Zero legitimate explanation for how a man with a rifle got onto a roof only 120 meters away from Trump with a clear line of sight.
Considering the lengths the FIB has gone to inhibit and prevent re-election of a sitting president, it is not a stretch to question the actions of other Department of Justice/DHS organizations.
As I have observed in previous columns, our era in the United States is frequently beset with incidents characterized by a catastrophic loss of competence. Decades of procedural knowledge seem to vanish from one day to the next, leaving sensible people wondering how it could possibly happen.
The attempted assassination of Donald Trump this evening at the the Butler Farm Show Grounds is a perfect example of this bizarre phenomenon. The shooter climbed onto the roof—purportedly with an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle —120 meters from Trump on the stage. From this vantage point, he had a clear line of sight for a shot that would have been easy for even a middling marksman. The following aerial photograph shows the shooter’s position relative to Trumps.
As anyone who understands the rudiments of security knows, the FIRST thing you do is secure all rooftops within sniper range. Note in the following video that a counter sniper (with the word POLICE embroidered on the back of his vest) on the roof behind Trump is scoping the would-be assassin’s position.
He appears to see the would-be assassin and start to engage (while flinching) right before the would-be assassin’s shots can be heard. Clearly the counter snipers knew that the rooftop presented a high risk position or they wouldn’t have been scoping it.
Why wasn’t this building—AGR International Inc., a manufacturing plant just north of the Butler Farm show ground—secured before Trump began speaking? It seems to me that this building would be the first thing a security detail would secure. The green pin on the roof to the east of Trump’s position marks where the counter snipers are posted. Again, why didn’t they just secure the building onto which the shooter climbed? This makes no sense.
It was never about purported defense, but rather as a seemingly plausible arm of Western warmongering against the Soviet Union and the rest of the planet to serve Western capitalist global domination.
Western imperialism has reached another degenerative existential crisis and the same nefarious process of regeneration through world war has resumed. This could all go catastrophic.
How fitting that a doddering, senile American president should officiate at the NATO summit this week. At 81 years old, Joe Biden is older than the transatlantic military alliance founded 75 years ago in 1949.
The 75th-anniversary gathering in Washington DC was meant to extol the NATO bloc as a guarantor of security and peace.
However, all the cloying, ridiculous hype and fanfare amplified by the Western corporate media could not hide the fact that the American-led military organization has emerged as the biggest threat to world peace.
The disconnect with reality was scathingly summed up by our columnist Martin Jay who surveyed the “lies, double-think and duplicity” spouted by Biden and other leaders of the 32-nation bloc.
Declaring NATO to be a champion of democracy, human rights and international law is an abomination. The organization has evolved as an instrument of U.S. hegemonic imperialist violence ever since its inception. It was never about purported defense, but rather as a seemingly plausible arm of Western warmongering against the Soviet Union and the rest of the planet to serve Western capitalist global domination. The Cold War was always a propaganda construct to give the blatant warmongering a pretense of noble purpose.
To be sure, the docile Western news media, academia and think-tanks wrap up the absurd deception into a plausible narrative. That illustrates the power of propaganda. But the chasm with brutal reality has made the narrative untenable and prone to outright denigration.
After more than three decades since the end of the Soviet Union and the supposed end of the Cold War, the U.S.-led NATO bloc has expanded both in member nations and also in flagrant belligerence. The so-called Cold War never ended. That’s because the need and accompanying pretexts for Western imperialist violence and lawless aggression were always present.
And so at the redundant age of 75 years of aggression, the NATO alliance is expressing more unhinged belligerence than ever before towards Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and any other nation that is deemed to stand in the way of U.S.-led global domination.
This week NATO issued a joint statement that reads like a shocking manifesto of war-making laced with Orwellian bombastic language of self-virtue.
In an effort to bring politics into the modern age and more in line with its sister industries like sports and professional wrestling, prominent politicians have announced plans for each of them to begin using their own entrance theme songs.
In a world exclusive, The Babylon Bee has obtained the following list of songs to be used as entrance themes for some of the country’s most well-known political figures:
Nancy Pelosi — “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits: A song that encapsulates Pelosi’s trademark “get rich without having to do anything” outlook on life.
Alejandro Mayorkas — “Immigrant Song” by Led Zeppelin: The song also doubles as the perfect theme to blare over speakers at the border as migrants rush across.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — “Fat Bottomed Girls” by Queen: Congress’s own big-bootied Latina finally gets the perfect song to dance to.
Elizabeth Warren — “Colors of the Wind” from the soundtrack of the motion picture Pocahontas: The song of her people.
Gavin Newsom — “Greased Lightnin'” from the soundtrack of the motion picture Grease: The slick governor of California will have every homeless tent city dancing to his song.
Dr. Anthony Fauci — “Bad Medicine” by Bon Jovi: This song is scientifically proven to be the perfect anthem to accompany man-made pandemics and the questionable vaccines that follow.
Kristi Noem — “Who Let the Dogs Out” by Baha Men: Be advised that it’s best not to play the song when Governor Noem is armed.
Adam Schiff — “Creep” by Radiohead: A more perfectly descriptive song has never been written.
Barack Obama — “Born in the U.S.A.” by Bruce Springsteen: He’s got the documentation to prove it.
Joe Biden — “Brain Damage” by Pink Floyd: Followed closely by the runner-up song, “Prisencolinensinainciusol” by Adriano Celentano.
Get on the edges of your seats, because whenever you hear any of the songs listed above, you know the fireworks are about to start!
May I see the truth, especially the truth I don’t want to see.
May I see the truth everywhere — in my world, in my nation, in my community, in my family, and in myself — especially in the places I’d prefer not to look.
May I see the truth, even when it hurts.
May I see the truth, even when it’s embarrassing.
May I see the truth, even if it means I was wrong.
May I see the truth, even when it conflicts with my image of myself.
May I see the truth, even when it disrupts my partisan biases and tribalistic loyalties.
May I see the truth, even when it means I’ll have to tear down my entire worldview and build a whole new one — with all the discomfort and disorientation that comes with this.
May I see the truth, even if it means I’ll have to get rid of some part of myself that I hold tightly and treasure deeply.
May I see the truth, even when it contradicts beliefs, values and core parts of my identity that I don’t yet know how to live without.
May I see the truth, even when it means having to go through life with a much greater sense of alienation in this society.
May I see the truth, even if it will permanently damage my view of people I currently love and respect.
May I see the truth, even if it means having to walk away from plans, dreams, and long-sought goals.
May I see the truth, even if it means I’ll have to change my career to be at peace with myself.
“I can tell you that on social media today you can see people saying things like, “The government has an interest in preventing the spread of misinformation during a deadly pandemic.”“
“If you’re like me, that kind of language makes your skin crawl.“
I think privately owned news entities can do what they want with what they own as long as they don’t violate the non aggression principle. It is up to the user to understand what they are dealing with. Can we say the same about publicly traded companies?
That said you have to be an idiot not to understand social media and main stream news media make “adjustments” to the truth.
The Supreme Court just ruled in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, in which plaintiffs (including Jay Bhattacharya, who wrote the foreword to my Diary of a Psychosis) argued that the federal government unconstitutionally outsourced restrictions on speech to third parties, namely Twitter and Facebook, and prevented dissenting views on Covid from receiving a fair hearing.
The Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” to sue, so the merits of the case took a back seat.
Jenin Younes, an attorney who has argued her share of COVID cases and has appeared on the Tom Woods Show, offered her initial thoughts:
As many have likely seen, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs in Murthy v Missouri lack standing, reversing the Fifth Circuit, with Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch dissenting. While disappointing, the decision is not devastating. It is premised on the fact that a preliminary injunction isn’t warranted because plaintiffs can’t show likelihood of future harm. The majority specifically said they weren’t expressing a view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when private conduct [e.g., suppression of speech at government behest] is turned into state action.
Thus, the underlying case WILL continue. Alito’s dissent is excellent, showing far more familiarity with the record and explaining that the majority opinion will permit an unlawful censorship campaign to operate so long as it’s carried out with enough sophistication.
This fight is not over!!
Jay himself seems less hopeful:
The Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it doesn’t like. Congress will now need to act to enforce the Constitution since the Supreme Court won’t.
This now also becomes a key issue in the upcoming election. Where do the presidential candidates stand on social media censorship? We know where Biden stands since his lawyers argue that he has near monarchical power over social media speech.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs (Missouri and Louisiana, as well as me and other blacklisted individuals) lacked standing to sue. This means that the Administration can censor ideas & no person will have standing to enforce the 1st Amendment. Free speech in America, for the moment, is dead.
And since it was petty bureaucrats doing the censoring at the behest of elected officals, voters should ask every candidate for office down to dog catcher where they stand on the power of government to censor. Let’s make it a political liability to favor censorship.
Friends familiar with the court proceedings told me the plaintiffs’ case was poorly argued—an inexcusable failing, given the strength and importance of the case.
“These four groups form the coalition that makes up the political class. The “establishment” simply refers to the established, or current, political class. And, together, this coalition works to empower and enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.”
“That is the cycle churning in Washington, DC. The fact that the president is cognitively impaired is essentially irrelevant.”
“That is unless it begins to wake the American public up to the fact that the government does not work for us like we were all taught it does in elementary school. But until then, the churn continues.”
After a disastrous debate performance two weeks ago and a weak damage-control interview last Friday, it’s finally become clear to almost everyone that President Joe Biden is not running the federal government.
Every four years, we’re supposed to pretend that a single individual, who we collectively choose at the ballot box, takes charge of the federal government and acts as we would to address the problems we face at home and abroad.
Biden’s inability to get through a debate and a sit-down interview without issues shatters the illusion that he is the one running things in Washington and across America’s globe-spanning sphere of influence.
So, if Biden is not actually running the government, who is?
There are, of course, the people around Biden. Some of his family members—like his wife, Jill Biden, and son, Hunter Biden—have been especially close by these last weeks as the president weathers the debate fallout. There’s also Biden’s closest advisors and political confidants like Mike Donilon, Ron Klain, Anita Dunn, and Ted Kaufman, who have been at the president’s side since he decided to run in 2020. Finally, there’s the White House staff who does much, if not all, of the day-to-day work.
But this group makes up only a small part of the broader power structure in Washington. To understand where federal power truly lies, we have to zoom out.
The political class in America is made up of countless organizations, departments, and factions. However, four unique groups can be defined.
Globally, the International Energy Agency’s net zero pathway in 2030 requires the energy sector to have $16.5 trillion more capital, 25 million more workers, and extra land area amounting to the combined size of California, Texas, Mexico, and France – all to produce 7% less energy.
Did what, exactly? is a question Britain’s new prime minister should reflect on as he enters Downing Street with a huge 176-seat majority in the House of Commons – because Labour’s mandate from the country is not what it appears. At 34%, Labour’s share of the national vote is the lowest for any governing party in the last century.
Overall, Labour’s vote share this year is five points lower than in the 2017 election under Jeremy Corbyn, Starmer’s much-derided, hard-left predecessor. Its share of the vote improved on its disastrous 2019 showing thanks only to a large increase in Scotland. In England, Labour’s vote was largely unchanged, and in Wales, it actually fell. Despite Labour’s landslide in terms of the number of its Members of Parliament, at the constituency level, seat majorities are tighter than at any point since 1945. On closer inspection, Starmer’s victory resembles Joe Biden’s in 2020 – a rejection of an incumbent rather than a positive mandate for change, the kind that Tony Blair could boast of in 1997.
Starmer’s challenge is compounded by Britain’s enfeebled economy. “Wealth creation is our number one priority. Growth is our core business,” he declared when he launched Labour’s election manifesto last month. “The only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. And that’s why we made it our first national mission in government.”
This prioritization makes political as well as economic sense. In an important eve-of-poll article, Chris Giles, Financial Times’s economics editor, shows that only the bottom 20% of the income distribution saw any real gains after inflation since the 2019 election. “Everyone else was hit harder by high inflation.” In prior years marked by fiscal austerity, income gains were higher for poorer than richer households. “The outcomes for working-age household incomes since 2010,” Giles writes, are “exactly what you might expect a left-leaning government to produce. People hate it.” Generating economic growth should be Labour’s first, second, and third instinct, Giles argues.
But this approach would run counter both to Labour’s instinct to redistribute income and to its history. The British Labour party has never successfully turned around an ailing economy. Blair entered Downing Street with a strong economy, his economic adviser admitting that the economy Labour inherited was better than that of any incoming government in living memory. Blair was no Bill Clinton, whom the maestro of supply-side economics Art Laffer praises to the skies. “Big fan of Clinton,” Laffer told Chris Giles two months ago. “I voted for him and campaigned for Clinton because Clinton did cut taxes.” Nonetheless, Blair had a great facility in articulating economic ideas. Hearing Starmer, a human rights lawyer, talk economics is like listening to someone struggle to speak a foreign language.
Despite his manifesto pledge, Starmer knows that wealth creation is not his government’s top priority. As a matter of law, the Climate Change Act 2008 imposes on his government, as on its predecessor, a duty to reach net zero by 2050. If the courts are persuaded that individual policies interfere with that duty, they can overturn those policies. There is no corresponding duty to grow the economy. Neither should there be: Judicializing policy by creating cast-iron legal duties that require ministers to pursue certain policy outcomes replaces democratic accountability with the threat of judicial review. There is no “get-out” clause in the Climate Change Act, which was piloted through Parliament when Labour was last in power by climate and energy secretary Ed Miliband, whom Starmer has just reappointed to his old job. Starmer’s economic policy is a prisoner of net zero.
Apart from Nigel Farage’s Reform party, now Britain’s third-largest party in terms of votes won, politicians of all other parties subscribe to the fiction that net zero is the growth opportunity of the 21st century. In this, they are aided by the economics commentariat that either downplays, covers up, or outright denies the existence of any trade-off between net zero and economic growth. It is another example of what FT columnist Janan Ganesh, writing of Democrats and the media cover-up of President Biden’s mental impairment, calls “liberal denialism.”
In Britain, net zero denialism extends to official advice provided by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility. In its net zero review, the Treasury asserts that “additional investment will translate into additional GDP growth.” The data falsifies the Treasury’s assertion. Between 2009 and 2020, decarbonization of power generation with large additions of wind and solar has seen a 15.5% increase in nameplate capacity produce 17.1% less electricity – a decline of 28.3% in output per unit of generating capacity. It is why Britain has some of the world’s most expensive electricity, destroying the competitiveness of its manufacturing industry and contributing greatly to Britain’s cost of living crisis, which, as Giles shows, has left 80% of British households either worse off or no better off after inflation since 2019.
MCViewPoint 
