Barack Obama didn’t like Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama didn’t even care about Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign. Barack Obama would have liked nothing more than to watch Hillary Clinton go down in a ball of flames, until something happened in 2016 that changed the dynamic.
Suddenly, Barack Obama needed Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election…
That my friends, is the reason why so many people get lost in the story of the 2016 election and the eventual Trump-Russia conspiracy. However, once you understand what changed in those April and May 2016 moments, everything reconciles.
The U.S. government under the President Obama administration was spying on American citizens.
It started with Barack Obama and AG Eric Holder’s use of the IRS database in the 2010 midterm, against the primary threat of the Tea Party movement. However, an IRS whistleblower from the Cincinnati field office took the continued use of the IRS off the table. From the period of mid-2012 to April-2016, the administration factually and demonstrably shifted to using the power of electronic surveillance to conduct political spying operations using the NSA database and the metadata captures within it.
However, once that NSA surveillance and spying was identified in April 2016, President Obama had a problem. That’s where the Obama alignment with the Clinton ‘dirty trick’ comes into play. After May 2016, Obama needed Hillary Clinton to win the election. The rest is “Russiagate” history.
Those who remember the 2015/2016 presidential race will remember President Obama never campaigned for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primary. After all, Bernie Sanders was potentially going to upend Clinton until the DNC stepped heavily on the scales to assist her and team Sanders was furious. Then suddenly, following the California primary, Barack went all in.
There is a distinct timeline shift during this period that most seem to overlook because “Russiagate” was/is easily the shiniest thing for people to follow. However, it was the precursor scandal, ‘spygate’, that is more critical yet gets almost no attention.
FIML is a specific semiotic, but it also says interesting things about the general semiotics of all languages and communication systems.
As a specific semiotic, FIML influences individual psychology, behavior, and thought. Since FIML rules can be generalized and taught, FIML also shows something about all languages and their uses.
FIML is a way that two people can check the specific semiotics that exists between them. Without FIML, or something like it, individuals cannot do this.
If an individual does not do FIML or something very similar in their primary relationship, that relationship will be characterized by semiotics extrinsic to the relationship and/or by illusions.
I don’t want to overemphasize the semiotic content of FIML practice, but a basic sense of how signs and symbols are interpreted can be a great help to understanding FIML.
In FIML practice, your partner can explain the “text” of what they said much better than you can interpret it. This can only happen if both partners are honest and trust each other and the interpretation/explanation of the “text” is brought up quickly enough that little or nothing has been forgotten by either partner.
As for honesty and trust, it is my guess that these areas can be a problem for people because we humans are almost always required to interpret what is said to us without any possible recourse to a better explanation. There are three major reasons for this: 1) convention, habit; 2) timing; and 3) emotion.
Taking the second reason first, timing makes it very difficult to get good information about what a speaker means because when we ask quickly enough for them to actually still be able to remember, we will appear confrontational or rude. The speaker will become flustered and often answer with an excuse rather than an explanation.
This happens due to factor three, emotion. Language evolved in hierarchical societies. To question someone quickly about what they said is to seem to question them, to doubt them. In hierarchies, we do not question the orders we are given. We wait our turn, we let the speaker finish, we don’t interrupt, etc. Yet, if we don’t act quickly—within a few seconds—the speaker will have forgotten the fullness of their mind at the moment they spoke. Their explanation for the “text,” for what they said, will be lost forever, even if we have a video recording of it.
Due to the quickness of human emotion, virtually all societies everywhere have constructed rules for listening and speaking that completely preclude a FIML-type inquiry. Most beginning FIML partners will, therefore, experience some difficulty getting used to FIML queries. Our moods, emotions, mental states, thoughts, and more have all been long conditioned by social forces that constrain us in the very place where we need more freedom—getting the real explanation from our partner to replace our interpretation.
You would never want to run a business or do an engineering project based on ambiguous interpretations, but most of us conduct our love lives and friendships in just that way.
FIML is a specific semiotic in that it deals with the communications between two specific individuals. FIML does not tell these individuals what to think, say, or believe. It merely provides a technique for them to fully explore the semiotics and all ramifications of those semiotics that occur between them. A general semiotic is one that says something about all languages. FIML fixes a general weakness that occurs, to the best of my knowledge, in all human languages.
Experimental research in mice has linked the derived allele to a number of traits, including greater hair shaft diameter, more numerous sweat glands, smaller mammary fat pad, and increased mammary gland density.[6] A 2008 study stated that EDAR is a genetic determinant for hair thickness, and also contributed to variations in hair thickness among Asian populations.[7] Derived variants of EDAR are associated with multiple facial and dental characteristics, such as shovel-shaped incisors.[8][9][10][11] This mutation is also implicated in ear morphology differences and reduced chin protrusion.[12]
A 2013 study suggested that the EDAR variant (370A) arose about 35,000 years ago in central China, a period during which the region was then quite warm and humid.[13] A subsequent study from 2021, based on ancient DNA samples, has suggested that the derived variant became dominant among Ancient Northern East Asians shortly after the Last Glacial Maximum in Northeast Asia, around 19,000 years ago. Ancient remains from Northern East Asia, such as the Tianyuan Man (40,000 years old) and the AR33K (33,000 years old) specimen lacked the derived EDAR allele, while ancient East Asian remains after the LGM carry the derived EDAR allele.[14][15]
It has been hypothesized that natural selection favored this allele during the last ice age in a population of people living in isolation in Beringia, as it may play a role in the synthesis of Vitamin D-rich breast milk in dark environments.[16][17][18] One study suggested that because the EDAR mutation arose in a cool and dry environment, it may have been adaptive by increasing skin lubrication, thus reducing dryness in exposed facial structures.[19]
Was NSA Director Mike Rogers aware that political spying was conducted through the use of searches on the NSA database? Yes. Did NSA Director Mike Rogers take action in April 2016 to stop the searches within the NSA database that were entirely due to political surveillance? Yes.
Six months later, October 20, 2016, the extensive review of all the political surveillance searches done from November of 2015 to April of 2016 was completed; the NSA compliance officer briefed Director Rogers. Six days later on October 26, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers then informed the FISA court of the unlawful searches and his action to address the issue.
One month later on November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers went to see President-Elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower, New York. –SEE HERE– Director Rogers never told his boss DNI, James Clapper. The very next day, Friday November 18, 2016, The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position.
“The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter. […] In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.”
Notice how the WaPo conflates the two issues. (1) Meeting with Trump (Nov), and (2) the recommendation to fire him (Oct). The October recommendation to fire Rogers was likely based on the outcome of his decision to fully stop “about queries” of the NSA database and speak to the FISA court.
The recommendation to fire Rogers preceded his visit to Donald Trump, though the IC effort may have provided some additional motivation for the Rogers visit itself.
NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York November 17, 2016, when a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) was set up for President-elect Trump to use following the November 8, 2016, election.
The next day, November 18, 2016, the Trump Transition Team announced they were moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. –SEE HERE– Where they interviewed and discussed the most sensitive positions to fill. Specifically, Defense, State, CIA and ODNI.
There was a great deal of speculation at the time surrounding the visit by Director Rogers and the move from Trump Tower to New Jersey. Did Rogers tell President Trump about the political surveillance from November 2015 to April 2016? We now know the answer is no, he did not.
Director Rogers did recommend an easier venue for the SCIF to operate with secured communication channels; but Rogers did not notify President Trump about the use of the NSA database for political spying.
PARIS, April 26 — Former screen goddess Brigitte Bardot, now France’s best-known animal rights activist, Friday denounced what she said was a Muslim ‘invasion’ of France that may force her to emigrate. ‘My country, France, my homeland, is again invaded, with the blessing of successive governments, by an overflow of foreigners, particularly Muslims, to whom we pay allegiance,’ Bardot said in a column published in the newspaper Le Figaro.
‘Year after year we see mosques spring up everywhere in France, while our church bells fall silent for lack of priests,’ she wrote. Bardot also condemned the Muslim practice of slaughtering sheep during the Aid-el-Kebir festival, which she said involves ‘tens of thousands of poor beasts having their throats slashed in front of each other with knives that are roughly sharpened by clumsy sacrificers who must try several times… ‘Will I be forced in the near future to flee my country, which has become a bloody, violent place, to emigrate, to try and find elsewhere.. the respect and esteem which is, alas, daily refused us?’ she asked.
An anti-racist organization described Bardot’s statement as ‘repugnant, nauseous and unacceptable’ and said it ‘reserves the right to take appropriate legal action. This racist provocation shows… a disturbing trend in our society,’ it said. Bardot, 61, quit the movies in 1973 and has since devoted herself to an animal rights foundation that bears her name.
Obummer could have been a good president if his handlers had been good people, if his elite faction had not been a bunch of sick f*cks. Time will tell what Vance backers will want from him and whether he has any pizzazz himself. It is in our interests that he and his faction be good, wise, pragmatic, pro-American and not anti-white. See link above for a concise review of Vance’s rise to power. ABN
One of the world’s greatest genetic mysteries is how a DNA marker present in Europe reached North America, leaving no clear trail through Siberia or Alaska.
Scientists have been baffled by how Haplogroup X arrived more than 12,000 years ago, raising new questions about how the Americas were first populated.
Haplogroup X is a rare maternal DNA lineage, passed down from mother to child, found in both Europe and North America.
Its unusual presence suggests that early Americans may have arrived in multiple waves, challenging the traditional view that all Native American maternal lineages came solely from Siberia via the Bering Land Bridge.
Other haplogroups provide a clear picture of the Asian origins of most Native American maternal lineages, which makes Haplogroup X’s unusual distribution all the more striking.
The mysterious DNA marker’s unusual presence suggests that early Americans may have arrived in multiple waves, challenging the traditional view that all Native American maternal lineages came solely from Siberia via the Bering Land Bridge (pictured)
‘That rarity makes it a powerful clue for tracing human history,’ Kostroman said. ‘When an uncommon marker appears in distant, disconnected regions, it signals a shared connection in the deep past.’
Haplogroup X is rare in Siberia and Alaska, with some researchers suggesting that it represents an earlier migration, possibly via a coastal route.
I mean no offense to anyone, not even the photographer, but this is an example of how bad normal photos were in the pre-cellphone camera days. It can serve as an analogy for how people communicate interpersonally before FIML. Before FIML, our communication will be restricted, unsophisticated, clunky, and though it may be expressive as in this photo, probably not what we meant or deeply wanted to say. You can see the people in this photo definitely do not do FIML: 1) because the technique had not been invented in 1970; and 2) because you can. It is my firm belief that when millions of people do FIML we will enter an age of really good communication, much better than today. Just as most people now having a good camera on them all the time has yielded a massive improvements in photography, so FIML will deeply improve the ways we speak and listen and feel about doing that. Cellphone cameras give us many opportunities to shoot good photos and lots of practice in how to make a good photo. FIML is not quite like a camera, but it is a kind of cerebral technology that results in partners communicating much better. When we understand the FIML technique and use it often, our communication will improve at least as much as photography has improved due to widespread use of cellphone cameras. ABN
American Buddhist Net 