Opening comments to the general public to ask a question, in sincerity: what changed the minds of society’s former First Amendment advocates?
Wednesday a House Committee — Republican-led, but still — released a series of documents showing without a doubt that the FBI has been forwarding thousands of content moderation “requests” to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube on behalf of the SBU, Ukraine’s Security Agency.
The documents not only contain incontrovertible evidence that our own FBI pressures tech companies to censor material, but that the Bureau is outsourcing such work to a foreign government, in this case Ukraine. This passage below for instance reads “The SBU requested for your review and if appropriate deletion/suspension of these accounts.”
There can’t possibly be controversy at this point as to whether or not this censorship program is going on. Whether it’s the FBI forwarding the SBU asking for the removal of Aaron Maté, or the Global Engagement Center recommending action on the Canadian site GlobalResearch.Ca, or the White House demanding the takedown of figures like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the same types of behavior have now been captured over and over.
In light of this, I have to ask: where are the rest of the “card-carrying” liberals from the seventies, eighties, and nineties — people like me, who always reflexively opposed restrictions on speech?
Is your argument that private companies can do what they want? Then why did you think otherwise in 1985, when Tipper Gore’s Parents Music Resource Center suggested record companies “voluntarily” label as dirty songs like “Darling Nikki,” and call them McCarthyites when they compiled a list of the “Filthy Fifteen” albums? Does that not sound suspiciously like the “Disinformation Dozen”? Why were you on Frank Zappa’s side then, but with blacklisters now?
Do you now think it’s not really censorship if the FBI merely makes its opinion known about content, and doesn’t order takedowns? Did you think the same when the FBI sent a letter to Priority Records complaining about NWA’s “Fuck the Police”? Did you agree then with the ACLU, whose Southern California chairman responded to the FBI’s letter by saying, “It is completely inappropriate for any government agency to try to influence what artists do. It is completely against the American traditions of free speech”?
Is your belief that new forms of speech constitute “harm” and “offense” to such a degree that censorship is warranted? If so, why did you once support Andres Serrano and his work Piss Christ, which Catholics insisted was an intolerable offense, and call it censorship when opponents like Al D’Amato and Jesse Helms tried to pull funding for Serrano from the National Endowment of the Arts? Wasn’t the Hustler magazine spread suggesting Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse offensive? Didn’t you go to The People Versus Larry Flyntanyway?
If you’re okay with the FBI collaborating on censorship with the SBU now, why oppose the original PATRIOT Act, suggesting you didn’t even want the government looking at library records in search of Islamic terrorists? Why did you support the Dixie Chicks when they were blackballed for antiwar views after the Iraq invasion? Did you cheer them when you watched Shut Up and Sing?
Weren’t those national security issues, too? That wasn’t even that long ago. Is Vladimir Putin that much more of a menace than Al-Qaeda to justify the change in heart?
The change in thinking of traditional American liberals is the only part of this censorship picture that still doesn’t quite compute for me. I’d like to hear from anyone who has an explanation, a personal testimonial, anything. Comments are open to everyone here.
President Biden has snapped at reporters who have asked him about alleged corruption involving him and his son, Hunter Biden. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
TIPP Poll: Half of Dems Say Hunter Got Special Treatment.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans, including 49% of Democrats, believe Hunter Biden received preferential treatment related to tax evasion and gun charges, according to a DailyMail.com/TIPP Poll released on Wednesday.
The nationwide online survey of 1,300 adults, taken July 5-7, showed 61% either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that President Joe Biden’s son received special treatment from the IRS and Department of Justice. Among Democrats, 49% agreed and only 32% disagreed. The poll had a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percentage points.
Hunter Biden struck a deal with the DOJ in which he would plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax offenses and admit to illegally possessing a weapon after his 2018 purchase of a handgun. As part of that admission, he would enter a diversion program, and if he meets the conditions of the program, the gun charge would be removed from his record.
A majority of every demographic used in the poll believed Hunter Biden received preferential treatment, including Republicans (83%), men (69%), women (54%), Hispanics (57%), and Blacks (55%).
Even among liberals, 44% polled said Hunter Biden received special treatment, compared with 41% who said he didn’t. Among conservatives, 69% said he had preferential treatment.
Biden Cartel puts the blame on the whistle blower.
DOJ Announces Indictment Against Biden Whistleblower.
Published on By Citizen Frank
Dr. Gal Luft
Israeli professor Dr. Gal Luft, a key Biden whistleblower who was “missing” for several weeks, has been indicted by the Department of Justice just days after releasing a video in which he accused the Biden family of accepting bribes and assisting the Chinese government.
Luft has been accused of failing to register as a foreign agent while working to advance the interests of China in the United States. In addition to Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the eight-count federal indictment includes charges of arms trafficking, Iranian sanctions violations, and making false statements to federal agents.
“As alleged, Gal Luft, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen and co-head of a Maryland think tank, engaged in multiple, serious criminal schemes. He subverted foreign agent registration laws in the United States to seek to promote Chinese policies by acting through a former high-ranking U.S. Government official; he acted as a broker in deals for dangerous weapons and Iranian oil; and he told multiple lies about his crimes to law enforcement,” said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams.
More on the indictment from Fox News:
BREAKING: Gal Luft has been indicted by the DOJ just days after coming forward to detail allegations against the Biden Family. pic.twitter.com/FVfVSyb7iQ
First, LUFT conspired with others in an effort to act within the United States to advance the interests of the People’s Republic of China (“China”) as agents of China-based principals, without registering as foreign agents as required under U.S. law.
As part of this scheme, while serving as the co-director of a Maryland-based non-profit think tank, LUFT agreed to covertly recruit and pay, on behalf of principals based in China, a former high-ranking U.S. Government official (“Individual-1”), including in 2016 while the former official was an adviser to the then-President-elect, to publicly support certain policies with respect to China without LUFT or Individual-1 filing a registration statement as an agent of a foreign principal with the Attorney General of the United States, in violation of FARA.
Among other things, in the weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, LUFT and a co-conspirator (“CC-1”), who is a Chinese national and worked for a Chinese nongovernmental organization affiliated with a Chinese energy company, created a written “dialogue” between CC-1 and Individual-1, in which LUFT wrote Individual-1’s responses and included information that was favorable to China.
The dialogue was then published in a Chinese newspaper online and sent to, among others, individuals in the United States, including a journalist and professors at multiple U.S. universities. When LUFT was writing the dialogue, CC-1 told LUFT that “[i]n these articles, we do not want to spill all the beans yet, just enough to let ‘people’ know he [i.e., Individual-1] is in the corridor of power to be. Just broad stroke policy consideration that leaves plenty of room for interpretation and imagination to be filled in later.”
After the purported “conversations” were published, LUFT told CC-1 that certain information, favorable to China, had been “tucked between the lines.” Shortly after the 2016 election, LUFT and CC-1 also discussed possible roles Individual-1 might have in the incoming U.S. administration and discussed Individual-1 taking a “silent trip” to China. LUFT responded that “[w]e are debating about his role in the new admin. There are all kinds of considerations . . .We should talk ftf [i.e., face-to-face] as there can be a supremely unique opportunity for china.”
Last week, Luft uploaded a video from an “undisclosed location” in which he claimed he was being detained in order to prevent his scheduled testimony before the House Oversight Committee. The professor asserts that the Biden family received payments from individuals with alleged ties to Chinese military intelligence, further alleging the existence of an FBI mole who leaked classified information to China-controlled energy company CEFC.
“I, who volunteered to inform the US government about a potential security breach and about compromising information about a man vying to be the next president, am now being hunted by the very same people who I informed — and may have to live on the run for the rest of my life on the run …,” Luft said.
“I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I have no political motive or agenda … I did it out of deep concern that if the Bidens were to come to power, the country would be facing the same traumatic Russia collusion scandal — only this time with China. Sadly, because of the DOJ’s cover-up, this is exactly what happened,” he continued.
House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) recently told Newsmax that Luft was in talks with the committee and would soon be testifying. Comer described Luft as “highly credible,” adding that, “this is a credible witness that the FBI flew all the way to Brussels to interview and sent several agents to interview. This is someone who knew about CEFC in detail long before the laptop ever became public.”
Gee, isn’t it strange how these charges all of a sudden appeared out of left field (pun intended)? An Israeli accused of broking deals with the Iranians — swore enemies of Israel? Really?????
Someone (who needs to remain anonymous) was able to obtain the death certificates from Minnesota for all deaths that occurred from 2015 to the present, which presented the opportunity to see if the CDC is being entirely honest about the US death data. Unsurprisingly, the CDC is not.
As we shall document, the CDC is concealing references to a covid vaccine on Minnesota death certificates (that are exceedingly rare to begin with because of widespread medical establishment denialism of vaccine adverse side effects). In almost every death certificate that identifies a covid vaccine as a cause of death, the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.
Background
When someone dies, there is a death certificate that is filled out for official/legal purposes. Death certificates contain a lot of information (some states include more than others), including the causes of death (CoD).
Causes of death refer to the medical conditions that ultimately played some role in the demise of the decedent. To qualify as a CoD, a condition only needs to contribute to the medical decline of the decedent in some way, but doesn’t have to be directly responsible for whatever ultimately killed the person. If someone had high blood pressure, and subsequently suffered a heart attack that led to cardiac arrest which killed them, all three conditions qualify as CoD. On the other hand, this unfortunate fellow’s ingrown toenail is not a cause of death, because it in no way contributed to their demise.
This is from the CDC’s own guidance explaining how to properly fill out CoD’s on a death certificate (you don’t need to understand the difference between Cause A, B, etc, for this article):
The critical thing to keep in mind is that the person filling out the death certificate writes a text description of the CoD’s, but doesn’t assign the ICD 10 codes for the CoD’s.
That’s the CDC’s job.
ICD 10 Coding System for CoD’s
There is a fancy coding system that is used to classify the many thousands of medical conditions that can play a role in death known as the International Classification of Diseases. Every few years, it is updated/revised to keep up with new medical (or bureaucratic) developments as new conditions are discovered, and old conditions are reorganized or reclassified.
The current iteration of the ICD used for the deaths we’re looking at is the ICD 10 (the 10th version). It is basically a hierarchical classification system:
There are codes for practically every random weird thing you can think of:
There are codes for practically every random weird thing you can think of:
These are categories themselves – a code can go as 7 characters long:
(There are other ICD 10 codes for various specific complications or side effects of vaccines, but the point remains that an ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects exists.)
CDC – Centers for Data Concealment
The CDC receives the death certificates from the various states and applies ICD 10 codes. This is primarily done with a secret algorithm, with a tiny percentage of cases adjudicated by CDC staff when the algorithm is unable to confidently assign an ICD code to the text description written on the actual death certificate (such as confounding spelling or a text description that does not make much sense). I confirmed this with a biostatistician who works for a DoH in a US state (I’m leaving out which one because I want to preserve my persona grata status). The individual who obtained the MN death certificates likewise confirmed with state officials that the ICD codes in their data were assigned by the CDC.
What a death certificate identifying a covid vaccine as a CoD *should* look like
There are three death certificates in the MN tranche that contain either T88.1 or Y59.0. One is for a flu vaccine reaction, and – surprisingly – the other two are for a covid vaccine.
Note – when used below:
UCoD (Underlying Cause of Death) refers to “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury.”
MCoD (Multiple Causes of Death) refers to “the immediate cause of death and all other intermediate and contributory conditions listed on the death certificate.” (everything else)
The first death certificate contains a covid vaccine ICD (below), and it looks like the CDC was trapped and could not avoid putting it on without fundamentally rewriting the death certificate, because the vaccine complication is unambiguously listed as the UCoD (this death certificate is saying the person was killed by a heart attack caused by the covid vaccine within minutes of injection):
The second death certificate the CDC deigned to assign a vaccine ICD (and not only one but *BOTH* vaccine ICD codes(!!)) feels like perhaps a rogue CDC employee was working that day and snuck it in:
In any event, as we can clearly see, both T88.1 and Y59.0 are indeed appropriate for when a covid vaccine is listed as a CoD. Thus the CDC cannot claim that there was no official ICD 10 code that could be used to designate covid vaccines (or any other excuse).
The FRAUD:
With that introduction, below are 7 death certificates from Minnesota that identify a covid vaccine as a cause of death where the CDC omitted the corresponding ICD 10 code identifying a vaccine side effect when the CDC assigned ICD codes to the death certificates.
The first fraudulently filled out death certificate offers a crucial detail highlighting not only the fraud but the naked double standards for assigning CoD’s.
This death certificate identifies both a covid vaccine and covid itself as contributory CoD’s (in the last row highlighted in yellow, vaccine underlined in green, covid in blue):
“covid vaccine second dose 10 hrs prior to death”
“history of covid infection in May 2020” (about 7-8 months prior to death)
Any remotely objective person would presume that if a condition that occurred 7 months prior without any clear link to the actual death still nevertheless meets the standard for being identified as a CoD, then surely a condition or event that occurred a mere TEN HOURS before death identified by the doctor filling out the death certificate merits inclusion as a CoD.
Yet, the CDC assigned U70.1 – “COVID-19, virus identified” – for covid, but neglected to assign T88.1 or Y59.0 for the covid vaccine.
A second point to highlight is that we see that anything mentioned as a CoD, even in the context of “history of” that had (presumably) been long resolved, is a legitimate CoD insofar as assigning an ICD 10 code and epidemiological data are concerned.
This decedent suffered a cardiac arrest that ultimately led to her death *ONE DAY* after being vaccinated.
(For the record, I am not bothered by the “though it’s not clear as to any mechanism for how the vaccine could have led to the cardiac arrest” line. This death occurred February 24, 2021 – well before there was any sort of public awareness about the multiple plausible mechanisms by which the vaccine could cause heart damage. So to me, whoever filled out the death certificate was a gutsy fellow willing to identify a covid vaccine on a death certificate that had his name on it.)
Fraudulent Death Certificate #3
This death certificate doesn’t merely identify a covid vaccine, it explains that the decedent “felt sick after the vaccine” and died 4 days later from a heart attack.Yet, no T88.1 or Y59.0.
This death certificate provides that the decedent received her second dose of Pfizer 18 days prior to her death.
Here we have a 65-year-old male who was killed by a heart attack 12 days after getting vaccinated.
This case is especially noteworthy. Someone involved with this death informed me that the family had to pressure the coroner to put the recent covid booster on the death certificate. A family member also filed a VAERS report themselves, after the patient’s doctors declined to do so.
Furthermore, the CDC applied W34 as the UCoD. What is W34 for?
‘accidental discharge and malfunction from other and unspecified firearms and guns.’
There is no mention of any firearms mishaps on the death certificate.
One would have to wonder how such an errant code came to be, especially on a death certificate that contains other ICD 10 shenanigans. It is unlikely that ‘Y590’ or ‘T881’ would be ‘misspelled’ or algorithmically mixed up with ‘W34.’
Perhaps if there were no other instances of fraudulent omittance of vaccine ICD codes on other death certificates, and the CDC wasn’t in the habit of routinely assigning U07.1 for a covid infection that resolved a year ago, the failure to include T88.1 or Y59.0 here could be excused.
At minimum, this death certificate should contain T88.0 – ‘Infection following immunization’ – to document the breakthrough infection (which is a subject for a separate article as this seems to be fairly widespread).
Additional Observations
The following table shows the date of death and age for all 9 death certificates shown above that identified a covid vaccine as a CoD:
It is striking that 7/9 died before May 2021. This is odd – if anything, the deaths should skew later, not earlier. Vaccine adverse events were denied – with maximum prejudice and then some – for many months before the medical mainstream has finally (begrudgingly) started to acknowledge that the covid vaccines can trigger potentially lethal pathologies (in exceedingly rare instances to be sure).
The clustering of death certificates mentioning a covid vaccine at the beginning of the rollout suggests that ‘administrative’ interference likely played a role in discouraging coroners from mentioning a covid vaccine on death certificates.
Another noteworthy tidbit here is the age of the decedents: every single one is a senior citizen, and the average age of the decedents is 80. This is important to highlight because whereas young people “dying suddenly” stands out, there has been much less attention or acknowledgement of the covid vaccine’s devastating toll upon the old and frail, where deaths – even those that occur in close proximity to vaccination – are readily attributed to prior health conditions.
Finally, the actions of the CDC call into question whether the CDC is altogether qualified or trustworthy enough to be the steward of the nation’s epidemiological data. The CDC manages many of the datasets that underpin whole fields of study. If the CDC is willing to fraudulently alter data (or even if the CDC is just too incompetent to avoid corrupting data), all data under the aegis of the CDC is potentially suspect, especially if it relates to a controversial political or social issue. The implications of this are disturbing, to say the least.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee speaks during the climate agreement event that included California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and British Columbia Premier John Horgan on Oct. 6, 2022, in San Francisco. (Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Washington gasoline prices sky high.
Vacationers hitting the highways currently face a nationwide average price of $3.52 per gallon of gasoline, according AAA. However, the price varies widely among states.
California usually leads the nation and is currently at a sky-high $4.85 per gallon, but this year it has been eclipsed by Washington state at a hefty $4.98 per gallon. The reason is clear – costly climate change policies adopted by both states – and it provides lessons for the rest of the nation.
The cheapest gas is in Mississippi at $2.96 per gallon, and several other states are under $3.30. This gives a real-world yardstick of what is possible at current oil prices.
So what explains the almost $2 extra for gas in Washington and California? Part of it is state gasoline taxes. The 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax is uniform, but state taxes vary, and both Washington state and California are higher than the average of 39 cents per gallon. Further, tough state refinery regulations and gasoline specifications also explain part of the difference.
Like California’s measures, Washington’s effectively puts a price on the carbon content of gasoline sold in the state, and is a big reason behind the estimated 35 to 52 cent jump in prices compared to neighboring states, according to Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center. And it will get worse, as this is just the first year of the law, which gets progressively more stringent in the years ahead.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has similarly attempted to shift blame for his support of the Climate Commitment Act — as well as his earlier claims that the per gallon cost impact “would be pennies” — by making unsupported claims of industry price gouging. He has also noted that a pipeline serving the state is currently offline for maintenance, but the Olympic pipeline also serves Oregon, where gasoline prices are 35 cents per gallon lower.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell testifies during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
Voters are smarter than Biden thinks. Poll shows an electorate that is simply not buying the president’s happy economic talk.
Pick almost any poll over the past decade and you’ll find that voters always cite the economy as their top issue. Depending on the survey, the economy issue is also often more broadly defined in surveys as “jobs,” and, in the past couple of years, as “inflation.” But, however you look at the issue of the economy, we’re seeing a subtle change in how people process the constant flow of economic data that bombards them every day.
They are becoming more educated and more sophisticated on federal fiscal issues and how they impact their own economic futures. More leery of politicians spouting data points that clash with the reality of their own personal “economies.” Less trusting of economic happy talk, when 60 percent of them are living paycheck to paycheck as inflation continues to outpace wages.
Until the past two years, for the millions of Americans under 50, inflation has been an abstraction, a topic in their econ class, not something that directly impacts their lives. Perhaps it’s understandable. America hasn’t had to deal with serious inflation in over 40 years, not since Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
Many people don’t remember 1979, when their parents or grandparents sat for hours in long gas lines just to fill up their tanks. Even now, looking back, it’s hard to grasp that in March 1980, inflation reached 14.8 percent, and the bank prime lending rate hit a staggering 21.5 percent a few months later. Within a year, the 30-year fixed rate mortgage average was 18.6 percent.
It was a terrible time for the country. A perfect economic storm of high unemployment and inflation (stagflation), slow economic growth, increased government spending and tax hikes. Add to that contractionary monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, a savings and loan crisis and bank failures, and it isn’t surprising that it took until the summer of 1983 to right the economic ship of state.
The country, for all its problems since, has successfully avoided, until now, the kind of devastating inflation and misguided spending and tax policies that wreaked havoc on families and businesses back in the day.
For many Americans, this has been a painful wake-up call to the reality that there is a price to be paid for reckless government spending, and we’re seeing the impact of this realization in how voters view the economy and the Biden administration’s economic policies. They understand that inflation impacts almost every aspect of what is a complicated and connected economy.
Today, people are assessing their personal economic situation through the lens of inflation, but they’re also making connections among rising costs, deficit spending and the skyrocketing federal debt. Like inflation, government spending and rising deficits have been abstract constructs unconnected to most people’s everyday lives.
‘Strong as hell’
For decades, people have focused on family economics, not the federal debt in 10 years. After all, who can really grasp the magnitude of a billion dollars — much less a trillion?
But data is showing that people are not buying the argument that the economy is “strong as hell,” as President Joe Biden is fond of saying, and his trillion-dollar domestic spending bills may be two of the reasons why.
People have seen the federal budget hit $6 trillion for three consecutive years. The first such over-$6 trillion budget year, under President Donald Trump, included a significant emergency response to the COVID-19 crisis. But Biden’s budgets can’t claim the same rationale.
It’s clear that people are becoming more sophisticated economic consumers when it comes to the dynamics of the economy, but this increased awareness and understanding extends to other issues as well.
For instance, how the public looks at wages is changing. It’s no longer a matter of whether or not you get a raise. The question today has become whether that raise gets you — and keeps you — above water.
Gas and energy prices are now seen through a different lens, as well. The country has faced significant increases in gas prices before, most recently in 2008. But inflation wasn’t a complicating factor in the recovery from the Great Recession.
This time around, with staggering inflation, people have a better understanding that high energy prices impact far more than the price at the pump. Energy prices are now seen as a driver behind the cost of everything, upsetting the supply chain, emptying store shelves and creating a challenging economic environment for businesses to create jobs.
Our latest “Winning the Issues” survey (conducted March 1-3) confirms an electorate that is simply not buying the president’s narrative that his policies are working to lower inflation and spur growth.
When it comes to the right track/wrong track question, Biden has actually lost ground over the past year. In our survey, only 28 percent of people said the country is on the right track; 60 percent said we’re on the wrong track. In April 2022, right track was at 33 percent, while wrong track was at 57 percent.
Voters were asked, “Do you think inflation is getting better, worse, not changing?” Twenty percent said better, while 57 percent replied worse and 20 percent said “not changing.” That’s over a 75 percent consensus that Biden’s inflation policies aren’t working.
Case closed
For months, Biden has tried to claim credit for “lowering” gas prices from their near-record highs after imposing anti-domestic production policies, but people apparently see through the numbers game he’s playing.
They believe, by a margin of 47 percent to 39 percent, that gas prices are down over $1.50 from their peak. But when asked if “gas prices are comparable to what they were when President Biden took office,” only 32 percent believe that claim, while 52 percent said they don’t believe it.
On the statement, “Annual inflation has been down for 6 months,” Biden has been able to convince only 22 percent of voters that he’s making progress, while 61 percent aren’t buying that inflation is on the way out.
We also tested one of Biden’s favorite claims, asking: “Under President Biden’s economic plan, the deficit has come down by a record $1.7 trillion.” Fifty-one percent of those surveyed didn’t believe the statement; only 25 percent did.
But this question ought to worry Biden and his Democratic colleagues on the Hill as they unveil a budget blueprint expected to be characterized by critics as built on more spending, more taxes and more debt.
Our survey asked: “Which is a bigger problem, government spending or not enough revenue coming in from taxes?” Government spending: 70 percent. Not enough revenue: 23 percent. Case closed.
As the budget battle begins, Biden should be straight with the American people, because they are smarter than he thinks.
David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich. He advises Fortune 100 companies, foundations, and nonprofit organizations on strategic planning and public policy issues, as well as serving as an election analyst for CBS News.
Extremists’ on SCOTUS Are ‘Screaming’ About Rulings that Follow Liberal Principles.
On Thursday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Harvard Law Professor, author, and Newsmax Legal Analyst Alan Dershowitz stated that the Supreme Court’s rulings on President Joe Biden’s loan program, racial preferences in college admissions, and free expression are consistent with liberal views, but “it’s extremists, both on the court and off the court, that are screaming and yelling that somehow this ends democracy in America.”
Dershowitz said, “All three of these decisions are close cases that — I’m a liberal, I’ve been a liberal for 60 years, I happen to agree with all of these three cases. I have been arguing against using race in affirmative action since 1974. I have always preferred free expression and the First Amendment over any other laws, whether it be public accommodation laws or hate speech laws. So, many civil libertarians, people who are left and right, support the decision in the web case, it’s a close case. And many civil libertarians also support the decision that says that, in a democracy, important decisions about spending fortunes of money should be made by the legislature, not by the unelected executives. So, these are all close cases that many liberals agree with, and many Democrats agree with.”
He continued, “And it’s extremists, both on the court and off the court, that are screaming and yelling that somehow this ends democracy in America.” He added that “the color of a person’s skin, the accident of race should never be a factor. That’s the liberal perspective. That’s the constitutional perspective.”
Top Fauci Adviser Admits to Using Private Email to Avoid FOIA Requests. “I Will Delete Anything I Don’t Want to See in the New York Times” So how does he get away with this?
Federal records obtained by the House Oversight Committee reveal one of Dr. Fauci’s top advisers said he used his personal email account in order to avoid any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and even went as far to imply he has deleted emails during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The House Oversight Committee released possibly incriminating emails from Dr. David Morens who has served as an adviser at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for the last 25 years.
In one of his emails that was uncovered by Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, Dr. Morens wrote to his colleagues, “As you know, I try to always communicate on Gmail because my NIH email is FOIA’d constantly.” In the conclusion of his email, Morens wrote, “I will delete anything I don’t want to see in the New York Times.”
Dr. Morens intentionally used his personal email to avoid FOIA and evade transparency to the American people:
▪️ "I try to always communicate on gmail because my NIH email is FOIA'd constantly."
Serious adverse events from Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine are not “rare”
Despite repeatedly claiming that serious harms of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine are RARE, an investigation found no drug regulator could quantify the rate. Experts say it’s “hypocritical.”
Drug regulators and public health agencies have saturated the airways with claims that serious harms following covid vaccination are “rare.”
But there has been very little scrutiny of that claim by the media, and I could not find an instance where international agencies actually quantified what they meant by the term “rare” or provided a scientific source.
The best evidence so far, has been a study published in one of vaccinology’s most prestigious journals, where independent researchers reanalysed the original trial data for the mRNA vaccines.
The authors, Fraiman et al, found that serious adverse events (SAEs) – i.e. adverse events that require hospitalisation – were elevated in the vaccine arm by an alarming rate – 1 additional SAE for every 556 people vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine.
According to a scale used by drug regulators, SAEs occurring at a rate of 1 in 556 is categorised as “uncommon,” but far more common than what the public has been told.
Therefore, I asked eight drug regulators and public health agencies to answer a simple question: what is the official calculated rate of SAEs believed to be caused by Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, and what is the evidence?
Not a single agency could cite the SAE rate of Pfizer’s vaccine. Most directed me to pharmacovigilance data, which they all emphasised does not establish causation.
The Australian TGA, for example, referred me to the spontaneous reporting system but warned, “it is not possible to meaningfully use these data to calculate the true incidence of adverse events due to the limitations of spontaneous reporting systems.”
Both the German regulator (PEI) and European CDC referred me to the European Medicines Agency which, according to its own report, saw no increase at all in SAEs. “SAEs occurred at a low frequency in both vaccinated and the placebo group at 0.6%.”
The UK regulator MHRA went so far as to state it “does not make estimations of a serious adverse event (SAE) rate, or a rate for adverse reactions considered to be causally related for any medicinal product.”
The US FDA, on the other hand, did conceded that SAEs after mRNA vaccination have “indeed been higher than that of influenza vaccines,” but suggested it was justified because “the severity and impact of covid-19 on public health have been significantly higher than those of seasonal influenza.”
Despite analysing at the same dataset as Fraiman, the FDA said it “disagrees with the conclusions” of the Fraiman analysis. The agency did not give specifics on the areas of disagreement, nor did it provide its own rate of SAEs.
Expert response
In response to the criticism, Joe Fraiman, emergency doctor and lead author on the reanalysis said, “To be honest, I’m not that surprised that agencies have not determined the rate of SAEs. Once these agencies approve a drug there’s no incentive for them to monitor harms.”
Joe Fraiman, emergency doctor, New Orleans, Louisiana
Fraiman said it’s hypocritical for health agencies to tell people that serious harms of the covid vaccines are rare, when they have not even determined the SAE rate themselves.
“It’s very dangerous not to be honest with the public,” said Fraiman, who recently called for the mRNA vaccines to be suspended.
“These noble lies may get people vaccinated in the short term but you’re creating decades or generations of distrust when it’s revealed that they have been misleading the public,” added Fraiman.
Dick Bijl, a physician and epidemiologist based in the Netherlands, agreed. “It goes to show how corrupted these agencies are. There is no transparency, especially since regulators are largely funded by the drug industry.”
Dick Bijl, physician and past President of the International Society of Drug Bulletins
Bijl said it’s vital to know the rate of SAEs for the vaccines. “You must be able to do a harm:benefit analysis, to allow people to give fully informed consent, especially in young people at low risk of serious covid or those who have natural immunity.”
Bijl said the mainstream media has allowed these agencies to make false claims about the safety of vaccines without interrogating the facts.
“The rise of alternative media is strongly related to the lies being told by the legacy media, which just repeats government narratives and industry marketing. In the Netherlands, there is a lot of discussion about the distrust in public messaging,” said Bijl.
Commentary By Rachel Emmanuel for The Western Journal July 6, 2023
On Monday, Fox News published a report titled: “Trump draws massive crowd of at least 50K in small South Carolina town of 3,400: police.”
The article covered former President Donald Trump’s rally in Pickens, South Carolina, on Saturday, which, according to the police chief of the town, drew a crowd of over 50,000 Trump supporters to the tiny town.
But community note contributors on Twitter weren’t willing to accept that the former president was still able to draw crowds of this size.
A community note was added to the Fox News tweet of the article that read: “Police Chief Randall Beach initially estimated the crowd to be 50,000, he said he would need to confirm those numbers with the Secret Service. A Secret Service agent later clarified to the news that approximately 15,000 were in attendance.”
Trump draws massive crowd of at least 50K in small South Carolina town of 3,400: police https://t.co/FsR40BLShx
But it turns out the fact-checkers were doing a little less “fact-checking” and a little more “fact manipulation.”
The fact-checkers cited an article from Greenville News to support their community note.
The relevant section cited read:
“Pre-rally estimates of 10,000 to 30,000 were made. During his remarks, Trump claimed the turnout was 75,000. Beach said he needed to get an accurate count from the Secret Service before providing a final number. Around 11 am, a secret service agent told the News there are 5,000 inside the gate and approximately 10,000 still in line.”
Sidebar: Do you trust fact-checkers? Yes: 1% (7 Votes) No: 99% (1197 Votes)
With some convenient cherry-picking, the fact-checkers used the estimated 5,000 people inside plus the 10,000 still in line mentioned by the Secret Service agent and came up with a grand total of 15,000 people at the rally.
An impressive math feat.
What they did not mention, however, is that that estimate was made at 11 o’clock in the morning. Trump’s plane hadn’t even landed at that point, according to Politico.
Tens of thousands pack Pickens. More than 50 treated for heat-related illness.
Moreover, the article cited is titled: “Trump in SC: Tens of thousands pack Pickens. More than 50 treated for heat-related illness.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but “tens” of thousands generally means more than one ten and a five.
But, maybe the fact-checkers missed the fact that the title of the article they cited implies in its title that there were well more than 15,000 there that day.
They must have also missed the part in the very same article they cited where Beach “reiterated his crowd estimate of 50,000.”
“I would not be shocked if it were closer to 60 (thousand),” he told the newspaper. “If someone has an estimate closer to 70 (thousand), I wouldn’t question it.”
That statement by Beach was made on Sunday, the day after the rally, not at 11 a.m. on Saturday, hours before the rally had even started.
So the part about the Secret Service agent’s estimate being the “later” one was, let’s just say, sadly mistaken.
The South Carolina crowd explodes when Trump Force One flys over Pickens.
There is already a massive crowd for Trump’s Pickens, South Carolina rally. Biden could never draw a crowd this large. It’s clear Trump is the president of the people. pic.twitter.com/wrqnipp764
Cherry-picking when it comes to how stories are reported is nothing new, especially when the news is conservative and even more when the story has the word “Trump” in it. So it’s important to stay vigilant, even on a so-called bias-free platform like Twitter.
As for the contributors who wrote the community note on the article — if I were a gambler, I’d take any odds that at least one of them has the letters “CNN” in their employment bio.
