Rand Paul

Rand Paul Invokes Davy Crockett | Not Yours to Give

Published by Papa Giorgio

Rand Paul quotes Essay from 1867 Harper magazine ‘Not Yours To Give’ Davy Crockett.

David Crockett (August 17, 1786 – March 6, 1836) was an American folk hero, frontiersman, soldier, and politician. He is commonly referred to in popular culture by the epithet “King of the Wild Frontier”. He represented Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives and served in the Texas Revolution.

The MISES INSTITUTE has a cataloging of this story from The Life of Colonel David Crockett, compiled by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884). Included in Free Market Economics: A Basic Reader, compiled by Bettina B. Greaves (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1975). See also the MACKINAC CENTER.

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davy Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—’

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager…I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest….But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

“‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“‘Fellow-citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money—and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

“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….

 

Paul vs. Fauci | Government BULLIES (John Stossel)

Published by Papa Giorgio

The media treat Dr. Fauci as a saint. They sneered at Senator Rand Paul. They don’t like his “conspiracy theories,” although many now admit Paul’s arguments were likely correct!

“This is tyranny!” Dallas car wash owner Dale Davenport tells me, choking up. Dallas politicians crushed his life’s work — they blamed his car wash for high crime, citing Dale’s own 911 calls as evidence. They then re-zoned his business to destroy it.

YouTube Shuts Down Rand Paul’s Channel Over Science

Published by Papa Giorgio

(This is the video that YouTube shut down Rand Paul’s channel over.)

Dr. Paul Addresses Dr. Fauci’s Mishandling of the COVID-19 Pandemic with Newsmax

Bongino Comments:

“DOOMSDAY” Variant (Keeping People Bound In Fear)

Published by Papa Giorgio

A friend posted an article that got my eschatological mind’s gears grinding again. Here is the article graphic of Newsweek’s cover:

My Comments, partly tongue-n-cheek, but not…. if that makes sense.

Doomsday?

CHECK.

Require proof of ID to buy and sell…..?

…..CHECK.

Sounds like a bit of stealth eschatology out in the world.  I mean, when the Apostle John penned this, there was no real way to (a) catalog anyone en masse  to “number” them. Nor (b) were there ways to curtail shopping for necessities for a large population.

Well, at least there isn’t technology for the world to view the Two Witnesses within days available to us (that an author in 90A.D. warned us about):

REVELATION 11:9-11 (NASB)

Those from the peoples, tribes, languages, and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days, and [h]will not allow their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. And those who live on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who live on the earth. And after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet; and great fear fell upon those who were watching them.

I mean, that would take some small device that most people would own in the world, small enough for a pocket, or something most homes have, and shareable with those who don’t have one.

[Nervous] Lol.

It isn’t like the poorest of people living on our streets have them?

…Research shows that many homeless people have cell phones. In Karin M. Eyrich-Garg’s study of homeless people in Philadelphia, 44% of the adult participants already had their own cell phones. (Amongst those participants, 80% owned, 18% borrowed long-term, and 2% rented.)

In another study, 70.7% of homeless patients visiting emergency departments had cell phones, compared to 85.9% of people who were stably housed.  

Similarly, in Melody Kim, Melissa Cameron and Alex Fung’s study in San Diego, 8 out of 11 participants had cell phones and the other 2 were seeking replacements…

(HOMELESS HUB)

Oh… wait.

Well.

It isn’t like the cave dwelling peoples of places like Afghanistan have these devices!

Mmm… maybe that isn’t the best example either.

Oh well. It isn’t like we have a large set of moral busy bodies concerning themselves with what others do.

BIBLICAL COMMENTARRIES

  • The ENTIRE WORLD WILL WATCH (undoubtedly on the latest form of visual media) and glorify the Antichrist as the bodies of the dead prophets who have been killed begin to decay. — John F. MacArthur Jr., The MacArthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006), Re 11:9.
  • The death of the two prophets (v. 7) will set off a GLOBAL CELEBRATION among unbelievers who have hated their message of truth. — Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, The Nelson Study Bible: New King James Version (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Re 11:9–10.
  • TV news services can broadcast the awe-inspiring drama. — James E. Rosscup, An Exposition on Prayer in the Bible: Igniting the Fuel to Flame Our Communication with God (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008), 2772.

Remembering the reaction of Pharaoh to the plagues of Moses, one can easily imagine the frustration of the general public at finding their water turned to blood, conditions of worldwide drought, and the visitation of various other plagues. Doubtless, all of this is blamed, and with some accuracy, on the two witnesses since it is not readily discerned as a part of the overall judgment of God. However, equally probable is the possibility that the “torment” people experience is also due to the fact that these are “witnesses.” In other words, probably they did a great deal more than simply announce the inevitability of certain plagues on the earth. They were preachers of morality, witnesses of God and Christ, and harbingers of the coming of even more severe judgments of God in the days to follow. Again, recalling Exodus, the audacity of Moses to stand before Pharaoh and command him to let God’s people go and sacrifice to him in the wilderness was doubtless just as irritating as the plagues to Pharaoh. So it would be if these two witnesses opposed the worldviews, system of morality, and violation of the laws and purposes of God. This torment was simply too great and thus engendered the wrath of the beast.

Another interesting observation concerns the information that “men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies.” The fulfillment of such an anticipated event would be incredible and even unthinkable until modern times. Certainly there is no reason for anyone to doubt the prophet even in AD 95 since after all he is the prophet of a miracle-working God. BUT THAT WHICH WAS UNTHINKABLE IN AD 95 WITHOUT A MIRACLE OF GOD IS NO LONGER EVEN IMPROBABLE IN THE ERA OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATION. Hence, events that happen in faraway places are now almost instantly available around the globe to observers with the proper equipment. Too often interpreters of Revelation and of all apocalyptic/prophetic literature read modernity back into the text in a way totally unanticipated by the author and inevitably incorrectly. Here to read modernity into the text would certainly be anachronistic, but at the same time the text may render an understanding even more comprehensible to the contemporary era than it was to the recipients of John’s Apocalypse.

— Paige Patterson, Revelation, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, vol. 39, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2012), 249.

The martyrdom of the witnesses (vv. 7–10). This comes only when they have finished their testimony. God’s obedient servants are immortal until their work is done. “The beast” (Antichrist) is now in power and wants to take over the temple; but he cannot succeed until the two witnesses are out of the way. God will permit him to slay them, for no one will be able to make war against “the beast” and win (Rev. 13:4).

The witnesses will not even be permitted decent burial (see Ps. 79:1–3). But even this indecency will be used by God to bear witness to mankind. NO DOUBT THE TV CAMERAS IN JERUSALEM WILL TRANSMIT THE SCENE TO PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD, AND THE NEWS ANALYSTS WILL DISCUSS ITS SIGNIFICANCE. The earth-dwellers will rejoice at their enemies’ removal and will celebrate a “satanic Christmas” by sending gifts to one another. It thus would appear that the power of the two witnesses will not be limited to Jerusalem, but that they will be able to cause things to happen in other parts of the world.

— Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 599.

  • Although THE EARTH rejoices that the testimony of the church is in the end apparently snuffed out, the temporary triumph of evil (“three and a half days”) will turn to heavenly vindication as the two witnesses (the people of God) are raised from the dead. — Robert B. Sloan, “The Revelation,” in Holman Concise Bible Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 674.

BONUS COMMENTARY I LIKE

11:9–10 People Rejoice over the Witnesses’ Bodies

The Sight of the Righteous Vexes the Unrighteous. Tyconius: Since they do not allow their bodies to be gathered in a suitable place, they prevent a day for their memory to be indicated by a sacred celebration of the living.… It is no wonder that the earthly minded rejoice over the deaths of the righteous. For in addition to the plagues that beset the human race on account of the testaments of God, even the very sight of the righteous oppresses the unrighteous, as it is written, “Even the sight of him is a burden to us.” Not only does it oppress, it also causes him to melt away, and so the psalm says, “The sinner will see and be angry; he will gnash his teeth and melt away.”61 Commentary on the Apocalypse 11:9–10.

The Wicked Delight in the Death of God’s Witnesses. Oecumenius: And seeing the destruction of the witnesses, those from every nation who have been deceived by the antichrist will rejoice over them, as though their own king had conquered. That they exchange gifts is another indication of their glee and delight. It says, “Because the two prophets had been a torment to those living on the earth.” [The prophets] will not torment them with any physical torment, but spiritually by mocking and reproving them for their sins and by making utterly clear their deceit. Commentary on the Apocalypse 11:7–10.

The Impious Strive to Remove the Church from the World. Primasius: The intentions are expressed by which the impious strive to remove the church of Christ from the world, as the psalmist says, “Let the name of Israel be remembered no more!” And although they are unable to fulfill their desire, yet they make their evil intention known. Commentary on the Apocalypse 11:9.

Let Us Pray That God Reprove Us. Andrew of Caesarea: Those Jews and Gentiles, who once were overpowered by the false wonders of the antichrist and who had indelibly engrafted that abominable name upon their hearts, prohibited the holy bodies from being buried, and they rejoiced because they were free from the torments that [the prophets] gave for their correction. For they did not acknowledge that “the Lord reproves him whom he loves,” and that “he scourges every son whom he receives” and “by muzzle and bridle he will pull and tug at those who are not near to him.” And God works in this way so that they might turn from necessity into the straight way from which they turned aside when they were deceived. We must make petition of the Lord and pray, “It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes,”68 and “Turn us, O God of our salvation, that you do not enter into judgment with your servant.” “When we are judged by you, our beneficent master, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world”70 but may rather through a few torments escape an eternal punishment. Commentary on the Apocalypse, 11:9–10.

William C. Weinrich, ed., Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 164–165.

PROTECT LIBERTY

Faucie Emails! (Tangled Web 1)

Published by Papa Giorgio

After examining the evidence, Carlson wondered if Fauci may be under investigation for his “gain of function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (NATIONAL FILE). Of course, this is old news to conservatives… new news to Lefties (Apr 7, 2020 — The first documentary movie on CCP virus, Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus)

The following is compiled by ACE OF SPADES!

CHINESE CORONAVIRUS FICTIONS, FACTS AND AMERICA IMPRISONED

  • “The bombshell release from Dr. Fauci’s e-mails goes to disprove the political and media establishment’s claims that lab-leak or bio-weapon concerns were ‘conspiracy theories.'” — Chinese COVID “Looks Engineered,” Gov’t-Funded Immunologist Told Fauci In January 2020 (NATIONAL PULSE)
  • Daniel Greenfield: “If you like your pandemic, you can keep your pandemic.” — Fauci’s E-Mails and the Chinese Covid Cover-Up (FRONTPAGE MAG)
  • “Controversial health official’s lack of scientific curiosity raises troubling questions.” — “Too Long for Me to Read”: Fauci Dismissed Expert’s E-Mail About Chinese Disinformation on Chinese COVID-19 (too long or Chu Wong? – jjs) (THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON)
  • “Worse, he well symbolizes much of the entire Washington establishment, a group of people more interested in power and skimming cash from the taxpayer than doing the right thing for the nation.” — From Masks to the Origins of Chinese COVID, Anthony Fauci is a Liar and a Fraud (BEHIND THE BLACK)
  • Rand Paul: “Can’t wait to see the media try to spin the Fauci FOIA e-mails.” — Sen. Rand Paul Calls to “Fire” Dr. Anthony Fauci: “Told You” (BREITBART)
  • “…in the future, we would do well to never let entrenched bureaucrats run a national response to anything.” — Was Fauci Incompetent or Dishonest? Either Way, in the Final Analysis, Lives Have Been Ruined (PJ-MEDIA)
  • “A couple months later, the man responsible for steering U.S. government funding to the Wuhan Institution of Virology, Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, thanked Dr. Anthony Fauci on April 18, 2020 for publicly dismissing the theory coronavirus may have leaked from the lab.” — E-Mails Show Anthony Fauci Scrambled at Beginning of Pandemic to Determine Potential U.S. Role in Funding Chinese Coronavirus Research “Abroad” (BREITBART)
  • “Over the course of the pandemic, Facebook has taken on an increasingly active role in censoring [Chinese] COVID-related information deemed “fake news” by government health officials.” — Fauci Colluded With Mark Zuckerberg On Facebook Chinese COVID-19 “Information Hub,” E-Mails Show (THE FEDERALIST)
  • “I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.” — Masks, Lies and Fauci: The Trifecta (HUMAN EVENTS)
  • “The highest-paid federal employee, best known for flip-flopping on [Chinese] COVID messaging and fudging the numbers, is now going to pontificate about truth and service in an autobiography where he gets to be the hero? What a joke.” — Fauci’s Expect the Unexpected Book Is Exactly What You’d Expect From a Self-Serving Bureaucrat (THE FEDERALIST)
  • Fauci’s Upcoming Book Scrubbed on Amazon, Barnes & Noble Amid Backlash (JUST THE NEWS)
  • “Regulators’ precipitous action slowed the [Chinese] COVID-19 vaccination campaign.” — The FDA’s J&J Vaccine “Pause” Protected Bureaucrats, Not Patients (HUMAN EVENTS)
  • “Proof of immunity should serve as a substitute in any mandate situation, though parents may need to demand it. Concurrence from a physician should assist in the process.” — Israel Says There Is a Probable Link Between the Pfizer Chinese COVID-19 Vaccine and Cases of Myocarditis (PJ-MEDIA)

BEN DOMENECH

INGRAHAM ANGLE

GREG GUTFELD

THE FIVE

Sky News Australia

 

ORIGINS OF COVID-19 (UPDATED!)

Published by Papa Giorgio

JUMP TO: UPDATE II – UPDATE 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

Rand Paul Questions “Dr.” Rachel Levine (Plus: Steven Crowder)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Sen. Rand Paul questions Dr. Rachel Levine on gender transition for minors with gender dysphoria.

Rand Paul was in a hearing today with the weirdo Rachel Levine. We think he did pretty well… you know, being a real Doctor and all. Plus, Steven has a great rant at the end!

If you doubted Biden’s extreme Left agenda, wait until you meet assistant health secretary Rachel Levine. (LGBTTQQFAIPBGD7@bRs?PLWb+2Z9A2)

Rand Paul’s Question Rejected… Again

Published by Papa Giorgio

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s whistleblower question blocked in Senate impeachment trial by Chief Justice John Roberts. (Watch that moment HERE)

LEGAL INSURRECTION adds some thoughts to this:

So do people know the whistleblower’s identification? If not then let Paul ask his question.

Chief Justice John Roberts once again rejected a question from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) since it supposedly names the impeachment whistleblower… even though supposedly NOBODY knows the identification of the whistleblower.

He asked: “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.”

POWERLINE continues with Rand Paul’s question rephrased (<< video at link):

  • I believe that Senator Ron Johnson rephrased the question Senator Paul submitted to Chief Justice Roberts as set forth in the adjacent post. Chief Justice Robert having declined to read the question, Senator Johnson gave it another go. The question alludes to the RCP columm by Paul Sperry that we also published last week in “Whistleblower overheard.” Not surprisingly, Chief House impeachment manager and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff declines to answer the question.

 

Evidence Supports That Hillary Lied Under Oath

Published by Papa Giorgio

JUDICIAL WATCH has gotten documents to support the July 2018 comments by Rand Paul that Hillary lied under oath. GATEWAY PUNDIT has the skinny:

Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony (under oath) in early 2013 after the deadly Benghazi terrorist attack.

Senator Rand Paul questioned Hillary Clinton about this gun running program back in January 2013 during her testimony on the Benghazi terrorist attack.

In late July 2016 Julian Assange told Democracy Now that the Wikileaks DNC emails contains information on the weapons shipments to Syria……..