PODCAST: Chaos in the the Capitol! Media quickly condemns Conservatives and Trump.

GUESTS AND TOPICS

DAN GAINOR

Dan Gainor, Vice President for Business and Culture for the Media Research Center and a veteran editor whose work has been published or cited many of the nation’s leading publications and radio and television news programs.

TOPIC: Chaos in the the Capitol! Media quickly condemns Conservatives and Trump

HANS VON SPAKOVSKY

Hans von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission. He is the manager of the Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative and a senior legal fellow in Heritage’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. President Donald J. Trump named him to be a member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

TOPIC: Voter integrity and voter fraud!

TOM DONELSON

Tom Donelson, Host of the Donelson Files radio program and he’s the president of America’s PAC – an organization that works to election conservatives to public office. To give you some idea of how effective they must be, Google has banned them.

TOPIC: Capital Chaos!

©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

GLOBAL GOV’T ALERT: Threat to National Sovereignty Set to Go Down May 22-28 at WHO World Health Assembly

The World Health Organization is attempting a ‘power grab’ — quietly setting up a single globalized response to all future ‘health emergencies’.


As previously reported at LeoHohmann.com, the deep state predators in the U.S. and Western governments have decided the world needs a centralized pandemic response controlled and run by the United Nations World Health Organization via an international treaty.

According to the WHO’s website, on March 30, 2021, 25 world leaders announced an “urgent call for an International Pandemic Treaty,” stating that such a treaty is needed to orchestrate a single globalized response to pandemics. These “25 heads of government and international leaders” have come together in a joint call to form the treaty.

Don’t forget that Yuval Noah Harari, the chief advisor to Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, has stated that globalist elites will use “crises” to bring about world government.

“Catastrophe opens the door” to massive changes that people would otherwise never accept, Harari said.

But even more pressing than the treaty itself right now, is something almost no one is paying attention to in U.S. political, religious or media circles, and that involves a set of amendments that will amend an existing treaty, the International Health Regulations. The U.S. government has submitted amendments to 13 articles within those regulations, which are administered by the WHO, and these amendments are seen by many as sovereignty killers.

A UN report from May 2021 called for more powers for the WHO stating that, “In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers […]To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.

The WHO will be hosting its annual meeting, the 75th World Health Assembly, May 22-28 in Geneva, Switzerland, attended by delegates from at least 194 nations. It is during this Assembly that members will be voting on the amendments that will hand over additional sovereignty, control and legal authority to the World Health Organization. The WHO, if these amendments are approved, will obtain the authority to declare an international health emergency, overriding national governments.

Here is the document with the proposed amendments submitted by the U.S. federal government. Pay particular attention to Article 12: Section 2 on page 8 of the document.

In a sense, the global infrastructure to declare a globalized response to a pandemic was already in place in 2020 and 2021, when many of the strictest lockdowns were advised by the WHO and most nations went along with them. But if this “update” of the International Health Regulations is adopted, the WHO will be given “teeth” in the form of an enforcement mechanism. If that happens, Katy bar the door because the lockdowns will become even more strict and more frequent. Think about the possibilities for a “climate” lockdown.

This means nations will be giving up their sovereignty and rights to control their own healthcare, handing that authority over to an international organization affiliated with the United Nations and run by tyrants like Dr. Tedros.

James Roguski, a researcher and activist who has been studying these amendments, has referred to them as a “five alarm fire” that must be dealt with or they will become part of international law.

These regulations govern the activity of the U.N. World Health Organization.

He says the core of these proposed changes go back to China. Watch the video below:

In the video, Roguski states:

“Whatever we think happened in Wuhan in 2020, the WHO seems to be of the mindset that none of what came afterwards would have happened if they had only been given the power to unilaterally declare an emergency and override the Chinese opposition…. We’re saying it’s an emergency. We’re going to lock everybody down. We’re stepping in…They want to grab power. They’re changing article 12, section 2 (of the International Health Regulations) and it effectively wipes out 192 nations’ sovereignty to decide whether or not they allow an international organization to step in.”

It is important to note that the International Pandemic Treaty will be far more expansive in its scope than these amendments, but these amendments are more urgent because they will be voted on next month.

And no U.S. politician is talking about this. Nor is any mainstream media outlet reporting on it. No pastors that I know of are alerting their congregations to these monumental, some would say biblical, changes.

Roguski set up the website DontYouDare.info to document the drive to establish this one-world health system. The following points are his summary of the draft amendments:

  • The International Health Regulations would be legally binding and supersede the United States Constitution.
  • The United States has proposed amendments to the legally binding International Health Regulations that will be voted upon at the next World Health Assembly May 22-28. CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
  • These proposed amendments will cede additional sovereignty, control and legal authority over to the World Health Organization.
  • These amendments will NOT require approval by 2/3 of the United States Senate. If they are approved (as submitted by the United States) by a simple majority of the 194 member countries of the World Health Assembly countries), these amendments would enter into force as international law just six months later (November 2022). The details of this are not crystal clear.
  • It is not known if the amendments will be voted upon individually or as a complete package.
  • The amendments would give the director general of the WHO the power to unilaterally declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) even over the objection of the country dealing with an outbreak of disease. (See Article 12, Section 2 of the IHR document where this change is proposed.)
  • A unilateral declaration of a PHEIC by the WHO will enable the declaration of a Public Health Emergency by the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
  • The amendments proposed by the United States would also give the director general of the WHO the legal authority to unilaterally issue an “intermediate public health alert (IPHA).” The criteria for the issuance of an IPHA is simply that “the Director-General has determined it requires heightened international awareness and a potential international public health response.”
  • The amendments would also give “regional directors” within the WHO the legal authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).

Once you take away national sovereignty and start holding America up against a global standard, that opens up endless opportunities for the elites running the global system to regulate, or confiscate, whatever they believe is “bad for our health.”

What if the WHO decides we all need jabs and digital passports to address a public health emergency? Wait a minute, the WHO has already decided that! All it lacks is the power to override national governments. These amendments would grant such power.

These amendments, along with a future treaty, could also be used to take away Americans’ First and Second Amendment rights. What about the Bible? Is it a matter of your religious faith or is it a tool for “hate speech?” Guns, the Bible and too much free speech are bad for our collective “health” and therefore could be declared an international or regional emergency, providing a pathway for the WHO to apply regulations.

Kit Knightly, in an article for Off Guardian, also raises the question of countries being punished for “non-compliance” under a new global health treaty. According to the WHO documents:

[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.

In other words, Knightly explains:

  • If you report “disease outbreaks” in a “timely manner”, you will get “financial resources” to deal with them.
  • If you don’t report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.

As Patrick Wood reminds us, harsh punishments were already meted out during the Covid pandemic.

“The presidents of Burundi and Tanzania banned the WHO from their borders, refusing to go along with the pandemic narrative: Both died unexpectedly within months and were replaced with pro-WHO Presidents,” Wood writes. “Obviously, the WHO doesn’t care about global health or the life or death of any particular citizen. The warning has been sent out to national leaders: take our deal or we will eliminate you.”

This is a spiritual war, and we are living in a time when all of the prayer warriors must be engaged and called into battle. Pray for people’s eyes to be opened and all deceptions and delusions to be smashed in the name of Jesus Christ.

©Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

Biden’s Disinformation Board Co-Chair Worked for George Soros

The man who told Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes  that “the happiest days of his life:” was collaborating with the Nazis is running a shadow government here in the United States.

Thrown out of Hungary and Poland, Soros is now being driven out of Turkey, but he continues his quest for the destruction of America and individual freedom. Here in America, the party of treason has canonized him and allowed him to anoint our destroyers.

Biden’s Disinformation Board Co-Chair Formerly Worked for George Soros

By: Truth Press, May 7, 2022:

A top Biden administration official in the Department of Homeland Security’s new Disinformation Governance Board has strong connections to controversial anti-American billionaire George Soros.

Disinformation Governance Board leader Jennifer Daskal has three connections to the controversial Soros, according to the Media Research Center. Soros is known for backing left-wing causes in the United States and Europe.

Before being chosen to serve in the Disinformation Governance Board — dubbed by critics as the Biden administration’s “Ministry of Truth” — the Homeland Security Deputy General Counsel (Cyber and Technology) had served as an Open Society Institute fellow, according to the report.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Disinfo Board co-chair worked for Soros’ Open Society Institute and anti-Semitic Human Rights Watch

Biden Disinformation Czar Spread Trump-Russia Collusion Claims

Soros-Backed LA District Attorney Rules Out Felony Charges for Man Who Attacked Dave Chappelle With Knife

Decoding the Latest Attack on Free Speech

I Agree with Nina Jankowicz that Gender Disinformation is a Threat to National Security. Let me explain.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

WATCH NOW ‘2,000 MULES’: Election Fraud 2020

Watch this film by Dinesh D’Souza, 2,000 Mules, which analyzes data obtained by True the Vote, showing how ballot harvesting manipulated the 2020 election.

“America needs to wake up” and take the malfeasance that occurred in the 2020 election — most notably through ballot traffickers — seriously, or it could happen again in future elections, True the Vote president and founder Catherine Engelbrecht.

The film details how paid operatives, or “mules,” trafficked ballots, “typically in the middle of the night,” to mail-in drop boxes.

Filmmaker Dinesh ‘Souza explains, “True the Vote bought geo tracking data in the five key states. We’re talking here about Arizona, we’re talking about Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,” he said, noting they “only bought the data in the urban cities.”

“And so this is a coordinated illegal operation. Now for me as a moviemaker, what made this so thrilling is that you don’t just have the geo tracking data, but you have, at least in some states, video surveillance,” he explained, adding that there is no good explanation for the actions revealed in the movie.

“I think this is really why this movie poses such a problem, because we’re not just talking about anomalies,” he said, adding that in the film you can see the ballot trafficking “with your naked eyes again and again and again,” he said, noting they traced the money trail.

“Remember these mules aren’t coming up with their own ballots. They’re picking up their ballots at left-wing organizations that we call vote stash houses. That’s where they get the ballots and then they go dump them in the mail-in drop boxes,” D’Souza said.

These are all connected, he said. “They’re going, by and large to a group — they’re going to NGOs, or ‘nonprofit organizations.’ These are deeply nested in these inner cities. These are the people that are sort of cultivating the ballots. They’re the ones that hire the mules,” he said, adding that True the Vote has a list of the organizations, and also the cell phone IDs of the 2,000 mules.

“The idea is that the illegal ballots are curated at these left-wing organizations and then delivered by the mules in a coordinated … operation,” he said.

D’Souza added that this revelation, in his opinion, is a “smoking gun.”

“True the Vote has filed an official complaint with the state of Georgia and the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, has opened up an investigation and said publicly it’s specifically in response to the geo tracking data and reports filed by True the Vote. Now this is a very tricky situation because of course Raffensperger is the exact same guy who was on TV right after the election [saying], ‘This is a very secure election,’ he continued. D’Souza clarified that ballot harvesting is legal, to some extent, in some states. However, that does not change the revelations found in the movie.

“Now the most liberal laws are in places like California and Hawaii where you can literally give anyone your ballot and say, hey, you go drop it off for me. In Georgia, by contrast, you can only give your ballot to a family member, or if you’re sick or confined, to a caregiver, that’s it,” he said.

“But here’s the point: In no state is it legal to pay a mule or anyone else to deliver a ballot. Once money changes hands, once money appears in the process, the ballot is contaminated,” he continued.

“And so even if it were — these aren’t legal ballots — but let’s say they were, [that] there was a legal ballot. Once you pay a mule, by and large, that ballot is rendered invalid,” he said, making it clear that “everything we’re covering in this movie is illegal.”

Breitbart News:

The election integrity organization obtained the data through cellphone patterns, and the device patterns indicated that people were routinely going on routes to drop boxes. The data, she explained, is the same kind of data law enforcement uses “all day every day to solve crimes.”

“Just on the face of the geospatial data alone, there are investigatory expectations,” she said, as a “logical thinking person” would naturally find people “going to far-left nonprofits and then directly the drop boxes day after day, over and over” problematic. And in Georgia, she explained, they have video surveillance to compare, which is shown in the film.

“We want to know more about the money, the following of the money because we know that people were paid — at least we’ve been told they were paid. We want to know more about how, how all of the ways we know many of the ways, but all of the ways that those ballots arrived at those organizations. There’s a lot of investigation left to be done,” Engelbrecht said.

She said the lack of motivation from certain officials to pursue these leads is, in many ways, stunning. She explained that they first presented these claims in Georgia one year ago. At the time, they really thought officials would “jump in” and launch broad-scale state-level investigations, but she said “it’s been anything but,” calling it “confounding.”

“That feels more along the lines of a coverup than it does a willingness to really review the video, frankly,” she said, adding that they “should have been looking” at this all along.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Biden’s Disinformation Board Top Dog Claims Leftists, not Pro-Freedom Voices, are Censored on Social Media

Don’t believe your lying eyes, believe Nina Jankowicz, the Disinformation Governance Board czarina.

There is a huge list of freedom fighters and patriots who have banned from Twitter (here is a list of some of them, along with some people who are not admirable at all, including David Duke and others), and absolutely no prominent Leftists who have been likewise banned, but just ignore that.

Nina Jankowicz is the arbiter of truth.

And she wouldn’t ever lie to us, now, would she?

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kamala Harris Warns of Terrifying Future of Government Interference in ‘Personal Decisions’

Taliban Stop Pretending to be Nice, Order Women to Wear Burkas and Stay Home

Pakistan: Men dig up grave of teenage woman and rape her corpse, 17 accused are being interrogated

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Election Whores of the Democrat Party

Election integrity and freedom of speech are the two most basic requirements for a democracy, a government by the people, exercised directly or through elected representatives. The 2020 United States presidential election breached them both. Unprecedented in US election history, Democrat-run cities in battleground states suspended vote-counting, and then mysteriously resumed with drastically changed trajectories of the vote count. Americans went to sleep certain that President Donald Trump had been reelected. When they woke up, Joe Biden had mysteriously surged ahead to “win” the election. Americans remain shocked, confused, and angry. What happened??

Investigative journalist Dinesh D’Souza answers that question with irrefutable proof the election was stolen from we the people in his stunning new documentary film 2000 Mules. The film’s summary:

Drawing on research provided by the election integrity group True the Vote, 2000 Mules offers two types of evidence: geotracking and video. The geotracking evidence, based on a database of 10 trillion cell phone pings, exposes an elaborate network of paid professional operatives called mules delivering fraudulent and illegal votes to mail-in drop boxes in the five key states where the election was decided. Video evidence, obtained from official surveillance cameras installed by the states themselves, confirms the geotracking evidence.

Amazon’s 2000 Mules book review states:

THE FIX WAS IN

The 2020 presidential election was rife with fraud orchestrated by the Democratic Party. That’s not just an accusation; it’s now, thanks to bestselling author and investigative journalist Dinesh D’Souza, an established fact. With eyewitness testimony and the pinpoint precision and analytic sophistication of the forensic technique of geotracking, D’Souza demonstrates how an already corrupt system put in place by Democratic Party hacks and “community organizers” was taken over and supercharged by national-level operatives to produce massive voter fraud.

The key figure: the mule. A paid cut-out. A criminal deliveryman. The stooge found at the intersection where election cheating and double-dealing hit the road. The mule is the crook who physically takes a sack of ballots provided by shady NGOs and political machines—the “community activist organizations” made famous by former President Obama, for instance—and, like some nefarious Johnny Appleseed, dumps those ballots in collection boxes throughout a voting district. Do enough of this, and you have planted voter fraud across a nation.

Documentary filmmaker extraordinaire and bestselling author of America, Death of a Nation, and United States of Socialism, Dinesh D’Souza exposes powerful evidence of the colossal voting racketeering that you were told didn’t exist. Here you will find the receipts—the transcripts and confirmatory details—for the facts establishing 2020 election fraud presented in D’Souza’s major motion picture documentary, 2000 Mules. D’Souza makes a powerful argument that 2020 was a stolen election. More important, D’Souza proves it.

Geotracking identifies a person’s current physical location by obtaining GPS data from their smartphones or other GPS-enabled devices. The video evidence in the film documents hooded, masked, mules stuffing ballot drop boxes in the middle of the night. The GPS pings follow the mules from NGO [non-governmental organization] locations to drop box locations, often multiple times in a single night. It is horrifying.

NGOs are typically voluntary groups or organizations, non-profit entities with a social mission like “election integrity” and “get out the vote.” Unsurprisingly, the NGOs identified by geotracking are Soros backed entities, many receiving lavish 2020 election funding from Mark Zuckerberg. Democrats exploited the Covid plandemic to justify the massive mail-in voting required to implement their massive voter fraud scheme to steal the election.

Individuals who questioned the election outcome were smeared, deplatformed, and ridiculed. The mainstream media echo chamber insisted the 2020 presidential election was the freest and fairest election in US history. Over and over, day after day, the same election lie was repeated constantly by the media outlets.

Yet, Americans were not convinced. More and more evidence began to surface confirming their suspicions that the election had been manipulated. A protest was organized for January 6, 2021 on Capitol Hill to peacefully and legally protest Congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral vote win. Democrats responded with phase two of the 2020 election steal. When the protestors reached the Capitol Building, the 20,000-pound doors that only open from inside, were opened to let the protestors in—and the protestors poured in.

Challenges to the certification are heard in alphabetical order. Paul Gozar, Republican representative from Arizona was the first to object. Objections must be co-signed by a senator. Texas Senator Ted Cruz had signed the objection. Suddenly there was chaos in the House chamber, people were scrambling for cover because of the announcement that the Capitol had been breached–how very convenient. The Democrat political theater that ensued was Oscar-worth. Investigations that clearly showed Capitol police removing barricades, and videos identifying FBI operatives were ignored. Instead, drama queen Nancy Pelosi began shrieking the breach was a Trump-inspired insurrection, and protestors should be arrested for domestic terrorism.

Never in the history of the United States have lawful protestors been arrested and held as political prisoners without due process, until January 6th. Phase three of the Democrat election steal required incarcerating Trump supporters as domestic terrorists. Incarcerated for months on end without being charged with a crime, many are locked in their cells with no human contact for 23 hours a day, without legal representation, adequate food, water, or medical attention.

On June 15, 2021, Steve Watson reported:

Jan 6 protesters being held in indefinite pre-trial detention in DC for as little as “trespassing” into the Capitol building have reportedly been placed on lockdown in retaliation for a Fox News show on Sunday where Mark Levin, Julie Kelly and Senator Ron Johnson exposed how they’re being tortured, beaten, racially abused and locked in solitary confinement.

As I reported last week, peaceful Jan 6 Capitol protester Paul Allard Hodgkins was maliciously overcharged by the feds with “obstructing an official proceeding of Congress” and faced 20 years in prison for the crime of taking a selfie on the Senate floor with others as they “cheered and said prayers.”

Not only was the US 2020 election itself as corrupt as any in a third world nation, the aftermath continues to be equally squalid. But there’s more. The Democrats found it necessary to empower themselves to be the arbiters of free speech, hate speech, and disinformation.

The fourth phase of the 2020 election steal required the institutional elimination of free speech in the name of national security. The illegitimate Biden regime has just created an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board, under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, will have the authority to determine what is and what is not hate speech and/or disinformation. This means that anyone still questioning the 2020 election can be legally labelled a domestic terrorist and subject to punishment as a domestic terrorist.

The Democrat assault on election integrity and freedom of speech is an attack on our constitutional republic. If the Democrats are allowed to redefine political opposition as hate speech, our future as a constitutional republic is over.

In the closing line of my latest book, The Collapsing American Family: From Bonding to Bondage I write, “Space is no longer the final frontier–reality is.”

The deceitful Democrats have decided that they will define reality for you.

Don’t let them.

©Linda Goudsmit. All rights reserved.

What is at stake in Roe vs. Wade goes far beyond a squabble between left and right

What about the personhood of the unborn child?


A few days ago, a draft opinion of the United States Supreme Court was leaked to Politico, suggesting that the majority was inclined to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision enshrining a connotational right to abortion. The court has confirmed that the draft is authentic.

Although the draft is not final, it does strongly suggest that the court has already voted on the case and that a majority of justices is in favour of overturning Roe vWade. If that happens, it will bring an end to the notion that there is a right to abortion protected by the American constitution, and effectively leave the definition of abortion policy back in the hands of the individual States.

The extraordinary leaking of such an important draft opinion predictably opened a firestorm of political controversy.

It was insinuated by a report in The New York Times, for example, that the court had become unduly politicised or had become an instrument of conservative ideology rather than law. Apart from the fact that the original 1973 ruling was hardly an orthodox piece of constitutional interpretation, this sort of charge fails to engage the questions before the Court on their legal merits. As such, it looks more like a rhetorical deflection than a serious argument.

Fundamental issues

Even someone who is an ardent supporter of abortion rights should be more than capable of recognising that Roe v. Wade touches upon ethical and constitutional matters of fundamental importance that go far beyond the question of one’s political affiliations, or of whether this or that ideology, be it conservative or liberal, holds sway on the court.

The original majority opinion of Roe v. Wade in 1973 assumed that the unborn human being inside the mother is not deserving of the same fundamental protection of the law as that afforded born infants. It essentially contended that the mother’s choice to abort was indeed protected by the Constitution, whereas the Court has never, to my knowledge, suggested that anyone had a constitutional right to end the life of an infant after birth. In other words, it was unwilling to authorise infanticide.

In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court found that the Constitution contained an implicit right to privacy, and that this right prevented governments from unduly restricting a woman’s access to abortion services. Many of those alarmed by the leak suggesting Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned have focused on this aspect of the decision.

But it also set down another important principle. The majority opinion deemed that the unborn foetus was not to be considered a “person” protected by the law, in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing “equal protection of the laws” and the rights to “life, liberty, and property” to all persons.

Finally, the court attempted to sidestep the question of when human life begins, on the grounds that this question was medically and philosophically unsettled:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Yet even if some medics and philosophers dispute the exact moment when human life begins, the unborn foetus is biologically and genetically identical and continuous with the human being after birth. Under these circumstances, a strong case could also be made for treating the unborn as a person rather than a non-person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. For surely we should err on the side of protecting rather than stripping away fundamental rights from beings who are indisputably human from a biological and genetic perspective.

Politicization

Many important ethical and constitutional questions have the potential to be politicised. And abortion is perhaps as clear an example of this as any. For example, currently, in the United States (according to this Pew Research Center poll conducted in April 2021), a majority of self-identifying “conservative Republicans” tend to oppose widely available legal abortion, while a majority of self-identifying “liberal Democrats” tend to favour the “right to choose” affirmed in Roe v. Wade.

The politically charged nature of the abortion debate tends to lead people to reduce all arguments for and against essentially as ornamentation for a predefined political posture. But just as the political explosiveness of the slavery question did not automatically invalidate argumentation about the moral and legal standing of slaves in the US before the Civil War, the political explosiveness of abortion does not automatically invalidate thoughtful argumentation about the moral and legal standing of the unborn or reduce it to a form of political cheer-leading.

The personhood of the unborn

The two questions touched on in Roe v. Wade — the constitutional standing of the choice to abort and the moral and legal standing of the unborn — are intimately connected.

If, for example, one takes the view that the unborn is a full member of the human family and as such, is deserving of full legal protection in virtue of his or her humanity, then it would be very strange indeed if one also took the view that the choice to abort were protected from interference by third parties by the federal constitution of the United States. For that would amount to saying that the choice to take an innocent human life was not only permitted by the federal constitution but protected by it from third-party interference.

If one concedes that unborn human life is in fact deserving of legal protection in virtue of the humanity of the unborn (or that humans should be considered as “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment), one cannot coherently argue that the Constitution prohibits a State government from protecting unborn human life.

Indeed, if we assume that unborn human beings deserve full legal protection, it would seem strange if a Constitution that protects other fundamental human rights, such as the right to a fair trial, or the right to property, did not extend a similar protection to the bodily integrity of the unborn.

In order to endorse the mother’s right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade, one would have to take the view that unborn human life was not in fact deserving of full legal protection in virtue of its humanity, and that whatever potential interests the unborn may have in living and in thriving, may be overridden by the prerogatives of his or her mother, or her own interest in not being burdened with a child, or not carrying a child to term.

That  puts the supporter of Roe v. Wade in a difficult position. For having rejected humanity as a sufficient basis for full legal protection, it is difficult to see a principled reason for ruling out infanticide if that is what the parents want. Indeed, the plausibility of “after-birth abortion” has been defended by some bioethicists.

Supporters of Roe v. Wade who would not go so far as advocating infanticide need to find a basis for legal protection of newborn infants that does not entail a similar level of protection for unborn infants. They need to point to characteristics of newborn infants that place them squarely within the rights-bearing community, which are not morally arbitrary and which are not shared by their unborn counterparts.

That seems like a rather tall order to me.

This is a slightly edited version of a post on the author’s Substack, The Freedom Blog.

AUTHOR

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jake Tapper Calls Potentially Disabled Children ‘Tragedy’ During Abortion Debate

SNL Claims SCOTUS Draft Opinion Argues ‘Abortion Is A Crime,’ Compares Court To Medieval Idiots

‘I told you so’ – the dissenters in Roe predicted its collapse

The problems of putting off children

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Decoding the Latest Attack on Free Speech

Biden Administration Creates ‘Ministry of Truth’.


STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has quietly set up a Disinformation Governance Board to oversee what information is and isn’t “truthful”
  • Heading up this new “Ministry of Truth” is Nina Jankowicz, a “Russian disinformation expert” who in her spare time sings show tunes about disinformation and erotic Harry Potter songs on TikTok
  • Jankowicz is herself known for spreading disinformation. She called the Hunter Biden laptop story a “fairytale” and “Russian disinformation,” and she’s openly opposed to free speech and anti-censorship efforts
  • In her book, “How to Lose the Information War,” Jankowicz criticized Poland’s efforts to eliminate censorship of conservatives on social networks, and called for the U.S. government to regulate and conduct oversight of people who disagree with the Democratic party on Twitter
  • Every dictatorship and autocracy has had a ministry of truth, a department of propaganda, and Biden has now joined them. May 1, 2022, GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert introduced a bill to immediately defund and terminate the Disinformation Governance Board

By now, you’ve probably heard that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has created a Disinformation Governance Board to oversee what information is and isn’t “truthful.”1 This includes information relating to elections.2 It’s so incredibly Orwellian, you’d think it was pure fiction, yet here we are. It’s real.

This “Ministry of Truth” will reportedly operate under and receive funding from the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), created by President Biden to “curb radicalization in the U.S.”3 It appears those in the Biden administration must have thought “1984” was an instruction manual rather than a warning.

Known Disinformation Spreader Made Head of Truth Ministry

Heading up this new “Ministry of Truth” is Nina Jankowicz,4 a “Russian disinformation expert” who in her spare time makes a fool of herself singing made-up show tunes about disinformation and erotic Harry Potter songs5 on TikTok.

As noted by both Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and Jimmy Dore of “The Jimmy Dore Show” in the videos above, Jankowicz is qualified to do absolutely nothing. Independent journalist Glen Greenwald also highlighted Jankowicz’s obvious lack of real credentials in a May 4, 2022, Substack article:6

“The concept of ‘anti-disinformation expert’ is itself completely fraudulent. This is not a real expertise but rather a concocted title bestowed on propagandists to make them appear more scholarly and apolitical than they are …

There is no conceivable circumstance in which a domestic law enforcement agency like DHS should be claiming the power to decree truth and falsity … The purpose of Homeland Security agents is to propagandize and deceive, not enlighten and inform.

The level of historical ignorance and stupidity required to believe that U.S. Security State operatives are earnestly devoted to exposing and decreeing truth is off the charts … That nobody should want the U.S. Government let alone Homeland Security arrogating unto itself the power to declare truth and falsity seems self-evident.”

Surprisingly enough, even mainstream news outlets have pointed out Jankowicz’s role in the spreading of disinformation and outright lies. For example, as reported by the British Daily Mail:7

“The Russia disinformation expert previously called the laptop of President Joe Biden’s son Hunter a ‘Trump campaign product.’ This is causing questions over Jankowicz’s ability to accurately judge disinformation now that several sources have come out confirming the validity of Hunter’s laptop …

When stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop started emerging, several outlets, social media sites and left-leaning disinformation experts claimed that it was just misinformation coming from Trump and others on the right.

In an October 2020 report, Jankowicz shared her skepticism of the contents of the laptop and the claims it belonged to Hunter. ‘We should view it as a Trump campaign product,’ she told the New York Daily News at the time. Twitter repeatedly took down the Hunter Biden laptop story and prevented it from being spread on the platform.”

In one October 2020 tweet, she referred to the Hunter Biden laptop story as a “fairytale.”8 Jankowicz was also among those who insisted Trump had colluded with Russia to win the presidency in 2016, a claim we now know is patently false. In reality, it was Hillary Clinton and allies who colluded to fabricate this false narrative and derail Trump’s presidency.9

Over the past couple years, we’ve repeatedly seen how information censored on the grounds that it was “misinformation” turned out to be factual and true. In early 2020, YouTube betrayed its founding principles and started censoring and banning anything that contradicted the World Health Organization’s stance on COVID-19.

Yet, time and again, the WHO turned out to be wrong.10 No organization is infallible, and the WHO has a long history of corruption that makes its ability to discern what’s best for public health all the more suspect. Twitter followed suit, axing health experts, scientists and respected journalists like Tess Lawrie, Martin Kulldorf, Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Alex Berenson and many more.11

Jankowicz’s Hostile Stand Against First Amendment Rights

Jankowicz has also publicly opposed the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, saying free speech is bad for “marginalized communities.” Shortly after Elon Musk announced his takeover of Twitter, she told NPR:12

“I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities …

We need the platforms to do more, and we frankly need law enforcement and our legislatures to do more as well … the U.K. has an online safety bill that’s being considered right now where they’re trying to make illegal this currently, quote, ‘awful but lawful content’ that exists online where people are being harassed.”

Lack of censorship on social media will make abuse against marginalized groups worse, she claims. At the same time, she insists that “a HUGE focus” of the new disinformation board will be “protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights and civil liberties.”13

This is clearly Orwellian doublespeak, where what’s being said is the complete opposite of reality. How can you have a board dedicated to dictating “truth,” which means censoring “untruth,” while simultaneously protecting free speech? Either all viewpoints are allowed, or only one viewpoint is permitted, and if only one viewpoint is tolerated, then there’s clearly no free speech.

In her book, “How to Lose the Information War,” she also criticized Poland’s efforts to eliminate rampant online censorship of conservatives on social networks by forming a Ministry of Digital Affairs.

In other words, she wants conservative views to be censored, not just in the U.S., but everywhere. In that book, she also called on the U.S. government to regulate and conduct oversight of people who disagree with the Democratic party on Twitter. As noted by Carlson, that’s likely why she was selected in the first place.

Not surprisingly, then, Jankowicz has expressed “dismay” at Musk’s decision to no longer censor posts discussing potential fraud in the 2020 election.14 Interestingly, in a September 2020 tweet, she defined the term “color revolution” and “why the U.S. isn’t a candidate for one.”15

In it, she noted that “Believe it or not, sometimes people get fed up with having their voices silenced for decades,” but she then insisted that a color revolution isn’t possible in the U.S. because “we are not an autocracy,” and color revolutions only occur in oppressive autocracy regimes.

Given an Inch, They’ll Take a Mile

Others disagree with that assessment. As noted by former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (video above), every dictatorship and autocracy has had a ministry of truth, a department of propaganda. And Biden just joined them.

Gabbard also accurately points out that the government has been working with media and Big Tech to censor for some time already. We’ve become increasingly aware of this covert backdoor influence over the past two years. Now, however, they’re formalizing that influence, which is, by the way, completely unconstitutional.

Moreover, the scary truth here is that the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” could cover absolutely anything. As noted by Carlson in the featured video, the DHS has not actually defined or given any clues as to what mis- or disinformation actually is.

“Would you declare war on a country you couldn’t name?” Carlson asks. “Would you sentence someone to death for a crime you couldn’t describe? Of course you wouldn’t, not if you were a sane and decent person. Because you can’t have justice without precise definitions …

But they’re not defining the core concept, the heart of what is effectively a new law enforcement agency. Maybe that is because [U.S. secretary of homeland security, Alejandro] Mayorkas doesn’t want justice, and neither does the president he serves. They want power. And to get power, they plan to control what you think.”

Carlson points out that the DHS has now publicly admitted they intend to punish people for merely thinking “the wrong way,” even if they’ve committed no actual crime worthy of judicial intervention. In short, anyone who disagrees with the Biden administration is now an enemy of the state. As noted by Carlson:

“You can’t make any of this up. It’s too grotesque. Would you believe a novel with this plot? No, you wouldn’t, but it’s happening, and that’s the bad news. The good news is, everyone involved in Joe Biden’s Ministry of Information is a buffoon. They may be evil, but they’re also ridiculous.”

He then airs one of Jankowicz’s undignified TikTok videos, where she’s singing about disinformation. “This is now one of our top law enforcement officials,” he dryly notes. Jankowicz has also, ironically, accused Republicans of dealing in “highly emotional rhetoric,” which proves nothing except the fact that she’s read George Orwell’s “1984” more than once.

In fact, Democrats accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves are doing so regularly, you can be near-assured that any accusation is a veiled admission at this point. And, in his report, Carlson reviews how Jankowicz is guilty of this exact behavior. Carlson also points out that her falsehoods have by no means been inconsequential.

Her disinformation helped presidential candidate Biden to lie about an incredibly important story — Hunter’s laptop — that could have altered the outcome of the presidential election, had it been up for public discussion. Jankowicz has never apologized for dismissing what was in fact truthful, and neither has anyone else who insisted the laptop was “Russian disinformation.”

An International Coordination Effort to Censor Free Speech

Now, some have pointed out that this Disinformation Governance Board didn’t come into existence until Musk bought Twitter, promising to turn it into a free speech platform.16,17 However, other evidence strongly indicates there’s international coordination taking place.

In mid-April 2022, the European Union approved new rules aimed at policing Big Tech platforms. As reported by the Financial Times:18

“The EU will force Big Tech companies to police content online more aggressively after approving a major piece of legislation that sets the rules for the first time on how companies should keep users safe on the internet …

Leading tech groups will be forced to disclose to EU regulators how they are tackling disinformation and war propaganda in order to curb the spread of fake information — an effort that has gained fresh momentum since the Russian invasion of Ukraine … Countries such as the U.S., Canada and Singapore are expected to follow with similar rules in the coming months.”

Some of the language used to describe this EU legislation sounds good — for example, it will ban the targeting of internet users based on personal information such as gender, religion and sexual preferences, and terms and conditions must be clearly understandable even to children.

However, there are also many reasons to suspect that these regulations will end up serving as a springboard for government-directed censorship. Among them is the fact that the EU is supporting the proposal to make the WHO into a global health authority, and the WHO, in turn, is setting up its own censorship network.

A key player in that network is NewsGuard,19 which entered into a partnership with the WHO in August 2020.20 As reported by Carlson, NewsGuard has also received funding from the U.S. Pentagon to blacklist any site that publishes “misinformation” about the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Time to Draw a Line in the Sand

Clearly, the shocking censorship we experienced during the COVID pandemic was only the beginning. It’s going to include all kinds of information. The creation of a DHS Disinformation Governance Board is truly a watershed moment in history, and we cannot allow it to stand. As noted by Carlson in the featured video at the top of this article:

“Just to be clear, this is a nightmare unfolding in slow motion. But this is the point where we’re just going to have to draw the line. No, Joe Biden, you cannot have a federally funded ministry of truth. And no, Nina Jankowicz can’t run it. Period. It’s not your country … and you don’t get to do this to a free people. Period. This can’t happen.”

May 1, 2022, GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert introduced a bill to immediately defund and terminate the Disinformation Governance Board. In an interview with Fox News, Boebert said:21

“This kind of stuff is terrifying. We in Congress have the power of the purse. It is our duty to shut down this department immediately. I’m calling on leadership in the Republican Party — Leader McCarthy, Whip Scalise, and others — to join me in calling for this department to be shut down and defunded.

No tax dollars should go to where Biden can use the power of the federal government to silence truthful stories like Big Tech did with the Hunter Biden story. Democrats took [Orwell’s book ‘1984’] not as a warning, but as a guide.

This is really a department of propaganda. To say that the federal department has a say in what’s right and what’s wrong, what’s truth and what’s not — this is a very dangerous place that we’ve come to.”

Sources and References

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved

I Agree with Nina Jankowicz that Gender Disinformation is a Threat to National Security. Let me explain.

Below is a tweet of a video done by Nina Jankowicz when she was a professor at Penn State University School of Law. Jankowicz states, “Gender disinformation is a threat to national security.” We agree with her. Please continue reading to understand why.

In this short video Jankowicz defends Kamala Harris, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She also defends herself for being childless. So she is defending politicians and they all happen to be Democrats. She seems to be upset that some point out that Ilhan Omar married her brother in order to obtain U.S. citizenship. Then she states that its racist to point out that Kamal Harris is not black even though her father is Jamaican and mother is from India. It appears that what Jankowicz is against is any criticism of women who are Democrats.

Where I disagree is with her use of “gender disinformation.”

It’s not about defending political figures. It’s not about defending women who are political leaders. It is not about defending one political party against those who report on its members and the party’s policies.

It’s all about science. Females have an XX pair of sex chromosomes, and males, an XY pair. A baby’s gender is determined by the sperm cell that fertilizes a woman’s egg. Sperm carries one sex chromosome, either a Y (male) or X (female).

For me gender disinformation is denying that gender is binary, i.e. male is XX and female is XY.

Anything else is pure propaganda.

I agree with Jankowicz that the gender narrative has now become a threat to our culture, society and national security. It has become a threat because of the simple but powerful point that gender is binary.

Science is very clear on this biological fact and has been since times immemorial. All other positions are personal choice myths, not science.

Jankowicz confuses gender, female (XX), with telling true stories about politicians, their families and their policies. Something that is allowed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

We are now at a point in our cultural history where children are being taught in public schools that gender is fluid. Here are a few examples of how gender disinformation has become the weapon of choice and threatens our cultural, social and ultimately national security.

The Bottom Line

Today parents are challenging books in school libraries and classrooms in record numbers.  They’re objecting to sexually explicit content, profanity, anti-police messaging, and other left-wing indoctrination found in schoolbooks. The most-challenged books are “Gender Queer” and “Lawn Boy”, the latter a gay story normalizing sex acts between 4th-graders which has been criticized for encouraging pedophilia.

Mis, dis and mal-information about gender is propaganda writ large. Propaganda is the great threat to our national security.

Those teaching, promoting or ignoring this gender disinformation political pogrom do so at the risk of harming children. It is child abuse!

It is also a direct assault on the traditional family, all religions that declare sodomy to be a sin (Muslim, Jew and Christian) and those who are labeled by people like Jankowicz as racists.

Under this administration gender disinformation has come to the White House and her name is Karine Jean-Pierre.

Karine Jean-Pierre is a perfect fit to push gender dis, mis and mal-information (propaganda).

Jean-Pierre is Jew hating lesbian married to a female CNN correspondent. This latest appointment appeases the Islamic militants, the LGBTQ+ community and Marxists all with just one key appointment.

Brilliant! It’s by design.

The Democrats and Biden don’t care if everyone knows how radical they are because they hold the strings of power.  This appointment shows that the Biden administration’s gender disinformation is in fact a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Pro-abortion group encourages supporters to storm churches nationwide on Mother’s Day

The Left’s war against civility and the peacefulness of the nation in general looks as if it’s about to escalate.

Abortion Groups Imply They’re Planning To Storm Catholic Churches On Sunday Over Roe V. Wade

by Christine Sellers, Daily Caller, May 6, 2022:

The pro-choice group, Ruth Sent Us implied that they’re planning to storm Catholic and Evangelical churches on Sunday in protest of the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade, according to a social media post Tuesday.

The group, whose name honors the late Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, shared a video to their Twitter feed showing women wearing red cloaks protesting about abortion rights inside a Catholic church. The group also called for a “Mother’s Day Strike” on Sunday alongside fellow pro-choice group, Strike For Choice.

“This is what Mother’s Day should look like,” the group wrote in their tweet, encouraging supporters to protest at Catholic and Evangelical churches “nationwide.”…

The group, Ruth Sent Us previously posted a video of pro-choice activists storming a Catholic church in the Archdiocese of San Francisco via their Instagram.

AUTHOR

RELATED VIDEO: Democrat Rep. Jason Crow Wants the Defense Department to Perform Abortions on Military Bases

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Warn Of Right-Wing Violence After Supreme Court Leak

With Roe v. Wade on the Ropes, the Left Has Women Exactly Where It Wants Them

Conflict of interest: Biden’s new press secretary in relationship with CNN reporter

Harvard president refuses to condemn string of anti-Semitic incidents on campus

Pakistan: Muslim murders his sister for choosing dancing and modeling as a career

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

No Increase in Flight Cancellations After CDC Mask Mandate Lifted, Data Show

Data suggest that fears of widespread cancellation of flights in the wake of the CDC mask mandate being lifted are baseless, thankfully.


It’s been two week since a federal court threw out the CDC’s transport mask mandate, to the glee of some and the outrage of others.

While many people—including flight attendants and passengers on planes—celebrated the court’s decision, others predicted the move would have dire consequences.

CBS News, for example, reported that European airlines were forced to “cancel hundreds of flights as they grapple with coronavirus-related staffing shortages weeks after they ditched rules requiring passengers and staff to mask up in the air.”

The news agency noted that UK airlines alone canceled 769 flights in total between March 31 and April 7 because of a shortage of flight crews due to illness. CBS quoted Eric Feigl-Ding, an epidemiologist and health economist, who said such outbreaks were needless and predictable.

“It’s very clear that the airline industry is particularly vulnerable, and this creates a cascading effect on society more than, say, a restaurant closing would,” Feigl-Ding said. “This is critical infrastructure and these are essential employees, and we’re endangering our economy. Stopping COVID is good for our economy, ‘letting it rip’ is the exact opposite.”

Few would disagree with Feigl-Ding that airlines are important infrastructure, but his claim that mask mandates are crucial to their success bears scrutiny.

First, it’s worth noting that the 769 UK flights canceled between March 31 and April accounted for just 4 percent of those flights, which means that 96 percent went off without a hitch. Even more importantly, a single airline—EasyJet—accounted for roughly 40 percent of the canceled flights.

This suggests the UK’s numbers were skewed to a large extent by a single outbreak that disrupted many flights. Whether a mask mandate would have prevented this outbreak from occurring is impossible to know. But what we do know is that similar cancellations—much larger ones, in fact—occurred when mask mandates were still in place, so the idea that such mandates can prevent cancellations is simply not true.

We also have fresh data on cancellations of US flights since the CDC’s mask mandate was lifted. One astute Twitter user analyzed the data, which can be found here, and pointed out that in the two weeks since the CDC’s mask order was struck on April 18, there was no widespread cancellation of flights.

On the contrary, the four largest airlines in the US—American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and Southwest Airlines—all had a cancellation rate of 0 percent, as did JetBlue and Allegian. Frontier Airlines, meanwhile, had a cancellation rate of 1 percent, and Alaska Airlines had a cancellation rate of 7 percent. (Since the publication of the tweet, Alaska’s cancellation rate has fallen to 4 percent, and Delta’s has increased to 1 percent.)

The total number of canceled flights within, into, or out of the US in the past two weeks currently stands at 72—about 0.15 percent of the roughly 45,000 flights the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) oversees each day, on average.

To be sure, we’re still in a pandemic, at least in the sense that many people are still getting COVID-19, still getting sick, and still dying. This means that we can expect there will be times when flights are interrupted by spikes of illness.

That said, so far the data suggest that fears of widespread cancellation of flights in the wake of the mask mandate being lifted are baseless, thankfully.

In many ways, this should not surprise us.

Even mask champions like The New York Times have come around to the idea that cloth masks are not very effective against Covid, which is why many scientists have long doubted their efficacy. (And even if cloth masks are effective, are we really supposed to just overlook the fact that there’s a period of time on flights when patrons just remove them to eat and drink, which hardly seems like an effective virus containment strategy?)

None of this is to say masking isn’t or can’t be effective. Perhaps it is. But I think we have an abundance of evidence that shows mask mandates are not effective, and the absence of a surge in flight cancellations following the striking down of the mask mandate is one more piece of that evidentiary record.

All of this brings to mind a crucial lesson of economics. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once observed that one of the biggest problems of the modern world is how we assess public policy.

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results,” Friedman noted.

There’s no better example of Friedman’s adage, I think, than masks, which became a symbol of supporting “the common good,” which is why so many people publicly vowed to continue wearing them even after the CDC policy requiring them on transportation was struck down.

If people wish to continue wearing masks to show they’re not “selfish” or because they believe it will protect them, they are of course perfectly free to do so. That’s the beauty of choice.

But how much pain could have been avoided during this pandemic if only we’d embraced the freedom of choice from the beginning, instead of succumbing to fear?

This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Durham Builds Case On Clinton Disinformation Factory As Biden Launches ‘Disinformation Governance Board’

Just as the Biden administration was gearing up to announce the head of its new “Disinformation Governance Board,” Special Counsel John Durham was busily working toward one of many clear conclusions: the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign was central to the spread of harmful disinformation throughout the media.

To truly gauge the level of harm the Clinton disinformation factory caused would be a difficult task, but it did contribute in some ways to locking the FBI up in a costly and lengthy investigation that ultimately found no Trump/Russia conspiracy. It also resulted in a series of corrections and reckonings at media outlets already struggling with national trust.

As it happens, the new head of Biden’s disinfo board – dedicated to tackling misinformation and disinformation as the 2022 midterm elections loom – Nina Jankowicz herself promoted a piece of disinformation Durham recently concluded to be an outright fabrication by Clinton-hired researchers. Jankowicz, a self-styled “globally recognized” expert on disinformation, also propped up former British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier that one former CIA Moscow station chief described as likely “a part of a Russian espionage disinformation plot.”

“Listened to this last night — Chris Steele (yes THAT Chris Steele) provides some great historical context about the evolution of disinfo. Worth a listen,” Jankowicz wrote in one 2020 tweet.

Russian-born Igor Danchenko – allegedly Steele’s top source for the dossier, according to the Washington Examiner – was charged in 2021 as part of Durham’s inquiry for “making false statements to the FBI.”

On other occasions, Jankowicz pushed misleading claims surrounding the dossier. In one instance, she claimed that the Republican Party “funded the dossier first.” Her tweet was in response to Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s question of whether there was “collusion between DOJ and Fusion GPS to use Democratic funding dossier for political and legal purposes.”

“You’re probably aware that [the Steele dossier] began as a Republican opposition research project,” Jankowicz wrote in a separate tweet in 2020, according to The Washington Examiner.

The conservative Washington Free Beacon, which initially hired Fusion GPS, said in 2017 it “had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier.”

“The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele,” the Beacon’s editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti and chairman Michael Goldfarb wrote in a statement at the time, according to NPR.

In fact, the Steele dossier came about after he was hired by an opposition firm in 2016. That firm, Fusion GPS, was hired in part by the general counsel for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, the Examiner noted.

With Jankowicz prepping to lead the administration’s “disinformation” board, Durham’s court filings have served as insight into another apparent disinformation push.

Durham noted in one April 2022 court filing that the CIA determined data from former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann surrounding Russia-Trump organization links was “user created” and not “technically plausible.”

Sussmann was charged by Durham last year with lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting.

Durham more recently alleged that Fusion GPS sent hundreds of unverified claims regarding Trump to journalists, The Washington Times reported. The hundreds of emails, according to Durham, resulted in various news articles tying together Trump and Russia.

Individuals tied to Clinton’s presidential campaign have argued that research from Fusion GPS should be protected, citing attorney-client privilege. They’ve also claimed the opposition firm’s work was to supply legal services, The Washington Times reported.

Durham responded in court filings by noting that, if true, Fusion GPS would have taken more care with its unverified allegations prior to spreading them around to journalists.

“If rendering such advice was truly the intended purpose of Fusion GPS’s retention, one would also expect the investigative firm to seek permission and/or guidance from [the Clinton campaign] or its counsel before sharing such derogatory materials with the media or otherwise placing them into the public domain,” Durham wrote, according to The Washington Times.

On Wednesday, Durham saw his latest small win when the judge presiding over Sussmann’s case agreed to do a review of records being withheld by Clintons’ presidential campaign, the Washington Examiner reported.

AUTHOR

SHELBY TALCOTT

Senior White House correspondent. Follow Shelby on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Disinformation And Wizard Rock: Meet Biden’s New ‘Minister Of Truth’ At DHS

The List Gets Longer: All The Ways Hillary & The Government Spied On Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ABSURD: AG Merritt Garland’s New Office of ‘Environmental Justice’ yet another Marxist attack on science and free speech

My God, just when I thought it can’t get any worse, the Department of In-Justice and its Chief Arbiter, Marxist Merritt Garland announces a new Federal Agency the “Office of Environmental Justice.”  This is yet another Marxist frontal assault on science and freedom of speech. Watch:

The Office of Environmental Justice,

“[W]ill seek to redress health risks from climate change faced by minorities and low-income people in the United States.”

Another draconian measure designed to force and enforce their Climate Change Agenda. I’ll bet it will also create more Federal Agents with unchecked arrest power as well.   If you think we have bad inflation roaring at 8.5% just wait until this ridiculous agency kicks in and causes costs of everything to soar.

Biden DOJ Announces New ‘Office of Environmental Justice’

“Although violations of our environmental laws can happen anywhere, communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities often bear the brunt of the harm caused by environmental crime, pollution, and climate change”

Merrick Garland announced on Thursday that the Department of Justice is launching the Office of Environmental Justice. It speaks volumes about the priorities of this administration.

There are so many major problems in the country right now, and this is their concern.

It’s likely that this is just to remind the left how committed Biden is to fighting climate change. And of course to politicize the language around the topic and criminalize dissent.

Breanne Deppisch reports at the Washington Examiner:

DOJ launches new Office of Environmental Justice

The Justice Department is launching a new Office of Environmental Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Thursday, which will seek to redress health risks from climate change faced by minorities and low-income people in the United States.

You can guess where this is going.

Read full article.

RELATED ARTICLE: Free speech concerns mount over DHS ‘disinformation’ board as lawmakers, critics weigh in

RELATED TWEET:

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

GOP Sen. Braun to Becerra: Govt Shouldn’t Push Gender Surgery for Kids

At a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies hearing, Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) confronted Health and Human Services (HHS) Sec. Xavier Becerra over how the Biden administration is promoting life-altering surgeries for children — including breast and genital surgeries.

“Could you explain what irreversible top and bottom sex-change surgeries are and why that is on the portal as well?” Braun asked.

“Senator there as you’ve just indicated, there are many different types of procedures that can be deployed,” Becerra said. “What I will say to you is again, in any case, no individual, no patient, will proceed forward unless his or her doctor has advised of the procedure. And it is considered by the FDA and others who have to go ahead and certify a medicine or procedure to be safe and effective.”

“So, I’ll try to distill it into a more simple form. In what case would it be appropriate to perform irreversible sex-change surgery on kids?” Braun said.

“Those decisions are made by that individual in consultation with physician and caregivers, and no decision would be made without having consulted appropriately,” Becerra said.

“You know, I think the government shouldn’t be pushing or have an out there on a portal that moves you towards irreversible sex change therapy, and I think we just need to think about it carefully,” Braun, who called the surgeries “almost grotesque.” “Because we’re navigating into territory that we’ve never done before as a government.”


Xavier Becerra

40 Known Connections

Becerra Identifies “Health Equity” As Top HHS Priority 

During a March 18, 2022 address marking his first year in office as HHS Secretary, Becerra said: “Health equity has to be part of everything we do. You will see health equity pervades everything we do.”

On March 19, Breccan Thies of Breitbart.com provided the following context for Becerra’s remarks: “For the left, ‘equity’ means rationing and redistributing resources based on perceived oppression, privilege, and social status — typically based on race or gender identity. Becerra’s commitment to the ideology marks an important milestone for a movement that has been proliferating among medical schools and professionals.” (Click here for details about this movement and the ideology that drives it.)

To learn more about Xavier Becerra, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FLORIDA: Textbook Publishers Surrender To DeSantis, Scrub Woke Propaganda

Great American hero saving our children’s minds.

Florida Textbook Publishers Surrender To DeSantis, Scrub Woke Content

By: Kendall Tietz , Daily Caller, 

Textbook publishers are surrendering to Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ demands that math instructional materials get in line with state standards, allowing more books to be added to the approved list, according to the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE).

“Publishers are aligning their instructional materials to state standards and removing woke content allowing the department of education to add 19 more books to the state adoption list over the past 17 days,” the FLDOE announced on its website.

The FLDOE announced on April 15 that it had rejected 41% of math textbooks proposed by publishers for public instruction because they contained “indoctrinating concepts” such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), Social Emotional Learning (SEL) and Common Core, which are prohibited by the state according to the Benchmarks for Excellent Student Thinking (B.E.S.T.) Standards.

The FLDOE explained that publishers could substitute or revise their submitted bids to meet Florida’s specifications or appeal the decision.

Additional books have been added to the adoption list “because they removed woke content and made other changes to meet state standards,” FLDOE Press Secretary Cassie Palelis told the Daily Caller News Foundation on Tuesday.

“We have high standards and reject books with unacceptable content because we know that publishers can easily adjust their materials to meet our guidelines, as displayed by the fact that it took less than two weeks for additional publishers to amend entire books, resubmit them and get put on the adoption list,” Palelis told the DCNF.

After initially declining to provide examples of rejected textbooks over copyright concerns, the FLDOE published a few examples of the materials in question on April 21.

Examples included a graph that measured racial prejudice according to political identification that showed conservatives are reportedly more racist than liberals and multiple “social-emotional learning,” activities, which critics have argued is a loophole to repackage CRT and disseminate the material throughout public schools……..

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.