🚨🇫🇷 Macron - France
— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) February 3, 2024
The Mainstream Media LIE by Omission
In France MSM are focused on Emmanuel Macrons visit to meet the Swedish Royal Family all the while France is on Fire.
This is brilliant 👏👇 pic.twitter.com/FBIzru0cBt
NTD | Taylor Swift has yet to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential race. But questions continue to swirl about the potential impact the pop sensation may have on the upcoming November election.
Ms. Swift has remained largely apolitical throughout her career, but chronicled her newfound interest in politics in her 2020 Netflix documentary “Miss Americana.”
In the film, she attributes her former political apathy to her beginnings in country music. “Part of the fabric of being a country artist is don’t force your politics on people,” she says. “Let people live their lives. That is grilled into us.”
However, the singer’s connection to George Soros has been a point of concern for many supporters of former President Donald Trump. In 2019, Ms. Swift, 34, gave a speech at the Billboard Women in Music event, claiming the billionaire Democrat donor helped fund the purchase of her music catalog.
“This just happened to me without my approval, consultation, or consent,” she said. “After I was denied the chance to purchase my music outright, my entire catalog was sold to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings in a deal that I’m told was funded by the Soros family, 23 Capital, and that Carlyle Group.”
The singer became an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump during his term and publicly endorsed the Biden–Harris ticket in 2020.
“After stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism your entire presidency, you have the nerve to feign moral superiority before threatening violence?” she wrote about President Trump on Twitter, now X, in May 2020. “‘When the looting starts the shooting starts’??? We will vote you out in November.”
She later wrote: “Donald Trump’s ineffective leadership gravely worsened the crisis that we are in and he is now taking advantage of it to subvert and destroy our right to vote and vote safely.”
Many conservatives have speculated about the timing of her interest in politics.
“Thinking about when Taylor Swift called out the Soros family in 2019 for buying the rights to her music and then how she came out a super liberal in 2020,” conservative political activist Jack Posobiec wrote on X on Jan. 28.
The following day, former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy responded to Mr. Posobiec’s tweet. “I wonder who’s going to win the Super Bowl next month,” Mr. Ramaswamy said, alluding to Ms. Swift’s relationship with boyfriend Travis Kelce, a tight end for the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs.
“And I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped-up couple this fall,” he continued. “Just some wild speculation over here, let’s see how it ages over the next 8 months.”
kunstler | And just like that — snap ! — the news about the Colorado Supreme Court’s droll action against candidate DJ Trump vanished from the front page (or top screens) of The New York Times. Do you know why? I’ll tell you: Because the political Left has finally managed to embarrass itself with a “lawfare” gambit so nakedly fatuous that it exposes the faction’s drive to destroy the election process, and with it our country.
This is what you get from a regime that faked its way to power and now must strain to cover up its long train of crimes, abuses, and effronteries to common sense, while running out of tricks to keep fooling even its own deranged followers. Somehow, the act of kicking a leading candidate off the ballot has finally registered as inconsistent with “defending our democracy.”
Of course, the reckless abuse of law — “lawfare” — proceeds from the Left’s disrespect for boundaries and limits, which is exactly what law in principle concerns itself with. And from there it’s a quick leap into totalizing bad faith, the operating system for government under an imposter president, “Joe Biden.” Suddenly, mere days before Christmas, when the people want to be preoccupied with things other than politics, events merge explosively to shape the fate of the nation.
In a sane world, the US Supreme Court would not just summarily strike down the Colorado ruling, but would issue a career-ending rebuke to the brain-damaged state justices who managed to not learn a basic principle of due process: innocent until proven guilty — that to brand someone a criminal, there must be a record of indictment and conviction for a particular crime, and that, in the case of Mr. Trump, a politically-motived fairy tale about an “insurrection” doesn’t cut it.
Also, in a sane world interested in truth and justice, the Republican-majority Congress would have months ago convened new hearings about the Jan 6/21 Capitol riot to undo the manifold perfidious frauds instigated by the previous Democrat-majority committee under Chairman Bennie Thompson. By now, testimony should have been compelled from Nancy Pelosi, the then Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, and former Defense Secretary Chris Miller about Ms. Pelosi’s refusal to call in national guard troops to reinforce security around the building, and to answer for the odd behavior of the Capitol Police, such as opening doors for the mob and then serving as ushers to show off the place. It seems obvious that many elected Republicans also have an interest in supporting the Jan 6/21 “insurrection” fairy tale. Do you still wonder why the evil entity infesting Washington is called “the blob”?
The Substack blogger who styles himself as El Gato Malo offers the alluring theory that a SCOTUS ruling on whether the 14th Amendment clauses that were applied to the presidency in the Colorado case, could enable Special Counsel Jack Smith to slip-in a superseding indictment (replacing the original indictment) in his DC Jan 6 case against Mr. Trump with new insurrection / rebellion charges, thus setting-up a fortified argument for states to chuck Mr. Trump off any ballot. More “lawfare,” you see. Whatever it takes. . .!
More curiously even, we learn today, that an amicus brief has been filed in the SCOTUS by former Attorney General Ed Meese (under Ronald Reagan), and two constitutional law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, challenging the legality altogether of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel for prosecuting Mr. Trump. The amicus is filed in the matter of Jack Smith’s certiorari petition to the court to schedule Mr. Trump’s DC trial the same day as the Super Tuesday primary —against the defendant’s objections. The amicus presents compelling arguments that Attorney General Merrick Garland acted illegally in appointing Mr. Smith, and if SCOTUS chucks him out of the special counsel job, the whole mendaciously constructed scaffold of the Jan 6 prosecution goes out the window, along with the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
Those of you with a deep interest in blob lawfare treachery may also be interested in the courtroom win, this week, by Brandon Straka, who launched the 2018 “Walk Away” movement to persuade gays to leave the Democratic Party. He was present on the US Capitol grounds the day of the Jan 6/21 riot, and was later sued by eight “black and brown” Capitol Police officers, with the help of a Soros-funded nonprofit law firm, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Straka was accused of causing the officers’ injuries (pepper spray and “exhaustion”) and of conspiring to deprive them of their civil rights (under the KKK Act of 1871). It came out in the course of testimony that seven of the officers were on the other side of the enormous Capitol building from Mr. Straka’s position the entire time alleged, and that one of the officers was not even present at the Capitol or even in the District of Columbia at the time. Such are the sordid dreams of lawfare warriors and their useful idiots. . . .
Next up, as we turn the corner into a fateful 2024 — and lately eclipsed by all these lawfare election interference shenanigans — will be the perhaps even more consequential hearings on the Biden family’s extensive international bribery operations, which may shed some light on how come we suffer a president and a party bent on destroying our country.
twitter | This is what an *actual* attack on democracy looks like: in an un-American, unconstitutional, and *unprecedented* decision, a cabal of Democrat judges are barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado. Having tried every trick in the book to eliminate President Trump from running in this election, the bipartisan Establishment is now deploying a new tactic to bar him from ever holding office again: the 14th Amendment. I pledge to *withdraw* from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.
Today’s decision is the latest election interference tactic to silence political opponents and swing the election for whatever puppet the Democrats put up this time by depriving Americans of the right to vote for their candidate of choice.
The 14th Amendment was part of the “Reconstruction Amendments” that were ratified following the Civil War. It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office. These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War. That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th President on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States.
And there’s another legal problem: Trump is not a former “officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply. As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), an “officer of the United States” is someone appointed by the President to aid him in his duties under Article II, Section 2. The term does not apply to elected officials, and certainly not to the President himself. The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision—intended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office—being weaponized by a sitting President and his political allies to prevent a former President from seeking reelection. Our country is becoming unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers.
thehill | New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) went after former President Trump on Friday, arguing that a second Trump term would be hampered by “chaos and distraction.”
“The guy just has chaos and distraction that follows him,” he said in an MSNBC interview Friday. “He’s not going to be able to get the stuff that we need done to fix this country.”
“Republicans want to go forward with the next generation of conservative leadership,” he continued, downplaying the former president. “We always want to be looking forward to the next opportunity to actually get stuff done. Not just looking in the rearview mirror, worrying about Trump litigating things.”
Sununu endorsed former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley for the GOP nomination on Tuesday. He used Friday’s interview to springboard more reasons why he believes Haley is better suited for the White House.
“Her numbers were surging long before I even got on board because she’s connecting with folks,” he said.
“By doing that, by spending time on the ground with our voters, she’s earning their trust, and trust is a very rare thing in Washington nowadays. People are liking it,” he continued. “She’s got that charisma, more than any other candidate out there. And that connection is why you’re seeing her numbers jump up.”
Despite the endorsement, Sununu complimented her GOP primary rivals Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, calling them “great friends of mine” and “good candidates.” He offered no compliment for Trump or biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
Haley has been gaining momentum in the polls, notably in New Hampshire, and often coming in second place. But, Trump still remains the clear GOP front-runner.
SUPERCUT!
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 12, 2023
Media warn if Trump wins again every bad possible thing will happen pic.twitter.com/8u9PeFYoUV
TCH | Corporations, mostly modern multinationals (special interest group), write the legislation. The corporations then contract the lobbyists. Lobbyists then take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.
The last item of legislation written by congress was sometime around the mid 1990’s. Modern legislation is sub-contracted to a segment of DC operations known as K-Street. That’s where the lobbyists reside. Lobbyists write the laws; congress sells the laws; lobbyists then pay congress lucrative commissions for passing their laws. That’s the modern legislative business in DC.
When we talk about paying-off politicians in third-world countries we call it bribery. However, when we undertake the same process in the U.S. we call it “lobbying”. Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past. There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws. In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.
Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body. Here’s how it works right now. Outside groups, often called “special interest groups”, are entities that represent their interests in legislative constructs. These groups are often representing foreign governments, Wall Street multinational corporations, banks, financial groups or businesses; or smaller groups of people with a similar connection who come together and form a larger group under an umbrella of interest specific to their affiliation.
The for-profit groups (mostly business) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests. These groups are filled with highly-paid lawyers who represent the interests of the entity and actually write laws and legislation briefs.
In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made.
Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.
Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to. The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in the corporate media. Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it. Once the corporation or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.
The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves. The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it. “Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage. The lobbyist does this by visiting the politician in their office, or, most currently familiar, by inviting the politician to an event they are hosting. The event is called a junket when it involves travel.
Often the lobbying “event” might be a weekend trip to a ski resort, or a “conference” that takes place at a resort. The actual sales pitch for the bill is usually not too long and the majority of the time is just like a mini vacation etc. The size of the indulgence within the event, the amount of money the lobbyist is spending, is customarily related to the scale of benefit within the bill the sponsoring business entity is pushing. If the sponsoring business or interest group can gain a lot of financial benefit from the legislation they spend a lot on the indulgences.
Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.
The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.
Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group. When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.
While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.
This is the way legislation is created.
If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism.
The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.
Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.
When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.
The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees. The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate. Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists. Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.
Now, think about this reality against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential Election. Legislation is passed based on ideology. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the system within DC was not structurally set-up to receive a Donald Trump presidency.
If Hillary Clinton had won the election, her Oval Office desk would be filled with legislation passed by congress which she would have been signing. Heck, she’d have writer’s cramp from all of the special interest legislation, driven by special interest groups that supported her campaign, that would be flowing to her desk.
Why?
Simply because the authors of the legislation, the originating special interest and lobbying groups, were spending millions to fund her campaign. Hillary Clinton would be signing K-Street constructed special interest legislation to repay all of those donors/investors.
Congress would be fast-tracking the passage because the same interest groups also fund the members of congress.
President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. In early 2017 the modern legislative machine was frozen in place.
The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump were not within the legislative constructs coming from the K-Street authors of the legislation. There were no MAGA lobbyists waiting on Trump ideology to advance legislation based on America First objectives.
As a result of an empty feeder system, in early 2017 congress had no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written were not in line with President Trump policy. There was simply no entity within DC writing legislation that was in-line with President Trump’s America-First’ economic and foreign policy agenda.
Exactly the opposite was true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs were/are antithetical to Trump policy. There were hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.
Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence were just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices. Legislation needed to be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there was no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.
Think about the larger ramifications within that truism. That is also why there was/is so much opposition.
No legislation provided by outside interests means no work for lobbyists who sell it. No work means no money. No money means no expense accounts. No expenses means politicians paying for their own indulgences etc.
Politicians were not happy without their indulgences, but the issue was actually bigger. No K-Street expenditures also means no personal benefit; and no opportunity to advance financial benefit from the insider trading system. Republicans and democrats hate the presidency of Donald Trump because it is hurting them financially.
President Trump is not figuratively hurting the financial livelihoods of DC politicians; he’s literally doing it. President Trump is not an esoteric problem for them; his impact is very real, very direct, and hits almost every politician in the most painful place imaginable, the bank account.
In the pre-Trump process there were millions upon millions, even billions that could be made by DC politicians and their families. Thousands of very indulgent and exclusive livelihoods attached to the DC business model. At the center of this operation is the lobbying and legislative purchase network. The Big Club.
Without the ability to position personal wealth and benefit from the system, why would a politician stay in office? It is a fact the income of many long-term politicians on both wings of the uniparty bird were completely disrupted by Trump winning the 2016 election. That is one of the key reasons why so many politicians retired in 2018.
When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.
When we understand the business of DC we understand why the entire network hates President Donald Trump.
brownstone | Here is my review of OisĂn MacAmadáin, Busting Anti-Vax Myths! Seriously EXPERT Arguments for the Covid-Deniers in Your Life (2022), with a Foreword by Dr. Anthony Faucet.
This is a slim, wickedly funny satire of 126 pages organised into ten chapters of rollicking hilarity. It’s a hugely enjoyable book for all those who were critical of lockdowns, masks, and vaccines. As the Brits say, it takes the piss out of all the self-proclaimed Covid experts, the public health clerisy, the media, and people with blind faith in the experts.
Thus the fictitious professor OisĂn MacAmadáin informs us of “a good friend in Dublin whose fully vaccinated father died from Covid. He also told me how much worse he knew it could have been.” And all the grannies going merrily about their way in Stockholm “must be brainwashed. A perfect example of state propaganda.” The true believers are likely to be offended.
The book is successful in skewering the many Covidian dogmas because MacAmadáin closely tracks the many gaslighting tropes used by the experts and the authorities to attack critics, dissenters, Florida, and Sweden. The last, for example, is dismissed as irrelevant because its vast empty spaces make it very difficult to encounter the virus and anyway, we all know the Swedes are so reserved they rarely hug.
It’s been many a long year since I laughed so much while reading a seriously serious book. The greater your familiarity with the lies, obfuscations, and gaslighting by health experts and governments in the last three years, and with the range of scientific literature and controversies, including the leading names, the more you will be entertained by this book.
American readers will especially enjoy the chapter on Florida and the attempted puncturing of Robert Malone and Peter McCullough as anti-vaxxer ringleaders. That they were removed from Twitter is proof they were spouting anti-scientific drivel. Their knowledge is so shallow that they can be shown up even by the likes of Neil Young and Meghan Markle.
MacAmadáin is inventive with names in the mould of JK Rowling, referencing the CDLWQ (CatDogLynxWolfQuestioning) + community for those who self-ID as catgender etc. The encomia on the back cover are from eminent world experts like President Macaroni who adores the book because it will “really ‘piss off’ the anti-vaxxers;” Santa Klaus who is incredulous that the author “was never a WEF young leader;” the CEO of Pfizzle; and Gubnet O’Foole, the correspondent in residence of the Oirish Times. The final encomium is signed off “The author.”
We meet Prof. Nadir Jibjab and Dr. Smärtz Aleks. Austria has a Mr. HĂĽndbisket and a Prof. Ann SchlĂĽss who has written a treatise on The Jab as Moral Good. She holds firmly to the view that the government decisions tick all ethical boxes, “even those of Kant whose ethical boxes are notoriously hard to tick.” A German schoolteacher named Gretel Voopingkoff praises OisĂn’s “awesome work in exterminating anti-vaxxer propaganda.” She informs him that her multi-jabbed kids “play the geese marching game” from which the unvaxxed are, of course, excluded.
censorednews | The COVID-19 lie that started it all—before lockdowns and mandates—was the lie that the virus was more deadly than it actually was. On March 3, 2020, the media cited the World Health Organization to spread the misinformation that the global death rate of COVID-19 was 3.4%. Years later, the WHO’s much-expanded dataset now shows the real global case fatality rate is less than 1%. However, at the time, when the President of the United States correctly pointed out the figure was inflated, he was viciously attacked for “downplaying” the virus, as the WHO’s misleading statistic was regurgitated in the press.
“WHO says the death rate is 3.4% globally, higher than previously thought” - CNBC
“The death rate now estimated at 3.4% for anyone afflicted with this virus” - FOX News
“3.4% of people who get coronavirus die from it.” - USA TODAY
The WHO’s death rate was severely inflated because most COVID-19 cases are mild with no symptoms and are therefore never reported. In fact, Dr. Fauci and the Director of the CDC, Dr. Redfield predicted as much just three days prior to the WHO’s misleading 3.4% death rate. In the New England Journal of Medicine, Fauci and Redfield concluded the number could be “considerably less than 1%”. This contradiction between US public health officials and the WHO went mostly ignored. The media was only triggered into a response when Donald Trump used the same scientific reasoning on FOX News with Sean Hannity.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number. Now, this is just my hunch, but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this, and it's very mild. They will get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor. You never hear about those people.
Trump repeated his reasoning for clarity, although his full explanation was later deleted from nearly all mainstream news segments which criticized him for sharing thoughts “based on nothing” (John Berman, “CNN New Day”, CNN, 3/5/20).
PRESIDENT TRUMP: When you do have a death…all of a sudden, it seems like three or four percent, which is a very high number, as opposed to a fraction of one percent. But, again, they don't know about the easy cases, because the easy cases don't go to the hospital. They don't report to doctors or the hospital in many cases. So I think that that number is very high. I think the number—personally, I would say the number is way under 1 percent.
Former Vox reporter and special guest to the Biden White House, Aaron Rupar, reflexively attacked Trump’s rational, and ultimately correct, take on the WHO death rate, as “astoundingly irresponsible”.
Over the following days, Trump was mocked on nearly every major television channel (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, & Comedy Central), where he was accused of lying.
MSNBC hosts and experts labeled Trump’s correct take on the death rate as “not correct”, “not true”, “dishonest”, and “disinformation” (Andrea Mitchell, Ben Rhodes, and Geoff Bennett on “Andrea Mitchell Reports”); “false information”, (Chris Jansing on “Live with Hallie Jackson”); and “misinformation” (“Live with Velshi and Ruhle”).
CNN’s reporters and pundits did the same, calling Trump’s informed skepticism “disinformation” (Brian Stelter, “CNN Newsroom”); “misinformation” (Anderson Cooper, “Anderson Cooper 360”); and “sketchy information” (Jim Acosta, “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer”).
(NOTE: This is only a small sample of the false accusations.)
After the news set the narrative, late-night hosts took their cues and obediently forwarded the message that WHO’s word reigns supreme and therefore Trump is crazy to question it.
thehill | The bipartisan group of representatives pushing for public information on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) is having difficulty continuing their effort after a blockbuster committee hearing last month.
The Hill hosted an event Thursday, The Truth Is Out There: UFOs & National Security, which was moderated by congressional reporter Mychael Schnell and featured three of the four members of Congress who have pushed for UAP transparency.
“I hear from people more on this subject than anything else,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said. “Not the Trump indictments, not Hunter Biden. They are talking about the UAP hearing because there’s great interest in this government transparency issue.”
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn) said the group — comprising Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla), Moskowitz and himself — will likely not get another opportunity for a hearing unless Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) designates a select committee on UAPs as they have requested.
That select committee would give subpoena powers to force leaders in the Department of Defense and others to testify and push past the “roadblocks” the group has faced so far in seeing classified material and getting timely responses, Burchett said.
“We’re running into a lot of roadblocks there, and that’s the problem with this whole thing. It just creates more and more conspiracy theories because our federal government is so arrogant and so bloated, and they’ll just run out the clock,” Burchett said. “I’m guilty of this as well, but Americans want their pizzas in 30 minutes or less, and that’s about our dadgum attention span.”
Burchett and Luna haven’t heard back from the Speaker since they made the request, they said. The Hill has reached out to McCarthy’s office for comment.
The hearing last month featured three witnesses who have firsthand knowledge of UAP sightings. Former intelligence officer whistleblower David Grusch claimed the government has recovered “non-human biological pilots” from downed UAPs, which the Pentagon has denied.
In the hearing last month, Grusch said he couldn’t speak on much of his knowledge because it is classified. But the investigating members told The Hill they are being slowed by the Pentagon on getting a classified hearing with Grusch started.
“The excuse that the Department of Defense is using for us not being able to get a SCIF is that Grusch doesn’t have an active [security] clearance. So unless he has active clearance, they’re saying that he can’t divulge that information to us, which, one, I believe is false,” Luna said at The Hill event. “The Department of Defense is literally trying to stonewall us.”
Luna also threatened to use congressional power to lower the salary of specific officials who were getting in the way of the investigation, saying “there’s a select group of people who have become megalomaniacs with information.”
childrenshealthdefense | Dr. Meryl Nass today filed suit against the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine and its individual members, alleging the board violated her First Amendment rights and her rights under the Maine Constitution.
The complaint alleges the board engaged in retaliatory conduct against Nass, a practicing internal medicine physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) scientific advisory board, when the board suspended her medical license for publicly expressing her dissenting views on official COVID-19 policies, the COVID-19 vaccine and alternative treatments.
“Because she was outspoken, the board targeted Dr. Nass as someone to silence,” her attorney, Gene Libby told The Defender.
In fall 2021, the board issued a position statement, quoted in the complaint, stating that licensees could face disciplinary action if they “generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.”
In October 2021, soon after the statement was issued, the board received a complaint alleging Nass was spreading misinformation online and soon after launched an investigation.
The board suspended Nass’ medical license on Jan. 12, 2022, without a hearing, accusing her of engaging in “unprofessional conduct” by spreading “misinformation about COVID-19.”
It also accused her of improperly prescribing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for three patients for off-label uses of those drugs.
The board suspended Nass’ license and ordered a neuropsychological evaluation, implying she was mentally impaired or a substance abuser and incompetent to practice medicine.
“There were no grounds to order a mental health examination,” Libby said. “That was simply a means to communicate to the public that there was something wrong with Dr. Nass, to discredit her and tarnish her reputation.”
After Nass moved to have the board dismiss its complaint against her, alleging First Amendment violations, the board on Sept. 26, 2022, withdrew its accusations of “misinformation”, just prior to her first hearing date, Oct. 11, 2022.
The board’s case now rests on Nass’ alleged non-adherence to the medical “standard of care” as it pertained to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19 and on the alleged “record-keeping” issues.
Nass told The Defender:
“The two primary complaints against me were that my statements were misleading and that I was prescribing drugs off-label. My speech — which I should note, was not simply opinion, it was an educated opinion developed after consulting the medical literature — is protected by the First Amendment.
“And prescribing drugs off-label is a perfectly legal thing to do, as explicitly stated on the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] website. Somewhere between 20-50% of drugs are prescribed off-label. The lawyers on the board staff know all of this. It’s their job to know the law with respect to medicine.
“They didn’t do this because they thought I had committed some kind of violation. They did it because they thought I’m older and I wouldn’t have the money to challenge them and so they could get away with it — they thought they could turn me into a poster child to scare all the doctors in the country.
“It is part of this broader attempt by the U.S. government and governments across the world to criminalize dissent by criminalizing so-called ‘misinformation.’”
Libby said the remaining allegations against Dr. Nass “are simply a pretext to discipline her. Because now, from an institutional standpoint, the board has to do something. She’s been under suspension for 19 months, which is the longest suspension that I’m aware of for any physician in the state.”
The board refused to schedule hearings on Nass’ suspension on consecutive days. Instead, it has held one day of hearings every other month. There have been six days of hearings so far over 10 months — and Nass’ license has been suspended the entire time.
“This is fundamentally unfair to Dr. Nass, but she’s within the grip of an institution that doesn’t want her speaking out,” Libby said.
In her lawsuit, Nass alleges the board and its members used their power to “crush dissenting views and chill disfavored speech.”
Nass is asking the court for declaratory relief, for an injunction to stop the board from continuing to retaliate against her and for monetary damages and legal fees.
CHD is providing financial and legal resources to Nass’ Maine-based legal team.
CHD President Mary Holland told The Defender:
“CHD is proud to support Dr. Nass’ lawsuit against the Maine medical board and its individual members.
“The board and its members have deprived Dr. Nass of her license and livelihood for over a year with no basis whatsoever. This kind of censorship, intimidation and punishment of doctors of conscience must stop.
“People need independent, thoughtful, caring physicians like Dr. Nass to be honored, not hounded as the board has done.
“I am pleased to see this case move forward in the courts in the interests of justice, for Dr. Nass, her patients and the broader society.”
Board provided resources to ‘combat spread of vaccine misinformation’
The Maine board’s Fall 2021 position statement expressed its support for a statement by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) — a private organization with no regulatory authority — which threatened physicians “who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation” with suspension or revocation of their medical license.
According to the statement, physicians have a high degree of public trust and therefore a responsibility to “share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health.”
The Maine board’s statement endorsed the FSMB statement, encouraged physicians to address misinformation when encountered, directed physicians to use circulated materials from the American Medical Association (AMA) and said that questioning the COVID-19 vaccine qualifies as “misinformation,” according to the complaint.
The AMA materials provide scripts, talking points and strategies for “combating the spread of vaccine misinformation.”
The Maine board’s chair, Dr. Maroulla Gleaton, is also an FSMB director.
Nass is a widely recognized expert on the anthrax vaccine and biological warfare. She testified before Congress six times and was quoted in major media outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune.
alt-market | When I think back to the first days of the covid pandemic lockdowns, I suspect the majority of people, even many conservatives and liberty movement types, had a healthy concern about the effects of the virus and the potential for structural upheaval if it turned out to be as deadly as the World Health Organization initially claimed. If covid had an Infection Fatality Rate of 3% or more as global health officials warned, then the damage would be substantial enough to change our world for many years to come.
Anyone who was not at least partially concerned about a biological disaster (or biological warfare) was probably an idiot. Anyone who was smart was prepared. However, after a few months of the spread of the virus and after the first flurry of scientific data, several facts became evident:
1) The lockdowns did nothing to stop the spread, they were simply destroying our economy.
2) The masks were useless and did nothing to prevent transmission of the virus.
3) The IFR of covid was a tiny 0.23%, and that’s not accounting for all the co-morbidity deaths that were falsely labeled as covid deaths.
4) The vaccines did not prevent transmission for millions of people. They did not prevent infection in many cases and numerous vaccinated people have died from the virus. Not only that, but unvaccinated people with natural immunity were better protected than those that took the vaccine and boosters.
5) Studies show that the vaccines cause dangerous side effects at a much greater rate than the CDC admitted.
Everything government officials told us during the pandemic was a lie. It was not a mistake, it was not bureaucratic confusion, it was a lie. Even after this information became available, they KEPT GOING – They kept people locked down, kept them masked and they even tried to force-vaccinate the population. There were some Republican politicians that also went along with the panic, many of them Neocons (fake conservatives). However, the majority of red states quickly ended the restrictions once the contradictory data was made public. In the meantime, the blue states looked ridiculous and paranoid as they desperately clung to the mandates.
I believe the only reason Biden, the Democrats and globalist institutions eventually stopped was not because they realized their science was incorrect; it was because they realized millions of conservatives and independents were ready start a shooting war over the mandates and they knew they would lose.
Even today, months after Biden was forced to finally end the national emergency status on covid, there are still a lot of people out there running around with masks, still isolating in their homes and still complaining all over social media that the public has moved on from the pandemic hysteria. Where does this behavior originate? And why did so many Americans (mainly leftists) jump on the authoritarian bandwagon when it comes to lockdowns and forced vaccination?
I want to explore the psychology of such people here, because I think it’s the natural inclination of the public today to move on quickly from the discomfort of terrible events and ignore the deeper implications. We cannot move on from this, because the ultimate problem was never solved. These same leftists and globalists were never admonished for their behavior, they never had to admit they were wrong and they WILL attempt the same draconian measures again in the future if left unchecked.
Here is what I think happened during the covid cult frenzy…
A Useful Weapon Against The Constitution
Leftists are quick these days to change the subject or outright deny their authoritarian activities during covid. It makes sense, they view the next election as a defining election and they want people to forget that we almost lost what remains of our constitutional rights because of their policies. But again, we can’t allow these things to fade into the ether. Here’s a list of the worst trespasses on the part of leftists and globalists during the pandemic:
They lied about the effectiveness of the lockdowns.
They lied about the effectiveness of the masks.
They lied about the effectiveness of the vaccines.
They lied about how extensive the testing was for the covid vaccines.
They lied about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
They enforced lockdowns OUTSIDE where it is nearly impossible to contract a virus.
They tried to put the population under house arrest.
They put legislation in motion in some states to build “covid camps” in the US.
In some countries, they did build covid camps, not just for travelers, but for everyone.
They conspired to suppress ample evidence linking the Wuhan Lab in China with the outbreak.
They (Government and Big Tech) conspired to use social media as a tool for mass censorship of conflicting data.
They exploited algorithms through search engines to bury any and all contrary information.
As many leftists openly admitted, the goal was to make life so difficult for the unvaccinated that they would eventually comply in order to survive. In this way, establishment elites and leftists could claim that people “volunteered” for the vaccines and no one was forced. What they really meant was, no one was forced at gunpoint, but we all knew that threat was coming next. In fact, polling showed that a large percentage of Democrats were willing to scrap the Bill of Rights altogether and declare war on the unvaccinated…
