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

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.

Anyone Who’d Cancel George Washington is an Enemy Within

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

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.

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

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

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’

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 (USCISupholds Americas 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 nations 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 agencys director, said the new statement reflects theinclusivecharacter 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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 JoffeApril LorenzenDavid 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.

Lebanon and Kuwait ban Israeli actress Gal Gadot’s new movie because she served in the IDF

It is mandatory for every Israeli over 18 to serve in the army (Israeli Arabs have a choice to opt out). Why? Because Israel has been under the threat of jihadist obliteration since the day of its birth. Even before that, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, lead the Arab Revolt to keep Jews out of the region.

Gadot’s tweet below led to a firestorm back in May during Operation Guardian of the Walls, when Israel was left with no other alternative but to defend its citizens from a barrage of Hamas rocket fire:

To Israel’s antagonists, Israel does not deserve to live “as a free and safe nation.” In their view, Israel only deserves to be obliterated, as documented in the charter of every major Palestinian organization, and as is evident from the attack on Israel by surrounding Arab nations on the day of its birth. Those nations were of one accord….

“It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.”
— Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League,
October 11, 1947

Islamic antisemitism is rooted in Islam, and it spreads under the guise of opposing the State of Israel because of its status as an “occupying,” “apartheid” state, regardless of the falsity of these claims.

“Death on the Nile” banned in two Middle East countries over Gal Gadot’s Israeli military service

by Jesse O’Neill, New York Post, February 12, 2022:

Israeli movie star Gal Gadot’s new Hollywood film will reportedly not appear on the big screen in Lebanon and Kuwait due to her connection to the Israel Defense Forces.

“Death on the Nile” was being released in the rest of the Middle East over the weekend, according to Deadline.

Gadot, 36, served in the Israeli armed forces for two years, as is required of all young Israelis, before she entered show business.

It’s not the first time the former Miss Israel’s nationality has caused controversy as tensions persist between the two warring nations. Lebanon also blocked her “Wonder Woman” films over her IDF ties.

The ban was in accordance with a law that boycotts Israeli products and bars Lebanese citizens from traveling to Israel or having contacts with Israelis.

Kuwait banned “Death on the Nile” after a barrage of protests on social media, according to The Daily Mail, which cited the Arabic language newspaper Al-Qabas….

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: ‘Conditions no longer in place’ to fight jihadis in Mali

Burkina Faso: Muslims attack Catholic seminary, destroy cross, burn two dorms, classroom, and vehicle

Pakistan: Enraged Sunni Muslim mob attacks Shi’ite scholar for ‘blasphemy’

France: Muslims enraged over focus on Islam in upcoming elections

Saudi Arabia bombs telecommunication system in Houthi-held Sanaa

India: 49 Muslims convicted for 21 jihad bombings in Ahmedabad in 2008

UK petition demands government continue publishing number of daily illegal Muslim migrant entries  

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

HART: Trudeau — ‘Crush’ Those Freedom Loving Mother Truckers!

The all-knowing, Teen Beat Magazine cover-looking son of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau, made a boo-boo. He inherited his prime ministering business from his dad, so he thought things would be easy. The media gives lefties a pass, even if they enjoy dressing in blackface — a lot.

What the junior Trudeau did was to “mis-underestimate” (as “Dubya” Bush, our junior president, used to say), the power of the working people. Until now, the article of faith of those who inherit liberal-elite political positions is that if they just say that they are for the “little people,” the fools will buy it. No one holds them to account for what they actually do. “Words Matter; Actions Do Not” seems to be their creed.

Taking his cue from other hypocritical leftie leaders, Trudeau hid behind his political interpretation of “science” to impose draconian COVID measures on his subjects. He said that by making vaccines mandatory, he was the true hero. He decreed that those truckers, who drive alone in their truck cabs for a living, must get vaccinated so they do not get COVID.

Trudeau and Biden felt they needed to reassert their control over their voters to stop the disconcerting spike in personal freedoms.

Mad at this and other arrogant decisions made by the Prime Minister Junior on High, truckers in Canada formed the largest trucker convoy in history to protest. But the article of faith among woke libs is that the only protests allowed are the BLM kind, where many buildings burn and people die.

James Hoffa and other labor leaders showed their colors, or in this case colours, when they sided with their puppet masters in government rather than truckers. My dad was a truck driver for Campbell 66 back in the day. Their motto, when you could have interesting mottoes, was a camel on the side of his truck that said, “humping to please!” which was also the 1990 Arkansas gubernatorial campaign slogan for Bill Clinton. I learned from my dad to be nice to truckers; they drive the flyover country and know places where no one will find your body.

The old Mafia-like trucker unions cared about their trucker buddies. One of my dad’s trucker friends crossed the other truckers one time and they Tonya Harding’ed his leg, cutting half of it off. Just to make sure everyone remembered the incident, they made the guy go work at IHOP.

The way the corporate left-wing media covers protests is stark. If right-of-center Tea Party folks or truckers protest, they are “insurrectionists.” No one dies and they make their point, but somehow they are “terrorists,” “white supremacists” and “threats to democracy.” If you think about it, peaceful protest is the definition of democracy. Petulant politicians who cry and fake injury like a soccer player are the reasons the common man has to unite and make his reasoned point.

I get that truckers slowing down deliveries hurts the economy. But it makes the broader point, that they grease the wheels of the economy. Trudeau has declared martial law, so he has unchecked power.

Trudeau is getting his first real economics lesson. Without truckers, he could not get his steady supply of Al Jolson-brand blackface. Fittingly, he is down to just a little black shoe polish, just enough to put on two fingers so he can do a small mustache for himself.

Last year we honored health care workers. This year we should honor truckers. And next year under Biden we should honor Taco Bell, the only place you can still get gas for under $5.

The left somehow thinks they are so smart, powerful and concerned about you that they, and only they, can make health care decisions for you and for private enterprise. And they do have a monopoly on this since Democrats Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo and Harvey Weinstein perfected the construct of “No Jab, No Job” for female employees. Like many American corporations and now the Canadian government say to the truckers about the vaccine, “put this in your body, or you will never work in this industry again.” Again, this sounds like something Clinton, Cuomo and Weinstein may have said.

COLUMN BY

RON HART

Ron Hart is a syndicated op-ed humorist, award-winning author, and TV/radio commentator; you can reach him at Ron@RonaldHart.com or Twitter @RonaldHart.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Lara Trump: The Canadian Trucker Protest Is Bigger than Canada

Dr. Naomi Wolf Video: Inside the Haunting Covid Zombie Cult.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Crackdown Begins: Canadian Police Send Banks Names Of ‘Freedom Convoy’ Protesters, Accounts Frozen

Canadian Justice minister: If you are part of a pro-Trump movement, you should fear for your bank account

Hal Turner Radio Show – TRUDEAU CAUSES **BANK RUN** IN CANADA

Freedom Convoy Donor Forced To Close Store After Info Leaked In GiveSendGo Hack

The Media Are Going After ‘Freedom Convoy’ Donors

Justin Trudeau Sparks Uproar After He Accuses Jewish MP Of ‘Standing With People Who Wave Swastikas’

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

VIDEO: The Who’s Who of The Great Reset Plan

COVID Criminal Network Leads to the Gates of Hell.


The video above is in German. Click on “Settings” to change the subtitles to English via auto-translate feature.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The German Club of Clear Words takes a deep dive into the network of individuals and organizations responsible for the COVID scam
  • Whether blatantly visible or not, you can identify just about any network by connecting dots between individuals and organizations. Who’s working with whom, where, and why? Who’s paying whom? And once you’ve done that, you can more clearly identify the motivations behind various decisions
  • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation appears to be near the top, or the center, of this COVID plandemic network. Gates is also a major funder of mainstream media, and his network extends into global food and climate change policy
  • The Gates Foundation, through its funding of the WEF, also plays an important role in The Great Reset, which was officially unveiled during a WEF summit in May 2020
  • Every conceivable aspect of life and society is scheduled to be “reset” according to their plan. Ultimately, that’s where this criminal COVID enterprise is trying to take us

The video above, by the German Club Der Klaren Worte, or the Club of Clear Words, takes a deep dive into the network of individuals and organizations responsible for the COVID scam. The audio is in German but there is a captioned translation at the bottom of the video.

The review is led by journalist and filmmaker Markus Langemann. As noted by Langemann, it’s not necessarily the people with the best ideas who win in life. Rather, the winners are those who are in the “right” network — a network with people in the right places. Never underestimate the power of a network.

Some networks are visible. One example would be an alumni network that you can join and use to promote your career. Other networks are more hidden, secretive and exclusive, and can only be entered into by select invitation by another member.

Whether blatantly visible or not, you can identify just about any network by connecting dots between individuals and organizations. Who’s working with whom, where, and why? Who’s paying whom? And once you’ve done that, you can more clearly identify the motivations behind various decisions.

A Global Network Revealed

In this video, Langemann presents “a network document that is unique in the world and which for the first time shows you the complex network of relationships, from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), companies, documents and people.”

The 170-page document details more than 7,200 links between 6,500 entities and objects, including payment flows and investments.

“In the case of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, already on page 4 of the document, you see that this foundation spent $43 billion [note that is billion with a “b”] in the U.S. alone in the period from 1994 to 2001, and distributed around half a billion dollars in Germany during this period,” Langemann says.

You can review and download the document here.1 The document is mostly in English. It’s incredibly comprehensive in scope, detailing a global network that is working behind the scenes to influence global health, finance and governance.

As an interesting aside, the document was actually created using software that investigators and detectives use to help them identify hidden connections between potential suspects. All of the data points, documents, payment data and so on, are publicly available.

Red arrows are used throughout the document to indicate money flows, such as grants, donations and other payments. As one example, as shown on page 3 of the document, at least 21 U.S. universities are financed by and through just three key organizations:

  1. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. The Open Philanthropy project, a research and grantmaking foundation, which is linked to the WEF
  3. The Wellcome Trust, the world’s second-largest health foundation, located in the U.K.

A Small Tight-Knit Group

According to the anonymous IT specialist who created the document, the core of this “COVID criminal network,” around whom most everything revolves, is no larger than 20 or 30 people. Several of them appear on page 36.

They got together May 8, 2019, at a CDU/CSU event where they discussed how to strengthen global health and implement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The CDU/CSU is a political alliance of two German political parties, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU). Attendees included:

Hermann Gröhe, Christian Democration Union (CDU) member and former Minister of Health
Ralph Brinkhaus, Parliamentary leader of the CDU
Dr. Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany and a CDU member
Ilona Kickbush, Ph.D., Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO
Dr. Christian Drosten, a German virologist who in early 2020 created the COVID PCR test
Dr. Clarissa Prazeres da Costa, microbiologist and infectious disease specialist
Joe Cerrell, managing director for Europe, the Middle East and East Asia for The Gates Foundation
Professor Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust
Dr. Georg Kippels, CDU member
Jens Spahn, CDU member and a former Minister of Health

From that May 2019 meeting onward, these individuals are found again and again, in overlapping working groups. You also find them rubbing elbows in the past.

For example, Farrar, Drosten and Kickbush were all present at a February 14, 2019, tabletop exercise on International Response to Deliberate Biological Events, held at the Munich Security Conference, as shown on page 124. Individuals from the Robert Koch Institute, the Chinese CDC and the Gates Foundation were also present.

In 2017 and 2018, Kickbush, Drosten and Farrar were added as members to the International Advisory Board on Global Health. Farrar and Kickbush also joined the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, a joint arm of the WHO and the World Bank, formally launched in May 2018. (Dr. Anthony Fauci is another member of this board.) Two other key persons within this network are:

  • Dr. Chris Elias, president of the Global Development Program at the Gates Foundation. He too is on both the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board and the International Advisory Board on Global Health, together with Kickbush, Drosten and Farrar.
  • Dr. Peter Piot, a Belgian-British microbiologist known for his research into Ebola and AIDS, a professor of global health, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a senior fellow with the Gates Foundation’s Global Health Program, and former undersecretary-general with the United Nations.

Key Organizations

Due to the complexity of the network connections, there’s really no easy way to summarize them here. You simply have to go through the document, page by page. That said, key organizations, whose networking connections are detailed, include:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation The Wellcome Trust, an organization funded by and strategically linked to GlaxoSmithKline (a vaccine maker in which Bill Gates is financially invested)
The World Health Organization The Rockefeller Foundation
The World Bank Group The World Economic Forum (WEF)
GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by the Gates Foundation Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), founded by the governments of Norway and India, the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and WEF
The Global Fund Forum of Young Global Leaders, founded by WEF in 2004
FIND, the global alliance for diagnostics, seeks to ensure equitable access to reliable diagnosis around the world Big Pharma
Johns Hopkins University Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin
The Robert Koch Institute The European Commission
The European Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products
The German Global Health Hub

Of these, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation appears to be near the top, or the center, of this criminal network, depending on how you visualize it. Gates is also a major funder of mainstream media which, of course, is important if you want to ensure one-sidedly good press.

Gates’ Media Control

In the past, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded the placement of “educational” messages in popular TV shows such as “ER,” “Law & Order: SVU” and “Private Practice,” including topics such as HIV prevention, surgical safety and the spread of infectious diseases, i.e., vaccinations.2 But that was only the beginning.

Via more than 30,000 grants, Gates has contributed at least $319 million to the media, including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS, The Atlantic, Texas Tribune (U.S.), the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), El País (Spain) and global broadcasters like Al-Jazeera.3

More than $38 million of Gates’ money has also been funneled to investigative journalism centers. The majority of that money has gone into developing and expanding media in Africa.4 As you might suspect, Gates’ donations come with strings attached. As reported by Columbia Journalism Review:5

“When Gates gives money to newsrooms, it restricts how the money is used — often for topics, like global health and education, on which the foundation works — which can help elevate its agenda in the news media.

For example, in 2015 Gates gave $383,000 to the Poynter Institute, a widely-cited authority on journalism ethics … earmarking the funds ‘to improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.’ Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride said Gates’s money was passed on to media fact-checking sites …

Since 2000, the Gates Foundation has given NPR $17.5 million [now up to $24.6 million6] through 10 charitable grants — all of them earmarked for coverage of global health and education, specific issues on which Gates works.”

Who Else Controls the Media?

Gates’ power over the media is immense, but he’s a not a sole actor. Other players in media control include BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world, which also control Big Pharma.7 They’re at the top of a pyramid that controls basically everything, but you don’t hear about their terrifying monopoly because they also own the media. As noted in the video, “The Puppet Masters Portfolios,” Vanguard and Blackrock:8

“… own the news that’s been created, they own the distribution of the news that’s been created, they own the lives of the reporters that are reporting the news that’s being distributed that’s being created on your TV screen. CBS, FOX, ABC, it doesn’t matter which you’re watching.”

As it stands, it’s important to be aware that conventional media are under the control of powerful influences — be it Bill Gates, BlackRock or Vanguard — and their primary intent isn’t to give you objective information but, rather, to further the agendas of those influences.

Who Really Owns the World?

BlackRock and Vanguard also own shares in an impossibly long list of virtually every major company in the world. Aside from world media, the companies controlled by Blackrock and Vanguard span everything from entertainment and airlines to social media and communications9 — quite literally everything you can think of, and much that you can’t.

Together, they form a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings, and through their influence over our centralized media, they have the power to manipulate and control a great deal of the world’s economy and events, and how the world views it all.

In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.10

Interestingly, Vanguard also holds a large share of Blackrock. In turn, Blackrock has been called the “fourth branch of government” by Bloomberg as they are the only private firm that has financial agreements to lend money to the central banking system.11

Owners and stockholders of Vanguard include Rothschild Investment Corp,12 Edmond De Rothschild Holding,13 the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, and the du Pont family, the Morgan, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller families.14,15

Gates Dictates Global Food Policy Too

In addition to his grip on global health and media, Bill Gates’ network also includes global food and agricultural policy. He’s even one of the largest farmland owners in the U.S.16 Were Gates a proponent of organics, his land ownership would probably be seen as a good thing, but he’s anything but.

On the contrary, not only is he a longtime proponent of GMOs and toxic agricultural chemicals, he’s also gone on record urging Western nations to switch to 100% synthetic lab-grown imitation beef, and has railed against legislative attempts to make sure fake meats are properly labeled, since that will slow down public acceptance.17

Not surprisingly, Gates is financially invested in most of his proposed “solutions” to the world’s problems, be it hunger, disease, viral pandemics or climate change.18

It’s these kinds of self-serving endeavors that have earned Gates the unofficial title of the most dangerous philanthropist in the world. As noted by AGRA Watch,19 Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., and others, Gates’ philanthropy creates several new problems for each one he promises to solve, and can best be described as “philanthrocapitalism.”

Again and again, Gates’ globalist approach to farming has had devastating consequences for food and environmental sustainability in general and local food security in particular. It is profitable for Gates and his corporate allies, though, and furthers the technocratic plan to control the world by owning all the world’s resources.

The WEF, founded by technocrat figurehead Klaus Schwab, is just one of the global nongovernmental agencies that help promote Gates’ destructive agricultural and fake food agenda.

The Great Reset of Life as We Know It

The Gates Foundation, through its funding of the WEF, also plays an important role in The Great Reset, which was officially unveiled during a WEF summit in May 2020. As reported by The Defender, the Great Reset:20

“… is a vision for transferring the world into a totalitarian and authoritarian surveillance state manipulated by technocrats to manage traumatized populations, to shift wealth upward, and serve the interests of elite billionaire oligarchs.”

Every conceivable aspect of life and society is scheduled to be “reset” according to their plan — including global food policies. Leading that specific charge is an organization called the EAT Forum, cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which describes itself as the “Davos for food.”

The EAT Forum’s largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system as a whole. Project partners in this venture include Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever and Google. EAT also collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia, and helps the Gates-funded United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) create updated dietary guidelines.

As you can see, no matter what network you’re looking at, be it global health, finance, media, environmental policy or food, the Gates Foundation, WEF and Wellcome Trust are there, and tying it all together is The Great Reset plan, with its Fourth Industrial Revolution (another Schwab concoction), which is the transformation of humanity itself into internet-connected cyborgs.

Ultimately, that’s where this criminal COVID enterprise is trying to take us. To prevent that dystopian nightmare from becoming our lot, we need to see the hidden networks working behind the scenes.

We need to recognize that decisions are not made by chance. There’s a plan, and decisions in seemingly disparate areas actually have the identical aim. You can’t see that if you’re thinking that people, organizations and even countries are working independently.

They are in fact networked, which is what makes them so powerful. The thing that can interrupt or break that power is public insight into these networks, and understanding that the ultimate goal of all of them is to “reset” and “rebuild” civilization (“Build Back Better”) into one of their own making.

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