1. What are important actions the United States can take right away to better defend our territorial integrity?
Answer: Congress can enact a law that forbids the United States military, any military or agency personnel or contractors, and any foreign entities whatsoever from constructing facilities on U.S. soil for the purpose of joint or sole use by military or civilian populations that are not American citizens.
In other words, Congress can forbid the United States from allowing the construction of what I will call Trojan Horse facilities on U.S. territory. And it is important that this regulation extend to secret installations about which Congress may not be informed due to security designations.
The Executive Branch, by itself, should not maintain sole authority to permit such installations.
2. Why not?
Answer: Because that places too much pressure on a handful of people. No President should be facing a circumstance in which his permission for the construction of such facilities is necessitated by safety and security concerns pertaining to the U.S. government itself, for example. No foreign power should be able to hold our elected leaders hostage to an agenda involving the construction of underground or in-mountain facilities, like that planned in Idaho, that fundamentally conflict with the long term national interest.
The Executive needs the support of the United States Congress, the DOJ and the Supreme Court to ensure that this type of extortion can never occur.
3. What could our territorial losses look like if we failed to prevent the construction of the installations to which you're referring?
Answer: The FBI seems to indicate that the United States could lose up to 23% of its usable land within ten years, and perhaps significantly sooner than that ten year boundary.
4. How could that possibly happen?
Answer: Well, the FBI has repeatedly referenced an agency plan to deploy a radiological weapon in San Francisco, for example, with the damage to be blamed on terrorists. If such an event occurred, the military would evacuate large numbers of people from extensive areas of land. And this could be a circumstance in which there would be no going back.
5. Yet, if there were elevated radiation that would render Northern California uninhabitable by current residents, wouldn't that land be uninhabitable by everyone?
Answer: No. That is simply not the case. We could see large areas of land mass effectively closed off to human habitation for the foreseeable future under the heading of "environmental reclamation" or "environmental hazard." And at the same time, we could be allowing dramatic changes to the ecosystems in these areas, as well as to the presence of others on U.S. soil.
6. By "others," are you referencing Russia or China?
Answer: No, I am not, although our foreign adversaries could certainly exploit such environmental tragedies, and could even manifest a nominal presence in such locations.
7. What can the public do to prevent such gratuitous environmental harm, and the large-scale displacements that could accompany them?
Answer: It seems that it will be important for my writings to date regarding this case, with certain exceptions pertaining to the privacy of my children, to be preserved in a public repository for future reference. While it is important that such a repository not be utilized for the FBI's well-established stratagems of defamation, and while I would also retain copyright to my writings, a historic repository, in the Smithsonian Institution, for example, could go a long way toward protecting the nation from territorial incursion by others.
8. How so?
Answer: No President of the United States wants to be documented as allowing environmental disasters that would, by definition, force mass migrations of the American population.
And no President of the United States wants to be shown by history to have allowed territorial losses of this magnitude, or any magnitude, at the behest of our foreign adversaries.
President Trump and Vice President Vance don't want to see such tragedies occur on their watch, or anyone's watch.
And documentation of these writings can assist them, along with the United States Congress, the DOJ, and the Supreme Court, in ensuring that they do not occur.
9. Will you be formalizing the disposition of certain of your writings pertaining to this case, and what level of disclosure of DOJ documentation regarding this case will you allow to be housed by a public repository such as the Smithsonian?
Answer: I will be formalizing these details, yes, and I will be allowing complete disclosure within the Smithsonian regarding most matters, with a special emphasis on the accounting of awards extended in my name, to ensure that that documentation is in every possible way complete for the historic record.
10. Aren't there certain aspects of your case which are bound to be classified as highly sensitive?
Answer: There are, without question. But it's my commitment to ensure that funds awarded in my name not be sequestered by the enemies of human sovereignty over the long term. Such an outcome would represent a complete travesty regarding my efforts on behalf of my country and my people, alongside the long term preservation of human rights.
I might agree, through direct talks regarding the specifics, to withhold certain documentation from the repository.
But the argument for withholding information has got to be presented to me in clear and honest dialogue that does not involve placing my loved ones or myself at ongoing risk of arrest, brain damage, other health harms, sovereignty loss, agency involvement, organized crime involvement at agency directive, ongoing involvement in government programs, or death.
11. In other words, you are not willing to be extorted over the content of a Smithsonian repository.
Answer: I am not. I am a peaceable person, and I believe in intelligent dialogue that prioritizes the well-being of the conversants and their families. These fundamentals allow for the interests of national sovereignty to be prioritized in discussions regarding critical matters about America's future, and the rest of humanity's potential as well, given that other nations will be profoundly influenced by our fate.
12. To return to your earlier comments about territorial integrity, should the United States' leadership be encouraging other nations to enact laws which strictly limit the construction of underground and in-mountain facilities, just as you are advocating for our own nation?
Answer: Without question. This should be a worldwide policy initiative, and we should share with other nations any and all legislation and court rulings that can assist them at this juncture.
13. How would you characterize the urgency of this policy objective?
Answer: High.
14. Should the U.S. Congress request disclosure of all previous installations of this kind?
Answer: They should insist on full disclosure to all members of Congress of the current status, yes.
15. Please keep us up to date regarding your wellbeing and that of your family given your extension of these policy recommendations.
Answer: I certainly will.
16. Thank you for speaking with us this afternoon.
Answer: You are quite welcome.
Lane MacWilliams
No comments:
Post a Comment