Radical Leftists Block Doors of California Capitol Chanting “Shut It Down!” – Someone Call the DOJ and Launch the Early Morning Raids!
Attention Merrick Garland’s DOJ: We have another insurrection to report.
Radical leftists blocked the entrance to the California Capitol on Wednesday. They were chanting, “Shut it down!” and blocking all access to the building.
Bill Essayli tweeted: “The California Capitol was stormed today by radical leftists. They’re yelling “shut it down” which is a direct attempt to obstruct official proceedings. No word yet from DOJ on how many have been indicted for insurrection. I’ll wait…”
State worker protest is now blocking the front doors of the CA Capitol legislative swing space. Multiple hearings are happening inside. pic.twitter.com/k1Md0Ldhqe
Well, it’s another day and we’re getting yet another explanation from Fulton Country officials when it comes to the posted-then-deleted document that appeared to be the indictment against former President Donald Trump — and it might be the wildest one yet.
As Townhall reported previously, a document that showed a number of charges under Trump’s name appeared on the Fulton County clerk’s website on Monday around noon, but was quickly removed. Later that night, when the grand jury voted on the indictment, it turned out that Trump was charged with exactly the same counts as had appeared on the clerk’s website hours before the grand jury had completed its work. County officials called the deleted document “fictitious” initially on Monday, then changed tact on Tuesday to say it was the result of a “trial run” used to “test” the system of posting indictments in anticipation of the grand jury’s vote.
At no time, however, amid the changing stories, have Fulton County officials explained why the document posted initially was an exact match for the charges the grand jury actually handed up hours later.
On Wednesday, we got another story — this time directly from Fulton County Clerk Ché Alexander — that added more information but did little to clear up the situation.
Here’s what she had to say when she broke her silence in an interview with Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB-TV:
She says she was under a lot of pressure to make sure the process went smoothly. In trying to be perfect she says she made a mistake.
She says she hit send instead of hitting save. “I am human,” she said. And she says she wanted to get the documents to the public as soon as possible.
“And that’s how the mishap happened.”
Alexander said this had nothing to do with the D.A.’s office and there was nothing sinister about the mistake she made.
“I have no dog in the fight,” she pointed out.
She says in an effort to handle the indictment perfectly, she messed up. “I did a work sample in the system. And when I hit save, it went to the press queue.”
Some news reporters saw it before it was deleted. At least one outlet published it.
Alexander says what was published was unofficial. “It wasn’t an official document. It wasn’t official charges. It was the dry run. It was a work sample,” she said.
Even though it had a case number. But Alexander says it didn’t have a stamp or other markings that would have made it official.
Jones asked her why did she release a statement calling the document “fictitious.”
“That was the best word that I could come up with. It was fictitious. It wasn’t real. It didn’t have a stamp on it,” she stated.
Jones asked her why she didn’t just say it was an error. Alexander says the word ‘fictitious’ is what her team came up with…
Alexander says she was under a lot of worldwide pressure to get this right. Now she says she just wants to explain what happened and get back to work. “I tell my staff we just want to be transparent. I don’t have anything to hide,” Alexander said.
Alexander says her mistake had no impact on the grand jury and its decision.
Yep, the latest version of events is that the clerk “hit send instead of save.” Notably, there’s still no explanation for how the test run which went awry happened to include the exact counts on which Trump was later indicted by the grand jury, but with any luck there will be yet another explanation or statement from the clerk’s office yet to be released in the days ahead.
Sorry, (Ms) Charley, but your “explanation” won’t wash. As the owner of several websites across different hosts, I can tell you that the “Save” and “Send” (or “Publish”) are NOT next to each other.
“under a lot of worldwide pressure to get this right.”
WORLDWIDE pressure???????? Who the @$#%$! does she think she’s fooling? Oh, right. Leftist drones accept anything — no matter how outrageous — as long as it comes from an approved source –TPR
YouTube is taking immediate action to expand its “medical misinformation” censorship policies, according to a blog post by the popular video platform on Tuesday.
YouTube is streamlining its existing policy to three distinct categories in anticipation of a more long-term suppression of medical information authorities disagree with, according to the announcement. A significant portion of YouTube’s announcement focuses on how it will now censor certain cancer-related content.
“Starting today and ramping up in the coming weeks, we will begin removing content that promotes cancer treatments proven to be harmful or ineffective, or content that discourages viewers from seeking professional medical treatment,” the announcement states.
Today, @YouTube introduced an updated framework to simplify its medical misinformation policies and will begin to remove content that promotes certain cancer misinformation.
YouTube acknowledges the evolving nature of medical knowledge and information in its announcement.
However, “our goal is to ensure that when it comes to areas of well-studied scientific consensus, YouTube is not a platform for distributing information that could harm people,” its announcement states.
The three categories of “medical misinformation” will be Prevention, Treatment and Denial, according to the announcement. They state that YouTube will remove content that “contradicts health authority guidance.”
Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is suing YouTube and its parent company, Google, for allegedly violating his free speech, according to a complaint filed Aug. 2. YouTube has removed Kennedy’s videos because of its “vaccine misinformation” policies on multiple occasions, according to the complaint.
Since “YouTube does not allow people to say anything ‘that contradicts local health authorities’ (LHA) or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19,’” this means the government sets the medical censorship guidelines, Kennedy’s lawsuit alleges.
An electric school bus is charging at Grant Union High School in Sacramento on July 20, 2023. The chargers are bidirectional, which means they can feed power back to the electric grid. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters
California could resort to using electric cars to charge its struggling power grid.Pacific Gas and Electric Company says to think of it as a “backup” energy source, like a generator.
The state of California, which has struggled to reconcile its aggressive “green energy” agenda against its unreliable and blackout-prone power grid, may have an admittedly “unconventional” solution thanks to a proposal from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E): Using electric cars to charge the power grid.
PG&E, which provides power for around 16 million California residents, sees “great potential” for EVs to act as power grid backup generators. “The grid needs those electric vehicles. We need to make it available, and it can be a huge resource,” he added, per The Orange County Register.
Just the News contacted PG&E for more details. A spokesman responded by lauding the supposed benefits of “bidirectional charging.”
“PG&E believes in a future where everyone is driving an electric vehicle (EV) and where that EV serves as a backup power option at home and more broadly as a resource for the grid,” the statement to Just the News read. Not only is this a huge advancement for electric reliability and climate resiliency, it’s yet another advantage of clean-powered EVs, which are so important in our collective battle against climate change.”
The company also said tapping electric cars eliminates “the need for non-renewable resources” like fossil fuels.
The state is widely regarded as the most green energy-driven state, but it is also infamous for its rolling blackouts. In August 2020, ABC reported that hundreds of thousands of Californians briefly lost power in rolling blackouts. Many times, the state uses a diesel generator to supplement the grid during peak energy usage.
Nonetheless, PG&E’s 2030 Climate Strategy Report has a goal for the grid “to quickly and safely power at least 3 million EVs— or about 12,000 GWh of EV-related electric load.” Two million of those EVs are being sought for “vehicle-grid integration (VGI) applications, allowing EVs to be a cornerstone of both electric reliability and climate resilience for PG&E customers broadly.”
According to the Pacific Research Institute, California isn’t able to generate enough electricity to meet its pending EV mandate. 12,000 GWh is nearly 18% of its total renewable electricity generated in 2021.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has openly referred to his state’s power grid as having a reliability “issue” that “has to be addressed.” Even though it has an abundance of oil, it still imports more electricity from outside the state than any other state in the nation because of its green agenda pledge. Data culled from the U.S. Department of Energy shows that California led the nation in power outages last year, with 142 major events.
Because the state has notoriously high energy costs—with some reportedly paying triple the providing cost—three utility companies have proposed charging residents based on income rather than energy consumption.
Why are the Sanctuary bluebirds crying about their new found voters for 2024? We see it in New York, Illinois, and now Massachusetts. We are spending our money on all these future voters is the battle cry.
I guess the bluebirds thought the plan was to send them in just before the 2024 elections. Not now. And the Progressives are crying cause they have to house and educate the undocumented. What did they think that being a Sanctuary city and state meant?
This article comes from the “BuzzLoving.com” website and is written by a Trump-hating leftist calling itself “Milla” — you can see all 81 pages of articles it’s written by going HERE.
“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” – US Supreme Court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights.
–Original Article headline
Before I get into the article proper, let me state my personal opinion to the rainbow community at large.
You have the right to be whatever you chose to be. Just like I have the right to be myself. You DON’T have the right to demand that I think your way and kowtow to your fantasies on penalty of being beaten, killed or labeled a bigot, a Nazi, or any other derogatory term you come up with. I don’t have the right to sue you for being what you chose to be, but you don’t have the right to try to enforce your fantasies on me via a lawsuit, either. You respect me, I’ll respect you, even if we don’t agree on life choices. Simple. That’s the way a mature person behaves.
End of disclaimer.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to work on invites for same-sex marriage, giving a significant blow to the rights of LGBTQ couples.
The Supreme Court cited free speech.
Evangelical Christian web designer Lorie Smith has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to decline to endorse messages she disagrees with, it has been decided. This one decision could cause other owners of similar creative businesses to evade penalties under laws in 29 states that defend the rights of the LGBTQ community. (Notice the defendant is a biological woman. –TPR)
The statement from the Justice
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” He added, “At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”
Shutterstock photo
Smith sued on hypothetical grounds.
Smith opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples. She was never disciplined for declining a same-sex couple, and it’s unclear if she ever did. Instead, she sued on hypothetical grounds.
(THIS IS NOT “HYPOTHETICAL” Colorado anyone? And the author’s painfully obvious bias is on full display here.–TPR)
Smith celebrated, but many expressed worry and dread.
(How many is “many” there, cupcake? — TPR)
“This is a victory not just for me but for all of us; whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone,” Smith told the press. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that this was a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities” and a type of “reactionary exclusion,” calling it “heartbreaking.”
“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes.”
Former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman shared that this was a major blow to human rights, writing, “Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South & posit that the owners attest that they have sincere religious beliefs, reinforced by their pastor every Sunday, that Blacks are inferior and that serving them would force them to endorse a message they disagree with..” Litman added, “That’s where we are headed.”
(Oh oh, Not kowtowing is “racist” now, is it? *facepalm*– TPR)
“The opinion is out there like a loaded gun.”
The lawyer also clarified, “To be clear, I’m not saying that’s where we are headed, although to paraphrase Justice Jackson, the opinion is out there like a loaded gun for someone who wants to go that way. The point for today is just that the opinion doesn’t have a limiting principle that forecloses that result.”
(Bloviate much? Oh, I forgot, you’re not only a person with a law degree, but you’re also a bureaucrat. Silly me. –TPR)
Another important takeaway
Time wrote, “Put plainly: states can try to pass local anti-bigotry laws, but national religious liberties still supersede them.” The publication also connected how the ruling came a year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, and Court watchers predicted that things would only get worse for women as well as LGBTQ rights.
(“For women?” Really. Sorry, that just won’t wash. Maybe for those females who are still emotional babies, but not for anyone who accepts the responsibility for their own actions. –TPR)
Large money-center banks appear to be in the vanguard of a movement to build a system of personal social credit scores.
This week, British bank Barclays became the latest to be accused of shutting the accounts of its customers for political or religious reasons. This followed revelations in April that Coutts, a private bank owned by British Bank NatWest, was alleged to have closed the accounts and publicized personal information of conservative politician Nigel Farage, one of the foremost Brexit advocates and a supporter of the policies of former U.S. President Donald Trump.
And British banks are not alone. Many say that America’s largest banks are in lockstep with UK banks in establishing political and social criteria for their customers and punishing those who don’t comply.
“Sadly, what we’re seeing now with NatWest and Barclays isn’t surprising,” Justin Haskins, director at the Heartland Institute, told The Epoch Times. “There is a mountain of evidence that shows many of America’s largest and most powerful banks are discriminating against customers because of their ideological, social, cultural, religious, or political views.”
“Through various environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies and frameworks, banks regularly choose to screen out customers who are deemed ‘reputational risks’ or considered part of industries disfavored by elites and their powerful institutions,” Mr. Haskins said.
UK Ministers Find Fault With Discriminating Banks
In contrast to the United States, where regulators have taken no action, UK ministers have stepped in to defend their citizens against political discrimination.
“Andrew Griffith, the economic secretary of the UK, met with some of the major banks recently and got them all to commit to a principle of non-discrimination, based on lawful expression,” Michael Ross, counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told The Epoch Times.
In addition, laws are currently in works to ban UK banks from discriminating against customers on a political or religious basis.
UK Treasury Minister Baroness Penn stated last week: “I think the point that we can all agree on is that the right to lawful freedom of speech is fundamental. And where that has seemed to be brought into question through the provision of services, we have cause to worry.”
UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly stated that the closure of Mr. Farage’s accounts was “wrong on so many levels.”
“This completely undermines the trust we have in our banking and financial systems,” Mr. Cleverly said. “We are better than this.”
UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman posted to Twitter on July 19: “The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity.’”
A photograph taken on July 28, 2023 shows the headquarters of the private bank Coutts, in London.(Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP via Getty Images)
As part of the new UK regulations, banks that close customer accounts will be required to give a reason, and customers will have the right to appeal the bank’s decision. Banks who continue to discriminate may lose their licenses.
Meanwhile, British banks themselves appear to be turning against these policies, or at least of the unfavorable publicity they are now facing as a result.
On July 26, NatWest Chief Executive Alison Rose resigned after Mr. Farage’s allegations were substantiated and it was revealed that she had discussed Mr. Farage’s details with BBC news. Ms. Rose stated that she was guilty of a “serious error of judgment.”
On Thursday, Peter Flavel, CEO of Coutts, also resigned, saying he took “ultimate responsibility” for the closure of Mr. Farage’s bank accounts. The UK government data watchdog has promised an investigation, sending a letter to banks to remind them that customers’ personal information should be kept private.
John Edwards, the UK’s information commissioner, said: “The banking duty of confidentiality is over a hundred years old, and it is clear that it would not permit the discussion of a customer’s personal information with the media.
“We trust banks with our money and with our personal information,” Mr. Edwards stated. “Any suggestion that this trust has been betrayed will be concerning for a bank’s customers, and for regulators like myself.”
US Banks Also Discriminate, Experts Say
JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, has also faced allegations of political and religious discrimination.
“We’re already seeing this happening in the U.S.,” ADF’s Mr. Ross said.
“Before this, there was obviously Sam Brownback and the National Committee for Religious Freedom,” he said, referring to accounts allegedly closed by JPMorgan Chase. “Chase also canceled Defense of Liberty a couple years ago, retired General Michael Flynn, the Family Council—all of them are designated either high risk or reputational risk.”
In May, longtime JPMorgan Chase shareholder David Bahnsen brought a shareholder action against the bank, claiming that it had closed the accounts of a religious organization established by former senator and U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback for political reasons.
While the action ultimately failed to gain majority support from shareholders, Mr. Bahnsen stated, “One thing I am certain of is that the next time a bank manager decides to close an account for somebody like Ambassador Brownback, they’re going to think twice about doing it. This was covered far and wide by both the left wing press and the right wing press, and I do not believe it looked good upon JPMorgan.”
In November 2021, WePay, a payment services company owned by JPMorgan Chase, abruptly canceled services they were providing for Defense of Liberty, a conservative organization, for an event featuring Donald Trump Jr. WePay said at the time that they would not serve anyone who promotes “hate, violence, racial intolerance, terrorism, the financial exploitation of a crime.”
This prompted Missouri Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick to threaten to halt state business with the bank.
In July 2021, Family Council faced a similar denial of service.
“Although Family Council generally tries to avoid doing business with companies like Chase, at 10:29 am on July 7, 2021, our office received a terse email from our credit card processor—a company owned by J.P. Morgan Chase—saying, ‘Unfortunately, we can no longer support your business.’ At 10:30 AM they terminated our account, and we could no longer accept donations,” Family Council stated.
“For nearly two years we had used this company to process donations that our supporters made to Family Council and the Education Alliance via our websites. If you gave by credit or debit card, this company handled the transaction. Without a processor, it’s impossible for a nonprofit to accept donations online.”
On March 23, financial officers from 14 states wrote a letter to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon expressing their “concern that the bank is engaged in what appears to be politically motivated de-banking of certain industries, individuals and groups.”
“A large number of our pension funds are direct shareholders of Chase, and as stewards of our states’ investment dollars, we are concerned that the company’s recent pattern of apparent politically motivated de-banking constitutes a breach of its fiduciary duty,” they stated. “Under the law, you and the other officers of the company must act to maximize profit and must not subordinate the company’s long-term financial well-being to extraneous personal or political ends.”
And on May 2, 19 State attorneys general wrote a letter to Mr. Dimon stating: “It is clear that JPMorgan Chase & Co. has persistently discriminated against certain customers due to their religious or political affiliation.
“This discrimination is unacceptable,” the AGs wrote. “Chase must stop such behavior and align its business practices with the anti-discrimination policies that Chase proclaims.”
Discrimination Could Spread Beyond Politics
Some say they are concerned that bank discrimination could spread beyond political and religious views to a broader social credit system that might also include things like environmental behavior and gun control.
“There is every reason to believe that current discriminatory practices in banking could soon expand to personal CO2 emissions or gun purchases,” Mr. Haskins said.
“Banks and other financial institutions have already started to discriminate with gun companies, either through higher fees or rates or by refusing to do business entirely, and every large bank in the United States, from Bank of America to Citi and Wells Fargo, have said they have started the process of phasing out CO2 emissions from their entire business model, including lending and banking services,” he said. “This will take a few decades to complete, but if these banks go through with their plans, individuals and companies that rely on fossil fuels—almost everyone today—will be greatly affected.”
“The policies they use to do this are very expansive policies, like ‘reputational risk’ or ‘politically exposed person,’” Mr. Ross said. “There’s not really a limiting principle there, and so we can certainly see it aimed at any sort of political opponent or anyone who has views that activists or even government actors think are unpopular.”
“We’ve been carefully monitoring Chase, which de-banked General Flynn and de-banked other conservatives, then last fall de-banked Ambassador Brownback’s organization,” Scott Shepard, a director at the National Center for Public Policy Research, told The Epoch Times.
“We’ve seen similar behavior at Bank of America, along with Bank of America sharing private information about the transactions of customers without warrants.”
“And just this last week, they de-banked a couple of doctors who are out talking about the inefficacy of [COVID-19] vaccines, that they won’t stop transmission, that they won’t make takers immune, etc., and the bank still hasn’t explained why,” Mr. Shepard said. “We’ve seen similar behavior at Bank of America, along with Bank of America sharing private information about the transactions of customers without warrants. And last week, we found out that that happens all the time; [FBI Director] Chris Wray says so.”
At a Congressional hearing on July 12, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked Mr. Wray: “George Hill, former FBI supervisory intelligence analyst in the Boston field office, told us that Bank of America, with no legal process, gave to the FBI gun purchase records with no geographical boundaries for anybody that was a Bank of America customer. Is that true?”
To which Mr. Wray replied: “A number of business community partners all the time, including financial institutions, share information with us about possible criminal activity, and my understanding is that that’s fully lawful.”
Some have argued that, as private companies, banks are free to do business with whichever customers they choose. However, this position has been challenged on the grounds that financial services are critical to the ability of people and organizations to be able to function in modern society.
“Banks in particular receive a ton of bailouts and public benefits from the government and from taxpayers here,” Mr. Ross said. “They do this so that they can serve the public.”
“So when they turn around and start weaponizing these financial services to cut off people with views they don’t like, they’re breaking the public trust,” he noted.
“The American banks that seem to be leading these de-banking and discrimination policies are the too-big-to-fail banks,” Mr. Shepard said. “If you’re backstopped by American taxpayers, you get to keep your profits but we cover your losses—you may not discriminate against the viewpoint of any American.”
The Epoch Times requested comments from JPMorgan Chase, NatWest, and Barclays for this article but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
For decades, much has been made of the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom. But in 2022, the national governments of both nations shared a somewhat less special accomplishment: earning the least confidence from their constituents of any G7 member country.
When Gallup first measured national confidence in governments around the world nearly two decades ago, both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were well into their terms in office. The governments they led retained extensive confidence domestically — far more so than for almost all the rest of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Japan and Italy).
Fast forward to 2022, and the tables have turned. Roughly one in three adults in the U.K. (33%) and U.S. (31%) say they have confidence in their national governments: putting them at the bottom of the G7 countries.
As governments on both sides of the Atlantic have struggled, other administrations in G7 nations have solidified their positions among their electorates. In Europe, confidence in Italy’s government has almost doubled since 2019 (from 22% to 41% in 2022). Similarly, confidence in the French government has increased steadily since French President Emmanuel Macron came to power: rising from 37% in 2017 to 46% in 2022. In Olaf Scholz’s first full year as chancellor of Germany, he has continued Angela Merkel’s trend of high German confidence (61%) in government — the highest confidence level in the G7.
Even though confidence in the Canadian government has slipped from its highs under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a majority (51%) nevertheless retain faith in it. In Japan, which ranked last among G7 countries between 2007 and 2012, confidence in government has since more than doubled to 43% in 2022.
Confidence in U.S. Government Continues Free Fall
The U.S. has seen a sharp decline in the public’s confidence in the national government over the past couple of years. In 2020, almost half (46%) of U.S. adults expressed faith in their government, likely boosted by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.
But after President Joe Biden took office, confidence in government slipped to 40% in 2021 and again to 31% in 2022. This is on par with the lowest rates of confidence measured in the U.S. government since Gallup started tracking it globally in 2006 — with the other lows measured in 2013, 2016 and 2018 under former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
Declining domestic confidence in the U.S. government has occurred alongside declining approval ratings on the world stage. Median global approval of U.S. leadership slipped to 41% in 2022, down from 45% in 2021 during Biden’s first year in office.
Turmoil in Westminster May Be Blurring the Lines
Across the Atlantic, Britons’ confidence in their national government has been relatively low since 2019. But as is true for the U.S., confidence in the U.K. also reached a near-record low in 2022, on par with its level in 2008 during the financial crash (32%).
The U.K. political system has been rocked by several major events in recent years, including Brexit, the “Partygate” scandal and frequent turnover among its prime ministers. Since 2019, the U.K. has had four prime ministers in as many years.
For countries across the globe, leadership approval and confidence in government are highly related.
The same relationship is present in the U.K., where since 2006, confidence in the government has been far higher among those who approve of the U.K.’s leadership. But this changed dramatically in 2022, as the Partygate scandal intensified and numerous stories of alleged governmental wrongdoing dominated the headlines.
In 2022, confidence in the government collapsed, especially among Britons who approved of their country’s leadership (38%). This is the lowest level of confidence in the world among people who approve of their leadership — tied with Lebanon.
After years of clear distinction, the line between governmental confidence and leadership approval in the U.K. is now blurred. This may be a concern for the conservatives — in power since 2010 — ahead of the general election likely to be held at the end of next year.
Bottom Line
Much has changed since Gallup surveyed G7 countries in 2022, and recent events could have shifted these trends even further — including the political fallout from Trump’s legal troubles and former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s dramatic resignation from parliament in recent weeks.
The U.S. and the U.K. face crucial elections around the end of 2024. On both sides of the Atlantic, the election results will likely prove decisive in whether the public’s faith in their governments can be rebuilt in coming years or will erode yet further.
We are now being told that producing food is bad for the planet. To “save” the planet, globalists insist, farms must be shut down across the globe.
A family with starving children, Wikimedia Commons.
Under the guise of reducing “methane emissions,” thirteen nations have signed a pledge to engineer global famine by gutting agricultural production and shutting down farms. Announced earlier this year by the Global Methane Hub — a cabal of crisis engineers who exploit public panic to destroy the world food supply — those thirteen nations are:
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Germany, Panama, Peru, Spain, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and Uruguay.
Imagine no meat production from Australia, Brazil and the USA. This is the goal of the globalists. And they admit it’s all part of the climate fraud which has been thoroughly exposed as a quack science hoax, by the way. As Luis Planas, Spain’s Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says, “I am glad to see the shared commitment by the international community to mitigate methane emissions from agriculture as a means to achieve the goals we signed for in the Paris Agreement on climate.”
“Food systems are responsible for 60% of methane emissions,” warns Marcelo Mena, CEO of the Global Methane Hub. She is saying that farming is destroying the planet. Hence, their demand to shut down farms. Without farms, you have no food. And without food, you get exactly what Kamala Harris called for over the weekend: “Reduced population.”
The depopulation agenda is no longer even a secret. They are bragging about it.
And here’s their logic: FOOD = GLOBAL WARMING. So they are attacking food and shutting it down.
Starving child in Africa.
Cows and chickens to be replaced by crickets and insect larvae
Enjoy the crunchy fake meat patties and Cricket McNuggets. Soon, you’ll be eating bugs because meat will be wildly unaffordable due to the governments shutting down farms and ranches. As journalist Leo Hohmann explains:
We can presume from this language that among the practices being considered are replacing a major portion of the beef and dairy cattle, pork and chicken stocks that populations rely on for protein with insect larvae, meal worms, crickets, etc. The U.N., World Economic Forum and other NGOs have been promoting meatless diets and the consumption of insect protein for years, and billionaires have invested in massive insect factories being built in the state of Illinois, in Canada and in the Netherlands, where meal worms, crickets and other bugs will be processed as additives to be inserted into the food supply, often without clear labels that will inform people of exactly what they are eating.
Hohmann also refers to the Deagel forecast which projects an almost 70 percent reduction of the U.S. population by 2025, saying:
There is no more efficient way to depopulate than through war, famine and plagues. Isn’t it interesting that all three of these time-tested methods of murder are in play right now?
In a related story, Michael Snyder from The Economic Collapse Blog writes:
Global food supplies just keep getting even tighter, and global hunger has risen to extremely alarming levels… According to the United Nations, nearly 30 percent of the global population does not have constant access to food right now, and there are approximately 900 million people that are facing “severe food insecurity”…
Chinese children starving.
Gee, add to that the next global PLANdemic, and you can see (if you take off your leftist blinders) where this is headed. And the BIDEN REGIME is particpating in it!–TPR
The Biden administration’s Department of Justice web page on the dangers of child sex trafficking is suddenly missing some very crucial text that raises further questions as to the degree the department has been politicized.
In fact, in recent months, most of the original text on what the public should look for has been deleted — presumably in order to protect an embattled pro-LGBT White House and its failed border policies.
According to an archive of the page, up until recently, the DOJ warned off international sex trafficking rings that use the border to exploit children.
A section on “International Sex Trafficking of Minors” for years read as follows:
“One form of sex trafficking involves the cross-border transportation of children. In these situations, traffickers recruit and transfer children across international borders in order to sexually exploit them in another country.
“The traffickers can be individuals working alone, organized crime groups, enterprises, or networks of criminals working together to traffic children into prostitution across country lines.”
The DOJ reported that once missing and exploited children enter the country illegally, they often are never found and are afraid to come forward.
Other crucial excerpts on the international slave trade are also missing.
One obvious explanation for why this information is suddenly gone is that President Joe Biden and his administration have watched over an open border for the last two-and-a-half years.
Why else would anyone in federal law enforcement in the corrupt federal government feel it is necessary to remove such important information?
But there are also excerpts missing that could be interpreted as pointing toward the LGBT community.
For example, in its previous form, the DOJ warned of predators whose motives might be to take advantage of young people whose backgrounds could match those of confused kids in distress.
One of those excerpts once read:
“Offenders of this crime who are commonly referred to as traffickers, or pimps, target vulnerable children and gain control over them using a variety of manipulative methods. Victims frequently fall prey to traffickers who lure them in with an offer of food, clothes, attention, friendship, love, and a seemingly safe place to sleep.”
Another stated bluntly:
“It is common for traffickers to isolate victims by moving them far away from friends and family, altering their physical appearances, or continuously moving them to new locations. Victims are heavily conditioned to remain loyal to the trafficker and to distrust law enforcement.”
Organizations that cater to children who are confused about sexuality and gender often report they feel ostracized and end up homeless.
For example, the LGBT youth group The Trevor Project states that 28 percent of young people in its community have been homeless.
It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that such a situation would set some of these kids up to be taken advantage of.
We know with the modern left’s extreme views on gender, kids are being urged to undergo life-altering surgeries. Who knows where some of them end up?
That fact might explain why the DOJ’s warning that predators who are known for “altering” the physical appearance of their victims is now gone.
More information about the trafficking of human beings is always better than less — especially in regard to children.
But for some reason that has not been addressed publicly, the DOJ cut out this very important information — whittling it down from more than 1,300 words to only 400.
The department also removed the following 2011 quote from then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole:
“Some of our most vulnerable children also face the threat of being victimized by commercial sexual exploitation. Runaways, throwaways, sexual assault victims, and neglected children can be recruited into a violent life of forced prostitution.”
Given the politicized nature of federal law enforcement under the Biden administration, we can only assume the DOJ removed information about victims who are inconvenient and that it was done for political reasons.
