Declass of 2020

What President Trump should lay bare for all the world to see.

Frontpage mag

Lloyd Billingsley

While Joe Biden holds forth from the newly created “Office of the President Elect,” Donald Trump remains president of the United States. The most powerful man in the world commands extensive powers of declassification, and President Trump has good reason to get busy, starting with the Central Intelligence Agency. An unclassified CIA report on the Hiss case provides helpful background.

After CIA director John Deutch resigned in 1996, President Clinton nominated his former national security advisor Anthony Lake for the post. On “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert asked Lake, “Do you believe Alger Hiss was a spy?” Lake said he had read a couple of books on the Hiss case but “I don’t think it’s conclusive.” In due course, Lake withdrew his nomination and his doubts on Hiss, who was a Communist spy, were a factor. That makes a strong case that anybody who voted for a candidate of the Communist Party USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Soviet Union, should not even get near the CIA door.

In 1976, the CPUSA candidate for president of the United States was the Stalinist Gus Hall, and John Brennan (pictured above) voted for him, choosing the Communist Hall over Democrat Jimmy Carter, Republican Gerald Ford, Libertarian Roger MacBride, independent Eugene McCarthy, prohibition Ben Bubar, and socialist Frank Zeidler. Four years later in 1980, Hall was again the Communist candidate and his running mate was Angela Davis, winner of the Lenin Peace Prize. That year Brennan got a job with the CIA, rose through the ranks, and in 2013 President Obama tapped Brennan to run the place. After leaving in 2017, Brennan moved to cable television and became a bullhorn for the Russia hoax.

President Trump should reveal the identity of the CIA officials who made the call to hire Brennan. The president should also declassify the bulk of Brennan’s communications, especially those made before President Trump suspended his security clearance, which no CIA boss should retain after leaving the agency. For example, in 1999, CIA director George Tenet suspended the security clearance of John Deutch for working with classified material on an unsecured computer at his home. President Trump might reveal what that was all about, then move on to the nation’s “medical CIA.”

That was the term UC Berkeley molecular biology professor Peter Duesberg used in his masterful Inventing the AIDS Virus. The reference is to the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), part of the Centers for Disease Control and tasked with preventing viruses from arriving on American soil. Since the EIS failed to prevent the Wuhan coronavirus from arriving in America, the president should publicly identify the EIS agents who failed and why that failure happened.

One high-profile EIS veteran is Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the CDC official who readily defers to the World Health Organization (WHO) in questions about Communist China’s role with the coronavirus. President Trump should expose everything about the EIS and reveal a list of all its current and former members. Since the pandemic is still a factor, the president should also look into the mighty National Institutes of Health, which “invests about $41.7 billion in annual medical research for the American people.”

For their part, the American people might find it strange that NIH shipped American dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, controlled by China’s Communist government and not accountable to American officials. The WIV conducts dangerous “gain of function” virus research the NIH banned in 2014 and allowed to continue in 2017.  As Sara Reardon noted in Nature, “the US government has lifted its controversial ban on funding experiments that make certain pathogens more deadly or transmissible.”

The NIH agency handling the transfer of U.S funds to the Chinese WIV was National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) whose budget of $5.89 billion is up 6.6 percent from 2019. At the helm of NIAID since 1984 is Dr. Anthony Fauci, a “Deep State Fraud” according to intelligence veteran Angelo Codevilla.

President Trump should expose all US communications with the WIV and demand a full accounting of every taxpayer dollar. All Dr. Fauci’s communications with WIR and the World Health Organization, of which he is also a big fan, need to be exposed in the same detail as the texts of corrupt FBI operators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Likewise, NIH-NIAID-CDC deference to China invites another declassification matter.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, San Francisco Democrat, opposes U.S. lawsuits against China, which she hails as an heroic alleviator of poverty. For 20 years, Sen. Feinstein harbored a Chinese spy on her staff. More than a driver, this Communist spy even attended consular functions on the senator’s behalf. This is a serious matter and President Trump should declassify all relevant materials. As he does so, the vaunted FBI should not escape attention.

The newly released A Promised Land explains that Maj. Nidal Hasan’s 2009 massacre of 13 Americans at Ford Hood was due to:  “interagency information sharing systems had failed to connect the dots in a way that might have headed off the tragedy.” As we know from Lessons from Fort Hood, someone in the Washington office of the FBI deliberately dropped the case.

President Trump should reveal the name of the FBI agent or agents who chose to look the other way. Did any suffer any discipline or demotion? Are any still in the FBI, and if so, what have they been up to for the last four years? For its part, the National Security Agency invites other revelations.

Since it can eavesdrop on the communications of ordinary Americans, they might like to know what the NSA has on the Benghazi matter from 2012. Terrorists killed four Americans, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and national security advisor Susan Rice all claimed it was over an internet video.

President Trump can settle it forever by declassifying all NSA materials on the incident, along with anything the CIA and FBI have in hand. Contrary to former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it matters very much indeed.

“The struggle of man against power,” Milan Kundera explains, “is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” With that reality in mind, President Trump should declassify everything possible, at the earliest opportunity, by any means necessary. The people have a right to know, and what the people don’t know can indeed hurt them.

It’s Time For Mass Civil Disobedience Against Lawless Lockdown Orders

For too long, mayors and governors and health officials across the country have overstepped their authority. Time to ignore them.

The Federalist

By John Daniel Davidson

Fauci Says No Lockdown Needed Unless COVID Gets 'Really, Really Bad' | Eat  This Not That
image via

By now it should be obvious that elected state and local officials issuing COVID-19 lockdown and stay-at-home orders are just making things up as they go along.

Too often, their edicts aren’t based on science or data, but on a grotesque understanding of their own authority and infallibility. In the face of a worsening pandemic, they want to be seen doing something, taking bold action to stop the spread of the virus—that is, so long as it doesn’t hurt certain favored special interests.

That’s why Americans living under arbitrary and unconstitutional lockdown orders should simply ignore them, en masse, as an act of civil disobedience.

How else are ordinary people to push back against the capricious rules of politicians like Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti? On November 25, the day before Thanksgiving, Garcetti and county health officials banned outdoor dining at bars and restaurants for three weeks. Because of the spread of the virus, they said, it’s just too dangerous, so we all have to do our part and make sacrifices.

But then they gave a carve-out for certain kinds of outdoor dining, like film and television crew’s catering sites. In Garcetti’s town, a massive film crew eating outside is safe but a small restaurant or bar with outdoor, socially distanced seating is too dangerous to remain open. Got it?

Then last week, L.A. County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant called out the mayor and county health officials on this arbitrary exercise of power, ordering them to produce scientific evidence to justify the outdoor dining ban. “You have to do a risk-benefit analysis for public health. You don’t just talk about the risk of spreading disease. You have to talk about the benefit of keeping restaurants open,” Chalfant said.

Exactly right. Chalfant is also requiring the county to provide data on hospital and ICU capacity to justify the claim that the health-care system would be overwhelmed without the outdoor dining ban. County health officials are scheduled to appear in Chalfant’s courtroom Tuesday to give whatever evidence they were able to cobble together since last week.

The lawsuit, brought by an attorney who also owns a downtown L.A. restaurant, captures the dynamic of pandemic governance in a microcosm. Health officials, based on nothing but their opinions about what might be safe or not, have put tens of thousands of people in America’s second-largest city out of work right before the holiday season.

This pattern has played out all across the country this year. Elected officials, often Democratic mayors or governors, promulgate rules, curfews, capacity limits, and outright shutdowns that betray either animosity or indifference toward certain groups while protecting other, favored groups.

Protesters: "No more lockdowns"
Image via

That’s how we got a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s order singling out churches and other houses of worship for special restrictions was unconstitutional, a ruling that was affirmed a week later when the Supreme Court sent a similar case back to a federal district court in California for reconsideration in light of its ruling in the New York case.

At issue in both cases was the arbitrariness of the restrictions on places of worship. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in the New York case, “It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques.”

It shouldn’t take an appeal to the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion to stay the hand of would-be municipal and county tyrants across the country. While perhaps laughably cartoonish in its bald-faced cronyism and sheer cruelty, the outdoor dining ban in L.A. is nothing to take lightly. It’s taking a terrible toll on real people, most of them people who can’t go weeks or months without working.

Last week, a viral video of a distraught L.A. restaurant owner brought home not just the arbitrariness and unfairness of the outdoor dining ban, but the cost in livelihoods and jobs destroyed. The woman was Angela Marsden, owner of the Pineapple Hill Saloon and Grill in Sherman Oaks, a Los Angeles neighborhood. Marsden issued a tearful plea for help and a call to protest after her restaurant’s outdoor dining area, which she had spent tens of thousands of dollars carefully adapting to comply with county pandemic rules, was shut down along with every other outdoor dining area in the city.

Her video went viral because not 50 feet away from her restaurant was a much larger outdoor dining area that was allowed to stay open because it was for a comedy television show on NBC. The entertainment industry, you see, had been deemed essential by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, which meant actors and film crews were exempt from the governor’s stay-at-home order issued last month, which applied to nearly the entire state.

Later, Marsden said in a Fox News interview that people in her city are suffering from pandemic restrictions and that small business owners and employees are “going to die” from poverty, depression, and suicide.

It’s hard to watch Marsden point out the hypocrisy and unfairness of L.A.’s outdoor dining ban without feeling a kind of rage. A terrible injustice is being perpetrated against ordinary working people by elected officials who believe they can shutter entire industries and destroy people’s livelihoods with the stroke of a pen.

These often are the same leaders who don’t follow their own pandemic rules and guidelines, who believe that lockdowns and curfews and restrictions are for poor people and the working class, not elites like them. These are the same leaders who tacitly or openly approved of massive Black Lives Matter protests over the summer and fall, in some cases participating themselves in violation of Centers for Disease Control guidelines about gathering sizes. Such protests were okay, in their view, because they agreed with the politics at issue. But we all know what would happen if crowds gathered to protest, say, draconian lockdown orders.

Fortunately for us, because we are Americans and we live in a free country—a place governed by laws and not by men—we have a constructive way to express our rage and outrage: we can simply stop obeying these lawless edicts.

We can safely open our businesses and places of worship, and in so doing dare the tiny despots in the local health department or the mayor’s office to stop us. If enough of us take a stand, as a free people should do, the Garcettis and Newsoms and Cuomos will back down—and if they don’t, they can face mass protests, public outrage, and eventually the rebuke of the Supreme Court.

If ever there were a time for mass civil disobedience, it’s now.

Time to throw Eric Swalwell off the House Intelligence Committee

Democrat Eric Swalwell linked to Chinese 'honey trap spy' Christine Fang |  World | The Times

American Thinker

By Monica Showalter

Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell is being questioned about his fitness for the House Intelligence Committee by Republican House leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, for his cozy relationship with alleged Chinese spy Fang Fang, AKA Christine Fang.  I wrote about that yesterday here.  Here is McCarthy’s tweet:

Kevin McCarthy@GOPLeaderRep. Swalwell has long been disqualified from serving on the Intel Committee. For years he peddled Russian disinformation for political gain. Now we find out he was involved in an effort by a reported spy to gather info for China. Swalwell is a national security liability.2:11 PM · Dec 8, 2020

Instead of bowing out gracefully, Swalwell is yelling that he was a victim, not of the ChiComs, but of President Trump, who he claims was behind the damning Axios report.

According to Politico:

“I’ve been a critic of the president. I’ve spoken out against him. I was on both committees that worked to impeach him,” Swalwell said in an interview on Tuesday. “The timing feels like that should be looked at.”

Swalwell added: “What it appears though that this person — as the story reports — was unsuccessful in whatever they were trying to do. But if intelligence officials are trying to weaponize someone’s cooperation, they are essentially seeking to do what this person was not able to do, which is to try and discredit someone.”

Swalwell refused to discuss his relationship with Fang, although he did say the controversy was not going to cost him the Intelligence Committee seat.

“As the story referenced, this goes back to the beginning of the last decade, and it’s something that congressional leadership knew about it,” Swalwell said.

So Trump did it?  Trump was behind the Axios report?

That would be Axios, an internet news site run by Washington swamp thing Mike Allen, reported from U.S. intelligence sources, and done over the course of a year.

This doesn’t sound like a hit job coming from Camp Trump.

Axios, remember, is on the center-left. The Intelligence Community is on the left, too, and what’s more, out to Get Trump.  And a news story done over the course of a year and released after the election (possibly to protect Joe Biden) isn’t a fit-of-pique leak or hit job from anyone; it’s more like a slow-moving freight train.  Political hit jobs come just before Election Day, not after.  Swalwell, as a matter of fact, knew all about the investigation more than a year ago, shortly after dropping out of the Democrat primaries for president, and the story came out only once he was safely re-elected.

His hit job claim is crap, and he still needs to answer questions about his activities, because China is a major adversary that targets gullible naïve young Democrats, as AxiosTucker Carlson, and John Ratcliffe warned, yet Swalwell has no intention of doing so.

That’s why he’s got to be thrown off the House Intelligence Committee, as McCarthy seeks.        

If he’s not a full blown security risk, as McCarthy alleges, he’s definitely someone who abuses his position and can’t be trusted.

Let’s start with the security risk questions:

Is he trying to tell us he never suspected that the comely foreigner so into him and everyone else in politics, targeting men on the rise, from an adversarial country, might just be a spy?

There’s also the nookie question.  Was he sleeping with her, as one intelligence source alleged?  Sleeping with her targets was her specialty, and the Axios report noted that she bagged two Midwestern mayors.  During the years he was carrying on with her, 2011–2015, he was unmarried and, being a leftist, wouldn’t have compunctions.  That might be important because it raises questions of whether he was compromised, as well as questions about his judgment.  Red swallows sleep with sources to create material for blackmail.

Meanwhile, what about the intern?  Fang placed an intern in Swalwell’s office.  What information was this person permitted to see?  What or where is the person now?  Is this person a citizen?

And explain again why, after a career as a big-city urban-affairs prosecutor, he sought his position on the House Intelligence Committee, as well as three other positions of intense interest to the communist Chinese regime:

See a committee or subcommittee there the ChiComs wouldn’t want to know all about?

All this would be fine and dandy if Swalwell were actually interested in those topics, but his use of his Intelligence Committee position, was mainly devoted to spreading lies to topple President Trump.  He wasn’t interested in spy stuff; he was interested in spreading fake claims that President Trump was in hock to the Russians and stood on his Intelligence Committee position as his credibility podium until the whole thing fell apart.  Why again did he want to get on those committees?  And more specifically, did the ChiComs, whom he was in hock to for the fundraising that brought him there, direct him?

There’s also funny stuff, like why he’s always been a defender of Joe Biden, stretching for years and years, most lately criticizing investigations of Biden’s drug-addled son Hunter’s truly corrupt and dangerous dealings with the chief of China’s intelligence as was found on his computer, along with the giant payoffs.  Why wouldn’t a congressman supposedly so interested in national security be just a little concerned about that?  Is selling out to China fine so long as a Democrat does it?  Is there a ring of compromised Democratic pols he’s been asked by China to politically protect?  Sorry — the questions need to be asked.

Swalwell tries to weasel out of these questions by pointing out that he cut off contact with Fang in 2015, three years after he was elected to the House, after a defensive briefing by the FBI, where it’s possible they read him the riot act, and then cooperated with the bureau after that.  Was it because he was caught or because he really cared, despite those years of carrying on with Fang, claiming he never suspected? 

And did he leak any spy stuff to her? We already know from various characters in the intelligence committee, that taking intelligence home or putting it on one’s personal computer is pretty much the way things are doing. Gen. Petraeus got fired from his CIA position for just this kind of sloppiness in late 2012, shortly after President Obama was relected. Did he hand Fang anything? It’s right to want to know.

And lastly, any idea why Fang was apparently tipped off that the FBI was onto her and able to flee the country? A cold cutoff from Swalwell to Fang might have been a tipoff, but the bureau would know that and be unlikely to insist that Swalwell do so suddenly. The bureau, after all, is in the business of busting spies and the more arrests and collars they can score, the better it is for the agents and bureau itself. And as a former prosecutor, Swalwell would know that. Why’d she get a tip to flee, Eric?

Now, it’s possible Swalwell, despite the lingering questions, is not a security risk. Maybe he’s really been thoroughly vetted, and taken his national security responsibilities in the House seriously. Maybe Fang Fang never got her hands on any intelligence. But even if that were true, he’s still clearly a liar and untrustworthy.

As noted before, he’s spent his tenure on the House intelligence committee not focusing on national security, but on trying to topple President Trump through the use of a surfeit of lies. Anyone serious about such matters might just think this isn’t a person who belongs on the committee, since he was saying things everyone on the inside would have known weren’t true, tainting their credibility.

He’s also crybabying, claiming President Trump, who has zero power over what goes on in Congress, somehow targeted him for a post-election hit-job. The sheer childishness of the claim suggests a dolt with maturity problems who can’t be trusted with state secrets. 

The only logical thing to do is get him off, throw him decisively off the House intelligence committee since it’s glaringly clear he doesn’t belong there.

Gun control first for Biden executive orders

The 3 Worst Arguments Against Gun Control

Washington Examiner

by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist

Joe Biden plans to move quickly against guns, adding the issue to his list of first executive orders, according to his top policy aide.

Stef Feldman, the national policy director of Biden’s presidential campaign, included the Democrat’s gun plan in a list of initial executive actions set to be unleashed after Inauguration Day.

Speaking in a Zoom briefing hosted by Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service, she said that Biden is planning to “make big, bold changes through executive action, not just on policing and climate like we talked about previously, but in healthcare and education on gun violence, on a range of issues.”

She added that “there’s really a lot you can do through guidance and executive action.”

It is expected that Biden will use executive orders, especially if the Democrats don’t win both Georgia special Senate elections. Even with those, however, it would be a split chamber — making it difficult for him to push through liberal elements of his agenda, including gun control.

The mention of guns in his initial executive actions is already sparking concern in the industry, which is readying an aggressive lobbying campaign. “I’m going to be pretty busy,” said one top gun lobbyist.

During the campaign, Biden won the endorsement of former candidate Beto O’Rourke, who famously promised to grab everyone’s AR-15.

While he calls his plan one aimed at ending “gun violence,” most of Biden’s ideas amount to limiting what people can buy or have. For example, he wants to end the sale of AR-15-style firearms (the most popular in the nation), regulate those that people already have, and limit the size of magazines those guns use.