COLORADO: Dominion Voting Machines Fail Logic and Accuracy Tests Prior to Recount thumbnail

COLORADO: Dominion Voting Machines Fail Logic and Accuracy Tests Prior to Recount

By The Geller Report

Paper ballots. Why are the good people of Colorado putting up with this treachery?

By RSBN Network, August 7, 2022:

Dominion Voting Systems voting machines reportedly failed a logic and accuracy test last week in El Paso County, Colorado, as counties across the state prepare for recounts of several June 28 primary races, according to The Gateway Pundit.

Republican candidate for El Paso County Clerk, Peter Lupia, who was present for the testing, reported that the exact number of ballots tested was 4,216, of which 2,266 were sent to adjudication.

Just left the Clerk’s office, with a lot of interesting new thoughts. Peter Lupia (clerk candidate) explained why the adjudication was so high. Apparently half of the ballots being tested were blank and the machines were reprogrammed for this test recount before the real recount pic.twitter.com/IOEqiJ293b

— George (@BehizyTweets) July 29, 2022

Lupia, who has formally requested a recount of his race, claimed that the ballots used during the testing were “fake” computer-generated ballots and that the parameters for adjudication were broader than those used during the election.

“When they ran these ballots through the system back before the primary, in the last week of May, they only were finding about six to seven errors per batch that went to adjudication,” he said. “Because of those expanded parameters, now they had 2,266 ballots that now qualify to go through adjudication.”

Per The Gateway Pundit, two Dominion employees were also reported to be on-site for the testing, and teams of judges reviewed the ballots as part of the adjudication process.

Earlier this week, Colorado secretary of state candidate Tina Peters also requested a recount of her primary race, which she allegedly lost to fellow Republican Pam Anderson.

Per The Denver Post, Peters released a statement calling the recount an “absolute disaster” following Friday’s shocking testing results.

“Today, the machine tabulated recount ordered by Secretary of State Jena Griswold failed the Logic and Accuracy Test (LAT), with Dominion employees present, in a spectacular fashion with over a 50% error rate out of the 4,000+ ballots tested,” Peters reportedly said. “These voting machines are unacceptable for use in Colorado elections.”

Lake v. Hobbs witness testified that he was ‘shocked’ at lack of cybersecurity in Maricopa County voting machineshttps://t.co/gDuwdqVSYs

— RSBN 🇺🇸 (@RSBNetwork) July 22, 2022

Since the 2020 election, voting machines have come under scrutiny for what many experts have described as a concerning lack of security.

On July 21, one such expert, CyFIR CEO and Founder Ben Cotton, testified in federal court that he was “shocked” by the Dominion voting machines’ lack of cybersecurity during his forensic analysis of them for the Arizona Senate audit, stating that “the average home computer” would be more secure.

The hearing was held in response to a lawsuit filed by Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem, who are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the use of electronic voting machines in the state’s upcoming elections.

“Election voting machines cannot be deemed reliably secure and do not meet the constitutional and statutory mandates to guarantee a free and fair election,” their complaint reads. “The use of untested and unverified election voting machines violates the rights of the plaintiffs and their fellow voters and office seekers, and it undermines public confidence in the validity of election results.”

As questions and concerns continue to be raised about the security of voting machines, those with suspicions will undoubtedly be watching closely as this year’s competitive races play out.

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

Biden-Era USPS Chief in Mail-In Ballot Unit Arrested After Trying To Meet Teen Boy For Sex thumbnail

Biden-Era USPS Chief in Mail-In Ballot Unit Arrested After Trying To Meet Teen Boy For Sex

By The Geller Report

“I’m A Pedophile” — Russell Rappel-Schmid


Democrat Washington is literally Sodom and Gomorrah. These degenerates must be purged.

‘I’m A Pedophile’: Biden-Era USPS Chief in Mail-In Ballot Unit Arrested After Trying To Meet Teen Boy For Sex

By Natalie Winters, The National Pulse,

A high-level U.S. Postal Service official appointed under President Joe Biden was caught during a child sex sting, admitting “I’m a pedophile” on camera.

Russell Rappel-Schmid, the Chief Data Officer for the U.S. Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), was caught in San Diego, California attempting to meet a 14-year-old boy for sex.

The PRC is responsible for overseeing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) – which deals with mail-in ballots during election season – and Rappel-Schmid was tasked with running the commission’s data management and compliance with the OPEN Government Data Act.

While federal authorities have not yet confirmed the man in the video is Rappel-Schmid, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department announced that Rappel-Schmid was released from the city’s Central Jail early Tuesday morning after being arrested on Monday. His felony arraignment is set for next Monday.

Rappel-Schmid was reportedly in San Diego for a business conference when he allegedly tried to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old boy for sex. The People vs Predators group filmed the encounter, and Rappel-Schmid can be seen admitting “I’m a pedophile.”

In response to the video and criminal charges, the PRC terminated Rappel-Schmid from his position.

“The Postal Regulatory Commission has become aware of the recent arrest of one of our employees. Upon becoming aware of this information, the Commission has terminated this employee effective immediately. The Commission is shocked and horrified at these serious allegations and maintains a steadfast commitment to promptly deal with any claims of employee misconduct.”

MUST READ:  Post Pandemic, a Strong Majority of Americans Favor a Constitutional Amendment That Further Limits Federal Govt Spending and Control.

Rappel-Schmid’s profile has been removed from the agency’s website.

He joined the oversight body under President Joe Biden in May and previously served as the State of Alaska’s first chief data officer. Rappel-Schmid also worked at the USPS Office of Inspector General (USPS OIG) on the data analytics team and as an audit manager.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Russell Rappel-Schmid Named Postal Regulatory Commission Chief Data Officer

Democrats need to stop screwing kids

Hundreds of K-12 educators charged with child sex crimes in first half of 2022

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

In Condemnation of Kyrsten Sinema thumbnail

In Condemnation of Kyrsten Sinema

By Neland Nobel

Last January we wrote a piece called “In Praise of Krysten Sinema.”

It was written in a generous bi-partisan spirit. The senior Senator from Arizona had stood up to a massive, expensive, intrusive spending bill.  She had done so under relentless attack. These attacks even became personal as she was accosted in a bathroom at ASU by progressive activists and even had a wedding she attended disrupted by activists. By showing better judgment and courage, we felt she deserved the praise.

Now, in the interest of fairness and a generous spirit, we must condemn her.

After the capitulation of Senator Joe Manchin, Sinema, who holds the “maverick seat” in Arizona, folded like a cheap lawn chair.

She is no maverick. She is a progressive Democrat.

A maverick in this context means a leader who stands independent of party and acts in the interests of constituents.

The so-called Inflation Reduction Act is just a slightly smaller version of Build Back Better which she previously rejected. This suggests that the original objections she may have had were not based on principle rather she was just concerned about the size of the original proposal.

However, what is being proposed is massive compared to most previous legislation.

Moreover, it has some really nasty features: higher taxes on the middle class, corporate welfare for green energy industries, higher corporate taxes which will simply be passed on to the public, creates a gigantic army of IRA agents to harry and harass citizens, price controls on drugs, all financed by higher deficit spending.

Even Barack Obama had enough common sense to know you don’t raise taxes in a recession. But Sinema seems to endorse a key provision of Modern Monetary Theory, to wit, you fight inflation by raising taxes. Since the government itself is the source of inflation, this leaves the taxpayer in the untenable situation of either paying higher hidden taxes via currency debasement or higher direct taxes back to the government. Either way, they take the money your earned and spend it on things the government wants, rather than the things you want.

Price controls on drugs will have the same result as price controls on New York apartments. It will stifle investment and innovation, creating chronic shortages and eventually even higher prices.

Moreover, she buys into some of the critical mistakes of the Green New Deal.

Advocates desire to “transition” from fossil fuels to what they contend are “clean and sustainable” energy sources. This is all based on the theory of global warming, which itself is unproven. And even if there is a relationship, it is far less costly to adapt to higher temperatures than attempt to control the temperature of the earth 100 years from now.

Such top-down policies will not succeed given the following variables. It does not control the tilt of the earth, the amount and strength of solar radiation, or volcanic activity both above the surface of the land, and below the sea. Then there are sea currents and all kinds of other natural variables.  The earth’s climate is always changing for reasons we cannot control and in many cases, do not understand.

Finally, we cannot control even man’s activities, let those of the universe. While we are cutting back on coal and oil, China and India are burning more. How will our sacrifices and destruction of our economy do anything constructive, based upon the progressive theory of global warming, when countries with much greater populations than ours are still putting CO2 in the atmosphere?

Senator Sinema, what is your answer? Are you willing to destroy our standard of living to make a meaningless gesture? Do you see what electricity prices are in Europe?

Starting with that base assumption of a relationship between CO2 and warming, Senator Sinema how much of a reduction in temperature are we going to get with the bill and when? Please specify what we are getting for our money. If that is the reason for this monstrosity, we are entitled to an answer.  We know the cost is over $700 billion, can we know the benefit?

If it is for the “environment”, why do we need to hire so many IRS agents? Are they going to be installing solar panels?  No, they are going to be looting the American people.

This is bait and switch. Bait with a vague undefined promise of helping “the environment” while switching to price controls on drugs, higher taxes, corporate welfare, higher deficits, and a vast addition to the ranks of IRA agents.

We have gone through energy transitions before. The question is whether it is a voluntary transition or a forced transition. A good example of a voluntary transition was the transition from whale oil for interior lighting to kerosene. John D. Rockefeller was perhaps the greatest savior of the whales ever. It occurred gradually, required no government money or subsidy, and was embraced by consumers.

Any energy choice should pass the test of the marketplace where voluntary transactions between mutually consenting parties, each seeking their own best interests, are concluded.

What she is backing is a forced transition, using taxes as weapons and subsidies as incentives, to force consumers to make choices they do not wish to make. The evidence for this statement is verified by the policy. A natural transition of energy sources does not require government intervention. It happens because consumers desire it and entrepreneurs desire to profit by satisfying that demand. Choices and competition are present to direct economic decisions and minimize waste to the correct mix of alternatives. If consumers want less expensive and cleaner energy, they will choose it because it is in their best interests. It does not require a centralized government, command, and control approach that likely will make political decisions largely based on pleasing special interests that contribute to campaigns. 

This is not a bill that supports the public’s best interests, rather it supports special interests, i.e. the green industrial complex. And quite alarmingly, this group of interests is largely Chinese communist. They are not reliable partners that have our best interests at heart.

The Biden/Sinema energy transition is a top-down, centrally planned debacle wherein our existing energy infrastructure is being destroyed while the new infrastructure is yet to come on line. This is causing a huge spike in energy prices, contributing greatly to inflationary pressures, and leaving the West, particularly Europe, in the tender hands of Vladimir Putin. This is just stupid geopolitical thinking.

For oil and gas, we leave ourselves vulnerable to Putin. For the rare earth minerals and production capacity for solar and wind, we leave ourselves in the hands of the Chinese Communists.

This bill is bad for the economy, bad for the environment, and bad for our geostrategic interests. We can and should produce all the energy and minerals we can by ourselves.

Senator, you will soon be up for re-election and we will not forget it was your cowardice and bad judgment which unleashed this travesty upon us.

Yes, we know your party is pushing it and you are not completely to blame. But you knew you were the pivotal vote, and it would not move forward without you. So, in that sense, the full responsibility does fall on you. And, you failed us.

TAKE ACTION

The $739 billion Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 being pushed through the U.S. Senate to be passed by reconciliation (50 votes plus the Vice President) before the upcoming August recess is a threat to America’s economy and the well-being of all Americans. The article above makes clear that Senator Kyrsten Sinema is the one Democrat vote that America is looking at. She alone can stop this legislation. Please contact her at her office locations in Washington, D.C. and in Arizona by phone and letter. Click the red TAKE ACTION link below for Senator Sinema’s contact information.

Although Senator Mark Kelly is a do-as -Chuck Schumer- tells-you-to-do partisan shill, contacting him may be helpful given his significant vulnerability in the November general election. His contact information is also found at the TAKE ACTION link below. We suggest that copying him on your letter to Senator Sinema may possibly have some impact on his voting behavior. Calling his office is also important – the staffs do score the relative positions of constituents and this too may influence the voting behavior.

Documents Reveal Collusion Between CDC, Big Tech During Pandemic thumbnail

Documents Reveal Collusion Between CDC, Big Tech During Pandemic

By Douglas Blair

Documents newly obtained by America First Legal Foundation reveal deep collusion between public officials and allies in Big Tech to silence dissenting voices.

The documents lay bare efforts by officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to push social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to censor so-called medical misinformation.

John Zadrozny, deputy director of investigations at America First Legal Foundation, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss how deep the collusion goes and what it all means.

Listen to the [second] podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript:

Doug Blair: My guest today is John Zadrozny, deputy director of investigations at America First Legal Foundation. John, welcome to the show.

John Zadrozny: Hey, Doug, thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it.

Blair: Of course. Well, we have to talk about this massive thing that you guys have found out, which is this trove of documents detailing the super cozy relationship between Centers for Disease Control [and Prevention] officials and Big Tech over their efforts to censor what is called misinformation surrounding COVID-19.

So just to start out with, could you give our listeners a broad overview of some of the revelations that these documents revealed?

Zadrozny: Absolutely, Doug.

So basically, you may recall last year that when she was still White House press secretary, from the White House podium in mid-July, Jen Psaki basically admitted to the public that they were working, colluding, I guess you could say, with Big Tech to make sure that “misinformation” was not spread on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

And we were immediately piqued by this, so I think we sent a [Freedom of Information Act] request literally the next day to several agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC. Not surprisingly, they were not tripping over themselves to release those documents because they were damning.

We filed a lawsuit this year and we have since been able to get documents as a result of being in court with the agency. They released a batch to us in July and we were able to roll out about 286 pages of initial production from the agency last week.

And what they show, Doug, it is pretty damning. It basically shows exactly what we thought—file this under horrifying but not surprising. They were in very close coordination with Google, Twitter, and Facebook. For emphasis, we don’t know if other Big Tech companies were involved yet. This is just what we were able to get our hands on to date.

Examples of what the communications showed were very close, frequent coordination between the government and officials at Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Very excited willingness on the part of officials at those three Big Tech companies to work with them.

In other words, it wasn’t a government strong-arming companies and them reluctantly going along. It was them saying, “We’re eager to work with you and help you.”

There were instances of basically the government told these agencies what to say in terms of vaccine safety. They basically told them what to say and concealed the origins as federal.

The CDC reached out to … Twitter, saying, “Hey, we found these posts. These are misinformation.” And then Twitter immediately proceeded to not only pull them down, but then suspend the accounts of some of those users.

The interaction, the degree of interaction and the type of interaction, Doug, is pretty gross. And it’s a reminder that we’re in a very dangerous time. It’s not just a question of an abusive government, but it’s an abusive government in cahoots with a large, monopolistic tech industry that has no interest in free speech for the public.

Blair: That sounds incredibly dangerous. And I think the fact is that it sounds like the government is skirting around First Amendment protections for speech by kind of nudge, nudge, wink, winking to these Big Tech companies and having them do the dirty work for them. So it’s not the government doing the censorship, it’s Twitter doing the censorship or YouTube doing the censorship.

Zadrozny: Yeah. Doug, that’s a great point. But I would counter that and say the following: There’s obviously a debate on the right about the private sector’s discretion to do what it chooses as the private industry, as nongovernmental. Remember, the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights, all those amendments are designed to curtail government conduct.

However, two things, one of which is, take the government out of it, in a vacuum these companies have reached a size and dimension, and reality in our modern digital age, where they are essentially the digital town square. There is no real public media forum absent these social media platforms.

And an argument could be made, it’s not uniform, there’s definitely disagreement on the right about this, but an argument could be made that they’re essentially, at this point, quasi-utilities.

Imagine a scenario where a phone company was cutting off phone calls of people when they didn’t like what they were saying. We would be aghast at that, and yet somehow this is considered OK.

But it’s even worse than that, Doug, because basically, I think the argument here is that the federal government, by interacting with these companies, whether voluntarily or not, has deputized them as an extension of the government. And so, I think the First Amendment argument is very much in play here.

They can’t say, “Well, we’re private.” Maybe, maybe they could have gotten away with that if they were doing this of their own volition. But it’s pretty clear they were working hand-in-glove with federal officials telling them what to say and not say.

Blair: How long and how extensive do these ties go back? And are there going to be any sort of implications between people like Dr. [Anthony] Fauci and other government officials that were directly responsible for this?

Zadrozny: Well, that’s a great question, Doug. We have other, for clarity, we have other letters out to other agencies to find out the degree to which they were involved in manipulating these Big Tech companies and their speech.

Troublingly, if you go look at the documents that we’ve produced, remember it’s only 286 pages, I suspect we’ve only scratched the surface. Some of those communications do go back to 2020, and so I think some of the people might say, “Well, gosh, doesn’t that mean the Trump administration was doing this?”

I think the answer is, if, based on all we saw during the Trump administration, and I was part of it, there are a lot of secretive nefarious actors who were not working in conjunction with the political leadership of the administration and doing what they wanted.

I suspect these ties existed between these officials and the employees of these companies for years. … Gosh only knows what else they were doing behind the scenes, Doug, to undercut the administration while the administration was happening. But it picked up another few notches in speed once we were gone, in order to facilitate the Biden administration’s rollout of the vaccine.

The horrible part about all this, Doug, is that the Biden administration and the Big Tech companies, they wouldn’t need to do any of this if they had anything resembling credibility on any issue, including the vaccine issue. But the reality is, when you’re in a position where nobody believes anything you’re saying, you have to censor—at least if you think like the left does.

And that’s exactly why they’re doing what they’re doing. Instead of having a full and open public debate, saying, “Look, these people who are critical of the safety of the vaccines, they’re completely wrong. Here are the data. We’re in the right. Trust us,” they can’t do that because the data don’t support them. And so, they’ve had to engage in this conduct.

And again, I really think we’ve only scratched the surface. Again, it’s only the first 286 pages and that’s just from the CDC, so there’s a lot more going on.

And Doug, I can break some news for you. We are issuing a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general, [Christi] Grimm, asking her to conduct an investigation of this. We think this is clearly illegal, clearly inappropriate. And with any luck, we’ll get a serious response from the IG. We’re really hoping that we do.

Blair: Well, John, that’s incredible news. And I guess, if you could go a little bit more in depth about what you’re hoping to find with that letter, what you’re hoping to find with these sort of revelations here?

Zadrozny: Yeah. So, I think what we’re hoping is that the inspector general’s investigation is not only able to bring to light some of the other components of HHS that were involved in this—again, we only were talking about CDC, which is technically under HHS. We sent letters to the National Institutes of Health. We sent letters to HHS headquarters and other federal officials and federal agencies.

She may be able to pull it all together in her investigation. But also, she’ll have access to documents that we don’t. And with any luck, she’ll actually bring to light the full scope of this.

We had to use what’s called the Freedom of Information Act to get the documents that we’ve got, and even then we had to take this all the way to a federal judge. She doesn’t have those constraints. With any luck, she’ll actually do her job. We’ll see.

Blair: Now, it sounds like she’s obviously not likely to do that, unless she’s forced to do so. What does it say about this administration that it seems like these revelations have to come out through the work of citizen journalists and organizations like yours, instead of them just saying, “Look, we have a vested interest in this policy going this one way”? What does that say about how this administration is viewing this topic?

Zadrozny: What it says to me, Doug, is that they view themselves as on the wrong side of the issue where they need to hide from the truth. And they can’t have an open conversation and win a credibility-based conversation with the American public.

And I think you could, unfortunately, I think you can apply this to almost every issue area in their purview right now—energy production to national security and so on. They’re too busy throwing, I guess, American parents who attend school board meetings in jail as domestic terrorists to focus on actual medical safety and integrity.

I think another lesson, too, Doug, if I may, is I think we’re probably seeing what happens when we have a federal government that’s just way too large.

People on the right for years—and to their credit, it’s a good argument, it just hasn’t really fallen on ears and it hasn’t resonated—the small government argument has always been a fiscal one. The argument has always been, “We spend too much money. We spend too much money.” Well, that’s all true.

And we may actually be seeing, we may have finally hit the point in the United States where we are starting to see those proverbial chickens come home to roost with high inflation, etc. But it doesn’t resonate.

And I think it’s partly, without getting too much into it, I think it’s because most Americans don’t deal with anything near those numbers of that type of money. Those numbers just kind of glaze over—a trillion here or a trillion there.

But I think the argument that really does resonate with Americans across the country at home in small communities is this is what happens when you have a government that’s too large, and has too much money, and has too many employees, it becomes too radical. And you need to rein it in.

And the only way to really rein it in, it’s not a bunch of old white guys wagging fingers at oversight hearings. It’s shrinking federal agency budgets, saying, “Look, you’re being punished for not doing your jobs. In fact, you’re being punished for using money for things that are dangerous, unconstitutional, and suppressing rights.”

I think it’s one of the most serious conversations we need to have over the next 10 years, Doug, is have we reached the point where we’ve seen too much? We’ve seen what a big federal government really means for the republic, it’s not good and it needs to be shrunk.

Blair: Right. Now, John, that raises an interesting point. We have this information, it sounds like you are taking action, specifically with this letter to the IG, but what can conservatives do? We have the proof now, we have the evidence to show that there was collusion between these massive government bodies and Big Tech. What do we do with that information?

Zadrozny: That’s a great question. That’s the million-dollar question, right? I think for now, because Republicans, conservatives don’t run the executive branch, there’s nothing that can be done there.

In theory, Republicans, if they are to win control of Congress and take it seriously, and actually push back against the corruption of this administration, they could cut budgets. There could be some oversight. Maybe they could recommend potential civil or criminal action against people who have potentially violated federal law.

That’s obviously not going to be acted on by this current administration, but you can put a file together and have it sit there and wait for the right time. And then say, “Look, this person should be looked at for civil violations. This person should be looked at for criminal violations.”

I think this information opens doors for states and even private litigants to possibly file their own litigation. And so I am tempted to say, I’m sure you are too, “Well, so what, John? Another lawsuit?” It does add up. And having been on the inside of an administration, every time you get sued, it takes attorneys and people away from doing X or Y because they have to deal with a lawsuit.

And if it’s not a frivolous lawsuit—and they shouldn’t be frivolous lawsuits, they should be legitimate lawsuits—you’re going to find a lot. There’s going to be a lot to talk about and there’s going to be a lot to answer for.

So for now, I think that’s the best-case scenario. But I would also say that the one thing everyone can do—public, anyone listening here, anyone who cares about this issue or any of these issues—just pay attention to all of this. And then when the time comes, make sure we remember all of this to take action inside the executive branch. An awful lot of people are going to need to be fired.

Blair: Now, as we’re having this conversation, it seems so odd to me that there’s been no, I don’t want to say justification because it doesn’t really sound like it’s justifiable, but there’s nothing coming from the administration to say, “Yeah, we own up to this.” They’re almost trying to push back. Has Big Tech even tried to justify this or are they just hoping this blows over?

Zadrozny: It’s to be determined. I haven’t really seen anyone on the government side respond to this in any meaningful way. And I suspect that private companies, the Big Tech companies are going to say exactly what you mentioned in the beginning, saying, “Well, we’re private. We can do what we want.” Although at the same time, it’s interesting because they’re in an interesting spot.

There are some Republicans, not all, it’s not a uniform opinion, but some Republicans have proposed getting rid of Section 230 of the federal Communications Act, which would strip the Big Tech platforms who operate via the internet with some of their protections.

Don’t forget the whole justification for Section 230 is immunity from content. So they got a lot of benefits by saying, “Look, we’re just kind of the Wild West forum. We don’t police.” Well, now they’re policing, and they’re policing at government direction, and it changes the equation.

And getting rid of Section 230 may or may not be a helpful thing. I actually defer to others on that. But I do think that the private sector’s going to say, “We can do what we want.” But then if you dare say, “Well, we have to change how you’re regulated,” I’m sure they’ll bristle at that.

I don’t expect the federal government to own up to any of this. But the reality is, again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. These people are very comfortable.

It’s pretty clear, too, by the way, there’s no concealment in these documents of their conduct. In other words, it’s not like we got five emails back and all of this happened by phone. They see no problem with this. And so, I don’t suspect that they are willing to say [they’ve] done anything wrong, because they probably don’t think they’ve done anything wrong.

I’m sure they had couch it as, “We’re doing this for the right reasons.” But as you know as well as I do, Doug, the road to hell is in fact paved with good intentions. And so, just because you feel like doing something and you think it’s a good thing, it … doesn’t mean it’s constitutional.

Blair: Right, right. I wonder if there was even some success to this. One of the arguments that I’ve almost heard a couple of different times from people on the right is that when you start to push censorship, it becomes much more difficult for you to justify yourself as the person in the right. To be super nerdy for a second, the quote from “Game of Thrones,” “If you rip a man’s tongue out, you’re afraid of what he has to say.”

It almost sounds like maybe there’s this sense of, “Well, we know we’re not in the right here, so we’re just going to do it anyway.” And that actually creates a backlash. What are your thoughts on that?

Zadrozny: No, I think you’re correct. Except the problem is I get the sense that the Biden administration, as the metaphor for the left writ large, is just kind of going for broke on all things right now. Because I think it’s a combination of things, at least that’s my theory.

One is, I think they see the writing on the wall for the fall elections. Now, Republicans can be weak at times, but I think at the end of the day, they’d still rather have control of Congress, and they’re not happy with the possibility of a wild card Congress asking a lot of questions, and obviously ruining their chances of winning reelection in 2024.

But I don’t think they see that they’ve done anything wrong. I think they’re just … going to double down or triple down. And they have to do a lot of this stuff, because I think to some degree on this issue and many, many others, the gig is up. And the more is exposed, the more it reveals the brokenness of federal government and the need to do things more than just wag fingers at oversight hearings.

And I’m hoping that what this does is actually get people to realize we can’t just do things the way we used to. The same old, same old is just not going to work in a future Congress, in a future administration. This federal government needs to be scrubbed and reassembled for the benefit of the American people.

Blair: And do you think that removing things like Section 230 or taking action against Big Tech companies that do this type of thing would be an acceptable solution?

Zadrozny: I think putting them in a place where they have to consider liability for removing people inappropriately or otherwise could actually be helpful. Why is it so that they get this protection that allows them to be immune from content?

In a way, you would think that if they had this immunity, this would be their way of responding to the federal government, “Look, sorry, Mr. President, we’re not going to work with you guys because we don’t want to lose our 230 status. We want this to be sort of a Wild West medium of communication.”

So yeah, I think that’s one thing that would make a difference. I think if you want to drive a point home, point at their dollars. And their ability to make money here is something that’s a big deal.

I’ve often thought, one thing, if governments—and I don’t just mean the federal government, I mean the state governments, local governments—they want to make a difference, I think one thing you could do is just get rid of your Twitter accounts, get rid of your Facebook accounts. Why are these governments that proclaim to be opposed to what these platforms are doing still on them?

Now, the devil’s advocate argument is, well, you might as well use their medium against them. But the reality is, once you start using their medium against them to an effective degree, you get pulled off. So why give them the revenue? Just get out of it.

And at some point I’d love to see the federal government deal with this when there’s an administration that is not interested in supporting these platforms anymore, and we’ll see what happens.

But yeah, follow the money. If you can make it painful for them economically, they’ll stop their behavior.

Blair: Now, as we begin to wrap-up here, I want to give you an opportunity to really focus in and highlight on what you think people should be looking at. So first off, where can people, if they want to look at these documents for themselves, where can they go? And then, what do you recommend they really pay attention to as they’re troving through these? As you mentioned, there’s quite a few of them. So what do you think they should be looking out for?

Zadrozny: Well, Doug, one thing I would strongly recommend is if people do want to see the documents—and thank you for the plug—please come to aflegal.org. That’s aflegal.org. You can see the work we’ve done on this and also many, many other things, everything from immigration to national security to education.

But in terms of this trove, again, we’re going to need some eyes, and people’s expertise and thoughts based on their conduct. So when you go look at these emails, please, please, let us know if you see anything of interest.

For example, … you’ll see names in these emails, but not all of them, because some of them are redacted. So if anyone has any information about any of the names around those FOIA exemptions the agency used to cover other people’s names, let us know.

One thing I’m curious to know is, are there any professional or economic connections between the people in the federal government and these companies? For example, it identifies by name some people who work for Twitter, Facebook, and Google, who interact with the federal government. But do they have a spouse at the CDC? Do they have a spouse at NIH? These are things that are frequently concealed.

And it’s funny because the leftist administrations always tend to have couples involved in things. And sometimes that manifests in the form of Mr. Jones works at the Department of Treasury and Mrs. Jones works on the White House counsel staff. But sometimes it’s not even all in government. So for example, maybe the federal job of Mr. Jones is dependent upon Mrs. Jones at Twitter, doing what the federal government says.

If it’s the stuff that we don’t know—in fact, the best way I could say it, Doug, is, it’s the unknown unknowns in the production. And if anyone’s got any thoughts, and also if you happen to be one of these people who are working for these Big Tech companies who are familiar with some of this, come reach out to us.

You don’t exist, we will make sure you don’t exist, but we could use your help and information, and anything you’ve got to offer. Because really, it comes down to the people behind the scenes who say, “Hey, I know I’m part of this. I’ve seen this, it’s wrong. I want to help.”

If you’re willing to come check out those documents, please give us a shout and keep your eyes out for further tranches of documents and further information from these agencies and hopefully an honest inspector general’s report regarding the content of this whole scandal across the Department of Health and Human Services.

Blair: Sounds like a wonderful opportunity for Americans to get involved. That was John Zadrozny, deputy director of investigations at the America First Legal Foundation. John, very much appreciate your time.

Zadrozny: Thank you, Doug, for your time. I appreciate it.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The $739 billion Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 being pushed through the U.S. Senate to be passed by reconciliation (50 votes plus the Vice President) before the upcoming August recess is a threat to America’s economy and the well-being of all Americans. The article above makes clear that Senator Kyrsten Sinema is the one Democrat vote that America is looking at. She alone can stop this legislation. Please contact her at her office locations in Washington, D.C. and in Arizona by phone and letter. Click the red TAKE ACTION link below for Senator Sinema’s contact information.

Although Senator Mark Kelly is a do-as -Chuck Schumer- tells-you-to-do partisan shill, contacting him may be helpful given his significant vulnerability in the November general election. His contact information is also found at the TAKE ACTION link below. We suggest that copying him on your letter to Senator Sinema may possibly have some impact on his voting behavior. Calling his office is also important – the staffs do score the relative positions of constituents and this too may influence the voting behavior.

Poll: Majority of Americans Regret Taking Covid Vaccine thumbnail

Poll: Majority of Americans Regret Taking Covid Vaccine

By The Geller Report

Documentary: Uninformed Consent

This is a PDF of government data sources

All the statistics can be found here at this link.


Common sense prevails. What a price to pay.

Poll: Majority Americans Regret Taking Covid Vaccine

By: Sarah Arnold, Townhall, Aug 06, 2022:

In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, UCLA Geffen School of Medicine Doctor Joseph Lapado and Yale School of Public Health Doctor Harvey Risch are sounding the alarm that there may be serious underestimated risks involved with the side effects of the Wuhan Coronavirus vaccine.

This comes as an independent pollster found that a significant number of Americans regret receiving the vaccine in the first place.

10 percent of those vaccinated said they wish they hadn’t done so, while 15 percent of adults said they have been diagnosed with a new condition by a medical practitioner weeks or months after the first dose.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) authorized the poll two years after the first vaccine was rolled out.

“The fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports more than 232 million Americans ages 18–65 have taken at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and 15 percent of those surveyed report a newly diagnosed condition is concerning and needs further study,” Laura Bono, CHD’s executive director said.

The top conditions people reported were blood clots, disrupted menstrual cycles, heart attacks, strokes, lung clots and liver damage. 10 percent of these conditions among people who took the vaccine were severe.

Bono believes the government should have warned Americans that the mRNA vaccine technology is new, thus naturally have no long-term data that shows how the jab will effect people’s health years down the road.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Winter of Death’ 2.0? Dr. Fauci Just Threatened 70% of Americans

RNA Vaccine Doctor And Biochemist: 29,790 Official Deaths Linked to Vaccine in VAERS Likely A Tiny Fraction of True Number

9-Year-Old Dies Two Weeks After Taking COVID-19 Vaccine: VAERS

FIFTH Young Doctor, Triathlete, 27, DIES SUDDENLY

THREE DOCTORS From the Same Hospital “Die Suddenly” in the Same Week After Hospital Mandates Another COVID Shot

D.C. Plans to EXPEL CHILDREN From School If They Don’t Get The Covid Vaccine

Data Proves ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ Fiction Is Death by Covid Vaccination

Most vaxxed country in Europe now has its worst COVID outcomes

New UK government data shows the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save

MIT: COVID Vaccines ‘Significantly Associated’ with Spike in Heart Attacks in Young People

Survey: More Than 750,000 Dead, 30 Million Injured Because of Covid Vax

Sweden Refuses Covid Vaccines For Children 5 – 11

Long-term disability claims are soaring among pilots

Leading Pathologist Speaks Out About Dangerous COVID Vaccine Effects

Shocking New Studies On The Dangers and Serious Side Effects Of Covid Vaccine

Antibodies From Vaccines Interfering Instead of Neutralizing Because of Spike Protein Changes: Dr. Risch

Vaccines Are Destroying People’s Immunity Through ‘Immune Imprinting’: Dr. Robert Malone [Part 1]

Shocking New Studies On The Dangers and Serious Side Effects Of Covid Vaccine

COVID Vaccines Increase Menstrual Irregularities Thousandfold, Fetal Abnormalities Hundredfold: Doctors’ VAERS Analysis

75% Of Vaccinated Women Have Miscarriages In The First Trimester

Here’s Why Officials Are Desperate to Get COVID Vaccine on Childhood Schedule Before ‘Emergency’ Ends

CDC Caught Using False Data To Recommend Kids’ COVID Vaccine

Vaccines for 6-Month-Olds ‘Makes Absolutely No Sense’: Dr. Jeffrey Barke

Publix Publicly Announced Its Refusal To Offer Vaccinations For Children Under 5

MIT: COVID Vaccines ‘Significantly Associated’ with Spike in Heart Attacks in Young People

Data Proves ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ Fiction Is Death by Covid Vaccination

FDA Authorizes Emergency Use COVID Vaccine Boosters for Children Ages 5 -11

3-year-old girl dies of heart attack one day after taking COVID vaccine

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

The Bureaucracy’s Democrat Majority Made America a One-Party Government thumbnail

The Bureaucracy’s Democrat Majority Made America a One-Party Government

By Jihad Watch

Six out of ten federal employees supported Biden.

When former President Trump, Gov. DeSantis, and Senator Ted Cruz, among others, endorsed rolling back the power of bureaucrats and their administrative state, Democrats panicked.

Senator Dianne Feinstein and Hillary’s former running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, introduced a countermeasure which they called, “Preventing a Patronage System Act” according to Kaine, to “protect the merit-based hiring system for our federal workforce”.

Media editorialists claimed that making it easier to get rid of federal employees would bring back patronage or the spoils system. The problem is that patronage never left.

We have spent generations living under a permanent patronage system. The spoils system, as bad as it was, kept one party from permanently packing its supporters into the government. Removing it just meant that the Democrats have permanently packed the federal bureaucracy.

That’s how America became a one-party government at the federal level in Washington D.C.  Politicians of both parties come and go, but it’s the Democrat bureaucrats who call the shots.

The same media outlets now fussing about “patronage” were gleefully reporting how a “resistance” was operating within the federal bureaucracy to undermine President Trump. That same “resistance”, without the public posturing, has quietly sabotaged every Republican administration and any conservative piece of legislation that gets through the process.

Before the 2016 election, one in four federal employees claimed that they would leave if Trump won. Six out of ten federal employees supported Biden. Only 28% backed Trump.

In the 2022 cycle, the American Federation of Government Employees has doled out over a million dollars. 94% of that money has gone to Democrats.

Not only does the federal workforce tilt leftward, but the number of Republicans fell from a third to a quarter over the last generation. The federal machine that controls the lives of most Americans has limited representation for one of the country’s two major political factions.

But even that’s misleading.

The men and women who actually run things are mostly Democrats. 63% of the senior executives, the highest officials within the bureaucracy, are Democrats, while the number of Republicans drops into the low 20s. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper notes that the “the overrepresentation of Democrats increases as we move up the hierarchy”.

“Among employees in grades 1-12 of the GS, we find about 50% of Democrats (30% of Republicans and 20% of independents), which rises to approximately 56% at the top of the GS (grades 13-15), and to 63% among career SES,” the research showed.

This is what a slow-motion coup looks like.

Apologists for the bureaucracy might claim that this reflects a lack of qualifications by Republicans, but the share of independents similarly drops. Only the share of Democrats steadily rises. If we were looking at a similar breakdown of racial groups in which the share of every racial group declined as it moved up the ranks, except one, it would be evidence of bias.

And a political coup is far more corrosive and dangerous to a government than racial bias.

Democrats want us to believe that the consolidation of the civil service by one political faction is somehow a natural occurrence which does not reflect a calculated strategy or patronage.

In between political tests like diversity and equity, the insistence on concentrating federal leadership in Democrat areas, and providing special entryways and promotions to members of identity politics groups more likely to vote for their party, Democrats claim that it’s all “merit”.

After fighting to eliminate merit in college admissions, the military, and federal contracts, they want us to believe that they not only believe in merit, but want to protect it in the civil service.

Democrats created an independent bureaucracy that provides its own patronage. That corrupt system has led to everything from massive theft to IRS investigations of political opponents. And the result is much worse than the rotten spoils system ever was because it’s immune to change.

The modern civil service owes its existence to a crooked bargain between President Grover Cleveland, the first post-Civil War Democrat to occupy the White House, and one of the most personally and politically corrupt men to hold that office in the century, and the Mugwumps, the Never Trumpers of the era. The federal workforce massively exploded from 5,837 before the Civil War to 15,344 after the Civil War to millions over the next century. The civil service “reforms” were a key ingredient in what became a permanent patronage system built to benefit the Democrats and the liberal Republicans who were instrumental in imposing it on Americans.

Where before individuals had traded on their political support and campaign activities to win a few hundred offices during the spoils system, urban political machines packed the civil service with tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of their supporters in the next century.

The liberal promises of Wilson, FDR and JFK required a symbiotic growth in government. The government programs never delivered a better life, except by providing government jobs for Democrats. The spoils system was corrupt, but permanent patronage has not only rewarded members of one party with jobs, especially senior roles, to the tune of billions, but it also shifted power away from the voters and elected officials, and to partisan bureaucrats.

The solution to patronage isn’t professionalism, it’s smaller government. Government is not a meritocracy and there’s no point in keeping up the pretense that any part of it is merit based. The most fundamental virtue of our constitutional government is that the public has supreme power over the government. The civil service system has effectively eliminated that power.

Firing federal employees is a long difficult process. The Merit Systems Protection Board has repeatedly intervened to protect even the worst abuses by workers including outright criminal behavior. Americans can lose their jobs, but they can’t do anything about the bureaucrats who control their lives. Politicians come and go, but the Democrat administrative state abides.

A smaller government begins with a much smaller bureaucracy. President Trump’s commitment to wielding Schedule F is important, as are other ideas by conservative politicians. Schedule F would be crucial in rolling back the power of key policy-making bureaucrats, but it’s only the beginning. The Founding Fathers understood that government is innately oppressive. And government, like any parasitic infection, naturally grows unless it’s shrunk or it kills the host.

Apologists for the bureaucracy claim that eliminating the permanent patronage of the civil service would erode “public trust in our government” and “undermine the role of civil servants as stewards of the public good”.

The public has no trust in the government. The one thing most of the country, across political and racial lines, can agree on is not trusting the government. Currently only about 29% of Democrats and 9% of Republicans trust the government. How much more trust is there to lose?

Civil servants are not “stewards of the public good”. The American people are. Monarchies and tyrannies have stewards of the public good. The only true constitutional and democratic virtue of a civil service is that it is easy to fire. A bureaucracy that can’t be gotten rid of isn’t serving the people, it’s mastering them, and that is what the administrative state has long since become.

With the national debt rising, instead of reducing the size of the bureaucracy, Senator Manchin and Democrats have cooked up a plan to direct $80 billion to the IRS to audit the middle class.

Even the Baron of Nottingham had more shame.

The only reason Democrats are panicking over permanent patronage reform is because the ranks and especially the senior management of the federal bureaucracy are full of their people. There’s nothing democratic or merit-based about letting a corrupt partisan faction control the administrative state and the lives of hundreds of millions of people with no recourse.

The next president who isn’t beholden to the administrative state should provide that recourse.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLE: Russian Spies Were Behind Black Nationalist Protest Groups

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

Biden’s Handlers set to Deny School Lunch Funding to Christian School that Refuses to Obey LGBT Mandates thumbnail

Biden’s Handlers set to Deny School Lunch Funding to Christian School that Refuses to Obey LGBT Mandates

By Jihad Watch

The pontifex maximus enforces his new state religion.

Dems Poised To Pull Free Lunches From Christian School That Refuses to Obey LGBT Mandates

by Elizabeth Troutman, Washington Free Beacon, August 4, 2022:

The Biden administration is poised to deny free school lunch funding from a Florida Christian school that refuses to comply with the administration’s LGBT mandates, despite the school’s qualification for a religious exemption.

Grant Park Christian Academy in Tampa, Fla., represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, is suing President Joe Biden and Florida agriculture commissioner Nikki Fried for enforcing the Biden administration requirement that schools comply with its LGBT mandates or lose federal school lunch funding.

In May, the Biden administration redefined the meaning of “sex” in Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity, forcing schools to permit transgender students to use male or female bathrooms and play sports with either sex in order to receive National School Lunch Program funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. More than half of state attorneys general rejected the memorandum, with Florida attorney general Ashley Moody saying the Biden administration was “using hungry children to advance a political agenda,” the Washington Free Beacon reported….

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED ARTICLES:

INSANE Video Clip: WOKE Florida School Board Member

The Bureaucracy’s Democrat Majority Made America a One-Party Government

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

INSANE Video Clip: WOKE Florida School Board Member thumbnail

INSANE Video Clip: WOKE Florida School Board Member

By Christian Ziegler

This week, a Liberal Sarasota County (FL) School Board Member said the quiet part out loud and admitted to doing everything The Left has been accused of in education that the media says isn’t going on when bragged about being WOKE and working from “The Best Strategic Position” by working from “The Inside” and shared that coalitions are forming statewide to promote the WOKE Agenda.

On August 23rd, we can end the madness and get the Sarasota County School District back to focusing on EDUCATION if we vote for these candidates endorsed by Governor Ron DeSantis & the Republican Party of Sarasota County:

  • District 1 – Bridget Ziegler
  • District 4 – Robyn Marinelli
  • District 5 – Tim Enos

Mail-in ballots are now in the hands of Florida voters. Early voting starts August 13th and runs through the 21st. Day of election is Aug 23rd.

THIS IS IT. IT WILL BE DECIDED ON AUG 23RD. THERE IS NO NOVEMBER ELECTION IN THESE RACES. MAIL IN YOUR BALLOTS OR GET TO THE POLLS. DON’T BLOW IT OFF. IT MATTERS AND YOU VOTE COUNTS MORE THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE.

©Christian Ziegler. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Real Challenges Facing Public Education

Watch as Rep. Boebert Promises CPAC: Democrats ‘Will Pay The Price For Silencing Americans’ thumbnail

Watch as Rep. Boebert Promises CPAC: Democrats ‘Will Pay The Price For Silencing Americans’

By The Daily Caller

Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado let loose a torrent of ridicule and recrimination against Democrat officials when she took the stage Saturday in the lead-up to President Trump’s speech in front of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

After riling up the packed Dallas crowd by stating that if Republicans retake Congress in the upcoming midterms she intends to lead a charge to prosecute National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases head Dr. Anthony Fauci and impeach Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, she elicited roars and cheers when she tweeted from the stage, “when Republicans retake the majority, you will pay the price for silencing Americans.”

.@Twitter @facebook @instagram, when Republicans retake the majority, you will pay the price for silencing Americans.

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) August 6, 2022

Boebert and two other leading conservative women, the Republican nominees for the Michigan and Arizona governorships Tudor Dixon and Kari Lake, spoke with ever-increasing enthusiasm and defiance, setting a tone that continued with former President Trump’s own speech.

When Trump finally took the stage, he called for “a crippling defeat” of Democrats in order to save the country. “We want to be populist,” he continued, “because we love our country.”

Trump’s explicit endorsement of populism mirrored the opening day speech of Hungary’s populist president Viktor Orban, which itself provoked a reaction from establishment media outlets. The conference’s notable populist theme continued with a speech from Brexit engineer and British politician Nigel Farage.

AUTHOR

ANDREW AFIFIAN

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Jury Orders Alex Jones To Pay Additional $45.2 Million In Punitive Damages To Sandy Hook Family

Democrats Are Staging What Experts Say Is An Illegal Federal Takeover Of Elections

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

CDC: One-In-Five Gay Men Who Got Monkeypox Had Sex With 10 Or More People Before Getting Infected thumbnail

CDC: One-In-Five Gay Men Who Got Monkeypox Had Sex With 10 Or More People Before Getting Infected

By The Daily Caller

Nearly 20% of gay men who are contracting monkeypox in the U.S. reported having 10 or more partners in the three weeks before symptom onset, according to a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report.

Virtually all monkeypox cases in the U.S. which have data available, 99%, are in men, the report also found, and 94% are in men who have sex with other men. The overwhelming majority had multiple sexual partners in the weeks leading up to their symptoms.

The CDC has ‘released data finding the monkeypox outbreak is concentrated among men who have had sex with several men.’ From @WSJ: https://t.co/wA4roT7F7D pic.twitter.com/eTzSQ48XuC

— Byron York (@ByronYork) August 5, 2022

In addition to the 19% of men who said they had 10 or more partners over the three weeks preceding symptoms, 40% reported having two to four partners and 14% reported five to nine partners. 38% reported having group sex at a festival, group sex event or sex party.

The data was pulled from a sample of 358 men who contracted monkeypox for which data was available on recent sexual behaviors. That represents about 12% of all confirmed monkeypox cases in the U.S. between May 17 and July 22, the time period which the report covers. Age and gender identity data was available for 41% of all cases nationwide.

Of the 334 cases for which HIV status was known, 41% of patients were HIV-positive. Only 8% of patients were hospitalized, and there were no reported deaths. There remain zero confirmed deaths caused by monkeypox in the United States or Europe in 2022.

The Biden administration declared a public health emergency due to monkeypox last week, after the World Health Organization had already done so in July. Critics have accused the administration of not acting fast enough to respond to the outbreak, particularly as it regards vaccine procurement and distribution.

Data from the CDC, as well as the WHO and European health authorities, have increasingly shown that the virus is almost exclusively spreading within the homosexual male community, with some outlier cases within other demographics. Still, health authorities are engaged in intense debate over how to target messaging on the risks associated with monkeypox due to fears of directing stigma toward gay and bisexual men.

In its latest report, released Friday, the CDC admits “public health efforts should prioritize gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men.” However, the agency still does not recommend that gay and bisexual men have fewer sexual partners in its guidance on safe sex during the monkeypox outbreak. The WHO made that recommendation last month.

AUTHOR

DYLAN HOUSMAN

Healthcare reporter. Follow Dylan on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLE: Area Man Shocked To Have Contracted Monkeypox After 20-Man Birthday Orgy

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

Russians Behind Social Media ‘Influence Operations’ Supporting Black Lives Matter and the Black Hammer Party thumbnail

Russians Behind Social Media ‘Influence Operations’ Supporting Black Lives Matter and the Black Hammer Party

By Dr. Rich Swier

BOT: A computer program that operates as an agent for a user or other program in order to simulate or influence human activity.

Internet Research Agency, Агентство интернет-исследований: A Russian company engaged in online influence operations on behalf of Russian business and political interests. It is linked to Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin and based in Saint Petersburg, Russia.


The Internet Research Agency (IRA) is the real Russian collusion story beginning in 2016 until today.

On August 6th 2022 reported:

After years of Russiagate conspiracy theories about how the Russians had somehow rigged the 2016 presidential election using Facebook ads, the Senate Intelligence report awkwardly revealed that the Russian operation had focused most of its attention on black nationalists.

The Senate report revealed that “most of the videos” put out by the Russian IRA troll factory on YouTube “pertained to police brutality and the activist efforts of the Black Lives Matter organization” and found that “no single group of Americans was targeted… more than African-Americans” around “race and related issues”.

But that was an understatement.

The Russians had created their own Black Lives Matter groups, activists and protests. It is still not fully clear where the dividing lines between black nationalists and Russian agents lie. And the media has consistently buried these revelations about the real Russian role in our politics to focus on the discredited smears targeting President Trump and his political allies.

And yet the true Russian agents were the black nationalists championed by the Left.

According to Wikipedia,

The agency has employed fake accounts registered on major social networking sites,[3] discussion boards, online newspaper sites, and video hosting services to promote the Kremlin’s interests in domestic and foreign policy including Ukraine and the Middle East as well as attempting to influence the 2016 United States presidential election. More than 1,000 employees reportedly worked in a single building of the agency in 2015.

Social media is filled with fake accounts called BOTs, short for robot, that are used by individuals and nation states to influence social and political policies.

The Democrats—BLM—Russiagate

In an  October 8th, 2019 article titled Senate Intel Report Shows Russian Propaganda Was Not About 2016 Election Daniel Greenfield wrote.

This is volume 2 of the Senate Intel report on Russia’s propaganda activities targeting Americans, on the left and the right, with fake Facebook groups and social media accounts. Despite the media’s false claims, Vol. 2 makes it clear this was not about the election.

Analysis of the behavior of the IRA-associated social media accounts makes dear that while the Russian information warfare campaign exploited the context of the election and election-related issues in 2016, the preponderance of the operational focus, as reflected repeatedly in content, account names, and audiences targeted, was on sociapy divisive issues-such as race, immigration, and Second Amendment rights-in an attempt to pit Americans against one another and against their government. The Committee found that IRA influence operatives consistently used hot-button, societal divisions in the United States as fodder for the content they published through social media in order to stoke anger, provoke outrage and protest, push Americans further away from one another, and foment distrust in government institutions. The divisive 2016 U.S. presidential election was just an additional feature of a much more expansive,, target-rich landscape of potential ideological and societal sensitivities.

The IRA was Russia’s troll org.

Again, we already knew this. A previous report and this report already showed that most of the activities were targeted at black people. Facebook itself revealed that most of the ad buys were post-election. (And the media responded with furious threats and attacks on Facebook.)

The Committee found that no single group of Americans was targeted by IRA information operatives more than African-Americans. By far, race and related issues were the preferred target of the information warfare campaign designed to divide the country in 2016. Evidence of the IRA’s overwhelming operational emphasis on race is’ evident in the IRA’s Facebook advertisement content (over 66 percent contained a term related to race) and targeting (locational targeting was principally aimed at African Americans in key metropolitan areas with), its Face book pages (one of the IRA’s topperforming pages, “Blacktivist,” generated 11.2 million engagements with Facebook ‘ users), its Instagram content (five of the top 10 Instagram accounts were focused on African-American issues and audiences), its Twitter content (heavily focused on hotbutton issues with racial undertones, such as the NFL kneeling protests),

In other words, the Russkies were doing the same stuff they were doing during the Cold War.

According to the U.S. Senate intelligence report,

For decades, Soviet active measures pushed conspiratorial and disinformation narratives about the United States around the world. The KGB authored and published false stories and forged letters concerning the Kennedy assassination, including accounts suggesting CIA involvement in the killing. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of manufactured KGB narratives, as was Ronald Reagan. Russian intelligence officers planted anti-Reagan articles in Denmark, France, and India during his unsuccessful 1976 bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

A declassified U.S. State. Department document from 1981 outlines a series of realized Russian active measures operations, including the spread of falsehoods concerning U.S. complicity in the 1979 seizure of the Grand Mosque of Mecca and responsibility for the 1981 death of Panamanian General Omar Torrijos, as well as an elaborate deception involving multiple forgeries and false stories designed to undermine the Camp David peace process and to exacerbate tensions between the United States and Egypt. Among the most widely known and successful active measures operations conducted during the Cold War centered on a conspiracy that the AIDS virus was manufactured by the United States at a military facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland. This fictional account of the virus’ origin received considerable news coverage, both in the United States and in over forty non-Cold War aligned countries around the world. 49 (U) I

In a 1998 CNN interview, retired KGB Major General Oleg Kalugin described active measures as “the heart and soul of Soviet intelligence”: Not intelligence collection, but subversion; active measures to weaken the West, to drive wedges in the Western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO; to sow discord among allies, to weaken the. United States in the eyes of the people of Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and thus to prepare ground in case the war really occurs.

The Bottom Line

 asked,

The question is how much of the Black Lives Matter and Antifa violence came out of Moscow?

Much like the Soviet involvement in race riots and domestic terrorism by the black nationalist and anti-war Left during the Cold War, we will likely never get a full accounting of the impact.

And yet an important missing piece of Russiagate is that the Left was once again accusing conservatives of its own crimes. Right down to the Russian backing for its election interference.

The Russians weren’t elevating Trump and Republicans, they were backing the far Left.

Russia has historically been on the side of the Democrats and their splinter groups. The Russians have been targeting those who oppose socialism in all of its forms.

The whole Trump Russian Collusion narrative was trumped up, no pun intended.

Who benefited from this onslaught of Russia Myths—The Democrat Party and its candidates.

We have written about the Red—Green—Blue Alliance.

The Communists, Islamists and Democrats are all on the same political page.

America is not about Democrat vs. Republican, its all about Tyrants vs. Patriots.

The 2022 midterm elections are the tipping point. Do patriots take back the House and Senate? This is the fundamental question.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

The 33 States Where Our Tax Dollars Go To Support The Non-Working Class thumbnail

The 33 States Where Our Tax Dollars Go To Support The Non-Working Class

By Dr. Rich Swier

The Cato Institute released an updated 2016 study showing that welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job in 33 American states, and the District of Columbia.

Even worse, welfare pays more than $15 per hour to stay home in 13 states.

According to the study, welfare benefits have increased faster than minimum wage. It’s now more profitable to sit at home and watch TV than it is to earn an honest day’s pay.

Hawaii is the biggest offender, where welfare recipients earn $29.13per hour, or a $60,590 yearly salary for doing nothing.

Here is the list of the states where the pre-tax equivalent “salary” that welfare recipients receive is higher than having a job:

  1. Hawaii : $60,590
  2. District of Columbia :$50,820
  3. Massachusetts : $50,540
  4. Connecticut : $44,370
  5. New York : $43,700
  6. New Jersey : $43,450
  7. Rhode Island : $43,330
  8. Vermont : $42,350
  9. New Hampshire:39,750
  10. Maryland : $38,160
  11. California : $37,160
  12. Oregon : $34,300
  13. Wyoming : $32,620
  14. Nevada : $29,820
  15. Minnesota : $29,350
  16. Delaware : $29,220
  17. Washington : $28,840
  18. North Dakota : $28,830
  19. Pennsylvania : $28,670
  20. New Mexico : $27,900
  21. Montana : $26,930
  22. South Dakota : $26,610
  23. Kansas: $26,490
  24. Michigan : $26,430
  25. Alaska : $26,400
  26. Ohio : $26,200
  27. North Carolina : $25,760
  28. West Virginia : $24,900
  29. Alabama : $23,310
  30. Indiana : $22,900
  31. Missouri : $22,800
  32. Oklahoma : $22,480
  33. Louisiana : $22,250
  34. South Carolina : $21,910

Hawaii, D.C. and Massachusetts pay more in welfare than the average wage their taxpaying citizens earn there.

Is it any wonder that they stay home rather than look for a job. Time for a drastic change. Americans are not stupid.

Note that California is $18.50 an hour. Are we Nuts or what? How do we undo this type of stupidity

Politicians on the Gravy Train

Now if you think paying the unemployed more than the employed s bad, check out these salaries:

  • Salary of retired United States Presidents $180,000 FOR LIFE Salary of House/Senate—$174,000 FOR LIFE.
  • Salary of Speaker of the House $223,500 FOR LIFE!
  • Salary of Majority/Minority Leader $193,400 FOR LIFE!

NOTE: The average Salary of a teacher—$40,065; Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN—$38,000.

Nancy Pelosi will retire as a Congress Person at $174,000 Dollars a year for LIFE. She will retire as SPEAKER at $223,500 a year Plus she will receive an additional $193,400 a year for when she was Minority Leader, the fact that she has become rich while in office notwithstanding. That’s $803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical which is not available to us, the taxpayers.

She is just one of the hundreds of Senators and Congresspersons that float in and out of Congress every year!

I think we found where the cuts should be made! From the state houses to the White House.

If you agree please share this column with your friends and on your social media sites.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

Impeachment Republicans Learned Their Fates in Primaries thumbnail

Impeachment Republicans Learned Their Fates in Primaries

By The Geller Report

At least six out of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in 2021 will not return next Congress.

By Allen Zhong, The Epoch Times, August 6, 2022:

Impeachment Republicans Score 2:6

At least six out of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in 2021 will not return next Congress.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio), and Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.) have announced retirements after the current term.

Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) has been defeated by Trump-backed John Gibbs in the Republican primary.

Gibbs is a former Trump administration official.

Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.), a five-term congressman, lost his reelection bid to South Carolina state Rep. Russell Fry, who was endorsed by Trump.

However, Meijer told Sirius XM radio’s Julie Mason that he didn’t regret the impeachment vote.

“I would rather lose office with my character intact than stay reelected having made sacrifices of the soul,” he said.

Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) and Newhouse survived the primary.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) is competing with Trump-backed Joe Kent for the second position in the 3rd Congressional district primary in Washington state. Beutler is leading with a razor-thin margin of 257 votes.

Epoch Times Photo

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) delivers a closing statement during a hearing by the House Select Committee to investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol breach, in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington on July 21, 2022. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) appears to be fighting an uphill battle to survive the primary in a deep-red state Trump won with a landslide in 2020.

The Republican primary for the lone congressional seat in Wyoming will be held on Aug. 16.

However, Meijer told Sirius XM radio’s Julie Mason that he didn’t regret the impeachment vote.


A U.S. House Republican who voted to impeach President Donald Trump advanced to the general election with a weakened advantage.

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), the incumbent congressman of the 4th district in Washington state, received 25.48 percent of all the 139,806 votes in the nonpartisan primary held on Aug. 2. He is going to face Democrat Doug White, who got a very close 25.38 percent, in the general election.

Loren Culp, the Republican candidate who was endorsed by Trump, had around 6,000 fewer votes than the primary winners.

Though President Joe Biden won Washington state in the 2020 presidential election, Trump led him with a 19-point advantage in the 4th Congressional district.

Compared to the results of 2020, Newhouse’s advantage has apparently been weakened over the last two years, which is likely caused by his pro-impeachment stance.

Newhouse won with 57.4 percent of all votes in the 2020 primary, more than double the votes of the second-position Democrat Doug McKinley.

However, he will likely be able to win the general election if the majority of the Republican votes from the primary go to him.

Read the rest.

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

Smoking Gun: Newly Discovered Emails Confirm Joe Biden Obstructed Justice For His Son’s Foreign Business Deal thumbnail

Smoking Gun: Newly Discovered Emails Confirm Joe Biden Obstructed Justice For His Son’s Foreign Business Deal

By James D. Agresti

Editors’ Note: This is a long article but worth reading. It documents the enormity of the criminal activity of Hunter Biden and then Vice-President Joe Biden. This will ultimately be part of the Biden record but with suppression of this evidence and documentation, the media and all areas of the Executive branch continue to protect President Biden. Likely, much of this information and profoundly indicting evidence will soon come to light in a new Congress followed by a new Administration. This article gives great meaning to the term ‘Laptop From Hell’.

Newly discovered emails prove beyond all doubt that the “true purpose” of Hunter Biden’s lucrative deal with a Ukrainian energy company was for Hunter to get “high-ranking US officials” to visit Ukraine and persuade the nation’s leaders to “close down” all criminal “cases/pursuits against” the firm’s primary owner, a notoriously corrupt oligarch with ties to Russia.

Documentation of this illegal scheme begins with a widely overlooked email on Hunter’s laptop in which a top executive of the Ukrainian firm describes the plan. Now, emails uncovered by Just Facts prove that Hunter and his partners:

  • explicitly agreed to this deal.
  • concealed the names of top U.S. officials to “be on the safe and cautious side.”
  • affirmed that only Hunter could credibly promise to get those officials to shield the oligarch from criminal charges.

Just one month later, then-Vice President Joe Biden did exactly what those emails specified by visiting Ukraine and threatening to withhold U.S. aid unless the prosecutor investigating Hunter’s cash cow was fired. Moreover, Biden did this by going after two “key targets” identified in the emails: the “President of Ukraine” and the “Prosecutor General.”

The Background

In April 2014, Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine and gave a speech to its legislators in which he promised that the U.S. would help Ukraine increase its fossil fuel production to make it less dependent on Russian energy. In that very same month:

Nearly a year later in February 2015, the U.S. State Department and the FBI learned that Zlochevskyi allegedly bribed Ukrainian prosecutors to shut down criminal investigations of him. Thus, the government of Ukraine replaced the chief prosecutor with a new one who reopened investigations into the oligarch. At this time, Burisma was paying $166,666.66 per month to the Delaware company that was paying Hunter.

The “Ultimate Purpose”

In November 2015, a top executive of Burisma named Vadym Pozharskyi wrote an email to Hunter and his partners in which he:

  • criticized a proposal they sent to him because it was “lacking concrete tangible results that we set out to achieve in the first place” and did not “offer any names of top US officials” or “Ukrainian officials” to help the company’s owner (“Nikolay”) improve “his situation in Ukraine.”
  • stated that if they left these names out of their proposal “to be on the safe and cautious side, I can understand the rationale.”
  • instructed them to “proceed immediately” with enlisting “high-ranking US officials” to “visit” Ukraine and persuade “the highest level of decision makers” to “close down” all “cases/pursuits against” the owner.
  • identified the “President of Ukraine” and the “Prosecutor General” as two of the “key targets.”
  • repeatedly reminded them that closing down these cases was the “true purpose” and the “ultimate purpose” of their “engagement” with Burisma and “all our joint efforts.”

Despite the shocking nature of Burisma’s email, which was first revealed by Tucker Carlson of Fox News in October 2020, no other major news outlet has reported on it.

Just Facts, a research and educational institute, has now uncovered Hunter and his partners’ replies to that email among the 100,000+ emails on Hunter’s laptop. They show beyond all doubt that Hunter and his partners agreed to this deal, which Joe Biden followed to a tee.

“Hunter, You need to deliver that message.”

Immediately after the Burisma executive laid out what was expected of them, Hunter and his partners sent a flurry of emails stating that Hunter needed to tell Burisma that they understood the true purpose of the deal and “deliberately” concealed the names of the officials who would carry it out to “be on the safe and cautious side.” Hunter then emailed Burisma that they understood the job and could get it done.

Here are some of the key excerpts:

  • Eric Schwerin to Devon Archer and Hunter Biden (11/2/15): “I would tell Vadym that this is definitely done deliberately to the be on the safe and cautious side and that Sally and company understand the scope and deliverables.”
  • Devon Archer to Eric Schwerin and Hunter Biden (11/2/15): “Hunter, You need to deliver that message. I have walked this to the finish (aka starting) line but need some support to close.”
  • Eric Schwerin to Hunter Biden (11/2/15): “Do you want me to draft something for you to email to Vadym from you?”
  • Hunter Biden to Vadym Pozharskyi, Devon Archer, and Eric Schwerin (11/3/15): “Vadym– Let me have one final call with them and verify once more that they understand the scope so we can all feel that the retainer is in line with the work required.”
  • Vadym Pozharskyi to Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, and Eric Schwerin (11/3/15): “Thank you Hunter! And of course, if you and Devon feel comfortable that they will deliver what in real terms we are talking about, we should disregard the wording of the scope and move further with signing and starting actual work.”
  • Hunter Biden to Vadym Pozharskyi, Devon Archer, and Eric Schwerin (11/5/15): “Vadym, Devon and I do feel comfortable with BS and the ability of Sally & Karen to deliver. You should go ahead and sign. Looking forward to getting started on this.”

In combination with the email from Burisma, these emails leave no doubt that Hunter promised to get “top US officials” to “visit” Ukraine and persuade the nation’s leaders to “close down” all criminal “cases/pursuits against” Burisma’s owner. Furthermore, the emails prove that two of their “key targets” were the “President of Ukraine” and the “Prosecutor General.”

Joe Biden’s Actions

One month after the emails above were exchanged, Joe Biden did exactly what they specified.

In December 2015, Biden visited Ukraine and later recounted on video that he told Ukraine’s president and its prime minister on that trip that he would withhold a U.S. government “billion-dollar loan guarantee” unless they fired the “state prosecutor.” “If the prosecutor is not fired,” warned Biden, “you’re not getting the money.” Biden then added, “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.”

However, that firing did not happen right away, and two months later on February 2, 2016, the chief prosecutor secured a court order to seize some properties of the oligarch who was paying Hunter, including his land, houses, and a Rolls-Royce Phantom.

Just two weeks after the court’s seizure order, the president of Ukraine forced the prosecutor to resign. White House phone logs show that Joe Biden talked to the president of Ukraine at least three times in the week surrounding the firing. The phone log for the last of these calls states, “The Vice President also commended President Poroshenko’s decision to replace Prosecutor General Shokin, which paves the way for needed reform of the prosecutorial service.”

Contrary to Biden’s claim that the prosecutor stood in the way of reform, the president of Ukraine complimented the prosecutor for implementing reforms that his predecessors had “been opposing for decades” and then listed the specific reforms. The president then said that he only asked the prosecutor to resign because he “failed to gain society’s trust.”

Two months later in May 2016, Ukraine’s parliament approved the president’s appointee for a new chief prosecutor, who Biden described as “solid.” This new prosecutor, named Yuriy Lutsenko, was:

  • the best man of Petro Poroshenko, the president who appointed him.
  • sentenced to prison in 2012 for embezzlement and abuse of office.
  • convicted in a separate 2012 case for illegal surveillance.
  • pardoned by the previous president and released from jail in 2013.
  • was forced to resign by Volodymyr Zelensky (the current president of Ukraine) for failing to prosecute anyone of note during his three-year tenure.

Six months after Biden’s “solid” prosecutor was appointed, he dropped all criminal charges against the oligarch. The prosecutor also applauded the settlement as a “success” because the oligarch paid $7.46 million in back taxes and penalties. Far from being a prosecutorial victory, the oligarch praised these outcomes and stated that they would allow his corporation to increase production and “attract international companies to Ukraine.”

Two weeks later on November 16, 2016, Burisma made its last documented payment to Hunter. In addition to the recent closure of all criminal cases against the oligarch, Donald Trump had just won an upset victory in the U.S. presidential election. This left Joe Biden incapable of using U.S. taxpayer funds to influence Ukrainian officials.

Joe Biden’s involvement in Hunter’s illicit business deals is also evidenced by a 2017 encrypted What’s App message uncovered by the New York Post. In it, one of Hunter’s business partners wrote to another partner while discussing Joe Biden, “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.”

The False Excuse

Joe Biden claimed that he pressured Ukrainian officials to fire the nation’s chief prosecutor because the prosecutor was “backsliding” on “corruption.” This excuse has been widely echoed by the media, who allege that the chief prosecutor was not even investigating the oligarch who was enriching Hunter.

Those claims are belied by the facts that the:

  • the Prosecutor General’s Office obtained a court order to seize property of the oligarch, including his land, houses, and a Rolls-Royce Phantom.
  • Burisma’s email to Hunter and his partners specifically identified the “Prosecutor General” as one of the “key targets” that “top US officials” should convince to “close down” all “cases/pursuits against” the oligarch.
  • the Prosecutor General, whose name was Viktor Shokin, signed a sworn affidavit stating:
    • “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors.”
    • The president of Ukraine “was emphatic that I should cease my investigations regarding Burisma. When I did not, he said that the US (via Biden) were refusing to release the USD $1 billion promised to Ukraine. He said that he had no choice, therefore, but to ask me to resign.”

One of the more outlandish falsehoods about this affair comes from the Washington Post’s lead “Fact Checker,” Glenn Kessler. As alleged evidence that Prosecutor Shokin “was not investigating” the oligarch who was paying Hunter, Kessler claims:

In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt publicly criticized Shokin’s office for thwarting a British money-laundering probe into Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.

In reality, the U.S. ambassador was not criticizing Shokin but his predecessor, Vitaliy Yarema. This is proven by the fact that the British money laundering probe cited by the ambassador ended on January 21, 2015, and Shokin was not appointed chief prosecutor until the next month in February 2015.

The London Guardian, the Financial Times, and the New York Times all reported that the probe ended in January, raising the question of how Kessler could honestly botch this fact.

In a related article, Kessler scales up the rhetoric and claims that the ambassador “blasted Shokin for ‘openly and aggressively undermining reform’ and having ‘undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases’.” However, the ambassador stated that “corrupt actors within the Prosecutor General’s office” did this, not Shokin.

Furthermore, in the very same speech that Kessler misquoted twice, the ambassador began speaking about the present and said, “We want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin” and help him lead “the fight against corruption.” This further demonstrates that the ambassador was not castigating Shokin and wanted to partner with him.

Twitter, in turn, invoked Kessler’s bogus fact check to insist that the “prosecutor was not investigating Burisma at that time.”

Like Kessler, articles by CNN and Bloomberg take the ambassador’s words out of context to make it seem like he was lambasting Shokin instead of his predecessor.

In contrast to those false reports—court records, first-hand sworn testimony, and a smoking gun email from Burisma show that Shokin was aggressively pursuing the oligarch when Joe Biden forced his firing.

Keeping People in the Dark

Beyond denying the fact that the prosecutor was cracking down on Hunter’s cash cow, a wide array of journalists, government officials, and big tech executives kept the public in the dark about this and related matters. This was especially the case just before the 2020 presidential election.

Just a few of the many examples include the following:

  • In July 2021, Politico reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) delayed an investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop “to avoid taking any actions that could alert the public to the existence of the case in the middle of a presidential election.”
  • In October 2020, Twitter locked the New York Post’s account for reporting on Hunter’s laptop and pinned a post to the top of Twitter’s home page claiming that Joe Biden “played no role in pressuring Ukraine officials into firing the prosecutor,” a statement flatly disproven by the words of Biden himself.
  • Multiple whistleblowers within the FBI have stated that officials in the FBI and DOJ used a deceitful assessment of Hunter’s laptop to “improperly discredit and falsely claim that derogatory information about Biden’s activities was disinformation, causing investigative activity and sourcing to be shut down.”
  • In October 2020, NPR managing editor Terence Samuels Public Editor wrote that NPR is not reporting on the NY Post’s expose of Hunter Biden’s laptop because “we don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”
  • In October 2020, Facebook executive Andy Stone wrote, “While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.”
  • In October 2020, a group of former government intelligence officials led by James Clapper (Obama’s Director of National Intelligence) alleged without evidence that the contents of Hunter’s laptop could be or definitely are Russian “information,” while admitting that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement—just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”
  • Major media outlets and so-called fact checkers widely parroted that baseless claim while changing the phrase “Russian information” to “Russian disinformation” and failing to report that:
    • the same group of Obama officials who made that accusation also alleged that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, a charge disproven by a 2-year$32 million investigation by an independent counsel which “did not establish” or “identify evidence” that the “Trump Campaign” or “any U.S. persons” “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
    • the DOJ Inspector General (an Obama appointee) “identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in warrant applications that Obama’s officials used to surveil the Trump campaign and added that he “did not receive satisfactory explanations” for these misleading warrant applications.
  • In October 2020, Leslie Stahl of CBS’s 60 Minutes insisted that the contents of Hunter’s laptop “can’t be verified,” even though 60 Minutes brags that it conducts “hard-hitting investigative” journalism. Demonstrating the absurdity of that claim:
    • the recipient of one of the most incriminating emails on the laptop verified that same month that he was “the recipient of the email” and the “email is genuine.”
    • the NY Post pointed out that they published an array of pictures and emails from the laptop with “an extraordinary level of detail” that supports their authenticity, such as a picture of Hunter in a bathtub and a picture of a Biden family meal, along with emails to friends and family all bearing dates and times.
    • the New York Times slipped this statement about Hunter’s laptop into the 24th paragraph of an article published 18 months after the 2020 election: “The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.”
    • CNN reported 18 months after the 2020 election, “We know the FBI has possession” of Hunter’s laptop, and “they believe it is his laptop—that the contents of it are his.”
    • the Washington Examiner commissioned a forensic examination of Hunter Biden’s hard drive which found its contents are “indisputably authentic, and there is no evidence of any hacking or file manipulation, according to an examination conducted by a former Secret Service agent who has testified as a cyberforensics expert in over 100 classified, criminal, and civil matters at the state, federal, and international levels.”

This tidal wave of misinformation and censorship by media outlets, government officials, and big tech significantly boosted Joe Biden’s odds of winning the presidency. The effect was estimated by a November 2020 online survey of Biden voters in swing states commissioned by the Media Research Center and conducted by the Polling Company. It found that 45% of Biden voters “were unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son” and that:

full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes.

Summary

The emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop, combined with Joe Biden’s own words and actions, prove beyond all doubt that:

  • The “ultimate purpose” of Hunter Biden’s multi-million deal with Burisma was to “close down” all criminal “cases/pursuits against” the firm’s owner.
  • In November 2015, Hunter agreed to get “high-ranking US officials” to visit Ukraine and persuade the nation’s leaders to end all investigations into the owner. Two “key targets” of this mission were the “President of Ukraine” and the “Prosecutor General.”
  • In December 2015, Joe Biden visited Ukraine and told its president and prime minister that he would withhold U.S. aid to their nation unless they fired the prosecutor general.

Those actions, which are complemented by a wealth of incriminating facts, align with textbook definitions of nepotismbriberyextortion, and obstruction of justice.

Yet, major media outlets, big tech companies, fact-checkers, former U.S. intelligence officials, and active government officials within the FBI and Department of Justice played major roles in keeping this information from the American people.

*****

This article was published by Just Facts and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The $739 billion Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 being pushed through the U.S. Senate to be passed by reconciliation (50 votes plus the Vice President) before the upcoming August recess is a threat to America’s economy and the well-being of all Americans. The article above makes clear that Senator Kyrsten Sinema is the one Democrat vote that America is looking at. She alone can stop this legislation. Please contact her at her office locations in Washington, D.C. and in Arizona by phone and letter. Click the red TAKE ACTION link below for Senator Sinema’s contact information.

Although Senator Mark Kelly is a do-as -Chuck Schumer- tells-you-to-do partisan shill, contacting him may be helpful given his significant vulnerability in the November general election. His contact information is also found at the TAKE ACTION link below. We suggest that copying him on your letter to Senator Sinema may possibly have some impact on his voting behavior. Calling his office is also important – the staffs do score the relative positions of constituents and this too may influence the voting behavior.

‘Identify Patriotic Americans As Suspects’: Sen. Ted Cruz Confronts Wray On Project Veritas Leak thumbnail

‘Identify Patriotic Americans As Suspects’: Sen. Ted Cruz Confronts Wray On Project Veritas Leak

By Nicole Silverio

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz confronted FBI Director Christopher Wray about a leak of alleged FBI material by the conservative activist group, Project Veritas, at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday.

Cruz tried to make the case that the FBI has a repeated pattern of targeting conservatives and “patriotic Americans.” He pointed to a copy of FBI training material obtained by Project Veritas that allegedly listed the Betsy Ross, Gadsden, and Gonzales Battle flags as themes “indicative of militia violent extremism.”

“Director Wray, what are you all doing?” Cruz asked. “This makes no sense. Do you agree with this FBI guidance that the Betsy Ross flag and the Gadsden flag and the Gonzales Battle flag are signs of militia violent extremism?”

“Senator, I am not familiar with the document behind you and I’m not in the practice of trying to comment on a document that I haven’t recognized. But, I will tell you that when we put out intelligence products, including ones that reference symbols which we do across a wide variety of contexts, we usually make great pains to put caveats and warnings in the document that make clear that a symbol alone is not considered evidence of violent extremism.”

The senator said the document does not include symbols connected to Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

“Instead, you identify patriotic Americans as suspects,” Cruz said.

The senator said this has become a pattern by the FBI, pointing to the National School Board Association requesting U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland use the Gun-Free School Zones Act and the USA PATRIOT Act to stop threats and violence that could be “the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” The organization later apologized for the letter. (RELATED: ‘You Need To Follow The Law’: Ted Cruz Grills DOJ Official On The Handling Of Pro-Abortion Attacks)

“How many moms and dads who have spoken up at school boards have the FBI interviewed or investigated since the memo for the attorney general?” Cruz asked.

“I’m not aware of any,” Wray said. “Second, let me address the issue—”

“You’re not aware of any? Like the House of Representatives has written and they have asked you about it,” Cruz interjected.

“Let me say to you and to this committee the same thing I said to every FBI field office after I read the memo, which was that the FBI is not going to be in the business of investigating speech, to policing speech at school board meetings or anywhere else,” Wray answered. “And that we’re not about to start now, that threats of violence, that’s a different matter altogether and there we will work with our state and local partners as we always have.”

After Cruz repeated his question, Wray said there have been “small assessments and investigations” of people making threats. The senator said the House sent Wray oversight letters detailing dozens of investigations directed at parents attending school board meetings to oppose mask mandates and critical race theory.

The senator pointed to the case of four men conspiring to kidnap Republican Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, which he called a “total debacle.” Two men were acquitted and the others received mistrials. He asked about the number of FBI agents reprimanded over the case, to which Wray would not comment on.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The $739 billion Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 being pushed through the U.S. Senate to be passed by reconciliation (50 votes plus the Vice President) before the upcoming August recess is a threat to America’s economy and the well-being of all Americans. The article above makes clear that Senator Kyrsten Sinema is the one Democrat vote that America is looking at. She alone can stop this legislation. Please contact her at her office locations in Washington, D.C. and in Arizona by phone and letter. Click the red TAKE ACTION link below for Senator Sinema’s contact information.

Although Senator Mark Kelly is a do-as -Chuck Schumer- tells-you-to-do partisan shill, contacting him may be helpful given his significant vulnerability in the November general election. His contact information is also found at the TAKE ACTION link below. We suggest that copying him on your letter to Senator Sinema may possibly have some impact on his voting behavior. Calling his office is also important – the staffs do score the relative positions of constituents and this too may influence the voting behavior.

REPORT: A Manufactured Charter School Scandal

By Garion Frankel

As the COVID-19 pandemic shut schools down across the country, one micro-school network rose to serve thousands of students in need of an education. Expanding from 80 students to more than 4,000 in just two years, Prenda has become one of the nation’s largest and most prominent micro-school providers. But with that growth came controversy, and an entirely manufactured crisis threatened Prenda’s standing with investors and families alike.   

On April 26, 2021, Robert O’Dell, a journalist with the Arizona Republic, wrote a highly critical article detailing an apparent scandal involving Prenda, a rapidly expanding micro-school network, and its partner, EdKey. O’Dell wrote that “under the arrangement, EdKey enrolls students into its Sequoia online school and collects charter school funding from the state. The students, however, are taught Prenda’s curriculum by “guides” that Prenda hires.”

O’Dell’s article, citing Hall, describes the relationship between Prenda and Edkey as “fraud,” because “EdKey is not providing services. Essentially, EdKey is getting a hefty finder’s fee and then passing the students to Prenda without teaching them or providing them a curriculum.”

He used phrases like “little regulation” to describe Prenda’s operations, and mocked Prenda’s desire to become “the Uber of education.”

In response, O’Dell said, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office (AG) launched an investigation into both companies, having been prompted to do so by local charter school watchdog Jim Hall. 

But this particular story has multiple holes. First, it is entirely normal for a school to contract direct instruction out to another entity. After all, Arizona’s traditional public schools contracted with the Florida Virtual School during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nowhere did O’Dell’s article note that the contract occurred.

Second, Hall, a former principal, appears to have an ax to grind. Hall runs Arizonans for Charter School Accountability, a charter school watchdog group that remains formally unregistered with Arizona authorities. The name is owned by someone else

“The Arizonans for Charter School Accountability will continue to examine the financial dealings of this charter organization and others. We will file complaint after complaint. We will go to the media to expose corrupt organizations. We will fight to change the law so that charter schools have financial accountability to the taxpayers of Arizona,” the group’s website says.

The problem is that Hall is the one wasting taxpayer money. Between July 13, 2018, and December 15, 2020, Hall filed 243 separate complaints against charter schools in Arizona. None of these complaints resulted in any action on the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools’ (AZBCS) part, nor by any other agency to whom Hall filed complaints. Once again, O’Dell’s article never specified that Hall’s complaints had never gone anywhere.

When Hall’s complaint against Edkey and Prenda reached the AG, the office did their due diligence. But, as with every other Jim Hall complaint, the inquiry was dropped. The nature of the form, an open/close formality, dated to June 10, 2021, indicated that there was never an investigation to begin with. As “the complaint was unfounded,” there was never a case. While the full document, which has been obtained by Chalkboard Review staff, was not initially sent out, EdKey was informed on June 11 that the complaint had been closed.

“We absolutely respect Mr. Hall’s right to complain to his government, and we likewise have a lot of respect for the hard-working investigators of Arizona law enforcement who follow up on such things,” Prenda said in a statement. “In this case, the complaint was without merit and Prenda is hard at work to realize our mission of empowering learners.” They added that they had never been informed that they were under investigation.

But O’Dell stood by his story, even after repeated email and social media exchanges with Mark Plitzuweit, the CEO of EdKey. O’Dell refused to write an update and repeatedly demanded a close-out form for an investigation that never happened.

“You truly do not understand how the process works…” O’Dell told Plitzuweit in a December 17, 2021 email. “After the complaint was filed, I talked to the AG’s office and confirmed the investigator who was assigned to the investigation and confirmed that it was an investigator in the criminal division, as is laid out in the story. The story stands for itself. You are free to talk to my editors about the story, please let me know if you would like their contact information,” O’Dell added.

O’Dell also argued that the AG inquiry had no connection to a separate AZBCS investigation, which had been closed in April 2021 due to a lack of evidence of wrongdoing. That case had also been filed by Hall, and had also targeted EdKey. AZBCS is under the AG’s jurisdiction.

AG documents are notoriously hard to obtain, even if the results of an inquiry have already been determined. However, Plitzuweit was able to forward the June 10 AG form to O’Dell on February 8, 2022 — shortly after Jim Hall filed yet another claim against EdKey. O’Dell responded on March 1 that he was “looking into writing a story about it,” but reiterated a demand for unredacted documents.

This isn’t O’Dell’s first rodeo with the school choice movement. He attacked Prenda in 2020 and was attacking charter schools in general as far back as 2018. In 2019, he made reference to a “huge win for important work exposing issues with Arizona charter schools.”

No update, follow-up, addendum, or correction to O’Dell’s initial article was ever published.

*****

This article was published by Chalkboard Review and is reproduced with permission.

Is This The End For Pornhub? thumbnail

Is This The End For Pornhub?

By Exodus Cry

On August 4th, 2022 Visa’s CEO announced: “Visa cards will not be able to be used to purchase advertising on any sites including Pornhub or other MindGeek affiliated sites.”

Both Visa and Mastercard suspended payment to ALL of MindGeek’s porn tube sites, which means that, overnight, a massive portion of the Pornhub parent company’s revenue stream was cut off! 

This comes after a California judge recently denied Visa’s request to be dismissed from a lawsuit brought against Visa and Pornhub/MindGeek, indicating that the credit card company could be held accountable for the videos of rape, trafficking, and child sexual abuse posted on Pornhub.

We can’t help but reflect with gratitude on all the #Traffickinghub wins that YOU have helped make possible over the past two years.

It was only after millions of you signed the #Traffickinghub petition and shared our viral video that major media outlets began to cover the story, and Pornhub quickly deleted 10 million suspect videos overnight.

As a result of that campaign, Visa and Mastercard ended payment processing for site visitors on Pornhub.

However, up until yesterday, Pornhub was still able to get paid by advertisers on the site through the use of Visa and Mastercard. Ad payments accounted for over 50% of Pornhub’s revenue.

Those days are now over.

All of this follows on the heels of the resignation of Pornhub’s CEO and COO several weeks ago, and rumors of mass layoffs at MindGeek.

It appears that the MindGeek exploitation empire is crumbling before our eyes.

This is a MAJOR WIN for survivors and all the allies of the #Traffickinghub movement who have relentlessly pushed to see Pornhub and their parent company, MindGeek, held accountable for profiting from the most egregious crimes imaginable.

Together, we are winning this fight.

To all who’ve joined us in this global #Traffickinghub campaign, well done!


Please support Exodus Cry’s fight against exploitative porn, which isn’t slowing down, it’s ramping up. You can give here to help fuel this fight.


EDITORS NOTE: This Exodus Cry column is republished with permission. ©All rights Reserved.

Nikita Khrushchev’s ‘We will bury you’ threat is coming true under Biden and the Democrat Party thumbnail

Nikita Khrushchev’s ‘We will bury you’ threat is coming true under Biden and the Democrat Party

By Dr. Rich Swier

“‘Мы вас похороним!’ [We will bury you!]”,  Nikita Khrushchev Premier of the former Soviet Union at reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956.


Today many are seeing the collapse of the American economy, end of morality from the school house to the White House and attacks on the inalienable people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the end of our unique Constitutional Republic called the United States of America.

The Premier of the former Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev made a number of predictions about America that we present herein to allow our readers to determine if they are coming true.

Nikita Khrushchev’s Predictions

Khrushchev,

“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

We have seen socialism spread across America since before the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. It began with the formation of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society which was a socialist student organization active from 1905 to 1921. The first slate of officers elected at the Sept. 1905 organizational meeting included the following: President: Jack London; First Vice President: Upton Sinclair; Second Vice President: Graham Phelps Stokes; Secretary: M.R. Holbrook; Treasurer: Rev. Owen Lovejoy; Executive Committee: Rev. George Willis Cooke, Morris Hillquit, Robert Hunter, Harry Laidler, Katherine M. Meserole, George H. Strobell. Of this group of socialist worthies, only Harry Laidler was actually a current college student.

This was the first gullibility of the American people—embracing the world-wide movement of “industrial democracy” known as socialism.

This was followed by Charles Emil Rothenberg, an American Marxist politician, who on September 1, 1919 founded and became head of the Communist Party USA.

In an article titled “Antonio Gramsci: the Godfather of Cultural Marxism” Bradley Thomas wrote:

There’s little debate that modern-day American universities, public education, mainstream media, Hollywood, and political advocacy groups are dominated by leftists. This is no accident, but part of a deliberate strategy to pave the way for communist revolution developed more than eight decades ago by an Italian political theorist named Antonio Gramsci. [Emphasis added]

Upon this foundation came the next inevitable step—the weakening of America’s economy.

The Weakening of America’s Economy

Nikita Khrushchev,

“We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”

To destroy America from within one must control the U.S. economy. This control of the economy began on December 23, 1913, when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law—a decentralized central bank that balanced the competing interests of private banks and populist sentiment.

This was followed by The Social Security Act which was signed into law by Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement. It taxed every single America to provide money for a system. As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.

This was followed by The Great Society which was a set of domestic programs in the United States launched by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964–65. In a book titled Great Society: A New History published in 2019, Amity Shlaes noted,

“[J]ust as the 1960s forgot the failures of the 1930s, we today forget the failures of the 1960s.”

Shlaes’ detailed description and telling digression that traces the arc from the unbridled hopes of the early Sixties to the enormous administrative expansion of the “second New Deal” to the missteps in implementing it that became all too apparent in the Seventies.

This expansion of government was accelerated under the Obama, Obamacare’s take over of the entire U.S. healthcare system, and now the Biden administrations Build Back Better Agenda.

Our Grandchildren living under Socialism

Nikita Khrushchev,

I can prophecy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism — Our firm conviction is that sooner or later Capitalism will give way to Socialism. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.

Today many Americans fear for their children and grandchildren. Socialism has become part and parcel of the indoctrination of our children and grandchildren from the public schools, colleges and universities, to woke companies, to the media and social media and now permeates our federal government including our military.

During a speech by titled The Rise of Wokeness in the U.S. Military U.S. Army Lieutenant General (Ret.) Thomas Spoehr wrote:

Let me give some examples of what I mean by wokeness.

In 2015, then Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus rejected out-of-hand a Marine Corps study concluding that gender-integrated combat formations did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately, and that women were twice as likely as men to suffer combat injuries. He rejected it because it did not comport with the Obama administration’s political agenda.

That same year the Department of Defense opened all combat jobs in the U.S. military to women, and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter committed to “gender-neutral standards” to ensure that female servicemembers could meet the demanding rigors involved in qualifying for combat. Since then, the Army has been working for a decade to put in place the gender-neutral test promised by Carter. But after finding that women were not scoring as highly as men, and under fierce pressure from advocacy groups, the Army threw out the test. Now there is no test to determine whether any soldier can meet the fitness requirements for combat specialties.

In 2015, near the end of his second term, President Obama initiated a change to the Pentagon’s longstanding policy on transgender individuals in the military. Before that change could take effect, the incoming Trump administration put it on hold awaiting future study. Subsequent evidence presented to Secretary of Defense James Mattis—including the fact that transgender individuals suffering from gender dysphoria attempt suicide and experience severe anxiety at nine times the rate of the general population—raised legitimate concerns about their fitness for military service.

This led the Trump administration to impose reasonable restrictions on military service by those suffering gender dysphoria. But only hours after his inauguration in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order that did away with these restrictions and opened military service to all transgender individuals. Since then, the Biden administration has decreed that active members of the military can take time off from their duties to obtain sex-change surgeries and all related hormones and drugs at taxpayer expense.

Along similar lines, the Biden administration has recently ended support for a longstanding policy prohibiting individuals infected with HIV from serving in combat zones. The policy had been based on sound science tied to the need for HIV medications and the danger of cross-infection through shared blood.

Physical fitness has long been a hallmark of the U.S. military. But in recent years, fitness standards have been progressively watered down in pursuit of the woke goal of “leveling the playing field.” The Army, for instance, recently lowered its minimum passing standards for pushups to an unimpressive total of ten and increased its minimum two-mile run time from 19 to 23 minutes. The new Space Force is considering doing away with periodic fitness testing altogether.

Back in 2016, Navy Secretary Mabus decreed that Navy sailors would no longer be known by traditional job titles such as “corpsman,” adopting instead new gender-neutral titles such as “medical technician.” The resulting blowback was so severe from enlisted sailors who cherished those historic titles that the Navy was forced to reverse the changes. But wokeness has a way of coming back, and last year the Navy released a training video to help sailors understand the proper way of using personal pronouns—a skill Americans have traditionally mastered in grade school. The video instructs servicemembers that they need to create a “safe space for everybody” by using “inclusive language”—for instance, saying “hey everybody” instead of “hey guys.” Can the return of gender-neutral job titles be far behind? 

The Bottom Line: Woke is Code for Socialism

Much of the emphasis of wokeness today is on promoting the idea that America is fatally flawed by systemic racism and white privilege. Our fighting men and women are required to sit through indoctrination programs, often with roots in the Marxist tenets of critical race theory, either by Pentagon diktat or through carelessness by senior leaders who delegate their command responsibilities to private Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion instructors.

Corporations (e.g. Disney, Apple, Facebook, CNN, etc.) have gone woke and by doing so are going broke. Hollywood is producing socialist (woke) propaganda films and TV series that we have reported on repeatedly.

Nikita Khrushchev said,

“I once said, ‘We will bury you,’ and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.

The push to go full communist is on and the American people are seeing it’s policies when they buy groceries, gasoline, clothing, homes and even baby formula.

Today Democrats care more about aborting babies, open borders, disarming law abiding citizens and climate change myths than building up traditional families, making people independent, and job creation. Building a strong military to protect and defend American from all enemies foreign and domestic is of little interest to Democrats. While Democrats promote diversity, inclusion and equity our enemies laugh at the U.S.

America is not being buried by the working class rather it is being buried by the political class from the school house to the White House!

Democrats and their allies are burying us! History is repeating itself.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES:

The Intercollegiate Socialist Society, 1905-1921

Top 25 Quotes by Nikita Khrushchev 

Leftists Dominate FBI Top 10 Domestic Terror List, Despite Warnings About Far Right thumbnail

Leftists Dominate FBI Top 10 Domestic Terror List, Despite Warnings About Far Right

By The Geller Report

Of course they do. But the Democrats are as disconnected from reality as Biden is from a functioning brain.

Under Democrat rule, a complete break in reality is required, imposed actually. The good are evil and the evil are good.

Leftists Dominate FBI Top 10 Domestic Terror List, Despite Warnings About Far Right

Many on list are associated with a leftist group that bombed the Capitol in 1983. Democrats pardoned or commuted the sentences of non-fugitives tied to that group.

By Luke Rosiak • Daily Wire • Aug 4, 2022:

The FBI has sounded the alarm about white supremacists and far-right extremists, but the bureau’s own Top 10 “most wanted domestic terrorists” list includes at least two Communists, three black nationalists, one anti-war activist, and a vegan eco-terrorist.

While the diverse roster doesn’t purport to capture the breadth of domestic terror, it seems at odds with federal law enforcement’s claims that white supremacists pose the biggest threat facing the nation. Some skeptics are accusing the bureau of exaggerating the threat by adopting a misleading definition of such ideologies.

“In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violence extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocated for the superiority of the White race,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said last year.

A top Department of Justice official doubled down on the claim during a Congressional hearing last week. But Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said a whistleblower has come forward to cast doubt on the data.

“These whistleblower allegations that the FBI is padding its domestic violent extremist data cheapens actual examples of violent extremism,” Jordan wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Do Joe Biden And The Democrats Need 87,000 New IRS Agents To ‘Fight Climate Change’ And Inflation? They Don’t.

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

WATCH: President Donald Trump Rally Live In Waukesha, Wisconsin thumbnail

WATCH: President Donald Trump Rally Live In Waukesha, Wisconsin

By The Geller Report

In need of a heaping helping of hope, Americanism and truth? Nothing better.

President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, will hold a rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Friday, August 5, 2022

By: RSBN, August 5, 2022, at 7:00PM CDT

President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, delivers remarks in support of Tim Michels for Governor of Wisconsin and the entire Wisconsin Trump Ticket.

[ … ]

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pelosi Catastrophe: China Halts Dialogue With USA

VIDEO: Biden Says He ‘Can’t Drive A Vehicle While I’m Vice President’

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