Trump to Launch His Social Media App in February

The mainstream social media platforms are ruthlessly censoring conservatives. As such, President Trump’s social media platform could be a game changer. It will enable conservatives to have the ability to express their views to a large audience. President Trump’s 150 million plus social media supporters must (and will) support his social site. Expect alternative social media platforms to explode in popularity between now and 2024.

I predict this will be YUUUUGE. I am all in.

Trump to launch his social media app in February, listing shows

By Yahoo, January 6, 2022

By Krystal Hu and Helen Coster

(Reuters) -Former President Donald Trump’s new media venture plans to launch its social media app Truth Social on Feb. 21, according to an Apple Inc App Store listing.

TRUTH Social, the Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) alternative to Twitter, is available for pre-order before going live on the U.S. Presidents’ Day holiday.

Similar to Twitter, the app offers features to follow other people and trending topics, according to demo photos. Its message equivalent of a tweet will be dubbed “truth”.

The app’s launch would come 13 months after Meta Platforms Inc’s Facebook and Twitter banned Trump for encouraging his supporters to participate in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol based on unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Marking the one-year anniversary of the attack, U.S. President Joe Biden said on Thursday that his predecessor’s false claims could unravel the rule of law and subvert future elections.

TMTG and Apple did not respond to requests for comment, but a source familiar with the matter confirmed that Feb. 21 is the planned launch date of the app.

The launch is expected to be the first of three stages in TMTG’s development. The second would be a subscription video-on-demand service called TMTG+ with entertainment, news and podcasts, according to the company website. A November investor presentation indicated that TMTG also wants to launch a podcast network.

TMTG is valued at $5.3 billion based on the stock price of Digital World Acquisition Corp, which rose 20% after Reuters reported the app’s listing on the App Store. TMTG agreed in October to merge with the blank-check firm at a valuation of $875 million.

Trump supporters and retail investors have snapped up Digital World’s stock, betting that Trump’s popularity with his Republican political base will translate into commercial runaway success.

The blank-check acquisition deal faces regulatory risk. Democratic U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren asked Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler last month to investigate the planned merger for potential violations of securities laws around disclosure. The SEC has declined to comment on whether it plans any action.

TMTG last month raised an additional $1 billion from private investors.

Trump canceled a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that had been scheduled for Jan. 6, marking the one-year anniversary of the Capitol attack. He said he will instead deliver remarks at a rally in Arizona on Jan. 15.


Alternate social media platforms see huge growth in year following Capitol riot

The Media, Democrats And Social Media Teaming To Damage Ron DeSantis

PODCAST: Social Media Censorship!

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.

Boston Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev Got $1400 in COVID Relief

My latest in PJ Media:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the two brothers who murdered three people and maimed many others with pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, has always been something of a rock star among terrorists. Unlike, say, 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was famously photographed shortly after his capture looking like something the cat dragged in, Tsarnaev’s boyish good looks instantly made him a hero to the Leftist and the stupid, to the extent that he was even featured on the cover of Rolling Stone, looking like the next teen heartthrob.

And in a certain sense, he is. According to The Washington Post, “Tsarnaev’s case is noteworthy for the amount of financial support he receives from people outside his family. Some of his supporters send money to his federal public defender lawyers, who have sent along $11,230 of those payments to his account, according to the court filing. Others send Tsarnaev money directly, including a person in Indiana whose payments over the years total $2,555, someone in New Jersey who sent him a total of $1,450 and a Maryland resident who sent a total of $950, the court filing states.” BizPacReview adds that Tsarnaev raked in “another $3,486.60” from “32 people who were unidentified, according to the filing.”

The court filing they’re talking about is the reason why all this has come out: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was ordered to pay $101,126,627 to his victims, but up to now has only paid $2,202.03. Now federal prosecutors are asking the Bureau of Prisons to seize the $3,885.06 that Tsarnaev has amassed. It seems that, in the last six years, he has received over $21,000, including a $1,400 coronavirus relief check from the federal government, but instead of paying his victims, he has lavished most of this money on himself and his relatives. He has spent $13,000 on himself, but news reports unfortunately don’t specify what he spent it on in prison.

Meanwhile, the fact that he receives money from supporters around the country, while revolting, is not surprising. CBS Boston reported back in July of 2013 that “a small group of demonstrators showed up at Moakley Federal Courthouse in South Boston” to show support for Tsarnaev when he appeared in court for the first time after the bombings. This group actually “cheered as the motorcade carrying Tsarnaev arrived at the courthouse. The demonstrators yelled ‘Justice for Jahar,’ as Tsarnaev is known. One woman held a sign that said, ‘Free Jahar.’” Meanwhile, “others held signs claiming Tsarnaev’s innocence, while suggesting elaborate conspiracies surrounding the bombing and Tsarnaev’s arrest.”

There is more. Read the rest here.


Democrats Blocked Amendment That Would Have Banned Boston Bomber From Receiving Stimulus

Iranian Wrestling Team Coming to U.S. for Friendship Match, Iran Wrestling Chief Says It’s for ‘Death to America’

Did Biden Help Finance Hamas Rocket Attacks on Israel?

Israel’s FM tweets to Iranian FM about regime’s ‘evil essence,’ says Iran nuke deal will not end well

Jewish broadcaster resigns over anti-Semitism after BBC wrongly blames Jewish victims for Muslim attack

Nigeria: Muslims murder Christian after New Year’s prayer meeting, say it’s ‘first attack of the new year’

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

Islamo-Leftism [Part 3]

Editor’s note: The following is a translation by Ibn Warraq and Robert Kerr of Michel Onfray’s L’Art d’Etre Francais (The Art of Being French, Bouquins, 2021), published here for the first time. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.

Foucault went on a second trip in November of that year, and a new series of articles appeared. On February 13, 1979, when Khomeini left for Iran, the philosopher, who had made the trip to Neauphle-le-Château, was present at the airport.

What arguments do the articles he published in the Italian newspaper at the end of 1978 make?

That Islam is the answer to the Shah’s westernization of Iran; that, for want of justice, the Mullahs provide charity in response to the regime’s imperialism; that a Muslim killing another Muslim is scandalous – which is however to ignore the history of Shiite-Sunni relations for almost a millennium and a half; that Israel backed the Shah along with the United States and France (but then so did the Soviet Union); that, paradoxically for a normalien, modernity is archaism – and thus tradition is the true modernity; that the regime was corrupt and that the Shah was imposing on his people “a regime of occupation” comparable “to all colonial regimes” (III, 683).

– therefore, to oppose this is to resist; secularism and industrialization are no longer relevant

-and consequently, theocracy and feudal economy represent the true modernity; the Shah’s regime stands for archaism while that of the Mullahs  is modernity; that the traditional life defended by the Mullahs is preferable to the modernity advocated by the Shah; that “Islam, which for so many centuries has so carefully regulated daily life, family ties, and social relations” (III, 685), is most capable of offering “protection” against the regime – “didn’t its rigor [sic], its immobility [re-sic] determine its success?” Accordingly, “the Islamic government” and the left make common cause without any difficulty  (this is the genealogy of Islamo-leftism); that the Qur’an legitimized the struggle against the Shah, the Americans, “the West and its materialism”; that Islam is fascinated by death and martyrdom (and it is understandable that this proved irresistible to Foucault, who shared this fascination); that the Islamist sermons broadcast in the streets by loudspeaker reminded him of Savonarola – who headed the Catholic theocratic dictatorship in Florence without our philosophy professor being troubled about it; that the Shiite clergy disregards hierarchy, but that one must follow ‘the great ayatollahs’ because they crystallize the will of the people; that Islam is opposed to state power (a notion that a thousand years of Islamic politics refutes); and “that one fact must be clear: By ‘Islamic government’ no one in Iran means a political regime in which the clergy would play a leading or supervisory role” (III, 691) – Everyone will appreciate the philosopher’s immense foresight; that Islam once in power would protect freedoms, minorities, the equality of men and women, that the people could hold those who govern them to account; that this same political Islam would make it possible to reinsert spirituality, that is to say religion, into politics – which means abolishing secularism and restoring the theocratic order that the French Revolution had suppressed in order to favor the democratic order; that a ‘political spirituality’ (III, 694) is a project that ‘impressed’ (that’s his own word) Michel Foucault.

In speaking of this “political spirituality” as something we had forgotten “since the Renaissance and the great crises of Christianity” (though all counter-revolutionary thought was full of it in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, one only has to read Joseph de Maistre[4], Louis de Bonald[5], Blanc de Saint-Bonnet[6]), Foucault writes: “I can already hear the French laughing, but I know they are wrong” (III, 694).

The philosopher, however, was also wrong on this subject: many French people did not laugh, many of them even subscribed to this reactionary and theocratic thinking, since it came from a man who called himself a leftist. I am thinking of Serge July in Libération or Jean Daniel in Le Nouvel Observateur, who also thought along these lines. The same applies to the Parti socialiste. Or with Le Monde, which, since the war in Lebanon in 1975, pitted the “Islamo-progressivists” against the “conservative Christians”. This has since become the dominant ideology of what presents itself as the Left and claims to be progressive.

Islamo-Gauchism was thus born in the wake of this Iranian revolution when Foucault believed that Islamic traditionalist thought, that is to say its anti-Semitism, its phallocracy, its misogyny, its theocracy, its homophobia, were susceptible to become the truth of the future.

He was certainly not wrong to write: “The issue of Islam as a political force is a crucial matter for our time and for the years to come” (III, 708). But why on earth did he think that abolishing secularism, suppressing democracy, renouncing progress, that is, restoring the power of the religious, rehabilitating theocracy, and re-establishing tradition, were the political answers to the crisis of the Western world? The ghost of Foucault hovers over European decadence.



[4] Joseph de Maistre [1753-1821] was a key figure of the Counter-Enlightenment. He regarded the monarchy both as a divinely sanctioned institution and as the only stable form of government. Maistre argued that the rationalist rejection of Christianity was directly responsible for the disorder and bloodshed which followed the French Revolution of 1789.

[5] Louis de Bonald [1754-1840], was a monarchist who opposed the French Revolution, and wished France to return to the principles of the Roman Catholic Church.

[6] Blanc de Saint-Bonnet [1815-1880] was a counter-revolutionary, anti-liberal who favored social Catholicism. He wrote, “You who separate reason and religion, know that you destroy both. Religion is the health of reason; reason is the strength of religion. Religion without reason becomes superstition. Reason without religion becomes disbelief” (L’Unité spirituelle)

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

PODCAST: Dr. Patty Powers Whips Out Her Scalpel to Cut Through the Lies about Covid

Here’s this week’s Shout Out Patriots Show: A medical doctor tells the truth about Covid treatment and prevention methods

When I was growing up, I was taught to trust our government. I never questioned why. My parents loved America and never seemed to doubt that our political leaders had our best interest at heart. Therefore, it would be inconceivable to them that the US Government would ever lie or try to deceive us.

It took many years, a lot of learning, and a lot of lies to finally convince me otherwise. I so much wanted to believe my parents, believe in our political leaders and believe in the decency of humankind that I dreaded the thought that our country would risk American lives for political gain.

Now, like many of my generation, I no longer trust anything it says.

If I had grown up as a teenager during the Covid pandemic, I would have learned this lesson – this hard truth – much earlier.

Government lies, misdirection, half-truths, and cover-ups don’t even pretend to be a serious effort at masquerading as truth anymore.

When Joe Biden said on September 9 of last year, “We’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers,” he showed just how far the government would go to be blatant in their bald-faced lies.

If a person is vaccinated, how are they possibly threatened by the unvaccinated?

It was an unattended brutal admission that Covid vaccination shots are a lie. They don’t immune anyone. Following Biden’s statement, the CDC immediately changed its definition of vaccine to comport to this lie.

But, of course, government deceit about the Covid virus and the various methods for treating the disease goes well beyond vaccination shots.

That’s why I invited Dr. Patty Powers to be a guest on our Shout Out Patriots podcast. I wanted her to tell us everything we should know – and even things we don’t want to know – about Covid, its treatment, and prevention methods.

She shocked me; I have to tell you.

But one of her most enlightening comments was explaining how government makes Covid decisions – not out of concern for the vaccinated, Covid patients, or the unvaccinated – but out of its lust for money.

I encourage you to take a listen (or watch) Dr. Patty Powers as she excoriates Biden’s response to the Covid pandemic and why she has put her career on the line to make sure her patients get the right medical care.

RELATED ARTICLE: After FDA says it can release COVID-19 vaccine data by 2097, federal judge orders all info to be shared this year

EDITORS NOTE: This Christian Action Network podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What would Jesus do if he went to Washington, D.C. today?

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

I recently felt compelled to find references in the Bible on the topic of politics. Some argue that politics and religion do not mix well. Others believe otherwise.

I was driven to understand what is happening because there have been only two Presidents of these United States who are Catholic. The first was President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) and the second is Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (JRB, Jr.).

One resource I found enlightening was the website, which gave me 100 references using the search word “politics.”

Here are a few where God and His Son talk about politics:

  • Psalm 33:12 ESV, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!”
  • Matthew 6:24 ESV, “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
  • Proverbs 29:12 ESV, “If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”
  • Psalm 94:20-21 ESV, “Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute? They band together against the life of the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.”
  • Revelation 17:14 ESV, “They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

Today we have only the second president who is Catholic. The question that needs an answer: Is JRB, Jr. following the Bible or not?

There’s a difference between words and actions. How one acts tells us a lot about what that person really  believes.

Is JRB, Jr. driven by his Catholic faith or his party’s politics?

I wanted to understand how two Presidents belonging to the same faith compared to one another and to the teachings of the Bible, that both have embraced. I looked at the inaugural addresses of both JFK and JRB, Jr. to understand what each wanted to accomplish during their administration. JFK’s address was titled “New Frontier.” JRB, Jr.‘s was titled “This is America’s Day.”

JFK in his inaugural address said,

We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom–symbolizing an end as well as a beginning–signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.

[ … ]

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

[ … ]

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility–I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it–and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.

During his inauguration address JRB, Jr. mentioned God four times and quoted St. Augustine saying, “Many centuries ago, St. Augustine, a saint of my church, wrote that a people was a multitude defined by the common objects of their love.”

The actual quote by St. Augustine is, “A people is the association of a multitude of rational beings united by a common agreement on the objects of their love.” The object of their love to St. Augustine was a love of God and His Son Jesus.

Today, under JRB, Jr., we are seeing these common agreements being trampled upon. Rationality is scarce, as is the rationality of the policies of JRB, Jr.

We are now approaching January 20th, 2022 the one year mark of JRB, Jr’s inauguration. Has JRB, Jr. kept his promise of, “Unity. Unity. Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation.”

Or are we seeing disunity and a growing divisiveness both politically and religiously based upon JRB, Jr.’s “winter of peril.”

Americans have always had a common agreement that the United States was formed by the grace of God, who created us all equal and it was He who endowed us with certain “inalienable rights” among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Are we seeing life taken away (e.g. abortion, Covid virus, Covid vaccines), liberties trampled upon (imprisonment and torture of those who attended the January 6, 2021 rally in D.C.) and multitudes who are unhappy being locked up, dismayed by being required to show vaccine passports to participate in social events or losing their livelihoods due to government lockdowns and get jabbed or lose your job mandates.

The Bottom Line

If Jesus were to visit Washington, D.C. today what would he see?

JRB, Jr. asked in his inaugural address, “What are the common objects we love that define us as Americans?”

He answered with these words “Opportunity. Security. Liberty. Dignity. Respect. Honor. And, yes, the truth.”

Are we the people seeing any of these “common objects we love” in this time?

Sadly, Jesus would see legislation that funds the murder of the unborn, deficit spending that is forbidden in the Bible, God His Father driven out of the public square and more importantly out of government run public schools. Jesus would see a city with one of the highest murder rates in the country. America and Americans less secure. The lack of truth from our government, news and social media. But most importantly a lack of respect and honor for our Constitutional Republican form of government.

QUESTION: What would Jesus do if he went to Washington, D.C. today?

He would see JRB, Jr.’s, “Anger, resentment, hatred. Extremism, lawlessness, violence. Disease, joblessness, hopelessness.”

What would God and His Son do to stop what is happening in Washington, D.C.? Bring down 40 days and nights of rain to flood the city’s streets? Rain fire and brimstone upon the nation’s capital for turning away from God?

We will have to wait and see if JRB, Jr. continues on his present path or not. If JRB, Jr. continues on his current path only an act of God can stop him.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Forty-Five Years of Mask Studies Prove They’re Worthless

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” –  H.L. Mencken

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” – C. S. Lewis

“A good deal of tyranny goes by the name of protection.” – Crystal Eastman

“Fear of death has been the greatest ally of tyranny past and present.” – Sidney Hook

The masking of America, especially our children, has been detrimental to our mental and physical health.  I weep when I see parents put these evil things on their little ones.

This article is for parents with children in our government schools.  The following information needs to be distributed to school boards who will not listen to worried parents. Use it to save your little ones!

DOJ Calls Parents “Domestic Terrorists”

Parents who are standing up against the masking of their children at school board meetings are being threatened. Attorney General Merrick Garland admits he took the word of the National School Boards Administration that parents voicing concerns at their local school board meetings should be targeted as “domestic terrorists.”

Citing an increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s government run schools, AG Garland met with federal, state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing this “disturbing trend.”  What?  Parents concerned for their children is a “disturbing trend?”

However, when Garland was questioned by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), not one citing of intimidation or violence could be shown by parents across the USA against any school board members.  The lies of the stakeholder authoritarians keep pile up.

At an elementary school in Portland, Oregon, kindergartners were videotaped eating lunch outside and sitting on buckets socially distanced in 40-degree weather. That is child abuse, and parents are infuriated. State and local health departments are still mandating masks for school children and parents have realized how detrimental masks are to their child’s mental and physical health.  They’ve complained to their local school boards.

The mask tyranny has even hit the red state of Tennessee in Shelby County.  Parents were enraged that they weren’t allowed into the board meeting and police were there to keep them out.

Oxygen Deprivation

Research reveals that prolonged use of Covid masks, homemade or N95, can cause anywhere from five percent on up to 20 percent loss of oxygen, leading to hypercapnia (excessive carbon dioxide in the bloodstream typically caused by inadequate respiration), panic attacks, vertigo, double vision, tinnitus, concentration issues, headaches, slowed reactions, seizures, alterations in blood chemistry and suffocation due to air displacement.

We are killing our children!  Wake up America and get these things off your children’s faces!

We cannot allow children to continually breathe in exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2).  Even National Institutes of Health (NIH), a stakeholder in this vile jab for Sars-coV-2, states this is dangerous to your health.  It can lead to a light-headed, dizzy, flustered feeling from repeatedly re-breathing back in your own already processed air. Those are just the beginning warning signs of much more serious health problems.

According to Amesh A. Adalja, MD, and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Maryland, “wearing a mask day in and day out can lead to alterations in blood chemistry,” and that leads to “changes in level of consciousness.”

A German neurologist, Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson, MD, PhD (in pharmacology), who specializes in neurotoxicology and environmental medicine, warns that oxygen deprivation from prolonged Covid-mask wearing can cause permanent neurological damage.  She states in her research, “The re-breathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation. There are nerve cells for example in the hippocampus, that can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive. The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration, slowing down of the reaction time – reactions of the cognitive system.”

People think they’ve gotten used to wearing masks, but what they’ve actually gotten used to is having less oxygen in their brains.  They no longer mind the masks because once a person has chronic oxygen deprivation, all of those symptoms disappear.  The person gets accustomed to the deprived state; however, their efficiency remains impaired and the lack of appropriate oxygen delivery to the brain continues to dangerously progress.  They literally are losing their minds.

People have so fallen for the fear factor of this virus with a 99.8% recovery, that they are wearing their masks in their cars, their homes, when they are outdoors or exercising.  Children are forced to wear their masks all day at school, with minimal or zero mask breaks, even during recess.  This is child abuse!

Masking Our Wee Ones

The oxygen deprivation mask syndrome is sweeping the globe and more are at risk.

Dr. Mark McDonald, a double board-certified clinical psychiatrist told of the damage to our children. Dr. McDonald said, “We’re not in a medical pandemic, we’re in a fear pandemic.”

He believes that what is driving the fear now is propaganda.  He said that children, unlike adults, don’t just bounce back; those children will not regain their psychological health.  As a child psychiatrist, he treats children all day long.

He stated, “The developmental stage children need to go through, babies, toddlers, young adults, is being foreclosed on them.  Brown University Department of Pediatrics published a study in mid-September that found that babies born after January 1st, 2020, when this whole pandemic started, had an IQ point drop of 20 points compared to babies born before January 1, 2020.  That’s huge!  Why?  They don’t see faces, they don’t play, they don’t have exposure to friends, they don’t go to school.  They’re basically locked in their homes looking at their parents for two years and their brains have not developed.”

“My concern is that we are building a generation of young people who are so traumatized that they will never fully recover from this.  Even if we give them therapy and treatment, they’re always going to be damaged from this and be scarred emotionally.  I don’t mean for it to be depressing, I mean for it to be alarming so that everyone can finally say, ‘STOP.’ We’ve got to stop the damage and then figure out what to do about it.”

It’s way past time to acknowledge what has been done wrong and the biggest problem was masks on children who rarely get or pass the virus.  To close their faces off from their peers and to wear face diapers in public is a developmental atrocity to our youth; I see it as child abuse.  Many parents home school, and those children have no social disabilities, but masks are a blockage that destroy interpersonal relationships and change the lives of these children for decades to come.  And they destroy the brains of these youngsters by depriving them of proper oxygen.

Fear is a great driver, when fear is in the minds of people, they actually don’t want much public discourse, they don’t want much discussion, they basically just want to be told what to do.  The easiest thing to do is to defer to some type of agency.  The agencies who are calling the shots here are ones that typically don’t call the shots.

The FDA doesn’t tell doctors how to treat patients.  The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is a drug regulatory, drug safety watchdog agency.  The National Institutes of Health (NIH), they don’t tell doctors how to treat patients.  They’re a government funded research organization.  The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) certainly doesn’t because they’re an infectious and chronic disease, epidemiologic and analytic organization.  We should not look to those groups to advise physicians how to treat patients.

Nor should we look to other unelected parties to tell us what to do, and that includes our local health departments who have advocated mandates that are destructive not only to children, but to all citizenry.  And the latest is the euphemistically named Congressional bill H.R.550 (Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021) which paves the way for state and local health departments, as well as public and private health care providers, to share personal health data with the federal government. The bill has hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars allocated to the tracking system’s success.

Mask Studies

Do masks actually work? The best studies suggest they don’t, appeared in The Washington Examiner on August 12, 2021.  (Please read the short article.)

“Of the 14 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless — whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone — or actually counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.”

One free-thinking university professor at New York University was finally cleared for questioning masks in his class on propaganda.  Mark Crispin Miller took the stance of many independent scientists, questioning some of the motives of government and public health officials, as well as their often-vacillating stances on Covid-19.  Both students and other professors found it reprehensible that Miller was “thinking outside the box.”

Detrimental Surgical Masks

In August of this year, I wrote an article, The Mask Nazis Have Blood on their Hands, and told the story of Dr. Orr who found that not wearing surgical masks cut infections in half.  When I’ve told people about this, they wanted the article.

“Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks.”

Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”

Dr. Arthur Firstenberg took all of this a step further in his research and published the following in August of 2020.  He scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But, “the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.”

Here are his amazing findings:

  • Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
  • Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
  • Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
  • In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
  • A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.
  • Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
  • Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
  • Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.
  • Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
  • Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopedic, breast, and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
  • Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
  • Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
  • Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks, and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
  • Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.

“We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.

Arthur Firstenberg
August 11, 2020


This last portion of this article should be used by the many parents fighting school boards who want to put these horrid face diapers on children for many hours every day.  Feel free to distribute widely.  God help us to get these evil things off everyone’s faces, but especially the wee ones.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

RELATED STUDY: COVID-19 Masks: How Effective and How Safe?

NASCAR Rejects Brandon Brown’s ‘Let’s Go, Brandon’ Car

Talk about spitting in the face of your sports-fan base.

NASCAR Rejects Brandon Brown’s ‘Let’s Go, Brandon’ Car

NASCAR has officially canceled driver Brandon Brown’s sponsorship deal with the “Let’s Go Brandon” cryptocurrency purveyor.

By: Breitbart, January 6, 2022:

At the end of December, Brown announced that he was signing a deal for LGBcoin to sponsor his race team going forward.

Brown later revealed that NASCAR sent a written letter approving the deal, so they went forward and even spent the money to make up the car’s LGBcoin paint scheme.

But on Jan. 3, NASCAR abruptly put a halt to the deal, telling Brown that the decision to allow the sponsorship needed to be “reviewed at a higher level” in the NASCAR leadership.

Now it appears that NASCAR has officially denied Brown’s request to sanction to LGBcoin sponsorship deal, according to the Washington Times.

NASCAR claims that, as far back as November, they made it clear that no wording or imagery referencing the “Let’s Go, Brandon” chant would be allowed, according to the Washington Post.

“NASCAR on Tuesday decided against approving a sponsorship based on the anti-President Biden slogan ‘Let’s go, Brandon,’ according to a NASCAR official with direct knowledge of the deliberations,” the Washington Post reported.

Further, the official told the Post that NASCAR’s decision was “not a reversal … but the governing body’s first and final word on the matter,” contradicting reports that the racing organization had initially approved the deal.

Regardless of the timing, NASCAR clearly became spooked by the subtle insult to Joe Biden that the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” represents.

The phrase has become a popular chant at events of all sorts and is a form of protest against Joe Biden. It was accidentally originated last October when NBC NASCAR reporter Kelli Stavast fraudulently claimed on live television that a crowd chanting “F*ck Joe Biden” was actually chanting “Let’s Go, Brandon” to praise Brown, who had just become the Talladega winner.

After the chant, Brown claimed that he was afraid that his unwitting part in the creation of the anti-Biden chant would hurt his ability to get sponsors for his racing team. But by December, he obviously decided to embrace the chant with his LGBcoin deal.

RELATED ARTICLE: NASCAR partners with LGBT advocacy group after expressing desire to remain apolitical

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: Ted Cruz Squirms, Soils Himself As Tucker Carlson Grills Him For Vicious Lies Calling January 6th ‘Violent Terror’ Attack

Tucker Carlson gives Ted Cruz no quarter for Cruz’s craven remarks calling January 6th protesters – violent protesters. Beautiful.


RELATED VIDEO: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) calls out Ted Cruz for his comments on the anniversary of the Capitol breach.


Gutless Coward: Ted Cruz’s Parrots Democrats’ Lies About January 6 Protest Against Election Fraud

Jan. 6 Protester Files in Federal Lawsuit Against D.C. Police Dept Who Beat Her

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.

January 6th: One Year Ago A New Hoax Was Born

For four years, we suffered through a Russia hoax in order to cripple the people’s president.

Four years later, a fictionalized ‘insurrection’ drummed up by Democrats and their stooges in the FBI and DOJ was created in order to stop dead the exposure of the greatest political steal in human history.

One Year Ago Today, A New Hoax Was Born

By: Tristan Justice, The Federalist, January

After spending a year justifying brazen acts of routine political violence, Democrats relished the opportunity to scapegoat Republicans into being complicit in the same. Only Republicans aren’t: the riot at the Capitol remains roundly condemned, and Democrats invented a new conspiracy theory to claim otherwise.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s first step to adopt Jan. 6 as a new national holiday on the same pedestal as 9/11 began with a snap impeachment of an outgoing president for “incitement of insurrection.” Then-President Donald Trump, the story goes, corralled his supporters in Washington, inflamed the mob, and ordered them to overthrow Congress in an attempted coup.

“The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” said Wyoming Republican lawmaker Liz Cheney in a statement announcing her intent to impeach. “Everything that followed was his doing.”

Cheney, whose crusade to recruit House Republicans in favor of impeachment only drew at most nine members, conveniently omitted that the assault on the Capitol started before Trump had finished a speech wherein the president explicitly demanded supporters protest “peacefully.” It wouldn’t be the last time the Wyoming representative would make up her own timeline.

Democrats pushed onward with their proceedings using fabricated evidence made up by The New York Times that a Capitol police officer was killed in the turmoil by way of a fire extinguisher. The reporting used to label the riot “deadly” beyond the police killing of Ashli Babbitt and mysterious death of Rosanne Boyland was later stealthily corrected a week after the trial’s conclusion. The officer, Brian Sicknick, died of natural causes, according to the Washington D.C. chief medical examiner in April.

Trump was ultimately acquitted in February, but the hoax went on. House Democrats immediately demanded a 9/11-style commission to probe the riot at the focus of a month-long impeachment. After refusing to probe legitimate acts of political violence beyond the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, including the shooting of Republicans at a congressional baseball practice or the Good Friday attack this year, GOP lawmakers blocked its creation.

Republicans rightfully saw what it was: the 2021 version of 2017’s special counsel probe run by Robert Mueller, and another excuse to use the weapons of law enforcement against Democrats’ political enemies. After the two-year investigation run by a team of Democrats with unlimited resources, Mueller’s team found not one person, let alone Trump himself, had colluded with the Russian government to capture the pinnacle of power.

By the fall, Democrats launched their first impeachment anyway over another made-up scandal emanating from a temporary hold on Ukrainian military aid. Trump, they said, withheld nearly $400 million in aid in exchange for a foreign government’s investigation into the family of political opponents. By 2020, Trump stood acquitted.

While not established as a chartered commission, Mueller 3.0 arrived by mid-summer in the form of a Select Committee with members hand-picked by Pelosi, who took what she admitted to be an “unprecedented” move of barring Republican appointments. Pelosi denied participation to GOP Indiana Congressman Jim Banks, appointed by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, as ranking member, alongside Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. Under Pelosi’s orders, Reps. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Cheney, who was tapped to serve as vice chair, filled their place.

While at the dead commission’s inception Democrats revealed no interest in a broad examination of political violence in D.C., the committee’s work over its six-month lifespan has revealed even less interest in the riot at the Capitol. Instead, the committee has followed through on its central purpose of seeking retribution against political dissidents while offering a smokescreen to Pelosi’s own culpability in the Jan. 6 riot over her failure to reinforce Capitol security. The committee’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., admitted to CNN last summer the probe had no interest in the speaker’s negligence.

“If you look at the charge that we have in the resolution, it says the facts and circumstances around January 6. I don’t see the speaker being part and parcel to that,” Thompson said.

With more than 100 subpoenas issued by Pelosi’s deputies, their authority which to do so remains questionable, a vast majority have targeted individuals with no connection to the Capitol turmoil. Instead, the committee has sought to review telecom records of private individuals, including many for their mere association with a constitutionally protected same-day White House protest.

The committee’s performative outrage came on display at its first hearing wherein members offered tears and condolences to Capitol police officers while represented by activist attorneys from the Democrats’ past routine hoaxes. There were no tears from the same lawmakers in the prior year’s Summer of Violence that resulted in “some 15 times more injured police officers, 23 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot.”

Members on the committee now prosecuting those who dared question the validity of election results also possess their own history of objecting to electoral certification. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland objected to Trump’s electoral certification in 2017, and Pelosi did the same of George W. Bush in 2004.

The committee’s grand revelations, meanwhile, have so far only reinforced the image of a White House more concerned about maintaining security and public peace than Speaker Pelosi. In December, the probe released a trove of documents obtained through a subpoena of former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows

“Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to ‘protect pro Trump people’ and that many more would be available on standby,” the Select Committee wrote. This was conveyed by its members and a complicit press as an unearthed scandal.

The probe went on last month to fabricate text messages again, and again, and Cheney invented her own timeline to indict Trump as waiting “187 minutes” to do anything about the riot 2 miles down the road.

“The violence was evident to all — it was covered in real time by almost every news channel,” Cheney said. “But, for 187 minutes, President Trump refused to act when action by our president was required, indeed essential, and compelled by his oath to our Constitution.”

Except an honest examination of the day’s timeline revealed Trump’s first statement came within 25 minutes of the first building breached, far from a president who relished the chaos.

RELATED VIDEO: Governor Ron DeSantis on January 6th media coverage


Has a Single Capitol Rioter Even Been Charged with ‘Insurrection’?

J6 Hysteria Is How Media And Other Democrats Are Avoiding Accountability For Their Rigging Of The 2020 Election

Why Hasn’t the FBI Arrested The January 6th Pipe Bomber?

More on January 6th.

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.

Islamo-Leftism [Part 2]

Editor’s note: The following is a translation by Ibn Warraq and Robert Kerr of Michel Onfray’s L’Art d’Etre Francais (The Art of Being French, Bouquins, 2021), published here for the first time. Part 1 is here.

It was Michel Foucault who, along with a few other young philosophers of his generation, were lying in wait for the old lion to die, thereupon taking up the torch in the most brutal fashion. Although he was haloed by the structuralist success of Words and Things (1966), a book that professed to eschew History in favor of a metaphysics of structures, he had now come to tell us, thanks to the Iranian revolution, what the truth in politics would henceforth be: a return to theocracy – provided it is not Catholic, of course… In the same way that structuralism was a return to the medieval ontology of essences, in other words, an idealist counter-revolution, Islamo-leftism, which was founded on this occasion, was to be a return to pre-revolutionary theocracy, which constitutes another counter-revolution: a political one this time.

Michel Foucault’s political path was quite sinuous, though not without logic: he embraced the prevailing current of each era, by which he made an an ad hoc career! He was a communist in the early 1950s, and Althusser got him to teach at the École Normale Supérieure; then a Gaullist in the 1960s, he was a member of the ÉNA[1] jury in 1965, also working for the Fauchet university reform commission two years later, and was then offered management positions in the French education system, but his homo­sexuality was used against him; a leftist after May ’68, a Maoist, to be precise, he became director of the University of Vincennes;  appointed to the Collège de France in November 1969, in the years that followed he backed the idea of a bloody proletarian dictatorship. In 1977, he supported the new philosophers alongside Yves Montand, Bernard Kouchner and André Glucksmann, from then on he was in good standing with the socialists. In 1978, he defended the Shiite theocracy and the political Islam of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the whole left applauded; the last Foucault, who turned away from the socialists in the 1980s and moved closer to the neo-liberals, Mitterrand having initiated the left’s demise subsequently celebrating the great European market. Since the famous headline “Vive la crise!” in Libération (February 1984), which loudly applauded the shift to the right of the left, in other words the denial of the left, liberalism had been in fashion. Foucault died on 25 June 1984.

The grandfather of Islamo-leftism is Sartre, who was willing to do anything to ensure that the Judeo-Christian West would burn, that Western Europe, the Europe of freedoms, would be cremated in a world where Eastern Europe, the Europe of barbed wire, was confronting it, assuming that Gaullist France which he equated with fascism, would be incinerated and that a socialist, Marxist – and Muslim – Third World would then shine bright! The steeple, no; the minaret, yes. The pope, no; the ayatollah, yes. The Bible, no; the Qur’an, yes. The Sunday sermon, no; the call of the muezzin, yes. Christian anti-Judaism, no; Muslim anti-Semitism, yes. Catholic misogyny, homophobia and phallocracy, no; patriarchy, the hunting of homosexuals, Arab-Muslim sexual mutilation, yes. Crusades, no; Jihad, yes. The Cross, no; the Crescent, yes. This has become the catechism of nihilistic France. Who could have foreseen such a return of the religious?

To what does Michel Foucault’s plea for this political counter-revolution that restores the full powers of theocracy – the very opposite of democracy –as was the case before pre-1789, resemble?

The answer can be found in a series of journalistic articles that our philosopher published in the Italian daily Corriere della sera. In September 1978, he arrived in Tehran to do a journalist’s job – indeed, he would do a journalist’s job, which is quite the opposite of a philosopher’s job…

The Shah’s regime was not, of course, a democratic model, but it sought to to westernize, modernize, secularize, and industrialize the Iranian people, who lived in a traditional, custom-bound and conservative world. His political police was brutal, his army shot on sight and spilt much blood. The opposition to this regime was carried by the Shiites. If evil is on the Shah’s side, then good must be found on the other side of the barricade! The alumnus of the École normale supérieure, with a degree in philosophy, professor at the Collège de France, the adulated philosopher, arrived on scene under the pretext of pondering reality: he saw only ideas, bipartite dissertations, concepts. He did not believe what he saw; he was rather content to see what he believed.

To prepare for this trip, he had read Henry Corbin[2]. It is not certain that the reflections of this Islamologist on the nature of angels in Islam, on the divine hierarchies, on the archangelic heptad, on apophatic theology, on Avicenna’s[3] angelology or on the phenomenology of the Holy Spirit were the best preparation for seeing reality as it is. Why didn’t he simply read the Qur’an, the hadith and a biography of Mohammed!

It did not occur to the philosopher that perhaps theocracy is not the best way to install democracy in an authoritarian country. Fascinated by negativity alone, without any concern for what might follow, he sided with political Islam.



[1] École Nationale d’Administration.

[2] Henry Corbin [1903-1978] wrote about, and translated works of Shiite gnosis, figures such as Sohrawardi , Molla Sadra Shirazi , Rûzbehân Baqlî Shîrâzî and also the Sufi Ibn Arabi and his Shiite disciple Haydar Amoli.

[3] Avicenna [Ibn Sina] [980-1037], Iranian physician and philosopher.

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

@KoopaNot_ vows on Twitter to ‘act upon my desires to kill ALL JEWS,’ says he’ll shoot up Los Angeles synagogue

Apparently just an attention seeker, as he set a date of January 3 which passed without incident, but he should be investigated. Instead, he still rants on Twitter, while numerous defenders of freedom have been banned or shadowbanned.

Twitter User Vows to Kill Jews at LA Synagogues

by Hana Levi Julian, Jewish Press, January 3, 2022:

A Twitter user with the handle “Bowser @KoopaNot_” is threatening to murder Jews at synagogues in Los Angeles.

In the first tweet that appears to have now been deleted, “Bowser” wrote:

“in 2022 i’m gonna finally act upon my desires to kill ALL JEWS JANUARY 3, 2022 IM GONNA SHOOT UP THE SYNAGOGUE AT 5711 Monte Vista St Los Angeles, CA 90042 Highland Park MAY GOD PROTECT BUT HE DOESN’T LIKE JEWS ALLAH SHALL PREVAIL”

Twitter user threatens to “kill all Jews” and “shoot up the synagogue.” Jan. 3, 2022

A second tweet that was still up when checked Twitter on January 3, 2022 at 9:50 pm Israel time, listed the synagogues where “Bowser” tweeted” “already got my bodies lined up”

A separate Twitter user replied to the tweet with a list of handles he appeared to have notified, including Twitter itself, the FBI, LAPD headquarters, FBI Los Angeles, Jewish talk show host Ben Shapiro, Chabad Lubavitch, and Jewish activists Ezra Friedlander and Yossi Gestetner.

A third tweet that also remained on Twitter showed a man who may have been the author, with an antisemitic caricature of a Hassidic Jew….



Lithuania pays illegal Muslim migrants $1,125 to go home

Trump endorses Hungary’s Orban for reelection, praises him for stopping illegal immigration

Muslim cleric preaches that selling land to Jews is betrayal of Islam and ‘exit from the entire Muslim group’

UK: Muslim Labour peer Lord Ahmed found guilty of sexual assault of boy and attempted rape of girl

Hollywood actress Emma Watson expresses solidarity with ‘Free Palestine’ movement

Biden Administration Provides Still More Money to UNRWA

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

Arizona Crossing Sees 2,404.9% Hike in Illegal Immigrants Over Last Year

As illegal immigration continues to slam American cities near the Mexican border, one Arizona town in particular is feeling the heat with a ghastly 2,404.9% increase in migrants during the first two months of fiscal year 2022—which started in October—compared to the same period last year. Situated around 10 miles from Mexico on the banks of the Colorado River, Yuma, in southwestern Arizona, began to see an unprecedented influx of illegal aliens in fiscal year 2021 along with the nation’s other Border Patrol sectors. In 2021 eight of the nine crossing stations along the southern border saw triple-digit percentage increases in illegal immigrants over the previous year, according to government figures. Yuma took the prize with an unbelievable 1,200.4% hike in apprehensions at the end of the fiscal year in September.

As the new year gets underway, the numbers are growing at a disturbing rate for the municipality with a population of about 96,000. The city’s mayor recently declared a local emergency due to the humanitarian and border crisis caused by the unprecedented surge of migrants entering the area. During a five-day period in early December, more than 6,000 illegal immigrants crossed from Mexico through the Yuma area, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) figures cited in the mayor’s declaration. “Migrants are traveling through Yuma during a time of great uncertainty about the COVID-19 virus, and without provisions for adequate food, water, shelter, transportation and medical care,” a statement announcing the order reads. “This surge of migrants has and will continue to strain the ability of medical staff and local hospital resources to provide essential and necessary medical care.” In the statement Yuma Mayor Douglas Nicholls says the change in the movement of migrants greatly impacts his community. That includes the area’s agriculture industry because migrants are passing on foot through active agriculture fields. “The encroachment on active production fields results in food safety concerns and the destruction of crops, which leads to significant economic loss and property damage in the farming community, loss of agriculture-related jobs, and a threat to the nation’s food security,” the city emergency declaration states.

Yuma is hardly the only Border Patrol sector to start the year with a bang, the government figures show. Around 980 miles away, the Del Rio station in Texas has seen a 237.8% surge in illegal immigrants over the same period last year. Two other Texas sectors—Rio Grande Valley and Big Bend—also report alarming spikes at 166.6% and 118.7% respectively. Other crossings in Texas, California and Arizona have also seen major increases in illegal immigrants in the first two months of fiscal year 2022. San Diego reports an 89.1% boost, Tucson 71.9%, and El Paso 68.5%. Each of the crossings finished fiscal year 2021 with unprecedented gains in apprehensions. Del Rio led the pack with a 542.7% surge while Rio Grande Valley had a 508.7% increase. Big Bend and EL Paso recorded apprehension gains of 331.9% and 256.5% respectively in fiscal year 2021. Most of the illegal aliens, 608,000, arrested by the U.S. in 2021 came from Mexico followed by the Central American nations of Honduras (309,000), Guatemala (279,000) and El Salvador (96,000).

Nevertheless, federal agents along the Mexican border are encountering a lot more migrants from nations outside of Latin America, including those with terrorist ties. In fact, thousands of illegal immigrants from Africa and the Middle East were arrested in the first month of this fiscal year, indicating an alarming trend among migrants entering the country through the porous southern border. In October alone, the first month of fiscal year 2022, the Border Patrol’s Del Rio Sector in Texas reported 28,111 illegal aliens from more than 50 countries. They include Syria, Lebanon, Eritrea, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, a central Asian nation that borders Afghanistan, which is controlled by the Taliban after the abrupt exit of U.S. troops last year. In November, the station apprehended six nationals of Eritrea, a northeast African country on the Red Sea coast, two Syrian males, a man from Lebanon, home of the terrorist group Hezbollah, two men from Tajikistan as well as a man from Uzbekistan. “We encounter individuals from all over the world attempting to illegally enter our country,” Del Rio Sector Chief Patrol Agent Jason D. Ownes said in late November. “Our agents are focused and work hard to ensure that we detect, arrest, and identify anyone that enters our country in order to maintain safety of our communities.”

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

Interview: Rand Paul Slams Big Tech’s Crackdown on COVID ‘Misinformation’—And Offers His Solution

‘The impulse to censor people’s speech is actually illiberal.’

Big Tech censorship has ratcheted up over the last week: big time. In the name of combating COVID-19 “misinformation,” Twitter banned the accounts of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and Dr. Robert Malone. Meanwhile, Facebook banned the advertising account for a children’s book series promoting ‘Heroes of Liberty’ like free-market economist Thomas Sowell.  (Facebook has reversed the decision under massive backlash. You can buy the books for your kids here).

I spoke with Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning Kentucky Republican, about why this alarming uptick in Big Tech censorship is so concerning—and why the free market, not Big Government, is the best response.

“I think they have the right as private property owners to ban me, censor me, do whatever they want,” the senator said. “But I don’t agree with it ideologically; I don’t like the idea of associating with small-minded people who are so close-minded that they want to censor what I have to say.”

Paul explained why the idea of banning “misinformation” is actually antithetical to the scientific method properly understood.

“We only arrive at the truth through disputation, by hearing [more] voices,” he said. “It’s easy enough to say something is ‘misinformation.’ But really, a lot of things are debatable.”

“I’m a scientist, a physician… I’ve been to scientific conventions through the years,” the senator continued. “What happens when someone presents a paper, many times it’s a free-for-all. People go after them, say they were wrong on their methodology, your conclusions don’t match this, your study didn’t have this control… these kinds of critiques go on. They’re very spirited in the scientific world. Most scientists would be appalled to think that you would be allowed to publish things without a contrary opinion.”

Paul pointed to several instances where social media companies censored COVID ‘misinformation’ at the time, that is now either proven true or at least considered a legitimate possibility.

For example, the senator himself had a YouTube video taken down where he questioned the efficacy of cloth masks. Months later, the establishment narrative has now changed, with everyone from former Biden advisors to CNN medical analysts to former FDA head and current Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb now acknowledging that cloth masks are basically useless, and N95 masks offer the actual protection.

Paul also pointed out that for a long time, Facebook had a policy of censoring content that suggested the COVID-19 virus could have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, what’s known as the “lab leak theory.” Yet this notion, initially an outlier theory, is now accepted in the mainstream as a very real possibility—and Facebook had to make an embarrassing reversal.

“It is incumbent on us to have these debates,” Paul said. “You get to the truth of things by hearing both sides, hearing all sides. Not when one side is shut out. We have to have full-throated debate to get to the truth.”

Yet the senator is absolutely not on board with those Republican senators and conservative commentators whose understandable frustration with Big Tech bias has led them to embrace Big Government policies.

“Everybody on the Right is complaining about Big Tech, but nobody’s doing anything about it,” Paul said. “They just complain, complain, complain. Their next response is ‘oh, the government should break up Big Tech or regulate it’… I don’t want to [do any of that].”

“The only thing worse than private censorship would be government censorship,” he continued. “At least with private censorship, you can choose to go somewhere else. I don’t like YouTube’s policies, so I’m leaving! If the government’s in charge, where do I go? So I’ve been opposed to things like the Fairness Doctrine from the 1970s, but I’ve also been opposed to different movements by different Republican and Democrat senators to set up some sort of regulatory speech apparatus.”

The senator was quick to acknowledge the nuances here, noting that what Big Tech companies should have the legal right to do is an entirely separate question from the morality of their actions.

“When the CEO of Twitter said the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them, he’s right,” Paul offered. “But that doesn’t make him a laudable person or someone I want to associate with. These are people who are narrow-minded and not ‘liberal’ in any way. The impulse to censor people’s speech is actually illiberal.”

“They’re coming to this Platonic idea that, basically, it’s too dangerous to let the rabble know things, we need to protect them from certain ideas that might be unsettling,” he continued. “But that’s not a step forward; I think that’s a couple-thousand-year-old step backwards.”

The senator argued that the best response to Big Tech bias is still market competition, not expansions of government power.

“The way you get more speech is by going to competitors and trying to drive up more competition in the marketplace,” Paul said. “By leaving YouTube and going to Rumble and my website,, I hope to elevate other platforms and not give free content to people who look down their nose at people like me.”

“Ultimately, the question is what’s going to be more popular?” he continued. “Do you want to go on a social media platform where people are censored, or would you rather go on where it’s a more free-spirited discussion? I think there is enough of a marketplace for people who want to choose a place where there’s more free-flowing conversation.”

To join Senator Paul’s exodus from YouTube, subscribe to his channel on Rumble or check out To listen to the full audio of this interview, subscribe to the Based Politics podcast feed on Apple PodcastsSpotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. The full conversation will be released later this week.


Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

Virginia Leads the Way Up from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

Energy ideology is one thing.  Energy reality, another.

Just ask the motorists who spent a night stranded on I-95 in Virginia this week when winter dropped some epic snow if they’d rather have spent the night in an electric car.

Virginia foolishly joined eleven other states in a “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” which dramatically raised energy prices and covered pristine natural landscapes with inefficient wind turbines and solar panels.  All without making any meaningful impact on the temperature of the Earth.  The RGGI is a perfect poster child for “all pain no gain” policy making.

Gabriella Hoffman reports at in a piece that originally appeared in The Virginia Pilot:

“‘RGGI describes itself as a regional market for carbon, but it is really a carbon tax that is fully passed on to ratepayers. It’s a bad deal for Virginians. It’s a bad deal for Virginia businesses,’ Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin said. ‘I promised to lower the cost of living in Virginia, and this is just the beginning.’”

Gabriella further reports that:

“Virginia’s continued participation in RGGI will result in residents paying more for their electricity bills. According to recent State Corporation Commission filings, participation in the RGGI program will raise energy costs to $4.37 a month, or $52.44 per year, if enacted on Sept. 1. When paired with the new — and costly — Virginia Clean Economy Act, the net-zero law slated to raise energy bills $800 a year by 2030, this spells disaster for Virginians currently paying more to heat and power their homes.”

CFACT’s close friend Collister (Terry) Johnson is a tireless Virginia energy advocate.  Terry and his friends and allies did a brilliant job beating back plans to wreck Virginia’s energy infrastructure with the facts.  Well done!

Virginia under Governor-elect Youngkin is waking up to energy reality… fast.  Other states are heading for the RGGI exit as well.

Energy reality beats energy ideology every time.

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

WATCH RENEWAL 2022: Live Streaming on January 8th with CAHN, LINDELL, CARSON + Others

This Saturday, January 8th, 2022 there will be an event held in Plant City, Florida.

RENEWAL 2022 brings together a great number of believers and great Christian leaders to pray and proclaim for peace and Godliness to return to our country, and the world’s nations.

Watch this 3 minute inspiring introduction:

Viewing from home will also be possible. Please give heart to this important moment – America is at stake – and give prayer abundantly.

Visit this website for details and to register:  RENEWAL 2022