(3rd article in a series) The newly emerging evidence in this article outlines how the Obama administration may have inserted into the transition period of President Trump’s administrat…
TIMING. It’s so revealing. It says so much; especially when there is clear, irrefutable linkage between important events and the order by which they unfold. As it often is, TIMING will be our primary lens today. That lens will be applied to the transition period between the Obama and Trump administrations whereby the former exited the Oval Office handing it over to the latter and with compulsory meetings in between. It’s those meetings that hold our attention as we examine them through our lens. It should be noted that the process is framed by a 1963 piece of legislation signed into law 07 Mar 64; following the assassination of John F. Kennedy on 22 Nov 63.
We must first come to understand that building a political construct is a bit like writing an essay. In most cases you need an introduction, a body and a conclusion. In other words, the construct generally requires that in your introduction you establish pretext and set the construct in place. In your body, you fully expose the target to the construct’s devised or natural dynamics. To bring it full circle, in your conclusion you refer back to the pretext in light of the evidence revealed in the body so as to tighten the noose and eventually eliminate your target (or affect your target in desired, predetermined ways.)
You’ve seen this over and over since 2016 alone (Russia, Mueller, Ukraine, impeachment, etc.) and now we have evidence suggesting the same for the COVID-19 global pandemic. It’s an old recipe, really – just look at how wonderfully it worked for the DSSG/MIC on and after 11 Sep 01.
Responsibly, I must again reiterate the disclaimer that what I’m outlining here is speculation rooted in evidence. We’re exploring an hypothesis – not a stated matter of fact – but for which there exists a mountain of evidence. Importantly, what I’m NOT saying matters as much as what I AM saying. Namely, I’m arranging elemental evidence in a way to demonstrate one possible and plausible explanation. I’m NOT saying that it (the COVID-19 pandemic) happened this way; but rather the evidence shows it could have.
I feel that I also have a duty to reiterate this critical aspect of it all and truth be told, I can’t move from underneath it. This pandemic weighs on me much like 9/11 and it comprises the lion’s share of my cautionary words: the fluidity, pervasiveness and suggested lethality of a global viral pandemic is the PERFECT COVER under which to usher-in new forms of predetermined draconian law, policy and regulation. Learn history – that’s exactly what happened post 9/11 and those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. That’s where we are today…. it’s sage advice from an old history teacher, if you ask me.
Here are some housekeeping items for you before we begin:
THIS is a catalog of all articles in this series.
This NINTH article lays the foundation for the premise outlined herein and it contains significant extracts from the previous eight articles.
This TENTH article begins to address the predetermined outcomes (24 in an incomplete list) that result from false flag constructs; assuming the position that COVID-19 is a false flag construct.
Let’s frame our discussion summarizing our general position before we move forward with details revealed in THIS 16 Mar 20 Politico piece that provides us with evidence underpinning the pretext aspects of this possible construct.
We know that George Soros and Bill Gates – two well established Globalists who fund, control and leverage large and significant components to the global geopolitical landscape – have intimate ties to coronavirus, which include but aren’t limited to holding patents on particular strains or treatments. Moreover, it’s Bill Gates who essentially controls the WHO by means of funding. In summary, there is deep, wide and entangling evidence that converges on a 2016-2017 timeline thrusting the Globalists to the forefront of coronavirus ergo we reserve the right to consider their roles in it all. For deeper understanding, you’ll have to visit the previous work cataloged above and it is substantial.
Just in case you need more EVIDENCE to establish nexuses and entanglements beyond what I have already provided in exhaustive and thorough form, which intimately and deeply enmeshes Soros and Gates to coronavirus, recall that in November 2016 then President Barack Obama awarded Bill Gates the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It didn’t take Obama long to throw his administration’s tentacles around Gates by recruiting him to the White House within the first several months of his new administration (SOURCE) circa 2009. The Gates seed was sown early so what happened in between? Did the Gates seed flourish and was its fruit reaped in December 2019 in Wuhan, China?
Circling back to our introductory note on TIMING, let’s examine the Gates Obama timing. Gates was brought-in to the fold early – within the first few months of Obama being inaugurated and then awarded by Obama late in November of 2016. This is AFTER the 2016 election. By this point in time, the Globalists and their cause; a cause whereby Bill Gates stands at the epicenter and right next to George Soros, were most certainly in trouble. They were taking-on water like the Titanic after having somewhat unexpectedly lost the election and stood to be undone by the ascendance of an outlier president who won it on a platform devised to raze Globalism to its foundation; much like Globalism razed three structures in Lower Manhattan in broad daylight circa 2001.
Now, let’s examine the EVIDENCE courtesy of Politico. Sometimes the MSM’s smear jobs give us the exact meaning we need to bridge gaps in theories. This article was discovered at Paul Sperry’s outfit RealClear Investigations. Here is what we learn from that piece and it’s like the Higgs boson particle, which gives mass to matter, in the sense that this gives our hypothesis substance.
Before we examine dates, it’s important to understand this as it relates to bills written and bills passed. Succinctly, much legislation is written in advance and either waits to be passed or is never passed at all; just like the pre-written Patriot Act, which hitched its ride into reality with the events of 9/11. The point here is that desired legislation is often written in advance of an event that will happen in the future by chance or by design or by some other way. That’s just how it works.
With the above in mind, we can look past the 2015 time frame of authorship for Public Law 114-136 and focus on it’s date of implementation – 18 Mar 2016. If you want to get an idea for what this dates FEELS like germane to the geopolitical landscape, it’s only ONE DAY removed from today as it relates to elections. 18 Mar 16 is four years plus one day from today. It’s an election year. Look at what’s at stake now. Look at the national and global dynamics and the degree to which everything is being leveraged, manipulated, exploited, etc. right now. We’re at that same precise point now just as we were four years ago.
It was on this date, 18 Mar 16, that PUBLIC LAW 114-136 was passed. So then, what does this law do and WHY would an OUTGOING ADMINISTRATION, one whereby if we are honestly speaking, would want to see the incoming administration promptly fall flat on its face and fumble it’s way through nearly four years of designed and orchestrated obstruction and resistance? WHY would it seek to aid and assist said incoming administration earnestly? WHY would Obama seek to implement a law to enhance the transition period and make it more robust with a compulsory processes in which the Trump administration was apparently reluctant to engage; especially noting the palpable tension and opposed agendas between the two?
First, realize this. With almost near certainty, internal polling likely informed the Obama administration that Hillary Clinton had no chance of winning the 2016 election in the months ahead. Heck, to know this all you had to do was look at the complete dearth of audience and following that she had at all of her campaign events and recalling that she essentially refused to hold any (Hillary napped through campaign season.) To the contrary, candidate Trump’s crowd sizes were akin to what we see today. Just like we know right now that the Democrats are dead in the water for 2020, it is virtually guaranteed that they knew they were dead in the water for 2016 when they passed this law on 18 Mar 16. So then, WHY did they pass it? That’s a rhetorical question.
As Politico notes, Public Law 114-136 is described anecdotally (EMPHASIS MINE),
The gathering was held to satisfy a requirement in a 2016 law that updated the procedures around presidential transitions to require, among other things, that the outgoing administration “prepare and host interagency emergency preparedness and response exercises.” Obama also mentioned it in a 2016 executive order laying out his transition goals.
NAHAL TOOSI, DANIEL LIPPMAN & DAN DIAMOND – POLITICO
WHY does an outgoing President in Obama feel compelled to cast his own self-imposed authority over an incoming Trump administration? WHY is Obama issuing an executive order to further frame the transition process when there already exists original and augmented legislation that has been revised and updated over time? Perhaps we should examine what that EXECUTIVE ORDER stated in order to understand this. Consider this extract (EMPHASIS MINE),
c) The White House Transition Coordinating Council shall:
(i) provide guidance to executive departments and agencies (agencies) and the Federal Transition Coordinator regarding preparations for the Presidential transition, including succession planning and preparation of briefing materials;
(ii) facilitate communication and information sharing between the transition representatives of eligible candidates and senior employees in agencies and the Executive Office of the President, including the provision of information relevant to facilitating the personnel aspects of a Presidential transition and such other information that, in the Council’s judgment, is useful and appropriate, as long as providing such information is not otherwise prohibited by law; and
(iii) prepare and host interagency emergency preparedness and response exercises.
EXECUTIVE ORDER — FACILITATION OF A PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION – BARACK OBAMA
Let’s identify the important components above as it relates to the possibility of a construct. Here, Obama is resting on and further decreeing by law a compulsory process for the incoming Trump administration that is rooted in planning and preparation contingencies. This is the establishment of pretext and the insertion of the actual construct to be leveraged further down the timeline. How do we know this? Because the criticism of the President takes this precise form – sown early and reaped on time. Here it’s being sown and circa 2016; after they know they’ve already lost the upcoming election, to be reaped at a time of their choosing, which is apparently now.
Another relevant aspect of the EO contains the following (EMPHASIS MINE),
(d) In order to obtain a wide range of facts and information on prior transitions and best practices, the White House Transition Coordinating Council, its members, or their designees may seek information from private individuals, including individuals in outside organizations, who have significant experience or expertise in Presidential transitions. The White House Transition Coordinating Council, its members, or their designees shall endeavor to obtain such facts and information from individuals representing a range of bipartisan or nonpartisan viewpoints. If the White House Transition Coordinating Council, its members, or their designees find it necessary to seek advice from private individuals or outside organizations, such counsel should be sought in a manner that seeks individual advice and does not involve collective judgment or deliberation.
EXECUTIVE ORDER — FACILITATION OF A PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION – BARACK OBAMA
In short, here Obama is decreeing by law portals for outside third-parties to be inserted into President Trump’s transition process whereby they stand to interface with the incoming administration and perhaps influence or become enmeshed in it so as to have a possible effect on its future course.This essentially allows Obama to plug-in any relevant third-party and its cause into President Trump’s transition, which would in turn compel Trump to engage with it. We must now asked whom was plugged in and what were the causes?
What else did the EO say? Obama’s order leveraged tradition in the sense that it brought the President’s political opponents into the fold as ‘eligible candidates.’ Why would he do that? Well, it’s tradition by law for one but that doesn’t discount the ability to exploit said tradition for ulterior purposes. Was it so that they were on board from the inception and could therefore be kept apprised and in the fold before perhaps being able to utilize relevant information to attack the President at a later date as the MSM regularly does? That’s exactly what it looks like. Consider,
(iv) during a year in which a Presidential election will be held, a transition representative for each eligible candidate, who shall serve in an advisory capacity;
(v) provide guidance to agencies in gathering briefing materials and information relating to the Presidential transition that may be requested by eligible candidates;
(vi) ensure materials and information described in subparagraph (v) of this subsection are prepared not later than November 1 of the year during which a Presidential election is held;
EXECUTIVE ORDER — FACILITATION OF A PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION – BARACK OBAMA
For accurate understanding, we examine the definition of ‘eligible candidate’ from the ORIGINAL 1963 bill since the EO relies upon its definition for enforcement. It says (EMPHASIS MINE),
DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘eligible candidate’ has the meaning given such term by section 3(h)(4) of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note).’’, and (B) by striking ‘‘major party candidate’’ in paragraph (2) and inserting ‘‘eligible candidate’’.
THIS subsequent legislation refers back to and gives further clarity to this definition of ‘eligible candidate,’
``(4)(A) In <<NOTE: Definition.>> this subsection, the term `eligible candidate' means, with respect to any presidential election (as defined in section 9002(10) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)-- ``(i) a candidate of a major party (as defined in section9002(6) of such Code) for President or Vice-President of the United States; and ``(ii) any other candidate who has been determined by the Administrator to be among the principal contenders for thegeneral election to such offices.
That President Trump’s political opponents were included is not the issue since it’s part of tradition. Rather it’s HOW they were included and that Obama may have nuanced it within his EO.
The monumental transition meeting for Trump’s incoming administration occurred on 13 Jan 17, WHICH WAS THE SAME DAY THAT LT. GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN’S ALLEGED CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA WERE MADE PUBLIC AND HE WAS IN ATTENDANCE IN THAT MEETING. Remember that introductory point about TIMING? Think the convergence of these two events is merely happenstance or coincidence? Timing is important.
Let’s now address the question I just asked – whom was plugged into Trump’s transition process and what were the causes? As we answer this question, let’s do it with some perspective.
First, the preferred strategy for Deep State actors (the DSSG/MIC); the Globalists included, is to hide things in plain sight just like they did on 11 Sep 01. How do you then sell a bad apple to a discerning customer in broad daylight? Cleverly, you hide it in the bushel with all of the good apples – in plain sight – hoping that your discerning customer doesn’t see it or, more likely, doesn’t see it for WHAT IT REALLY IS. It works even better if you further compromise the setting with timed distractions like the Flynn revelations. Again, timing is important.
According to the Politico piece, here’s how they characterize the transition meeting, (EMPHASIS MINE). Consider,
Seven days before Donald Trump took office, his aides faced a major test: the rapid, global spread of a dangerous virus in cities like London and Seoul, one serious enough that some countries were imposing travel bans.
In a sober briefing, Trump’s incoming team learned that the disease was an emerging pandemic — a strain of novel influenza known as H9N2 — and that health systems were crashing in Asia, overwhelmed by the demand.
“Health officials warn that this could become the worst influenza pandemic since 1918,” Trump’s aides were told. Soon, they heard cases were popping up in California and Texas.
The briefing was intended to hammer home a new, terrifying reality facing the Trump administration, and the incoming president’s responsibility to protect Americans amid a crisis. But unlike the coronavirus pandemic currently ravaging the globe, this 2017 crisis didn’t really happen — it was among a handful of scenarios presented to Trump’s top aides as part of a legally required transition exercise with members of the outgoing administration of Barack Obama.
And in the words of several attendees, the atmosphere was “weird” at best, chilly at worst.
POLITICO obtained documents from the meeting and spoke with more than a dozen attendees to help provide the most detailed reconstruction of the closed-door session yet. It was perhaps the most concrete and visible transition exercise that dealt with the possibility of pandemics, and top officials from both sides — whether they wanted to be there or not — were forced to confront a whole-of-government response to a crisis. The Trump team was told it could face specific challenges, such as shortages of ventilators, anti-viral drugs and other medical essentials, and that having a coordinated, unified national response was “paramount” — warnings that seem eerily prescient given the ongoing coronavirus crisis.
NAHAL TOOSI, DANIEL LIPPMAN & DAN DIAMOND – POLITICO
In support of their hyperbolic reporting (note the inflammatory language used herein and used in the media criticisms outlined below), the Politico piece also included a PDF embed emblematic of the documents they obtained and outlining the scenario. You should most certainly take the time to review it for yourself – it’s brief. In it we learn (relevant commentary included and sourced in my previous work – see the catalog and articles for deeper understanding):
- The viral pandemic starts in Asia (COVID-19 broke out in Wuhan, China)
- It’s highly contagious person-to-person (like COVID-19)
- Health services become quickly overrun (as they are now)
- It will be the worst viral outbreak since 1918 (as it is being REPORTED now; the actual epidemiology statistics suggest otherwise)
- It starts with no reported cases in the US (as did COVID-19)
- The World Health Organization is thrust to the top authoritative position (The WHO is funded and controlled by Bill Gates)
- Travel ban concerns are outlined germane to an eventual outbreak in the US (as we see today)
- Organized national and international response compels coordination with the WHO as the authoritative body (and it’s Bill Gates who funds and controls the WHO)
- Medical countermeasures are outlined – vaccines and treatments (Bill Gates via Pinbright holds the patent on the coronavirus strain that offers the greatest promise for a vaccine/cure and George Soros via Unitaid via Gilead Sciences owns the only known effective treatment in Remdesivir; and the US military just signed a major contract with Gilead Sciences for Remdesivir)
- The world will face a shortage of key resources (as we are currently seeing with COVID-19)
- Funding to include supplemental resources from Congress (Congress has wasted virtually no time, save some partisan haggling, in forking over absurd sums of money to confront COVID-19)
- “A coordinated, unified national response and message is paramount” (While the Globalist MSM continually attacks and undermines any semblance of a good-faith effort of the part of the Trump administration attempting to do precisely this)
In order to bring the construct full circle, criticism has to be aligned in the same context as the original construct parameters. The construct parameters were established on 13 Jan 17 in the transition meeting for the two administrations. Moreover and as I previously reported (hat tip to Shazlandia), don’t forget that following this three-hour briefing with the Trump administration and which included additional information beyond a possible global pandemic, Bill Gates and John Hopkins University practiced this exact scenario on 18 Oct 19; about two months before the Wuhan outbreak. Given the abundance of criticism the President has received thus far, we’ll limit our examination of it to Politico’s authorship below.
We are examining the back end of the outbreak in terms of media coverage. To save time, we’ll simply extract relevant quotes from just our Politico piece and we’ll so on the understanding that everyone is currently aware of the absolutely hyperbolic reporting that the MSM has proffered in its coverage of COVID-19. The is same MSM that the Globalists happen to control. Here are some of the criticisms replete with the requisite inflammatory language (EMPHASIS MINE),
The briefing was intended to hammer home a new, terrifying reality facing the Trump administration, and the incoming president’s responsibility to protect Americans amid a crisis. (Politico)
And in the words of several attendees, the atmosphere was “weird” at best, chilly at worst. (Politico)
But roughly two-thirds of the Trump representatives in that room are no longer serving in the administration. That extraordinary turnover in the months and years that followed is likely one reason his administration has struggled to handle the very real pandemic it faces now, former Obama administration officials said. (Politico)
“The advantage we had under Obama was that during the first four years we had the same White House staff, the same Cabinet,” said former deputy labor secretary Chris Lu…
Incoming Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appeared to keep dozing off… (Politico)
But it was clear some on the Trump team had barely, if ever, spoken with the people they were replacing. News had broken that same day about national security adviser Michael Flynn’s unusual contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, so his presence in the meeting added to the surrealness. (Politico)
Obama aides, in op-eds and essays ripping the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus, officially called COVID-19, have pointed to the Jan. 13, 2017, session as a key example of their effort to press the importance of pandemic preparedness to their successors. (Politico)
Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, blasted Trump for comments such as “you can never really think” that a pandemic like the coronavirus “is going to happen.” She mentioned the 2017 session as one of many instances of the Obama administration’s efforts to help its successor be ready for such a challenge. She also slammed the Trump team for dismantling the National Security Council section that would play a lead role in organizing the U.S. response to a global pandemic.
“Rather than heed the warnings, embrace the planning and preserve the structures and budgets that had been bequeathed to him, the president ignored the risk of a pandemic,” Rice wrote.
“Although the exercise was required, the specific scenarios we chose were not…We included a pandemic scenario because I believed then, and I have warned since, that emerging infectious disease was likely to pose one of the gravest risks for the new administration.” (Lisa Monaco, Obama’s homeland security adviser)
But Obama aides say the Trump administration’s fumbling of the coronavirus outbreak is partly rooted in how unprepared — and in some cases unwilling — it was to engage in transition exercises at all in late 2016 and early 2017. (Politico)
That botched handoff sparked weeks of confusion, all the way up to Inauguration Day. “There was a frenzy before the transition where I was asked to consider staying because the [preparedness] mission was so important,” said Nicole Lurie, who served as Obama’s Health and Human Services assistant secretary for preparedness and response, where she worked on crises like the Ebola virus outbreak and attended the pandemic exercise. (Politico)
“He was never interested in things that might happen. He’s totally focused on the stock market, the economy and always bashing his predecessor and giving him no credit,” (Unnamed former Trump administration official)
Yes, the COVID-19 viral pandemic just might be an organic, authentic viral pandemic. Or not.
There is SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE to support that the COVID-19 pandemic is a political construct and I’ve taken the time to show you the introduction, the body and the conclusion. The newly emerging evidence in this article outlines how the Obama administration may have inserted into the transition period of President Trump’s administration the exact global viral pandemic construct that we see now; one whereby Trump would be compelled to address it on the eve of the 2020 election – a 2020 election whereby Obama and everyone else knew they (Globalists) were dead in the water (TIMING!)
Again, review that list of bullet points and commentary above to see just how closely the featured scenario outlined on 13 Jan 17 so accurately reflects THE EXACT SAME SCENARIO WE ARE IN TODAY and ask yourself if this is by design or accident?
I can’t say for sure and perhaps no one can, but it certainly appears to me that COVID-19 leans toward being a political construct and the Obama administration inserted it on 13 Jan 17. Or so the evidence suggests.
You can decide for yourself – they either did or they did not.
Series Articles order