PODCAST: Christian Student’s Private Text Message Gets Him Suspended

/in , , , , , , , /by

Watch as David and his attorney expose all the school’s hypocrisy in this episode of Shout Out Patriots.​

The only thing more upsetting than the suspension of David Stout Jr. at Plainwell High School for expressing his biblical views on homosexuality is how little attention this story has received!

Personally, I admire the courage of David and his legal team for fighting back against the Michigan school located just 30-minutes outside Grand Rapids. But I have so say, even the Christian community seems to be ignoring this important story.

David Stout Jr. was given a 3-day suspension after responding to a fellow student’s text message inquiring about his biblical views on homosexuality.

David wrote that the Bible teaches homosexual conduct is a sin.

That private text message (which was sent off school property) somehow ended up in the hands of school officials.

David was later cited with violating the school’s “Bullying/Cyberbullying/Harassment” policy.

David was also accused of “stealing other’s happiness” due to his Christian views.

With so little media attention given to this unquestionable violation of David’s free speech and religious freedom rights, I invited David and his lawyer to tell this story to our Shout Out Patriots’ audience.

I hope and pray you find the time to watch or listen.

You’ll probably learn about a few surprising school policies, such as “self-reporting.”

At one point, David heard a classmate tell an offensive homosexual joke. When he didn’t try to stop or prevent it, he should have “self-reported” himself to school officials. Not doing so, meant more trouble for him!

Apparently, students must now become Speech Monitors. If they hear something that would offend the LGBTQ community, for example, they should be proactive and stop it or else have that inaction be considered as an anti-gay.

David Jr. was reprimanded by the school’s vice-principal, Deb Beals, for failing to self-report and he was told “whatever you allow, is what your support.”

The school policy is meant to force students into becoming advocates for the LGBT movement and other progressive, woke ideologies…under the pain of suspension and being called a bully on your school record.

©Martin Mawyer and the Shout Out Patriots Show. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Father to N.C. School Board: Parents Taking Back the Wheel

RELATED ARTICLES:

Student who shared ‘Christian beliefs’ about LGBTQ community sues school after suspension

Finland’s Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen on trial for tweeting Bible verse

CSP/TIPP POLL: Nearly Half Say Coronavirus is Man-Made and 29% Say it was Intentionally Released

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

With nearly 900,000 deaths in the United States, the virus’ origin remains inconclusive.

In a CSP/TIPP Poll taken this month, 1,355 U.S. adults were asked, “From what you have seen or heard, the coronavirus MOST LIKELY…” The responses were:

  • Was developed in a lab (47%)
  • Came from animals (18%)
  • Came about naturally (10%)
  • Came from human living habits (7%)
  • Not sure (17%)

When the COVID-19 virus emerged in Wuhan, China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) pointed the finger in all directions to avoid responsibility for the fallout. They have variously blamed the U.S. bio-military facilities at Ft. Detrick, supposedly infectious U.S. military personnel at the 2019 Military World Games in Wuhan, and have even accused Italy of being the birthplace of the virus. However, they generally support the findings of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) joint report that said “the virus jumping from bats to humans via an intermediate animal was the most probable scenario, while a leak from Wuhan’s virology labs was ‘extremely unlikely.’”

Western medical bureaucrats were apparently desperate to quash any talk of a lab leak as well, according to a Brownstone Institute review of a recent book on the early weeks of the virus by the “UK’s Fauci” Jeremy Farrar. Dr. Anthony Fauci himself, of the National Institute of Allergies and Infection Diseases (NIAID) took a hard line against the “lab leak” hypothesis from the beginning. In May 2020 he said he was “very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated” saying all signs indicated the virus “evolved in nature and then jumped species.” A year later in May 2021, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) confronted Fauci about the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through a cutout called EcoHealth Alliance, uncovering a possible motive to downplay any non-natural introduction of the virus to humans. Also in May, Facebook changed the policy under which it had banned users and removed posts for asserting that “COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured.” By June 3, 2021, Fauci finally admitted “it could have been a lab leak,” although he said animal-to-human transmission was most likely. The lab hypothesis reached a pop culture tipping point the same month when beloved comedian and former Daily Show host John Stewart openly advocated for it on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

Conservatives (69%) were much more likely than moderates (47%) and liberals (28%) to believe the virus emerged from a lab. Strikingly, nearly one-third (30%) of liberals still believe that the virus came from animals. This seems to reflect a residue from the initial line from Anthony Fauci and the health and media establishment that the virus emerged from a bat or pangolin in a so-called “wet market.” Liberals may be more likely to believe “The Science” as first presented, even if the official line of Fauci and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has “evolved” over time. This may portend political trouble for governors and local government executives who are increasingly rolling back COVID restrictions like vaccination passports and masks, while their constituents have been scared into hiding by constant media reports that inflate the prevalence and severity of COVID infections.

The lab-leak theory became mainstream 9-10 months ago. If liberal attitudes on masks and vaccines lag by a similar amount of time, Democrat politicians may be in an impossible balancing act between their constituents on the left and the rest of the country which strongly disapproves of President Biden’s COVID strategies as the November 2022 midterm elections loom.

The 47% of Americans who believed the coronavirus was developed in a lab were asked whether they thought it was released intentionally or accidentally:

  • 61% said intentionally
  • 27% said accidentally
  • 12% said not sure

CLICK HERE TO VIEW CHART ON CORONAVIRUS RELEASE ACCICENT OR INTENTIONAL

It is striking that nearly two-thirds (61%) of those who believed in a lab leak also believed that it was intentional. That means that 29% of all those polled believed that the virus originated in a lab and that the CCP purposely released it. Plenty of evidence exists that China “weaponized” the spread of the virus after it left the lab. For example, while CCP locked down domestic air travel after the outbreak was detected, they encouraged international flights out of Wuhan which quickly infected cities around the world, making containment impossible. However, there is no proof that the initial passage of the virus from the Wuhan lab to the outside world was a conscious military strategy by the CCP.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW CHART ON ORIGIN OF CORONAVIRUS

Conservatives (66%) were most likely to suspect an intentional lab release with moderates (55%) and liberals (54%) about the same.

Women (65%) were significantly more likely than men (53%) to believe the intentional hypothesis.

Both blacks (66%) and Hispanics (72%) were more likely than average (61%) to think the coronavirus was leaked as an intentional act.

These Americans may perceive nefarious intent through circumstantial evidence alone. The monthly TIPP China Favorability index shows a steady decline from 35.9 in August 2021 to 27.0 in February 2022, which marks the lowest rating in 12 months and the first time the index has dipped below 30. It is natural to distrust a formidable rival on the world stage. The CCP leadership clearly wishes us ill and the American public expects them to act accordingly.

A secondary reason for attribution of malice may lie in human emotion and psychology. COVID-19 has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and sickened millions more. It has also destroyed entire sectors of our economy, especially small businesses, and vaccine and mask mandates have disrupted daily life in unprecedented ways. Americans are discouraged, angry and depressed, and they need an outlet. It’s difficult to blame a virus as such, it is too nebulous. The human mind “wants” a sentient force to be responsible for so much pain and destruction.

COLUMN BY

Adam Savit

China Program Coordinator and Deputy Director for Congressional and Public Affairs.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Why Is Biden Destroying Our Military?

/in , , , , , , /by

One of the most worrisome consequences of the Chinese Communist Party’s virus and the pandemic that has flowed from it is this chilling fact: The pandemic that appears to have emanated from a CCP bioweapons laboratory in Wuhan, China is having a devastating impact on our military personnel.

That’s in part due to the disease itself. But mostly, it is thanks to the damage being done by the Covid-19 “vaccines” and President Biden’s insistence that all service personnel be subjected to them.

A recent, powerful webinar viewable at www.StopVaxPassports.org demonstrates the immense harm being done to the physical condition of our troops, their morale, readiness and deterrent capabilities. All of which is being exacerbated by the Biden team’s racist, ideological brainwashing and purges.

At a time when multiple wars are impending, such unilateral U.S. disarmament invites disaster for our national security.

This is Frank Gaffney.

 

The Secure Freedom Minute – the most interesting, informative and life-saving 60 seconds of your day.

COLUMN BY

Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Founder and Executive Chairman of the Center for Security Policy.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Anyone Who’d Cancel George Washington is an Enemy Within

/in , , , , , , , /by

There are different ways to identify an enemy within, but one is quite simple. Anybody who’d cancel George Washington should be considered a fifth-column member fit only for scorn and ostracism.

We’ve seen attacks upon Washington take many forms, with San Francisco’s 2021 decision to rename a school bearing our first president’s name a prime example. It’s a red flag because it reflects hatred of America’s very foundation, of everything she truly represents.

George Washington is unlike any other American figure. His arch rival, King George III, knew this well. Responding to news that with the Revolutionary War’s conclusion, Washington would relinquish power and return to his farm, the monarch exclaimed, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

But Washington did do that — twice. Though the story about him being offered the kingship of America is exaggerated, that sentiment did exist — and Washington rejected the proposal unreservedly. He also not only resigned his military commission after the war, but also resisted entreaties to seek a third term as his second one as president was concluding.

Moreover, his noble conduct during the Newburgh affair in 1783 inspired Major General David Cobb, who served as aide-de-camp to General Washington, to say in 1825 that he believed these “United States are indebted for their republican form of government solely to the firm and determined republicanism of George Washington….”

This “greatest man in the world” was a giant, figuratively and literally. Standing about six feet tall, he exceeded his day’s average height significantly and must’ve been an imposing figure. Yet this paled in comparison to his moral stature. Just consider Washington’s “Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour IN COMPANY AND CONVERSATION”; 110 in number, he copied them into the last 10 pages of a book of his personal notes before he was 16 years old.

This reflects how Washington really did try to cultivate virtue in himself (“virtue” being that “set of objectively good moral habits”). It’s an example people certainly need today, too, in our age of moral laxity where “If it feels good, do it” has become a common creed and we’ve lost sight of how virtue in the people is a prerequisite for enjoying liberty.

Speaking of morality, I won’t even address the politically correct charges incessantly leveled against Washington (though an interesting video that does so follows this article). This is for two reasons.

First, our modern compulsion to issue disclaimers about how “our country” or this or that historical figure “wasn’t perfect” is tiresome. Would you feel compelled to precede a tribute to your mother with a little speech about how she “wasn’t perfect,” followed by an enumeration of her supposed sins?

It’s stupid, to be frank. Perfection is not a thing of this world. It’s a thing of Heaven. It also is not a prerequisite for admiration or hero status.

Additionally, such disclaimers are often self-serving. The subtle message sometimes is, “I want to signal that I’m a good person, too good to praise my country or its historical figures without pointing out how it or they paled in comparison to our enlightened beneficence.”

Second, leftists are notorious for claiming that everything is relative, and they certainly don’t spew venom at the Aztecs for having engaged in wide-scale human sacrifice or at the 19th-century Papua New Guinea tribes that embraced cannibalism. But when at issue are the Founders, these relativists become quite absolutist in their condemnation of people who existed within an entirely different cultural context. This double standard reflects anti-white and/or anti-Western bigotry.

We also should ask: Who are these leftists — these depraved, child-corrupting, angry, uncharitable, lying, often violent, baby-killing, civilization-destroying, illiberal miscreants — to look down their crooked noses morally on anybody? Here’s some advice: Learn what boys and girls are before preaching to others about rectitude, chief.

Unfortunately, George Orwell certainly wasn’t far off when stating that the “most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” This obliteration is largely complete in the United States, as evidenced by how many “Americans” will condemn the father of our nation — and how many others feel no desire to defend him.

For those interested, one man who did defend Washington, and the other Founders, is Professor Thomas Sowell. His defense is presented in the video below.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Spreely or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

The Last Free-Thinker in Corporate America

/in , , , , , /by

This week brought the story of a courageous woman who sailed against the prevailing winds blowing through corporate America.  Jennifer Sey was ousted from her position as president of Levi’s for her outspokenness against school closures and mask mandates.  The company offered to make her CEO if she would just shut up.  When that didn’t work, they offered her a million dollar severance package in exchange for her silence.  She refused, in order to be free to speak her mind.  She told a news show:

“Well, for me, this whole thing [Covid-19 public health measures] has culminated [into] really being about the silencing of dissent and really not being able to hold a viewpoint that is outside whatever the mainstream narrative is – the ‘orthodoxy.’ I was very outspoken that closed schools were harming children – in my city, San Francisco, and in cities across the country – and that seemed like a very sensible position to me. It seems folks agree with that now, but it was unacceptable and I have to be able to say that. 

I don’t think schools would be open if parents like me weren’t saying that all along. So it’s a broader issue in the culture – it’s not a Levi’s issue, it’s not specific to Levi’s – the silencing of dissent is [a widespread issue].”

She pointed out that the Levi’s brand stands for rugged individualism, which suggests the company has turned its back on its long-held values.

There’s a lot of that going around these days, as corporate America has gone woke.  The latest examples include M&M’s going genderless, green for example losing the high heels and sultry voice.

Brother printers giving pro-LGBT books to preschoolers in Memphis.

Kraft Peanut Butter promoting preferred gender pronouns to kids.

Disney seeking to “transform culture” with its woke diversity and inclusion program.  Disney, it seems these days, never misses an opportunity to gratuitously insert a gay character into what is supposed to be family entertainment.  Critics call it ‘rainbow capitalism’.

American Express rolled out what is now standard issue Critical Race Theory training for its employees full of the usual microaggression and privilege blah-blah.  Workers are being told capitalism is inherently racist and, therefore, they are engaged in racist activity every day they show up for work.  CRT derives from Karl Marx whose goal was to replace all private companies with state ownership of the means of production.  I wonder if American Express executives know that.  I also wonder if woke corporations regret their contributions to the trained Marxists of Black Lives Matter now that its leadership has disappeared and $60 million has gone missing.

Then there’s Bed Bath & Beyond dropping MyPillow because they didn’t like Mike Lindell’s politics or his lack of confidence in election results, a view which just happens to be shared by one out of three Democrats.

The Kellogg Foundation is bankrolling a $500 a month guaranteed basic income to hundreds of illegal aliens in New Mexico. That’s a lot of corn flakes.

Don’t get me wrong. I like free markets. So do what you want.  If you want to play at left-wing activism instead of building shareholder value, fine.  Whatever sells.  If your soul sells, sell that, too.  Just don’t ask me to support you or buy your products when you’ve shown your contempt for me and millions like me on the political Right.

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

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Quebec Drops Coronavirus Mandates After Rejecting Trudeau’s Martial Law

/in , , , , , , , /by

The banner of freedom is no longer just an American ideal, freedom has gone global. Sadly, under the fraudulent Democrat administration, America sadly lags painfully behind.

Quebec Drops Coronavirus Mandates After Rejecting Trudeau’s Emergency Decree

Quebec stepped up its “deconfinement plan” this week and began lifting coronavirus restrictions, while Premier Francois Legault rejected Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s effort to crush the Freedom Convoy protest movement by invoking emergency powers.

By John Hayward, Breitbart, February 17, 2022:

“I think that I was very clear with the prime minister that the federal Emergencies Act should not, must not apply in Quebec,” Legault said on Monday. “We don’t have any problems in Quebec so far. The Sureté du Québec has everything under control.”

There were Freedom Convoy demonstrations in Montreal and Quebec City over the past two weeks, but they were relatively restrained and mostly held over weekends. Legault said using the emergency powers offered by Trudeau against the protesters would be unwarranted and divisive.

“I think that at this moment, it would not help the social climate. There’s a lot of pressure right now, and I think we have to be careful. We really don’t need to throw oil on the fire,” he said.JE REFUSE!

A truck participates in a blockade of downtown streets near the parliament building as a demonstration led by truck drivers protesting vaccine mandates continues on February 16, 2022 in Ottawa, Ontario.  (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Quebec lifted more of the restrictions opposed by the protesters on Monday. On Tuesday, plans were announced to begin removing vaccine passport requirements in stages, with the process completed by March 14.

CTV News reported that size restrictions on private gatherings have been lifted in Quebec, restaurants can seat more customers, four visitors a day are now permitted at old age homes if they have vaccine passports, and seniors are permitted limited outings.

Gyms and spas are now allowed to operate at half capacity, while outdoor events will be allowed with up to five thousand attendees.

Beginning on February 21, capacity limits will be removed on retail outlets, places of worship will be allowed to operate at half capacity, and amusement parks will be allowed to reopen with attendance limits. A week later, the capacity limits are due to be removed from houses of worship and all but the largest arenas, while bars and casinos will be allowed to reopen at half capacity. Most of the capacity limits are supposed to be phased out by the middle of March.

On Tuesday, Quebec announced the beginning of the end for vaccine passports, amusingly beginning with liquor and cannabis stores on Wednesday. The passports will be gone almost entirely by March 14, which is also when Health Minister Christian Dube is expected to begin distributing antiviral treatments for the Wuhan coronavirus.

“Proof of vaccination will still be required for domestic rail and air travel, as mandated by the federal government. Masks will also still be required in all public indoor spaces in the province,” CBC News noted.

Dube insisted the abrupt decision to remove vaccine passport requirements had nothing to do with the Freedom Convoy protests.

“We’re doing it because it’s the right time to do it. Because it’s safe for public health. And as I said, it’s there when we need it,” he said, threatening to bring the passport system back if another coronavirus outbreak hits the province.

Interim Director of Public Health Dr. Luc Boileau added that vaccine passports had become somewhat obsolete in the face of the highly contagious omicron variant, since only recent booster shots seem to have much effect against it. Millions of Quebec residents have recently been exposed to omicron, so by the time the recommended 8-12 week wait for vaccination after an infection has passed, the omicron wave should be largely over.

CBC News quoted McGill University associate professor of immunology Jorg Hermann Fritz questioning Dube’s claim that protests had no impact on the timetable for relaxing coronavirus measures.

“I think it’s populism, played straight and simple,” Fritz asserted. “It’s unfortunately a political ‘giving in’ and throwing it all out the window. That’s my interpretation.”

Friz and some Quebecers interviewed by CBC thought removing the coronavirus restrictions and vaccine passport requirements was a mistake with the omicron wave still ongoing, while others were relieved to see the end of the burdensome regulations.

Epidemiologist Dr. Christopher Labos told Global News on Wednesday that removing the vaccine passport would “remove at least one of those incentives” to get vaccinated or boosted.

“There is still a significant segment of the population that needs to get vaccinated with their third dose, if we are indeed going to protect ourselves against any future variants,” Labos said.

RELATED VIDEO: Live streams from downtown Ottawa.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘The People’s Convoy’ Heading to Washington, Organizers Unveil Their Plans

Canada’s House of Commons erupts after Trudeau accuses Jewish Conservatives of supporting swastikas

Freedom Truckers Call In Massive Backup – Biden And Trudeau Are No Match For These Guys

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

Quick note: 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. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical 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 me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

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

WATCH: Canada’s House of Commons Erupts after Trudeau Accuses Jewish Conservatives of Supporting Swastikas

/in , , , , , , /by

A new low for Canada’s wretched prime minister.

Canada’s House of Commons erupts after Trudeau accuses Jewish MP of supporting swastikas

The speaker of the House of Commons admonished Trudeau and others to avoid ‘inflammatory’ language

By Fox News, February 16, 2022

The Canadian House of Commons erupted in shouts of condemnation Wednesday after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau replied to a Jewish member of Parliament by accusing members of the opposing Conservative Party of “standing with people who wave swastikas.”

Trudeau, a member of the Liberal Party, made his comment in response to being grilled by Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman during a tense, emotional Question Period, which occurs every sitting day in the Canadian House of Commons when members of Parliament ask questions of government ministers, including the prime minister.

Lantsman, who became the first Jewish woman to be elected as a Conservative MP last October, read a 2015 quote from Trudeau when he said, “If Canadians are going to trust their government, their government needs to trust Canadians.”

Lantsman contrasted such a sentiment with Trudeau characterizing members of the Freedom Convoy as “very often misogynistic, racist, women-haters, science-deniers, the fringe.” Accusing him of fanning “the flames of an unjustified national emergency,” Lantsman demanded to know “When did the prime minister lose his way?”

“Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas, they can stand with people who wave the Confederate flag,” Trudeau said in response. “We will choose to stand with Canadians who deserve to be able to get to their jobs, to be able to get their lives back. These illegal protests need to stop, and they will.”

The other side of chamber erupted in response, prompting Speaker of the House of Commons Anthony Rota to interrupt in an attempt to restore order. He also admonished all — “including the Right Honourable prime minister” — to avoid “inflammatory” language in the House.

MP Dane Lloyd later rose to rebuke Trudeau for his comment, saying, “Mr. Speaker, I’ve never seen such shameful and dishonorable remarks coming from this prime minister. My great-grandfather flew over 30 missions over Nazi Germany. My great-great-uncle’s body lies at the bottom of the English Channel. There are members of this Conservative caucus who are the descendants of victims of the Holocaust.

“For the prime minister to accuse any colleague in this house of standing with a swastika is shameful. I’m giving the prime minister an opportunity. I’m calling on him to unreservedly apologize for this shameful remark,” he added.

Trudeau three times ignored Lloyd’s demand for an apology, which Lloyd said “speaks volumes.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jordan Peterson Rips Trudeau Over Swastika Taunt To Jewish Lawmaker: Never ‘Encountered Anyone More Self-Righteous’

Trudeau blames Americans for trucker protest, crisis inside Canada

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

Quick note: 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. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical 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 me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

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

Governor DeSantis Blocks Biden Admin’s International Child-Trafficking Scheme In Florida

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

DeSantis steps up again to battle the party of evil.

DeSantis Blocks Biden Admin’s International Child-Trafficking Scheme In Florida

By: Jordan Boyd 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is seeking to block federally funded housing organizations from incentivizing child trafficking promoted by President Joe Biden’s border crisis by stripping their licenses to operate.

The Republican first directed the Florida Department of Children and Families to look into the situation in September, followed by an emergency rule in December that halted issuing and renewing the licenses of organizations that accepted federal money to house unaccompanied migrant children. In September 2021 alone, border officials encountered 14,358 alien minors along the Southern U.S. border.

It wasn’t until last week that the DCF released a permanent rule proposal solidifying the state’s intent to cut off licensing for organizations harboring unaccompanied alien children at the request of the federal government. While the state will continue to participate in refugee resettlement programs with federal agencies, DCF Secretary Shevaun Harris confirmed that Florida “will no longer be complicit” in Biden’s border crisis which funnels more than $66 million to childcare and child-placing agencies in the Sunshine State.

As border apprehensions reach record-breaking highs nearly every month, the Biden administration has been conducting covert “ghost” flights to ship and resettle illegal aliens including minors across the country with little to no transparency or vetting. As a result, federal officials have lost track of almost 40 percent of migrant children who were released from border officials’ custody between January and May of last year.

DeSantis, however, made it clear that he doesn’t want Florida involved with the federal government’s attempts to incentivize illicit practices at the Southern border, including human smuggling, which is often facilitated by drug traffickers and criminal gangs.

“The current [unaccompanied alien children] process smuggles in illegal immigrants from many different countries with no vetting, no transparency, and no consideration for child and public safety,” DeSantis explained last week.

During an event with Cuban Americans who were ushered into Florida under Operation Pedro Pan, a pre-planned mission in the early 1960s designed to rescue unaccompanied minors from the communist regime in Cuba and bring them to the U.S., DeSantis explained that the Biden administration is endangering migrant children by spreading them across the country.

“I just think there’s a lot of bad analogies that get made in modern political discourse. But to equate what’s going on with the Southern border with mass trafficking of humans, illegal entry, drugs, all this other stuff — with operation Pedro Pan, quite frankly, is disgusting. It’s wrong. It is not even close to the same thing,” DeSantis said.

Like many times before, corporate media and leftist activists quickly attacked the Republican based on lies. Among those opposed to the new rule is Catholic Archbishop Thomas Wenski of the Archdiocese of Miami, who accused DeSantis of participating in political theater and lied about the governor’s comments.

“At Governor DeSantis’ Monday meeting with a few former Pedro Pan kids in Miami’s Museum of the Cuban Diaspora, he described any comparison of unaccompanied minors from Cuba in the early 60’s with those from Central America today as ‘disgusting,’” Wenski falsely claimed. “This was a new low in the zero-sum politics of our divisive times. Children are children — and no child should be deemed ‘disgusting’ — especially by a public servant.”

DeSantis, a father to three kids, never said children are “disgusting” but Wenski’s comments fit the Democrat narrative too well for pro-illegal immigration activists to pass up.

The American Business Immigration Coalition Action quickly sprung to action and released a “six-figure buy” radio advertisement using Wenski’s false claims to smear DeSantis.

“‘Disgusting’ is that Gov. DeSantis is trying to benefit himself politically by attacking innocent immigrant children who are only seeking refuge and to top it off, he did it in Miami, Florida’s own Ellis Island,” an English translation of the ad script states.

One thing the archbishop didn’t mention in his now-prolific falsehood about DeSantis was that the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, which he presides over, received millions of dollars from the Biden administration to harbor child migrants.

Financial documents obtained by The Federalist via an open records request indicate that in 2021 alone, CCAM raked in $10,048,439 from the federal government to serve 352 unaccompanied alien children in the state of Florida — more than $28,500 per child.

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

Quick note: 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. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical 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 me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

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

For the Biden Administration, National Security is ‘Mission Irrelevant’

/in , , , , , , , , /by

USCIS Mission Statement underscores dangerous priorities.

The term “Mission Statement” has been defined as: a formal summary of the aims and values of a company, organization, or individual.

In other words, the mission statement concisely establishes the goals and priorities of an organization for both the general the public and for the employees of that organization.

The organization we will consider in my commentary today article is United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency operates under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and is charged with adjudicating applications for various immigration benefits that include the permitting aliens to change immigration status in the United States to acquire political asylum, lawful immigrant status (signified by being issued a “Green Card”), and United States citizenship.

I have come to think of USCIS as “America’s locksmith” because aliens who has been granted lawful status may easily enter the United States through ports of entry and remain in the United States permanently.  For such aliens border walls are irrelevant.

The February 10, 2022 Epoch Times report, US Immigration Agency Changes Mission, Removes Key Phrases, began with this excerpt:

A key federal agency on Feb. 10 changed its mission statement, removing several key phrases.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “upholds America’s promise as a nation of welcome and possibility with fairness, integrity, and respect for all we serve,” the new mission statement says.

Under the old statement, the agency was described as “administer[ing] the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”

USCIS, with approximately 19,000 employees, oversees legal immigration to the United States.

Ur Jaddou, the agency’s director, said the new statement “reflects the inclusive character of both our country and this agency,” adding, “The United States is and will remain a welcoming nation that embraces people from across the world who seek family reunification, employment or professional opportunities, and humanitarian protection.”

The clear difference between the two missions statements issued by the Trump administration, versus the Biden Administration is extremely worrying and helps to clearly delineate the stark contrasts between the two administrations.

The Biden Administration’s goals and priorities in many areas stand in stark contrast with the goals and priorities of the Trump administration that it replaced.  Arguable the greatest differences concern border security and immigration law enforcement.

President Trump understood that border security is synonymous with national security and our immigration laws are essential to protect America and Americans from threats to public health, national security and public safety while Biden and his administration have charted a very different and perilous course that utterly ignores these threats.

Under Trump the mission statement of USCIS took a balanced approach- maintaining America’s tradition as a welcoming nation, but prioritizing the need to protect Americans and the homeland.  Under Biden, there is no mention in that mission statement about protecting America or Americans but is all about welcoming everyone with no thought being given to implications that this may have for national security public safety.

For most folks immigration law enforcement is synonymous with the notion of border security and the Border Patrol which is charged with interdicting those who would enter the United States by evading the vital inspections process conducted at ports of entry by the Inspectors of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) the same element of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under which the Border Patrol operates.

However, as I have noted on my prior occasions and during my testimony before numerous Congressional hearings, the United States is a nation of 50 border states and therefore the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, the mission of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is at least as important as is the need to secure our borders from the unlawful entry by individual who seek to evade the inspections process.

One of the critical responsibilities of ICE is to not only identify, investigate and arrest illegal aliens and aliens who are engaged in other criminal activities, but to conduct investigations into those who defraud the immigration system administered by USCIS, to seek lawful status by lying and/or concealing material facts that would prevent them from acquiring lawful status through the immigration benefits program such as political asylum, lawful immigrant status (as signified by being issued a “Green Card”) and ultimately, United States citizenship.  Many of these critical investigations are generally predicated on requests by USCIS when fraud is suspected.

As I noted in an extensive article I wrote some time ago, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill – 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as a key embedding tactic of terrorists:

The official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States and ultimately embed themselves in the United States as they went about their deadly preparations and carry out an attack.  The preface of this report begins with this paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States.

The following paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits”:

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

Nevertheless, the Epoch Times report I cited above also includes this disturbing excerpt about the new mission statement:

Michael Knowles, president of AFGE Local 1924, said the union supports the statement.

He told The Epoch Times in an email that it “reflects the views of many of the employees who do this important work.”

The union represents USCIS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement workers. Both agencies sit inside the Department of Homeland Security.

Under Biden the entire workforce at USCIS, that should be dedicated to protecting America and Americans, have been indoctrinated to completely disregard their responsibilities to seek to uncover fraud and the threats such fraud might create.

Consider that on October 22, 2022 I wrote the article, Biden Administration Plans To Protect Immigration Fraudsters.

Long after Biden is gone, these employees will remain at USCIS.

Members of Congress who are concerned about national security and public safety should be demanding to be given, for review, the curriculum being taught to the USCIS employees at the academy and the critical elements of their job descriptions and their evaluations.

This insanity at USCIS should not come as a surprise, however. There is a Yiddish expression that says, “When the fish goes bad, it smells from the head.”

Back on December 7, 2021 I wrote about my concerns about Alejandro Mayorkas, who is now the Director of the DHS. My article was, Biden’s DHS: Department of Homeland Surrender; Alejandro Mayorkas, architect of DACA, picked by Biden to head DHS.

Mayorkas was the Director of USCIS under the Obama administration.

On March 20, 2013 I testified before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing on the topic, Building An Immigration System Worthy Of American Values.

My prepared testimony concluded with these two paragraphs that are even more pertinent today:

Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered and that if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourages aspiring illegal aliens around the world to head for the United States. In effect the starter’s pistol has been fired and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.

Back when I was an INS special agent I recall that Doris Meissner who was, at the time, the commissioner of the INS, said that the agency needed to be “customer oriented.” Unfortunately, while I agree about the need to be customer oriented what Ms Meissner and too many politicians today seem to have forgotten is that the “customers” of the INS and of our government in general, are the citizens of the United States of America.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Wrong Again

/in , , , , , , , /by

Patrick Kingsley is the Jerusalem Bureau Chief of the New York Times, who has a great deal of trouble getting his facts right about Israel and the Palestinians. He has had help from the rest of the resident staff, but that hasn’t rescued him from error. A report on the ineffable Kingsley is here: “How Many Helpers Does the New York Times Have to Hire for Error-Prone Jerusalem Bureau Chief?,” by Ira Stoll, Algemeiner, February 14, 2022:

The New York Times’ error-prone Jerusalem bureau chief, Patrick Kingsley, is at it again.

A full page of Sunday’s New York Times was devoted to a Kingsley dispatch from the West Bank, with reporting “contributed by Rami Nazzal and Hiba Yazbek from Burin, Myra Noveck from Yitzhar and Givat Ronen, Jonathan Shamir from Tel Aviv, and Rawan Sheikh Ahmad from Haifa.” What did this team of error-prone chief Kingsley and five helpers come up with?

More mistakes. Kingsley and Co. report:

Settlers injured at least 170 Palestinians last year and killed five, UN monitors reported. During the same period, Palestinians injured at least 110 settlers and killed two, UN records show. The Israeli Army said that Palestinians had injured 137 Israeli civilians in the West Bank last year.

But if the numbers are roughly comparable, the power dynamic is different … Settlers, unlike Palestinians, have the protection of the military and are rarely in danger of losing the land they live on.

It’s not accurate that Israeli settlers “are rarely in danger of losing the land they live on.”

Let’s look at the history.

In 586 BCE, when the first Temple was destroyed, the Jews were deported to Babylonia.

After 70 CE, when the Romans conquered Jerusalem and sacked the Second Temple, the Jews dispersed to various places. They were expelled from England in 1290, from France in 1306, and from Spain in 1492. Those who settled in central and eastern Europe had their property seized from them by the Nazis and the Communists.

Jews kept being expelled from one country after another in Western Europe, “losing the land” they lived on, as well as whatever other property they possessed: from England in 1290, from France in 1306, from Spain in 1492, from Portugal in 1497. Those who lived in Central and Eastern Europe had centuries of persecutions an pogroms to contend with, losing their land and their lives during the Khmelnitsky Uprising in the Ukraine in the mid-17th century; Jews were again deprived of their land, and their lives, during the Nazi Holocaust; Jews again lost their property in Eastern Europe and Russia under the Communists.

In the land of Israel, Jews who lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and elsewhere in eastern Jerusalem had their property taken away by Jordan, which seized the territory in the war initiated by the Arabs in 1948 to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel.

Let’s also remember the 850,000 Jews who were either expelled or fled from Arab countries between 1948 and 1953. They lost their homes and land, their businesses, their property. That is why many Jews, including those in Israel, have internalized, as a kind of folk memory, the loss of their land over so many centuries, and in so many places.

Despite that history of Jews repeatedly having their land taken away from them, Patrick Kingsley insists that today’s Jewish settlers in Israel “are rarely in danger of losing the land they live on.” But that is not true, as the settlers well know.

Even the Israeli government has uprooted a series of settlements as part of a series of peace agreements.

In 1982, the Times itself reported that in turning over the Sinai peninsula to Egypt, Israel relinquished “16 civilian settlements.” The last of these was Yamit.…

“Tearfully but Forcefully, Israel Removes Gaza Settlers,” was the headline over another 2005 New York Times article. “By nightfall, the army said it had cleared the settlements of Morag, Bedolah, Kerem Atzmona, Ganei Tal, and Tel Katifa. Gadid, Peat Sadeh, Rafiah Yam, Shalev, Dugit and Nisanit were already empty or nearly so.”…

Loss of land in Gaza, where 9,000 Jewish settlers were forcibly uprooted in 2005; loss of land, too, in the West Bank, where some settlements were also closed down by the IDF. And every single one of the half-million Israelis living in the West Bank has to worry about a “peace” that will establish a Palestinian state that will include all of the West Bank and Gaza – squeezing Israel back within the 1949 armistice lines. Of course they fear “losing the land they live on.”…

The Times’ formulation that “Violence has long been deployed by both Israelis and Palestinians” makes no distinction between illegal terrorist violence and lawful warfare.

Palestinian violence is deployed in terrorist attacks on Jewish men, women, and children. Israeli violence is deployed by the police and the IDF who track down, and arrest, or kill those same terrorists. These are not equivalent uses o violence. But Kingsley doesn’t appear to see the difference.

Kingsley needs to remember that Israel has faced both enemy states and terrorist groups; it has never been the aggressor. The day after Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the armies of five Arab states invaded to snuff out the young life of the Jewish state. Israel has had to fight three wars for its very survival, in 1948, 1967, and 1973. It has also had to fight eight other campaigns: in the Sinai in 1956, to stop the attacks on Israeli civilians in the Negev by Egyptian fedayin; a campaign to oust the terrorist PLO from Lebanon; two wars against the terrorist Hezbollah, and four campaigns against Hamas terrorists in Gaza. It is the Arabs who have constantly rejected a peace deal with Israel. They rejected the UN Partition Plan in 1947, and in response to Israel’s invitation to make peace with the Arabs after the Six-Day War, the Arabs answered with the “three Nos” of Khartoum:”No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel.” Yasser Arafat walked away from a generous peace offer from Ehud Barak in 2000; Mahmoud Abbas walked away from an even more generous deal from Ehud Olmert in 2008. Since then Abbas has refused to deal unless Israel agrees that the “1967 borders” – that is, the 1949 armistice lines – will be the basis of negotiations.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians of Hamas, the PIJ, the PFLP, and those, too, who belong to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade of Fatah, carry on their terrorism against Israel. And the P.A. raises another generation to hate Israelis, and want to kill them, by continuing to use textbooks filled with antisemitic filth.. None of this Palestinian rejectionism, terrorism, and antisemitism, as Ira Stoll notes, makes it into Kingsley’s highly inaccurate reports. For him, it’s only the “occupation” and the “settler violence” that matters. There is scarcly a single report by Patrick Kingsley from Israel that has not had to be corrected. Given that record of bias and error, perhaps it’s time for the Times to replace him.

COLUMN BY

HUGH FITZGERALD

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Adidas ad features Muslima who denounces ‘France’s obsession with banning the hijab and niqab’

Iran: Converts from Islam to Christianity begin prison sentences for spreading ‘Zionist’ Christianity

India: Islamic seminary says necktie is Christian emblem that is unlawful and against the Islamic spirit

Pakistan: Court frees brother who confessed to murdering his sister, a social media star, in honor killing

Report shows that the Islamic State transferred large sums of money through Turkey

Germany: Muslim leader justifies murder attempt, rails against ‘Jewish dogs’ on social media

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

It’s Wrong to Play the Transgender Pronoun Game

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Is it harmless to advertise your “preferred pronouns”? Or does it reinforce a toxic ideology?

I’m a parent of a “trans-identified” teen, so the pronoun dilemma is close to home for me. However, as a society, we cannot tackle this issue only when it impacts us personally — we need to band together as a society to say no to this toxic ideology, and saying no to pronouns is a critical part of this process.

Here’s why I don’t put pronouns in my email signature (and you shouldn’t either)…

Psychological abuse

People who promote “using pronouns” claim “for a cisgender person, it costs you nothing.” They claim it normalises the process of “transitioning” for someone else and somehow makes the environment “safer”.

It is true that this normalises a process, but it’s not a process that should be normalised or taken lightly, especially for minor children. It makes the environment more dangerous. When people “use their pronouns”, they have been duped into thinking that they are merely “supporting” people who are different from them.

In fact, they are promoting an aggressive and triumphalist cult ideology, normalising the abnormal, and gaslighting the easily influenced young, leading them down a path of irreparable harm.

Warped body image

At the height of the anorexia epidemic, adults did not announce our “allyship” by including our weight in our email signatures. Encouraging a social contagion makes it worse and it is worse still when trusted adult authorities endorse it.

It hurts vulnerable young people like my daughter, who became trans-identified at school, where teachers kept us in the dark then disregarded our concerns. In the epidemic of Trans Ideology, misguided allyship puts kids on a path that leads to unnecessary medical procedures resulting in sterility and regret.

Cult

New religions never say they are a religion — what they say is that they have discovered The Truth. And, once the mind and heart are won over, adherents will do anything to their bodies in the name of the True Faith. This must stop.

These are the words of a new cult religion’s catechism, not of science:

“They”: when applied to one person

“Deadname”: the name given, with love, by the people who gave you life

“Cisgender”: to describe someone who is not confused about his/her sex. Don’t refer to yourself as “cis-gender.” That’s another made-up term. Another lie. Simply using it reinforces the Big Lie of gender theory. You are a woman or a man, female or male, period. If someone else refers to you as cis-gender, take offense. “Don’t slap your label on me.”

”Transgender”: a euphemism now used to describe a tragically confused person who thinks he or she is trapped in “the wrong body”. This now includes a large number of young people. Let’s reject this term and return to the descriptive term “transsexual” for someone who has struggled with a serious psychological problem and surgeries, and deserves our compassion, but not our indulgence.

Our society might reasonably be accepting of some people eventually undergoing medical “transitions” after their brains are fully developed — possibly the best of bad options for some of the truly dysphoric mentally ill. But, we all know brains are not fully developed before age 26.

Societal implications

There are societal consequences to agreeing and going along with euphemisms, new-speak, and pronouns:

  • That US Assistant Health Secretary Richard (“Rachel”) Levine is our nation’s First Female Four Star Admiral
  • That we should hire confused people to work in positions of authority in our county, state, and national health systems
  • That Wil(Lia)m Thomas is a girl swimmer
  • That schools should deliberately lie to parents about their gender programs, and that an underaged girl should secretly be called “he” in school, then quickly proceed to cross sex hormones and double mastectomies — paid for by insurance — without parental consent or even knowledge if she is 16.

When you play along with an evil game, what happens to you?

“When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity.

To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”

— Theodore Dalrymple

Note: Since this essay was written, Colin Wright penned an excellent op-ed about this topic for the Wall Street Journal.

Republished with permission from Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans (PITT).

COLUMN BY

Anonymous author

In exceptional circumstances, MercatorNet allows contributors to publish articles anonymously. Sometimes the author’s privacy or safety might be at risk. More by Anonymous author

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

Labelling Dissenters as Domestic Terrorists Endangers Democracy in Canada and the U.S.

/in , , , , , , , /by

Two organisers of Canada’s peaceful Freedom Convoy, Chris Barber and Tamara Lich, were arrested today, after the Trudeau government earlier this week invoked the Emergencies Act, formerly the War Measures Act.

As part of its crackdown on mandate critics, Canada has also expanded the definition of “terrorist financing” in order to freeze bank accounts and seize the property of protesters and donors.

Canadian civil rights groups have strongly denounced the move, arguing that the high threshold for an emergency has not been met and that the use of these powers must not be normalised. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has announced that it is suing the government over Trudeau’s effective criminalisation of peaceful dissent.

Meanwhile, south of the border, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has issued a “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin”, suggesting that if a citizen opposes mask and vaccine mandates, they may be a “domestic violent extremist”.

According to the bulletin, released earlier this month, the United States is experiencing a “heightened threat environment”. It warns that “threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.”

In describing the sorts of “false or misleading narratives” that could motivate people to commit violent acts, the bulletin lists “widespread election fraud” at the 2020 election, and the perceived harms of “5G cellular technology”.

The DHS dispatch likewise cautioned that “COVID-19 mitigation measures — particularly COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates — have been used by domestic violent extremists to justify violence since 2020 and could continue to inspire these extremists” to carry out attacks.

Among the other dangers listed were more reasonable threats with clear precedents, such as mass shootings or religiously-motivated terrorist attacks by foreign-funded groups.

Adam Turner, director of the watchdog group Center to Advance Security in America, this week denounced the Biden administration’s targeting of political opponents.

“What is a ‘misleading narrative’, and who’s deciding what’s misleading?” he asked in an interview with the Washington Times. “I think they’re referring to people that don’t agree with whatever their talking points are for that time,” he added.

So slippery was the DHS guidance that under its terms, President Biden himself could be considered a domestic terrorist threat! Last month, Biden questioned the integrity of the upcoming elections, claiming that if the Democrats can’t pass certain voting bills before the midterms, this may increase “the prospect of [the results] being illegitimate”.

Of course, the bulletin was issued under a White House eager to subdue dissent, and would therefore not apply to the President or his Administration. And that is precisely the problem — a problem that threatens the social contract that is democracy.

Alarmingly, this isn’t the first time that everyday Americans who see things differently to the Biden administration have been labelled a domestic threat.

During the latter half of 2021, news outlets reported on a series of heated exchanges between school boards and parents who wanted to see the end of mask mandates, critical race theory and trans ideology in schools.

Following this, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) wrote to the Biden administration, characterising parents as potential “domestic terrorists” and seeking White House intervention. In response, Biden’s attorney general Merrick Garland issued a memo calling for FBI investigations under the Patriot Act — the United States’ controversial anti-terrorism laws.

After public outcry, the NSBA ultimately apologised for its letter.

A month later, it was revealed that the NSBA had been actively engaging with the White House while drafting their “parents-as-domestic-terrorists” correspondence. Indeed, there is strong evidence that a close Biden advisor, the Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, had solicited the letter.

Whether in Canada or the United States, the weaponising of anti-terrorist laws against peaceful opponents is an untenable situation. As explained by philosopher Yoram Hazony, electoral politics only works when both sides recognise each other’s legitimacy:

“One party rules for a fixed term, but its rivals know they will get to rule in turn if they can win the next election. It is the possibility of being able to take power and rule the country without widespread killing and destruction that entices all sides to lay down their weapons and take up electoral politics instead.”

Western nations have long enjoyed the peace and prosperity that such an arrangement has secured for us. Refusing to label one’s political opponents “terrorists” is the minimal precondition for our happy arrangement to survive.

Can we please continue doing so?

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate… More by Kurt Mahlburg

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

COVID and Gender Questions Amazon’s Echo Won’t Answer

/in , , , , , , , /by

Amazon promotes its Echo series of devices from the Dot to the Show. According to the Amazon shopping site:

ALEXA IS READY TO HELP: Set timers, reminders, and alarms. Alexa answers questions like “Alexa, what time is it?”

Have you noticed that your Amazon Echo Show device automatically and regularly displays information, without us asking, about where to get the Covid vaccination and where to get a Covid booster shot? We have.

QUESTION: Have you ever asked your Amazon Echo devices questions about the negative effects of being vaccinated?

We decided to ask our Amazon Echo some Covid questions just to see what the answers would be. Amazon has access to its own vast databases for information on a variety of things including where to get jabbed.

Asking Alexa About Covid

Understanding Amazon has access to information about Covid, we decided to ask some questions about the negative effects of the vaccines that are readily available on both government and medical websites. Here’s the list of Covid questions we asked and how Alexa answered:

  • Alexa, how many Americans have died from taking the Covid vaccines? Alexa’s answer: Sorry, I don’t know that one.
  • Alexa, how many women have miscarried after taking the Covid vaccine? Alexa’s answer: Hum, I don’t know that one.
  • Alexa, are Covid vaccines FDA approved? Alexa’s answer: Sorry, I don’t know that one.
  • Alexa, what is the age of the youngest child who died after taking a Covid vaccine? Alexa’s answer: The dates that vaccines will be available for children in Florida.
  • Alexa, can you sue companies that makes the Covid vaccines? Alexa’s answer: No answer given, it just blinked.
  • Alexa, are government Covid mandates constitutional? Alexa’s answer: Sorry, I don’t know that.
  • Alexa, how many Americans have been hospitalized after taking the Covid vaccine? Alexa’s answer: Sorry, I’m not sure.
  • Alexa, how many women died after taking the Covid vaccine? Alexa’s answer: Sorry, I don’t know that one.
  • Alexa, how many children died after taking the Covid vaccine? Alexa’s answer: Sorry, I don’t know that one.

QUESTION: Are Amazon Echo devices programmed to censor any negative questions about Covid vaccines?

Alexa, How Many Genders Are There?

After asking about Covid we then decided to ask our Amazon Echo a very simple question about gender. I learned in high school biology that gender is binary, male (XX) and female (XY).

OUR QUESTION: Alexa, How many genders are there?

Here’s how our Amazon Echo responded:

Alexa’s answer: The two categories in the gender spectrum, male and female called the gender binary. However, because gender identity is conceptually questioned there is no definitive way to show how many genders there are.

The Bottom Line

If you have an Amazon Echo device in your home take the time ask these same questions and see if you get a different answer.

It is clear from what we asked that Amazon is unable to tell the truth about the negative impacts of taking the Covid vaccines. Amazon is also gender confused.

Think about what your children are learning from these Amazon devices when they ask questions.

QUESTION: Is it that Alexa doesn’t know or that Alexa doesn’t want you to know about the negative impacts of the Covid vaccines and gender?

Can you trust your echo to tell you the truth? If not, then why have an Echo device in your home.

Just asking.

What is really scary is the ad that Amazon played during the Super bowl. Watch:

Is this “Mind Reader” the next generation of Amazon’s way of impacting your personal life?

To understand please read about the plan to turn you into a genetically edited Cyborg by embedding chips into every human being by 2026 and then connecting those chips to “the cloud.” Watch:

If you think this Amazon commercial is tough-in-cheek, think again. Your personal privacy is at risk. Be warned, Amazon is not your friend.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: It’s wrong to play the transgender pronoun game

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

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Look at what the left did to our young (would be) mothers, not to mention the children…. Nazis.

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

by  | Feb 15, 2022 |

Pregnant woman getting vaccine (courtesy: Shutterstock)

Data published by an Israeli academic show a stillbirth, miscarriage, and abortion (SBMA) rate of 6% among women who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In comparison, 8% of women were vaccinated with at least one dose (and never had a SARS-Cov-2 infection).

The data was released to Israeli medical activists who filed FOIA requests.

This means that the chances of suffering a stillbirth, abortion, or miscarriage are 1.36 times greater if the woman is vaccinated.

In other words, the SBMA rate among vaccinated women was close to 34% higher than that of unvaccinated women.

The chart below demonstrates the percentage of births among vaccinated women that were stillborn, miscarriage, or abortion and the rate of live births. the two data sets are compared to the percentage among non-vaccinated women. (Vaccinated in this context means that the woman received at least one dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.)

The SBMA rate among vaccinated women was greater than that among unvaccinated women every month except for February – the initial launch of the vaccination campaign for pregnant women. At that time, just two births were recorded in vaccinated women. The rate peaked in May, with 44% of vaccinated women experiencing a stillbirth, miscarriage, or abortion that month, compared to 9% among unvaccinated women. In other words, of all the recorded pregnancy outcomes among vaccinated women in the month of May, 43% resulted in stillbirth, miscarriage, or abortion.

The data on increased odds of SBMA was presented by a senior lecturer at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Josh Guetzkow, who also debunks a potential argument that women who were vaccinated were more likely to be older and suffer from comorbidities.

Another Israeli hospital in the center of the country didn’t have data on which women suffering from SMBA were vaccinated; the data also shows that the SBMA rate is higher in two hospitals in 2021 in comparison to the previous years. Interestingly, April-June — the period with the highest SMBA rates among the vaccinated at the initial Israeli hospital — also increased at the second Israeli hospital as well. At one of the medical centers, the rate exceeded that period at 8.7% compared to an average of 5.7% during 2019-2020 – a 50% increase. At the other hospital, the SBMA rate in 2021 during the months of April to June was 12.7%, compared to an average of 11.3% during 2019-2020, – a 12% increase.

In May 2021, the first hospital to release data experienced 42 cases of SBMA. This was almost double the total May average from the last two years and a 30% increase from the highest number of any month in the previous two years, which was 32 in June of 2020.

The second medical center saw its highest SBMA rate in June, at 146 – a 30% increase above the average of the previous two years, and an 11% higher than the most significant amount of SBMAs for any month in the last two years -132 in March 2019.

Guetzkow concludes his findings writing that: “In two different Israeli hospitals, 2021 has witnessed significantly higher rates of stillbirths, miscarriages, and abortions than the previous two years, with some months setting a record for the number of SBMAs compared to 2019 and 2020. For the one hospital where we do have data comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated women, the rate of SBMAs among vaccinated women is 34% higher than among unvaccinated women.”

RELATED VIDEO: The HIDDEN Story of Ivermectin! More Powerful Than You Realize!

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

Quick note: 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. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical 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 me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

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

Operatives Allegedly Used by Hillary Clinton Campaign to Spy on Trump WH Had Contract with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Washington, D.C. – Judicial Watch announced today that it received 127 pages of records from the Georgia Institute of Technology of communications among four individuals. These records reveal that the individuals, who are mentioned in the Durham probe indictment of Michael Sussmann, worked with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) from 2016-2021. The documents also suggest the group was interested in targeting then-Trump campaign adviser Steve Bannon. 

Judicial Watch obtained the records through an October 13, 2021, Georgia Open Records Act request for records of communication among Rodney Joffe, April Lorenzen, David Dagon, and Manos Antonakakis.

According to The New York Times:

Mr. Durham used a 27-page indictment to lay out a far more expansive tale, one in which four computer scientists who were not charged in the case ‘exploited’ their access to internet data to develop an explosive theory about cyberconnections in 2016 between Donald J. Trump’s company and a Kremlin-linked bank — a theory, he insinuated, they did not really believe.

[ … ]

The indictment’s “Originator-1” is April Lorenzen, chief data scientist at the information services firm Zetalytics. Her lawyer, Michael J. Connolly, said she has “dedicated her life to the critical work of thwarting dangerous cyberattacks on our country,” adding: “Any suggestion that she engaged in wrongdoing is unequivocally false.” 

The indictment’s “Researcher-1” is another computer scientist at Georgia Tech, Manos Antonakakis. “Researcher-2” is Mr. Dagon. And “Tech Executive-1” is Mr. Joffe, who in 2013 received the F.B.I. Director’s Award for helping crack a cybercrime case, and retired this month from Neustar, another information services company. 

In a court filing last week, Durham alleged this operation directly spied on Trump tower, Trump’s home, and the Trump White House by exploiting “access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data.”

The anti-Trump operation used the “assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.” 

On November 18, 2016, a redacted email address writes on “behalf of Manos Antonakakis” to two Georgia Tech officials in an email titled “Signed DARPA Contract:”

Hey Ashley,

Please send to Michael the signed contract for their records.

Thanks,

Manos

On November 21, 2016, Ashley Williams, a Georgia Tech contracting officer, replies:

Good morning!!

Attached is a copy of the new award for your records. Please note the contract is subject to publication restrictions identified in the DD 254. I’m actively working with AFRL [likely Air Force Research Laboratory] to revise the DD 254 to clarify that fundamental research is excluded from the publication restrictions. Although we’ve signed the contract award and I have to defer project initiation until the publication restrictions are resolved by the AFRL sponsor.

Let me know if you have any questions.

On August 2, 2016, Antonakakis writes to Danielle Gambino and Keromytis, Angelos, a DARPA employee:

The subs and I, would like to have the permission to begin spending against the project from August 15th. This is the date when students needs to be hired [as graduate research assistants], so we can execute against the goals we have set in the [statement of work] this year.

UNC, GT and UGA would require an acknowledgment from you (or DARPA) that we are allowed to do that. I guess, once we are done negotiating the contract we will have to have as an effective start date the August 15th. If we cannot do that, it appears that it will complicate things for all three schools, as we cannot immediately hire the students necessary that will execute against the set milestones.

Please let me know how you think we should resolve this issue.

At 2:55 p.m. Angelos replies, “I’m ok with that, but I seriously doubt the contracting officer will agree.”

At 3:16 p.m. Gambino also replies:

As usual, Angelos is correct!

Working with contracting to authorize pre-award work can take a while and typically is not allowed until closer to contract award. Although I certainly appreciate your eagerness to start working, we are at the very start of the contracting process – this is really way too early for this type of request. (The contract specialists haven’t even been assigned yet.)

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me with any other questions.

On January 9, 2017, a DARPA employee, Kelly McLaughlin, follows up with Antonakakis. She writes:

Manos,

DARPA put $153,138 on the Georgia Tech Transparent Computing (TC) contract back in October, 2016 to cover the costs proposed in the attached SOW. The SOW asked for 0.83 month of your academic salary, salary for one Research Engineer, David Dagon, and funds for four graduate student research assistants. Were the proposed grad student costs supposed to cover UNC grad students or Georgia Tech grad students? The SOW shows them as Georgia Tech students.

Please let me know if these funds were supposed to cover UNC. If so, the TC BFM, Laurisa Goergen, will reach out to the TC admin POC for Georgia Tech to see what, if anything, can be done at this point.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Emails indicate that Neustar employees may have visited Georgia Tech to collaborate with Antonakakis. On May 27, 2016, Atreya Mohan from Neustar writes in an email with the subject line “Introducing Peter Burke:” 

Hello Manos

Just wanted to introduce you to Peter (our SVP Engg and Operations).  

Peter. We contact Manos on his gmail account for consulting purposes and his Georgia Tech email address for interactions that relate with the university (example: sponsorship etc)”

Burke replies:

Hi Manos, 

It was great to meet you today – it is very interesting work that you do and I see great opportunities to collaborate with you. 

I would like to try to figure out a time to come and spend more time with so that you can continue my education 🙂

I am guessing you are based in Atlanta?

 Antonakakis writes that evening:

 Hey Mohan,

Many thanks for the intro. Peter, the pleasure was all mine!

Yes, you should come and visit us. I would suggest sometime in September, when the semester starts and my students are back from their internships in the bay area. You are more than welcome to visit sooner, but it will be just me and my three postdocs. 

The Neustar team is always welcome to visit my lab. Anytime you, Rodney, Brian or anyone else want to visit.

Antonakakis responds to this chain again on July 14, 2016, writing: 

Gentlemen,

By now all of you should be aware of the great news from DARPA. We have a 5 year long collaboration ahead of us, so I think it would make sense for the Neustar team to visit Atlanta and my lab.

How is the week of August 15 looks like for you? Mine is completely open. Perhaps, we should schedule the visit then?

In an email to Antonakakis on January 29, 2017, Dagon writes:

 The Russians are killing spies with knowledge of the dossier materials:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3930099/former-kgb-chief-who-allegedly-helped-to-compile-golden-shower-dossier-on-donald-trump-found-dead/

Oh, and Trump purged the National Security Council (removing General Dunford) and put Steve Bannon (his PR guy) on the NSC:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/mccain-bannon-nsc-234329

My guess: The purged NSC will now say that Russia has given us great intel on ISIS, and that we should lift sanctions now that Russia is helping. (The public will have no way to judget [sic] this.)

All this to protect Trump from the dossier materials.

Antonakakis replies the same day, “What the [f*ck] is going on? Can you please explain why GOP is not doing something?” 

He then writes again a few minutes later:

Some in the GOP knows what’s up (Graham, McCain), but most are all too happy to have their narrow, specific agendas advanced (e.g., removing social security, ACA/Obama-care repeal, more tax cuts for companies, etc.) They put party ahead of country, in short.

In 2018 the Senate (and maybe the House) may flip, and there will then be real investigations (but again, party will be ahead of country, as Democrats look into corruption for narrow purposes).

Now that the Russians are killing people with knowledge of the dossier, we can hope for a defector who gets to a non-US embassy in Moscow.

An August 25, 2016, email from Joffe to Antonakakis, Dagon and Lorenzen indicates a possible interest in investigating Steve Bannon. The subject line is “To be added….” Joffe writes: “They think he may have some baggage… ;-)” A link to a Washington Post opinion piece is included. 

“Was the Defense Department’s DARPA funding information misused by the Clinton campaign to spy on the Trump White House?” asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The emails highlight that the ‘tech’ experts implicated in the Durham indictment were very much interested in the fake dossier used to smear President Trump.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Tech Exec Who Helped Democrats ‘Spy’ On President Trump Admits To Providing Data To CIA

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