Login
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
This week marks the eighth month of the U.S. Navy’s combat operations against Houthi forces in Yemen. That’s four times longer than the first Gulf War. While Navy sailors have remained vigilant, fighting their ships, and eliminating a portion of their adversary’s combat capability, the Houthis and their Iranian enablers remain entirely undeterred.
Commercial mariners have gotten the message. After more than 50 attacks on shipping in the waters off Yemen, which have killed three, the marine transportation industry has all but abandoned the Red Sea. This caused one Commanding Officer of the Navy ships in the region to call the strategic sea lane a “ghost town.” One must wonder why the U.S. has a Navy in the first place.
The exodus of civilian shipping has only caused the Houthis to concentrate their kinetic effects on allied naval forces, creating the most intense combat conditions since World War II. In a sobering expose this week by the Associated Press, commanders of the U.S. Navy vessels involved described the nearly non-stop barrage of missiles and drones. In each case, the ships had only seconds to respond.
One officer said, “We only have to get it wrong once,” implying that if the Houthis succeed in executing just a single strike successfully, any of the ships could experience what occurred in 1987 when the USS Stark was struck by two Iraqi Exocet air to surface missiles during the Iran-Iraq War, which killed 37 sailors and nearly sunk the ship.
Time is not on the Navy’s side. Consider that Israel’s much-vaunted Iron Dome system has an estimated success rate of 95%, meaning that 5% of all incoming attacks strike home. In the AP article, Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said, “We’re sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the U.S. can’t stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage. … If you let it fester, the Houthis are going to get to be a much more capable, competent, experienced force.”
Such was the case when a strike by another Iran-backed militia killed three Army soldiers and injured dozens of others last year in Jordan. The forces defending the base mistook the adversary’s drone for an American one.
Why is the world’s strongest Navy being put in the position of a pincushion? The sad fact is that the service’s hands are tied by a White House too fearful to eliminate the threat in Yemen, as well as their support from Iran. Instead, the Biden team is foolishly clinging to the Administration’s “relentless diplomacy” policy which did nothing to deter Russia from invading Ukraine in 2022. While the White House has said nothing about taking the fight to the enemy in Yemen, the Houthis are boasting about what they are doing.
Contrast this to Israel’s approach in their war with Hamas. Their objective is clear: destroy Hamas. This is just what the U.S. needs to do: establish and achieve the goal to destroy the Houthi’s means of attacking both shipping and Israel. When the Trump Administration killed Iranian Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani in 2020, it forced Iran’s leaders to recalculate their months-long escalation against U.S. forces. Standing up to the Houthi attacks and Iran’s material and financial support will have the same effect.
And you can be sure that China’s President Xi Jinping is not only noticing such dithering by Biden’s Defense Department, but he is also embracing it and factoring it into his timeline to take Taiwan as early as the end of this year.
In an interview last week, former Commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) General Frank McKenzie stated that President Biden disregarded his advice and selected the worst of the four options he developed for withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan in 2021. He is clearly making the same ill-advised decisions regarding Iran right now.
In the previously cited AP article, author Jon Gambrell described the sentiment of Naval personnel on the scene in the Red Sea, “Officers acknowledge some grumbling among their crew, wondering why the Navy doesn’t strike harder against the Houthis.” We can only hope that current U.S. CENTCOM and Navy leadership are more effective than McKenzie in arguing against the Administration’s feckless and failing policy towards Iran and the Houthis. If they don’t succeed soon, the Houthis are going to get their lucky break, and the blood of U.S. Navy sailors will be on Biden’s hands.
Rear Admiral (ret.) Tim Gallaudet is a former acting and Deputy Administrator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as former acting Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary of Commerce. Prior to NOAA, he served for 32 years in the U.S. Navy, completing his career as the Oceanographer of the Navy and Commander of the Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command.
The post Biden’s Handwringing Over the Houthis is Going to Get U.S. Navy Sailors Killed appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Stunning percentage of kids with transgender feelings ‘grow out of it’
Yet another study has confirmed the scientifically supportable but politically blasphemous belief that most children who report transgender feelings actually, if left alone, grow out of them.
The New York Post reports that confirmation comes from a “transgender expert.”
It reveals Riittakerttu Kaltiala, psychiatrist who presided over youth gender transition treatments for years, confirmed 80% of those children who question their gender “eventually accept their bodies if no medical interventions are carried out.”
Kaltiala is a leading scientist regarding pediatric gender medicine in Finland and operates at the country’s largest gender clinic.
In an interview with a publication, Helsingin Sanomal, she said 12 separate studies support that statement.
The report suggested the comments are part of a revelation that liberals “are not in lockstep when it comes to transgender issues,” as the New York Times alspo recently published an op-ed defending writer J.K.Rowling’s comments on transgenderism.
The interview included Kaltiala’s caution to parents of gender-questioning children against using their offspring’s preferred pronouns or a new chosen name, because that is an “intervention” that could influence the child.
In America, instructions for teachers to use a child’s “chosen” pronouns are common, and often include orders that prevent them from sharing that information with a child’s parents.
But those name and pronoun alternations are “a message saying that ‘this is the right path for you,'” she said.
“The developmental mission of youth is not helped by the fact that young people’s self-expression is supported and directed from the outside,” she added. “The environment should also not commit to identity experiments in a way that might make a later change of direction anxiety-inducing.”
She debunked the oft-used threats by pro-LGBT advocates that children quickly resort to suicide if their gender agenda is stalled.
“It is not justified to tell the parents of young people identifying as transgender that a young person is at risk of suicide without medical treatments and that the danger can be alleviated with gender reassignment,” she said.
That, actually, she charged, is “purposeful disinformation.”
She especially expressed concern over those who start questioning themselves in adolescence, because of their ability to “grab the idea available in the media and social media that their problems are caused by gender identity.”
That endorses the explanations from Abigail Shrier, who wrote “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing our Daughters,” and said “peer contagion” could be responsible for the surge in adolescents with such problems.
The New York-based Komodo Health estimated 42,000 children and teens in the U.S. got a diagnoses of “gender dysphoria”” in 2021.
WND reported only weeks earlier on a similar conclusion from a study in the Netherlands.
In direct opposition to the suspect claims of transgender activists that children who are “gender-confused” must have medical “care” that goes up to and includes surgical body mutilations, that 15-year study confirmed that most of those kids, if left alone, “grow out of it.”
A report from the Daily Mail confirms the study results show that “being trans is usually just a phase for kids.”
The report explained, “Researchers in the Netherlands tracked more than 2,700 children from age 11 to their mid-twenties, asking them every three years of feelings about their gender. Results showed at the start of the research, around one-in-10 children (11 percent) expressed ‘gender non-contentedness’ to varying degrees.”
However, by age 25 only 4% said they “often” or even “sometimes” were discontent with gender.
“The results of the current study might help adolescents to realize that it is normal to have some doubts about one’s identity and one’s gender identity during this age period and that this is also relatively common,” the study found.
Under the openly radical push by Joe Biden and his administration, the transgender ideology has exploded in popularity over the last few years.
Multiple federal moves have insisted that transgender “rights” supersede even the U.S. Constitution and that chemicals to alter physical characteristics and even surgical mutilations of healthy bodies is normal, even beneficial.
The study prompted Patrick Brown, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, to tell the Mail, “This study provides even more reason to be skeptical towards aggressive steps to facilitate gender transition in childhood and adolescence. The fact that rates of satisfaction are lower even just a few years later suggests that for the vast majority of people, prudence and caution, rather than a rush towards permanent surgeries or hormone therapies, will be the best approach for teenagers struggling to make sense of the world and their place in it.”
He noted the evidence suggests policies that ban gender transition for children “make a great deal of sense.”
The researchers, from the University of Groningen, noted their analysis of 2,770 people did not focus specifically on those in treatment for dysphoria.
The study asked participants to respond to: “I wish to be of the opposite sex” at six points over 15 years. The results, documented in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, confirmed 78% had the same feelings about their gender over the 15 years.
Nineteen percent became more content and only 2% were “less comfortable,” the report said.
The study found, too, “Gender non-contentedness, while being relatively common during early adolescence, in general decreases with age and appears to be associated with a poorer self-concept and mental health throughout development.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post ‘Gender-Affirming’ Treatment Gets Shattered by New Study appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission
Archbishop Carlo Vigano, a friend of the faithful and totally dedicated to the church and sharing Jesus Christ in all he does has been notified that he is being summoned to the Vatican.
Our friend, Archbishop Vigano has stood up against the destruction of the church, COVID mandates that crushed individual rights worldwide, and stolen elections. He has called out this Pope for his destructive actions against the church and others like China and the World Economic Forum. For this he is being excommunicated from the Hoy Catholic Church.
Here is the message moments ago from Archbishop Vigano’s Twitter page:
(art. 2 SST; can. 1364 CIC)
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has informed me, with a simple email, of the initiation of an extrajudicial penal trial against me, with the accusation of having committed the crime of schism and charging me of having denied the legitimacy of “Pope Francis” of having broken communion “with Him” and of having rejected the Second Vatican Council. I have been summoned to the Palace of the Holy Office on June 20, in person or represented by a canon lawyer. I assume that the sentence has already been prepared, given that it is an extrajudicial process.
I regard the accusations against me as an honor. I believe that the very wording of the charges confirms the theses that I have repeatedly defended in my various addresses. It is no coincidence that the accusation against me concerns the questioning of the legitimacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the rejection of Vatican II: the Council represents the ideological, theological, moral, and liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian “synodal church” is the necessary metastasis.
Complete text of the announcement: https://exsurgedomine.it/240620-attendite-eng/
See the message below:
(art. 2 SST; can. 1364 CIC)
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has informed me, with a simple email, of the initiation of… pic.twitter.com/sVQmV2U4Af
— Arcivescovo Carlo Maria Viganò (@CarloMVigano) June 20, 2024
The post EXCLUSIVE: Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano Summoned to Vatican to be Excommunicated appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
Echoing the Muslim prophet Muhammad, Professor Hatem Bazian, a University of California, Berkeley lecturer, told his fellow Muslims: “The Day of Judgment will never happen until you fight the Jews.”
At the Santa Clara conference sponsored by the American Muslim Alliance, Bazian exhorted the crowd: “They are on the west side of the river, which is the Jordan River, and you’re on the east side until the trees and the stones will say, ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him!’ And that’s in the Hadith [the sayings and deeds of Muhammad] about this. This is a future battle before the Day of Judgment.”
Bazian’s threatening prophecy from 1999 might be lost to history but for the central role he has been playing in the anti-Israel protests that have erupted at college campuses. Two groups he helped create, Students for Justice in Palestine and American Muslims for Palestine, have been instrumental in organizing the demonstrations. In recent months he has visited the encampments from coast to coast, exhorting students to condemn Israel for launching counterstrikes in Gaza after marauding Hamas terrorists attacked and slaughtered more than 1,200 Israelis in October and took hundreds of others captive, including several Americans. Bazian has urged students to call on administrators and national leaders to protect Palestinian civilians in Gaza, whom he claims are victims of a “genocide” carried out by the Israeli government.
Although many opponents of Israel’s war against Hamas deny that their movement is tied to antisemitism, critics say Bazian’s deep involvement in the protests and his long history of inflammatory rhetoric against the Jewish people puts that claim in doubt. “The campus unrest is being driven by people with a very troubling past,” said Jon Schanzer, a former U.S. Treasury counterterrorism official. “They’re trying to legitimize Hamas.”
Drawing on a wide array of public records, RealClearInvestigations found that Bazian has been agitating against Jews and Israel on college campuses for decades. His 1999 exhortation of Holy War between Muslims and Jews was part of a larger pattern of words and deeds in which he sought to radicalize young Americans against the Jewish people. Bazian’s history – and the top place he holds in the ongoing turmoil – also reveal the key role he’s long planned for America’s institutions of higher learning to play in mainstreaming and spreading ideas that many people consider hateful.
A Palestinian immigrant, Bazian was born in the West Bank town of Nablus and attended high school in Jordan. He graduated from San Francisco State University and then moved to Berkeley, where he chairs the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project.
Upon arriving at Berkeley in 1993, Bazian helped start the first college chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine – whose national organization says it supports more than 350 “Palestinian solidarity organizations.” In 2006, he co-founded its umbrella organization, American Muslims for Palestine. “We support campus activism through Students for Justice in Palestine,” AMP states on its website.
“AMP is directly involved in the campus chaos,” Schanzer said, by helping coordinate protests at colleges where its SJP outposts operate. AMP provides funding and guidance for the chapters for, among other things, holding anti-Israel “teach-ins,” erecting pro-Palestinian tables, crafting media “talking points,” and creating flyers and placards for the campus encampments and occupations that demonize Israel and sanitize Hamas atrocities as “resistance.”
As AMP’s chairman, Bazian has visited several encampments, including at the University of Pennsylvania, San Diego State University, UC-San Diego, University of San Francisco and UC-Berkeley, where his acolytes have set up a “Gaza Solidarity Camp.” RCI’s review of videos posted on social media of his encampment talks reveals he’s instructed students not to be “nice” while protesting, because he said being polite won’t get the attention of college administrators or President Biden, whom he demands divest from Israel and pressure Israel to withdraw from Gaza.
Meanwhile, his organization, which employs a full-time campus outreach coordinator, is under both federal and state investigation for ties to Hamas, and is also a defendant in a major new lawsuit brought by survivors of the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack.
A Richardson, Texas-based lawyer representing Bazian and AMP did not reply to requests for comment. After also reaching out to Bazian directly, RCI’s messages went unanswered. Bazian has a history of seeming to endorse, or even call for, violence, and then denying doing so. In 2004, while Hamas was leading a deadly resistance, or “intifada,” in Israel that included suicide bombers, Bazian reportedly called for an “intifada” inside America while addressing a largely Muslim crowd at an anti-Iraq war rally.
“Are you angry? Are you angry?! Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine,” Bazian shouted. “How come we don’t have an intifada in this country?”
“They’re going to say [I’m] some Palestinian being radical – well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet,” he added. “It’s about time we have an intifada in this country!”
He later claimed his remarks were meant to incite only a “political intifada” inside this country, not violent revolt. Last month, while rallying protestors at a University of San Francisco encampment, Bazian again called for “intifada,” asking students, “Can you all say intifada?”
“Intifada!” protesters shouted back.
Speaking to students gathered outside tents at the same USF rally, Bazian encouraged the forceful taking and “holding” of campus buildings as protesters did at Columbia University before New York police stormed the facility and removed them. Recruiting new protesters, he bellowed, “Let me say we welcome agitators for justice. We celebrate courage and continue to make changes because a free Palestine is a reality that is waiting to be actualized. Free Palestine! Don’t let anyone stop you from making history!”
Student protesters have echoed his rhetoric that Hamas has the right to “resist” Israel by resorting to violence.
On Oct. 7 – the same day as the horrific attacks on Israel which included the murder of hundreds of innocent youths attending a music festival – the flagship Berkeley chapter of Students for Justice In Palestine released a statement with SJP chapters at dozens of other colleges pledging their “unwavering support of the resistance in Gaza … We stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Palestine.” Bazian’s flagship group made it clear it was honoring “our comrades in blood and arms” fighting on the ground in Gaza – that is, Hamas – and warned that “what is coming is greater. Victory or martyrdom.”
Parroting Hamas’ rhetoric for annihilating Israel, they then pronounced: “From River to Sea, glory to the Palestinian resistance and glory to our martyrs.” Berkeley’s SJP chapter later held a vigil for “martyrs in Palestine” killed during and after the bloody anti-Israel incursion.
According to an FBI memo, one of the founders of Hamas has stated, “Hamas is a Palestinian Jihad movement that strives for the liberation of all Palestine, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the river [Jordan], from the north to the south,” a goal that would erase Israel from the map.
An NPR report earlier this month on the meaning of intifada – an Arabic word that can mean to “shake off” or “uprising” – quoted people who say it is inextricably related to violence and those who say it is not.
Basil Rodriguez, whom NPR identified as a Palestinian American graduate student at Columbia, told the network: “For me, it just speaks to liberation. To free Palestine from the [Israeli] apartheid regime, and the military occupation. For me it calls for freedom and for change.”
Eliana Goldin, whom NPR identified as a Jewish undergraduate and leader of a pro-Israel group at Columbia, said “The word ‘intifada’ was only associated with death and terrorism and destruction. So ‘intifada’ still feels just as charged as if someone were to say Holocaust. Or if someone were to mention any sort of catastrophe that happened against a people that you consider yourself a part of.”
Schanzer, the former Treasury official, agreed. “When they’re calling for an ‘intifada,’ they’re calling for a violent uprising,” he said. “These are things we commonly associate with Hamas rhetoric.”
The next day, Oct. 8, while pockets of Hamas terrorists inside Israel’s borders were still killing, raping, and kidnapping civilians, the National Students for Justice in Palestine, which is controlled by the AMP, distributed a “Resistance Toolkit” that celebrated Hamas’ war crimes as “a historic win for the Palestinian resistance: Across land, air and sea, our people have broken down the artificial barriers” separating Gaza from Israel.
Adopting Bazian’s language about “actualiz[ing]” the creation of a Palestinian state, the toolkit continued to exalt Hamas: “Our people are actualizing revolution. Palestine will be liberated from the river to the sea.” By our people, it meant “our people back home” in Gaza.
Then the toolkit rationalized Hamas’ brutal terrorist tactics, arguing “there is no ‘right’ way for Palestinians to fight.” It added that the Israelis who were murdered were not “civilians” and that their “death falls solely on the zionist entity.”
The toolkit went on to praise the “ingenuity” of Hamas terrorists for capturing an Israeli bulldozer and using it “to breach the illegitimate border fence” and for “neutraliz[ing]” the barrier “in hours.”
“This action of resistance shatters the illusion of Israel as an impenetrable, indestructible entity,” the five-page document gushed while marveling at the “large-scale” battle marshaled by Hamas, which it noted was ongoing. “The resistance fighters are still launching new attacks into [Israel].”
Advocating further violence, the NSJP toolkit advised students that liberating Palestine “requires confrontation by any means necessary” — including “armed struggle,” not just slogans and rallies, which it asserted is “legitimate.” It provided templates of pro-Hamas graphics for student protesters to use for campus posters and other propaganda, including one depicting the Hamas terrorists paragliding into Israel to carry out their mass slaughter.
“We will also be having a ‘how to organize a protest,’ including roles, security, media training, and more, on the national call-in meeting on Oct. 9,” it advised.
In a chilling closing remark, NSJP confirmed it wasn’t just supporting from afar the Oct. 7 actions of Hamas – a specially designated terrorist organization – but was actually a “part” of its movement. “We as Palestinian students in exile are PART of this movement, not [just] in solidarity with this movement,” NSJP averred.
The group’s toolkit spread through dorm rooms across the country thanks to social media, and soon anti-Israel protests broke out at major universities using the tactics and propaganda suggested by NSJP. For example:
Protesters at Tufts University called the terrorists “liberation fighters paragliding into occupied territory,” noting that Hamas had shown “the creativity necessary to take back stolen land.”
The rabble at Columbia University blamed Israel for the terror attacks, justifying the murder of women and children as provoked by Israeli “oppression.” Demonstrators could be heard chanting support for their “friends and brothers in Hamas,” and actually called on the terrorists to attack Israel again. “Never forget the 7th of October,” some taunted Jewish students. “That will happen … 10,000 more times!” The Anti-Defamation League, moreover, recorded explicit support for terrorism and violence at the Columbia encampment on April 17, when one protester declared: “We are Hamas,” while others chanted: “Al-Qassam [the name of Hamas’ military wing] you make us proud, kill another [Israeli] soldier now!”
At several other colleges, SJP-influenced protests featured chants such as “Resistance is justified” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” reflecting the same anti-Israel propaganda distributed by the Berkeley chapter of SJP in the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7.
Such militancy is the culmination of decades of grooming by Bazian. In a speech at the 2011 AMP conference in Chicago, he predicted college campuses would be ground zero in the battle for the “Palestine movement.” “The university is going to be the frontline and the pro-Israelis know this,” Bazian said. To that end, AMP expanded its operations on college campuses by founding the National Students for Justice in Palestine to better organize and fund chapters and recruit pro-Palestinian activists.
Some FBI veterans who have investigated the Hamas network of front groups in America say hard-core Muslim leaders like Bazian are brainwashing students into thinking they are part of a heroic struggle for “freedom,” but are merely co-opting them for their own anti-Jewish holy war.
“Bazian and other Muslim organizers keep framing these campus protests as a ‘human-rights’ struggle, when it’s clearly just another front in their religious war,” said former special FBI counterterrorism agent John Guandolo. “This isn’t about freeing Gaza or protecting Palestinian civilians,” he added. “This is about Islam and their hatred of Jews and fulfilling their scriptural commands. This is jihad.”
By hiding the religious element, he said, Bazian has managed to create an army of anti-Israel radicals at several hundred campuses across the country, many of whom are not even Muslim. He says they are being used as proxies in Hamas’ jihad, or holy war, against their Islamic enemy: the Jews. “Bazian is a senior leader in the jihadi movement in America,” Guandolo said. “He’s not on campus for the Chick-fil-A.”
A federal lawsuit recently filed by Oct. 7 families against AMP and NSJP alleges they “are not innocent advocacy groups, but rather the propaganda arm of a terrorist organization operating in plain sight” and “provide ongoing, continuous, systematic and material support for Hamas.” Acting as “agents” of Hamas in America, it claims, they are central command for the pro-Hamas campus protests and pose a dangerous threat to Jews in America.
It is illegal to provide material support to Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization that was founded in 1988 in the Gaza Strip to establish an “Islamic Palestinian State that encompasses Israel, the West Bank and Gaza,” according to the 51-page internal FBI memo. Its covenants call for jihad to achieve the goal of destroying the Jewish state, while asserting this “armed struggle” against Jews is the duty of every Muslim. The FBI memo, written in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, noted that the Hamas leadership has launched several bloody “intifadas” targeting the Jewish people and told Palestinians they can “do whatever they want against the brothers of monkeys and pigs,” a phrase borrowed from the Muslim holy book the Quran to describe Jews.
In a previous statement, Bazian dismissed the lawsuit as “an Islamophobic text reeking in anti-Palestinian racism,” while his attorney Christy Jump insisted, “AMP operates fully within the laws of the United States.”
However, state and federal investigators are looking into whether Bazian’s AMP has crossed the line between legal activism and material support for terrorism. Virginia’s attorney general is investigating allegations AMP “may have used funds raised for impermissible purposes under state law, including benefiting or providing support to a terrorist organization,” referring to Hamas. AMP has denied the allegations and called them “defamatory.”
AMP’s troubles deepened last month when the House Oversight Committee launched a probe into AMP and its sister organization, the National Students for Justice in Palestine, over their allegedly “substantial ties to Hamas.” House investigators subpoenaed AMP for all documents and communications related to its funding of SJP’s college hubs and its support for Hamas and the Oct. 7 massacre. AMP was told to comply with the order by June 12. Asked if the nonprofit group would cooperate, Jump did not respond.
The federal lawsuit alleges AMP and NSJP are radicalizing students by exploiting their passions for “justice” and “human rights” in the Middle East, while hiding from them their religious extremism and true motive of targeting Jews in general.
“Through NSJP, AMP uses propaganda to intimidate, convince and recruit uninformed, misguided and impressionable college students to serve as foot soldiers for Hamas on campus and beyond,” according to the court filing. Part of their goal, it alleges, is to “establish an environment where violence against Jews could be construed as acceptable.”
Others worry they are grooming junior terrorists and that their mass movement across campuses, which is becoming increasingly violent, could end in armed confrontation on U.S. soil.
“When college students see that their marches and protests aren’t achieving their goals [of a ceasefire in Gaza and divestment from Israel], they may consider their next steps – which will be influenced by the company they have been keeping,” warned Steven Stalinsky, executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute in Washington, D.C.
The post Paul Sperry: War College: How a Berkeley Professor Inspired and Engineered Anti-Israel Protests appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Paul Drabik from Chicago
Last Wednesday June 12th, Behind Enemy Lines podcast hosts Terry Newsome and Paul Drabik held another sold out event for a major force in the patriot movement. Former Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Tom Homan, and his non-profit Border911 were welcomed to Chicago. Homan brought an experienced group including a former border patrol chief, former DEA agent, a couple of former Texas law enforcement officials, and a seasoned journalist.
WATCH THE EVENT BELOW.
On the heels of a massively successful sold out March event held for Mike Lindell, Behind Enemy Lines hosted Border911 to a packed room on the southwest side of Chicago. It was the first stop on a 10 city tour for Border911. Deep in the heart of a traditional Democrat stronghold, members of minority communities gathered to hear about the most pressing issue of our time. Border security and immigration were the main topics of the night. Speakers from Chicago’s African American and Latino community joined in the discussion. Community leaders spoke about their frustrations and the willingness to collaborate with grassroots to take back Illinois from a corrupt political establishment.
Border911 has made it their mission to travel the country and inform citizens about the dangers of an open border and what common sense immigration policy should look like. Chicago was a fitting place to start their tour as the illegal immigration population has become a palpable and transparent issue among members of all backgrounds. A majority of the migrants are being housed in facilities across the city. In May, Gateway Pundit and Behind Enemy Lines reported on the apparent lawlessness and chaos taking place in these facilities. Through FOIA requests, violent crimes such as sexual assault, child abuse, robbery, and battery were rampant. Shockingly there was evidence of human trafficking recovered on a phone of one of the migrants.
Members of Border911 brought a unique perspective to the many in attendance. Rodney Scott, a former Border Patrol Chief, informed the crowd of the approximate 47,000 Chinese who have crossed the border in 2024 alone. Many of these Chinese have been military age men. Scott put things in perspective by noting that during his tenure he never saw more than 1,500 cross the border in a given year.
Another interesting perspective was that of Victor Avila. Avila, a former federal agent for Homeland Security and ICE, spoke about the serious problem of human smuggling. Most are familiar with the concept of human trafficking. Human smuggling, as Avila describes, involved people paying and/or working off a debt to the cartels in order to gain assistance in crossing the border. This operation continues on into the migrant’s residence within the country. Migrants will be monitored and controlled by Cartel operatives in cities across America often trafficking, transporting, and selling dangerous drugs such as fentanyl.
Sarah Carter, a well known journalist and frequent contributor to Fox News, spoke about her experience covering the crisis. She spoke to the fact that this problem went back to her early days in California as she witnessed children being recruited by the cartel gangs in major cities. She warned of these cartels targeting Chicago children.
The Border911 team also welcomed minority community leaders to come up for a discussion about how the illegal immigration issue is impacting their communities. Dr. Shando Valdez spoke of the divisiveness amongst the Latino community that is brought about by the massive influx of illegals taking up valuable resources. Latasha Fields, a homeschool advocate fighting back against government encroachment on the family, spoke about the specific impact of the monopolization of resources that hinders the development of children especially in the African American community. Pastor David Lowery expounded on that message and spoke about the necessity to address the issues already plaguing the minority communities of Chicago. Devin Jones, a Navy Veteran and 18th ward Republican Precinct Committeeman recently opened the first African American led GOP office on the southside of Chicago. He spoke to the specific policy issues brought on by Chicago’s sanctuary city status and how it impacted, not only the community, but the political perspective of his constituents. Jones perhaps echoed the sentiments of many Chicago minorities when he declared, “I don’t care where you came from, if you are here illegally you have to go back home.”
Tom Homan brought a human element perspective to the conversation. With over 30 years experience serving the country and its border protection Homan spoke with a focused anger about the price our brave men and women pay for an open border. Homan detailed the look in the eyes of victims of human trafficking and child sex abuse. Homan’s passion came through as he described the toll it takes on someone as they endure the day to day responsibilities of a border patrol agent. Finally, during the question and answer phase he was asked about the reality of a mass deportation. Fittingly, Homan commented on a potential deportation operation saying, “There has to be a historic deportation operation or none of this makes sense. That’s what the law requires.” If the American people can see to it that we elect a candidate who will bring back a patriot like Homan, perhaps there is hope yet to save the country.
The post Tom Homan and Border911 SELL OUT in Chicago! Behind Enemy Lines Latest Event a Huge Success appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission
Corrupt Matthew Colangelo recently made a name for himself after he transferred from a top job at Biden’s DOJ to a low level position at corrupt DA Alvin Bragg’s office in New York. Colangelo’s move was to resurrect and ensure Soros-backed Bragg moved forward with a garbage case against President Trump.
When President President Trump discussed the fact that Colangelo was part of the Biden gang, corrupt Judge Merchan overseeing the case, placed an unconstitutional gag order on the President. Eventually President Trump was indicted and found guilty in a case where no crimes were committed.
Attorney Mike Davis discussed corrupt Colangelo’s connections to Biden and Obama.
Pennsylvania investigative team Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom released information they uncovered that shows that corrupt Matthew Colangelo during his short term at the DOJ was the one who shut down all investigations into the 2020 Election.
Hoopes and Stenstrom put together the following timeline that implicates corrupt Colangelo.
The above time series shows in the first column that in October of 2020, former US Attorney General (AG) Bill Barr created a memo instructing all election fraud to be investigated Federally. This included the AG, the Inspector General, the FBI, and more.
Then came the election and after the election Barr received mountains of credible evidence of wrongdoing in the 2020 Election which is noted in the second column above. This information is still trickling in to this day.
On November 9, 2020, AG Barr issued a memo (noted in the third column above) authorizing US Attorneys to investigate US election fraud. Far-left sites like the New York Times reported:
Attorney General William P. Barr, wading into President Trump’s unfounded accusations of widespread election irregularities, told federal prosecutors on Monday that they were allowed to investigate “specific allegations” of voter fraud before the results of the presidential race are certified.
Mr. Barr’s authorization prompted the Justice Department official who oversees investigations of voter fraud, Richard Pilger, to step down from the post within hours, according to an email Mr. Pilger sent to colleagues that was obtained by The New York Times.
Mr. Barr said he had authorized “specific instances” of investigative steps in some cases. He made clear in a carefully worded memo that prosecutors had the authority to investigate, but he warned that “specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries.”
Here is Barr’s memo:
Bill Barr Nov 9 2020 Memo by Joe Ho on Scribd
In response to Barr’s memo (as noted in column four above), US Attorney David Kennedy from the Southern District of New York signed a letter encouraging Barr to rescind his memo from November 9th. Kennedy apparently did not want election fraud from the 2020 election uncovered.
On November 13, 2020, 19 Democrat AGs signed a letter encouraging AG Barr to rescind his November 9th memo (see column five above). Far left Law and Crime reported at the time:
Nearly two dozen state attorneys general urged U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr to reverse course on a recent change that allows the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to interfere with election results.
“This troubling last-minute policy change, which caused the director of the Election Crimes Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice to resign from his supervisory role, is wrong,” said Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul (D) in a press release accompanying an open letter making the plea. “For no apparent reason other than to indulge the outgoing president’s baseless attacks on the integrity of the election, AG Barr has further undermined USDOJ’s [sic] independence.”
The AGs who signed the document included Michigan’s AG Dana Nessel, New York’s Letitia James, Wisconsin AG Joshua Kaul, and many more where election issues were widespread in their states.
Barr never rescinded his memo from November 9th.
On January 20, 2021, the day that the corrupt Biden Administration was sworn into power, corrupt Matthew Colangelo became the Acting Associate Attorney General of the US Justice Department.
Twelve days after taking over as Acting Associate AG, Matthew Colangelo rescinded former AG Bill Barr’s memo from November 9th, 2020, requesting federal prosecutors to investigate election issues in the 2020 Election.
Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson rescinded Barr’s memo from November 9th on February 3rd, 2021. Hoopes and Stenstrom identified in the documents they requested after the 2020 Election that Matthew Colangelo was behind the memo.
Per the attached the DOJ was aware of election issues in Michigan in 2020 and yet Matthew Colangelo worked behind the scenes within his first two weeks on the job to rescind Bill Barr’s memo of November 9th calling for investigations into election fraud in the 2020 Election. (See header in email string in below document.)
03.31.23. – Interference in 2016 or 2020 Presidential Elections 0 by Joe Ho on Scribd
Here is their description of the above events:
See below Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom on the Joe Hoft Show discussing this breaking news.
Interview With Leah Hoopes & Gregory Strenstrom https://t.co/kIfp3O4Oxc
— Joe Hoft (@realJoeHoft) June 19, 2024
The post EXCLUSIVE: Before Transferring to DA Bragg’s Office, Biden DOJ Bad Actor Matthew Colangelo Shut Down All 2020 Election Investigations appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Judge blocks attempt to erase biological women
For the third time in just recent weeks, Joe Biden’s “sex” agenda has crashed and burned when it has faced a federal judge.
The newest rejection of his rewrite to the decades-old Title IX law that changes the definition of “sex” to “gender identity” or ideology, comes from a judge in Kentucky who, in his preliminary injunction, protected women in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia and Weste Virginia.
Biden’s Department of Education has redefined “sex” from the 1972 law to include all sorts of alternative sexual ideologies, insisting that’s what Congress meant when it approved a ban on discrimination against men or women in school activities at the time.
Biden’s rules would force biological women to share private spaces, like showers and locker rooms, with gender-confused biological males.
“The radical rewrite of Title IX regulations eradicates privacy, safety, and fairness for biological women and girls. The lawsuits against forcing gender ideology in education have merit and the Biden administration’s obsession with erasing women must stop,” explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
Just days ago, a Louisiana judge granted a similar injunction for the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho, and a Texas judge ruled for his state earlier.
According to Liberty Counsel’s report, “These injunctions prevent the updated rules from taking effect in these 11 states while litigation continues in each case to determine permanent decisions. The move responsible for the multitude of lawsuits came April 29 when the DOE published the Title IX Final Rule on the Federal Register, which expanded the definition of ‘sex’ and ‘sex discrimination’ to include ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as protected categories against discrimination.”
That change in the law, without approval from Congress, is supposed to hit the books in August.
The ruling is from Judge Danny C. Reeves.
He found, “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was intended to level the playing field between men and women in education. The statute tells us that no person shall be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ‘on the basis of sex.’ However, the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule that is set to go into effect on August 1, 2024. At bottom, the Department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’ But ‘sex’ and ‘gender identity’ do not mean the same thing. The Department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute. This Court is not persuaded by the Department’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, —a case that was explicitly limited to the context of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act…:”
He said, “Title IX explicitly appreciates the innate biological variation between men and women that occasionally warrants differentiation—and even separation—to preserve educational opportunities and to promote respect for both sexes. Rather than promote the equal opportunity, dignity, and respect that Title IX demands for both biological sexes, Defendants’ Guidance Documents do the opposite in an effort to advance an agenda wholly divorced from the text, structure, and contemporary context of Title IX.”
Further, he noted, “Not to mention, recipients of Title IX funding—including Texas schools—will face an impossible choice: revise policies in compliance with the Guidance Documents but in contravention of state law or face the loss of substantial funding. Thus, to allow Defendants’ unlawful action to stand would be to functionally rewrite Title IX in a way that shockingly transforms American education and usurps a major question from Congress. That is not how our democratic system functions.”
That ruling said when the 1972 law was adopted, and refers to “sex,” it “carried an unambiguously binary meaning.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Joe Biden’s ‘Sex’ Agenda Crashes and Burns for Third Time appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
By Gordon Howie, Life and Liberty Group
Republicans have long fought to overturn Roe v. Wade, a goal pursued for decades. When the Supreme Court finally overturned it, many Republicans didn’t know what to do next—like the proverbial dog that caught the bus.
Instead of claiming victory, some Republicans became scared, and mainstream media quickly seized on this uncertainty, pushing the narrative that abortion is a losing issue for the GOP. However, in South Dakota, we take a different attitude.
As a long-time politician, having served three terms in the South Dakota legislature (two terms as a representative and one term as a senator), I believe we should be proud of our achievement in overturning Roe v. Wade. We are saving babies’ lives, and we should take pride in that victory.
In South Dakota, Rick Weiland, a failed Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, has managed to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. This amendment, known as Constitutional Amendment G, aims to restore the permissive abortion standards of the Roe v. Wade era by incorporating them into our state constitution. The mainstream media has supported this initiative at every turn.
That’s why we produced and introduced a powerful new video on Father’s Day called “Graveyard.” This video graphically and compellingly shows the dire consequences of Constitutional Amendment G, making it clear that a vote for this amendment would send babies and families to the graveyard.
We are proud of overturning Roe v. Wade and saving lives. Our strategy is to address the issue on our terms, not those of the Democrats. They want to frame this as a healthcare issue, but they never talk about the healthcare of the baby. Every time they bring up healthcare, we should be vigilant.
Right now, we are 20 points behind in the polls in South Dakota. This is a critical moment, and we need to act swiftly to turn the tide. It’s an uphill battle, but it always is. Overturning Roe v. Wade was an uphill battle, but patience and focusing on human life won it for us eventually, and we can win even more. We believe other Republicans around the country need to take this positive attitude of being proud of saving lives.
The cultural impact of this approach is going to be massive. We are committed to keeping up the battle, and we hope to inspire other Republicans to join us in this fight. We are fighting for the unborn across the country, and together, we can make a difference.
Gordon Howie is the CEO of Life and Liberty Group. He’s a three-time state legislator and an ordained minister. For more information about Life and Liberty Group, visit SouthDakota4Life.com. or call Gordon Howie at 605-381-3998
The post Pro-Life Can Be a Winning Issue for Republicans and It Should Be appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Suggests comments about ethical failures are ‘dangerous rhetoric’
The Connecticut Bar Association is warning lawyers against criticizing the politicized prosecutions of President Donald Trump because that could become “dangerous rhetoric.”
The association recently dispatched to members a message signed by Maggie Castinado, its president, James T. Shearin, president-elect, and Emily Gianquinto, vice president.
They warn against “reckless words” that attack the integrity of the nation’s judicial system.
They charged, “In the wake of the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a ‘sham,’ a ‘hoax,’ and ‘rigged’; our justice system is ‘corrupt and rigged’; the judge was ‘corrupt” and highly unethical’; and, that the jury was ‘partisan’ and ‘precooked.'”
There also have been comparisons to communist “show” trials, in which the defendant is guilty and the court hearings are simply to create the appearance of a judicial proceeding.
The bar missive claims, without documenting whether those charges are, in fact, true, those statements are “unsubstantiated and reckless.”
And they can “provoke acts of violence against” members of the judiciary. Further, they ‘sow distrust in the public for the courts … .”
Those comments, the association claims, “cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric.”
The attempt to suppress speech with doesn’t align with the politics of the association comes as a number of Democrat prosecutors continue their courtroom assaults on Trump.
Already, Arthur Engoron, a judge in New York, has demanded a punishment of nearly half a billion dollars for the way Trump negotiated loans for his corporation, practices that industry insiders described as routine. In fact, no one lost money or complained and the bankers involved wanted to do more business with Trump. And Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg took claims of business reporting misdemeanors that already had passed the statute of limitations and claimed they were felonies because they led to a further, unspecified, crime. A jury in the leftist enclave of New York convicted Trump in a decision that now is on appeal.
Several other cases, such as a prosecutor allegedly being appointed improperly and another with ethical clouds because the DA had hired her paramour, with tax money, to work her allegations against Trump, have significant obstacles looming.
Now Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at Geroge Washington University, an expert witness on the law before Congress and popular commentator, said the message from the association is “chilling” for those lawyers who see the lawfare against Trump as “raw political prosecution.”
He noted that the officials are demanding “members to speak publicly in support of the integrity of these legal proceedings.”
He noted the reality is something else.
“For example, criticizing Judge Juan Merchan (who heard the business records case) for refusing to recuse from the case is considered beyond the pale.”
But, he noted, “Many lawyers believe that his political (financial) contributions to Biden and his daughter’s major role as a Democratic fundraiser and activist should have prompted Merchan to remove himself (and any appearance of a conflict).”
His own opinion is that Merchan’s rulings were biased.
He said it’s likely that verdict will be overturned, and he blames not the jury “but rather the judge and the prosecutors for an unfounded and unfair trial.”
He identified the problem with the bar demands is the “suggestion that lawyers are acting somehow unprofessionally in denouncing what many view as a two-tier system of justice and the politicalization of our legal system.”
Evidence?
“Notably, the bar officials did not write to denounce attacks on figures like Bill Barr or claims that the Justice Department was rigging justice during the Trump years.” Further, those officials never published warnings about attacks on conservative justices and labeling them “insurrectionist sympathizers.”
It didn’t worry the bar when Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., threatened judges with “seismic changes” or Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., called the Supreme Court “corrupt.”
“Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court ‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,'” he continued.
He noted the letter actually “only reinforced the view of a legal system that is maintaining a political orthodoxy and agenda.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post State Bar Quaking, Warns Lawyers Not to Criticize Lawfare Against Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission
Ten days ago, AbleChild released an article (which was republished at JoeHoft.com) about the State of Montana outsourcing its behavioral health system to a New York consulting firm with ties to China.
Much to AbleChild’s surprise, Montana State Senator Bob Keenan (the Commission Chair and sponsor of the legislation) contacted AbleChild four days later, explaining that there were “so many inaccuracies in your opinion piece!”
AbleChild works hard to provide accurate information to its members and the public. So, naturally, AbleChild contacted Senator Keenan requesting that he provide exactly what he believed was “inaccurate” in the article.
No one could have expected such a derogatory email in response where the Senator literally berates AbleChild and either makes up or, in the least, hides the identity of some nefarious individual who slanders AbleChild without having the courage to show his or her face.
Senator Keenan provided one example of an inaccuracy in relationship to how many times his committee met, and AbleChild corrected it, see updated article. However, the State Senator never addresses the firm’s association with China, and went on to share that someone (he does not say who) provided an “unsolicited reference” about AbleChild. Senator Keenan claims that this unnamed person told him to stay away from AbleChild – slandering AbleChild and claiming that “the gal who runs it is not credible or trustworthy,” saying “she actually said to a Tennessee State Senator – “How much money do I need to pay you…?” The Montana Senator’s response to this slanderous nonsense? “Good grief! “No corrections necessary, please! Just stay away from Montana!” Hmmm…
Senator Keenan should be ashamed of his behavior. Good grief, indeed! Is that how the Montana legislative body handles anyone who questions its legislative actions? “Just stay away from Montana?!” It’s one thing to not like an article. It’s quite another to pass along injurious, slanderous information about an organization without investigating whether there is any truth behind the attack. At a minimum, Senator Keenan should release the name of the person who made such slanderous statements about AbleChild.
And rather than berate an organization for questioning Montana’s choice to oversee its $300 million behavioral health program, perhaps it should find out just how cozy the ties between the chosen consultant (A&M) and China may be. Do the taxpayers of Montana deserve that information? Despite Senator Keenan’s claims that there is ample oversight of the $300 million dollar reorganization of the behavioral health program, it appears that AbleChild was the first to reveal A&M’s China connection.
As far as AbleChild can tell, the only information in the article that was inaccurate was the number of times the Commission had met. AbleChild made that correction immediately. Beyond that, AbleChild spent ten paragraphs discussing decades of abuse within behavioral health programs generally, their historical background and the dangers associated with unchecked power and sporadic oversight.
Perhaps a better use of the Senator’s time would be to refrain from passing on hurtful, slanderous statements about an organization of which he cannot support as factual and, rather, look into whether the state’s mental health system will be adversely affected by any connection between its behavioral health consultant (A&M) and China.
The post Montana Senator Lashes Out After Article Highlights Montana Outsourcing Mental Health to China appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Why not? Because he decides what time it is, of course.
There may be more truth in that than many would admit, as now he appears to let his years of work, which started back in 1968 with “The Wrecking Crew” followed shortly after by his role as Colt in “Way of the Dragon,” impact him not at all, as at age 84 he’s appearing in a new sci-fi action movie, Agent Recon.
By the way, at the start of that year, Lyndon Johnson was president; Richard Nixon was elected in the fall.
He plays Alastair, the captain of a covert Earth security force, whose team tracks down a mysterious disturbance in New Mexico.
The trailer:
It’s his first movie product since “Expendables 2” in 2012, when he provided a cameo role and saved a team of toughs on a special mission after they were pinned down and destined for annihilation by the enemy.
Facing the end, the team members heard bang, bang, bang and a few explosions and looked down to the road so see Chuck Norris casually strolling toward them.
His famous line there: “I work alone.”
Legendary only understates his work entertaining the nation, with his “Walker, Texas Ranger,” television series and moves including his hit, “Good Guys Wear Black,” “A Force of One,” “Silent Rage,” “Lone Wolf McQuiade, ” “Missing in Action,” “The Delta Force,” “Firewalker,” “Delta Force 2,” and more
Online, he’s described as a “noted writer,” authoring books on martial arts, philosophy, Christianity, politics and exercise, twice being named a New York Times bestselling author.
He was born Carlos Ray “Chuck” Norris” and after serving in the United States Air Force he turned his interest in martial arts into a long-time world championship. He worked with Bruce Lee in “The Way of the Dragon.”
His wife, Gena, said in a statement about the new project, “He loved his role in this great film and particularly enjoyed his couple days on the set working alongside his son Dakota, (who choreographed CN’s fight scene) and Executive Director and lead actor Derek Ting and his wife Joyce Ting.”
The movie is described as family friendly.
In an commentary about the project, Norris wrote, “As Ting mentioned, one of the personal thrills for my wife, Gena, and me was to have our son, Dakota, serve as the choreographer for my fight scenes on ‘Agent Recon.’ Dakota is a third-degree black belt and a martial arts expert in his own right.
He shared, “Here’s an action-packed 1-minute video of Dakota and his equally amazing black belt sister and our daughter, Danilee, sparring in our gym on our Lone Wolf Ranch in Texas. Here is Dakota also doing a little more training in Hawaii. Not bad, eh?
The Quiver Distribution project is to appear starting June 21.
WND reported when, in 2022, Norris volunteered to work with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban for “that better future.”
Norris’ comment came then in response to Orban’s message to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas that America needs now “more Chuck Norris.”
Orban, a firebrand who frequently has triggered liberals and progressives over and over with his comments, got a hero’s welcome at the CPAC events and pleaded with his audience not to pull punches in a culture war – going on globally – with liberals.
In America, under Joe Biden, that fight has erupted over and over with the president’s blatant promotion of abortion, the LGBT ideology, progressive government priorities like massive spending and more.
Orban explained that Hungarian state institutions define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and he said Americans in the fight need to trust their Judeo-Christian tradition.
“We have to be brave enough to address even the most sensitive questions, migration, gender and the clash of civilizations,” he said.
“Politics, my friends, is not enough,” he said. “This war is a culture war.”
He said what is needed now is “more Chuck Norris.”
Norris, to WND, at the time issued a statement that, “In 2018, my wife Gena and I were invited by Hungarian Baptist Aid to visit Budapest. We love the Hungarian people and were honored to spend time with Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
“We heard he fired up conservative Texans at CPAC in Dallas this week by saying America needs ‘more Chuck Norris.’ I’m humbled and honored to fight with Orban and all conservatives to rebuild America (presently and in 2024 with a new president) from the depression (in economy and spirit) too many Americans are experiencing right now. Let’s pray and fight for that better future! We’ve done it before, and we can do it again!”
Norris, and his life values, regularly appear online. Elon Musk posted an image of Chuck Norris playing chess, with the caption, “Chuckmate,” as his fight over Twitter exploded.
Norris at times as appeared on screen with endorsements, one time complaining to an auto maker’s representative that he had been “replaced” with a truck. A few years back, WND reported his affiliation with Glock.
After all, those internet sayings already had linked him with weaponry, with:
“When Chuck Norris donates blood, he avoids the syringe, just asking for a gun and a bucket.”
And then there’s “faster than a speeding bullet” is a Chuck Norris warmup.
Norris, says another, “doesn’t dodge bullets, they dodge him.”
And Norris “only invented guns because he wanted to make it a fair fight. For others.”
To Norris, meanwhile, have been attributed many “facts.”
For example, demonstrators in Montreal complained that police intimidated them by plastering on a police vehicle a poster of Norris toting two guns from the movie “Invasion U.S.A.”
A political-science professor, Francis Dupuis-Déri, filed the protest with authorities against nine police officers who were patrolling streets in Quebec City when the G7 summit was held.
“The complaint includes a video of a protest held June 8 in which a photo of Chuck Norris carrying a rifle in each hand can be seen attached to the door of a police van used to transport an arrested demonstrator,” the report said.
The Norrises’ Kick Start program for school students has taught tens of thousands lessons in self-defense and life.
Norris also has let loose his humorous side more than once.
He released a video that was a parody of an ad by action movie hero Jean-Claude Van Damme, who performed a split between two moving trucks.
Norris’ response was doing the splits between two flying jets
See the Van Damme ad, followed by Chuck Norris’ parody:
Norris has said some of his favorite internet “facts” include:
Once, when asked what he thought about the phenomenon, Norris said: “My answer is always the same: Some are funny. Some are pretty far out. And, thankfully, most are just promoting harmless fun.”
Norris also downplays the notion that he’s some sort of superhero.
“I’ve got a bulletin for you, folks. I am no superman. I realize that now, but I didn’t always. As six-time world karate champion and then a movie star, I put too much trust in who I was, what I could do and what I acquired. I forgot how much I needed others and especially God. Whether we are famous or not, we all need God. We also need other people.”
Norris has been writing a weekly column exclusively for WND since October 2006.
This article originally appeared on WND.com.
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Chuck Norris Defies Time, Returns to Movies in ‘Agent Recon’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Vigilant News
This article originally appeared at vigilantnews.com and is re-published with permission.
Elon Musk has issued a stark warning about the future of humanity: “If there are no humans, there’s no humanity.” Speaking on the critical issue of declining birth rates, Musk insisted that we should be “very concerned” as these rates are “accelerating in most countries.” The implications, according to Musk, are dire.
But it’s what he said next that was very telling.
Elon Musk Issues Urgent Warning for Humanity
“If there are no humans, there’s no humanity.”
Musk says that we should be “very concerned” about imploding birth rates, which are “accelerating in most countries.”
But it’s what he said next that was very telling.… pic.twitter.com/SRBVcOA3ZO
— The Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) June 15, 2024
“In the sort of extreme form of the environmentalist movement, people start to view humans as a plague on the surface of the earth, as a fundamentally bad thing, and with the implication that if all humans disappeared, somehow earth would be better off.” Musk described this as “The Extinctionist Movement.”
He didn’t stop there. Musk elaborated on the dangerous ideology, stating, “I think at a fundamental level, you can think of things as a fight between expansionist and extinctionist philosophies. And that’s what really matters. If humans go extinct or civilization collapses, whatever policies we may have are irrelevant.”
Musk stressed that the survival and expansion of humanity are essential for the continuation of civilization and consciousness. “We must have an expansionist philosophy for civilization and for consciousness. We must seek to go beyond what we’ve done in the past to increase the number of humans,” he asserted. “So, one way or another, this must happen.”
“So, the final message is to go forth and procreate?” the host representing Cato Institute asked. Musk replied, laughing and with a smile on his face, “Yes. Go forth and multiply.”
Watch the Full Interview:
Copyright 2023 vigilantnews
The post Elon Musk Issues Urgent Warning to Humanity appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
“The district’s race-based GYO program is patently unconstitutional and illegal under decades-old United States Supreme Court precedent and other laws,” explained WILL associate counsel Cara Tolliver.
“Citizens ought to demand more from their elected government officials—even more so for those charged with the care and education of children. Given the ongoing teacher shortage, the district should be welcoming all qualified scholarship candidates, not foreclosing teaching incentives on the irrelevant and unlawful basis of a human being’s skin pigmentation or ethnic make-up.”
At issue, WILL reported, is the district’s “Grow Your Own Multicultural Teacher Scholarship Program.”
“According to numerous publicly available documents and other materials, the district solicits contributions from employees and board members to fund racially discriminatory teaching scholarships for students and staff. GYO scholars receive up to $20,000 ($5,000 per year for four years) in addition to mentoring services.”
The program, however, has a racist agenda.
“The district uses the scholarships to train and recruit new ‘teacher[s] who look like’ certain students, and so the program extends only to members of certain racial minority groups preferred by the district,” WILL explained.
“The district’s race-based GYO program violates numerous anti-discrimination prohibitions, including the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. WILL warns of further action if the district insists on maintaining this unlawful program.”
The report explained the scholarship scheme is part of the district’s commitment “to ensure a diverse professional teaching workforce” so that students can “see[] and be[] taught by a teacher who looks like them.”
The program’s privileged characteristics are “Black/African American,” “Native American/Alaskan,” “Asian,” and “Hispanic/Latinx.”
The legal team documented further that the school uses public resources, time and employees in running the program.
“In fact, the district solicits funding from its employees and Board members through direct payroll deductions and other available options and has offered incentives for paid-time-off to staff members who donate to the GYO fund,” it reported.
This article originally appeared on WND.com.
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post ‘Patently Unconstitutional’: School Under Fire for Race-Based Scholarships appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on Leo Hohmann’s Substack and was republished with permission.
Biden commits U.S. taxpayers to 10 years of ‘blank check’ funding of war in Ukraine: War’s ‘dark side’ includes organ harvesting and child sex trafficking
Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Zelensky are planning to sign a deal for long-term US military assistance for Ukraine, a country whose government we now know is involved in the trafficking of children for sex and harvesting the organs of its own soldiers for profit.
If that sounds too sensational to be true, read on. The evidence is hiding in plain sight. See post below from X, and I will provide a video later in this article that contains more proof of what’s really going on in Ukraine. It will turn your stomach.
In 2011, Ukraine said its human organ trafficking problem was out of control.
Evidence suggests Ukraine is still engaged in the mass harvesting of human organs–with US complicity.
“The year of 2010 has witnessed a sharp increase in human organ trafficking in Ukraine.”… pic.twitter.com/CgaFfG3M4s
—
But back to Biden’s filthy deal with the devil. The deal commits U.S. taxpayers — we the people — to 10 years of arming and training the Ukrainian military, and feeds the military-industrial complex that holds sway over the majority of our elected members of Congress in both parties.
There is one small kernel of good news: Because the deal is a so-called “executive agreement” and not a formal treaty, it can be undone by future American presidents.
CNN previewed the deal, reporting:
“An annex in the agreement will lay out how the Biden administration plans to work with Congress on the implementation of the security commitments, specifically the long-term funding that will be needed to support Ukraine’s defense.”
So, we taxpayers are basically underwriting the defense of a foreign regime. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think about that?
White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby stated that the US “will continue to be right up front and clear” at the G7, and that Washington “will take bold steps to show Mr. Putin that time is not on his side and that he cannot outlast us, as we support Ukraine’s fight for freedom.”
Let’s call it what it is: A blank-check commitment to a corrupt foreign government that has completely obliterated the freedom of the Ukrainian people. Elections have been canceled. Media outlets and churches that voice opposition to the war have been closed, young and middle-aged men are being kidnapped and sent to die at the front. How is this freedom?
But the Western corporate media thinks this is great. They don’t even question it.
Watch this breathless report (below) from a very excited ABC News reporter, whose only lament is that the deal could be canceled by a future President Donald Trump.
Biden meeting with Zelensky at G7 in a few hours to sign historic long-term security agreement.
But possibility of Trump presidency looms large over the summit. Future president could pull out of that agreement, but trying to future-proof American support for Ukraine @GMA pic.twitter.com/5Xy3Je4QjL— Selina Wang (@selinawangtv) June 13, 2024
She could hardly contain her excitement. Ten years worth of transfers of hard-earned U.S. tax dollars to prop up an illegitimate dictatorship in Ukraine. Zelensky has canceled elections and is serving beyond the scope of his term in office, and our tax dollars are paying not only him but his military and the pensions of his bureaucrats. I wonder how many Americans are even aware of that, or how many are aware of the child sex trafficking, organ harvesting, biolabs, and other scandalous activities going on in Ukraine.
Don’t believe me? Check out the report below from former Fox News reporter Clayton Morris on the “dark side” of the war in Ukraine.
To receive new posts and support Leo Hohmann's work, consider becoming a paid subscriber if you aren’t yet at leohohmann.substack.com
The post Biden commits U.S. taxpayers to 10 years of ‘blank check’ funding of war in Ukraine: War’s ‘dark side’ includes organ harvesting and child sex trafficking appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article is reprinted with permission from AbleChild and JoeHoft.com.
Reprinted Article AbleChild legislation in the aftermath of Sandy Hook titled – Obtaining the Mental Health Records of Adam Lanza
A simple search relating to any news coverage of Sandy Hook would show that the Sandy Hook families who lost their children didn’t sue Professor James Tracy. In addition, it is noteworthy to understand that Professor James Tracy’s legal attempts to have the Supreme Court review his case under the first amendment were rejected, Why? Professor Tracy wasn’t fired because of what he said, but the fact he didn’t disclose his outside activities that apparently violated his contract. – food for thought.
It is true Alex Jones questioned the official narrative the day Sandy Hook mass shooting was being covered live by the National News with the involvement from the FBI, and State Police.
Jones certainly wasn’t incorrect about the FBI agent showing up to a crime scene ill prepared and without the proper equipment, that shocking fact came directly from the FBI agent himself on the stand at the Alex Jones trial. The same FBI agent who is currently profiting off the Sandy Hook crime scene by suing Alex Jones. This agent failed to produce the FBI waiver that is required by FBI ethics and protocols to obtain approval to profit off such crime scenes. This official FBI waiver was clearly missing at the Connecticut trial of Alex Jones. An FBI agent suing relating to a crime scene for profit? This just might be a first.
What Happened to the First Amendment, Sandy Hook?
Reference articled by Jacqueline Smith. Read here.
In response to Jacqueline Smith and her opinion of Professor James Tracy, two words immediately spring to mind: Toughen up. Strong reaction? Yes. But trampling on the First Amendment is serious and requires a strong response.
Smith claims that Professor Tracy doesn’t have a First Amendment right to “spew his nonsense.” There is no need to go any further in her rambling, disjointed piece. Smith simply does not understand that it is precisely this kind of “nonsense” that the Founding Fathers intended to protect.
Smith may not like, appreciate, or understand Professor Tracy’s thoughts and motives, but he has a right – and some would argue a duty – to critical thinking, and a right to publically espouse those thoughts, however repugnant they may be to Smith’s, and others, delicate sensitivities.
The problem with Smith’s thought pattern, as it pertains to the First Amendment, is that she believes that if the speech is hurtful or offensive to another then it simply is unacceptable and constitutionally unprotected. That’s not how the First Amendment works, as made clear by Smith’s own ugly diatribe directed at Professor Tracy.
Let’s not forget that the Founding Fathers believed that open dialogue was so important that they made it the FIRST Amendment, not the sixth or seventh, etc. More importantly, that freedom of speech is unabridged and there is no caveat that the speech cannot hurt someone’s feelings.
Smith’s attack on Professor Tracy’s Constitutional rights, ultimately, is due to the Professor’s questioning of the official version of events at Sandy Hook. While Smith claims her concern is that Professor Tracy crossed the First Amendment line by making a request of Lenny Pozner anyone remotely familiar with this important case, is fully aware that Smith’s version of events was less than unbiased.
The bigger question, though, is why questioning the official version is so offensive to an alleged “newsperson?” Professor Tracy is far from the only person raising issues about Sandy Hook, as there literally are millions of websites dedicated to questioning the events at Sandy Hook and, one would think, many more millions who read them. Surely Smith is not suggesting that all these people are not entitled to their views on the matter and must be silenced should they dare speak out publicly.
What occurred at Sandy Hook has serious repercussions for not only the families of the victims and others associated with the tragedy, but everyone who is subjected to the legislative policy that has come from the incident.
As Smith well knows, the Connecticut Legislature passed sweeping, costly mental health legislation a full year prior to the release of the investigation. In other words, the legislative action was taken without full knowledge of the facts. Nevertheless, the good folks of Connecticut must not only pay for, but live by, those emotional, not fact-based, decisions. By anyone’s standards, this cannot be called responsible or thoughtful legislating.
Ablechild, a parent organization fighting for informed consent rights as they pertain to psychiatric diagnosing and psychiatric drugs, is intimately aware of the difficulties surrounding the gathering of information about Adam Lanza’s mental health records.
Despite Ablechild filing a FOIA to obtain Lanza’s mental health, toxicology and autopsy records, the state refused to publicly release this information when Assistant State Attorney, Patrick Kwanashie, stated disclosure of Adam Lanza’s records “can cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”
These records may have provided some insight into Lanza’s actions. But to this day, despite a lengthy and costly investigation, no information about Lanza’s mental health for the five years leading up to the incident has been made publicly available. Frankly, there is no information publicly available that Lanza did, or did not, receive mental health services in the five years leading up to the incident. These facts did not stop poorly thought-out legislative measures from being rammed down the throats of the citizens of Connecticut.
This is just one example of the problems surrounding this incident. Anyone who read the 6700-page investigation knows there are many more. But, beyond all of this, the issue remains the right to publicly discuss any, and all, issues surrounding the official version of events at Sandy Hook regardless of whose feelings may be hurt.
No, Editor Smith, you do not get to decide whose voice is worthy. You do not get to judge whose First Amendment rights are more important. You may not like the voices you hear, or how they are used. They may be distasteful and hurtful, but every American has a right to that voice. It’s quite possible that Professor Tracy finds your opinion hurtful, and he may even think that you are writing it to purposefully harass him, but even he would have to agree that you are entitled to your damning words.
The post What Happened to the First Amendment, Sandy Hook? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
But Supreme Court charges eminent domain case was pretextual
A fight has erupted over a decision by the Long Island town of Southold to take private property that the owners of a chain of hardware stores bought for a new location.
The problem is that the town took the land against the wishes of the owners using eminent domain, but it had no legitimate reason for doing that.
According to officials at the Institute for Justice, that’s known because the city insisted it needed the land for a “park,” but that turned out to be a “passive park” with no cleanup, no improvements, and the remnants of an old home and greenhouse left there.
The IJ explained, ‘When every legal effort to stop someone from using their property has failed, can the government simply take the land using eminent domain? That is the question at the heart of a new U.S. Supreme Court petition filed by a family-owned hardware store business whose property was taken by a small Long Island town.”
It is the Brinkmann family whose members already have five Long Island stores and obtained the Southold property for another.
“The town did everything it could to stop construction. After failing to drive the Brinkmanns away by attempting to interfere with the Brinkmanns’ land purchase, then imposing an exorbitant fee for a market impact study that the town never performed after being paid, and even deploying a selectively enforced moratorium on building permits to stifle the Brinkmanns’ permit application; the town voted to take the land by eminent domain for a park,” the IJ said.
At the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges said, “the government can take your property for almost any reason at all—including because it just doesn’t like you—so long as the government lies about why it is using eminent domain,” explained IJ lawyer Jeff Redfern.
“This is a dangerous precedent, and the Supreme Court should take this opportunity to clarify that it is unconstitutional to use eminent domain in bad faith, simply to stop someone from making a lawful use of their property.”
The commercial venture was started by Tony and Pat Brinkmann with a single store in Sayville, New York, in 1976. Today, the company is still family-owned and operated by their children—Mary, Ben and Hank.
“If the maneuver that Southold used to take our property is allowed to stand, no one can purchase property with the confidence that they will be able to use it,” said Ben Brinkmann. “We played by the rules, but the ground kept shifting under our feet until our property was simply taken by force. Courts should not turn their eyes from eminent domain abuse.”
A dissent from the recent 2nd Circuit ruling pointed out that “courts across the country have long invalidated bad-faith takings to stop otherwise legitimate uses of property.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Fight Erupts When City Takes Private Property for ‘Park’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Adam Andrzejewski
Real Clear Wire
Topline: Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flow into Harvard University, Brown University and Indiana University of Pennsylvania, but that didn’t stop the three schools from supplementing their funds with nearly $10 million in combined foreign gifts from the “State of Palestine.”
Key facts: A new report from OpenTheBooks.com revealed that between 2017 and 2023, IUP accepted $7.3 million from Palestine, Harvard got $1.6 million, Brown took in $643,000.
OpenTheBooks’ auditors previously reported the significant amount taxpayers spend to subsidize Ivy League schools. Harvard received $3.3 billion in federal grants and contracts from 2018 to 2022, and Brown received $1.2 billion. IUP is a public school operating with Pennsylvania state money.
Neither the U.S. nor the United Nations acknowledges the existence of the “State of Palestine.” Brown, Harvard and IUP have decided to play by their own rules, even though they accept U.S. taxpayer money.
Brown used some of its Palestinian funds to hire Beshara Doumani as its first professor of “Palestinian Studies.” The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis reports that the department’s lectures center around “antisemitic conspiracy theories and gross misinformation about Jewish history and identity.”
During the period, Doumani was granted leave to run the West Bank’s Birzeit University, whose employee union praised Hamas terrorists for standing “boldly in the face of colonial fascism” when slaughtering innocent Israelis on Oct. 7 and Hamas is the largest student group on campus.
This April, Brown was one of the first and only universities to give in to pro-Palestine student protestors’ demands of considering divestment from Israel.
Most of IUP’s gifts went to pay tuition and fees for Palestinian students in the school’s business PhD and MBA programs at Arab American University in the West Bank.
Harvard’s Palestinian funds were unrestricted, so there are no federal records of how the money was spent.
Harvard’s François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights has run programs with Birzeit University, including courses like “The Settler Colonial Determinants of Health.”
Background: The Palestinian “gifts” are just one piece of the larger influence the Middle East wields over U.S. higher education.
In the last 40 years, $1 on every $4 of foreign gifts and grants to American universities has come from four Middle Eastern nations: Qatar ($5.2 billion), Saudi Arabia ($3 billion), United Arab Emirates ($1.3 billion) and Kuwait ($860 million).
Summary: U.S. taxpayer money should be supporting institutions that advance our national values, not those that accept money from groups terrorizing our country’s allies, and sowing antisemitism on college campuses.
The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com
The post Waste of the Day: Harvard, Brown, More Take Foreign Gifts From “State of Palestine” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
NewsGuard, which purportedly “rates” news organizations for their truthfulness, has been described in a Real Clear Wire report as “a powerful censorship tool.”
And constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University whose popular commentary regularly skewers the establishment, has warned against subjecting children in America’s schools to the left-leaning bias of “fact-checkers” like NewsGuard because it “raises the specter of a type of de facto state media.”
Now a report at RedState is revealing U.S. Rep. James Comer, chief of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, is beginning an investigation of the “supposed arbiter of media reliability.”
The goal? Determine the “impact of NewsGuard on protected First Amendment speech and its potential to serve as a non-transparent agent of censorship campaigns.”
That same topic already is before the Supreme Court, in a dispute over the instructions from the Joe Biden administration to various social media companies to, in recent years, censor opinions and even facts about the 2020 election, COVID’s origins, the shots that have proven to be harmful, and more.
The report said Comer recently sent a message to NewsGuard with questions.
He said, “Our inquiry seeks documents on NewsGuard’s business relationships with government entities, its adherence to its own policies intended to guard against appearances of bias, how it tries to avoid and manage potential conflicts of interest arising from its investors and other influences, and actions that may have the impact of delegitimizing factually accurate information.”
Comer continued, “One concerned journalist expressed fear that NewsGuard’s activities are an extension of federal efforts—since struck down by courts—to coerce social media companies and to ‘destroy the financial survival of disfavored outlets…'”
In fact, a number of conservative and Christian news organizations largely have been defunded by social media companies following the same leftist ideology adopted by NewsGuard.
Comer said, “The committee seeks to make an independent determination about whether NewsGuard’s intervention on protected speech has been in any way sponsored by a federal, state, local, or foreign government.”
The report said NewGuard is a “a team of journalists who create a reliability rating system that scores various news outlets for accuracy based on various criteria. It has come under scrutiny for what many perceive as its bias against right-leaning outlets, including RedState, which have been the target of numerous censorship and demonetization efforts.”
Comer noted that NewsGuard already is accepting federal money under a contract with the Defense Department and that’s a concern as it generates the possibility of federal agencies involved in “censorship.”
The letter also cites NewsGuard’s “clear bias in favor of the left.”
The report in RedState explained, “NewsGuard and similar organizations have not only attacked conservative outlets by trying to tarnish their reputations, they have also gone after their revenue sources, persuading companies to refrain from spending advertising dollars with the sites.”
Steven Brill, the leftist founder of the group, was “one of the voices falsely claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop was likely false Russian disinformation,” Real Clear had reported.
That computer now has been documented as real, since the federal government itself used it as evidence in a trial in which Hunter Biden was convicted of gun rule felonies.
Bruce Afran, a lawyer with Consortium News, which had a falling out with NewsGuard, said, “What’s really happening here is that NewsGuard is trying to target those who take a different view from the government line.”
The Media Research Center, a long-established and well-known watchdog on the media, concluded, problematically, that NewsGuard was biased “in favor of leftist news outlets. NewsGuard even rated several Communist Chinese state-run media outlets higher than several American outlets and pro-life U.S. websites. The ratings firm also claims to help identify ‘misinformation,’ but its biases show it isn’t objective.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Congress Launching Investigation of NewsGuard appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Vigilant News
This article originally appeared at vigilantnews.com and is re-published with permission.
This is absolutely heartbreaking.
“I was a father, a husband, a pharmacist, and a healthy person prior to being coerced into receiving the COVID vaccine … I would never have taken the vaccine voluntarily.”
Mike Yoha suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a severe neurological disease associated with paralysis, after being coerced into taking the COVID shot.
Vaccine-Injured Pharmacist Breaks Down Into Tears Testifying Before Ohio State Senate
This is absolutely heartbreaking.
“I was a father, a husband, a pharmacist, and a healthy person prior to being coerced into receiving the COVID vaccine … I would never have taken the… pic.twitter.com/dAAn4A3RwW
— The Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) June 15, 2024
He says, “My liberty was violated when vaccine status discrimination forced me into taking a medical intervention that almost cost me my life. If we do not have the right to decline a known risk of death without facing discrimination or loss of employment, then we are no longer free. I implore the committee to vote yes on HB 319.”
Ohio House Bill 319, also known as the “Conscientious Right to Refuse Act,” aims to end “no jab, no job” policies for good.
The legislation states that businesses, employers, health care providers, and other institutions CANNOT deny or terminate employment, deny services, or otherwise treat individuals differently based on their refusal of any biologic, vaccine, pharmaceutical, or gene-editing technology for reasons of conscience.
Ohio needs to get this bill passed. Thank you, Mike, for your testimony.
Copyright 2023 vigilantnews
The post Vaccine-Injured Pharmacist Breaks Down Into Tears Testifying Before Ohio State Senate appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Are various members of Congress, who paid some $17 million in taxpayer funds to silence people who brought sexual misconduct claims against them, now going to be investigated, tried, and convicted of felonies, like President Trump? After all, they didn’t report those payments as campaign contributions.
That’s the suggestion that has been raised in a congressional hearing.
Congressmen paid $17 million of TAXPAYER MONEY for undisclosed hush payments to cover up sexual harassment claims.
Meanwhile candidate Trump allegedly used HIS MONEY for a $130,000 hush payment and he’s convicted of 34 felonies for not disclosing.https://t.co/DZw3hYyuXH pic.twitter.com/s3odKj1CmW
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) May 31, 2024
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against President Donald Trump over business reporting issues, described as a “hush money” case because of testimony from ex-porn star Stormy Daniels, likely will be overturned, witnesses have told Congress.
And given the multiple constitutional errors allowed by Judge Juan Merchan, whose daughter is a Democrat activist and was fundraising off her father’s courtroom decisions during the trial, one member has defined what the entire exercise was about:
“This irony here is that this is going to be vacated and this trial was all about trying to influence an election using the process as the punishment,” charged U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.
His comments came in a hearing on Bragg’s scheming against Trump held by the House Judiciary Committee.
Bragg charged Trump with 34 felonies based on a handful of alleged business reporting violations which were misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired. Bragg, however, filed them as felonies claiming they were in support of some other, unidentified, crime.
They essentially involved payments to a Trump lawyer who then paid Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair, which both individuals have denied happened.
Witnesses including Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and FEC Commissioner Trey Trainor both told Congress the conviction almost certainly will be overturned because of Merchan’s apparently willful failures to follow the Constitution.
Massie took the entire case apart in a few minutes of comments during the hearing;
Is Congress’s $17 million sexual misconduct hush money fund campaign finance violations?
Rep. Thomas Massie highlights that Congress’s hush money payments would be considered campaign finance violations under Alvin Bragg’s novel theory used to target President Trump.
“Congress… pic.twitter.com/pFPPkeG3VG
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) June 13, 2024
A report at Twitchy cited Massie’s comments:
Congress has paid over $17 million in hush money for sexual misconduct inside of the offices in these buildings. And what’s more, is that it was taxpayer money. The allegation is that President Trump paid $130,000 of his own money.
But here in Congress, there might be some here on this dais — I mean, I’m for turning loose ALL of these records — who had the taxpayer pay for their sexual misconduct charges, the hush money. I bet there’s some over there, there may be some over here. I don’t know, but I do know it’s taxpayer money. And I do know that not a single penny of it has been turned in as a campaign finance expense. Is the FEC going to investigate the $17 million dollars that Congress has paid behind closed doors for these sexual misconduct allegations?
The report explained, “We imagine many representatives suddenly got obsessed with staring at their shoes at that moment. And then Massie said he might file a complaint so the FEC WOULD investigate Congressional hush money. We wouldn’t bet against him doing that. ”
Massie noted that those hush money payments by members of Congress, to suppress various sexual misconduct claims inside their congressional offices, would be considered campaign finance violations under Bragg’s theory.
The committee hearing specifically was held to examine Bragg’s office actions, as multiple prosecutors earlier had rejected the idea that there was any evidence to pursue a case against Trump.
$17,000,000+ of TAXPAYER $$ paid out for sexual misconduct of the Congress.. No issues at all..
Trump pays $130,000 of his OWN $$ and he gets charged with felonies!
What a frigging disgrace!! No wonder most Americans have no faith in the US government! https://t.co/oXXYeHbjTx
— Thomas O’Connor ’62 baby, #GodBlessAmerica (@TheyCallMeTomO1) June 13, 2024
This article originally appeared on WND.com.
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post After Trump, Will U.S. Lawmakers be Charged for $17M in Hush Money? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission
Republished with permission from AbleChild
According to recently released information about the Covenant School shooter, Audrey Hale, psychiatric “treatment” was part of Hale’s life since early childhood. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) were aware of this important information within days of the shooting but have refused to share it with the public. Why?
Recall that on March 27 of last year, Hale deliberately traveled to the Covenant School with the sole purpose of taking lives. The mentally ill shooter succeeded in taking the lives of three children and three adult staff.
More than a year has passed since the shooting and, finally, information about Hale and her mental health history is being made public, including information about the cocktail of prescription drugs Hale had been prescribed.
According to the June 12 Tennessee Star article, police confiscated from Hale’s parent’s home prescription bottles that bear Hale’s name and the name of a psychiatric nurse practitioner. There also was one medication apparently prescribed by a Nashville Psychiatrist, which makes sense given earlier reports that Hale had been a patient at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center for most of her life – twenty-two years to be exact – and had been under the care of both a therapist and psychiatrist.
So, what prescription psychiatric drugs had the shooter been taking prior to the murderous rampage?
Lexapro – a drug used to “treat” depression from the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) family of Drugs. Possible side effects include, abnormal thinking, aggravated depression, aggression/aggressive reaction, aggravated restlessness, depersonalization, feeling unreal, hallucination, hypomania, paranoia, suicidal ideation/behavior, mania, acute psychosis, anger, delusion, mood swings, psychotic disorder, to name a few. Not recommended used with Buspirone.
Buspirone – an anxiety medication in a class called Anxiolytics to “treat” anxiety disorders. Possible side effects include, insomnia, anger, hostility, confusion, depression, dream disturbances, depersonalization, akathisia, fearfulness, hallucinations, suicidal ideation to name a few.
Hydroxyzine – used as a sedative to “treat” anxiety and tension. Possible side effects include aggression, agitation, confusion, depression, disorientation, hallucination, and insomnia to name a few.
Taking these prescriptions together can increase the risk of serious side effects and all three drugs are “recommended” to not be taken together. But it’s important to realize that the public still has not been provided any information about Hale’s mental health history such as what mental illness(es) had the shooter been diagnosed with? And this would include the entire patient history at Vanderbilt University Psychiatry Department along with the most recent diagnoses prior to the shooting. Given the leaked prescription information, it starts to make sense why law enforcement continues to withhold Hale’s mental health data.
This bombshell of suppressed evidence by the FBI and the Nashville Police Department (MNPD) is featured in the letter written to the Nashville Police Department (MNPD) by the FBI, explaining “Legacy Tokens” is the language used to describe information withheld from the public. This letter was obtained through an ongoing lawsuit between the Editor in Chief, Michael Patrick Leahy, and Star New Digital Media Inc., requesting the release of Hales writings, including those called a manifesto.
The FBI “Tokens” letter was not signed but came from the Critical Incident Response Group in Quantico, VA. According to the letter, the Behavioral Threat Assessment Center (BTAC) claims to take a national level, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary task force focused on the prevention of terrorism and targeted violence (mass shootings) and provide operational support & training. The Behavioral Analysis Unit was originally called the Behavioral Science Unit and was launched in 1972 as part of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.
With the long line of mass shootings, how is it possible that Hale’s psychiatric treatment seems to escape consideration by the Behavioral Health Unit. Given such a long mental health history, one cannot accept that law enforcement has not considered this as a possible motive for the shooting. Obviously, law enforcement was aware of who Hales treating psychiatrists were and certainly knew of the cocktail of psychotropic drugs the evening of the mass killings. So why is law enforcement bent on withholding this data? This isn’t the first mass shooting where psychiatric intervention and prescription mind-altering drugs were involved.
How many other mass shootings has the FBI used this “Legacy Token” approach to shield the treating psychiatrist and hide the psychiatric drugs in which the shooter was prescribe? In fact, the question is why have calls from the public for hearings on the link between psychiatric drugs known to cause violence, suicide, and mass shootings, been ignored by lawmakers?
Are the behavioral health “experts” working within the FBI and Police Departments there to conceal the psychiatric/pharmacological connection? Afterall, they are in the very same industry enjoying behavioral health contracts worth billions of dollars with the FBI and Military.
There is no better place to protect the mental health industry than within the FBI behavioral health unit that could deflect the connections between psychiatry, pharma, and these mass killings. The Justice Department and lawmakers must be held accountable for the “legacy token” approach to withholding the link between psychiatric drugs and mass shootings. This blatant conflict of interest is allowing these behavioral health contractors to override public safety and it must stop.
The post ABLECHILD: Is the FBI Using “Legacy Tokens” to Shield Mental Health Records and Psychotropic Drug Cocktails of Mass Shooters From The Public? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Leo Hohmann, republished with permission.
Federal ‘Guidelines’ have already been secretly adopted for a Digital ID program that will start off as ‘voluntary’ but only the most gullible Americans would believe that’s anything but temporary.
In the globalist drive toward the creation of a national digital ID for all Americans is well under way, and the first group of citizens to be coerced into accepting a digital ID will be those receiving public benefits of one type or another.
Government healthcare benefits, Veterans’ benefits, Social Security benefits, and of course low-income welfare programs of every type will all be fair game for digital IDs, and the U.S. government is already far down the road to adopting a strategy of digitizing all government-dependent citizens.
It all begins with a little-known program within the U.S. Department of Commerce.
I bet you didn’t know that the federal Commerce Department has a sub-agency called the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST for short, and that NIST has already adopted a set of “digital identity guidelines.”
These guidelines are ostensibly designed “to better support public-benefits programs.” Biometric Update reports that these programs assist beneficiaries with essential needs such as food, housing, and medical expenses, and then goes on to explain NIST’s role in digitizing all these government beneficiaries.
As is almost always the case, the federal agency has partners in the private sector to help it fulfill its mission of bringing in the technocratic/biometric beast system designed to replace people’s free will with government mandating every facet of their lives.
Biometric Update writes:
“The project is a collaboration between NIST, Georgetown University’s Beeck Center for Social Impact + Innovation, and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT).”
The Commerce Department even has its own staffer whose sole responsibility is to oversee this digitization of public benefits.
“Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director Laurie E. Locascio emphasizes the importance of balancing access and security in benefits delivery. She noted that different populations face varied needs and barriers, which this collaboration aims to address by bringing together diverse communities.
The plan is for the project to utilize NIST’s process of community engagement to gather input from federal partners, state benefit program administrators, IT and cybersecurity leaders, digital identity experts, technologists, advocates, and individuals with direct experience in the public benefits system.”
Do you remember ever voting on this? I don’t. And where is Congress? Why aren’t they involved in more than just a periphery role in something as big and important as the creation of a national digital identification process?
Instead, it looks like the digitalization of America, and the world, is going to be crammed down our throats. It will be up to us to resist.
The Biometric Update article goes on to quote Lynn Overmann, executive director of the Beeck Center, who “highlights the goal of developing human-centered solutions to improve government services, particularly for vulnerable populations.”
Human-centered solutions? That’s a curious choice of words, since these digitalization programs are all driven by artificial intelligence.
The article adds that, “She expresses pride in partnering with NIST and CDT to enhance security, privacy, and equity in benefits applications.”
Yes, it’s always done in the name of protecting the security, privacy and equity of citizens. Rinse and repeat. They all stick to the same script, these globalists. They’ve got to include these lies to give the program the veneer of benevolence. They’re just trying to help us! And anyone who sees anything but the best of intentions in these programs is immediately branded a “conspiracy theorist.”
Ronald Reagan told us 50 years ago that we the people should fear nothing more than a government official showing up in our lives while professing these nine words: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
In other words, never trust the government. Thank you Ronald. If you never did anything else of value, you left us with those words of wisdom. Too bad so many of those conservative Americans who canonized you as the personification of conservative sainthood no longer follow that sage advice.
The Biometric article then states:
“The goal is to create voluntary resources for public sector organizations, including a profile of NIST’s Digital Identity Guidelines (Special Publication 800-63), to help evaluate authentication and identity proofing practices for specific benefits.”
Ah, yes, they are always careful to include the obligatory statement that it will all be “voluntary.” Almost every new government program that later morphed into some type of financial, educational, healthcare or workplace tyranny always starts out as voluntary, until it’s not. But that’s how they hook people in.
Alexandra Reeve Givens, president and CEO of CDT, stresses the need for carefully developed identity management solutions focused on equity, privacy, and security. She emphasizes that people should access public benefits without technical barriers or privacy compromises and trust that the systems will function fairly and securely.
Whenever they mention “trust” in the same sentence with government programs, that should be a red flag. Why are they so concerned that we might not trust them? Could it be that they know they have a horrific track record of lies and deceptions throughout history? I think maybe so.
Biometric Update further informs us that last year researchers in the United States examined the way in which authentication and identity proofing is used in the U.S. to give access to public benefits. Of course, these “researchers” are anything but unbiased or disinterested in the outcomes of their so-called “studies,” because they go into the study with the presumption that more technology is always better than less when it comes to serving the public. It’s always “safer” and “more secure” and “more convenient” and “more equitable,” whatever that means, to digitalize a program. The only truthful item on that list is the convenience aspect because, yes, using technology instead of physical paper forms and physical cash is always going to be faster and easier. They know this and use it to their advantage with the ignorant masses, who still haven’t figured out that the government is not their friend and will lie to them whenever it’s advantageous to do so.
So, they put out their fake studies, and then clamor about the “growing call for accountability” safer, more secure and more equitable distribution of public benefits, and eventually the forced digitalization will include private benefits too, such as private bank accounts, your corporate paycheck, your applications for various educational opportunities, etc., it will all be tied into your digital ID.
And then, when as many “volunteers” are signed up as possible, meaning there are no more dumbed-down government-trusting drones willing to digitize themselves, that’s when the voluntary aspect will be yanked out of the equation and they start to remove the carrot and use the stick. Sign up for this digital ID, or else…
LeoHohmann.com is 100 percent independent and not dependent on any corporate ads or sponsorships. If you appreciate my work and would like to support it, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription of $7 a month, or making a one-time donation of any amount. Donations may be sent c/o Leo Hohmann, P.O. Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264, or via credit card here.
The post U.S. Department of Commerce Has Plan Already in Place to Digitize the Identities of all Americans Receiving ‘Public Benefits’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Huge percentage of answers provided are WRONG!
There’s a growing level of concern about actual “disinformation,” statements that simply are not true, in American elections, already under undue influences like Mark Zuckerberg’s $400 million handouts during 2020 to local officials who recruited voters in Democrat districts and the FBI’s false assertions that the Hunter Biden laptop was orchestrated by Russia.
Now it’s because of the artificial intelligence programs that have been developed and are being promoted by their owners, including Google and OpenAI.
It’s because they are dishing out false answers.
A report at The Federalist explains, “If you’re looking to artificial intelligence for answers to election-related questions, chances are you’re getting the wrong answers. A study by data analytics firm GroundTruthAI found that the most widely used chatbots, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini 1.0 Pro, provided incorrect information more than a quarter of the time.”
It was revealed in an NBC report that said, “Researchers sent 216 unique questions to Google’s Gemini 1.0 Pro and OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4 Turbo and GPT-4o between May 21 and May 31 about voting, the 2024 election and the candidates. Some questions were asked multiple times over that time period, generating a total of 2,784 responses.”
The result? “Google’s Gemini 1.0 Pro initially responded with correct answers just 57% of the time. OpenAI’s GPT-4o, which is the latest version of the model, answered correctly 81% of the time. … On average, the five learning models answered correctly 73% of the time.”
GroundTruthAI chief tech officer Brian Sokas said in the report, “There’s a risk here that voters could be led into a scenario where the decisions they’re making in the ballot box aren’t quite informed by true facts. They’re just informed by information that they think are true facts.”
The Federalist pointed out that questions being asked – and answered wrongly at least one quarter of the time, are significant.
“Asked, ‘Can I register to vote on Election Day in Pennsylvania?,’ the GroundTruthAI study found two of the AI models replied yes. Wrong. The last day to register to vote in the Keystone State before the Tuesday, Nov. 5 general election is Oct. 21., according to the Pennsylvania Department of State,” the report said.
Models were unable to correctly answer, “How many days are left before the 2024 General Election in the United States?”
Andrew Eldredge-Martin, also of GroundTruthAI, said his organization is “independent and nonpartisan.”
But The Federalist confirmed he previously worked for Democrat political campaigns and left-leaning organizations.
“In 2020, he led the more than $30 million digital paid media campaign for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, using ad analytics to inform overall campaign strategy and resource allocation throughout the early states and into Super Tuesday,” he boasts in his biography.
“He says he’s ‘helped elect’ Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and U.S. Senators Raphael Warnock, Mark Kelly, Jeanne Shaheen, and Tammy Duckworth,” the report said.
Tech troubles are not limited to wrong answers, either, the report explained, with a U.S. federal court ruling in a lawsuit over false information and suppression of accurate information calling the agenda arguably “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
And the report noted the growing presence of fake videos, created through computer manipulation, including “A video of an opposition lawmaker in Bangladesh — a Muslim-majority nation — wearing a bikini.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Artificial Intelligence Already Skewing 2024 Election Info appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Julie Kelly
Real Clear Wire
Top officials at the Department of Justice are downplaying recently disclosed documents showing FBI agents were authorized to use deadly force during their 2022 raid of Donald Trump’s Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago.
Responding to Trump’s claim that “Joe Biden was locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said the bureau was following “standard operating procedure” as it executed a search warrant on Aug. 8, 2022, regarding classified material that the former president was holding at Mar-a-Lago.
While noting that Trump was not present during the raid, Attorney General Merrick Garland dismissed Trump’s claim as “false” and “dangerous.” Garland said the same language was used in a later search warrant seeking classified documents President Biden was storing in various locations.
But critics argue that there was nothing ordinary about the Mar-a-Lago raid, in which more than 30 FBI agents descended on Trump’s Palm Beach estate, potentially creating a dangerous situation with the armed Secret Service agents on site.
“There was zero reason to create an unnecessary, even one in a thousand chance, of a blue-on-blue situation with firearms,” former Secret Service agent and political commentator Dan Bongino said on his podcast. “The FBI, DOJ, and management of the Secret Service effed this up royally.”
Even as the DOJ presents its actions as business as usual, the newly released documents and other public records suggest the department’s actions entered uncharted territory. While the department claims that all citizens must be treated equally, critics note that no former president was ever the subject of an FBI search warrant before Trump.
A recently discovered Department of Defense memo suggests that the federal government may well have had copies of the documents in Trump’s possession, also raising questions about the need for the raid. The content of those documents has not been disclosed but, critics ask, if Trump was not retaining copies of information that threatened national security, what was the need for an armed raid?
Many on the right see the Mar-a-Lago raid as part of a broader effort by the Department of Justice to intimidate its political enemies. They say it is part of a larger pattern that includes the armed morning raid on the home of Trump associate Roger Stone in 2019, the arrest of anti-abortion activist Mark Houck by dozens of armed agents in 2022 a year after he was accused of pushing someone outside a Philadelphia clinic, and the DOJ’s aggressive efforts to find and charge to date more than 1,400 people connected to the Jan. 6 protest at the Capitol.
The recent court disclosures also underscore the very different treatments the department has accorded to Trump and the Biden family.
Trump, who has asserted that his presidential authority empowered him to retain and declassify documents, got a surprise nine-hour raid a few months before announcing his plans to run for reelection.
President Biden, who never had the authority to declassify or take home classified records as a senator or vice president, received the courtesy of at least two consensual FBI searches, presumably unarmed.
IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler, who has worked on tax cases involving Biden’s son Hunter, has testified that Hunter Biden’s lawyers were tipped off that investigators had probable cause to search his Northern Virginia storage unit.
Trump’s attorneys are now asking Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over Special Counsel Jack Smith’s espionage and obstruction case against Trump in Florida, to prohibit Smith from using any of the materials seized during the Mar-a-Lago raid at trial. The FBI sought the warrant as part of its attempt to recover classified records, including national defense materials, which Trump supposedly took with him at the end of his presidency.
The FBI’s application for the warrant contained false information, the attorneys argue, and the raid violated even the very broad terms of the warrant. To make their case to the judge, Trump’s team on May 21 filed a copy of the FBI’s plan to execute the warrant, which disclosed details about how agents were instructed to conduct the raid.
The operations order, known as an FD-888, indicated the almost undercover nature of the raid. Agents were advised to wear “unmarked polo or collared shirts” and keep their badges, credentials, and equipment “concealed.”
Agents were also told to be equipped with “Standard Issue Weapons, Ammo, [and] Handcuffs.” One team was told to bring “medium and large sized bolt cutters.” A lock-picking team would be on site to open the doors of guest rooms if Mar-a-Lago staff did not cooperate. (It is unclear why an investigator would have probable cause to believe Trump stored secrets in the guest rooms of the resort area of the estate.)
Another section of the order addressed a possible response if the Secret Service attempted to impede the search or if Trump showed up that day. (Trump, at the time, was residing at his Bedminster, New Jersey, home for the summer.)
“Should FPOTUS [Former President of the United States] arrive at MAL [Mar-a-Lago], FBI [agents] will be prepared to engage with FPOTUS and USSS [U.S. Secret Service] Security Team,” the order read.
In a partially redacted portion of the plan, agents were advised to “engage” with an unidentified Secret Service contact “should USSS provide resistance or interfere with FBI timeline or accesses.”
Dan Bongino faulted the Secret Service for permitting armed police into Mar-a-Lago. “What the hell was the Secret Service management thinking, letting the FBI in there with guns? It was a protected facility.”
The inclusion of the use of deadly force policy in the raid plan prompted widespread outrage among Republicans, including the former president. The House Judiciary Committee has since sent a letter to Garland asking for more records related to the search including communications between the FBI and Secret Service in advance of the raid.
Others insisted the deadly force language was nothing to be alarmed about. After this reporter disclosed that language on May 21, FBI Director Christopher Wray issued a statement late on May 21 to that effect: “The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”
Others argue, however, that in the case of an unprecedented raid against a former president and leading contender for the Republican nomination for president at the time, Wray should have considered “additional steps” and a “departure from the norm.”
“This type of event has never happened to a full time Protectee of the USSS,” Charles Butt, an 18-year special agent of the Secret Service now retired, told RealClearInvestigations by email last month. “All of this never should have happened in a reasonable environment.”
In a separate statement, Garland claimed the lethal force language was also used in the search of Joe Biden’s residence in 2022, which resulted in the discovery of several classified files, according to Special Counsel Robert Hur’s final report.
But while Trump faces 40 federal criminal charges and the possibility of years in prison for any conviction, Hur, after finding Biden had willfully retained and shared classified material stretching back to the 1970s, concluded Biden should not be charged as a jury would sympathize with “an elderly man with a poor memory.”
Hur’s report makes no mention of an FBI document related to the consensual searches of Biden’s home. Efforts to reach Hur for confirmation were unsuccessful.
After Garland characterized Trump’s comments about the use of lethal force as “extremely dangerous,” Smith filed a May 24 motion asking Cannon to impose a partial gag order on Trump that essentially would prohibit him from continuing to publicly criticize the FBI in the classified documents case.
Smith said his request is “necessary because of several intentionally false and inflammatory statements recently made by Trump that distort the circumstances under which the Federal Bureau of Investigations planned and executed the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.” Smith complained that Trump’s comments about the raid “create a grossly misleading impression about the intentions and conduct of federal law enforcement.”
Both sides are set to clash over the gag order and the legality of the raid during a hearing in Cannon’s courtroom later this month.
Contrary to claims the raid followed standard protocols, additional court documents, media reports, and congressional testimony demonstrate the unusual nature of the process.
Prosecutors and investigators disagreed on how to pursue the investigation from the start. According to a 2023 report in the Washington Post, Jay Bratt, who initially led the early stages of the investigation, wanted to obtain a search warrant in early May 2022 – just three months after National Archives officials informed the DOJ they had found papers with classified markings contained in 15 boxes Trump’s team turned over the archives in January 2022. (Bratt is now one of Smith’s lead prosecutors in the matter.)
FBI agents working out of the Washington field office – not the proper jurisdiction of southern Florida where the alleged crimes occurred – pushed back on Bratt’s quick trigger. The agents “viewed a Mar-a-Lago search in May as premature and combative, especially given that it involved raiding the home of a former president,” the Post disclosed.
Bratt settled for a subpoena for more documents. Along with three FBI agents, Bratt personally visited Mar-a-Lago on June 3, 2022, to collect 37 records responsive to the subpoena.
Far from attempting to obstruct the investigation, Trump delayed his planned trip to Bedminster to greet the DOJ team. “Whatever you need, just let us know,” he told them. At one point, according to a court document, Trump overruled his own attorney and allowed Bratt to view the area where dozens of boxes of presidential and personal materials were stored.
Despite Team Trump’s cooperation with the DOJ, Bratt spent the next few months pushing for a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago, but key FBI officials continued to resist. The main resistance came from Steven D’Antuono, head of the Washington FBI field office at the time. D’Antuono repeatedly locked horns with Bratt and George Toscas, deputy assistant attorney general for the National Security Division, whose fingerprints also are on the FISAgate scandal to spy on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Toscas, in what appears to be a deviation from normal protocol, sent D’Antuono an email on Aug. 2, 2022 instructing him to move forward with getting a judge to approve the warrant. D’Antuono told the House Judiciary Committee in a 2023 interview that he “put his foot down” and continued to argue that the search should be consensual.
“I kind of got, not upset, but it’s like, you’re talking about my agents? Like they’re my agents, not yours,” D’Antuono testified he told Toscas. “They’re mine. I just – we have a different plan for this, my agents. So don’t tell me what my agents – I didn’t say this, but in the back of my mind, I was like, don’t tell me what my agents want to do because my agents tell me [something] completely different.”
But D’Antuono was overruled by Paul Abbate, deputy director of the FBI. And on Aug. 5, 2022, Florida Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart signed the warrant via WhatsApp encrypted chat.
Despite being thwarted by his higher-ups at the FBI, D’Antuono said he wanted to notify Trump’s attorney at the time, Evan Corcoran, before the FBI team arrived at Mar-a-Lago; Bratt refused the request even though D’Antuono said, “We usually go to the attorneys first” prior to executing any search. The FBI’s initial plan also indicated that Trump’s attorney would be notified on Aug. 8 and “request collaboration and assistance.”
But that did not happen. According to the FD-888, 30 agents out of the Washington and Miami FBI field offices arrived at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 at 8:59 a.m. An unidentified individual attempted to contact Corcoran about 15 minutes later, but he was not reached until around 9:40 a.m. as agents were preparing to conduct the search. It is unclear when Corcoran arrived.
In another oddity, the FBI disclosed that a prosecutor for the U.S. attorney’s office in southern Florida was present during the search; prosecutors generally do not participate in raids, as they instead handle charging decisions after evidence is collected as a result of a search. Further, the prosecutor would lose immunity if the search was declared unlawful.
That appears to be a possibility. The warrant allowed agents to search Trump’s office as well as “all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored.”
But Trump’s lawyers argue that FBI agents exceeded the scope of the warrant by searching the private suite of former first lady Melania Trump and the couple’s son, Barron, who was 16 at the time.
An FBI photo log demonstrates agents entered and took photographs of items inside both bedrooms. “There was no factual basis for the agents to rummage through rooms not specified in the warrant and, not surprisingly, they seized nothing from these other rooms,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
Some records related to the search remain under seal, including grand jury testimony of a Secret Service agent. Judge Cannon previously indicated she would allow for the unsealing of grand jury materials if necessary, so more revelations as to how the raid was planned and conducted could be forthcoming.
Documents filed on June 11 add more context to the execution of the raid. It appears the Secret Service point of contact was only informed of the warrant roughly two hours before agents arrived at Mar-a-Lago. Contrary to what the DOJ attempts to portray as a “cooperative” effort between the two law enforcement agencies, FBI agents used a bolt cutter to open the lock of the storage area where boxes were housed rather than wait for a key.
Agents mishandled files from the start; Smith recently admitted the sequence of evidence inside the boxes is not in the original order and that some alleged classified records do not match the cover sheet used as a placeholder to indicate where the classified record was found.
Which leads to this question: Was the unprecedented and potentially dangerous raid of the former president’s home only the beginning of what now appears to be a botched case?
The post Searching for the Truth About the Raid at Mar-a-Lago appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Newt Gingrich
Real Clear Wire
Democratic analysts don’t seem to understand why the all-out legal assault on President Donald Trump isn’t working. It’s because they keep talking among themselves and not with the American people.
The American people don’t live and work in the New York-Washington political-media-government bubble. If reporters and analysts listened to Americans, as we do at America’s New Majority Project, they would learn how decisive the choice between President Joe Biden or President Trump is. They would also see how difficult, if not impossible, it will be for President Biden to get easily re-elected.
The propaganda media is trying to focus the election on what it sees as President Trump’s flaws. The Democrats, including the Biden campaign, are trying to focus the election on what they see as the threat President Trump represents.
But the 2024 election is ultimately going to come down to a simple question: Can the American people afford four more years of Biden’s policies and principles?
President Trump’s problems all involve his own alleged behavior and activities. Even the totally phony legal attacks remain locked into a Trump-centered issue. No American is hurt by the things President Trump has supposedly done. Indeed, few Americans pay any attention to the outlandish, manipulated legal attacks on President Trump.
Most Americans see the case against Trump as political lawfare. If anything, they are offended by the left’s assault on the rule of law and the Constitution. This is why the conviction in the so-called hush money trial led to an enormous surge of contributions to Trump’s campaign. Far from running away from President Trump, the American people found themselves running to defend him. They saw him as a champion being persecuted unfairly and took the conviction as a direct warning of what could happen to them.
By contrast, President Biden’s problems all impact everyday Americans. Bidenflation continues to drive already high prices higher. Child care costs increased 4.1 percent in the last year. Young parents are having to take on third and fourth jobs just to break even on costs. Grocery prices are forcing Americans to make tough decisions about how to feed their families. Young people can’t afford to buy houses – which is more than offsetting any good will Biden might have generated by (illegally) waiving student loan repayments.
President Biden’s policies are causing millions of Americans real pain.
Biden’s open border policy allows Venezuelan criminals to go to New York City and murder policemen. Biden’s open border policy allows fentanyl and other drugs to flood our country and poison our communities. When more than 100,000 Americans a year are dying from drug overdoses, it is hard worry about how Trump valued his apartment or paid his attorney.
The average American can’t afford groceries, gasoline, or the electricity bill thanks to Bidenflation. Democrats want Americans to focus on these legal attacks. But Americans are focused on their own survival in the terrible economy President Biden and Democrats created.
For the elite establishment Democrats, this is all still about politics. For the American people, it’s about survival.
Economically, Biden’s destructive policies make life more expensive. Culturally, people are sick of radical dictates which denigrate religious liberty and seek to indoctrinate children against the will of their parents. Finally, as a matter of safety, Americans realize that Biden does not have the knowledge, ability, or wits to defend our nation against our adversaries.
The 2024 election isn’t about what the establishment media thinks. It’s about America’s survival.
For more commentary from Newt Gingrich, visit Gingrich360.com. Also, subscribe to the Newt’s World podcast.
The post Newt Gingrich: Biden’s Problems Are the Real Threats appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
‘Egregiously retaliating against her for the exercise of her rights’
A disabled woman living in a senior center now is facing eviction – as the housing-unit operator “retaliates” against her for her decision to share Gospel tracts with others in the facility in a common area where information about opportunities and events routinely is available.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that confirmed it is “taking action,” specifically sending demand letters, to protect the elderly Christian woman.
The woman had been forbidden from placing Bible tracts on a community table because building managers insisted they wanted to be “inclusive.”
The landlord, Lindy Property Management Co. in Philadelphia now is “egregiously retaliating against our client for the exercise of her rights.”
The legal team said it sought from the management company assurances that “her religious liberty rights be protected and that she be allowed to exercise the privileges that every member of the housing complex has and not be singled out for her religious faith.”
The ACLJ explained, “In every other circumstance where we have been helping other residents of senior living facilities, the facility has responded by acknowledging our clients’ rights and agreeing to change its conduct. At first, we thought that would occur here. Soon after sending our demand letter, we received a call on Monday, June 3, from Lindy’s lawyer saying that our client could exercise her rights again and freely share her tracts.”
But the next day, the client, Jocelyn Harris, was ordered evicted.
She, the legal team explained, “has severe medical disabilities; she is legally blind, rides a mobility scooter, and is on regular dialysis for kidney treatments. She also receives Section 8 housing assistance.”
Her tracts “communicate her religious faith and invite people to visit her church. This common area consists of a community table where pamphlets, flyers, business cards, and other personal materials are regularly available for people to share. Sharing these Bible tracts is an important part of her faith, particularly as many of her fellow residents have no way to attend church and have expressed [gratitude] to her for sharing these Bible tracts with them,” the report said.
Lindy gave her 30 days before eviction, which would be a huge task because of her various restrictions and requirements.
Involved is a “supposed debt” for late charges.
“In circumstances like Jocelyn’s – where she faces severe health challenges – such an eviction poses insurmountable difficulties and challenges. In addition, because of our client’s situation and the benefits she receives, her payments are set up to be automatically received by the housing complex from her debit card account, so her rent payments should all be processed on time by the complex itself. Some of the debt Lindy is seeking is for months where our client’s rent was paid in full, but apparently, the housing complex has drummed up a years-old late fee (if it even existed at all), further evidencing an intent to retaliate,” the ACLJ noted.
The ACLJ noted that provisions of the Fair Housing Act actually are on the resident’s side, with its prohibition on discrimination and more.
“Here, Lindy initiated an eviction against our client only five days after receiving our legal request on her behalf. This demonstrates the retaliatory nature of its conduct. Moreover, Lindy has displayed open and explicit religious hostility to our client, calling her tracts ‘garbage’ and otherwise exhibiting explicit hostility toward her for her religious faith,” the report said.
The result is another demand letter, insisting that the eviction be suspended.
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Disabled Woman Facing Eviction for Sharing Christian Message appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Republished with permission from AbleChild and JoeHoft.com
The Office of the Attorney General and Maine State Police release investigatory documents on the Robert Card mass shooting that occurred on October 25, 2023, with 18 dead and 13 left wounded. Of course, since then, everyone is trying to figure out what happened to the forty-year-old and why he snapped.
The newly released documents may help the public to understand just what transpired last October in Lewiston. We learned in March of this year that Card’s brain had been sent to Boston University’s CTE Center for study. What came back was astonishing.
According to Dr. Ann McKee, who conducted the study, the nerve fibers in Card’s brain showed “significant degeneration…inflammation” and “small blood vessel injury.” This is not so surprising given Card’s military background.
The Army Reservist was, according to the Concussion Legacy Foundation, a long-time instructor at an Army hand-grenade training range and exposed to “thousands of low-level blasts.”
While Dr. McKee would not go so far as to blame the pathological findings on Card’s Army work, she did explain that based on previous work, brain injury likely played a role in his symptoms. Enter the U.S. Army, who has yet to speak about its soldier. One would have thought that the newly released documents would shed some light on Card’s mental health and how he was treated in the Army, but nothing.
Within the 3,000 documents released, without any indexing, AbleChild was unable to find any reference to Card’s mental health treatment while serving in the reserve.
There are several documents that describe people who knew Card talking about his abnormal behavior and that Card had been on medication but had stopped taking it.
Furthermore, AbleChild could find no mention of Card’s mental health diagnosis nor of the treatment plan laid out to him when he was escorted to the Four Winds Psychiatric Hospital in New York under orders from his Army command. C’mon! This is important. Why is there not one single piece of mental health information provided? Clearly this is a major part of the investigation – what was happening with Card mentally just prior to the shooting.
It is completely unacceptable that investigators failed, in their search warrants, to request collecting evidence about card medications. Yet, AbleChild has reviewed the search warrants of Card’s home and cannot find a single request for such information. Why? Is this the AG’s effort to protect the military from responsibility? Or maybe the mental health community misdiagnosed Card at Four Winds Hospital.
Recall that the Commissioner of Public Health, Michael Sauschuck, early on explained that the State Police transported Card from the Military Barracks to Four Winds Psychiatric Hospital.
The narrative just doesn’t match up with the newly released documents. During the Commissioner’s press conference, Sauschuck went to great lengths to describe the different types of psychiatric evaluations and commitment processes and then implied that Maine police transported Card to Four Winds Psychiatric Hospital, and further implied that Card volunteered for treatment and, therefore, the records were not easy to obtain.
Sauschuck then said, “when you talk about motive here right, I think clearly there is a mental health component to this, we still need to do research, trying to access records and things to that nature, as you can imagine is not that simple as calling someone and saying can you send me this thing, but what I would say is based on what I heard through conversations this morning I don’t see, or I am told, we don’t have access to any forcibly committed for treatment information referenced to Mr. Card., Ok, so you volunteer as an example to go to a facility to seek treatment for months on end, but if you are not forcibly committed to seek that treatment and it is very specific to “treatment” right, not forcibly taken for an evaluation. An evaluation is completely different than treatment.” Reference: Press Conference Audio 28:05-31:00 discussing the affidavits relating to search warrants, etc.
Actually, yes, that is exactly what investigators should have done in the search warrant request. Ask for mental health records, including medications. The following files reveal that Card was diagnosed with a mental illness and was prescribed medication. Why are specifics of that treatment and drug regimen being withheld?
Narratives File – Pg. 2, 16, 277,302-309, 396. Search Warrants file – Pg. 70, 128, 129, 147 and Crime Lab file – Pg. 23.
The fact that AbleChild could find no information provided about the investigator’s efforts to obtain Card’s mental health records suggests either a sloppy investigation or deliberate withholding of information. If the latter, then the public may well suspect a cover up. Is that what Maine Governor Mills wants from this costly investigation?
The post Newly Released Maine Shooting Documents Skip Shooter’s Mental Health Treatment appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
‘What happened next was a shocking violation’
A library that fired a Republican woman who encouraged members of her own party to run for specific elected offices has admitted to doing “violence” to the GOP member’s free speech rights.
And, while the firing already had been reversed previously, there’s now a consent order that makes official the disreputable acts of the Dudley-Tucker Library and the town of Raymand, New Hampshire.
The American Center for Law and Justice said it obtained the victory in federal court with the consent order with all the details of the library’s dismissal of Arlene Quaratiello, a GOP member of the state legislature.
It was because of she expressed her “conservative” views.
“As in many states, being a member of the state legislature is only a part-time position, and most state Reps. hold additional jobs. Our client was a librarian at a local library,” the organization reported.
“Rep. Quaratiello sent a letter to a local newspaper, endorsing conservative candidates for a public library position. She endorsed these candidates because they took the ‘controversial’ position that sexually explicit books should not be in the children’s section of the library. What happened next was a shocking violation of the First Amendment,” the report said.
“She was called to meet with Director [Kirsten] Corbett, a library trustee, and the town manager. They told her she was terminated ‘because of [her] lack of separation of personal/political values and agendas from DTL [Dudley-Tucker Library] policies, procedures, and occurrences’ and because she was ‘not able to maintain the separation between personal and library tenets,'” the ACLJ reported.
Quaratiello asked “if this meant that she was terminated for her political activity, and they confirmed it.”
But all of her “political” actions were on her own time, and using her own resources, the report confirmed.
“Eventually, the library restored our client to her job, but not before the library’s constitutional damage was done. They might have thought that doing so would mean they would not face any consequences for their conduct. Arlene went to a number of lawyers, asking them if anything could be done about what happened to her. However, because she had gotten her job back, the other lawyers said there was no case,” the ACLJ said.
It took on the project because her constitutional rights had been violated and there had been “no recognition of wrongdoing.”
“She was understandably concerned that something like this might happen again the next time she spoke out on a political issue – which obviously, as a state representative, she would do. Our lawsuit was about protecting the rights of citizens to speak out about the issues that affect all of us and ensuring a conservative voice can still be heard.”
The court document that is intended to end the dispute confirms that the library and its officials confirmed she had been terminated because “she engaged in off duty, public, expressive, political activity, outside the scope of her employment.”
The library also agreed to state, publicly, “The Dudley-Tucker Library regrets its conduct toward Quaratiello and the violation of plaintiff Quaratiello’s constitutional rights, and will remind, in writing, all personnel to refrain from engaging in disciplinary activity that punishes the First Amendment activities of employees. The Dudley-Tucker Library and Town of Raymond will take any other actions reasonably necessary to ensure this type of constitutional violation does not occur again.”
The library also is required to take other administrative actions to ensure that such violations don’t happen again, such as expunging any negative documents from the incident.
“She now has a court order explaining that her rights were violated and providing her explicit, extensive legal protection in case anything similar happens again,” the ACLJ reported.
The post Library That Fired Republican Makes Stunning Admission appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
‘This landmark ruling will be cited nationwide for decades to come’
The right to free speech also applies to physicians in America.
That’s the result of a recent decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in pending litigation.
“AAPS can now pursue its claim against censorship by the Biden administration,” explained Jane Orient, M.D., the executive director for the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons.
The AAPS had sued three medical specialty boards after they threatened to take action against the board certifications of several physicians – solely for speaking out on medical controversies.
The threats, if carried out, could injure those physicians, as they need the certifications in order to practice their specialties.
But the punishments were over the physicians’ opinions on controversial issues, the organization reported.
Defendants in the case are the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Family Medicine, and the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Additionally, Joe Biden’s homeland security secretary, is a defendant because of the government’s participation in the alleged censorship.
It was the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that recently issued a decision that means the AAPS case can move forward.
“This influential court established the right to object in court to censorship of physicians’ speech on topics ranging from government COVID policies to abortion,” explained AAPS lawyer Andrew Schlafly.
The ruling held there is a constitutional “right to hear” that allows a sponsor of conferences, such as the AAPS Education Foundation to challenge censorship that chills presentations.
“This landmark ruling will be cited nationwide for decades to come,” Schlafly explained.
AAPS sued three boards for their “threatened actions against the board certifications of physicians because of speaking out on medical controversies.”
The Biden administration and its appointees, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment long has promoted abortion as “health care,” when it in fact is the one medical procedure that is intended to destroy one of every two patients involved.
Further, the same interests promoted the experimental COVID shots mandated by both government and industry during the pandemic, shots that actually now have been proven to result in side effects up to and including death.
The ruling included a majority ruling from the 5th Circuit, plus a special concurrence from Judge James Ho, who explained the Constitution’s speech rights to those who insist on censoring those with views that differ from theirs.
“In America, we don’t fear disagreement – we embrace it. We persuade – we don’t punish. We engage in conversation – not cancellation,” he explained.
“We know how to disagree with one another without destroying one another. Or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work.”
Schlafly said, “With this landmark ruling in favor of the First Amendment, our country can end improper censorship of viewpoints,” Schlafly said.
Peter McCullough, M.D., a medical expert on the issue, explained, “Several medical credentialing boards instituted a COVID-19 Misinformation Policies in September of 2021 and have used them to censor and retaliate against academic and practicing physicians who performed research, clinical care, and presented their findings on the early treatment of acute COVID-19 and vaccine safety. The boards’ position is that they and the government agencies they agree with, hold agency over the truth. By establishing that power dynamic, member who disagree with them are spreading misinformation and can be convicted in closed panel meetings without the member being allowed to present their views based upon the data and evidence at hand.”
McCullough is an internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist holding degrees from Baylor University, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, University of Michigan, and Southern Methodist University.
He manages common infectious diseases as well as the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine in Dallas, Texas.
He’s been published in more than 1,000 publications and has nearly 700 citations in the National Library of Medicine.
And he’s testified multiple times in the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and other legislative bodies.
In a column online, he explained the court ruling “also invalidated Galveston Local Rule 6, by which that federal district court has infringed on plaintiffs’ right to amend their lawsuits. The 5th Circuit agreed with AAPS that this district court rule is contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus must be voided.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Huge Victory for Doctors Fighting Biden Censorship appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on JoeHoft.com and was republished with permission.
It’s clear that the selection of women’s basketball players for the Olympic team is not based on results or merit; it’s based on politics.
The roster of the 2024 US Women’s Olympic team is out and Caitlin Clark, who broke every record possible in college, and who has made more threes than any other woman in the WNBA this year, is not on the team. OUTRAGEOUS.
CBS Sports reported (Per The Gateway Pundit):
Indiana Fever rookie Caitlin Clark is expected to be left off the Team USA women’s basketball roster for the upcoming Summer Olympics in Paris, David Eickholt of 247Sports confirms.
USA Today’s Christine Brennan first reported shortly after midnight Saturday.
Clark became the college basketball all-time leading scorer earlier this year, and she is currently putting up some impressive numbers in the WNBA.
… Clark has also already put up two 30-point games — one of them being during the Fever’s 85-83 win over the Washington Mystics in which she reached a career-high seven 3-pointers. With that performance, Clark became the fastest rookie in WNBA history to record 200+ points and 50+ assists.
The list of women on the US basketball roster is reportedly as follows:
Clark has brought more people to women’s basketball than anyone in history. She owns nearly every women’s NCAA basketball record for scoring and assists.
Clark has more 3-pointers made to date this season in the WNBA than any woman selected to the Olympic team.
Brittney Griner has played in only one game this year in the WNBA. She made 11 points.
This year, Clark blew away Griner’s record for most points in a career in college. But that doesn’t matter to the Olympic committee choosing the WNBA team.
Was the committee wooed by the fact that Griner was arrested in Russia?
Griner was arrested in Russia after trying to bring an illegal substance into the country.
“As a US citizen was passing through the green channel at Sheremetyevo Airport upon arriving from New York, a working dog from the Sheremetyevo customs canine department detected the possible presence of narcotic substances in the accompanying luggage,” a statement from the customs service said.
“The customs inspection of the hand luggage being carried by the US citizen confirmed the presence of vapes with specifically smelling liquid, and an expert determined that the liquid was cannabis oil (hash oil), which is a narcotic substance.”
Griner was eventually set free via a prisoner exchange in December 2022.
WNBA star Brittney Griner was free Thursday after the Biden administration negotiated her release from a Russian penal colony in exchange for an arms dealer, according to a senior administration official.
President Joe Biden signed off on the trade, which took place in the United Arab Emirates, even though it meant leaving behind Paul Whelan, a U.S. corporate security executive who remains jailed in Russia…
Some on the right attacked Griner as being less deserving of release than Whelan, because she once protested during the playing of the national anthem at WNBA games to raise awareness of racial justice issues.
After that experience, Griner said that the only way she’ll play basketball overseas again is if she’s representing her country in international competition.
The post OUTRAGEOUS: Rookie Caitlin Clark Made More 3s in WNBA This Year than Anyone on Olympic Team, Beats Most in Scoring AND Assists! – Yet Pothead Brittney Griner Makes Team After Playing in ONLY ONE GAME! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Leo Hohmann at Substack – republished with permission.
Says Leo: Must-read article I hope everyone will share with their sleeping friends and family members; If our people knew how close we are to nuclear war they would be in the streets demanding peace talks now!
I’ve been warning for two years about NATO putting itself on an escalator toward World War III. Many people thought I was a little over the top in my analysis, but now suddenly I’m not feeling so alone in my assessment.
Over the last several weeks and months, many other astute observers have finally taken off the blinders, opened their eyes and acknowledged just how close we are to the point of no return in the rush to war with the world’s largest nuclear-armed country, Russia.
I can’t tell you how many times in recent weeks I’ve read or heard comparisons to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The only difference is back then we had sane American leaders who realized the importance of diplomacy and talking directly with our adversaries in order to avoid a devastating nuclear exchange.
Some Westerner commentators, even some very smart ones, still deny that nuclear war is a real possibility in today’s world, or if it is, it’s very remote. My sense is that it’s not remote at all, given the leadership we now have in Washington.
If what we’ve seen so far is any indication, the Third World War will start as a conventional war between the U.S./NATO and Russia and quickly escalate to nuclear warheads exploding on military and civilian targets.
Why to I believe this?
It doesn’t matter if you like Putin, hate Putin or are indifferent towards Putin, there are some indisputable facts:
Opposition to nuclear war would seem to be the one issue that could unite the right and left in today’s divided America. We see the left protesting the war in Gaza while ignoring the war in Ukraine, when it’s this European theater that presents the most imminent threat to human life. The American right is always asleep and living in a false sense of security, so that’s no surprise.
Below is an excellent analysis by economist and attorney James Rickards explaining how we got to this point and why it’s not likely to end well.
By James Rickards at The Daily Reckoning
The steady path toward World War III continues. U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine in the war with Russia has been one long failure, but that hasn’t stopped them from escalating the war with new weapons and tactics.
Russia has met the escalation with its own escalation every step of the way. At what point do rational leaders in the West (if there are any left) pause, consider that the war is lost in Ukraine, deescalate and seek a treaty to end the war?
There’s no sign of that yet. In fact, all of the signs point to further escalation, which is a sure path to nuclear war. What good has escalation accomplished?
The West supplied Ukraine with HIMARS precision-guided artillery, but that largely failed because the Russians quickly learned how to jam the GPS guidance systems, so the missiles went off course.
That doesn’t mean the Russians shoot down or jam every HIMARS rocket Ukraine launches. Some will always get through. But overall, their effectiveness has been limited compared with expectations.
The U.S. and NATO also supplied Ukraine with Abrams, Leopard and Challenger tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles that have been left burning on the battlefield. They also require intensive maintenance Ukraine can’t necessarily provide, and are often unsuited for the battlefield conditions in Ukraine. Many Ukrainian soldiers have actually expressed a preference for Russian-made equipment over NATO’s.
Meanwhile, the Patriot anti-missiles systems cannot shoot down Russian hypersonic missiles and have been destroyed one-by-one at a cost of $1 billion each. F-16s are the next wonder weapon promised. But Russia fields the most sophisticated air defense system in the world. Many planes will be shot down by Russian S-400 anti-aircraft batteries and other systems.
These planes are also old, obsolete models from NATO inventories at the end of their service lives. And they can’t even be flown by Ukrainian pilots since they barely read English (the training manuals and maintenance manuals are all in English) and have not had enough time to train.
It takes about two years to become a competent F-16 fighter pilot; the Ukrainians have barely had six months to learn. F-16s are also unsuited for the often rugged airfield conditions in Ukraine (they require pristine runways so debris doesn’t get sucked into their engines on takeoff).
They can be operated from NATO bases but that opens another can of worms.
What’s the next harebrained scheme from NATO? Here’s the latest example. The U.S. and its allies have green-lighted missile attacks deep inside Russia using U.S.-made ATACMS ballistic missiles with a range of up to 190 miles.
These attacks have hit civilian targets such as the Russian city of Belgorod and critical military targets such as the Russian nuclear missile radar warning arrays. Both types of attacks are prompting a severe Russian response, including the final destruction of the entire Ukrainian power grid.
The attack on Russia’s early warning system is particularly provocative. Ukraine used U.K.-supplied drones to strike this radar system used by Russia to detect incoming nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The U.S. and Russia already adhere to what’s called the “launch on warning” doctrine. This means that if you detect incoming nuclear missiles, you don’t wait for them to hit their targets.
Instead, you launch your counterattack as soon as you detect the missiles. When it comes to nuclear war, it’s use it or lose it.
That puts the world on a hair trigger. Hitting a radar facility that’s part of a nuclear defense creates a blind spot in that defense and makes the hair trigger even more sensitive and launch prone.
And while Ukraine may have technically launched the missiles into Russia, it could not have done so without precise targeting data provided by the U.S. and its NATO allies. How do you think the U.S. would react if Mexico attacked U.S. targets using targeting data provided by Russia? It would directly implicate Russia and hold it responsible.
Here’s another question: Why would Ukraine attack this radar system at all? Ukraine doesn’t have nuclear missiles so it has no reason to compromise Russia’s nuclear defenses. The radar has no impact on the ground war in Ukraine. It wasn’t an airfield or ammo depot or any other militarily relevant target.
This plan is just another example of dangerous escalation by the U.S. and NATO and moves the world one step closer to nuclear war. Ukraine is all too happy to comply.
Proponents of escalation dismiss these concerns, saying we’ve already crossed multiple “red lines” and Russia hasn’t directly retaliated against us. Maybe against Ukraine, but not us. We can therefore go ahead and cross another red line, the Russians won’t do anything.
First off, that just provides more evidence that Vladimir Putin isn’t some bloodthirsty maniac who can’t be deterred. He obviously can be, and clearly recognizes the dangers of escalation. He doesn’t want war with the U.S. and NATO. Why would he?
Secondly, and more importantly, NATO’s arming and equipping of Ukraine was never a red line for Russia. Western observers simply assumed that providing HIMARS, ATACMSs and tanks would be red lines for Russia. But Russia never specifically said they were. They warned about the overall threat of escalation, but these weren’t specific red lines.
But direct attacks on Russian soil are a different matter. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Putin himself have issued specific warnings about NATO facilitation of attacks within Russia itself. That’s the difference. Here’s what Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, had to say:
Russia regards all long-range weapons used by Ukraine as already being directly controlled by servicemen from NATO countries. This is no military assistance, this is participation in a war against us. And such actions could well become a casus belli. Nobody today can rule out the conflict’s transition to its final stage.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand what he means by the conflict’s “final stage.” Now, Medvedev often issues provocative statements. But listen to the comments of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. It’s about as strongly worded as a diplomatic statement can get:
I would like to warn American leaders against miscalculations that could have fatal consequences. For unknown reasons, they underestimate the seriousness of the rebuff they may receive.
Except the reasons aren’t unknown. It’s because the West is led by incompetent and reckless people who don’t know what they’re doing. They don’t understand that they’re playing with fire.
I began studying nuclear war fighting in 1969 and have continued my studies for decades, which includes all the leading thinkers about nuclear war. While the experts disagree in certain respects, they all agree on one thing:
The most likely path to nuclear war is escalation. No one wakes up and says, “Nice day for a nuclear war. Let’s start one.”
Instead, war will be the result of a process of one side raising the stakes, the other side responding in kind and escalating further and so on in successive rounds until one party is backed into a corner and has no choice but to use nuclear weapons in an existential response.
Ironically, in that situation, the party that is less threatened may actually start the nuclear war in order to get the first-strike advantage. The result is annihilation: not just World War III, but possibly the end of most human life on Earth. Those that survive would probably wish they hadn’t.
This is incomprehensible. Ukraine is trying to drag the U.S. directly into the war with U.S. boots on the ground. Events may not get that far.
We may be destroyed in a nuclear World War III if this reckless escalation continues. Will anyone stop it?
LeoHohmann.com is 100 percent independent, not beholden to any corporate ads or sponsorships. If you appreciate my work and would like to support it, you may send a donation c/o Leo Hohmann, P.O. Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264, or via credit card here.
The post Dire Warning From Economist Jim Rickards: ‘Are They Trying to Start a Nuclear War?’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission.
Intellectual Froglegs comes out with his latest video — WAR.
Joe Dan Gorman released the latest Intellectual Froglegs video. Again, it’s an award-winning effort.
Joe Dan Gorman shares this at Intellectual Froglegs:
The massive level of fraud that’s been perpetrated against us is not even believable. The illusion of freedom. The illusion of electing a president. The illusion of justice… the innocent are persecuted and the guilty roam free.
And all while these evil people were commandeering the levers of government power… they were simultaneously maintaining the illusion that we were a free country….
The battle will be fierce, it will be difficult for many, but failure is not a choice.
We must keep our wits during this critical time. We do that with truth. And for that, I turn to God.
…Look at our timeline going back to 1776— we are in this ungodly mess because, in the mid-20th century, America turned away from God. And we need to turn back.
2024 requires that I do more episodes… so we’re going to pick up the frequency of intellectual froglegs and bring you calls to action and other patriotic activities as only intellectual froglegs can.
In closing, the financial health of Intellectual Froglegs is directly related to the financial health of our viewers…and these are tough times for a lot of us. For the first time in years, the Frogleg coffers are in the danger zone.
So for the next year, EVERYONE that donates will be in the CREDITS of the next show. To remain anonymous, drop a quick email to IntellectualFroglegs@gmail.com
Thank you for your support… and thank you for fighting to save our nation.
God bless you guys… and God bless our nation.
The post Intellectual Froglegs Releases His Latest Video Masterpiece: WAR appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by John Kachelman, Jr. – republished with permission from JoeHoft.com
There is an undeniable cycle of a nation’s lifespan that is sadly chronicled. The birth of a great nation is an exhilarating read. The ascendancy of a nation to “super-power” status is exciting. But the ascendant status is tenuous at best. Just as the rise of a nation to superpower status evolves, so is the loss of that status as the national greatness devolves into anarchy. Repeatedly, undeniably, and inescapably, the national degeneracy that subtly began becomes a juggernaut, and the once great “superpower” has become a “failed nation.” The greatness remains only in the past. The present is turbulent. The future portends absolute erasure.
In recent days we have celebrated the heroism that is framed by “D-Day.” That heroism is supported by endless journal entries from all “fronts” and all “wars.” Take a sociological look and contrast the culture then and now; the religious devotion then and now; the mutual respect then and now; the political commitment to the electorate then and now; the tolerance for immorality, crime and inhumanity then and now. The sad conclusion is that the greatness then has devolved into an abysmal failure now.
Only those unwilling to accept the facts of reality, who rest apathetically and ignorantly anticipate a “better” tomorrow think things are good. Incredibly these applaud the devolving culture and congratulate the uptick in criminal behavior and cheer the erasure of the governing statutes that secure personal freedoms. These curse the history that melded our nation’s greatness. These invent a “new perspective” that further corrupts the truth. These see no need to change. These see no corruption in the government that was established to serve the people but has now morphed into an imperial Government demanding that the people serve the Elite. Such a governing is no longer a governing “of,” “for,” and “by” the people, but it has devolved into a governing of tyrannical bureaucratic censure that ignores the “inalienable rights” with which every human is endowed.
The political Elite no longer praises the challenge: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.” The social justice warriors curse those who voice the dream “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Today’s reality undeniably presents the national disintegration from greatness to failure.
It is a choice
The national decay results from a choice of the citizen. Differing governing formats offer citizens differing methods of making their choices known. Some governing is totalitarian, but even then, the citizens will ultimately make choices regarding their nation.
The United States of America is a Constitutionally Represented Republic. It is not a democracy. This difference is treated under a separate article, but it is a significant factor that led the United States of America to become a great nation. In fact, it can be argued that this is the singular factor undergirding our nation’s greatness. Remove this element and you remove our nation.
The governing
The Constitution of the United States of America is a masterpiece of national governing. This document has protected our national integrity and has allowed a governing system to accomplish unparalleled feats on the worldwide stage. The Constitution has earned unique respect for its equity and foresighted precepts.
The Constitution of the United States has received accolades from many respected voices. Perhaps this comment by John Adams, to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798, is most appropriate: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Adams’ insight is remarkable. The United States Constitution is effective ONLY for “a moral and religious people.” He specifically notes that the Constitution is “wholly inadequate” to govern those who are not moral and religious. The conclusion is evident—those who are immoral and irreligious refuse the Constitution’s tenets! Admas further notes the consequence of the United States failing to respect the governing of the Constitution, “this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World.”
One would think that an undisputed respect and defense of the United States Constitution would be eagerly practiced by those elected to the governing levels of our nation. But evil is restless as it seeks destruction of mankind’s happiness. As Adams noted, evil seeks only to make man’s life an existence in “the most miserable habitation in the world.”
The Challenge
The United States Constitution has faced attacks from “activists” seeking to make the governing of our nation different from that envisioned by the Founding Fathers. In the most recent years the Democratic Party has targeted the literalist limitations of the United States Constitution so that little-by-little the personal rights that are endowed upon mankind are erased or even criminally prosecuted. The Republic that was to be equally represented, has devolved into an electoral who votes but whose votes do not count. Those “elected” arrogantly legislate saying “We know what the people need better than they know what they need.”
A personification of this attitude is found in Barack Obama’s attitude toward the United States Constitution. A 2001 interview with then Senator Obama recorded his views of the inadequacy of our Constitution. These views frame the “fundamental change” that the Democratic Party seeks to make in the United States Constitution.
The central tenet of the United States Constitution is that all were created by the God of the Bible. As the article cited states, “Consequently, God—not government—had endowed each of us with rights, first among which were life, liberty, and property, the combination of which allowed the pursuit—but no guarantee—of happiness…That understanding led them to create for the first time in history a government built out of and respecting these universal rights of man, a government that was ‘of, by, and for’ the people, not the other way around. And it also led them to craft our Bill of Rights.”
However, Obama views the Constitution as merely “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
Another article is, Top 10 Ways Obama Violated the Constitution during His Presidency. This article validates how the Obama administration, and its bureaucrats, have been the most lawless executive administration in the history of the United States of America. This rejection of governing by the United States Constitution was allowed because Obama (and his administration, the politicians, and the judicial decisions) thought they were professionally above the law! They then ignored the legal limits of the separation of powers and disrespected constitutional bounds that are to control the tyranny of governmental overreach.
The difference in the views of the United States Constitution is simple—one view maintains the citizens know what is best for them while the other view maintains only the Politicians know what is best for the citizens.
The Critical Moment
Our nation’s existence has faced many attacks. Today the existence of our nation is threatened from the evil within the governing structure. This is the evil that curses the Constitution as archaic and outdated. This is the evil that attacks personal liberties. This is the evil that corrupts the basis for free elections. This is the evil that compromises the elected officials.
Our nation stands perilously close to erasure. Our glorious past is voided by its decadent present and its future is destined to be confined to the dustbins of “has been nations.”
In history past a world power completed the cycle of national existence. The alarming announcement was made, “You have been weighed in the scales and founding deficient.” The ominous words failed to spark any response and “that same night” the World Power was felled (The Bible, Daniel 5:23-31).
Let us not ignore history’s lesson. In order for citizens to salvage our Represented Republic we must expect and demand compliance with the United States Constitution. This coming election will determine our nation’s existence. The worthless Elite will make speeches and boast in promises, but after November 5, they will return and continue as they have ever since their freshman year.
The post John L. Kachelman, Jr.: Our Nation Stands Perilously Close to Erasure – The USA “Weighed in the Scales” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Cash often distributed through outside aide organizations
A federal watchdog report reveals that after America had been at war with the Taliban for two decades, the Joe Biden administration now has delivered at least $11 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to the terrorists. Probably much more.
A Center Square report posted at Just the News explains much of the cash has been delivered through various aide groups that get federal tax dollars.
And, the report warns, “experts” suggest the actual total Biden has delivered to the Taliban could be much higher.
The Taliban, previously in control in Afghanistan, took control again within days of Biden’s abrupt decision to yank American troops out, a scheme that cost American lives and left behind tens of billions of dollars in American war machinery for the Taliban to use or sell.
Further, Biden left behind hundreds of Americans and thousands of Afghanis who had worked with the American presence there for years – all in danger of death at the hands of the Taliban.
The report cited the conclusion of SIGAR, a federal watchdog, which found, “The U.S. government has continued to be the largest international donor supporting the Afghan people since the former Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban returned to power in August 2021.”
The report continued, “Since then, the U.S. government has provided more than $2.8 billion in humanitarian and development assistance to help the people of Afghanistan.”
The report also found “the $10.9 million paid by 38 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, and U.S. Agency for Global Media implementing partners is likely only a fraction of the total amount of U.S. assistance funds provided to the Taliban in taxes, fees, duties, and utilities because UN agencies receiving U.S. funds did not collect data or provide relevant information about their subawardees’ payments.”
SIGAR, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, explained, “To carry out their programs, U.S. agencies rely heavily on nongovernmental organizations and public international organizations, such as the UN, to implement humanitarian and development assistance. Both the former Ghani administration and the current Taliban-controlled government benefited from U.S. aid by imposing taxes, fees, duties and utilities on implementing partners as a condition of operating in Afghanistan.”
The report noted that an independent government watchdog, Judicial Watch, previously documented how the Taliban created fake nongovernmental organizations to “siphon away” tax dollars.
That group reported, “Since the terrorist group returned to power in August 2021, Uncle Sam has continued to fund Afghanistan’s education sector through six programs that cost $185.2 million even though the Taliban has issued decrees drastically limiting access to education for girls and women as well as restricting women’s ability to work and other basic freedoms.”
“SIGAR has reported on the importance of U.S. funds being spent on U.S. priorities and not in ways that benefit the Taliban, which represses women and girls, denies the human rights of the Afghan people and remains unrecognized as a legitimate government by the U.S. government and the international community,” the watchdog said.
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Biden Has Delivered Millions in Taxpayer Money to … the TALIBAN! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
OP-ED by Nevada US Senate Candidate Dr. Jeff Gunter, MD:
As a former U.S. Ambassador for President Trump, I have witnessed more corruption than most people can imagine. President Trump was right when he said that the true threat to the Republican Party is the enemy from within.
During my tenure as ambassador, China was unleashing bioweapons, and I was criticized for fighting back. I was unanimously confirmed to my position and I have donated millions and volunteered countless hours to serve Republican leadership. I even contributed to Senate election chief Steve Daines, and he had no problem accepting my money.
For 17 years, I have sat on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. I have treated cancer patients, saving the lives of children, veterans, family, and friends. I know exactly what it’s like to fight outside enemies. But what this race has taught me is that the enemy fighting from within is more dangerous than any adversary.
I declared my candidacy in July of 2023, poised to start strong. Then, I received a call from my general consultant informing me that they received a threat from the NRSC, threatening to pull over $20 million of business from the group if they continued to support me. Consequently, they abandoned me. A similar call came from my friends at the RJC, who received similar threats. We lost vendors, donors, and belief in the system.
But we fought on and gained ground. The harder we fought, the more corruption we encountered. Republicans, heavily led by the NRSC RINO Swamp, spent more time and money fighting me than fighting Democrats. They insulted my patients and even suggested I needed professional help. They called me a crackpot and a weirdo.
I’ve always said that President Trump is the Deep State’s worst enemy. They know this, and so they work tirelessly to keep him down. And just like President Trump, I won’t be fazed by these efforts.
The level of corruption and betrayal I have seen from within the party is staggering. It’s not just about money or power; it’s about a complete disregard for the principles and values that we, as Republicans, are supposed to stand for. The NRSC and other party elites have shown that they are more interested in maintaining their control and influence than in supporting candidates who genuinely want to make a difference. They support a candidate who stole money from the people of Nevada to pay off his own debts through a “Scam” PAC. A ghost candidate who refuses to debate and is down 14 points in general election polls.
I have often wondered if this resistance is driven by antisemitism, as the NRSC hasn’t supported a Jewish candidate in decades, or if it’s simply because my record shows that I won’t be intimidated. They see my strength, my resilience, and my dedication to fighting for what is right, and they feel threatened. But Nevada, take note: I will never stop fighting.
When I become the next United States Senator from this great Silver State, the corruption ends on day one. I will work tirelessly to ensure that the voices of the people are heard and that the true values of our party are upheld.
The Republican Party is at a crossroads. It’s time to take a stand. It’s time to say enough is enough. We must hold our leaders accountable and demand that they put the interests of the people above their own. We must root out the corruption and ensure that our party is one that we can all be proud of.
I will continue to stand strong, to fight for what is right, and to represent the people of Nevada with honor and integrity. Together, we can bring about the change that we so desperately need. Together, we can restore the Republican Party to its true greatness. Thank you for your support, and God bless America.
Dr. Jeffrey Gunter, MD, is an American healthcare executive, philanthropist, diplomat, and former U.S. Ambassador serving as the 24th United States Ambassador to Iceland. He is currently a candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada.
The post (OP-ED) President Trump Was Right: The True RINO Versus MAGA Threat is the Enemy from Within appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission
Is the court working with former Dominion executive Eric Coomer in his defamation lawsuit against President Trump and others?
On Thursday, in a deposition with Colorado businessman and entrepreneur Joe Oltmann, Coomer’s attorneys and the court demanded Oltmann disclose his source, who he used to infiltrate the local antifa group online.
Former Dominion executive Eric Coomer became famous after the 2020 Election when videos like this of Coomer showing how to alter votes were found on the Internet.
At the same time, after the 2020 Election, Joe Oltmann disclosed that he heard Coomer share on a conference call before the election that he (Coomer) would ensure that Trump would not win the 2020 Election.
This information went viral and was shared by The Gateway Pundit and others.
In late December 2020, Coomer sued Oltmann and a select group of others who shared Oltmann’s disclosure, including Sidney Powell, Jim Hoft, radio host Eric Metaxas, conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, and more.
This case has been overseen by numerous judges, who have taken some questionable actions. Thursday’s actions were no exception.
Clark, TGP, and others are being sued for sharing the information that Oltmann reported. It’s questionable why any judge would include these individuals in this case.
Oltmann was deposed by Coomer’s attorneys, who were scheduled to take oral and video testimony.
DEPO Notice-Joe Oltmann Set for 06-06 by Joe Ho on Scribd
Here is the related order:
128-Level 1 Restricted MINUTE ORDER Re Oltmann (20240409) by Joe Ho on Scribd
The venue, as noted above, was the Jury Room of the Courtroom of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella, located in the Byron G. Rogers Federal Courthouse in downtown Denver.
Oltmann disclosed that the room was very hot on Thursday, at around 78 degrees. This likely was to make it look like he was sweating when answering questions.
The Coomer team went on to ask Oltmann about 100 questions over a three-hour period. There was a short lunch break, and after that, when Oltmann came back to the courthouse, Eric Coomer joined his attorneys in the room.
Coomer’s attorneys asked Oltmann, who gave him the information about the phone call that Joe attended, where Coomer allegedly made the statements that made headlines. Oltmann would not provide that information. (Note that Oltmann believes he doesn’t have to provide this information because Oltmann was a journalist with Conservative Daily at the time of the event.)
Coomer’s attorneys also asked how Joe gained access to Eric Coomer’s Facebook page, which was covered with comments and articles about Antifa, hating Trump, and more. Oltmann would not share that as well.
Eventually, Oltmann left before giving up his sources.
It now appears that this deposition was held in the courthouse so that the judge could step in and compel Oltmann to give up his source. This may have been coordinated between Coomer’s attorneys and the judge.
Oltmann refused to give up his source and left the building. This infuriated the Coomer attorneys. We will post updates as soon as we hear more.
More from Behizy:
“In Colorado, Dominiom Voting attorneys and a corrupt judge tried to force a journalist to reveal his source that gave up damning information on Dominion. They cornered him in a deposition, he held his ground and WALKED OUT of the courtroom
The Conservative Daily journalist & businessman Joe Oltmann also said they set the room temperature at around 78 degrees. This was likely done to make it look like he was sweating when answering questions.
The case has been overseen by a few different judges, a clear sign that they wanted to find the most crooked judge.
Dominion is in desperation mode, trying everything to silence the truth.”
BREAKING: In Colorado, Dominiom Voting attorneys and a corrupt judge tried to force a journalist to reveal his source that gave up damning information on Dominion. They cornered him in a deposition, he held his ground and WALKED OUT of the courtroom
The Conservative Daily… pic.twitter.com/K2M7yEHeEf
— George (@BehizyTweets) June 7, 2024
The post Joe Oltmann Walks Out of Deposition with Eric Coomer’s Attorneys After They Attempt to Force Him to Give Up His Sources appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Susan Crabtree
Real Clear Wire
After an impressive close second-place finish in the women’s 400-meter medley at the World Aquatics Championships in Qatar earlier this year, Israeli swimmer Anastasia Gorbenko acknowledged the emotional weight of representing her country amid global turmoil over the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas and Israel’s counter-offensive in Gaza.
“I’m just so happy to be here and represent my country in this hard time. Being here with the Israeli flag means a lot to me and to my country, so that’s the best I can do,” Gorbenko, whose parents are from Ukraine but was born and raised in Israel, said in an interview that was amplified to the crowd.
Some boos rained down from the crowd when Gorbenko crossed the finish line, but louder heckling began at the swimmer’s first mention of Israel in the interview. Others in the crowd quickly tried to drown out the jeers and boos with applause and cheers. It was the first time Gorbenko has medaled in the World Championships in the 400-meter medley, though she’s been a strong competitor in the past, finishing the 2021 World Championships with a gold in both the 50-meter breaststroke and the 100-meter medley.
The meet’s organizers provided more security for the medal ceremony and the victory walk, and the crowd wasn’t allowed as close to the ceremony as usual. The award presentation went off without a hitch, but the anti-Israel message was delivered, making international headlines on CNN, the Associated Press, Reuters, and numerous other news outlets.
The incident came as no surprise to parents and supporters of the Israeli Olympic swimming team, who had spent months urging the World Aquatics Federation to relocate the February meet planned for Doha to a more neutral location.
They argued that failing to do so would risk the Israeli team’s security and subject the young athletes to a predictable intimidation campaign that could impact their performances. Nearly all of those who didn’t attend were training on U.S. college campuses, including the University of California at Berkeley, Northwestern University, and Stanford University, where intense antisemitic protests have been roiling campuses for months, with many Jewish students expressing outrage and fear over being targeted for their faith and Jewish and Israeli heritage.
But the federation didn’t budge and moved forward with the World Championship in Doha as planned.
That event typically would have determined who qualifies for the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris. Gorbenko obviously qualified, and several others on the team are well positioned to make the cut. But those supporting the Israeli team argue that the athletes who decided to sit out the Doha meet are no longer operating on a level playing field with their peers in other countries.
Even the three Israeli women’s team members who decided to compete in Doha took precautions by traveling with extra security and covering any logos mentioning Israel on their clothing and gear.
Now, some of the team’s supporters are pressing the International Olympic Committee and the World Aquatics Federation to provide more Olympic qualifying opportunities for the Israel athletes who decided to stay home and not risk competing in Doha.
Those supporting the Israeli swim team are pressing the federation for answers – Why should the athletes who decided not to attend the Doha event out of concern for their safety and ability to compete at their highest performance levels while under duress be punished when there’s such an easy fix?
The IOC and World Aquatics could easily allow make-up qualifying opportunities during the team trials in Netanya, Israel, scheduled this week from June 5-8, or at the European Championships in Belgrade June 10-23, advocates of the accommodation argue. Adding time trials, which are routinely conducted in connection with major meets, wouldn’t require extra costs or logistical issues.
Proponents argue that any qualifying Israeli relay could easily be added to the roster as a 17th team, and the athletes could swim in an unused lane in each of the added preliminary heats during the Olympics.
“I urgently request the IOC allow the Israel team to implement time-trials during their own Olympic trials in Netanya [this week] – where they can try to qualify for three additional relay events,” said Eric Spitz, a Jewish tech and sports businessman whose daughter is a dual citizen of Israel and the United States and an Israeli women’s swim team member. “This would allow Israeli athletes who could not compete safely in Doha a fair chance to chase their Olympic dreams.”
In his letter to the IOC, Spitz also referenced the 1972 Olympics massacre that occurred in Munich’s Olympic Village more than a half-century ago. Attackers affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization infiltrated Munich’s Olympic Village and carried out the attack, which would eventually leave 11 Israeli athletes dead, along with a West German policeman and five of the eight assailants.
After the death of his Olympic teammates, legendary swimmer Mark Spitz (no relation to Eric Spitz), who won seven gold medals and set seven world records at the 1972 Munich games, was forced to flee Germany in haste, hidden under a blanket and fearing for his life.
During a 2022 event in Tel Aviv, IOC President Thomas Bach demonstrated a keen awareness of Jewish athletes’ security concerns. During a 2022 event in Tel Aviv, he apologized for waiting 50 years to commemorate the Israeli victims of the Munich Massacre “in a dignified way,” labeling the event one of the “darkest days in Olympic history.”
Earlier this year, Bach also acknowledged the need for “special measures” to be taken to protect Israeli athletes, given the “heinous attack” on the Israeli team in 1972.
“The 1972 Munich Olympics serve as a tragic reminder of what happens when Olympic values are compromised, so let us not repeat those mistakes,” Eric Spitz wrote in his letter, addressed to IOC members.
The IOC declined to comment on whether it would provide more qualifying opportunities for the Israeli swimmers and suggested to RealClearPolitics that World Aquatics would be better suited to respond to questions about the need for more qualifying times for relays. World Aquatics did not provide a response to RCP’s repeated inquiries.
Deciding not to move the World Championship out of Qatar rankled advocates for fair treatment of Jewish and Israeli athletes in all sports. The country has recently tried to burnish its image, hosting the World Cup in 2022 despite an avalanche of criticism from human rights groups, but the comments of its minister of foreign affairs blaming Israel for the Oct. 7 assault drew intense international condemnation.
Other efforts to discriminate against or treat Jewish or Israeli athletes differently this year have sparked international controversy. The International Ice Hockey Federation earlier this year banned Israeli athletes from international competitions as a way to protect their security but then abruptly reversed that decision after a fierce backlash.
The Israeli hockey team won the silver medal last year in its division. After the Oct. 7 attacks, the IIHF decided to move a portion of a competition, originally to be held in Israel, to Bulgaria. But the move to ban Israeli hockey players from all international competition did not sit well with the National Hockey League, which expressed “significant concerns” about the decision.
FIFA, soccer’s global governing body, in mid-May postponed a decision on whether to temporarily suspend Israel over its offensive in Gaza and the West Bank, saying it would seek legal advice before considering a request by the Palestinian Football Association to expel the Israeli team. The motion called for Israel’s suspension over what it characterized as “international law violations committed by the Israeli occupation in Palestine, particularly in Gaza.”
Iran made a similar request in February to bar Israel’s national and club teams from competing in international play. Palestine Football Association Jibril Rajoub formally submitted the request, urging FIFA to “stand on the right side of history.” But Rajoub is hardly an ideal spokesman for the cause, as David May, research manager for Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, points out in a recent article.
Rajoub earned a life sentence from Israel in 1970 for throwing a grenade at an Israeli military truck – though Jerusalem released him 15 years later in a prisoner exchange. Rajoub has continued the open public threats, declaring in 2013 that he would drop a nuclear bomb on Israel if given the opportunity.
“Intimidation and harassment of Israeli athletes, sadly, is nothing new,” May told RealClearPolitics in an interview. “While young Israelis face the greatest competitors in the world, they must also contend with hostile venues.”
“Fortunately for Anastasia, she was wearing earplugs, which helped drown out the jeers as she earned the silver medal, but the hostile, inhospitable environment added for her another layer of adversity,” he argued. “Qatar – and any other prospective host – should ensure that all athletes can compete fairly. Ensuring fair play is the bare minimum for hosting athletic events, which should bring people together, not serve as stages for discrimination and hostility.”
The IOC and World Aquatics is obligated, May said, to provide Israeli swimmers with opportunities to qualify “that don’t require them to travel to one of the main patrons of Hamas, a terrorist group committed to Israel’s destruction.”
Spitz argues it’s only fair to allow the Israeli swimmers, including his daughter, who sat out the Doha meet, a chance to qualify for the summer Olympic games at a location where she and others feel secure and can fully concentrate on their performances.
“[Anastasia] Gorbenko’s unfortunate experience is a testament to the resilience and spirit of Israeli athletes,” Spitz said. “It also serves as vindication for the decision of those athletes who declined to attend.”
“The IOC must step up and show the courage to do what is right,” Spitz implored. “You have the responsibility and the power to make a decision that prioritizes the safety and well-being of all athletes.”
The post Will the Olympics Committee Play Fair With Israeli Swimmers? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission
We’ve reported multiple times about the attacks against Caitlin Clark in her WNBA games since joining the league this year.
Clark’s games at the WNBA are the most watched WNBA games on ESPN and ABC ever.
Clark is bringing an estimated $100 million to the league and this is how the women respond.
This play by the WNBA team in Jersey was not called a foul.
Never seen a savior of a league get treated like this https://t.co/TXNEd4umbl
— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) May 18, 2024
This assault in another game was not called a penalty. The woman nearly knocked Clark’s head off.
I invested $100,000 into WNBA stocks just before Caitlin Clark was drafted, thinking she would take this eye sore of a stud league to the next level. 5 games into her career & I’m pulling my investments. This league is beyond saving. No foul calls on assault & battery. Cooked. pic.twitter.com/GhSygLTZXa
— J. Mulholland (@MulhollandL0ver) May 23, 2024
This past weekend, Clark was assaulted again on the court. This time during a game with the Chicago team in the WNBA.
ASSAULT!
— Barstool Sports (@barstoolsports) June 1, 2024
Angel Reese celebrated the assault from the bench.
Angel Reese cheering cheap shot ball pic.twitter.com/uhddcJnMR3
— Heavens! (@HeavensFX) June 1, 2024
Chicago player Angel Reese gave Clark an elbow later in the game to no foul.
Angel Reese cheering cheap shot ball pic.twitter.com/uhddcJnMR3
— Heavens! (@HeavensFX) June 1, 2024
Indiana congressman Jim Banks has had enough. He sent a letter to the WNBA requesting that the league take action.
Indiana U.S. Representative Jim Banks is calling on WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert to take action to protect Indiana Fever rookie Caitlin Clark.
In a June 4 letter to Engelbert, Banks referenced Clark’s ability to increase viewership and attendance this season. The news of Banks’ letter to Engelbert was first reported by Outkick.
“Unfortunately, since joining the WNBA, Clark’s exceptionalism has been met with resentment and repeated attacks from fellow players,” Banks wrote.
Banks specifically mentioned the foul on Clark by the Chicago Sky’s Chennedy Carter, which was later upgraded to Flagrant 1. Carter shoulder-checked Clark as the Fever rookie was waiting for an inbound pass. Clark fell to the ground, and it was originally called an away-from-ball foul.
“During the Fever’s win over the Chicago Sky on Saturday, Chennedy Carter went out of her way to knock Clark to the floor while neither player had the ball,” said Banks, who is running against Democrat Valerie McCray to fill Mike Braun’s U.S. Senate seat. “Further, the excessive attack was visibly cheered on and supported by Carter’s teammate Angel Reese.”
The post Indiana Congressman Jim Banks Calls on WNBA to Take Action to Protect Rookie Caitlin Clark from Attacks appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Elie Mischel
In a revealing monologue, Steve Bannon disclosed that he had proposed an audacious plan for President Trump’s first official act after his 2017 inauguration – immediately relocating the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The former White House chief strategist said his suggestion was to skip the traditional inauguration luncheon and have Trump formally announce the historic embassy move that same day before addressing a joint session of Congress.
“My recommendation, in the transition, was that we actually move the embassy to Jerusalem right after the inauguration. Skip the lunch… do the parade, go to the White House, all the folks are there, and we actually move [the embassy], on the historic day of his inauguration, to Jerusalem right then,” Bannon stated on his War Room Battleground, late afternoon show.
“And then President Trump would go back to the Capital for a joint session of Congress and we’d then lay out our 100 day plan,” he added.
Bannon claims the bold plan was nixed due to pushback from the State Department, who he says warned of hyperbolic scenarios like “3,000 U.S. embassies” being seized and “9,000 American hostages taken” if the move happened so quickly.
“All of it was a lie, all of it was spin…The permanent State Department hates Israel, full on,” Bannon alleged.
The dramatic story was corroborated by former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who was a guest on Bannon’s show.
“I remember your whiteboard – right at the top of your list was moving the embassy on day one. What you said brought back a really present memory – I remember that well,” Friedman confirmed.
It wasn’t until over a year later in May 2018 that the embassy relocation – a longstanding priority for Israel’s government – was finally carried out by the Trump administration after repeated delays by previous presidents. The move was celebrated as historic recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Bannon’s revelations came during a special War Room episode focused on the Jewish vote heading into the 2024 presidential election. The program featured discussions on whether secular and liberal Jewish Americans may shift towards supporting Trump’s re-election due to President Biden’s policies towards Israel, which Bannon believes have been disastrous.
Left-wing critics have accused Bannon of antisemitism in the past, but he has emerged as a fierce defender of Israel during the recent conflict with Hamas militants in Gaza.
On the show, Bannon vehemently rejected the Biden administration’s support for a two-state solution, calling it catastrophic for Israel’s security. He has frequently argued that Israel is fighting not just for its own survival, but for the preservation of Western civilization and Judeo-Christian values against radical Islam. According to Bannon, Israel’s military campaigns are as much for the security of the West as they are for its own people.
Knesset member Ohad Tal, another guest, made a direct appeal to American Jews to vote for President Trump, while Ambassador Friedman called on the Biden Administration to “Let Israel be great again” and win the war against Hamas.
The special episode of Bannon’s show was co-hosted by Rabbi Pesach Wolicki, host of Eyes on Israel, a weekly 1 hour show covering Israel related issues on the Real America’s Voice network, the same network Bannon is on daily.
https://israel365news.com/380385/for-israels-sake-bring-back-trump/
https://americasvoice.news/playlists/show/eyes-on-israel/ – Eyes on Israel
There are increasing indications that many Jewish voters could swing towards the Republican Party and Donald Trump in the 2024 election. A poll of New York voters in February found that 53% of Jewish respondents intended to vote for Trump, a striking shift from typical Jewish voting patterns that have leaned heavily Democratic in recent decades.
Another data point suggesting a potential Jewish rightward drift: an article in The Bulwark reported that major Jewish donors appear to be redirecting contributions toward the GOP, seemingly in response to Biden administration policies viewed as problematic on the Israel-Hamas conflict.
With Jewish voters being a crucially important demographic in swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania, even a modest Jewish shift to the GOP could profoundly impact the 2024 election outcome.
The post Steve Bannon: We Tried to Move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem on Trump’s Inauguration Day appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Newest ruling addresses exclusion of Catholic preschools from program
For at least the third time, the state of Colorado’s anti-Christian agenda has been cited – and condemned – by the federal courts.
The latest ruling said the state broke the law by excluding Catholic preschools from a universal preschool program – solely because those schools consider religious affiliate in making enrollment decisions.
It is the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that explained a federal court ruling cites the state’s illegal exclusion of those preschools from a program that funds 15 hours per week of free preschool to more than 40,000 families.
During its first year, it benefited families with children in private, public and faith-based preschools.
But leftist activists inside the state’s bureaucracy refused to authorize benefits to families who sent their children to St. Mary’s and St. Bernadette’s Catholic preschools because those institutions ask families to share their Catholic beliefs.
The court found, in its 101-page opinion, that the state’s discrimination “created an unworkable scheme that breaches the appropriate limits on state power.”
The court found the state had “no compelling interest” in its discriminatory policy.
“Last year, a different federal judge in Denver also issued a ruling against the state, in a case brought by a separate religious preschool raising similar claims,” Becket reported.
“Of course a Catholic school shouldn’t be punished for caring about its students’ religion,” explained Nick Reaves, a Becket lawyer. “Colorado richly deserves this injunction, as it did the earlier one.”
The schools explained the state’s discrimination violated the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment.
Integral to the state’s agenda is that it demands schools incorporate sexual orientation and gender identity ideologies into their programs. The state has plunged headfirst into that ideology since the election of homosexual Gov. Jared Polis.
The judge said, “The department has allowed faith-based providers to deny children and families equal opportunity based on their religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and has cited no compelling interest for permitting that discrimination while denying plaintiffs’ request for a related exemption. On that narrow basis, I conclude defendants have violated plaintiffs’ free-exercise rights and that judgment in favor of plaintiffs is warranted. I consequently grant Plaintiffs relief in the form of a limited permanent injunction, declaratory judgment, and nominal damages.”
It ruled, “The court immediately and permanently enjoins defendants Lisa Roy and Dawn Odean, acting in their official capacities on behalf of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, from requiring, as a condition for participation in the Colorado Universal Preschool Program, that the preschools operated by plaintiffs St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton and St. Bernadette Catholic Parish in Lakewood agreed to provide or provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of religious affiliation for as long as defendants allow exceptions from the religious affiliation aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement set out in [state law] and in the Colkorado Universial Preschool Program Service Agreement.
The defendants were ordered to pay $1 nominal damages.
The total hasn’t been announced, but Colorado taxpayers likely won’t get off so easily in the attacks on Christianity earlier, under the administration of Polis.
It recently lost the 303 Creative case at the U.S. Supreme Court.
There, state officials demanded that a Christian web designer follow the state’s anti-Christian “non-discrimination” mandate and promote events that violated the web designer’s faith.
A judge recently ruled that the state – the taxpayers – must pay the costs and fees for the plaintiff in that caser.
Such cases, by the time they are all the way through the high court, can accumulate tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dollars in lawyers’ time and costs.
The leftist state’s failed attack was on Lorie Smith and her 303 Creative company, through which she intended to create websites for couples being married.
However, the state demanded that should she begin that service, she also must provide the same services to same-sex duos, in violation of her Christian faith.
She sued for the First Amendment violation demanded by the state, and won.
The state earlier lost a similar battle with Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who challenged the state’s “non-discrimination” plan that also would require him to promote ideologies that violate his Christian faith.
In that case, the Supreme Court specifically cited Colorado’s “hostility” to Christianity under Polis.
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post State Scolded AGAIN for Violating Rights of Christians appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Ahmad Massoud
The Taliban seized power in Kabul almost three years ago, and the disasters are already considerable. The population is malnourished and even starving. The country has no government and is in a state of total anarchy.
Afghanistan has become a pariah state and a sanctuary for regional and international terrorism. The economy is in a catastrophic state, the healthcare system is deplorable, women are erased from public life, the education system is devalued, and girls’ education is reduced to nothing. Basically, gender and ethnic apartheid reign the country today.
Terrorists continue to commit crimes, murder, and stalk citizens in their homes. They even organized several attacks against me, all of which were fortunately thwarted thanks to our networks and trusted men.
These obscurantists from another era also plunder the properties of the people of Afghanistan, occupy houses, loot businesses in contempt of all local customs and principles, not to mention international law.
Ethnic cleansing operations have clearly taken place in Kabul, Daykundi, Takhar, Faryab, the Kandahar region, and the Andarab district. How many war crimes will have to be counted before the international community finally agrees to react?
The evidence is there, irrefutable, patiently collected and painstakingly verified. The risk that terrorism supported by the Taliban will spill over their borders and inspire other regional and international extremist groups has already started. History is full of lessons in this regard, which show that when a geographical base is established, when a movement obtains a vast territorial base, it creates emulators.
When Daesh seized Raqqa in Syria and then Mosul in Iraq in 2014, the terrorist organization attracted thousands of extremists from all over the world, including Western countries.
But hope remains. Hope for a better world, hope for a Muslim world free of the imposters who impose extremism and distort the true convictions and values of Islam. I am convinced that the aspirations of the people of Afghanistan for freedom, peace, and democracy will one day be realized. It is impossible for the yoke of terror and totalitarianism to prevail in the long term. History has demonstrated this on many occasions.
There is always a turning point in history when a dictatorship collapses, and this will soon be the case in Afghanistan. Our future can only be freedom in democracy and pluralism.
The people of Afghanistan and the international community now know that the Taliban’s exercise of power and their radical Islamism are in total contradiction with the teachings of Islam, and that they have distorted its holy precepts to nurture extremism.
Although over the last twenty years, the people of Afghanistan have undergone notable changes, particularly in education, the brutal policies applied by the Taliban terrorist group prove that they have changed neither their dogmas nor their objectives.
The Taliban’s determination to establish a regime based on an erroneous and abusive interpretation of Islam makes it impossible to establish an inclusive and democratic political system in Afghanistan’s diverse society. It is, in fact, a criminal syndicate, as I argued in my bachelor’s thesis, that hides its face behind a hypothetical intention to return to religion, while its aim is to confiscate power for its own benefit and secure its gains and privileges, including royalties from drug trafficking.
Opponents of their politico-religious line are massacred or at best thrown into prison, and ethnic, sectarian, and religious groups such as the Hazaras, Twelver and Ismaili Shias, Sikhs, and Hindus are in no way protected from attacks and bombings by the Taliban or their henchmen and extremist merchants. In fact, it is quite the contrary.
The attack on worshippers at the Sayed Abad mosque in Kunduz, at mosques in Kabul, Kandahar, and Balkh, and the massacre of Hazara children at the Kaaj school are all crimes committed by the Taliban against humanity.
Subjugation and the prohibition of rationality and critical thought are intrinsic to the Taliban ideological system. In this dark nebula, all Muslims are obliged to consider the hypothetical and self-proclaimed commander of the believers, the so-called supreme leader of the Taliban, as the shadow of God on Earth.
Whereas, as we have seen, the essential question is whether this terrorist group’s actions of imposing their demands on the citizens of Afghanistan are in line with the very essence of Muslim doctrine. Coercion is intended to conceal this gross deception.
Clearly, the exercise of domination and the sanctification of violence to ensure an oppressive order can only lead to tyranny, unlike a system based on the will of the people. And tyranny only serves to engender all manner of corruption and destruction within society.
Among the many benevolent theories and ideas that have been propounded to curb despotism throughout history, democracy is the only way to guarantee the legitimacy of a government by ensuring democratic rights, justice, and values. The Taliban condemn the democratic system all the more because they fear the electoral process and the verdict of the ballot box.
Hope is also the clandestine action of women, mothers, teachers. Braving many dangers, they meet, occasionally protest, defy the regime, organize secret meetings, and set up parallel education to provide a proper education for girls.
Despite the near certainty that the Ministry of the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice will intervene to disperse any gathering, Afghanistan’s women regularly take to the streets to protest against the restrictions imposed on freedoms. I admire their action all the more as most of these women have very little means and are often deprived of a job because of the prohibitions put in place by the Taliban’s iniquitous power.
The actions of our resistance forces and the civil society are converging. As every day passes our operations are increasing in precision and intensity. Many local Taliban commanders and repentant Taliban have joined the National Resistance Front.
Every link of the population is important, in urban as well as rural areas, and creates connections between the military and the civilian. Little by little, we forged relationships, even underground, with personalities from different ethnic and religious groups, women’s rights activists, civil society groups, human rights defenders, intellectuals, political figures, party leaders, and former parliamentarians.
The physiognomy of the resistance has thus completely changed in the space of a few months, with ramifications on the international scene.
Ahmad Massoud, an ethnic Tajik from Northern Afghanistan, is the leader of the National Resistance Front (NRF) of Afghanistan. Mr. Massoud is the son of the late anti-soviet and revolutionary commander, Ahmad Shah Massoud. Following the Taliban’s takeover on August 15, 2021, Ahmad created the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan to struggle for justice and freedom. According to NRF’s strategy, they are struggling for a democratic, decentralized and pluralistic Afghanistan where all citizens enjoy equal rights regardless of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, and gender.
His new book, The Name of My Father: Struggling for Freedom in Afghanistan, details his part in the resistance against the Taliban, his father’s assassination, Joe Biden’s foreign policy mistakes in Afghanistan, and what the future looks like for the country.
The post Combating Extremism and Terrorism, the Two Cancers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Susan Crabtree
Real Clear Wire
The political ground shifted in Texas last week, and the impact of the electoral shakeup could send aftershocks across the nation for months, if not years, to come.
A wave of Republican incumbents fell to conservative challengers in the Texas House in last week’s primary run-offs, turning an already red legislature crimson and threatening the state House GOP leader’s hold on power. Those who helped lead the intra-party Texas fight now have their sights set on defeating centrist Republicans in other red states, including Tennessee, Georgia, Idaho, and South Carolina.
A concerted joint effort by Gov. Greg Abbott, outside groups, and a deep-pocketed donor flipped the seats of 14 Republicans who had opposed Abbott’s school-choice measure – a state record.
Abbott’s effort to pass school choice died last fall when 21 House Republicans – mostly from rural districts – voted to strip a voucher program out of a larger education bill. Of those 21 voucher opponents, 15 now aren’t returning. The coalition defeated six GOP incumbents in March, then three more in last week’s run-offs. Additionally, the group filled four of the five retiring Republican seats with voucher supporters, and then a voucher backer won a special election run-off.
The leading factor in these Republicans’ historic defeats hasn’t been making the most national headlines or even the most local news. It’s unrelated to Abbott’s border fight with President Biden, state Attorney General Ken Paxton’s resentment over efforts to impeach him, or even widespread local protests over the state’s skyrocketing property taxes.
Those issues all played out in the election, but school choice was far and away the most lethal campaign issue across the Lone Star state. Its impact was especially potent considering the totality of political spending and blitz of advertisements focused on school vouchers and related issues dominating the Texas airwaves and inundating inboxes.
Abbott was determined to make good on his threats to boot anti-school voucher Republicans who have blocked his ambitious crusade to give parents taxpayer-funded options to educate their children outside public schools. After several challengers he backed won their run-offs last week, the governor declared victory and announced that the House “now has enough votes to pass school choice.”
“While we did not win every race we fought in, the overall message from this year’s primaries is clear: Texans want school choice,” said Abbott. “Opponents can no longer ignore the will of the people.”
House Speaker David Phelan, who supported the effort to scrap the school voucher language from the bill last fall, managed to eke out a run-off win by less than 400 votes. But that razor-thin victory likely dooms his chances of holding onto his leadership post next year.
On the national level, Abbott is best known for his immigration showdown with President Biden, which included the deployment of thousands of Texas Guard members to shut down the border and the decision to send busloads of illegal immigrants from the southern border to places like New York, Washington, D.C., and Texas.
Texans, however, are well aware that Abbott has made school vouchers his top priority, pouring more political capital into the vouchers than any other issue in his eight years in office. The sometimes-cautious governor campaigned for reelection on the issue in 2022 and made universal education saving accounts a central theme of his most recent State of the State addresses. The ESAs would use taxpayer funds to provide parents a voucher worth $10,500 a year per student to use at a private school.
The Texas legislature cannot vote on any bill until 60 days into its legislative session unless the governor declares the measure an “emergency item.” Abbott gave the voucher issue this expedited status. He held two special sessions devoted to passing the initiative, including the one last fall in which opponents, including Phelan, stripped it from a bill providing $6 billion in additional funds to Texas public schools. Those funds would have boosted teacher pay and other public school funding – key negotiating chips that still failed to attract enough supporters.
Heading into the fight, opponents were well aware that they could face consequences at the ballot box if they continued to oppose Abbott’s voucher language.
In response to a ballot question in 2022, 88% of GOP primary voters indicated that they support parents’ “right to select schools, whether public or private, for their children, and the funding should follow the student.” Another poll conducted by the University of Houston Hobby School of Public Affairs in January found that 66% of Republican primary voters said they would be less likely to vote for an incumbent who rejected school choice last year.
“[Abbott] made it very clear during the special session that there’s an easy way and a hard way,” Dave Carney, the governor’s longtime political strategist, told RealClearPolitics. “The hard way was we’ll pass it in 2025 with a new legislature. They were informed, well-warned.”
Carney said Abbott has done nearly 100 events on school choice so far this year, cutting television, cable, and digital ads and directing millions of digital impressions to targeted audiences. Abbott’s political action committee also paid for advocates to knock on 400,000 across the state.
Still, Abbott had some powerful help, what Carney describes as a seamless, collaborative effort.
“We’re not taking a victory lap yet, because we still have to get through the general election,” he added. “But we’re anticipating to pick up seats.”
Last fall’s voucher defeat attracted national groups with deep pockets, including the American Federation for Children, a national pro-school choice group, and the Club for Growth, a conservative anti-tax group. Along with Abbott’s PAC, the groups spent a combined $27 million to back pro-voucher challengers against incumbents.
A big portion of those funds came from Jeff Yass, a Pennsylvania billionaire and national Republican megadonor who strongly supports school vouchers. Worth nearly $30 billion, Yass is a co-founder and managing director of Susquehanna International Group, a Philadelphia-based trading and investment firm. The firm was an early investor in TikTok, which nearly doubled Yass’ net worth in the years since the pandemic when the app’s popularity soared.
Working with Trump’s education secretary, Betsy DeVos, a longtime proponent of helping parents subsidize private school tuition, Yass has spent tens of millions boosting the issue, channeling $23 million to the DeVos-backed American Federation for Children’s political action committees since 2021.
In December, Yass cut Abbott’s PAC a $6 million check, the largest single donation in Texas history. He’s also a multi-million dollar donor to the Club for Growth, which has long supported Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Chip Roy, who represents Austin and San Antonio.
The Club for Growth, through its School Freedom Fund, spent roughly $4 million in the Texas primary and $4 million more in the run-offs, including $1.5 million against Phelan. David McIntosh, the group’s president, credited Abbott with the leadership to take on his fellow Republicans, who blocked school-choice options for Texas’ 5.4 million public school students.
“I give Gov. Abbott a lot of kudos for his leadership,” McIntosh said in an interview. “Many Republican governors don’t want to take on sitting members of their own party and would not have done the same … that was a crucial factor in us being able to win.”
Early in the effort, McIntosh told his team that big victories in Texas would build momentum for similarly aggressive campaigns in other red states, including Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, and Indiana.
“Texas now shows that you can’t be a conservative Republican and oppose education freedom,” he said. “It’s now a marker for whether somebody is a genuine conservative or not. It’s going to be something the Club and our School Freedom Fund champion for years to come.”
McIntosh says the school choice initiatives align with the group’s conservative economic agenda because giving parents more alternatives to public school creates market pressure in the education system.
“That benefits the kids,” McIntosh said. “They get a better education, and it benefits the parents who have more control over the resources, and [it] takes the education bureaucracy out of the equation. Schools start operating like a business world, saying, ‘Who’s my customer?’ Right now, they don’t have that pressure.”
The American Federation for Children’s Victory Fund, another key group in the school-choice fight, spent $7 million on the Texas primary and run-offs alone – boosting Texas challengers’ campaigns and helping establish school choice as a GOP litmus test.
“The primary election results in Texas – the Lone Star earthquake – represent the single biggest movement in favor of school choice in modern history, a result that will prove life-changing for countless Texas families,” Tommy Schultz, the group’s CEO, told RCP. “Republicans lost the moment they chose loyalty to unions and corrupt establishment over students.”
Schultz said he and the coalition of school-choice proponents “anticipate that many other states will remember the Lone Star Earthquake ahead of their own primaries and legislative sessions.”
“If you’re a candidate or lawmaker who opposes school choice and freedom in education – you’re a target,” he added. “If you’re a champion for parents – we’ll be your shield.”
Some Texas insiders are already making comparisons to Colorado’s rapid transformation from a Republican-dominated state in the mid-2000s to a Democratic one over a four-year time frame. For years, progressives have touted their success in Colorado in turning a red state blue, an effort by Democratic politicians and outside groups taking advantage of new campaign finance laws and working with donors willing to commit unprecedented resources to promote progressive policies and win local races.
In a book titled, “The Blueprint: How Democrats Won Colorado,” the authors hailed the joint effort as a model for creating permanent Democratic majorities across the country.
Texas was already a solid red state before the school choice fight, but now its legislature has shifted even further to the right, undermining years-long Democratic efforts to cast it as trending purple based on its growing Latino population. Instead, t he school-choice coalition’s Texas successes have sparked a conversation over whether they’ve developed a “redprint” model that can help solidify permanent conservative majorities across the country.
Yet, Carney points out that Abbott isn’t the first governor to target GOP incumbents opposed to school vouchers. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds started the trend in 2022 when the Iowa legislature tried to pass school choice but failed by one vote. It was an election year, and Reynolds and school choice advocates challenged six school anti-school choice incumbent lawmakers. They unseated all nine and passed the measure during the next legislative session.
After the string of defeated GOP incumbents in Texas, other governors are already pledging a similar political litmus test. Late last week, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee vowed to vet future GOP primary candidates in the next election cycle to determine whether they support school choice, although he didn’t commit to working to defeat Republicans who oppose school choice.
“This year what I’m talking to candidates about is education freedom and choice for parents,” he told a local broadcast station late last week. “I want to know where new candidates stand on that issue because it’s so important to me, so you’ll see me talking to candidates.”
Earlier this year, Lee said he expected a school choice “revolution” to take place in Tennessee, but those hopes were dashed in March when a school-choice bill died in the state legislature. But given strong GOP voter support for the issue, the state Republican Party is poised to adopt a strongly worded pro-school-choice platform over the next few months, which will ratchet up the pressure on Republican legislators with a history of opposing voucher programs.
The Club for Growth and the American Federation for Children are monitoring Tennessee closely to see if Lee will follow in Reynolds’ and Abbott’s footsteps.
“It’s a hard decision for governors to make, and you hope you can persuade people to do the right thing, and you don’t have to take out incumbents, but I will have to see what they decide to do,” McIntosh said.
Yet, the most effective advocate for school choice wasn’t Abbott, Reynolds, or any other GOP governor or outside group, Carney argues. That honor, he says, goes to American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, who fought children’s return to public school during the COVID pandemic and used the global health crisis to extract union concessions for teachers, sparking a parent revolution in the process.
“Most families can’t afford to make that choice to give their kids a different option,” Carney remarked, decrying what he called the public education system’s “Praetorian Guard” who try to keep parents at bay while implementing “woke” programs and teaching methods while students’ test scores continue to plummet.
The post After Texas Win, School-Choice Groups Eye Other Red States appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest Post by Pro-life Leader Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life
Priests for Life is among the leading groups working nationally and on the state level on various abortion-related ballot initiatives that will or may be on the ballot this Fall in several states.
These initiatives, with some variations, attempt to claim something that Supreme Court jurisprudence of the last 50 years did not claim, namely, that abortion is a fundamental right subject to few, if any, restrictions.
The Supreme Court, under its numerous abortion decisions, always considered the abortion “right” subject to reasonable limitations. Even Roe vs. Wade stated, “[S]ome … argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.”
And Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992 introduced a novel, ambiguous “undue burden” standard regarding abortion laws. For all its ambiguity, what was perfectly clear was that abortion was not a “fundamental right.”
And the American people have agreed with limitations on abortion, for instance, regarding parental involvement, limits on abortion in the latter months of pregnancy, especially when the unborn can feel pain and survive an early delivery, health and safety regulations for abortion clinics, requirements that only doctors perform abortions, and limits on taxpayer funding of abortion.
The abortion ballot initiatives in several states this year seek, for the most part, to eliminate even the most reasonable restrictions and limitations, contrary to established state law and strong public opinion.
A second characteristic common to these initiatives is that they deprive American citizens of an honest, robust, participatory debate on abortion. These initiatives do not simply seek to create public policy on abortion. They seek to short-circuit the legislative process by putting the “right to abortion” into state Constitutions.
This cuts off debate. By means of a few lines of text that most voters will not even have read, much less debated and considered, a policy will be embedded in the state Constitution that will then prohibit any further laws from extending protection to children in the womb or to the mothers who undergo the abortion procedure.
New medical and scientific information that comes to the state legislatures regarding the nature and development of the baby in the womb, or the harmful effects of abortion on women’s health, will not even be able to be considered, much less become the motive for new legislation, because the Constitution will be saying “Hands off abortion policy – you can’t change it!”
Not a single state Constitution in our nation’s entire history has ever expressed a “right to abortion.” Why now?
The Supreme Court, in Dobbs, left it to the people and their elected representatives to shape abortion policy, recognizing that an issue on which Americans have such deeply-held and varied beliefs should enjoy wide-open and detailed debate and analysis, for which legislatures are much better equipped than courts. If supporters of abortion want unlimited abortion, the legislatures are open for business. Introduce a bill. Let there be hearings. Let it be debated and let there be a vote.
By contrast, these ballot initiatives try to rush a process that hamstrings legitimate and open legislative debates. The American people deserve better, especially for such a crucial life-and-death issue.
Priests for Life is working with state and national leaders to defeat these ballot initiatives wherever they are being introduced, and to help the American people understand their implications before it is too late.
Frank Pavone is national director of Priests for Life and the national pastoral director of Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries and the Silent No More Awareness Campaign. The books he has authored include Abolishing Abortion and Proclaiming the Message of Life.
The post Frank Pavone: How Abortion Ballot Initiatives Deprive the American People of a Robust Debate appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on Leo Hohmann’s Substack and was republished with permission.
The latest federal data from the Centers for Disease Control shows that the fertility rate among U.S. women plummeted to just 1.6 births per woman in 2023.
This is the lowest recorded birth rate since the U.S. government began keeping such statistics in the 1930s. But why? We’ll break it down.
The drop-off in fertility rates for white women fell some 3% from the previous year and stands even lower than the national average. The fertility rate is an estimate of the number of babies a woman would normally have in her lifetime. A rate of 2.1 births per woman is needed for a generation to replace itself. We are not even close to that. And all of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia are in similar free fall. India, the African nations and a few countries in the Middle East are pretty much the only ones experiencing growing populations.
While this catastrophic demographic trend has been in motion for decades in the U.S., the explanations for the fall in reproduction by the corporate media have mostly skirted the crucial factors driving the birth dearth.
In its coverage of the story, The Wall Street Journal’s Jennifer Calfas and Anthony DeBarros cited such factors as “women establishing fulfilling careers,” and that they have more access to contraception.
The most fertile child-bearing group – young women – are putting off motherhood because they are uncertain about the future and are “spending more of their income on homeownership, student debt and child care,” according to The Journal.
Even as Americans fail to replace themselves, the U.S. government has opened up its borders and invited illegal aliens from more than 100 nations to replace dead and dying Americans in the work force.
An article posted by The Burning Platform notes that the reasons The Journal and other commentators give to explain the decline in birth rates are the consequences of what took place in America and the Western world decades ago. Leftists had always wanted to break down and corrupt the traditional family.
According to the article: “A splintered and dysfunctional family structure would be less likely to act as bulwark against the leftist agenda of more government interventions into the private affairs of its citizens.”
One of the ways to accomplish this, the article states, was to get women out of the household and into the work force, as working and career women would have fewer opportunities to have children.
The feminist movement was more than just the attainment of “equal rights” for women. Its main objective was to lead women out of the home and away from their traditional roles as mothers and homemakers. The record drop in birth rates is evidence of how well this plan has worked.
And, as a result, look how much more empowered the government has become over the everyday lives of Americans.
I also would not dismiss the impact that toxic mRNA injections have had on fertility. There have been a few studies that suggest these jabs have had a negative effect on the reproductive organs of both men and women, but more work needs to be done in this area. One thing you can count for certain, you won’t find any government funding or Gates or Rockefeller funding of such studies. They are all on board the the eugenics program to wipe out billions of people and get the global population down to 1 or 2 billion, from the current 8 billion.
WHO expert James Roguski says that one of the major objectives of the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty and amended International Health Regulations is to fund Big Pharma’s vaccine gravy train with the tax dollars of citizens of wealthy countries. This will pay for new vaccine factories in poor countries, which had a much lower uptake of the Covid shots than we saw in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia. Now they need to even the score and inject more poor people living in Third World countries.
Henry Kissinger called for a depopulation of the Third World as far back as 1974 in The Kissinger Report.
Dennis Meadows, co-author of the Club of Rome-published book Limits to Growth, also let the cat out of the bag about the globalist elites’ plan for depopulation. Don’t forget the interview in which Meadows said, “I hope the depopulation will occur in a civil and peaceful way.”
This also explains the globalists’ anti-human climate agenda and the demonic thirst for World War III. It’s all part of the same overarching strategy to eliminate 70 percent or more of the world population.
To receive new posts and support Leo Hohmann’s work, consider becoming a paid subscriber if you aren’t yet at leohohmann.substack.com
The post Leo Hohmann: U.S. Birth Rate Hits New Record Low But Media Refuses to Address Core Reasons appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on JoeHoft.com and was republished with permission by The Gateway Pundit.
In July 2023, Renz writes:
The enemies of freedom are continuing by continuing gain-of-function work and pushing “vaccines” into other products such as food, items applied to the skin, and even aerosolizing them. This is because we have succeeded in waking so many people up to the dangers of the injections that no one is taking them. This also means we MUST double down on our work.
In November 2023, Renz shared:
As the freedom fight continues a lot of our work has moved into lawfare. We are filing and/or supporting strategic litigation, pushing legislation, and working incredibly hard to wake up a sleeping public. It’s working. Uptakes for the new boosters are at around 1.3% and that is a big deal. We also just submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding a J6 case and are working CBDC legislation, mRNA in food legislation, and election issues in multiple states.
Last week we were able to testify in Congress. The testimony was given in a hearing set by MTG and saw many heroic congresspeople attend – Matt Gaetz, Ron Johnson, Thomas Massie, Clay Higgins, and others. This hearing allowed us to ensure our elected officials heard, for the first time, new information about the DoD and CIA involvement in both the creation of COVID and the shots. We also shared additional information related to DMED, shedding, and explained that there are likely causes of action available to file suit directly against big pharma.
We desperately need resources at the moment. The fight for freedom is going well on all fronts but resources are very limited. We need as much help as possible to do everything possible before the 2024 election. We have learned that the same people that were behind COVID were behind the election fraud, CBDCs, and all the other issues we are facing. In a nation of 320+ million if we could find 100,000 to give $20 a month we could do a lot to free our country and change the world.
Next on May 24, about a week ago, Renz shared:
Attorney Tom Renz was sanctioned by Judge James Carr of the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, Toledo despite the fact that there was no evidence on record of wrongdoing and three day’s worth of evidence, including testimony from 6 other attorneys from around the country, that Renz’s work was good and proper. Judge Carr used his power in the court to request motions for sanctions and then moved forward despite the complete lack of evidence of any wrongdoing.
The stated basis of Carr’s actions was that the case was frivolous, and the proceedings were vexatiously multiplied. Not only did 6 licensed attorneys and Renz himself testify as to the validity of the case, the Sixth Circuit had previously accepted oral arguments on the case and, while the 6th ultimately ruled against Renz, they did agree in part with his position in the case. By rule the 6th Circuit will not grant oral arguments if they determine, “(1) the appeal is frivolous; (2) the dispositive issue or issues have been authoritatively decided; or (3) the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8019(b).”
In terms of vexatiously multiplying the proceedings the only actions in the case were filing a complaint and responding to a motion to dismiss. The appeal to the 6th Circuit cannot be considered multiplication of proceedings by law.
In this case, the Judge seemed bent on reaching a conclusion and ordering sanctions regardless of the facts. It may be fair to ask whether it is because a finding was issued on a complaint filed by Renz’s co-counsel in the case against Judge Carr. In the finding the 6th Circuit recognized that the Judge accepted an ex parte statement that was important (substantive) nature to the case from one of Governor Mike DeWine’s lawyers in another COVID case. So, again, it seems reasonable to ask whether the ruling in this case– based on no evidence – was retaliatory.
Renz is hoping to appeal this abysmal miscarriage of justice and ensure actual law is followed here. Please help us fight against another shady court and push for reform of the justice system so we can bring these cases effectively when disease X is released.
You can help Attorney Renz by donating to his Give Send Go account.
Americans need to support America’s strong, smart and righteous attorneys before the left puts them all in prison on fascist charges. Help Tom today!
The post ATTORNEY TOM RENZ: Another American Under Attack for Demanding the Truth appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Reprinted with permission from AbleChild and JoeHoft.com.
The tragic cases of the father in Miami who killed his daughter and the mother in Missouri who turned herself in after killing her two children last week highlight the devastating consequences of the government-backed mental health system embedded with the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industrial complex. The result of which is that no one seems to be getting better.
In fact, the data are never shared with the public about who is the treating psychiatrist or the name of the mind-altering drug or cocktail of drugs these killers have been prescribed.
Why? One would think government agencies would demand the stats of these deadly outcomes and use the information as a kind of measure. Knowing the prescribed psychiatric drugs, the killers were taking would be a first step in holding the court-appointed behavioral health vendors accountable.
Both individuals named above were engaged with their state family court systems and were known to have mental health conditions. Both had been suffering from mental disorders, and the Miami father had been prescribed psychiatric drugs as “treatment.”
Whether the Missouri mother had been prescribed a psychiatric drug is still unknown. The problem with the diagnosis is that it is not based in science and is purely subjective in nature.
Worse still, the psychotropic drug “treatments” have lists of possible dangerous and deadly side effects, including mania, psychosis, abnormal behavior, suicidality and even homicidally. Federal and state agencies have received billions of dollars to provide mental health services in the form of psychiatric “experts” within custody cases.
In Miami, Jeronimo Duran, a father under the influence of psychiatric medication, took the life of his two-year-old daughter. Despite being under the care of mental health professionals, the details of his treatment, including the specific drugs prescribed and the psychiatrist responsible, remain undisclosed to the public.
In Missouri, Ashley Parmeley, a 36-year-old mother, confessed to fatally shooting her 9-year-old daughter and drowning her 2-year-old son. Parmeley, who had a known mental health condition, walked into the Festus police station in a disheveled state, admitting to her horrific actions.
Court authorities were aware of both suspects’ mental health struggles, yet the system failed to prevent these heartbreaking outcomes. Why? Are the behavioral health “experts” of the court unaware of the possible serious adverse events associated with psychiatric drugs? Hardly. Is it possible that the push by the psycho/pharmaceutical industry far exceeds the need to err on the side of caution?
Are behavioral health contracts too lucrative? Too many of these tragic cases are occurring on a weekly basis and they raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of government-backed mental health services and the behavioral health industry.
Despite significant investments in mental health treatments, nobody seems to be getting better and the more money shoved at the mental health industry, the greater the mental health crises and increased devastating consequences for families and communities.
The lack of transparency surrounding the specific medications and treating psychiatrists involved in these cases is deeply troubling. The public has a right to know the details of the treatment provided, as these professionals and institutions are entrusted with the care and well-being of individuals struggling with mental health issues.
Courts often rely on the expertise of mental health professionals in making critical decisions, yet these tragic events call into question the reliability and accountability of the system.
It is imperative that we reevaluate the practices and protocols in place to ensure that individuals receive the appropriate care and support they need, and that public safety is prioritized.
The failures in these cases have had catastrophic outcomes, and they serve as a wake-up call for the urgent need to reform and replace mental health services. Families, communities, and society deserve better protection and assurance that the systems in place are truly equipped to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.
It is long past time to provide the public with mental health information of those accused of violent crimes. Who is the treating psychiatrist and what is the psychiatric drug “treatment?” Only with that information in hand can the public start to understand that despite enormous increases in psychiatric drugging, no one is getting better, and violent, murderous behavior is increasing.
Every dollar you give is a powerful statement, a resounding declaration that the struggles of these families will no longer be ignored. Your generosity today will echo through generations, ensuring that the rights and well-being of children are fiercely guarded.
Don’t let another family navigate this journey alone. Donate now and join us in creating a world where every child’s mind is nurtured, respected, and given the opportunity to thrive. As a 501(c)3 organization, your donation to AbleChild is not only an investment in the well-being of vulnerable children but also a tax-deductible contribution to a cause that transcends individual lives.
The post Murders in Miami and Missouri Highlight the Need for Sunshine on Psychiatric “Treatments” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
‘This is the stuff that happens in mob movies’
A wrinkle suddenly has appeared in a federal case in Minnesota in which the federal government alleges seven defendants stole millions of dollars of COVID aid funds – intended for the federal Child Nutrition Program through the Feeding Our Future charity — and bought cars, homes and vacations.
Delivered to the home of one juror hearing evidence was a bag containing $120,000 in cash.
Along with instructions to vote for acquittal.
The result was that all seven of the defendants were re-arrested, the courthouse where the trial was taking place was locked down, and more.
A report in the Post-Millennial explains that the seven are “part of a larger case that has seen 70 charged with stealing a total of $250 million in COVID aid.”
“They allegedly delivered few, if any, meals,” the report said.
The wrinkle happened over the weekend when juror No. 52 arrived home “to find that someone had dropped off a gift bag containing $120,000 in cash with a promise of ‘more’ if she moved to find the defendants in the case not guilty.”
The 23-year-old opted to call law enforcement immediately, the report said.
“As a result, all seven defendants accused of using a charity to steal $41 million in federal aid meant to go towards feeding children in need were re-arrested at the request of United States Assistant Attorney Joe Thompson,” the report said.
The juror was released from the panel and the remaining members were sequestered to prevent further attempts to tamper with justice.
The report explained the juror got home, and was told by her father-in-law a woman “possibly Somali,” with an accent gave him the gift bag for delivery to the juror, “whose real name she knew.”
“An affidavit stated, ‘The woman told the relative to tell Juror #52 to say not guilty tomorrow and there would be more of that present tomorrow,'” the report said.
The cash was turned over to the FBI, which was joined by the Spring Lake Park police department in its investigation.
The report said the defendants were arrested, had their phones confiscated and were ordered not to leave the courthouse, and the rest of Monday’s proceedings continued.
The jurors then started deliberating.
“This is the stuff that happens in mob movies,” attorney Joe Thompson said.
Commentator Charlie Kirk explained, “The defense, meanwhile, is hiring college professors to lecture that scamming the government and sending suitcases full of cash abroad is a part of Somali culture, and trying to stop them is of course ‘racist.'”
During Covid, the federal government doled out money to provide free meals to children. It was Covid, so the government decided to abandon any pretense of preventing fraud — and plenty of people noticed immediately.
In Minnesota, members of the Somali community built one of the…
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) June 4, 2024
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Juror Handed Huge Bag of Cash to Say COVID-Fraud Suspects Are Innocent appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Newt Gingrich
Real Clear Wire
Americans are now being forced to think through the first fake conviction in the history of presidential politics.
As an historian, I am really bothered when I hear lawyers on television describe these proceedings as though they were somehow related to the rule of law and the normal legal process.
It is clear that what happened to President Donald J. Trump in Judge Juan Merchan’s court was not a legitimate conviction. Nearly every element of the prosecution was false. Therefore, the outcome is false.
To say President Trump is now a convicted felon – as the left and its propaganda media allies are practically singing – is to legitimize the most corrupt judicial event in American presidential history.
The burden of proof is not on President Trump. He remains an innocent citizen framed by an astonishingly corrupt district attorney, judge, and Biden Justice Department.
Don’t take my word for it alone. Consider what a host of experts have to say.
Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard, sat through much of the trial and condemned it with strong language in his newsletter:
“I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France, Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.
But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday.
“The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn.”
George Washington Law professor and legal analyst Jonathan Turley said, “Before jurors left, however, Judge Juan Merchan framed their deliberations in a way that seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt.”
Attorney Mike Davis on the Just the News “No Noise” TV show said: “I would say the first one is there is no crime here. They waited until after this multi-week trial to even tell the criminal defendant what the legal allegations he was supposed to defend himself in that prior trial. He had no opportunity to defend himself.”
An innocent citizen being “hunted,” in Turley’s language, cannot be honestly convicted. That is why I argue this is a fake conviction.
Again, I’m not the only one who thinks this.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is hardly a fan of President Trump, said, “These charges never should have been brought in the first place. I expect the conviction to be overturned on appeal.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson called it “a shameful day in American history,” and continued, “Alvin Bragg targeted a political opponent, made up unprecedented charges, and denied him his Constitutional right to a fair trial.”
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik summarized the corruption and dishonesty brilliantly:
“The facts are clear: this was a zombie case illegally brought forward by a corrupt prosecutor doing Joe Biden’s political bidding in a desperate attempt to save Joe Biden’s failing campaign.
She pointed out that the case hinged on the word of Michael Cohen, who has a history of perjury and an axe to grind with Trump. She pointed out that Judge Merchan’s own family members benefited financially from the case, that he levied unconstitutional gag orders on Trump, and repeatedly sided with the prosecution throughout the case.
Mark Steyn captured why we must insist that the conviction is fake and reject any effort to suggest that Trump is guilty. As Steyn wrote: “pretending that there is anything ‘great’ about this that should command our ‘respect,’ is making evil and corruption respectable and bi-partisan.”
Ironically, in a Senate hearing involving smears and sexually salacious accusations chaired by then-Sen. Joe Biden 33 years ago, we were taught how to stand up to outrageous, corrupt, and disgusting behavior by then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas.
After being repeatedly slandered by senators on Biden’s committee, on Oct. 11, 1991, Thomas said:
“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”
A generation later, President Trump, is learning what Justice Thomas learned in 1991: Challenge the establishment, and it will go all out to destroy you.
Every time you talk with someone who says President Trump is a convicted felon, point out it is a fake conviction. Challenge them to defend the dishonest, corrupt people who are putting the nation through this mess – starting with President Biden, the leader of the corrupt and dishonest.
For more commentary from Newt Gingrich, visit Gingrich360.com. Also subscribe to the Newt’s World podcast.
The post Newt Gingrich: The Fake Conviction appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by John D. O’Connor
The Washington Post’s pompously pretentious masthead daily proclaims: “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” as if its stellar journalism will protect us all from those who cover up the truth. But as we have seen from the recent Trump verdict, the Post’s Watergate-style journalism is being used to promote falsehood and degrade those who would help our country.
The trial just concluded of a former President featured the admission of irrelevant, highly prejudicial and deceptive hearsay, such as Michael Cohen’s sham guilty plea to election crimes, while highly pertinent expert testimony, rejecting any campaign violation, was prohibited. The slanted jury instructions virtually directed the jury to find guilt. Yet mainstream media gave little clue of any of the foregoing.
What does Watergate journalism have to do with this? Fifty years after Nixon resigned in disgrace, the Washington Post is still dining out on causing a theretofore popular President’s downfall. As it did with Nixon, the paper has been telling the world for the past nine years that Trump should be the next to be impeached or voted down, because he is a threat to democracy, as evidenced by his claimed lies. With Trump’s recent conviction, the Post is putting these attacks on steroids, pretending he received a fair trial. He did not.
Examination of its Watergate reporting proves that the paper has been for over five decades perpetrating lies, first falsely accusing the likes of Nixon, and now Trump, among others. These two, with their easily villainized personas, have proven easiest to convict in the court of public opinion. One seemed characteristically sneaky, complete with a five o’clock shadow, while the other bloviates and blusters, caricatured with an orange, gravity-defying combover. Anyone who watches television knows that these are two bad guys who should be exposed within forty-four minutes, an irrational, sophomoric impression promoted by this self-proclaimed intellectual powerhouse paper.
What the paper is now trying to do to Trump, it successfully did to Nixon. A President overwhelmingly re-elected by a landslide of 49 states in 1972, was “proven” by the Post to have won in part by a massive criminal conspiracy, thus delegitimizing what seemed theretofore to have been a fair, democratically achieved victory. Of course, if Nixon were “convicted” in the court of public opinion by a journalistic fraud, wouldn’t this deception epitomize the true danger to democracy?
In fact, that is precisely what happened to the cartoonishly skulking Nixon, brought down by two seemingly clean-cut, sleeves-rolled-up reporters, who in fact concealed highly pertinent exculpatory information from the public, facts of which even Nixon’s Oval Office team was unaware.
To this day, the Washington Post still claims, dishonestly, that the Watergate burglary, ridiculously silly though it seemed, was a campaign operation by a President who was irrationally afraid to lose and could not play fair. However, the burglary, the Post had known, but will not admit, was not a campaign operation at all.
While the paper repeatedly told the public that the CIA was falsely spotlighted by Nixon as somehow being involved, the Post knew, more so than the speculating President, that the CIA was indeed behind the burglary. The burglary’s moneyman, Gordon Liddy, years later claimed he had been duped and that the prior wiretapping and subsequent bungled burglary were about prostitution. In the face of the crazed but honest Liddy’s late-blooming accusation in the 1990s, the Post adamantly, but falsely, assured its readers that this caper had not been about prostitution.
While in fact the Post’s gold-plated source “Deep Throat”, FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, had originally hypothesized that the burglary may have been part of a White House “dirty tricks” campaign, that hypothesis was ultimately disproved. But the paper continued to tout it as proven, even though Felt later told Woodward, in the tense May, 1973, garage meeting, that the CIA was threatening murder to keep its involvement concealed.
Did the Post print this dramatically revealed fact? It printed not a word at the time, doing so only later, and at that elliptically, in the book and the movie, to provide sensationalism, while continuing to absolve the CIA, an absolution it knew to be false.
The Post had far more knowledge of what really happened than did Nixon’s Oval Office, which remained befuddled about who ordered the burglary and why. The Post knows that falsely accused former Attorney General John Mitchell did not order the burglary but has not reported on the logical implication of the paper’s prior incorrect reporting.
I wrote a recent book about this journalistic coverup, thinking, naively it turns out, that the Post would give the public its best defense of these charges, which it would have done if it had acted in good faith during the scandal. But it kept mum. Isn’t this an example of democracy dying “in darkness”?
Now to Trump, who, like Nixon, pursued popular, successful policies. Putting aside the question of election irregularities, which Trump complains prevented a narrow 2020 victory, the far greater harm to Trump came from a series of knowingly false anti-Trump accusations which the Post, together with other outlets, reported, while covering up strong contrary evidence, well before the farcical trial just completed.
The Post and other media acolytes knew, for example, that the anti-Trump “Russian collusion” claims were most likely false, and in fact participated through one of its reporters in the entrapment of one Trump official, General Michael Flynn, the only aide who could have easily punctured this jejune “Russiagate” narrative.
Did the Post know that Christopher Steele was in fact a regular retainer of Putin friend, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska? And that Steele’s employer Glenn Simpson represented oligarch Denis Katsyv’s and Putin’s interests in trying to undo the Putin-despised Magnitsky Act? It knew or easily could have known these facts but covered them up. Or that Hillary Clinton and Jake Sullivan had created this story out of whole cloth?
It also concealed that the newly-elected Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky had been supported by the country’s most corrupt oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, represented by Hunter Biden, meaning that further foreign aid should be premised on a new anti-corruption certification, as per State Department requirements. By concealing these pertinent facts, the paper dishonestly covered up a valid basis for Trump’s demands to investigate Biden corruption. Today, we are finally realizing that much of our foreign aid to the war-torn country has been stolen. Had the paper been honest, Ukraine might have a much better chance of victory over Russia. But impeaching the hated Trump was higher on the Post’s partisan agenda.
Of course, the Post and its bedfellows knew that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not “Russian disinformation” but covered up the story, causing Trump’s narrow loss. It knew shortly after the COVID pandemic hit that there were two successive “CGG” sequences in the virus, proving it had been developed in a lab, but adamantly advocated against the lab leak theory. Why? Because that would likely have helped Trump and hurt Anthony Fauci, thereby damaging Biden. Instead, the paper suggested that Trump was trying to falsely blame the pandemic on China and Dr. Fauci’s covert contract to fund the lab through the Obama Administration.
While the Post was engaged in covering up the truth about COVID, it made sure to sensationally keep a list of 30,573 lies Trump had allegedly told. One Post claim about Trump, comprising hundreds of separate alleged falsehoods, was that the President lied when he claimed he was building a “wall” along the Mexican border. This, the Post absurdly claimed through its intrepid lie-tracking department, was in fact a “bollard-styled fence,” not a wall! I’m not making this up. Now, in the face of a grossly unfair trial, the Post gives the false impression that Trump actually committed a felony, as opposed to being the victim of a kangaroo court.
In light of the above, who is it that is trying to see to it that our “democracy dies in darkness?” The answer is that it is not politicians who put their best foot forward, as every politician does. It is a media who, like the ancient Pharisees, stand in front of the temple to thank God that they are not sinful like other men. So, if in fact our democracy is dying in darkness, and there is strong evidence of that, exactly who are the parties attempting to kill it?
John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the books Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism and The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened.
The post Watergate-Style Journalism: The Biggest Threat to Our Democracy appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Paul Drabik
The fight for Border Security started long before the pivotal Presidential election of 2024. Tom Homan is the former Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the Trump administration. Homan and his new non-profit, Border911, will be in Chicago on June 12th 2024.
Border911 is teaming up with Behind Enemy Lines podcast hosts Terry Newsome and Paul Drabik to bring awareness to the border security crisis. At 115 Bourbon Street in Chicago, Homan will be joined by Sarah Carter, Derek Maltz, Jaeson Jones, Rodney Scott, and Victor Avila. Doors will open at 6 pm. The group will discuss the impact of the wide open border and what will be done under a Trump administration to reverse the damage done by Joe Biden.
Bringing a wealth of experience to the subject, Homan has served the government across multiple administrations. Homan has repeatedly pointed out the failings of the Biden administration by noting that he directed ICE during the Trump Administration which presided over the most secure border of his service history. The implication is that a secure border is possible. It has been suggested that the current crisis is being deliberately manufactured.
Illegal immigration has become anathema to the citizens of a country where Joe Biden has put non-citizen priorities ahead of those who unwillingly fund such priorities via tax increases. For example, Illinois legislators have recently passed a new $53 billion budget which will help fund the care for illegal immigrants. According to Illinois Policy, the record setting spending bill will include $1.1 billion in new taxes. Of those new taxes the bulk will be allocated to the “human services” category. The majority – $182 million – will be applied to “emergency funding” to service migrants coming to Chicago.
In stride with New York and Biden administration policy, Chicago has become notorious for harboring illegals and prioritizing them ahead of its own citizens. In January, Behind Enemy Lines interviewed homeless people enduring freezing temperatures in Chicago. The irony of their plight was juxtaposed against the backdrop of illegal immigrants housed in hotels and facilities across the very same city.
Chicago has also been notorious for the steady increase in violent crime over the years. The introduction of the Safe-T Act in 2022 ushered in a cashless bail system resulting in a surge in crime. Chicago saw the rate of violent crime climb to its highest level in a decade in 2023. Concurrently, arrests were down year over year. Given that detail, it would not seem prudent to import violent crime from an unknown and unvetted population of non-citizens. Yet, that is precisely what Chicago and greater Illinois has done.
Gateway Pundit has previously reported on bombshell FOIA findings in Chicago migrant facilities. Terry Newsome of Behind Enemy Lines requested details from both the Inn of Chicago and Pilsen facilities. The shocking responses revealed myriad violent crimes including: battery, assault, burglary, criminal sexual abuse, child abuse and multiple stabbings. In a May 5th article Gateway Pundit reported that human trafficking evidence was found on a migrant’s cell phone. In that instance the most concerning aspect was that the phone appeared to be a unique model made by the company named Vortex. Coincidentally, Vortex phones are part of a program funded by the government for assistance programs.
As the Democrat National Convention approaches, Chicago finds itself in a state of chaos. Certainly throwing money at the problem will help. However, Chicago is hosting, and August 19th is rapidly approaching. Mayor Brandon Johnson needs to make a good showing but the disapproval amongst citizens, particularly in minority communities, is resulting in mounting pressure. Recently, Johnson was rebuked by City Council after an attempt to oust ShotSpotter. The company offers technology around the city that detects gunshots. With the increase in violence and the preferential treatment of non-citizens the protests are sure to be lively during the convention.
Logic would suggest that an open border and a lack of vetting illegal immigrants would invite crime and national security concerns. It follows, with an increase of more than 10 million human beings flowing into cities, the flow of dollars out of the pocket of tax paying Americans will need to increase exponentially. With the Democrat Party and Joe Biden’s rapid decline in the polls, the political persecution of Donald Trump, the import of violent crime through the border, and the distrust of the National Security apparatus, Tom Homan and Border911 present a welcome message of reform. Tune into Behind Enemy Lines on June 12th to hear more about a promising future of border security and immigration in the United States.
The post Tom Homan, Sara Carter, Victor Avila, and Border 911 Will Hold Event with BEHIND ENEMY LINES Founders in Chicago on June 12th appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Lee County Republican Assembly, which is a grassroots conservative Republican organization, passed a resolution introduced by Joseph Sansone, declaring the UN, WHO, and WEF, terrorist organizations.
The resolution additionally brands cooperation with these organizations as an act of treason against the United States and the State of Florida. Unfortunately, the Executive Board of the Lee County Republican Party refused to allow the declaration to come up for a vote by the full Executive Committee, which would have likely passed the resolution as well.
The resolution passed by the Lee County Republican Assembly calls on the Florida Legislature and Governor to pass legislation declaring cooperation with the United Nations, World Health Organization, and World Economic Forum, an act of treason against the United States, and the State of Florida.
The full text of the resolution follows:
Whereas the United Nations, the World Health Organizations, and the World Economic Forum are terrorist organizations seeking to depopulate humanity, and to usurp the sovereignty of the United States and the State of Florida; and
Whereas the World Health Organization, World Economic Forum, and the United Nations are actively involved in a global coup; and
Whereas this coup is attempting utilize the Federal government and State Governments to implement United Nations, World Health Organization, and World Economic Forum policies; and
Whereas legitimate international treaties have no jurisdiction over domestic policies;
Be it Resolved:
The Lee County Republican Assembly calls upon Governor DeSantis and the Florida legislature to pass legislation declaring cooperation with the United Nations, World Health Organization, and World Economic Forum, an act of treason against the United States, and the State of Florida.
We also call for legislation specifically stating:
“No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Florida or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity.”
Please contact your state legislators and ask them to enact this legislation.
You can read more here.
The post UN, WHO, and WEF Have Just Been Declared Terrorist Organizations By a Republican County Assembly in Florida appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Newt Gingrich & Jim Frogue
Real Clear Wire
President Joe Biden’s full-frontal assault on Medicare is becoming visible to America’s seniors. It will result in fewer patient choices, reduced benefits, and ultimately worse health outcomes. Biden’s efforts, assisted by Congressional Democrats, are destroying Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage.
Medicare Advantage was originally created as Medicare Part C in 1997 when I was Speaker of the House. It was introduced to create more comprehensive health plan options for seniors that included, for the first time, prescription drug coverage. The idea was to leverage consumer choice and market competition by insurers. Seniors can change plans annually for any reason.
More than 30 million seniors are in Medicare Advantage, which is more than half of all Medicare-eligible seniors. Enrollment has been on a “steady climb for the for past two decades,” according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. All MA enrollees have voluntarily chosen to join because it is better for their health.
A 2021 poll by Better Medicare Alliance showed seniors in MA have a 98 percent satisfaction rate. Ninety-five percent said it is important to have options beyond traditional Medicare. Ninety-three percent said a candidate’s position on MA would affect their vote. A bipartisan poll by the Healthcare Leadership Council in November, 2023 found more than 9-in-10 said they were pleased with their MA coverage.
Last week, CVS Aetna Chief Financial Officer Tom Cowhey told investors that the company may shed up to 10 percent of their four million MA enrollees next year. Humana CFO Susan Diamond suggested 5 percent of their enrollees may be dropped. This translates into as many as 1.5 million seniors losing their coverage of choice. And this figure is dwarfed by the millions of MA beneficiaries who will see reduced coverage around prescription drugs, vision, dental, transportation, gym memberships, and many other popular benefits that are only offered in Medicare Advantage.
A new report by the Kaiser Family Foundation noted that most states offer Medicare Advantage plans to their state retirees. Twelve states, including key swing states Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia, offer only Medicare Advantage plans. Senior voters in Philadelphia’s Main Line are unlikely to appreciate attacks on Medicare Advantage.
Biden’s war on Medicare doesn’t end with just Medicare Advantage. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act – passed in 2022 with exclusively Democratic votes and was signed into law by President Biden – is wrecking the popular Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage.
Medicare Part D was created by Congressional Republicans in 2003 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. For nearly two decades, Part D prescription drug-only plans were stable, affordable, competitive, and did something truly amazing for a health care program – stayed within original budget projections. To the surprise of even the bill’s authors, more than 1,000 plans signed up to participate within a year.
The Democrats promised that their Inflation Reduction Act would increase drug coverage for seniors and limit their out-of-pocket costs to $2,000 per year in 2025. It also allows seniors to pay their drug costs in installments. Sounds great. But seniors will be shocked on Oct. 1 when their Part D premiums skyrocket. Premiums were up 21percent last year and are likely to jump 50 percent this year. Awkward timing for Biden and fellow Democrats who are hoping to campaign on “lowering prescription drug costs.”
The Inflation Reduction Act is negatively impacting patient cost-sharing for prescription drugs in Medicare Part B as well. According to a new analysis in the trade publication Drug Channels, the inflation adjuster for most drugs is increasing instead of decreasing. Even instances where a drug price may be declining, it could still trigger big jumps in patient out-of-pocket costs.
IRA proponents boasted of their Medicare reforms saving $266 billion from 2023 to 2031. Even if that projection ends up holding true (and it doesn’t look likely), that amount is only a partial down payment on $670 billion for the IRA’s various green energy tax credits and new environmental spending.
How well is the Biden administration’s green energy spending going? The $7.5 billion in federal spending has resulted in only eight new charging stations for electric vehicles. And this at the same time consumer interest in electric cars is plummeting.
It is well known that the political left in America wants to move us toward government-run single payer health care. Imagine just one insurer and if you don’t like it you can’t leave. So, it is no surprise that Democrats would want to destroy the private sector’s involvement in Medicare, no matter how popular with seniors. But it is somewhat surprising that Democrats would be so politically obtuse to have smoking wreckage appear just before the presidential election. It remains to be seen if Republicans will capitalize.
Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999 and a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He is chairman of Gingrich 360. James Frogue was a senior health policy advisor to Trump for President in 2016. He is cofounder of FrogueClark .
The post Biden’s War on Medicare appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Had been demanding details about ‘internal communications and records’
The top law enforcement agent in Washington state, the attorney general, has called a halt to his own extremist campaign against two faith-based, pro-life nonprofits after being told his “investigation” was illegal.
Officials with ADF explain that AG Bob Ferguson had been demanding privileged records and international documents from Obria Group and Obria Medical Clinics.
He had singled them out for targeting because he disagreed with their “life-affirming views,” the organization explained.
“No one should be investigated by the government simply because they hold views the government doesn’t like. We’re pleased Washington’s attorney general has ceased his unlawful investigation into our clients, and that Obria Group and Obria Medical Clinics PNW will be free to continue their life-saving work in the community,” explained Lincoln Wilson, a lawyer with ADF.
“We look forward to a ruling from the court confirming that the attorney general unlawfully targeted and harassed these clinics because of their pro-life stance. The Constitution protects Obria medical clinics, and all other pro-life organizations, to freely speak their beliefs, exercise their faith, and continue compassionately serving women and couples facing difficult pregnancy circumstances,” he said.
ADF had brought a lawsuit against Ferguson, prompting him to shut down his review.
Ferguson previously had claimed that he wasn’t harming the clinics.
However, the ADF report revealed, “one of the clinics showed that Ferguson’s investigation caused it to lose insurance coverage and to pay seven times more for replacement coverage.”
That prompted Ferguson to formally close his investigation.
His demands had included that the organizations provide documentation, “for a time period exceeding 13 years,” as well as answers to various questions for Ferguson’s investigation into “possible” consumer protection violations.
The broadside against the organizations was just part of what appears to be a nationwide move to bludgeon pro-life centers.
Attorneys general from New Jersey and California also have created controversy because of their lawsuits against pro-lifers.
They claim that the centers are “misleading” women about abortion.
Earlier, the ADF’s Gabriella McIntyre told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We’re seeing this as part of a larger trend of hostility towards pro-life organizations and particularly towards pro-life pregnancy centers across the nation.
“These attorneys general are targeting and harassing pregnancy centers, because of their religious and pro-life views. They are using their consumer protection authority to accomplish their purpose, which is clearly to divert and impede the mission of these organizations to serve women and families, and instead shift their focus to complying with these unfounded and unjustified demands.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post State AG Ends Campaign Against Pro-Life Centers After Being Told It Was Illegal appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Please Note: The Gateway Pundit is one of five plaintiffs along with the states of Missouri and Louisiana in the Murthy vs. Missouri case noted below.
We expect the Supreme Court to decide on the case later this month.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Ben Weingarten, RealClearInvestigations
May 31, 2024
This summer the Supreme Court will rule on a case involving what a district court called perhaps “the most massive attack against free speech” ever inflicted on the American people. In Murthy v. Missouri, plaintiffs ranging from the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana to epidemiologists from Harvard and Stanford allege that the federal government violated the First Amendment by working with outside groups and social media platforms to surveil, flag, and quash dissenting speech – characterizing it as mis-, dis- and mal-information – on issues ranging from COVID-19 to election integrity.
The case has helped shine a light on a sprawling network of government agencies and connected NGOs that critics describe as a censorship industrial complex. That the U.S. government might aggressively clamp down on protected speech, and, certainly at the scale of millions of social media posts, may constitute a recent development. Reporting by RCI and other outlets – including Racket News’ new “Censorship Files” series, and continuing installments of the “Twitter Files” series to which it, Public, and others have contributed – and congressional probes continue to reveal the substantial breadth and depth of contemporary efforts to quell speech that authorities deem dangerous. But the roots of what some have dubbed the censorship industrial complex stretch back decades, born of an alliance between government, business, and academia that Democrat Sen. William Fulbright termed the “military-industrial-academic-complex” – building on President Eisenhower’s formulation – in a 1967 speech.
RCI reviewed public records and court documents and interviewed experts to trace the origins and evolution of the government’s allegedly unconstitutional censorship efforts. It is a rich history that includes the battles to defeat America’s adversaries in World War II and the Cold War; the development of Silicon Valley; the post-9/11 War on Terror; the Obama administration’s transition to targeting domestic violent extremism broadly; and the rise of Donald Trump.
If there is one ever-present player in this saga, it is the storied institution of Stanford University. Its idyllic campus has served as the setting over the last 70-plus years for a pivotal public-private partnership linking academia, business, and the national security apparatus. Stanford’s central place, particularly in developing technologies to thwart the Soviet Union during the Cold War, would persist and evolve through the decades, leading to the creation of an entity called the Stanford Internet Observatory that would serve as the chief cutout – in critics’ eyes – for government-driven censorship in defense of “democracy” during the 2020 election and beyond.
Although it bears the name of the railroad magnate who founded the school in 1885, Leland Stanford, the powerhouse university we know of today, represents the vision of another man, Frederick Terman.
The son of a Stanford psychology professor, Terman began his tenure at the campus where he was reared teaching electrical engineering during the 1920s and 1930s. He also harbored ambitions to turn the university and its surrounding area into a major high-tech hub to rival that of MIT on the East Coast.
Like his MIT colleagues, Terman was also deeply connected to the government’s budding national security apparatus. During World War II he was tabbed to head Harvard’s Radio Research laboratory, established by the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development to develop countermeasures against enemy radars. Through its good work, the lab would save an estimated 800 Allied bomber aircrafts.
Returning to Stanford with the insights and contacts he had developed during the war, Terman took over as the dean of the engineering school in 1946 determined to implement an ambitious plan: to use government funding to erect “steeples of excellence” in critical disciplines that would continually attract new investments in a virtuous cycle that would raise Stanford to preeminence among research institutions.
Terman would win Pentagon contracts to help fund Stanford’s Electronics Research Laboratory and the Applied Electronics Laboratory, which included work on classified military programs, bringing Stanford firmly into the military-industrial-academic complex fold. Additional labs – some engaged in basic or theoretical research, and others applied research – followed, deepening the school’s ties to the national security state during the Cold War.
While reportedly advising every major branch of the military, Terman cultivated ties with private industry. He encouraged graduates to start firms in nearby communities that would come to be known as Silicon Valley, and urged professors to consult.
In 1951, Terman helped establish the Stanford Industrial Park, a high-tech cooperative on university land that would attract electronics firms and defense contractors – the first such university-owned industrial park in the world. Its tenants would include among others Hewlett-Packard, GE, Eastman Kodak, and a host of other notables, later including the likes of Facebook and Tesla. Lockheed Martinwould relocate its Missiles Systems Division to Silicon Valley in 1956 and go on to serve as the largest industrial employer in Silicon Valley during the Cold War.
Under Terman’s leadership, first as engineering school dean and then as provost, Stanford and the firms it helped incubate and attract generated advances in everything from microwave electronics and electronic warfare, to missiles and satellites, and semiconductors and computers – meeting the demands of military and civilian consumers alike.
Stuart Leslie, author of “The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial Complex at MIT and Stanford,” wrote that “[b]y nearly every measure” Terman achieved his goal of challenging “MIT for leadership” in the sciences. The relationship Terman fostered between the feds and Silicon Valley companies would be responsible for producing “all of the United States Navy’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, the bulk of its reconnaissance satellites and tracking systems, and a wide range of microelectronics that became integral components of high-tech weapons and weapons systems” during the Cold War, according to one study.
Leslie Berlin, formerly a historian of the Silicon Valley Archives at Stanford University, would writethat “All of modern high tech has the US Department of Defense to thank at its core, because this is where the money came from” underwriting research and development.
One Stanford institution to which the money flowed with an indirect link to current controversies regarding social media censorship was the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Incorporated on campus as a nonprofit in 1946, it would pursue lucrative contracts for often-classified military R&D projects. By 1969, SRI ranked third among think tanks in total value of defense contracts garnered.
Anti-war activists helped force Stanford to divest from the outfit in 1970 – though it would continue to work with government on an array of initiatives. Among them was one building on a Pentagon-backed project to network computers, known as ARPANET. In 1977, an Institute van would transmit data in what is regarded as the first internet connection.
Stanford would open an Office of Technology Licensing in 1970 to manage the university’s growing IP portfolio. The office would execute thousands of licenses covering many thousands more inventions – sometimes in tandem with the security state. For example, Google was built in part on National Science Foundation-supported research; its development has also been tied to work done under a joint NSA and CIA grant.
The 9/11 terror attacks in 2001 would reinvigorate and fundamentally transform a military-industrial-academic complex that had demobilized to an extent following the Cold War, during which it had been largely foreign-facing. It would come to see not only foreign clandestine communications but public conversations between Americans promoting disfavored viewpoints as national security concerns.
To combat jihadists, Washington demanded sophisticated new surveillance tools and weapons. When combined with the explosion in communications technology, and the creation of massive new reams of digital data that could be collected and analyzed, Big Tech would prove a natural supplier.
The advent of social media – including Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), and Twitter (2006) – would significantly impact these efforts.
To the public, social media platforms comprised a digital public square that empowered citizens as journalists and enabled the free flow of ideas and information.
But governments and non-state actors, including terrorist groups, realized they could harness the power of such platforms, and use them for intelligence gathering, waging information warfare, and targeting foes.
Initially U.S. authorities focused almost exclusively on foreign jihadist organizations’ exploitation of social media. That began to change when the Obama administration created a series of policies and associated entities – most of which worked closely with Big Tech and academia – targeting a broader array of adversaries.
In 2011, the Obama administration deployed its “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” strategy. While identifying Al-Qaeda as “our current priority,” the policy broadened the national security apparatus focus to “all types of extremism that leads to violence, regardless of who inspires it.”
That same year, the State Department stood up an entity aimed at “supporting agencies in Government-wide public communications activities targeted against violent extremism and terrorist organizations” that in 2016 would morph into the Global Engagement Center (GEC). It would serve as a broader “interagency entity” that would not only partner to build “a global network of positive messengers against violent extremism” including NGOs, but leverage data analytics “from both the public and private sectors to better understand radicalization dynamics online.”
Also that year, the Defense Department announced its Social Media in Strategic Communication program, launched to “track ideas and concepts to analyze patterns and cultural narratives” as part of an effort “to develop tools to help identify misinformation or deception campaigns and counter them with truthful information, reducing adversaries’ ability to manipulate events.” Millions of dollars flowed to both Big Tech and academic hubs in connection with the project.
In conjunction with these programs, the Obama administration also consulted with outside advisors to study how jihadist groups engaged in online disinformation campaigns. Included among the advisors was Renée DiResta, future technical research manager of the Stanford Internet Observatory – which would later play a key role in the government’s effort to identify and quell speech disfavored by the government.
With terrorist organizations increasingly exploiting social media platforms to proliferate propaganda and in pursuit of other malign ends, Silicon Valley came to play an increasingly key role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts. As Kara Frederick wrote in a 2019 report for the Center for a New American Security, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies:
… hired talent to fill gaps in their counterterrorism expertise, created positions to coordinate and oversee global counterterrorism policy, convened relevant players in internal forums, and instituted a combination of technical measures and good old-fashioned analysis to root out offending users and content. Major and minor tech companies coordinated with each other and with law enforcement to share threat information, drafted policies around preventing terrorist abuse of their platforms, updated their community guidelines, and even supported counter-speech initiatives to offer alternative messaging to terrorist propaganda.
Frederick, now at the Heritage Foundation, would know. A counter-terrorism analyst at the Department of Defense from 2010-16, she departed for Facebook where she helped create and lead its Global Security Counterterrorism Analysis Program.
Facebook’s chief security officer during Frederick’s tenure, Alex Stamos – future founder of the Stanford Internet Observatory – would boast that “there are several terrorist attacks that you’ve never heard of because they didn’t happen because we caught them … some local law enforcement agency … took credit for it, but it was actually our team that found it and turned it over to them with a bow on it.”
“Once clearly public sector responsibilities,” Stamos would add, “are now private sector responsibilities.”
With government broadening its focus to domestic violent extremism and its nexus to social media, and a revolving door opening between the national security apparatus and the platforms, Donald Trump’s election would prove a catalyzing event in the creation of what critics would describe as the censorship industrial complex.
His victory, which followed Brexit, another populist uprising that stunned Western elites, sent shockwaves from Washington, D.C., to Silicon Valley.
A narrative quickly arose that social media was to blame for Trump’s unexpected win. It held that dark forces, especially Russia, had manipulated voters through dishonest posts, and that the platforms enabled Trump’s victory through allowing supporters to advance corrosive conspiracy theories.
The national security apparatus sprang to action.
In January 2017, outgoing Obama DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson made protecting election infrastructure part of his agency’s mandate. Subsequently:
These key components of what would come to be known as the censorship industrial complex – one that would ultimately target the speech of Trump’s own supporters and the president himself – emerged at the very time he was fending off the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory that gave rise to them.
Government concerns over foreign meddling in domestic politics would drive demand for putativelyprivate sector actors, often with extensive government ties and funding, to engage in what the NGOs cast as research and analysis of such malign operations on social media.
In 2018, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee would solicit research, including from DiResta, on Russia’s social media meddling – research that would bolster something of a pressure campaign against social media companies to get them to quit dithering on content moderation.
The committee also commissioned Graphika, a social media analytics firm founded in 2013, to co-author a report on Russian social media meddling. Graphika lists DARPA and the Department of Defense’s Minerva Initiative, which funds “basic social science research,” on a company website detailing its clients and research partners. It would serve as one of the four partners that would comprise the Stanford Internet Observatory-led Election Integrity Partnership – a key cog in government-driven speech policing during and after the 2020 election.
Another entity that would join the Stanford-led quartet is the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, established in 2016. Funded in part by the Departments of State – including through the Global Engagement Center – and Energy, the think-tank counts among its directors CIA chiefs and Defense secretaries. The lab’s senior director is Graham Bookie, a former top aide to President Obama on cybersecurity, counterterrorism, intelligence, and homeland security issues. In 2018, Facebook announced an election partnership with the lab wherein the two parties would work on “emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world.”
The third of four entities later to join the Election Integrity Partnership was the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, formed in 2019. Stanford grad and visiting professor Kate Starbird co-founded the Center. The National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research have provided funding for Dr. Starbird’s social media work.
That same year, the Stanford Internet Observatory emerged. Founded by Alex Stamos, who had led substantial research on Russia’s social media operations while Chief Security Officer at Facebook and routinely interfaced with national security agencies throughout his cybersecurity career, the Observatory would serve as a “cross-disciplinary initiative comprised of research, teaching and policy engagement addressing the abuse of today’s information technologies, with a particular focus on social media … includ[ing] the spread of disinformation, cybersecurity breaches, and terrorist propaganda.”
The Observatory is a program of Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, which counts former Obama National Security Council official and Russian Ambassador Michael McFaul, among other notables on the faculty list with backgrounds in or ties to the security state.
Stamos stood up the Observatory with a $5 million gift from Craig Newmark Philanthropies – which also gave $1 million to Starbird’s work. The Craigslist founder’s charitable vehicle contributed some $170 million to “journalism, countering harassment against journalists, cybersecurity and election integrity,” between 2016 and 2020, areas he argued constituted the “battle spaces” of information warfare – information warfare waged implicitly against President Trump and his supporters.
The National Science Foundation also provided large infusions of money to the sprawling network of academic entities, for-profit firms, and think tanks that would emerge in the “counter-disinformation space.”
This network produced a mass of research and analysis redefining and expanding the perceived threat of free and open social media. It argued America was plagued by a pandemic of “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” with a nexus to domestic violent extremism that could be created and disseminated by almost anyone – thereby making everyone a potential target for surveillance and censorship.
Ideas authorities found troubling would come to be treated as tantamount to national security threats to be neutralized – as the future Biden administration would codify in the first-of-its-kind National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.
DiResta described this paradigm shift in a 2018 article for Just Security – a publication incidentally also funded by Newmark.
“Disinformation, misinformation, and social media hoaxes have evolved from a nuisance into high-stakes information war,” DiResta wrote.
She continued:
…Traditional analysis of propaganda and disinformation has focused fairly narrowly on understanding the perpetrators and trying to fact-check the narratives (fight narratives with counter-narratives, fight speech with more speech). Today’s information operations, however, are … computational. They’re driven by algorithms and are conducted with unprecedented scale and efficiency. … It’s time to change our way of thinking about propaganda and disinformation: it’s not a truth-in-narrative issue, it’s an adversarial attack in the information space. Info ops are a cybersecurity issue.
This re-definition of what arguably amounts to speech policing of social media as security policy could be seen a year later when NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged that “NATO must remain prepared for both conventional and hybrid threats: From tanks to tweets.” (Emphasis RCI’s)
In the run-up to the 2020 election, DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which took as its mandate protecting election infrastructure, would expand its focus to include combatting misinformation and disinformation perceived as threatening the security of elections – regardless of its source. This would ultimately encompass the protected political speech of Americans, including speculation and even satire to the extent it called into question or undermined state-approved narratives about an unprecedented mass mail-in election.
Social media companies, chastened after having come under withering political and media attack for their content moderation policies during the 2016 election, would recruit dozens of ex-security state officials to fill their “Trust and Safety” teams dealing with policing speech to likewise combat this purported threat.
Frederick told RealClearInvestigations that Silicon Valley leaders believed the teams’ past focus on Islamic terror, which receded under Trump, reflected a bias, requiring platforms to “reorient toward domestic extremism” – the new target of the political establishment.
Combining the platforms’ political leanings with the tools they had developed to take on jihadists, in Frederick’s words, would create a “powder keg” threatening to obliterate Americans’ speech.
Still, the Constitution stood in the way to the extent the government wanted to police the platforms’ speech. In the run-up to the 2020 election, both federal authorities and like-minded NGOs recognized a “gap:” No federal agency had “a focus on, or authority regarding, [identifying and targeting for suppression] election misinformation originating from domestic sources,” as the Stanford Internet Observatory-led Election Integrity Partnership would put it. DiResta acknowledged any such project faced “very real First Amendment questions.”
In response, the government helped create a workaround via that very Election Integrity Partnership – a government driven, advised, and coordinated enterprise run by NGOs to surreptitiously surveil and seek to censor speech that did not comport with government-favored narratives on election administration and outcomes.
One hundred days from the 2020 election, the Stanford Internet Observatory, alongside Graphika, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, and University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public launched the EIP as a “model for whole-of-society collaboration,” aimed at “defending the 2020 election against voting-related mis- and disinformation.”
As RCI previously reported, the project had two main objectives:
First, EIP lobbied social media companies, with some success, to adopt more stringent moderation policies around “content intended to suppress voting, reduce participation, confuse voters as to election processes, or delegitimize election results without evidence. …
Second, EIP surveilled hundreds of millions of social media posts for content that might violate the platforms’ moderation policies. In addition to identifying this content internally, EIP also collected content forwarded to it by external “stakeholders,” including government offices and civil society groups. EIP then flagged this mass of content to the platforms for potential suppression.
As many as 120 analysts, records show, created tickets identifying social media content they deemed objectionable. They forwarded many tickets to officials at platforms including Google, Twitter, and Facebook which “labeled, removed, or soft blocked” thousands of unique URLs – content shared millions of times.
An RCI review of the nearly 400 of those tickets produced to the House Homeland Security Committee found that government agencies – including entities within the FBI, DHS (CISA), and State Department (GEC) – involved themselves in nearly a quarter of the censorship tickets. Those tickets almost uniformly covered domestic speech, and from the political right; in dozens of instances, the project made “recommendations” to social media companies to take action.
The tickets RCI reviewed illustrated the project’s efforts to push social media platforms to silence President Trump and other elected officials.
One EIP analyst would say of the effort that it “was probably the closest we’ve come to actually preempting misinformation before it goes viral.”
In response to RCI’s inquiries in connection with this story, CISA Executive Director Brandon Wales shared a statement reading in part: “CISA does not and has never censored speech or facilitated censorship. Such allegations are riddled with factual inaccuracies.”
Given “concerns from election officials of all parties regarding foreign influence operations and disinformation that may impact the security of election infrastructure,” Wales said, “CISA mitigates the risk of disinformation by sharing information on election security with the public and by amplifying the trusted voices of election officials across the nation” – work he indicated is conducted while protecting Americans’ liberties.
Dr. Starbird told RCI that:
Falsehoods about elections – whether accidental rumors about when and how to vote or intentional disinformation campaigns meant to sow distrust in election results – are issues that cut to the core of our democracy. Identifying and communicating about these issues isn’t partisan and, despite an ongoing campaign to label this work as such, isn’t ‘censorship.’
All had come full circle. Stanford had once again connected the security state to Silicon Valley for a project involving both basic and applied research aimed at perceived foes – studying how narratives emerged, and then seeking to get offending ones purged.
That project would again garner new funding from the security state in the form of a $3 million grantfrom the National Science Foundation split between the Stanford Internet Observatory and the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public for “rapid-response research to mitigate online disinformation.” Their partners in the EIP would receive millions more from the federal government under the Biden administration.
The relationship between DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and EIP would only grow. As RCI reported:
In the days following Nov. 3, 2020, with President Trump challenging the integrity of the election results, CISA rebuked him in a statement, calling the election “the most secure in American history.” The president would go on to fire CISA’s director, Christopher Krebs, by tweet.
Almost immediately thereafter, Krebs and Stamos would form a consultancy, the Krebs Stamos Group. In March 2021, Krebs would participate in a “fireside chat” when EIP launched its 2020 report.
CISA’s top 2020 election official, Matt Masterson, joined SIO as a fellow after leaving CISA in January 2021. Krebs’ successor at CISA, Director Jen Easterly, would appoint Stamos to the sub-agency’s Cybersecurity Advisory Committee, established in 2021, for a term set to expire this month.
Director Easterly would appoint Kate Starbird … to the committee. Starbird chaired the advisory committee’s since-abolished MDM (Mis-, Dis-, and Mal-Information) Subcommittee, focusing on information threats to infrastructure beyond elections.
SIO’s DiResta served as a subject matter expert for the now-defunct subcommittee. DHS scrapped the entity in the wake of the public furor over DHS’ now-shelved “Disinformation Governance Board.”
Starbird, her University of Washington colleagues, and a former student member of the Stanford Internet Observatory who had matriculated to the Krebs Stamos Group would publish a report in June 2022 building on their EIP efforts, titled “Repeat Spreaders and Election Delegitimization: A Comprehensive Dataset of Misinformation Tweets from the 2020 U.S. Election.” Its publication coincided with, and seemed aimed at buttressing the partisan House January 6 Select Committee’s second public hearing.
Documents obtained via FOIA from the University of Washington and recently published by Matt Taibbi’s Racket News and Substacker UndeadFOIA, suggest the committee’s chief data scientist met with Starbird and DiResta in January of that year to discuss the report the EIP produced following the 2020 election and its underlying data – a report that linked mis-, dis-, and mal-information regarding the 2020 election to the capitol riot.
In the interim, EIP would morph into the Virality Project, which would be used to target dissent from public health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic – dissent those authorities argued could lead people to die, as dissenting views on the 2020 election spurred the capitol riot.
Among those targeted by the government for silencing, and who social media companies would censor, in part for his opposition to broad pandemic lockdowns, was Stanford’s own Dr. Jay Bhattacharya – one plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri (Dr. Bhattacharya and Taibbi were recipients of RealClear’s first annual Samizdat Prize honoring those committed to truth and free speech). As he sees it, the Virality Project helped “launder” a “government … hit list for censorship,” which he finds “absolutely shocking” and at odds with the Stanford’s past commitments to academic freedom and general “sort of countercultural opposition to government overreach.”
As chilling as these efforts were, a House Homeland Security Committee aide told RCI:
EIP and VP were largely comprised of college interns running basic Google searches. Imagine a similar effort leveraging artificial intelligence to sweep up and censor ever greater swaths of our online conversations. We are at the beginning of the problem, not the end, which is why it is so vital to get right today because without action, tomorrow could be far worse.
It is unclear whether such action is forthcoming. Oral arguments in Murthy, heard this past March, suggested the Supremes may diverge from the lower courts. A federal district court found, and an appellate court concurred in the view that in coordinating and colluding with third parties and social media companies to suppress disfavored speech, government agencies had likely violated the First Amendment. Those courts barred such contact between agencies and social media companies during the pendency of the case – an injunction the nation’s highest court stayed over the objections of Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
At least one companion case targeting the likes of the Stanford Internet Observatory, and its Election Integrity Partnership and Virality Project as co-conspirators with the federal government in violating Americans’ speech, Hines v. Stamos, is pending.
GOP legislation to deter and/or defund the activities illustrated in these cases has languished in Congress, but oversight efforts have raised the cost for NGOs to continue partnering with the government.
When asked in June 2023 about the Stanford Internet Observatory’s future plans, Stamos told the House Judiciary Committee, which has been probing alleged public-private censorship efforts, that “Since this investigation has cost the university now approaching seven figures legal fees, it’s been pretty successful I think in discouraging us from making it worthwhile for us to do a study in 2024.”
Bhattacharya responded in an interview with RCI, “Why is Stanford putting so much of its institutional energy into [defending] this [the Observatory]?”
“It seems like they are putting their thumbs on the scale partly because they’re so closely connected with government entities.”
Months later, according to his LinkedIn profile, Stamos would depart from the Observatory, while remaining a part-time Stanford Adjunct and Lecturer in Computer Science.
On the eve of oral arguments in the Murthy case, Stanford University and its observatory castigated critics for promoting “false, inaccurate, misleading, and manufactured claims” regarding its “role in researching and analyzing social media content about U.S. elections and the COVID-19 vaccine.”
Stanford called on the Supreme Court to “affirm its right to share its research and views with the government and social media companies.”
It vowed the Internet Observatory would continue its work on “influence operations.”
Starbird has echoed Stanford. In response to a series of questions from Taibbi pertaining to the trove of FOIA’d documents Racket obtained, she said:
Our team has fielded dozens of public records requests, producing thousands of emails. Not one confirms the central claims of your thesis falsely alleging coordination with government and platforms to “censor” social media content. But, instead of acknowledging that fact, abuse continues of the Washington State public records law to smear and spread falsehoods based on willful misreadings of innocuous emails, ignorance about scientific research, and, in several instances, a lack of reading comprehension.
She too vowed that: “At the Center for an Informed Public, our research into online rumoring about election procedures and our work to rapidly identify and communicate about harmful election rumors will continue in 2024.”
Stanford’s Internet Observatory and the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public will not be spearheading the Election Integrity Partnership for 2024 or future election cycles however, per a link to the EIP’s website to which a Stanford spokesperson referred RCI in sole response to our queries.
Some experts are doubtful alleged social media censorship is going away anytime soon. “I don’t know how to ‘put the genie back in the bottle,'” said Frederick.
“There’s a thing about intel analysts in general where you have a sense of superiority because you have access to things that the plebes don’t. But, you know, these people have taken their G-d complexes to the next level and turned it against their neighbor.”
Of the alleged speech police, she said “they’re drunk with power obviously and they think they know what’s best for us.”
Amb. Alberto Fernandez, vice president at MEMRI and a former leader of the precursor to the State Department’s GEC, an observatory stakeholder that had itself funded adjacent efforts, told RCI “there needs to be transparency and preferably, a ‘firewall‘ of some sort between the Feds and social media.”
In May, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) – who had himself submitted an amicus brief siding with the agencies in the case, contra Republican colleagues led by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan – revealed that in the wake of the oral arguments in Murthy, federal agencies had resumed communications with social media companies.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), who had originally brought the Murthy case as Missouri attorney general, replied: “It appears DHS, FBI and potentially other agencies are quietly ramping up their efforts to censor Constitutionally protected speech ahead of the 2024 election.”
The post Stanford, Silicon Valley, and the Rise of the Censorship Industrial Complex appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article was written by Swedish independent journalist Peter Imanuelsen, also known as PeterSweden. You can follow him at PeterSweden.com.
The infamous Swedish city is ranked in the top 100 most dangerous cities in the world.
I have some news from Sweden that goes to show just how bad the situation actually is.
A new list from Numbeo has been ranking how safe and unsafe different cities in the world are.
The Swedish city of Malmö which has several no-go zones, is ranked as the number 76th most dangerous city in the entire world, listed right between Portland at number 75 and Tehran at number 77.
In fact, Malmö comes just a few spots after Baghdad in Iraq!
What is the most dangerous city in the world then you might wonder? That spot goes to Caracas, the capital of Venezuela – A Socialist country.
But Malmö is not the only Swedish city on the list. Stockholm is ranked at number 157 and Gothenburg at number 154.
However, other Nordic countries are much more peaceful. Oslo is ranked at number 244 and Helsinki in Finland is ranked at number 305.
But can you guess the most dangerous city in Europe? That would be Marseille at number 40, closely followed by Birmingham and Coventry in Britain.
Sweden used to be a very peaceful country. In fact, one of the most peaceful countries in the entire world.
But something has happened.
Last year there was a shocking 149 bombing attacks in Sweden. This is the highest number of attacks for a country that is not at war.
We have almost 60 no-go zones where gang crime has been spiraling out of control. And the problem is, for many years, the mainstream media tried to cover it up. Nobody wanted to talk about it.
But I have reported extensively on the problems in Sweden.
You can read my previous article here on the truth about the rape crisis in Sweden.
In almost 50 years, there has been a whopping 2200% increase in the number of rapes in Sweden. That is horrible.
If you ever need proof that Socialism doesn’t work, just show them this article.
Independent journalist Peter Imanuelsen has dedicated years to reporting the things the mainstream media ignores. You can follow him at https://petersweden.com/
The post Peter Sweden: Shocking Truth About Malmö appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Official claimed petitions to God were ‘harassment’
Members of the city council in Carlsbad, California, have been scolded for insisting that a chaplain who has prayed “in
Jesus’ name” is guilty of harassment.
It is First Liberty Institute that has sent a letter to the council members urging them to revoke an order from their city manager that “forbids police chaplain JC Cooper and fire chaplain Denny Cooper from concluding prayers at some events ‘in Jesus’ name.'”
“The city council should follow the Supreme Court’s clear statements with respect to prayers such as the chaplains’ and allow them to pray according to their sincere religious beliefs,” explained Kayla Toney, counsel for First Liberty.
The institute explained that JC Cooper is a local pastor who has faithfully served as a volunteer chaplain for the Carlsbad police agency for six years. His father, Denny Cooper, has served as the volunteer chaplain for the fire department for 18 years.
Both provide support, encouragement, and prayer to first responders as they face traumatic situations, the institute said.
“When asked by the police chief to give the invocation at the Carlsbad Police Department Awards Ceremony, JC concluded his prayer, consistent with his long-held beliefs, ‘in Jesus’ name.’ He was later told by the city manager that unless he removed ‘in Jesus’ name’ from his invocation, he would be subject to discipline. He was then told that he could refer to any other name for God, just not ‘Jesus,'” the institute said.
The letter recommending a course correction for the city noted, “The city manager misunderstands the law concerning public chaplains and invocations, and we urge the city council to revisit the decision to censor the chaplains’ prayers. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause does not require government ‘to purge from the public sphere anything an objective observer could reasonably infer endorses or partakes of the religious.'”
The letter explains in the Kennedy v. Bremerton decision, the Supreme Court overruled the long-criticized ‘endorsement’ test established in the now-defunct Lemon decision, instead providing, “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings.”
The letter to the city explains it is city manager Scott Chadwick who “claimed that invoking ‘Jesus’ was considered harassment, created aa hostile work environment, and lifted one religion above another.”
The legal team explained, “Dating back to the Continental Congress in 1776, the United States has a robust and widely recognized tradition of both public prayer and chaplain programs. The court has explicitly held that governmental bodies may begin their meetings or other events with a prayer or invocation. … While such prayers or invocations may not proselytize or disparage other faiths, chaplains do not have to scrub their prayers of language identifiable to their faith.
“Government should not censor prayers in an attempt to make them ‘generic’ or ‘nonsectarian.’ … Indeed, in an increasingly diverse and pluralistic environment, it would be ‘daunting, if not impossible,’ to write an invocation that would be ‘inclusive beyond dispute,’ nor does the Constitution require anything of the sort—and ‘some may feel that they cannot in good faith deliver such a vague prayer.'”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post City Scolded for Banning Chaplains from Praying ‘In Jesus Name’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Briana G. Céspedes, U.S. Air Force
Why does someone join the United States military? Service members are the one percent who voluntarily raise their hands and swear to defend the Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic. Sometimes, the domestic enemies pose great threats that have gone unnoticed for too long.
From 2020 to the present, one such service member could never have imagined the illegal actions that would be made against her for simply protecting the oath she took.
Not many know that at least 8,500 active duty members were discharged, most without an honorable characterization, and tens of thousands were placed on permanent non-pay status in the Reserves and National Guard.
And every member has different experiences ranging from loss of pay, coercion, threats from leaders, loss of promotion, and mental and physical injury. For Céspedes, the moment of leaving the military was a sad sigh of relief. In other words, involuntary discharge was the final blow in a long series of mistreatments.
On July 11, 2022, Céspedes was generally discharged from the U.S. Air Force due to her convictions to not participate in a new experimental vaccine. Her conviction was clear as she researched what products the mRNA technology contained and spoke with her Christian mentors.
She could not disregard her body and did not believe she had to force herself though she received pressure on all sides. Secretary of Defense Austin stated in a memo to the Armed Forces that they would not mandate non-FDA approved vaccines (Mandatory Vaccination Program, 2021).
This however, was not the case when it came to implementation and her unit was given a deadline of 2 months before all of them had to be fully vaccinated with only Emergency Authorized Products.
She couldn’t understand why the mandates coming through were not matching with the promises their leaders were telling them. She could not get herself to inject some new product in her body that was not tested as all other vaccines are required to.
With this conviction, she went to the base Chaplain and told him her reasons for requesting a religious exemption. He found her conviction to be sincere and forwarded that information to the commander of her wing.
This was back in September of 2021, when, she received an email directly from her Wing Commander, without anyone cc’d, directly stating that if she did not get the COVID-19 vaccine by the end of the month, she would be disobeying a lawful order.
The email also stated that because she would be disobeying a lawful order, she could face court martial and dishonorable discharge. At that moment, she realized, this was going to be a big, long, hard fight. Her MAJCOM (Major Command) Commander had taken the time to individually reach out to her with haste, this was a big deal and obviously pressure coming from the top. She was filled with fear.
But, as her father told her, “Bri, maybe you’re in the military for such a time as this, maybe you’re fight for freedom is different than you thought.” She remembered why she joined and remembered what kept her there.
The U.S. Air Force taught her a few core values: Integrity First, meaning we will always show true character despite pressure; Service Before Self, meaning we will regard other’s lives and livelihoods above our own; and, Excellence in All We Do, meaning taking this fight to the end and excelling with precision.
She realized that many of her peers did not want to take the shot either, but they responded with, “I have no choice, when I joined the U.S. military I gave over my rights.” Dale Saran has a response to that.
“No one’s really litigated that issue,” Saran said. “. . .But we’ve come so far down the road that we just believe it, we just accept that. It’s not correct to say, as a matter of law, that you are suddenly property of the U.S. government once you join the military. For example, if the military said tomorrow ‘we’re going to sterilize everybody who comes into the military because we don’t want to have pregnancies, would anybody think that that was legitimate? I mean you could make a very good argument for it, you could make a very good case for the practical nature of it, but it would be completely illegal, immoral and just terrible,” Saran said. “So as soon as you go with that you could think of all kinds of limits on that power. Does it give you the right to experiment on troops? No.”
This was just the beginning. After submitting her Request for Religious Exemption in September of 2021, she was under the impression that she would be receiving a response to this question which would change her life and service forever, within 140 days.
In Air Force policy 52-201, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, it requires that the Air Force respond to the Airmen within this timeline requirement. This mandate can only be exempted by Congress as a T-0 waiver level.
Congress never gave this exemption to the Air Force. It was not until 168 days after submission that she received her first notification on February 14, 2022.
During those almost 6 months, a lot happened. She had been sent to quarantine 8 times, which equals to 112 days in isolation. She had transferred to a new unit where she was the only one required to wear a mask since she was the unvaccinated Airman and could not be in the same room as her coworkers during lunch.
She had received threats of dishonorable discharge, loss of all benefits and was not able to leave the local area as an unvaccinated Airman. When regulations started to ease, they only got stricter for her.
Without the vaccine, she could not enter even a coffee shop because she did not have the COVID Passport. And, at her new unit she experienced another long series of quarantines counting to almost 4 months that she spent in the barracks alone.
This led to long periods of inactivity, wastefulness, and ultimately, mental strain. If the Department of Defense is so worried about suicide among the ranks, then why would they threaten, pressure and isolate to this extent? If not for her faith, Céspedes would have resorted to other options to get out of her misery.
Her appeal was denied promptly after submission on March 24, 2022 and at this point, she knew she would be discharged but not sure when. She prepared herself to make a new way in the civilian world without the GI Bill (where the government covers the cost of a 4-year degree).
She was afraid to fail more than what she had already been told she was failing in. Supervisors, coworkers, friends, commanders, her first sergeant, who is supposed to protect the morale and welfare of the unit, all told her the same thing, “just get the dang vaccine! Then we can help you!” Even her commander told her that he did not want “an essential worker who is valued like you” to be discharged, but “my hands are tied,” he said.
On April 12, 2022, she was given a Letter of Reprimand for violation of UCMJ Article 92, Disobeying a Lawful Order. That same month, as she was supposed to put on her next rank, her commander wrote a Nonrecommendation for Promotion and pulled her Staff Sergeant, E-5 line badge.
Then, May 19, 2022, she received the Notification of Recommendation for Discharge with MISCONDUCT SERIOUS OFFENSE as there reason for discharge. It was here that she learned she would not be getting a dishonorable discharge. She cried from relief. It was not an honorable discharge but, at least she would not be on the same level as a criminal.
She was thankful to the Congressmen and women that worked hard to stop President Biden’s attempt at giving service members like her a dishonorable discharge. She hopes that they will continue to push to upgrade the characterization to honorable, since involuntary veterans cannot continue to be punished for an illegal mandate that has now been rescinded. Many involuntary veterans are not able to pursue school because they are not eligible for the GI bill and are barred from employment opportunities and even third party benefits like membership with national veteran support organizations.
At this point, she was ready to get out. She had made plans with her family, she was prepared to start over. Waiting is what killed her the most. Day to day she had to show up to work in uniform knowing that it would be stripped from her.
For her, it was hard to be proud to wear the uniform when everyone saw her as a threat and a rebel. She got close to the Lord, her family over FaceTime and the local church. She fought for the principle more than the product, realizing the wrong done to everyone. How could we, as the most brave, be known to bow to the most illogical of rules?
This vaccine did not provide immunity nor safety, and more than that, rules were being broken left and right in the implementation of it. The beauty of the United States is the accountability the people are required to keep their leaders to based on the Constitution. That is what kept her standing.
And, on July 11, 2022, she was out. She sat on the kitchen floor in disbelief, full of sadness because she was now returning without the honorable stamp from the military, but with its rejection. But, keeping to her oath had just begun.
And that beginning includes sharing stories of the thousands upon thousands of service members that have suffered the same consequence for their convictions.
We need to raise awareness on the illegality and immorality that was done to those the U.S government says they honor the most. We need to honor our veterans and make sure they receive the veterans support and basic characterization of honorable they deserve.
We train our service members with the principles of liberty, integrity, and honor. So, let’s acknowledge the wrong done and thank our members for maintaining those principles we all are required to defend.
With the recent Declaration of Military Accountability, she joins in the movement to ensure that service members like her, the junior enlisted in the barracks is protected. Protected from willful illegality and misuse of authority within the ranks.
Junior enlisted should be able to trust their leaders, yet, we are facing a crisis of recruitment and retention because of the way DOD leadership has chosen to treat their members. The military should be known for honor and we expect our leaders to be honorable no matter the cost.
This is the story of one Involuntary Veteran.
There are many more out there.
And we won’t stop reminding the DOD leadership what oaths they have taken and keep them accountable to that.
The post Involuntary Veterans: Speaking up About Unlawful Discharge appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
‘We cannot remain silent against such explicit tyranny’
Christians across America, and anyone who endorses “faith, family and freedom,” have been given their marching orders for the November presidential election.
The instructions do not include WHO to vote for, but the messaging is clear.
“The Left is not only waging legal warfare against Donald Trump. They are attempting to prevent half the country from having any say in the governance of our nation, and they have weaponized the legal system to ensure their success at any cost,” began a statement from Gary Bauer, senior vice president of public policy for the James Dobson Family Institute.
“They are already using our legal system to go after pro-life activists and patriotic Christians who defend religious liberty. The Deep State is spying on conservative parents and churches, treating them like enemies of the state. They have even gone so far as to compare caring parents to terrorists.
“The Left has repeatedly [contended] that conservatives are a threat to our democracy. Yet, they are the ones who are aggressively attacking our constitutional Republic with blatant disregard for our fundamental rights. We cannot remain silent against such explicit tyranny.”
The statement continued, “But here’s what we must understand: What just happened is not only about Donald Trump, and it will not stop with him.”
The verdict “is a clarion call for every God-fearing, America-loving Christian and our fellow citizens who believe in faith, family, and freedom to run, walk, or crawl, if necessary, to the polls this November.”
Bauer described the conviction, on Thursday, of Trump on business records-related claims as “a tragic day for America” and a “clear abuse of our justice system.”
“This politically motivated and stacked trial is what we have come to expect in communist China or North Korea—not in the United States of America. The totalitarian impulse of the neo-Marxist Left is to suppress and silence political opposition using any means necessary.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Voters Who Support Faith, Family, Freedom Implored to ‘Run, Walk or Crawl’ to the Polls appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission
The following comes from Kat’s Meow Substack account. It’s a discussion of recent events in the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF).
This particular move has the distinct odor of sneaky, back-room stuff. We were made aware of it by their latest victim.
As the RPOF chose their national delegates this past week, they managed to cut out a long-time party regular, RPOF National Committeeman, Peter Feaman, from meaningful committee assignments. His crime? He supports grassroots conservatives and Donald Trump.
Here is Mr. Feaman’s message about what went down, released Thurs., May 16.
“As an RPOF leader I thought you should be aware of what happened last week.
Now that we have chosen our Florida convention delegates, Republican National Committee (RNC) Rule 41 requires that all of the delegates meet in order to elect individuals to serve on the convention committees, including the Rules Committee and the all-important PLATFORM COMMITTEE.
Last week, your RPOF had its so called “election”. Except that there was no real election. There was a rubber-stamp of committee members pre-selected by an unknown cabal.
-HERE IS HOW IT WENT DOWN-
Last Tuesday, May 7, I had a phone conversation with Evan Power. In that conversation he made no mention of any upcoming Delegate phone call. I told him I was in Hawaii visiting family which is why I missed this past quarterly meeting. That is why I was very surprised to receive later on that same day an email announcing a telephone call for all delegates set for the following day at 6:00 pm. (Wednesday, May 8), less than 24 hours away. There was no mention in that email that there would be an “election” of committee members to be held during the call. I sent an email to Evan asking for an agenda for the telephone meeting, especially since we had just spoken and he knew I was in Hawaii, and he said nothing about a call the next day. I received no reply from Evan or anyone else.
The next day we received a reminder email about the call from Bill Helmich. The email mentioned only that the call was necessary for “some quick bookkeeping and information.” In hindsight, that description was purposefully misleading.
I then sent an email to Helmich asking him for an agenda. Again, I received no reply.
Then, less than 15 minutes before the phone conference the bombshell email arrived. The email said the phone conference would include “selection” of convention committee members “who have agreed to serve.” To my surprise, the list of pre-selected committee members was included.
This was not to be an election, as specifically required by RNC Rule 41. This call was meant to be a rubber-stamp of members already SECRETLY CHOSEN by the elites.
Imagine my surprise when I saw Kevin Cabrera as the male platform committee designee, (each convention committee must consist of one male and one female from each state). This was the same person who, only 3 months before, had failed in his bid to be RPOF Vice-Chairman. The Platform Committee will write the RNC Platform for the next 4 years.
Imagine my surprise when I saw Evan Power as the male representative on the Rules Committee. After having served for 12 years on the RNC Rules Committee and having served on the 2016 Convention Rules Committee, when we successfully fought off the Never-Trumpers, I naively thought I would be informed at some point about this.
RNC Rule 41 specifically requires an election by the convention delegation so that the convention committee members represent the majority consensus of each state’s convention delegation. Our delegation had no say other than to rubber-stamp those pre-selected.
After 20 years of leadership on the RPOF Executive Committee, one would think I should not have been so naïve as to think the Republican Party of Florida leadership would actually follow the RNC rules. Silly me.
Peter M. Feaman
RNC National Committeeman, Florida
2012-2024”
The message is very clear. NO ONE, even party regulars, WHO SUPPORTS GRASS ROOTS CONSERVATIVES – WHO HAPPEN TO SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP – IS WELCOME IN THE RPOF. I am guessing that Mr. Feaman had a clue about this when he tried to become the Party Chair.
Initial concerns from members of another Republican group in Florida – The Florida Republican Assembly (FRA) – were that the RPOF wanted to shut them down. After stepping back for a moment, it’s now feared that the actions of the RPOF in placing anti-Trumpers on National Convention committees is to derail President Trump’s RNC nomination.
The post Republican Party of Florida Pushing Out Trump Republicans – Are Elites Preparing to Overthrow Trump Nomination at GOP Convention? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission
We learned a week ago that the FBI was authorized to use deadly force at Mar-a-Lago when agents raided the President’s home in an uncalled for and unprecedented raid.
Julie Kelly Reports New Revelations about the Mar-A Lago Raid
In a nutshell..
• The FBI authorized the use of deadly force
• Agents were prepared to engage in with Trump and his Secret Service team
• they had an onsite medical team available in case it got deadly
The FBI risked the lives of Donald Trump, his family, his staff, and MAL guests for a publicity stunt to make it look like Trump stole national security files.
People need to be arrested for this.
Julie Kelly Reports New Revelations about the Mar-A Lago Raid
In a nutshell..
• The FBI authorized the use of deadly force
• Agents were prepared to engage in with Trump and his Secret Service team
• they had an onsite medical team available in case it got deadly
The FBI… https://t.co/DJm14f21Pk pic.twitter.com/I4vVbEP0zE
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) May 21, 2024
Merrick Garland personally approved the raid.
Garland: “I personally approved” the Mar-a-Lago raid. pic.twitter.com/qw8HJOcsGZ
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 11, 2022
The far-left communists who are using corrupt courts to put President Trump in prison, say that it was standard practice to use lethal force against the President of the United States when the FBI raids his home and steals documents from the President. However, Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service Agent, shared that nothing about the raid on Mar-a-Lago was standard.
If there is anyone more qualified to comment on this I do not know about them.
“There was nothing standard about the raid on Mar a Lago.
These people do not get to do anything they want.”
Credit:@dbongino pic.twitter.com/zJpAzwBObf
— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) May 22, 2024
President Trump shared that the Democrats were authorized to use deadly force and that he and his family may have been in the line of fire if something broke out. The Libs countered to say he wasn’t supposed to be at home that day.
Libturds are saying that they knew Trump was not home at the time. That doesn’t matter . He could have come home during the raid . They obviously were expecting something or they would not have had medics there. Were they expecting a shootout with Secret Service ? The… pic.twitter.com/KPtJbc3gMF
—
Per a discussion with Liz Harrington today on the Joe Hoft Show, Liz shared that she believes that President Trump was supposed to be there that day.
“I was trying to remember, and I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure he was supposed to be there.”
Here is what Harrington shared.
Biden’s DOJ and FBI Thought President Trump Would Be at MAL on the Day of the Raid! pic.twitter.com/6XFGtEYwdb
— Joe Hoft (@realJoeHoft) May 30, 2024
The post EXCLUSIVE: “I’m Pretty Sure” President Trump Was Supposed to be at Mar-a-Lago on Day of Raid (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Families of U.S. veterans snubbed by bureaucracy on Memorial Day
Families of America’s veterans interred at the Cheyenne National Cemetery were snubbed by bureaucrats on Memorial Day: A memorial event was announced for 11 a.m. but no one showed up to conduct it or honor the veterans.
The Cowboy State Daily reports the official explanation is that it was a mixup – that an event had been announced for 11 a.m., when families showed up, but it actually then was changed to 3 p.m.
The report explained, “As many as 100 showed up at Cheyenne National Cemetery on Monday morning for an advertised Memorial Day service in honor of fallen heroes and loved ones. But the VA never showed up to host the service.”
Among those who were there were Carol Anne Hopkins and Dale Hopkins, who traveled four hours from Riverton, Wyo., for the event.
They were “stood up,” the report said. “No one was there to play the taps, which is played during patriotic memorial ceremonies and military funerals. No honor guard showed up, no 21-gun salute, and no prayers — at least not until four hours after a scheduled observance posted by the U.S. Veterans Administration at 11 a.m.”
The event had been announced on the VA website for 11 a.m., and drew a multitude of families, many from out of state.
“I’m kind of amazed that there isn’t a (memorial) service happening,” Keith Jobes, a veteran, told the publication.
“We the people showed up today, but the government didn’t,” added Diane Fritsch of Cheyenne.
There were no cancellation notices or anything for those who wanted to express their patriotism.
The report explained William Washington, the cemetery’s manager for the VA, said the mixup could have been the result of a failure to update the VA website.
Plans were uncertain, and then Washington met up with Justin Tripp, commander of VFW post in Cheyenne.
Tripp offered to send some veterans for a 3 p.m. event.
But the website of the national organization continued to report the observance time as 11 a.m.
Tripp said, “This frustrates me. I’m a veteran. This isn’t about picnics, but about people who died and never came home.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Outrage: ‘We the People Showed Up Today, But the Government Didn’t’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Susan Crabtree
Real Clear Wire
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has remained mum about her recent veto of legislation aimed at curbing China’s gruesome forced organ-harvesting trade, which targets detained ethnic and religious minorities, mostly Uyghur Muslims, Tibetans, Christians, and Falun Gong practitioners.
The April 10 veto has proponents of the legislation and human rights activists scratching their heads. Over the last year, Texas, Utah, and Idaho have enacted similar legislation, and legislatures in Missouri, Ohio, and North Carolina are debating similar measures. The bipartisan bills would prevent health insurance plans from reimbursing individuals for any organ transplants in China or other U.S. adversaries. They also would bar insurance payments for post-operative procedures related to organ transplants if the organ came from China or any other nation that funds or engages in forced organ harvesting.
Idaho’s and Arizona’s versions also included language prohibiting medical reimbursement for DNA and other genetic sequencing procedures conducted on sequencing devices from China and other adversary countries.
For decades, China has harvested prisoners’ organs even though the government initially asserted that all of its organ extractions were from voluntary donors. Yet, as far back as 2005, the top transplant doctor in China, then serving as the nation’s vice minister of health, admitted that roughly 95% of all organ transplants come from prisoners killed for their body parts.
Despite an international outcry over this practice, China ramped up its organ harvesting trade over the last two decades to become a $1 billion-a-year industry, according to international human rights experts. A growing body of research has revealed a particularly reprehensible aspect of the life-ending extractions: Religious minorities and political dissidents are the primary victims, with an estimated 25,000 to 50,000 being killed for their organs each year.
Other research has shown that Chinese authorities have used DNA tests on prisoners in forced labor camps to identify which prisoners would be ideal for organ harvesting.
China has vehemently denied these findings, but in 2019, the China Tribunal, a non-governmental commission in the U.K., concluded otherwise. The Tribunal found that the Chinese organ trafficking industry is harvesting organs from executed prisoners at an industrial scale, actions that constitute crimes against humanity.
Katrina Lantos Swett, president of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and co-chair of the annual International Religious Freedom Summit, hailed the passage of the state measures aimed at prohibiting any U.S. complicity in China’s organ-harvesting trade, calling the steps “greatly encouraging.”
“For years, we have known that China is engaged in the despicable and ghoulish practice of forced organ harvesting. We also know that the victims of this crime are most often religious minorities and political dissidents,” she said in a statement. “Sadly, the beneficiaries are usually wealthy patients who may not know the details of this illegal practice. Still, their ignorance does not excuse them from being complicit in this crime against humanity.
“I commend the states that are acting to cut off any healthcare funding for this barbaric practice,” she added. “The demand from wealthy westerners for healthy organs cannot justify, and must never encourage, the brutal harvesting of organs from helpless victims in China and elsewhere.”
In issuing her veto, Katie Hobbs provided a three-line explanation, arguing that the measure “includes overbroad provisions for genetic sequencing equipment that create compliance challenges for hospitals, healthcare providers, and researchers.”
But the bill’s sponsors included language to accommodate concerns from the insurance industry that it would be punished for unwittingly breaking the law. Michael Lucci of State Armor Action, an organization that is spearheading the state-by-state legislative push to curb China’s organ-harvesting trade, said that neither Hobbs nor her staff engaged with him or other proponents to voice concerns while the measure was making its way through the Arizona legislature.
“Gov. Hobbs’ veto of HB2503 is shameful,” Lucci told RealClearPolitics. “Gov. Hobbs speaks of championing women’s medical rights and medical privacy. Yet her veto … undermines all that rhetoric.”
“Arizonans will continue to have DNA harvested by China’s government, and Arizona has failed in a state’s basic duty to stand up against the murderous practice of foreign organ harvesting,” he added.
Hobbs’ office did not respond to repeated RCP inquiries. While China’s transplant practices have spurred international condemnation for its organ “tourism trade,” there is no clear paper trail to determine whether U.S. insurance companies have reimbursed residents for any costs involving transplants performed in China or other countries. Proponents designed the bill to guard against any reimbursements and also to bar coverage for any post-operative care associated with organ transplants that occurred in China or other U.S. adversaries.
“We should make clear that when Americans interact with China’s communist government, what seems too good to be true is too good to be true,” Lucci told RCP. “China’s low costs are built on slave labor, and organ transplants come from political prisoners.”
“In other words, if you get an organ transplant from China, you are on your own,” Lucci told RCP. “You have to pay for the transplant and all follow-up care associated with the transplant.”
In recent years, efforts to curb China’s organ-harvesting practices have increased at the federal level. Last year, the House passed GOP Rep. Chris Smith’s Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act, which would impose sanctions on any person who sponsors or facilitates forced organ harvesting or the trafficking of persons for the purpose of removing their organs. It would also require U.S. federal agencies to issue annual reports assessing the practice in China and other foreign adversaries.
Congress is also taking action against Beijing Genomics Institute, or BGI, which is already under U.S. export control restrictions, and Wuxi AppTec for their role in illegally collecting Americans’ and others’ genetic material and for its tracking of ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region of China where the Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. BGI, a company that developed its DNA technology with China’s military, has faced international condemnation for harvesting data from millions of pregnant women in the U.S. and around the world.
In Europe, BGI used a pre-natal test to collect genetic data on more than 8 million pregnant women without notifying them that their data was going to the Chinese government. The Chinese military would later use this data to conduct research, according to the House Select Committee on China.
U.S. security agencies are concerned that the enormous bank of genetic information could help China dominate pharmaceuticals and also potentially lead to engineered pathogens targeting the U.S. and other foreign populations and their food supplies.
BGI has faced several U.S. lawsuits over the theft of U.S. intellectual property. Wuxi AppTec, which has also been accused of stealing U.S. technology, has sponsored events with China’s military and jointly operated genetic collection sites with China’s military. Wuxi AppTec makes over 60% of its revenue from the U.S. market.
In mid-May, a bipartisan group of House members, including Reps. John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican, Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, and Rep. Grad Wenstrump, an Ohio Republican, praised the Oversight Committee’s passage of the Biosecure Act, which is aimed at curbing these Chinese companies’ U.S. operations.
“The United States will not sit idly by as the CCP steals our genetic data,” the trio said in a statement. “We are proud to lead the Biosecure Act and look forward to working with House leadership to get this bill on the floor as soon as possible.”
The measure would prohibit medical reimbursement for genetic sequencing procedures conducted by China or another foreign adversary and bar any U.S. federal agency from obtaining any biotechnology equipment or service by BGI and Wuxi AppTec or any other “biotechnology company of concern.” It also directs the Office of Management and Budget to publish a list of entities constituting biotechnology companies of concern in coordination with secretaries of Health and Human Services, Commerce, the State Department, Homeland Security, and the director of National Intelligence.
The post Hobbs’ Veto of China’s Organ-Harvesting Bill Spurs Questions appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
‘One of the most egregious examples of government religious discrimination’
A new student-led Bible club has been approved at a school in California after seven months of “anti-Christian hostility” from school officials.
The report comes from Dean Broyles, of the National Center for Law & Policy, which wrote to school officials explaining the students’ right to have their own club in the Oceanside Unified School District.
“This flagrant mistreatment and abuse of these courageous religious student leaders and other OHS students who desire to participate in the A-Team Bible Club is one of the most egregious examples of government anti-Christian religious discrimination and hostility that I have seen in my nearly thirty years of practicing law,” Broyles explained.
He cited the opposition from OHS ASB cashier and clerk Robbin Pollard.
“Pollard’s actions and communications towards these Christian students were arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. Such state anti-religious bigotry is unacceptable and is unlawful. But this is precisely what happens when the state delegates too much unchecked discretionary government power to a single ‘gatekeeper,’ who either does not know the law or does not care to abide by it. The OHS ASB, particularly Pollard, owes these student leaders an apology.”
He said the law requires government to be neutral, not hostile, toward religion.
Part of that, he said, is “Accommodating religious students on campus by giving them equal access.”
His report on the dispute explained how the school had thrown up “relentless red tape and overt religious discrimination.”
The breakthrough, the approval from the board, happened only days after the district got an 18-page letter from NCLP charging the school with anti-Christian hostility.
“The student leaders attempting to launch the Christian Club had endured more than seven months of significant anti-Christian hostility and blatant religious discrimination from a rogue teacher at Oceanside High School since first attempting to form the club at the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year,” he said.
The report noted the Religious Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Equal Access Act and OUSD’s own policies and regulations protect such student-led clubs on high school campuses.
Pollard, the report said, repeatedly had claimed to the students that there were too many Christian clubs on campus and they would have to wait a year.
The first meeting of the A-Team Bible Club was held just days ago.
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Final Decision on Bible Club After 7 Months of ‘Anti-Christian Hostility’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
Real Clear Wire
The post Remembering a Death in Battle appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
‘Americans no longer have to be guilty to be stripped of their property, rights and liberties’
It’s been called by some “a modern-day form of highway robbery,” but the Supreme Court nevertheless has gone along with it.
It’s the practice by police of using delay tactics when they confiscate cash, jewelry, cars and other valuables from people who sometimes are completely innocent of any offense.
They are “asset forfeiture” cases and often involve no criminal charge against the property owner, according to a report from the Rutherford Institute, which fights in America’s courts for constitutional, religious and civil rights.
The latest high court action came in a 6-3 decision in Culley v. Marshall, where the justices held that there are “no due process protections for citizens in asset forfeiture proceedings to have an early court hearing to contest the government keeping possession of their seized property while they await trial.”
Lawyers for the Rutherford were joined by those from the ACLU and Cato Institute to argue that an early hearing was needed to “protect citizens against the government’s delay tactics, which make it difficult for individuals innocent of any wrongdoing to recover their property in a timely manner from police who stand to profit from the forfeiture.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch said it is a problem to have police delay proceedings and keep citizens’ private property for as long as a year or more.
He said that could coerce the owners to “settle” the dispute by paying a penalty for property they need for their work, or that they love.
But the majority overruled him.
“Americans no longer have to be guilty to be stripped of their property, rights and liberties,” warned constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “You just have to possess something the government wants.”
The institute explained, “Asset forfeiture has become a ‘booming business’ for the government, with federal forfeitures alone having brought in $2.5 billion during 2018. Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where government agents (usually the police) seize private property they ‘suspect’ may be connected to criminal activity, then, whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure.”
The government claims in such cases that some sort of property is “tied” to a crime, and then takes it. Then it forces the owner to prove the “innocence” of that property.
But the government sets up hoops and obstacles for the owners to negotiate in trying to regain their own property.
“Challenging these takings in court can cost an owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself, which, as Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence explained, is why some agencies reportedly place special emphasis on seizing low-value items and relatively small amounts of cash,” the institute reported.
The case developed when police in Alabama confiscated cars belong to Halima Culley and Lena Sutton which had been used by other individuals who were accused of drug possession.
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post ‘Highway Robbery’ by U.S. Police Gets Green Light, Thanks to Ruling appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
Real Clear Wire
What is good for defense contractors is not necessarily good for the military, nor the taxpayer, they are supposed to serve. Consider the F-35 program, which was supposed to deliver a jet that would make all other military jets obsolete. It has yet to do so, and the failures of the program sustainability speak to the idea that we need diversity in our procurement.
For one thing, too many F-35 sit idle. At a recent congressional hearing, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall claimed that “55% is the number we have for operational availability” of F-35s. That percentage sounds low; imagine if your car would get you to work only 55% of the time. You would be looking for another option!
But things are even worse than that for the F-35 program. Under further questioning, Kendall and his team admitted that fewer than a third of F-35s are “fully operational.” That tracks with a report from the Project on Government Oversight, which reported this year: “The Pentagon’s top testing office, the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), recently released its office’s annual report, which showed that the F-35 program has a fleet-wide full mission capable rate of only 30%.”
Under criticism that the F-35 has become a “paperweight,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin responded at another congressional hearing that he disagreed with the characterization and “in the future we should take [and] we should have a different approach” to “get our aircraft operational.” That would seem like the least we, as taxpayers and citizens, should expect.
Another lawmaker, Rep. Donald Norcross, (D-N.J.), notes that the F-35 is “our largest weapons program.” It is certainly the most expensive. “The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program remains DOD’s most expensive weapon system program,” the GAO wrote last year. “It is estimated that it will cost over $1.7 trillion to buy, operate, and sustain these aircraft.”
The F-35 is also the Pentagon’s most expansive program, “with more than 1,700 going to the Air Force, more than 420 to the Marine Corps and more than 270 to the Navy,” USNI reports. “The program is expected to move from its acquisition phase to full-rate production next year.”
The F-35 will be a great asset to our national security, but putting all your financial backing in one weapons system doesn’t make sense. F-35 readiness has been negatively affected by maintenance challenges and software issues as of late causing the low capability rates. From the latest GAO report to congress, the F-35 mission capability rates are being negatively impacted by a heavy reliance on contractors, inadequate training, a lack of technical data, a lack of support equipment, a lack of spare parts and funding prioritization. The report passed recommendations for the Secretary of Defense, along with the Secretary of the Air Force and Navy, to assess primary use of contractors versus military personnel in the maintenance and sustainment of the F-35 program.
The F-35 has significant advanced war fighting capabilities, but unless the jets are utilizing their full capabilities what is that worth to each Combatant Commander? As more jets come off the line a solid plan will be needed to be in place for sustainment to ensure the warfighters are given a Full Mission Capable platform to meet Air Tasking Order Missions at home and abroad.
I flew the F-15Cs for 16 years, which has an unmatched Air to Air combat record. The Eagle is presenting its own sustainability problems as the jets get older and fly past its intended life. In my opinion, the F-15EX, in addition to the F-35 program, should be the future. The FY23 NDAA stopped the retirement of F-22 block 20s until FY27 but continues to retire 65 F-15C/D aircraft, mostly from the Air National Guard. It appears Congress is not happy with our current fighter fleet numbers and combat readiness, which is why we are still moving forward with buying up to 104 F15EXs. I spent 11 years on Active duty and 10 years in the Air Guard. Historically, the Air Guard is a much cheaper way to maintain and fly fighters, while continuing to preserve combat pilots and maintenance personnel who have years of experience. Buying more F15EX and placing them in the Air Guard would be an easy way to save money for our taxpayers and also keep Combat Capabilities in place for our Homeland Defense Missions as well as supporting Missions overseas.
The United States is certainly spending huge dollars on the F-35, but are we getting the full value yet? I do believe the jet will prove to be a game changer, but it is clearly falling far short today. The military needs weapon systems it can rely on every day to succeed. Spending billions on a jet, without a reliable sustainment plan of action, is not a responsible use of our taxpayer dollars. Our taxpayers deserve better but more importantly our warfighters deserve better.
Jared “Chowda” Conaboy, Commissioned in 1998 from UMASS ROTC, 21 years in Air Force/ANG with Over 2000 hours in F-15C, Instructor Pilot, and Weapons School Graduate.
The post F-35 Sustainment Challenges for the U.S. Taxpayer appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
By Susan Crabtree
Real Clear Wire
House Republicans who have led a nearly two-year investigation into a $500,000 State Department grant to an organization that promotes humanism and secularism are pressing the agency to conduct more diligent oversight after it admitted that the organization may have misused taxpayer funds.
Rep. Mike McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who heads the panel’s human rights subcommittee, have accused the State Department of trying to promote atheism overseas under the guise of advancing religious pluralism, a longtime U.S. foreign policy priority. Rep. Brian Mast, a Florida Republican who chairs the panel’s oversight and accountability subcommittee, has also helped spearhead inquiries into the grant.
For more than a year, the trio has been investigating the decision-making behind the State Department’s April 2021 solicitation bid for a $500,000 grant titled “Promoting and Defending Religious Freedom Inclusive of Atheist, Humanist, Non-Practicing and Non-Affiliated Individuals.” The agency awarded the grant to Humanists International, or HI, an organization aimed at promoting humanism, an outlook and system of thought attaching prime importance to human effort rather than divine or supernatural powers.
In a letter sent to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Verma Wednesday, McCaul, Smith, and Mast charged the State Department with engaging in a “pattern of obfuscation and denial” throughout the investigation in order to “expand atheism networks” overseas. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause of the Constitution bars the use of tax dollars to promote theocracy, a specific religion or belief system.
It was not until Foreign Affairs Committee staff contacted the HI to schedule a transcribed interview, and the organization retained legal counsel, that the “true scope” of the grant’s programming was revealed, the GOP House members asserted. HI’s attorneys contacted the State Department and admitted it had provided the wrong slides presented during its training session in Nepal.
“Legal counsel for the grantee uncovered in a matter of weeks what the Department obfuscated, misrepresented and denied for years,” they wrote, expressing skepticism about the agency’s stated commitment to recoup any misused funds and take action to bar HI from further State Department grants.
“We do, however, appreciate your statements, and we expect to be informed fully and without delay of all developments in this matter,” they continued. “The Department can reasonably expect congressional oversight of grant funding to continue since the need for it is all the more pressing in light of the recent revelations.”
According to its website, HI promotes “human-rights priorities based on humanist values at international organizations,” including the United Nations. It also champions the rights of individuals persecuted or discriminated against for failing to adhere to a country’s predominant religion or those who face harsh penalties under their country’s blasphemy and anti-conversion laws.
A statement on HI’s website praises a Nigerian court for upholding the appeal of Mubarak Bala and reducing his prison sentence from 24 years to five years for violating the country’s blasphemy laws. In 2020, Bala was arrested in northern Nigeria, where Islam is the government’s dominant religion and thousands of Christians are killed each year, for a series of Facebook posts expressing his humanist beliefs.
The latest war of words comes after the State Department acknowledged in late April that the agency had provided the House Republicans with the wrong PowerPoint slides about what HI was using U.S. funds to accomplish.
Naz Durakoglu, the State Department’s assistant secretary for its bureau of legislative affairs, notified McCaul that HI had recently contacted the department to say it had initially provided the wrong slides about the information conveyed at training sessions the grant funded. The agency then passed the wrong slides on to the committee in response to its probe.
“This new information directly contradicts Humanists International’s previous representation to the Department that the slides it had earlier provided were the ones used at the training,” Durakoglu wrote to McCaul in an April 29 letter, noting that the “department is deeply concerned about this development.”
The State Department stressed that it’s taking “immediate action” to request additional information from HI to ensure its work complies with federal laws and regulations.
“Should the Department determine that any such charges were not in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations, including activities outside the grant agreement, it will take all necessary actions to recoup misused funds” and take steps to bar HI from being eligible to receive federal funds in the future, Durakoglu wrote. He also noted that it would refer any misrepresentations HI made to the State Department Office of Inspector General for further investigation.
But McCaul, Smith, and Mast aren’t convinced the State Department is acting in good faith, considering that the agency had pushed back against their concerns for more than a year. The House Foreign Affairs Committee obtained the PowerPoint slides from the actual HI training sessions and argued they show that only humanists or atheists attended the sessions, instead of members of several faith traditions. They also complained that the slides appeared to show that HI was using the grant to advance the humanist cause and its influence on government policy and touted the benefits of setting annual numerical goals for recruiting new humanist or atheist members.
For more than a year, U.S. officials claimed that the grant’s work was not aimed at increasing the number and influence of atheists abroad but was merely a routine award aimed at promoting the larger goal of religious tolerance in South and Central Asia or the Middle East and North Africa, the grant offering’s targeted area.
The State Department’s stated aim for the grant was to prevent discrimination against individuals who do not adhere to the predominant religious tradition. In several countries across those regions, blasphemy and anti-conversion laws, such as those in Nigeria, prohibit insults to the prevailing religion and are often used to enact harsh penalties against religious minorities, atheists, and other nonbelievers.
The State Department provided another grant opportunity in 2021 to help “expand” religious freedom and tolerance in Mozambique, where Christians face horrific levels of persecution despite making up roughly 50% of the population.
“The genesis of these activities is how do we bring the most persecuted and the most marginalized [when it comes to religious freedom] and bring them into the conversation,” a senior department official of the State Department’s Office of Religious Freedom told RealClearPolitics in a lengthy interview. “In Central Asia, there’s significant persecution of Christians, there’s significant persecution of religious minorities, and most of these folks just want to live their lives in accordance with their own conscience.”
The average Muslim in Saudi Arabia doesn’t necessarily want to practice Islam the way the government dictates, the senior official said, so the purpose of the grant offering was to acknowledge that people who don’t adhere to approved religious belief are often the victims of religious discrimination.
“The idea behind the request for proposal was not to make a program for atheists or for members of a particular group,” he added. “It was to make sure that when we think about promoting religious freedom for everyone, we’re doing things that are inclusive and [including] members of those communities who often get left out because they don’t have an obvious spokesperson.”
The official vigorously defends that rationale for providing the grant, but says his office is deeply concerned that HI may have engaged in misconduct.
“I will stand proudly behind the [rationale], but as soon as there’s the potential whiff of fraud or misrepresentation, that’s a very different matter entirely,” he said. “We take that very seriously and want to ensure that, as stewards of taxpayer dollars, that not one penny of taxpayer money is being misappropriated or misused.”
The State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom, which was created in 1998 by an act of Congress, promotes universal respect for religious freedom or belief as a core objective of U.S. foreign policy. The office monitors religiously motivated abuses and discrimination worldwide and engages with faith-based actors, groups, and organizations to help promote democracy and pluralism.
In 2016, Smith, a longtime human rights champion in Congress, worked to update the religious freedom law to expressly protect the rights of people around the world who practice no religion at all.
“We want to make clear that … nobody is coerced into believing in God if they don’t want to,” Smith said at the time. “I’m a Catholic, and I believe very deeply in God, but Christ said, ‘I stand at the door and knock. If you welcome me, I come in.’ And that’s the way religious liberty ought to be, absolutely voluntary. People have the right not to believe.”
Smith also said the language clarifying that the law is meant to protect nonbelievers was noncontroversial even among the more evangelical members of Congress.
“It speaks well of all of, of everyone, that we really want to protect freedom of conscience for all people,” Smith said.
But Smith is now deeply concerned that the State Department is using taxpayer funds to directly benefit the atheist and humanist cause and possibly grow its numbers. In the coming weeks, the New Jersey Republican plans to introduce legislation explicitly barring grants violating the Establishment Clause. He cited language in the Notice of Funding Opportunity, the official agency notice describing the grant and requesting applicants, as potentially violating the First Amendment prohibitions. The notice states that the “expected program outcome” was to “[i]ncrease capacity among members of atheist and heterodox individuals to form or join networks or organizations.”
“It is hard to believe that Department officials refused to read the words right in front of them, but we are not sure what else may have happened,” the GOP members wrote in their Wednesday letter to Verma.
They also cite HI’s state strategic goals, which include having member organizations in “every part of the world,” according to its website.
Gary McLelland, HI’s CEO, has been very vocal about his animus against the Roman Catholic Church, arguing in one podcast that, “It’s obviously my job in [the international HI organization] to combat the Vatican policies and to push against them.”
The timing of the grant may have helped HI recover from a tough financial period. An RCP analysis of HI’s charitable 990 tax forms shows that the organization operated at a net loss every year from 2019 until 2021, ending that year with a net loss of $322,000, although it listed $3.8 million in assets. In 2022, roughly the time of receiving the State’s $500,000 Department grant, the organization reported only a $3,000 loss and $3.2 million in assets.
As recently as March 21, during an appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Verma dismissed the Republicans’ concerns that the grant was promoting converts to atheism or humanism instead of tolerance for all religious minorities. At one point during his testimony, Verma deemed the grant “exactly the right kind of program.”
“I have looked at the grant. I have looked at the materials,” he said. “[Promoting atheism] is not what the grant is for, and that is not what the work would be for. We would never authorize such a grant to any organization.” I have seen no evidence of any grant to promote atheism in Nepal … I have looked at the materials this grantee has used. It was about supporting civil society.”
In February, a State Department assistant secretary told the House Republicans that the grant-funded training in Nepal only concerned “creating guidelines … for the promotion of human rights and dignity.”
The agency continued to deny that it provided funds to any organizations with “the aim of using the funds to promote or advance specific ideologies or beliefs,” even though the official State Department “scope of work” for the program stated that participants would “conduct advocacy and members activities promoting humanism” and would work to “increase and diversify their membership network.”
The post State Dept: ‘Atheism Grant’ May Have Been Misused appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
But his 1st Amendment claim still pending in federal court
Prosecutors in Fort Bend County, Texas, have given up on their campaign to convict a citizen journalist who was singled out by police and arrested from among a number of other reporters at the scene of a police response.
The Institute for Justice notes, however, that the federal lawsuit by journalist Justin Pulliam against authorities in the county continues.
But they no longer will be prosecuting him for misdemeanor offenses.
The decision came after a hung jury in a trial, in which five jurors decided on acquittal, and one held out for a conviction.
The institute explained the county now has dropped charges that Pulliam interfered with police officers.
“We’re supposed to enjoy liberty and justice for all, to be able to speak our beliefs, but prosecutors can violate the Constitution with retaliatory prosecutions to silence political opposition. It’s alarming and outrageous,” Pulliam said in a statement released by the institute.
“I was saved only by a jury of my peers, who stopped the political persecution after watching the video—my video—that showed exactly what happened.”
The background is that he was arrested in December 2021 while recording the Fort Bend County sheriff’s office’s response to a mental health call. Justin had permission from the property owner and was nowhere close to the scene.
“But then-Sgt. Taylor Rollins, a defendant in Justin’s free speech challenge, arrested him within 60 seconds of arriving on scene because Justin questioned why he was being ordered off scene while others were allowed to stay,” the organization confirmed.
He filed his lawsuit in December 2022, and shortly later, the state prosecutor took him to trial for allegedly interfering with Rollins.
That resulted in the mistrial.
“Those five jurors got it right,” explained IJ lawyer Jeff Rowes. “Not only did Justin not break the law, his arrest was blatantly unconstitutional and a threat to citizen journalists everywhere. The DA never should have prosecuted in the first place and it was right to drop the charges now.”
A federal court already has rejected the sheriff’s claim that the resulting First Amendment lawsuit by Pulliam should be dismissed.
The IJ said, “Justin’s lawsuit with IJ seeks to protect First Amendment rights in two ways. First, the public is allowed to record police subject only to reasonable restrictions. Again, Justin was far from interfering with police activities. Second, government officials cannot treat independent journalists differently from members of the established media or other members of the public. The deputy who arrested Justin singled him out from others on the scene just because Justin was recording.”
The IJ noted, “As part of his project to instill more accountability and transparency into the actions of public officials, Justin tracks calls on a scanner and drives to the scene to document law enforcement responses. His particular focus is on recording calls where no one was accused of a crime, such as mental health checks. Afterward, his videos are uploaded onto his YouTube channel, Corruption Report. Justin’s viewpoint is clear: He is suspicious of authority and doesn’t take kindly to government officials who want to hide from the public.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Prosecutor Gives Up On Interference Case Against Citizen Journalist appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Leo Hohmann at Leo Hohmann Substack
In case there was any confusion over what NATO really stands for, the military alliance’s general secretary cleared things up with a bold tweet.
The U.S. military will pull all of its troops and assets out of Niger by mid-September, the Pentagon has announced, after days of talks with the country’s military junta finalized a timeline.
The Hill reports that a group of military leaders executed a coup in Niger last year, forming a military junta government that has geopolitically aligned with Russia. Talks of leaving Niger have lasted several weeks, with the timeline “finalized Sunday after four days of high-intensity negotiations,” according to The Hill, which adds:
“About 1,000 U.S. troops have been stationed in the country, for the purpose of counterterrorism operations against ISIS and al Qaeda-affiliated groups.”
That’s a big fat lie put out there by The Hill, a corporate media outlet based in Washington, D.C. But to be fair, the outlet did add this to its story:
“The Americans stayed on our soil, doing nothing while the terrorists killed people and burned towns,” Nigerien Prime Minister Ali Lamine Zeine told The Washington Post last week. “It is not a sign of friendship to come on our soil but let the terrorists attack us.”
But even this leaves a distorted view of the reality of why Americans and French are in Niger. The full story would be too harsh for the American masses to process but I’m going to give it to you because I know my audience can handle it.
The CIA, in cooperation with other Western intelligence assets, created al-Qaeda and ISIS and the real reason it built a $100 billion base in Niger has nothing to do with eliminating Islamic terrorism. The real reason that base is there, and why the French have been there for even longer, is because Niger is rich in Uranium and has vast untapped oil reserves, gold-mining operations, coal mining and other resources that the West has been exploiting for decades. And when I say “exploiting,” I mean in the worst way.
Here’s the dirty little secret I found hiding in plain sight on the website World Atlas, among other places on the Internet:
“Niger’s mineral sector faces several challenges such as the employment of children in the mines and fluctuating prices of minerals in the international market. A report by the US government estimated that more than 40% of children younger than 14 were working in mines. About 5% of the children were involved in hazardous activities. The government of Niger has made several efforts to eliminate child labor from the country’s mines. The efforts have been relatively unsuccessful, and in 2014 the US government reported that children were still working in Nigerien mines.”
Niger’s Uranium has been mined mostly by the French dating back to the 1950s when it was discovered there in large quantities. The country is currently the third or fourth-largest producer of Uranium in the world, depending on what source you believe. According to Mining-Technology the country’s Imouraren mine is the largest single Uranium deposit in Africa and the world’s second-largest Uranium deposit.
Gold mining causes lead poisoning in chidren. Uranium mining is even more horrific.
And, yet, with all this wealth of natural resources, the United Nations ranked Niger as the second least-developed country in the world in 2016 with serious problems of “food insecurity.”
A French company, Orano, to this day boasts about its ability to strip-mine Uranium in the northwest desert region of Niger.
Russia apparently offered the new government in Niger a better deal for its resources and so now it’s flipped sides. This is reportedly happening in more than a few countries in Africa. Chad is the next to potentially flip.
While staying silent about the West’s history of stripping Niger of its resource wealth and focusing instead on the “terrorism” angle, The Hill reports that “the U.S. withdrawal plan from Niger is for most equipment to be airlifted from the country before September, with everything out by midway through the month. Military infrastructure and some items too large to transport will be left to the Nigerien military… Niger ordered France to withdraw troops before negotiating with the U.S. on a withdrawal agreement. The coming withdrawal is another setback for the U.S. in the African Sahel region, which has experienced multiple coups in the past few years that have ultimately benefited Russia.”
Let’s face it. A big part, maybe the biggest part, of the post-World War II liberal rules based order has been about protecting the world’s resources for Western commercial interests. This has led to cheap electronics and other goods for America, Canada, Europe, etc. As that world order gets upended and shifts to a more bipolar arrangement, I anticipate the American standard of living will further decline and eventually collapse. The dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency has also allowed the U.S. to run up an insane amount of debt, and that is getting ready to come to an end as well.
If you appreciate my research, news updates and analysis and would like to support my independent journalism, you may send a donation of any size c/o Leo Hohmann, P.O. Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264, or consider becoming a paid subscriber. You may also donate via credit card here.
The post The real reason why U.S. and French troops have been in Niger for Years appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission
RINOS do the same. When they are campaigning, RINOs display a lovely shade of Republican Red, working to convince those who vote for them that they truly care and are working in the best interest for the American Family and the American Dream. But watch closely and you will see, when vote tallies are completed, most Missouri Establishment Republicans, move from Republican Red to RINO Pink.
One RINO, who is especially adept with this form of camouflage, is Mark Anthony Jones, Chairman of the Jackson County Republican Central Committee.
To understand this change of colors, let us take a walk in the woods and follow the hypocrisy trail, which starts here and then turns left. Look closely and see if you find any chameleons.
On May 4, 2014, an article about the amazing feat of the Missouri Grassroot Patriots who were able to achieve some of their American First plans at the GOP convention held on that day in Springfield at JoeHoft.com. This Herculean achievement did not come easily.
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: GRASSROOT REVOLUTION OVERTHROWS RINOS AT MISSOURI STATE GOP CONVENTION
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Grassroot Revolution Overthrows RINOS at Missouri State GOP Convention
There were two primary objectives that day. The first was to select a slate of GOP delegates to go to the National GOP convention in July. The second was to pass the Missouri 2024 Republican Platform.
A tug-of-war between the RINOs and Grassroot Patriots started immediately. The RINOs opened the meeting and, to maintain control of the day, the RINOs stalled and stalled some more. As RINOs do often and well, they spent the next three hours “talking about all sorts of nothing” all the while crafting ways to overcome the Grassroots’ America First agenda and simply to “run out the clock.”
Another favorite RINO “go-to” playbook, is to manipulate parliamentary procedure to make sure the Grassroot Patriots would not be able to achieve an America First Missouri Republican Platform.
Both “running out the clock” and manipulating parliamentary procedures were on full display during the convention.
Eventually, the Grassroot Patriots were able to achieve the day’s first objective and nominated a slate of America First delegates to go the national convention. Then the Grassroot Patriots started the second objective to discuss and pass a 2024 America First Republican Missouri Platform. Again, the RINOs stalled, forcing the meeting to continue late into the afternoon.
Missouri State Representative Dan Stacey, well aware of parliamentary procedure and knowing many first-time attendees were not, knew without the required quorum; the Grassroot Patriots would be unable to pass their America First 2024 Republican Missouri Platform.
In true RINO fashion, Representative Dan Stacey (who, several years ago, filed a bill for Rank Choice Voting in Missouri) along with one of his congressional colleagues, convinced many attendees to leave the meeting, implying, due to the late hour, cars could be towed. Many attendees, now exhausted, left not knowing that without a quorum, the newly drafted America First platform would not be able to pass.
Late into the day and due to the lack of having a quorum, the American First platform failed. Stacey’s plan was successful!
At the end of the day, Stacey and his congressional colleague were seen laughing and high fiving as they exited the Expo Center. Both are senate hopefuls.
However, Stacey and his colleague were not the only RINOs “working the room” – in attendance was Mark Anthony Jones, Jackson County Republican Center Committee Chairman.
Jones is well known for his support of Missouri Establishment Republicans. Jones has fully supported Jay Ashcroft, Missouri Secretary of State, who has been provided with documentation that the 2020 election was uncertifiable, but Ashcroft has continually stated the Missouri 2020 election was totally acceptable. In 2020, Ashcroft used ERIC for Missouri’s voter rolls and is still using voting machines known to connect to the internet.
Missouri Freedom Principle Organization Urges Secretary of State Ashcroft to Terminate ERIC System in the State
Why Is Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft Moving to Block an Investigation Into Election Fraud?
RINOs and Democrats Running as Republicans Are Called Out in Jackson County, Missouri
Mark Anthony Jones fully supports Senator Mike Cierpiot, who has received tens of thousands of dollars from child transitioning PACs, supports Planned Parenthood and most recently introduced a bill to allow illegals to vote in Missouri.
Missouri RINOs Suspected of Creating an Entity to Endorse Themselves as Pro-life for Election Purposes After Losing Missouri Right to Life’s Endorsement
RINOs and Democrats Running as Republicans Are Called Out in Jackson County, Missouri
Missouri Republicans join Dems and pass Senate bill that allows non-citizens to vote and foreign governments to spend money in Missouri elections.
The Gateway Pundit in March 2023 reported on Jones’ belief, as Chairman of the Jackson County Republican Committee, he could ignore and completely over-rule the majority of the Committee who wanted to censure Cierpiot for Cierpiot’s support of Planned Parenthood. Additionally, at that same time, other bills were being proposed that would essentially soften the Republican platform to include changing the definition of marriage between a man and a woman, to a new definition that marriage was between two individuals.
When the February 27, 2023, Central Committee meeting came around, the committee members were looking forward to a full discussion and vote on the issues related to maintaining a strong Republican platform. Jones did not wish for an open dialog, or a committee vote on these critical issues. In order to have total control of the meeting, Jones first had a vote to close the meeting at 8:30 pm. Most of the committee voted against ending the meeting at 8:30 pm because, the last meeting agenda item, was the discussion NOT to abandon important pillars of the Republican platform. As noted, the committee wanted sufficient time to allow for this discussion.
Chairman Jones, then proceeded to stall the meeting where Jones alternately praised various entities outside the committee and then admonished members within the committee. After his extended criticism on the failures of the committee members, Jones gave the committee several minutes to read the committee’s concerns related to the unwanted changes to the Republican platform and then permitted two minutes for discussion. After the two minutes were up, Jones took the microphone from the speaker and turned the meeting over to another individual who read a lengthy letter about the committee not having any authority to admonish elected officials.
Once this long letter was read, Jones banged his gavel and closed the meeting at 8:30 pm. Most of the committee members were shocked and dismayed at Jones’ behavior and his complete disregard for the majority of the committee.
Subsequently, Jones said he knew members wanted him to step down but was not going to do so.
Chaos erupted in Jackson County Missouri Republican Central Committee as RINOs Admonished and then Silenced New Grassroots Committee Members
RINOs and Democrats Running as Republicans Are Called Out in Jackson County, Missouri
Returning to the May 4th meeting, while having employed the same stall and manipulation of parliamentary procedures against his own committee members, Jones’ hypocrisy is on full display as he is now criticizing Chairman Myers’ for the same method Jones used on his committee for keeping the Establishment Republicans in control and marginalize the Grassroots.
Excerpt of the May 20, 2024, letter from Mark Anthony Jones to Chairman Nick Myers.
“Chairman Nick Myers, you must be held accountable for the embarrassment caused by the poorly managed beginning of the May 4th State Convention. The start of the Convention was delayed for approximately 5 hours, tarnishing our party's reputation. The unfinished platform can be directly attributed to the delay by the Chairman, which we consider completely unacceptable. The process broke down to a very amateurish level, reflecting poorly on our party's leadership.”
Mark Anthony Jones further wrote:
“We call for the immediate resignation of Chairman Nick Myers. The Convention's embarrassment and ignoring the people's will by refusing to include platform amendments is altogether unacceptable. When combined with the embarrassment regarding a lack of vetting of candidates by accepting a filing fee from a known KKK member, it is a clear demonstration of incompetence. We believe Chairman Myers has lost his ability to lead the Republican Party.”
Here is Mark Anthony Jones's letter to Chairman Myers:
MO RINOs - Letter to Chairman Myers by Joe Ho on Scribd
Jones is demanding Myers to resign but when Jones was faced with a similar and valid request, Jones simply refused to step down.
One must ask why is Jones changing his colors to be the champion of the Grassroots?
Could it be Mark Anthony Jones envisions, by romancing the Grassroots, he can gain their support and with the Grassroots support can become Missouri’s State Republican National Committee Chair? Does Jones feel he can become state chair immediately by removing the current state chair Nick Myers? Could Mark Anthony Jones, if elected RNC state chairman during the 2024 Presidential Election, implement the Establishment Republican agenda and further marginalize the Grassroots?
In Matthew 24:24, “the Bible warns false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”
The post What Do Missouri RINOs and Chameleons Have in Common? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on Leo Hohmann’s Substack and was republished with permission.
One of NATO’s primary missions is to spread instability throughout the world, using the military-industrial complex to bully and intimidate countries non-compliant with a militant anti-family anti-God agenda flowing out of Western capitals and promoted by Western media.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asserted on Friday the alliance’s commitment to defending the rights of LGBTQ individuals, aligning with numerous Western officials, institutions, and organizations in commemorating the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia.
Author Jose Nino summed it up nicely in a piece for Big League Politics:
“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is committed to spreading degenerate values abroad. With Russia seemingly making major gains against NATO-backed Ukrainian forces in Eastern Ukraine, NATO leaders have been engaging in bizarre virtue signaling to divert attention away from the abject failure of this proxy war against Russia.
“Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 24, 2022, NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has been particularly vocal about NATO’s values and why it’s an institution that has to be trusted despite its long track record of causing instability abroad — from Serbia all the way to Libya.”
On Friday, May 17, Stoltenberg, reaffirmed NATO’s commitment to LGBTQ+ values by arrogantly proclaiming in a post to X the current Western value system and what it is based upon:
#NATO exists to defend 32 nations, and our peoples’ right to live freely & in peace. On the International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia, and every day: all love is equal. LGBTQ+ people deserve respect & dignity, and I am proud to call myself your ally. #IDAHOBIT
— Jens Stoltenberg (@jensstoltenberg) May 17, 2024
Nino reminds us of why NATO was founded in the first place, in the wake of World War II in 1949. It was to counter the Soviet Union’s influence on the European continent.
“However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has worked to remake the world in America’s increasingly dysfunctional image. Its interventions in the Balkans all the way to Libya have brought nothing but harm and instability.”
NATO is no longer seen by most nations of the world as a defensive alliance.
NATO launched offensive wars against Yugoslavia in 1999 and Libya in 2011, as well as its protracted occupation of Afghanistan, leaving the country no freer and no better off in 2021 than when it was invaded 20 years prior, but rather much more dangerous with billions of U.S. and Western military weapons in the hands of the Taliban terrorists.
But even more destructive is the fact that NATO teams up with an army of neo-Marxist and Cultural Marxist nonprofits to promote values antithetical to those found in the Bible, including gay “marriage,” abortion on demand up to birth, and children being able to choose their own gender, along with the whole idea of gender as a social construct meant to “oppress” the sexual deviants and mentally confused. Why do they promote ideas so destructive of society? Because they know no nation can survive for long without moral restraints and some sort of devotion to a higher authority above that of carnal man.
Nino adds:
“In effect, any country that gets in bed with NATO catches the STD of multiculturalism, sexual degeneracy, and societal decay. More importantly, NATO is an entangling military alliance with a crusading ideology that is a threat to world peace. “
No nation can survive without strong men. Transgendered females (biological men who pretend to be women) running around in skirts do not tend to make good military officers, but that’s exactly the type of behavior that is now being promoted and encouraged by the military forces of the U.S., Europe, Australia, Canada and Israel. This group of nations will all suffer catastrophic defeats at the hands of Russia and China if they continue with their plans to poke the bear and create a World War III scenario while at the same time indulging the lowest form of human behavior.
At the heart of this Western globalist agenda lies a demonic attempt to depopulate the world in accordance with the principles laid out in the Georgia Guidestones and other globalist screeds. Because everyone knows that gay marriages don’t produce children. Emasculated, mutilated and transgendered young people don’t reproduce, either.
Any nation that is truly free and independent should immediately exit this military alliance and even non-members should totally free themselves from NATO’s Luciferian psychological clutches. Because NATO’s psychopathic leaders base their speech and their actions on moral alchemy, warmongering and a Satanic lust for power over the free minds of people everywhere.
To receive new posts and support Leo Hohmann’s work, consider becoming a paid subscriber if you aren’t yet at leohohmann.substack.com
The post Leo Hohmann: NATO Has Become the Military Wing of a Globalist Power Structure That Promotes the Self-Destruction of All Nations and a Depopulated World appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire
Real Clear Wire
The American Dream in Pennsylvania has a price tag: $230,464.
That’s the cost for a family of four to live “comfortably” in The Keystone State.
The tally is based on the “50/30/20 Rule,” which holds that half of a household’s income should be spent on housing and necessities, a third on nonessentials like eating out and entertainment, and the rest on savings and debt.
Here’s the problem: the average household income in Pennsylvania is $100,837, which falls short of the American Dream sticker price by more than a factor of two.
In fact, only 10% of Pennsylvania households have an income that exceeds $200,000. Nine out of ten are nowhere close to living comfortably, according to the standards of financial planners.
To get by, Pennsylvanians are pulling out all the stops.
Cohabitation has skyrocketed. Children and grandchildren of Baby Boomers are moving in with their parents to serve as caregivers in exchange for rent-free living and dipping into their elders’ retirement savings. Culturally, moving back in with your parents in your mid-forties has never been part of the American Dream.
Pennsylvania credit card debt is at an all-time high. Nearly 10% of accounts are delinquent. For many, credit cards serve as temporary supplemental income.
The number of beneficiaries of SNAP federal food benefits has grown 75% despite flat population growth in the Commonwealth. With unemployment at record lows, more Pennsylvanians than ever need help paying for groceries.
With homeownership out of reach, nearly nine renters compete for each available apartment unit throughout the state. Pennsylvania rental rates are growing faster than the national average, especially in tertiary markets like Scranton and Reading.
It is no surprise why Pennsylvania lottery jackpots and gaming revenues have never been higher. Our luck has to change somewhere, right?
Comfort is a central tenet of the American Dream. In the past, savvy leaders understood that comfort is in the eye of the beholder.
From the right, Ronald Reagan championed the American Dream as the freedom to become whoever God intended you to be. With personal responsibility and self-reliance as first principles, comfort is life on your terms.
From the left, Barack Obama portrayed the American Dream through the “Life of Julia,” who enjoys the cradle-to-grave helping hand of government. Through social equality and egalitarianism as core values, comfort is life free of risk.
What both visions have in common is that they deliberately avoid kitchen table politics. They do so for two reasons.
First, for a long time, the difference between expectation and reality wasn’t so great. Voters accepted the status quo.
Second, in a sense, voting is a negotiation. Political parties are organized solely to win. In a negotiation, the political party who names its price first loses.
Pennsylvanians know they are losing. Bootstrapping one’s way to success seems a fantasy when daily life is riskier than ever. The gap between expectation and reality is fueling palpable resentment and anger.
Times have changed. Talk is cheap. Comfort costs $230,464.
For today’s policymakers, the math is simple but daunting: double household incomes, or halve household expenses.
Pennsylvania State House Democrats have pushed for corporate tax cuts, record public education funding, increasing property tax rebates for seniors, and more mass transit support.
Pennsylvania State Senate Republicans passed the largest personal income tax cut in state history, repeal of a century-old tax on electricity, and school choice for families trapped in failing schools.
These are the current table stakes for the annual budget negotiations going on in Harrisburg. All these proposals can get enough votes to become law. But would they double incomes or halve costs for Pennsylvania families?
Maybe, but probably not quickly enough to rescue many Pennsylvanians from drowning. At least policymakers in Harrisburg are trying to use the tools they have at their disposal. But state government can only do so much.
There is little evidence that voters are paying attention to much of it, anyway. For now, Pennsylvanians are more focused on immediate survival.
They will reengage this fall. Until then, here’s hoping a scratch-off ticket hits.
The post In Pennsylvania, the Cost of the American Dream Is Out of Reach appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on WND.com
Guest by post by Bob Unruh
Asks if Americans finally have ‘had it’ with Scranton Joe
Victor Davis Hanson is a name that draws both recognition and respect.
He’s an American classicist, military historian and political commentator. While he often adopts conservative perspectives, his work has been acknowledged, and used, by leftist publications include the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and more. His style is markedly reserved, and he seldom throws “bombs” in his writing.
He’s the Martin and Illie Anderson senior fellow in resident in classics and military history at the Hoover Institution, and a professor at California State-Fresno.
But now he’s written at FrontPageMag questioning whether Americans finally have “had it” with Joe Biden.
He explains Biden’s approval ratings are at historic lows, he trails President Donald Trump in most of the swing states, and “now he lies serially even to sympathetic interviewers. In short, finally Biden has been exposed for what he always was and represented.”
That would be, he said, a “sort of a buffoon. He is by nature a grandstander who handsomely profited from his office while posing as good ole Joe from Scranton.”
But he’s really a “a blowhard meddler, one who proverbially has been ‘wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades (Robert Gates),’ from dissenting on the Bin Laden raid to his trisection of Iraq scheme.”
Hanson points out Biden routinely misleads people – he’s repeatedly and wildly claimed that inflation was 9% when he took office. It was 1.4%.
He slurs people, calling them “semi-fascists,” “fat” and “lying dog-faced pony soldiers,” among the nicer.
“He is a confessed plagiarist. And he has also invented much of his biography, from would be star, college-scholarship athlete and brilliant law student to semi-truck driver and jailed civil rights activist. His uncle, we are instructed, was eaten by cannibals. Joe assures us that he was the first in his family to go to college,” Hanson wrote.
His racism, “boy,” “you ain’t black,” “Put y’all back in chains,” never is far below the surface.
“Biden has always had a mean streak that explains why for years he lied about the tragic, fatal auto accident of his first wife and child, using it to libel the truck driver, who was neither drunk nor culpable but smeared publicly for years by Biden as intoxicated and guilty. For years he ignored the pleas of the trucker’s family to please stop libeling an innocent driver,” he said.
A change came about recently, though, he said.
“Biden has reached a nadir and even the Left is resigned to him as a mere construct. After bragging after October 7 that his support for Israel was rock-solid he is now cutting off military aid as it attempts finally to end the Hamas murderous threat—a reversion to old Joe Biden who in his long past has previously threatened to cut off Israel while boasting later that anyone who did so was reprehensible. (Leveraging congressional mandated aid for political advantage is precisely the (false) allegation of politicking that the Democrats demagogued to impeach Trump—to the then cheers of Biden himself),” Hanson said.
So he’s a sellout on Israel, he’s drawing down the strategic petroleum reserve to lower gas prices – specifically to enhance his election changes, “he has illegally forgiven billions in student loan aid to regain the elite youth vote. And as the campaign season begins, so too Biden suddenly poses as a border enforcer—after letting in nearly 10-million illegal aliens.”
The Biden family’s lucrative schemes, including Hunter Biden’s “Burisma skullduggery,” shows he always puts his own interests ahead of the nation’s.
And then there’s the creepy: “Any other major politician who habitually invaded the private space of women and preteens to blow on their hair, gobble their necks, squeeze and hug far too long, and be accused of sexual assault would have long since been cancelled by the left,” he said.
“Add the old disturbing narrative of a naked Vice President Joe Biden exiting his pool in front of female secret service agents, the showering with his pre-teen daughter, the Frank Biden and Hunter naked selfies, and there seems something eerie among the Biden family.”
And Hanson blames Biden for the “entire lawfare scheme directed at Trump.”
He concluded, “If Biden makes it to and through the convention, he and his record remain indefensible. And so expect his campaign largely to be waged through lawfare against Trump, and massive infusions of leftist cash to ensure record mail-in and early voting.”
Copyright 2024 WND News Center
The post Victor Davis Hanson: Biden’s Record ‘Indefensible’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Here is the latest from the Recall Vos campaign.
Of course, Robin Vos is the highly controversial anti-Trump Wisconsin Speaker who approved ballot drop boxes in Wisconsin.
The Recall Vos people
In our commitment to transparency and integrity, Recall Vos wishes to address concerns surrounding the petition collection process.
First, it is important to note that the current Wisconsin recall process relies on the honesty of all participants. There is no requirement to either request or confirm the identification of individuals signing the petition.
Additionally, the “Circulator,” who signs at the bottom of the petition page, merely verifies that “a person” has indeed signed the petition. Since there is no requirement for identity verification, the Circulator cannot be sure if the signer is being truthful.
Thus, they are only confirming that they witnessed a person signing the petition without any assurance of the signer’s honesty on the form. Our campaign recognized this significant weakness in the recall process and took proactive steps to mitigate this vulnerability.
Throughout the campaign, we endeavored to identify and segregate questionable petition sheets, such as those suspected of forgery or fraud. Despite our best efforts, a small fraction of these sheets were inadvertently mixed with the nearly 11,000 valid signatures submitted.
It’s crucial to emphasize that hundreds of signatures were proactively withheld and never submitted due to suspicions of fraud, highlighting our good-faith effort to eliminate suspicious signatures.
In late February 2024, our campaign observed suspicious activities between February 27 and March 2, where several individuals from across the nation suddenly appeared in Burlington, WI, and attempted to infiltrate the campaign.
All six individuals tried to insert fraudulent signatures. These actions were immediately flagged by our team. Remarkably, these individuals, independently, flew from various parts of the country (New York, Florida, Ohio) to assist in the recall campaign.
They sought compensation but left the state without any. Their involvement abruptly ceased upon the submission of the questionable signatures. This behavior, combined with their unverified nationwide origins and the submission of inauthentic signatures, raised significant concerns.
Despite the challenges posed by the self-authentication process of the Wisconsin petition process, Recall Vos implemented verification measures beyond the legal requirements.
When faced with approximately 400 (about 40 pages) suspiciously pristine signatures, our volunteers took the additional step of conducting thorough in-person verifications at over 15 residences.
As anticipated, we were unable to verify any of the signatures, leading us to consider them potentially fraudulent; thus, they were not included in our submission to the Wisconsin Election Commission.
The individuals identified as sources of these fraudulent signatures, including Carlo Green, Jade Hilton, Jason Lopez, Lavelle Hester-Bey, Kiara Rivera, and Xavier Pittman, were excluded from our petition efforts.
Regrettably, some sheets with questionable signatures were mistakenly included by a volunteer in the final submission, a matter we deeply regret.
Recall Vos stands firm on the principle of election security and integrity. We advocate for stringent legal action against anyone implicated in falsifying documents and undermining the public’s trust in electoral processes.
Our proactive stance against potential fraud demonstrates our unwavering commitment to uphold the highest standards of legitimacy and transparency in the Recall Vos campaign.
Our internal review concerning the fake signatures led us to identify several individuals who were acting on their own in an apparent organized effort to infuse fraudulent signatures into the Recall Vos campaign. We are turning over all the information we have on these individuals.
Background: In addition to the numerous volunteers from Wisconsin, RECALL VOS hired three US companies to enhance the signature collection activity. Only one is relevant to this issue. (NOTE: All three companies were US-based and agreed/contracted to follow Wisconsin laws as they pertain to recall elections.
The first company, “4ward Canvassing LLC” (POC: Missy Ward, Phone: 719-896-1536), was hired on February 2 and fired on February 11, 2024, due to poor performance.
The second company, “Trailblazing Canvassers” (POC: Mr. Edward Blaszak, Phone: 503-481-9052), was hired on February 12 and fired on February 28, 2024. The third company was “Wool Canvassing” (POC: Mr. Greg Wool, Phone: 201-452-4923), which only collected signatures from March 1st to 10th.
The company connected to this issue is Trailblazing Canvassers. We were dissatisfied with their performance/lack of management, etc., leading to their dismissal on February 28, 2024.
(Important Note: All of these companies use “Independent Contractors” (ICs), thus none are employees.) After firing Trailblazing Canvassers, we offered to pay some of their best ICs to continue gathering valid signatures, provided they submitted a W9 tax form. Some of the Trailblazing crew stayed and wanted to continue gathering signatures.
We agreed to continue paying them as ICs if they delivered the required number of verifiable signatures. Recall Vos was assured by the CEO of Trailblazing Canvassers (Edward Blaszak) that all ICs were US citizens.
(NOTE: After news reports suggested that the RECALL Vos campaign employed illegal workers from Ukraine to gather signatures, we asked the three individuals in question to provide proof of US citizenship, which they did promptly, thus disproving the news reports.
The best explanation we have is that some kind of “disruptive operation” was run against the RECALL Vos campaign. The initial approach occurred on February 26, 2024, when Mr. Lavelle Hester-Bey and Jason Lopez approached Mr. Litvin while he was collecting signatures at the Burlington Post Office. Suddenly, they offered to help him gather signatures.
Needing assistance, Litvin quickly agreed to let them join his team, and Litvin even had them fill out W9 forms. (NOTE: Recall Vos had nothing to do with Litvin’s activities concerning getting more people for this team.)
Mr. Litvin, explained the petition process to them and they went to collect signatures. Then, two days later, Mr. Litvin was approached by a Mr. Curtis Peterson, out of the blue, who offered to collect signatures and bring in three other people to assist.
This is where Xavier Pittman, Carlo Green, and Jade Hilton entered the picture. On February 29 and March 1st & 2nd, they collected signatures.
Then, abruptly, all of them left due to personal issues, car problems, etc., without even being paid. Only Mr. Peterson was paid a sum of $300 for what appeared to be 30 valid signatures. None of the others were paid by the Recall Vos campaign.
After looking at their petition sheets, it was suspected that Mr. Green and Mrs. Hilton had forged names. A few days later, approximately 400 signatures were mailed to Mr. Litvin by a woman named Kiara Rivera, who claimed she collected the signatures on February 27 & 28 but had to leave WI because her brother was shot. She requested payment for the 400 signatures.
Although the signatures appeared authentic, her story was not credible, and the documents were too pristine to have been handled by numerous people.
Even though we suspected the signatures were fraudulent, we took the extra step of physically visiting at least 10-15 houses listed on the petition to verify if they had signed. After our canvassing, we determined that not one signature was valid. As such, we withheld the names and never submitted them.
What is interesting is that all the fraudulent signatures originated from six out-of-state individuals. Who paid for their flights? Who covered their lodging, food, and miscellaneous expenses? How did they know to approach Mr. Litvin?
They all apparently arrived and left within a 5-day period without being paid. They all collected signatures and pressured Mr. Litvin for immediate payment. All found reasons to quickly depart the area without any compensation.
** Wisconsinites reach out to www.racinerecall.org…. 262-864-2309
When we questioned Mr. Litvin, he cooperated with us and promptly shared documents he had gathered about these individuals: (NOTE: see attached pictures).
1. Kiara Rivera, Female, Florida DL. (NOTE: She mentioned that Jason Lopez was her former boyfriend). She attempted to pass what appears to be 400 fraudulent signatures.
2. Jason Lopez, Male, Ohio ID of some kind. His W9 lists the same address as Mrs. Rivera above, from Litvin.
3. Lavelle Hester-Bey, Male, New York ID, info from Litvin.
4. Carlo Green, Male, W9 Form from Litvin
5. Jade Hilton, Female, W9 Form from Litvin.
6. Xavier T. Pittman, W9 Form from Litvin.
The post Wisconsin’s Recall Vos Campaign Exposes Suspicious Individuals from Out of State Who Attempted to Sabotage Signature Campaign – With Photos and Evidence appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Jack Cashill
An excerpt from ASHLI: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6
Although the “Reichstag fire” metaphor is often abused, in the case of January 6, it hits pretty close to the mark. In February 1933, the German parliament building—the Reichstag—went up in flames. “The Nazi leadership and its coalition partners used the fire to claim that Communists were planning a violent uprising,” the Holocaust Encyclopedia reports. “They claimed that emergency legislation was needed to prevent this. The resulting act, commonly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, abolished a number of constitutional protections and paved the way for Nazi dictatorship.”
This is one of those rare occasions where a Hitler comparison makes sense. In fact, the response of the Biden administration to January 6 differs little from Hitler’s response to the Reichstag fire. “On the basis of a wholly created myth about what happened that day,” said Tucker Carlson accurately, “the Biden Pentagon conducted an unprecedented political purge of the entire U.S. military. The FBI and various intel agencies increased their control over the American media and most obviously, the DOJ has been allowed to prosecute and jail hundreds of nonviolent political protesters whose crime was having the wrong opinions.”
In both Hitler’s Berlin and Biden’s Washington, it was necessary to maintain the illusion of government as victim. To pull this off, the storytellers had to reaffirm the heroic role of the Capitol Police in the insurrection drama. They had, however, one major plot problem to overcome: the only person who fired a gun on January 6—in Micki Witthoeft’s words—was “the son of a bitch who murdered my daughter.” It wasn’t enough to undermine Ashli Babbitt. The Jacobins had to create a martyr of their own. How they accomplished this was disgraceful even by their own abysmal standards.
Former NYPD officer Sara Carpenter opened a window on this unseemly plot. After leaving Washington late on the afternoon of January 6, Sara headed back to New York City. On the way home, she called an old friend from grade school who lived not far from I-95 in Maryland. When Sara mentioned she had been at the Capitol, her friend started screaming at Sara “like a rabid dog.” She had never spoken to Sara like that before. “You killed somebody,” the friend yelled, the “you” referring to the protestors. “You killed a Capitol Police officer with a fire extinguisher.”
The woman’s husband had once been a Capitol Police officer. Sara presumed he had inside information. She had no reason to doubt him or his wife. “It sent me reeling,” said Sara. By the time she got back to New York City, her Maryland friend had posted news of Sara’s presence at the Capitol on Facebook. The next day, said Sara, “I never felt so sick in my life.”
The conspirators caught a break on January 7 when Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died after suffering what would prove to be a pair of strokes. Someone in authority—the New York Times would cite “two law enforcement officials”—made the conscious decision to wed Sicknick’s death to the rumored death of an officer by fire extinguisher. On January 8, the New York Times told its readers that “pro-Trump rioters” were the ones who struck Sicknick with a fire extinguisher. The Times added this chillingly fraudulent detail: “With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.”
Glenn Greenwald, an independent journalist, made a screen shot of the Times story before it could be revised. “This horrifying story about a pro-Trump mob beating a police officer to death was repeated over and over, by multiple journalists on television, in print, and on social media,” said Greenwald. He called this counterfeit murder “the single most-emphasized and known story of the event.”
When Sara heard on January 6 about an officer being killed, Sicknick was very much alive. Video released later would show him matter-of-factly performing his duties at the Capitol after the time of his supposed murder. To secure Sicknick’s status as hero before the video surfaced or the medical examiner completed his report, the Jacobins got to work. Their operatives in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives honored Sicknick with a public memorial service in the Rotunda of the Capitol. The previous American so honored was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and, before her, civil rights hero John Lewis.
“The circumstances of his death do matter to the public,” observed Naomi Wolf, “as without his death having been caused by the events of Jan 6, the breach of the capitol, serious though it was, cannot be described as a ‘deadly insurrection.’” Sicknick bore no responsibility for this civic blasphemy—he was rumored to be a Trump supporter and served six years in the Air National Guard—but the record remains uncorrected. “He succumbed to his injuries on January 7, 2021,” reads the official Capitol memorial. From the Rotunda, Sicknick’s ashes were moved to Arlington National Cemetery where they were buried with full military honors.
Not content with misrepresenting Sicknick’s death, the Biden White House launched into a grotesque inflation of the day’s body count. On the first anniversary of the protest, Attorney General Merrick Garland named five men “who demonstrated what true courage looks like” and “have since lost their lives.” On the second anniversary, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries made the lie more specific, saying, “As a result of the events on January 6, the lives of five heroic officers were lost.” In the trials of the J6ers, judges or prosecutors would routinely repeat the saga of the five martyrs to provoke the jurors. In reality, of the five, one died of a stroke, and four committed suicide within two hundred days of January 6.
It was unfortunate that the men died, but it was opportunistic in the extreme to exalt the men as martyrs. The ample video footage shows that, with only a few exceptions, most of the officers faced less peril that day than did the thousands of urban police officers injured in the George Floyd riots by Molotov cocktails, bricks, guns, and frozen water bottles. “We will not only remember them,” Garland concluded, “we will do everything we can to honor them.”
Despite her fourteen years of service and multiple deployments to military hot spots, Ashli got nothing. According to Micki, the Air Force denied Ashli a military funeral because of her participation in the “insurrection.” Said Micki, “It’s just an outrage. It’s an outrage. Like so many other things.”
The post Imaginary Martyrs: An Excerpt From Jack Cashill’s New Book ‘ASHLI: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished here with permission
Caitlin Clark and the Indiana Fever lost their fifth game in five tries last night, giving up another lead and failing in the fourth quarter.
Clark has received a lot of attention since breaking all the major scoring records in the NCAA last season and becoming the all-time greatest scorer in women’s basketball.
But the girls in the WNBA are jealous. Even Charles Barkley notices. He says the players in the WNBA should be sending her flowers after all she has done for them.
Charles Barkley with some words for the Caitlin Clark haters…
TALK TO EM CHUCK pic.twitter.com/HtYI7C73EC
— Barstool Iowa (@BarstoolUIowa) May 23, 2024
This has not been the case as the WNBA has given Clark the welcome that Jason Whitlock predicted.
Jason Whitlock Crowns Caitlin Clark
“Basketball is a black sport and this little white girl is dominating!!! Caitlin Clark is like the underdog
— liveXclique (@liveXclique) April 23, 2024
Clark had a rough first half with plays like this where she was creamed by the Seattle player and no call again by the refs.
This would lead to an ejection if it was the men and for Caitlin Clark it’s not even a foul https://t.co/ToXQPGHzHe
— Bad Sports Refs (@BadSportsRefs) May 23, 2024
After catching fire late in the game following a slow start, Clark brought the Fever back into the game in the 3rd Quarter.
Caitlin Clark pic.twitter.com/9ZyfX5dvw9
— Indiana Fever (@IndianaFever) May 23, 2024
Then after taking the lead, Fever Head Coach Christie Sides took Clark out of the game and the time fell behind. After 3 minutes on the bench, Clark came in and got the team back into the game. Then on the last play the team tried to get Clark the ball but the pass was way behind her and Clark couldn’t get it.
Still wondering what if the pass to Caitlin Clark was a good one… we really woulda seen her first game winner as a pro man pic.twitter.com/cvz0UPLVTR
— LeLakers 2⃣3⃣ (@LeLaker) May 23, 2024
Clark ended up with good numbers, 21 points, 7 assists and 7 rebounds. But the team lost after the coach pulled Clark out of the game for three minutes with only six minutes left. This was insane.
A solid performance for CC
Despite the loss, Caitlin Clark had a game for the Fever dropping 21 PTS, 7 REB, 7 AST, & 2 BLK#WelcometotheW pic.twitter.com/qHLEZdxYXS
— WNBA (@WNBA) May 23, 2024
And Clark set some more records.
Caitlin Clark joins Sabrina Ionescu & Candace Parker as the only WNBA players to record:
85+ PTS
25+ AST
through their first 5 career games. pic.twitter.com/jklyC0guEC
— StatMamba (@StatMamba) May 23, 2024
Many people believe that the head coach Sides needs to go. This is understandable.
The post Fans Want Indiana Fever Coach Fired After Benching Caitlin Clark in the 4th Quarter and Losing Again appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Guest post by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.
With the FBI scrambling desperately to claim the authorization to use deadly force in the Mar-a-Lago was “standard operating procedure” for an FBI raid, the fact remains the force authorization documents allowed the FBI to exchange fire with the Secret Service should former Donald Trump be perceived to be taking steps to impede the FBI search for classified documents.
The question arises whether the Biden administration and the FBI would go so far as to kill a former president, who is the leading presidential contender to President Biden in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.
The question also arises as to why the Biden administration still refuses to provide Secret Service protection to independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? Secret Service protection was offered by law to all presidential candidates 120 days out from the election after Kennedy’s father, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Sr. was shot dead in Los Angeles in 1968.
What is apparent is that the Biden administration’s Department of Justice has become a purely partisan political enforcement agency more concerned about Catholics who, like the Latin Mass, that military age foreigners crossing the Mexican border into the United States, without first applying for visas to enter the country.
The Department of Justice’s disgrace is compounded by lawfare prosecutions of President Trump in both New York and Georgia. We have yet to see the prosecutor in either of these cases present evidence of an actual crime. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s visage displays loathing for Trump, in a case that should have been dismissed along with Smith’s admission that his office lied about the location of certain boxes seized in the now suspect Mar-a-Lago raid.
These questions are especially pertinent in light of the book Dr. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. and I published recently, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis .l’, in which Dr. Mantik presents forensic evidence based on his optical density measurements of the three extant JFK autopsy skull X-rays in the National Archives today.
Dr. Mantik’s analysis proves all three X-rays are forgeries, altered to mask evidence of frontal shots. Moreover, Dr. Mantik produces CSI evidence from his analysis of the skull X-rays that two shots from the front hit JFK’s head, plus a shot from the rear, fired at a low angle.
None of the JFK headshots evident in the X-rays was from the angle required for the shot to have originated from the sixth-floor corner window of the Texas School Book Depository.
In other words, Dr. Mantik has proved the JFK assassination was a deep state coup d’état that the federal government has lied about for 61 years, refusing even today to release thousands of yet secret JFK assassination documents required to be released by the 1992 JFK Records Act.
November 22, 1963, the day JFK was assassinated, was the day the deep state decided to take over the operation of the U.S. government.
We now know the Department of Justice has gone rogue in a mad determination to prevent former President Donald Trump from campaigning. We also know the Department of Justice has forced Robert Kennedy, Jr. to spend thousands of dollars on private security. Instead of protecting both candidates, the Biden administration appears to be taking orders from deep state operatives who are reluctant to allow into power two candidates who every day have new reasons to ensure that as president, they would make sure all secrets about the JFK assassination are revealed—information that would put light on the deep state’s efforts today to make sure neither Donald J. Trump or Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. are inaugurated president on January 20, 2025.
Dr. Corsi’s most recent book is his second book on the JFK assassination: David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. and Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis of the JFK Autopsy X-Rays Proves Two Headshots from the Front and One from the Rear. Since 2004, Jerome R. Corsi has published over 30 books on economics, history, and politics, including two #1 New York Times bestsellers. In 1972, he received his Ph.D. from the Department of Government at Harvard University. His book, Volume I, in his Great Awakening Trilogy, The Truth About Energy, Global Warming, and Climate Change: Exposing Climate Lies in an Age of Disinformation, received highly positive reviews from prominent climate scientists and professional meteorologists. Volume II, The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism, and Anarchy: Exposing Woke Insanity in an Age of Disinformation, was published in August 2023. Dr. Corsi has resumed podcasting on his new website TheTruthCentral.com.
The post Jerome Corsi Exclusive: Is the Biden Administration Trying to Kill Presidential Contenders Donald J. Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article originally appeared on JoeHoft.com and was republished with permission.
The WNBA is giving “the savior of their league” a very unfriendly welcome, yet she overcomes the hate.
We previously reported on the horrible reception that the WNBA gave Caitlin Clark.
WHAT A DISGRACE: The WNBA, the Coach, and the Refs Are Cooking the Golden Goose – Caitlin Clark
Dave Portnoy from Barstool Sports commented on how terrible the WNBA has been to Caitlin Clark. In this play from Saturday, last year’s league MVP puts an unnecessary and brutal pick on Clark when she wasn’t looking. Breanna Stewart is bitter towards Clark and may be jealous because no one knows who she is, but everyone knows who Clark is.
Never seen a savior of a league get treated like this https://t.co/TXNEd4umbl
— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) May 18, 2024
The league is calling turnovers on Clark and doing something unheard of when reporting them. The statistician at the WNBA adds “bad pass” to the sheet. This is something we’ve never seen before. The following was from the game earlier this week.
Here is an example of a “bad pass” from Caitlin Clark that was labeled a turnover on Clark. (Hint – if the ball hits your teammate’s hands it’s not your fault if they can’t catch the ball.)
This was credited as a turnover on Caitlin Clark
— Jordan Stocks (@StockTalks21) May 18, 2024
Here is another moment where Clark’s team can’t keep up with her.
Here is another perfect Caitlin Clark pass that her teammate can’t handle and the WNBA stat recorder said it was a turnover on CC.
What is going on with these stat recordings? pic.twitter.com/y4RbamR4cF
— Jordan Stocks (@StockTalks21) May 18, 2024
Despite all the hate, Caitlin Clark became part of WNBA history in her first three games.
In elite company
Caitlin Clark joins Candace Parker, Sue Bird and Nikki McCray as the only WNBA players to tally 50+ PTS and 15+ AST in their first 3 career games!#WelcometotheW pic.twitter.com/wfUUb0GSjj
— WNBA (@WNBA) May 18, 2024
In addition, the game on Saturday was the largest paid gate in WNBA history.
The New York Liberty and Indiana Fever made history Saturday, as their game had the largest paid gate of any WNBA game since the league’s inception in 1997.
According to Spotify’s Bri Lewerke, the Liberty and Fever drew over $2 million in ticket revenue. They also sold out the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York, which holds nearly 18,000 fans for basketball.
Fans were on hand to witness just the third WNBA regular-season game in the career of 2024 No. 1 overall pick Caitlin Clark, plus a pair of former No. 1 overall picks in Sabrina Ionescu and Breanna Stewart played for the Liberty as well.
After all of this, here is where Clark stands in the WNBA after three ‘bad’ showings.
How Caitlin Clark Ranks in the WNBA so far:
Mins played – 97 (5th)
Assists – 17 (2nd)
Rebounds – 13 (22nd)
Points – 51 (7th)
F T % – 100% (Tied 1st)
3 P M – 9 (1st)
F G M – 16 (13th)
EFF – 40 (18th)I’ll update this after every 10 games. pic.twitter.com/YpyisQQwqq
— Law | CC = (@TLaww22) May 20, 2024
Will the WNBA destroy Caitlin Clark and the league, or will Caitlin Clark stand above them all and show the world the “savior” she is?
To receive new posts and support Joe Hoft’s work, please visit JoeHoft.com.
The post “Never Seen a Savior of a League Get Treated Like This” – Caitlin Clark Sets Records Despite Wicked Welcome to the WNBA appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Vaunce News 
