The FBI ran a Truman Show on this Chinese spy for 8 years...

Quote:According to court documents, Ma and a blood relative of his (identified as co-conspirator #1 or CC #1) were naturalized U.S. citizens who were born in Hong Kong and Shanghai, respectively. Both Ma and CC #1 worked for the CIA ­­­­— CC #1 from 1967 until 1983, Ma from 1982 until 1989. As CIA officers, both men held top secret security clearances that granted them access to sensitive and classified CIA information, and signed non-disclosure agreements that required them to maintain the secrecy of that information.

As Ma admitted in the plea agreement, in March 2001, when he no longer worked for the CIA, at the request of intelligence officers employed by the PRC’s Shanghai State Security Bureau (SSSB), Ma convinced CC #1 to meet with SSSB intelligence officers in a Hong Kong hotel room. Over the course of three days, Ma and CC #1 provided the SSSB with a large volume of classified U.S. national defense information. At the conclusion of the third day, the SSSB intelligence officers provided CC #1 with $50,000 in cash, which Ma counted. Ma and CC #1 also agreed at that time to continue to assist the SSSB.

As detailed in the plea agreement, in March 2003, while living in Hawaii, Ma applied for a job as a contract linguist in the FBI Honolulu Field Office. The FBI, aware of Ma’s ties to PRC intelligence, hired Ma, as part of an investigative plan, to work at an off-site location where his activities could be monitored and his contacts with the PRC investigated. Ma worked for the FBI from August 2004 until October 2012.

Ma further admitted that in February 2006, during this monitored employment by the FBI in Honolulu, Ma convinced CC #1 to provide the identities of at least two individuals depicted in photographs that were provided to Ma by SSSB intelligence officers. The individuals’ identities were and remain classified U.S. national defense information. Ma confessed that he knew that this information, and the information communicated in March 2001, would be used to injure the United States or to benefit the PRC, and he deliberately engaged in the criminal conspiracy with CC #1 and the SSSB anyway.

Under the terms of the parties’ plea agreement, Ma must cooperate with the United States, including by submitting to debriefings by U.S. government agencies. The plea agreement, if accepted by the Court, calls for an agreed-upon sentence of 10 years in prison. Sentencing is set for Sept. 11.

Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, U.S. Attorney Clare E. Connors for the District of Hawaii, Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Kevin Vorndran of the FBI, and Special Agent in Charge Steven Merrill of the FBI Honolulu Field Office made the announcement after Chief U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson conducted the change of the plea hearing.

The FBI Honolulu and Los Angeles Field Offices investigated the case.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ken Sorenson and Craig Nolan for the District of Hawaii, and Trial Attorneys Scott Claffee and Leslie Esbrook of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are prosecuting the case.

Quote:[/url]

24 GOP Governors Tell Biden Not to Sign WHO Pandemic Agreement
‘These agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global authority in public health,’ the Republican governors wrote in a letter.

The World Health Organization (WHO) logo is seen at the entrance of their headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, on March 9, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)


Governors from 24 states have joined together to speak out against treaty negotiations being conducted by the Biden administration, which “would purport to grant” the World Health Organisation (WHO) “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people.”
In a March 22 letter, the governors stated that they “stand united in opposition to two proposed instruments” currently under negotiation.
“The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles,” the governors wrote. “If adopted, these agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global authority in public health.”
The documents they refer to are a new treaty called the WHO pandemic agreement and amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHRs), which together would centralize a significant amount of authority within this United Nations subsidiary if the WHO declares a state of “health emergency.”
Governors from the following states signed the letter: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
As the negotiations among member nations move into their final phase before the start of the voting session at the World Health Assembly, scheduled to begin on May 27, the WHO appears to have scaled back some of the powers it had sought in hopes of finalizing a deal.
Related Stories
States Move to Reject WHO Treaty, Federal Health Diktats

4/25/2024

Lockdowns a ‘Red Line’ on WHO Treaty, Says Health Minister
[url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/lockdowns-a-red-line-on-who-treaty-says-health-minister-5650326?ea_src=author_manual&ea_med=related_stories]
5/15/2024

The latest IHR draft has deleted a prior provision that member nations “recognize WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority of international public health response” and commit to following the WHO’s directives during a health emergency. The latest draft also states that WHO recommendations are non-binding.
The WHO had attempted in previous drafts to obtain powers over “all risks with the potential to impact public health,” which could include environmental and climate issues. The latest draft seeks to limit the WHO’s authority to diseases.
The WHO has simultaneously launched a public relations campaign, using politicians, celebrities, and religious leaders, to encourage member states to sign the agreements. 
Sovereignty Coalition Holds Summit on ‘Global Governance’ Treaties at WHO

On March 20, WHO ambassador and Britain’s former Prime Minister Gordon Brown praised the efforts of a “100+ pantheon of global leaders” that have come to the WHO’s defense. 
“A high-powered intervention by 23 former national Presidents, 22 former Prime Ministers, a former UN General Secretary, and 3 Nobel Laureates is being made today to press for an urgent agreement from international negotiators on a Pandemic Accord, under the Constitution of the World Health Organization, to bolster the world’s collective preparedness and response to future pandemics,” Mr. Brown stated in a press release.
He called for an international effort to “expose fake news disinformation campaigns by conspiracy theorists trying to torpedo international agreement for the Pandemic Accord.”
“No country will cede any sovereignty, and no country will see their national laws set aside,” he declared.
The issue of whether or not to grant the WHO additional powers has become a partisan issue, with Democrats generally supporting the plan and Republicans generally opposing it.
GOP Senators Demand Right to Approve Treaty
On May 1, all 49 GOP senators signed a letter to President Biden urging him either not to sign the WHO Pandemic Agreement and IHR amendments or, if he does, to submit the treaty to the Senate for approval, as required by the Constitution. Senate Democrats have thus far not supported efforts to require Senate approval for the treaty.
“The WHO’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country,” the Republican senators wrote.
“The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic functions and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations or any new pandemic related treaty that would increase WHO authority,” they continued. “We are deeply concerned that your administration continues to support these initiatives and strongly urge you to change course.”
In the United States, the authority to deal with health issues is largely in the domain of states and outside the grasp of the federal government. States with Republican majorities have been active in opposing the WHO agreements.

Louisiana and Florida recently passed laws stating that state officials will not obey WHO directives, and other states, such as Oklahoma, are considering similar legislation.
Attorneys general from 22 U.S. states also signed a May 8 letter to President Biden urging him not to sign the WHO agreements and stating that they will resist any attempts by the WHO to set public health policy in their states.
“Although the latest iteration is far better than previous versions, it’s still highly problematic,” the attorneys general wrote. “The fluid and opaque nature of these proceedings, moreover, could allow the most egregious provisions from past versions to return. Ultimately, the goal of these instruments isn’t to protect public health,” they stated.
“It’s to cede authority to the WHO—specifically its director-general—to restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, privacy, movement (especially travel across borders), and informed consent.”

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)
       

A statement by both the USA and all nations concerned who are trying to fend off China's aggressiveness should just say..."Any Chinese vessel in our waters or airspace will be fired upon and any Chines vessel in international waters trying to disrupt official operations will be sunk". It would only take a few such incidences to dissuade China. If they want to start something bigger then let them try and see what happens. Everyone knows it is just a matter of time before a real shooting match starts... China's economy is presently terrible and getting worse by the day so...does everyone wait for the CCP to crater on it's own or what ? Two ways forward,,,,, choose wisely...

Since 2024 is now a confirmed as an election year in two countries, the United States and Britain, this is an appropriate time to revive my old speculation about election parallels between the two countries.
 
This was based on observing the way that British and American politics seem to have been running on parallel lines since the end of World War 2, switching from left to right and back again within a few years of each other.
 
The timing of the changes is partly governed by the fact that the U.S.  operates on  a fixed-term electoral cycle and the U.K. doesn’t. This flexibility means that a change in the political mood can sometimes be expressed first on the British side of the Atlantic (though it also means that an “old regime” might hang on for a while longer).
 
The pattern goes like this;
When Japan surrendered in 1945, both countries were under comparatively left-wing governments-  a Democrat administration and a Labour government- which lasted beyond the end of the decade.
 
The Fifties were dominated by conservatism. There was the Eisenhower era (from 1952), and in Britain there was a time of Conservative government (from 1951), epitomised by Harold Macmillan’s observation that “Some of our people have never had it so good.”
 
The Sixties were ready for something a little more radical- the Democrats under Kennedy-Johnson (from 1960) and the Labour party under Harold Wilson (from 1964).
 
Nevertheless, at the end of the decade, they both gave way to more conservative individuals- Richard Nixon (from 1968) and Ted Heath (from 1970). (I swept to power myself in 1970 as the winning candidate in our school’s Mock Election).
 
Nixon and Heath were both forced out a few years later, but the change happened more quickly in Britain. Ted Heath was able to call an unnecessary election in early 1974 and get himself thrown out almost instantly. Whereas, even after Nixon resigned, the American Constitution kept the Republicans in power until 1976.
 
So, in the second half of the Seventies, there was, once more, a Democrat administration and a Labour government. Neither of them impressed people by the way they handled crises, and there was another conservative reaction in both countries. Once again, the change happened in Britain first.  Maggie Thatcher was able to force an election in 1979 by winning a “No Confidence” vote in the Commons, while Ronald Reagan had to wait for the fixed election date in 1980.
 
The Reagan-Bush and Thatcher-Major years were a time of renewed conservative domination. The compatibility between Reagan and Thatcher was noted at the time. Leftists will fondly remember the famous film poster parody, with Reagan carrying Maggie in his arms;
“She promised to follow him to the end of the world.
He promised to arrange it”.
 
Finally, at the end of the century, conservatism gave way to Clinton and Blair. This time the American change happened first, partly because John Major won an election which nobody was expecting him to win.
 
Taken individually, all these changes can be explained by local factors, like the Vietnam issue on one side of the Atlantic, and strikes in the nationalised industries on the other.  Nonetheless, when the pattern is taken as a whole, that’s a remarkable sequence of parallels.
 
I don’t know that the mechanism behind it need be anything more mysterious than having a similar culture with similar reactions to world affairs and economic issues. This would include being more resistant to Socialism than the European countries. Certainly British politics and European politics have not been running in parallel to anything like the same extent.
 
At first glance, the new century seems to have disrupted the pattern. The British equivalent of Clinton remained in power while America was moving from Left to Right and back again. Or did Tony Blair end up as the British equivalent of Bush Junior after all? Anyway, with the arrival of Gordon Brown and Obama, the two countries were apparently back on parallel tracks. At least, that was my impression in 2012 when this theory was first put forward.
 
Or were they? Gordon Brown had already been discarded in 2010 and replaced by David Cameron and the Coalition. From one viewpoint, this could be regarded as being six years in advance of the American shift to Trump.
 
An alternative theory, in retrospect, is that the comparatively liberal Cameron was just as much the British equivalent of Obama as Blair was the British equivalent of Bush.
 
This allows us to see Boris Johnson’s triumph in December 2019 as the British version of Trump’s triumph in 2016, and his dumping in 2022 as the British version of Trump’s defeat in 2020. This is an attractive theory because people see so many similarities, even in hairstyle.
 
We arrive in 2024 with both countries seeming to show an increasingly strong right-wing mood. However, that’s not going to translate into an election victory in Britain because the official right-wing party is falling apart.
 
As far as I can gather, not being in close touch with political events, the pro-Brexit side of the party are the ones who are pulling out and forming a new “Reform” party. Maggie Thatcher used to label the more liberal and pro-Europe side of her party as “wet”, so in the political language of the time the Thatcherites themselves were known as “dry”. On the whole, I think, “wet” has been in charge at least since the turn of the century, so that is the element that is now going down in flames.
 
If a right-wing surge is now bringing Trump back to power, that won’t be reflected in Britain until the right has had a chance to re-form itself and coalesce.
 
+++
 
In fact this could be an event in British political history with a significance like the collapse of the old Liberal party.
 
Victorian Liberalism had been a grand coalition against the power of the land-owners, formed of liberal-minded aristocrats (the old Whigs), business interests, radical theorists and the working-class. Once they came into power, they had difficulty in holding the coalition together. Gladstone began upsetting the business interests (e.g. restraints on drinking hours did not please the brewers). Then he shifted to a policy of offering Home Rule to Ireland, which cost him the Whigs and also Joseph Chamberlain, who was considered a radical at the time.
 
Those Liberals who broke away allied with the Conservatives, eventually getting absorbed. This group was the target of the political joke in “The Importance of Being Earnest”; “Politics? I don’t really have any. I am a Liberal Unionist.” “Oh, they count as Tories. They dine with us. Or come in the evening, at any rate.” By the time the film version was made, the Unionists had disappeared altogether, and the actor simply called himself “a Liberal”. So the social joke no longer applied, though arguably the “no politics” joke actually worked better on the Liberals of 1952 than when Oscar Wilde wrote it.
 
Joseph Chamberlain himself had an extraordinary career. Having split the Liberal party almost single-handed, on the issue of Irish Home Rule, he went on to split the Conservative Party almost single-handed on the question of re-introducing import tariffs. For example, that was when they temporarily lost Winston Churchill.
 
But then the Liberal Party got outflanked on the left by the rise of the Labour Party. In the long-term, this meant that they became a centre party and got pulled apart by the two parties on either side.
 
Before that, there was the First World War. The Liberals were obliged to allow the Conservatives to enter a wartime coalition. The manoeuvres of Lloyd George to make himself leader of that coalition had the effect of dividing his own Liberal party. As a result, the coalition ended the war and won the following election as a mainly Liberal cabinet supported by a mainly Conservative body of back-benchers (M.P.’s without a Cabinet post).
 
Then in 1922 the back-benchers rebelled. They threw off the old leadership and dissolved the coalition. This was the origin of “the 1922 Committee”, which still survives as the voice of the back bench. I was going to write a thread in the centenary year, but never got around to it. The pulling apart of the Liberals was consummated over the rest of the decade, as the working class and the intellectual radicals shifted to Labour, while Winston Churchill and anyone else who hated socialism went back to the Conservatives.
 
That may be happening to the Conservatives now, as the “wets” who are trying to hold the centre are being abandoned by the Brexiteers. Yet there is also, at the same time, a visible tension within the Labour party as the leadership tries to hold the centre against Islamists and others. Might we end up with a “National Emergency anti-extremist coalition” of Sunak and Starmer?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrQQAa6AARc

I'm sure some of ya'll have heard of the DROPA Stones. I found this discussion absolutely fascinating adding some clarity to all the lore & conspiracy theories plastered across the web. Along with several interesting nuggets you may have never heard.

Walter Bosley - Mystery of the Dropa Stones with Hans Dietrich



Hans Dietrich is an accomplished graphic, presentation, and marketing designer whose journey has taken him across 22 countries, immersing him in a wealth of cultural and esoteric knowledge. Raised in Kathmandu, Nepal, Hans possesses deep insights into Corporate, Esoteric, and Occult Symbolism, along with a profound understanding of Shambala, Mt. Meru, the Mahabharata, Vimanas, and the intriguing connection between ancient Buddhism and Sirius. His expertise extends to the enigmatic Dropa Stones, the nomadic Drokpa people, and the rich tapestry of legends surrounding Nepal, including the elusive Yeti.

Having forged close ties with notable figures like Brien Foerester, Brad Olsen, Knights Templar Grand Master Timothy Hogan, Mohamed Ibrahim, Stephen Mehler, Yousef Awyan, Patricia Awyan Lehman, Maria Wheatley, LA Marzulli, Jonny Enoch, and the late Lloyd Pye, Hans has lent his talents to producing book covers and promotional materials for these renowned scholars and tour guides. His explorations have taken him on multiple journeys through Peru, Mexico, Egypt, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Tibet, and Bhutan, enriching his understanding of ancient civilizations and their interconnectedness.

His book: Dropa Legends & Lore - Connecting the Ancient Secrets of Bhutan, China, Nepal, Tibet, and Sirius by Hans Dietrich.

Website: https://www.megamyst.com/

With over 50 years of flying I have never hit turbulence like this. I did hit some serious stuff at 45,000 Feet once upon a time but it did not result in an upset or loss of control of the aircraft.

This incident as reported involved clear air turbulence (CAT) which was evidently Severe. At 37,000 and all clear you do not expect such a thing to happen unless the winds aloft are unusually strong and even then it is rare.

About 700,000 Blacks in Chicago and the mayor says they are importing 700,000 illegals and they all have government money in their pockets.... Probably 45 to 50 million illegals now in America.

Interesting comments coming out of Chicago about a soon to come war... Define war ?

Campi Flegrei super volcano

Some people have said that Yellowstone with all it's vents and the ability to release pressure is pretty low on the chance of popping it's top ...However there is one super volcano that seems to be awaking in Italy.. If it goes the loss of life just in the local area will be big and more than horrible; as far as the rest of the world we will see if the computer models and historical records are right if it blows !

Tucker interviews Erik Prince a former Navy SEAL and founder of Blackwater Worldwide, a private military corporation. Well spoken and interesting subjects about world affairs IMO.

You can listen to the intro and then skip to 5:17 to miss the advertisement

I was not sure I would be interested in this Why Files however everything from the successful attack by Iraq into Saudi Arabia to destroy a mind control transmitter to a little history on Subliminal advertising that has been with us since the 50s. 

From advertising, Mind Control, to the overthrow of legitimate elected governments. Worth a listen IMO.

Quote:Subliminal Warfare | Mind Control and Invisible Influence The shocking truth about subliminal messages and their power to control minds. From advertising to warfare, there are hidden ways your thoughts and actions are being manipulated. Subliminal technology has moved from marketing to the military. Learn the truth behind this controversial technology.