Monday, January 30, 2023
Share:

Food, Fires, FASCAT, Fact-Checkers And Fake News



Over the last year and a half there has been a large outbreak of fires at food production facilities. At the time, I remember thinking that it seemed very suspicious, based on the number of incidents alone. The news cycle being what it is today though, any information about the fires flamed out quickly and seemed to disappear in a puff of smoke.

Then last week, the social media website Rumble posted an interview with Dr. Andrew Huff. The interview was conducted by Emerald Robinson on her podcast “The Absolute Truth With Emerald Robinson.” In addition to her podcast, Robinson is a journalist with the RAIR Foundation, (Rise, Align, Ignite, Reclaim), a conservative activist group seeking to reclaim the American Republic from those attacking the constitution, our borders, and the Judeo-Christian values that our country was founded on.

Dr. Huff is a well educated and interesting guy. A combat vet, who served tours in both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He also has degrees in psychology, security technologies and geographic information systems, and a doctorate in environmental health science in an emerging infectious disease specialty track.

Huff is also the former vice president and senior scientist of a research group called the EcoHealth Alliance, and authored a book titled “The Truth About Wuhan, How I Uncovered The Biggest Lie In History.”

In the book, Huff charges that the Covid outbreak was the result of a leak from a  Wuhan virology lab of a genetically engineered agent. A claim that others have made as well, but at the time so called “fact checkers” hammered the theory.

Huff has now turned his attention to the fires that have raged through the food production facilities and offers a compelling case that something sinister is taking place.

Huff states that while working on his PHD, he came across a government document titled: “Food and Agriculture Systems Criticality Assessment Tool,” (FASCAT).

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States government established a policy to identify critical infrastructure, including food and agriculture production systems, to protect them from terrorist attacks.

Criticality is defined as the negative impact of an attack on or failure of a given infrastructure on the nation if it were compromised or destroyed. Food and agriculture systems were identified as one of 18 critical infrastructures.

Identifying which food systems were the most critical to the nation was an enormous task, since the food and agriculture sector is almost entirely privately owned, is comprised of an estimated 2.1 million farms, has over 1 million production facilities, and accounts for roughly one-fifth of U.S. economic activity.

 To assist the Department of Homeland Security in determining which food systems were the most critical to the nation, the National Center for Food Protection and Defense developed the Food and Agriculture Systems Criticality Assessment Tool (FASCAT) to support states’ identification of critical systems.

The FASCAT was used to document, evaluate, and compare 741 disparate complex food and agriculture systems across 39 states to determine their criticality. The objective of these assessments was to prioritize the allocation of threat mitigation resources to the most critical systems.

Prior to the use of FASCAT, no food and agriculture systems were identified as critical in the U.S. Now, with the use of FASCAT, many food and agriculture systems have been added to the criticality list.

Huff states that In 2019, the FASCAT data went missing. He says that while studying the document he observed that it essentially provided:

“A roadmap to attacking critical infrastructure in the United States.”

Huff went on to say:

“There’s been a number of attacks. I think, globally, there’s been, probably, roughly around 200 attacks. In the United States and Mexico, I think there’s been somewhere between 130 to 150 attacks now.”

When he analyzed the specific details of the fires and compared them to the most critical systems of America’s food production he claims:

“It’s a perfect match. I had never seen something so predicted or such a strong correlation in my life.”

During the interview, Huff told Robinson that he reported what he had uncovered to the FBI and Homeland Security, but never heard back from either department.

He explained that at the time he reported the information, he was still at odds with the government over the Wuhan lab leak theory.

Hearing this, Robinson asked:

“The coincidences are just uncanny. With so many attacks, by now, wouldn’t the government have found who it was? If there was an effort to do so, and if it’s not, you know, I don’t even know how to put it. Would they not have found the perpetrator if it was outside of, you know, some coordinated entity?”

Huff responded:

“My belief is that a state-sponsored actor, or a group of people, got a hold of this data and basically working with a number of groups who are aligned against the United States to attack our infrastructure.”

He continued:

“If one food facility burnt down, you could say, that was just, you know, random. If it was 10, you could say that was random, too.But the targeted nature of these food facilities and how they correlate with these data that were stolen, this is obviously someone who is well resourced doing this, someone who knows what they’re doing. They could have generated the assessment or the analysis on their own, independently. I think that would be very difficult and highly unlikely, so there’s definitely a state-sponsored actor or a group of well-sponsored individuals who are doing this. It could be both, and they could be aligned.”

This is a controversial theory, and as such the “fact checkers” have come out of the woodwork to oppose it. However, consider this. The current administration seems to have an endless supply of these so called “fact checkers” churning out a never-ending stream of supposed “checks.”

These self-proclaimed purveyors of the truth, are not necessarily removing misconceptions or conspiracy theories. In fact, in many cases they are the underpinning of the reported fake news.

In reality, these talking heads are nothing more than echo-chambers for whatever message those in power want you to believe.

Remember, If a liberal mouthpiece calls himself a “fact checker,” he’s still a liberal mouthpiece.