It’s reported that an Inforwars reporter by the name of Millie Weaver has been arrested, allegedly because an Ohio grand jury referred her and her significant other on a burglary charge, about which the reporter herself seems to know nothing.
What’s of interest to this blog is that the reporter was on the verge of releasing a documentary about the Deep State “Shadow Government.”
The Gateway Pundit wrote about her arrest and included in the story a link to her video expose. It’s anyone’s guess how long this link will remain active. (8/17/20, video removed for “hate speech.” Try this link.)
The video is about the preservation of our Privacy, Liberty, and Freedom. The information contained needs to be made common knowledge before the election. Big Tech immediately censored the report.
Weaver’s expose focuses upon shadow government actors who allegedly may have “twinned” the NSA database of communications, including communications of members of Congress and of every U.S. citizen (i.e., copied and stored all of the data via a “bridge”; see the video beginning at about 13 minutes). By law, such data is routinely destroyed by the government after 72 hours; however, if illegally copied elsewhere, data would continue to exist to be mined by anyone with access to the “twinned” database.
If true, the possibility explains much of what we’ve seen happen in our country and government since Obama came upon the scene, so many happenings that heretofore seemed illogical, unconstitutional, and inexplicable, all become understandable if one presumes that private information of key government officials–such as members of Congress and Supreme Court and other justices–is potentially in the hands of people who want power and who, in order to obtain it, must somehow fundamentally transform the United States of America.
Of particular interest, perhaps, to this blog’s readers is a conversation that begins about 14 minutes into the video. A whistleblower identified as “Tore” contends that she once worked for government contractors (The Analysis Corporation, Global Strategies Group, Stanley Inc./Canadian Global Information) that are associated with former president Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan.
Tore claims to have been instructed by her employer to “pull” data from State Dept. computers and servers, implying that the data was passport information that was later reported to have been “hacked” by contract employees in early 2008, when Obama was running for president.
Tore claims that she removed information from the server and computers. Weaver goes on to clarify that Tore’s contention is that the information was at that point “missing” from the State Dept. system. Tore agrees and then states that someone else later replaced that information with other information.
So I removed the factual, actual information and then someone goes behind–that’s like “super switch.” … I didn’t see that until … in retrospect …
Tore goes on to explain that it was commonplace for her to copy data from a server or computers but not to completely remove it.
For those who closely followed the narrative about the “breach” of Obama’s passport files prior to his election, Tore’s allegation will serve to confirm what was already suspected.
One of the few mainstream media reporters who drilled down into this story was told how and why the “breach” happened:
During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.
Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.
“They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”
At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.
Brennan later was awarded several high-profile and powerful positions in the Obama administration.
This link provides a comprehensive overview of what we reported at the time about the alleged breach of Obama’s passport files. As noted above, the other candidates’ files were perused to provide cover for the actual target of the switcheroo–Obama.
What was in Obama’s file that would need to be “cauterized” (in other words removed and replaced) before the election?
Passport files contain documents verifying a person’s citizenship(s) and identity, date and place of birth, current name and all aliases ever used, social security number, naturalization certificates, photographs, parents’ citizenship and birth information, passport applications with supporting documents, passport photos, biometric information, occupation, employer, address, marital status, data on spouse(s), and other information, such as travel history and passports used.
Obviously, key among such documentary proof of identity would be a copy of one’s birth certificate. This page of our 2012 article explains the importance of Obama’s passport file to his potential ineligibility for the presidency. Note that contract employees did indeed have access to the files such that they would be capable of deleting, changing, or inserting documents into files. If documents were removed and replaced, then there can be no evidence anyone can use to disprove what Obama has (variously) claimed about his background, birthplace, citizenship, or parentage.
In August 2008, months after the passport breach, digital photos of what was purported to be Obama’s original long-form birth certificate appeared on a partisan blog. Suspiciously, metadata indicated that the photos had actually been taken only days before the final breach of Obama’s passport files.
Whether or not allegations in Weaver’s documentary prove true, it behooves us to review what went on before and after the 2008 election, especially in light of what has happened since the 2016 election, with Deep State resistance to the presidency of Donald Trump in the form of bogus allegations of collusion with Russians, a multi-million-dollar special counsel investigation based upon an “insurance policy” cooked up by now-fired FBI and DOJ employees, and the corrupt (and thankfully failed) impeachment of President Trump.
Now Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has selected Kamala Harris as the Democrat Party’s vice presidential nominee. Like Obama, Harris is yet another person whose constitutional eligibility is in question.
While the complicit media and the progressive left want the world to believe that questioning Harris’s constitutional eligibility is racist, this is exactly what they contended in 2008 when people equally rightfully questioned Obama’s eligibility.
Senator John McCain and Senator Ted Cruz also had their eligibility questioned, but nobody in the mainstream media or on the left claimed racist (or sexist) motives.
If one is eligible, then why fall back on accusations of racism or sexism (or both) instead of proving eligibility or asking a court to decide the question once and for all?
Both Harris and Obama are as “white” as they are “black,” so what’s race got to do with it, any more than race was an issue when people vetted McCain or Cruz?
If there was no “there there” in 2008, why was it necessary to allegedly “cauterize” Obama’s passport files?
Unlike Obama, based upon what Harris has shared about her history, then neither of her parents was a citizen at the time of her birth. Has she ever submitted proof of her birth in CA in the form of a birth certificate? If not, then how can the Democrat Party vouch for her eligibility?
If neither parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of Harris’s birth and if she was indeed born in CA, then she’s at best and arguably a native citizen, an “anchor baby”, certainly not a “natural born citizen,” which is a status that requires “blood” descent, in other words, inherited citizenship.
We the People are right to question the eligibility of anyone who expects to govern our Republic. In fact, it’s our duty.
Every candidate, no matter race, color, national origin, religion, or sex, must be subjected to full and complete vetting. It’s wrong, it’s insulting, it’s bigoted for anyone to suggest that certain people, based upon their skin color, ancestry, political party, sex, religion, etc., are simply exempt from vetting and don’t have to answer our questions.
Candidates for the highest offices in the land are always and ever nothing more than our servants. Public servants, subject to the will of We the People.
Don’t play their game. When you vote in November, remember who is it who insults you by assuming that you’re a racist or a sexist simply because you want answers.
Remember, also, who it is who insults you and your intelligence by calling valid questions a “conspiracy theory.”