Biden’s Handlers Want You to Cough Up $6.4 Billion to Resettle 94,000 Afghans in the U.S.

My latest in PJ Media:

Old Joe Biden’s handlers have asked Congress for $30 billion, which means that you better brace yourselves for significant tax increases in the near future. According to NBC News,  $23.6 billion of this is slated to go to deal with the devastation from Hurricane Ida and other natural disasters; the other $6.4 billion, meanwhile, is to cover the expenses of resettling 94,000 Afghans in the United States. And really, now, what could possibly go wrong?

NBC explained that “the U.S. anticipates bringing 64,000 Afghans to the U.S. by the end of this month and 30,000 over the next 12 months, the official said. Of the funding for the refugees, $2.4 billion will go to pay for the Defense Department’s operations overseas where the Afghans are being held and processed. An additional $1.7 billion will go to the Department of Health and Human Services to provide funding and resources to the Afghans to help them set up a new home in the U.S.”

This U.S. taxpayer money would also “go to support transportation costs between overseas processing sites and the United States, security screenings, humanitarian assistance, public health screenings and vaccinations. The administration official said Afghans ‘will receive similar benefits to refugees.’ After 12 months in the U.S., the Afghans will be eligible to apply to become LPRs — lawful permanent residents — and receive so-called ‘green cards.’”

And of course all of the applicants will get those green cards no matter what they have done, up to and including slitting the throat of a woman for committing the crime of having a job, as an Afghan migrant did a few days ago in Germany. What are Western authorities going to do — deport them back to Afghanistan? With the Taliban reaching new lows in human rights abuses practically every day, there is zero chance of that. The Afghan evacuees are here to stay.

While this may thrill naïve multiculturalists and Catholic bishops, there are good reasons to temper our enthusiasm about all this. Let’s assume, although we don’t really have any good reason to do so in light of the Biden administration’s refusal to admit the reality of the global Islamic jihad, that the security screenings this $6.4 billion will pay for are completely, one-hundred-percent effective. Does that mean that the people who will soon be our neighbors will have no trouble whatsoever adjusting to American society?

Consider, for example, the fact that according to a Pew Research Center survey in 2013 (and there is no reason to think anything has changed since then), 73% of Afghans believe that Islamic law, Sharia, is not devised by human beings, but is the perfect and unalterable law of Allah. There are plenty of people in America now who believe that, but fully 99% of the Afghans surveyed stated that they believed Sharia should be the law of the land. Might any of them be among Biden’s handlers’ 94,000 evacuees? Might they have difficulty accepting a secular republic in which the government derives its authority not from Allah, but from the consent of the governed?

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghanistan: Taliban bring back their Ministry for Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice

Taliban Paint Over George Floyd Mural in Kabul

White Muslim CNN Contributor Claims His ‘White Card’ Was Revoked After 9/11

Why Leftists Hate Clint Eastwood So Much

France: Jihadi begins trial by professing Islamic faith, former president says jihadis just want to ‘divide us’

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

VIDEO: Biden’s Covid Vaxx Mandate and Tucker Carlson Responds

Biden suspends the U.S. Constitution. Congress passes laws and the Executive branch implements these laws. The U.S. Supreme Court determines if any law is Constitutional or not.

A mandate is not a law.

Watch these two videos to understand how Biden is by fiat “suspending the U.S. Constitution” to force mandates on the American people.

Tucker Carlson responds to Biden’s vaccine mandate.

Biden mandates taking the Covid vaccine.

©All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Gregg Jarrett Weighs In On Biden’s Sweeping Vaccination Mandates

RELATED TWEETS:

There’s a four-letter word for pornography: EVIL. Why can’t the media pronounce it?

Justifications of pornography are ingenious and endless but seldom novel. However, when OnlyFans, one of the world’s largest websites for user-generated porn, threatened to ban sexually explicit videos and images, a new argument emerged.

Honest working folk will go hungry because they can’t upload images of themselves having sex for their viewers.

“If you’re not allowed to post really explicit content it’s going to be a massive kick in the teeth,” a 22-year-old gay man told the BBC. “We’re doing it from the comfort of our own bedrooms, it’s given us a living — it could be getting people off drugs, off the streets. [Making porn] is helping people and they still want to put bans on it, and [that’s] disgusting.”

As Brendan O’Neill of Spiked, a very unprudish Marxist-libertarian-humanist-pro-choice website in the UK, put it, “There you have it. What’s ‘disgusting’ in 2021 is not porn, but being prevented from making porn.”

OnlyFans is one of the UK’s biggest tech start-ups. For PR purposes, it purports to host training videos for cooking and yoga, too, but most of its revenue come from pornography. It takes 20 percent of what its “creators” earn exhibiting themselves doing erotic stuff on camera. It is said to have accumulated 130 million users and 2 million content creators since it launched in 2016.

However, the company claimed last month that investors fretting about reputational risk were going to starve it of funding unless it stopped hosting explicit pornography. Banks and credit card companies threatened to cancel their services.

There was a huge outcry – or so the company claimed – from their impoverished content creators.

A woman who calls herself Morgan Music told NPR that the money she earned from her videos on OnlyFans helped to reduce her anxiety. “To have that lifted because I have, like, a savings account for the first time and have a good credit score for the first time in my life, I think it’s hard to really convey how much that means to a person’s quality of life,” Music said.

So OnlyFans compassionately caved in. The moral pressure was too intense. It tweeted: “We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change. OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators.”

A New York Times journalist swallowed this guff about the magnanimous pornographer and the money-grubbing banks.

In an article updating its readers about the porn wars, Spencer Bokat-Lindell quoted another sex worker: “OnlyFans is how I pay my rent. I feed myself from this.” He quoted the Free Speech Coalition, a trade organisation for pornographers: “Companies like Mastercard are now accomplices in the disenfranchisement of millions of sex workers, complicit in pushing workers away from independence into potentially more dangerous and exploitative conditions.”

I mustn’t give the impression that the New York Times supports pornography. It doesn’t — at least for the being. But it’s ambiguous. It shilly-shallies. It hums and haws. It dithers. It’s bad because it exploits women … it’s good because it’s liberating….

This week, to its credit, it also featured an essay by Catharine A. MacKinnon, an elderly feminist with an impressive academic record. She was incandescent about the media’s description of exploited women (and men) as “sex workers”. “What is being done to them is neither sex, in the sense of intimacy and mutuality, nor work, in the sense of productivity and dignity,” she wrote.

“Sex work” implies that prostituted people really want to do what they have virtually no choice in doing. That their poverty, homelessness, prior sexual abuse as children, subjection to racism, exclusion from gainful occupations or unequal pay plays no role. That they are who the pornography says they are, valuable only for use in it.

She is on the money about this. Almost no intelligent person who reflects upon pornography, the objects of pornography, the users of pornography, and the effects of pornography believes that it is good.

The problem is that its liberal critics cannot, are utterly unable to, and will never, ever, say that it is evil. They shilly-shally. “Evil” is a four-letter word.

Take, for instance, Amia Srinivasan, a Wunderkind Oxford professor of philosophy who often writes in the Times. This week the newspaper featured both an excerpt from her new book The Right to Sex and an interview with Ezra Klein.

Srinivasan’s book is a kind of scholastic dissection of sexual desire. This is not as lubricious as it might sound. Having detached sex from its natural psychological and biological ends, the only topic of interest is an ever-more subtle taxonomy of desire – rather like the philosophers in Gulliver’s Travels who extract sunbeams from cucumbers. It’s … boring.

And her views on pornography are surprisingly conservative. In fact, she feels a certain sympathy with people who contend that “we have this kind of sacred thing that’s being degraded by being placed on this screen”. And she is sensitive to the plight of women who turn to pornography and prostitution because they are poor and marginalised.

So what is her solution?

In her conversation with Ezra Klein, the best she can come up with is – wait for it – government funding of excellent pornography. Young people shouldn’t be educated in relationships by the appalling stuff they see on OnlyFans or PornHub. So, ” one option I gesture at is, well, you could imagine states doing things like putting more resources in the hands of indie queer feminist porn filmmakers, of which there are quite a few.”

There’s only one correct response to pornography: absolute rejection. It corrupts men; it exploits women. Our democracy is built on the notion that each person has a unique, precious and transcendental destiny. Pornography is built on the notion that some persons are just raw meat.

Are there difficulties in banning pornography? Of course. We’ll never scour this blot entirely away. But the first step is the unwavering conviction that it is absolutely unacceptable in a civilised society. As O’Neill (who is, remember, not a prude and not a Christian) says:

Rejecting the industrialisation of sex in favour of returning to feeling will be a central task for all of us who are keen to recover humanity from the rapacious forces of capitalism, exploitation and fear. And this cannot be done without moral judgement. I’ll go first: pornography and prostitution are morally wrong. You should not partake in these wicked pastimes. Be better.

And if we don’t have the fortitude to say the E-word, we’ll end up, as Srinivasan predicts, with government-funded pornography for your kids.

COLUMN BY

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. More by Michael Cook.

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

We Must Free Americans to Work

Established as a federal holiday in the late 1800s, Labor Day marks how American workers have contributed to the country’s successes. It is a holiday to celebrate the dignity of workers—but respecting the dignity of workers demands that we respect the choices they make regarding their careers. But too often, government stands in the way of those choices, tying workers up in unnecessary red tape that prevents them from doing the work they want to do.

That’s why we must free Americans to work. The Goldwater Institute’s Breaking Down Barriers to Work law cuts that red tape and makes it easier for Americans to work in the career of their choice.

At present, around one in four Americans is required to obtain a license in order to be able to do their job—a government permission slip to work in a certain career. These government-imposed barriers exist for a wide range of professions: barbers, plumbers, real estate agents, sign language interpreters, florists, landscapers, coaches, interior designers, and many others. No matter how qualified someone is, Americans must re-apply for permission to work when they move to a new state.

But under Breaking Down Barriers to Work, a new resident of a state is eligible to receive a license to practice their profession, so long as the applicant has held a license in good standing for at least one year and was required to complete testing or training requirements in the initiating state. It’s all about streamlining the licensing process for everyone: State licensing boards don’t have to devote unnecessary time to comparing education or training requirements across all 50 states, and applicants are no longer required to jump through hoops just to continue a career they were already doing safely and productively elsewhere.

Breaking Down Barriers to Work is particularly beneficial for low-income workers—those least able to afford the time and money needed to get re-licensed each time an opportunity across state lines comes up. Having to meet a state’s licensing requirements upon moving there hampers low-income Americans’ ability to take advantage of a job opportunity that arises in another state—in some cases, it may simply be a bridge too far. But Breaking Down Barriers can make it more possible for such a worker to seize an opportunity that comes their way.

Breaking Down Barriers to Work has been garnering bipartisan support in states across the country, because it’s a reform that’s simply common sense. Since Arizona passed Goldwater’s law back in 2019, several states have followed suit: To date, 16 additional states have passed our reform, and you can look for additional states to take up this law in their next legislative session.

And in the states where Breaking Down Barriers is on the books, it’s having real results. So far, nearly 4,000 workers have already benefited from the law in Arizona alone.

This Labor Day, we should keep the dignity of American workers in mind—and in particular, how we can ensure that Americans are free to make a living in the careers they want and need. Breaking Down Barriers is a needed reform to free Americans to work.

*****

This article was published on September 6, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from the Goldwater Institute.

The Economist Is Starting to Get It

I have read the Economist for 40 years. It is perhaps the best international news magazine that actually understands economics, even if we might have different views. It was founded in 1843 by James Wilson, not surprisingly an economist. It is rare that a publication can stay in business that long.  That longevity says things about their quality.

Articles often range widely in subject matter and I concede that if you read just this one magazine, you would be reasonably informed about the world on a variety of subjects. Its companion publication the Financial Times also ranks pretty high in today’s world of diminished journalism.

It was with great disappointment a few years ago I got the weekly magazine with a cover of Donald Trump shouting through a megaphone, that if you looked carefully was a Klan hood. I thought this was so over the top I wrote the editor, telling him I would no longer be a subscriber. One can have disagreements with Trump and know he is not a bigot. Prior to running, he received many awards from civil rights organizations and much of his extended family is Jewish. So, the implication of the cover and much of their coverage, was biased, uninformed about America, and just plain stupid.

Just because one does not agree with open borders, in the age of the welfare state and international terrorism, does not make one a Klansman. The Economist should have known better than to get down in the gutter with the rest of the press. If you do not agree with Trump on the border, make your case for open borders and defend it. Don’t dodge the argument by associating someone with a horrible organization, organized by the way, by Democrats.

I often read views that don’t agree with my own. That is unavoidable with today’s biased journalism. As Dennis Prager has pointed out, Conservatives often read Progressives, but Progressives don’t read Conservatives. They do what the Economist did, fling snarky insults instead of confronting an opposing view.

Conservatives have to swim in the water that flows from the universities, big business, the arts, Hollywood, book publishers, magazines, and the social media giants.  We can’t help but get soaked with their ideas. Progressives however, do not face the same environment as they are now “the establishment.”

Like many publication, The Economist had uncharateristically succumbed to Trump Derangement Syndrome, a very serious mental illness. It was very disappointing. In many important respects, they still don’t understand the MAGA revolt in America as a revolt against Leftist domination of our institutions.

As we have pointed out in the past, even the term “populist” is not very descriptive of MAGA which blends elements of nationalism, Judeo-Christian principles, political conservatism, and libertarianism. Unlike legacy conservatism, MAGA supporters are tired of losing and appreciated Trump’s fighting spirit. They have heard conservative shibboleths since Goldwater, and except for occasional political victories (Reagan), legacy conservatism has presided over the loss of one institution after another to the Left. And unlike traditional liberals, MAGA has been fully aware of the totalitarian instinct in today’s “Progressives.”

Hoping that since Trump was gone, they might regain some of the intellectual composure, I ventured another subscription.

Like many who hated Trump, and thus supported Democrats,  largely because of his often off tone remarks and tweets, there is a degree of buyer’s remorse setting in. There is a difference between rhetoric and actual governing. Trump sometimes said things in a way that made you wince, but other than frequent turnover in cabinet positions, he governed pretty well, considering he was under unrelenting attack.

Polls show the Bidenism is a loser. His failure on the border, the economy, with Covid, in foreign policy, in inflation, race relations, and crime, his deliberate dividing even further the electorate, are starting to hit home for many. Upwards of 20% of Democrats now say they wish they had voted differently. In the all important independent voter sector, which often determines elections when the two major parties are running neck and neck, Biden’s popularity is also falling.

Those individuals associated with Biden are beginning to feel they hitched their wagon to a fading star, and one that is suffering from a touch of dementia as well. But the folks at the Economist are not running for office, so their alarm is coming from another place.

There seems to be a shift in the Economist, even though they are not seeking office. It appears they have discovered (surprise, surprise, surprise), that today’s Progressive is an undemocratic bigot. The Democrat Party has been captured by the gender and race hustlers ensconced in your local university. But the crazy stuff does not stay on campus, it has spread faster than Covid.

I would take this shift at the Economist as important, but not like there is a major quake in the intellectual tectonic plates of the global marketplace of ideas. They still take their swipes at what they call “populist.” But this week’s issue should rattle some windows. In the most recent print issue, there is an important essay which seems to support the idea that they are getting it. What  I mean is the recognition is dawning that the modern Democrat Party is anything but democratic and that so called liberals today, are no longer liberals. They have become Leftists, and nasty ones at that.

Leftists are bullies and historically trended to violence and dictatorship. That is why naive Leftists keep arguing that their “pure” ideas has never been tried, it is always corrupted. They never ask why it is their ideas are always corrupted and end up as Pol Pot or Castro.

How many times does it have to happen before they begin to understand the totalitarian rot comes from within the movement itself?

At any rate, there is a shift in the Economist and it could well mean others are getting the message as well.

Below is a quote from their recent essay:

The attack from the left is harder to grasp, partly because in America “liberal” has come to include an illiberal left. We describe this week how a new style of politics has recently spread from elite university departments. As young graduates have taken jobs in the upmarket media and in politics, business and education, they have brought with them a horror of feeling “unsafe” and an agenda obsessed with a narrow vision of obtaining justice for oppressed identity groups. They have also brought along tactics to enforce ideological purity, by no-platforming their enemies and cancelling allies who have transgressed—with echoes of the confessional state that dominated Europe before classical liberalism took root at the end of the 18th century.

Superficially, the illiberal left and classical liberals like The Economist want many of the same things. Both believe that people should be able to flourish whatever their sexuality or race. They share a suspicion of authority and entrenched interests. They believe in the desirability of change.

However, classical liberals and illiberal progressives could hardly disagree more over how to bring these things about. For classical liberals, the precise direction of progress is unknowable. It must be spontaneous and from the bottom up—and it depends on the separation of powers, so that nobody nor any group is able to exert lasting control. By contrast the illiberal left put their own power at the centre of things, because they are sure real progress is possible only after they have first seen to it that racial, sexual and other hierarchies are dismantled.

This difference in method has profound implications. Classical liberals believe in setting fair initial conditions and letting events unfold through competition—by, say, eliminating corporate monopolies, opening up guilds, radically reforming taxation and making education accessible with vouchers. Progressives see laissez-faire as a pretence which powerful vested interests use to preserve the status quo. Instead, they believe in imposing “equity”—the outcomes that they deem just. For example, Ibram X. Kendi, a scholar-activist, asserts that any colour-blind policy, including the standardised testing of children, is racist if it ends up increasing average racial differentials, however enlightened the intentions behind it.

Mr Kendi is right to want an anti-racist policy that works. But his blunderbuss approach risks denying some disadvantaged children the help they need and others the chance to realise their talents. Individuals, not just groups, must be treated fairly for society to flourish. Besides, society has many goals. People worry about economic growth, welfare, crime, the environment and national security, and policies cannot be judged simply on whether they advance a particular group. Classical liberals use debate to hash out priorities and trade-offs in a pluralist society and then use elections to settle on a course. The illiberal left believe that the marketplace of ideas is rigged just like all the others. What masquerades as evidence and argument, they say, is really yet another assertion of raw power by the elite.

Progressives of the old school remain champions of free speech. But illiberal progressives think that equity requires the field to be tilted against those who are privileged and reactionary. That means restricting their freedom of speech, using a caste system of victimhood in which those on top must defer to those with a greater claim to restorative justice. It also involves making an example of supposed reactionaries, by punishing them when they say something that is taken to make someone who is less privileged feel unsafe. The results are calling-out, cancellation and no-platforming.

Milton Friedman once said that the “society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither”. He was right. Illiberal progressives think they have a blueprint for freeing oppressed groups. In reality theirs is a formula for the oppression of individuals—and, in that, it is not so very different from the plans of the populist right. In their different ways both extremes put power before process, ends before means and the interests of the group before the freedom of the individual.

Let’s hope this is the beginning of a broader understanding of what unhinged Progressives mean to society. That no matter what differences one may have had with Mr. Trump, his opponents are fundamentally more dangerous to liberty. Note we included their gratuitous swipe at the “populist right”, that they still don’t understand. But at least they are getting the message on the Progressives.

The irony here is that it was Trump who truly understood the culture war, and would use his bully pulpit to inveigh against critical race theory, gender bending, and the attacks on free speech by publishers, the government, the press, and social media monopolies. And it is his followers who are standing up at school board meetings and city council meetings and fighting censorship and cancelling social media and big business. It is the Trump followers and a small band of Libertarians that are fighting the totalitarian Progressives. This is now what the Economist is doing.  I wonder if they realize the irony in that.

Even if they don’t, welcome aboard the liberty ship.  We can use more hands, especially as articulate as those at the Economist. Go forth and fight the Progressives. These Marxists are enemies of both old fashioned Liberals and Conservatives.

Biden Chief of Staff Backs Green Energy Despite His Costly Role in Solyndra Scandal

When President Joe Biden signed an executive order early in August calling for half of all new vehicles to be electric by 2030, White House chief of staff Ron Klain predicted success.

“In the effort to combat the climate crisis—and create a lot of great jobs in the US doing it—today will be a historic day at the White House,” Klain tweeted.

Later in August, the Democrat-controlled House passed a Biden-backed $3.5 trillion budget framework encompassing many “Green New Deal” initiatives such as a “Climate Corps” and a program to encourage utilities to sell carbon-free energy.

Klain enthusiastically predicted success with green energy in the last Democratic administration’s $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra, a politically connected company that made solar panels. That decision became one of the most embarrassing scandals of President Barack Obama’s two terms.

Government documents—some long public, others obtained by The Daily Signal in a Freedom of Information Act request—tell the story of how immersed Klain was in pushing taxpayer dollars to a company that soon collapsed. The Solyndra mess became symbolic of crony capitalism and climate boondoggles.

‘Progress on Clean Energy Front’

Despite how the government loan guarantee for Solyndra turned out, Klain’s enthusiasm for government support of green energy hasn’t waned—based on his tweets, anyway.

Last week, Klain touted climate-related aspects of Biden’s agenda in light of natural disasters.

“Extreme weather is killing Americans north and south, east and west,” he tweeted Thursday, later following with: “The Biden ‘Build Back Better’ plan would combat climate change.”

In May, Klain had boasted about the Biden administration’s approval of the first offshore wind farm.

“More progress on the clean energy front,” the White House chief of staff tweeted in March about a New York Times report.

The Times’ article boosted the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—better known as the Obama administration’s “stimulus” bill—and concluded that federal loans for green energy both created jobs and brought in revenue.

“This @NyTimes story reports that the ARRA actually made money for the taxpayers, and created 1 million green energy jobs,” Klain tweeted.

Klain was a Biden point man on Capitol Hill for the $1.1 trillion infrastructure legislation as well as the separate $3.5 trillion spending bill. He met in March with the House sponsor of the Green New Deal, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and other House progressives.

Biden nominated Klain’s wife, Monica Medina, as assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Science Affairs, a top environmental position.

In March 2020, Medina, founder and publisher of the environmental e-newsletter Our Daily Planet, wrote a Washington Post op-ed about the “environmental upside” of the COVID-19 pandemic.

‘Potential for Another Solyndra’

The Times describes Klain, a longtime Biden loyalist, as “the essential nerve center of an over-circuited administration whose day-to-day doings reflect how this White House works and what it aspires to.”

Klain, who turned 60 in August, is credited by other left-leaning outlets such as The Washington Post, the Daily Beast, and The American Prospect with taming the Democrats’ progressive wing.

During the Solyndra scandal, Klain also was chief of staff to Biden, who was then vice president.

With Klain having more power today in addressing contemporary energy issues, remembering a decade-old scandal informs what might be ahead for the Biden administration, said Mike Palicz, federal affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform.

“Ron Klain was at the heart of the Solyndra scandal,” Palicz told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “There is potential for another Solyndra with subsidies for electric-vehicle charging companies. That’s about picking winners and losers, the same as Solyndra.”

Palicz also noted that the Biden administration is pushing for $174 billion in spending to “create good jobs electrifying vehicles.”

This, he said, is similar to the Obama administration’s failed “Cash for Clunkers” program, also funded under its stimulus legislation, which attempted to turn old cars into electric vehicles.

The National Bureau of Economic Research reported in 2014 that about 60% of the subsidies went to households that would have purchased an electric vehicle during the two-month program anyway.

The Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank, found in 2013 that the “Cash for Clunkers” program spent $1.4 million for every job it created.

The White House did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment for this report.

Proposing Obama’s Visit to Solyndra

The Energy Department provided the $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra as part of the 2009 stimulus bill. Not long after building its factory, though, the California company filed in 2011 for bankruptcy protection and an FBI investigation ensued.

Solyndra did not attract a buyer and closed down later in 2011. After that, other subsidized green energy companies also collapsed.

It was Klain who suggested that Obama visit Solyndra in 2010, batting away concerns from other Obama aides, including senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Planning for a cash infusion to Solyndra from taxpayers began early, and Klain had a key role in distributing the funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act after Obama signed the legislation.

On March 10, 2009, Matt Rogers, senior adviser to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu, sent an email to Klain while he was the vice president’s chief of staff, saying that “all is on track for this announcement in northern California.”

Rogers touted the rapidity of the effort, saying in the email: “First loan guarantee from the department of energy—delivered in 60 days from [Obama’s] inauguration.”

“The deal is to bring private capital off the sidelines,” Rogers added.

However, Solyndra executives later would refer to the Obama administration as the “Bank of Washington.”

Klain passed along Rogers’ email to the White House’s deputy chief of staff for policy, Rob Nabors.

‘Looks OK to Me … A Few Will Be Belly-Up’

On Aug. 10, 2009, less than seven months into Obama’s first term, Klain learned that the Office of Management and Budget expected the Obama administration’s $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra to close by the end of that month.

Klain seemed to express excitement and wanted to know how quickly Obama or Biden could visit Solyndra.

“This is great. When is vp next in California? When is potus in California?” he asked, referring to Biden and Obama, respectively.

Months later, Klain’s jubilance would settle.

Jarrett, the senior Obama adviser, emailed Klain on May 24, 2010, to relate concerns she had heard about Solyndra even as Obama was scheduled to visit the company the next day.

“We clearly need to make sure that they are stable and solid,” Jarrett told Biden’s vice presidential chief of staff in the email.

Klain checked it out, telling Rogers and Chu’s chief of staff, Rod O’Connor, in an email: “Can you guys look at this ASAP and get back to me.”

In an email response, Rogers characterized the financial concerns as “standard for companies pre-IPO,” referring to an initial public offering.

Klain replied: “Thanks, this looks fine to me.”

As Biden’s chief of staff, he then responded to Jarrett the same day.

“Sounds like there are some risk factors here, but that’s true of any innovative company POTUS would visit,” Klain said in an email to Jarrett.

“It looks OK to me,” Klain wrote, adding: “The reality is that if POTUS visited 10 such places over the next 10 months, probably a few will be belly-up by election day 2012—but that to me is the reality of saying we want to help promote cutting-edge, new-economy industries.”

In September 2011, a little more than a year later, Solyndra went—in Klain’s words—belly-up. The company declared bankruptcy and put 1,100 employees out of work.

In an appearance Nov. 17, 2011, before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations, Chu said he wasn’t part of the exchange with Klain and Jarrett.

Later communications, The Washington Post reported, showed that Solyndra executives and Energy Department officials attempted to keep the financial problems and layoffs secret until after the 2010 midterm elections.

*****

This article was published on September 6, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

VIDEO: Fauci’s Lies Finally Exposed

Senator Rand Paul posted this video on YouTube:

In an email Senator Paul stated:

Anthony Fauci was just exposed in a bombshell report.

And I have sent a criminal referral against him to the Department of Justice.

Remember all the times I took him on in front of the United States Senate?

The media took his side by spewing lies about me and covering up his unethical schemes.

But now the truth has come out. Fauci funded gain-of-function research. And even the media can’t ignore it anymore.

I joined Hannity to talk about the report that finally revealed his lies.

The Intercept published a report that includes over 900 pages of jaw-dropping documents that prove Fauci’s role in the creation of deadly viruses.

According to the report, Fauci’s agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided grants to the Wuhan lab, including “$599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans.”

Let me repeat that again: Fauci used your money as a taxpayer to pay a Chinese lab to “alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans.”

That’s bad enough. But here’s the worst part: Fauci still thinks he did nothing wrong.

And if he didn’t learn his lesson the first time, that means he’d do it again.

I must stand up and fight back immediately, or these mad scientists may well cook up an even worse virus — one that makes COVID look like nothing.

This funding must be cut off forever. Not one more penny for gain-of-function research!

I have sent a criminal referral against Fauci to the Department of Justice for lying under oath about participating in gain-of-function research.

©All rights reserved.

America’s Work Crisis

With another Labor Day come and gone, it’s fascinating to note that America’s work ethic is in trouble today. And the coronavirus has made it worse.

We now have a labor shortage crisis. Columnist Victor Davis Hanson (8/11/21) describes some of the symptoms of our current labor shortages: “Airliners cannot take off due to fuel shortages. Automobiles, houses, gas and lumber are in short supply. Consumers can’t get their roofs fixed, their houses painted or their trees trimmed, as employers plead with their idle, government-subsidized employees to come back to work.”

And he adds: “In a rebounding economy amid record debt, the government is still sending workers unemployment benefits that are more remunerative than the paychecks they would earn if employed.”

Consider a few of these examples of the work (or lack thereof) crisis in our time:

  • A headline from finance.yahoo.com (9/2/21) declares, “Half of U.S. Small Businesses Have Unfilled Positions.”
  • Bloomberg (8.25.21) reports: “Thousands of cities, towns and states across the U.S. are facing the most acute labor shortage in recent memory. Regional governments have an even tougher time than businesses because they can’t compete with private-sector wages, can rarely offer remote work and they’ve faced a larger wave of early retirements during the pandemic.”
  • “Inmates are running wild on Rikers Island amid an ongoing staffing crunch that’s left charges free to stab each other, answer the phones and run through corridors destroying maintenance equipment,” reports the New York Post (8/23/21).
  • “Some of the largest U.S. food distributors are reporting difficulties in fulfilling orders as a lack of workers weighs on the supply chain,” notes finance.yahoo.com (8/24/21).
  • In the spring, we learned of a McDonald’s offering $50.00 for potential employees just to show up for an interview.
  • In July, there was the story of a Burger King in Lincoln, Nebraska, which had a sign declaring: “We all quit. Sorry for the inconvenience.” Well, “have it your way,” I guess.

Even Chick-fil-A, a company built on a Christian work ethic, has had some staffing troubles lately—at least in the case of two Alabama outlets which had to close because of staffing shortages. Fox5 New York adds: “While restaurants across the country have reopened their dining rooms after closing them due to the pandemic, a new problem has surfaced: Many businesses have reported having issues with staffing and are struggling to hire enough workers to meet the customers’ needs.”

Because of the shutdown in reaction to the pandemic, many former workers received unemployment benefits. But some states have ended those payments—prematurely, say the beneficiaries. Recipients of unemployment benefits in 15 states are suing their state to renew those benefits, observes yahoo.com/money (9/1/21).

And on it goes. I suppose if there is any bright spot in our labor crisis today it is that some people leaving the workforce are doing so to spend more time with their families.

America’s work ethic was waning long before the COVID-19 pandemic. Historically, the Protestant work ethic in America helped lead to great prosperity.

The work ethic has declined in part because of the decline of Christianity in our culture and the push for socialism. Socialism constantly undermines the work ethic by rewarding inactivity and failing to reward those who work particularly hard or well.

The founders of America did not agree with socialist principles, and they laid the framework for a country with unparalleled prosperity.

Part of the way they did this was by stressing smaller government. In his First Inaugural Address, President Thomas Jefferson said, “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

The government has no money of its own. So whatever money the government spends for Citizen A, it has to appropriate from Citizen B.

There is no such thing as a free lunch—someone has to pay for that lunch.

God has given each of us a unique set of talents and skill sets. What a joy it is to put those into practice as a vocation or as an avocation for His glory and others’ good. And He will hold us accountable for our putting these things into practice.

Through the ages, the words of Paul the Apostle have inspired millions to work hard “as unto the Lord,” knowing that He will reward us. He also said that if someone refuses to work “neither shall he eat.”

An anonymous saying adds insight here: “Some people fail to recognize opportunity because it so often comes to them in overalls and looks like work.”

It’s time for America to get back to work.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

Afghanistranded: Biden Leaves Americans at Taliban’s Mercy

It must have been a relief for the White House to put Joe Biden on a plane to New Jersey Tuesday. For the first time in weeks, the president got to talk about a disaster he didn’t create. And yet, while he surveyed the wreckage from Hurricane Ida, the world’s attention was still 6,900 miles away on the damage that can’t be undone: Biden’s disastrous exit from Afghanistan.

“Every time I don’t think this situation can get any worse,” Congressman Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) shook his head, “it does.” Not even a year into his term, the cries for Biden’s resignation are growing with every horrifying headline out of Kabul. Rattled by images of their president, hunched over his podium like a beaten man, Americans are struggling to make sense of any administration that would leave its own people behind. And yet, leaders from both parties warn, that’s exactly what’s happening. Even now, six planes sit idle on a tarmac in northern Afghanistan, hostages to Biden’s weakness.

And what is the State Department’s big concern? Not that passport-holding Americans are held prisoner by terrorists, but that the new Taliban government isn’t “inclusive” enough. According to a State Department spokesman, the White House’s chief complaint is not that Islamic extremists are preventing U.S. citizens from leaving, but that their new terrorist leadership group has “no women.” What a perfect snapshot of this administration’s priorities! In a deadly crisis with U.S. lives on the line, the only thing Biden cares about is gender politics.

Of course, here’s the sick irony. If this White House was actually concerned about women, they’d have never pulled out of Afghanistan in the first place. Just this week, girls were being beaten and clubbed for showing even a flicker of resistance against the Taliban. Desperate to hold on to some scrap of the freedom our 20-year presence won them, they’re risking whips, tear gas, and gunfire to demand what our president just threw away: the ability of Afghan women to work, play sports, study, and participate in society.

Meanwhile, as the president and his team are busy negotiating with these terrorists, private citizens are being forced to do the job Biden refuses to — rescue stranded Americans. While groups like Chad Robichaux’s Mighty Oaks Foundation scramble to cover the costs of planes and security, members of Congress are working just as frantically to get families out. “Like everybody else in the world,” Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) said, his constituents “didn’t know that Biden was just going to yank everybody out of Afghanistan and yank all the troops out and let the Taliban take over the entire country in a matter of hours, and then they were going to be stranded there.”

In a harrowing interview on “Washington Watch,” Jackson explained his shock that a mom and her three children from his district were trapped in the country. The Navy rear admiral-turned-congressman started ringing the phones off the hook at the State Department — to no avail. Finally, without any help from the Biden administration, he decided to launch an emergency mission to get the family out. Even with military contractors on the ground, they hit roadblocks at every turn. At one point, he says, the Taliban at the airport “eventually stuck a gun to the mother’s [temple] and told her that if she came back, they would shoot her in the head. They didn’t care who she was or what kind of passport she had. She wasn’t passing through.” They were barely 200 feet from the gate, Jackson said, “and we could not get the State Department to open the gate and let them in. This is the kind of stuff that’s happening. They were right there. [And yet], the State Department was making a lot of noise, saying they were trying to be helpful to U.S. citizens, but they were actually doing nothing — nothing — to help them.”

In the meantime, Cory Mills, the military veteran who led the extraction, had to move the family from safe house to safe house just to keep them from being killed. Finally, deciding the airports were too dangerous, he decided to take the family out of Afghanistan by land. After some terrifying twists and turns, they made it. “Cory and his team are brave patriots,” Jackson raved. “Praise God that American veterans have more resolve than Joe Biden or his State Department.”

Hours later, you can imagine everyone’s surprise when the president’s team — the same ones blocking them at every turn — swooped in to take credit, insisting that the “U.S. has facilitated the safe departure of four U.S. citizens by overland route from Afghanistan.” Are you kidding me, Jackson fumed. “This article makes me want to puke!” he posted, linking to the comments. “The State Department didn’t do a d**n thing for these people for 12 days except almost get them killed repeatedly.” Obviously, he said, they “didn’t want the success story from Afghanistan to be that patriotic American citizens are going over there and doing something that the military wouldn’t or couldn’t do.”

Democrats, who can’t jump ship on this disaster fast enough, have been equally vicious in their criticism of the president. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said publicly that he’s been working around the clock to get American citizens and Afghan allies home — no thanks to Joe Biden. “I have been deeply frustrated — even furious — at our government,” he vented.

Now, making matters worse for Biden’s flailing PR crew, even his past failures are coming back to haunt him. Turns out, four of the five Guantanamo prisoners that Biden’s old boss released in exchange for disgraced U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl are taking choice seats in the Taliban’s new government. On Obama and Biden’s watch, even the so-called “mastermind of the regime change” was freed. They returned the favor, releasing “thousands of prisoners near Bagram airfield, including high-value… al Qaeda fighters.”

At the time, several people, including FRC’s own Lt. General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, saw the decision for the ticking time bomb it was. He predicted way back in 2014: “…[W]e have traded for a guy that is guilty of a crime that is actually punishable by death, we traded him for five of the worst Taliban leaders in Guantanamo, two of which are mass murderers, all of which will be back on the battlefield and all of which will be threats — not only to Americans there but to the Afghan people — because before we got there, they were killing Afghans in brutal ways.”

Now, seven years later, terrorists are wearing our uniforms, hoisting our weapons, and mocking our heroes. Americans look on, filled with regret for Biden’s choices — and theirs. Before Afghanistan collapsed, 21 percent of the country said they’d take back their vote for this president if they could. But unfortunately, elections have consequences — the gravest of which, we pray, are not yet to come.

COLUMN BY

Tony Perkins

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

ARIZONA 2020 ELECTION AUDIT BOTTOM LINE: 173,104 “Lost Votes” and 96,389 “Ghost Votes”

Trump won Arizona!

We The People Convention posted an article titled “Get the first look at the Arizona Election Audit Summary Report.” Liz Harris reported:

Arizona Election Audit Summary Report says that their were 173,104 “Lost Votes” and 96,389 “Ghost Votes” in the 2020 Election – Maricopa County was “un-certifiable”

NOTE: This is NOT the Audit that the Arizona Senate Conducted and Still has Not Released. This is the results of the Independent Audit done by Liz Harris and her volunteers who knocked on thousands of doors to gather this information. The Arizona Senate Audit is expected to be released next week.By Liz Harris, Maricopa County Canvas, September 7, 2021

Executive Summary

11/3/2020 Election Results: Primary Findings

Two primary categories of ineligible ballots and election mishandling, encompassing hundreds of thousands of votes, render the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County uncertifiable.

An estimated 173,104 votes are missing or lost, as reported to our volunteers who went door to door verifying registration and voting information for thousands of residents. These are American citizens living in Maricopa County who cast a vote, primarily by mail, in the election and yet there is no record of their vote with the county and it was not counted in the reported vote totals for theelection. Additionally an estimated 96,389 mail-in votes were cast under the names of registered voters who were either unknown to the residents of the registration address or who were verified as having moved away prior to October 2020. Other irregularities were uncovered during the canvass at a smaller scale, including votes cast by mail from vacant lots, votes recorded from residents who had not actually voted, etc.

These results are a travesty to our democracy and our voting rights. In addition to impacted local races, such as Maricopa County Board of Supervisors District 1, decided by 403 votes, key statewide race margins are well within the numbers shown above. The Presidential race was decided by 10,457 votes statewide, and the U.S. Senate election was decided by 78,886 votes statewide.

Solution: Ban Vote-by-mail

It is obvious to anyone that voting by mail is ripe for fraud. The US Mail is not meant to be a secure transactional system. We have all known since we were children that you don’t send cash through the mail –our voting rights are far more sacred than cash. Bipartisan and Democrat Voter studies and commissions have found vote-by-mail to have the highest risk of fraud1 and most first-world democracies, such as Germany, either ban Vote-by-Mail outright or place very heavy restrictions on its use. Banning Vote-by-mail is a very simple solution to a huge problem for our Country. We cannot give up our fundamental right to vote, upon which America was built, simply because we are too lazy to go cast a vote in person.

Why does the problem of vote fraud exist?

Here, we can only speculate. But we all know that history often repeats itself, especially if forgotten.

It has become a modern day mantra that the right to vote by “secret ballot” is a sacred American right. But this is actually untrue. Until the late 1800s all votes in all States were public information. The move to the secret ballot occurred state-by-state from 1888-1950 to combat voter fraud 2 Over the first 100 years of our great republic, a cottage industry was established in voter fraud vote buying and selling. Vote fraud was a massive problem for our Country. Moving to a secret ballot made it harder for vote buyers to monitor which candidates vote sellers had voted for. Voter turnout fell between 8% and 12% as the States adopted the secret ballot and people were no longer being paid to vote.

It is quite likely that many ridiculous and frivolous arguments were put forth in those States in attempts to prevent secret ballot legislation from passing by those who leveraged the vote fraud to win elections and those who profited from it.

We now see history repeating, with a system ripe for fraud and clear evidence of fraud occurring on a massive scale. The fraud likely existing as a means of revenue for those who are able to defraud the system, and for an easy way to shift election results for those who can pay. And again we have ridiculous and frivolous arguments being put forth against common sense legislation to secure the rights of honest American citizens to vote and have their vote count.

If I were to further speculate, I would say I believe that the people who work for and run Maricopa County are good people and likely have no idea that their voting process is being manipulated for financial gain. I believe it far more likely that small groups of bad actors (criminals) operating at local levels both here and in other parts of the country engineered ways to defraud their particular voting systems and processes and then likely sell those services to other mostly local small groups of bad actors who work for candidates fixing elections, probably most likely and most often unknown to the candidates themselves. That was the previous pattern in our Country and it makes sense. Far more likely than grand conspiracies and entire election departments being “in on it.”

The second citation below contains substantial information on vote fraud in history including recent history, as well as the mal-in voting bans in most developed nations.

Canvass Overview

How it Began

Shortly after the election in November 2020, Liz Harris, a REALTOR(R) in Arizona, saw an easily verifiable social media video demonstrating a deceased person with a distinct name and birthdate who voted in the November 3, 2020 election. Combined with the increasing election fraud allegations from across the United States and within her home state of Arizona, namely Maricopa County, her curiosity peaked. Does Arizona have dead voters? Upon checking names of those over the age of 90, it seemed that the number of dead voters was not alarming. However, she noticed that there was conflicting information on where these registered voters actually resided. This led to obtaining voter lists from the country and teams of hundreds of people who began visiting registered voters at their homes.

What started small grew into a countywide grassroots effort drawing hundreds of volunteers from within the state and from across the country who collectively spent thousands of hours visiting the residences of almost 12,000 registered voters in Maricopa County. Volunteer programmers and database administrators joined together to database the voter data and build a mobile app for management and tracking of the canvass and the data it produced.

As you will read, the results are nothing short of earth-shattering.

How it was Conducted

During the canvass, volunteers would visit the homes of registered Maricopa County voters. At the door, if the resident answered, the volunteers would identify themselves as private citizens conducting voluntary election integrity research and ask if they would mind answering a few questions. Next the volunteer would ask the resident’s name and then verify it in the county data. Then the volunteer would say, “We’d like to quickly go through each registered voter at this address. First, we will start with the name identified initially and go through the other registered voters at this address.” The questions which followed were:

  • What method did you use to vote?
  • How many ballots did you receive in the mail for yourself?
  • How many ballots did you receive for person(s) who do not live here?
  • What did you do with any extra ballots received?
  • How many registered voters are there supposed to be at this address?
  • Total number of registered voters who voted in the November 2020 election?

The answers were entered into a database live onsite and later compiled and analyzed.

Areas Canvassed

Maricopa County comprises approximately 2,595,272 registered voters, making it the second largest voting district in the country and the third largest county by population. The canvass as conducted generally yields a confidence interval of 1.5% at a confidence level of 95%. Said another way, very similar to voting polls, the accuracy of these results applied to the county as a whole are within +/- 1.5% with 95% certainty, which is the scientific statistical standard for samples such as this. The results from the canvass are thus able to be applied with scientific certainty to the entire county as a whole. The canvass team conducted the canvass by canvassing across the county as well as focusing in on several precincts with ranging demographics. The entire precinct of Warner was canvassed, consisting of more than 7,000 registered voters. Partial canvasses were conducted in the Dunbar, Waggoner and Rittenhouse precincts. A partial canvass was also conducted in precincts throughout the county.

Canvass Statistics: 11,708 attempted voter contacts, interviews yielded data on 4,570 registered voters

Lost Votes

The most problematic issue we have seen in the canvass comes from our analysis of the data showing that Maricopa County is missing votes from an estimated 173,104 voters.

During the canvass, hundreds of people who showed in the Maricopa County records as not voting in the election reported that they actually did vote in the election.
Registered Voters Interviewed Who Were Shown By Maricopa County As Not Voting

During the canvass, of the 4,570 registered voters we gathered data on, 964 individuals were interviewed at their residence who were registered to vote in Maricopa County but whom the county said did not vote. Of those 964, 34.23%, or 330 people, said they had actually voted. Overall, there were 505,709 people in the county registered to vote who did not have a vote recorded in the election*. Extrapolating these results to the entire county, which can be done at a scientifically correlated confidence level of 95%, it is estimated that 173,104 voters had their votes stolen. Given the canvass confidence interval of 1.5, this number technically ranges from 165,518 to 180,690 voters.

The canvass team can make sworn affidavits supporting these findings readily available.

Interestingly, this data parallels the findings of a study conducted by Matt Braynard in November of 2020, where he phone surveyed 710 registered republican voters in Arizona who did not have a vote recorded by the State. In his survey 356, or 50.1%, of those surveyed stated that they had in fact cast a mail-in ballot.

*This data was obtained from the 12/10/2020 VM34 Maricopa County Registration List

Ghost Votes

The second-most problematic issue we have seen in the canvass comes from our analysis of the data showing that Maricopa County recorded an estimated 96,389 mail-in votes that likely could not have been physically cast by the voter that the vote was registered to. These voters did not have a secondary mailing address and were either unknown to the residents who lived at their voting address since September 2020 or were known but were confirmed to not have lived at the residence since prior to the election, and often had not lived there for many years. By law mail-in ballots are not forwarded, so it would not have been possible for these voters to have been in physical possession of their ballots.

A specific example to better illustrate what this problem looks like: One of the individuals that we canvassed has owned and lived at their home for more than a decade. For a time during 2010, they rented a room out to someone who later moved out- of Arizona. Looking back historically, although the renter had moved out of state, a vote had been cast under their name, by mail, continuing to use the same residence address, in the 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 elections. The homeowner is innocent in this. The person who moved away is innocent as well. But somehow another person or group of people has been able to fraudulently submit mail-in votes using the former renter’sinformation in multiple elections.

Mail-In Ballots Cast Under Registered Voters Who Were Unknown to the Voting Address Residents or had Moved

During the canvass data on registered voters was gathered from registered voters at their residences, with 3606 of them listed by Maricopa County as having voted in the election. 2,897 were recorded by the county as having voted by mail . During that process, 164 mail-in voters were identified as being unknown to the resident or known but having moved prior to the election registration deadline. This represents 5.66% of all mail-in voters on which data was gathered.

Overall, there were 1,702,981 mail-in votes tallied by the in the election. Extrapolating these results to the entire county, which can be done at a scientifically correlated confidence level of 95%, it is estimated that 96,389 mail-in ballots should not have been cast due to this issue. More technically, with a 1.5 confidence interval, this number ranges from 70,844 to 121,933.

The canvass team can make sworn affidavits supporting these findings readily available.

Other Issues

We saw many other issues during the canvass including such things as a resident informing us that the name registered to that address and under which a mail-in vote had been cast was their immediate relative and deceased as of several years ago. We believe that specific issue, votes cast under the names of the deceased, can best be uncovered by an analysis of the voter registration data compared to the social security death index. Other issues which can only be uncovered by a canvass are totaled together and described below:

Total

Added together, these issues impacted 5.18% of mail-in votes, or an estimated 88,215 votes. More technically, with a 1.5 confidence interval, this number ranges from 62,670 to 113,759.

Mail-in Voters Reported Actually Voting In-Person

In gathering data door-to-door on 2,897 mail-in voters, 98 of them reported that they had actually voted in -person at the polling location.

Mail-in Voters Reported They Didn’t Actually Vote.

26 of the listed voters reported that they did not actually vote, yet a mail-in vote had been recorded for them with Maricopa County.

Votes Cast Under Registrations Listing a Vacant Lot as their Address

This category encompasses mail-in votes cast by voters registered to a vacant lot who did not have a secondary mailing address listed with the county and thus could not have physically received a ballot to cast.

1 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III 
2 “Why do most countries ban mail-in ballots?: They have seen massive
vote fraud problems” John R. Lott Jr. 10/15/2020

©We The People Convention. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: SHOCK: ‘The Economist’ Proves America Knows Biden Didn’t Win Legitimately

WATCH: DeSantis Destroys Fauci In Wild Exchange At Press Conference

Fire Fauci. He lied to the American public about absolutely everything.

WATCH: DeSantis Slams Fauci In Fiery Exchange At Press Conference

By: Daily Wire, September 8, 2021:

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis slammed NIAID Director Anthony Fauci during a press conference on Tuesday after Fauci criticized recent remarks that DeSantis made.

DeSantis made the remarks when a reporter began to ask, “Governor you recently said that unvaccinated individuals had no impact on numbers and Dr. Fauci was quoted saying that –”

“That’s not what I said. No, no, no, that’s not what I said,” DeSantis fired back. “Not that I ever expect to be quoted properly. What I said was, if you’re going to force vaccine mandates on people, just to understand that what the data is showing us about the vaccine, the data is showing us you’re much less likely to be hospitalized or die if you’re vaccinated. That is true. And I think you see it in the statistics.”

“However, the vaccinations have not created herd immunity,” DeSantis continued. “So if the idea is that having herd immunity, you force everyone to do this, and that will create a herd immunity, that has not happened. It’s still spreading. People who, I mean, obviously in Florida, we’re going down now which is great, but that’s not what the issue is, is it creating a herd immunity? Fauci also said if 50% were vaccinated, you would not see any surges anymore. Well, that isn’t true. Look at obviously the Sunbelt, look in the Pacific Northwest, look at Hawaii, huge surges that you’ve seen.”

In an interview with NPR’s “Morning Edition” in December 2020, Fauci was asked by NPR’s Rachel Martin how many Americans would need to get vaccinated to impact the number of COVID-19 infections. He replied, “I would say 50% would have to get vaccinated before you start to see an impact.” He added that if “75 to 85%” got vaccinated, we could achieve “that blanket of herd immunity.”

WATCH:

TRANSCRIPT:

REPORTER: Governor you recently said that unvaccinated individuals had no impact on numbers and Dr. Fauci was quoted saying that —

RON DESANTIS, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA (R): That’s not what I said. No, no, no, that’s not what I said. Not that I ever expect to be quoted properly. What I said was, if you’re going to force vaccine mandates on people, just to understand that what the data is showing us about the vaccine, the data is showing us you’re much less likely to be hospitalized or die if you’re vaccinated. That is true. And I think you see it in the statistics. However, the vaccinations have not created herd immunity. So if the idea is that having herd immunity, you force everyone to do this, and that will create a herd immunity that has not happened. It’s still spreading. People who, I mean, obviously in Florida, we’re going down now which is great, but that’s not what the issue is, is it creating a herd immunity? Fauci also said if 50% were vaccinated, you would not see any surges anymore.

Well, that isn’t true. Look at obviously the Sunbelt, look in the Pacific Northwest, look at Hawaii, huge surges that you’ve seen. And so, but just understand what you’re doing. If you’re forcing somebody to show proof of this to eat at a restaurant or to do basic tasks, go to the grocery store. There are some places around, if you look at some of these places that have really gone off the deep end they say, to go to the grocery store you should have to do that. So we’re not doing that in Florida. But the theory behind it is that if you make everyone have to do this under penalty of law, that somehow you wouldn’t have spread, and I think we just have to be honest about what it’s doing and what it’s not doing. We had hoped that if you had 50%, then you wouldn’t have that.

We had hoped you could build herd immunity that way, but that just hasn’t happened. It’s not happening in Israel. It didn’t happen in the UK. It’s not happening in the United States. It doesn’t mean that there’s not positive impacts. But the positive impacts is mostly reducing the vaccinated individuals a chance of being severely ill. Also, I would say, if you look at what we’ve done, we’re leading the nation and pushing early treatment for people with COVID. And that’s people that are not vaccinated, but it’s also people that are vaccinated who are high risk, who still see some of them ending up in the hospital. So we were able to do that.

This has been available since December. We found that most of the people that were going, being admitted to hospitals, yes, most were not vaccinated, but almost none of them got the monoclonal treatment, the antibody treatment early on in their illness. If they had done that, a lot of those people would not have died. So we’ve done stuff. We’ve done the one here in Polk County. It’s seen 2,800 patients, it’s administered treatments, and what you’re finding is we’re seeing the hospital census decline rapidly. We’re seeing the emergency room visits for COVID-like illness decline. We’re seeing daily hospital admissions decline.

So those are very, very good trends, but that’s about understanding where there was a need for action, and then we did this in … I mean, we were able to put together a lot of sites very quickly. We’re going to open up a couple more, so we’re going to have, by the end of this week … We’ll be up to 25 sites throughout the State of Florida, all of them being able to do up to 320 infusions a day. Now most of our sites don’t have that much demand, but I would say the one here in Polk is probably doing between 150 and 200 every day. Some of the other ones like Bonita Springs, they do 300 a day pretty consistently, and then others do around a hundred. But the point is, is that by doing that, getting it early, we’re keeping thousands of people out of the hospitals and that’s obviously better for their health. It’s saving lives, for sure, because not everyone that gets admitted to the hospital recovers, and it’s also helping relieving a burden on the healthcare system because we had had higher levels of COVID patients. Now that’s going down, so we’re going to keep this going in that direction.

But one of the reasons why we thought that this was something that needed to happen was because yes, people just didn’t seem to know about it, even though it had been available since December, so we’ve raised the spotlight. Now other states are following Florida, but it was based on the fact that you were still seeing people who were fully vaccinated test positive. Again, we didn’t see the herd immunity that we had hoped for, and so in that situation … We’ve already had great testimonials about this. Very elderly people who’ve been fully vaccinated for months get COVID, are symptomatic, and then they get the infusion, and either they stay out of the hospital … some of them do get admitted, but I can tell you we’ve had a number of these folks who get discharged and the doctors are saying, ‘Had you not gotten the monoclonal, you probably wouldn’t be getting discharged right now.’

So it’s been a big success and it’s something that we’re going to continue to do, but it is something that we recognize that this stuff… People were testing positive, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and so in terms of hoping to just get herd immunity and all of a sudden that has not happened anywhere yet in our country or in some of our other countries, particularly those that have been highly, highly vaxxed. You just got to look at the data, and you got to make judgments on the basis of that, but I think we filled a real need with what we did with the monoclonals.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fauci LIED: Lab Docs Show US Funded Gain-of-Function Research Of Coronaviruses Likely to Infect Humans’ in Wuhan

THE COMING GENOCIDE: Mass Extermination of Humanity – Part 1

The Killer COVID Vax, a Genocidal Bioweapon – Part 2

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

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

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

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

VIDEO: Twitter Shadow Bans President Trump’s New Video – ‘Saigon 2.0’

On August17, 2021 Military Watch Magazine published and article titled “Saigon 2.0: U.S. Helicopters Pull Personnel From Kabul Embassy Roof as Taliban Declares Victory.” They reported:

On August 16 the Taliban insurgent group regained control of the Afghan capital Kabul after almost 20 years in the hands of either U.S.-led coalition forces or the Western-backed Afghan government which was set up based on a Western liberal democratic political model. As the former rulers of Afghanistan, the Islamist Taliban, have made gains which appear to have taken the U.S. and their allies by surprise, with the U.S. embassy in Kabul effectively shut down on the 15th as Helicopters were deployed to ferry Americans to the nearby airport to be taken out of the country.

This followed a statement by President Joe Biden adamantly denying the possibility that the withdrawal from Afghanistan would lead to helicopters evacuating people off the roof of the U.S. embassy – which was one of the most iconic images of the U.S. client government in South Vietnam falling in 1975. The fact that Chinook helicopters used for both withdrawals only strengthened the parallels between them, with this heavy transport having yet to be replaced since entering service in 1962.

The fall of the Afghan government and that of South Vietnam have been widely compared, with both relying heavily on Western support for counterinsurgency efforts and having much larger and better armed forces than their adversaries, but ultimately collapsing due to low morale and a lack of popular legitimacy.

President Donald J. Trump’s Save America Pac released a video titled “Saigon 2.0.” Watch:

©All rights reserved.

In the Run-Up to the 20th Anniversary of 9/11, Media Pushing Stories About How Muslims Were the Real Victims

My latest in PJ Media:

Saturday marks twenty years since Islamic jihadis attacked New York City and Washington, and the establishment media is doing all it can to ensure that Americans grasp the true significance of those attacks: not that America was hit by a global jihad that has only gained in strength since then and could hit us again, but that Muslims were and are the true victims of that fateful day. In the last few days, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press have published lengthy pieces to that effect, and more in this vein is certain to come this week.

The LA Times on Friday published a lengthy weeper entitled “Muslim youth in America: A generation shadowed by the aftermath of 9/11,” all about how some people say rude things to innocent Muslims just because some people did something way back two decades ago. The article begins: “On a rainy day during her sophomore year of high school, as Aissata Ba studied in the library, a photo popped into her phone. It showed a beheading by Islamic State militants, along with a caption in red letters: ‘Go back to your country.’” In the big bad, “Islamophobic” USA, the perpetrator of this horror got off scot-free: “Ba reported the incident. Administrators never tracked down the person who sent it.”

Then there was “the boy in sixth grade who would say ‘allahu Akbar,’ Arabic for ‘God is great,’ and throw his backpack near her, pretending it was a bomb.” Actually, “Allahu akbar” means “Allah is greater,” that is, greater than your god; it is a declaration of the superiority of Islam and its victory over other religions, which is why Islamic jihadists so often scream out this phrase while committing acts of violence against unbelievers.

But the Los Angeles Times doesn’t explain any of that; it’s too busy explaining how Muslims are the true victims of the 9/11 attacks: “Asked when they thought such incidents became common, the Ba family didn’t hesitate. ‘It started with 9/11,’ said Ba’s mom, Zeinebou, who immigrated to Chicago in 1999. That day in 2001 caused a chain of tragedies — for the nearly 3,000 people who perished during the attacks in New York, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania; for the young men and women who died serving their country in the wars that followed; and for Muslims, and those perceived as Muslim, who became targets of hate.”

It would be much easier to sympathize with all this if not for the fact that since 9/11, Islamic advocacy groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), with eager help from the establishment media, have insisted that any honest investigation of the motivating ideology behind the attacks, and jihad terror in general, constituted “hate.” Then there are the numerous fake anti-Muslim hate crimes, fabricated apparently in order to buttress the claim that Muslims are uniquely harassed and victimized in the United States.

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

9/11 Masterminds Finally Go on Trial—20 Years After the Attack

Let Them Eat Salami: Biden Marks Labor Day By Handing Out Sandwiches to Union Members

Satanists Claim Their Religious Rights Are Being Denied in Texas Because They Can’t Kill Babies

France: Muslim migrant who plotted to murder girl who insulted Islam is released

UK Muslim who aided ISIS: ‘We’ve been doing this for years but no one has been caught by the virtue of Allah’

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

How Politics Got in the Way of U.S. Cybersecurity

“Continuous effort – not strength or intelligence – is the key to unlocking our potential.” – Winston Churchill.

Today’s blog comes from a report from August 6th this year. It is a little old but not many people have picked up on it but it is very relevant. It is typical of this Biden Administration and the extremists in it. They talk a good talk but have very little interest in actually fixing anything as the chaos being caused is all part of their sick agenda to bring America to its knees and weaken us in the eyes of the world! By the way they are doing a pretty amazing job of it.

As always I have posted the original story link below for those that need it. Please though share this story using this blog. As you read it I hope you get angry that the lefts pathetic and irrational fear and hatred of President Trump got in the way of our national security – again.

How Politics Got in the Way of U.S. Cybersecurity

In the past two months, our Nation’s vulnerability to crippling cyber-attacks has been on display for the world to see. In May it was the Colonial Pipeline hacking that successfully disrupted gasoline services across the East Coast. Before that SolarWinds, another energy provider, was hacked which also infected hundreds of its integrated customers and partners, and now we are facing another attack on our food distribution networks with the targeting of JBS, one of the largest meat processing companies in the country. In all three instances of cyberwarfare, the reaction among politicians in Washington was surprise at how vulnerable our country is to these attacks on our Homeland.

That we were unprepared to defend against foreign cyber-attacks should not have come as a surprise to any of these elected officials. Congress was in a position to assess and dramatically improve our cyber security infrastructure during the Obama administration. Rather than seize that opportunity, they chose to prioritize political games, fundraising and their own celebrity, and left our country open to cyberwarfare.

President Trump was aware of the nations’ vulnerabilities to critical infrastructure and took action by reviving the formerly defunct National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) to focus on badly needed cybersecurity solutions. The plan was to bring together the best cybersecurity and technology infrastructure minds in the country to formulate solutions to protect our nation’s defense, financial, transportation, and critically our energy networks, including natural gas and oil pipelines, nuclear power plants and electrical grids. The experts that would serve on the council would all be unpaid patriot volunteers with one thing in mind – to protect the infrastructure of our nation.

I was among the experts that volunteered to serve on the NIAC to lend my decades of experience in cybersecurity and defense solutions, and enterprise engineering in evaluating and repairing our cyber infrastructure, as I have previously done for the Department of State, Defense, Homeland Security and foreign allies around the world. Awaiting confirmation to the NIAC alongside me were some of the most experienced and brilliant experts in cybersecurity on the planet, all of us eager to step forward to help defend our country. Among them was Dr. Tobias Vogt who is a leading authority on nuclear security who served on a joint Special Operations-CIA command and taught nuclear security at Georgetown University. While some candidates were confirmed before the Trump impeachment gained momentum, most were never considered or presented to the Congressional Committee on Homeland Security to be put to good use.

The protracted impeachment of President Trump by the Democrats forced confirmation to the NIAC to abruptly end.  This stopped the delivery of ground-breaking cyber solutions that would have protected critical infrastructure including utilities companies such as Colonial. In fact, candidates that were not confirmed had in their possession critical cybersecurity solutions that would have prevented the Colonial Pipeline hack.  In pursuing the impeachment, Democrats risked the safety and security of an entire nation, that rely on finance, transportation and energy infrastructure to survive.  And now, we are at least two-years behind where we need to be to protect our infrastructure against a now emboldened hacker community.

Had my colleagues and I been confirmed, my first step would have been to introduce and demonstrate to the NAIC a cybersecurity solution designed specifically to prevent cyber-attacks against critical US infrastructure. The cybersecurity solution, STTarx, was tested by Troy State University, the Alabama Computer Forensics Institute, the US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), the US Air Force, the Department of Homeland Security, and other elite agencies. The creators of this solution had one thing in mind – to donate this solution for the protection of our nation despite the high interest by foreign governments. It is the only cybersecurity system known to have withstood a 2 terabyte (2 trillion cyber-attacks per second) Denial of Service attack, with no interruption of service. No other cybersecurity system has come close to this level of system and network protection and denial of attacks. Further, STTarx networks are immune to hacking or cracking, penetration, malicious code or cloning, are quantum-proof and its IP communications remain unbroken to this day. These networks are stealthy and are almost impossible to even detect. STTarx networks simply ignore probes and attacks, creating a private network, essentially a global intranet; using the internet as a transport medium but remaining separate from the actual internet.

The partisan impeachment hearings that never had a chance of succeeding prevented the confirmation of me and my colleagues, and the introduction of this technology. Had it been adopted and utilized by Colonial Pipeline, there would have been no outage and the attackers would never have been sure of the target. However, the shielded Colonial Pipeline network would have detected the attempted attack and traced the hackers’ identity and location almost immediately.

Our political leaders failed us in addressing our cybersecurity weaknesses, choosing to play politics instead of investing in the infrastructure we need to defend ourselves from hostile cyber threats. As we remember the impact of the attacks on Colonial Pipeline, SolarWinds and JBS we cannot afford to idle and continue playing political games while our adversaries escalate their attacks on our country. And our political leaders can no longer pretend to be surprised should another preventable attack happen on their watch.

As part of his $6 trillion budget, Biden is asking for $750 million to “study” how to prevent cyber-attacks while the former NIAC candidates already have the US government tested and proven STTarx cybersecurity solution which would have been handed over to our nation in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security.

ABOUT JERRY W. TORRES

The author of this piece is Jerry W. Torres who is a cybersecurity expert, decorated service-disabled U.S. Army Special Forces combat veteran, philanthropist, and prominent entrepreneur who founded a global business that became a billion-dollar enterprise within its first ten years.

©Jerry W. Torres. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: United We Stood on September 11th

Watch this incredible 9/11 message and the call to ACT for America!

Read this important article by David Horowitz addressing the state of our nation.

Who Is Responsible For the Darkness That Has Descended on Us?

By David Horowitz
Frontpage Mag

The late author Susan Sontag once famously said, “Communism is fascism with a human face.” A more perfect description of what the Democrat Party has become would be hard to come by. For five years the Democrats have focused their energies on laying the foundations of a communist economy and a one-party state.

In pursuit of the latter, they have tried to abolish the electoral college, change the election laws to undermine the integrity of the voting system, give non-citizens the right to vote, eliminate voter I.D.’s which connect legitimate voters to their ballots, pack the Supreme Court, end the filibuster, pass legislation that would put control of presidential elections in the hands of the Democrat-favoring Washington bureaucracy and remove that control from the fifty states, as the Constitution now requires.

These efforts led to massive irregularities in the presidential election results that put the brain-damaged, pathological liar in the White House and led directly to the crises on the southern border, in America’s streets, and in Afghanistan. They were accompanied by a campaign to demonize former President Trump and the 74 million Americans who voted for him as “white supremacists” and “cultists.” This was itself a dagger aimed directly at the heart of the democratic process which depends on respect for the political opposition and compromise on legislation. If an opposing political party is placed beyond the pale, the inevitable result is a one-party state.

Read More

ACT NOW! and help us restore America one act at a time!

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This ACT For America video and column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Killer COVID Vax, a Genocidal Bioweapon – Part 2

“Under international law, widespread or systematic attacks against the civilian population are crimes against humanity.” –  Philip Alston, Australian international law scholar and human rights practitioner.

“What connects two thousand years of genocide? Too much power in too few hands.” – Simon Wiesenthal

“All I hope is that the American coalition is doing its best to prevent civilian casualties and the killing of innocent people.” – Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor

We are naïve if we think Nazi Germany cannot happen again.  In fact, the Bible predicts it will.  The Germans and even Hitler himself were all too human.  Read the atrocities around our world. It is clear that raw humanity is certainly not very pretty.  Evil held in check often erupts when the conditions are right.  When restraints are gone, when people are desperate, and when power is up for grabs, the human heart is laid bare for all to see.  We are seeing the Red Fascists rise again, this time in our own country. Few of our fellow Americans even recognize it. It is the face of evil, and it didn’t just start with COVID.

Shocking Stats

In a short clip from her White Coat Summit speech, Dr. Lee Merritt gives some frightening stats.  Dr. Merritt was a ten-year navy surgeon and she’s especially concerned regarding COVID inoculations of our military.

In 2020, there were only 20 Covid deaths of active duty, in all the services put together.  They have a big epidemiological base and can easily find out what’s going on.  The military is jabbing everyone, and they’ve already had tumors and 80 cases of myocarditis and it has a significant mortality rate of 66% in five years.  The “vaccine” program has ostensibly killed more active duty than COVID did.  Leukemia, another blood dyscrasia cancer, has 48 per year, but now VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System, states we’re up to 229.  (Remember Harvard’s study that only one to ten percent of deaths or adverse effects are reported to VAERS.)  

In over 31 years, there were only 317 cases of myocarditis.  Now, after these inoculations, for 2021, there are 1,113. I can pick almost any diagnosis, and you will find the same issues after the clot shots have been administered. 

So, the question we have to ask is, why are we not stopping this?  We stopped many things for far less.  We stopped working on respiratory syncytial vaccine for 22 deaths of infants in hospital.  We stopped the H1NI after 53 deaths or 53 adverse events.  Now, we’re probably doing 53 a day, so why are we continuing these jabs? 

Experimental Subjects

In this second 30-minute interview with Dr. Ryan Cole, he states, “The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID inoculations are clearly called investigational vaccines and we are asking nurses, students, employees to be subjects in an experiment on humanity. This is a large phase-three trial of getting the shot for something we do not know the long-term side effects of down the road.  We usually don’t see side effects for two to five years.”

Dr. Cole said the shortages we’re experiencing in the medical industry are because people value their bodily integrity.  He looks at data and he’s already seeing the adverse effects from these shots in a laboratory setting.  Individuals are subjecting themselves to this jab in order to keep a job.

However, he states that they’re seeing young people, middle-aged people and old people refusing to take the shot and being told by their employers that they’ll make them cave.  Nurses have shared with Dr. Cole that this is the mantra of their administrations.  They don’t want their bodies damaged, their fertility damaged, their long-term immune health damaged and they don’t want to increase their risks for cancers.  He believes they’ll stand for their health and bodily integrity and that they have every right to do that and not be a subject in human experimentation through coercion.

The result will be huge staffing shortages.  Cole says he’s heard from Indiana and Michigan and the shortages have already started there and it’s going to be massive.  He adds that this is an attack on entire communities, their wellness and access to care.  It is a violation; we made a promise in 1947 after WWII that we would never again experiment on humanity or coerce anyone against their will, and literally this is what we’re seeing.  There were Nazi nurses and doctors hung for doing to humanity exactly what we’re doing now by saying, “You will participate in an experiment or else you will lose your job.”  Dr. Cole states, “We are taking away the freedom and sovereignty of people over their bodies and minds as well.”

“We’ve had three options this year.  We’ve had fear, suffering and “vaccine.” The real option is hope, early treatment and immune wellness.  We as a society have been subjected to a worse outcome because we haven’t focused on some of the basic public health messages.  We are a Vitamin D deficient nation, magnesium and Vitamin K as well.  We’re an obese nation, a metabolically unwell nation, and this has predisposed us to worse outcomes compared to other nations.”

Variants

The data out of India, where the Delta virus comes from, is statistically one-seventh of the western world.  Dr. Cole explains that all viruses acquire benevolent mutations over time, but scientists and physicians believe the Delta strain is the enhanced version of the Wuhan virus and it comes from the COVID injections. He tells us that in the UK right now there are about 15,000 break-thru cases a day in the “vaccinated” of the Delta variant.

Dr. Cole explains, “The reactions we’re seeing are from people who are getting the shot while they’re infected and then the antibodies formed are attacking the organs in your body.  Those who have also mounted an immunity against Sars-coV-2, if they get a shot, there are multiple risks of adverse reactions because they’ve already got antibody immunity.” The inoculations then put the system in a hyper-immune response negating the much stronger natural immunity.

In Israel, a recent study showed that break-thru cases in those who had already had Sars-coV-2 and natural immunity, verses those who had had the shot, showed that the recurrent infection rate in those who were naturally immune was .008% to reactivation of the virus.

The inoculated contracted Delta strain at a seven times higher rate than the naturally immune, clearly indicating that natural immunity is far stronger than vaccine immunity from a leaky vaccine.  This is not a sterilizing inoculation, it doesn’t give you immunity and you can still get COVID, and the CDC admits they’re not telling people that at least 25% of the jabbed are still transmitting the virus.  The CDC has even admitted that 23% of the people in hospital in June were “vaccinated.”

Cole says we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with leaky inoculations, and trying to force people into an experiment with investigational injections for a virus from a year ago.  We need to focus on early treatment and it’s widely available, it’s cheap and it’s generic.  That’s why it’s not approved because if there were a treatment for this virus, they cannot have authorization for these “vaccines.”  About page three in the vax authorization, it states clearly that you cannot authorize this investigational “vaccine” if there is an effective therapy for the virus. And we know there is, and it is being purposely withheld from the public.

Weakened Immune Systems

The FDA failed in explaining the absolute risk reduction (ARR); it literally takes 120 injected patients to decrease symptoms in one patient.  And of those 120, how many are going to end up with auto-immune diseases down the road, and how many are going to end up with cancers?  We don’t know, but what Dr. Cole says they’re seeing in the labs is a decrease in T-cells that protect our bodies from invaders.  The innate immune system is being destroyed by these injections.  In other words, the very marines in your body that fight off outside attacks are being destroyed.

This is why healthy children at a rate of 100% have not gotten this virus.  Their innate T-cell immunity response has two to three times the immunity of an adult T-cell immune response.  They have two to three times the little grenades that blow up the invaders.

But what Dr. Cole and others are seeing in the laboratories after people get these shots, they’re seeing a locked in profile of these T-cells, it’s a total drop in the effectivity of the T-cells.  In labs, they’re seeing an uptick of Herpes viruses, shingles, mono, a huge uptick in human papilloma virus, 20 times increase in adults of a bumpy rash that children can sometimes get, that these T-cells keep in check.  Since January, Cole has seen a 20% increase in endometrial cancers for the year.  He’s also seeing invasive melanomas in younger patients.  It’s normal to catch those early and they’re thin melanomas, but these are thick and they’re skyrocketing in the last month or two.

These early symptoms show that we are modifying the immune system to a weakened state.  A great study out of Germany looked at these profiles on young individuals after the Pfizer jabs, showing this locked in lowered immune system.  Cole adds, “We don’t know that it won’t regenerate and those ratios will go back up, but who is studying it and where are the long-term trials?”  The concerning patterns are there.

In the Pfizer application to the FDA, the fertility rate was decreased by 16%.  Rats are one of the most fertile creatures on planet earth and they were used in animal testing before humans became the guinea pigs.  This is an indication that we need to be hyper-cautious about what we’re doing.  It’s a violation of all medical ethics.  It is pure malfeasance.

Dr. Cole believes that at some point his medical colleagues may wake up from their stupor and trance and reflect upon the harm that they’re doing upon humanity.  We have never before said, “Let’s vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic.”  We are doing something that is anti-science, science is hypothesizing, theorizing, testing, succeeding, failing, taking the theory and hypothesis and remodifying it until it succeeds.

The oath to “do no harm” means no psychological, physical or financial harm to a patient.  Dr. Cole is calling out his colleagues in these administrations and health systems and telling them they are violating their oaths.  He wants people treated immediately, not sent home until a week later their lips turn blue and they’re sent to the hospital, put on a ventilator, a little bit of oxygen, and a weak steroid. (It should be strong steroids to defeat the inflammation.)

Early Treatment Protocols Avoided

According to Dr. Peter McCullough, none of our major academic institutions innovated with a single protocol for treatment.  In fact, to his knowledge, not a major single academic center, as an institution, attempted to even treat patients with COVID-19.

Dr. McCullough is the editor of two peer-reviewed journals and the senior associate editor of the American Journal of Cardiology.  When he saw the fraudulent Lancet Medical Journal article attacking the 65-year-old safe and cheap drug, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), he was incensed.

McCullough comments, “A doctor from Harvard, the company Surgisphere who had data, the reviewers at Lancet, and the editor and associate editor of Lancet…how could they have all colluded together to publish a falsified paper?”

When Dr. McCullough looked at the paper, he knew in two seconds it was fake. Lancet let this fraudulent paper be on their website for two weeks, frightening the entire world against HCQ, which is one of the safest and widely utilized treatments in COVID-19. Lancet never apologized for their deceptive publication. Every government and independent medical organization went with the bogus claim that HCQ was dangerous and outlawed its use.  People died…needlessly.

Dr. McCullough’s interpretation of this is that it was very, very intentional.  What happened with ivermectin in the ICU was also intentional and an act of collusion.  Dr. Jean-Jacque Rajter of Broward County Florida, pioneered using ivermectin in the ICU and saved hundreds of patients.  His wife, Dr. Juliana Cepelowicz Rajter, published the overall results in Chest Journal with using ivermectin.

Life Saving Protocols

They are afraid to look at the protocols of the frontline care docs at FLCCC.net. These are some of the premier critical care doctors in the world.  They have protocols that are saving patients 70, 80, 90% more than in the hospitals right now. Hospitals are following the government, the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA with their very weak protocols.  Dr. Cole says it’s time for those in the hospitals to catch up to the protocols that are far more successful in saving lives.  Ivermectin is even on the WHO’s list of most essential safest drugs necessary for humanity, and the hospital protocols won’t even try them. These docs say, “Well, I need a randomized controlled placebo trial,” which takes years, but Dr. Cole says, “Look, it’s just a sugar pill if it doesn’t work, and if it does work, you’ve saved your patient.”

Out of 19,000 patients and studies on ivermectin and 26-29 randomized control trials, there’s a one in four-quadrillion chance statistically that this molecule doesn’t have a chance of improving the outcome in Sar-coV-2.  The Gold Standard meta-analysis in medicine is to have several small trials, add them all up and look at the statistics.  The Gold Standard meta-analytically down out of five nations shows that ivermectin works against Sars-coV-2, given early, given late you decrease that rate by 67-68%, given early you decrease the death rate by 88-96%.

Ivermectin is endorsed for Afghan refugees by our CDC, but Americans are being told by our Pravda media that it is an animal anti-parasitic and not for humans.

The FDA stop valve for approving a vaccine is at 25 deaths.  Leo Hohman’s latest article exposes the fact that the CDC is not reporting actual deaths from the jab.  The true data is far higher than most believe.

COVID is Survivable

COVID is a survivable virus and we’re not getting that message.  Again, if the jabs were approved, they would have to be pulled from the market for the number of deaths. The push to vaccinate children needs to be left alone, they survived this at 100%, but the injections will hurt them.  We are seeing a 200% increase in inflammation of the heart in young men, and once your heart is damaged, it’s damaged for a lifetime.  It does not rejuvenate as some other organs do.

Dr. Cole says, “Don’t let your child near these shots.  We don’t know any of the long-term effects of these injections.  Any university that is mandating this for their students is criminal. These young healthy individuals are at no risk from death from this virus.  We have treatments and we’re ruining the health of a generation and killing them as well.  It is unethical, a violation of all morality let alone medical ethics. This is immoral. Step back and look at the data.”

Health Impact News reports that COVID shots are killing and crippling teens in record numbers…and our young children are next.  Beside fetal deaths, breastfeeding babies are dying and becoming sick following mother’s COVID jabs.

Clot Shot Antibodies

Dr. Cole calls the Delta variant a lie.  For the majority of people who are healthy and well, it’s turning into what all viruses turn into overtime, a common cold.  He says that in order to keep your job, one of the side effects of this jab is death.  That’s not moral or ethical.  He calls the Delta variant a scariant because they’re 99.7-99.8% the same virus and a benevolent mutation.  It’s weakening and not killing people at a higher rate.

If you’ve had COVID and recovered, your antibodies are great, and they’re forever, but if you got them from the COVID injections, they are your enemy.  Test animals injected with a spike protein vax, form antibodies, an immune response.  However, when they were exposed to wild type virus down the road, a high percentage of them died very quickly.  When you prime someone with an antibody that is not good, they die.  He says, “Sit back with the popcorn because we’re going to be seeing something horrific immunologically happening to the population down the road.”

Religious Convictions

We have an horrific track record with coronavirus vaccines.  There’s a reason the FDA never let Sars-coV-1 or MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) vaccines come to market.  Every time, they saw the signals and said, “This is too dangerous for humanity.”  This virus is the same as Sars-coV-1, so why do they not have the same mindset now?  We know how horrifically Sars-coV-1 and MERS failed, and now without long-term safety data, we’re pushing forward an investigational vaccine on a population without knowing those long-term signals.  It’s a crime against humanity.

If you’ve had Sars-coV-2 you have a broader immunity than anyone who has gotten the jab.  You have antibodies against the spike, the envelope, the membrane, nucleo caps. You have hundreds of antibodies compared to dozens from the jab.  You have a broader immunity.

There are plenty of people with underlying health conditions and this shot is contraindicated for them and there are protocols for their protection.

Many people have religious convictions and under the civil rights act, you cannot be questioned on your religious convictions.  You have a right to refuse based on religious grounds.

Pfizer and Moderna don’t contain aborted fetal cells, but were developed on aborted fetal cells and were proved and processed on aborted fetal cells.  J&J is grown on aborted fetal cells and may contain human DNA as well as human protein per their application to the FDA.  J&J has human fetal DNA in it

For many of us that matters, so there’s another religious argument.  Number one natural immunity, number two underlying health conditions that would contraindicate the jab, and number three on religious grounds or on moral and ethical grounds alone.  Those three should be an exemption.

Good News

The Idaho Republican state central committee voted unanimously for a resolution to end mandatory jabs in their state.  Dr. Ryan Cole lives and practices in Idaho.

World Net Daily reports that resistance against the experimental jabs is growing.  Spread the word, keep the last of our people from being experimental guinea pigs.

Dr. Cole tells us, “You need to speak out, you need to stand up, there are those of us fighting this insanity, but you need to join us.  We’re banning together.  Moral ethics are being thrown out the window for something we don’t know the long-term outcomes for. It is an absurdity.”

Conclusion

The Nazis in Nuremberg stated they were only following the” laws of the land,” and that their own legal system protected them.  Even Adolph Eichmann said, “I was simply following the laws of war and my flag.”

Romans 13:1-14 tells believers to “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”  Paul belabored the point that we are to be at peace and submit ourselves to governing authorities since all authority comes from God.

Judeo-Christians believe in the one true God and know that abortion is evil and against God’s law.  We battle this evil, despite it being the law of the land.

In Egypt, the midwives refused to murder the newborn Jewish babies, lied to Pharoah and allowed them to live…against his edicts.

According to the Book of Joshua, Rahab, a woman who lived in Jericho in the Promised Land, assisted the Israelites in capturing the city by hiding two men who had been sent to scout the city prior to their attack, against the law of the land. She knew these two men were God’s people and she ultimately took her place with righteous converts.

When the law of the land contradicts God’s command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God’s law.  We are again at that precipice.

Make your choice.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

RELATED PODCAST: Fauci bioweapons funding CONFIRMED, smoking gun proves covid vaccines based on govt biowarfare program

RELATED ARTICLES:

THE COMING GENOCIDE: Mass Extermination of Humanity – Part 1

CDC tightened masking guidelines after threats from teachers union, emails show

COVID-19 Has Transformed Australia

Too Little, Too Late: Millions of Biden Voters Regret Their Vote

Millions of people who cast their vote for Joe Biden in the presidential election last year “regret” voting for him, according to a new poll.

According to the latest Zogby Poll, one-fifth of likely voters say they regret their vote for Biden. Zogby says that “on the surface it doesn’t seem like much, especially if you look at the three quarters of likely voters who did not regret their vote,” but it actually matters a lot. And I agree.

“Why does this matter?” Zogby asks. “If you take into consideration the size of the electorate, and how the last two Presidential elections [2016 and 2020] were decided by tens of thousands of votes in a handful of battleground states, this could really hurt President Biden’s chances in 2024.”

The poll looks worse for Biden when you consider the demographics of the voters surveyed. “Some very important groups, who normally lean left and Democrat, were even more regretful about voting for the president in 2020,” noted Zogby.

“For example, younger voters aged 18-29 [27% yes/67% no/6% not sure] and middle aged voters aged 30-49 [30% yes/67% no/4% not sure] were much more likely to regret voting for Biden than older voters aged 50-64 [10% yes/87% no/3% not sure] and 65+ [6% yes/91% no/3% not sure].”

The poll also found that 29 percent of Republicans who voted for Biden regret their vote (which seems low to me) and 21 percent of Democrats regret their vote.

*****

Continue reading this article, published September 3, 2021 at PJ Media.

Wall Street Journal: Even Confiscating Entire Wealth of All US Billionaires Couldn’t Pay for Democratic Spending Plans

There’s just one problem with Bernie Sanders’ narrative: it’s impossible.

From Iowa to Indiana, Senator Bernie Sanders is hitting the road. The Vermont socialist has a simple mission: reach out to rural America and make the case for the $4.5+ trillion government spending plans his allies are trying to push through Congress. The massive spending proposals include everything from a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill to the creation of a “Civilian Climate Corps” to healthcare subsidies for wealthy Americans to taxpayer-funded community college to electric vehicle subsidies. (And much, much more).

In his pitch to blue-collar Republicans, Sanders is painting the spending bonanza as a boon for the working class. He’s also attempting to downplay the costs as only falling on the uber-wealthy and big corporations.

“[Struggling Americans] can’t afford child care,” Sanders said at a recent event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “They can’t afford health care. They can’t afford to send their kids to college. They can’t afford housing. And they look around and ask, ‘Does anybody care about me?’”

The senator dubbed the multi-trillion-dollar spending plans “the most consequential piece of legislation for working families that we have seen in this country since the New Deal.”

At a similar event in Indiana, Sanders gloated about his intent to raise taxes, but claimed he would only do so on “the rich.”

“My Republican colleagues are busy telling everybody, ‘Bernie Sanders and Democrats are going to raise taxes.’ You’re right!” Sanders said. “We’re gonna raise them on the richest people in this country so they start paying their fair share.”

There’s just one problem with this whole narrative: it’s impossible. The exorbitant levels of spending Sanders and his allies have proposed can not be financed by simply taking from the ultra-wealthy.

Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board wryly explains, you could confiscate the entire net worth of all US billionaires and still not raise enough money to fund Sanders’ plans.

“There are 724 [billionaires] in the U.S., according to the 2021 Forbes billionaires list, released in April,” the Journal reports. “At that point their collective net worth was $4.4 trillion, although that figure has presumably since risen along with the stock market.”

But when accounting for future renewals, the true cost of Sanders’ schemes, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, is closer to $5.5 trillion—at least a trillion more than could be raised from billionaires. (And that’s assuming that taking their entire net worth is on the table; it most certainly is not).

“If Mr. Sanders were to confiscate every asset of every American billionaire— Jeff Bezos’s rockets; Elon Musk’s bitcoin; Larry Ellison’s boats; Oprah Winfrey’s houses; Ted Turner’s ranches; Jay-Z’s car collection; even the starched shirt off the back of poor Larry Fink, who tied for last place on the Forbes list, at $1 billion—it still wouldn’t cover the cost of Democrats’ next two legislative plans,” the Journal concludes.

And Sanders also wants to pay for the spending by raising taxes on corporations. But these taxes are, in reality, just taxes on workers. A Heritage Foundation study found that raising the corporate tax from 21 percent to 28 percent would lead to a $1,650 decline in average household income.

Moreover, Congress would likely finance much of the spending bonanza by simply running up the $28.7 trillion (and counting!) national debt. Rising debt directly hurts all Americans, not just the rich. It does so by slowing economic growth, reducing business investment into the economy, and requiring more taxes each year to cover interest payments.

Another way the spending plan may be financed is through the printing of new money. This contributes to price inflation. Rising prices are basically a regressive tax on the working class that erodes their purchasing power and savings.

You get the picture.

We can and should have a robust debate about the merits of the various big-government proposals Bernie Sanders and his allies are trying to push through Congress. But that debate must be grounded in facts—and there is simply no way to pay for multi-trillion-dollar spending plans just by “taxing the rich.”

*****

This article was published on September 1, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from FEE, Foundation for Economic Education.

Yee Divests Arizona Treasury From Ben & Jerry’s For Israel Boycott

Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee is pulling the state’s public funds from a company over its decision to boycott Israel after multiple warnings.

Yee announced Tuesday she had taken steps to eventually divest all public money from Unilever, the British corporation that owns ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s. The move, she said, is in accordance with an Arizona law that forbids state funds from being invested in companies that boycott Israel.

“I gave Unilever PLC, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, an ultimatum: reverse the action of Ben & Jerry’s or divest itself of Ben & Jerry’s to come into compliance with Arizona law or face the consequences. They chose the latter,” Yee said in a statement. “It does not matter how much investment Unilever PLC has in Israel, with Ben & Jerry’s decision to no longer sell its product in the West Bank, the companies are in violation of the law in Arizona.” Yee said the state would not do business with companies that attempt to undermine Israel’s economy and “blatantly” disregard Arizona’s law.

The Vermont ice cream brand announced July 19 it no longer would sell its products in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. It referred to the areas as “Occupied Palestinian Territory” in its announcement.

“We reject and repudiate all forms of hate and racism,” Ben & Jerry’s said in a statement. “Our decision to exit the OPT was based on our belief that it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s to be present within an internationally recognized illegal occupation. Speaking and acting on our values is neither anti-Israel nor antisemitic.”

The company said it would continue to sell ice cream in Israel for the time being.

Israel President Isaac Herzog called the decision “a new form of terrorism, economic terrorism,” with other officials warning Unilever would face consequences for allowing the divestment.

Arizona had invested $143 million into the British conglomerate. That was reduced to $50 million, and will be zeroed out as of Sept. 21 once the state’s last investment matures.

The treasurer’s office has invested more than $30 million in Israeli bonds since 2013.

*****

This article was published on September 8, 2021  and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Biden’s Ammunition Ban Is Part Of The Left’s Plot To Disarm Americans

The gun prohibition lobbies have discovered that even if they can’t ban guns, choking off ammunition is an effective way to prevent people from using them.

The Biden administration recently prohibited the import of ammunition from Russia. That’s bad news for American firearms owners, but there may be much worse to come.

The gun prohibition lobbies, having mostly failed in their campaigns to convince legislatures to ban guns, have intensified their efforts to disarm Americans by other means. The Biden ammunition ban is one step in the process.

If you’ve tried to buy ammunition in the last year and a half, you know how bad the shortage already was, even before the new ban. In a sense, Joe Biden has been a contributor to the shortage since 2020.

Gun and Ammunition Sales Were Already Surging

When presidential nominees declare an aggressive anti-liberty agenda, many Americans prudently exercise their rights while they still can. If an anti-rights candidate wins and starts implementing a gun-control agenda, the urgency increases. Thus, arms and ammunition purchases surged in 1993-94 (early Bill Clinton), 2008-09 (early Barack Obama), 2012-13 (Obama making gun control a top second-term priority), 2016 (Hillary Clinton campaign), and 2020 (Biden campaign).

Biden was, however, not the only problem. Rising COVID-19 cases worried many Americans that police forces might be temporarily spread thin. Thus, March 2020 saw a huge (and still enduring) surge in ammunition buying, beginning to outstrip supply.

Then came the summer of violence, as Marxists, leftists, and other opportunistic malefactors robbed, burned, looted, and murdered with impunity. Many law enforcement agencies stood idle. While rioting has abated in most cities, it will resume whenever the organizers decide to turn it on again. Meanwhile, the police have been partially defunded in some cities, and vilified and demoralized everywhere.

Then came the summer of violence, as Marxists, leftists, and other opportunistic malefactors robbed, burned, looted, and murdered with impunity. Many law enforcement agencies stood idle. While rioting has abated in most cities, it will resume whenever the organizers decide to turn it on again. Meanwhile, the police have been partially defunded in some cities, and vilified and demoralized everywhere.

Given that so many governments have demonstrated that they cannot or will not protect citizens from individual criminals or from violent mobs, it is no wonder that so many Americans have decided to take responsibility for protecting themselves and their families. But they can’t do that if they can’t buy ammunition.

A Maxed-Out Market

In 2020 about 8.4 million guns were purchased by first-time gun buyers. Like Americans who already owned guns, these newcomers might, in ordinary times, buy a few boxes at a time, for target and safety practice. But in today’s extraordinary times, many new and old gun owners are seeking to buy more, since they do not know if they will be able to buy ammunition at all in the future. Politicians from coast to coast used the pandemic as a pretext to shut down gun stores. No one can predict when they will do so again.

America’s ammunition manufacturers have responded to the full limits of their capacity. Many factories are operating 24 hours a day. But because the continuing effects of COVID-19 have disrupted supply chains, there are many materials bottlenecks that limit manufacturing output.

Input prices have also soared. For example, a pound of copper cost $2.55 on Sept. 2, 2019, and $4.30 on Sept. 2, 2021. Ammunition prices in many calibers have at least doubled. The backorders at ammunition manufacturers now stretch out to a year or more. Hornady Manufacturing Company — known for very well-engineered self-defense and hunting ammunition — said in May 2021 that it already had orders for its next two and a half years of production.

The ongoing ammunition shortage is seriously impairing the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Many gun owners have cut back on practice because they cannot be sure they will be able to replace the ammunition they use. Some firing ranges are not even able to sell customers a box of ammunition. The shortage is particularly burdensome for the millions of Americans who purchased their first firearm in 2020 and are being deprived of practice opportunities.

Drying Up Import

On August 20, 2021, the Biden administration announced it would not issue new licenses for the import of ammunition from Russia. Existing licenses were not affected. Ostensibly, the import bans are sanctions against the Russian government for its attempted murder of dissident Aleksey Navalny (although the seriousness of the Biden administration’s sanctions policy is questionable).

In 2020, 765 million units of Russian ammunition were imported into the United States — more than from any other nation. The calibers most affected by the Biden import ban are 7.62×54, 7.62×39, 5.45×39, 5.56×45, and match-grade .22 rimfire. Those first four calibers are mainly for AK platform semi-automatic rifles. AK rifles are manufactured by U.S. companies and by overseas exporters. Functionally, these popular rifles (and sometimes large pistols) are alternatives to the even more popular AR platform.

In general, AK rifles are manufactured to looser tolerances than ARs. This makes them less accurate, especially at longer distances. But they are also amazingly durable, and function well even under conditions of hard use, such as exposure to dirt.

Jim Grant, an editor of the AmmoLand website, urges Americans not to worry: other foreign countries export the above calibers to the United States, and by the time the existing Russian import licenses expire, some of the Russian manufacturers may be able to shift production to other nations.

Biden’s Ban Isn’t the Only Threat

Although the ammunition shortage may ease up in a year or two, the gun prohibition lobbies have more restrictions on their agenda. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby wants America to adopt the British system, in which guns and ammunition must be stored in separate, locked safes.

“We are all safer” in such a system, the Bloomberg lobby claims. True enough, if “we” means “violent home invaders.” But having to open two safes in a few seconds when invaders have crashed through your home’s back door makes life perilous for your family.

Perhaps the biggest current threat is a recent California law misleadingly billed as “background checks for ammunition.” As the history of gun control shows, what happens in California doesn’t stay in California. California prohibits mail-order sales. So rural Californians might have to drive hours to find a retail store with the ammunition they need.

If you can find a store with the necessary ammunition, the California statute requires the ammunition buyer affirmatively to prove American citizenship. Don’t have a handy certified copy of your birth certificate? California will take up to 22 weeks to issue you one. If you can’t get a certified birth certificate (or a passport, which usually requires a birth certificate to obtain), then you can never buy ammunition in California.

If you do have a certified birth certificate, the ammunition background check can begin. It is very different from the background check for firearms purchases.

Don’t Californicate the Gun Market

For the typical firearms background check, the buyer’s identity is checked against lists of prohibited persons (e.g., persons with felony convictions, unlawful aliens who were apprehended, persons under domestic restraining orders). In contrast, the ammunition check blocks sales to everyone who is not on the California registry of gun owners.

California’s handgun registry was created in 1990, and the long gun registry in 2014. If you bought your firearm before that, you won’t be on the list, and your ammunition purchase will be denied. You will also be denied if your current address is different from where you lived when you bought your gun.

As a result, 99.8 percent of California ammunition purchase denials are erroneous. The California appeal system for wrongful denials is opaque and slow. The apparent net effect of California’s “background checks for ammunition” has been to deter or prevent at least 2 million law-abiding Californians from purchasing ammunition.

As California illustrates, the gun prohibition lobbies are more sophisticated than ever, and they have discovered that even if they can’t ban guns outright, choking off ammunition is an effective way to prevent people from using guns.

*****

This article was published September 7, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

STAY INFORMED

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

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.