In a very long and extraordinarily well-developed article of indictment, written Oct. 17, independent journalist Glenn Greenwald exposed the operations of the so-called “House Committee on the Jan. 6 Insurrection” as illegal, unconstitutional, and a return to the practices of the House Un-American Activities Committee of the 1950s and ’60s and its ilk in the Senate. If the people of a nation are made sufficiently afraid, Greenwald points his theme, they may allow their most basic rights to be torn up and approve it, believing the only victims are “enemies.” What was once the Red Scare has been reincarnated as the extreme-right scare; 9/11 terrorism has been replaced by “Jan. 6 terrorism.”The article, is entitled, “Civil Liberties Are Being Trampled by Exploiting ‘Insurrection’ Fears. Congress’s 1/6 Committee May Be the Worst Abuse Yet.” The most egregious of those abuses is the Jan. 6 Committee’s issuance of “third-party subpoenas” for all the private communications, going back up to a year before Jan. 6, of many Members of Congress, all organizers of the Jan. 5 and 6 rallies even if they simply applied for permits, and an unknown number of others. “Third-party” means the Committee wants Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and various e-mail and wireless providers to give it the records, without notifying any of the targets. In fact, it instructs the third parties, if they feel compelled to notify a target, to call the Committee’s lawyers and say so—the Committee can then withdraw that particular subpoena so as not to force an illegal action by the third party provider, and so as not to be liable to be sued for violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights. As Greenwald reports, this twist shows they know that what they’re doing is illegal. For any body of Congress to “investigate crime” by private citizens is in violation of the Constitution, and Greenwald proves that extensively from Supreme Court jurisprudence through the 19th and 20th centuries. The only exceptions—in particular, doing so in order to help formulate new legislation—are ruled out by Reps. Adam Schiff and Bennie Thompson and other members, who state their purpose simply as “to find out what happened.” That has been expressly forbidden to Congress by Supreme Court precedents, as a violation of powers which exclusively belong to the Executive and the Judiciary. The 1950s McCarthyite committees did it, and were ruled to have acted unconstitutionally. At the extreme, this Congressional conduct becomes Bills of Attainder—orders to arrest issued by a legislature—prohibited by name in the Constitution. Another exposé by Greenwald in the past week is related. Mark Zuckerberg is the latest “authoritarian menace” indicted daily in huge features in the Washington Post and New York Times, and lashed by Members of Congress who are demanding that Facebook be a third-party surveillance agency for the government against dangerous non-conformists. This has been accomplished by a triumphal world media tour of “whistleblower” Frances Haugen and her “Facebook Papers.” And who is paying for this world tour, publicity, media appearances, etc.? That would be the billionaire Pierre Omidyar, who has funded The Intercept from its inception; whom Greenwald exposes as now a major funder of something called “Whistleblowers Aid,” whose darling “whistleblower” is none other than Frances Haugen, “bizarrely led by anti-Trump lawyer and social media #Resistance star Mark Zaid, who has been one of the most vocal critics of actual whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, both of whose imprisonment he has long demanded,” (emphasis in original).

Britain’s Daily Express tabloid reports that COP26’s President Alok Sharma is very anxious about getting all countries, especially developing countries belonging to the G20, to agree to the 1.5° Celsius target which is a goal of COP26, “We have to get that,” Sharma says. But the problem is that there are 24 developing nations, among them China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Philippines and Malaysia, grouped in the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), that aren’t playing ball and don’t intend to be squeezed into an anti-development trap in the way that the depopulation fanatics are demanding. These nations for the most part don’t have well thought-out programmatic alternatives, but they have made clear what they don’t want.In a meeting last week, the ministers of the LMDC issued a strong statement criticizing rich countries for insisting on the need for a universal goal of net-zero by 2050. “This new ‘goal’ which is being advanced runs counter to the Paris Agreement and is anti-equity and against climate justice,” the Oct. 18 statement read. The LMDC argument is that they shouldn’t be forced into the same timeline as industrialized nations for cutting emissions, since they weren’t the ones that contributed to historic emissions—and may want to use fossil fuels for their own economic development just as wealthier nations have done. The green, Seattle-based media organization Grist points out that developed countries have delayed taking action for more than a decade in cutting their own emissions but now are demanding that the whole world commit to net zero. Sharma’s call to the G20 countries, some of which belong to the LMDC, to take action now and set a net-zero target, didn’t get the response he wanted. Instead they proposed that the rich countries first get on a fast track, and fully decarbonize by the end of this decade, and then “leave the remaining atmospheric space” for carbon emissions to the developing world. This is where the money issue comes in. According to Eddy Perez, international diplomacy manager of Climate Action Network Canada, the LMDC are issuing a clear call for the U.K. to ensure that negotiations are fair. “It can’t just be about mitigation pledges,” Perez remarks. “Keeping 1.5° C within reach requires urgently scaling up adaptation support and mobilizing trillions of dollars.” There is much criticism of the U.S. for failing to bring to Glasgow the climate change package that Joe Biden had promised, and demands that these richer nations have to both cut emissions and fork over the trillions of dollars needed by developing nations. Who’s going to buy that? This follows statements in the recent weeks by Russia, China and India that they are expanding, not contracting, the use of coal and other fossil fuels, to provide the energy needed for the development and livelihood of their citizens. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni spoke for all of Africa, when he wrote, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Oct. 24, headlined, “Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa“: “Africa can’t sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals.” The ghouls and gremlins in London are not happy.

The ghouls have begun arriving in Glasgow for the witches’ coven scheduled to be launched on Halloween, hoping to convince the world to ignore the collapsing economies and the hyperinflation in energy, food, housing and more, in order to “save the planet.” The streets of Glasgow are flooded from a rainstorm, with roads closed, cars abandoned, and the trains not running. A second “yellow weather warning” was released for a new storm to hit the area on Saturday, Nov. 30. As in New York, when residential areas were flooded (and people died) after Hurricane Ida roared through in September, the flooding is not due to nature, but to the lack of adequate infrastructure. But of course the COP26 folk will tell you it was caused by Global Warming, although some may be privately fearing it is a “sign” of God’s displeasure at their Satanic planning for global genocide.The real signs, however, are coming from nations across the globe, telling the royals and billionaires behind COP26 that their intentions have been exposed by the real world impact of their Green “Reset.” Russia, China and India have made clear that they are expanding, not contracting, the use of coal and other fossil fuels, to provide the energy needed for the development and livelihood of their citizens. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni spoke for all of Africa when he wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Oct. 24 titled “Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa”: “Africa can’t sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals.” The Schiller Institute has issued a statement, which will be circulated internationally in several languages, titled “Do You Want to Avoid Freezing on Christmas and Starving in the Spring? Stop the Great Gas Shock Swindle.” It states that the hyperinflated gas prices have been artificially created by the same City of London and Wall Street financial interests that orchestrated the “oil shock” in 1973. While trying to blame the inflation on the “recovery,” or on Russia, the truth is that “their policy of financial speculation, the Green climate swindle, and hyperinflationary money printing” have manufactured the crisis, the statement reports. It calls for an international mobilization with five demands: license Nord Stream 2; exclude financial traders from energy and food markets; restore Glass-Steagall; replace speculative “spot markets” with long-term contracts among nations; and bring together the major powers for a New Bretton Woods to replace the broken monetary system with a creditary system for global reconstruction.