Tulsi Gabbard on Media Bias and Ministry of Truth

TULSI’S TWO CLIPS FROM HER RUMBLE THIS WEEK

At Washington Post, you can print factually incorrect, biased propaganda – but they draw the line at retweeting a dumb joke. MSM priorities are so twisted and out of sync with the American people, it’s just sad to see what our media has become.

Whistleblower docs reveal the Ministry of Truth (Disinformation Board) lied to Congress about their capabilities & plans. For intelligence agencies to work w/ Big Tech to target American citizens is flatly unconstitutional, dictatorial and should be brought to the Supreme Court

LARGER CLIPS FROM FOX APPEARANCES THIS WEEK

Whistleblower docs reveal the Ministry of Truth (Disinformation Board) lied to Congress about their capabilities & plans. For intelligence agencies to work w/ Big Tech to target American citizens is flatly unconstitutional, dictatorial and should be brought to the Supreme Court

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard assesses the January 6 hearings, says the Democratic-led Congress is not taking action on the real threats facing Americans on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’

‘Outnumbered’ panelists sound off on the media and President Biden for failing to publicly denounce the murder attempt against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

‘Outnumbered’ hosts shred President Biden’s first interview on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ for playing blame-game and ‘painting a rosy picture’ of the country wrapped in crises.

Jonathan Turley: Michael Sussman Jury Is A “Nightmare”

During a Fox News interview, Professor Jonathan Turley repeated some of the damning evidence against Clinton’s campaign attorney Michael Sussman revealed during his trial today. Turley mentioned the jury is a “nightmare” for the prosecutors. He explained that there are three Clinton donors and one juror’s daughter is on a team with Sussman’s daughter. The professor noted that the only thing missing on the jury is Chelsea Clinton. (THE SENTINAL hat-tip)

Sharyl Attkisson: “Anti-Vaxxer” a Very Effective Propaganda Tool

“Definitions now are being rewritten and changed in real-time to fit…whatever the establishment wants people to think,” says five-time Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. The term “anti-vaxxine” is now used to describe anybody who is opposed to vaccine mandates. In this episode, we discuss how propagandists have taken control of the information landscape.


MINISTRY of TRUTH


TECHNO FROG details the CDC’s emails discussing changing the term “vaccination”

The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.

[….]

CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue…..

(READ IT ALL)

Another note on the Merriam Webster (Ditionary) change to “Vaccine” is elucidated by DECEPTION, SELF-DECEPTION, & DEFACTUALIZATION — who has an excellent subtitle to the site: “Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.” Funny and sad at the same time.

Paraphrasing George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ to illustrate a simple concept my mother drummed into my head from as far back as I can remember, ‘Words mean things.’

In his other memorable offering, ‘1984,’ Orwell used a construct called “Newspeak” as a means for his dystopian government to control thought. It did so by limiting the number of words available with which to articulate thought. I suppose elimination of words was to the author a simpler method to use in fiction when compared to that which has been employed in fact by those who seek to control our thoughts and our acceptance of their agendas.

The current pathway to achieving Orwell’s objective in what we like to think of as ‘the real world’ is to keep the words but change their meaning. There can be no more glaring example than Merriam Webster’s treatment of the word ‘vaccine.’ One day the word referred to a substance administered to an individual in order to convey immunity and to stop the spread of a disease. Overnight it was expanded to include Gene Therapy.

Consider the difference this small addition makes. The pushback against ‘vaccine’ is growing in scope and strength, fueled primarily by the revelation that it is not a vaccine but in fact is gene therapy. Now, with the stroke of a pen, it is also a vaccine. For the propagandists this neutralizes all argument based on whether or not the government is being truthful in its vaccine regulations, mandates and other pronouncements. Now that gene therapy is a vaccine it is no longer a lie. Advantage Orwell.

Consider VAERS, that trove of information on the negative aspects of vaccines. This is a useful compilation of information but also illustrates our government’s approach to the entire subject. When reports are helpful to the official narrative they are akin to gospel but when they provide data that runs counter to the narrative they are false information. My reaction to the government’s self-serving position on VAERS is like that of Enid Strict, SNL’s Church lady, “Well, isn’t that special?”….

(READ IT ALL)

FOX NEWS covers the change in “Anti-Vaxxer” in the Merriam Webster dictionary as well, saying,

Merriam-Webster’s online definition of “anti-vaxxer” is spreading on social media this month amid outrage over vaccine mandates. The definition of the term was first added to the online dictionary in 2018 and was updated in late September.

“Redefine words all you want Merriam Webster, but WORDS STILL HAVE MEANING. By this definition, you aren’t pro-vaccine unless you believe the government should force everyone to get a medical procedure?” Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, tweeted Wednesday morning.

Fox News examined Merriam-Webster’s current definition of “anti-vaxxer” compared to its definition from 2018, and found it omitted the word “laws” in favor of “regulations.” The definition still states, however, that an “anti-vaxxer” includes people who oppose such rules on vaccinations or the vaccines, themselves.

“Definition of anti-vaxxer: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination,” Merriam-Webster’s website currently states, noting that it was updated on Sept. 29, 2021.

The definition of “anti-vaxxer” was previously defined, according to an archived definition from 2018 examined by Fox News, as: “A person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination.”

Editor at large of Merriam-Webster.com, Peter Sokolowski, told PoltiFact in May – after outrage first cropped up over the definition – that the word was first added in 2018.

At the time, Sokolowski said the definition remained unchanged from 2018.

Merriam-Webster did not immediately respond to Fox News’s request for comment on why the definition was updated on Sept. 29.

Fox News also examined the definition of “anti-vaxxer” in the New Oxford American dictionary and found it does not include language on mandates, laws or regulations.

“A person who is opposed to vaccination, typically a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child,” the New Oxford American dictionary states.

After the definition was criticized over the summer, critics have taken to Twitter to lambaste the definition again following its update last month.

[….]

And of course the CDC changes what is required to be considered “vaccinated” regarding Covid Shots — RIGHT SCOOP:

What do you call it when they create an endless set of steps you have to take to remain a part of society? Because that is what is happening. Think about what we’re being told.

We’re told to stay inside and do nothing until there’s a vaccine and then when we get it we can finally start returning to normal life. Except after the vaccines, they say it’s not enough, keep wearing masks and staying six feet apart and also a bunch of industries and private businesses will have to remain out of work.

That’s not good enough for them, though. So, every day someone on cable news, often CNN’s “Dr.” Wen but often just commentators or even reporters and anchors, goes on air and says how we aren’t harsh enough to unvaxxed, they have to be punished more, they have to be driven from society further. That’s still happening every day.

Except vaccination isn’t vaccination, is it? You have to get a booster too. The covid regime forever……

(READ IT ALL)

 

Comedian Dave Smith Schools Talking Head

Here are the governors who came out the first day, but all the red states have now joined the resist tyrants side (PJ-MEDIA):

  • Tate Reeves, Mississippi: “The President has no authority to require that Americans inject themselves because of their employment at a private business. The vaccine itself is life-saving, but this unconstitutional move is terrifying. This is still America, and we still believe in freedom from tyrants.”
  • Brian Kemp, Georgia: “I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden administration.”
  • Kristi Noem, South Dakota: “My legal team is standing by ready to file our lawsuit the minute @joebiden files his unconstitutional rule. This gross example of federal intrusion will not stand.”
  • Henry McMaster, South Carolina: “The American Dream has turned into a nightmare under President Biden and the radical Democrats. They have declared war against capitalism, thumbed their noses at the Constitution, and empowered our enemies abroad. Rest assured, we will fight them to the gates of hell to protect the liberty and livelihood of every South Carolinian.”
  • Doug Ducey, Arizona: “This is exactly the kind of big government overreach we have tried so hard to prevent in Arizona — now the Biden-Harris administration is hammering down on private businesses and individual freedoms in an unprecedented and dangerous way. This will never stand up in court. This dictatorial approach is wrong, un-American and will do far more harm than good. How many workers will be displaced? How many kids kept out of classrooms? How many businesses fined? The vaccine is and should be a choice. We must and will push back.”
  • Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas: “I fully support continued efforts to increase vaccination rates across our nation, but the federal government mandates on private businesses are not the right answer. I have been consistent in the freedom of businesses to require their employees to be vaccinated, and I have opposed the government from saying businesses cannot exercise that freedom. The same principle should protect private sector from government overreach that requires them to vaccinate all employees.”
  • Kim Reynolds, Iowa: “President Biden is taking dangerous and unprecedented steps to insert the federal government even further into our lives while dismissing the ability of Iowans and Americans to make healthcare decisions for themselves. Biden’s plan will only worsen our workforce shortage and further limit our economic recovery. As I’ve said all along, I believe and trust in Iowans to make the best health decisions for themselves and their families. It’s time for President Biden to do the same. Enough.”
  • Greg Gianforte, Montana: “President Biden’s vaccination mandate is unlawful and un-American. We are committed to protecting Montanans’ freedoms and liberties against this gross federal overreach.”
  • Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma: “It is not the government’s role to dictate to private businesses what to do. Once again President Biden is demonstrating his complete disregard for individual freedoms and states’ rights. As long as I am governor, there will be no government vaccine mandates in Oklahoma. My administration will continue to defend Oklahoma values and fight back against the Biden administration’s federal overreach.”
  • Kay Ivey, Alabama: “Once again, President Biden has missed the mark. His outrageous, overreaching mandates will no doubt be challenged in the courts. Placing more burdens on both employers and employees during a pandemic with the rising inflation rates and lingering labor shortages is totally unacceptable. Alabamians have stepped up by rolling up their sleeves to get the covid-19 vaccine, increasing our doses administered significantly in recent weeks. We have done so without mandates from Washington D.C. or Montgomery. I’ve made it abundantly clear: I support the science and encourage folks taking the vaccine. However, I am absolutely against a government mandate on the vaccine, which is why I signed the vaccine passport ban into law here in Alabama. This is not the role of the government. I continue encouraging any Alabamian who can, to get the covid-19 vaccine. We have a safe and effective tool at our fingertips, so, let’s roll up our sleeves and get this thing beat.”
  • Greg Abbott, Texas: “Biden’s vaccine mandate is an assault on private businesses. I issued an Executive Order protecting Texans’ right to choose whether they get the COVID vaccine & added it to the special session agenda. Texas is already working to halt this power grab.”
  • Mike Parsons, Missouri: “The Biden Administration’s recent announcement seeking to dictate personal freedom and private business decisions is an insult to our American principles of individual liberty and free enterprise. This heavy-handed action by the federal government is unwelcome in our state and has potentially dangerous consequences for working families. Vaccination protects us from serious illness, but the decision to get vaccinated is a private health care decision that should remain as such. My administration will always fight back against federal power grabs and government overreach that threatens to limit our freedoms.”

The President Is Making An Enemy of the People (Division)

“What’s More Authoritarianism Than a No Fly List for People Who Disagree With You?” Dr. Paul on Fox

Here is some commentary regarding the ATLANTIC JOURNAL article Senator Paul references via the DAILY EXPOSE:

…..Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary for homeland security under President Obama, wrote in an article for The Atlantic titled “Unvaccinated People Belong on the No-Fly List”: “But at this stage of the pandemic, tougher universal restrictions are not the solution to continuing viral spread. While flying, vaccinated people should no longer carry the burden for unvaccinated people.

“The White House has rejected a nationwide vaccine mandate—a sweeping suggestion that the Biden administration could not easily enact if it wanted to—but a no-fly list for unvaccinated adults is an obvious step that the federal government should take.

“It will help limit the risk of transmission at destinations where unvaccinated people travel—and, by setting norms that restrict certain privileges to vaccinated people, will also help raise the stagnant vaccination rates that are keeping both the economy and society from fully recovering.”

These comments are essentially a form of left-wing extremism, comparing the unvaccinated to terrorists. Of course, the mainstream media won’t report on the quietly introduced legislation, instead opting to promote the vaccine agenda and encourage more Americans to roll up their sleeves and submit to the jab.

JACK PROBIEC notes that The Atlantic changed the title of the story. Here is first the changed headline followed by the archived headline (linked accordingly):

BREITBART notes that “Kayyem champions shaming the unvaccinated, who should ‘face scorn among their peer group’ and ‘may even be happy to have an excuse to protect themselves,’ along with celebrating Broadway, Disney, and Walmart for forcing the unvaccinated to give up ‘certain societal benefits’ to practice their their individuality and freedom of choice.”

Yet another site — which I do not recommend since they the author is a Nation of Islam apologist — still, I feel compelled to share. To be clear however, even in this post I linked to, I disagree with some positions, but I must hat-tip. And if you are not aware of the “Pegasus” software issue, NPR will allow you some understanding to the issue.

….Journalist Max Blumenthal noted on Twitter that other politicians are pushing for vaccine mandates and seem to be backing the no-fly list for the unvaccinated. Blumenthal tweeted, “Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres introduces bill to direct the Department of Homeland Security to place all unvaccinated people on the no fly list”.

Blumenthal is the editor of The Grayzone, an independent news website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire. He also co-hosts the “Moderate Rebels” podcast.

“Rep. Torres’ bill appears to have been inspired by this op-ed by Juliette Kayyem,” Blumethal tweeted. “Kayyem is a former DHS official who lobbied for the Israeli NSO Group behind the notorious Pegasus tech used to spy on journalists & world leaders. What could go wrong?”

There is a reason people like Juliette Kayyem wanted [actively] “Pegasus type” spyware. because the administration kept getting caught via Freedom of Information Acts and other methods promoting transparency.

The Obama administration, much to the surprise of the current ethos of the politically maligned, was the leader in violating the press’ rights. Even far Left orgs at the time “got it” — DAILY BEAST:

The press-punishing, speech-chilling, and unabashedly overreaching actions by the Obama administration against the Associated Press and Fox News Channel’s James Rosen lay bare the essential dynamic between any president and a press that is always more prone to being lapdogs than watchdogs: the president feeds or punishes them as he sees fit, while chanting a bogus rosary about “national security.”

In the case of the AP, the Obama administration secretly subpoenaed phone-call logs and other information from an office where over 100 journalists worked. Officials were on the hunt for the sources that cooperated with the AP on a story about a failed terrorist plot in Yemen. As AP head Gary Pruitt has put it, the administration’s subpoena was “so secretly, so abusively and harassingly and over-broad … that it is an unconstitutional act.” As important, Pruitt says that the subpoena revelation has already chilled even routine news gathering, as government officials have become paranoid—with reason, perhaps—about sharing even banal sorts of information.

To make matters worse in terms of press freedom, there are many reasons to assume the Obama administration is secretly spying on many other journalists and organizations. With Fox’s Rosen, the administration got an actual warrant to read his email and contends that he has committed crimes by pursuing and publishing a story about North Korea, even though the story apparently doesn’t include any classified information per se. Rosen hasn’t been legally charged as of yet, but as Glenn Greenwald notes, the accusations against Rosen parallel government charges against WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange. “Under U.S. law,” writes Greenwald, “it’s not illegal to publish classified information,” so the Obama administration is claiming that it’s illegal for journalists and publishers to “solicit” such information. That doesn’t simply fly in the face of the First Amendment and Vietnam-era rulings guaranteeing press freedoms, it declares “war on journalism” by essentially criminalizing the very act of investigative reporting…..

Some Reminders:

Here’s All the Times Obama Ejected the Media (POLITICAL INSIDER)

  • And that’s not all! Not long after taking office, the Secret Service literally dragged away a black female reporter. Imagine the optics if an African-American woman were dragged away by Trump’s Secret Service.

If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama (NEW YORK TIMES | unlocked article @ INVESTIGATINBG TRUMP)

  • Over the past eight years, the Obama Administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists. Under President Obama, the Justice Department and the FBI have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

PROSECUTED and JAILED!

Here’s the Proof: Obama Treated Journalists WAY Worse than Trump (DAN BONGINO):

Obama prosecuted more journalists under the Espionage Act than all other Presidents combined. While many certainly deserved it (such as Chelsea Manning), are we to believe there were more acts of espionage from 2009-2016 than the rest of American history?

In total, 13 people have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for sharing classified information with journalists since 1945. Of those 13, eight were arrested while Obama was president. Only one person has been prosecuted under the Espionage Act under Trump’s presidency (a woman bizarrely named “Reality Winner’), which is entirely justified for the same reasons that Manning’s charges were justified.

As one writer put it, “Trump rages about leakers. Obama quietly prosecuted them.”

Trump Rages About Leakers. Obama Quietly Prosecuted Them (WASHINGTON POST)

….Experts on executive-branch leaks say it’s too early to gauge Trump’s legacy. But much has been made about the Obama administration’s hunt for leakers. Of the 13 people who have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for leaking secrets, eight were arrested under Obama’s administration, according to Alexandra Ellerbeck, senior Americas and U.S. researcher with the Committee to Protect Journalists.

And prosecutors under Obama have spied on journalists and named a journalist an “unindicted co-conspirator,” according to the New York Times. Ellerbeck said that’s just a step away from arresting a reporter for writing a story — and raises dangerous constitutional issues about freedom of the press.

“Obama was furious over leaks, but his fury was directed internally,” said David Pozen, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University who specializes in national security law.

“What distinguishes Trump is that he is directing his [anger] to the public. What is the point of complaining about leaks in a public tweet? He can call up the attorney general at any moment of the day or night. … He’s the chief executive and he has powerful investigative tools at his disposal. Twitter is not one of the tools.”

[….]

Mark Mazzetti, an investigative reporter who covers national security for the New York Times, talked to The Post’s Greg Sargent about the effect of Obama’s leak investigations.

“There’s no question that this has a chilling effect,” Mazzetti told Sargent in 2013. “People who have talked in the past are less willing to talk now. Everyone is worried about communication and how to communicate, and is there any method of communication that is not being monitored. It’s got people on both sides — the reporter and source side — pretty concerned.

“It certainly seems like they’re being very serious about hunting down people talking to reporters.”

Trump’s approach to leaks has had the opposite effect, experts say….

DESTROYED BY THE ESPIONAGE ACT: Stephen Kim Spoke to a Reporter. Now He’s in Jail. This Is His Story. (INTERCEPT)

….Rosen’s email helps explain the part of the case that has received the most media attention: In 2013, the court unsealed a prosecution document that described Rosen as a potential “co-conspirator.” The document, an affidavit in support of a search warrant to Google demanding access to Rosen’s Gmail account, revealed that the government had tracked Rosen’s movements on June 11 and had obtained records of his phone calls and some emails. There was widespread condemnation from the media about what seemed to be a profound violation of First Amendment protections for a free press. This came as the Department of Justice was continuing to threaten the New York Times reporter James Risen with a jail sentence if he refused to identify one of his sources (last month, the Justice Department announced it would not prosecute Risen), and it came just a few days after news broke that the government secretly had obtained the records of more than 20 Associated Press phone lines as part of an investigation into the source of an AP terrorism story. The government responded to the outcry by promising that Rosen would not be prosecuted, and that the seizure of reporters’ emails and phone records would be done with greater care in the future.

[….]

after years of fighting to stay out of jail, wanted to go to prison as soon as possible, so that he could get on with his life.

When I visited him in April and May, there were surprisingly few things in the small apartment he was renting in Reston, Virginia. Clothes, dishes, sheets, books — everything was being sold, given away, or put into storage as his incarceration neared. He mentioned that he had a picture from the day he briefed Cheney. I asked if I could see it, and he brought it up from the basement. I looked at it for a while, Kim and the vice president going over documents about North Korea. When I asked whether I could make a copy, he waved at the picture abruptly.

“Take it,” he said. “Take whatever you want.”

Kim’s pain emerged in flashes like this. Most of the time he was adept at hiding behind a self-protective dry humor. At lunch with a few of his supporters after he was sentenced, he joked that he could write a memoir titled From Yale to Jail. When someone asked what he would do after getting out, he wisecracked, “Welcome to McDonald’s. Would you like to supersize your order?” This wasn’t too far from the truth. To improve his odds for early release, he lined up two job commitments once he got out of prison — one was working in a Catholic church, the other was a job in a women’s beauty shop….

…..AND….

Obama Used The Espionage Act To Put A Record Number Of Reporters’ Sources In Jail, And Trump Could Be Even Worse [HINT: Trump Wasn’t] (PRESS FREEDOM TRACKER)

For much of the law’s existence, while it was used perniciously against anti-war demonstrators, it was not applied to journalists or their sources. It was not until 1971 that a person was indicted under the Espionage Act for providing classified information to a journalist. Between 1917 and 2009, only one person was convicted under the Espionage Act for leaking to a news organization.

But the Obama administration was determined to change that. Under pressure from Congress and intelligence agencies, Attorney General Eric Holder directed the Department of Justice to aggressively prosecute government employees who discussed classified information with reporters. In 2012, after news organizations reported on U.S. drone strikes and attempts to disable Iranian nuclear reactors, Holder assigned two U.S. attorneys to track down the journalists’ sources.

President Barack Obama strongly supported Holder’s war against journalists’ sources, despite once promising to protect whistleblowers when in office and running for president on the national security scandals of the Bush administration — misdeeds that became public only because of leaks.

“Since I’ve been in office, my attitude has been zero tolerance for these kinds of leaks and speculation,” Obama said in June 2012. “Now we have mechanisms in place where, if we can root out folks who have leaked, they will suffer consequences. In some case, it’s criminal. These are criminal acts when they release information like this. And we will conduct thorough investigations, as we have in the past.”

Obama’s Justice Department succeeded in putting a number of people in jail for daring to help national security journalists report on classified government programs.

During the Obama administration, the Department of Justice brought charges under the Espionage Act against eight people accused of leaking to the media — Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Stephen Kim, Chelsea Manning, Donald Sachtleben, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou and Edward Snowden.

Two other high ranking Obama officials, General David Petraeus and General James Cartwright, were also prosecuted as part of leak investigations. They both ultimately pled to lesser charges and were never indicted under the Espionage Act. Cartwright was also later pardoned. Including their cases, the total number of leak case prosecutions under the Obama administration was 10….

 

Bad Faith

How post-60’s liberalism created the Bad Faith we see in America today.

LEGAL INSURRECTION

“Equity” and other CRT approaches will eventually have a judicial reckoning. 5th Circuit Judge James C. Ho concurring opinion: “Citizens may fairly wonder how officials can condemn race-neutral policies as racist and defend explicitly race-conscious programs as inclusive.”

[….]

In a concurring opinion (starting at page 22 of the pdf.) Judge Ho wrote in part (emphasis added):

I concur in the judgment and in all but Section III.A of Judge Haynes’s opinion. With respect to the intentional discrimination claim, we all agree that this case turns on geography, not race. With respect to the disparate impact claim, we all agree that remand is appropriate. I write separately to explain why I share Judge Jones’s concerns about unelected agency officials usurping Congress’s authority when it comes to disparate impact theory.

Congress enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit intentional racial discrimination—not to restrict neutral policies untainted by racial intent that happen to lead to racially disproportionate outcomes. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280–81 (2001) (“[§ 2000d] prohibits only intentional discrimination,” not “activities that have a disparate impact on racial groups”).

There’s a big difference between prohibiting racial discrimination and endorsing disparate impact theory. See, e.g., William N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation 78 (1994) (disparate impact is “a significant leap away from” intentional racial discrimination). It’s the difference between securing equality of opportunity regardless of race and guaranteeing equality of outcome based on race. It’s the difference between color blindness and critical race theory. Compare Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have A Dream: Address to the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (Aug. 28, 1963) (“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”), with Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Anti-Racist 18 (2019) (“A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.”); see also ‘When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism.’ Discussing Race, Gender and Mobility, N.Y. Times (Mar. 27, 2018), available at NYTs

Prohibiting racial discrimination means we must be blind to race. Disparate impact theory requires the opposite: It forces us to look at race—to check for racial imbalance and then decide what steps must be taken to advance some people at the expense of others based on their race. But racial balancing is, of course, “patently unconstitutional.” Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 723 (2007). Accordingly, “serious constitutional questions . . . might arise” if “[disparate impact] liability were imposed based solely on a showing of a statistical disparity.” Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 540 (2015). See also Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S.557, 594–96 (2009) (Scalia, J., concurring) (same).

***

So these are not frivolous concerns of discrimination that we’re talking about here. In fact, for disparate impact advocates, requiring discrimination may not be a problem—it may be the whole point. To quote one leading critical race theorist, “[t]he only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination,” and “[t]he only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi, supra, at 19.

***

It’s said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That’s why we have laws on the books, like Title VI, that simply forbid the “sordid business” of “divvying us up by race”—no matter what our intentions. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 511 (2006) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part)….

***

So public officials may sincerely believe that race-conscious policies are beneficial rather than corrosive. But the American people have never been the blindly trusting sort. Citizens may fairly wonder how officials can condemn race-neutral policies as racist and defend explicitly race-conscious programs as inclusive.

“Equity” and other CRT approaches will eventually have a judicial reckoning. When that day comes, those of us attacked for speaking out for equality without regard to skin color will be vindicated, and those demanding race-based outcomes will be shamed.

That time may be years away, however, and in the meantime, tremendous damage to the fabric of the country will have been done.

#Wokism, Seth Rogan Style (Armstrong & Getty)

In an excellent Armstrong and Getty Show, audio of Seth Rogan as well as a refutation of critical race theory by Allen Guelzo on Fox News’ Martha MacCallum:

  • Allen Guelzo joined The Story with Martha MacCallum on Fox News to discuss the dangers of using critical race theory in school curriculums. Dr. Allen Guelzo is a visiting scholar in The Heritage Foundation’s Simon Center for American Studies and a Princeton University professor and acclaimed scholar of American history. (YOUTUBE)

ORIGINS OF COVID-19 (UPDATED!)

JUMP TO: UPDATE IIUPDATE III

Jan. 25, 2021 (15:49 minutes long) ‘The Next Revolution’ host breaks down the evidence surrounding the origins of COVID-19.


UPDATE!


AMERICAN GREATNESS has an update:

Over 450 concerned scientists signed a Cambridge Working Group “Consensus Statement on the Creation of Potential Pandemic Pathogens,” which included the following warning:

Laboratory creation of highly transmissible, novel strains of dangerous viruses, especially but not limited to influenza, poses substantially increased risks. An accidental infection in such a setting could trigger outbreaks that would be difficult or impossible to control. Historically, new strains of influenza, once they establish transmission in the human population, have infected a quarter or more of the world’s population within two years.

For any experiment, the expected net benefits should outweigh the risks. Experiments involving the creation of potential pandemic pathogens should be curtailed until there has been a quantitative, objective and credible assessment of the risks, potential benefits, and opportunities for risk mitigation, as well as comparison against safer experimental approaches. A modern version of the Asilomar process, which engaged scientists in proposing rules to manage research on recombinant DNA, could be a starting point to identify the best approaches to achieve the global public health goals of defeating pandemic disease and assuring the highest level of safety. Whenever possible, safer approaches should be pursued in preference to any approach that risks an accidental pandemic.

Following a number of “bio-safety incidents” at federal research facilities, the Obama administration placed a moratorium on Gain of Function research, Hilton noted, but the moratorium was lifted in 2017.

Just before the 2014 ban, however, the Fauci-led NIAID funded the Gain of Function research at the Wuhan Lab, Hilton alleged, adding that NIAID continued to fund it for six more years, three of those during the ban.

The funding, according to Hilton, was laundered through a global health and pandemic prevention nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance, headed by Dr. Peter Daszak, a British zoologist and expert on disease ecology.

Daszak subcontracted the research to Dr Shi Zhengli, head of the infectious disease unit at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Daszak, it should be noted, was behind an early effort to label any reporting on the possibility that COVID-19 could have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan lab as “conspiracy theories.”

The scientist orchestrated a statement that was published in The Lancet medical journal in February of 2020, condemning “conspiracy theories” that suggest the virus doesn’t have a natural origin.

The statement was cited by numerous news outlets — and by fact check organizations to censor investigative reporting on the true origin of the COVID-19 virus.

Nearly a year later, Daszak admitted through a spokesman that he shot down these inquiries to protect Chinese scientists from online criticism.

“The Lancet letter was written during a time in which Chinese scientists were receiving death threats and the letter was intended as a showing of support for them as they were caught between important work trying to stop an outbreak and the crush of online harassment,” Daszak’s spokesman told The Wall Street Journal in January.

Hilton reported that a November 2017 progress report signed by Daszak and Zhengli, among others, and titled, “Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus,” is tied to the grant, and seems to describe Gain of Function research.

“They made new viruses—man-made—in the lab. They infected human cells with them in the lab. And they then showed that their man-made viruses could replicate as a functional virus,” Hilton explained.

Hilton pointed out that SARS Covid-2 is 96 percent identical to the bat coronavirus the researchers were working on in the Wuhan Lab.

The only difference between that virus and the pandemic virus is how contagious it is. The pandemic virus, as we know, can be passed human-to-human. The original virus could not. And that four percent genetic difference between them is in exactly the places where Gain of Function techniques would be used to make the virus more contagious.

So while we can blame the Chinese regime for allowing the virus to leak, and especially for the cover-up afterwards, the terrifying truth may be that our own government commissioned the experiments that led to the creation of the pandemic virus in the first place.

Hilton said he has contacted the NIAID repeatedly to ask about the 2014 grant, and they have always replied that the grant in question was not for Gain of Function research, and thus not subject to the Obama administration ban……


UPDATE II


GATEWAY PUNDIT notes Judicial Watch’s getting over 300 pages of emails which included NIH, Fauci, and China communiques:

These revelations are puzzling. Why was Fauci’s NIH bending over backwards to accommodate China’s terms for confidentiality in regards to the China coronavirus and what was in the WHO’s ‘strictly confidential’ COVID-19 epidemiological analysis?

Judicial Watch announced today that it and the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) received 301 pages of emails and other records of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showing that National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.

Additionally, the emails reveal an independent journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in China to NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects Cliff Lane.

Judicial Watch continues:

The new emails include a conversation about confidentiality forms on February 14-15, 2020, between Lane and WHO Technical Officer Mansuk Daniel Han. Han writes: “The forms this time are tailored to China’s terms so we cannot use the ones from before.”

A WHO briefing package sent on February 13, 2020, to NIH officials traveling to China as part of the COVID response ask that the officials wait to share information until they have an agreement with China: “IMPORTANT: Please treat this as sensitive and not for public communications until we have agreed communications with China.”


UPDATE III


Wow! JUST THE NEWS has a follow up to this exchange

RAND PAUL vs. FAUCI

POST INTERVIEW

To Wit:

A prominent Columbia University virologist claims that in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic a U.S. nonprofit funded coronavirus experiments in Wuhan, China the results of which were used in “gain-of-function” virology research at the University of North Carolina.

Dr. Vincent Racaniello made the claim amid ongoing controversy over a recently resurfaced interview between himself and Peter Daszak, the president of the U.S. infectious disease nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance.

Both EcoHealth Alliance and the scientist leading the research at UNC have been heavily funded over the years by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which has been directed since 1984 by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the public face of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic under Presidents Trump and Biden.

Fauci categorically and repeatedly denied that NIAID has funded gain-of-function research in a tense exchange Tuesday with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) at a Senate hearing.

Racianello’s half-hour interview with Daszak took place in early December 2019 at the Nipah Virus International Conference in Singapore. Significant attention has been given to a segment in which Daszak appears to allude to having participated in “gain-of-function” experiments, a type of procedure in which scientists increase a virus’s pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in order to study its potential for human infection.

“You can manipulate [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily,” Daszak says in the interview. “Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein — and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this — insert into the backbone of another virus, and do, do some work in the lab.”

Those remarks, when they resurfaced this week, caused considerable controversy due to Daszak’s role in funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars through his EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to bankroll coronavirus experiments there. The Wuhan lab sits just a few miles from where the first detected outbreak of COVID-19 occurred.

[….]

Experiments ‘confer a new property to the original virus’

Racaniello said that Daszak in the December 2019 interview was indeed describing gain-of-function experiments.

“Here is the idea,” he said in an email exchange this week. “You go into caves in China and sample bats for CoVs. You collect bat guano and sequence it to find the viruses. You don’t actually have the viruses, just their genome sequences. You want to know if these viruses have the ability to infect human cells.”

“Since you don’t have the viruses,” he continued, “you just take the spike sequence from all these viruses and put it into a coronavirus that you work with in the lab. Then you see if that recombinant coronavirus can infect human cells. It’s all done under containment to prevent any release. If the spikes of the bat CoV can allow the CoV to infect human cells, then they have the potential to infect humans and we should be making antivirals against them to prevent a pandemic.”

Those kinds of experiments, Racaniello said, “are considered ‘gain of function’ because they would confer a new property to the original virus.”

That research, Racaniello said, “was done in the laboratory of Dr. Ralph Baric in [the University of] North Carolina and was not funded by EcoHealth Alliance.” When pressed, Racaniello revealed that EcoHealth did have an indirect role in the funding of Baric’s work.

“EcoHealth Alliance provided funds to Zengli Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct bat surveillance for SARS-like CoVs,” he said. “Baric then received the spike sequences from Wuhan to do his experiments independently.”

“Daszak and Baric did not work together on this project,” he added.

Anna Marie Skalka, a professor emerita at the Fox Chase Cancer Center and one of the authors of the bestselling textbook “Principles of Virology,” did not expressly deny that Baric’s research constituted gain-of-function, though she claimed that the overall issue was more complex than that.

“I prefer to describe the research in broader terms, as gain-of-function seems too narrow and has acquired negative connotations,” she said. “The aim of such research is to learn as much as possible about the gene/protein in question so that one can begin to develop possible therapeutic or vaccine-related approaches.”

Queries to Daszak and Baric on Racaniello’s claims went unanswered.

The assertions from Racaniello — a four-decade veteran of academic virology who along with Skalka is also an author of “Principles of Virology” — constitute the sharpest allegations yet that both EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were involved, even if adjacently, with gain-of-function research prior to the pandemic.

Baric’s research, meanwhile, has been the recipient of millions of dollars in funding from the NIAID over the years, much of it focused on coronaviruses, including experiments in the “replication and pathogenesis” of those viruses.

Racaniello himself forcefully defended such research. “There is a very clear reason to do these experiments and if we had done them even more we could have prevented the current pandemic,” he said.

EcoHealth, meanwhile, has been the focus of controversy for the past year due not merely to its alleged association with coronavirus experiments but also to the fact that its work was for years heavily funded by the federal government, specifically the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

EcoHealth routed hundreds of thousands of NIAID dollars to the Wuhan lab in the years leading up to the pandemic to conduct coronavirus research there. Experts and commentators alike have called for a major investigation into the lab to determine if SARS-Cov-2 may have accidentally leaked from the facility and launched the pandemic.

The federal funding for the Wuhan project was pulled last year near the outset of the pandemic. Daszak himself told NPR last year that the Wuhan experiments were “funded entirely through the NIH grant,” as the news service put it. ….

(READ IT ALL)

And THE NATIONAL PULSE likewise discusses a letter in SCEINCE MAGAZINE/JOURNAL

Published in Science magazine, the report also slams the recent World Health Organization investigation for basing itself on faulty evidence and not sufficiently debunking the theory that the virus could have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology:

“The information, data, and samples for the study’s first phase were collected and summarized by the Chinese half of the team; the rest of the team built on this analysis. Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely.” Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident.”

“We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data,” the letter posits. “Public health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public,” it continues.

Among the signatories are professors from institutions including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. Dr. Ralph Baric – whose gain-of-function research record and ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology were recently discussed in an exchange between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Senator Rand Paul – also signed the letter…..

LINK IN PIC

Racist and Bigoted Teacher Unions of Los Angeles

Firstly, at the very end of this upload, Maryam Qudrat, a parent who called out the teacher union’s almost fascistic obsession with race mentions they are trying to create a race war. Thomas Sowell as well mentions this in a 2013 National Review article: “Early Skirmishes in a Race War

Larry Elder discusses the latest regarding Cecily Myart-Cruz, president of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), L.A.’s largest teachers union. This woman is a radical Marxist. She pushed the self-admitted Marxist organization Black Lives Matter onto teachers and children. She has close ties to Bernie Sanders, and is really a racist at heart.

(Remember, you can change the quality of the video in the settings icon)

This is really FASCISM proper. Dennis Prager explains:

More from BREITBART:

Following Schumer’s quota-based logic, Prager asked if the share of Jews within the judiciary should be reduced in pursuit of proportionate ethnic representation:

I wonder, if [Chuck Schumer] thinks [the judiciary] should look like America — I’m just curious, since I’m a Jew, I can ask this question, because if a non-Jew asked this he’d be accused of anti-Semitism — so I would like to know, I’ll bet you that the proportion of judges who are Jewish is greater than the proportion of Jews in the society. Would Chuck Schumer like to see fewer Jews in the judiciary so that the judiciary looked like the American population? Is that an unfair question? I’m serious, is it unfair? If he’s serious about what he said, does he think Asians overrepresent? Does he feel this way about sports?

Having members of one’s race represented politically or within the government does not afford one tangible benefits, said Prager:

So what does that mean exactly? The judiciary is supposed to racially reflect the racial composition of American life? And why, exactly? Why is that a ideal that it looks like the American people? What benefit is there? [The left] speaks constantly of a racist society and the problems of the black underclass — which is a problem worth speaking about, incidentally. So I always ask, “Name me one benefit that having all the black mayors and all the black congressmen that we have has accrued to black life.” I would like to know one single tangible benefit.

There are virtually — I’ve always pointed this out — no Asian congressmen, Asian governors, Asia judges — well, maybe some Asian judges — and they are the most successful community in the United States of America. … There is zero correlation between having your race represented in Congress or the judiciary and benefits to your race. Zero. This is all a fraudulent appeal to pure racial thought in the United States. The left is the most racist movement since the Nazis. I’m not comparing the left to Nazis, they’re not opening up death camps, they’re not rounding up people to send to gas chambers, I’m totally aware of that, and nothing in imputed in what I just said to suggest that. I’m merely stating a fact. The most racist doctrine since Nazism is modern leftism. That’s it. This is how they think. They think in terms of race.

Prager regularly describes the left as subscribing to a political trinity of race, gender, and class.

Here is a good short noting of the above via FREEDOM WIRE:

In Los Angeles, a radical socialist who spoke at a national socialist convention last year has taken over as the head of the teacher’s union in the nation’s second-largest school district.

Cecily Myart-Cruz is a major player in the Black Lives Matter Movement and intends on forcing LA schools to bend to the will of BLM.

The Daily Wire reported her statements as follows: “‘We need to have a set of demands that dovetail with Black Lives Matter,’ Myart-Cruz continued. ‘We have to have massive political education. People will say, ‘Not all police are bad,’ but we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about racism as a social construct, systemic and institutional racism, and wrapped on top is white supremacist culture, which is the dominant culture. So as educators, how are we going to equip ourselves to become anti-racist, not for ourselves but for our students? We serve a school district with a 90% free-and-reduced lunch student population. We have to move the needle. It’s imperative to move the needle around racial and social justice.’

‘I see teaching as a revolutionary act, just the way I see organizing,” Cecily Myart-Cruz, who captured almost 69% of the vote, has said.”

Other Resources used for this upload are as follows:


  • LA teachers’ union refuses to budge on school reopenings: ‘Structural racism’ (FOX NEWS)
  • Black Parents Plan School Reopening Rally After Teachers Union Claims White, Rich People Are Behind Push To Reopen (DAILY WIRE)
  • Afghan-American mom slams ‘racist’ LA teachers union for asking her ethnicity when she pushed to reopen schools – after they said only ‘white wealthy parents’ want children to return classrooms (DAILY MAIL)
  • South LA parents say they want schools to reopen, disagree with UTLA president’s remarks (FOX 11 LOS ANGELES | YOUTUBE VIDEO)
  • Mom accuses UTLA of conducting racial opposition research on parents pushing for in-person classes (FOX 11 LOS ANGELES VIDEO)
  • Black parents slam Los Angeles teachers’ union boss for blaming push to reopen on white, wealthy parents (POST MILLENNIAL)
  • ‘Propagating structural racism’: LA teachers union head blasts state’s school reopening plan — and ‘white, wealthy parents’ for rushing return (THE BLAZE)
  • Lee Ohanian: Inflation Is the Cruelest Tax (THE LARRY ELDER SHOW YOUTUBE)

“Trump Team’s Evidence Will ‘Overturn’ Multiple States”

UPDATE

(100% FED-UP) Sidney Powell has been such a fearless warrior during the investigation into the 2020 election. She has been unafraid to expose corruption. America could use more patriots like Powell to help expose the lack of election integrity.

Powell reportedly told Mark Levin tonight that even Trump administration officials have been trying to stop her effort to expose the fraud in this year’s election. The Deep State runs deep in DC.

Sidney Powell joined Lou Dobbs tonight and read statements from the Smartmatic whistleblower:

I want this to be true!

Via RIGHT SCOOP

The NEW/2.0 Russian Conspiracy by the Left

I am starting out with wetting your whistle with some audio by Larry Elder (0.00 to the 8:18 mark) showing the difference between how MSNBC and others are reporting the Hunter Biden lap-top story vs. other European based news channels. Some are even saying it is a new “Russian Conspiracy.”

[….]

Which brings me to the following days show by Armstrong and Getty (from the 8:18 mark till the end) , who talk about the same characters involved in the “Russia Hoax” that enraptured the Left and #NeverTrumpers for over two years. They signed a letter saying this is a Russian Undercover Intel Attack (rough synopsis). A friend on Facebook linked to a POLITICO story regarding these 50[+] intel persons signing a letter: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

However, 2-days ago Fox news confirmed with the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) that this laptop in no way is Russian Intel. Yesterday, CBS confirmed via their contacts at the FBI AND DOJ that the fox report is correct. Fox News contacted someone in the “cc” portion of the email discussing the “Big Guy” and who that was… the person involved as a person in the email chain said that was Joe Biden. AND, there are signatures from Hunter dropping it off.

Here is how I responded to my friend:

It shows that without a shred of evidence intel ppl are biased … inflicted with TDS. The DNI said there was no Russian disinformation program (Fox, yesterday). Then CBS confirmed through their sources that both the DOJ and the FBI confirmed that this is true.

The FBI has had the computer since December.

Maybe, the Russians trained a dopey back woods computer repair guy as a mole/sleeper agent for just such a moment, when, a VP’s son would drop off water damaged computers and SIGN for them to be serviced.

“Yeeah… That’s the Ticket”

Here is a Fox News story on the Glenn Greenwald piece: “Glenn Greenwald trashes media ‘cone of silence’ around Hunter Biden email scandal” (VIDEO at link)