserted by President Trump. It is here that Arizona bears down with full might and the enemies of democracy are responding as you might expect by dispatching an army of attorneys of the Lawfare ilk and similar.

What happens at the end of the Maricopa road when the public arrives to learn generally what the military is presumed to have known with granularity for months; especially when the people respond en masse as pro Trump, pro democracy, pro America and ‘pro we’re done f______g around, fix this now!’? It’s this dynamic that appears as if it could be a logical trigger or threshold on our timeline.

It’s also important to measure against our timeline and evaluate the peculiar timing of NYC’s, NY AG Letitia James’ and Manhattan DA Cy Vance’s recent advisement of a shift to criminal charges against President Trump. This should be viewed as an extension of the Flynn, Mueller, Russia, Ukraine, impeachment I and impeachment II continuum whereby the aforementioned have been tasked. As we do this and because it informs my position here, let’s examine President Trump’s reply to this development as coupled with my reply to him, which includes a typo I’ll chalk up to eyes about to turn 50.

It stands to reason that the criminal investigation will expand into the broader Trump umbrella and into the Trump family. They’ve already and recently targeted Rudy Giulani and now this? More logically sound reasoning tells us that President likely has thresholds of his own built into any possible military-based response and they most certainly apply to the Trump children and the broader family. So, I wonder if this development is one of them? I would suggest that it is ergo we may be closer than farther away to the first actionable steps at a course reversal but only time will tell.


Turning to COVID-19, recall that the Moonshine catalog of work contains thousands of written pages, videos, graphics, articles, reports, social media posts, etc. that date back to early January 2020 and collectively represent the first and most complete catalog of original thought and work that is publicly available and which explicitly identifies COVID-19 as a false flag political construct. Moonshine was the first to claim and demonstrate this.

Now, consider that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has recently shifted his narrative to China and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (a legitimate CCP/military laboratory.) In reference to prior work from the catalog, this development bodes well relative to the status quo meaning that it could be pretext for Pompeo (Trump) circling back on his advisement last year to governors, congressmen, senators and universities when he said that China and the CCP had evaluated each of them as friend or foe.

I’ve long contended that the most efficient and effective way to undo COVID-19 is to rip its spine out and that spine is the predication for the emergency declaration, which occurred on 11 Mar 20 and permitted the Fauci/Biden/Obama cohort to usurp President Trump’s emergency powers when Trump was legally compelled to defer to his experts by means of the Stafford Act. By destructing the emergency declaration, which is the precise component that provides the legal authority to eclipse the U.S. Constitution, authorize experimental vaccines, implement recommended guidelines and mitigation policies, etc., there would be no legal interface for federal, state, county or local authorities to intercede on Americans’ Constitutional rights. Or, in other words, the pandemic of propagated fraudulent data would disappear immediately. The point being that destructing the predication could and should begin in China and in the Wuhan lab and this is exactly where Pompeo is going.

Compound all of that with my early 2020 reporting that Anthony Fauci was entangled in conflicts of interest on many fronts including researching coronavirus strains relative to bioweaponization, funding the same research in the U.S. and then abroad in China, exporting the U.S.’s same research to China during the Obama administration, etc. All of this – all previously reported in old work – is now beginning to move into more fulsome light as the mainstream is learning what Mooonshiners have known for a very long time.

Political Moonshine was the first and (as best I can tell, only one) to identify and explain how Nancy Pelosi leveraged the first fraudulent impeachment as a precise timeline cover mechanism for the COVID-19 false flag political construct to be ushered-in while the Western world was distracted post-Christmas by two days. This is critical because it established the first direct political nexus to allow us to gain clarity in other associated areas including a forthcoming peculiar maneuver relative to PCR testing (more on that critical aspect momentarily.) Importantly, this allows for the hypothetical prosecutorial net to be further cast around a significant number of U.S. politicians with Chinese/CCP entanglements.

The COVID-19 timeline permits us to fully understand the fraud driving the “pandemic” while we fit it into the broader geopolitical landscape. It’s worth remembering that the all of the exclusive work here mostly focuses on active steps in the constructive process while omitting (for brevity’s sake) other important information.

News of the outbreak arrived on 27 Dec 19 but was later revised backwards to 17 Nov 19 and the first U.S. case was confirmed 20 Jan 20. Despite our early January position that COVID-19 was fraudulent, our work was placed in a holding pattern until the first respective U.S. data sets arrived in early February. From that point and moving forward, I identified the inverse relationship between the onset of CV19 and the disappearance of flu/pneumo. These general details underpin the effort to establish the true nature of the pandemic – a propagation of fraudulently constructed data.

In March 2016, President Obama augmented longstanding presidential transition law to specifically include pandemic preparedness and our evidence includes purchasing spreadsheets for “COVID-19” items such as “test kits” and other related items for the years of 2017, 2018 and 2019 (featured in several articles, videos and video podcasts.) It should be understood that relative to those years, the term “COVID-19” was not created and applied to this pandemic until 11 Feb 20. It’s odd they purchased them by name before they were given said name, no?


On 13 Jan 17, the outgoing Obama team then inserted the pandemic construct into the incoming Trump team’s administration during their compulsory transition meetings (those slides have been available on the website for over a year.) Not coincidentally, Obama’s administration also coordinated the release of the cooked-up Flynn/Russia story into the MSM the day before to function like impeachment I to COVID-19 – as a deflection and distraction mechanism.

In foreboding fashion, Fauci, Biden and others all previously warned that the incoming Trump administration would face a “surprise outbreak,” as Fauci put it (also previously and extensively covered and documented.)

Two days after Christmas it all arrived and Fauci, the coronavirus “expert” who has gotten it all wrong and contradicted himself the entire way, stood us down sans masks and said “don’t worry” while also leaving open international travel to the source of the outbreak in China. None of that made sense until the true ulterior agenda was understood. Now, it’s all crystal clear.

From there and going forward, the Democrats then began the push for the construct by driving the narrative for expanded testing beginning in January of 2020. Expanded testing will bear down in a fundamental fashion momentarily.

On 04 March 20, the National Vital Statistics System began by issuing a series of 6 diagnostic memos that functioned as rules to medical providers and were devised and crafted to cause the providers to harvest and curate fraudulent COVID data from an average of 4.0 (now up from 2.6 as of 12 May 21) co-morbidities (primarily flu, pneumonia, heart disease, diabetes and obesity.) The fraudulent construct also included financial incentives for COVID diagnoses over others and for respirator applications.

The Democrats’ narrative for expanded testing delivered and not by accident because the CDC/WHO did two things to ensure that it would; one of which has NEVER occurred before and that was the 2020 “mid-April “shift”, as I branded it, wherein they moved the “pandemic” measuring stick from mortality data, which is the accepted conventional measurement and which was in decline due to the annual seasonal die-off of the leveraged co-morbidities, to “NEW CASE” data. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

Stay with me – this will make sense.

The second thing the CDC/WHO did was devised to deliver the data on demand while resting on the push for exponentially more testing. Here, they broke away from conventional standards relative to the PCR test, which measures viral load (how infectious the virus is, generally) by means of cycle threshold. Conventionally and generally, the CT is set in the range of 17-25 with it being understood that anything above 25 would deliver unreliable results.

For the COVID-19 pandemic, the CT range for PCR testing was deliberately increased to and set at an unconventional and anomalously high range of approximately 35-40. PCR testing with this high of a cycle threshold has one particular consequential result – it delivers false positive test results in abundance. Now it should make sense.

So, in April, the data driver of flu/pneumo was drying up due to typical seasonal die-off and so the pre-determined move to “new case data” occurred at the flip of a switch given how the increase in testing overlays the increase in new cases as precisely delineated on our line graph. This allowed them to drag the pandemic through spring, summer and fall and right back to peak flu of 2020-2021, which the CDC runs for 2 months beginning every 01 Dec because and as simply stated, the more you look for something, the more you find it.

More recently, India and Seychelles provide exemplars into two important dynamics in this same vein: 1) India – expanded testing and vaccination always appears to lead to more cases causing us to ask, “chicken or egg?” and 2) Seychelles – individuals previously tested and vaccinated are subsequently turning up positive for COVID-19.

Reflecting back on Biden’s inauguration and to fully hammer home the position that what we are seeing is evidenced criminal fraud, do you recall what happened within the first hour of Biden’s presidency? The WHO/CDC – WITHIN AN HOUR! – reduced the cycle threshold for PCR testing back down to the conventionally accepted level. Not even 60 minutes of Biden’s presidency had passed before the change was made. What do you think the result was?

Nothing to see here – move along, now.

Remarkably (not really because I predicted this would happen exactly as it did – the graphic above is from March and article below is from the end of April), as the PCR test revisions delivered decreased infection and mortality data so as to see the installed CCPresident off to a good start, they completely flipped the script on us in the most egregious way and by claiming that the reason the flu (pneumonia) had essentially disappeared was due to the guidelines and mitigations enforced for COVID-19! That’s right. The attributed the disappearance of the flu to their own genius rather than their own criminal fraud and it happened like everything else – as predicted. Americans are dumb, though, and they’ll slurp-up that Kool-Aid elixir like they have with the rest of it.

“New cases” bridged the pandemic from 2020 to 2021 just like I have identified and previously reported that “variants” will bridge the gap from 2021 to 2022. Unless we make good on the aforementioned Trump/military plan, I stand firm on two very long tenured positions – 1) these people will never stop until they are made to stop and 2) COVID-19 isn’t going anywhere.

Currently, we are still in the thick of it and not going anywhere even though the data continues to stack-up against the narrative (false flag political construct.) On 26 Aug 20 the CDC revised away 94% of its bulk mortality data stating that COVID diagnoses with COVID being the sole cause had actually leveraged an average of 2.6 co-morbidities. This left only 6% of their mortality data as valid.


The CDC did the exact same thing on 12 May 21 whereby the new numbers aggravate the matter with 95% being of the sole-cause data being revised away leaving only 5% of the remaining data as valid. Even worse, the number of leveraged co-morbidities increased to 4.0.

Do you know what happens if you take the CDC’s fear porn mortality data at 5% and 6%? Let me tell you. It puts the number right smack in the middle of a typical annual flu season when the pandemic has seen flu/pneumo disappear inversely to it.

More recently, the MSM has come to identify old Moonshine work as “exclusive” and “news” and importantly, the matter of culpability was raised. This is something that I addressed in detail over a year ago at the time President Trump actually made it happen. Just like everybody else missed impeachment as the cover mechanism for COVID-19, they missed President Trump fully compartmentalizing the totality of the COVID-19 pandemic squarely with Anthony Fauci (and Mike Pence) in a legendary press conference. TGP and Rand Paul discussed this on 13 May 21 while I brought it to your attention 14 Arp 20, when it happened.


The entire pandemic is one of fraudulently propagated data like the data point where the CDC has 2020 as the 12th deadliest year in the past 12 years and whereby deadlier disease outbreaks than COVID existed during the same span with obvious disparity in how it was handled for Obama.

If you’re looking for positive news in terms of a reprieve if not elimination of the COVID-19 pandemic sans a change of leadership in the White House, it’s a fruitless search in a ominous scene.

So, as it stands, the source controlling the data remains in charge (Fauci/Biden/Obama cohort) and the MSM is fully engaged in the continual propagation of it so, from a federal level, there appears to be no end in sight as noted. It will be variants that drag us through to next year’s peak flu and in between, determining who your county sheriff and state governor – either by election or moving van – becomes the priority.


We began this piece outlining my position that we are in the midst of an asymmetrical WWIII as commenced with the release of a bio-WMD against the U.S. and moreover, I would suggest that most Americans are entirely oblivious to this point. Therein, we can’t omit the importance of the Middle East and specifically Iran, upon which Pompeo recently remarked and for which we can fall back on even more existing work. The fundamental aspect here is that Iran has functioned as proxy manufacturer of a nuclear arsenal developed for the Deep State/Shadow Government to wield against Western nations to leverage them into desired geopolitical positions.

Refocusing on China, several recent developments further bolster our positions and confirm old work as accurate. For one, we had previously verified the presence of four artificial HIV inserts in the SARS-CoV-2 virus and of gain of function properties as markers indicative of bio-weaponization and moreover, we established a complex network of people and entities eventually tying it back to the lab in Wuhan; including Fauci’s previous research and NIH funding, and as a functionary of the CCP and PLA.

New evidence continues to stack upon old. The frenzied uptick is such that now, even House Republicans are taking it up with Fauci. Don’t forget this, too – Fauci is the highest paid employee in the entire federal apparatus making $400,000 annually having entered under Reagan in 1984. Who was VPOTUS then? George H.W. Bush, who has direct ties to the Nazi party via his father Prescott Bush? Yep. One and the same.

If you care to sidebar or come back to it later, that particular Bush angle is again covered in this.

Especially given the recent remarks from the CDC, there is a part of me that wonders if a carve-out is being made in the narrative for an exit away from what appears to be a growing tide of evidence and truth that is en route; including more entanglements for Fauci that draw back to 2014 and place him in the Situation Room (think of no ability to eavesdrop) of Obama’s White House relative to gain of function.

Recently, a Chinese professor with close ties to the CCP delineated the same position that I presented back in May of 2020 – that we are in a state of an undeclared third world war.

Here’s the larger extract with the more relevant aspect highlighted outlining President Trump’s handling of an undeclared WWIII as I presented it in Making the Case for Treason on 06 May 20,

The Still – Vol. 7, 22 Mar 21



The Still – Vol. 6, 20 Mar 21

The Still, Vol. 6, 20 Mar 21: 1) presidential numbers, 3 presidents & the 25th Amendment, 2) kabuki theater: U.S. & China in Alaska, 3) Biden’s military, 4) military undermining of Trump’s Afghanistan withdrawal, 5) Putin & Biden duke it out, 6) COVID-19/CDC update 7) illegal immigration & press access, 8) liberal insanity (shootings, riots & de-funding the police, 9) worthy odds & ends (Soros, U.S. socialism, Bush, political prosecutions & Maxwell


The Still – Vol. 5, 18 Mar 21

The Still, Vol. 5, 18 Mar 21: 1) “Stuck In The Middle With You”, 2) Q: DRAIN THE SWAMP, 3) insurrection at the Capitol, 4) 2 recent shooting/gun incidents/false flags?, 5) CGI fail/Biden video, 6) Cuomo/other governors/nursing home investigations, 7) McConnell/filibuster/reconciliation, 8) genesis of COVID-19 (update), 9) road to war/back to Russia, China, Taiwan, North Korea, 10) illegal immigration, 11) Durham


The Still – Vol. 4, 16 Mar 21

The Still, Vol. 4, 16 Mar 21: 1) Obama’s purge of military leaders relative to today and any hopes of a post-election Trump plan leveraging the military, 2) Biden’s military, 3) COVID-19 update, 4) election fraud update, 5) illegal immigration update, 6) insane left (Wheeler & Newsom), 7) John Durham (wild!)