California business owners received an unpleasant surprise in filing their taxes this year — the state of California has defaulted on its $18.5 billion federal unemployment insurance loans, and as a result, every employer in California is being forced to pay additional federal taxes to make up the difference until the loan is repaid in full. If you found this news baffling, you’re not alone. I did too.
Federal unemployment insurance loans were essential to helping Californians weather the COVID-19 pandemic, and in fact, most states participated in the federal loan program. As the state mandated business closures for months on end, these payments helped Californians who were out of work to put food on the table and keep the lights on. However, out of the 22 states that were forced to take federal loans during the pandemic, California is one of only four to fail to repay its loan, and it owes the largest amount of any state by far.
When states across the country received loan-free federal aid as a result of the federal government’s unprecedented emergency spending packages, most chose to use at least a portion of those funds to pay back the federal loans they’d been forced to take to support their unemployment programs. California received $15.3 billion in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds, but allocated none of it to repaying its outstanding loans.
Even more baffling is the fact that last year California declared a historic $97.5 billion budget surplus after passing a $300 billion budget in May. That budget surplus was enough money to repay the federal government loan more than five times over. Instead of making the fiscally prudent decision to pay off the debt with part of this vast surplus, California has instead allowed its loan obligations from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund to go unfulfilled for two years in a row, triggering a provision that transfers responsibility for repaying the debt from a state government to that state’s employers.
As a result of California’s failure to repay its debt, millions of our state’s employers will be required to pay penalties to the federal government this month in the form of higher Federal Unemployment Act (FUTA) taxes. FUTA imposes a 6% gross federal unemployment tax rate on the first $7,000 paid by employers for each employee. This results in a maximum federal tax of $420 per employee per year. Typically, California employers receive a credit which reduces the tax paid per employee to only $42 per worker per year.
When a state fails to repay federal unemployment insurance loans it takes from the Federal Unemployment Trust for two or more consecutive years as California has done, the FUTA credit is reduced for that state, meaning every businesses in the state is forced to pay progressively more in FUTA taxes for each year the state remains delinquent on its loans. After five years, a different FUTA credit reduction calculation kicks in, levying an even bigger penalty on the state’s employers and its economy.
The last time California was in arrears on these Title XII loans, it took seven years to repay them, meaning that in the final year of repayment (2017), every employer in California was forced to pay an extra $147 per employee in FUTA penalties. That amounted to thousands of dollars for the average small business that could have instead been used to grow employment in our communities.
Small and large companies in California alike are already reeling from economic instability, high interest rates, and skyrocketing inflation. They’re also still struggling with supply chain fluctuations and recovering from one of the longest state-mandated COVID-19 economic shutdowns in the country. Forcing a higher tax burden on our employers as a result of California’s gross fiscal mismanagement will undermine job creation and drive prices even higher.
To add insult to injury, it is notable that better fraud enforcement by the Employment Development Department alone could have repaid the state’s federal loans.
A LexisNexis data analysis performed by the reporters at KCRA showed that California paid out at least $32.6 billion and counting in fraudulent disability and unemployment compensation during the pandemic, much higher than the department’s publicized $20 billion number. But by either statistic, the state would have had more than enough to repay its loans from the federal government if it had only administered its programs correctly.
It was the state’s own actions that shut down businesses and caused much of the resulting unemployment that California faced, and yet it is our small businesses that will once again be forced to pay the penalty for California’s mismanagement. Forcing Californians to pay higher federal taxes because of the state’s failure to either prevent rampant fraud or repay its debts in a year when the state had a multibillion-dollar budget surplus is nothing short of theft. This baffling mismanagement of our state’s finances is totally unacceptable, and our small businesses and employers should not be forced to pay the price. I am leading eleven members of the California congressional delegation in sounding the alarm on this issue and calling on Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature to act immediately and repay California’s outstanding federal unemployment insurance loans to prevent this burden from unfairly falling on California employers. It is the state’s duty to take fiscal responsibility for its actions. Failure to do so could jeopardize the financial stability of millions of California’s small employers.
Share the post "Why are employers being forced to pay off California’s defaulted loans?"
Peter Baldrige, former Assistant General Counsel of the Calif Dept of Public Health, notified the agency they were violating the law by not investigating COVID vaccine injuries and deaths. They ignored him. So I will be filing a writ of mandamus, a court order to force them to do their job. If the court grants the writ, we will likely get to have input on how they do it. That will be a nice change, won’t it?
Executive summary
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) hasn’t investigated any link between the COVID vaccines and death. That’s a violation of California law to look the other way.
Peter Baldridge, former Assistant Chief Counsel of the CDPH, expressly brought this violation to the attention of the head of the department. As you might expect, the CDPH ignored him and did absolutely nothing.
We have proof of this.
Since the California government is not doing its job in following the law, I will be filing a writ of mandamus to compel the CDPH to do their job. The California court should also award me attorney fees. Also, the investigation should be under the supervision of the court and they should be required to:
do the requisite histopathology tests to assess causality
produce the death-vax records.
In addition, Mr. Baldridge and I have both made a FOIA request to see the death-vax records; something that no state or world government has ever produced.
One way or another, the truth will be exposed soon for all to see.
Peter Baldridge’s requests
By letter dated December 17, 2022, Mr. Baldridge requested under the Public Records Act (Govt. Code, §§6250, et seq.) all records pertaining to any and all special investigations conducted or being conducted by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) into the COVID vaccine adverse events.
On January 10, 2023, he received CDPH’s response: CDPH provided no records of any special investigation in Covid-19 vaccine adverse events after January, 2021, and had no records of any other investigation for periods later than June, 2021.
So in a letter dated April 17, 2023, Mr. Baldridge requested, under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code, §§7920, et seq.), any and all records pertaining to special investigations into Covid-19 vaccine adverse events commenced after January 10, 2023, the date of the Department’s first response in order to see if anything happened.
On April 27, 2023 the Department responded that it had no responsive records to his request:
In other words, they were informed of what the law required them to do and they chose to do nothing.
Peter Baldrige’s letters to CDPH
Here is the full text of the letters Mr. Baldridge sent to the CDPH:
December 17, 2022: Peter requests to produce the records of the investigations that were required by law
Jan 29, 2023: Peter points out that the response to his previous request was inadequate and the department has not done its duty under the law. He reminds them again what is required.
April 17, 2023: Peter asks for the records of the investigation that the department should have commenced after receiving his previous letter.
May 5, 2023: Peter recounts what has happened to date and points out that there was again nothing done in response to his request to comply with the law. Peter shifts gears and makes a FOIA request for the correlated death and vaccination records.
My FOIA request filed on May 5, 2023
I also decided to make a FOIA request using the official CDPH portal:
It appears that the Department has little interest in or intention to investigate the reports of deaths in California related to Covid-19 vaccinations as required by law. I believe it is in the public’s interest that the correlation of vaccination and subsequent deaths be explored, particularly since, as of April 27, 2023, the Department continued to promote the Covid-19 vaccines as both safe and effective.
The Department has in its possession records related to deaths in California commencing January, 2021, when the vaccine rollout began. The Department also has in its possession vaccination records for Californians. The Department also possesses the ability to correlate this data using personally identifying information including, but not limited to: Social Security Number, street address, zip code, date of birth, name, and gender.
Accordingly, I hereby request under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code, §§7920, et seq.) that the Department correlate these data sets and provide for each individual who has died since January1, 202l the following data fields for each individual as follows:
Date(s) of COVID-19 vaccination(s): <if any>
Five year age range of the individual who died (e.g. 50-54)
Date of death
In lieu of personally identifying information, I request that the Department create a random identification number for each individual so that the identity of the individual remains confidential.
You may contact me at xxxxxx if you have any questions.
Note: the JOIN of the databases cannot be done through the CAIR because they do not have the death records. CDPH controls both databases, so if this is not the proper request portal, please let me know which is the correct place to submit the database JOIN request.
Here is the receipt from my FOIA request: P018493-050523
Who wants to see the data?
As Ryan Cole is fond of saying, “You will never find what you don’t look for.”
Let’s be clear. California is not looking into any injuries or deaths caused by the vaccines. They are looking out for the interests of the drug companies, not your health. They don’t care how many people in California have been injured or died, and your injuries and deaths are immaterial. They don’t care, and they don’t even want to look.
The medical community in California is not better. They don’t want an investigation, either. Have you heard of a single doctor, Dean of Medicine, or medical association in California calling for an investigation? Of course not!
Does Governor Newsom want an investigation? No way. Newsom himself is vaccine injured, so he knows the vaccines cause harm, and that’s why he dropped out of sight for weeks after his booster shot. A proper investigation would show that the vaccines killed people, which means that Newsom instituted policies that likely led to the untimely demise of tens of thousands of innocent residents of California and the injury of many times that number.
The only person who called for an investigation, as required by law, is the former Assistant Chief Counsel of the California Department of Public Health. He worked there for 27 years and is appalled by what is happening there now. They can’t take away his medical license because he’s not a doctor. They could try to take away his license to practice law, but he’s retired. This is a problem for them. They ran into someone they couldn’t intimidate.
The vaccination rollout data
The vax-death data is good, but you need the vaccination data by age pictured below. This allows me to normalize the deaths of the unvaccinated since people move from unvaccinated to vaccinated over time. Without an upward adjustment, it will look like the unvaccinated are not dying at an even rate. With normalization, I can compare death curves for people who got the shot with those who didn’t. I can also compute the death rate of people in the vaxxed group with the death rate of people in the unvaxxed group.
Summary
It is clear at this point that neither the CDPH, the governor, the California legislature, the medical community, nor the mainstream media have any interest or intention to investigate the reports of injuries and deaths in California related to the COVID vaccinations.
This is why I’ll be bringing a writ of mandamus action against the CDPH for not investigating the injuries and deaths.
In addition, I have sent a FOIA to the CDPH for the death-vax records. If the CDPH does not comply with my FOIA request, I will bring another writ of mandamus request action against them.
*This post has been lightly edited for grammar from its original form.*
Considering CA is already a lawsuit hotbed, why wouldn’t they want to hide their culpability? — TPR
Share the post "Why hasn’t California found any deaths linked to the COVID vaccines? It’s because they haven’t looked!"
Race Baiters and White Progressives complain about Thomas and Roberts. What about Sotomayor? Recently we’ve been hearing about Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas. Especially about Thomas having a rich friend. A friend who hasn’t had any cases before the court. But what about one of the race baiting Justices?
Sotomayor did not recuse herself when her publisher had cases before the court. But look what I found. In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision on whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who had received money from the book publisher, recused himself in that case.
What say you?
Joe Scarborough responds to the latest Clarence Thomas non-scandal by saying “imagine what would happen if it were Justice Sotomayor” and “everybody at this table would be shocked and outrage and had be critical if this were a liberal justice” Who wants to tell him? pic.twitter.com/EsBrzPF8uL
Welp, now we know why they didn’t want to have their records audited!
A new report says at least 222 noncitizens have registered to vote in Arizona’s Maricopa County since 2015.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation said that the federal motor voter law that allows people to register to vote at their local motor vehicle offices is partly to blame for the problem.
For 30 years, foreign nationals have been getting registered to vote.
“Motor Voter leads to problems for immigrants across America. Signing the wrong form at the DMV can haunt you years later when your naturalization process switches to deportation. For 30 years, foreign nationals have been getting registered to vote. Congress must modernize Motor Voter to reflect the technologies and demographics of today,” said J. Christian Adams, the foundation’s president.
Adams said that 222 noncitizens disclosed to local officials that they were on the rolls. Of those, at least nine voted in federal elections. The 222 names in Maricopa County are of people who self-reported as noncitizens. How many others have NOT reported? Mr. Adams said immigrants seeking citizenship often come forward and acknowledge that they are on the rolls because one of the questions on the naturalization form is whether they ever were illegally registered. Lying on that form can quickly earn deportation.
In a report in The Washington Times, Adams said there is no way to know how many other noncitizens are on the rolls in Maricopa County, which the Times said was America’s fourth most populous county.
The problem with Motor Voter is that some states have offered registration to everyone — even noncitizens who, under federal law, are not eligible to vote in national elections.
Among the most significant hiccups was Pennsylvania, where officials discovered that the motor vehicle system allowed over 11,000 noncitizens who had sneaked onto voter lists.
How many Foreign nationals?
Adams said the issue is not how many noncitizens vote but that there is not enough protection written in the motor voter law to prevent noncitizens from getting on the voting rolls in the first place.
“When you have a failure in the system, whether or not it’s rampant doesn’t matter when it involves foreigners voting in American elections,” he said.
“If this problem had been detected 10 years ago, or maybe 15 years ago, I think there would have been a quick bipartisan fix in Congress,” he said. “But the Democrats have become so radicalized now about every voting issue in Congress.”
A new law that took effect April 7 puts the label “noncitizen” on driver’s licenses issued to those who are not American citizens while also requiring ID to be shown at a polling place.
“I can tell you from my experience at the attorney general’s office that while voter fraud cases are indeed rare, the overwhelming majority of such cases involve noncitizen voting, sometimes even at the BMV through the motor-voter program; circumstances would then cascade when the application proceeds without catching that the applicant was a noncitizen, and the individual would eventually be sent a notice of their neighborhood polling place and be encouraged to cast a vote, leading some to do so and eventually being identified as an illegal noncitizen voter,” said Dan Tierney, a representative for Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine.
Virginia recently found 18,990 deceased voters on its rolls by checking death records that went back to 1960.
“I knew that there was something there, but I didn’t know that it was this big,” Virginia Elections Commissioner Susan Beals said.
Share the post "Shocking Discovery: Maricopa County Learns Non-Citizens Are Registered to Vote!"
Introduction: The right to petition is a fundamental aspect of a Constitutional Republic, ensuring that citizens can voice their concerns and demand action from their government. However, on Inauguration Day, the Biden administration took an unexpected and concerning step, quietly shutting down the “We The People” petition platform. This article explores the implications of this decision and its impact on accountability, freedom of speech, and the rights of the American people.
A Brief History of the ‘We The People’ Petition Platform
The Creation of the Platform under the Obama Administration
In 2011, the Obama administration launched the ‘We The People’ petition platform as part of its commitment to fostering an open and participatory government. Designed to facilitate direct communication between the public and the White House, the platform allowed anyone to create and sign petitions on various topics, from policy changes to social issues. If a petition garnered a specific number of signatures within a given time frame, it would receive an official response from the White House.
The Purpose and Significance in our American Constitutional Republic
The ‘We The People’ platform served as a vital tool in promoting civic engagement and empowering citizens to voice their concerns and demand government action. By providing a direct line of communication with the White House, the platform enabled Americans to hold their government accountable and advocate for changes they deemed necessary. It also helped foster transparency, as official responses shed light on the government’s stance on various issues.
Notable Successes and Milestones Achieved through the Platform
Over the years, the ‘We The People’ platform played a role in influencing government policy and sparking national conversations on various topics. Some notable successes include:
The ‘Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act’ – A petition advocating for the legalization of cell phone unlocking received over 114,000 signatures, leading to the passing of a bill in 2014 that made it legal for consumers to unlock their devices.
Net Neutrality – A 2014 petition with more than 105,000 signatures called for the FCC to maintain net neutrality rules, contributing to the eventual implementation of the Open Internet Order.
Death Star Petition – Although not a policy change, a humorous 2012 petition to build a Death Star received over 34,000 signatures, showcasing the platform’s ability to engage the public and generate interest in the political process.
These successes, among others, highlight the importance of the ‘We The People’ platform in the American constitutional republic and its role in promoting civic engagement and government accountability.
The Disappearance of the Platform
The Removal of the Platform on Inauguration Day
On January 20, 2021, the day Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States, the ‘We The People’ petition platform was taken down without prior notice or explanation. This sudden disappearance of a widely used communication tool between the public and the White House caught many off guard and raised questions about the Biden administration’s commitment to transparency and public engagement.
The Lack of Public Announcement or Explanation
What made the removal of the platform particularly concerning was the lack of communication from the Biden administration. No public announcement was made, nor was any explanation provided as to why the platform was taken down or if there were plans to reinstate it. This silence left users and advocates of the platform in the dark and fueled speculation about the administration’s motives behind the decision.
Comparisons to Previous Administrations’ Actions Regarding the Platform
It is worth noting that the ‘We The People’ platform remained active throughout both the Obama and Trump administrations. While the Trump administration was initially slow to respond to petitions, the platform was never taken down or disabled. The Biden administration’s abrupt removal of the platform without explanation stands in stark contrast to the actions of previous administrations, further raising questions about its commitment to the principles of civic engagement and government accountability.
The unexplained disappearance of the ‘We The People’ platform under the Biden administration has left many Americans concerned about the future of this important tool for public engagement and government transparency. It remains to be seen whether the platform will be reinstated or if a similar initiative will be introduced to fill the void it left behind.
The Impact on Accountability and Freedom of Speech
The Consequences of Losing a Direct Line of Communication with the Government
The removal of the ‘We The People’ platform has serious implications for accountability and public engagement. The platform provided citizens with a direct line of communication to the government, allowing them to voice their concerns and demand action on various issues. Losing this valuable tool hinders the public’s ability to hold the government accountable for its actions and decisions, making it more difficult to foster a transparent and responsive political system.
The Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech and Public Discourse
The disappearance of the platform also has the potential to create a chilling effect on freedom of speech and public discourse. Without a dedicated platform for voicing concerns and mobilizing support for change, citizens may feel less empowered to speak out on important issues. This could lead to a decline in public debate, which is essential for the health of a constitutional republic.
The loss of the ‘We The People’ platform has raised concerns about the Biden administration’s commitment to government accountability and transparency. It is essential for citizens to continue advocating for the reinstatement of the platform or the creation of a similar tool to ensure their voices are not silenced.
Alternative Channels for Citizen Participation
Even with the removal of the ‘We The People’ platform, citizens can still participate in the political process and make their voices heard through various channels. In this section, we will explore alternative petition platforms, the importance of remaining engaged, and examples of successful grassroots movements and campaigns.
The Rise of Third-Party Petition Platforms
In the absence of the ‘We The People’ platform, several third-party petition platforms have emerged to fill the void. Websites such as Change.org, MoveOn.org, and Avaaz.org allow users to create and sign petitions on various issues, facilitating public engagement and advocacy. While these platforms are not directly connected to the government, they can still influence policy changes and raise awareness about pressing issues.
The Importance of Remaining Engaged and Proactive in the Political Process
Even without a direct line of communication with the government, it is crucial for citizens to remain engaged and proactive in the political process. This can be achieved through various means such as contacting local representatives, participating in town hall meetings, joining advocacy groups, and voting in elections. By staying informed and active, citizens can continue to hold the government accountable and promote positive change in society.
Examples of Successful Grassroots Movements and Campaigns
Throughout history, numerous grassroots movements and campaigns have had a significant impact on policy changes and social reform. Some notable examples include:
The Civil Rights Movement: Led by figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., this movement successfully fought for the end of racial segregation and the enforcement of equal rights for all citizens.
The Women’s Suffrage Movement: This movement, which spanned several decades, eventually led to the ratification of the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote in the United States.
The Environmental Movement: Grassroots activism in the 1960s and 1970s led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the implementation of key environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
These examples demonstrate the power of citizen participation and grassroots activism in shaping public policy and promoting social change.
The Role of Honest Journalism in Upholding a Constitutional Republic
In a constitutional republic, the media plays a vital role in informing the public and ensuring that citizens stay well-informed about the actions and decisions of their government. By providing comprehensive reporting, the media can hold the government accountable and help maintain a system of checks and balances.
Transparency and accountability are essential components of political reporting. By offering unbiased and accurate information, the media can foster trust between the public and the government, ultimately contributing to a healthier political environment. However, the potential consequences of biased or misleading information can be detrimental to public perception and decision-making, leading to a divided society.
The removal of the ‘We The People’ platform is a significant event that should be thoroughly covered by the media. Journalists have a responsibility to investigate and report on the reasons behind the platform’s removal to keep the public informed about potential changes in government priorities and their impact on citizen participation.
Encouraging public discourse on the implications of the platform’s removal for citizen participation and government accountability is essential. Open discussion about the removal of the ‘We The People’ platform can raise awareness of its consequences and inspire citizens to seek alternative channels for engagement and accountability. Honest journalism plays a pivotal role in upholding the values of a constitutional republic and ensuring that the government remains answerable to the people.
A Call to Action for a Stronger Constitutional Republic
In conclusion, the removal of the ‘We The People’ petition platform raises crucial questions about accountability, transparency, and the rights of American citizens. It is more important than ever for citizens to stay informed and engaged in the political process and for journalists to hold the government accountable for its actions.
As concerned citizens, we must act to ensure that our voices continue to be heard. To that end, we encourage you to sign and share the Accountability Act petition on Change.org. This petition aims to promote transparency and accountability in the government, calling for the restoration of the ‘We The People’ platform, among other measures.
Share the post "Hmm: Biden Admin Removed ‘We The People’ Petition Platform on Inauguration Day"
Nearly 20,000 voters in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, may have to vote for a second time this month after an error on their mail-in ballots required that their first ballots be voided.
It’s the third time in three years that Lancaster County has issued inaccurate ballots, according to WGAL.
This time around, the ballots instructed voters to select one candidate in the Superior Court election, when they actually have the option of voting for up to two.
Elections officials told the outlet that 18,554 erroneous ballots were sent out before the error was caught. Some were able to be recovered from the Postal Service prior to delivery, but some had already been completed and returned to be tabulated.
“Your ballot has been received by LANCASTER County on 04/17/2023,” read an automated email some voters reported receiving. “Your ballot status has been updated to canceled because a replacement ballot has been issued.”
Lancaster County had just over 350,000 registered voters in last November’s election, according to county election statistics, so the incorrect ballots represent roughly 5 percent of the total number of votes that could eventually be cast in this spring’s election.
Of course, the number of people who will actually cast ballots this year is expected to be much smaller than that.
“Everyone who got mailed a ballot, whether they got it or not, is going to get a replacement ballot,” County Commissioner John Trescot told WGAL. “Everybody who requests a mail-in ballot for this election will have something called a replacement ballot.
“It will say ‘replacement’ on it. If you have a ballot that doesn’t say ‘replacement,’ please discard it. You will get a replacement ballot.”
The defective ballots will not be counted, even if the voter fails to complete a replacement ballot.
“Our concern here is that people will receive that first ballot, fill it out, send it back, think they’ve done their civic duty, and then when they receive that replacement ballot in a week or two, they will think it’s junk mail or a scam, and throw it in the trash, and their (first ballot) won’t be counted,” Erin Gibson, a Democratic committee member and campaign manager, told LancasterOnline.
Election officials expect the replacement ballots to start showing up at residents’ homes on Monday.
To be counted, voters will have to return them by May 16, giving most voters about three weeks to turn their ballots around.
“In May 2022, mail-in ballots failed to scan because of an incorrect code. The problem delayed counting because 16,000 ballots had to be counted by hand,” WGAL reported.
“In May 2021, there were also problems with mail-in ballots. In that case, about 12,300 ballots were printed out of order, preventing scanners from reading them.
“Again, those ballots had to be tallied by hand.”
Will somebody PLEASE fire these election people?
Sheesh!
Share the post "PA Officials Scrambling: Error Discovered on Ballots Already Mailed to Thousands of Voters"
Share the post "What does President Trump, The Leaker, and Joe Biden have in common? All three had top secret documents. Only President Trump had top secret documents legally."
What does President Trump, The Leaker, and Joe Biden have in common? All three had top secret documents. Only President Trump had top secret documents legally. Biden and the leaker had those top secrets illegally.
Also President Trump had the power to declassify the documents. Biden and the leaker did not. President Trump had the documents in a locked secured location where you had Secret Service Personnel on site.
President Trump did not release the documents to the public. The leaker did, and with Joe Biden, who knows. Biden wouldn’t remember if he did. And remember when sked about the documents, Biden at first denied it than said they were in his garage on the floor in boes secured.
Share the post "What does President Trump, The Leaker, and Joe Biden have in common? All three had top secret documents. Only President Trump had top secret documents legally."
Now we know why Biden removed Trumps Executive Privilege. After Biden removed Trump’s Executive Privilege, the DOJ did their raid. A raid done knowing the Secret Service would not have been there.
Mar-a-Largo was invaded by armed FBI agents. An FBI who did not want to do this but now we learn that it was a raid planned by the White House. What did they find? Documents in a secured locked room. Documents there because the President had a right to have.
Unlike the stolen documents found at the Biden cartel locations. Documents marked top secret that Biden had no right to have in his position. How do we now know this?
NARA records obtained through America First Legal’s investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Mar-a-Lago raid further confirmed that the FBI obtained access to these records through a “special access request” from the Biden White House on behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Share the post "Now we know why Biden removed Trumps Executive Privilege."
Robert W Malone MD, MS Inventor of mRNA & DNA vaccines, RNA as a drug. Scientist, physician, writer, podcaster, commentator, and advocate. Believer in our fundamental freedom of free speech.
Dr. Malone’s comments are in italicsand enclosed in <brackets>
Switzerland stops the COVID vaccines, Spike protein kills brain cells, Twitter at war with Substack.
<Note: Switzerland, a non-aligned nation (not NATO, EU, or BRICS) is generally considered the global hub of the pharmaceutical industry. The Government of Switzerland coming out with this position is a clear recognition that objective scientific analysis of the risk/benefit ratio of COVID-19 “vaccines” does not justify “vaccination” in any cohort. Note that the Swiss position is that physicians can prescribe, but will need to carry the risk of liability in the case of adverse events – the exact opposite position of the US HHS position. This clearly demonstrates that this issue has become politicized in the USA, and that the objectivity of HHS decision-making has been compromised. This decision is based in part on the widespread natural immunity which has developed in Switzerland, something which was long denied by the US Government, US corporate media, and US information technology (social media) companies and their NGO surrogates.>
Machine translated from the original German
By Vanessa Renner Report24 April 07, 2023
Bang: Switzerland withdraws all Covid vaccination recommendations
Switzerland stops the Covid vaccinations: all vaccination recommendations have been withdrawn, doctors can only administer the controversial vaccines in individual cases under certain conditions – but then bear the risk of liability for vaccination damage. When will countries like Germany and Austria follow this example?
The Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) and the Federal Commission for Vaccination Issues (EKIF) stated in their vaccination recommendation (as of April 3rd, 2023) (to be found on this website):
In principle, the FOPH and EKIF will not formulate a recommendation for vaccination against Covid-19 in spring/summer 2023 due to the expected low virus circulation and the high level of immunity in the population.
Vaccination is only possible in individual cases – namely:
Vaccination is possible for people who are particularly at risk (BGP) ≥ 16 years of age if the attending physician considers it to be medically indicated in the respective epidemiological situation in the individual case, a temporarily increased protection against serious illness is to be expected and the last vaccination dose at least 6 months ago.
However, no vaccination recommendation for risk patients is explicitly given here.
In the following, it will be discussed that the effectiveness of vaccinations against current variants is reduced and short-lived – especially for people who are at risk. The adaptation of the mRNA vaccine could not keep up with the development of the variants. The recommendations of the BAG could change if there is a new wave of outbreaks, but even then, according to the document, vaccinations are no longer recommended for people under the age of 65.
No positive risk-benefit ratio
The remarks on “Adverse Vaccination Symptoms” (UIE) are also piquant:
According to the current state of knowledge, the risk of severe UIE with a recommended vaccination is much lower than the risk of a complication from Covid-19, against which the vaccination protects. The benefit of the vaccination administered according to the recommendation therefore outweighs the possible risks.
In the case of the valid non-recommendation, this essentially means that there is no longer a positive benefit-risk ratio for any Covid vaccination.
Liability: the federal government is out, doctors have a duty
The new recommendations also have consequences for liability. This is what the BAG document on the Covid vaccination strategy (as of November 29th, 2022) says:
Compensation by the federal government to injured persons for vaccination damage can only be considered for vaccinations if they were officially recommended or ordered (see Art. 64 EpG).
However, the federal government only stepped in if the damage was not covered by the vaccine manufacturer, the person vaccinating or an insurance company. The person vaccinating – i.e. generally the doctor – can be held liable if he has breached his duty of care. In this context, it is pointed out that the same rules regarding patient information apply to the Covid vaccination as to all other vaccinations.
The fact is, however, that very few doctors are likely to have informed their patients correctly about all the risks and side effects and the limited effectiveness of the Covid vaccinations. The off-label use of vaccines (not unusual for Covid vaccinations, for example, the bivalent mRNA vaccines in Switzerland are not approved as first vaccinations, not as a booster for people under the age of 18, and not as a fifth vaccination) must be discussed become. For doctors, the justification of vaccinations is becoming more difficult due to the changed recommendations, according to a BAG document on liability issues:
If the doctor treating you bases his/her choice or prescription on the vaccination recommendations of the BAG, he/she can prove that he/she has observed the recognized rules of medical and pharmaceutical sciences and has therefore complied with the duty of care under the law on medicinal products.
The “Weltwoche” reports that from now on the doctors have to be liable for the vaccination – which should probably decrease their willingness to vaccinate significantly.
<And then there is this article from the same Swiss source, Report 24. Those paying attention may recall that I was perhaps the first to raise the alarm that the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein is a toxin and that it interacts with the brain, a statement for which I was repeatedly attacked for spreading false information by a wide variety of media including various “fact-checker” organizations which (falsely) asserted that the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein used in the vaccines had been modified to make it non-toxic. Are those organizations now liable for the damage incurred when patients accepted the COVID-19 genetic vaccines which caused their bodies to make high levels of Spike protein due to their suppression of scientific information required for true informed consent?>
I guess Nancy Reagan was right after all. Drugs kill brain cells. Only different drugs than she was thinking of. Specifically, the drugs that the FDA and CDC call safe and effective “vaccines” which deliver SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein into your body. This is your brain on C-19 vaccines.
The spike protein can be detected on patients’ immune cells for more than a year after infection
By Heinz Steiner
08 April 2023
A recently published German study indicates that the spike proteins from Covid-19 and the Covid vaccines cause brain cell death. Repeated vaccinations seem to be counterproductive in this respect. This can result in permanent brain damage.
Our results showed accumulation of spike protein in the cranial medulla, meninges and brain parenchyma. Injection of the spike protein alone resulted in cell death in the brain, indicating a direct effect on brain tissue. We observed the presence of spike protein in the skulls of deceased individuals long after their COVID-19 infection, suggesting that spike protein persistence may contribute to long-term neurological symptoms.
Of all the SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins, only the spike protein was detected in the brain parenchyma. “This suggests that the spike protein might have a long lifespan in the body. This notion is supported by the observation that spike protein can be detected on patients’ immune cells for more than a year after infection – a recently published preprint suggests that spike protein can be detected in plasma samples up to 12 months after the diagnosis persists.” And further: “Injection of Spike protein induced a wide range of proteomic changes in the cranial cord, meninges, and brain, including proteins associated with coronavirus disease, the complement and coagulation cascades, neutrophilic degranulation, the formation of NETs and the PI3K-AKT signaling pathway, demonstrating the immunogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the absence of other viral components.”
The researchers further report: “Our molecular analysis suggests an activation of the immune response in the craniocerebral axis, possibly through the recruitment and increase in activity of neutrophils, similar to what has been reported for the respiratory tract.” Furthermore, the viral proteins would act as an inflammatory stimulus, triggering a “significant immune response in the brain”. The study also states: “Proteins associated with neurodegeneration and damage to the blood-brain barrier were the most dysregulated molecules in the brain. The viral spike protein leads to the activation of RHOA, which triggers the disruption of the blood-brain barrier”.
That is why there are mini infarcts in the brain parenchyma and an increased number of microbleeds in Covid patients (vaccinated people, who are also contaminated with large amounts of spike proteins, were obviously not examined by the scientists). This work proves that the spike protein of the SARS-CoV2 and Covid-19 mRNA vaccine enters the skull marrow, meninges, and brain parenchyma. The spike protein also breaks through the blood-brain barrier. Spike protein alone causes cell death in the brain, activates complement and coagulation pathways leading to blood clots, mini-infarcts[heart attacks], and cerebral hemorrhage, and causes inflammation and local changes associated with neurodegeneration (dementia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s).
We should be aware that the repeated administration of such spike proteins via the experimental gene syringes can be compared to multiple corona infections in terms of contamination of the human body with these spike proteins. But the more often such spike proteins are administered, the greater the potential health problems – in this case also in the human brain. We are talking about irreparable damage here, because the brain cells no longer regenerate.
Twitter at war with Substack: So much for the commitment to free speech.
Twitter restricts posts featuring Substack after it rolls out rival service
Twitter is limiting any tweets that include links to Substack in an apparent response to the blogging platform’s launch of a competitor.
Users reported on Friday that any tweets with Substack links in them could not be liked, retweeted, or replied to.
The restrictions were imposed shortly after Substack, a platform for newsletters, announced Notes, its own Twitter competitor. Twitter also restricted the ability of users to embed tweets onto Substack the day before.
“We’re investigating reports that Twitter embeds and authentication no longer work on Substack,” Substack stated on Thursday after users reported that embedding tweets into Substack posts did not work. “We are actively trying to resolve this and will share updates as additional information becomes available.” The Washington Examiner tested the feature and found that direct Substack links were limited, while those with custom URLs were unaffected.
“We’re disappointed that Twitter has chosen to restrict writers’ ability to share their work. Writers deserve the freedom to share links to Substack or anywhere else,” Substack founders Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie, and Jairaj Sethi said in a statement sent to the Washington Examiner. “This abrupt change is a reminder of why writers deserve a model that puts them in charge, that rewards great work with money, and that protects the free press and free speech. Their livelihoods should not be tied to platforms where they don’t own their relationship with their audience, and where the rules can change on a whim.”
Share the post "News from the Front Lines – Robert Malone MD-Switzerland stops the COVID vaccines & more"
Billionaire George Soros, left, denied funding Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s campaign, but there’s more to the story. (Sean Gallup / Getty Images; Ed Jones – AFP / Getty Images )
By Richard Moorhead for The Western Journal March 31, 2023, at 4:37pm
Leftist oligarch George Soros is claiming that he hasn’t funded Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind the indictment of former President Donald Trump.
Soros claimed as much in a Friday text sent to Semafor’s Steve Clemons.
The Hungarian-born billionaire emphasized that he doesn’t know Bragg personally.
“As for Alvin Bragg … I did not contribute to his campaign and I don’t know him,” he wrote.
“I think some on the right would rather focus on far-fetched conspiracy theories than on the serious charges against the former President.”
However, there’s more to the story than Soros’ partial denial.
The leftist megadonor is the biggest individual contributor to Color of Change, a Super PAC that heavily supported Bragg in his campaign for office in 2021.
Color of Change ended up spending about $500,000 in support of Bragg, according to The New York Times.
Campaign finance law forbids direct donations to campaigns in excess of $3,300, a figure that’s increased since Bragg’s 2021 campaign.
Soros highlighted that he hadn’t contributed directly to Bragg’s campaign in a Friday tweet — without addressing his funding of a PAC that supported him.
Soros donated $1 million to the group just days after it endorsed Bragg in 2021, with the likely knowledge that his contributions would be used to assist in Bragg’s election.
Soros is widely known for his targeted focus on the elections of local prosecutors, bragging about his backing of “reform” candidates in a 2022 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Those who call Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump a targeted political prosecution point to his financial connection to Soros — a multi-billionaire who has established himself as one of the premier financiers of progressive politics in the United States.
As a prosecutor, Bragg has downgraded and eschewed filing criminal charges against those accused of violent crimes — while seemingly emphasizing a politically charged inquiry targeting the former Republican president.
Alvin Bragg is bought by George Soros. He allows violent criminals to walk the streets of New York City, but will prosecute the likely Republican nominee (and former president) on a baseless misdemeanor charge. These people are trying to turn America into a third-world country. https://t.co/2eYqPegRLF
