Riiight: Mayorkas Says Disinformation Board Won’t Monitor Americans thumbnail

Riiight: Mayorkas Says Disinformation Board Won’t Monitor Americans

/in , , , , /by

By Discover The Networks

Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, Secretary of Homeland Security and open-borders fanatic Alejandro Mayorkas claimed that the newly-launched “Disinformation Governance Board” would not infringe on free speech or monitor Americans.

Asked about criticisms that the Board is Orwellian, Mayorkas proceeded to gaslight CNN’s few remaining viewers:

“It’s clear, I mean, those criticisms are precisely the opposite of what this small working group within the Department of Homeland Security will do. And I think we probably could have done a better job of communicating what it does and does not do.”

They could have started by not calling it the Orwellian-sounding “Disinformation Governance Board.”

“So, what it does, it works to ensure that the way in which we address threats, the connectivity between threats and acts of violence are addressed without infringing on free speech, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the right of privacy,” Mayorkas continued. “And the board, this working group, internal working group, will draw from best practices and communicate those best practices to the operators because the board does not have operational authority.”

Draw from and communicate best practices? That word salad is absolutely meaningless.

Asked if American citizens will be monitored, Mayorkas said, “No, no, the board does not have any operational capability. What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing and addressing this threat for years.”

Translation: the Disinformation Governance Board absolutely will monitor Americans and infringe on free speech.

Alejandro Mayorkas

14 Known Connections

Mayorkas Says That Mis- & Dis- Information Can Cause Domestic Terrorism

On February 7, 2022, Mayorkas and DHS issued a “National Terrorism Advisory” saying:

“The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. […] The primary terrorism-related threat to the United States continues to stem from lone offenders or small cells of individuals who are motivated by a range of foreign and/or domestic grievances often cultivated through the consumption of certain online content. […] For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.”

In a press statement regarding this same issue, Mayorkas said: “Since January 2021, DHS has … increased efforts to identify and evaluate MDM, including false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories spread on social media and other online platforms, that endorse violence.”

To learn more about Alejandro Mayorkas, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CNN Calls for Social Media Regulation

Biden’s New Thought Police Chief Really, Really Loves Her Job

‘Would You Be Okay If Donald Trump … Created This Disinformation Governance Board?’: CNN’s Dana Bash Grills Mayorkas

Disinformation And Wizard Rock: Meet Biden’s New ‘Minister Of Truth’ At DHS

Biden’s New Truth Czar Talks A Lot About ‘Disinformation Laundering.’ And Here She Is Committing That Very Sin

‘Read The Bill Of Rights Again’: Tulsi Gabbard Calls Out Both Parties For Their Silence On The ‘Ministry Of Truth’

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Why the Boosted Are Now at Highest Risk of COVID thumbnail

VIDEO: Why the Boosted Are Now at Highest Risk of COVID

/in , , , , , /by

By MERCOLA Take Control of Your Health

  • According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, more than 1 million excess deaths — that is, deaths in excess of the historical average — have been recorded since the COVID-19 pandemic began two years ago, and this cannot be explained by COVID-19. Deaths from heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia and many other illnesses rose during that time
  • Across the world, death rates have also risen in tandem with COVID shot administration, with the most-jabbed areas surpassing the least-jabbed in terms of excess mortality and COVID-related deaths
  • According to Walgreens data, during the week of April 19 through 25, 2022, 13% of unvaccinated persons tested positive for COVID. Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 23.1% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 26.3%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID
  • U.K. government data show the all-cause mortality rate is between 100% and 300% greater among people who got their first COVID shot 21 days or more ago. The risk for all-cause death is also significantly elevated among those who got their second dose at least six months ago, and mildly elevated among those who got their third dose less than 21 days ago. As of January 2022, all who got one or more doses at least 21 days ago were dying at significantly elevated rates
  • Other data also show that COVID mortality rates are far higher in areas with high vaccination rates, and risk-benefit analyses reveal the jabs do more harm than good in most age groups

According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data,1 more than 1 million excess deaths — that is, deaths in excess of the historical average — have been recorded since the COVID-19 pandemic began two years ago, and this cannot be explained by COVID-19.

Deaths from heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia and many other illnesses rose during that time.2 “We’ve never seen anything like it,” Robert Anderson, CDC’s head of mortality statistics, told The Washington Post in mid-February 2022.3

According to University of Warwick researchers, “the scale of excess non-COVID deaths is large enough for it to be seen as its own pandemic.”4 A number of explanations have been offered, including the fact that lockdowns and other COVID restrictions discouraged or prevented people from seeking care. But another, less discussed factor may also be at play.

Across the world, death rates have risen in tandem with COVID shot administration, with the most-jabbed areas surpassing the least-jabbed in terms of excess mortality and COVID-related deaths. This flies in the face of official claims that the shots prevent severe COVID infection and lower your risk of death, be it from COVID or all causes.5

Boosted? You’re Now at Highest Risk of COVID

Ever since the announcement that the COVID “vaccines” would be using novel mRNA gene transfer technology, I and many others have warned that this appears to be a very bad idea.

Numerous potential mechanisms for harm have been identified and detailed in previous articles, and we’re now seeing some of our worst fears come to bear. “Fully vaccinated” individuals are both more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to die, whether from COVID or some other cause.

As reported by investigative journalist Jeffrey Jaxen in the April 22, 2022, Highwire video above, data from Walgreens’ COVID-19 tracker6 reveal that COVID-jabbed individuals are testing positive for COVID at higher rates than the unjabbed. What’s more, people who got their last shot five months or more ago have the highest risk.

As you can see in the screenshot below, during the week of April 19 through 25, 2022, 13% of unvaccinated tested positive for COVID (with Omicron being the predominant variant). (The data reviewed by Jaxen are from the week of April 10 through 16.)

Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 23.1% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 26.3%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID.

CLICK HERE TO VIE THE INFOGRAPHIC: POSITIVITY RATE BY VACCINATION STATUS 04/19/2022 – 04/25/2022

A deeper dive into the data7 reveals that two doses appear to have been protective for a short while, but after five months, it becomes net harmful. The group faring worst of all is the 12 to 17 cohort, where no one with one dose tested positive, but after the second dose, cases suddenly appear, and get higher still after five months. After the third dose, positive cases drop a bit, but then shoot up higher than ever after five months.8

Deaths by Vaccination Status in the UK

Data sets from the U.K. government reveal an equally disturbing trend. The raw data from the Office for National Statistics9 is difficult to interpret, so Jaxen had data analysts create a bar graph to better illustrate what the data actually tell us. A screenshot from Jaxen’s report is below.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE INFOGRAPHIC: ENGLAND – ALL CAUSE MORTALITY RISK (%) BY VACCINATION STATUS COMPARED TO UNVACCINATED

Bars going upward are a good thing, as it indicates the risk for all-cause mortality based on vaccination status is either normal or reduced. Bars that dip below zero percent are indicative of increased all-cause mortality, based on vaccination status.

As you can see, the all-cause mortality rate is between 100% and 300% greater among people who got their first dose 21 days or more ago. The risk for all-cause death is also significantly elevated among those who got their second dose at least six months ago, and mildly elevated among those who got their third dose less than 21 days ago. As of January 2022, all who got one or more doses at least 21 days ago were dying at significantly elevated rates.

More Jabs, More COVID Deaths

United States 🇺🇸

Source: Our World In Data pic.twitter.com/E2KCE9Si3o

— Lindsay (@TexasLindsay) April 25, 2022

 Everywhere we look, we find trends showing the COVID shots are resulting in higher death rates. Above is an animated illustration10 from Our World In Data, first showing the vaccination rates of South America, North America, Europe and Africa, from mid-December 2020 through the third week of April 2022, followed by the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths per million in those countries during that same timeframe.

Africa has had a consistently low vaccination rate throughout, while North America, Europe and South America all have had rapidly rising vaccination rates. Africa has also had a consistently low COVID mortality rate, although a slight rise began around September 2021. Still, it’s nowhere near the COVID death rates of North America, South America and Europe, all of which saw dramatic increases.

Here’s another one,11 also sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the excess death rate in the U.S. (the cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projections based on previous years), between January 26, 2020, and January 30, 2022, followed by an illustration of the tandem rise of vaccine doses administered and the excess mortality rate. It clearly shows that as vaccination rates rose, so did the excess mortality rate.

Risk-Benefit Analysis Condemns the COVID Jabs

At this point, we also have the benefit of more than one risk-benefit analysis, and all show that, with very few exceptions, the COVID jabs do more harm than good. For example, a risk-benefit analysis12 by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, published in mid-February 2022, concluded that the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80.

They looked at publicly available official data from the U.S. and U.K. for all age groups, and compared all-cause mortality to the risk of dying from COVID-19. “All age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID-19 death,” Seneff and Dopp concluded. And for younger adults and children, there’s no benefit, only risk.

“This analysis is conservative,” the authors note, “because it ignores the fact that inoculation-induced adverse events such as thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, and other vaccine-induced injuries can lead to shortened life span.

When one takes into consideration the fact that there is approximately a 90% decrease in risk of COVID-19 death if early treatment is provided to all symptomatic high-risk persons, one can only conclude that mandates of COVID-19 inoculations are ill-advised.

Considering the emergence of antibody-resistant variants like Delta and Omicron, for most age groups COVID-19 vaccine inoculations result in higher death rates than COVID-19 does for the unvaccinated.”

The analysis is also conservative in the sense that it only considers COVID jab fatalities that occur within one month of injection. As demonstrated by the U.K. data above, the risk of all-cause death is nearly 300% greater for those who got a second dose at least six months ago.

Teens Are at Dramatic Risk of Death From the Jabs

Similarly, an analysis13 of data in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) by researchers Spiro Pantazatos and Herve Seligmann suggests that in those under age 18, the shots only increase the risk of death from COVID, and there’s no point at which the shot can prevent a single COVID death, no matter how many are vaccinated.

If you’re under 18, you’re a whopping 51 times more likely to die from the jab than you are to die from COVID if not vaccinated. In the 18 to 29 age range, the shot will kill 16 for every person it saves from dying from COVID, and in the 30 to 39 age range, the expected number of vaccine fatalities to prevent a single COVID death is 15.

Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID infection even out. In the 60 to 69 age group, the shot will kill one person for every person it saves from dying of COVID, so it’s a tossup as to whether it might be worth it for any given person.

How Many Are We Willing to Sacrifice?

We also have a risk-benefit analysis by researchers in Germany and The Netherlands. The analysis was initially published June 24, 2021, in the journal Vaccines.14 The paper caused an uproar among the editorial board, with some of them resigning in protest.15 In the end, the journal simply retracted it — a strategy that appears to have become norm.

After a thorough re-review, the paper was republished in the August 2021 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.16 The analysis found that, “very likely for three deaths prevented by vaccination we will have to accept that about two people die as a consequence of these vaccinations,” the authors wrote in a Letter to the Editor17 of Clinical and Translational Discovery. Defending their work, they went on to note that:18

“The database we based our analysis on was a large naturalistic study of the BioNTech vaccine in Israel. This was the only study at the time that allowed for a direct estimation of an absolute risk reduction (ARR) in mortality.

Admittedly, the ARR estimate was only available for a short observation period of 4 weeks after the first vaccine dose, a point raised by critics. One might have wanted a longer observation period to bring out the benefit of vaccinations more clearly, and our estimate of a number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of 16 000 to prevent one death might have been overly conservative.

The recently published 6-month interim report of the BioNTech-regulatory clinical trial now covers a period long enough to let us look at this risk benefit ratio once again. In Table S4 of this publication, 14 deaths are reported in the placebo group (n = 21 921) and 15 in the vaccination group (n = 21 926).

Among them, two deaths in the placebo-group were attributed to COVID-19, and one in the vaccination group was attributed to COVID-19 pneumonia. This leads to an ARR = 4.56 × 10–5, and conversely to an NNV = 1/ARR = 21 916 to prevent one death by COVID-19. This shows that our original estimate was not so far off the mark.

The most recent safety report of the German Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) that covers all reported side effects since the vaccination campaign began (27 December 2020 until 30 November 202119 … reports 0.02 deaths per 1000 BioNTech vaccinations or 2 per 100 000 vaccinations.

We had gleaned four mortality cases per 100 000 vaccinations (all vaccines) from the Dutch pharmacovigilance database LAREB. Using the data of Thomas et al., a liberal NNV = 20 000, we can calculate that by 100 000 vaccinations we save five lives.

Using the PEI pharmacovigilance report for the same product, we see that these 100 000 vaccinations are associated with two deaths, while using the LAREB database back in June 2021, they were associated with four deaths across all vaccines and are associated with two deaths in the most recent reports concerning the BioNTech vaccine … In other words, as we vaccinate 100 000 persons, we might save five lives but risk two to four deaths.”

The risk-benefit ratio may be even worse than that, though, as these calculations do not take into account the fact that passive pharmacovigilance data “are notorious for underestimating casualties and side effects,” the authors note, or the fact that severe side effects such as myocarditis are affecting young males at a staggering rate, which can reduce lifespan in the longer term.

We Do Not Have a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System

In an August 2021 editorial, editor-in-chief of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., wrote:20

“There are two messages from those who hold appointed offices or other influential positions in Public Health on long-term vaccine safety.

The first message is that long-term randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials are not necessary for the long-term study of vaccine safety because we have ‘pharmacovigilance’; i.e. long- term post-market safety surveillance that is supported by widely accessible, passive vaccine adverse events tracking systems.

The second message is that any use of those very same vaccine adverse events tracking systems that leads to the inference or conclusion that vaccines might cause serious adverse events or death is unsupported by such systems …

When those seeking support for public health initiatives, such as a new vaccination program, offer evidence that long-term vaccine safety studies are well in hand due to the possibility of detecting adverse events that happened following vaccination, they are either:

(a) unaware that the vaccine adverse events tracking systems upon which they are basing their confidence about society’s ability to detect and track vaccine adverse events are alleged to be unable to be used to infer causal links between health outcomes and vaccination exposure, or:

(b) participating in a disinformation campaign to end scrutiny over the absence of properly controlled long-term randomized clinical trials to assess long- term vaccine safety. Neither of these is sufficient empirical basis for the knowledge claim of long- term safety …

There must be room for disagreement in science; otherwise, science does not exist. It is sad to bear witness to the fact that science has degenerated into a war against unwanted and inconvenient results, conclusions and interpretations via the process of post-publication retraction for issues other than fraud, grave error in execution, and plagiarism.

The weaponization of the process of retraction of scientific studies is well underway, and it induces a bias that could be called “retraction bias”, or, in the case in which a few persons haunt journals in search of studies that cast doubt on their commercial products, a ‘ghouling bias,’ which leads to biased systematic reviews and warped meta-analyses.”

In his editorial, Lyons-Weiler specifically criticized the Vaccine journal for its retraction of the risk-benefit analysis cited above, and mocked the editorial board members who quit in protest, noting that “Rage-quitting is not science.”

“The resigning editorial board members’ knowledge claim is that no deaths have occurred due to the vaccination program. As helpful as that claim might be to a prescribed narrative, it is not based on empirical evidence, and it is, therefore, unwarranted,” Lyons-Weiler wrote.21

“From a Popperian view of science, one can see the fatal flaw in the editorial board members’ knowledge claim: if, as they insist, passive vaccine adverse events tracking systems cannot test the hypothesis of causality, then how can editorial board members, resigning or otherwise, know that the events were NOT caused by the vaccine? …

It is logical to conclude that since passive vaccine adverse event tracking systems do not lend themselves well to testing hypotheses of causality, they do not provide the opportunity to design and conduct sufficiently critical tests of causality, and therefore a replacement system is needed … one that is suitable to detect risk.”

While we may indeed need better pharmacovigilance, there’s really no doubt at this point that the COVID jabs are ill-advised for most people. I believe that in the years to come, people will look back at this time and vow to never repeat it. In the meantime, all we can do is look at and assess the data we do have, and make decisions accordingly.

Sources and References

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

Will Peter Thiel and other Conservative and Libertarian investors buy Disney? thumbnail

Will Peter Thiel and other Conservative and Libertarian investors buy Disney?

/in , , , /by

By Dr. Rich Swier

Peter Thiel may be buying Disney? Really?

BREAKING: Peter Thiel and other conservative/libertarian investors announce plans to buy Disney after kerfuffle over Florida Parental Rights in Education law.

“This woke sh*t has gone way too far,” he told reporters. “If Elon can buy Twitter, then dammit, we can buy Disney.”

— Jeff Charles (@JeffOnTheRight) May 2, 2022

Peter Thiel has been described by the Washington Post as, “The 54-year-old, whose contrarian and right-wing political views have made him one of the most controversial figures to emerge from Silicon Valley, will focus his time on helping pro-Trump candidates win in November’s midterm elections, according to a person familiar with his thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.”

Listen to Peter Thiel’s remarks at the 2016 Republican National Convention:

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: GOP Grassroots demand bold action and Europe needs natural gas America could help thumbnail

PODCAST: GOP Grassroots demand bold action and Europe needs natural gas America could help

/in , , , , , /by

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show

GUESTS AND TOPICS

JEFF CROUERE

Jeff Crouere is the host of, “Ringside Politics,” which airs weekdays on WGSO 990-AM in New Orleans. He is a political columnist, the author of America’s Last Chance and provides regular commentaries on the Jeff Crouere YouTube channel and on www.JeffCrouere.net.

TOPIC: GOP Grassroots demand bold action.

ADAM A MILLSAP

Adam A. Millsap is a Senior Fellow for economic opportunity issues at Stand Together. Adam writes about state and local policy, urban development, population trends, and labor markets. His writings have appeared in national outlets such as USA Today, US News and World Report, Real Clear Policy, and The Hill, as well as regional outlets such as the Detroit Free Press, Las Vegas Sun, Cincinnati Enquirer, and Orange County Register, among others. Adam is the author of Dayton: The Rise, Decline, and Transition of an Industrial City.

TOPIC: Europe Needs Natural Gas And America Could Help

©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

STUDY: Rise In Women’s Uterus Disorder Following Covid Vaccination thumbnail

STUDY: Rise In Women’s Uterus Disorder Following Covid Vaccination

/in , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

What they are not telling us about the vaccine, in effect hiding from us, is…destroying lives and in some cases killing people. 

(STUDY) Rise in women’s uterus disorder following Covid vaccination

By Sharyl Attkisson, 

A new scientific research paper published in The Gazette of Medical Sciences on April 21, 2022 showed an alarming, unprecedented spike in reported cases of a previously extremely rare gynecological condition called membranous dysmenorrhea, or “decidual cast shedding” (DCS).

This trend began in 2021, as Covid vaccines were being widely distributed to the U.S. population, according to the paper.

The uterus disorder DCS occurs when the entire lining of the uterus sheds and exits the body in one piece, say scientists. They say the process can be extremely painful.

Prior to Covid, there were fewer than 40 cases of the uterus disorder reported in the medical literature over the previous 109 years, according to researchers.

The authors of the paper conducted the MyCycleStorySM study in which 292 women reported having a DCS uterus disorder event over 7.5 months in 2021.

Three of the study’s co-authors, Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. Sue Peters and Ms. Heather Ray, are part of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) science and research team.

The study was designed after an extraordinary number of women began sharing their experiences of menstrual irregularities on various social media platforms following the wide-spread distribution of the COVID vaccinations, resulting in a survey with over 150,000 participants that suggested a remarkable increase in menstrual irregularities starting in 2021.

MyCycleStorySM was created and conducted by thirteen scientists and physicians to follow up on previous reports and to gather more extensive data on the unusual increase in menstrual issues after the Covid vaccines were introduced into the population.

The MyCycleStorySM study collected detailed data from 6,049 survey participants between May 16 – December 31, 2021, all of whom described having abnormal menstrual symptoms.

In addition to the survey data, the study authors looked at Google metadata during 2021 and found that there was a 2,000% increase in the search terms “decidual cast” and “decidual cast covid vaccine” during the first two quarters of 2021.

Read the rest……

RELATED ARTICLE: Why the Boosted Are Now at Highest Risk of COVID

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

DYSTOPIAN AMERICA: Bill Would Allow Feds To Purge U.S. Military And Local Police Using Charges Of Thought Crimes thumbnail

DYSTOPIAN AMERICA: Bill Would Allow Feds To Purge U.S. Military And Local Police Using Charges Of Thought Crimes

/in , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

A bill in Congress would create new ‘domestic terrorism’ units within the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and FBI tasked with spying on Americans considered terrorist threats. Considered by whom? By a fraudulent rogue regime?

By: Ryan Davison, The Federalist, May 2, 2022:

H.R. 350 would give federal agencies the power to classify as ‘domestic terrorism’ whatever bureaucrats consider a ‘hate crime.’

A bill in Congress would create new domestic terrorism units within the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and FBI tasked with spying on Americans considered terrorist threats, then investigating and prosecuting them.

H.R. 350, also known as the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act (DTPA) of 2022, is making its way through the House Judiciary Committee. It would give federal law enforcement agencies the power to classify as “domestic terrorism” whatever the federal government considers a “hate crime.” One of the new “domestic terrorism” agencies the bill would create would focus on “domestic terrorism matters that may also be hate crime incidents.”

These new “domestic terrorism” agencies would also “ensure that such programs include training and resources to assist…law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and investigating acts of domestic terrorism and White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of law enforcement and corrections agencies.”

Of course, many of those in power consider the Constitution and patriotism to be acts of “white supremacy.” That is openly stated by purveyors of the 1619 Project and its effective champions in the federal bureaucracy.

According to critical race theory, anyone born with pale skin is a potential “white supremacist” by means of his or her inborn “white privilege.” That means this bill could ultimately give federal agents the power to charge local law enforcement officers who love the Constitution with the “domestic terrorist” crime of “white supremacy.” This use of racial division to transfer local police power to federal agencies is already underway.

The Biden administration has also already proven itself willing to apply the extremist label of “domestic terrorists” to parents who publicly disagree with critical race theory at local school board meetings. This bill is exactly in step with that view of dissent as not only merely criminal, but an act of domestic terrorism. So is the Biden White House’s new “Disinformation Governance Board,” which also classifies dissent as a concern for federal law enforcement.

Indeed, H.R. 3350 would also set up a potential federal purge of U.S. law enforcement and military units. It sets up a federal “task force” “to analyze and combat White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of the uniformed services and Federal law enforcement agencies.”

No reasonable person opposes legitimate policing of actual terrorist activities. The problem with the DTPA is that it is being set up for use as a political weapon against conservatives, Republicans, concerned parents, and anyone else who opposes the ruling class.

That is clear also from reading press releases from the bill’s sponsors. In a 2021 press release, main bill sponsor Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Illinois, attempted to indict Donald Trump supporters as domestic terrorists and presented the DTPA as a tool to suppress them: “Unlike after 9/11, the threat that reared its ugly head on January 6th is from domestic terror groups and extremists, often racially-motivated violent individuals.”

Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler also pushed the false idea that the 2021 Capitol riot was a domestic terrorist attack, as opposed to a riot: “In the wake of the domestic terrorist attack on our Capitol two weeks ago, it is painfully clear that the current approach to addressing the real and persistent threat posed by white nationalism and similar ideologies is not working.”

These politicians are not hiding their intentions. They are openly using disinformation and deception to brand anyone who dares question their activities as “domestic terrorists,” “white supremacists,” and “white nationalists.”

The act was first introduced in 2017, long before the events on Jan. 6, 2021. Past iterations have included a “findings” section that lists violent incidents the authors attribute to “white supremacists,” “white nationalists,” and “far-right-wing extremists.”

The 2020 version referenced a 2017 shooting in Canada and a 2019 shooting in New Zealand. It’s unclear why international cases were included in a bill that promotes the idea of a rise in U.S. domestic terrorism. Additionally, the 2020 shooting by Kyle Rittenhouse that a jury concluded was justified self-defense was added to the bill as an example of right-wing extremism.

Absent from the earlier bill version’s findings, however, were mass shootings and attacks by apparent left-wing extremists. No mention was made of the 2016 Pulse Nightclub massacre of 49 people by a Muslim domestic terrorist or the 2017 mass shooting of four white men by Muslim extremist Kori Ali Muhammed, nor the violent attacks across the country by Antifa in 2020.

The findings section was stripped out of the current 2021-2022 version of the bill, but it’s a good indicator of its underlying purpose. So are the events of the past several years, as the label “domestic terrorism” has been applied increasingly more often to Democrats’ domestic political opponents.

Perhaps the most notable of such examples is the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. Leftist media and politicians continue to promote the false narrative that the riot was a planned and organized “insurrection,” a terrorist act during which multiple people, including police officers, were killed. They are keeping these lies alive in the minds of vulnerable Americans, providing a springboard for things like unusually harsh prosecutions and detainment, the partisan and possibly illegal January 6 commission, and legislation like H.R. 350.

The false premise of January 6 protesters being domestic terrorists has resulted in the justification of solitary confinement. It has also led to biased judges passing excessive sentences for misdemeanors. Giving federal law enforcement agencies more tools to brand certain groups of Americans as terrorists will likely lead to more such abuses…….read the rest.

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

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Chinese Communist Party cited false claims about COVID origins from Biden’s Thought Police chief thumbnail

Chinese Communist Party cited false claims about COVID origins from Biden’s Thought Police chief

/in , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

“The CCP said, ‘Jankowicz said that putting the blame on a Wuhan lab helps the Trump administration find a scapegoat. It becomes more politically convenient for Trump and his administration, she said.’”

Now we see who exactly was retailing falsehoods for political convenience. Why, it was none other than Biden’s disinformation czarina herself.

Biden ‘disinformation’ chief’s criticisms of lab leak theory were boosted by CCP

by Jerry Dunleavy, Washington Examiner, April 29, 2022:

The Biden administration’s new “disinformation” czar was cited favorably by the Chinese Communist Party in 2020 for her criticisms of proponents of the hypothesis that COVID-19 emerged from a Wuhan lab, which she dismissed as a pro-Trump talking point.

The episode is another example in which Nina Jankowicz, the newly named executive director of the Department of Homeland Security’s new Disinformation Governance Board, either labeled claims as disinformation that were later found to have credibility or gave credence to assertions that were later discredited. Most notably, she also backed Trump dossier author Christopher Steele and cast doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 election.

Jankowicz was cited in an April 2020 BuzzFeed article titled “Scientists Haven’t Found Proof The Coronavirus Escaped From A Lab In Wuhan. Trump Supporters Are Spreading The Rumor Anyway.”…

Jankowicz suggested that the lab leak theory helped the Trump administration find a scapegoat.

“It becomes more politically convenient for Trump and his administration the further we get into this maelstrom, especially in comparison to the Chinese response,” she said.

Chinese state-run media repeatedly cited Jankowicz’s comments.

China Daily, owned by the CCP’s Publicity Department, published two nearly identical pieces in early May 2020, one titled “U.S. right-wing media fan virus origin rumor” and the other “Western officials, researchers cast doubt on China lab virus leak theory.”

The first story asserted that “the U.S. right-wing media and supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump have fanned the latest round of speculation that the novel coronavirus of COVID-19 came from a laboratory in Wuhan.” The CCP attacked the “right-wing media machine,” including the Washington Examiner.

The CCP said, “Jankowicz said that putting the blame on a Wuhan lab helps the Trump administration find a scapegoat. It becomes more politically convenient for Trump and his administration, she said.”…

RELATED VIDEO: A Critical Look at Surah 96 from The Critical Qur’an, with David Wood and Robert Spencer

RELATED ARTICLES:

Blinken: From Iran, ‘There is an ongoing threat against American officials’

New Jersey: Muslim software developer scouted locations in NYC, DC and Boston for jihad massacres for Hizballah

Austria: Sunni Muslim migrant threatens to rape and behead Shi’ite woman, is acquitted

Morocco: General Directorate of National Security arrests 80 people for publicly eating during Ramadan

Afghanistan: Jihad suicide bomber murders over 50 people at mosque

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

7th Grade Science Should Not Include Climate Indoctrination thumbnail

7th Grade Science Should Not Include Climate Indoctrination

/in , , , , /by

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

In my last article I exposed the outrageously alarmist 7th grade lessons on climate change just published under the so-called Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).

There are now two fundamentally different systems of science education in American schools. The radical NGSS have been adopted by 20 States and so govern what about a third of our children learn in public schools. The other two thirds of America’s public school students are still under the regular standards, which have been developed over many years of practice.

To understand this strange situation it is useful to know what is taught to 7th graders under the regular standards. Several years ago I led a project that cataloged the average content of these standards for all grades. My sponsor was the US Energy Department’s Office of Science, the world’s biggest funder of research in the physical sciences.

Below are the topics that middle school students (grades 7, 8 & 9) typically cover. There is some variation from State to State but this list is a good indicator, especially because it is very different from what NGSS teaches. There is nothing at all about climate, much less scary made-up climate change.

A lot of important topics are covered, from a wide range of sciences. This is typical of every grade. There is a lot of real science to learn, without wasting time on climate alarmism.

Note that there is some redundancy because this list is used for a computer search algorithm that estimates the grade level of a science education document based on the terms used. Stemming is not used because in some cases the singular and plural occur at different grade levels. For example, moon versus moons. In many cases the singular and plural actually refer to slightly different things, so both occur frequently in the list.

Middle school topics typically taught in science education

CELLULAR

CELLULAR STRUCTURE

CELLULAR STRUCTURES

CELL FUNCTION

CELL FUNCTIONS

CELLULAR FUNCTION

CELLULAR FUNCTIONS

CELL SIGNALING

CELL COMPOSITION

CELLULAR COMPOSITION

CELL ORGANIZATION

CELLULAR ORGANIZATION

ORGANELLES

CELL ORGANELLES

CELL MEMBRANE

CELL MEMBRANES

CELLULAR MEMBRANE

CELLULAR MEMBRANES

CELL WALL

CELL WALLS

VACUOLE

VACUOLES

VACUOLAR

MITOCHONDRION

MITOCHONDRIAL

ENDOPLASMIC

RETICULUM

CHLOROPLAST

CHLOROPLASTS

CHLOROPLASTY

PLANT CELL

PLANT CELLS

ANIMAL CELL

ANIMAL CELLS

CELL THEORY

CELL THEORIES

CELL DIVISION

MITOSIS

MEIOSIS

HUMAN IMPACT

ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

EARTH SCIENCE

EARTH SCIENCES

EARTH SCIENTIST

EARTH SCIENTISTS

TOXIC

TOXICITY

HAZARDOUS WASTE

TOPO MAP

TOPO MAPS

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS

TOPOGRAPHY

nucleus

nuclear reactions

nuclear reaction

nuclear reactor

nuclear reactors

nuclear fuel

nuclear fuels

nuclear waste

nuclear physics

nuclear physicist

radioactive

radioactivity

radiation

protons

proton

neutrons

neutron

fusion

fission

uranium

alpha particle

alpha particles

power

efficiency

efficient

magnetic fields

magnetic field

magnetic force

magnetic forces

magnetic induction

magnetic storm

magneto

motors

motor

electromotive

electromotive force

generators

generator

turbine

turbines

DENSITY

DENSITIES

MASS

MELTING POINT

BOILING POINT

FREEZING POINT

PHASE CHANGE

CHANGING PHASE

VAPOR

VAPORS

VAPORIZE

VAPORIZED

VAPORIZING

VAPORIZATION

TEMPERATURE SCALE

TEMPERATURE SCALES

KELVIN

CELSIUS

ABSOLUTE ZERO

ACID

ACIDS

ACIDIC

ACIDIFY

ACIDIFICATION

BASICITY

REACTIVE

REACTIVITY

PERIODIC TABLE

PERIODIC

Ity

MENDELEEV

ATOMIC NUMBER

ATOMIC MASS

CHEMICAL FAMILY

CHEMICAL FAMILIES

CHEMICAL GROUP

CHEMICAL GROUPS

METALLOID

METALLOIDS

CHEMICAL BOND

CHEMICAL BONDS

RESONANCE

RESONANT

RESONATE

RESONATED

RESONATOR

AMPLITUDE

AMPLITUDES

INTERFERENCE

SPECTRUM

SPECTRA

NEWTON’S LAWS

F=MA

ROCKET

ROCKETS

galaxy

galaxies

elliptical galaxies

spiral galaxies

elliptical galaxY

spiral galaxY

spiral arms

irregular GALAXY

Milky Way galaxy

light years

LIGHT YEAR

UNIVERSE

nebula

nebulae

solar nebula

solar system formation

solar nebular theory

NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS

SOLAR SYSTEM FORMED

SOLAR SYSTEM FORMS

planets formed

PLANETS FORM

PLANETS FORMATION

FORMATION OF PLANETS

condensing GAS

planetary nebula

Theory of Gravity

GRAVITATIONAL

gravitational pull

gravitational force

PULL OF GRAVITY

FORCE OF GRAVITY

MOON’S ATTRACTION

PULL OF THE MOON

MOON’S PULL

TIDAL FORCE

TIDAL FORCES

tidal pull

high tides

spring tide

neap tide

Astrophysics

astrophysicisT

astrophysicistS

HUBBLE TELESCOPE

SPACE TELESCOPE

radio astronomer

radio telescope

radio astronomY

There is nothing about climate, much less alarming human caused climate change. The topic of climate is taught in high school, plus I know of no regular State standards that include alarmism when climate is taught. The NGSS are truly radical in this regard.

In addition, given that class time is very limited the NGSS must have dropped a lot of the real science that this regular standards list includes, to make room for the 18 extensive new alarmist lessons. I do not know what has been dropped but my impression is that the NGSS teach a lot less science in every grade.

The newly published alarmist lessons have yet to go into effect. We must try to stop them wherever possible.

Author

David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.

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

VIDEO: Suspected and Known Terrorists Walking Freely in the U.S. thumbnail

VIDEO: Suspected and Known Terrorists Walking Freely in the U.S.

/in , , , , , /by

By Project Veritas

*CLICK HERE TO TWEET OUT THE VIDEO*

A source within the Federal Government has come forward to reveal suspected and known terrorists are roaming freely in the United States following the Biden administration’s exit strategy in Afghanistan, and subsequent initiatives launched by the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] to shelter fleeing refugees, known as Operation Allies Welcome.

Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:

  • The records obtained by Project Veritas confirm numerous suspected terrorists are currently living throughout the country, many of whom have work visas despite being flagged by the Terrorist Watchlist for violent offenses like murder and using explosive devices and arms.
  • Project Veritas published redacted government records of suspected terrorists who fall under the “Tier 1” threat level which is labelled as “Armed and Dangerous.” Most of these individuals flagged by the Department of Homeland Security were admitted because of an initiative to shelter fleeing refugees called Operation Allies Welcome.
  • The whistleblower inside the Federal Government has identified numerous cases. The suspected terrorists verified by Project Veritas appear to only be a small sample size. These threats live throughout the country including the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C.

You can watch the full video HERE.

The video includes never-before-seen footage of current Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS], Ur Jaddou, touting the Biden administration’s efforts to expedite the adjudication process of Afghanistan refugees. USCIS is a division within the Department of Homeland Security.

In the footage, Jaddou appears to be giving a speech to other government employees saying, “I am so proud. So, so proud, of what we were capable of doing and what we did in Operation Allies Welcome. Thousands of our Afghan allies paroled into the United States swiftly received employment authorization.”

She goes on to add that the agency is “continuing to work with the State Department to improve the efficacy, integrity, security, and transparency of the U.S. refugee admissions program.”

To date, Operation Allies Welcome has brought over 84,000 Afghan refugees into the United States.

*CLICK HERE TO TWEET OUT THE VIDEO*

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

Senate Democrats Want Hearings On the Threat That There Might Be Free Speech on Twitter thumbnail

Senate Democrats Want Hearings On the Threat That There Might Be Free Speech on Twitter

/in , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

Democrats enjoyed a largely compliant Big Tech cartel that was eager to censor conservatives. Now that might change, at least on Twitter, they’re reacting with the grace and dignity that tinpot fascists are always known for.

Some key Senate Democrats are considering calling Elon Musk to testify on his plans to remake Twitter, amid broader calls in Congress for new regulations for tech and social media companies.

There are no imminent plans for hearings, but, “We’re thinking about it,” Senate Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell said in an interview Thursday.

This is what’s known as intimidation. Or more relevantly, government coercion. To cite Justice Thomas, government coercion of a company can bring the First Amendment into play.

None of this analysis means, however, that the First Amendment is irrelevant until a legislature imposes common carrier or public accommodation restrictions—only that the principal means for regulating digital platforms is through those methods. Some speech doctrines might still apply in limited circumstances, as this Court has recognized in the past. For example, although a “private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment,” Halleck, 587 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 6, 9), it is if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint. Ibid. Consider government threats. “People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 68 (1963). The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. See ibid.; Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004–1005 (1982). Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital platform if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats.

But back to Senate Dems throwing around threats of government coercion in response to the urgent threat of free speech.

Senator Ed Markey, a member of the Commerce Committee who has called for new laws regulating large tech companies, said that a hearing with Musk was necessary given Twitter’s importance.

“It’s a technology which is central to democracy and our economy and it is important for the representatives of the American people to hear what the new owners intend on using that technology to accomplish,” the Massachusetts Democrat said in an interview. “We have to understand the censorship or lack thereof, content moderation or not, that is going to be the policy for the new owner.”

Ed is a bit old and so despite the claims to having invented the internet, he slipped and said the “C” word. It’s understandable because censorship is what these folks want.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is it the End of Twitterstan?

FBI spied on Americans at a record pace in 2021

Germany: Afghan Muslim migrant slits throat of the mother of his six children, killing her

Belgium: Muslim migrant murders his sister because of her Western lifestyle

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

Is brainwashing going to make an dishonorable comeback? thumbnail

Is brainwashing going to make an dishonorable comeback?

/in , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

A number of bioethicists advocate ‘moral enhancement’ — by tinkering with people’s brains or by giving them pharmaceuticals.

Imagine this scenario: the US Army captures a fanatical soldier of the Islamic State who has been responsible for the deaths of several Americans. What comes next? Execute him immediately? Illegal. Imprison him until he is no longer dangerous? He could be there for the rest of his life. Disarm him and release him? Too dangerous – he will kill again.

A bioethicist from the University of Massachusetts Lowell, Blake Hereth, suggests another option in the journal Neuroethics: forced moral neuroenhancement. Hereth argues that this is entirely legitimate for “for prisoners of war (POWs) fighting unjustly”.

Whether it is even possible to force people to act virtuously by tinkering with their brains with implants or chemicals is highly speculative. But let’s assume for the moment that it is. Hereth contends that it could be morally obligatory because it would both keep the terrorist from being killed and would keep him from killing others.

Of course, this appears to ignore a key point in the Geneva Conventions:

… no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental, or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

But Hereth responds that moral enhancement is in his interest: he will become a better human being. He will become a “just combatant” or a “harmless civilian”. “The unfortunate fact,” he writes, “is that states will pursue wars irrespective of their inability to know whether those wars are just. When they do that, morally improving enemy combatants is less bad than killing them.”

What if the other side, the bad guys, attempt to use moral enhancement to “turn” soldiers on our side, the good guys. Hereth has a solution to that – an “Advance Directive Implant” which would kill the good guy when his superiors discovered that he has been captured.

For Hereth, the use of moral enhancement in war is a test case. If it works, the techniques and the theory could be used in other situations.

This proposal raises a host of ethical questions.

An obvious one is – who determines whether a cause is just or unjust? ISIS believed that their cause was so obviously just that it permitted them to violate human rights.

Back in 2015  terrorists killed 130 people in the  Bataclan theatre in Paris. They were high on Captagon, a black-market amphetamine. Witnesses said that the killers were almost zombie-like. “I saw a man shoot,” one witness told French TV. “I saw a man who was peaceful, composed, with a face that was almost serene, contemplative, advance towards the bar. He sprayed the terrace [with bullets] as anyone else would spray their lawn with a garden hose.” That was moral bioenhancement, of sorts, even if bioethicists would disavow it.

Moral enhancement is a hot topic in contemporary bioethics. It has been advocated for psychopaths, for unruly teenagers, for sex offenders, for people who don’t believe in climate change, etc. Some bioethicists believe that it should be compulsory in the light of the destructive power of modern technology. Freedom is just too risky. As American bioethicist Parker Crutchfield argued a couple of years ago:

Where it used to require an extraordinarily coordinated effort to cause ultimate harm, now, or in the near future, it only takes one person. Thus, moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory for everyone.

During the Cold War era, they had another name for moral enhancement – brainwashing. The horror of brainwashing, as people imagined it in the 1950s, was that it destroyed a person’s freedom, the characteristic which most fully defines what a human being is. That fear lingers on in the public’s revulsion at what the LGBT lobby calls “gay conversion therapy”. But there is a sound reason for that fear: people are made to be free.

If moral enhancement were ever taken seriously outside the Ivory Tower, it would signal a complete break with two thousand years of moral culture. In the Judeao-Christian tradition, God created Adam and Eve as the only morally free agents on earth. A risk was involved – that they would make bad, morally culpable choices. But a human being without freedom is less than human.

Unlike God, bioethicists in favour of moral enhancement are not prepared to take a bet on human dignity. Better a world without freedom than a world without safety.

How ugly and perverse can transgenderism be? Read on…… thumbnail

How ugly and perverse can transgenderism be? Read on……

/in , , , , /by

By Save America Foundation

Out of all the ugly and perverted people in this terrible un-American Biden administration, one stands out pretty much on his own. I say his although he would argue that he is a she! An argument for another day.

His name is Richard Levine, now going under the pseudonym of Rachel Levine and holding the office of Assistant Secretary of Health. He was born in 1957, so is 65 years old and obviously confused! He is an American pediatrician and a 4 Star Admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service commissioned corps. Click here to view the official portrait of Richard alias Rachel Levine.

Anyway! He was married to Martha Peaslee in 1988 and divorced in 2013. Click here for a picture of Martha Peaslee Levin, a bright and intelligent woman. Her husband came out around 2011 and obviously the marriage went south and the rest, as they say, is history.

Enough about his history for now. I want to talk about the Levine interview recently given to NPR, that solid bastion of all things left and liberal.

It was said that there should be no argument that “gender affirming care” from pediatricians and doctors who specialize in adolescents should allow no argument. So, put another way, whatever sick and perverted ideals and ideology these commies have should be law and parents and concerned citizens who think differently should not be allowed to question that evilly manipulated science.

This interview was prior to a speech Levine was going to give yesterday at Texas Christian University. You ask me why he/ she/ it was invited to speak at a Christian university and I have no answer apart from it is not a Christian University I would send my kids to, let alone pay for the so called privilege. This University is fully “Woke.” See it’s web site here ( Not a place for Patriots and true Christian families to send their children. My opinion! )

At the University Levine stated that it was due to “harassment, scapegoating and intentional abuse,” that there was a high rate of depression and suicide among transgender identifying youth! Interpreted he was saying that because the majority of people who are heterosexual did not believe in anything other than the two sexes God created, man and woman, that their non support is responsible for the mental thinkings of these troubled youth.

Levine also in my mind, insanely, stated that “the language of medicine and science is being used to drive people to suicide!!!”

He then produced a fact sheet written by guess who, Yep, his department in March , which showed “gender-affirming care” includes social affirmation at any age, puberty blockers during puberty and hormone therapy starting during early adolescence. Irreversible surgery is “typically used in adulthood or case-by-case basis in adolescence.”

I loved that Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo almost immediately released another fact sheet refuting those claims by the HHS ( Health and Human Services) regarding youths and adolescents treatment for “gender dysphoria.”

This Florida study cited a lack of conclusive evidence, and the potential for long-term, irreversible effects and advised against social transition, puberty blockers, hormones and surgery as treatment options for children and adolescents. (Hmmmmm. Science vs. political agenda. Which one are you going to believe? And which person will you trust more?)

Levine immediately stated that as it came from Florida it must be lies and just based upon political ideology and was therefore inappropriate!! There we have it again. Anyone with a different view to those sickos on the left are just considered and therefore reported to be racist, homophobic and therefore filled with right wing extremist hatred.

Of course, Dr. Joseph Ladapo was appointed as Florida surgeon general by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a constant thorn in this Administrations side, so therefore any and all of his qualifications are worthless in the leftists minds. Any scientific report that argues against the lefts agenda must be quickly discredited and those pushing it must be destroyed!! Hmmm. Anyone see a First Amendment issue here?

Who is Dr. Joseph Ladapo?

Ladapo earned his MD from Harvard Medical School and a PhD in health policy from that university’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Before coming to Florida, he was associate professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. (He is obviously well qualified to have an expert opinion.)

Anyway, I just wanted you all to understand that these people are out everywhere and are attempting to influence our youth. Remember, pervert in chief Joe Biden openly told teachers that kids don’t belong to parents, but especially at school belong to teachers who should have their ability to warp and bend our kids minds freely. Remember, ‘Killery Clinton once said “it takes a village to raise a child.”

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

Biotech Entrepreneur: Idea Fixing Even More Dangerous Than Price Fixing, Twitter Just ‘Tip Of The Iceberg’ thumbnail

Biotech Entrepreneur: Idea Fixing Even More Dangerous Than Price Fixing, Twitter Just ‘Tip Of The Iceberg’

/in , , /by

By The Geller Report

We are witnessing the culmination of “the long march through the institutions,” the Marxist strategy for establishing the conditions for subverting society by infiltrating institutions without need to resort to a military conflict. The strategy focuses on taking over the chief institutions that determine the direction of a culture and thereby creating a soft revolution from within those institutions. The focus was on media, universities, K-12 schools, then corporations, and finally the society as a whole.

Biotech entrepreneur warns what we’re seeing with Twitter is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’

He talks price-fixing vs. idea-fixing

By Fox News Staff | Fox News May 1, 2022:

Idea fixing even more dangerous for a democracy than price fixing: Ramaswamy

Biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy told Dan Bongino on Saturday’s “Unfiltered” that the state is coordinating behind the scenes on what these companies can and can’t allow on the internet.

VIVEK RAMASWAMY: One of the things that’s underappreciated is how much these firms coordinate with one another behind the scenes. And this is not price-fixing. This is not the John D. Rockefeller era. This is idea-fixing, which I think is actually even more dangerous for a democracy than price-fixing. And hiding and lurking behind the veil of it all is not just the invisible hand of the free market, as they claim, but the increasingly visible fist of big government itself, where the state, as you pointed out, is coordinating from behind the scenes, the White House is coordinating from behind the scenes on what these companies can and can’t allow on the internet. What does and doesn’t pass the Central Bureau of Information’s test for what counts as everyday people able to consume through the internet.

So I think that’s actually the thing that reveals that what we’re seeing here with Twitter is just the beginning. This is not anywhere near the end. It might be, as a famous man once said, the end of the beginning. But at the end of the day, I think that this is still just the tip of the iceberg for what we’re going to need to see in order to really restore a true free marketplace of ideas.

RELATED ARTICLE: Woke School Principal CANCELS 4th Grade Play Of ‘Lewis and Clark’ Over ‘Cultural Appropriation’

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

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Why You Shouldn’t Celebrate the TSA for Employing 47,000 Workers thumbnail

Why You Shouldn’t Celebrate the TSA for Employing 47,000 Workers

/in , , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The lump of labor hypothesis—that there are only so many jobs “out there”—is a fallacy.

I recently took an airplane trip, departing from a medium-sized city. There must have been, oh, at least 100 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees who were officiating at the boarding process: checking our luggage, ensuring our shoes were removed, delving into our underwear, stealing our toothpaste, pushing us through those x-ray machines. There were literally hordes of them mucking about. (In 2020, the latest year for which such figures are available, the TSA employed more than 47,000 people and had an annual budget of approximately $7.7 billion.)

Why were they there? Years ago, matters were far more simple; you showed a boarding pass, and just got on the plane.

What changed? In a word, terrorists. They hijacked planes and used them in suicidal attacks during the 9-11 attacks in 2001. The TSA workers were there to ensure that no one smuggled any bombs on board, or interfered with flights in any other destructive manner.

Did these terrorists, inadvertently from their perspective of course, actually do us a favor? After all, thanks to the TSA, almost 50,000 American jobs were created. Were these folk not working for this government agency, perhaps they might all be unemployed. If so, our unemployment rate would be significantly higher than it is at present. Do we thus owe the terrorists a vote of thanks? Not, of course, for murdering innocent air travelers, but, at least, for helping out our economy?

No. Not one bit.

Rather, instead of partially hurting and partially helping us, they are actually doing damage to us in both regards. How so? This can easily be demonstrated. Suppose that there was never any such thing as terrorists, certainly not involving airplanes. There would then of course be no need for the TSA. (There is no need for them even now; this function would be better provided through private enterprise, but that is an entirely different matter.)

What, then, would all these people be doing? We cannot know for sure, but we can speculate. Presumably, they would be butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, farmers, fishermen, doctors, scientists, cooks, and bottle washers. In short, they would be producing more of these ordinary goods and services. Possibly, some of them would be breaking new ground, providing the rest of us with things we cannot now even imagine. Without terrorists in existence we could have had our cake and eaten it too: have just as much air safety as at present (or more! The TSA is hardly 100 percent efficient), plus a plethora of other wealth that these folk would be creating in other industries.

Economic logic demonstrates the truth of this claim. The economic pie is not fixed. The lump of labor hypothesis—that there are only so many jobs “out there”—is a fallacy. The people who were once TSA employees bring with them not only brains, arms, and heads with which to work, but also eyes and stomachs which lead to consumption. They supply labor and demand products. As long as we want more goods and services than we already have—that is, as long as there is still scarcity—there will be room for more employment and additional GDP.

Economic history also attests to the fact that the terrorists are hurting us twice over. When World War II ended, some 12 million soldiers left the armed forces and entered the labor force. They put down their guns and picked up their plows. One result of that was the post-war boom, with far greater productivity than before.

At one time in our history, some 98 percent of the population was needed on the nation’s farms. The present figure is more like 2 percent. From whence did all those new jobs arise? They did so from the fact that people wanted more than they already had and were willing to work to obtain additional wealth.

Yet another historical episode occurred when, due to the advent of the horseless carriage, vast unemployment took place amongst blacksmiths, whip and saddle makers, horse trainers, horseshoe manufacturers, and such. Again, a far more significant proportion of the labor force than now accounted for by the TSA shifted from these horse and buggy industries to completely different ones.

The terrorists have landed upon us a one-two punch in the gut. Danger in the air and poverty too.

AUTHOR

Walter Block

Walter Edward Block is an American economist and anarcho-capitalist theorist who holds the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at the J. A. Butt School of Business at Loyola University New Orleans. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

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

Private-Sector Union Membership Hit Record Low in 2021, Labor Department Data Show thumbnail

Private-Sector Union Membership Hit Record Low in 2021, Labor Department Data Show

/in , , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Private-sector union membership fell to 6.1 percent in 2021, the lowest level since the federal government started tracking this data.

President Biden repeatedly has promised to be “the most pro-union president in American history.” But there’s one key group of people standing in his way: The tens of millions of workers who want nothing to do with union membership.

Earlier this year, a Labor Department survey showed that union membership continues to fall. In 2021, the number of union workers declined by 241,000, and private-sector union membership now stands at merely 6.1 percent — the lowest level since the federal government started tracking this data. This decline came despite a massive increase in the overall number of U.S. jobs, as businesses recovered from the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Such dramatic losses aren’t for lack of union efforts. The past year also saw major unionization campaigns at companies such as Amazon and Starbucks, following years of similar efforts at companies including Nissan, Volkswagen and other big employers. Yet, time and again, when given a choice, workers are saying no to union membership.

Unfortunately, these strong rebukes by workers don’t mean much to the most pro-union president in history. Biden has benefitted massively from the $1.8 billion organized labor spent in the 2020 election cycle and he is now trying to make it easier for unions to overrule and ignore workers’ wishes. Consider the policies that Biden has proposed and pursued in just over one year in office.

At the legislative level, he has fully endorsed the so-called PRO Act, a wholesale union wish list. This legislation would eliminate the 27-state right-to-work laws, forcing millions of workers to pay unions against their will just to keep their jobs. It also essentially would mandate “card check,” which could allow unions to organize employers by publicly intimidating employees. The legislation has dozens of provisions aimed at silencing workers and weakening their rights, making it easier for unions to get their way.

With the PRO Act stalled in Congress, Biden is pushing other policies through federal regulation and executive order. He has appointed union members to the federal labor regulator and fired the general counsel who was likely to resist pro-Big Labor mandates.

Biden also rolled back federal transparency requirements for unions, making it harder for workers considering a union to find out how, exactly, their dues money is being spent. And he has boosted funding for federal labor enforcement, essentially empowering regulators to pressure private companies into unionizing.

The president also has made it easier to unionize the federal workforce and private companies who work with the federal government. In an early move, he established a federal task force on unionization, which is pushing policies that would ease the way toward organizing federal agencies. And Biden has required that all major federal construction projects go to companies that are unionized.

What do all these policies have in common? In a word, coercion. They involve taking power from workers and giving it to unions. No wonder: When workers keep that power, they use it to reject unions.

There’s no question that force helps some unions gain members and money. Today, nearly one-third of union members live in California and New York, which have only 17 percent of America’s workers. These states have put many coercive pro-union measures into law. If such policies are nationalized, as Biden is attempting to do, the American economy increasingly will look like it does in those states — tilted in favor of unions and against workers.

Yet it’s worth noting that more and more workers are leaving California, New York and other union-dominated states. They’re moving to places that don’t give unions an unfair advantage, especially in the South and Midwest. And other states are taking note. Five states have ended compulsory union membership in the past decade. Since my home state of Michigan gave workers the freedom to choose whether to join a union, the birthplace of organized labor has dropped from fifth place in union membership to 12th. That happened even as Michigan has gained manufacturing jobs. It’s a similar story in other states.

When given the freedom to make their own choices, workers overwhelmingly side against unions. Respecting their rights is the best policy, yet the policies being pursued by the Biden administration would only limit worker freedom. It’s a pity that the most “pro-union” president in history is pushing policies that are so anti-worker.

This article originally appeared in The Hill and was republished with permission from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

AUTHOR

Jarrett Skorup

Jarrett Skorup is the senior director of marketing and communications and the director of the Frank Beckmann Center for Journalism at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

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

While Americans Can’t Afford Gas, Biden Slashes Drilling thumbnail

While Americans Can’t Afford Gas, Biden Slashes Drilling

/in , , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

It’s not Putin’s price hike, it’s Biden’s. And he insists on reminding us of that every few days.

The Biden administration on Monday reversed a Trump administration plan that would have allowed the government to lease more than two-thirds of the country’s largest swath of public land to oil and gas drilling.

The Bureau of Land Management’s decision will shrink the amount of land available for lease in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska…

The decision returns to an Obama administration plan that allows fossil fuel extraction in up to 52% of the reserve, compared to the Trump administration’s effort to open up 82% of the land to drilling.

Nationally gas prices continue to rise, despite increased production, hitting an average of $4.13. Of course, where I live, people would wait on line for an hour to get $4.13 gas and consider $5.13 a mouthwatering bargain.

But that’s what happens when you put enviros in charge of a city, a state, or a country.

While Biden and his lackeys advise Americans to buy $55,000 electric cars, they fly jet planes everywhere and then keep blocking efforts to make America energy independent.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Robert Spencer’s Qur’an: A new annotated Qur’an that belongs in every sensible citizen’s library’

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

The Significance of Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the Biden regime going full Orwell. thumbnail

The Significance of Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the Biden regime going full Orwell.

/in , , , /by

By Save America Foundation

State of The Republic

The Significance of Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the Biden regime going full Orwell.

By Jason A. Brown

Elon Musk purchases Twitter for 44 Billion dollars.  Let the explosion of Democrats’ heads commence as Elon vows to bring free speech back to Twitter.  We have already seen changes on Twitter’s board that seem to be for the better.  Now the FTC has opened an investigation into Elon and his businesses.  Isn’t that just the go to response to everything when things don’t go the way that the DC criminals want it to?  Cross Uncle Sam, get federal law enforcement and federal regulatory agencies to crawl up your rectum with a microscope.

The feds say, probable cause, what is that?  The Washington cabal now goes after anyone that does not follow the narrative, especially those with influence, like Musk.  But this did not start under Biden, this started with the Obama regime.  Oh yes, who can forget Lois Lerner and the IRS withholding tax exempt status from conservative leaning non-profits?  Who can forget the Bureau of Land Management, who held the acronym BLM before Black Lives Matter?  An armed BLM at the Bundy Ranch, killing Cliven Bundy’s cattle and attempting to arrest him and his sons.  Armed patriots showed up from all over the US and took pointed their weapons at agents of a federal agency.  The BLM eventually backed down but the events had the potential to be a bloodbath if one shot would have been fired.  One of Cliven Bundy’s sons was hit with a taser used by the feds though.  After the standoff was over, and patriots returned home, the FBI started arresting people that were at the ranch to help the Bundys apparently using facial recognition to establish their identities.  Those that were there were getting rounded up by federal law enforcement.  Does this sound similar to January 6th protesters?

When someone asks me why I think Obama was such a terrible president I don’t refer to specific policies, I just point out that he was the first president to weaponize the federal government and its bureaucracy against American citizens.  More specifically, citizens that were regarded as political opposition, or dissenters.  This was the precedent that was set by Obama and his administration.  We are now seeing this weaponization of the federal government on steroids.  Twitter was such a major component of the progressive machine as it provided them a non-government entity to control speech.  The 1st amendment protects free speech from government censorship.  Twitter was their lap dog that censored unwanted opinions, and even legit news stories that were not acceptable to the DC establishment at a given time (Hunter’s Laptop).

Now Musk is going to clean house and now Uncle Sam has decided that they need to form but another government agency to decide what is true and what misinformation is.  That’s right, under the DHS umbrella, Biden is forming the equivalent of 1984’s Ministry of Truth, to determining what is acceptable when it comes to speech and ideas, and prohibit speech that the regime deems toxic.  This is straight up Orwellian, in a very literal sense.  The formation of this new agency to bring in a new era of government censorship, and they are not even trying to hide their intentions anymore.  This turn of events illustrates just how significant Musk’s purchase of this social media platform is.  How is this new regulatory arm of the government going to be used?  Will it be combined with E/S/G scores and the great reset?  This is definitely a real possibility.

More and more people are waking up to the corruption that has taken over our country, as Biden’s approval numbers tank. We are in a dangerous time right now but if we keep the pressure on the criminal scum that is trying to make us all slaves, we may just win this in the end. I will keep a close eye on this situation and will have updates as events unfold. Now is a good time to subscribe if you haven’t already. It’s free! In the meantime, stay vigilant and keep close watch over your kids. We have sick, twisted, perverts that are sanctioned and funded by the government, that are looking for ways to groom your children. 4 words, “NOT ON MY WATCH”.

©Jason A Brown. All rights reserved.

Six years of BLM Killed More Blacks than 86 Years of Lynchings thumbnail

Six years of BLM Killed More Blacks than 86 Years of Lynchings

/in , , , /by

By The Geller Report

“Black lives matter”, indeed.

Six years of BLM Killed More Blacks than 86 Years of Lynchings

By Ronald J. Kozar, American Thinker, April 25, 2022:

In 2014, the number of black American murder victims was 6,095. Then, after the August 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, anti-police protests and riots began, federal officials and mass media sympathetic to rioters brought heightened scrutiny to police practices, BLM began its career, “broken windows” policing was curtailed, and police morale plummeted.  The number of murders thereupon began to surge, never to return to 2014 levels.

The “excess” murder victims from 2015 through 2020 who were black — that is, the additional black victims each year beyond the 2014 baseline — add up to 11,005.  Compare that to the number of lynchings during the heyday of Jim Crow.  According to the Tuskegee Institute, the number of blacks lynched from 1882 through 1968 was 3,446.

Here are the numbers of black murder victims from 2014 through 2020:

Year       No. of Blacks      “Excess” Victims

                   Murdered

2014              6,095                          —

2015              7,039                        944

2916              7,881                      1,786

2017              7,851                      1,756

2018             7,407                      1,312

2019             7,484                      1,389

2020            9,913                       3,818

The numbers come from the FBI, though the FBI report for 2020 was visible online for only a short time in 2021.  Crime analyst Jeff Asher reported the 2020 figures before the FBI took the report down.

One might object that 2014 is an unfairly low baseline against which to compare the ensuing years.  2014 seems a natural starting-point for the analysis, as that was the year of Ferguson and the founding of BLM.  But the homicide figures in 2014 represented an historic low, a fact that might make the “excess” death figures for the ensuing six years look artificially high by comparison.  With the rise of “stop and frisk” policing, the number of homicides had been trending downward each year, with minor exceptions, from 1992 through 2014. ……. read the rest

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

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Texas Man Offers Musk FREE 100 Acres to Move Twitter HQ Out of San Francisco thumbnail

Texas Man Offers Musk FREE 100 Acres to Move Twitter HQ Out of San Francisco

/in , , /by

By The Geller Report

Americans are desperate to get their country back.

Yeehaw! TX Man Offers Musk FREE 100 Acres to Move Twitter HQ Out of San Fran

By: Keely Compson, Daily Political Newswire,

Oh snap! An Austin, Texas man is offering Elon Musk 100 acres of his land, for free, to move Twitter’s headquarters out of Fan Francisco and into Texas.Jim Schwertner, president and CEO of Schwertner Farms, tweeted on Tuesday: “Elon Musk, Move Twitter to Schwertner, TX. 38 Miles North of Austin in Williamson County, and we will give you 100 Acres for FREE.”

Elon Musk, Move Twitter to Schwertner, TX. 38 Miles North of Austin in Williamson County, and we will give you 100 Acres for FREE

— Jim Schwertner (@JimSchwertner1) April 26, 2022

Schwertner argued that Twitter would add a lot of jobs to Texas and boost the economy, which would be a “win-win for everybody.”

“This area is exploding and we want to be part of this explosive growth,” he said.

“I just think with all the stuff he’s done, he evidently likes Texas, right or he wouldn’t have moved from California,” Schwertner added. “And I want to be part of his plan if he’ll come visit with us.”

Texas Governor Greg Abbott added to Schwertner’s offer, stating that he “will declare it a ‘Free Speech Zone.’”

Abbott added, “Maybe we can rename it Twitter, Texas. Think about it, @elonmusk.”

Texas man offers Elon Musk 100 acres of FREE land to move Twitter’s headquarters.

I will declare it a “Free Speech Zone”

Maybe we can rename it Twitter, Texas.

Think about it .@elonmusk https://t.co/Y5UGy2qKpX via @chron

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) April 28, 2022

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

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

ROGUE REGIME: FBI Spied On Americans’ Data At Record Pace Last Year thumbnail

ROGUE REGIME: FBI Spied On Americans’ Data At Record Pace Last Year

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Democrat Gestapo, Stasi, KGB. Straight out of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged where the government annuls the rights of American citizens, and freedom is steadily eroded.

FBI Snooped On Americans’ Data At Record Pace Last Year

By: Greg Wilson, Daily Wire, May 1, 2022:

The FBI may have conducted millions of warrantless searches of Americans’ electronic data last year, U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged in a report released Friday.

The report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence revealed that the bureau conducted up to 3.4 million searches of U.S. data drawn from the National Security Agency. Senior Biden administration officials told The Wall Street Journal the number is likely inflated due to the way individual queries are tabulated, but the number was still nearly triple that of the prior year.

“We’re committed to proactively informing the public, who entrusts us to protect our nation and our civil liberties, on the Intelligence Community’s use of key national security authorities,” said ODNI Chief of Civil Liberties, Privacy, and Transparency Ben Huebner.

(1) The FBI conducts warrantless “backdoor searches” for Americans’ data in Section 702 databases on a massive scale: up to 3.39 million of these searches last year. Though the FBI’s arithmetic is fuzzy, it’s clear that the scale of the problem is enormous. pic.twitter.com/M0VjG3X2in

— Ashley Gorski (@ashgorski) April 29, 2022

The report is the first time a U.S. intelligence agency has published an accounting of how the FBI scoops up data through Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FBI has been heavily criticized for abusing this process in the Trump-Russia collusion investigation and Section 702, which governs the bureau’s actions, is set to expire next year……

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

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

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.