Author: Phoenix

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Corruption Democrat Elections Harris Cartel Immigration Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Leftists in panic: SCOTUS Lets Virginia Resume “Purge” of Voter Rolls of Non-citizens Before Election.

Reported by USA Today, an obvious leftist publication.

Leftists in panic: SCOTUS Lets Virginia Resume “Purge” of Voter Rolls of Non-citizens Before Election.

WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed Virginia to reinstate a purge of suspected noncitizens from voter rolls.

Over the objections of the three liberal justices, the court accepted an emergency request from state officials to intervene after lower courts stopped a state program that had removed more than 1,600 names since Aug. 7.

The majority did not give a reason for their decision, which is common in emergency orders.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, called the order a “victory for commonsense and election fairness.”

Danielle Lang, senior director for voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center, which represented advocacy groups in the lawsuit, called it “outrageous” to allow “a last-minute purge that includes many known eligible citizens.”

Sign-up for Your Vote: Text with the USA TODAY elections team.

“But the voters will decide this election, not the courts,” Lang said. “Eligible Virginia voters should know that regardless of this purge they can register to vote on Election Day & cast their ballots.”

Voting rights groups fought the state policy because it removed naturalized citizens from the rolls if they had previously declared themselves noncitizens on motor vehicle forms. Youngkin’s program had notified suspected noncitizens they would be removed if they didn’t affirm their citizenship within 14 days.

But because years might have passed since the motor vehicle declarations, advocacy groups and the Justice Department challenged the program in court, arguing naturalized citizens were being removed from the voter rolls.

The advocacy groups quoted Prince William County Registrar Eric Olsen, who said at an election board meeting Sept. 30 that his office reviewed 162 people listed as noncitizens in the state’s computer system and found 43 had voted previously. But his office checked and found all 43 had verified their citizenship − some as many as five times − but were still dropped from voter rolls.

A Trump supporter who was purged from the rolls told Cardinal News he suspects he forgot to mark his citizenship status on the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles form when he renewed his driver’s license.

Another voter, who showed NPR her passport, said she doesn’t know why the DMV incorrectly recorded her as a noncitizen.

In addition to blocking further purges, U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles ordered the state to restore the registrations of those canceled since Aug. 7 because federal law prohibits voter purges within 90 days of an election when voters may not have enough time to fix errors. A federal appeals court upheld that decision.

But Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares told the Supreme Court the federal “quiet period” provision doesn’t apply to removing noncitizens from the voter rolls because they never should have been on the rolls.

Even if a citizen is mistakenly purged from the rolls, Miyares said, that person can re-register to vote and cast a provisional ballot.

The Justice Department argued that Virginia could still investigate specific individuals – including any of the 1,600 – it suspects are noncitizens but can’t use a broad-based removal method this close to an election.

“Everyone agrees that States can and should remove ineligible voters, including noncitizens, from their voter rolls,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court. “The only question in this case is when and how they may do so.”

Studies have found a negligible number of suspected noncitizens vote, presumably because of the threat of criminal charges and deportation if caught. Studies by the Brennan Center for Justice and the libertarian Cato Institute have found noncitizen voting is essentially nonexistent.

But Republicans have made removal of suspected noncitizens a focus of their voter integrity lawsuits this year.

So, leftist studies show non-citizens aren’t on the voter rolls? Really? Despite proof that they are? How — uhm — LEFTIST of them.

Categories
Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic China COVID Green Energy Harris Cartel Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources.

“Recycling” — more than ever — is a Green Lie.

In the West, the bulk of this “recyclable” waste (more than 80 percent) is mismanaged, often dumped in open landfills.

                                                                          80% will wind up in a landfill
Only (some) paper products and aluminum cans are likely to be recycled. Many types of plastic can NOT be recycled cheaper than creating new products in  Western countries.

The 1960s ushered in the dawn of single-use plastics, when shopping bags, straws, tubs, utensils, and food wrap became exceedingly cheap to produce and convenient to use, as long as no one paid attention to where it was going. When the first curbside recycling programs appeared in the 1970s, just as U.S. landfills started running short on space, the point of recycling was no longer to mine an untapped resource, or to get the most out of old stuff, but simply to find a place to put it.

The flow of plastic from rich countries to poorer ones, glutting waterways and leaching chemicals into the environment, recalls colonial-era destructiveness.

Some three decades later, the accumulation of plastic wastes led the U.S. to look abroad for dumping destinations. By the 1990s, half the plastic Americans chucked into the recycling bin “was stuffed onto giant container ships and sold to China,” instead of making it to the local recycling center. “Why invest in expensive technology and labor to keep up with the constantly changing world of packaging and plastics when the mess could be bundled off to China in exchange for easy money and the appearance of being green?”

There is a chasm between “theoretical recycling” and “actual recycling.” (The chasing arrows symbol is a lie: Most plastic types captured by the arrows are considered “financially unviable” to recycle.) In 2018, China banned most imports of plastic, meaning that recyclables collected in the United States could no longer be shipped out of sight, out of mind. Instead of bringing in easy revenue by sending waste to China, U.S. cities, towns, and waste companies now faced staggering costs, and as a result, recycling fell off a cliff. The pandemic’s disruptions of global supply chains only exacerbated the problem of sending junk to other countries. Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia, and other nations now absorb a portion of our waste, “a global hot potato,” as reporters referred to it in The Guardian. The bulk of this waste (more than 80 percent) is mismanaged, often dumped in open landfills, according to researchers. The flow of plastic from rich countries to poorer ones, glutting waterways and leaching harmful chemicals into the environment, recalls colonial-era destructiveness.

The overwhelming takeaway is that waste management perpetuates systems of domination and Lies. In Nazi Germany, waste was a resource. In today’s Western countries, waste is a commodity.

Original article here:

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Pandemic Censorship COVID Crime Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch Vaccines

On Camera: Attorney Who Defended FDA in Court Admits Anti-Ivermectin Campaign was a ‘Mistake’ and an ‘Abuse of Authority’

On Camera: Attorney Who Defended FDA in Court Admits Anti-Ivermectin Campaign was a ‘Mistake’ and an ‘Abuse of Authority’

Original article here

A Department of Justice attorney has been caught admitting in an undercover video that the FDA’s campaign against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment was not only misguided but also an overreach of its authority.

In December 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a stern warning to Americans: “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.”

This statement, which came during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, was not only controversial but also deeply flawed, as the FDA had previously praised the drug in other contexts.

Ivermectin, a drug that had been safely used in humans since 1966, had been vilified by the FDA during the pandemic, despite its earlier successes in treating various diseases and even being administered to African migrants by the agency itself back in 2015.

Yet, in the face of mounting evidence—105 controlled studies showing a 61% lower risk in early COVID-19 treatment—the FDA clung to its erroneous position, interested in promoting its agenda than in protecting public health.

A group of courageous doctors, refusing to be silenced, filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA, challenging the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block ivermectin’s use in treating COVID-19.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, asserts that the FDA overstepped its authority and interfered unjustifiably with medical practice.

Among the plaintiffs were Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, who accused the FDA of launching a campaign of misinformation. The doctors pointed out that while the FDA had approved ivermectin for human use long before the pandemic, the agency suddenly began spreading falsehoods about its safety when COVID-19 struck.

They argued that this shift in narrative was part of a broader strategy to promote unproven vaccines while suppressing effective treatments.

During the court proceedings, the FDA’s lawyers shockingly admitted that the agency’s recommendations against Ivermectin were only advice and were not mandatory when they told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.

Isaac Belfer, a lawyer representing the FDA, said, “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

“They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued.

The lawsuit resulted in a significant victory for the doctors, with the FDA being forced to remove its social media posts and consumer advisories against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19.

Belfer, caught on undercover camera by Project Veritas, confessed that the FDA’s actions were an overreach.

“So, what the agency has done… [is] unquestionably beyond its authority. Making a recommendation of what drugs to take or not to take, that’s the practice of medicine. And FDA can’t practice medicine,” Belfer told Project Veritas.

“I think going forward they’ll [FDA] probably be a bit more careful. They [the doctors] got an opinion that was good for them. That kind of limited FDA’s authority. It’s not okay to… actually tell people, ‘You should not take this drug,’” he added.

Drs Apter and Bowden told Project Veritas that suppression of ivermectin led to a prolonged pandemic, and potentially millions in excess COVID deaths.

Apter: “It’s not unreasonable to think that there have been a million unnecessary deaths from COVID in the United States because of the public health agency suppression of effective early treatment with repurposed inexpensive medications.”

Bowden: “If more people had access to early treatment in the form of ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine… we could have nipped the pandemic in the bud.”

Categories
Commentary Opinion Public Service Announcement

PSA Alternative Electricity Supplier Scam

If you live in a state that allows you to choose your supplier (as distinct from the distributor — the company you pay your bill to) you will find those alternative suppliers sending you offers to entice you to switch. Often they will emphasize they use renewable energy or some such. And their rate per Kwh may be less than you pay now.

These offers can be — to put it mildly — deceptive.

I use one such alternative supplier, but not the one in the picture below, and thought this was from them:

Notice the first box, “This is our way of THANKING you for ENJOYING 6 months of SmartEnergy…” Both capitalized verbs are in the present, NOT future tense. As such, one could rationally assume (if you did have an alternative supplier), that this was the promised reward.

This ‘we are looking forward’ sentence reinforces that.

But this is not a reward for being a customer at all, it is a PLOY to get you to sign up with their company., so that they can switch your supplier.

When you call the number listed, they will try to get you to switch companies using weasel-worded phrases to keep you thinking you’re already a customer. In fact, it wasn’t until they kept asking for my West Penn account number that alarm bells went off. Why would they need the account number again since that’s how they get paid? Well, after much arguing and deflections, it turned out that they were NOT my current supplier. Surprise, surprise.

I had received similar notices, but the words ‘AFTER 6 months’ had always been in the notice. This is deceptive advertising, and I forcibly told them so.

Caveat emptor!

 

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Elections Faked news Harris Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics

Just watched the Joe Biden endorsement speech, closely. That ain’t Joe.

Other people have expressed doubts, but I saw proof.

First of all, he’s never given a speech from the actual Oval Office; it’s always been that set. So, first evidence: backdrops don’t move. Period, full stop. Second, why wait three days to make a public, televised announcement?

This link is from the left-leaning outlet The Hill:

You may need to take the video to full screen but watch the lower center window pane segment screen right: it’s MOVING noticeably! None of the other panes in the window show any motion. Why? Because it’s a still picture! This is evidence of AI/CGI being used.

More proof, watch where his hair is atop his head and the set behind it. Instead of a clear break like you would expect (like the clear demarcation from his suit to the background ), there’s an interference pattern. Another sign of bad CGI. And what’s with the heavy black line between his neck and his collar? More evidence of a cut-and-paste job.

So is this another person with Joe’s face pasted on it? You tell me. They did it with Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher (not to mention Mark Hamill) and to de-age Jeff Bridges for the Tron sequel. But they dodn’t have Hollywood $$$ to do it right. This was obviously a rush job.

Is this REALLY Joe Biden??

(I will give them kudos for color-correcting his artificial tan from glaring orange to a more realistic hue, even though it just proves more image manipulation is being used.)

Finally — and most obviously — this “Joe Biden” never stutters, never loses his train of thought, never says ‘um,’ or ‘you know’ and is coherent for OVER ELEVEN MINUTES! The same guy who had a hard time producing three coherent sentences in a row just days before.

I recently saw — and reported — a short on YouTube that supposedly had Jordan Peterson as the narrator. (Peterson is a Canadian Psychologist that got in trouble with the Federal Government for refusing to tow the government’s propaganda line.) HOWEVER, it had nothing to do with ANYTHING Peterson has ever spoken about on hundreds of YouTube videos. Normal AI Text to speech bots can be detected when it uses incorrect contextual pronunciations for words like “live.” I didn’t catch any of these simple errors, but the whole narration seemed off.

This is a deep fake, NOT the real Joe Biden.

And, one must presume that the actual Joe Biden is a.) still alive at all;  b.) not bed ridden already OR secured in a chair where – if he does manage to get up – sounds an alarm to alert the staff; and c.) is even aware of what day it is. Which is impossible to determine.

GET OUT AND VOTE!

 

 

Categories
How funny is this? Poetic Justice Reprints from others. Riots Terrorism

BLM Turns on Dem Party After Kamala Harris Is Installed as Nominee

Critics are already questioning Kamala’s verbal diarrhea the day after she was picked by Old Joe Biden to replace him on the Democratic ticket.
Friday funnies

By Michael Schwarz  July 23, 2024 at 9:48am

Nothing about the vice president’s sudden elevation felt organic.

How ironic is it that the muscle of the Democratic party has turned on them?

Black Lives Matter, the insidious Marxist organization Democrats used to foment violence during the race-mongering madness of 2020, has issued a public objection to party leaders’ swift coronation of Vice President Kamala Harris as their 2024 presidential nominee.

“Following the primary where millions of black voters weighed in, after one poor debate performance, the DNC Party elites and billionaire donors bullied Joe Biden out of the race,” BLM said in a statement to Reuters.

Sunday on X, President Joe Biden (supposedly) announced that he would withdraw from the 2024 presidential race.

The announcement came under unusual and perhaps suspicious circumstances. Since his dreadful debate performance on June 27, Biden had faced mounting pressure to quit the race from fellow Democrats. He had refused.

Announcing the decision on X, where one might reasonably doubt that the octogenarian president has ever posted on his own behalf, only heightened suspicions of a Democratic Party coup.

For the past two days, Democrats — including Biden himself in a dubious endorsement made via speaker phone — have rallied around Harris. Still, nothing about the vice president’s sudden elevation has felt organic.

Notwithstanding these strange developments, Democrats have clearly tried to depict their party as united behind Harris.

BLM’s public objection, therefore, constitutes the first major internal demand that Democrats pump the brakes on the Harris 2024 train.

“We call for the Rules Committee to create a process that allows for public participation in the nomination process, not just a nomination by party delegates,” the BLM statement read.

Indeed, it appears that Democrats — the so-called “party of democracy” — have failed to pull the proverbial wool over BLM’s eyes.

“The current political landscape is unprecedented, with President Biden stepping aside in a manner never seen before. This moment calls for decisive action to protect the integrity of our democracy and the voices of black voters,” the statement said.

To its credit, BLM called out party leaders’ apparent coup against Biden.

“Now, Democratic Party elites and billionaire donors are attempting to manipulate black voters by anointing Kamala Harris and an unknown vice president as the new Democratic ticket without a primary vote by the public,” the statement continued.

Also to its credit, BLM appeared unmoved by the argument that race and gender should take precedence over other factors.

“We have no idea where Kamala Harris stands on the issues, now that she has assumed Joe Biden’s place, and we have no idea of the record of her potential vice president because we don’t even know who it is yet,” the statement read.

Apart from its nauseating emphasis on skin color, the BLM statement contained nothing to which reasonable Americans should object.

On balance, of course, BLM has not exactly earned the benefit of the doubt from conservative or right-leaning voters.

Perhaps, therefore, it is best to take direction from the late former President Herbert Hoover.

On Sept. 16, 1941 — nearly three months after Adolf Hitler stabbed fellow tyrant Joseph Stalin in the back by ordering German forces to attack the Soviet Union — Hoover urged his fellow Americans to stay out of the European conflict.

“The fratricidal war between Hitler and Stalin is daily weakening both dictators,” Hoover argued.

That pre-Pearl Harbor assessment from a former president contained wisdom applicable to present circumstances. And conservatives should heed that wisdom.

After all, if BLM launches a civil war against fellow tyrants in the Democratic Party leadership, then who could complain? In that case, conservatives must stand aside and allow the conflict to weaken everyone involved.

While it would be fun to see happen, more BLM/Antifa violence and destruction will simply cost all of us more money. –TPR

Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Corruption Elections Government Overreach Lawfare The Law Trump Weaponization of Government.

MEGA WINNING! Judge Cannon Dismisses Classified Documents Case: Unconstitutional Appointment of Jack Smith

Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed the high-profile classified documents case, citing the unlawful appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

This decision comes as a significant blow to the Biden regime and the Department of Justice, raising questions about the integrity of the entire investigation.

Attorney General Garland violated the Constitution by appointing Jack Smith to conduct this politically motivated persecution against President Trump.

The decision effectively halts the prosecution led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

In her ruling, Judge Cannon wrote:

Former President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is GRANTED in accordance with this Order [ECF No. 326]. The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S.

Const., Art. I, $ 2, cl. 2. Special Counsel Smith’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, but the Court need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.

The effect of this Order is confined to this proceeding.

The court found that Smith’s appointment did not adhere to the Appointments Clause, which requires that principal officers of the United States be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The Special Counsel’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation was also deemed a violation of the Appropriations Clause, although the court did not address the remedy for this funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.

The case, which stemmed from a grand jury indictment on June 8, 2023, charged Trump with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information and additional conspiracy and concealment charges against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. The indictment was later expanded to 42 charges in a superseding indictment.

President Trump previously filed a motion to dismiss Jack Smith’s classified documents charges based on the “unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel.”

Day one of the expanded evidentiary hearing was held last month.

According to NBC News, President Trump’s lawyers “argued that an officer like the special counsel must be appointed “by law” and that the special counsel should be categorized as a “principal officer” and subject to Senate confirmation. The statutory text cited by the special counsel’s office “does not authorize” the U.S. attorney general’s appointment of the special counsel, his lawyer, Emil Bove, argued.”

Cannon did question whether Attorney General Merrick had any oversight role in seeking the indictment against Trump.

Jack Smith’s prosecutor James Pearce refused to answer and claimed it would be against policy to answer the question.

“Why would there be any heartburn to answer whether the attorney general signed off on the indictment?” Cannon asked.

Recall, Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority as special counsel in his concurring opinion on the high court’s presidential immunity ruling.

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

The Supreme Court ruled that there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority because he was a private citizen when he was tapped as a special prosecutor.

“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President — he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Clarence Thomas said.

Clarence Thomas argued that no other former US President has been prosecuted for official acts despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that would argue constitutes crimes.

“No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding,” Clarence Thomas wrote.

Thomas also argued that Jack Smith is not senate confirmed (Trump’s lawyers are also using this argument before Judge Cannon).

“The Constitution sets forth how an office may be created and how it may be filled. The Appointments Clause provides: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. The constitutional process for filling an office is plain from this text. The default manner for appointing “Officers of the United States” is nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Ibid. “But the Clause provides a limited exception for the appointment of inferior officers: Congress may ‘by Law’ authorize” one of three specified actors “to appoint inferior officers without the advice and con-sent of the Senate.” NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U. S. 288, 312 (2017) (THOMAS, J., concurring). As relevant here, a “Hea[d] of Department”—such as the Attorney General—is one such actor that Congress may authorize “by Law” to appoint inferior officers without senatorial confirmation. Art. II, §2, cl. 2.

Thomas once again reiterated that a special prosecutor must be senate confirmed.

“Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”1 The Constitution itself creates some offices, most obviously that of the President and Vice President. See §1. Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be “other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,” it clearly requires that those offices “shall be established by Law.” §2, cl. 2. And, “established by law” refers to an office that Congress creates “by statute.” Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 254 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1213 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.).”

In her detailed opinion, Judge Cannon emphasized the importance of the separation of powers and the role of Congress in the appointment process. She highlighted that none of the statutes cited by the Special Counsel—28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533—provided the Attorney General with the authority to appoint a Special Counsel with the full powers of a United States Attorney.

“The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers,” Cannon wrote.

“The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers,” she added.

Original article here:

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Crime Debates Elections How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!)

Leftist desperation now apparent. Trump shot at rally today. Nicked his neck. cowards!

Former President Donald Trump sits in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on May 20.Dave Sanders / Pool via AP

THIS IS A BREAKING STORY!

At a Philadelphia rally for president Trump shots were heard and I personally saw a clip where, right before he dropped to the stage there was a gunshot and he reached up for his neck. The Left is now so desperate to stop Trump that they have brought in their hired assassins.

Instead, they just guaranteed his election.

Wanna bet the shooter will be killed before he can talk?

Categories
Abortion rights? Biden Cartel Child Abuse How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others. Terrorism Weaponization of Government. WOKE

Outrageous: Biden’s Defense Department Labels Pro-Life Organizations “Terrorist Organizations!”

Liberal hate-mongers sink to new low.

 

The Biden regime’s Defense Department has taken an unprecedented step by categorizing pro-life organizations as “terrorist organizations” during an anti-terrorism briefing held at Fort Liberty’s Directorate of Emergency Services on Wednesday.

This deeply concerning slide from an anti-terrorism brief was first exposed by citizen journalist Sam Shoemate, or @samour, on X.

“An anti-terrorism brief was held on Fort Liberty (Bragg) today where they listed several Pro-Life organizations as “terrorist organizations.” The slide you see here followed right after a slide about ISIS, a terror group in the Middle East,” Shoemate wrote on X.

The presentation slide, which has since circulated widely on social media, lists these pro-life organizations that oppose “Roe[sic] v. Wade” under a headline reading “TERRORIST GROUPS.”

The Biden regime’s Defense Department has taken an unprecedented step by categorizing pro-life organizations as “terrorist organizations” during an anti-terrorism briefing held at Fort Liberty’s Directorate of Emergency Services, formerly known as Fort Bragg, on Wednesday.

This deeply concerning slide from an anti-terrorism brief was first exposed by citizen journalist Sam Shoemate, or @samour, on X.

“An anti-terrorism brief was held on Fort Liberty (Bragg) today where they listed several Pro-Life organizations as “terrorist organizations.” The slide you see here followed right after a slide about ISIS, a terror group in the Middle East,” Shoemate wrote on X.

The presentation slide, which has since circulated widely on social media, lists these pro-life organizations that oppose “Roe[sic] v. Wade” under a headline reading “TERRORIST GROUPS.”

Not only Biden’s Defense Department but Biden’s FBI has also singled out traditional Catholics with pro-life, pro-family views as potential domestic terrorists.

As The Gateway Pundit reported in April 2023, Chris Wray’s FBI was infiltrating Catholic parishes.

The FBI agents are engaging in outreach to Catholic leaders to spy on Americans practicing their Christian faith.

This was a shocking revelation. Americans already knew the FBI-DOJ was targeting traditional Catholics from earlier reporting. We also have evidence they are infiltrating Catholic parishes.

Full story here:

Categories
Uncategorized

FINALLY! Doctors muzzled during COVID get green light for revenge on overlords

Coordinated campaigns to ‘censor and chill the speech of physicians’

Bob Unruh By Bob Unruh for WND Published July 8, 2024 at 12:34pm