Biden Cartel puts the blame on the whistle blower.
DOJ Announces Indictment Against Biden Whistleblower.
Published on By Citizen Frank
Dr. Gal Luft
Israeli professor Dr. Gal Luft, a key Biden whistleblower who was “missing” for several weeks, has been indicted by the Department of Justice just days after releasing a video in which he accused the Biden family of accepting bribes and assisting the Chinese government.
Luft has been accused of failing to register as a foreign agent while working to advance the interests of China in the United States. In addition to Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the eight-count federal indictment includes charges of arms trafficking, Iranian sanctions violations, and making false statements to federal agents.
“As alleged, Gal Luft, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen and co-head of a Maryland think tank, engaged in multiple, serious criminal schemes. He subverted foreign agent registration laws in the United States to seek to promote Chinese policies by acting through a former high-ranking U.S. Government official; he acted as a broker in deals for dangerous weapons and Iranian oil; and he told multiple lies about his crimes to law enforcement,” said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams.
More on the indictment from Fox News:
BREAKING: Gal Luft has been indicted by the DOJ just days after coming forward to detail allegations against the Biden Family. pic.twitter.com/FVfVSyb7iQ
First, LUFT conspired with others in an effort to act within the United States to advance the interests of the People’s Republic of China (“China”) as agents of China-based principals, without registering as foreign agents as required under U.S. law.
As part of this scheme, while serving as the co-director of a Maryland-based non-profit think tank, LUFT agreed to covertly recruit and pay, on behalf of principals based in China, a former high-ranking U.S. Government official (“Individual-1”), including in 2016 while the former official was an adviser to the then-President-elect, to publicly support certain policies with respect to China without LUFT or Individual-1 filing a registration statement as an agent of a foreign principal with the Attorney General of the United States, in violation of FARA.
Among other things, in the weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, LUFT and a co-conspirator (“CC-1”), who is a Chinese national and worked for a Chinese nongovernmental organization affiliated with a Chinese energy company, created a written “dialogue” between CC-1 and Individual-1, in which LUFT wrote Individual-1’s responses and included information that was favorable to China.
The dialogue was then published in a Chinese newspaper online and sent to, among others, individuals in the United States, including a journalist and professors at multiple U.S. universities. When LUFT was writing the dialogue, CC-1 told LUFT that “[i]n these articles, we do not want to spill all the beans yet, just enough to let ‘people’ know he [i.e., Individual-1] is in the corridor of power to be. Just broad stroke policy consideration that leaves plenty of room for interpretation and imagination to be filled in later.”
After the purported “conversations” were published, LUFT told CC-1 that certain information, favorable to China, had been “tucked between the lines.” Shortly after the 2016 election, LUFT and CC-1 also discussed possible roles Individual-1 might have in the incoming U.S. administration and discussed Individual-1 taking a “silent trip” to China. LUFT responded that “[w]e are debating about his role in the new admin. There are all kinds of considerations . . .We should talk ftf [i.e., face-to-face] as there can be a supremely unique opportunity for china.”
Last week, Luft uploaded a video from an “undisclosed location” in which he claimed he was being detained in order to prevent his scheduled testimony before the House Oversight Committee. The professor asserts that the Biden family received payments from individuals with alleged ties to Chinese military intelligence, further alleging the existence of an FBI mole who leaked classified information to China-controlled energy company CEFC.
“I, who volunteered to inform the US government about a potential security breach and about compromising information about a man vying to be the next president, am now being hunted by the very same people who I informed — and may have to live on the run for the rest of my life on the run …,” Luft said.
“I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I have no political motive or agenda … I did it out of deep concern that if the Bidens were to come to power, the country would be facing the same traumatic Russia collusion scandal — only this time with China. Sadly, because of the DOJ’s cover-up, this is exactly what happened,” he continued.
House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) recently told Newsmax that Luft was in talks with the committee and would soon be testifying. Comer described Luft as “highly credible,” adding that, “this is a credible witness that the FBI flew all the way to Brussels to interview and sent several agents to interview. This is someone who knew about CEFC in detail long before the laptop ever became public.”
Gee, isn’t it strange how these charges all of a sudden appeared out of left field (pun intended)? An Israeli accused of broking deals with the Iranians — swore enemies of Israel? Really?????
Someone (who needs to remain anonymous) was able to obtain the death certificates from Minnesota for all deaths that occurred from 2015 to the present, which presented the opportunity to see if the CDC is being entirely honest about the US death data. Unsurprisingly, the CDC is not.
As we shall document, the CDC is concealing references to a covid vaccine on Minnesota death certificates (that are exceedingly rare to begin with because of widespread medical establishment denialism of vaccine adverse side effects). In almost every death certificate that identifies a covid vaccine as a cause of death, the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.
Background
When someone dies, there is a death certificate that is filled out for official/legal purposes. Death certificates contain a lot of information (some states include more than others), including the causes of death (CoD).
Causes of death refer to the medical conditions that ultimately played some role in the demise of the decedent. To qualify as a CoD, a condition only needs to contribute to the medical decline of the decedent in some way, but doesn’t have to be directly responsible for whatever ultimately killed the person. If someone had high blood pressure, and subsequently suffered a heart attack that led to cardiac arrest which killed them, all three conditions qualify as CoD. On the other hand, this unfortunate fellow’s ingrown toenail is not a cause of death, because it in no way contributed to their demise.
This is from the CDC’s own guidance explaining how to properly fill out CoD’s on a death certificate (you don’t need to understand the difference between Cause A, B, etc, for this article):
The critical thing to keep in mind is that the person filling out the death certificate writes a text description of the CoD’s, but doesn’t assign the ICD 10 codes for the CoD’s.
That’s the CDC’s job.
ICD 10 Coding System for CoD’s
There is a fancy coding system that is used to classify the many thousands of medical conditions that can play a role in death known as the International Classification of Diseases. Every few years, it is updated/revised to keep up with new medical (or bureaucratic) developments as new conditions are discovered, and old conditions are reorganized or reclassified.
The current iteration of the ICD used for the deaths we’re looking at is the ICD 10 (the 10th version). It is basically a hierarchical classification system:
There are codes for practically every random weird thing you can think of:
There are codes for practically every random weird thing you can think of:
These are categories themselves – a code can go as 7 characters long:
(There are other ICD 10 codes for various specific complications or side effects of vaccines, but the point remains that an ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects exists.)
CDC – Centers for Data Concealment
The CDC receives the death certificates from the various states and applies ICD 10 codes. This is primarily done with a secret algorithm, with a tiny percentage of cases adjudicated by CDC staff when the algorithm is unable to confidently assign an ICD code to the text description written on the actual death certificate (such as confounding spelling or a text description that does not make much sense). I confirmed this with a biostatistician who works for a DoH in a US state (I’m leaving out which one because I want to preserve my persona grata status). The individual who obtained the MN death certificates likewise confirmed with state officials that the ICD codes in their data were assigned by the CDC.
What a death certificate identifying a covid vaccine as a CoD *should* look like
There are three death certificates in the MN tranche that contain either T88.1 or Y59.0. One is for a flu vaccine reaction, and – surprisingly – the other two are for a covid vaccine.
Note – when used below:
UCoD (Underlying Cause of Death) refers to “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury.”
MCoD (Multiple Causes of Death) refers to “the immediate cause of death and all other intermediate and contributory conditions listed on the death certificate.” (everything else)
The first death certificate contains a covid vaccine ICD (below), and it looks like the CDC was trapped and could not avoid putting it on without fundamentally rewriting the death certificate, because the vaccine complication is unambiguously listed as the UCoD (this death certificate is saying the person was killed by a heart attack caused by the covid vaccine within minutes of injection):
The second death certificate the CDC deigned to assign a vaccine ICD (and not only one but *BOTH* vaccine ICD codes(!!)) feels like perhaps a rogue CDC employee was working that day and snuck it in:
In any event, as we can clearly see, both T88.1 and Y59.0 are indeed appropriate for when a covid vaccine is listed as a CoD. Thus the CDC cannot claim that there was no official ICD 10 code that could be used to designate covid vaccines (or any other excuse).
The FRAUD:
With that introduction, below are 7 death certificates from Minnesota that identify a covid vaccine as a cause of death where the CDC omitted the corresponding ICD 10 code identifying a vaccine side effect when the CDC assigned ICD codes to the death certificates.
The first fraudulently filled out death certificate offers a crucial detail highlighting not only the fraud but the naked double standards for assigning CoD’s.
This death certificate identifies both a covid vaccine and covid itself as contributory CoD’s (in the last row highlighted in yellow, vaccine underlined in green, covid in blue):
“covid vaccine second dose 10 hrs prior to death”
“history of covid infection in May 2020” (about 7-8 months prior to death)
Any remotely objective person would presume that if a condition that occurred 7 months prior without any clear link to the actual death still nevertheless meets the standard for being identified as a CoD, then surely a condition or event that occurred a mere TEN HOURS before death identified by the doctor filling out the death certificate merits inclusion as a CoD.
Yet, the CDC assigned U70.1 – “COVID-19, virus identified” – for covid, but neglected to assign T88.1 or Y59.0 for the covid vaccine.
A second point to highlight is that we see that anything mentioned as a CoD, even in the context of “history of” that had (presumably) been long resolved, is a legitimate CoD insofar as assigning an ICD 10 code and epidemiological data are concerned.
This decedent suffered a cardiac arrest that ultimately led to her death *ONE DAY* after being vaccinated.
(For the record, I am not bothered by the “though it’s not clear as to any mechanism for how the vaccine could have led to the cardiac arrest” line. This death occurred February 24, 2021 – well before there was any sort of public awareness about the multiple plausible mechanisms by which the vaccine could cause heart damage. So to me, whoever filled out the death certificate was a gutsy fellow willing to identify a covid vaccine on a death certificate that had his name on it.)
Fraudulent Death Certificate #3
This death certificate doesn’t merely identify a covid vaccine, it explains that the decedent “felt sick after the vaccine” and died 4 days later from a heart attack.Yet, no T88.1 or Y59.0.
This death certificate provides that the decedent received her second dose of Pfizer 18 days prior to her death.
Here we have a 65-year-old male who was killed by a heart attack 12 days after getting vaccinated.
This case is especially noteworthy. Someone involved with this death informed me that the family had to pressure the coroner to put the recent covid booster on the death certificate. A family member also filed a VAERS report themselves, after the patient’s doctors declined to do so.
Furthermore, the CDC applied W34 as the UCoD. What is W34 for?
‘accidental discharge and malfunction from other and unspecified firearms and guns.’
There is no mention of any firearms mishaps on the death certificate.
One would have to wonder how such an errant code came to be, especially on a death certificate that contains other ICD 10 shenanigans. It is unlikely that ‘Y590’ or ‘T881’ would be ‘misspelled’ or algorithmically mixed up with ‘W34.’
Perhaps if there were no other instances of fraudulent omittance of vaccine ICD codes on other death certificates, and the CDC wasn’t in the habit of routinely assigning U07.1 for a covid infection that resolved a year ago, the failure to include T88.1 or Y59.0 here could be excused.
At minimum, this death certificate should contain T88.0 – ‘Infection following immunization’ – to document the breakthrough infection (which is a subject for a separate article as this seems to be fairly widespread).
Additional Observations
The following table shows the date of death and age for all 9 death certificates shown above that identified a covid vaccine as a CoD:
It is striking that 7/9 died before May 2021. This is odd – if anything, the deaths should skew later, not earlier. Vaccine adverse events were denied – with maximum prejudice and then some – for many months before the medical mainstream has finally (begrudgingly) started to acknowledge that the covid vaccines can trigger potentially lethal pathologies (in exceedingly rare instances to be sure).
The clustering of death certificates mentioning a covid vaccine at the beginning of the rollout suggests that ‘administrative’ interference likely played a role in discouraging coroners from mentioning a covid vaccine on death certificates.
Another noteworthy tidbit here is the age of the decedents: every single one is a senior citizen, and the average age of the decedents is 80. This is important to highlight because whereas young people “dying suddenly” stands out, there has been much less attention or acknowledgement of the covid vaccine’s devastating toll upon the old and frail, where deaths – even those that occur in close proximity to vaccination – are readily attributed to prior health conditions.
Finally, the actions of the CDC call into question whether the CDC is altogether qualified or trustworthy enough to be the steward of the nation’s epidemiological data. The CDC manages many of the datasets that underpin whole fields of study. If the CDC is willing to fraudulently alter data (or even if the CDC is just too incompetent to avoid corrupting data), all data under the aegis of the CDC is potentially suspect, especially if it relates to a controversial political or social issue. The implications of this are disturbing, to say the least.
Commentary By Rachel Emmanuel for The Western Journal July 6, 2023
On Monday, Fox News published a report titled: “Trump draws massive crowd of at least 50K in small South Carolina town of 3,400: police.”
The article covered former President Donald Trump’s rally in Pickens, South Carolina, on Saturday, which, according to the police chief of the town, drew a crowd of over 50,000 Trump supporters to the tiny town.
But community note contributors on Twitter weren’t willing to accept that the former president was still able to draw crowds of this size.
A community note was added to the Fox News tweet of the article that read: “Police Chief Randall Beach initially estimated the crowd to be 50,000, he said he would need to confirm those numbers with the Secret Service. A Secret Service agent later clarified to the news that approximately 15,000 were in attendance.”
Trump draws massive crowd of at least 50K in small South Carolina town of 3,400: police https://t.co/FsR40BLShx
But it turns out the fact-checkers were doing a little less “fact-checking” and a little more “fact manipulation.”
The fact-checkers cited an article from Greenville News to support their community note.
The relevant section cited read:
“Pre-rally estimates of 10,000 to 30,000 were made. During his remarks, Trump claimed the turnout was 75,000. Beach said he needed to get an accurate count from the Secret Service before providing a final number. Around 11 am, a secret service agent told the News there are 5,000 inside the gate and approximately 10,000 still in line.”
Sidebar: Do you trust fact-checkers? Yes: 1% (7 Votes) No: 99% (1197 Votes)
With some convenient cherry-picking, the fact-checkers used the estimated 5,000 people inside plus the 10,000 still in line mentioned by the Secret Service agent and came up with a grand total of 15,000 people at the rally.
An impressive math feat.
What they did not mention, however, is that that estimate was made at 11 o’clock in the morning. Trump’s plane hadn’t even landed at that point, according to Politico.
Tens of thousands pack Pickens. More than 50 treated for heat-related illness.
Moreover, the article cited is titled: “Trump in SC: Tens of thousands pack Pickens. More than 50 treated for heat-related illness.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but “tens” of thousands generally means more than one ten and a five.
But, maybe the fact-checkers missed the fact that the title of the article they cited implies in its title that there were well more than 15,000 there that day.
They must have also missed the part in the very same article they cited where Beach “reiterated his crowd estimate of 50,000.”
“I would not be shocked if it were closer to 60 (thousand),” he told the newspaper. “If someone has an estimate closer to 70 (thousand), I wouldn’t question it.”
That statement by Beach was made on Sunday, the day after the rally, not at 11 a.m. on Saturday, hours before the rally had even started.
So the part about the Secret Service agent’s estimate being the “later” one was, let’s just say, sadly mistaken.
The South Carolina crowd explodes when Trump Force One flys over Pickens.
There is already a massive crowd for Trump’s Pickens, South Carolina rally. Biden could never draw a crowd this large. It’s clear Trump is the president of the people. pic.twitter.com/wrqnipp764
Cherry-picking when it comes to how stories are reported is nothing new, especially when the news is conservative and even more when the story has the word “Trump” in it. So it’s important to stay vigilant, even on a so-called bias-free platform like Twitter.
As for the contributors who wrote the community note on the article — if I were a gambler, I’d take any odds that at least one of them has the letters “CNN” in their employment bio.
The United States is now investigating how to inject chemicals into the atmosphere in order to block out the sun.
The idea is to use a “stratospheric aerosol injection” to essentially mimic the effects of the aftermath of a volcanic eruption, where the sun is blocked out for a prolonged period of time. The goal here is, however, to somehow reduce greenhouse gases.
What could possibly go wrong?
The research, which was done by the Office of Science and Technology Policy on a congressional mandate, created a plan for “solar and other rapid climate interventions.”
Besides injecting chemicals into the atmosphere, it also looked into “marine cloud brightening,” which makes clouds less reflective, as a way to allow more sunlight to reach the earth’s surface.
Mexico in January banned these types of experiments.
A company called “Make Sunsets” had begun experiments on solar geoengineering in Baja California, in December 2022. It launched weather balloons that were releasing sulfur particles into the stratosphere.
It was a small experiment that used less than 10 grams of sulfur dioxide. But Mexico wasn’t having any of that. The country banned future programs on solar geoengineering. An official statement from its Ministry of Environment and National Resources notes that since 2010, under the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, there is a moratorium against the use of geoengineering.
It states: “Solar geoengineering practices seek to counteract the effects of climate change, through the emission of gases into the atmosphere such as sulfur dioxide, aluminum sulfate, among others. This process induces the sun’s rays to be reflected back into space, thus avoiding the increase in temperature in a specific geographical area.”
Yet it adds something important. Apparently, the harm of programs like this is known.
According to the Mexican government, “there are enough studies that show that there would be negative and unequal impacts associated with the release of these aerosols, which cause meteorological imbalances such as winds and torrential rains, as well as droughts in tropical areas; in addition to generating impacts on the thinning of the planet’s ozone layer.”
Interest in the concept started after a volcanic eruption in 1991 in the Philippines. Mount Pinatubo blasted 20 million metric tons of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere. This sparked interest among climate change enthusiasts because the natural disaster caused a cooling in global temperatures that lasted for two years.
But risks or not, and regardless of studies already showing the harm such programs would have, there are people set on moving forward.
Billionaire Bill Gates made headlines in 2019 when he was funding a new program to replicate the effects of a massive volcanic eruption.
Interestingly, the program he was backing falls under the “stratospheric aerosol injection” concept that the White House is now saying it’ll look into. According to CNBC, under the Gates program, “Thousands of planes would fly at high altitudes, spraying millions of tons of particles around the planet to create a massive chemical cloud that would cool the surface.”
Of course, programs such as this predate that. In 2018, the journal Environmental Research Letters had a study from a pair of researchers at Harvard and Yale that proposed the idea of “stratospheric aerosol injection.” It notes a body of research on the concept, mainly from 10 to 20 years ago, but also notes there was a proposal as well from the National Academies of Science in 1992.
LiveScience noted in 2018 that a program to “Spray Cheap Chemicals in the Air to Slow Climate Change” would be surprisingly cheap. It would cost about $3.5 billion over the course of about 15 years. Once it’s ready to go, it would cost another $2.25 billion each year.
It notes that if the solar dimming chemicals were sprayed in the stratosphere, the effect would last for a year to 18 months.
Recreating ‘The Worst Year to Be Alive’?
So why did the Mexican government ban it, if research groups in the United States seem to still be interested?
Well, it goes back to the idea of a volcanic eruption.
Remember, the technology is meant to mimic the solar dimming effect of a massive volcanic eruption. If they did that using chemicals, it would last at least a year, and current proposals would drag this out for around 15 years. So what does that look like in practice?
Again, what could possibly go wrong?
Well, we can look back to the year 536 A.D., popularly known as “the worst year to be alive.”
What was so bad about it? Well, there was darkness for 18 months. And what was the cause of it? It was unknown for most of history, but climate change scientists have since discovered it was caused by a volcanic eruption.
As Science reported in 2018, the Climate Change Institute of The University of Maine discovered that a massive volcano in Iceland erupted in 536 A.D. and spewed ash across the Northern Hemisphere. It was followed by two other massive eruptions in 540 and 547 A.D.
Byzantine historian Procopius wrote that during the time, “the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during this whole year, and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear nor such as it is accustomed to shed.”
Science reported that temperatures dropped by about 1 degree Celsius. Remember, the Mount Pinatubo eruption that inspired the current research dropped temperatures by around 0.1 degree Celsius.
Regardless, back to 536, Science cites medieval historian Michael McCormick, who noted that “Snow fell that summer in China; crops failed; people starved. The Irish chronicles record ‘a failure of bread from the years 536–539.’”
It also was cited as a likely cause of a deadly plague that killed around 50 million people. The Sun reported in 2019 that the eruption in 536 also led to “famine and a collapse of the global economy” while “Some experts even believe the eruptions are linked to a major plague pandemic. The Justinian Plague started in 541 A.D. and killed around as many as 50 million in just 12 months as it spread across the Mediterranean.”
Remember how Twitterheads claimed that the Philly shootings were done by “White Supremacists?” Well, here one is:
The 40-year-old Kimbrady Carricker
The man accused in the fatal shooting spree in Philadelphia that left five people dead and four others wounded Monday night left a will at his house, and according to a roommate, had acted agitated and wore a tactical vest around his house in the days before the shooting, prosecutors said Wednesday.
In his first court hearing on Wednesday morning, 40-year-old Kimbrady Carriker was charged with 11 total offenses and several counts of each.
In addition to murder, Carriker is also facing charges of attempted murder, reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm without a valid permit.
He is being held without bail for the murders.
Sources say the suspect made disturbing social media posts before the gunfire. Sources say, Carriker, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, owned the ghost guns used in this mass shooting.
Prosecutors said they recovered a handgun, a will dated June 23, and other evidence during a search of the Carricker’s home. They declined to discuss details of the will or whether it gave any indication Carrick had been planning the attack between then and the shooting ten days later.
This is not the first time Carriker has had run-ins with the law. The suspect has misdemeanor drug and gun charges from 2003, which led to probation.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced in no uncertain terms that her office is determined to enforce it, the US Supreme Court and freedom of religious conscience be damned.
Mayes calls ruling ‘woefully misguided’
After the court announced its decision in the Colorado case, Mayes issued a statement that read in part, “Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans.
“While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor — the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is ‘profoundly wrong.’ ”
Mayes is referring to a dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in part, “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”
[Protected class means that they are “more equal than others” — to quote George Orwell’s Animal Farm. –TPR]
She added, “By issuing this new license to discriminate … the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”
Not in Arizona, according to Mayes.
She will ‘continue to enforce’ Arizona’s law
She said in her statement, “Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity.
“If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.”
The extremist majority of the Supreme Court appears willing to nudge the country into a modern-day Jim Crow era.
For now, however, members of the LGBTQ community in Arizona do not have to sit in the back of the bus.
[It would seem that AG Mayes (and the OpEd writer) both feel that the “protected classes” should have preferential treatment over the other “non-protected” people in their state. — TPR]
Currently a significant police and medical deployment has been initiated in response to a mass shooting that occurred during a large gathering that was taking place in… pic.twitter.com/5pd6Ck9Azz
The original tweet: said: Currently a significant police and medical deployment has been initiated in response to a mass shooting that occurred during a large gathering that was taking place in Brooklyn Homes, Baltimore Maryland. Law enforcement authorities have reported a total of 30 individuals has been shot with gunshot wounds, out of which four fatalities have been also confirmed.
White supremacists, using illegal firearms, shot at least 30 Black victims killing at least 2 in Maryland last night. The suspects had very dark complexions and are considered armed and dangerous.pic.twitter.com/ftSrqTuyg3
Contrasted with this retweet: White supremacists, using illegal firearms, shot at least 30 Black victims killing at least 2 in Maryland last night. The suspects had very dark complexions and are considered armed and dangerous.
Hmm. “White Supremacists using illegal firearms” with “very dark complexions.” Does anyone else see the totally obvious contradiction in those two quoted phrases?
This was a black-on-black crime.
Whites didn’t commit it. Otherwise, this idiot would have claimed they had put on blackface to disguise their race/ethnicity. No, this is just another case of someone fomenting conflict to divide the country.
(Some) light-skinned blacks look down on darker-skinned ones. And some dark-skinned ones want to be fairer. Why did Nicki Minaj bleach her skin?
This same-race racism was true 50+ years ago and is still true today. Calling someone back then a “nappy-headed n*gger” or “Uncle Tom/Oreo” between blacks was a definite insult and sometimes led to a fight.
Lazy blacks also seem to look down on successful blacks (except in sports/entertainment, maybe) because they give lie to the constant whine that they — being black — can’t succeed solely because they are “oppressed.”
And, of course, these self-identified victims whine about being called out on their self-centeredness. See: “Why White Racist Humor Is No Joke for Black People” where they whine that whites like black comedy that deprecates blacks. The OpEd — written under the pseudonym of “Gus Renegade” in the ATLANTA BLACK STAR in 2015 — blatantly panders to black racism while blaming everything on whites and attacking Chris Rock and Trevor Noah for not following the narrative.
“There’s Black folks and then there’s …n*ggers.”
As Chris Rock himself said in an HBO-recorded show, “…there’s black folks, and then there’s n*ggers.” He even said that regular blacks look down on these troublemakers for the same reasons everyone else does: because they are troublemakers.
That’s not to say that there are no racist whites; there are, and they’re almost exclusively far-left Democrats. Or, as my colleague MC calls them: “White plantationists.”
Typical leftist tactics being supported by their own victims, SMH.
“I did the calculation,” testified Steve Kirsch in front of the Pennsylvania State Senate.
Given that five Amish people died in Lancaster County, PA, “the Amish died at a rate 90 times lower than the infection fatality rate of the United States of America.”
“Now, how is that possible?” Steve Kirsch asked. “It’s possible because the Amish aren’t vaccinated. And because the Amish didn’t follow a single guideline of the CDC,” he answered.
“They did not lock down. They did not mask. They did not social distance. They did not vaccinate, and there were no mandates in the Amish community to get vaccinated. They basically ignored every single guideline that the CDC gave us. Ignoring those guidelines meant a death rate 90 times lower than the rest of America.”
The Amish Died of COVID at a Rate 90 Times LOWER Than the Rest of America
“I did the calculation,” testified @stkirsch in front of the Pennsylvania State Senate.
Given five Amish people died in Lancaster Country, PA, “the Amish died at a rate 90 times lower than the infection… pic.twitter.com/qa0EhPfssH
Here’s the video transcript for those who want to read more:
Let’s talk about the Amish. Yesterday, I drove to Lancaster County (Pennsylvania). I drove to Amish country. I drove from house to house to house. I actually went to the house of a relative of Gideon King. He’s the one person, the only known person in the Amish community who supposedly died from COVID — that I’m aware of.
Now, they say there may be up to five people in Lancaster County who died from COVID, but I was unable to get the names of five people. I offered a $2,500 reward on Twitter. Hey, give me the names of more than five people in Lancaster County who died from COVID. Not a single person was able to name more than one person. They all named Gideon King. One guy.
So, I actually went to the house of Sam King, who’s a relative of Gideon King. And I talked to Sam. He doesn’t know if Gideon actually died from COVID or not. He died in the hospital. They think it was COVID, but maybe he died from the COVID hospital protocols. Okay.
So, you look at the Amish. I did the calculation. Let’s say there were five Amish people — because people say, I think there were maybe a few, or maybe there were five Amish people. And then I asked them, okay, can you name them? And nobody can name them.
But let’s say that we could name them — and there were five Amish people who died. That means the Amish died at a rate 90 times lower than the infection fatality rate of the United States of America. The Amish died at 90 times lower rate from COVID than America — than the rest of America.
Now, how is that possible? It’s possible because the Amish aren’t vaccinated. And because the Amish didn’t follow a single guideline of the CDC. They did not lock down. They did not mask. They did not social distance, They did not vaccinate, and there were no mandates in the Amish community to get vaccinated. They basically ignored every single guideline that the CDC gave us. Ignoring those guidelines meant a death rate 90 times lower than the rest of America.
So you talk about taking guidance from the WHO? Why don’t we copy what works? In fact, wouldn’t it be great to say in the next pandemic that Pennsylvania will take guidance from the Amish instead of the WHO? And you will be much, much better off.
Steve Kirsch breaks down the numbers in more detail on his Substack page:
Steve Kirsch’s newsletter
BREAKING: The US COVID mitigation measures resulted in 90X higher COVID deaths
Executive summary On May 22, 2023, I offered a $2,500 reward for anyone to give me the names of more than 5 Amish people in Lancaster, PA (which is the world’s largest single community of Amish people with over 45,000 people) who died from COVID. Nobody could do that. I got a few names. And nobody could name anyone under 50 years old who was suspected of…
You should ask questions before believing that enraging story and posting it on social media.
With stories, as with hot dogs, you may want to ask what’s inside and where it comes from. (Nati Harnik/AP)
[Note: the original article is from Margaret Sullivan, a former columnist for WAPO, so of course, all the “bad actors” she cites are “Republican” or “conservative.” Naturally, the left never does any of this, do they Media Matters for America?]
Vetting news sources has never been more difficult than in today’s most complex information environment.
With no shortage of websites and social media accounts claiming to be credible—often propagated by bad-faith actors—how can you tell what’s legit from what’s not? The crisis of local news outlets shutting down across the country has only exacerbated this problem, making it easier for nefarious forces to fill the void with “pink slime” sites with misleading names.
[“Pink slime” refers to processed lean beef trimmings, and is a cheap filler used to “beef up” many meat products. It is made by salvaging the meat that gets trimmed off cuts of beef along with fat. The the salvaged meat is squeezed through a pipe and sprayed with ammonia to kill bacteria, after which it is dyed pink, packaged into bricks, frozen and shipped to meat packing plants. — TPR]
In 2020, the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at the Columbia Journalism School identified at least 1,200 such sites.
It’s always tempting to share the news that comes across our social media feeds when it not only seems outrageous but also confirms our biases, fears, or suspicions.
“See?!” we seem to say as we retweet or post; this latest exciting development is just what we knew could happen all along!
But there’s a question we need to ask these days before sharing one of these scintillating stories with friends and followers: Is it true?
Increasingly, “articles” that look like news may be something entirely different — false or misleading information grounded not in evidence but in partisan politics, produced not by reporters for a local newspaper but by inexperienced writers who are paid, in essence, to spread propaganda.
Last [year] provided a case in point when what looked like a legitimate news story went viral.
Published in the “West Cook News,” the story purported to reveal that a suburban Chicago school would soon be giving students different grades depending on their race. It started like this:
“Oak Park and River Forest High School administrators will require teachers next school year to adjust their classroom grading scales to account for the skin color or ethnicity of its students. … In an effort to equalize test scores among racial groups, OPRF will order its teachers to exclude from their grading assessments variables it says disproportionally hurt the grades of black students. They can no longer be docked for missing class, misbehaving in school or failing to turn in their assignments, according to the plan.”
There was a big problem, though: It wasn’t true.
It found a ready audience. “But of course,” tweeted the conservative author Andrew Sullivan, as he shared the story to his hundreds of thousands of followers.
He was far from alone in promoting the story. There was a big problem, though: It wasn’t true.
The school issued an unequivocal statement denying the story. While school board members have considered all sorts of research about grading practices — the bogus story relied on out-of-context material presented in a meeting for discussion — the school “does not, nor has it ever had a plan to, grade any students differently based on race.” Georgetown professor Donald Moynihan debunked the story point by point: “The piece has failed the most basic journalistic standard: it has not provided evidence either for the sensationalistic headline or its core claims.”
Some of those who shared it later expressed regret or deleted their original posts, as Sullivan did, but, of course, it’s impossible to put the viral genie back in the bottle.
This single incident was bad enough; what’s worse is what it shows us about our poisoned news environment. While fact-based, accountable local newspapers are struggling to survive — many of them facing budget cuts or closure — what’s known as “pink slime” sites are sneakily trying to fill the void. They traffic in falsehood and exaggeration, paid for by political groups.
“These sites are insidious,” said Alan Miller, founder, and CEO of the News Literacy Project, the D.C.-based nonprofit organization that works to make students and the public smarter news consumers and better citizens.
Named after a meat-processing byproduct used as filler — in other words, it looks like meat but isn’t — pink slime news sites are often funded through secret and politically motivated “dark money” contributions. And they are growing fast. In 2020, the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at the Columbia Journalism School identified at least 1,200 such sites.
With names such as the Des Moines Sun and Illinois Valley Times, they leverage the trust that people have for local newspapers, built up over many decades, to boost their own dubious credibility. Their content is “rooted in deception, eschewing hallmarks of news reporting like fairness and transparency,” according to a New York Times investigation that referred to them as “Pay-for-Play” outlets. Most of them, for example, don’t disclose the funding they get from advocacy groups. Davey Alba, one of the reporters who co-wrote the Times investigation, noted that the “West Cook News” is part of a network of local sites run by Republican operatives.
Meanwhile, of course, local newspapers are shrinking or dying. Between 2005 and the start of the pandemic, about 2,100 newspapers were closed, as I detailed in my book, “Ghosting the News: Local Journalism and the Crisis of American Democracy.” And although many legitimate and admirable news sites have sprung up to help fill the gap, it isn’t always easy for news consumers to know the difference.
I asked Miller for his advice to news consumers.
First, he said, take a pause when you see a story that gets your blood pressure jumping: “Don’t let your emotions take over. If something makes us angry, anxious or excited, that’s when we are most vulnerable to being manipulated.”
Then, he suggested, spend a minute doing your own research. Glance at the comments to see whether anyone has done a fact-check or has credibly challenged the findings. Use a search engine to see whether any other news outlets have covered this story. Try to find the original source of the story or ask the person who shared the post for evidence supporting the claim. Ask yourself whether it seems too good to be true.
You don’t need to take all of these steps, he noted, acknowledging that this is more work than most people will probably undertake. But “doing any of them will be beneficial.”
The News Literacy Project has managed to reach tens of thousands of educators and, through them, potentially millions of students. Because older people are most likely to share false information, according to research published in 2019 in the journal Science Advances, the News Literacy Project is working with an affiliate of AARP and hopes to expand the partnership. [Meaning they can think for themselves — well, some of them, anyway. Ageism by the left: how shocking! — TPR]
There’s really only one solution, after all: skeptical awareness.
News consumers must cultivate their own ability to know the difference between journalistic meat and fraudulent filler.
And, whatever their politics may be, those who care about truth need to slow down — way down — before sharing content that appeals to their emotions or preconceived ideas. It’s increasingly likely that it may be nothing but slime.
[Although trying to pin all these “pink slime” sites on the political opposition, Sullivan does make valid points about how to view “news” items that might not be as objective — or even truthful (#RIPJeremy Renner was a hoax, yet trended on Twitter just the other day) — as we want our news to be. —TPR]
When I was growing up, “I’m sorry,” was the requisite response to “you apologize to your sister right this minute” after you yanked out a handful of her hair or accidentally (on purpose) broke her favorite Barbie. There was no genuine remorse or promise of reform required. “I’m sorry” bought you half-hearted forgiveness, got you out of major trouble, or both.
It was basically BS.
As a mother and a career linguist, “I’m sorry” wasn’t an option if my daughters injured, outraged, or offended each other — whether carelessly or intentionally. The phrase was trite, I explained; meaningless. Instead, because I believe that words matter deeply, I chose to encourage this alternative: “I feel bad about what I did, and I’ll try not to do it again.” (Without the trying part, it would be almost as platitudinous as “I’m sorry.”)
It must suck to have a mom who’s a writer.
Like just about everything else in the world, words have gotten wonky since COVID came to town. Almost out of the gate, we were told to shelter in place, a phrase once employed only in life-or-death, bombs-are-falling, get-under-your-desks emergencies. Suddenly it meant, “You know, you should really probably stay at home unless you’re out of Pantene, your dog swallowed a sock, or someone in your circle needs a margarita to go.”
Some words saw their actual, official definitions altered to fit the emerging narrative. Merriam-Webster quietly decided that an “anti-vaxxer” was no longer simply a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, but henceforth would also describe those who oppose regulations mandating them. So basically, you can be quadruple-juiced and pro-medical freedom, and you might as well start making homemade granola and get yourself some nice bell-bottom jeans and a tie-dyed top, you dirty hippy.
It’s right there on the website!
Similarly, the CDC changed its definition of “vaccine” mid-pandemic from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” Convenient, right? They never said it protected you from anything. It’s right there on the website!
When I asked ChatGPT to tell me what a breakthrough case of COVID was, it described this unicorn-level occurrence as “when a person who has been fully vaccinated against the virus later becomes infected with the virus.” The AI chat platform nearly tripped over itself to add: “It is important to note, however, that breakthrough cases are still relatively rare. Vaccines have been shown to be highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, even against new variants of the virus.” Never mind the countless analyses that have found that your risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death increases with each booster. It’s just those pesky breakthrough cases. (Oh, and you’re a domestic terrorist if you say or even think otherwise.)
By literal definition, disinformation is “false information deliberately and often covertly spread in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.” And yet the Center for Countering Digital Hate (the irony!) boldly baptized 12 individuals the “Disinformation Dozen” for promoting proven therapeutics, acknowledging natural immunity, pointing out the abysmal failure of the so-called vaccines, and encouraging natural remedies. A proper logophile (or domestic terrorist) might dub them the “Inconvenient to Pharma Dozen.” But semantics.
There was no vaccine law.
Curiously, the definition of a mandate is “an authoritative command.” A law, on the other hand, is “any written or positive rule prescribed under the authority of [a] state or nation.” It’s essentially the difference between, “Hey, kid, get off my lawn,” and, “You’re under arrest for criminal trespassing.” There was no vaccine law, I’ll remind you. And yet students, pilots, travelers, teachers, frontline medical workers, and millions of employees from countless fields lined up for an experimental gene therapy injection because they were commanded authoritatively to do so.
Is anyone else as angry about this as I am?
At least 1,553,187 people: the current number of COVID vaccine injuries reported to VAERS.
Last but certainly not least, we have our two best pandemic friends, “safe” and “effective”. Synonyms for safe include harmless, risk-free, trustworthy, sound, and reliable; some recommended substitutes for effective are powerful, useful, successful, valuable, and potent. If it was a known, documented fact that at least 1,553,187 people — the current number of COVID vaccine injuries reported to VAERS — lost life or limb visiting a certain theme park, would you rush to purchase an annual pass? (And also, might you briefly question why it was still open to the public?) If you discovered that a specific type of birth control actually increased your odds of becoming pregnant, would you make it your go-to contraceptive or recommend it to your child-phobic friends? These are comical things to consider — and yet you can’t drive down the highway, scroll through social media, or peruse a single mainstream news site without encountering at least a handful of helpful reminders to get your safe and effective COVID booster.
If we hear something often enough, it becomes accepted as fact. To wit: If you swallow your gum, it takes seven years to digest. (Altogether untrue.) Sugar makes you hyper. (Zero studies support this.) Lightning never strikes twice. (Ask this guy who’s been zapped seven times.) Iraq was teeming with weapons of mass destruction. (Whoops.)
Rudyard Kipling said, “Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”
Indeed, words and drugs can radically impact our emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Let’s choose both wisely.
“I did the calculation,” testified Steve Kirsch in front of the Pennsylvania State Senate.
