Law enforcement is rebelling against the far left like never before as Sheriffs across the country are switching to the GOP and cops are forming alliances with armed militias! In this video, we’re going to take a look at the mass defection among Democrat law enforcement, how more and more law enforcement officials are embracing and allying themselves with armed militia groups, and how it all represents a new political realignment that is forging a conservative coalition more powerful than ever before; you’re not going to want to miss this!


#JohnMacArthur tells Gavin Newsom and the California Government to "Bring it On" regarding an arrest and jail time for keeping Grace Community Church open. With the the U.S. Constitution and the backing of President Trump that #ChurchIsEssential, he continues to fight the #COVID19 mandates in California.




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A French-made film available on Netflix that is said to be a dramatized “commentary” about how social media and societal role models wrongly influence young girls to sexualize themselves is generating outrage, including from Congress, as its content counteracts its purpose by utilizing 11-year-old female actors who “perform dances simulating sexual conduct in revealing clothing.”

“I urge the Department of Justice to investigate the production and distribution of this film to determine whether Netflix, its executives, or the individuals involved in the filming and production of ‘Cuties’ violated any federal laws against the production and distribution of child pornography,” wrote Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to Attorney General William Barr on Friday.

According to reports, the movie was directed by Maïmouna Doucouré and seeks to address the negative influence sensual role models and social media have on pre-adolescent females by telling the story of an 11-year-old Senegalese Muslim immigrant, named Amy, who joins a girls dance troupe in Paris in rebellion against her mother.

She also finds herself dressing more provocatively and posting various pictures of herself online to gain attention and approval.

The scantily-clad girls engage in various sexually-charged dance moves — all clearly captured on camera and in the face of the viewer — while practicing and performing for a competition. Amy later tearfully realizes the wrong of her pursuits and returns to the arms of her mother.

“The film routinely fetishes and sexualizes these pre-adolescent girls as they perform dances simulating sexual conduct in revealing clothing, including at least one scene with partial child nudity,” Cruz wrote. “The scenes in and of themselves are harmful.”

Netflix has defended the movie, stating that it encourages others to watch the production because of its message.

“‘Cuties’ is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children,” it said in a statement. “It’s an award-winning film and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up — and we’d encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie.”

“[Amy] believes she can find freedom through that group of dancers [where there is a] hyper-sexualization, but is that really true freedom, especially when you are a kid? Of course not,” Doucouré also explained in a video posted to the film page on Netflix.

She said that she interviewed a number of young girls before creating the film in seeking to understand how social media affects the way they think about themselves and their bodies.

“I needed to know how they felt about their own femininity in today’s society and how they dealt with their self-image in a time when social media is so important,” Doucouré outlined. “Our girls see that the more a girl is overly-sexualized on social media, the more she is successful. And children just imitate what they see trying to achieve the same result without understanding the meaning. And, yeah, it’s dangerous.”

“We are able to see oppression of women in other cultures, but my question is: isn’t the objectification of a woman’s body that we often see in our Western culture not another kind of oppression?” she asked.


But Cruz says the film could conversely encourage the abuse of children, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., worries about the child actors who were used for the production and taught to engage in such acts for the camera.

“[I]t is likely that the filming of this movie created even more explicit and abusive scenes and that pedophiles across the world in the future will manipulate and initiate this film in abusive ways,” Cruz told Barr.

“Did Netflix, at any point, take measures to ensure the protection of the physical, mental and emotional health of child actors made to perform simulated sex acts and filmed in sexual or sexually suggestive ways?” Hawley wrote in a letter to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings.

“Why did your company choose to market this film — which touches on a range of issues, including religion, culture and social media — with a poster solely depicting scantily-clad preteens in sexually suggestive positions?” he asked.

The original marketing image in France had been of the girls walking with shopping bags through the street and confetti flying in the air. The Netflix version had showed the girls in more provocative poses as dancers.

Others who have spoken out against the film include Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind.; and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hi.

Even the liberal site Vice, which found the film to be “a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society,” acknowledged that at least some scenes in the film give cause for concern given the age of the actors, even if the underlying message is well-intentioned.

“There are some scenes that are intentionally provocative … and one in particular that feels unnecessarily eroticized,” it wrote. “The girls have established themselves as an urban dance troupe and spend an afternoon filming footage of themselves dancing to a song called ‘Bum Bum’ by well-known Nigerian artist Yemi Alade.”

“The montage features close-ups of their young bodies, skin-tight clothing and highly sexualized dance moves. This scene is designed to make viewers uneasy, but knowing that the actors themselves are very young is somewhat concerning,” the outlet said.

Online petitions for Netflix to pull the film have surpassed 1 million.


'Critics' Rush to Defend Netflix's Pre-Teen Twerking Flick 'Cuties'

Where will we as a culture draw a line in the sand?



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow on Popular Culture for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The brilliant satirical website Babylon Bee recently posted another gem of a faux headline:  “Awesome: Netflix Will Now Just Pump Septic Waste Straight Into Your Living Room,” poking fun at the streaming entertainment service’s reputation for pushing increasingly controversial and offensive content. But Netflix’s latest offering is no joke: a French flick that veers into the realm of child pornography.

Cuties (originally Mignonnes), which debuted Thursday on Netflix, is the story of Amy, 11, a Senegalese girl growing up in Paris who rebels against her conservative Muslim immigrant family and seeks the approval of a bullying quartet of fellow 11-year-old girls who are absolutely clueless about sex but who nevertheless believe dressing and acting like prostitutes is the key to popularity (the ages of the actresses at the time of filming are unclear, but reportedly range from 11-14). Their aimless lives center on rehearsing sexed-up choreography to a rap song for a local dance contest.

As Amy becomes desperate to escape the stultifying, traditional expectations of the women in her family, she exhibits increasingly wanton behavior, such as posting a pic of her genitalia on social media and teaching the other girls how to rev up their dance routine by twerking (if you are mercifully ignorant about twerking, it’s a very popular move derived from strip-club lap dancing, in which females squat and shake their rear ends up and down like primates presenting themselves for mating; needless to say, this is wildly inappropriate for pre-teens). The movie culminates in an extended, raunchy dance performance in which the camera lingers repellently on the scantily-clad little girls’ pelvic gyrations, come-hither looks, and suggestive touching – of themselves and each other.


During the performance, Amy is horrified onstage by the sudden revelation of what she has become, and she turns her back on both that downward spiral and her family's traditions, to find liberation in her own identity. But the transcendent ending of self-purification and newfound innocence feels utterly tacked-on, and it is too little, too late to rescue the film from the sense that we have been trapped in a pedophile’s dream.


Cuties has lit such a firestorm of controversy and anti-Netflix backlash that the hashtag #CancelNetflix has been trending on Twitter as people cancelled their subscriptions en massein protest. Politicians have even weighed in. Sen. Josh Hawley called out Netflix on Twitter, with a screenshot highlighting posts to the parental guidance page of the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), where warnings about nudity and sexual scenes are shown. Those warnings (see below) have since mysteriously disappeared from IMDb.

Sen. Ted Cruz has written to Attorney General William Barr requesting an investigation into whether the production or distribution of the film has broken any laws against child pornography.

Netflix did concede that its marketing for the film – a movie poster depicting the little girls posing provocatively like strippers – was, to put it mildly, a mistake, and it apologized in the wake of an earlier tsunami of justifiable public outrage. But Netflix stands by the film itself. “Cuties is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children,” a spokesperson said in its defense. “It’s an award-winning film and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up — and we’d encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie.”

It’s social commentary! It’s art! And it’s award-winning! But as Breitbart News’ John Nolte wrote in his review, “Cuties is not an indictment of the sexualization of children. Cutiessexualizes children,” and portrays the young girls’ twerking ultimately as a “path to enlightenment and growth.”

Predictably, the left-leaning mainstream film critics have leapt to the movie’s defense, calling it “extraordinary” and “inspired” and dismissing its detractors as uptight “scandal-mongers on the right.” “It’s actually a sensitive portrait of growing pains that deserves to be seen,” Rolling Stone reassured its few remaining readers.

The New Yorker’s Richard Brody dismissed the “scurrilous campaign” from conservatives he claims simply don’t understand the movie. “The subject of Cuties isn’t twerking,” he insists. “It’s children, especially poor and nonwhite children, who are deprived of the resources — the education, the emotional support, the open family discussion — to put sexualized media and pop culture into perspective.” critic Monica Castillo also argued that the movie “actively critiques the very thing pearl-clutchers were mad about — the sexualization of children.” Mashable critic Angie Han chimed in similarly: “It’s upsetting, and it’s supposed to be — because the whole point of Cuties is how damn hard it can be for girls to navigate womanhood in a society that’s all too eager to tell girls and women what they should be, and not at all interested in what they might be or want to be.”

This argument is delusional; it is actually feminism, not “society,” that is all too eager to tell girls and women what they should be and is not at all interested in what they might be or want to be. Cuties reflects a sexualized pop culture that feminism has intentionally created, to “liberate” our daughters from the patriarchal chains of the nuclear family.

Tim Robey at the UK Telegraph praised the film as “a provocative powder-keg for an age terrified of child sexuality” (emphasis added) – a description that says much more about Tim Robey than it does about the purported prudes he is sneering at. He tittered approvingly that it has “pissed off all the right people” – by which he means people who vehemently oppose the sexual exploitation of children under a patina of art.

But Los Angeles Times critic Justin Chang praised the movie as not at all “exploitative,” condemning its detractors as “putative grownups” who “can never be bothered to do the hard work of looking at something, let alone learning from it.”

Well, I did the hard work. I watched Cuties, and I learned from it – or at least, it confirmed what I already knew, which is that the entertainment critics at mainstream media outlets will defend any perversity, any ugliness, any slog through the gutter, rather than seem judgmental or moralistic. None of them is willing to align themselves with the “scurrilous,” Philistine “pearl-clutchers” of the right who just don’t understand art. None of them is willing to admit that they are apologists for an inherently exploitative showbiz industry that is populated with pedophiles at the highest cultural and political levels who have a vested interest in normalizing the sexualization of children.

Breitbart’s Nolte points out that “a full 88 percent of critics approve of Cuties, Netflix’s piece of soft-core child pornography, while only three percent of the audience agree.” This speaks volumes about the vast chasm that lies between the worldview of our leftist cultural elites and that of everyday Americans, who are becoming increasingly repulsed by the sinful excesses of pop culture.

The critics are tragically correct about one thing: our culture hyper-sexualizes women and children and shows no sign of reining that in. We are submerged in a cultural cesspool of such bottomless degeneracy that the number one song in the country is a steaming pile of rap pornography called “WAP” (as in, “wet-ass pussy”), marketed by a music video that glamorizes self-proclaimed “whores” (that is the female rappers’ own word, not mine). Shame on us. And yet the Democrat Party legitimizes former stripper Cardi B, the Grammy-winning “recording artist” behind that hit song, by letting her interview empty-suit presidential nominee Joe Biden for Elle magazine (because even fashion magazines now are leftist propaganda outlets.)

So yes, Cuties’ purported message that today’s little girls don’t know how to navigate our sexualized culture is a very real issue. And who made our culture what it is today? Who dragged our values down to the point at which a movie like Cuties is nearly unanimously defended by our media elites? Answer: the secular libertines of the Marxist left, whose relentless aim has been, and still is, to undermine the values and family structure of Western civilization, to push the envelope of “art” until no envelope even exists anymore, until there are literally no moral boundaries, no limits, no line in the sand.

If a movie that sexualizes children can be defended by claiming it is a critique of the sexualization of children, then what cannot be defended? It’s hard to imagine how our culture could degenerate even lower, but it can and it will unless enough Americans with a moral compass find the backbone to say no more, to put an end to the left’s domination of our media and entertainment.




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In this interview with The New American magazine's Alex Newman, Midwest Christian Outreach chief Don Veinot explains that occultism is invading homeschool materials and is even being peddled by well-known Christian publishers. In particular, the occult Enneagram is being marketed as a tool to help Christians get closer to God. And yet, the evidence proves this is a dangerous scheme that was received using "automatic writing," Veinot explains, offering video proof. Veinot says it is important for Christians and homeschoolers to be on the lookout for this sort of infiltration.




The judgment says: “(1) that the congregate gathering limits imposed by defendants’ mitigation orders violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment; (2) that the stay-at-home and business closure components of defendants’ orders violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) that the business closure components of defendants’ orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

US District Judge William Stickman IV, a Trump appointee, ruled on the lawsuit brought by business owners and Republicans


EXCERPT: "Like most Democrats Wolf is also obsessed with homosexuality, and, strangely, announced that the state would use COVID-19 data collection to also gather data on Pennsylvanians’ sexual orientations and “gender identity.”" 





republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV ruled this week that Democratic Pennsylvania Governor's Tom Wolf’s coronavirus restrictions were unconstitutional.

“The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble,” Stickman wrote in his 66-page opinion.

The plaintiffs in the case include various businesses such as hair salons and drive-in theaters, and several Republican lawmakers — U.S. Representative Mike Kelly and State Representatives Marci Mustello, Tim Bonner, and Daryl Metcalfe.

The original plaintiffs also included the counties of Washington, Butler, Greene, and Fayette, but the defendants argued that the County Plaintiffs were “not proper plaintiffs,” a point with which Judge Stickman agreed before dismissing the counties as plaintiffs.

“While counties may undoubtedly litigate in many circumstances, as Defendants aptly note, well established law prohibits the County Plaintiffs from bringing claims of constitutional violations.... As such, the County Plaintiffs are not proper parties and cannot obtain relief in this case,” Stickman wrote.

Monday’s ruling marks an important victory for Pennsylvania residents, as previous rulings rejected challenges to Wolf’s orders. The Hill observes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled in July that the state legislature could not end the coronavirus shutdown.

But Judge Stickman determined that Governor Wolf superseded his authority in his response to the public health crisis.

Judge Stickman determined that the administration’s actions were “undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency,” but added that emergencies do not grant government “unfettered” authority.

“There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment,” Stickman wrote. “The constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.”

Several coronavirus restrictions have been deemed unconstitutional by the ruling, including the state’s gathering limits, which Judge Stickman determined violates the First Amendment right to assembly. Pennsylvania’s stay-at-home and business closures violated the due process clause the Equal Protection clause of the Fourth Amendment, the judge ruled.

Thomas W. King, III, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Pittsburgh's Action News 4."You can't tell 13 million Pennsylvanians that they have to stay home. That's not America. It never was. That order was horrible."

Thomas E. Breth, another attorney for the plaintiffs, asserts that the plaintiffs are not challenging some of the other guidelines, including wearing masks and maintaining social distance and are still willing to “abide by those guidelines.”

“They just want to be able to operate their businesses to make a living, go about their lives as they're protected by the U.S. Constitution," Breth said.

One plaintiff, Taste of Sicily in Lebanon, said the business had received more than $10,000 in fines from the Commonwealth for refusing to stay closed for more than two months. Owner Christine Wartluft celebrates Judge Stickman’s ruling, but is concerned that the fight is not over.

“The judge’s ruling is a victory, but we are not walking in ignorance and know that Governor Wolf will strike back due to his heartlessness and pride” Christine Wartluft, a co-owner of Taste of Sicily, told the Daily Caller. “We will continue to fight this governor and will show him the same relentlessness that he has shown our great state.”

Governor Wolf’s office has already indicated it will seek a stay of the decision and file an appeal. The governor’s press secretary states Wolf’s actions were no different from those taken by governors across the country.

"The actions taken by the administration were mirrored by governors across the country and saved, and continue to save lives in the absence of federal action,” Kensinger said. “This decision is especially worrying as Pennsylvania and the rest of the country are likely to face a challenging time with the possible resurgence of COVID-19 and the flu in the fall and winter."

Current restrictions in Pennsylvania include limiting indoor gatherings to 25 people, outdoor gatherings to 250 people, and indoor dining to 25-percent occupancy, though that is expected to rise to 50 percent on September 21, CBS Pittsburgh reports.

According to the New York Times, Pennsylvania’s cases are “lower and staying low.”




Mike Mangano speaks. Elected officials and community members gather at a protest in support of Taste of Sicily, a Palmyra-based restaurant that's been allowing customers to have sit-down meals in violation of Gov. Tom Wolf's reopening plan.
June 5, 2020. 
Dan Gleiter |

From left to write, Taste of Sicily owners Pero Popovic, Christine Wartluft, Silvana Drill and Christian Wartluft.

Elected officials and community members gather at a protest in support of Taste of Sicily, a Palmyra-based restaurant that's been allowing customers to have sit-down meals in violation of Gov. Tom Wolf's reopening plan.
June 5, 2020. 
Dan Gleiter |








republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Donald Trump is expanding his 2017 executive order that built on the nation’s “Mexico City Policy” to cut off more streams of revenue from international organizations providing or promoting abortions overseas.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers were prevented from accessing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds. And the proposal to expand the order could lead to even more cuts to their funding.

Life News:

According to the Catholic News Agency, the proposal expands the Mexico City Policy to include military and government contracts overseas.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser praised the Trump administration for “boldly defending life” across the world.

“From day one, they have championed innovative policies to protect unborn children and their mothers, as well as taxpayers,” Dannenfelser said. “This new proposed rule builds on that success, further preventing the big abortion industry from exporting abortion on demand around the world on American taxpayers’ dime.”

President Ronald Reagan’s original Mexico City Policy affected about $600 million in USAID grants. Trump’s expansion of the policy will be global in reach.

Catholic News:

The expanded Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy covers nearly $9 billion in U.S. foreign aid under the State Department, USAID, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Defense. This includes, for example, grants to foreign NGOs under international health programs to fight AIDS and infectious diseases, or to provide maternal and child nutrition.

Pro-abortion groups are not pleased. Planned Parenthood tweeted on Monday about the “unprecedented expansion of a harmful policy.”

The expanded rule would “require all groups that receive global health aid contracts to agree not to promote and/or provide elective abortions.” Those that do will not receive taxpayer funds.

When Trump first proposed the rule in 2017, Planned Parenthood warned of an unmitigated disaster with “gaps” in health care coverage in the Third World. But a state department report published earlier this year disputes that idea. They found very few gaps were created and those that were were filled by governments or private donations.

Life News:

Just eight of the 1,340 groups that received U.S. aid money under the Obama administration refused to comply with Trump’s new pro-life policy, according to the report. An additional 47 sub-awardees also refused to comply, the report found.

“Principled pro-life policies can exist hand and hand with … quality health care,” a Trump administration official told reporters.

The few, limited health care disruptions were due to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups’ own decision to refuse to comply with the policy. In doing so, they placed the killing of unborn babies in abortions at a higher priority than real, life-saving health care for impoverished women and families across the globe.

If Planned Parenthood wants to save the Third World by killing babies, it can use part of its billion-dollar budget not funded by U.S. taxpayers to do it.

Poll: 83% of Americans Back Trump Reversal of Obama’s Overseas Abortion Funding
New Poll: Most Pro-Choice Americans, Even Democrats, Favor Abortion Restrictions
Fact-Checking the 2020 Democrats on Abortion


Trump Administration Seeks to Further Restrict International Abortion Funding



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Trump administration signaled on Monday that it wishes to further restrict federal funds going to international abortion providers. A proposed new rule would require foreign entities that receive aid through contracts with the U.S. Government to agree not to provide or promote abortion as a family-planning method.

The proposed legislation is an expansion of the “Mexico City Policy,” which blocks federal funding for international NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) that either promote or provide abortions. First enacted by Ronald Reagan in 1984, the Mexico City Policy has been a political seesaw ever since. Since it is an executive order, it can be rescinded when another president takes office. Bill Clinton rescinded the rule in 1993, George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 and Barack Obama again rescinded it in 2009.

Called a “global gag rule” by opponents, Donald Trump re-instituted the protocol in 2017 and now looks to expand upon it by including international groups that receive funding — even through military and government contracts — to agree not to promote or provide elective abortions. The new rule would deny funding for any global health organization — even those that don't specialize in family planning — if they provide or counsel for abortions.

The protocol changes, dubbed Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA), can be read in the Federal Register.

Pro-life groups were ecstatic about the proposed rule change. “We thank President Trump and Secretary Pompeo for boldly defending life on the world stage. From day one they have championed initiative policies to protect unborn children and their mothers, as well as taxpayers,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List. “This new proposed rule builds on that success, further preventing the big abortion industry from exporting abortion on demand around the world on American taxpayers' dime.”

Opponents of the rule change argue that because of the abortion restrictions, groups that offer other services such as HIV treatment, family planning, tuberculosis testing and treatment, and maternal and child nutrition services have already been adversely affected by the Mexico City Policy.

“This administration is fully aware that the global gag rule is coercive and demonstrably hurts women and families worldwide,” read a statement from Zara Ahmed, the associate director of Federal Issues for the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion think tank.

“By choosing to expand it even further, they are intentionally depriving people of live-saving and essential reproductive healthcare all over the globe in service of a manipulative ideological agenda.”

Planned Parenthood Global called the new rule “yet another unprecedented expansion of a harmful policy.”

But a State Department report issued in August found that the effect on the vast majority of health service grants issued by the government would be negligible since most participants agreed to the requirements.

“The majority of foreign NGOs that receive US global health assistance funding have accepted the terms of PLGHA in their awards. In total, only eight out of 1,340 prime awardees with awards in place between May 2017 and September 30, 2018, have declined to agree to the Policy, as well as a small portion of sub-awardees.”

So, it's simple. Just stop providing and promoting abortions and the NGOs can have taxpayer money to treat whatever disease or malady that they're willing and able to treat.  Any NGO that refuses to comply with the rule is choosing abortion over all those other services that they claim are necessary.

What the Mexico City Policy really hurts is only the abortion industry. Because of the policy International Planned Parenthood Federation was forced to close 22 abortion mills in sub-Saharan Africa as of 2018. British abortion provider Marie Stopes International was also forced to shut down several African facilities.

The proposed new rule is just another small, incremental step in the battle to rid the world of the scourge of abortion. As soon as a Democrat gets back into the White House, the Mexico City Policy will almost certainly be rescinded quickly. But it's another signal that President Trump — whose views on abortion were admittedly shaky before taking office — has become possibly the most pro-life president of the modern era.





Rashida Tlaib and ‘useful idiots’ on parade at anti-Israel AMP conference.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Joe Kaufman, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is Chairman of the Joe Kaufman Security Initiative and the 2014, 2016 and 2018 Republican Nominee for U.S. House of Representatives (Florida-CD23).

As Progressives continue to make the vilification of Israel a core issue for the Democratic Party, members of Congress continue to line up to embrace the hate. On Tuesday, September 15th, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) will be sponsoring an online virtual advocacy event (‘Palestine Advocacy Days’) featuring at least five US Representatives. But this is not just an exercise in demanding "Palestinian rights" or supporting the toxic BDS calls for boycotting Israel. AMP is rooted in Hamas, and its leadership does not shy away from its roots, so having numerous Congressmen and women involved in this type of event is beyond outrageous.

Created in 2006. AMP was the byproduct of now-defunct groups that made up the US Palestine Committee, a terror umbrella organization led by then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. As such, the group celebrates violence against Israelis. During its January 2018 ‘JERUSALEM IS A RED LINE’ rally, AMP repeatedly led chants of “Long live Intifada” – Intifada meaning Palestinian violent uprising. AMP’s Chairman, Hatem Bazian, who also founded Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), notoriously called for an American intifada, at an April 2004 rally in San Francisco. Citing uprisings in “Palestine” and Iraq, he asked, “How come we don't have an intifada in this country?”

One AMP board member, Salah Sarsour, allegedly had involvement with Hamas, itself. According to a December 1998 Israeli Police memo, Salah’s brother Jamil Sarsour, in the course of an interview, claimed that Salah was involved with Hamas and did fundraising for Hamas via the Palestine Committee’s Holy Land Foundation (HLF). Jamil also claimed that Salah had plotted an attack on Israel, as revenge for the September 1998 killing of Salah’s friends – Hamas military wing Qassam Brigades leaders and brothers, Imad and Adel Awadallah – by Israeli soldiers. Previously, Salah had spent eight months in a Ramallah prison.

AMP is a part of the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). Sitting on the board of USCMO is Mazen Mokhtar, a former US-based administrator for, a now-defunct al-Qaeda recruitment/financing site. Mokhtar, who has spoken at AMP events, has called Hamas acts “heroic” and suicide bombings “an effective method of attacking the enemy.” Also on the board is Siraj Wahhaj, a Brooklyn, New York imam who was cited by the US government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj has been linked to the bomb maker of the attack, Clement Rodney Hampton-El, and has praised the spiritual leader of the attack, Omar Abdel Rahman.

Representing AMP on USCMO’s Board of Directors and speaking at Tuesday’s virtual advocacy event is AMP Executive Director Osama Abu-Irshaid, who, last month, called Muslim leaders, who support UAE peace with Israel, “dirt bags” and “traitors.” Prior to AMP, he served as editor of Al Zaytounah, the official newsletter of the Palestine Committee’s Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). This past January, Abu-Irshaid stated at an AMP event, “Palestinians, if they don’t take what they want willingly, they will take it forcefully. We promise you this, we’re going to liberate our land and we’re going to liberate our people, whether they like it or they don’t like it. Well, they have picked the wrong enemy!”

Also speaking at the AMP’s virtual advocacy event is PLO Executive Committee Member Hanan Ashrawi. Under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, which is still law, the US government designated the PLO a terrorist organization and a threat to America. Ashrawi, herself, has been labeled an “apologist for terror.” During a November 1991 interview with the New York Times, Ashrawi dismissed Palestinian terror as “essentially a human voice” and a “cry from the heart.” She said, “Desperate people commit desperate acts.” In May 2019, Ashrawi’s American visa was rejected and she was denied entry into the US.

Another speaker at AMP’s event is Muslim activist and National Committeewoman for the Florida Young Democrats (FYD) Rasha Mubarak. Mubarak has made a number of statements claiming that Israel, a sovereign nation, has no right to self-defense, and she has attacked prominent figures on social media for saying otherwise. In November 2012, Mubarak tweeted, “Lies I’m tired of hearing, Israel has the right to defend herself.” She has posted pictures of Hamas celebrations, and she has had involvement in Hamas-related groups, CAIR and Islamic Relief. This past July, Mubarak retweeted an infamous call for violence in the US made previously by 60s radical, Kwame Ture.

One would expect people like Abu-Irshaid, Ashrawi and Mubarak to speak at such an incendiary event. They have all been associated with groups linked to terror. However, what you do not expect is for members of US Congress to be featured with them. Yet, this is exactly what is happening on Tuesday. At least five US Representatives will be featured at the AMP virtual advocacy event. They include: Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota), Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan), Donald Payne Jr. (D-New Jersey), Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan), and Judy Chu (D-California). While AMP is working to mainstream Hamas in America, these representatives are helping in the process.

It is no secret that many of these Congressmen and women embrace and enable Islamic extremism. This infiltration of Islamists into the highest levels of the US government – allowed by our nation’s representatives using their positions to sabotage American values – is a page taken straight out of the Muslim Brotherhood's playbook on how to destroy America from within. Non-Muslim leftist allies are pandering to their Muslim constituencies by working with pro-terror groups, like AMP.

In the interests of national security, these government officials need to cancel their speaking engagements for this event and, instead, denounce AMP and call for the group’s closure. They took a Congressional oath “to protect America from all enemies both foreign and domestic,” and they need to make clear to the American people whose side they are on. Choosing to speak at an AMP event says it all.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.



‘Look How Clueless the Average Voter Is!’

See the source image



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

CHESHIRE COUNTY, N.H. — Voters in one New Hampshire county have nominated a Satanist man who identifies as a woman, who ran with the slogan “[Expletive] the police],” for the Republican candidate for sheriff. He will now face off against Democratic incumbent Eli Rivera, who endorsed homosexual candidate Pete Buttigieg for president.

“More than 4,000 people went into the voting booth on September 8 this week, and they all filled in the circle by my name despite knowing absolutely nothing about the person they were nominating to the most powerful law enforcement position in the county. That’s a level of recklessness of which any decent human being should be ashamed,” Aria DiMezzo wrote in a blog post on Friday following his Cheshire County win.

“Imagine the millions upon millions of votes being cast each year in abject, complete, and total ignorance of the people who are being voted for. … Look how clueless the average voter is!” he exclaimed.

According to reports, DiMezzo thought he was going to lose the primary to a write-in candidate but instead received 4,211 votes as he was running unopposed. Only a few hundred residents chose to do a write-in.

While DiMezzo received no backing from the local or state Republican Party prior to the election, the NH Journal reports that Cheshire County GOP Chair Marylin Huston congratulated DiMezzo afterward, stating, “He did very well with the primary and that was wonderful.”

However, she also noted that DiMezzo is actually a Libertarian and “Aria really came into the Republican Party because he was unable to get onto a Libertarian ballot.” Huston said that DiMezzo’s positions don’t align with those of the Republican Party.

DiMezzo favors doing away with criminal prosecution of illicit drug use, prostitution and illegal immigration. As stated, he also opposes the police. He previously ran for office in 2018 and only obtained three percent of the vote.

“Anarchist. Shemale. Tranny. Libertarian. ‘[Expletive] the police.’ Free Talk Live. Bitcoin. Reformed Satanic Church. Black Lives Matter. None of it is a secret. I couldn’t possibly have been more upfront about who I am or my position on things,” he wrote in his blog post on Friday.

“Did none of you pay attention to the election two years ago, when I criticized Eli Rivera for not going far enough with his sanctuary policy? Did none of you remember the six foot tall tranny who ran for sheriff and then city council?” DiMezzo continued. “You could have easily looked at a sample ballot prior to the election, and you could have simply looked up the candidates in a search engine.”

“Because the fact is that you didn’t bother. You trusted the system. You trusted the establishment. You trusted the party. You felt safe.”

DiMezzo will now face off in November against incumbent Eli Rivera, who is seeking his fifth term in office. Rivera had endorsed homosexual presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg last October.

“I’m proud to support Pete Buttigieg for President of the United States,” he wrote in an op-ed published by the New Hampshire Union Leader. “With Pete, we have a chance to unite our country around our shared values and work together to overcome our most significant challenges. I want to look back and remember this election as the time we all came together to heal our country — before it was too late.”

Rivera also served as a New Hampshire co-chair for Buttigieg’s campaign.

“I didn’t do this. I didn’t ask you to trust me. I didn’t ask you to ‘vote [red] no matter who’ or whatever equivalent slogan Republicans use,” DiMezzo stated about this nomination. “The system did. You should be angry. You should be practically foaming-at-the-mouth in rage, livid at what has happened.”

Founding father Noah Webster, known for penning the American dictionary, once wrote in exhorting fellow Christians, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God.”

“The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty. If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted. Laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes, corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws, the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men, and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.”

“If government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”


Polls Find Many Americans Do Not Want COVID-19 Vaccine as Soon as It’s Licensed



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:


  • More adults in the U.S. are expressing doubts about the safety of a newly licensed COVID-19 vaccine that might become available this year.
  • The number of poll respondents planning on getting a new coronavirus vaccine as soon as it is FDA approved has fallen from a reported high of 50 to 60 percent down to 21 percent currently.
  • Reduced trust in the fast-tracked vaccine process mirrors generally reduced trust in COVID-19 information being disseminated by public health officials and mainstream media.

As medical doctors and government health officials warn that there can be no return to normal until we have an effective COVID-19 vaccine that everyone uses, more and more Americans are expressing skepticism about accepting a newly licensed coronavirus vaccine that has been rushed through the approval process. In a poll of 2,493 registered U.S. voters across the country conducted on behalf of CBS News, only 21 percent of voters are still saying they would get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as one becomes available, even if it is free.1

That same poll showed that two thirds of voters say they would not consider a vaccine made available this year as a scientific breakthrough (65 percent) but rather as one that had been “rushed through without enough testing” (35 percent). Among those who feel the vaccine testing has been rushed, only 13 percent say they would get the vaccine as soon as it was available.

Decreasing Trust in Fast-Tracked Vaccine Safety

The number of Americans willing to get a new vaccine against COVID-19 has been falling since polling began. In April/May, a poll of 1,056 adults conducted by the Associated Press’s NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed that 49 percent said they planned to get vaccinated as soon as a vaccine was licensed, 20 per cent said they would not get the new vaccine and 31 percent were unsure.2 Morning Consult poll numbers from May showed an even higher number of respondents planning to get a new vaccine: 59 percent among 2,200 surveys of U.S. adults, with 14 percent saying they would not want the vaccine and 22 percent unsure.3 4

By late July, polls showed the number of people who would accept a newly licensed COVID-19 vaccine had dropped to 32 percent, with 17 percent against taking any coronavirus vaccine approved this year and 51 percent taking a “wait and see” stance.5 Most of those who have expressed reluctance about getting a new COVID-19 vaccine are concerned about safety and side effects, while others are uncertain a vaccine would be effective in protecting them from the mutated coronavirus.6

Polls results seem to indicate that there are divisions within political parties, with more registered Democrats viewing a new vaccine as being inappropriately rushed to market (77 percent) rather than a scientific achievement (23 percent) compared to Republicans (48 and 52 percent, respectively). Though more Republicans than Democrats plan to get the vaccine if one becomes available, most plan to wait or forego the vaccine altogether.7

Trust in Public Health Information Also on the Decline

That same CBS poll shows that voters as a whole have less trust in the coronavirus information provided by public health authorities, such as officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the President of the United States, state governors and the national media, compared to opinions reported earlier in the pandemic.8 Most dramatically, trust in the CDC to provide accurate information about COVID-19 has fallen from a high of 86 percent in March to 54 percent today.9

Also since March, trust in information provided by the national media has fallen from 45 percent to 35 percent currently. Trust in information disseminated by state governors has also fallen by 14 percentage points.10

Regardless of party, the majority of voters—65 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Independents—agree that whomever is elected president should publicly be vaccinated to demonstrate confidence in the safety of a new COVID-19 vaccine recommended by the government.11


1 De Pinto J. Voters Skeptical About Potential COVID-19 Vaccine And Say That One This Year Would Be Rushed – CBS News PollCBS News Sept. 6, 2020.
2 Neergaard L, Fingerhut H. Expectations for a COVID-19 VaccineAssociated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research May 27, 2020.
3 Just Over Half of Americans Say They Would Get Vaccinated if One Became Available. Morning Consult.
4 Solender A. Many Americans Say They Would Refuse A Coronavirus VaccineForbes May 8, 2020.
5 See Footnote 1.
6 TVR Staff. Poll: 69 Percent of Americans Worried Fast-Tracked COVID-19 Vaccines Won’t Be SafeThe Vaccine Reaction. Aug. 10, 2020.
7 See Footnote 1.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Meek A. Guess Who Americans Trust More On COVID-19 – Trump Or The National Press?BGR Sept.8, 2020.
11 See Footnote 1.



Novavax’s Adjuvanted COVID-19 Vaccine Caused Severe Adverse Reactions in Clinical Trials



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Biotechnology company Novavax, Inc. of Gaithersburg, Maryland recently made public the results of the Phase 1 part of a Phase 1/2 human clinical trial for its experimental NVX-CoV2373 vaccine for COVID-19. According to Novavax, “NVX‑CoV2373 was created using Novavax’s recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike (S) protein and contains Novavax’s patented saponin-based Matrix-M™ adjuvant to enhance the immune response and stimulate high levels of neutralizing antibodies.”1

The clinical trial involved 131 healthy adults between 18-59 years of age. The results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on Sept. 2, 2020.2

Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine Contains Strong Saponin-Based Adjuvant

Of the 131 participants in the clinical trial,, which began on May 26, 2020, 83 were given the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine containing the Matrix-M1 adjuvant to help stimulate an immune response to produce a strong antibody response. Matrix-M1 contains nm (nanometers) of nanoparticles composed of Quillaja saponins, cholesterol and phospholipid. Quillaja saponins are chemical compounds extracted from the soapbox tree. They are used by the food industry as “emulsifiers in beverages and food additives.”2 3 4 5 6

In the cosmetics industry, Quillaja saponins (from the Latin “sapo,” meaning soap) are used as “antidandruff, cleansing, emulsifying, foaming, masking, moisturizing, skin conditioning, and surfactant agents.”6

Of the remaining trial participants, 25 were given the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine without the Matrix-M1 adjuvant and 23 participants were given a placebo of sterile 0.9 percent normal saline. Each participant received two intrasmuscular injections in the deltoid muscle. The injections were given three weeks apart.2

Trial participants were divided into five group: group A, group B, group C, group D and group E. The 23 participants in group A received two doses of the placebo; 25 participants in group B received 25-μg (microgram) doses of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine without the Matrix-M1 adjuvant; 29 participants in group C received 5-μg doses of NVX-CoV2373 with Matrix-M1; 28 participants in group D received 25-μg doses of NVX-CoV2373 with Matrix-M1; and 26 participants in group E received a single 25-μg dose of NVX-CoV2373 with Matrix-M1 followed by a single dose of placebo.2

Severe Adverse Events Occurred in Novavax’s COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials

According to the results of the clinical trial, two of the 83 participants (one each in groups D and E) suffered “severe adverse events” (headache, fatigue and malaise) after the first dose. Two participants—one each in groups A and E—had “reactogenicity events” (fatigue, malaise and tenderness). A reactogenicity event is an “expected” adverse event following vaccination.7 8

Following administration of the second dose, one participant in group D had a “severe local event” (tenderness) and eight participants—one or two in each group—had “severe systemic events.” The most common of these severe systemic events were joint pain and fatigue. One participant in group D developed a fever of 100.58°F.2






republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
News update, Sept. 15, 2020—U.S. regulators paused AstraZeneca’s vaccine trial in the U.S. while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launches an investigation of its own into a serious side effect in an unnamed patient in Britain. “The highest levels of NIH are very concerned,” said Dr. Avindra Nath, intramural clinical director and a leader of viral research at the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, an NIH division. A great deal of uncertainty remains about what happened to the patient. AstraZeneca “need[s] to be more forthcoming with a potential complication of a vaccine which will eventually be given to millions of people,” said Dr. Nath. “We would like to see how we can help, but the lack of information makes it difficult to do so.”19 Enrollment of new patients and other trial procedures were being rescheduled until at least midweek although studies might take a month or two. The status of the South African and Indian trials remains unknown, but the trial in Brazil has also restarted.20

Multinational pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca announced on Sept. 8, 2020 that it was putting a hold on a Phase 3 clinical trial testing its experimental AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccine due to a suspected very serious adverse reaction in a female participant in the United Kingdom.1 In a private conference call on Sept. 9, AstraZeneca chief executive Pascal Soriot stated that the woman suffered symptoms consistent with a rare but serious neurological disorder called transverse myelitis, which causes inflammation of the spinal cord.2

Soriot also confirmed that the participant was injected with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine and not a placebo. Four days later, AstraZeneca released a statement3 that the trial in the U.K. would resume following confirmation by the Medicines Health Regulatory Authority (MHRA) (Britain’s equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) that it was safe to do so. They provided no further details.  Researchers running other clinical trials are now looking for similar cases of neurological reactions by combing through databases.4

“What we have here is a special set of circumstances where the whole world becomes involved in the conduct of a clinical trial,” Soriot said. “The reality is we all have to be very patient and see how it unfolds.”5

Another AstaZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participant Developed Multiple Sclerosis

AstraZeneca’s public statements about the temporary pause in its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial contain few details, and drug company officials will not publicly confirm that this is the second time it has stopped trials to investigate potential adverse health events occurring among participants.6 A woman in the U.K. trial was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in July, but the company said that serious adverse event, which triggered the first clinical trial pause, was not related to the vaccine.7

AstraZeneca’s clinical trial is the first Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trial publicly acknowledged to have been put on hold. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), such holds are not uncommon. Francis Collins, MD, director of the NIH, told a U.S. Senate panel last week:

To have a clinical hold, as has been placed on AstraZeneca as of yesterday, because of a single serious adverse event is not at all unprecedented. This certainly happens in any large-scale trial where you have tens of thousands of people invested in taking part, some of them may get ill and you always have to try to figure out: Is that because of the vaccine, or were they going to get that illness anyway?8

AstraZeneca Seeks 30,000 Participants for U.S. Phase 3 Trial

In April, Oxford University’s Jenner Institute and Oxford Vaccine Group partnered with AstraZeneca to develop, manufacture, and distribute ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, which uses a replication-deficient chimpanzee viral vector based on a weakened version of a common cold virus (adenovirus) that causes infections in chimpanzees and contains the genetic material of the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein.9

AstraZeneca, which sponsors the clinical trials, began Phase 3 trials in the U.S. in late August. Phase 3 trials confirm and expand the evidence base for safety and efficacy of Phase 1 and 2 trials.  The U.S. trial, which aims to enroll about 30,000 participants, is currently taking place at 62 sites across the country, according to, a government registry, though some sites have not yet started enrolling participants. Simultaneously conducted Phase 2/3 trials were previously started in the U.K., Brazil, and South Africa.10

Transverse Myelitis Is A Rare But Serious Neurological Disorder

Transverse myelitis involves inflammation of the spinal cord, which carries signals to and from the brain through nerves that extend from each side of the spinal cord and connect to nerves elsewhere in the body. Symptoms of transverse myelitis include pain that can be sharp or blunt and may shoot down arms and legs or wrap around the trunk or chest; sensory problems such as tingling, numbness, pricking, coldness, burning and sensitivity to touch or temperature; weakness in the legs and possibly the arms causing loss of balance, difficulty walking, and loss of function, which may develop into paralysis; bladder and bowel problems such as constipation, incontinence, or frequent need to urinate; and sexual dysfunction. These problems may develop suddenly over a period of hours, or over days or weeks.11

About 1,400 new cases of transverse myelitis are diagnosed each year in the United States. Although some people recover from transverse myelitis with minor or no residual problems, the healing process may take months to years. Others may suffer permanent impairments that affect their ability to perform ordinary tasks of daily living. There is no cure for transverse myelitis.12

A 2018 study published in the journal Neurology, which examined evidence for a causal relationship between transverse myelitis and vaccination, concluded that: “the unbalanced distribution of these cases in the first 6 weeks after vaccination suggests that the association between vaccination and some cases may not be coincidental. Work is in progress to determine association of individual vaccine types with the course of TM.”13

High Percentage of Local and Systemic Side Effects in AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Trial

Preliminary results of the AstraZeneca’s Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials were published in The Lancet14in July 2020. There were 1,077 healthy adults ages 18 to 55, who were randomly given either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or the meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) vaccine. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the trial group given the experimental COVID-19 vaccine, and a portion of both groups received prophylactic paracetamol (acetaminophen) before vaccinations were administered.

Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported systemic reactions. Fatigue was reported in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group by 70 percent of the participants, who were not give paracetamol prior to vaccination, and in the MenACWY group by 48 percent of the participants without paracetamol. Headaches were reported in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group by 68 percent of the participants without paracetamol and 61 percent with paracetamol and in the MenACWY group by 41 percent of the participants without paracetamol and 37 percent of the participants with paracetamol.

Other systemic adverse reactions were common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine group: muscle ache—60 percent, malaise—61 percent, chills—56 percent, and feeling feverish—51 percent. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine group, 18 percent of participants without paracetamol and 16 percent of participants with paracetamol reported a temperature of at least 100.4°F, and two percent of patients without paracetamol had a temperature of at least 102.2°F. In comparison, less than one percent of those receiving MenACWY reported a fever of at least 100.4°F, none of whom were receiving prophylactic paracetamol.

The severity and intensity of local and systemic reactions was highest on the first day after vaccination.

Hold on AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Coincides with Historic Safety Pledge by Vaccine Companies

AstaZeneca put its trial on hold on Sunday, Sept. 6, but it was only made public following a news leak15 late on Tuesday, Sept. 8, the same day as nine pharmaceutical companies, including AstroZeneca, signed an historic pledge “to make the safety and well-being of vaccinated individuals the top priority in development of the first COVID-19 vaccines.”16 According to STAT News, the pledge was “an apparent attempt to provide public reassurance despite the widely held view that the COVID-19 vaccine development process is politically tainted.”17

U.S. Government Commits $1.2 Billion to Buy AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine

In May the U.S. government pledged to commit up to $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca to develop a coronavirus vaccine and to obtain at least 300 million doses of any COVID-19 vaccine the corporation gets licensed in 2020. The arrangement with AstraZeneca is labeled a public-private partnership and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) will provide technology transfers and scaled-up manufacturing.18


1 Robbins R, Feuerstein A, Branswell H. AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine study put on hold due to suspected adverse reaction in participant in the U.K. STAT News Sept. 8, 2020.
2 Feuerstein A., Covid-19 vaccine trial participant had serious neurological symptoms, but could be discharged today, AstraZeneca CEO saysSTAT News Sept. 9, 2020.
3 AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine AZD1222 clinical trials resumed in the UK. Sept. 12, 2020.
4 See Footnote 1.
5 Ring S, Paton J. AstraZeneca Still Aiming for Oxford Covid Vaccine by Year-End, CEO SaysBloomberg Sept. 10, 2020.
6 See Footnote 2.
7 Branswell, H. AstraZeneca resumes Covid-19 vaccine trials in the U.K. STATNews Sept. 12, 2020.
8 See Footnote 2.
9 See Footnote 3.
10 Footnote 2.
11 University of San Francisco. Transverse Myelitis USFC Health Dec. 22, 2019.
12 National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke Transverse Myelitis.
13 Shah S, Patel J., Development of Transverse Myelitis after Vaccination, A CDC/FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Study, 1985–2017Neurology (p5.099) Apr. 9, 2018.
14 Folegatti PM, Ewer KJ, Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS CoV-2:  a preliminary report of a phase ½ single-blind, randomized, controlled trialThe Lancet (pp 467-478) Aug. 15, 2020.
15 Cookson C, Oxford and AstraZeneca resume coronavirus vaccine trial Financial Times Sept. 12, 2020.
16 Business Wire. Biopharma Leaders United to Stand with Science. Sept. 8, 2020.
17 Facher L, Amid broad mistrust of FDA and Trump administration, drug companies seek to reassure public about Covid-19 vaccine safety STAT News Sept. 8, 2020.
18 Silverman E, U.S. gives up to $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca for Covid-19 vaccine STAT News May 21, 2020.
19 Allan A. and Szabo L. Regulators in the United Kingdom allowed the AstraZeneca vaccine trial to resume, but U.S. regulators are continuing to investigateThe Daily Beast Sept.  14, 2020.
20 Steenhuysen J, Taylor M. Exclusive: AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial in U.S. on hold until at least midweek – sourcesReuters Sept. 14, 2020.



AstraZeneca Made a Bone-Headed Decision to Not Be Transparent With American Public: Chris Meekins


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
I wasn’t pleased with what seemed to be some selective disclosure, if that was, in fact, the case. I was 
not on the call. I do own AstraZeneca in the fund for reasons unrelated to the COVID-19 vaccine. 
Ironically, it relates to their current drugs in their pipeline. But one never wants to see selective 
disclosure involved for any client base. 
Having said that, now that we are learning more about this disclosure, about the condition that led to 
the pause of the drug trial, you’ve had experience with vaccine trials before. How worrisome is this… 
for all us, hoping for a vaccine, sooner than later? Well, I think what history shows is that vaccines 
sometimes don’t work.


Disturbing – and frightening – revelations come to the surface.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram:@JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

With the 19th anniversary of 9/11 having just passed, Frontpage Mag editors have deemed it vital to run the special Glazov Gang episode in which Clare Lopez unveils how 9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran, revealing the many highly disturbing and frightening facts that we are simply not allowed to know.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch our 2-Part-Special with Clare on Post-9/11 - Helping Saudis Slip Away and Revealed: Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran.

[1] Post-9/11 - Helping Saudis Slip Away.

[2] Revealed: Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran.

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram:@JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.



“I don’t know how they’ll react to getting an offer of help from Satan.”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Like all progressive groups, The Satanic Temple came out in support of Black Lives Matter.

The Satanic Temple, which distinguishes itself from its rival, The Church of Satan, through its rigorously progressive politics while accusing The Church of Satan of libertarianism, put out a statement by co-founder Lucien Greaves that blasted President Trump and accused the police of randomly killing black people that could have come from any random leftist organization.

"I watched with dismay as, in reaction to the election of Donald Trump, the least qualified, least dignified, least competent president in all of U.S. history," complained Greaves, whose real name is Douglas Mesner, and who has been known to pose wearing goat horns on his head.

Steve Hill ran in a Democrat State Senate primary as the first Satanist to seek public office. While he lost, the Satanist and Bernie Sanders supporter was able to secure over 10,000 votes from California Democrats. Since then, Hill has participated in a Black Lives Matter rally and one comment noted the “solidarity between Black Lives Matter and Satanists.” 

Hill had mentioned reaching out to the Sanders campaign, but was cautious, noting, “I don’t know how they’ll react to getting an offer of help from Satan.”

While the Sanders campaign's response remains unclear, the American Humanist Association’s Freethought Equality Fund PAC did back Hill alongside establishment Democrat figures like Rep. Hank Johnson, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, and Rep. Pramila Jayapal. None of them were asked by the media how they felt about the backing of a PAC that was also supporting a Satanist.

The PAC described Hill as an atheist, it neglected to mention the Satanist part.

But The Satanic Temple has two faces. The Temple gleefully brandishes Satanic iconography and provokes people of faith, while its co-founders also run the Reason Alliance which cultivates a secular humanistic brand. At the Satanic Temple, its co-founder goes by Lucien Greaves, while at the Reason Alliance, he goes by Douglas Mesner, a Harvard alumnus.

That’s what allows a Satanist to be endorsed by a mainstream Democrat PAC.

While Republicans have been asked to disavow fringe candidates who run on their party line, Democrats haven’t been asked to disavow Hill or the political support of Satanists.

Even when they threaten violence.

“We are going to disrupt, distort, destroy," Jex Blackmore, the former national spokeswoman for the Satanic Temple, declared while surrounded by pig's heads. "We are going to storm press conferences, kidnap an executive, release snakes in the governor’s mansion, execute the president.”

After the video went viral, Blackmore was asked to step down with Greaves insisting that the organization, which has waged a long legal battle to claim that killing babies through abortion is a religiously protected Satanic ritual, is non-violent.

“When we say that somebody was removed for threatening execution on the president, that’s not to say that anybody in our group would cry if Trump died from choking on a ham sandwich tomorrow,” Greaves pointed out.

Mainstream Democrats have been quietly interacting with the group under its various guises.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, formerly a potential Biden VP pick, followed and interacted with Greg Stevens, also known as Priest Penemue, The Satanic Temple's Director of Ministry.

While The Satanic Temple may be an extreme example, a recent Pew survey found that after the Obama administration a majority of white Democrats identified as non-Christian. The Satanic Temple’s melding of radical leftist politics with paganism may be the wave of the future.

In 2017, thousands of Wiccans or Witches announced that they were casting a mass spell against President Trump. Michael M. Hughes, who takes credit for the spell, went on to write, "Magic for the Resistance: Rituals and Spells for Change" which includes chapters like “Hex the NRA” and “WITCH: Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell”.

It's one of a number of similar books like David Salisbury's “Witchcraft Activism: A Toolkit for Magical Resistance (Includes Spells for Social Justice, Civil Rights, the Environment, and More)” and Laura Tempest's, “The New Aradia: A Witch’s Handbook to Magical Resistance.”

The mixture of paganism and politics is active on Instagram with the Magic Resistance whose members burn photos of President Trump while reciting incantations.

Unlike conservatives, they have not been censored.

"Trump's Presidency Has Spawned a New Generation of Witches," Wired claimed.

“Within hours of Trump being declared president, our membership numbers really spiked," Lucian Greaves of The Satanic Temple has insisted.

The Trump Derangement Syndrome wave that mainstreamed extremist organizations like Black Lives Matter and Antifa among Democrats also benefited Satanists and Witches. The Democrats had made hostility to President Trump into their only core principle. And any pagan idea, no matter how extreme, became more acceptable as long as it was anti-Trump.

While some of the most public Satanists and Witches try to have it both ways, posing with horns and skulls, and then claiming that they’re trolling religious believers, it goes deeper than that.

In a conversation between Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors and BLM LA's chapter co-founder Melinda Abdullah, whose hate rally was linked to vandalism against synagogues in the area, the two appeared to discuss summoning spirits.

“You kind of invoke that spirit, and then their spirits actually become present with you,” Abdullah said.

“Each of them seems to have a different presence and personality," Cullors mentioned.

“We’ve become very intimate with the spirits that we call on regularly,” Abdullah claimed. “Each of them seems to have a different presence and personality."

While it’s easy to dismiss such behaviors as marginal, Hillary Clinton had held a seance in the White House to summon the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt.

The seance was overseen by New Age author Jean Houston who had been invited by Hillary along with Marianne Williamson. Williamson, who went on to run for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020, allegedly participated in the seances and stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom.

It’s hard to describe something as fringe when it’s standing on the DNC debate stage.

Williamson was cheered on by an "occult task force" and the Washington Post reported that "a group of 13 chaos magicians, witches and energy workers were performing synchronized 'gestures' to help Williamson get airtime at Tuesday’s debate".

To what extent are these private beliefs making their way into the government?

One of the more bizarre stories of Harry Reid's tenure heading up Senate Democrats was the $22 million he had earmarked for UFO research.

UFO's have been an obsession of Democrats with Jimmy Carter claiming to have seen one. 58% of Democrats believe in UFOs. That was why Hillary Clinton and her campaign chair, John Podesta, ran for office by promising to reveal the truth about them, generating headlines like, “Hillary Clinton Gives U.F.O. Buffs Hope She Will Open the X-Files.”

But Reid's millions were being spent not just on UFOs, but studying, "bizarre creatures, poltergeist activity, invisible entities, orbs of light". The research touched on claims of possession and psychic powers, crossing the realm from NASA to the supernatural.

Satanists, Witches, and UFOs are the natural preoccupations of a political movement that is losing its religion and filling the gap with political radicalism and primitive belief systems. It isn’t reason that replaces religion, but the primordial superstitions that religion cleared away.

The decline in faith among Democrat political elites leads to chanting spells, sacrificing goats, and watching the skies for the mystical revelations gathered from comic books and TV.

Democrats claim that they believe in science. But their idea of science is radical ideology and personal mysticism. A poll found 43% of liberals believed that astrology was scientific. 35% of Democrats claim to have experienced the paranormal and 69% of Democrats believe in ghosts.

No wonder that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s office worked with astrologers.

45% of Democrats believe in God: 39% believe in some other power or spiritual force. That’s why there are seances, spells, sacrifices, and trips to haunted houses and UFO landing sites.

America is still a free country, and people are entitled to believe whatever they like. But Democrats, radicals, and their media mouthpieces routinely present this as a clash of worldviews between superstitious religious believers “clinging to their bibles” and the rational proponents of reason with PhDs who “follow the science”, when it’s really a clash between traditional religious believers and radicals who believe they have supernatural powers.

Democrats like Biden strive to build an image of normalcy. Just don’t look too closely at the Satanists, Witches, and Astrologers, not to mention ghost and UFO hunters, behind the curtain.