Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others. Uncategorized

DOJ tells FBI to stand down. Justice Department Considered but Rejected Role in Biden Documents Search

President Joe Biden’s Justice Department reportedly permitted the president’s personal attorneys to search for classified documents in separate locations without security clearances or the FBI present.

Views: 14

President Joe Biden’s Justice Department reportedly permitted the president’s personal attorneys to search for classified documents in separate locations without security clearances or the FBI present. I wonder if they realize that the DOJ folks who made this decision will be called to testify, and Biden will have to hire outside lawyers if this goes to a trial. Maybe a sitting President can’t be charged, but Biden’s lawyers can be charged. Tampering with Evidence.

We want to thank the WSJ and Breitbart for this.

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department considered having FBI agents monitor a search by President Biden’s lawyers for classified documents at his homes but decided against it, both to avoid complicating later stages of the investigation and because Mr. Biden’s attorneys had quickly turned over a first batch and were cooperating, according to people familiar with the matter.

After Mr. Biden’s lawyers discovered documents marked as classified dating from his term as vice president at an office he used at a Washington-based think tank on Nov. 2, the Justice Department opened an inquiry into why and how they got there. Mr. Biden’s legal team prepared to search his other properties for any similar documents, and discussed with the Justice Department the prospect of having FBI agents present while Mr. Biden’s lawyers conducted the additional searches.

Instead, the two sides agreed that Mr. Biden’s personal attorneys would inspect the homes, notify the Justice Department as soon as they identified any other potentially classified records, and arrange for law-enforcement authorities to take them.

Those deliberations, which haven’t previously been reported, shed new light on how the Biden team’s efforts to cooperate with investigators have thus far helped it avoid more aggressive actions by law enforcement.

In the week since news reports first surfaced about the documents, the incident has drawn parallels to the discovery of a much larger number of documents at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida, which federal agents obtained a warrant to search in August after more than a year of negotiations between Mr. Trump’s lawyers, the National Archives and the Justice Department and after Mr. Trump’s lawyers said all documents had been returned.

Mr. Trump’s supporters have accused the Justice Department of a double standard in treatment; Mr. Biden’s supporters have pointed to the president’s legal team’s cooperation and swift moves to inform the Justice Department of the documents’ discovery as a key difference. Mr. Biden has said he doesn’t know what the documents are or how they wound up at his office at the Penn Biden Center or his Delaware home. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was director of the Washington think tank from 2017 to 2019, told reporters on Tuesday that he was unaware that government documents had been stored there.

Biden ‘Cooperating Fully’ With DOJ as Garland Appoints Special Counsel

Biden ‘Cooperating Fully’ With DOJ as Garland Appoints Special CounselPlay video: Biden ‘Cooperating Fully’ With DOJ as Garland Appoints Special Counsel
President Biden said Thursday a “small number” of classified documents from his time as vice president were found at his home and in his personal library. Attorney General Merrick Garland outlined the decision to appoint a special counsel to investigate. Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The discussions and the Justice Department’s willingness to let the Biden lawyers do the searches unsupervised also suggest federal investigators are girding for a monthslong inquiry that could stretch well into Mr. Biden’s third year in office.

One reason not to involve the FBI at an early stage: That way the Justice Department would preserve the ability to take a tougher line, including executing a future search warrant, if negotiations ever turned hostile, current and former law-enforcement officials said.

Representatives of the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment. In a call to reporters about the investigation, White House spokesman Ian Sams said the president and his team were cooperating fully with the special counsel review “so that it can proceed swiftly and thoroughly.”

The White House revealed on two separate days last week that documents had been located at the president’s Delaware residence, as well as those found at a garage there in December. Part of the reason the new documents were revealed separately is that Mr. Biden’s personal attorneys don’t have security clearances to handle classified documents and had to set aside any material that could qualify as such. Richard Sauber, special counsel to Mr. Biden, who has that clearance, accompanied Justice Department personnel to retrieve documents, when they discovered additional pages with classification markings.

Attorney General Merrick Garland last week assigned a former top prosecutor in the Trump administration, Robert Hur, to serve as special counsel investigating the discovery of the documents in the locales associated with Mr. Biden. Justice Department officials were concerned that an FBI presence as the Biden team hunted for documents could complicate investigators’ ability to execute search warrants or subpoena documents as the investigation proceeds, some of the people said, in a sign that investigators are considering the possibility of a grand jury investigation into the matter.

Mr. Hur is expected to begin his job as special counsel by the end of the month, after he winds down his work as a defense lawyer at the law firm Gibson Dunn, people familiar with his appointment said.

Robert Hur has been appointed special counsel in the Biden documents investigation.PHOTO: MICHAEL MCCOY/REUTERS

Soon after the initial discovery in November, Mr. Garland tasked the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Chicago, John Lausch, with reviewing the documents, with an eye toward determining whether a special counsel should be appointed.

Mr. Lausch told Mr. Garland on Jan. 5 that he thought a special counsel was warranted given the many unanswered questions about the documents, and Mr. Garland quickly agreed, the people said.

Mr. Hur is expected to grapple with legally and politically thorny considerations that could be reminiscent of those from the last special counsel related to a sitting president, potentially including whether to pursue in-person testimony from Mr. Biden. During the 2017-19 special counsel inquiry led by Robert Mueller into Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign and any links between that effort and the Trump campaign, investigators tried for more than a year to interview then-President Trump before ultimately settling for written testimony.

Mr. Sams declined to say whether Mr. Biden would sit for an interview with the special counsel if asked.

Legal experts said an open-book strategy could help shorten Mr. Hur’s inquiry and keep it from dragging out over Mr. Biden’s presidency.

“My goal would be to get everybody interviewed by Robert Hur as quickly as possible—not throw up roadblocks, not assert privileges, and get this thing over with,” said Neil Eggleston, who served as White House counsel in the Obama administration.

The Justice Department investigation into the Biden documents comes as another special counsel is already deep into a parallel inquiry into the classified documents at Mr. Trump’s Florida home.

Former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida was searched by FBI agents last year.PHOTO: MARCO BELLO/REUTERS

The FBI in August executed a search warrant at the property, believing more such documents remained there based on witness interviews and security-camera footage. They removed dozens of boxes containing additional documents, many of which were mixed in with clothing and news clippings. Prosecutors later disclosed they were investigating whether anyone sought to obstruct their inquiry, in addition to whether anyone should be prosecuted for mishandling the documents. Mr. Trump has called the Justice Department’s moves a witch hunt and said he did nothing wrong.

The Justice Department has sought to keep the two inquiries separate by assigning them to different teams, according to people familiar with the matter. The Biden White House has highlighted differences between the two inquiries, stressing in particular how their cooperative stance compares to the Trump team’s resistance to turn over records to the National Archives after repeated requests. Mr. Trump’s legal team later clashed with the Justice Department over the appointment of an outside arbiter, known as a special master, to review documents seized from Mar-a-Lago.

Yet the Biden team’s bumpy rollout of its discoveries—it only confirmed the document discoveries after news reports and has offered few new details—complicates its attempt to draw a hard distinction between Mr. Biden’s actions and those of Mr. Trump, said John Fishwick, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia during the Obama administration.

“He is the sitting president, there’s no reason for him to hold back anything about this,” Mr. Fishwick said. “It makes it harder to say it’s apples and oranges, and it undercuts the argument that you were different.”

—Sabrina Siddiqui contributed to this article.

Write to Aruna Viswanatha at aruna.viswanatha@wsj.com, Sadie Gurman at sadie.gurman@wsj.com and C. Ryan Barber at ryan.barber@wsj.com

Loading

177
Post Views: 291
Categories
Reprints from others. Uncategorized

An unlikely threat to popular democracy in California

Dozens of fast-food workers from around the state, including Yolanda Meneses of San Diego, gathered outside the office of state Sen. Dave Mins, D-Irvine on Wednesday, July 27, 2022, asking for his support of AB 257. (Photo by Mindy Schauer, Orange County Register/SCNG)

Views: 21

Back in 1911, concerned that the Legislature was bowing to the special interests of the powerful railroad lobby, California voters heeded their governor’s call to take “the first step in our design to preserve and perpetuate popular government.”

They then took the historic act of enacting their right to bypass the Legislature by adopting the People’s right to enact legislation (the right to initiative), to approve statutes before they can take effect (the right to referendum), and to recall elected officers.

On Friday, a California court is expected to decide whether a state agency can nonetheless implement a law that is subject to a referendum before the voters have had an opportunity to approve it.

The law in question – Assembly Bill 257 – establishes a 10-member “Fast Food Council” which would have the authority to establish higher standards for wages, working hours, and working conditions for a select group of fast food restaurant workers.  Most significantly, the council could increase by 42% the minimum wage for certain fast food workers from the State’s current minimum wage of $15.50 per hour to $22 per hour in 2023, with further increases in subsequent years.

Such significant increases in minimum wages will necessarily raise the cost of fast food at many fast food restaurants to the detriment of all Californians solely to benefit the pocket books of some Californians.  And putting aside the Orwellian terminology of designating as a “minimum wage” a wage that far exceeds the minimum, a higher minimum wage for only some workers in the same community subject to the same cost of living as other workers constitutes political favoritism, not a solution.  Even the Governor’s own Department of Finance warned that the bill “could lead to a fragmented regulatory and legal environment for employers and raise long-term costs.”

In response to the new law, a coalition of restaurants timely collected over one million signatures in a referendum petition to suspend the law until Californians could vote on it.  That is over 60% more signatures than the amount necessary to trigger the right to a referendum.

Nonetheless, the director of the California Department of Industrial Relations, which will oversee the new council, said her department would implement the new law commencing January 1 while county election officials continue to verify the genuineness of the thousands of signatures on the referendum petition.

The director’s position conflicts with the very purpose of the People’s referendum power: to require that a law be approved by the voters before it takes effect.

Moreover, her position, if upheld, sets a dangerous precedent for the People’s right to hold a referendum on the hundreds of bills enacted at the end of each two-year legislative session on August 31 since signatures on a referendum petition are unlikely to be verified before the bills take effect on the following January 1.  That is because the governor has until September 30 to sign bills; referendum proponents then have 90 days to collect the required signatures (or as late as December 29); and those hundreds of thousands of signatures could never be verified as genuine by January 1.

Fortunately, neither the California Constitution nor its Elections Code requires the suspension of a statute to await the counties’ verification of the signatures, as argued by the director.  Under the California Constitution, the presentation of a referendum petition “certified” to be signed by the required number of voters suspends the statute. And the Constitution delegates to the Legislature “the manner in which a [referendum] petition shall be circulated, presented, and certified.”

 

The Legislature has specifically provided that the circulator of the referendum petition shall “certify” that “each signature is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be,” and that the “Petitions so verified shall be prima facie evidence that the signatures are genuine and that the persons are qualified voters.”

 

In other words, once the California Secretary of State determined on December 9, 2022, that the referendum petition here had significantly more than the required number of signatures, it was presumed to contain the genuine signatures of qualified voters until demonstrated to the contrary, thereby suspending the legislation.

The director’s position fails to honor the People’s right to approve legislation before it becomes effective, and weakens their right to reject special-interest legislation.  If the director won’t change her position, the courts should stand up for popular democracy and require her to do so.

Daniel M. Kolkey, an attorney and a retired California judge, has advised four different state governors and chairs Pacific Research Institute’s California reform committee

Loading

173
Post Views: 229
Categories
Uncategorized

The Wokesters (try to) Strike Back after Virginia Tech loss in court

Views: 30

Former Virginia Tech women’s soccer player Kiersten Hening and coach Charles “Chugger” Adair

(This is a follow-up to Virginia Tech Soccer player benched for refusing to follow the coach’s woke orders…)

The First Amendment feud between a college soccer player and her school has only grown worse despite the fact that she won a large monetary settlement.

Former Virginia Tech women’s soccer player Kiersten Hening filed a lawsuit against head coach Charles “Chugger” Adair, saying that he verbally attacked her and decreased her playing time after she refused to kneel in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Adair tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, the judge disagreed

She eventually agreed to a monetary settlement of $100,000, which included no wrongdoing on the part of her or the coach. But although a settlement has been reached, the fighting seems to be far from over. In fact, it has only gotten worse.

On Monday, 76 current and former Virginia Tech women’s soccer players signed a statement in defense of Adair, claiming that the allegations against him were baseless and that Hening was lying.

Many of the players graduated before Hening was even on the team.

“We have spent countless hours training, traveling and playing under his leadership and are devastated and appalled to see his character and integrity severely impugned,” the statement reads.

“We firmly believe that these allegations are nothing more than a distorted representation of the facts.”

First of all, many of the players graduated before these events allegedly took place and before Hening was even on the team. How do they know what happened between her and Adair?

Also, this statement does not disprove Hening’s allegations; it just proves that these players have the same political beliefs as the coach. It seems likely that they just want Hening to face punishment for her politics.

Furthermore, if her claims were baseless as the statement claims, why did the university pay the $100,000 settlement? The fact that Virginia Tech agreed to dole out that amount of money suggests that the university believes the case was credible.

Adair, for his part, released a statement on Twitter after the settlement was reached, saying, “Today, we have the clarity that this case lacked any standing, and without evidence, the truth has prevailed.”

But Twitter was quick to put a context label under the tweet, noting that he had agreed to the settlement.

But: in reply to this tweet:

This sure looks like another example of someone in a progressive environment being bullied for not submitting to the woke mob.

We have seen that various sports have increasingly become a platform for woke athletes and celebrities to preach about leftist causes, while conservatives have been chased out and silenced.

It seems that in this case, though, people are being held accountable, and while the settlement did not include an admission of wrongdoing, it was an indication that the left can no longer just bully people into compliance.

Virginia Tech agreed to dole out $100,000. This at the very least suggests that the university believes the case was credible.

Q: How do the signers of that statement know what happened between Henning and Adair?

A: They DON’T!

The reasoning behind the answer above is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

Loading

188
Post Views: 247
Categories
Links from other news sources. Uncategorized

Show me the money. Non slave state is now looking at a million each. I say 10 million.

Gloria Moore grew up in Russell City, Calif., an unincorporated parcel near San Francisco Bay that was bulldozed in the 1960s through eminent domain.Credit...Bethany Mollenkof for The New York Times

Views: 38

Show me the money. Non slave state is now looking at a million each. I say 10 million. Yes since it’s California’s money, I’m feeling generous. The state set up a commission to see what they should pay each person. Well more was added to the mix.

The task force has identified five areas — housing discrimination, mass incarceration, unjust property seizures, devaluation of Black businesses and health care — in discussions for compensation. For example, from 1933 to 1977, when it comes to housing discrimination, the task force estimates compensation of around $569 billion, with $223,200 per person.

So when you look at the total was bumped up to 1 million per person, do the math. Over 2 trillion dollars would be the total cost. I’m sure the legislature will just say raise taxes. Yeah right.

Loading

207
Post Views: 266
Categories
Links from other news sources. Uncategorized

Twitter and the FBI “Belly Button”

Twitter getting tough.

Views: 14

I want to thank fellow writer Matt Taibbi for this great article.

Twitter tried to balk at cooperating with government agencies deemed “political.” In the end, it allowed everyone access through the FBI “Belly Button”

In the first week of May, 2020, at the peak of Covid-19 panic, Twitter senior legal executive Stacia Cardille received a communication from the Global Engagement Center (GEC), the would-be operational/analytical arm of the U.S. State Department. Founded in the Obama years under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the GEC was like the State Department’s wannabe version of the NSA or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Appended to an attachment with a long list of names was a note from the GEC — remember, these were the Trump years — that read, in part:

We are providing these 5,500 accounts that display inorganic behavior and follow two or more of the 36 Chinese diplomatic twitter accounts that we have identified in the report. Due to the fact that these accounts follow two or more of these diplomatic accounts, and a good portion of them are newly created, we believe that they are suspicious.

Let’s stop right there. You do not need to have a legal background to see that something doesn’t look right. Why would a Federal agency send a public company this type of information? Why would you not do your own investigation to see if any laws are being broken?

Twitter should have brought in legal experts to see if this was true. And if it was, why wouldn’t the federal agency turn this over to the DOJ?

 

 

Loading

185
Post Views: 287
Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

So this is where the loons get their junk science. The Case for Wearing Masks Forever

Illustration by Ben Wiseman

Views: 40

So this is where the loons get their junk science. The Case for Wearing Masks Forever.

Now we know why extremists that follow the fauch ,were always attacking scientists from the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, AMA, and other main stream medical sources. They are following A ragtag coalition of public-health activists who believe that America’s pandemic restrictions are too lax—and they say they have the science to prove it.

Mindy Thompson Fullilove, a professor of urban policy and health at the New School who is Black, has spent her career studying epidemics: first aids, then crack, then multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. She has seen how disease can ravage cities, especially in Black and working-class communities. From the beginning, Fullilove was skeptical of how the federal government handled the coronavirus pandemic. But these new recommendations from the C.D.C., she said, were “flying in the face of the science.” Not long after the announcement, she sent an e-mail to a Listserv called The Spirit of 1848, for progressive public-health practitioners. “Can we have a people’s CDC and give people good advice?” she asked. A flurry of responses came back. And what did the CDC recommend?

Last December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that it was shortening the recommended isolation period for those with covid-19 to five days. Getting exposed to the virus no longer meant that people needed to quarantine, either, as long as they were fully vaccinated and wore a mask.

What emerged was the People’s C.D.C.: a ragtag coalition of academics, doctors, activists, and artists who believe that the government has left them to fend for themselves against covid-19. As governments, schools, and businesses have scaled back their covid precautions, the members of the People’s C.D.C. have made it their mission to distribute information about the pandemic—what they see as real information, as opposed to what’s circulated by the actual C.D.C.

They believe the C.D.C.’s data and guidelines have been distorted by powerful forces with vested interests in keeping people at work and keeping anxieties about the pandemic down. “The public has a right to a sound reading of the data that’s not influenced by politics and big business,” Fullilove said.

Below is the last paragraph I’ll post This group’s leader is a race baiter.. You can find the whole article here.

And then there are masks. The People’s C.D.C. strongly supports mask mandates, and they have called on federal, state, and local governments to put them back in place, arguing that “the vaccine-only strategy promoted by the CDC is insufficient.” The group has noted that resistance to masks is most common among white people: Lucky Tran, who organizes the coalition’s media team, recently tweeted a YouGov survey supporting this, and wrote that “a lot of anti-mask sentiment is deeply embedded in white supremacy.”

 

 

Loading

203

Post Views: 308
Categories
Uncategorized

The Great Barrington Declaration

Real Scientists.

Views: 17

 

 

Great Barrington Declaration

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Read The Declaration
Sign the Declaration

935,000+ Signatures

View Signature Map
Français
Português
Español
Italiano
DEUTSCH
SVENSKA
РУССКИЙ
עברית
Polski
Dansk
Ελληνικά
Magyar
اللغة العربية
čeština
Hrvatski
română
简体字
Türkçe
Nederlands
Íslenska
Український
Català
한국어
bahasa Indonesia
Српски
Български
SUOMI
Føroyskt
日本語
Sugbuanon
Tagalog
اُردُو
ภาษาไทย
SLOVENŠČINA
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
हिन्दी
ગુજરાતી
eesti keel
euskara
Esperanto
தமிழ்
lietuvių kalba
Norsk
বাংলা

 

The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

Sign the Declaration

Co-signers

Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners

Dr. Alexander Walker, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA

Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England

Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England

Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada

Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany

Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA

Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA

Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England

Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England

Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA

Dr. Florian Limbourg, physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany

Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland

Dr. Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Dr. Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany

Dr. Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany

Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden

Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England

Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA

Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England

Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England

Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England

Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England

Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India

Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA

Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England

Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA

Tom Nicholson, Associate in Research, Duke Center for International Development, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, USA

Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany

Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel

Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England

Sign the Declaration

 

Loading

217

Post Views: 361
Categories
Links from other news sources. The Border Uncategorized

Winning. Texas doing what Biden wont. Building barriers to keep the undocumented out.

Texas Military Department

Views: 4

Building barriers to keep the undocumented out. Yes Texas is doing the federal governments job. Keeping the undesirables out. The Texas National Guard has built two miles of razor wire fencing around El Paso. At the other end of the Texas border with Mexico, National Guard soldiers placed addition razor-wire border fending in strategic areas, Breitbart Texas reported.

In other locations along the border, the state expanded its use of shipping containers to extend border barriers. Maybe they can get the additional shipping containers from Arizona.

Major General Ronald “Win” Burkett described the 72-hour mission for the Guardsmen.

“They’re focused on deterrence, they’re focused on sending a message that unlawful crossings is not an option,” General Burkett stated. “You’ve got to go to the POE (Port of Entry).”

The general described the logistics of the operation with the Texas Air National Guard airlifting 400 soldiers and equipment to El Paso in four C-130 aircraft on Saturday morning.

The soldiers went to work at 4 a.m. to string the triple-level wire along the riverbank in El Paso. By Tuesday morning, the soldiers erected more than two miles of the barrier, CNN reported. Texas Military Department officials told the news outlet they will build more in the coming days.

During the past week, Border Patrol officials released nearly 6,000 migrants to NGO’s in El Paso or onto the city’s streets, according to the city’s Migrant Situational Awareness Dashboard. More than 10,000 were released the week before.

At the other end of the Texas border with Mexico, National Guard soldiers placed addition razor-wire border fending in strategic areas, Breitbart Texas reported.

 

Loading

219
Post Views: 371
Categories
Corruption Elections Faked news Links from other news sources. Social Venues-Twitter Uncategorized

Thanks to Musk, we now know the so called conspiracy theories were actual facts.

Musk to tell all. Twitter photo.

Views: 16

Thanks to Musk, we now know the so called conspiracy theories were actual facts. So everything about the FBI and Twitter working together was true. The shadow banning, banning, exchanging information and Twitter being paid to block people and information. 

What was pathetic was the FBI statement saying they only made recommendations. Let’s say that’s all they did. Why would a government agency be making suggestions on who to ban or what information should be allowed?

This from Musk.

“To be totally frank, almost every conspiracy theory that people had about Twitter turned out to be true. Is there a conspiracy theory about Twitter that didn’t turn out to be true? So far, they’ve all turned out to be true. If not more true than people thought.”

 

Loading

212
Post Views: 393
Categories
Corruption Elections Uncategorized

What do real legal experts have to say about The referrals?

Allan knocks it out of the ballpark.

Views: 14

What do real legal experts have to say about The referrals? Recently one of the lurkers on this website tried to justify the phony referrals sent to the DOJ in reference to Trump and attorney Eastman. Linked of all things, A MSNBC hack who tried to justify without evidence the referrals.

Remember that 800 people were arrested. Not one was charged for Insurrection. But yet this committee is claiming Trump called for an Insurrection. Below are real legal experts and what they have to say.

 

 

https://youtu.be/NE-r_SS6EYM

Loading

259

Post Views: 386
Verified by MonsterInsights