Last week I posted a suggestion: Use public outcry in DC to put elites on the spot!

My idea was to research people in Congress and use their prior public stands on child trafficking to put pressure on them and raise awareness. My post got some upvoats and some favorable comments, but nobody volunteered to do anything. That's okay. I'm back with an example of where to start.

For this shadowy pedophile elite to have avoided exposure for so many years, it logically has to have held substantial control over the intelligence services, the DOJ, the FBI, the Presidency, and Congress. In particular, it needs to control the Senate and House Select Intelligence Committees. If 20 to 30 percent of Congress is pedophile (which at this point is still conjecture), what is the proportion on either intelligence committee likely to be?

I've taken a first look at the SSIC, to try and identify possible enemies and allies. Obviously, nobody on the SSIC has been publicly investigated or charged. We're not going to find anything conclusive just lying around. So I've started with these basic negative "indicator flags":

-- Financial connections to the Podestas. -- Personal connection to NCMEC. -- Active Internet rumors that the person is a pedo.

IMPORTANT: My strong preference is not to reprint Internet rumors, just to flag whether they exist, and then only (a) if they existed prior to Pizzagate, and (b) were not the standard religious-conservative slur that any homosexual is automatically also pedophile. This is vital, so as to avoid suppressive lawsuits or other repressive tactics of the kind directed at Alex Jones, David Seaman, and many others.

There is also a neutral flag: other prior work in anti-trafficking enforcement or child-welfare agencies. This can mean the person is genuinely anti-abuse, or it can mean they are covering for pedos.

Finally there is one positive indicator flag, which is active public support for Sessions and Trump on the anti-trafficking crusade. This can include sponsoring past legislation. Voting for or against a bill is a weak indicator; actually sponsoring it is a stronger one.

I've also noted cases where the previous holder of that seat, primary opponent, or opponent in the general election, was exposed as a pedo, as well as cases that tend to be misrepresented as such. These don't count as indicator flags, but they are well worth noting to help show the scope of the problem.

I will post the Democrats on the SSIC, and then the Republicans. Both are in rough order of concern, worst to best. Those who are flagged "ex officio," are automatically on the committee because of some other function they perform elsewhere in Congress.

I will have some further comments at the end.