Sunday, March 25, 2018

Just in case...

Oh, and just in case you are tired of hearing about the heroes in Nazi Germany who rescued Jewish children, or the heroes in WWII who gave their lives for our freedom, or our local fireman and police who daily risk their lives to protect us, NEVER FORGET: " 2018 Stormy Daniels may be the hero America needs." --Denver Nicks (Rolling Stone, 3/19/18).

The real truth about who is actually behind the 200,000 kids--final tally reported by CBS--who attended March for Our Lives on 3/24/18

Saturday, March 24, 2018

Who Runs March for Our Lives?

Follow the money.

It’s a strange political fact, but nearly every major anti-gun group has been a front group. The NRA is maligned 24/7 and yet it’s completely obvious whom it represents. Despite the efforts to tie it to everyone from firearms manufacturers to the Russians (if you can’t tie any random Republican thing to the Russians these days, you won’t be working at the Washington Post or CNN for very long), it represents its five million members. Anti-gun groups tend to represent shadowy networks. 


Tuesday, March 20, 2018

The untold story of the HIV retrovirus

My name is Clark Baker and I'm an investigator by profession (LAPD 1980-2000 and PI 1997-current). It's a long story, but I was hired in 2008 to investigate claims against UC Berkeley Prof. Peter Duesberg, who was admitted into the National Academy of Sciences after mapping the retrovirus genome during the 1970s. (HIV is a retrovirus) You can look up the allegations, but I distilled my inquiry into this one question: WHEN, WHERE, WHY, WHAT, and WHO proved that HIV 1) attacks cells and 2) causes AIDS? When I didn't get a straight answer from the NIH and CDC, I set out to compel answers.

By 2009, 38 states had laws that made it a crime to expose victims to HIV without informing them. Hundreds of Americans have been criminally charged and several are serving life sentences. As new defendants were charged, they provided me with a venue to compel infectious disease (ID) experts to testify under oath about the issues that the NIH and CDC refused to discuss.

I formed a team that included an MD, an attorney (w/5 years of post-doctoral human biology), and two pharmaceutical chemists - including the patent holder of the viral load test.

When I examined medical records, it became clear that none of the MDs had ever diagnosed their patients properly. Patients were typically asymptomatic and the docs relied entirely on HIV tests that admittedly (in the package insert) do not detect HIV. During cross-examinations, top ID experts admitted in trial and depositions that they knew little about the testing, diagnosis, and treatment of HIV. 

After we prevailed in several dozen cases, we began to use the electron microscopy (EM) lab at U. Mass to see if HIV could be seen in blood samples. Despite high "viral load" counts, we found NOTHING with EM. When Walter Reed Army Hospital (which partners with Big Pharma) declared that HIV cannot be seen in human blood, I drew 20ml from my arm and spiked it with cultured HIV from the NIH. According to the head of the EM lab, he'd photographed HIV hundreds of times since the 1980s but this was the first time he actually observed HIV in human blood. Walter Reed got pissed and accused me of using EM for "diagnostic purposes". I countered that, as a licensed private investigator, I am permitted to use any optical devices of my choosing to establish whether evidence (including retroviruses) is present or not.

With that, Walter Reed falsely claimed that I was using a non-accredited lab (I'm allowed to) to "diagnose" our criminal defendants. The prosecutor used their affidavit to threaten U. Mass with a criminal investigation and the potential loss of the $150 million that U. Mass receives annually in NIH funding. With that, prosecutors successfully threatened and silenced our EM expert. We won that case anyway.

We eventually won a landmark case US v. Gutierrez and changed the definition of assault with a deadly weapon with regard to HIV, which began the end of all criminal HIV cases across the US.

After this nine-year investigation, my partner and I tried to get EM labs to assist us with additional virology investigations. EVERY university lab across the US refused. We eventually set up labs at incubators in California and NC, but before we could start our operations, the landlords evicted us with no explanation.

It is now my belief that much of virology is a complete scam - a pseudoscientific pretext to support the billion vaccine and AIDS, HPV and HCV industries. With the use of EM, I expect to prove that scary pathogens like Ebola and HPV are non-pathogenic pretexts that cannot stand up to Koch's postulates - which is why documents that prove that bugs like HPV and HCV are harmless. All of this may seem academic, except when you consider that innocent men and women continue to serve time for a disease they never had, and millions of people around the world are being unnecessarily vaccinated and treated for diseases they never had.

Based on our work, I commissioned my former partner, Nancy Banks MD to write a book about our discoveries related to cancer and immune-deficiency diseases. 

So you must understand that your industry has been lying for decades about much of what you think you know. Virology and infectious disease is largely an ideology, and the practitioners are too busy and invested in the ideology to share the intellectual curiosity that influenced my investigation and success, which conflicts directly with the enforced "scientific consensus" that your industry relies on.

“(T)he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus… There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
- Michael Crichton MD

I was tasked to investigate the controversy between Duesberg and the medical establishment. Eight years later (2015) I had confirmed all of Duesberg's skepticism and refuted virtually ALL of the establishment's position.

Duesberg's book is probably still the best indictment of HIV. I simply added to his position by forcing government experts to testify and winning 50+ criminal, civil, and military cases proving it.

--Clark Baker

Thursday, March 15, 2018

"I am very rarely at a loss for words...but this is potentially one of the biggest pay-for-play scandals we have ever seen outside of Uranium One.”

“The stepson of John Kerry, the son of Joseph Biden, when they were cabinet members of the Obama administration, create a new investment fund… then inked a billion-dollar deal with the Chinese government — the Bank of China. Then, together they proceeded… to buy a U.S. manufacturing company called Henniges, making very sensitive equipment — crucial to our American military here at home. This, look, I am very rarely at a loss for words Stuart, but this is potentially one of the biggest pay-for-play scandals we have ever seen outside of Uranium One.”


I was part of the failed "War on Drugs" and made 2500+ arrests during the 1980s that saved taxpayers ~$160 million in potential property losses and law enforcement. Despite that, I knew that its prosecution was folly.

To fix this requires a completely different strategy that is based on two FACTS:

1) Most crime is drug-related and;

2) Rehabilitation requires a sincere desire to change. (Most addicts don't want to.)

I recommend a state-run program that sends bonafide criminal-addicts to secure rehabilitation centers (closed military bases are great venues). These centers would offer two specific services:

* The “rehab” wing would offer the best rehabilitation techniques and services known in the Western World, along with out-patient support, job training, and counseling. If an addict completes the program and pisses clean for nine months he/she can be released.

* The "addict" wing would offer pharmaceutical doses of the drug of choice - cocaine, meth, alcohol, cannabis, opiates, mushrooms, LSD etc. - under the care of medical practitioners. In this environment, prostitutes won’t turn tricks and burglars and robbers won’t steal to score adulterated street drugs. Addicts in that wing could stay indefinitely and be released to the Rehab-wing for treatment upon request.

In this way, street drug sales would plummet. After all, why would anyone buy adulterated street drugs when they could acquire pharmaceutical doses of their favorite drug in a secure environment? With most drug-addicted criminals no longer committing crime to score drugs, crime would plummet across the cities and states that utilized the program. And while the initial costs would be high, those costs would be gradually offset as drug-related prisoners transferred from jails and prisons to these rehab centers. As the addict-population rises, the jail populations would shrink.

I also support the idea that anyone can grow and consume any illicit drug they produce personally, but that any commercial sale of their products would result in incarceration and asset forfeiture. Drug-related crime like DUI and manslaughter would result in a prison sentence, followed by the program.

The biggest benefit is that these centers would segregate drug users from the rest of society at the discretion of the addicts themselves - a moral and constitutional solution. I pitched this to Congress years ago. I suspect that law enforcement and prison unions don’t want to jeopardize the status quo. BTW... If you wonder how I calculated my personal $160 million contribution to the LA economy, here it is:

Between 1985-1989, I averaged 4.5 §11550 H&S arrests a day, 22 each week, or 900 addicts a year (assuming 40 weeks a year on the street). During that 48-month period, I made 2,500+ §11550 arrests.

The typical drug addict commits at least five property crimes each day to support their addictions. Their crimes (burglary, robbery, shoplift, B/TFMV, and 484) are not dollar for dollar: That is, the replacement cost for a watch, TV, purse, computer, or cell phone usually costs more than fees paid by a fence or insurance settlement. Addicts might get $100 for a $2000 watch. For computational ease, let’s assume that each crime CONSERVATIVELY represents an average $50 loss to victims. Addicts who commit five crimes a day represent a minimum property loss of $250 (five crimes X $50).

I didn’t include the repair costs of a broken door or window, or the health costs from being attacked by robbers, the injuries, hospitalization, lost work, psychological trauma, and so forth, nor will I include the costs for addict "rehabilitation", incarceration, or international drug interdiction efforts.

By applying these numbers we can accept that by arresting one addict who spends 180 days in jail, I effectively prevented 900 crimes (five crimes X 180 days) and the property loss of $45,000 ($50 X 900 crimes).

If we assume a minimum replacement cost of $50 per stolen item (it is far greater), we can estimate another $45,000, bringing the total cost savings to victims (and their insurers) at $90,000 during 180 days of incarceration.

Back then, taxpayers spent at least $300 for police to investigate these crimes, which includes fuel, vehicle maintenance, uniform and equipment wear and tear; administrative costs, training, and follow-up investigations and prosecution. Not every crime is reported to police, so if we assume that 200 of those 900 crimes are reported, the LAPD spent $60,000 to investigate those 200 crimes.

This means that if one addict is sentenced to 180 days in jail, LA residents and taxpayers will save at least $210,000 in property loss and investigative costs.

If we apply these numbers to the 2500+ addicts I arrested, we can roughly estimate that my efforts alone saved LA residents and taxpayers at least $200 MILLION in lost property and tax revenues. I wasn't alone - most patrol divisions deployed hype cars.

I typically released arrestees without bail on their "own recognizance" (OR) who provided urine samples and good ID (most did). I couldn't order them to provide a urine sample, so I offered the OR if they provided good ID and urine that would 1) confirm their identity and 2) obtain urine that would prove the crime.

They almost never appeared in court and the judge often issued a high-bail warrant for their arrest ($50-$100K) so they couldn't bail out. As a result, patrol officers who observed the suspect but didn't have enough evidence or probable cause to arrest was relieved to learn that they could arrest the suspect on outstanding warrants. At that time, sentencing guidelines prevented judges and sheriffs from releasing the suspects in less than 180 days.

Unfortunately, §11550 is no longer enforced because Marxist judges and legislators view property crime as a form of "wealth redistribution" under the pretext of compassion - that these are "non-violent crimes" that are perpetrated by the poor and sick who deserve our help and compassion.

Monday, March 12, 2018

Remember all the times Obama chanted "this is not who we are" ?

Well, this is who he thought we were:
There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college? Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school? Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college? Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?


I have a copy of Barack Obama's paper here in my hand, obtained from the stacks at UCLA. The paper is as describe by Odhiambo and Cohen, a cutting attack from the left on Tom Mboya's historically important policy paper "African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya." The author is given as "Barak H. Obama" and his paper is titled "Problems Facing Our Socialism", published July, 1965 in the East African Journal, pp. 26-33.

Sunday, March 11, 2018

If you want a scandal, and a cover-up that succeeded to a remarkable degree, look no further than Chappaquiddick

Worst case, Trump paid Stormy Daniels. But he didn’t kill her. That distinguishes him from the Liberal Lion of the Senate. If you want a scandal, and a cover-up that succeeded to a remarkable degree, look no further than Chappaquiddick. The Democratic Party conspired to cover up Ted Kennedy’s crime–manslaughter, in a particularly vile form–to preserve his political viability, at the cost of an innocent young woman’s life.

To this day, most people have no idea what the Chappaquiddick scandal was all about. That is how successful the Democrats’ cover-up has been. Most Americans assume that Kennedy was guilty of drunk driving and negligently causing the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. But the truth is much worse.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Even the New York Times is talking up the economy!!

The Economy Is Looking Awfully Strong
By Neil Irwin
March 9, 2018
There are 39 pages in the Labor Department’s February report on the employment situation in the United States, but they can be summed up in four words: The economy is humming.

The 313,000 jobs that the nation added in February are far more than are needed to keep up with population growth and continue a surprising burst of job creation to start the year. In the first two months of 2018, the economy has added an average of 276,000 jobs a month, a big step up from 182,000 on average in 2017.

This is not the kind of data you expect in an expansion that is nine years old, or out of a labor market that is already at full employment. It suggests that employers are filling jobs not merely from people they’ve poached from competitors, but also from more people who have entered the work force. And other data in the latest report matches that idea.

Monday, March 05, 2018


By the time they reach high school, nearly 20 percent of all American boys will be diagnosed with ADHD. Millions of those boys will be prescribed a powerful stimulant to "normalize" them. A great many of those boys will suffer serious side effects from those drugs. The shocking truth is that many of those diagnoses are wrong, and that most of those boys are being drugged for no good reason—simply for being boys. It's time we recognize this as a crisis.

Saturday, March 03, 2018

Special Report - Relativistic America: Neither Safe Nor Free

THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR: "That’s the society created by gun-control liberalism."


The CDC’s latest report on firearms might not make many gun control activists happy

Gun rights advocates have long defended their right to bear arms out of a need for self-defense. And now they have a new report from the Centers for Disease Control that says they make a darn good point.

The $10 million study commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January says “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study revealed.

The study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states that “violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” but notes that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.”

The CDC report said that most incidents involving the use of a gun do not result in a fatality: “In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”

The White House commissioned the CDC to conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence. The White House believes research on gun violence is critical public health research that is important for Americans to understand, and not advocacy.