90 Miles From Tyranny

Saturday, January 29, 2022

Hey Canadians, If You See This Guy In Ottawa, Punch Him In The Face For Me...

Beat on the brat

Beat on the brat with a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.

North Korea is going to chair the World Disarmament Conference: More UN madness

In fresh proof of the lunacy of the United Nations, North Korea will chair its world disarmament forum for four weeks starting May 30.

Yes, the world’s foremost weapons proliferator will preside over the 65-nation World Disarmament Conference, most famous for producing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty back in 1968.

North Korea is in constant violation of nine separate UN orders thanks to its continued nuclear and ballistic-missile programs. It has launched six ballistic missiles in four weapons tests this month, and the country openly sells its missile and atomic blueprints to any comer.

Pyongyang also routinely threatens to attack other UN member states.

Fine, North Korea’s role at the forum is largely ceremonial, but what a message it sends. Any government that actually cares about disarmament ought to boycott, as the United States and Canada did when Iran held the same chair in 2013.

We neither know nor care what global politicking leads to such travesties. Yet it all shows once again that...

This is the end

Beautiful friend

This is the end

My only friend, the end

Of our elaborate plans, the end

Of everything that stands, the end

No safety or surprise, the end

I'll never look into your eyes again

Can you picture what will be?

So limitless and free

Desperately in need

Of some stranger's hand

In a desperate land

Lost in a Roman wilderness of pain

And all the children are insane

All the children are insane

Waiting for the summer rain, yeah

Durham Court Filing Reveals DOJ Inspector General Horowitz Withheld Key Evidence From Special Counsel

A new court filing by special counsel John Durham reveals that Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz concealed crucial information from Durham in connection with the ongoing prosecution of Michael Sussmann, a former attorney to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The filing also reveals that Horowitz failed to disclose that his office is in possession of two cellphones used by former FBI general counsel James Baker. The phones may contain information that’s important to the Sussmann case, as well as to a separate criminal leak investigation of Baker that Durham personally conducted between 2017 and 2019.

Horowitz first came to public prominence in June 2018 when he issued a report on the FBI’s actions leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Horowitz followed up in December 2019 with another report on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the bureau’s pursuit of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Durham’s filing on Jan. 25 involves discovery issues surrounding Sussmann’s upcoming trial for allegedly making a materially false statement to the FBI’s then-general counsel James Baker. As part of Durham’s discovery obligations, the Special Counsel’s Office met with Horowitz and his team on Oct. 7, 2021, and subsequently requested any materials, including any “documents, records, and information” regarding Sussmann that may have been in the possession of the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

On Dec. 17, 2021, Horowitz’s office provided Durham with information that Sussmann had given the OIG information in early 2017, that an OIG “employee’s computer was ‘seen publicly’ in ‘Internet traffic’ and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network in a foreign country.” It isn’t clear what this information was about, why Sussmann would know about this information, or why he would have been interested in the internet activities of OIG employees.

It also isn’t known why Sussmann, a private citizen, would have been seeking out the OIG shortly after he was pushing information detrimental to Trump to both the FBI and the CIA.

At the time of the Dec. 17 disclosure, “the OIG represented to [Durham’s] team that it had “no other file or other documentation” relating to this cyber matter.” However, last week, Sussmann’s attorneys informed Durham that there was additional information, including the fact that Sussmann had met with Horowitz in March 2017 to personally pass along the information about the OIG employee’s computer VPN use. This meeting between Horowitz and Sussmann hadn’t been disclosed by Horowitz to Durham during their previous meetings and interactions.

It isn’t known why Horowitz would have taken a personal meeting from Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer. According to Bill Shipley, a former federal prosecutor, “[y]ou don’t generally just call the IG and get a meeting with him personally.” It also isn’t clear why Horowitz chose not to inform Durham of the meeting—particularly as it pertained directly to information that Horowitz’s office had been specifically requested to relay to Durham’s special counsel probe.

Sussmann’s attorneys further informed Durham that the VPN information had come from Rodney Joffe, a computer expert with close connections to the FBI. This was another material fact that hadn’t been disclosed by Horowitz. Joffe is of great import to Durham’s case against Sussmann and to the wider investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion investigation, since he was alleged to have provided Sussmann with falsified data about contacts between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Those alleged contacts were used by Hillary Clinton and her campaign to push the narrative that Trump was compromised by the Kremlin. Durham had noted in a previous filing that “[Joffe’s] goal was to support an ‘inference’ and ‘narrative’ regarding Trump that would please...

More Wrath:

If You Are Not Prepared To Use Force To Defend Civilization...

Dying Societies Accumulate Laws Like Dying Men Accumulate Remedies..

If You Are Not Prepared To Defend Civilization...
Protect The Sanctity Of Your Home And Land..
Make Your Communities And Towns Lovely And Lovable, For Without Love, Who Will They Inspire To Fight For Them?
Politeness Never Defeated An Existential Threat...
You Came To The Wrong Colony...
Should We Sacrifice Our Civilization For Strangers?
Someday, ... Your Kind Will Pray For A Man With A Sword...
Napoleon Smacks Down Obama...
The Inferior Man Argues About His Rights...
He Who Saves His Country Does Not Violate Any Law...

Substack Stands Strong Against Left’s Anti-Free Speech Pressure

The leaders of media platform Substack responded to leftist censorship pressure with a strong defense of free speech. “I wouldn’t want someone to pick out my clothes for me, much less my ideas,” Substack executive Lulu Cheng Meservey said.

The Washington Post wrote an absurd piece attacking Substack for its pro-free speech approach. The Post accused the platform of being “a hub for controversial and often misleading perspectives about the coronavirus.” Yahoo! News, The Guardian, and The Daily Beast piled on Substack too, citing the leftist Center for Countering Digital Hate. Leftist Clinton Foundation Vice Chair Chelsea Clinton also complained about “Anti-vaxx grift going strong” on Substack. Substack responded by standing firm for free speech. “At Substack, we don’t make moderation decisions based on public pressure or PR considerations,” tweeted Substack Vice President of Communications Meservey, according to Fox News. “An important principle for us is defending free expression, even for stuff we personally dislike or disagree with. We understand principles come at a cost.”

Meservey said she was “proud” of this free speech stance, and that “open debate is not always comfortable,” but it is necessary. “Who should be the arbiter of what’s true and good and right?” Meservey asked. She noted no generation is “infallible.” Meservey pointed out a key issue with Big Tech censorship: “People should be allowed to decide for themselves, not have a tech executive decide for them.”

Substack is specifically meant to be a platform for individuals with widely differing views, including controversial views. “While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for...

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #206

Snowden weighs in on Joe Rogan criticism

Ex-National Security Agency analyst-turned whistleblower mocks those believing Joe Rogan’s podcast is a health hazard

Fugitive whistleblower and privacy advocate Edward Snowden took a dig at the critics who’ve accused Joe Rogan of spreading Covid-19 misinformation via his vastly popular show on Spotify, arguing that the idea people would seek medical advice from the podcaster in earnest is nonsensical.

Snowden’s Friday tweet-storm included a post showing the comical logo for Rogan’s podcast, which includes a third eye in the host’s forehead. “I mean, just look at the logo", Snowden said. “Which part of it primes in you an expectation of reliable medical advice.”

He also mocked the idea that Rogan has caused public distrust in government officials, rather than those leaders undermining their own credibility. “But sure, blame the magic, third-eye radio man for the decline of basic trust in institutions,” Snowden said. “Throw him in the volcano and we’ll have world peace by Monday.”

Snowden argued that many of Rogan’s critics haven’t even listened to his ideas. “Nobody has stronger opinions about Joe Rogan than people who have never listened to Joe Rogan,” he said.

The whistleblower also suggested that much of the criticism isn’t genuine. “The idea that people are, like, emerging from their deep caves, eyes blinking against the harshness of a sun whose touch they have never known, on a quest to seek specific medical advice from the glory of a white-robed Rogan is, perhaps, just the slightest bit forced.”

Asked by Brazilian reporter Marcos Candido what his point is, Snowden replied, “Don’t take medical advice from anyone with a third eye.”

Rogan has been a frequent target of criticism from media outlets and public officials. Asked about Rogan’s show in an MSNBC interview on Tuesday, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for increased censorship of speech by social media platforms to block...

Larry Fink has emerged as the point man for environmental, social, and corporate governance capitalism, broadly known as ESG. As chief executive officer of BlackRock, which holds a $10 trillion global portfolio, Fink leverages this immense power to compel companies that BlackRock invests in to comply with an aggressive climate change and diversity agenda in their operations.

Fink’s BlackRock is committed to a net-zero carbon strategy, and seeks global conformity across its clients on sustainability reporting measures, i.e., they must prove that their companies are seeking this goal.

His annual letter to CEOs is closely read, and, it would seem, followed. In 2020, he stated that BlackRock “will be increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them.”

His 2021 letter noted the valiant protests for racial justice in 2020. And concluded that companies must meet the demands of protesters: “We ask that your disclosures on talent strategy fully reflect your long-term plans to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion, as appropriate by region.”

All of this, we are told, leads to more profitable companies. For those corporate doubting Thomases, they too must learn to become profitable by following a detailed ESG disclosure regimen. But something does not quite sum here.

Last year, BlackRock sided with “Engine No. 1,” an activist investment fund that replaced directors on ExxonMobil with three of its selections because of a belief that the corporation was not seriously confronting the challenges of climate change in its business strategy. The new directors then attempted to compel the company to divest oil and gas fields in Mozambique and Vietnam. The gaping need is to look for more environmentally sustainable investments in green energy, they argued.

As a slow rolling energy crisis and its increase in demand for conventional energy has emerged in 2021 and 2022, that view is a bit precious.

From whence does Fink’s breathless enthusiasm come? And why does it find such a receptive, pliable audience? To take climate change, most of America’s, and presumably the world’s, progress in decreasing its carbon footprint will come through technological growth and the impacts this growth will have on numerous industries. Companies will find themselves more productive while using less energy.

Coerced investments in sustainable energy technologies, whose markets are heavily created by state intervention, will likely prove negligible in lowering carbon emissions by comparison.

To gain understanding of Fink’s actions, we need to go deeper into the spiritual awakening in identity politics that could reshape virtually every institution in America and the West. In “American Awakening,” Joshua Mitchell argues that identity politics is a religious revival seeking salvation by replacing the substance of justice with the supplement of mercy.

Justice is the arduous task of giving to each person what is due to them. Our voluntary institutions in work, politics, and civic associations are predicated on us attempting and generally getting this virtue right. Mercy, Mitchell observes, is the supplement when we don’t. We ask and hope to be granted forgiveness when we...