This story features undercover footage of Lead Client Partner, Alex Martinez, an employee for the tech giant, who sometimes speaks on behalf of the company at events. This footage shows a very candid Martinez speaking about how the company’s “ideology” led them to be less “profitable,” among other incendiary comments.
Here are some of the highlights:
Alex Martinez: “Right now, we don’t make profit. So, I’m going to say ideology, which is what led us into not being profitable.”
Martinez on free speech: “The rest of us who have been here believe in something that’s good for the planet and not to give people free speech.”
Martinez on censorship: “People don’t know how to make a rational decision if you don’t put out — correct things that are supposed to be out in the public, right?”
Martinez on Musk: “Elon Musk as a person is whatever. I don’t — like, he’s a loony toon. He has Aspergers.”
Martinez on Musk: “He has Aspergers… So he’s special. We all know that. And That’s fine. So here, no wonder he’s going to say some f***ing crazy sh*t because he’s special.”
Ironically enough, Martinez can also be seen in the footage discussing an internal company memo Twitter administrative staff sent in the aftermath of Project Veritas’ first part of the series.
“It’s [Project Veritas] like some group that’s just trying to out the employees,” Martinez says. “Like, they’re trying to go on dates with them, like this, and record them.”
At the time of this writing, Twitter has yet to respond to a request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00O'Keefe Media Grouphttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngO'Keefe Media Group2022-05-18 08:13:162022-05-18 08:18:48Twitter Exec MOCKS Elon Musk for Believing Public Can ‘Make Their Own Decision’ on Platform
President Joe Biden has a numbers problem. No matter how aggressively the White House attempts to deflect blame when it comes to the current state of the policy landscape, the numbers refuse to bend to their will.
No wonder Democrats on Capitol Hill and in state capitols across the country are sweating bullets headed into the midterms.
The latest Consumer Price Index showed an increase of 8.3%. That is a stunning number — one of the highest ever recorded. But in a classic case of whistling past the graveyard, some headlines suggested that the data was somehow encouraging, with inflation “slowing” from the previous month’s high of 8.5%.
A slowing of 0.2% from the highest number recorded in 40 years isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of Biden’s economic agenda.
Sensing the danger to Democrats’ chances in the midterms, the White House went into damage control mode immediately after the CPI numbers were released. The administration announced a plan to tackle inflation by making energy more affordable, reducing the cost of prescription drugs and health care, supporting farmers, lowering childcare costs and more.
There’s a lot of broad, populist appeal in addressing these challenges. Unfortunately, while the plan is long on talking points, it’s short on the policy minutia needed to impact the systemic challenges facing American families.
I’ve been no fan of the White House’s handling of the economy over the last two years, to be sure. But make no mistake: concerns about the state of affairs aren’t limited to my corner of the political spectrum.
The Washington Post — famous for its staunch conservatism — lambasted Biden in a scathing editorial. Yes, that Washington Post — the same outlet that also ran a column that same week, calling for George Washington University to be renamed due to concerns about our first president’s morality.
The Post editorial board accused the Biden administration of “magical thinking” on inflation. The editorial reminded readers of the White House’s early efforts to dismiss concerns over rising consumer prices when the president and his team insisted that high prices would be short-lived.
The editorial board called the administration’s attempts to blame “corporate greed” for the country’s current financial quagmire unproductive. And it insisted that Biden’s efforts to pin inflation on Republicans, specifically Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, were particularly removed from reality.
Again, this wasn’t some sort of an “opposing views” piece — this was the Washington Post editorial board. When a Democratic White House loses the support of the Washington Post, it’s got serious problems.
President Biden’s advisors don’t need the Post’s editorial board to tell them they’re in hot water, though. Biden’s free-falling poll numbers have summed up his poor political standing with the American people for months.
There’s little reason to believe the factors driving inflation will be alleviated between now and election day, and that spells serious trouble for Democrats seeking to hold onto slim majorities in Congress.
Fixing runaway inflation is no simple matter. It’s complicated. It takes time. It takes conscious, earnest effort to arrive at a solution. No one can accuse the Biden administration of ignoring an apparent silver bullet capable of unwinding months of supply chain chaos, the most serious armed conflict in Europe since World War II, and a pandemic that continues to weigh on global productivity.
Unfortunately, President Biden isn’t equal to the task. The best Biden has to offer is bullet points and more finger-pointing. Voters won’t buy that. And odds are, Biden’s bad numbers will continue to show as much as November approaches.
Dan Eberhart, a high-profile GOP donor, serves as the CEO of Canary, LLC., an oil services company with crews around the country from North Dakota to Arizona.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-18 07:43:292022-05-18 12:18:11EBERHART: Biden’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Numbers
President Joe Biden’s administration is planning to roll back current Title IX regulations, which experts argue will revoke protections for both the accuser and the accused in sexual assault cases and threaten freedom of speech at federally funded schools.
“It ultimately returns Title IX back to a guilty until proven innocent standard,” Sarah Perry, a senior legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation said.
“Any changes could put students’ free speech rights at risk and will only exacerbate the problem of self-censorship that has been plaguing our campuses,” Speech First executive director Cherise Trump said.
President Joe Biden’s Department of Education (DOE) is planning to roll back Title IX due process regulations implemented by former President Donald Trump’s administration, which experts argue will revoke protections for both the accuser and the accused in sexual assault cases and threaten freedom of speech.
The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is planning to rewrite the rules outlined in Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments that set sexual harassment standards at federally funded schools. The Biden administration’s changes would reverse 2020 due process protections that require federal K-12 and higher education schools to investigate Title IX violations in a fair and unbiased manner, which includes the right to be represented by counsel, the presumption of innocence, the ability to cross examine and to introduce witnesses, experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Proponents of the current standards argue they fixed problems created by former President Barack Obama’s Education Department; before the 2020 changes, instances of sexual assault and harassment were only recognized as instances of unlawful sex discrimination through regulations that were not legally binding. However, under the current standards, school districts, colleges and universities have a legal obligation to respond to such cases in a fair and unbiased manner.
Under the Trump administration’s standards, instances of sexual assault at federal schools are handled more like “quasi-judicial proceedings,” Sarah Perry, a senior legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation, told TheDCNF.
“It ultimately returns Title IX back to a guilty until proven innocent standard … as opposed to leaving it to one Title IX investigator to determine who was right and who was wrong, in a ‘he said, she said’ proceeding,” Perry said.
Speech First executive director Cherise Trump told TheDCNF that the rules changes will likely be weaponized against constitutionally protected speech, which could make students subject to “harassment” for their personal or political stances.
The current Title IX regulations that were implemented in 2020 are consistent with a Supreme Court precedent known as the Davis Standard, which concluded that “student-on-student harassment must be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive its victims of access to a school’s educational programs or activities,” Trump explained.
“This is a pretty high threshold that protects students from being accused of harassment for simply voicing their opinions and possibly offending someone with their ideas,” Trump said. In response, universities frequently manipulate Title IX language to fit a more “broad-sweeping definition” such as “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive…” to “severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive,” she explained.
The small change in wording allows school administrators to restrict and punish speech they believe is “offensive,” “unwanted” or “problematic,” but would not be considered harassment under current Title IX rules, she said.
“Previously, the process for adjudicating serious harassment allegations on campus had been plagued by bias, vagueness, and overreach,” Trump added. “Any changes could put students’ free speech rights at risk and will only exacerbate the problem of self-censorship that has been plaguing our campuses.”
A Republican coalition of 15 state attorneys general have expressed legal concern about the DOE’s plans to roll back the “historic” move that codified sexual harassment regulations under Title IX into law, arguing the previous standards were unworkable and unfair.
“Hundreds of successful lawsuits against schools for denying basic due process and widespread criticism from across the ideological spectrum arose from the Obama-era rules“ the statement said. “The rules also resulted in a disproportionate number of expulsions and scholarship losses for Black male students.”
The Department of Education did not respond to The DCNF’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-18 06:49:322022-05-18 06:49:32Biden Admin Plans To Roll Back Trump-Era Free Speech Protections In Education
Foreword by Fred Brownbill. I read this article which had in truth been sent to me by a extremely good and close Jewish friend of mine, a former Israeli Army Special Force operator. I read it and found it answered a few questions many may ask. I hope you enjoy it. I will post the link at the bottom of the blog as there are pictures etc. you may want to see.
“Strength through discipline! Strength through community! Strength through action! Strength through pride! Strength through insight!” students at Cubberley High School chanted at a rally led by history teacher Ron Jones in April 1967. It was the last day of a classroom social experiment in which Jones, who taught contemporary world history at the California high school, attempted to teach his students about the perils of fascist totalitarianism.
Before initiating the experiment, Jones lectured his class on the shameful history of the Holocaust. The horrified students asked questions typical of children first learning of the atrocities: How could the German people stand by and watch as the genocide unfolded? Did no one oppose what was happening?
Jones — popular among students for his unusual teaching methods — had an idea for an experiment. He would replicate 1930s Germany by fostering a sense of entitlement among some of his students, while ostracizing others. The 2010 documentary Lesson Plan interviewed Jones and his former students, who gave first-person accounts of their experience.
On the first day of the experiment, Jones entered the classroom and wrote “strength through discipline” on the chalkboard. Jones lectured the students on the merits of disciplined adherence to a routine and asked the students to sit up straight. When answering questions, Jones directed students to stand and be as concise as possible with their answers. On the second day, Jones added “strength through community” to the chalkboard, lecturing on the benefits of working together as a team and building community spirit.
Jones labeled his new movement the “Third Wave,” relating it to how surfers ride only the third waves, known to be the strongest. He taught the students a salute — a cupped hand raised next to the head, the elbow bent at a right angle.
Jones then passed out index cards to act as proof of membership in the Third Wave, noting that anyone who received a card with a red X on the back was now an informant. These randomly selected students, whom Jones sometimes referred to as Gestapo, reported anyone who acted contrary to the Third Wave’s community values.
In Lesson Plan, former student Sherry Tousley remembers asking Mr. Jones, “Why can’t we just say what we think?” Jones banished Tousley to the library. He continued to send other students who questioned the movement to the library. When Tousley told the librarian, who’d grown up in Nazi Germany, her reason for not being in class, the librarian expressed alarm. She told young Tousley, “You can’t take this sitting down; you have to do something.”
Tousley and her father secretly began to place anti-Third Wave posters in the school’s halls. Within an hour of school’s starting the next day, the posters were already removed. Tousley named her library-banished revolutionaries “The Breakers.”
By the third day, Jones wrote “strength through action” on the chalkboard. He lectured about the merits of activism and asked students to begin recruiting others outside the classroom. “Strength through discipline and strength through community mean nothing without action to go with it,” former student Philip Neel recalled in Lesson Plan.
As the days passed, Jones noted his own growing enjoyment of the power, the control, and the students’ adoration during the experiment. He liked having 100 students salute him in the hallways.
“That’s pretty addictive,” he says in Lesson Plan.
The experiment began to take on a life of its own, and by day three, Jones was holding mock trials in the classroom from informant testimonies. Because of the student Gestapo, members of the Third Wave couldn’t trust their best friends; some of them had known each other for more than 10 years. Fights broke out in the hallways over membership status and differing opinions on Jones’ unorthodox teaching methods.
On the fourth day, Jones added “strength through pride” to the chalkboard and told the class the Third Wave was real. He explained it was a national movement to save the country from the Democrats and Republicans who could not agree on policy or how to get the country out of Vietnam. The impressionable students believed their young, charismatic, and trusted leader.
Jones then informed the class of a rally the next day for Third Wave members only, during which the new national leader behind the movement would reveal himself through a television broadcast to more than 1,000 participating high schools.
On the day of the event, photographers swarmed the auditorium — mostly friends of Jones whom he’d asked to pretend to be press. Jones stood at the front with around 200 students eagerly waiting for him to speak.
“Let us show everybody the extent of our training,” Neel remembered Jones saying.
“We all stood up at attention and belted ‘Strength through discipline; strength through community, strength through action,’” Neel said. “It started soft, and it grew louder and louder and louder.”
Jones turned the little 19-inch television on and left the room with only the snow crackling on the screen. The photographers and Jones, along with his self-appointed student bodyguards, then left the room.
“It was like a pressure cooker. We all felt like something was really wrong,” former student and producer of Lesson Plan Mark Hancock remembered.
Some students ran from the auditorium.
“I half expected those doors to be locked,” former student Steve Coniglio said. “I tore out of there,” Hancock added.
The lights came on and Jones approached the front of the room, looking disturbed. One student yelled, “There is no national leader!”
Jones, in response, snapped to a “Sieg Heil” Nazi salute and played clips of the 1933-1935 Nazi Party rally films from Nuremberg.
“What I have witnessed has really sickened me,” Neel said, remembering Jones’ speech as the realization dawned on the students.
Jones recalled telling the students, “We are no better or worse than the Germans. We are just like them.”
The repercussions of Jones’ experiment served as the inspiration behind a feature film, a theatrical production, a Netflix miniseries, an Emmy Award-winning 1981 after-school special, and two documentaries — in both English and German. The case study is often used as an example in schools to showcase the pitfalls of totalitarianism and the ease with which a civilized society can turn on itself. The experiment’s official website includes study guides and lesson plans to help teachers caution their students about the dangers of totalitarianism.
Jones has since acknowledged the danger he created in conducting the experiment. Though he advocates learning about it, he warns teachers against its implementation.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Save America Foundationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSave America Foundation2022-05-18 06:28:492022-05-18 06:35:25Did a History Teacher’s ‘Third Wave’ Nazi Social Experiment Go to Far?
After the last two years, how can any reasonable onlooker not have developed a healthy skepticism of the ‘experts?’
Are Americans losing faith in scientific experts? Well, according to one bombshell new poll, many are—but there’s a catch.
A new survey from the left-leaning pollster FiveThirtyEight measured Americans’ trust in the scientific community. It finds that in recent years, trust in “the scientific community” has cratered among Republicans and soared among Democrats. In the past, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike had similar levels of confidence in the scientific community, but these data show an intense polarization around party lines over the last few years.
In 2015, about 42 percent of Democrats said they had a “great deal” of confidence in the scientific community, and about 35 percent of Republicans agreed. After 2020, however, that number surged to more than 65 percent among Democrats and plummeted to barely 30 percent among Republicans.
The elite class’s response to this data was essentially a collective sneer at Republicans for their supposedly rube-like distrust of experts. The FiveThirtyEight article reporting the results even branded Republicans as “anti-intellectualism” and Democrats as “pro-intellectualism” due to these findings.
But this backlash misses the point. There is, of course, value in expertise and a very real need for expert input in many walks of modern life. When I go to the doctor, I do so because she has expertise in medicine that I do not. Yet a healthy skepticism of supposedly all-knowing, benevolent “experts” and would-be planners is more than warranted—the pandemic era has proven this time and time again.
Just consider how many times the “experts” got things wrong or misled the public since the COVID-19 outbreak first began.
At the very beginning, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) blocked the use of emerging COVID-19 testing technology. They literally required everyone to use their government-approved test, which later proved to be wildly inaccurate. Only belatedly and begrudgingly did the government allow private innovators to step in and produce the accurate COVID tests now in widespread use.
But that’s just the cherry on top. The “scientific community” promised Americans that if they just complied with expert advice, the pandemic could quickly be contained and life could return to normal. Remember “15 days to slow the spread?”
The “experts” went on to promote harsh government lockdowns that, as later comprehensive research has shown, had minimal public health benefits—but did destroy the economy and cause a wide range of life-threatening unintended consequences. So, too, they pushed unscientific mask mandates and security theater that has aged about as well as BlockBuster.
No single individual embodies the scientific community’s credibility crisis better than Dr. Anthony Fauci. The well-credentialed government COVID “expert” flip-flopped on countless key public health questions, from masking to closing schools to herd immunity and more. Fauci also blatantly misled the public on issues like gain-of-function research. He went from originally enjoying widespread approval and trust to largely being perceived as a hero or villain along party lines.
With all that has happened over the last two years, how can any reasonable onlooker not have developed a healthy skepticism of the “experts?”
Far from being evidence of “anti-intellectualism,” the decline in trust for the scientific community among Republicans is actually a good sign. Blind trust in the “experts” is often exploited by those who seek centralized power and control, sometimes to tragic results.
“Many of the great disasters of our time have been committed by experts,” economist Thomas Sowell observed in a 2020 interview. “You may remember [former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt]’s ‘brain trust,’ which according to later studies, prolonged the Great Depression by several years. The ‘whiz kids’ in the Pentagon who managed to mess up the Vietnam War… you can run through an impressive list of disasters brought about by men with very high IQs.” (Emphasis mine).
Of course, skepticism of the experts and the scientific community can go too far. Scientists are people, and they’re not always right—but they’re certainly not always wrong, either. In the same way that blind faith in experts leads one astray, so too can a blind rejection of everything they say.
The solution is simple. We should consider what experts have to say, but consider it critically, not accept it as gospel. Contra FiveThirtyEight’s narrative, that approach is not “anti-intellectualism.” In fact, true intellectualism requires thinking for ourselves.
Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. He was previously a Media and Journalism Fellow at… More by Brad Polumbo
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-05-18 06:12:042022-05-18 06:19:16Trust in ‘The Science’ is polarizing along party lines
As we approach the 2022 mid-term elections on November 8th, 2022 it is important for citizens to understand the specific federal and recently revised Florida laws, and accompanying criminal penalties, for voter and election fraud.
Why? Because voter fraud has now become a “multi-dimensional interference” in elections.
Every illegal ballot or ballot cast by an illegal voter is a clear and present danger and a threat to our national security.
This information is provided for those who many witness voter fraud and what are your responsibilities to report it to either or to both the Florida Office of Election Crimes and Security and federal authorities, i.e. the FBI.
(1)knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for—
(A) registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote;
(B) urging or aiding any person to register to vote, to vote, or to attempt to register or vote; or
(C) exercising any right under this chapter; or
(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—
(A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or
(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held, shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (Pub. L. 103–31, § 12, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 88.)
On April 25th, 2022 Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill (SB) 524 which created a police force dedicated to pursuing voter fraud and other election crimes.
Senate Bill (SB) 524, Election Administration, was passed and signed into law in order to ensure that the State of Florida continues to have secure and accurate elections. This legislation strengthens election security measures by requiring voter rolls to be annually reviewed and updated, strengthens ID requirements, establishes the Office of Election Crimes and Security to investigate election law violations, and increases penalties for violations of election laws.
Florida Secretary of State, Laurel M. Lee at the signing ceremony said,
“Governor DeSantis has made elections integrity a top priority from the very beginning of his administration, taking steps to ensure we invested in our elections systems, strengthened our cyber defenses, modernized equipment, updated voter rolls, and improved transparency, and we’ve seen results. As Florida’s Chief Elections Official, I share Governor DeSantis’ strong commitment to elections integrity. We want to ensure that every Floridian can have confidence that in Florida, we do elections right.”
It is incumbent on all citizens to be on the look out for election fraud.
The film 2000 Mules shows how election fraud has now become a threat to our national security and our free and fail election process. Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. wrote,
Both The Epoch Times and D’Souza have investigated and followed the many aspects, conflicting arguments, waves of evidence, people directly involved, and more…associated with the very sophisticated, multi-dimensional interference of the last national election in November of 2020. Without a doubt the compilation of evidence substantiates the reason for the initial Joint Public Arizona Legislative Hearing in Phoenix on November 30, 2020. Arizona State Rep. Mark Finchem and Arizona State Senator Sonny Borrelli co-chaired the day-long hearing, and testimony along with cyber-evidence presented by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and a team of professionals. Epoch Times, One America News, and seven other fair and balanced news organizations provided national coverage for the ten hour hearing. I was privileged to coordinate all aspects leading up to the legislative hearing, and then thereafter. This hearing launched investigations and hearings in 16 other states.
Stealing the vote is now the greatest threat to our Constitutional Republican form of government.
Remember, every illegal vote cancels out one legal vote. Cast enough illegal votes and you can win a presidential election.
The man who had the courage to hold the first hearing on voter fraud in the 2020 election @SenMastriano has won the Republican primary for Governor by a big vote.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-17 14:54:522022-05-18 07:17:40What are the Federal and Florida Laws and Criminal Penalties for Election Fraud?
Randall Smith: 16,000,000 dead black babies and counting. All those demonstrating to protect the abortion industry are not only on the wrong side of history, they’re also racist.
There’s been a lot of discussion recently about the upcoming Dobbs decision, in which the Supreme Court might finally overturn the Court’s deadly earlier decisions in Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton. Many of the articles bemoaning the coming decision have been filled with incivility, mindless vitriol, fear-mongering, absurd non sequiturs, and outright lies.
When the Supreme Court overturned its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick seventeen years later in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas – thereby protecting homosexual activity – liberals weren’t screaming that Brown v. Board of Education was next, because they knew that would have been an absurd non sequitur.
And today, no progressive liberal would find it acceptable were a conservative group giving out the home addresses of the dissenting judges in Dobbs, so that groups of angry demonstrators could gather outside their homes to pressure them to change their minds. No, only one side may do these things.
Well, to those defending Roe, I have only one thing to say: You’re on the wrong side of history.
I’ve always wanted to say that. Mostly just to show people on the other side how it feels. I do in fact believe that those who are arguing for abortion are on the wrong side of history and that, in fifty years, with advances in neonatal care and greater knowledge of the developing child in the womb, abortion will be seen as barbaric as slavery does to us today.
And just for the record, if you study history, you’ll find that when your side is the side that’s using euphemisms to cover up what you’re doing – breaking windows, lying, threatening people with violence, and stirring up mob anger, fear, and resentment – you usually are on the “wrong side of history.”
But simply saying to one’s opponents, “You’re on the wrong side of history,” is no argument. It is the verbal equivalent of a patronizing pat on the head. Imagine making a sophisticated argument about something only to have your interlocutor blurt out: “Well that’s just stupid!” or “You’re just wrong!” Now, I may be wrong; I may even be stupid. But you will have to make an actual argument to show that.
Too many people today assume they have no need to make logical arguments and can instead simply assume that “all good and sensible people” agree with them because, well, “it’s obvious.” The problem is, it almost never is, and with especially controversial issues, such as abortion, you can’t simply assume it is. What you are saying when you claim, “It’s obvious,” is that the people who disagree with you are stupid — too dense to see what’s “obvious.”
So I’m not going to simply say to those who disagree with me about abortion, “You’re on the wrong side of history.” I think they are; they obviously think they’re not. Fine. We need to move on and get to some real arguments and actual data.
“Disparate impact” and racial bias seem to be popular topics at the moment. You can barely go more than a day or two without a discussion of them showing up on the mainstream media. So let’s talk about them with reference to abortion.
The claim one often hears is that overturning Roe would be “disastrous” for the black community. But here is the reality:
Abortion is the leading cause of death for African Americans, more than all other causes combined, including HIV, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease.
Abortions are performed on black women at a rate 3.5 times higher than white women; black women have over 30 percent of abortions though they are only 12.6 percent of the population.
Over their lifetimes, black women average 1.6 more pregnancies than White women but are 5 times more likely to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion.
Approximately 360,000 pre-born black babies are aborted every year, nearly 1000 per day.
More than 16-million black babies have died by abortion since 1973.
The percentage of the black population in the U.S. has dropped from 12.6 percent in 2010 to 12.4 percent in 2020. The black population in the U.S. (41 million) has dropped precipitously below the Hispanic population (63 million), numbers that would be radically different had 16 million black lives mattered enough to society to protect them from abortion and raise them to fruitful adulthood.
You might be thinking, “Yes, but the abortion providers didn’t abort these black children because they were black.” First, liberals never allow this excuse when it comes to any other “disparate impact” case. And second, are you so sure?
Everyone admits now that the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, began her “Negro Project” in 1939 to stop the growth of the black population. And it’s still the case that 79 percent of Planned Parenthood surgical abortion facilities are within walking distance (2 miles) of relatively high black and/or Hispanic populations. Black women are five times more likely to have an abortion than white women. If that isn’t evidence of “systemic racism,” then the term is meaningless.
So all you people demonstrating to protect the abortion industry, you’re not only on the wrong side of history, you’re also racist.
You? No, not you! You’re the good people! Sixteen million dead black babies and counting, and you’re absolutely certain the people pushing back against this racial genocide are the horrible, evil ones, and you – you – are the people who will be judged by history as the ones who really cared about the black community.
And you are so certain of this, in fact, that you’re willing to silence your opponents, terrorize them in mobs, lie repeatedly, vandalize churches, disrupt church services, desecrate religious sacraments, tear down free women’s care centers that provide women the resources to make the choice not to terminate the life of their unborn child, and even overthrow the democratic process itself, all so that some women can terminate the lives of their unborn sons and daughters
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Catholic Thinghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Catholic Thing2022-05-17 07:18:562022-05-17 07:18:56Abortion and the Genocide of the Black Community
The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapon bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence.
Mass shootings are unconscionable acts of violence and are the most acutely disturbing form of gun violence. In the wake of such tragedies, many gun control advocates lambast gun rights supporters for allowing “weapons of war” onto the streets of America and not supporting “responsible gun reform.”
The measures put forth are usually either a ban and/or mandatory buyback of “assault weapons,” most of which are more accurately known as semi-automatic rifles. (“Assault weapon” is a vague term that varies state to state and can include common pistols and shotguns depending out other attachable accessories.)
While these initiatives are “common sense” to advocates, if one takes the time to examine the data and evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that gun control in this form will do little to reduce gun violence.
1. Mass shootings with assault weapons constitute a fraction of a percent of gun violence
Mother Jones’s database of mass shootings, defined as shootings involving three or more fatalities, shows that between 2007 and 2017, there were 495 people murdered in such events. When breaking down those shootings by the weapons involved, it is revealed that around half of those victims (253) were murdered by a perpetrator with an assault weapon (AW), such as an AR-15.
Over the same timeframe, FBI annual crime reports show that there were 150,352 homicides in total, of which 103,901 involved firearms. This means that mass shootings involving AWs constitute 0.17 percent and 0.24 percent of all homicides and firearm homicides, respectively.
To further illuminate the relative infrequency of mass shootings with “assault weapons,” consider the fact that in 2017, some 1,590 people were murdered using knives or sharp instruments.
Over the last five years, 261 people were murdered with AWs in mass shootings (an average rate of 52 murders annually.) At such a rate, it would take over 30 years of mass shootings with AWs to produce the same number of deaths as one year’s worth of knife murders. (It would take 135 years’ worth of mass shootings with AWs to produce the 7,032 deaths that handgun homicides did in 2017.)
Consequently, even a completely effective ban/buyback of AWs would have an incredibly small impact on rates of homicide and gun violence, and then there is always the probability that people intent on committing mass violence will substitute AWs with other available firearms or methods of destruction (such as homemade explosives.)
There are theoretical reasons to doubt the effectiveness of a ban or buyback of assault weapons, but it also doesn’t help that real-world evidence suggests these measures fail to produce reductions in gun violence.
Between 1994 and 2004, the federal government banned the manufacture, sale, or transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. A subsequent Department of Justice study found no evidence that the ban had had any effect on gun violence and stated that “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
A recent study published this year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine examined state gun control policies and found no statistically significant relationship between assault weapon or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study came to the same conclusion.
3. Australia doesn’t prove gun control works
In 1996, Australia experienced a horrific mass shooting. In response, the government implemented a mandatory buyback scheme that banned and confiscated certain types of firearms, including assault weapons.
A 2016 JAMAstudy on the matter found no statistically significant change in the trend of the country’s firearm homicide rate following the law’s passage. The authors also noted that the decline in firearm suicides post-ban could not clearly be attributed to gun control since non-firearm suicides fell by an even greater magnitude.
4. There is inconclusive evidence of assault weapons bans on mass shootings
Last year, the RAND Corporation released an extensive scientific analysis of available evidence on gun control measures and how they relate to various crime outcomes. Regarding the effect of assault weapons bans on mass shootings, they determined the evidence was “inconclusive.”
When former President Bill Clinton claimed the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban was associated with reduced mass shootings, Politifactrated that claim as “half-true,” noting that “the ban’s impact remains unclear.”
Using Mother Jones’s data on mass shootings, I constructed the graph you see above. Prior to the ban, on average five people were killed with assault weapons in mass shootings per year. During the ban, that number went slightly down to four. Post-ban, it rose to 22.
But mass shootings with assault weapons didn’t rise until 2012—eight years after the ban ended. In the seven years after the ban, there was only an average of four people killed in mass shootings with assault weapons per year.
Given the fact that the pre-ban period and the seven years after the ban had essentially the same rate of mass shooting deaths with assault weapons, it is hard to prove that the ban had any effect on mass shootings.
In Conclusion
The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapons bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence. There seems to be no relationship between these gun control measures and reductions in firearm homicide or suicide, and there doesn’t appear to be any clear evidence they reduce mass shootings.
Homeschooling encompasses a demographically, geographically, and ideologically diverse group of families who share a common goal of wanting to take a more active role in their children’s education.
On Friday, MSNBC shared a tweet claiming that homeschooling is being driven by “the insidious racism of the American religious right.” While Anthea Butler, the opinion columnist who wrote the article referenced by the tweet, never used that specific phrase, her piece implies that homeschooling is a strategy used by white, evangelical parents to destroy public schooling and uphold racial segregation.
It may seem harmless, but the insidious racism of the American religious right's obsession with homeschooling speaks volumes, writes @AntheaButler. https://t.co/cETwck5n27
The facts, including those which Butler acknowledges in her article, simply do not reflect her theory.
Butler, a professor of religious and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania, asserts that homeschooling originated out of the work of Christian fundamentalist Rousas Rushdoony in the 1960s, but she neglects to mention that the rise of the modern homeschooling movement was broad and bipartisan, capturing both the political left and right who were equally dissatisfied with public schooling and other American institutions at the time.
As education professor and author of Homeschool: An American History, Milton Gaither, writes:
“Given this pan-ideological commitment to local, authentic, private life and contempt for establishment liberalism, it is not surprising that members of both the countercultural right and the countercultural left reacted, for different reasons, against the twentieth-century expansion of public education into a near-universal experience.”
Butler goes on to claim that conservative Christian ideology continues to negatively influence today’s homeschoolers, even as she admits that the recent increase in homeschooling is coming from non-white, non-evangelical families. She gives a nod to the US Census Bureau data showing that the independent homeschooling rate more than doubled in 2020 to 11.1 percent of the US K-12 school-age population. “Some of that increase may be attributed to Black parents and other diverse groups who are now finding homeschooling as an attractive alternative,” writes Butler.
According to the Census Bureau, the number of black homeschoolers increased fivefold between spring and fall of 2020, from 3.3 percent to 16.1 percent. Black children were overrepresented in the homeschooling population compared to the overall K-12 public school population.
The Census Bureau also found that much of the recent homeschooling growth occurred in areas that would not be considered religious or politically conservative. For example, the Boston-Cambridge area where I live and homeschool my own children saw homeschooling increase from 0.9% to 8.9% in 2020.
Recent data analyzed by the Associated Press show that the homeschooling rate remains at record-high levels this academic year, even as schools are open for full-time, in-person learning, suggesting many new homeschooling families enjoy the freedom and flexibility this educational approach offers.
Fortunately, even parents and onlookers who may be indifferent to homeschooling, including some who identify as being on the left politically, can see through MSNBC’s false assertion that “insidious racism” is motivating modern homeschoolers:
A lot of liberals, such as myself, felt incredibly disoriented during the Trump administration because of the blatant, easily verifiable lies that were jammed down our throat.
I feel that way now about current left-wing media. This is pure propaganda, not aligned to the facts. https://t.co/TOAeucqPyR
Indeed, the most recent federal data on why parents choose homeschooling reveal that “concern about the environment of other schools, including safety, drugs, and negative peer pressure,” is the top motivator. Only 16 percent of homeschooling parents in the nationally representative sample chose a “desire to provide religious instruction” as their top motivator. Of course, even if religious instruction was the top motivator of today’s homeschooling families, that wouldn’t be a reason to criticize homeschooling or call those doing it racist.
The response to MSNBC’s tweet was swift and severe, with most comments and shares expressing outrage over the article and MSNBC’s social media interpretation. Some voiced concern that there will now be calls for a ban on homeschooling, but these calls have been around for years.
Back in June 2020, I debated Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet who called for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling. These calls for homeschooling bans are not new and will persist, but as more families choose homeschooling and more resources, such as microschools and hybrid schools, emerge to support homeschoolers, calls to ban homeschooling will continue to be ignored.
Homeschooling is here to stay, driven by a demographically, geographically, and ideologically diverse group of families who share a common goal of wanting to take a more active role in their children’s education.
Media companies and academics can claim that homeschooling is being chosen for nefarious reasons, but the facts simply don’t support it.
Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and host of the weekly LiberatED podcast. She is also the author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019), an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-05-17 06:08:382022-05-17 06:09:11MSNBC Claims Homeschooling Is Driven By “Insidious Racism,” But the Facts Show Otherwise
Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:
Siru Murugesan, Twitter Senior Engineer: “Twitter does not believe in free speech… Elon believes in free speech.”
Murugesan: “Our jobs are at stake, he [Elon Musk] is a capitalist and we weren’t really operating as capitalists, more like very socialist. Like we’re all like commie as f*ck.”
Murugesan on Twitter offering equal access to both parties: “I don’t know if two parties can truly coexist on one platform.”
Murugesan on how Twitter employees are dealing with the changes at Twitter: “They’re like, ‘this would be my last day if it happens…’ a lot has changed. Like, we’re stress eating a lot. Like, we’re all worried for our jobs.”
Murugesan also explained how Twitter employees did all they could to “revolt against” Musk’s takeover of the company.
“We did all we could to like, revolt against it. A lot of employees were revolting against it, but at the end of the day, the Board of Directors have the say.”
He added that he thought the board “… acted on their best interests ‘cause they didn’t want to get sued…they’re always looking out for themselves at the end of the day.”
At the time of this writing, Twitter has yet to respond to a request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00O'Keefe Media Grouphttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngO'Keefe Media Group2022-05-17 05:55:472022-05-17 05:55:47Twitter Senior Engineer Says Company is ‘Commie as F*ck’ and ‘Does Not Believe in Free Speech’
Now we know that 25% of the country is certifiably nuts.
From the story: NBC noted that the poll is the fourth consecutive survey where the “wrong track” figure was above 70 percent and only the fifth time in 34 years that the “wrong track” number reached 75%. The last time it was that high was during the Great Recession in 2008, followed by the 2013 government shutdown (Daily Wire).
Meet The Press: NBC NEWS POLL: Just 16% say the country is headed in the right direction, while 75% say we’re on the wrong track. It’s a truism that voters’ views about the economy begin to harden in May. If that theory holds, the Democrats are in serious trouble right now (Twitter).
NBC NEWS POLL: Just 16% say the country is headed in the right direction, while 75% say we're on the wrong track.
It's a truism that voters' views about the economy begin to harden in May.
Three-fourths of Americans say the country is on the wrong track, according to a new poll.
The NBC News poll of 1,000 U.S. adults, conducted between May 5-7, found that 75% of Americans said the country was “off on the wrong track,” while just 16% said the United States was “headed in the right direction.”
NBC noted that the poll is the fourth consecutive survey where the “wrong track” figure was above 70 percent and only the fifth time in 34 years that the “wrong track” number reached 75%. The last time it was that high was during the Great Recession in 2008, followed by the 2013 government shutdown.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-05-17 05:43:462022-05-17 06:39:54Poll: 75 Percent of Americans Say Country Is on ‘Wrong Track’
Fox News host and Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson warned Monday of the potential “destruction” political leaders will cause by pushing “race politics.”
Carlson said Democrats created a “coordinated campaign” to blame the Saturday shooting in Buffalo, New York, on their political opponents, and are using it to justify the restriction of “hate speech” to silence anyone who disagrees with them politically.
“Professional Democrats had begun a coordinated campaign to blame those murders on their political opponents. ‘They did it,’ they said immediately. Payton Gendron was the heir to Donald Trump, they told us. Trumpism committed mass murder in Buffalo. And for that reason, it followed logically, we must suspend the First Amendment. … So what is hate speech? Well, it’s speech that our leaders hate. So, because a mentally ill teenager murdered strangers, you cannot be allowed to express your political views out loud.”
The Daily Caller co-founder then pointed to President Joe Biden’s planned visit to the shooting location Tuesday, alleging the president will likely “attack” the Republican Party when addressing the incident that killed 10 people. Carlson read a report by Politico alleging Biden told his aides he views the Republican Party as “an existential threat to the nation’s democracy.”
“People who disagree with Joe Biden, according to Joe Biden, are now [an] ‘existential threat to the nation’ like al Qaeda or climate change. A threat that by definition is so profound we must declare war upon it if we’re to survive. Now, keep in mind, this threat that Biden is referring to is you. He’s talking about his fellow Americans. No president has ever spoken like this, ever.”
Carlson then warned that Biden will use race politics to his political advantage while addressing the shooting that “dehumanizes” people and erases the primary focus on “initiative and decency.”
“But the most painful and destructive of all, Biden is likely use racial wounds in order to make his point,” he continued. “There is no behavior worse than this. All race politics is bad, no matter what flavor those politics happen to be. No race politics is better than any other. All of it is poison. Race politics subsumes the individual into the group. It erases people, it dehumanizes them.”
“Race politics always makes us hate each other and always in a very predictable way,” Carlson added.
Carlson further noted it is race politics that leads to the emergence of “white identity politics,” for which political leaders only have themselves to blame.
“Race politics always leads to violence and death,” Carlson said. He cited identity politics as the leading cause of genocide that killed approximately 800,000 people in Rwanda. He said the U.S. should emulate Rwanda’s response by eliminating the focus on racial identifications and instead form a “colorblind meritocracy.”
“There is only one answer to rising racial tension, and that’s to de-escalate,” he said. “We have a moral duty to do this because all people have equal, moral value no matter what they look like. All lives matter, period. That’s not the determination of the U.S. government, that’s the determination of God and it’s true.”
The host concluded saying the nation’s political leaders are leading Americans down the path of “destruction” by blocking the ability to move toward a meritocracy.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-17 05:27:072022-05-17 05:30:13‘All Of It Is Poison’: Tucker Carlson Warns Political Leaders Will Use ‘Race Politics’ To ‘Make Us Hate Each Other’
“You would never visit Supreme Court Justice’s houses when things didn’t go our way. We didn’t throw temper tantrums. It is incumbent on us to always act appropriately and not to repay tit for tat.” – Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday at an event in Dallas that the Supreme Court has been changed by the leak of a draft decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade earlier this month, calling it “tremendously bad,” according to audio obtained by Reason Magazine….
“You can’t have a civil society, a free society, without a stable legal system. You can’t have one without stability and things like property or interpretation and impartial judiciary,” he added.
“And the institution that I’m a part of, if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone in you would say that, ‘Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that.’”
“There was such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, a belief in what we were doing, that that was verboten. It was beyond anyone’s understanding, or at least anyone’s imagination, that someone would do that. And look where we are, where now that trust or that belief is gone forever.”
“When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.”
“I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them. And then I wonder when they’re gone, or they are destabilized, what we will have as a country. And I don’t think that the prospects are good if we continue to lose them.”
Thomas also criticized recent peaceful pro-abortion protests outside of justices’ homes, saying he believes conservatives would have never done the same.
“You would never visit Supreme Court Justice’s houses when things didn’t go our way. We didn’t throw temper tantrums. It is incumbent on us to always act appropriately and not to repay tit for tat.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-05-17 05:14:212022-05-17 05:19:39Clarence Thomas: ‘I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them’
The Delaware computer repair shop owner who blew the whistle on Hunter Biden’s “Laptop From Hell,” is coming to Oklahoma for two rallies with U.S. Senate candidate Jackson Lahmeyer on May 21st in Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
TULSA, Oklahoma/PRNewswire/ — Jackson Lahmeyer, the Businessman and Pastor who is seeking to unseat establishment GOP Senator James Lankford in Oklahoma will be feature alongside John Paul Mac Isaac, the whistleblower who gained national prominence in the lead up to the 2020 election when he sounded the alarm about the content he discovered on a laptop left at his computer repair shop by Hunter Biden. Lahmeyer has previously appeared at rallies and secured the endorsements of Trump advisors Roger Stone and General Michael Flynn.
John Paul Mac Isaac first went to the FBI with the hard drive from Hunter’s “laptop from hell,” but was dismayed when he realized that the Bureau did not want anything to do with the laptop President Biden’s son abandoned at Mac Isaac’s computer repair shop. When the contents were eventually leaked, the mainstream media, Democrats, and their allies in Big Tech, claimed it was all a hoax and “Russian disinformation or propaganda.” Just a few weeks ago, the New York Times confirmed that the laptop was indeed real and the contents were not a hoax.
“To have someone as courageous and brave as Mr. Mac Isaac in Oklahoma to support our campaign is a great honor. When he came forward with the laptop from hell, he was doxxed and harassed by powerful billion-dollar media conglomerates. This led to threats against his livelihood and his personal safety. I think it’s very important for Oklahomans to hear his story. When I am elected to the United States Senate, I will fight for more expansive and responsive protections for whistleblowers like John Paul Mac Isaac, who is an American hero. Whether you are exposing corporate greed or government corruption, you should be afforded respect and protection from the United States, even when you are exposing the wayward son of a former Vice President who was at the time campaigning for President,” explained Lahmeyer.
There will be two rallies with Mac Issac and Lahmeyer on May 21st, the first occurring at 2pm in Oklahoma City and then another at 6pm at Sheridan Church in Tulsa (4121 S. Sheridan Road). You can get tickets here.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-17 04:42:372022-05-17 04:42:37Man Who Uncovered Hunter Biden Laptop to Rally with Oklahoma U.S. Senate Candidate
In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial
With the release of Pfizer trial data — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation are coming to light
Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization — a feat that has many questioning whether fraud was committed
The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack, who also happens to be a consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC), a current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, an investigator for Fundación Infant, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, and the first author of Pfizer’s paper, “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” published at the end of December 2021
Site 1231 held a second enrollment session, given the designation of “site 4444.” The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag. It supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020 — the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Was “site 4444” fabricating data to create the appearance that the jab was having an effect?
In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial.
Data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind. The revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. In his November 2, 2021, report, investigative journalist Paul Thacker wrote:1
“Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight …
[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety … Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.”
Jackson, a former regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas, repeatedly “informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns and data integrity issues,” Thacker wrote.
When her concerns were ignored, she finally called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed a complaint via email. Jackson was fired later that day after just two weeks on the job. According to her separation letter, management decided she was “not a good fit” for the company after all.
She provided The BMJ with “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails” proving her concerns were valid, and according to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator.
BMJ Report Censored
Disturbingly, social media actually censored this BMJ article and published pure falsehoods in an effort to “debunk” it. Mind you, the BMJ is one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world! The Facebook “fact check” was done by Lead Stories, a Facebook contractor, which claimed the BMJ “did NOT reveal disqualifying and ignored reports of flaws in Pfizer’s” trials.2
In response, The BMJ slammed the fact check, calling it “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”3,4,5 In an open letter6 addressed to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, The BMJ urged Zuckerberg to “act swiftly” to correct the erroneous fact check, review the processes that allowed it to occur in the first place, and “generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.” As noted by The BMJ in its letter, the Lead Stories’ fact check:7
Inaccurately referred to The BMJ as a “news blog”
Failed to specify any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
Published the fact check on the Lead Stories’ website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
Pfizer Trial Data Raises Suspicions of Fraud
Now, with the release of Pfizer trial data8 — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — internet sleuths are finding additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation. May 9, 2022, a Twitter user named Jikkyleaks posted a series of tweets questioning data from Pfizer trial sites 1231 and 4444.9
Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization (CRO). CROs like the Ventavia Research Group, which Jackson worked for, provide clinical trial management services. The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack,10 who also happens to be:11
A consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC) since 2017
A current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee
An investigator for Fundación Infant,12 which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation13
The first author of Pfizer’s paper,14 “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” published at the end of December 2021
As noted by Jikkyleaks, Polack “is literally the busiest doctor on the planet,” because in addition to all those roles, he also managed to single-handedly enroll 4,500 patients in three weeks, which entails filling out some 250 pages of case report forms (CRFs) for each patient. That’s about 1,125,000 pages total. (CRFs are documents used in clinical research to record standardized data from each patient, including adverse events.)
This recruitment also took place seven days a week, which is another red flag. “Weekend recruitment for a clinical trial would be odd. Staff are needed to fill out that many record forms (CRFs) and there are potential risks to the trial, so you need medical staff. It would be highly unusual,” Jikkyleaks notes.
Is Polack just a super-humanly efficient trial investigator, or could this be evidence of fraud? As noted by Steve Kirsch in the featured video and an accompanying Substack article,15 Polack is the coordinator for a network of 26 hospitals in Argentina, so perhaps it’s possible he could have recruited 57 patients per week per hospital, but it seems highly unlikely.
Questions Surround Site 4444 Data
Now, “site 4444” does not exist. It’s actually the same as site 1231. It appears site 1231 held a second enrollment session, and these were for some reason given the designation of 4444. The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag.
Site 4444 (the second enrollment session for site 1231) supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020, and the suspicious thing about that — aside from the speed — is the fact that this was the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Jikkyleads writes:16
“My guess: they needed enough numbers of ‘positive PCR tests’ in the placebo group to show a difference between groups for that VRBPAC meeting on the 10th Dec, and they didn’t have them. So, site 4444 appeared and gave them their ‘perfect’ result. Bravo.”
“Was there fraud in the Pfizer trial? Without a doubt. The story of Maddie de Garay is a clear case of that. Brook Jackson has evidence of fraud; she has 17 lawyers working for her. If there wasn’t fraud, these lawyers wouldn’t be wasting their time.
This new data on Site 1231/4444 looks suspicious to me. It looks too good to be true. But we can’t make the call without more information. Undoubtedly, the mainstream media will not look into this, Pfizer will remain silent, and Polack will be unreachable for comment. The lack of transparency should be troubling to everyone. That is the one thing we can say for sure.”
Pfizer Documents Reveal COVID Jab Dangers
Among the tens of thousands of Pfizer documents released by the FDA so far, we now also have clear evidence of harm. For nurse educator John Campbell, featured in the video above, these documents appear to have served as a “red pill,”18 waking him up to the possibility that the jabs may indeed be far more dangerous than anyone expected, including himself.
In the video, Campbell reviews the documents listed as “5.3.6. Postmarketing Experience,” which were originally marked “confidential.” They reveal that, cumulatively, through February 28, 2021, Pfizer received 42,086 adverse event reports, including 1,223 deaths.
To have 1,223 fatalities and 42,086 reports of injury in the first three months is a significant safety signal, especially when you consider that the 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled after only 25 deaths.
As noted by Campbell, “It would have been good to know about this at the time, wouldn’t it?” referring to the rollout of the jabs. Campbell has been fairly consistent in his support of the “safe and effective” vaccine narrative, but “This has just destroyed trust in authority,” he said.
158,000 Recorded Side Effects — A World Record?
The first really large tranche of more than 10,000 Pfizer documents was released March 1, 2022. (You can find them all on PHMPT.org.19) In this batch were no less than nine single-space pages of “adverse events of special interest,” listed in alphabetical order20 — 158,000 in all!
To see the first page, click the link below. The first side effect on this shockingly exhaustive list is a rare condition known as 1p36 deletion syndrome. This condition, caused by the deletion of DNA in chromosome 1p36, results in developmental delays, severe intellectual disability, seizures, vision problems, hearing loss, breathing problems, brain anomalies, congenital heart defects, cardiomyopathy, renal anomalies, genital malformation, metabolic problems and more.21,22
Life expectancy depends on the amount of DNA that has been deleted. This, at bare minimum, sounds like something a pregnant woman might want to know before she gets the shot.
After reviewing some of the released CRFs in the March 1 tranche, investigative journalist Sonia Elijah also discovered several problems, including the following:23
Patients entered into the “healthy population” group who were far from healthy — For example, one such “healthy” participant was a Type 2 diabetic with angina, a cardiac stent and a history of heart attack.
Serious adverse event (SAE) numbers were left blank — Ventavia site No. 1085 has a particularly large number of missing SAE numbers.
Missing barcodes for samples collected — Without those barcodes, you can’t match the sample to the participant.
Suspicious-looking SAE start and end dates — For example, the so-called “healthy” diabetic suffered a “serious” heart attack October 27, 2020. The “end” date is listed as October 28, the next day, which is odd because it was recorded as serious enough to require hospitalization.
Also, on that same day, October 28, the patient was diagnosed with pneumonia, so likely remained hospitalized. “This anomaly raises doubt as to the accuracy of these recorded dates, potentially violating ALOCA-C clinical site documentation guidelines for clinical trials,” Elijah writes.
Unblinded teams were responsible for reviewing adverse event reports for signs of COVID cases, and to review severe COVID cases — Yet in some cases they appear to have dismissed the possibility of an event being COVID-related, such as pneumonia. This despite the fact that Pfizer’s protocol (section 8.2.4) lists “enhanced COVID-19” (i.e., antibody dependent enhancement) as a potential side effect to be on the lookout for. As noted by Elijah:
“Inadvertently, this could have led to bias, as the unblinded teams would have been aware which participants were assigned the placebo and those who received the vaccine. They might have been under pressure by the sponsor for the trial to go a certain way and for events like ‘COVID Pneumonia’ to be classified simply as pneumonia.”
Impossible dating — The diabetic who suffered a heart attack followed by pneumonia (which may have been unacknowledged COVID pneumonia) died, and the date of death is listed as the day before the patient supposedly went for a “COVID ill” visit.
Clearly, it’s impossible for a dead person to attend a medical visit, so something is wrong here. The clinical investigator note states: “There cannot be a date later than date of death. Please remove data from the COVID illness visit and add cough and shortness of breath as AEs (adverse events).” “What kind of pressure was being exerted here?” Elijah asks.
Second dose administered outside the three-week protocol window.
Observation period appears to have been an automatic entry — According to the protocol, each participant was to be observed by staff for a minimum of 30 minutes.
A majority of the CRFs state 30 minutes, which raises the question: Were participants observed for adequate amounts of time, or did they simply put down “30 minutes” as an automatic entry? Why is there so little variety in the observation times? If participants were not adequately observed, their safety was put at risk, which was one of Jackson’s concerns.
Adverse events listed as “not serious” despite extended hospital stay — In one case, the participant fell and suffered facial lacerations the day after the second dose and was hospitalized for 26 days, yet the fall was not reported as serious.
Other anomalies in this particular case include listing the fall as being caused by a “fall” unrelated to the study treatment, and the facial laceration being the result of “hypotension” (low blood pressure). The SAE number is also missing for the facial lacerations.
Elijah writes, “Doubts can be raised over the credibility of this information given the fall and facial lacerations were intrinsically related. So, if facial lacerations were due to ‘hypotension’ then the fall should be due to that too.” Might low blood pressure be an effect of the experimental shot? Possibly. Especially when you consider the patient fell the day after being given the second dose.
Even more suspicious: the causality for the fall was recorded as “related” (to the treatment) on the serious adverse event form, but listed as “not related” on the adverse event CRF. A note states, “Please confirm correct causality.”
Dismissing brand new health problems as unrelated to the treatment — For example, in one case, a female participant with no medical history of impaired kidney function was diagnosed with kidney stones and severe hypokalemia, requiring hospitalization, one month after her second dose. Yet despite her having no history of kidney problems, both events were dismissed as “not related” to the study treatment and no further investigation was done.
In closing, Elijah wrote:24
“All the evidence gleaned over a limited time appears to back up whistleblower Jackson’s claims of poor trial site data management and raises questions as to how Ventavia conducted the Pfizer clinical trials.
The errors and anomalies in the CRFs also allude to her claims that the clinical research associates were not trained adequately, with many having had no prior clinical experience history. If such egregious findings are true at these sites, could they manifest at other trial sites around North America and beyond?”
Can You Trust Pfizer?
Pfizer, which was quickly given emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 mRNA gene therapy shot, has a long list of criminal verdicts against it:
In 2002, Pfizer and two subsidiaries paid $49 million to settle civil claims that it had failed to report best prices for its drug Lipitor, as is required under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Statute.25
In 2004, a Pfizer subsidiary Warner-Lambert pleaded guilty and paid more than $430 million to settle criminal charges and civil liability from fraudulent marketing practices.26
In 2007, another subsidiary was found guilty of paying out kickbacks for formulary placement of its drugs and had to pay a fine of $34 million.27
Two years later, in 2009, Pfizer was found guilty of health care fraud and ordered to pay the largest penalty ever for this kind of offense.28 When announcing the record penalty of $2.3 billion against the drug giant, the U.S. Department of Justice said one of the charges was a felony. The other charges stemmed from false actions and false claims submitted to federal health care programs.
In 2010, the company was again ordered to pay $142 million in damages for fraudulent marketing and promoting the drug Neurontin for unapproved uses.29
Less than 10 years later, in 2018, Pfizer was again caught in an illegal kickback scheme and agreed to pay $23.8 million to resolve claims that it used a foundation as a conduit to pay the copays of Medicare patients taking three of its drugs.30
As noted in the journal Healthcare Policy in 2010,31 “Pfizer has been a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” The article also highlights the crimes of Johnson & Johnson, another COVID jab maker.
Despite its tarnished history, we’re now expected to trust that everything Pfizer does is above-board. I don’t think so. A company that continues getting caught committing the same crimes over and over again clearly has a deeply established ethical rot within its corporate structure that fines simply have no effect over.
Has Pfizer committed fraud in its COVID jab trials as well? It sure looks that way. Time will tell whether attorneys will have enough for a conviction in the future. If fraud did take place, Pfizer can (and likely will) be held liable for the more than one million injuries its injection has caused in the U.S. alone, and we all look forward to that reckoning.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-17 04:19:432022-05-17 04:21:42Is This Why Pfizer Wanted Trial Data Buried for 75 Years?
