Representative Elect Flores Obliterates Kamala Harris With Just Three Words

Republican Texas Rep.-elect Mayra Flores needed only three words when responding to Vice President Kamala Harris’s claim about “progress” being made at the southern border Thursday.

“She’s honestly useless,” Flores said. “I don’t know why she’s in that position. She hasn’t been here in south Texas to see what their policies are creating, the mess that they’re creating in our country, and that their policies are hurting real people.”


Flores defeated Democratic candidate Dan Sanchez in a special election Tuesday to fill a vacancy until January 2023, flipping a seat in a district that is 85% Hispanic. She avoided a runoff by picking up 51% of the vote and will face Democratic Rep. Vincente Gonzalez in a redrawn district in November.

The seat was formerly held by Democratic Rep. Filemon Vela, who resigned to become a lobbyist. Vela won his last election by 13 points in 2020, but Republicans have picked up support in the Rio Grande Valley and in Nevada, two formerly blue strongholds.

President Joe Biden appointed Harris as “border czar” in March 2021. Authorities encountered 239,416 migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border in May after encountering over 234,000 migrants in April, United States Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) reported Wednesday.

The last event Harris held regarding immigration and border issues was a January meeting with Honduran president Xiomara Castro. During that meeting, Harris and Castro discussed “root causes” behind migration, according to a White House briefing.

Flores and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.





Elon Musk Reveals The First Republican He Ever Voted For

15 People On Terrorist Watchlist Apprehended At Southern Border

POLL: Democrats’ Disapproval Of Biden Hits New Highs

‘I’ve Never Met A LatinX: CNN’s Van Jones Tears Into Left-Wing Rhetoric

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Study Shows Google’s Gmail Algorithm Marks GOP Mail As Spam

The deck is stacked. Things don’t just happen. Things are made to happen. One kept help but think of Leonard Cohen’s lyrics:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
Everybody talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long-stem rose
Everybody knows

Dirty Tricks: Gmail Sends Up To 66% Of Conservative Email Straight To Spam Folders

A new study found that Google’s Gmail favors liberal candidates, allowing the vast majority of emails from left-wing politicians to land in the user’s inbox while more than two-thirds of messages from conservative candidates are marked as spam.

By: David Icke, April 2022:

North Carolina State University’s Department of Computer Science published, “A Peek into the Political Biases in Email Spam Filtering Algorithms During US Election 2020,” last week in order to determine if spam filtering algorithms (SFAs) are biased toward a particular political party or ideology. The extensive study took place over a course of five months, from July 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020 on Gmail, Outlook, and Yahoo. They created 102 email accounts and subscribed to two Presidential, 78 Senate, and 156 House candidates.

To accurately estimate the political biases and mitigate any potential effects of demographics (ethnicity, age, and gender), we created multiple email accounts with different combinations of demographic factors and designed two experiments. The first experiment studies the general trends of biases in SFAs across the email services for the Presidential, Senate and House candidates. The second experiment studies the impact of different email interactions such as reading the emails, marking them as spam, or vice versa on the biases in SFAs. We designed an automated process to perform all the subscriptions, and took periodic backups to keep all the email accounts active as well as to keep track of the correct number of spam emails received over the course of data collection for each of the three services,” they wrote.

“We made several important observations in our study. For example, as an aggregate trend, Gmail leaned towards the left while Outlook and Yahoo leaned towards the right. Yahoo retained about half of all the political emails in inbox (up to 55.2% marked as spam) while outlook filtered out the vast majority of emails (over 71.8%) from all political candidates and marked them as spam,” the proposed methodology section continued. “Gmail, however, retained the majority of left-wing candidate emails in inbox (< 10.12% marked as spam) while sent the majority of right-wing candidate emails to the spam folder (up to 77.2% marked as spam).”



Corrupt DOJ blocks GOP effort to get answers on Hunter Biden investigation

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

Biden and Powell Are in Denial—A Recession Is Indeed ‘Inevitable’

And they are the ones who made it so.

On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced that it will “raise” interest rates faster than previously planned in order to “fight” worsening inflation.

In a press conference, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell tried to assure investors and the public that the Fed is, “not trying to induce a recession now. Let’s be clear about that.” As the Wall Street Journal reported, Powell “still believes [the Federal Reserve] can cool the economy and bring down inflation while engineering a so-called soft landing in which the economy and labor market continue to grow.”

On Thursday, President Biden was similarly hopeful, telling the Associated Press that a recession is “not inevitable.”

That same day, investors splashed cold water on Biden and Powell’s hopes. After the Fed’s announcement, markets briefly rallied before tumbling yet again.

Yet it’s not just traders who beg to differ with the rosy optimism emanating from the White House and the Fed, but economic reality itself. Biden and Powell are in denial. A soft landing is impossible, a recession is inevitable, and it is their own policies that made it so.

Media reports tend to leave out why the Fed thinks raising interest rates will fight inflation in the first place. First of all, it is grossly misleading to say that the Fed “raises” interest rates or “fights” inflation.

Imagine a bully pins down one of his victims. If the bully eases up, allowing the victim to stand up on his own, you wouldn’t say that the bully “raised” up his victim. Yet that is basically what the Fed is doing with regard to interest rates. The Fed has been holding down interest rates, and now it’s relenting a bit to allow them to rise somewhat.

And imagine an arsonist pumps gasoline on a fire. If the arsonist eases up on the pump, allowing the fire to die down a bit, you wouldn’t say that the arsonist is “fighting” the fire. Yet that is basically what the Fed is doing with inflation. The Fed has been driving up inflation, and now it’s relenting a bit to allow prices to moderate somewhat.

The way the Fed holds down interest rates is by “quantitative easing,” a euphemism for flooding the banking system with newly created dollars. The Fed has been holding interest rates down to near zero by injecting trillions of new dollars into the banks.

More money chasing the same amount of goods will tend to bid up prices. Federal Reserve bureaucrats are at least economically literate enough to be aware of that, so they know their money pumping is fueling the flames of inflation. And the inflation conflagration is getting dangerous enough to back them into a corner. They feel they have no other choice but to ease up on the pump, even if it means allowing interest rates to rise.

Fed policymakers are highly reluctant to do so, because the main reason they have been holding interest rates down has been to “stimulate” the economy, especially in the face of COVID and the lockdowns. Many investors and economists fear that an economy with less monetary stimulus will crash and fall into a recession.

But what almost nobody understands is what crashes and recessions even are and why they happen. And they have no excuse, because that was clarified way back in 1912 by the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises.

As Mises explained, crashes and recessions are made inevitable by monetary stimulus. Money pumping can only stimulate the economy by overextending it.

The extra money sloshing around the banking system lowers the interest rate by boosting investor demand for resources to use in new and expanded production projects. This means more investment opportunities, higher profits, more jobs, and higher wages: i.e., a “stimulated” economy.

New and expanded production projects would be fine and great if they were matched by new and expanded resources to support them—made available by higher savings. That’s what a natural drop in the interest rate would signify. But the infusion of new money only expands production; it does nothing to reduce present consumption and thus to increase saving. So it results in an over-commitment of available resources.

It’s the simple logic of scarcity: we have (1) the same finite stock of resources, (2) more production demands for resources, and (3) the same (if not more) consumption demands for resources.

Eventually, something’s gotta give.

The Fed’s money pumping only “stimulates” the economy by deluding investors into behaving as if there are more available resources in the economy than there actually are. At some point, that delusion must run headlong into economic reality.

Generally, that happens when the Fed finally eases up on pumping money into the banking system. With less new money pumping it up, the effective demand of investors for resources collapses back down to a level compatible with consumer demand and the actual rate of saving. Deluded less by monetary stimulus, market actors start reckoning with economic reality. The interest rate spikes, stock prices collapse, and throughout the economy, production projects that looked like profitable winners are revealed to be unaffordable losers (“malinvestments”).

That is what a crash is.

Entrepreneurs then scale back or liquidate the loser projects, reallocating resources (including human resources) to uses that are more compatible with the now clearer economic reality. That reallocation can only happen through a mass change of partners throughout the economy. This means many painful “break-ups” of impractical economic relationships: lay-offs, contract cancellations, bankruptcies, etc.

That is what a recession is.

Those break-ups are prerequisite to the formation of new, more practical economic relationships: new jobs being filled, new contracts being signed, and new businesses being started.

That is what a recovery is. The result is a healthier economy. And the only path from an unhealthy economy to a healthier one is through a recession.

That is why Biden and Powell are wrong. A recession is inevitable. It’s also necessary. It was made inevitable and necessary by their own policies: by Biden (as well as President Trump before him) crippling the economy with lockdowns and other destructive policies, and by Powell “stimulating” the crippled economy into a distorted, overextended, and unsustainable condition.

The only way to heal that condition is to let the economy heal itself through a recession. And the sooner that Biden and Powell let that happen, the better.


Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in chief of


RELATED ARTICLE: Napkin Math to Explain Inflation

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

U.S. Government PAID To Create List Of Americans Who Questioned Democrat Dogma

On side note, I am sad that I did not make the list but I suspect it’s because Twitter permanently suspended my account with 225,000 followers for … wait for it. Tweeting about election fraud.

The National Science Foundation funded this along with far left billionaires. That means the US Government PAID to have a list made smearing Americans for questioning the validity of ballot harvesting and mass mail-in voting. Think about that. This is what communists do.

Researchers combed through 45 million tweets that sowed doubt on the 2020 election. Here are the “top spreaders”:


RELATED ARTICLE: EMBARRASSING: DNC Reschedules Kamala Harris Dinner Over Lack of Ticket Sales

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

Voting Machines Continue to Destroy Confidence in Our Elections

Recent stories about electronic voting machines don’t exactly inspire confidence.

We start in Georgia where a headcount in a county Democratic primary showed the machines were off by thousands of votes.  The third-place candidate noticed the machines showed zero votes for her in most precincts.  The hand recount showed this candidate, supposedly in third place, had actually received the most votes.  The Secretary of State’s office admitted making programming mistakes that affected the machine results.  How do you mess up so badly your machines can’t even count and are off by thousands of votes?  And why should we have to rely on candidates – maybe if they’re lucky – finding mistakes in order to get accurate results in our elections?  You might recall voting machines showed Biden with a 3,000 vote lead in Antrim County, Michigan in the 2020 election, but a hand recount showed Trump had actually carried the county by 3,700 votes, a machine-induced discrepancy of nearly 7,000 votes.   There are also reports that machines in Georgia this year awarded votes to a candidate who was not even on the ballot in one race and showed zero votes for a candidate who actually got nearly half the votes in another race.  Like I said, electronic voting machines do not exactly inspire confidence.

A county commission in New Mexico had so little confidence in their machines they just voted to get rid of them before the next election.  An audit in New Mexico had found that Dominion Voting machines could fill in ballots all by themselves.  The same thing was found in New York.  A Dominion executive was caught on video in 2020 explaining to elections officials how to alter votes with Dominion machines and, further, that the machines cannot tell fake ballots from real ballots.  Don’t forget:  the first court-ordered forensic examination of a Dominion Voting machine in Antrim County, Michigan showed the machine deliberately created a 68 percent error rate right off the bat election officials could then fill in any way they want.  Feeling confident yet?

You shouldn’t.  A federal cybersecurity agency found nine vulnerabilities with Dominion voting machines allowing hackers to enter and install malicious code.  While the agency said it had no evidence this has actually occurred in any election, it did find that, once the code was inserted in one machine, it could spread to all the machines in a jurisdiction.

There are federal standards electronic voting machines are supposed to meet but, according to one analysis, not a single voting system testing lab was accredited for the 2020 election and only two are accredited today.  The logical conclusion is most places have no idea whether their machines meet federal standards or not.

Then these manufacturers have the nerve to claim their machines are proprietary and can’t be opened up for inspection.  Elections are the public’s business, but it takes a court order to get inside these machines.  The black box lack of transparency alone is reason enough not to trust these machines, especially when it’s not disputed the same technology has been used to steal elections in Venezuela.

In French presidential elections, voters cast paper ballots that are counted by hand.  There’s no possibility machines will all magically stop counting in key places in the middle of the night with the results the next morning the opposite of what they had been the night before.  It’s hard to argue with counting paper ballots by hand instead of machine.  It’s looking like that’s what it will take to restore confidence in our elections in this country.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Turning Illegals Into Voters.

Elon Musk Celebrates Historic Republican Win In Deep Blue South Texas, Tweets: ‘Massive Red Wave In 2022′

The Mayra Flores flip in TX-34 is a massive win for the Republican Party. The win is indicative of the huge losses that the Democrats will experience in the 2022 mid-term elections and the 2024 presidential election. #RedWave!

First time ever Elon Musk voted Republican. Loving this.

Elon Musk Celebrates Historic Republican Win In Deep Blue South Texas: ‘Massive Red Wave In 2022’

By Daily Wire, June 15, 2022

Billionaire Elon Musk celebrated a historic win by the Republican Party Tuesday night in a special election in South Texas, saying it was the first time he had ever voted for the party. He also said it was the start of the onslaught that Democrats are going to face in the upcoming midterms.

Musk celebrated the victory of Republican Mayra Flores, who flipped a U.S. House seat in Texas’ 34th Congressional District by beating Democrat Dan Sanchez. The seat was previously held by Rep. Filemon Vela (D), who stepped down earlier this year to become a lobbyist, as all signs pointed to a brutal upcoming midterm election season for Democrats.



RELATED ARTICLE: VIRGINIA: Judge Removes Soros-Backed Democrat Prosecutor From Criminal Case, Citing Incompetence, “Deliberately Misleading The Court And The Public”

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

UNBELIEVABLE VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi Grooming Kids on ‘RuePaul’s Drag Race’ says ‘Drag Is What America Is All About’

Of course, on Monday, June 13th, 2022 Catholic Nancy Pelosi, just after her husband’s arrest for DUI, decided to make an appearance on RuePaul’s “Drag Race.” Watch:

RealClear Politics’ Ian Schwartz reported,

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi made an appearance the television show ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race,’ a weekly program on VH1 that features drag queens.

“It’s my honor to be here,” Pelosi said after being introduced by host RuPaul Andre Charles. “Your freedom of expression of yourselves in drag is what America is all about.”

“With the midterm elections coming up, it is very important for people to make their voices and their vote heard,” Pelosi told the drag queens.

One drag queen praised Pelosi for her “sarcastic shady clap” using expletives.

This appearance comes as The Daily Skirmish‘s Christopher Wright reported on suicides among transgender kids increasing,

The Biden administration and other outposts of the Left tell us, unless we allow children to take puberty blockers and gender transition, a lot of kids will commit suicide.  Transgender ideologues frame the choice as between accepting transitioning kids or burying dead kids.  And parents will automatically be hostile to their transgender kids, so we have to hide all this from the parents. But it’s all pure bunk.  The Left’s transgender suicide narrative won’t fly, as a new study from the Heritage Foundation shows.

Not only is the narrative phony, it’s the exact opposite of the truth.  The study found:

… strong evidence for the claim that suicides among young people have increased significantly since 2010 in states that have a policy allowing minors to access routine health care without parental consent….

In the past several years, the suicide rate among those ages 12 to 23 has become significantly higher in states that have a provision that allows minors to receive routine health care without parental consent than in states without such a provision. Before 2010, these two groups of states did not differ in their youth suicide rates. Starting in 2010, when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones became widely available, elevated suicide rates in states where minors can more easily access those medical interventions became observable.

Rather than being protective against suicide, this pattern indicates that easier access by minors to cross-sex medical interventions without parental consent is associated with higher risk of suicide.

Not only that, but a science journalist dug into the seven studies transgender ideologues frequently cite as justification for rushing children into chemical transitioning and found all the studies to be flawed.  The flaws include:

  • failure to track test subjects over time
  • a false claim kids on puberty blockers ultimately feel better
  • false comparisons resulting from test subjects not on medicine dropping out of the study
  • attributing causation to the drugs when no causation was actually shown, and
  • hiding the raw data from other researchers.

As a group, the studies do not support the proposition that giving kids puberty blockers or hormones significantly improves their mental health.  And they certainly do not support the transgender activists who hold a gun to parents’ heads and tell them their kids will commit suicide if the kids aren’t given the drugs.  Moreover, the studies do not justify hiding information about kids from their parents or stripping parents of parental rights.  Just as with every other argument made by the Left, the more you dig into it, the uglier it gets.  This is why the Left is doing its best to shut down debate on so many issues and hopes you never acquire the critical thinking skills you need to see through their games.

The Biden administration is all in for the phony transgender narrative.  Joe Biden himself said, “We’re committed to advancing transgender equality in the classroom, on the playing field, at work, in our military, everywhere.”  The Biden administration is part of the transgender-industrial complex that wants to steal your kids to line its own pockets and seize more power for statist elites.  They fake study results and hide their data to lull you to sleep.  They mean you harm.  Respond accordingly.

The Bottom Line

Pelosi is in bed, no pun intended, with the LGBTQxyz community. She and Democrats are expecting them to come out of the closet, no pun intended, on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 and vote “D” for drag, a.k.a. dragocrat, no pun intended.

Get it? Got it? Good!

Time for Republicans to drag themselves, no pun intended, to the poles on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 and defeat Nancy and her fellow dragocrats and drag queens, no pun intended.

We don’t want Nancy and Joe to drag America down, no pun intended, now do we?

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Republican Mayra Flores Wins South Texas District Democrats Carried By 13 Points In 2020

Republican Mayra Flores, a first-time candidate for elected office, won the special election in Texas’ 34th District to complete the term of former Democratic Rep. Filemon Vela, who resigned in March.

With more than 70% of votes counted, Flores held 51% support, and Democrat Dan Sanchez garnered 43.5%. Despite the presence of two other candidates on the ballot, one Democrat and one Republican, Flores was able to avoid a run-off. Several elections analysts called the race shortly after 10 pm Eastern Time.

The special election was spurred on by Vela’s resignation on March 31. The five-term moderate had announced in March 2021 that he would not seek re-election in 2022, and left the lower chamber on March 31 to take a job at the Washington, DC-based corporate law firm Akin Gump.

Vela won re-election by 13.6% in 2020, and Joe Biden won the district by four points.

Flores, who received endorsements from House GOP Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, won the primary on March 1 to run in November’s general election against Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez. Gonzalez will attempt to switch districts from the 15th, which was redistricted into a toss-up seat. That new 34th District will lean 17 points towards the Democrats, according to FiveThirtyEight.

Elected Democrats and party strategists have repeatedly expressed concern that Hispanic and Latino voters are swinging towards the Republican Party. Biden’s approval rating with Hispanic and Latino voters sits in the mid-20s, several recent polls have shown, the worst of any ethnic group. The 34th District is 85% Hispanic, the U.S. Census found in 2020, one of the most Hispanic congressional seats in the country.

The Republican National Committee and GOP members of Congress have expanded outreach in Hispanic and Latino communities. House Republicans announced the Hispanic Leadership Trust in May, and co-chairman and Texas Rep. Tony Gonzalez campaigned for Flores. The RNC opened several Hispanic outreach centers in South Texas in 2021.



Congressional reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Special Election Could Give GOP A Chance To Prove Gains With Hispanics


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

Biden’s White House hosted several ‘defund the police’ subversives over the past year, visitor logs show

And crime skyrocketed. Murder skyrocketed. Democrats hate you.

Biden’s White House hosted several ‘defund the police’ activists over the past year, visitor logs show

Biden aides have repeatedly met with anti-police activists

By Cameron Cawthorne , Joe Schoffstall | Fox News June 13, 2022:

Despite maintaining public distance from the “defund the police” movement, President Biden’s administration has quietly maintained relationships with some of the driving forces behind the far-left movement, White House visitor logs reviewed by Fox News Digital show.

Several defund the police activists have visited the Biden White House and met with top aides over the last year, White House visitor logs show.

While Biden has largely espoused pro-police rhetoric during his time in office, he has tapped left-wingers in sync with the defund movement to key positions in his administration.

In late May, he signed a sweeping police reform executive order that drew mixed reactions from police groups.

And throughout it all, anti-police activists appear to have had a direct line to the White House.

Rashad Robinson, president of left-wing racial justice group Color of Change, visited the White House last summer for what appeared to be a meeting with Cedric Richmond, a top Biden adviser who recently departed as the director of public engagement.
Both Democratic lawmakers and members of the media have pushed the movement to defund police.

Both Democratic lawmakers and members of the media have pushed the movement to defund police.

Color of Change has been among the most active groups advocating to defund the police. In 2021, they were at the forefront of the unsuccessful push to “dismantle” and replace the Minneapolis Police Department, an effort that was fueled by $500,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Policy Center.


“We know that policing doesn’t keep us safe, communities do,” reads a Color of Change petition calling on supporters to demand their local officials start the defunding process. “Policing doesn’t lead to thriving communities, investment does.”

“We must begin to envision the society that functions for ALL of us and we must begin by divesting from and dismantling the systems that unjustly harm Black people,” the petition says.

Robinson has also celebrated the birthday of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur by calling for progressive groups to get “bolder” and “louder” in their demands for police abolition and their “plans for revolution.”

Shakur, a hero among anti-police activist groups, is a former Black Liberation Army leader who was the mastermind behind several armed robberies in Connecticut and New York. In 1981, the Brinks robbery resulted in the slayings of an armed guard and two police officers.

Shakur was convicted for the 1973 murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster but later escaped prison and was granted asylum in Cuba by the late Fidel Castro. Shakur, whose married name is Joanne Chesimard, is on the FBI’s most wanted terrorist list and carries a $1 million reward for information that could lead to her apprehension.

Robinson is also on the board of the Marguerite Casey Foundation, a Seattle-based left-wing grantmaking group, which he joined alongside Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. After they both became governors of the foundation, the board unanimously voted to expand its anti-police efforts.

The Marguerite Casey Foundation, meanwhile, also has a member who has visited the White House, according to its visitor logs.

Carmen Rojas, the President and CEO of the Marguerite Casey Foundation and a vocal supporter of defunding the police, visited the White House in December 2021 and appeared to meet with Nia Page, a Special Assistant to Richmond before his departure last month to join the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

“We must be unwavering in our commitment to freedom,” Rojas tweeted in April 2021. “The best way to realize it is to defund the police and support abolition. Period.”



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

Bill Maher Rips Hollywood For Promoting The ‘Romanticization Of Gun Violence’

Bill Maher thinks Hollywood is partially responsible for gun violence in America.

Following multiple horrific mass shootings in America, people have been debating and trying to figure out ways to solve the issue. Maher thinks Hollywood should take a hard look in the mirror.

“It’s funny. Hollywood is the wokest place on Earth, and every other area of social responsibility. They have intimacy coordinators on set to chaperone sex scenes. They hire sensitivity readers to go through and read scripts. Disney stood up to the “Don’t Say Gay” law. Another studio spent $10 million to digitally remove Kevin Spacey from a movie. But when it comes to the unbridled romanticization of gun violence, crickets,” Maher said during the Friday night episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

You can listen to his full comments below.

Honestly, I understand what Maher is saying, but I hate blaming movies and video games for gun violence. Personally, it seems like a cop out and an easy excuse to blame.

Think about how many people watch violent movies and play violent video games every year. It’s probably a number that is borderline impossible to calculate.

Yet, we don’t see massacres every single day. If violent movies were truly the motivating factor, we’d probably see a lot more violence than we do. That’s just my humble opinion, but that is how I see it.

Now, is Hollywood full of massive hypocrites on guns? Without a doubt. They want to disarm you while promoting guns in movies in order to get rich.

It’s beyond sickening, but that’s a bit of a different point than what Maher was making.

Let us know in the comments if you think Hollywood’s “romanticization of gun violence” is a problem or not.



Sports and entertainment editor. Follow David Hookstead on Twitter and Instagram


Churches and Pro-Life Orgs Have Been Attacked 41 Times in the Last 40 Days

44% of Young Male and 32% of Young Female Democrats Say ‘It’s Acceptable To Assassinate a Politician’

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

HOSTETTLER: Joe Biden Is Misusing The Defense Production Act To Cover Up His Own Policy Failures

Editor’s note: We endeavor to bring you the top voices on current events representing a range of perspectives. Below is a column arguing that President Joe Biden has misused the Defense Production Act. You can find a counterpoint here, where Charles Kolb argues that Biden’s usage of the act is in line with what other presidents have done.

Here’s a crash course on the Defense Production Act (DPA) for the current commander-in-chief — who, evidently, has never familiarized himself with the national defense infrastructure of the United States. F-22s don’t achieve supercruise speeds with batteries. Marines aren’t issued baby formula in their MREs. And Nimitz-class aircraft carriers don’t rip through the waves at 30 knots powered by solar panels.

So why is the president trying to use a statute enacted to hastily convert non-lethal industry capacity to meet the military and naval demands of the Korean War — and then renewed multiple times to meet similar national defense purposes — for obviously non-defense production? The answer is simple: partisan politics.

First is the most obvious attempt to slow the ongoing electoral slide that the president’s party is experiencing going into the midterm elections: reversing the baby formula shortage. But this shortage was the result of what appears to be a dysfunctional Biden administration regulator.

According to press accounts, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, powdered baby formula plant a passing inspection in September 2021 after no evidence of harmful bacteria was uncovered. Subsequently, it was discovered that four infants were fed Abbott’s baby formula and fell ill to infection from a rare bacteria. Tragically, two of those babies died. As a result, Abbott recalled several lots of the powder in February 2022, the FDA returned for another investigation, and Abbott was ordered to shut down operations at the plant. However, bacteria samples acquired as result of this inspection did not match the strains found in samples received from two of the sick infants.

So was the prolonged shutdown of the plant necessary? Was the earlier September 2021 inspection conducted properly? We don’t know the answers to these questions — and likely never will. But like bodies falling from an ascending C-17 fleeing Kabul airport, this is another debacle which the Biden administration and its media allies seem to feel doesn’t warrant further scrutiny.

To further obfuscate all of this, we have the Defense Production Act. But the DPA doesn’t provide for the manufacture of baby formula. And no language in the Act can be construed — even in a tortured sense — to suggest it does. However, the Act does give authority to a president to intercede in production processes conducted by non-government organizations.

So does this mean that future presidents will operate under the precedent that any mishandling of a politically sensitive issue by some arm of a bona fide incompetent administration will find its solution in the DPA? Or will this precedent only be exercised in the specific instance of the most recent in a string of policy blunders that portend the imminent demise of a Congressional majority of the commander-in-chief’s party?

Speaking of the reliance of the DPA to make up for political malpractice, President Biden drew from a similar precedent when he invoked the Act to tip the energy policy scales in favor of one of the darlings of the neo-pantheists — solar power. The president invoked the DPA to increase production of solar panels used relatively little by warfighters who overwhelmingly rely on energy-dense sources such as diesel and jet fuel as well as nuclear power. He did this because he failed to garner sufficient congressional support for his so-called “Build Back Better” agenda, which had billions in federal incentives to prop up the solar energy industry. Lest you think this is somehow a revelation understood only by those invited to sit in dimly lit and smoke-filled rooms, The Atlantic has a recent piece titled “Biden’s Climate Goals Rest on a 71-Year-Old Defense Law” with the prefatory statement, “The Defense Production Act has become an important tool as the White House’s climate policy has stalled in Congress.”

The precedent President Biden drew from to assist the solar industry progeny of the scandal-ridden Solyndra years of the Obama-Biden administration was his earlier invocation of the DPA to aid the battery industry. Batteries, like solar panels, have their place on the battlefield. But that place is relatively limited, and those applications receive attention every year during Congress’ deliberation on and reauthorization of the National Defense Authorization Act.

It may be that if this administration continues to entangle the United States in a war between two former Soviet socialist republics, he may be forced to legitimately invoke the DPA. But doing so only for the transparently parochial benefit of his partisans diminishes his office and the genuine national security concerns of the United States.



John Hostettler is Vice President of Federal Affairs, States Trust at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He previously served six terms in the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007 where he was a member of the National Security and later the Armed Services Committees during his entire tenure.


Top Biden Official Who Got Inflation Dead Wrong Says America Won’t See Recession

Are Mexican Authorities Actually Trying To Stop Illegal Immigration At Southern Border?

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

5 Reasons America’s Birthrate Is Plummeting

The simple truth is, there are fewer people who want to bring kids into the world. Though the reasons are diverse, 44 percent of non-parents between 18 to 49 say it is not to or not at all likely they will procreate.

Elon Musk recently tweeted, “population collapse is the biggest threat to civilization.”

The tweet included a link to an interview Musk gave where he expanded on the subject. “Assuming there’s a benevolent future with AI, I think the biggest problem the world will face in 20 years is population collapse,” Musk wrote. “Collapse. I want to emphasize this….Not explosion, collapse.”

Musk has been known to raise this concern in the past too. Last year he told the Wall Street Journal, “I can’t emphasize this enough, there are not enough people.” He also said that low and rapidly declining birth rates are “one of the biggest risks to civilization.”

That the wealthiest and arguably one of the smartest men on earth spends his days fixating on this issue should be a signal to others that things might be more dire than they think.

According to the US Census, “The US population grew at a slower rate in 2021 than in any other year since the founding of the nation.” And we’re not alone. According to reporting by the BBC, “Researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 – and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.”

Population replacement rates are important for a society to sustain itself. We need people to be born so that there are workers to fill the various needs of the whole. Old men cannot do the labor young men can do, young adults are needed to care for the dying and aging. Fewer people means less economic activity, smaller GDPs, less innovation, and less competition.

It also means we have less division of labor. As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market.“ That means people are less able to specialize and lean into their preferences or areas of expertise in their work.

As a whole, the machine slows and then stagnates when new firewood is not added to the furnace.

But while Elon Musk is absolutely correct about the problem and the potential threat it poses to society, he has not addressed (as far as I’ve seen) the underlying issues creating it or discussed how they might be solved.

So, in an effort to address these issues, here are five reasons people are increasingly choosing not to procreate, along with the free-market responses that could address them.

The simple fact is, some people don’t want children. And there are legitimate reasons for that choice.

No matter what Sheryl Sandberg wants you to believe, women cannot have it all. “Leaning in” is a practice that has left most women who attempt it barrelled over in pain.

The reality is, while women tend to work outside the home in most partnerships now, the vast majority of childcare and household work continues to be laid at their feet. This is an ongoing issue that causes many women to choose not to have kids or not to have more kids.

In life, just as in economics, there are trade-offs. Most women realize they will likely not be able to be a successful career woman, a dedicated mother, and a jaw-dropping homemaker all at the same time. There are choices to be made here, and some women are simply deciding that motherhood is the role they can let go.

It’s important to point out that these are choices that used to be harder to make. In generations past, women were shamed for not having kids, ostracized in society, or simply did not have the access to birth control they needed to determine their own pathway. We’re moving away from that kind of culture, and the advancements in women’s healthcare have empowered women to set their own course.

As a woman who has never wanted children, I’ve thought deeply about this topic. And I believe there are many others who are looking at the same factors I am and reaching the same conclusion.

Motherhood is hard, physically, emotionally, and mentally. I personally never wanted to go through the pain of childbirth, nor do I want to give myself the mental and emotional anxiety that comes with taking on this role. But as pointed out above, this wasn’t always a calculation afforded to women.

Furthermore, I love working—always have. And I’ve built a meaningful and impactful career I’d never be willing to give up. While some women choose to work and have kids, that’s not a situation I’d choose for myself. I’d never put my kids in government schools nor would I want them to spend their time with others in daycare. So when faced with the choice of pursuing my work or raising kids, I simply choose the former. It’s where I want to spend my time. I’ve met many others who feel the same way as me.

There are other factors as well. While the world has actually been improving (though you wouldn’t know it based on the media), there are many people (myself included) who look around and still don’t find the world to be one they’d want to bring kids into.

Thanks to birth control and the gains made under feminism, these are choices women now get to make that other generations simply were not afforded. As a whole, this is a choice that should be accepted and even celebrated by society.

Are there free market solutions to these factors? Sure. School choice would make it easier for women to homeschool or find other alternatives. Remote work would allow more people to balance child-rearing with their careers. And improvements in our social climate would likely make people more optimistic about procreating.

Still, the simple truth is, there are fewer people who want to bring kids into the world. Though the reasons are diverse, 44 percent of non-parents between 18 to 49 say it is not to or not at all likely they will procreate. And that’s ok. But for those who do want kids, we should strive to create a world where that option is as feasible as possible.

While some women and men are simply choosing not to have kids, others wish to and cannot find adequate partners.

It’s important to remember that we are still merely a few decades into a new normal: the sexes having equal rights and a fair playing field.

While this is long-overdue progress that should obviously be celebrated, it also means the social fabric of our society is still fraught with landmines. For all of human history, women and men have not been in a situation where they were equal under the law.

That means culturally and biologically women are programmed to look for partners who are stronger and wealthier than they are, because those elements were essential for survival for most of our existence. But in recent decades, women are largely surpassing men economically. They are more likely to obtain degrees, are catching up to men in their earnings, and in 37 percent of US households, women pay the bills.

To this, many will say women should just lower their standards or not be so picky. But it’s not that simple. Again, to do that requires overcoming significant evolutionary impulses on the part of women. And even when they do overcome these factors, it still isn’t working out. In fact, marriages with female breadwinners are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce. This illustrates that the power dynamic shift created between higher earning women and lower earning men is one our society has not yet learned to live with.

Furthermore, while men say they are fine with dating women who are smarter than them, psychological studies have revealed otherwise. Men are also biologically inclined to be providers and to be competitive. But for the first time in history, they’re having to compete with women, and outcome wise, they’re often ending up in second place. It turns out they don’t find this so appealing in practice.

The fact that LDS and evangelical families are still having more children backs all of this up. Since gender norms are changing more slowly in these communities, it would seem their relationships are not suffering the same growing pains and therefore the number of children they are having is falling more slowly.

These are societal problems, not ones suited for public policy. And the harsh reality is that it will probably take decades for us to sort out this new landscape for romantic relationships and for people to evolve past the male provider/female nurturer gender stereotypes. But they are challenges worth examining and overcoming, and at an individual level, we can all look for ways to foster romantic relationships that take these factors into consideration.

Even for people who do want to have kids and manage to find the right partner, there are still a multitude of landmines they must overcome before they can comfortably procreate, and they all trace back to affordability.

A flourishing society would naturally incentivize people to procreate. But that requires a steady currency, good job market, relatively safe communities, the promise of a good education, and economic factors that make it affordable to have and raise a child.

According to Merrill Lynch, it currently costs $230,000 to raise a kid to age 18. That’s a jaw-dropping amount, especially when one considers record-breaking inflation, wage stagnation, and economic uncertainty created by the reckless printing and spending policies of the US government.

The reasons for these high costs also trace back to the government. Childcare costs have been soaring for decades thanks to extreme government regulations and restrictions on these services. In one survey, 85 percent of parents reported spending 10 percent or more of their household income on child care.

Education is another major financial calculation in these decisions. There’s no way to sugarcoat it, government schools are atrocious and private schooling or alternative options can be expensive or unfeasible. Many parents are also hesitant to place their kids in government schools because of gun-free zones that make them sitting ducks.

And then there’s college. The price of higher education is astronomical, and that is solely due to government subsidies and loans. But while evidence increasingly shows college is not a good investment for most, many parents still desire to give their kids every opportunity they can and thus factor this in.

Additionally, healthcare costs continue to rise in the country thanks to the government increasingly taking over our system. Insurance prices shot up after Obamacare and there is no end in sight for many.

Finally, there are the costs of infertility. A growing number of Americans are having trouble getting pregnant when they want to. Some blame this on problems with our nutrition. Others say it’s because people are having kids later in life. Likely there are multiple reasons. But whatever the cause, fertility assistance is extremely expensive and a cost many cannot afford.

Relatedly, many economists point to the quantity-quality tradeoff theory which implies that a reduction in fertility would lead to more human capital investment per child. Meaning, people would rather invest their love, finances, and attention into a smaller number of children versus spreading it across a large family.

There are many public policy reforms that would bring these costs down. But for the time-being it is understandable why for some the math is simply not adding up. People want to know they can give their kids a brighter and better future than they themselves had, and for now, that simply isn’t true for a lot of people.

Finally, many economists point to something called the demographic transition theory to explain the decrease in childbirth. In short, because child mortality rates have dropped so precipitously under capitalism people don’t have to have as many kids.

In generations past, as terrible as it was, parents would have a lot of kids with the assumption that several would die. That is no longer the case. People can plan how many children they want to have with a high level of certainty that those kids will live into adulthood.

Furthermore, as societies have become less male-centric, parents don’t have to keep having kids until they have a boy. For inheritance, property, and societal reasons, this used to be a goal for many people, but it is one that is quickly diminishing.

Many of these are issues we as a society can address through free-market solutions. It’s time we have that conversation.


Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is the Content Manager and Brand Ambassador for the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

Democrat Mob Terrorize Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett at Her Home and Church

Pro-choice activists march outside home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Protests against Supreme Court Justices have ratcheted up in recent weeks

By Bradford Betz , Lisa Bennatan | Fox News June 9, 2022:

Just one day after an alleged assassination attempt on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a small group of pro-choice activists descended on the home of Justice Amy Coney Barrett Thursday evening.

Waving banners and holding up signs, the group walked up and down the sidewalk chanting call-and-response slogans like, “Your neighbor says post-Roe, we say hell no!” and “Hey-hey, ho-ho, the handmaiden has got to go!”
Protesters outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Protesters outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. (Fox News)

The tiny rally came a day after protesters marched in front of the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh following the arrest of a California man who had threatened to kill him.

The man, 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske, was carrying a gun, a knife, and zip ties, according to police. Later Wednesday, he was charged with attempted murder of a Supreme Court Justice.

Demonstrations against Supreme Court Justices have ratcheted up in recent weeks in response to a leaked draft opinion suggested that the Supreme Court was on the verge of overturning the landmark 1973 abortion case, Roe v. Wade.
A group of drummers marched outside of Kavanaugh’s house after an alleged assassination attempt.

A group of drummers marched outside of Kavanaugh’s house after an alleged assassination attempt. (Fox News)

Roske told police he was upset about the draft as well the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas last month, where 21 people – including 19 children were killed. Roske said he believed Kavanaugh would vote to loosen gun control laws, according to a criminal complaint.

A Department of Homeland Security report said the Supreme Court draft opinion has unleashed a wave of threats against officials and others and increased the likelihood of extremist violence.




POST-KAVANAUGH POLL: Almost Half of Young, Male Democrats Says “It’s Acceptable To ASSASSINATE a Politician”

Biden’s Approval Rating Sinks to below 40% in RCP average

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

Judicial Watch Reveals DOJ Memo Declining Prosecution of Babbitt’s Shooter

Shooter U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd Did Not Create a Police Report on Killing, Byrd Had Prior ‘Use of Force’ Issue. 

Judicial Watch uncovered more shocking evidence about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt even as the Pelosi rump 1/6 operation makes a mockery of the system of government with its kangaroo court “hearings.”

We uncovered 102 pages of records from the Department of Justice related to the shooting of January 6 protestor Ashli Babbitt that include a memo recommending “that the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia declined for criminal prosecution the fatal shooting of Ashli McEntee [Babbitt],” also noting that the shooter, U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, “did not create a police report or documents” related to the shooting of Babbitt.

The documents also reveal that in the press release announcing the decision not to prosecute Byrd for the killing of Babbitt the DOJ replaced the words “group” and “crowd” with the word “mob” several times.

The unarmed Babbitt was shot and killed as she climbed through a broken interior window in the United States Capitol. She was a 14-year Air Force veteran. The identity of the shooter was kept secret by Congress, the Justice Department, and DC police for eight months until Byrd went public to try to defend his killing of Babbitt.

We filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Civil Rights Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (all components of the Justice Department) failed to provide the records responsive to our April 14, 2021, and May 20, 2021, FOIA requests for records related to Babbitt’s death (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:21-cv-02462)).

The records contain the prosecution declination memorandum justifying the decision not to prosecute Byrd.

The “Overview and Recommendation” section reads as follows:

This memorandum recommends that the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia decline for criminal prosecution the fatal shooting of Ashli McEntee.

[ *** ]

This declination is based on a review of law enforcement and civilian eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, recorded radio communications, cell phone footage, MPD reports, forensic reports, and the autopsy report for Ms. McEntee. After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances in this case, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Byrd violated Ms. McEntee’s civil rights by willfully using more force than was reasonably necessary, or was not acting in self-defense or the defense of others.

The memo details:

Once the demonstrators broke the glass, Lieutenant Byrd took up a tactical position to the immediate right of the barricaded entry doors, [Capitol Police Officer Reggie Tyson] took up a tactical position behind Lieutenant Byrd on the right side behind the third pillar and Sergeant McKenna took up a tactical position behind Officer Tyson and behind the fourth pillar on the right side of the Speakers Lobby.

[ *** ]

All three officers had their service pistols drawn, pointed them in the direction of the barricaded entry doors, and repeatedly instructed the ‘mob’ to get back. The ‘mob’ of demonstrators ignored the officers’ commands and continued to break the glass on the doors in their attempt to breach the Speakers Lobby. Suddenly, Ashli McEntee began to crawl through one of the doors where the glass was already broken out. As Ms. McEntee was climbing through the door, Lieutenant Byrd stepped forward from his tactical position towards Ms. McEntee and fired one round from his service pistol striking Ms. McEntee in her left shoulder, just below her clavicle. Ms. McEntee then fell back from the doorway and onto the floor.

Regarding possible closed-circuit television footage, the memo notes: “There are several USCP operated Closed-Circuit Television Video (CCTV) cameras inside of the United States Capitol Building. However, there were no CCTV cameras observed or located in the Speaker’s Lobby area.”

In a section of the memo titled “USCP Lieutenant Michael Byrd,” the memo notes: “He [Byrd] did not create any police reports or documents relating to the incident, and did not provide an official statement regarding use of force” though he did provide a voluntary “debrief” and walk-through of the scene with his lawyer. A footnote details that: “During the debrief of Lieutenant Byrd, he did recall writing a few sentences on an evidence bag the evening of January 6, 2021, at the request of a crime scene officer. To date, the bag has not been located by USCP or MPD.”

The memo reports:

Lieutenant Byrd heard glass breaking and saw some of the items used to barricade the doors being pushed down. Lieutenant Byrd continued to tell the rioters to “get back, get back!” Lieutenant Byrd then saw a rioter with a backpack on start to climb through one of the broken glass doors. Lieutenant Byrd saw the rioter “as a threat,” so he stepped forward from his tactical position and fired one round at the rioter. The rioter fell back out of the opening and Lieutenant Byrd eventually stepped back into the seated area of the Speaker’s Lobby before confirming to other USCP officers that arrived on the scene that he was the one that fired his service weapon.

The memo notes that security staffing on January 6 was less than half the usual amount due to COVID-19:

Lieutenant Byrd did agree to participate with his counsel, Mark Schamel, in a voluntary debrief and walk-through of the scene on January 29, 2021 … Due to COVID-19 and other issues, the normal staffing for a joint session was less than half of what Lieutenant Byrd usually has assigned to the House Chamber. Once he arrived that morning, he was informed that USCP operations had made the decision that the uniform officers needed to pick up riot gear.

In a section titled, “Use of Force History,” it is noted that, “Lieutenant Byrd had one prior use of force matter, that was originally sustained by USCP, but after Lt. Byrd appealed, he was found not guilty by the Disciplinary Review Board.”

In a section titled “Recommendation,” the memo details:

This matter does not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes or the District of Columbia homicide statutes. To show a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an officer willfully used more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. ‘The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’ Graham v Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

[ *** ]

Because Ms. McEntee was an active participant in a ‘mob’ that had just illegally entered the Capitol building, and then broke out the glass doors and removed barricades to forcefully gain entry into the Speaker’s Lobby, there is insufficient evidence to refute Lieutenant Byrd’s fear for his life or the life of others at the time he discharged his weapon. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he willfully deprived Ms. McEntee of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States of America. Accordingly I recommend declination of this matter.

The records include a draft version of the April 14, 2021, Justice Department press release announcing their decision not to prosecute Byrd for the killing of Babbitt, the authors replaced the word “crowd” with the word “mob” five times in describing the January 6 protestors.

The documents also include charts of January 6 investigations and targets. For one of the investigations, it is noted that a New York Times reporter is a “CW” [confidential witness]. Another notation tied to “pipe bombs” notes that a “geo fence” request was made to Google.

Previously, we uncovered records from the DC Metropolitan Police showing that multiple officers claimed they didn’t see a weapon in Babbitt’s hand before Byrd shot her, and that Byrd was visibly distraught afterward. One officer attested that he didn’t recall hearing any verbal commands before Byrd shot Babbitt. The records include internal communications about Byrd’s case and a crime scene examination report. Investigators who wrote the January 6, 2021, Metro PD Death Report for Babbitt (identified as Ashli Elizabeth McEntee-Babbitt Pamatian) note that the possible Manner of Death was “Homicide (Police Involved Shooting).”

These records show that Lt. Byrd was given special treatment by the Biden DOJ and that there was a miscarriage of justice in the half-baked shooting death investigation of Ashli Babbitt. Lt. Byrd, who works for Congress, shot an unarmed woman for no good reason. I suspect that this unjustified shooting isn’t of much interest to the Pelosi rump January 6 committee.

These revelations are the latest in our comprehensive, independent investigation into the January 6 disturbance:

  • February 2022: We filed an opposition to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down our federal lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police department, Congress argues that the videos and emails are not public records, there is no public interest in their release, and that “sovereign immunity” prevents citizens from suing for their release.
  • November 2021: We released multiple audiovisual and photo records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about Babbitt’s death. The records include a cell phone video of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of Byrd.
  • Also in November 2021: we – in its FOIA lawsuit asking for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transaction records of people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021 – told a federal court that the FBI may have violated law in its January 6 probes.

Frankly, given all our historic works and finds, perhaps Judicial Watch should be conducting January 6 hearings!

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

FDA Pushes To Authorize Novavax’s Covid-19 Vaccine Despite Serious Cardiovascular Safety Issues

Despite overwhelming evidence of the harm the Covid vaccines do and the FDA’s admission that  the vaccine carried the possible risk of causing heart inflammation, particularly in young males, similar to the Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca mRNA vaccines, they are pushing to authorize this poison.

The lies and deceit are monumentally criminal …… And the Medical establishment has destroyed the public trust by going along with this horror.

Sudden death is the most catastrophic contraindication of the vaccine but its effects are systemic, The uterus is also a biologically active organ because it’s always preparing a new inner wall monthly then tearing it down and starting again in a menstruating woman so that’s another big target of shitty spike vaccine.

And remember Covid19 vaccine has been linked to prion disease which is an incurable brain disease, a dementia like Creutzfeldt-Jakob.

FDA Pushes To Authorize Novavax’s Covid-19 Vaccine Despite Serious Cardiovascular Safety Issues

The FDA appears to have lost its high standard for drug safety and efficacy, and it is the American public who will suffer.

By: David Gortler, The Federalist, June 9, 2022:

Earlier this week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had a public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to discuss an emergency-use authorization (EUA) request by Novavax for its vaccine to prevent Covid-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older. The committee voted to approve it.

It is clear that there is a noteworthy adverse event signal, especially cardiovascular-related events, following existing Covid vaccines and boosters. Based on available evidence, there is no reason to think the Novavax vaccine will be any different. Indeed, the FDA review of the Novavax “protein subunit” vaccine acknowledged the vaccine carried the possible risk of causing heart inflammation, particularly in young males, similar to the Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca mRNA vaccines.

In addition to the medical review, the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database for Covid-19 vaccines shows a significant number of cardiovascular-related events in young healthy people in particular. To date, there are tens of thousands of reports of heart attack, myocarditis, or pericarditis in the United States alone.

The United States alone has accumulated a list of more than 800,000 reports of adverse events associated with these vaccines, with even more adverse events reported worldwide. Moreover, reported cases are well known to represent only 1–10 percent of the adverse events that occur in actuality. In short, the sheer number of cases — something we’ve never seen before — is cause for alarm to drug safety experts like myself.

Myocarditis and pericarditis used to be considered rare conditions. They are defined as inflammation of the heart muscle or layers of the pericardial sac, respectively. Both conditions cause easily recognizable echocardiogram (ECG) changes and have nonspecific symptoms that include shortness of breath and chest pain.

They can easily be diagnosed clinically with ECGs and treated by pharmacology, but in order for physicians to do that, the FDA label must recommend physicians look for certain symptoms immediately following Covid-19 vaccination. Failing to immediately diagnose myocarditis or pericarditis could have fatal consequences.

These cardiovascular adverse events were warned about in the FDA medical review of the Pfizer application, and the FDA receives new reports on cardiovascular adverse events on a daily basis. The FDA’s medical officer review, which was the basis for approving the Pfizer vaccine, notes that “clinically important serious adverse reactions [were] anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis.”

Patients Not Warned of Risks

But the problem is patients were — and are still — not being adequately warned or monitored for cardiovascular symptoms on existing Covid-19 vaccines. Pfizer should already have placed a warning on the label.

Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca should have already volunteered to warn all their patients about potentially deadly cardiovascular adverse events, as well as other adverse events trending upward in VAERS that are associated with Covid vaccine and booster administration. At a minimum, any Novavax vaccine should have a prominent warning informing the public about the risk of potential serious and deadly cardiovascular adverse events, but since Pfizer and Moderna aren’t doing so, neither is Novavax.

Adverse events from drugs were already the fourth leading cause of death prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the FDA. Because Pfizer and Moderna’s cardiovascular and other adverse events were not taken seriously enough by the FDA to warrant more substantial labeling warnings, Covid-19 vaccine adverse events have become a major source of morbidity and mortality, per the FDA’s VAERS reporting system.




Vaccinated women suffer stillbirths, miscarriage, abortion at nearly 34% higher rate, Hebrew University reveals

Healthy young people are dying suddenly – as doctors seek answers

‘Significant’ Cases of Neurological Disorder Associated with Covid Vaccine

New UK government data shows the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save

MIT Scientist Warns Parents NOT TO GIVE CHILDREN Vaccine, Could Cause ‘Crippling’ Neurodegenerative Disease In Young People

MIT: COVID Vaccines ‘Significantly Associated’ with Spike in Heart Attacks in Young People

CDC Data Shows More Than 1.2 Million Covid Vaccine Injuries

Pfizer Unable to Secure COVID Vaccine Authorization in India, China Due to Side Effect Concerns

Vaxxed Kids Are 300 Times More Likely To Die Than Unvaccinated

Whistleblower Outs Medicare Data That Shows 50% Rise in Death After Vaccine

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