FBI Contractor Spied on GOP Congressman to Protect Muslim Brotherhood thumbnail

FBI Contractor Spied on GOP Congressman to Protect Muslim Brotherhood

/in , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

The ex-CIA officer’s company also worked for the Democratic National Committee.

The death of Qatari operative Jamal Khashoggi has been the subject of front page headlines, press conferences, a documentary, and speeches by top figures including Joe Biden.

Qatar employing an ex-CIA officer who set out to spy on a Republican congressman to help protect the Muslim Brotherhood has received virtually no coverage in the media.

The Washington Post, which platformed Khashoggi and labored to turn the old friend of Osama bin Laden into a martyr, did not feel that Qatar spying on a congressman was worth more coverage than rerunning the AP’s wire story. The New York Times didn’t even do that much.

The AP’s story alleged that Qatar employed Kevin Chalker, a former CIA officer, and his company, Global Risk Advisors, to target opponents of the Islamic terror state which has ties to everything from 9/11 to Hamas to the Taliban. That included “pitching a sprawling covert influence operation to damage the reputations of U.S. officials perceived as Qatar’s enemies.”

One of those “enemies” of the Islamic terror state may have been Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart.

In 2015, the Republican congressman and Senator Ted Cruz introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. This would have been extremely inconvenient to Qatar, which hosts Muslim Brotherhood figures and backs the Islamist expansionist movement whose goal is to take over countries and impose the brutality of sharia law on their people.

Including the United States.

The bill was reintroduced again in 2017, co-sponsored by a number of House Republicans, including Rep. Louie Gohmert. While the bill never became law, Rep. Diaz-Balart’s persistence appeared to worry Qatar and the former spooks doing its dirty work.

The AP story reveals that Global Risk Advisors created “Project ENDGAME” and “boasted in internal records that it had ‘developed an approach to a close contact of the congressman’ who sponsored legislation that year to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.”

“’Developed an approach’” is intelligence jargon for seeking to recruit a potential asset.”

At least one previous GRA effort had allegedly involved a Facebook “honey pot” operation.

While GRA appears to have done a lot of work for Qatar, the AP revealed that “its affiliates have won small contracts with the FBI for a rope-training course and tech consulting work for the Democratic National Committee.”

GRA also appears to have some employees who have gone on to work for Democrats. It may be no coincidence that the two known American targets of GRA operations, Rep. Diaz-Balart and former RNC finance chair Elliot Broidy are both high-profile Republicans. And Democrat media groups and reporters were deeply involved in promoting Broidy’s hacked emails.

Qatar has cultivated Republican contacts, but through its Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States, it has become an integral part of the Democratic political machine. Unless new names are revealed, Democrat complicity in foreign operations against American officials by an enemy nation becomes a burning question that must urgently be resolved.

The involvement of the FBI is also troubling as it’s the Bureau that is investigating possible misconduct by its former contractor. And as we’ve seen with Russiagate, its personnel have a history of covering up the sins of their contractors and informants to protect their credibility.

In echoes of the Steele Dossier, GRA had allegedly employed British ex-intel officers to spy on the American team conducting a bid for a soccer tournament and used a “fake Facebook profile of an attractive young woman to communicate with the target”.

Was this what Qatar’s assets had in mind for a congressman?

What ought to be an explosive story has instead been studiously ignored by the media because it exposes its own complicity and touches the third rail of the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement.

The intersection between an ex-CIA figure, an FBI contractor, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood also raises the question of Islamist infiltration of the intelligence community.

The AP story on GRA’s work for Qatar notes that the Brotherhood’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi delivered a sermon after Qatar beat out America’s bid for a soccer tournament that the intel operatives had been hired to assure in which he said “Qatar had humbled the United States.”

Qaradawi had previously predicted that, “we will conquer America” and declared that, “those killed fighting the American forces are martyrs”. Serving Qatar ultimately means serving the enablers of Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood’s quest to destroy America.

The complete lack of interest in the AP’s scoop by either the media or the political class also reveals how deeply Qatar, an ally of Iran, a state sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood and the hand behind Al Jazeera, controls Washington D.C. and the journalists of the mainstream media.

It also offers a peek into how enemies of this country were able to take over Washington D.C.

Kevin Chalker, the ex-CIAer, and Global Risk Advisors came up during the hack of former Republican National Committee deputy finance chair Elliot Broidy. Broidy’s emails were passed on to media operatives which described them as being “leaked”. Broidy’s lawsuits since have alleged that Qatar hired Global Risk Advisors to “coordinate” cyberattacks which led to the hacks of his emails which were then distributed to the media by a PR firm working for Qatar.

The media, which seized on the documents to damage former President Trump, and appeared to be coordinating with operatives working for Qatar, ignored or dismissed the accusations.

And previous AP reporting suggested GRA was engaging in behavior that could be interpreted as treason, after noting that “one Global Risk Advisors document lists the United States as a ‘threat’ to Qatar”.

Despite these revelations, the Democratic National Committee has failed to issue a statement disavowing GRA, laying out GRA’s work on its behalf and committing to ending that work.

Nor has anyone in the media pursued DNC officials to push for an answer.

Global Risk Advisers, to all appearances, appear to be operating normally. And the same media outlets which cried endlessly about Russian operations are keeping quiet.

Even allegations of spying on a Republican congressman aren’t about to change that.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act once again in 2021. Senator Ted Cruz reintroduced the Senate version: co-sponsored by Senator Ron Johnson. After 7 years, the bill has yet to pass. Will the revelation that Qatar appears to have targeted the bill’s sponsor to protect the Muslim Brotherhood change that?

Or will Qatar, the Muslim and a band of mercenary spooks continue to terrorize Congress?

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

NJ Muslim threatens attack on synagogue and ‘many more attacks against the enemy of Allah and the pigs and monkeys’

‘Palestinian’ jihadi in Brussels: EU has committed genocide, ‘Defeating Israel means defeating the US’

Afghanistan: Taliban’s vice and virtue agent murders a teenage girl for refusing marriage proposal

Australia Muslim says daughter has ‘psychological trauma’ from seeing Muhammad cartoon, demands teacher be suspended

Iran: Khamenei is on fire!

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Lethal Fallout of Wokeness in Medicine thumbnail

The Lethal Fallout of Wokeness in Medicine

/in , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

School standards have fallen for the sake of political correctness over effective and dependable education. That is dangerous.

In early October, my alma mater made headlines after it decided to fire chemistry professor Dr Maitland Jones Jr after 82 of his students signed a petition noting that his organic chemistry class was “too hard.” The students accused Jones of purposely making the class difficult, citing that their low scores negatively impacted their “well-being,” and their chances of getting into medical school.

Instead of evaluating the rigor and substance of Jones’ curriculum, NYU justified its hasty action by noting the class’s unfavourable student reviews. This type of judgment would never pass in the fields of architecture, aerial engineering, or even the food service industry; why is it permissible here?

In response to the disciplinary action, former medical humanities professor and bioethicist Dr Alice Dreger blasted the move in a tweet, saying it “made her skin crawl.”

“We aren’t going to end up with good doctors by letting undergrad pre-meds pass organic chem because universities want to protect their US News rankings,” she wrote.

This article made my skin crawl. We aren’t going to end up with good doctors by letting undergrad pre-meds pass organic chem because universities want to protect their US News rankings. Gah! https://t.co/ruPFtOQJVd

— Alice Dreger, Ph.D. (@AliceDreger) October 3, 2022

The reaction is justified considering how standards for pre-med programmes and even medical schools have shifted in the direction of equity and social justice. It seems that even professors cannot hold the line on academic performance, when the institutions they teach at make it a secondary importance to accommodating students’ sensitivities on the basis of how faulted or victimised they feel while learning in the highly competitive and demanding field of medicine.

The rise in efforts to increase diversity in medical schools can be seen as coming from a place of good intentions: to create an academic environment which promotes minority doctors, especially those who come from under-served communities. Having a diversification of medical practitioners is beneficial, especially if said doctors use their skills and talents to give back to communities that drastically need medical attention, such as inner cities and remote rural communities.

Advocates for broader outreach cite studies such as the AAMC’s report titled, “Altering the Course: Black Males in Medicine” which notes how the number of black male applicants dropped from 1,410 in 1978 to 1,337 in 2014. They could also point to a Yale-led study that found minority students are less likely to get placed in residency programs than their white and Asian colleagues.

These seem to be pressing issues which must be addressed if medical schools wish to increase black and brown students’ success rates. However, instead of working towards expanding tutoring, learning programs, and outreach initiatives, it seems as if universities and medical schools want to focus strictly on the intersectional aspects of this research.

The leader of the aforementioned Yale study, Mytien Nguyen, MSc, stated,

“In previous studies, we’ve really only looked at one dimension of identity, but there’s intersectionality and the compounding of multiple marginalized identities… we wanted to see how these identities came into play in the application process… there is a clear compounding effect of being a student underrepresented in medicine and lower income… there is a double whammy in terms of how medicine is classist and racialized.”

Nguyen states that it is unclear what is contributing to lower placement rates among marginalised students, and yet failed to consider how a plethora of other factors, such as lack of mentors in medicine, limited financial resources, and differing cultural perceptions of working in medicine, may contribute to this phenomenon. Looking back at AAMC’s report, it is important to note that while the number of black male applicants did decrease over the decades, the report also shows how the overall number of black medical students actually rose from 933 in 1978 to 1,227 in 2014 — a 32 percent spike.

This is a welcoming statistic which can be improved if schools provide marginalised communities with greater access to high school and pre-med opportunities.

Unfortunately, institutions like NYU have taken it upon themselves to lower the bar of admission through intersectional incentives, rather than enforcing academic standards — which we all agree are needed in order to have dependable and safe future doctors.

The shift in a medicine-based education to an emphasis on race and social concern was highlighted by former University of Pennsylvania Medical School Dean Stanley Goldfarb, who stated:

“… Today a master’s degree in education is often what it takes to qualify for key administrative roles on medical-school faculties. The zeitgeist of sociology and social work have become the driving force in medical education. The goal of today’s educators is to produce legions of primary care physicians who engage in what is termed ‘population health.’”

Medical schools’ administrations seem to have become taken over by sociologists and critical race theorists — if not in title, then certainly in practice.

Most recently in the news, the University of Minnesota Medical School conducted a white coat ceremony for its Class of 2026, where each student had to recite a modified Hippocratic Oath which — on top of pledging to do no harm and to help the sick whenever possible — would “honor all Indigenous ways of healing that have been historically marginalized by Western medicine… white supremacy, colonialism, and the gender binary.”

The politicisation of medicine has greater effects than just this sort of political white-knighting. Instead of focusing on promoting preventative care and treatment based on actual medical effectiveness, the impetus behind these medical schools’ actions seems to be entirely race-based. For example, Georgetown University is funding the study and formation of courses to prevent ‘microaggressions’ in medicine.

Likewise, the Association of American Medical Colleges released a new standard for teaching medicine which requires students to achieve ‘competencies’ in ‘white privilege’ or risk failing. It also seeks to do away with the ideas of gender and race, the latter of which the AAMC describes as “… a social construct that is a cause of health and health care inequities, not a risk factor for disease.” If this is the case, then how will doctors address the pervasiveness of Sickle-Cell Anemia and Multiple Myeloma in African-American communities, the prevalence of diabetes in Asian groups, or the largely unknown effects of hormonal therapies in minors?

This dramatic shift from upholding course standards to molding medicine in a racial lens is concerning. Though proponents of such measures would argue this is critical to improving race-relations in medicine and to deconstructing students’ “implicit biases,” saving lives and providing exceptional preventative care supersedes that.

A 2016 BMJ analysis found that medical errors in healthcare facilities are actually incredibly common and may even be the third-leading cause of death in the US. Medical malpractice accounts for about 251,000 deaths every year — this is more than accidents, stroke, Alzheimer’s, and respiratory disease:

A doctor’s most important duty to his or her patient is to do no harm — this includes preventing negligence, refraining from superfluous procedures, and ensuring every avenue of care is addressed prior to conducting invasive surgery. From shoddy hospital conditions to inexperienced nurses to just bad doctors, healthcare resulting in patient harm is a much more pressing issue than the alleged microaggressions resident doctors give off during their rotations.

The race and gender of a practising physician should not matter as long as they are skilled, capable, and reasonable in their practice. It is therefore the universities and medical schools’ responsibility to uphold the rigorous standards they once had in order to ensure their students are prepared to work in high-stress, highly complicated medical scenarios — above all else. We need capable and skilled doctors, period.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

AUTHOR

Connor Vasile is a first-generation American and writer who wishes to raise awareness about classical liberal ideas which empower every individual, no matter their background or experience, to live their… More by Connor Vasile

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Rise of Wokeness in the U.S. Military – Let me give some examples of what I mean by wokeness.

The “Messed Up World of White Wokeness”

Disney’s Embrace of Wokeness is a Mickey Mouse Move

Why the Rise of Intersectionality in Medicine Will Have Serious Consequences

What Is American Wokeness Really About?

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

UN Climate Conference Does Not Value Our Freedom But Loves Our Cash thumbnail

UN Climate Conference Does Not Value Our Freedom But Loves Our Cash

/in , , , , , , /by

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

CFACT is at the big UN climate conference in Egypt where we are engaging in climate diplomacy with a far different perspective than most.

CFACT questions fearlessly, informs diligently, and communicates relentlessly.  Underlying our approach is our bedrock confidence that individual freedom is both the most efficient way to order human society and an “unalienable right.”

At the UN climate conference a freedom-oriented approach can be a lonely endeavor.  Freedom creates prosperity.  One thing the ideologues and profiteers here assembled do value, however, is our cash.

CFACT’s Marc Morano told Mark Steyn on GB TV that, “Al Gore went beyond billions, tens of billions, he’s now talking four trillion dollars annually and he doesn’t even want it from governments. He wants some kind of corporate spending on climate. Al Gore has upped the money game like I’ve never seen in the history of all these climate summits.”

CFACT’s Peter Murphy engaged a COP 27 energy panel and reports that, “when I questioned her about the concern that many people do not want to live in cities and enjoy having their own car, and that such government mandates are at variance with democracy, she retorted that “we are not against democracy…we are about showing people that it benefits them.”

Murphy saw the climate command and control mindset was on full display when urban planner Kathleen Cameron told the panel “if we make roads narrower so people can’t speed through them, people feel inconvenienced, and they’ll want to go to alternative forms of transit. If you make it less fun to drive, you will soon discover that riding a bike is incredibly free and empowering.”

There are some signs that government officials are waking up to our continued need for fossil fuels, but sadly they would rather import them than produce them at home.  Real Clear Energy published an article I submitted where I write, “European and other countries are finally realizing that they still need fossil fuel energy – that wind and solar are too expensive and unreliable to power modern economies, preserve jobs, and keep people warm during frigid winters. Russia’s war on Ukraine has driven this home dramatically.

So Europe wants to switch from Russia to Africa for oil, gas and maybe coal – while still refusing to finance fossil fuel projects for Africa’s own needs, and telling Africa to rely on wind and solar.”

While Europe and America definitely need to wake up and unleash domestic energy production, Duggan Flanakin points out at CFACT.org that one positive note being repeated at COP 27 is that Africa has vast energy resources that can lift up that continent and the world.  “The message that.. countless African entrepreneurs and growth-oriented officials have for COP 27 is to get out of the way and let us “Drill, Baby, Drill.” The world, they argue, will benefit from a prosperous, energized African continent.”

The UN climate folks are intent on wrecking our energy economy and are making a concerted push for vast power as they seek unimaginable riches.

Too many people are unaware of what the UN is up to in Egypt and just how dangerous climate extremism has become.  That needs to change.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UN demands $2 trillion per year for climate!

COP 27: Watch CFACT’s Morano on GB news — “Gore has upped the money game”

CFACT’s Murphy confronts UN over its central planning strategies at COP 27

COP 27: UN climateers hoisted by their own alarmist petards

The real promise of COP 27: African energy can build Africa and save Europe

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Problems with ‘Free Stuff’ thumbnail

The Problems with ‘Free Stuff’

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

South Dakota voters approved Medicaid expansion in Tuesday’s election, leaving just 11 states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs to include middle-class able-bodied childless adults making almost $40,000 a year.  I hope the remaining states hold the line because they will be in a world of hurt if they don’t.

The first problem is voters demanding free stuff with nary a thought of how to pay for it.  Missouri voters previously demanded Medicaid expansion, but the state couldn’t figure out a sustainable way to pay for it.  Expansion would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year, but nobody knew what the funding mechanism would be.  The same thing happened in Idaho and Oklahoma – Medicaid expansion occurred without a stable permanent funding source.   Since Medicaid is now such a huge part of state budgets, every expansion state faces fights in the legislature about raising taxes or pulling money from other priorities like education to fund more government-sponsored healthcare.

That’s just for openers.  Expansion states face a raft of other problems.  Enrollment always exceeds expectations and many states have hit the wall in terms of being able to afford their programs.  I haven’t seen any more reports of this lately, but extra federal COVID money has postponed the day of financial reckoning.   I would argue the reason we still have a federal COVID emergency, though the medical facts no longer justify it, is to keep the states – especially expansion states – from going bust over their Medicaid expenses.  A world of hurt is coming because the fiction of a COVID emergency can’t be maintained forever.

Other problems with Medicaid expansion include

  • middle class dependency on government – a tragedy, not a triumph as the Left would have you believe, and completely unsustainable
  • billions of dollars spent on people who aren’t eligible
  • new inequities like traditional enrollees – low-income children, pregnant women, and the disabled – getting sent to the back of the line as childless able-bodied adults enter the system
  • substandard care – women already on Medicaid account for the majority of pregnancy-related deaths
  • longer wait times for ambulances and medical services
  • worse health outcomes than private insurance as more doctors refuse to take Medicaid patients because of the low pay and paperwork burdens
  • more drug overdoses and lower life expectancy in expansion states
  • lower labor force participation, and
  • special interests like large hospitals and managed care companies benefitting more than enrollees

Speaking of special interests, they are busy agitating for Government Healthcare 2.0.  It’s not enough that one in four Americans is now on Medicaid, we have to expand the range of services and the amount of government money spent on them for them to become healthy, or so the pretext goes.  The theory is called Social Determinants of Health (SDOH).  I call it naked redistribution, with calls growing for, and localities dabbling in, providing Medicaid recipients with free housing, transportation, food aid, education, job programs, guaranteed income, and other social services galore.  The theory has been around for a while but it is gaining traction, inducing mission creep in the Medicaid program.  Proponents claim the theory saves money, but their analysis fails to account for the magnet effect of free stuff from the government drawing ever-larger numbers of people into government dependency.  Once again, the Left points to immediate gains and fails to think systemically.

If you think the nation is too far in debt now, and states are biting off more than they can chew with Medicaid expansion, just wait.   Insolvency 2.0 is the inevitable outcome of social determinants of health.  Insolvency is what you get when no claim on public funds can be resisted and the government tries to put a soft pillow under absolutely everybody for absolutely everything.  Ultimately, it won’t work.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

Congress needs to investigate the criminal snooping of the FBI and HHS thumbnail

Congress needs to investigate the criminal snooping of the FBI and HHS

/in , , , , , , /by

By Martin Mawyer

Federal law enforcement agencies are violating the 1974 Privacy Act by gathering, storing, and demanding social media posts be throttled or censored.

The sensible ambition of every human is to feel secure. To feel safe. To be worry-free from random or intentional attacks.

We desire it so much, that most are willing to sacrifice a little less freedom to obtain it.

Normally, those precious freedoms are gobbled-up by some government agency promising to snatch only a small portion of our personal sovereignty if we allow them to act as an iron shield against organized mobsters, gangs, criminal syndicates, and terrorists.

So, track us. We don’t care. Monitor us. Listen to what we say. Put a camera on every corner. Review what we write. Frisk us. Scan us. Snoop all you want. We have nothing to hide. We know the difference between right and wrong.  After all, it’s not about us.

Heck, we hardly notice those freedoms being scarfed up. The invasion of our privacy rights is ghostly, invisible, and ethereal.

All is fine and dandy‚ until…

…the government redefines what’s right and wrong.

Then we see it.

Now, we’re the bad actor. And good luck trying to reclaim those freedoms that could have protected us in the past.

Last week, Intercept (a leftwing, online news publication) shook America with the astounding revelation that the FBI and Homeland Security are working with Big Tech to scrub the internet of information they label “inaccurate.”

“Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the US government has used its power to try to shape online discourse,” the article reveals.

The goal of the Government is to scrub the internet of social media posts that “drive a wedge between the populace and the government.”

To that end, agencies inside the FBI and Homeland Security – that previously focused on international terrorists, such as ISIS – are using their snooping tools to go after Americans who post “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation.”

If any of these law-enforcement employees determine a social media post will lower the nation’s “trust in government,” the content is flagged, stored, and then sent back to the originating social media platform with the expectation the message will be suppressed, throttled, or eliminated.

The snooping tools of the FBI: Babel X, Dataminr, ZeroFox

As much as I would like to reveal more about the findings in the Intercept story, that’s not the intent of this article.

I aim to broaden the discussion on a few things the Intercept article briefly mentioned.

Intercept reports that government officials have a unique portal to Facebook to request takedowns or throttling of postings they don’t like, which means anything that harms the “cognitive infrastructure” of the United States.

(The “cognitive infrastructure” would mean everything would be game)

But one of the most puzzling questions I wanted to be answered was how the FBI has the manpower to review virtually every social media message posted on the World Wide Web.

One of the answers is Babel X.

In April of this year, the FBI spent $27 million to purchase 5,000 licenses from Babel X.

In its purchase request, the FBI notified Babel X:

“The tool shall be able to gather information from the following mandatory online and social media data sources: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn, Deep/Dark Web, VK, and Telegram,” the bureau said.

But they’re hoping for a far greater reach.

The FBI also asked Babel X to give them the ability to search Snapchat, TikTok, Reddit, Gab, Parler, Discord, and others.

Bable X aside, the FBI also uses Dataminr to scour the data highway.

The FBI has 200 agents plugged into Dataminr (with its “advanced alerting tool”) to review Twitter posts that meet the bureau’s interest.

Of course, the FBI claims they need these tools to combat “terrorists and other criminals” that “communicate, recruit, and raise funds for illegal activity.”

But thanks to FBI official Laura Dehmlow [quoted in the Intercept story] we know the FBI also wants to eliminate the threat of “subversive data utilized to drive a wedge between the populace and the government.”

That “subversive” information, according to Intercept and a lawsuit filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, includes “malinformation” or “disinformation” of Joe Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal, Covid vaccines, the Hunter Biden laptop story, racial justice, the Ukraine war, and the 2020 election fraud claims.

The answer to how the FBI can monitor and takedown posts believed to harm “trust in government” is also found in a program called ZeroFox.

In court records, the FBI said they also monitor the Internet with ZeroFox (a $14 million contract) that surveils organizations across social media, including web domains, online news sites, blogs, forums, deep/dark web, and even email.

The “great” feature of ZeroFox is that it provides its customers with a “takedown service,” which allows the FBI to hide, delete and block posts they don’t like.

Read this from ZeroFox:

“Although ZeroFox will initiate a takedown request on behalf of a customer [such as the FBI], the social network or other online provider assesses the request against its own terms, rules and policies and decides whether to act on, or reject, the request. In other words, the third-party provider controls whether the material is removed.”

Of course, big corporations may fail to convince Facebook, for instance, to remove an unflattering post. But a request coming from the FBI?

Who wants to get on the wrong side of the FBI?

The 1974 Privacy Act protects American citizens

At one time, the FBI and Homeland Security focused their surveillance efforts on ISIS and other international, radicalized terrorist organizations and cartels.

For the most part, Americans applauded these law enforcement agencies and their zeal to protect America from another 9/11 attack. We weren’t ignorant, though. We knew it meant the FBI and DHS would resort to monitoring every crevice of the virtual world in all its forms, styles, and behaviors.

But we convinced ourselves we would never become the target of the US Government and their massive and invasive snooping tools that can collect, store, suppress or eliminate what we post.

Now, we know better.

But we can fight back.

The 1974 Privacy Act makes it illegal for the Federal Government to engage in any activity that gathers, maintains, keeps secret files, or releases to non-government parties the identity of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Here are two important sections found under 5 US 552a of the 1974 Privacy Act that we can reasonably believe are currently being violated by many federal law-enforcement agencies:

“Each agency that maintains a system of records shall maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statue or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.” (emphasis added)

“Any officer or employee of an agency…who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.” (emphasis added)

The takeaway is:

  1. It is illegal for the Federal Government to maintain, collect, or use any social media post that falls under the protection of the First Amendment.
  2. It is illegal for any federal employee to release that social media post to any person or agency (think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.) that is not entitled to receive it.

In addition, the 1974 Privacy Act requires the Federal Government to explain when the information is being gathered, why it is needed, and how it will be used. They must also ensure that those records are handled only for the reasons given.

Who believes the feds, when gathering up posts on Joe Biden’s failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, are completing the process of explaining why that collection was needed and how it will be used?

America needs answers.

The way to get those answers is for Congress to immediately launch a full-scale investigation using its sledgehammer power of subpoenas to determine the numerous violations of the 1974 Privacy Act, including criminal offenses.

©Marin Mawyer. All rights reserved.

Delayed Vote Counts Have Favored Democrats 77% Of The Time thumbnail

Delayed Vote Counts Have Favored Democrats 77% Of The Time

/in , , /by

By Dr. Rich Swier

Election DAY.

Not Election MONTH.

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) November 11, 2022

On November 2nd, 2022 American Military News’   reported, 

During a speech at a Democrat Party campaign event on Wednesday night, President Joe Biden said voters should expect to see delayed vote counts in the midterm elections and be patient.

“We know that many states don’t start counting those ballots until after the polls close on November 8th,” Biden said. “That means in some cases we won’t know the winner of the election for a few days after the election. It takes time to count all legitimate ballots in a legal and orderly manner. [Emphasis added]

Read more

Prophetic isn’t it that Biden knew that election counting would be delayed. How did he know this?

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC in an email stated,

Going into the 2022 mid-term elections, more than 40% (almost half) of Americans doubted the integrity and outcomes of US elections.

Now those doubts and concerns are going to new unprecedented levels because of new reversals and Democrat wins that defy the polls, the mood of the nation, and historical trends combined with delayed vote counts!

[ … ]

Late or delayed vote counts in cities and states ruled by Democrats led to Democrat wins 10 out of 13 times in recent years (77% instead of 50%)!

QUESTION: Why do Democrat controlled areas have delayed vote counts?

ANSWER: It allows Democrats time to flip an election.

At the 7:40 mark in the below video Tucker Carlson states, “Lengthy delays in vote counting [is] followed by good news for Democrats. It’s happened all across the country.”

In the 2020 presidential election Americans went to bed believing that President Donald J. Trump had won a second term in office. However, after midnight someone ordered the vote counting to stop and when Americans woke up they learned the it was Biden who won.

As Tucker Carlson points out, “It’s hard to understand this.”

https://t.co/79xr6ifxzH

— Dr. Rich Swier (@drrichswier) November 11, 2022

We agree.

QUESTION: If Florida, the 3rd most populated state, can count all 2022 midterm election votes without delay why can’t states like Arizona (#14 in population) and Nevada (#32 in population)?

ANSWER: Because Democrats inexplicably benefit from delayed vote counting!

How does one stop this delay vote counting and restore confidence in America voters of free and fair elections? This one tweet has the answers.

pic.twitter.com/dYx3PyKEZT

— Hodgetwins (@hodgetwins) November 9, 2022

Simple, isn’t it.

Hopefully every state will follow Florida’s lead.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Counting ballots for days after an election undermines voter confidence and suggests fraudulent intent.

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) November 11, 2022

Feature Film ‘Lions And Lambs’ — Exposing Human Trafficking thumbnail

Feature Film ‘Lions And Lambs’ — Exposing Human Trafficking

/in , , , /by

By Veterans 4 Child Rescue

Vets for Child Rescue is honored to align with Storyteller Film Co to make a full length, action-packed movie called Lions and Lambs! 

One of the biggest challenges we face in our efforts to expose and combat child trafficking is the suppression of information online. We hope this movie will provide a strategic work-around to bring massive awareness to the issue while creating an entertaining action/thriller film that everyone will want to watch.

Feature Film Trailer: A young girl is kidnapped to be sold to the highest bidder.

At its core, 𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐁𝐒 is a vigilante action film.

It will have exciting car and foot chases, fight sequences, and good-ole fashioned REVENGE!⁣ ⁣

In order to have a broad appeal to a variety of audiences, it’ll be a #PG13 rated #movie.

It’ll feel like a blockbuster of the late 90’s early 2000’s — but with a twist of true-to-life storytelling.⁣ ⁣ Co-producers @Travis Conover – The Creator’s Podcast and Matthew Wallace have nearly 30 years combined experience in the film industry as actors, writers, directors and producers.⁣

They’re now on a mission to #RaiseAwareness and bring this topic to the masses while 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 our mission to 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 and 𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 it.⁣

Travis Conover and J. Matthew Wallace will be acting and producing this project and they have generously offered to:

  1. Promote Vets For Child Rescue and our mission in the project
  2. Donate a large amount of the proceeds of the fundraising and profits from the film to V4CR’s mission.

Here’s how you can help!

  1. Learn about the movie and support it here: igg.me/at/LIONSandLAMBS. No donation amount is too small. Even $5 or $10 donated will show publicly as another “backer” of the project. They need at least 12,000 backers.
  2. Share the project directly with your friends and family. We need to drive over 50k people to this site in the next 2 weeks.
  3. Pray for the project to be fully funded, for protection around all involved, and for it to create massive awareness.

Crowdfunding is Necessary For This Project Because Hollywood Won’t Support It

“LIONS and LAMBS” is the story of a man who’s 12 year old niece is kidnapped and sold into sex slavery, and the lengths he’ll go to, to get her back.

Actor and Film Makers Travis Conover and Matthew Wallace partner with “Vets for Child Rescue” to tackle the issue of sex slavery in the United States. This action thriller explores the underground world of sex trade in Atlanta, Georgia and the horrible reality behind one of the most lucrative business in the world.

“LIONS and LAMBS” is written as a modern day action blockbuster, with inspiration from the best action films of the late 90’s and early 2000’s. While LIONS and LAMBS is centered around an important cause, quality storytelling, character development, and set pieces will be its foundation. It’s sure to be a fast-paced, action packed and entertaining thrill ride that will keep you pinned to the screen.

The story is approached from three unique angles. Firstly, the point of the view of the girl who is taken from her home in North Atlanta. Secondly, from her family’s point of view (primarily, her uncle Leon who is former military) and also from the perspective of law enforcement, who are fighting to bring down the people responsible for this horrible crime.

At its core, LIONS AND LAMBS is a vigilante, buddy cop action film. It will have exciting car and foot chases, hard-hitting, action-packed fight sequences, and a strong dose of good-ole fashioned REVENGE! Studies show that movies that do not include gratuitous violence and sex actually have a much broader appeal to audiences, so we will be aiming for a PG-13 rating. It will feel like a blockbuster of the late 90’s early 2000’s but with a twist of true-to-life storytelling.

The Cause

Unlike most films, this project in particular has the potential to raise awareness around the very serious issue of human trafficking. This project has pledged to raise over $100,000 for our organization to help put a stop to child sex trafficking.

The impact of raising awareness is also something that we hope this movie will help achieve. There is an intentional effort to suppress information about child trafficking, and this movie has the opportunity to bring awareness to the masses.

Follow the Lions And Lambs movie project and it’s team

Indiegogo: Indiegogo.com/projects/lions-and-lambs

Twitter: @TravisConover

Instagram: @Travis_Conover

©Veterans For Child Rescue. All rights reserved.

IT BEGINS: Biden Says He’ll Use Constitution to Make Sure Trump Will Never Be President Again thumbnail

IT BEGINS: Biden Says He’ll Use Constitution to Make Sure Trump Will Never Be President Again

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

“We have to demonstrate that he will not take power if he does run. Making sure he under the legitimate efforts of the Constitution, become the next president again.”— Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. 

They just got away with another big election steal. Seamlessly. They stole another election and nobody was able to stop them. So now they are coming after us MAGA people and President Trump with a vengeance.

By: Sundance, Conservative Treehouse, November 9, 2022:

Joe Biden held a press conference today to celebrate the electioneering and ballot collection efforts of the Democrat party. The video and transcript of the press conference is below.

When questioned about any changes to his White House policy agenda, or what he plans to do differently, Biden said, “Nothing, because they’re just finding out what we’re doing. The more they know about what we’re doing, the more support there is.” Current support for Biden’s economic policy agenda is around 22%, current opposition 78%.

Here’s the video:

Transcript

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Well, we had an election yesterday.  (Laughter.)  And it was a good day, I think, for democracy.  And I think it was a good day for America.  (Clears throat.)  Excuse me, I’m a little hoarse.

Our democracy has been tested in recent years.  But with their votes, the American people have spoken and proven once again that democracy is who we are.

The states across the country saw record voter turnout.  And the heart and soul of our democracy — the voters, the poll workers, the election officials — they did their job and they fulfilled their duty, and apparently without much interference at all — without any interference, it looks like.  And that’s a testament, I think, to the American people.

While we don’t know all of the results yet — at least, I don’t know them all yet — here’s what we do know.  While the press and the pundits are predicting a giant red wave, it didn’t happen.  And I know you were somewhat miffed by my — my obsessant [sic] optimism, but I felt good during the whole process.  I thought we were going to do fine.

While any seat lost is painful — some good Democrats didn’t win the — last night — Democrats had a strong night.  And we lost fewer seats in the House of Representatives than any Democratic President’s first midterm election in the last 40 years.  And we had the best midterms for governors since 1986.

And another thing that we know is that voters spoke clearly about their concerns — about raising costs — the rising costs and the need to get inflation down.  There are still a lot of people hurting that are very concerned.  And it’s about crime and public safety.  And they sent a clear and unmistakable message that they want to preserve our democracy and protect the right to choose in this country.

And I especially want to thank the young people of this nation, who — I’m told; I haven’t seen the numbers — voted in historic numbers again and — just as they did two years ago.  They voted to continue addressing the climate crisis, gun violence, their personal rights and freedoms, and the student debt relief.

Last night, I was pleased to call Maxwell Frost, the 25-year-old who got elected — I guess the youngest man ever elected to the United States Congress.  And I told him that he — I told him that I was the first elected — the second-youngest person ever elected to the United States Senate at 29; that I have no doubt he’s off to an incredible start in what, I’m sure, will be a long, distinguished career.  And when he’s President and they say, “Joe Biden is out in the outer office,” I don’t want him to say, “Joe who?”  (Laughter.)

But the voters were also clear that they’re still frustrated.  I get it.  I understand it’s been a really tough few years in this country for so many people.

When I came to office, we inherited a nation with a pandemic raging and an economy that was reeling.  And we acted quickly and boldly to vaccinate the country and to create a stable and sustained growth in our economy; long-term investment to rebuild America itself and our roads, our bridges, our ports, our airports, clean water systems, high-speed Internet.

And we’re just getting started.  The interesting thing is that this is all going to really come into clear view for people in the months — in the months of January, February, March of next year.  It’s just getting underway.  So, I’m optimistic about how the public is going to even be more embracive of what we’ve done.

Historic investments that are leading companies to invest literally hundreds of billions of dollars combined to build semiconductor factories and other advanced manufacturing here in America.  It’s going to create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.

And, by the way, a significant number of those jobs are going to be jobs that pay an average of $126-, $127,000.  And you don’t need a college degree to get those jobs.

We’re dealing with global inflation as a result of the pandemic and Putin’s war in Ukraine.  We’re also handling it better than most other advanced nations in the world.

We’re lowering gas prices.

We looking — we’re taking on powerful interests to lower prescription drug costs and health insurance premiums and energy bills.

After 20 months of hard work, the pandemic no longer controls our lives.  It’s still a concern, but it no longer controls our lives.

Our economic policies have created a record 10 million new jobs since I came into office.  The unemployment rate is down from 6.4 when I was sworn in to 3.7 percent — near a 50-year low.  And we’ve done all this while lowering the federal deficit in the two years by $1.7 trillion.  Let me say it again: $1.7 trillion.  No administration has ever cut the deficit that much.

And reducing the federal deficit is one of the best things we can do to lower inflation.  But while we’ve made real progress as a nation, I know it’s hard for folks to see that project — that progress in their everyday lives.

And it’s hard to see the results from actions that we took while — that we have to implement what we’ve done.  But I believe we took the right steps for the country and for the American people.

In fact, if you look at the polls, an overwhelming majority — I don’t look at them much anymore, because I’m not sure how to read them anymore.  (Laughter.)  I hope you are uncertain as well.

But the overwhelming majority of the American people support the elements of my economic agenda — from rebuilding America’s roads and bridges; to lowering prescription drug costs; to a historic investment in tack- — tackling the climate crisis; to making sure that large corporations begin to pay their fair share in taxes.

And I’m confident these policies are working and that we’re on the right path, and we need to stick with them.

All these initiatives take hold as they do, from lead pipes being removed from schools and homes, to new factories being built in communities with a resurgence of American manufacturing.  It’s already created, by the way, 700,000 brand new manufacturing jobs.

You’ve heard me say it ad nauseam: I don’t know where it’s written it says we can’t be the manufacturing capital of the world.  We are now exporting product, not jobs, around the world.

People across the country are going to see even more clearly the positive effects on their day-to-day lives.  But I still understand why they’re hurting right now and so many people are concerned.

As I have throughout my career, I’m going to continue to work across the aisle to deliver for the American people.  And it’s not always easy, but we did it the first term.  And I’ll be — surprised lot of people that we signed over 210 bipartisan laws since I’ve become President.  And we’re revitalizing American manufacturing; gun safety — we did it together — and dozens of laws positively impacting on our veterans.

And let me say this: Regardless — regardless of what the final tally in these elections show — and there’s still some counting going on — I’m prepared to work with my Republican colleagues.  The American people have made clear, I think, that they expect Republicans to be prepared to work with me as well.

In the area of foreign policy, I hope we’ll continue this bipartisan approach of confronting Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

When I return from the G20 meetings in Indonesia with other world leaders, I’m going to invite the leaders of both political parties, as I’ve done in the past on my foreign trips, to the White House to discuss how we can work together for the remainder of this year and into the next Congress to advance the economic and national security priorities of the United States.

And I’m open to any good ideas.  I want to be very clear: I’m not going to support any Republican proposal that’s going to make inflation worse.  For example, the voters don’t want to pay higher prescription costs for drugs.  We’ve cut that now.  We’re going to kick into gear next year — the next calendar year.  And I’m not going to walk away from the historic commitments we just made to take on the climate crisis.  They’re not compromise-able issues to me, and I won’t let it happen.

The voters don’t want more taxes for the super we- — tax cuts for the super wealthy and biggest corporations.  And I’m going to continue to focus on cost-cutting for working- and middle-class families, and building an economy from the bottom up in the middle out.

I know you’re tired of hearing me say that, but I genuinely mean it.  That’s what makes America grow.  The wealthy do very well when the middle class is doing well, and the poor have a way up.

And while continuing to bring down the federal deficit.

You know, as we look at tax cuts, we should be looking at tax cuts for working people and middle-class people, not the very wealthy.  They’re fine.

I — look, I — if you can go out and be a multimillionaire, that’s great.  Just — just pay your fair share.  That’s all.  That’s all.  Just pay your fair share.  It’s like those 55 corporations in 2000 [2020] that made $40 billion and didn’t pay a penny in federal taxes.

It’s not right.  Everybody has an obligation.  So now they have to pay a staggering 15 percent.  And you all pay more than that in your taxes.

So I’m going to keep my commitment that no one — no one earning less than $400,000 a year — and that’s a lot of money, where I come from — are going to see their federal taxes go up.

And I want to be very clear: Under no circumstances will I support the proposal put forward by Senator Johnson and the senator from down in Florida to cut or make fundamental changes in Social Security and Medicare.  That’s not on the table.  I will not do that.

I will veto any attempt to pass a national ban on abortion.

But I’m ready to compromise with the Republicans where it makes sense on many other issues.  And I’ll always put the needs and interests of the American people first.

So let me close with this.  On this election season, the American people made it clear: They don’t want every day going forward to be a constant political battle.  There’s too much that — of that going on.  And there’s too much that we have to do.

The future of America is too promising — too promising to be trapped in an endless political warfare.

And I really mean it.  You’ve heard me say it time and again for the last 20 months or so: I am so optimistic about the prospects for America.  We need to be looking to the future, not fixated on the past.  And that future is bright as can be.

We — we’re the only nation in the world that’s come out of every crisis stronger than we went into the crisis.  And that’s a fact.  I mean — I mean I literally mean that: We’ve come out stronger than we’ve gone in.

And I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s future than I am today.  You know, I — particularly because of all those young people I’ve talked about, 18 to 30.  They’re showing up.  They’re the best-educated generation in American history, they’re the least prejudiced generation in American history, the most engaged generation in American history, and the most involved.

Look, after a long campaign season, I still believe what I always have: This is a great nation, and we’re a great people.  And it’s never been a good bet to bet against America.  Never been a good bet to bet against America.

There’s nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we work together.  We just need to remember who the hell we are.  We’re the United States of America.  The United States of America.  There’s nothing beyond our capacity.

And I’m pretty well convinced that we’re going to be able to get a lot done.  Now, I’ve been given a list of 10 people that I’m supposed to call on.  And you’re all supposed to ask me one question, but I’m sure you’ll ask me more.  (Laughter.)

And so let me start off with a list I’ve been given.  Zeke Miller, Associated Press.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have two questions for you.  As you mentioned — (laughter).  As you mentioned —

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  How come we never hold you guys to the same standards you hold us to?  (Laughter.)  But, anyway, go ahead.

Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.

Q    You mentioned that Americans are frustrated.  And, in fact, 75 percent of voters say the country is heading in the wrong direction, despite the results of last night.  What in the next two years do you intend to do differently to change people’s opinion of the direction of the country, particularly as you contemplate a run for President in 2024?

THE PRESIDENT:  Nothing, because they’re just finding out what we’re doing.  The more they know about what we’re doing, the more support there is.

Do you know anybody who wants us to get rid of the change we made on prescription drug prices and raise prices again?  Do you know anybody who wants us to walk away from building those roads and bridges and — and the Internet and so on?  I don’t — I don’t know any- —

I think that the problem is the major piece of legislation we passed — and some of it bipartisan — takes time to be recognized.

For example, you got — you got over a trillion dollars’ worth of infrastructure money, but not that many spades have been put in the ground.  It’s taking time.

For example, I was on the phone congratulating a Californian recently and then someone in — up in Scranton, Pennsylvania — the Congressman who got elected.  And he said, “Can you help us make sure we’re able to have high-speed rail ser- — rail service from Scranton to New York — New York City?”  I said, “Yeah, we can.  We can.”

First of all, it’ll make it a lot easier, take a lot of vehicles off the road.  And we have more money in the — in the pot now already — already out there — we voted for — than the entire money we spent on Amtrak to begin with.

It’s the same way — for example, I talked about, through the campaign, that we’re going to limit the cost of insulin for seniors to $35 a month instead of $400 a month.  Well, it doesn’t take effect until next year.

So there’s a lot of things that are just starting to kick in.  And the same way with what we’ve done in terms of environmental stuff.  It takes time to get it moving.

So, I’m not going to change — as a matter of fact, you know there’s some things I want to change and add to.  For example, we had — passed the most bipartisan, we passed the most extensive gun legislation, anti- — you know, rational gun policy in 30 years.  And — but we didn’t ban assault weapons.  I’m going to ban assault weapons.  They’re going to try like the devil —

So, I’m not going to change the direction.  I said I ran for three reasons.  I’m going to continue to stay where I’m — and I know — I fully understand the legitimate concern that what I’m saying is wrong.  Okay?

One is that I said we’re going to restore the soul of the country, begin to treat each other with decency, honor, and integrity.  And it’s starting to happen.  People are — the conversations are becoming more normal, becoming more — more — how can I say it? — decent.

Second thing I said is I want to build a country from the middle out and the bottom up.  And that way, everybody does fine.  I’m tired of trickle-down.  Not a whole lot trickles down when you trickle down to hardworking folks.

And the third thing — I know is still very hard — I’m going to do everything in my power to see through that we unite the country.  It’s hard to sustain yourself as a leading democracy in the world if you can’t — can’t generate some unity.

So, I’m not going to change anything in any fundamental way.

Q    And just on a different topic, Mr. President.  Russia today claimed that it had evacuated the Kherson region and the Kherson city.  Do you believe that this is potentially an inflection in that conflict?  And do you believe that Ukraine now has the leverage it needs to begin peace negotiations with Moscow?

THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, I found it interesting they waited until after the election to make that judgement, which we knew for some time that they were going to be doing.  And it’s evidence of the fact that they have some real problems — Russian — the Russian military.  Number one.

Number two, whether or not that leads to — at a minimum, it will lead to time for everyone to recalibrate their positions over the winter period.  And it remains to be seen whether or not there’ll be a judgment made as to whether or not Ukraine is prepared to compromise with Russia.

I’m going to be going to the G20.  I’m told that President Putin is not likely to be there, but other world leaders are going to be there in Indonesia.  And we’re going to have an opportunity to see what — what the next steps may be.

Nancy.  CBS.  Nancy Cordes.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have a few questions.

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Okay.

Q    I’ve been saving them up.  First of all, Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said last night that, “It is clear we are going to take the House back.”  Do you think he’s probably right about that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, based on what we know as — as of today, we’ve — we’ve lost very few seats for certain.  We still have a possibility of keeping the House, but it’s going to be close.  And — for example, in Nevada, we won all three of those seats — contested seats.  I went out for each, and I spoke with each — for each of those folks.  But we won them all.  I didn’t know that last night.

So it’s a moving target right now, but it’s going to be very close.

Q    Can you — can you describe your relationship with Mr. McCarthy?  How often do you speak to him?  What do you think of him?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think he’s the Republican Leader, and I haven’t had much of occasion to talk to him.  But I will be talking to him.  I think — I think I’m talking to him later today.

Q    When it comes to your legislative agenda — when you were Vice President, your legislative agenda basically ran into a brick wall two years in when Republicans took control of the House, and that lasted for the rest of the Obama presidency.  Is there any way for you to prevent that same fate from happening this time around —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

Q    — if Republicans take control of the House?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, because it’s going to be much closer if they take control.

Look, the predictions were — and again, I’m not being critical of anybody who made the predictions.  I got it, okay?  This was supposed to be a red wave.  You guys — you were talking about us losing 30 to 50 seats and this was going to — we’re nowhere near — that’s not going to happen.  And so, there’s always enough people in the — on the other team, whether it’s Democrat or Republican, that the opposite party can make an appeal to and maybe pick them off to get the help.  And — and so it remains to be seen.

But, look, I doubt whether or not — for example, all the talk — I’d ask the rhet- — I don’t expect you to answer, but the rhetorical question: Do you think that, you know, Senator Johnson is going to move to cut Medicare and Social Security?  And if he does, how many Republicans do you think are going to vote for it?

So, it depends.

Q    And then, my — my final question.  (Laughs.)  Republicans have made it clear that if they do take control of the House, that they want to launch a raft of investigations on day one into your handling of Afghanistan, the border.  They want to look into some of your Cabinet officials.  They want to investigate you.  They may even want to investigate your son.  What’s your message to Republicans who are considering investigating your family and, particularly, your son Hunter’s business dealings?

THE PRESIDENT:  “Lots of luck in your senior year,” as my coach used to say.

Look, I think the American public want us to move on and get things done for them.  And, you know, I heard that there were — it was reported — whether it’s accurate or not, I’m not sure — but it was reported many times that Republicans were saying, and the former President said, “How many times are you going to impeach Biden?”  You know, impeachment proceedings against Bi- —

I mean, I think the — I think the American people will look at all of that for what it is.  It’s just almost comedy.  I mean, it’s — but, you know, look, I can’t control what they’re going to do.  All I can do is continue to try to make life better for the American people.

Okay.  Phil.  Phil Mattingly, CNN.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have 37 ques- — I’m kidding.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)

Q    Sir, at a fundraiser last month, you said, quote, “The rest of the world is looking at this election…both the good guys and the bad guys.”  You noted you’re going to G20 in a couple days.  You’ll come face to face with many of those leaders at the same moment that your predecessor is considering launching his reelection effort.  How should those world leaders, both good guys and bad guys, view this moment both for America and for your presidency?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, these world leaders know we’re doing better than anybody else in the world, as a practical matter.  Notwithstanding the difficulties we have, our economy is growing.  You saw the last report; we’re still growing at 2.6 percent.  We’re creating jobs.  We’re still in a solid position.  And there’s not many other countries in the world that are in that position.

And I promise you, from the telephone calls I still have and from the meetings I have with other heads of state, they’re looking to the United States and saying, “How are you doing?  And what are you doing?  What can we do together?  How…”

So I think that the vast majority of my colleagues — at least those colleagues who are NATO members — European Union, Japan, South Korea, et cetera — I think they’re looking to cooperate and wanting to know how — how we can help one another.

And what was the other question?

Q    (Inaudible) I hadn’t asked it yet.

THE PRESIDENT:   Oh, I’m sorry.

Q    No, no, no.  So, I think the — one way to follow up on that is you noted that you felt like there was a shift in terms of people being willing to show more decency in this moment.  You’ve often talked about breaking the fever or kind of a transition from this moment that we faced over the last several years.  Do you feel like the election is what represents that?  Do you feel like the fever has broken, I guess?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m not — I don’t think we’re going to break the fever for the super mega MAGA Republicans.  I mean — but I think they’re a minority of the Republican Party.  I think the vast majority of the members of the Republican Party, we disagree strongly on issues but they’re decent, honorable people.  We have differe- — differences of agreement on — on issues.

But they — you know, I — I worked with a lot of these folks in the Senate and the House for a long time.  And, you know, they — they’re — they’re honest, and they’re — and they’re straightforward.  They’re different than mine, but they’re — you know, they’re — they’re decent folks.

And so, I think that the rest of the world — and a lot of you have covered other parts of the world, and you know — the rest of the world is looking at the United States.  I guess the best way to say this is to — is to repeat what you’ve — some — some of you’ve heard me say before.

The first G7 meeting — for the public, that’s the — the seven largest democracies — when I went to — right after we got elected, in February, after I got sworn in in January.  And I sat down at a table — a roundtable with the six other world leaders from the European Union, the United — and — and Canada, et cetera, and said, “America is back.”  And one of them turned to me and said, “For how long?  For how long?”  It was a deadly earnest question: “For how long?”

And I looked at them.  And then another one went on to say — and I’m not going to name them — went on to say, “What would you say, Joe, if, in fact, you went — we went to bed tonight here in — in England, woke up the next morning and found out that thousands of people had stormed the parliament of — of Great Britain — gone down the hall, broken down the doors, two cops ended up dying, a number of people injured, and they tried to stop the co- — the confirmation of an election?”  It’s not the same situation, obviously, as we have.  And he said, “What would you think?”

And what — I ask a rhetorical question: What would you all think?  You’d think England was really in trouble.  You’d think democracy was on the edge if that happened in Great Britain.

And so, that’s the way people were looking at us, like, “When is this going to stop?”  Nothing like this has happened since the Civil War.  I don’t want to exaggerate.  But literally, nothing like this has happened since the Civil War.

And so, what I find is that they want to know: Is the United States stable?  Do we know what we’re about?  Are we the same democracy we’ve always been?

Because, look, the rest of the world looks to us — I don’t mean that we’re always — like we’re always right.  But if the United States tomorrow were to, quote, “withdraw from the world,” a lot of things would change around the world.  A whole lot would change.

And so, they’re very concerned that we are still the open democracy we’ve been and that we have rules and the institutions matter.  And that’s the context in which I think that they’re looking at: Are we back to a place where we are going to accept decisions made by the Court, by the Congress, by the government, et cetera?

Q    So the entire genesis of that G7 conversation was tied to your predecessor, who is about to launch another campaign.  So how do you reassure them, if that is the reason for their questioning, that the former President will not return or that his political movement, which is still very strong, will not —

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, yeah?  (Laughs.)

Q    — once again take power in the United States?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we just have to demonstrate that he will not take power by — if we — if he does run.  I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.

Q    Thanks.

THE PRESIDENT:  Steve, Reuters.  I’m sorry.  Steve Holland.

Q    Thank you, sir.  How do you interpret last night’s results in terms of deciding whether you want to seek another term?  Is it now more likely that you will run?  And what’s going to be your timeline for consideration?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, Jill and I have — and by the way, this is my wife, Jill — (laughter) — who’s a hell of a lot more popular than I am in the Democratic Party, too.

But at any rate, all kidding aside, our — our intention is to run again.  That’s been our intention, regardless of what the outcome of this election was.  And the fact that we won — we — I didn’t run — the fact that the Democratic Party outperformed anything anyone expected and did better than any off-year presidency since John Kennedy is one that gives everybody, like, “Hoo” — sigh of relief — that the mega Republicans are not taking over the government again, et cetera.

And so, my judgment of running, when I announce — if I annou- — now, my intention is that I run again.  But I’m a great respecter of fate.  And this is, ultimately, a family decision.  I think everybody wants me to run, but they’re go- — we’re going to have discussions about it.  And I don’t feel any — any hurry one way or another what — to — to make that judgment today, tomorrow, whenever, no matter what the — my predecessor does.

Q    By end of the year or early next year?  Or what’s your — what’s you’re thinking?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I — my guess is — I hope Jill and I get a little time to actually sneak away for a week around — between Christmas and Thanksgiving.  (Laughs.)  And my guess is it would be early next year we make that judgment.

Q    Thanks.

THE PRESIDENT:  But it is my plan to do it now.  I mean, but — you know.

Okay, I’m sorry.  Karen.  Karen Travers of ABC Radio.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  WNBA star Brittney Griner today was moved to a Russian penal colony to serve out her nine-year sentence.  Do you have an update right now on her condition?  What do you know about that?  And does this mark a new phase in negotiations with the Russians to secure her release?  Can the U.S. now fully engage in talks on a prisoner swap?

And then a follow-up, if I can.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’ve been — we’ve been engaging on a regular basis.  I’ve been — I’ve been spending a fair amount of time with — with her wife about what’s going on with her.

And my guess is — my hope is that now that the election is over, that Mr. Putin will be able to discuss with us and be willing to talk more seriously about a prisoner exchange.

That is my intention.  My intention is to get her home.  And we’ve had a number of discussions so far.  And I’m hopeful that, now that our election is over, there is a willingness to — to negotiate more specifically with us.

Thank you.

Q    And, if I can, your Press Secretary had said that the U.S. government has continued to follow up on that significant offer but also had proposed “alternative potential ways forward” with the Russians.  Can you tell us what those “alternative ways forward” are and how Russia has responded to those?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I can, but I won’t.  Okay, I can’t — I mean, you know, it would — it would not be a wise thing to do in order to see if they would move forward.

But it is my — I’m telling you, I am determined to get her home and get her home safely — along with others, I might add.

April Ryan.

Q    Of TheGrio.

THE PRESIDENT:  Of TheGrio.  Excuse me.  I beg your pardon.

Q    (Laughs.)  Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  I got it right last time we did this.

Q    Yes, you did.  Yes, you did.

Mr. President, I have a couple of questions on several issues.  One, the Supreme Court.  As you know, the Supreme Court has before it the issue of college admissions and affirmative action.  What can and are you planning in case of a rollback that is expected?

There are legal analysts that say that there will be drastic implications, there are tentacles from this, and they even say that this can impact Brown v. Board — the decision from Brown v. Board.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you know, first of all, I asked our Justice Department to defend the present policy before the Supreme Court.  And like a lot of pundits, I’m not prepared to believe that the Supreme Court is going to overrule the pre- — the existing decision.  That’s far from certain.  And I don’t be- — I don’t believe that.

But number one — so, number one, what I did to try to change it is object to it before the Supreme Court of the United States — our administration.

Number two, I — there are a number of things that we can and must do to make it — and, by the way, this is a case involving an Asian American, in terms of getting into school, and whether there’s affirmative action makes sense at all from the standpoint of those who are arguing against it.

But, you know, the fact is that we’re — we’re also in a circumstance where there’s a lot that we can do in the meantime to make sure that there’s an access to good education across the board.  And that is by doing things that relate to starting education at age three — formal schooling at age three — which it increases — not daycare, but school.  All the studies over 10 years show that that increases the prospect of someone making it through 12 years without any difficulty, no matter what the background they come from, by 56 percent.

And I also think that we should be making sure that we have the ability to provide for two years of education beyond that, whether it’s apprenticeships or community colleges.

And we also are in a situation where I think that — for example, I want to make sure we — a lot of it has to do with finances as well — that we make sure that we have help for people who come from modest means to be able to get to school.

You know, the cost of college education has increased fourfold.  And it used to be that a Pell Grant would cover something like 70 percent of the college tuition.  Now it covers significantly less than that.  So I want to increase the Pell Grants as well.

But let’s see what the Supreme Court decides.  And I’m — I am hopeful.  And our team and our — the lawyers who argued for us are not nearly as certain as the people you quoted as saying it’s going to be overruled.

Q    Next question, sir.  The issue is inflation.  TheGrio and KFF conducted a study of Black voters that said inflation was the number one issue, and we saw it in this midterm election.

What can you promise concretely in these next two years that will help turn the pocketbook for the better in the midst of staving off a recession?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, a number of things.  First of all, un- — Black unemployment is almost cut in half under my administration just since I began.  More Black businesses have opened up — small businesses — than ever before.

We’re now in a situation where we’re providing, through the Small Business Administration, down payments for people buying homes, because most people accumulate wealth in the value of their home, most middle-class families like mine.  My dad bought a home, didn’t have — just scraped together to get a home.  By the time he was able to retire, he was — he had built up equity in a home.  That’s how most people do that.

And so — but what I can’t do is I can’t guarantee that we’re going to be able to get rid of inflation, but I do think we can.

We brought — we’ve already brought down the price of gasoline about $1.20 a gallon across the board.  And I think that the — the — the — the oil companies are really doing the nation a real disservice.

They’ve made — six of them made over $100 billion in the last quarter in profit.  A hundred billion dollars.

In the past, if they had done the two things that they had done before — one, invest in more refineries and producing more product and/or passing on the rebates to the gas stations that — you know, they sell the oil at a cheaper rate than they have to — than they are selling it now, not taking advantage.  And that lowers the price of the total gallon of gas because that gets passed on.

So there’s a whole lot of things that we can do that are — that are difficult to do, but we’re going to continue to push to do them.

And the other thing is that one of the things that makes a gigantic difference is what are the costs that exist in the average family and the average Black community.  One, prescription drug costs.  Well, we’re driving those down precipitously, beginning next year.

And, you know, I’ll bet you know a lot of people in the African American and — and Caucasian community that — that need to take insulin for diabetes.  Well, we’re going to reduce that cost.  They’re not going to pay more than $35 for the insulin instead of four- — average of $400.

And I can go down the list of the things that — my dad used to say it a different way.  At the end of the month, the things you have to pay for, from your mortgage to food on the table to gasoline in the automobile, do you have enough money to do it?  And when it’s done, do you have anything left over?  And medical bills are a big piece of that, particularly in the African American community and the poor — and poorer communities.  They need help.

And so we’re driving down all of those costs.  And we’ve already passed the legislation to do that; it’s just taking effect.

So there’s a lot of things we can do to affect the things that people need on a monthly basis to reduce their inflation, their cost of living.

And so — but I am optimistic, because we continue to grow and at a rational pace, we’re not anywhere near a recession right now, in terms of the growth.  But I think we can have what most economists call a “soft landing.”  I’m convinced that we’re going to be able to gradually bring down prices so that they, in fact, end up with us not having to move into a recession to be able to get control of inflation.

Q    And, Mr. President, last question on humanity.  I know, everybody else got some.

Q    Not everybody else.

Q    Well, you’re coming.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, go ahead.

Q    Last question on humanity.  Sir, you can’t legislate and you can’t executive order out the issue of empathy or the lack thereof in the midst of this rhetoric — this heated political rhetoric.  What’s next?

THE PRESIDENT:  Part of what I think leadership requires — and I hope I meet the standard — is letting people know you understand their problem.

Again, my dad used to have an expression.  He said, “I don’t expect the government to solve my problems, but I expect them to at least know what they are, understand them.”

And like a lot of you, we’ve been very fortunate as a family, but we’ve also been through a lot of fairly tough times.  And it’s not — and I’ve had the great advantage of having a family to get through them.

When my first wife and daughter were killed when a tractor trailer broadsided them and killed my wife and — killed my — my first wife and killed my daughter, and my two boys were expected to die; they were in the — it took the Jaws of Life three hours to get them out.  They were on top of their dead mother and dead sister.

I understand what that pain is like.

And when Jill and I lost Beau after a year in Iraq, winning the Bronze Star and Conspicuous Service Medal, a major in the United States military, came home with Stage 4 glioblastoma because he lived about 200, 5- — between 2- and 500 yards from burn pit that’s 10 feet deep and as big as a football field, burning every toxic waste you could find.

You know, I think that we — we understand what it’s like to lose family members, mothers, fathers, to can- — all of you have been through that kind of thing.

We’ve been fortunate, though.  We’ve had each other.  We’ve had strong families — Jill’s sisters, my brothers, my sister.

And so what we can do to deal with that empathy is make sure there’s help available, make sure there’s people who are there to help — whether they are a psychologist or whether they’re medical doctors or whether they’re social workers — to be there to help, to help just hold a hand.

And, for example, we can do an awful lot for a lot of families, the families you’re talking about, if we re- — reinstate this Child Tax Credit.  It cut child poverty by 40 percent when it was in place.  I couldn’t get it passed the second time around.

So there’s a lot we can do.  And the empathy is not just talking about it, it’s communicating to people you genuinely understand.  And I hope a lot of people don’t understand, because they — I don’t want people having to know the pain.

But the second piece of that is: Let them know that you are there to help.  You’re there to help.

And one of the things I’ve talked with Vivek Murthy about — and a lot of you have written about it, and you’ve written it well about it — is the need for mental health care in America.  You know, when we got elected, there were something like, I don’t know, 2-, 3-, 5 million people who had gotten their — their COVID shots.

Well, in the meantime — I’ve got over 220 million people all three shots.  But in the meantime, what happened?  We lost over a million dead.  A million dead.

I read one study that for those million people, they had nine people who were — each one of them had, on average, nine people close to them.  A relative, someone they’re married to, a child — someone close.

The impact has been profound.  It’s been profound.  Think of all the people — think of all your children or your grandchildren who didn’t have that senior prom, who didn’t have that graduation party, who didn’t have all the things we had that we took for granted — the impact on their psyche.

So, there’s a lot we have to do.  And empathy reflects itself not just on what a person demonstrates they understand — of knowing what people need and helping to make it happen.  And we’re trying to do that.  And a lot of Republicans are trying to do it, too.  I don’t mean this is a partisan thing.  A lot of people are trying to do it because they know we got a problem.

Okay, excuse me.  These 10 questions are really going quickly.  (Laughter.)

Q    Stick around for more.

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Well, I’ve got to meet with some of my — talk to some of the Republican leadership soon.  But — anyway.

Jenny Leonard, Bloomberg.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Two questions.  One, shifting back to your trip to Asia.  When you meet with President Xi Jinping of China, will you tell him that you’re committed to defending Taiwan militarily?  And what are you hoping to get out of this meeting that will make it a success?  Are you willing to make any concessions to him?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, I’m not — I’m not willing to make any fundamental concessions because what I — what I’ve told him in the beginning — and this is — we’ve — I’ve spent over 78, I think they told me, hours with him so far — 67 in person, when I was Vice President.

President Obama knew he couldn’t spend time with the Vice President of another country, so I traveled 17,000 miles with them in China and around — and the United States.  I’ve met with him many times.

And I’ve told him: I’m looking for competition, not — not conflict.

And so what I want to do with him when we talk is lay out what the — what kind of — what each of our red lines are, understand what he believes to be in the critical national interests of China, what I know to be the critical interests of the United States, and to determine whether or not they conflict with one another.  And if they do, how to resolve it and how to work it out.

And so — and the Taiwan doctrine has not changed at all from the very beginning — the very beginning.  So, I’m sure we’ll discuss China — excuse me, Taiwan.  And I’m sure we’ll discuss a number of other issues, including fair trade and — and rela- — relationships relating to his relationship with other countries in the region.

And — and so, anyway.  So there’s a lot we’re going to have to discuss.

Do you want another question?

Q    Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  Everybody else got one.

Q    You didn’t say if —

THE PRESIDENT:  Or two or three.

Q    You didn’t say if you will tell Xi Jinping personally that you are committed to defending Taiwan.

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m going to have that conversation with him.

Q    That wasn’t my second one, sorry.  (Laughter.)

Sorry, I actually have an unrelated question too.  Mr. President, do you think Elon Musk is a threat to U.S. national security?  And should the U.S. — and with the tools you have — investigate his joint acquisition of Twitter with foreign governments, which include the Saudis?

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  I think that Elon Musk’s cooperation and/or technical relationships with other countries is worthy of being looked at.  Whether or not he is doing anything inappropriate, I’m not suggesting that.  I’m suggesting that it wor- — worth being looked at.  And — and — but that’s all I’ll say.

Q    How?

THE PRESIDENT:  There’s a lot of ways.

All right.  Kristen.  Kristen Welker.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, Mr. President.  I appreciate it.

I want to follow up with you on working with Republicans.  Leader McCarthy again suggested that he is not prepared to write what he has called a “blank check” to Ukraine.  And yet, you expressed optimism that funding for Ukraine would continue, that the policies toward Ukraine would continue.  Why should the people of Ukraine and this country have confidence in that, given the comments by Leader McCarthy?

And just to follow up with you on your comments to Zeke, you said you don’t need to do anything differently.  If Republicans control the House, don’t you need to recalibrate, to some extent, to try to work across the aisle with a Republican-led House?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me put it this way.  What I meant was: I don’t have to change any of the policies that have already passed.  That’s what they said they want to go after.

And so, what I have is a simple proposition: I have a pen that can veto.  Okay?  So, that’s what I mean.  I don’t have to recalibrate whether or not I’m going to continue to, you know, fund the — we’re going to continue to fund the infrastructure bill or we’re going to continue to fund the environment, et cetera.

What — we have to — I hope — I think there’s a growing pressure, on the part of the American people, expecting both parties and all elements of both parties to — to work out their substantive differences and not just, “I’m not going to do that because it would benefit that party.”  Just make it — make it personal.

So, I — and, you know, it remains to be seen what the makeup of the House will be.  But I’m hopeful that Kevin and I can work out a modus vivendi as to how we’ll proceed with one another.

Q    So, will aid to Ukraine continue uninterrupted?

THE PRESIDENT:  That is my expectation.  And, by the way, we’ve not given Ukraine a blank check.  There’s a lot of things that Ukraine wants we didn’t — we didn’t do.

For example, I was asked very much whether we prefe- — we’d provide American aircraft to guarantee the skies over Ukraine.  I said, “No, we’re not going to do that.  We’re not going to get into a third world war, taking on Russian aircraft and directly engage.”  But would we provide them with all — the rational ability to defend themselves?  Yes.

We provide those HIMARS.  Well, the HIMARS — there’s two kinds of, in the average person’s parlance, rockets you can drop in those: one that goes over 600 miles and one that goes about 160 miles.  We didn’t give them any ones that go to 600 miles, because I’m not looking for them to start bombing Russian territory.

And so, we want to make sure that there’s a relationship that they’re able to defend themselves and take on what is purely a — a — the ugliest aggression that’s occurred since World War Two on a massive scale, on the part of Putin, within Ukraine.  And there’s so much at stake.

So, I would be surprised if — if Leader McCarthy even has a majority of his Republican colleagues who say they’re not going to fund the legitimate defensive needs of Ukraine.

Q    And just quick one.  Obviously, a lot of attention on 2024 now that the votes have been cast in the midterms.  Two thirds of Americans in exit polls say that they don’t think you should run for reelection.  What is your message to them?  And how does that factor into your final decision about whether or not to run for reelection?

THE PRESIDENT:  It doesn’t.

Q    What’s your message to them — to those two thirds of Americans?

THE PRESIDENT:  Watch me.  (Laughter.)

Q    Okay.  One more.  (Laughter.)  Very quickly.  You saw Governor Ron DeSantis with a resounding victory in Florida last night.  Who do you think would be the tougher competitor: Ron DeSantis or former President Trump?  And how is that factoring into your decision?

THE PRESIDENT:  It’d be fun watching them take on each other.  (Laughter.)

All right.  David Sanger.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I also have a question for you about China.  But before I do, I just wanted to follow up on something you said earlier when you said “it remains to be seen whether” the Ukraine government “is prepared to compromise with Russia.”  Previously, you’ve told us the only thing for the Russians to do is get completely out of Ukraine, go back to the — the lines that existed prior to February 24.  Are you suggesting with the word “compromise,” that you think that there is room for territorial compromise now?  That —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I’m not say- — that’s up to the Ukrainians.  Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.

Q    But what kind of compromise do you have in mind?

THE PRESIDENT:  I didn’t have any in mind.  You have asked the question whether or not, if I recall — whether or not — what would happen if, in fact, after the — this — I think the context is that whether or not they’re pulling back from Fallujah.  And the — I mean, from the —

Q    Kherson.

THE PRESIDENT:  Kherson.  The — the city of Kherson.  And they’re coming back across the river to the eastern side of the river — the Russian forces.  And I said what’s going to happen is they’re going to both lick their wounds, decide whether — what they’re going to do over the winter, and decide whether or not they’re going to compromise.

That’s — that’s what’s going to happen, whether or not.  I don’t know what they’re going to do.  And — but I do know one thing: We’re not going to tell them what they have to do.

Q    You were asked before about the — your meeting with President Xi.  At this point, the Chinese government, by the estimate of the Pentagon, is getting ready to bring their force of nuclear weapons up to over 1,000 weapons.  Significant increase from what they’ve had for many decades.  You’ve seen the threats from President Putin about the use of his nuclear forces —

THE PRESIDENT:  Remember how you all went after him when I said that was real?

Q    And what — what, in your view, happened?  Do you think he — he backed off because of that, (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, I’m just saying.  I just — I just found it interesting that, “Biden is being apop- — apoc- –acop- — Biden is being extremist.”  And — and it turns out you all are writing about it now.  Kind of fascinating.

Q    So my question is: Do you think that they are putting together a real alliance, the Chinese and the Russians?  And do you believe that you need to begin speaking with President Xi about some form of arms control if he’s going to get up to a level of weapons similar to what the United States and Russia have right now?

THE PRESIDENT:  No and yes.  No, I don’t think there’s a lot of respect that China has for Russia or for Putin.  I don’t think they’re looking at it as a particular alliance.  Matter of fact, they’ve been sort of keeping their distance a little bit.

I do think that it remains to be seen whether Xi Jinping has decided that — or backed off of his initial judgment that he wanted Ukrai- — excuse me, China to have the most powerful military in the world, as well as the largest economy.

And — but he’s a long way from both.  But I think — I think — talk about nuclear weapons and location and the number of them and access is important to discuss.

Thank you all so very, very much.

(Cross-talk by reporters.)

Thank you very, very much.  We’ll do another — we’ll do another hour a little later.  Thank you so much.  (Laughter.)  Thank you.

[End Transcript]

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXPLICIT: Prestigious Connecticut Private School Educator Details Sexual Fantasies with High School Students thumbnail

EXPLICIT: Prestigious Connecticut Private School Educator Details Sexual Fantasies with High School Students

/in , , /by

By Project Veritas

*CLICK HERE TO TWEET THE VIDEO*

Project Veritas released a new video today exposing an educator working at a prestigious Connecticut private school, Iman Rasti, for sexually explicit statements he made about his current high school students.

Rasti, Director of Greens Farms Academy’s Writing Center, teaches Middle School English, and is the Seventh Grade Dean, was recorded fantasizing about young female pupils. He even admits that his thoughts could get him in trouble at work.

Here is some of what is featured in the video:

  • Iman Rasti, Director of Writing Center; Middle School English Teacher; Seventh Grade Dean at Greens Farms Academy: “That possibly means me losing my job, my reputation — it’s way too risky. Like, one thing they [students] do these days, they sit down in front of me, they purposefully sit down somewhere in the class that is literally directly in front of me. They spread their legs wide open and that is just brutal. Brutal.”
  • Rasti: “Every day there is different panties on: green, black, white and they [students] make sure — it’s like they talk to each other, the three of them do that.”
  • Rasti: “They open their legs, and I am teaching, and I see what I see. They make sure that the panties are positioned in a way that I actually see the thing.”
  • Rasti: “Well, how can you concentrate? How can you continue talking with your classroom when you see that? I don’t know for women — if you see, I don’t know, I guess for women it’s sexy to see a man with a hard on. Maybe it’s sexy, I don’t know…They [students] are naughty.”
  • Rasti: “So, you see a 15-year-old girl, and next year they come back to school, and she is a woman. She is a woman. There is no way — she has gained weight, just, doing nothing, so it is clear that she has had sex. A lot of sex.”
  • GREENS FARMS ACADEMY RESPONDS: “We have just been made aware of a report of inappropriate comments allegedly made by a teacher at GFA. We are placing the employee on leave and will be promptly investigating this matter and taking appropriate action.” – Michelle Levi, spokesperson for Greens Farms Academy.

You can watch the full video HERE.

As a result of these statements by Rasti, Project Veritas decided to reach out to retired State Police Officer, Corporal Thomas McAndrew, who spent 25 years on the force leading major crime investigations and profiling offenders in the state of Pennsylvania.

McAndrew said that Rasti’s remarks raise concerns.

“It’s just very concerning that he would lose that judgment — of the difference between what position he is in,” McAndrew said.

“Concern with the fact that this is where his mindset is. His mindset is not in welcoming back a teenager who is a student, but instead, he’s obsessed with a sexual connotation or the sexual aspect of that student. Why his mind would go there is very concerning. Again, fantasy is one thing, thinking it is another thing. But when he has blurred the lines and started to justify all of his behavior, it is certainly a concern to us,” he said.

“It is predatory. When somebody is this obsessed with a fantasy, it starts to rule their life. They start to move in a direction of losing the concept of reality. The reality is he’s a teacher. He’s in a power position. He should be worried about educating these children. Instead, his focus is more on constantly — it seems, constantly obsessed with sexual aspects of these children.”

*CLICK HERE TO TWEET THE VIDEO*

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video exposé is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Prices Stay Sky-High In October As Inflation Continues To Run Hot thumbnail

Prices Stay Sky-High In October As Inflation Continues To Run Hot

/in , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Inflation rose 0.4% on a monthly basis in October as the annual rate undercut expectations to come in at 7.7%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Economists predicted that inflation would grow 0.6% on a monthly basis and 7.9% on an annual basis in October, according to a survey conducted by Bloomberg. Core inflation, which discounts the prices of food and energy due to their volatile nature, increased 0.3% on a monthly basis, but nudged down in October to 6.3% on an annual basis from September’s 40-year high of 6.6%, the BLS reported.

“A strong labor market and strong job growth supports strong demand, which allows inflationary pressures to stay elevated,” U.S. economist at T. Rowe Price, Blerina Uruci, told The Wall Street Journal. “You’ve got more demand chasing goods and services, the supply of which is being impaired at the moment for a number of reasons.”

It’s US CPI Thursday.

Consensus forecasts are expecting an annual headline inflation of 7.9% (0.6% MoM) and core of 6.5% (0.5%).

Look also for where we stand on the evolution of the drivers of #inflation, including the shift to services and, implicitly, the role of wages#economy

— Mohamed A. El-Erian (@elerianm) November 10, 2022

Food prices were up 10.9% on an annual basis, continuing to moderate slightly from the 40-year highs set in August but still well above February’s 8.6%, which was a record at the time, and more than five times greater than the Federal Reserve’s target of 2% inflation for all items.

Investors took recent remarks from Jerome Powell as an indication that the Fed will likely stop raising interest rates at a higher level than previously anticipated, Yahoo Finance reported Sunday.

AUTHOR

JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Even The Wealthiest Americans Are Worrying About Money Thanks To Inflation: POLL

John Kerry spills the beans at U.N.’s COP17 meeting: They want to replace capitalism with a new economic system

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

ISIS ‘Breaking The Crosses’ and Other Ills thumbnail

ISIS ‘Breaking The Crosses’ and Other Ills

/in , , , /by

By Middle East Media Research Institute

Issue 15 of the ISIS English-language magazine Dabiq from 2016 was titled “Breaking the Cross” by the terrorist organization. It was mostly an anti-Christian edition featuring theological arguments expanding on the much more succinct ISIS threat to the West that they would “break your crosses, take your women, and paint the White House black.”[1]

The Islamic State’s dreams of world conquest turned out to be a pipe dream, although the group is very much alive in the corners of the world and boosts its body count numbers these days mostly by killing African Christian civilians. But the dream of “breaking the crosses” is not limited to jihadists.

In preparation for the recent G-7 meeting in Munster, Germany’s Foreign Ministry removed a 482-year-old crucifix from the city’s historic town hall where the Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1648.[2] Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, a Green Party member of Germany’s ruling leftist coalition, regretted that the cross had been removed by her ministry but could not really explain why it happened. Meanwhile in Spain, the country’s ruling leftist (Socialists plus the Communists of Unidas Podemos) and anti-clerical allies are wrestling how or whether to take down the tallest (150-meter or 500 feet) cross in the world, built by the Franco regime in Spain’s Valle de los Caidos (“Valley of the Fallen”).[3] The complex was finished in 1958. Facing tough political and economic headwinds, the ruling leftist parties are eager to be seen as zealously anti-Franco although the dictator has been dead for almost 50 years.[4]

Elsewhere in Europe, a Tory majority Parliament endorsed a ban on silent prayer too close to abortion clinics[5] while the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled unanimously in favor a topless abortion activist who entered La Madeleine church in Paris and simulated aborting baby Jesus using a bloody calf’s liver in front of the main altar just days before Christmas. The tribunal overturned the ruling against the activist and ordered the French state to pay her 9,800 Euros (2,000 for “moral damages” and 7,800 for costs and expenses).[6]

All of these actions in Europe were in the service of the increasingly dominant ideology of the age, not Christianity of course, but a successor faith that elevates as dogma certain views about gender, race, abortion, and immigration and that is often either skeptical if not hostile toward traditional religion and traditional families and the nation state. Most flags, except perhaps the rainbow flag or the Ukrainian one, make the new faith’s clerisy uncomfortable.

The partisans of the Islamic State were terrorists and revolutionaries but today much change, radical ideological change included, comes from above and not from below, not from revolutionary regimes or from populist insurrectionists but from entrenched permanent bureaucracies. These bureaucracies, often coupled with powerful NGO networks boosted with government money and a mostly left-leaning social media and academic infrastructure, act as ideological enforcers of the new dogma. Indeed, in Europe these enforcers target governments – Hungary, Poland, and possibly Meloni’s Italy – seen as fallen from the pure progressive faith. Farther afield, an increasingly rightist nationalist democracy like Israel also makes them uneasy. These Western enforcers decide what constitute the new sacred cows, the new blasphemies. A Barcelona hate crimes prosecutor just sentenced a Twitter user to 15 months in jail and a 1,600-Euro fine for racist, anti-immigrant tweets.[7]

While the United States is still different than Europe in many ways (certainly on free speech issues), the combination of bureaucracy plus the activist/academic community plus compliant media is also a powerful progressive tool on these shores. It is perhaps not surprising that the French abortion activist at La Madeleine later praised the influence of American “intersectional” Critical Race Theory (CRT) ideologues had on her thinking.[8]

Despite talk about a global confrontation between democracy and authoritarianism, the new orthodoxy being steadily but surely imposed on the West has parallels in, of all places, those authoritarian regimes in the East.

Certainly, in the Arab world, authoritarian regimes have often embraced political Islam or Islamist narratives for their own reasons, enabling Islamist and jihadist action (while at times fighting it). Sudan’s leftist dictator Nimeiry turned to Islamism as his popularity waned. Baathist Syria channeled jihadist fighters into Iraq to kill Americans. Baathist Saddam Hussein’s late Islam Campaign enabled the education of a pious young man who would become “ISIS Caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All of this came from above.

While Saudi Arabia was once the chief promoter of Islamism in the region, they have stopped and the slack has been taken up by Qatar and Turkey. Probably almost as dangerous a model is in ostensibly anti-Islamist Egypt. There the national security state zealously pursues the banned Islamist Muslim Brotherhood while allowing other forms of Islamism to flourish. The narratives often seen on Egyptian media, which is deeply penetrated by Egyptian security services, are replete with conspiracy theories, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism.[9] Rather than a refutation of an extreme ideology, they complement and reinforce it. The Egyptian government is zealous in the policing of its own “sacred cows,” including the power to prosecute religious blasphemy. These charges fall heaviest on the marginalized: secular or heterodox Muslims, atheists, Shias and, of course, Coptic Christians.

There is indeed in the region Islamist and jihadist grassroots, extremist subversion, and terrorism, but much of the space given to the larger Islamist narrative is provided by regimes, as in Egypt, for their own reasons, the main reason being to stay in power and distract populations from other, less popular, topics. If in democratic Spain, the Socialists would rather talk about long-dead Franco than sky high prices, in Egypt the regime can talk about immorality and blasphemy rather than deal with corruption or inflation. The power to punish “transgressors,” whether they are freethinkers in the East or populists, rightists, or Christians in the West, is the ultimate demonstration of entrenched power by ruling elites.

Ironically, despite the fierce competition and incendiary rhetoric we often here about “us and them,” the powerful share some characteristics. Whether in dictatorships or in ostensible democracies, raw power is being used from above to enforce conformity among the dissenters.

AUTHOR

Alberto M. Fernandez

Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice President of MEMRI.

SOURCES

[1] Acct.nl/publication/dabiq-issue-15-a-call-to-islamic-states-enemies-as-the-caliphate-crumbles, August 4, 2016.

[2] Msn.com/en-xl/news/other/germanys-foreign-office-removes-historic-cross-for-g7-summit/ar-AA13KaPs, accessed November 10, 2022.

[3] Blogs.publico.es/otrasmiradas/65382/volar-la-cruz-del-valle-de-los-caido-una-imprescindible-iconoclasia-laica,

October 27, 2022.

[4] Actuall.com/historia/la-obsesion-patologica-de-la-izquierda-con-franco, November 11, 2020.

[5] Cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2022/november/uk-bans-prayers-near-abortion-clinics-even-silent-ones-when-did-it-

become-against-the-law-to-pray, November 1, 2022.

[6] Businessinsider.co.za/france-catholic-church-topless-slut-protester-wins-human-rights-case-2022-10?

fbclid=IwAR2UlJWslAwAZaLo8s26C9THMsogY1Qvg0pBLoJkHy8fg3E5fd-sQXP6nuk, October 22, 2022.

[7] Thespainreport.substack.com/p/spanish-supremacist-twitter-user, accessed November 10, 2022.

[8] Cafebabel.com/en/article/eloise-bouton-liberated-after-femen-5ae009e4f723b35a145e5997, accessed November 10, 2022.

[9] See MEMRI TV Clip No. 9844, Egyptian TV Host Muhammad Musa: Freemasonry Aims To Establish A New World Order, Turn Arab States Into Zionist Lebensraum; The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion Contains Plots To Spread Deviant Entertainment, September 16, 2022.

EDITORS NOTE: This MEMRI column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: James O’Keefe questions New York Election Inspector thumbnail

VIDEO: James O’Keefe questions New York Election Inspector

/in , , /by

By Project Veritas

As you saw last night, Project Veritas Action exposed an NY Election Inspector, Donald Skinner, who admitted, despite voting Democrat, that he registered as a Republican just so he could work as an election official.

James O’Keefe tracked down Skinner after the polls closed last night and asked him some questions about what he revealed to our undercover journalist.

You can watch that interaction HERE.

PVA still has more Election stories to publish.

Make sure you are following us on Instagram and Telegram!

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video exposé is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

“A City on a Hill” thumbnail

“A City on a Hill”

/in , , /by

By Jerry Newcombe

In eight years, America will celebrate a major milestone—the 400th anniversary of Boston. I passed through Boston’s airport in 2021 and noticed that they seem to be gearing up for this milestone with lots of signs and images celebrating major events in Boston’s history.

Alas, they grossly underplayed the role of the Puritans in this upcoming anniversary. The Puritans established Boston. Their leader, Rev. John Winthrop, even said, famously,

“For we must consider that we shall be like a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are on us.”

The “city on a hill” reference comes ultimately from Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, as his hearers knew.

There was only one reference to the Puritans that I could see in the display of notable events of nearly 400 years in Boston. In 1636, Harvard University was established. That school was named after the Puritan Reverend John Harvard, a Congregationalist minister.

Recently, I produced an hour-long documentary that begins with the founding of Boston. It’s called “A City on a Hill,” and it’s part of the Foundation of American Liberty series I have made for Providence Forum (now a division of D. James Kennedy Ministries).

Guests in this program include Dr. Os Guinness, Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.), Dennis Prager, and Dr. Peter Lillback, the founder of Providence Forum.

The late Marshall Foster, author of The American Covenant, also appears, speaking of the link between the Puritans and much of the freedoms we enjoy today.

He told me, “The Puritans are often maligned today” because of The Scarlet Letter and the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692. “These sidelights of history should be put in context that these Puritans, the vast majority of them, not only were they biblical thinkers, they were open-minded and developed a form of government that allowed liberty and justice for all. If you believe in America’s Constitution and in the freedoms we have today, you can look no further than the Puritans.”

John Winthrop was the leader of the Puritans who founded Boston, a decade after their “spiritual cousins” (the Pilgrims) founded Plymouth. The Puritans had tried to work for the “purity” (hence the name “Puritans”) of the Church of England in their native homeland.

But under King Charles I’s horrific persecution, it became hopeless. Thus, in 1620 the Pilgrims found a toehold in New England, and the Puritans began mass migrations to New England ten years later.

British historian Paul Johnson, author of A History of the American People, writes that John Winthrop was “the first great American.”

Johnson calls Rev. Roger Williams “the second great American.” Williams disagreed with Winthrop on some points of leadership. So he struck out on his own to spare being sent back to England. He eventually made it to what is today Rhode Island, the colony he created.

Because God in His Providence spared his life during this trek in the wilderness in winter, Williams decided to name the city he founded after God: Providence. About Rhode Island, Williams declared, “I desired…it might be for a shelter for persons distressed for conscience.”

Another splinter group of Puritans also left Boston and founded their own colony, that of Connecticut. Their leader, Rev. Thomas Hooker, preached a sermon in 1638 which became the foundation of the constitution they wrote up in 1639—the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.

The Fundamental Orders says, “We…do, for ourselves and our successors…enter into combination and confederation together, to maintain the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess.”

That constitution, a forerunner to the U.S. Constitution (1787), was the first fully developed constitution written on American soil, which is why, to this day, Connecticut calls itself “the Constitution State.”

By 1643, the various colonies of New England came together to create the New England Confederation, in which they declared, “[W]e all came to these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The “city on a hill” reference of Rev. Winthrop is a great metaphor for America. President Ronald Reagan certainly appreciated it.

Said Reagan in his last presidential radio address in 1989: “The hope of human freedom, the quest for it, the achievement of it is the American saga. And I’ve often recalled one group of early settlers making a treacherous crossing of the Atlantic on a small ship when their leader, a minister, noted that perhaps their venture would fail and they would become a byword, a footnote to history. But perhaps, too, with God’s help, they might found a new world, a city upon a hill, a light unto nations.”

The Puritans should be remembered, not maligned, for their indispensable contribution to America as a “city upon a hill.”

©Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

Critically Thinking about the 2022 U.S. Election Results thumbnail

Critically Thinking about the 2022 U.S. Election Results

/in , , , /by

By John Droz, Jr.

What did we learn and what needs to be done to fix this?

It will take awhile to have the smoke settle following the 2022 US elections, but a few things are appearing out of the fog already…

Once again, there are many election results that simply defy logic — especially considering the dire direction our country is going in. Some possible explanations are:

a) there has been election malfeasance,

b) Conservatives are poor at messaging,

c) Conservatives are doing an inadequate job of working together, and/or

d) too many citizens are making emotional rather than logical choices.

There is absolutely no way to ascertain the legitimacy of any election (“a” above), without selective post-election forensic audits. That these have not yet been implemented in any state makes no sense, and is simply unfathomable.

Regarding “b thru d” here are two results from a current American poll that indicate a serious disconnect between what the public believes, and scientific reality:

1 – 62%± believe that climate change is of high concern.

The climate matter has been wildly exaggerated. Why? Because those who would like to take more control over our lives know that fear works (think COVID). If you want to read an easy-to-understand summary of the climate Science, then checkout this report. If after that you want more, then go here.

2 – 54%± believe that US energy policy should be expanding wind and solar use.

This is a key finding, as there is ZERO scientific basis to support such an opinion. None. Nada. Wind and solar are not only very uneconomical, they are inherently unreliable — and reliable electricity is the foundation of our modern society.

BUT, you may say, what about those (e.g., see #1) who buy AOC’s (a former bartender) assertion that the world will now come to an end in 9± years unless we take immediate, drastic measures to stop manmade CO2 production! Don’t we need to do a lot of wind and solar to do that? NO!

There is ZERO scientific proof that wind or solar make any consequential difference regarding reducing CO2. See here and here. AOC disciples should OPPOSE wind and solar as they are an illusion, propagated by well-paid lobbyists. The best source of electricity that will achieve their ends, is nuclear.

The bottom line is that this 54% is a telling indication of how easy it is to trick many good people to buy unscientific nonsense, simply with marketing and PR.

Here are some other disturbing (and several contradictory) poll findings indicating that of US citizens:

25%± relate to no religion

60%+ rarely attend religious services

60%± expect American life to be worse in the future

75%± are dissatisfied or angry about how federal government works

55%± want the federal government to be more involved with solving issues

65%± want health care to be the responsibility of the federal government

43%± believe that president Biden is doing a good job

42%± believe that Biden has the mental capacity to serve effectively as president

42%± believe that K-8 schools are teaching too little about racism

47%± trust that the media is reporting news fully, accurately and fairly

86%± believe that the future of US Democracy is an important consideration

73%± believe that votes will be counted accurately [Note that counting votes accurately is VERY different from whether all votes are legitimate, etc.]

There are several takeaways from all this, but IMO this shows how easily non-critically thinking citizens can be deceived. One of the good outcomes to the 2020 elections, was that a lot more right-leaning groups started to pay attention to the election process. Hopefully this week’s result will cause an additional spike of interest and actions. My team is ready to do a new Pennsylvania Report (here was our first),

One way or another election integrity needs to be genuinely fixed, or AOC will turn out to be right — all will be lost very soon!

©John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Paxlovid Is a Fraud, When Will It Be Taken Off the Market? thumbnail

Paxlovid Is a Fraud, When Will It Be Taken Off the Market?

/in , , , /by

By Dr. Rich Swier

Can Taking Paxlovid Lead to More Serious Illness?

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Paxlovid, which was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021, has become widely associated with rebound infection
  • While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Pfizer have tried to suggest that COVID rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid, recent research found no rebound cases among COVID-19 patients who did not take Paxlovid
  • People who take Paxlovid can also still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they’re asymptomatic
  • A number of high-profile individuals have experienced COVID rebound after using Paxlovid, including “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert, comedian Jimmy Dore, Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden, First Lady Jill Biden and CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. Most were double-jabbed and double-boosted. Walensky actually had three boosters
  • Emerging evidence also suggests SARS-CoV-2 can develop resistance to Paxlovid. Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir — the active antiviral ingredient in Paxlovid — which would kill some, but not all, of the virus. As a result, the virus became 20 times and 80 times less susceptible to the drug, respectively

So far, all of the drugs developed against COVID-19 have been disastrous in one way or another. Remdesivir, for example, which to this day is the primary COVID drug approved for use in U.S. hospitals,1 routinely causes severe organ damage2,3,4,5 and, often, death.

Another notable one is Paxlovid, which was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.6 While not showing signs of being deadly like remdesivir, Paxlovid has become so widely associated with rebound infection that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has even issued a warning about it. According to the CDC’s health advisory:7

“Recent case reports document that some patients with normal immune response who have completed a 5-day course of Paxlovid for laboratory-confirmed infection and have recovered can experience recurrent illness 2 to 8 days later, including patients who have been vaccinated and/or boosted.”

Asymptomatic Paxlovid Users Can Still Spread Infection

The CDC8 8 and Pfizer9 have suggested that sometimes COVID-19 naturally comes back after a person tests negative, implying that COVID-19 rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid. However, research10 by Dr. Michael Charness of the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Boston refutes this notion.

When Charness and colleagues analyzed 1,000 cases of COVID-19 diagnosed among members of the National Basketball Association — none of whom took Paxlovid — no cases of COVID-19 rebound were found.11 They also found that people who take Paxlovid can still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they’re asymptomatic. Charness told CNN:12

“People who experience rebound are at risk of transmitting to other people, even though they’re outside what people accept as the usual window for being able to transmit.”

Is Paxlovid-Induced Rebound Really Rare?

While Paxlovid-induced rebound of COVID is clearly widespread, health authorities insist the effect is “rare.” 13 Pfizer’s clinical trial had a 1% to 2% rebound rate. White House COVID response coordinator, Dr. Ashish Jha, put the rebound rate at 5% in real-life settings.

“If you look at Twitter, it feels like everybody has rebound,” Jha said during a White House press conference in July 2022. “But it turns out there’s actually clinical data.”

14

In one such study,15 5.87% of the 13,600 patients experienced rebound of symptoms within a month of the treatment. Dr. Aditya Shah, an infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, thinks the rebound rate may be as high as 10%.16

But if those rebound statistics were actually true, how does one explain the fact that so many high-profile celebrities and government officials who have used it have ended up rebounding? Statistically, that seems rather incredible.

High-Profile Rebound Cases

Good thing he is double boosted, next up – Paxlovid rebound. https://t.co/qe6xUQkW3C

— Dr. Joseph Mercola (@mercola) July 21, 2022

For example, in April 2022, the fully jabbed and boosted “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert got COVID, took Paxlovid and recovered, only to suffer a rebound a week later. Tweeting about his experience, Colbert referred to it as the “WORST. SEQUEL. EVER.”17 Comedian Jimmy Dore also experienced COVID-19 rebound after taking Paxlovid.18

Dr. Anthony Fauci got COVID in June 2022 — again despite being double-jabbed and double-boosted — and proudly shared that he took Paxlovid. Immediately after the five-day treatment, he tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Alas, three days after that, he not only tested positive again but all the symptoms of infection also returned, and they were more severe than the first time around.19,20

Fauci described his rebound in an interview: “Over the next day or so I started to feel really poorly, much worse than in the first go around. I went back on Paxlovid, and right now I am on my fourth day of a five-day course of my second course of Paxlovid. Fortunately, I feel reasonably good. I mean, I’m not completely without symptoms, but I certainly don’t feel acutely ill.”21

At the end of July 2022, it was President Joe Biden’s turn to announce he had COVID, despite being double-jabbed and double-boosted — something Biden had previously insisted could not happen (see video above). He too took Paxlovid and, like Fauci, ended up rebounding around Day 3, just as I predicted on Twitter.22 Unlike Fauci, however, he reportedly didn’t have any symptoms.23

In mid-August 2022, the double-jabbed, double-boosted First Lady, Jill Biden, came down with COVID,24 took Paxlovid and, like clockwork, rebounded a few days after finishing the treatment and initially testing negative.25

Toward the end of October 2022, double-jabbed and TRIPLE-boosted Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, got COVID. She’d received her fifth shot — the latest bivalent booster that has only been tested on mice — on September 22.26

Exactly one month later, she tested positive and reported mild symptoms.27,28 I think that makes the “new and improved” bivalent booster the shortest-acting shot so far. Anyway, Paxlovid to the rescue once again. And once again, it caused rebound. After initially testing negative after the treatment, she tested positive a couple of days later as symptoms returned.29

Government Researchers Investigating Rebound Effect

At the end of April 2022, Bloomberg described the post-Paxlovid rebound of David Ho, a virologist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University:30

“Ho said he came down with COVID on April 6 … His doctor prescribed Paxlovid, and within days of taking it, his symptoms dissipated and tests turned negative. But 10 days after first getting sick, the symptoms returned and his tests turned positive for another two days.

Ho said he sequenced his own virus and found that both infections were from the same strain, confirming that the virus had not mutated and become resistant to Paxlovid. A second family member who also got sick around the same time also had post-Paxlovid rebound in symptoms and virus, Ho says.

‘It surprised the heck out of me,’ he said. ‘Up until that point I had not heard of such cases elsewhere.’ While the reasons for the rebound are still unclear, Ho theorizes that it may occur when a small proportion of virus-infected cells may remain viable and resume pumping out viral progeny once treatment stops.”

Clinical Director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Dr. Paul Sax, told Bloomberg:31

“Providers who are going to be prescribing this should be aware that this phenomenon occurs, and if people have symptoms worsening after Paxlovid, it’s probably still COVID. The big problem is that when this drug was released, this information wasn’t included [on the label].”

Research published in Clinical Infectious Diseases32,33 looked into why Paxlovid may be leading to rebound symptoms and suggests it could be the result of insufficient exposure to the drug. Possibly, the drug is metabolized more rapidly in some individuals. Alternatively, perhaps the drug needs to be administered for a longer period of time.

Is SARS-CoV-2 Becoming Resistant to Paxlovid?

Emerging evidence also suggests SARS-CoV-2 can develop resistance to Paxlovid if the drug doesn’t eradicate all of the virus the first time around. Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 in a lab and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir — the active antiviral ingredient in Paxlovid — which would kill some, but not all, of the virus.

“Such tests are meant to simulate what might happen in an infected person who doesn’t take the whole regimen of the drug or an immunocompromised patient who has trouble clearing the virus,” Science reported.34

One of the studies revealed that SARS-CoV-2 developed three mutations after 12 rounds of nirmatrelvir treatment — “at positions 50, 166 and 167 in the string of amino acids that make up MPRO.”35 The mutations amounted to a 20-fold reduction in the virus’ susceptibility to nirmatrelvir.36

The other study37 also found mutations at positions 50 and 166, revealing that when they occurred together, SARS-CoV-2 became 80 times less susceptible to nirmatrelvir. According to the authors:38

“Reverse genetic studies in a homologous infectious cell culture system revealed up to 80-fold resistance conferred by the combination of substitutions L50F and E166V. Resistant variants had high fitness increasing the likelihood of occurrence and spread of resistance.”

It’s still unknown what might happen when two courses of Paxlovid are taken in quick succession to treat COVID-19 rebound — as occurred with Fauci. It’s possible that ever-mutating COVID-19 variants could be created.

Other antivirals on the market to treat COVID-19 have also led to concerns about drug resistance. Molnupiravir (sold under the brand name Lagevrio), approved by the FDA for emergency use in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID symptoms, has been shown to supercharge the rate at which the virus mutates inside the patient, resulting in newer and more drug resistant variants.39

Pfizer Gets Rich on Fraudulent Drugs

Video Link

Pfizer’s revenue is expected to reach $101.3 billion in 2022,40 thanks to the COVID jab and Paxlovid ($10 billion from Paxlovid alone) — both of which are frauds. Neither of them actually work as advertised, and both can make matters worse. In the case of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, you can still get the disease once you’ve been injected and boosted, and may still transmit the disease to others as well.

Then, when the shots don’t work to prevent infection — and we’ve now seen even five doses won’t prevent infection — Pfizer makes even more money by selling Paxlovid, which in many cases causes rebound! There can be only one reason for why the FDA has not withdrawn both of these drugs, and that is because they’re actually working for Pfizer.

Pfizer itself doesn’t view COVID rebound after Paxlovid treatment as a failure; they see it as a successful venture because the more courses needed, the more money they make. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in early July 2022:41

“During a recent investor call, a Pfizer official could spin the recent reports that the virus can hide from Paxlovid into good news, predicting that, as with the vaccine, patients may need multiple courses.

Immunocompromised patients ‘may carry this virus for a very, very long time,’ Dr. Mikael Dolsten [chief scientist and President of Worldwide Research and Development at Pfizer42] said in the investor call. ‘And we see that area as a real new opportunity growth area for Paxlovid to do very well, where you may need to take multiple courses.’”

FDA and CDC Are Extensions of the Drug Industry

Pushing a drug that causes COVID rebound does not appear to be in the best interest of public health. Paxlovid is a fraud and should be taken off the market. The fact that the FDA and CDC have focused on Paxlovid, remdesivir and molnupiravir to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

They’ve basically become extensions of the drug industry and have abandoned their original purpose, which is to protect public health — by ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, in the case of the FDA,43 and by conducting critical science and data analysis in the case of the CDC.44

Instead, they seem to be doing everything they can to protect Big Pharma profits, even if it costs you your life. Remdesivir, for example, costs between $2,340 and $3,120 depending on your insurance.45 Ivermectin, meanwhile — which has been very effective against COVID and shown to outperform at least 10 other drugs, including Paxlovid46 — costs between $4847 and $9448 for 20 pills depending on your location. The average cost is said to be about $58 per treatment.49

Paxlovid costs $529 per five-day course of treatment,50 and molnupiravir is around $700.51 While not quite as expensive as remdesivir, both are still nearly 10 times costlier than ivermectin, which is more effective. Imagine the billions of dollars we could have saved were it not for our health agencies being so compromised by industry.

Since the FDA and CDC cannot be trusted, it’s imperative to take responsibility for your own health. Do your own research and follow your own conscience and conviction. Remember, when it comes to COVID-19, early treatment is crucial, and effective protocols are readily available — just not from the FDA, CDC or even most hospitals.

For a refresher, check out Dr. Pierre Kory’s interview with Chris Martenson. You can also find many other articles describing treatment protocols by searching through my Substack archive.

Analysis by

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Sources and References

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Media Is Like a Rabid Dog – ‘Battle Royale!’ ‘Desantis! Trump! Desantis Trump!’ Don’t Get Sucked In thumbnail

The Media Is Like a Rabid Dog – ‘Battle Royale!’ ‘Desantis! Trump! Desantis Trump!’ Don’t Get Sucked In

/in , , , /by

By The Geller Report

The media is like a rabid dog – Desantis! Trump! Desantis Trump! It’s all I am hearing.

The media takeaway from last night is a GOP schism, a party split,  between DeSantis and Trump where there is no such schism. Don’t get sucked in. This is manufactured propaganda. And yet here we are, playing right into the Democrat playbook. Trump is taking the bait with his recent ill-conceived remarks. DeSantis is more thoughtful and has remained silent. Smart.

They are trying to create a split. Democrats know a house divided cannot stand. But united we are invincible.

If there is a battle for the Presidential nomination — the wind up is, they will both be eliminated. The primary will destroy one of them and the rigged ’24 election will take out the other. And the GOP will he leaderless, left with the treacherous uni-party RINO cabal – McConnell, McCarthy – (who are  LOVING this).

Why are we always dancing to the enemy’s tune?

The actual takeaway is the steal in Arizona, New York, Wisconsin, Georgia,

Pennsylvania and Nevada and voter suppression of Republicans (broken machines in battleground states.)

We must fix our corrupt election system is we are to have any shot of saving this once great Constitutional Republic.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Governors who care about freedom must adopt the ‘DeSantis Model’ before 2024

Trump nukes media narrative about ‘tension’ with DeSantis, Says very good relationship’ with DeSantis

Governor Ron DeSantis: ‘No Time for [GOP] Boneless Wonders’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Republican Abe Hamadeh Takes Lead in AZ AG Race, Kari Lake and Black Masters ThisClose thumbnail

Republican Abe Hamadeh Takes Lead in AZ AG Race, Kari Lake and Black Masters ThisClose

/in , , /by

By The Geller Report

Abraham Hamadeh takes the lead in Arizona and will be the next Attorney General.

Kari Lake and Blake Masters will soon follow and pull ahead, too. Massive number of ballots still to count due to incompetent Katie Hobbs who is actually in charge of her own corrupt election. No wonder why she didn’t campaign or debate.

The Democrats are trying to steal the election right before our very eyes.

I’ve seen enough, @AbrahamHamadeh takes the lead in Arizona and will be the next Attorney General.@KariLake & @bgmasters will soon follow and pull ahead, too. Massive number of ballots still to count due to incompetent @katiehobbs team.

Stop listening to the east coast media.

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) November 9, 2022

Florida counted 7.5 million ballots in 5 hours yesterday.

As of now, Maricopa County, AZ has counted just over 1 million and Clark County, NV has counted 584,000.

And both of them are still not going to be done for a while.

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 9, 2022

Wow. We’re going to win big.

Stay tuned, Arizona!

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) November 9, 2022

And these Democrat carpetbaggers and their running dogs in the media still haven’t called the House. This is an outrage.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republican Crane Wins Arizona House Race, Defeating Democrat O’Halleran

Drop Box KEYS Left Unattended On-Top of Philadelphia Ballot Drop Box on Election Night

NY’s Lee Zeldin Refuses to Concede As Well Over A Million and a Half Votes Are Still Uncounted

More Detroit Skullduggery: 3:30 AM – Van Full of Votes the Day After the Election

Georgia Senate Election Moves to Runoff As Walker, Warnock Fail to Hit 50%

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Watch ‘CONTRALAND’ the gruesome reality of child trafficking and predators in the USA. thumbnail

Watch ‘CONTRALAND’ the gruesome reality of child trafficking and predators in the USA.

/in , , /by

By Veterans 4 Child Rescue

We produced this free documentary to alert the populace to the gruesome reality of child trafficking and predators in the USA.

One of the biggest challenges we face in our efforts to expose and combat child trafficking is the suppression of information online. Please help get out this “CONTRALAND” video exposé to your family, friends, fellow veterans, veterans organizations, local law enforcement and your elected officials.

The footage provides a glimpse of our tailored operations and arrests, includes interviews with surviving victims and world experts on the subject, and exposes the history and methods predators use to groom and abuse children.

Human trafficking is an estimated $38-$50 billion dollar a year industry in the USA alone – which is greater than the NBA, NFL, and MLB combined!

Veterans For Child Rescue

Circumstantial Evidence of Vote Fraud? thumbnail

Circumstantial Evidence of Vote Fraud?

/in , , , /by

By Selwyn Duke

Yesterday America voted, and there were some rather odd election anomalies — much as there had been in 2020. As for the latter, a bit of history:

The winner of Florida, Iowa and Ohio had won the presidency for perhaps as long as the three states have been part of the union and certainly had for 60 years, since Richard Nixon won them but lost an election widely regarded to have been stolen. Donald Trump won all three states by comfortable margins — but “lost” the 2020 election. There also are the 19 bellwether counties that had supported the presidential victor in every contest since 1980, 18 of which Trump won (the one he lost had instituted a new voting system more susceptible to fraud). And now, in 2022, it appears we’re seeing anomalies again.

A “red wave” was expected by virtually all analysts, partially, but not completely, because Republicans enjoyed polling advantages that had been increasing for weeks prior to the election. What’s more, given that the GOP tends to under-poll — one study estimated by five points this election cycle — robust Republican gains seemed reasonable to most observers. Yet curiously, if we’re to believe Tuesday’s results, something perhaps unprecedented in modern elections happened: The GOP had over-polled — in most places but not all.

This is interesting because polling “systems” are the same in every state — but voting systems aren’t.

This raises a question: Does this point to polling problems, or voting system problems?

Consider Florida, which did experience a profound GOP wave (all figures are from RealClear Politics’ polling averages and election result data). Governor Ron DeSantis led his challenger, Charlie Crist, by 12.2 points on average in the polls but actually won by 19.5. So he under-polled by 7.3 points. Senator Marco Rubio led his challenger, Val Demings, by 8.8 points in the polls but won by a whopping 16.5, a 7.7 point improvement.

(Republicans are also expected to increase their margin in Florida’s 120-member House to 85 seats, their largest majority in history.)

Yet the picture was very different in most of the rest of the country. Consider the following Senate races (all numbers are as of early 11/9):

  • Democrat Michael Bennet had a 5.7 point polling lead in Colorado but won by 12.4.
  • Democrat Maggie Hassan had a 1.4 polling lead in New Hampshire but won by 9.9.
  • Democrat Patty Murray had a 3.0 polling lead in Washington but won by 14.
  • Democrat John Fetterman had a 0.4 polling deficit in Pennsylvania but won by 2.3.
  • Republican Ted Budd had a 6.2 polling lead in North Carolina but won by only 3.6.
  • Republican J.D. Vance had an 8.0 polling lead but won by 6.9.

Regarding the still undecided Senate races:

  • Republican Blake Masters had a 0.3 polling lead in Arizona but is behind by 6.
  • Republican Herschel Walker had a 1.4 polling lead in Georgia but is behind by 1.2.
  • Republican Ron Johnson had a 3.6 polling lead in Wisconsin but is ahead by only 1.2.
  • Republican Adam Laxalt had a 3.4 polling lead in Nevada but is ahead by 2.7.

Using the current numbers from the first six states above, where the races have been called, I find that Republicans allegedly over-polled by an average of 5.43 points. In contrast, DeSantis and Rubio under-polled by an average of 7.5. That’s a difference of almost 13 points between the GOP’s under-polling in Florida and its “over-polling” elsewhere. Possible explanation?

Florida’s Ron DeSantis has been attacking election fraud more aggressively than probably any other governor — including fellow Republicans. The Sunshine State created a new agency, the Office of Election Crimes and Security. A massive ballot harvesting operation was recently exposed in Orlando. DeSantis also signed a law limiting ballot drop boxes’ hours of availability, requiring they be monitored by public officials, tightening the procedures for getting a mail-in ballot, creating new voter-ID requirements, and making it a crime for anyone to possess or deliver more than two mail-in ballots per election. This is significant because mail-in balloting is the kind most susceptible to vote fraud (which is why France prohibited it in 1975).

While my data are far from exhaustive (and I’d welcome a more comprehensive analysis), the pattern I’ve outlined appears to hold everywhere or virtually everywhere.

What explains this? Big Tech meddling is significant — liberal researcher Robert Epstein found that it can shift up to 15 million votes in an election — but are Floridians somehow immune to Google and social-media influence? Or, maybe, did the polling outfits decide, inexplicably, to apply wholly unique criteria to Sunshine State polling?

Leftists will no doubt explain the anomaly by claiming that Florida practiced voter suppression. I would say that if you believe this, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you. But that swampland may actually now be quite valuable, as Americans are flocking to that state to escape Third World-like governance.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

This is fraud.

New York and California perfected election theft pic.twitter.com/6kFfqLDZgA

— Kristen (@Katlia124) November 9, 2022

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republican Crane Wins Arizona House Race, Defeating Democrat O’Halleran

Drop Box KEYS Left Unattended On-Top of Philadelphia Ballot Drop Box on Election Night

NY’s Lee Zeldin Refuses to Concede As Well Over A Million and a Half Votes Are Still Uncounted

More Detroit Skullduggery: 3:30 AM – Van Full of Votes the Day After the Election

Georgia Senate Election Moves to Runoff As Walker, Warnock Fail to Hit 50%

You Really Expected a Red Wave? thumbnail

You Really Expected a Red Wave?

/in , , , /by

By Kelleigh Nelson

“ACORN, you may recall, is the left-wing activist group with longtime ties to community organizer-turned-President Barack Obama. The nonprofit, which now takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers after four decades on the public teat, has a history of engaging in voter fraud, corporate shakedowns, partisan bullying and pro-illegal immigration lobbying. The Democrats’ stimulus proposals could make the group – and its lesser known but even more radical ideological allies – eligible for upward of $5 billion in new public cash.” —  Michelle Malkin

“In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character.  When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not on his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.” — Noah Webster

“It has been thought that corruption is restrained by confining the suffrage to a few of the wealthier of the people: but it would be more effectually restrained by an extension of that to such numbers as would bid defiance to the means of corruption.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1785 – Thomas Jefferson advocated for extending the right to vote as widely as possible.

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “I’m hopeful in about eight and a half months there’s gonna be a big change on election day.”  Well Jim, you and a whole lot of other Republicans and rightwing pundits said much the same thing, but all of you were ignoring the 2018 and 2020 election.  Don’t you remember Jim? In 2018, so many republicans went to bed election eve believing they had won only to wake up to recounts and eventual losses.  In the end, the Democrats took the House.

Thanks to the failure of the Republican Party to do anything about the 2018 and 2020 voter fraud, the “Red Wave” most pundits forecast was not forthcoming.  Those of us who look at reality, and tell the truth to the people, knew it was highly unlikely the Stalinist Democrats would relinquish their control.  And yes, it was fine to pray, but one also needs to work to stop the criminal theft.  Name me one Republican who has done anything to stop the gigantic fraud in America’s elections.

The Supreme Court refused to hear any 2020 general election cases involving voter fraud.  On December 11, 2021,the Supreme Court denied a Texas effort that would have essentially nullified the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin. Seventeen other states joined in the suit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.  Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented.

On February 22, the Supreme Court rejected three GOP elections-related lawsuits regarding the state of Pennsylvania.  The same three justices dissented.  The fact that states did not follow their own state legislatively set laws is the issue millions of people still are not happy with.  The Roberts led Supreme Court has declined to hear any of the cases brought challenging the procedures of how the election was conducted.

Most of my friends and those who read my articles know election fraud has been around for a long, long time.

The Disputed 1876 Election

In order to ensure Republican Rutherford B. Hayes’s election in 1876, Republican leaders negotiated an agreement with Southern Democrats in the House. The Republicans agreed to remove federal troops policing the South as soon as Hayes became president. Hayes also agreed to have at least one Southerner appointed to his cabinet.  The 1876 election saw the highest voter turnout of any in U.S. history (82%) and was decided by a single electoral vote.

At the end of election day, there was no clear winner in South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana.  Yet, both parties claimed victory.  Republican controlled “returning” boards determined the official electoral votes.

Those controlled boards determined which votes they’d count or throw out if they deemed them fraudulent.  Sound familiar?  They argued in all three states that fraud, intimidation and violence in certain districts invalidated votes, and they threw out enough Democratic votes for Hayes to win.  All three state-returning-boards awarded their electoral votes to Hayes.

While Hayes strongly supported African Americans’ right to vote and protection of their civil rights, he had little influence in the South. By the time he took office, the only federal troops still in the South protecting Republican governments were limited to small areas surrounding state houses in the capitals of New Orleans and Columbia.  But, thank the Lord, after 12 years of Martial Law in the Southern States, the federal troops were gone.

1948 Texas Senate Election

Frank Hamer was the legendary Texas Ranger who trapped and killed notorious outlaws, Bonnie and Clyde.  R. Cort Kirkwood wrote the entire story for the February 1st, 2021 New American Magazine.  Hamer was shot 17 times and killed 53 men during his illustrious career.  He also saved 15 black men from death at the hands of lynch mobs in various towns and cities in east Texas, where he led an unpopular fight against the Ku Klux Klan.

It was July, 1948 when beloved Texas Governor, Coke Stevenson ran for the Senate and won, but victory was stolen by election thief Lyndon Baines Johnson.  In the Democratic primary of 1948, Stevenson bested Johnson by more than 70,000 votes, but neither candidate received a majority of the more than one million cast.  Three men were in the running, but the most votes went to Stevenson with 477,077 and to Johnson with 405,617.  The two met again in a runoff on Saturday, August 28th.

Kirkwood writes, “Though polling put Stevenson ahead, 53-47 percent, Johnson turned that deficit around. As more precincts reported results, Stevenson’s lead dwindled to less than 1,000 votes, and while more uncounted votes magically appeared, by Tuesday, election officials had declared Stevenson the victor by a slim 349. Yet the counting still wasn’t finished. More and more counties in the Rio Grande Valley reported “new votes” for Johnson, which cut his deficit to 157. That still wasn’t enough to defeat Stevenson.  At 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 3, Jim Wells County called in a 200-vote change that gave Johnson 494,191 to Stevenson’s 484,104.”

Sound familiar?

Cork Stevenson knew there was fraud, so with his friend Frank Hamer and two lawyers, they traveled to Corpus Christi to check the votes.  Hamer and Stevenson went to the bank where election records for Precinct 13 were kept. “Git,” Hamer told one band of five. “Fall back!” he ordered the second larger group blocking the bank’s door. He was ready to draw the gun holstered at his side.  The other men had removed their jackets and none were armed except Frank.

They proved the votes had been rigged and a “7” had obviously been changed to a “9.”  A Mexican American in the precinct told the two lawyers that “people live longer down here if they keep their mouths shut.”

Even though they had the proof of vote fraud, the Democrats did the same thing they always do and on January 6th, 2020, they declared Johnson the winner by one vote.

The evidence from Hamer and Stevenson didn’t matter.  Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black halted the trial just minutes before the vote boxes were to be opened in court. Johnson’s attorney, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, successfully argued to Associate Justice Hugo Black, then in charge of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, that primaries were “irrevocably and incontestably vested” in Texas law.

Black agreed, and the Supreme Court upheld his ruling. Fraud was discounted out of hand, just like it was in our 2020 general election and the runoff in Georgia in January of 2021.

Hugo Black was one of the liberal democrats nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Many Americans also know of the 1946 Battle of Athens in McMinn County, Tennessee regarding Democrat vote fraud by Paul Cantrell, the candidate for sheriff who tied his campaign closely to the popularity of the Roosevelt administration and rode FDR’s coattails to victory over his Republican opponent.  He ruled until 1946 when returning WWII veterans stopped the deceit.

1960 Election

As reported in the Chicago Daily News, sister publication of the Chicago Sun-Times:

In 1960, some irregularities in Illinois votes, specifically the ones in Chicago, prompted calls for an investigation from Republicans over then-Sen. John F. Kennedy’s victory. The saga played out in the pages of the Chicago Daily News.

“Fewer than 100,000 votes out of a total of 69 million cast in the Nov. 8 election may decide whether Vice President Nixon or Sen. Kennedy is to be our nest President,” William Harrison Fetridge, chairman of the Nixon Recount Committee of Illinois, told the Daily News on Dec. 5, 1960.

Fetridge name-dropped Chicago as one of the cities “where entrenched political machines control the election machinery,” alleging voter fraud. A lawsuit later filed accused Cook County of digging up “Kennedy voters from the cemeteries of Chicago.”

Voter fraud in Cook County certainly wasn’t unheard of at the time (picture it: Cicero, 1924), but did Republicans have a case? According to scholar Edmund F. Kallina’s article in “Presidential Studies Quarterly,” the answer is yes, but also, no. His research found that Nixon was not “cheated out of Illinois’ electoral votes.”

2000 Election

In the 2000 election, George W. Bush narrowly lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore but defeated Gore in the electoral college.

Ultimately, the contest focused on Florida. Networks initially projected Gore the winner in Florida, but later they declared that Bush had opened an insurmountable lead. Gore called Bush and conceded the election, but then…in the early hours of the following morning, the race in Florida seemed far closer than Gore’s staff had originally believe.  Fewer than 600 votes separated the candidates and appeared to be narrowing.  Gore called Bush and retracted his concession.

Then came machine recounts, hanging chads, pregnant chads, and finally a statewide recount by ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

But wait, the Bush campaign quickly filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to delay the recounts until it could hear the case; a stay was issued by the court on December 9. Several days later concluding that a fair statewide recount could not be performed in time to meet the December 18th deadline for certifying the state’s electors.  Ultimately, the court issued a controversial 5-4 decision to reverse the Florida Supreme Court’s recount order and that awarded the presidency to Bush.  The electoral vote was narrow, but Bush won over Gore by 271 to 266, again by only one (1) more vote than required.  One Gore elector abstained.

America’s past elections have been questioned again and again, but the 2018, 2020 and now 2022 elections manifest blatant irregularities that are noticeable by much of the electorate.

We’ve seen it all, late night suitcases of votes being poured into the coffers, all for one particular candidate.  Mike Lindell proved the damning evidence of voter fraud and Dinesh D’Souza showed it to us on film.

Conclusion

If we don’t fix the problem, the problem will repeat, and that’s what we saw Tuesday evening.  Evil has a hold on America and the demons aren’t about to let go.  We’ve tossed the Lord God out of everything in our culture and society, so why does anyone expect anything good to come of efforts until we turn back to Him?

The Red Wave was a lie from the beginning and most folks knew it.  You can’t have change when the same fraud is still in place.

Pennsylvania electing an idiot like Fetterman?  Please!

Maricopa County in AZ still all screwed up just like 2020?  Please!

Kari Lake barely getting enough votes to beat Katie Dobbs?  Who are they kidding?

Everyone rushed out to vote, truly in droves, but it was just as useless as the massive voting in 2020.

I had hoped and prayed it would be different, but I knew in my heart what we’d see again.  I’m sure many people feel as I do, America is dying.  And a lot of folks told me that if these election results weren’t good, then there is no reason to bother to vote again unless it is fixed, and that seems unlikely.

A new year is coming and there is something we can do.  Urge everyone to open their Bibles and read through the entire book in one year in chronological order.  Do not forsake the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible), for therein lies the foundation for all of our Judeo-Christian faith.

Draw closer to our Creator and He will help us.

It is the only answer.

Isaiah 41:10

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Dems learned to mass harvest vote by mail in every rust belt state (and highly effective youth vote ops) and they are never going to turn it off

Either GOP admits this and puts big $$$ behind it or have more uneven elections like this

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 9, 2022

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.