America’s Frontline Doctors: Former Pfizer VP to AFLDS: ‘Entirely possible this will be used for massive-scale depopulation’

BY Mordechai Sones


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

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.

At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the world's population.

“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.

“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.

“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.

“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.

“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.

“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?

“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else.
Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.

“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”

AFLDS: The Israel Supreme Court decision last week canceling COVID flight restrictions said: “In the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.”

In a talk you gave four months ago, you said

“The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.

“The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.

“So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.

In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.

The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?

Yeadon: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2.
The study is from one of the best labs in their field.

“So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not “high throughput” and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.

“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non-vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double-edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.

“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”

My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it, therefore, allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.

For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.

Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.

Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?

Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?

And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?

“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.

“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.

“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.

“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”.

“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.

“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.

This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.

“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.

“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).

“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”

Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?

“Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA.
Always good quality interactions.

“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.

“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.

“The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.

“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s “Corona Committee” online.

“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.

“Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.

“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.

“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.

“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.

“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.

“As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.

“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the worlds population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.

“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”

Pastor James Coates returns to GraceLife CHURCH~RCMP (CANADIAN POLICE) try to disrupt services Sheila Gunn Reid was on scene at GraceLife Church in Edmonton, Alberta where Pastor James Coates returned to his congregation, having finally been released from jail after 35 days inside at Edmonton's Remand Centre. Alberta public health and RCMP officers wanted to come inside, but GraceLife representatives managed to talk them out of doing so, citing a section of the Criminal Code that prevents the disturbance of religious services. FULL REPORT from Sheila Gunn Reid:

KEYSTONE PIPELINE: ‘Energy Security Is National Security,’ Georgia Attorney General Says



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

More than 20 Republican state attorneys general have teamed up to oppose the energy agenda promoted by President Joe Biden. 

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss two lawsuits that he and other attorneys general have filed against the Biden administration in an effort to further American energy independence.

Carr explains that Biden’s executive actions stopping construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and limiting oil and gas drilling not only will have negative economic effects on individual Americans but adversely affect U.S. energy security. 

We also cover these stories:

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

  • The Supreme Court throws out a lawsuit over former President Donald Trump’s now-deleted Twitter account.
  • Google wins a major Supreme Court case against the computer technology corporation Oracle.
  • Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., says President Biden should cut his $2 trillion “infrastructure” plan to $615 billion.

Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.

Virginia Allen: I am so pleased to be joined by Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr. Attorney General Carr, welcome to the show.

Chris Carr: Virginia, great to be with you. Thank you for having me on.

Allen: Oh, it’s a pleasure to have you here. All right, so let’s go back for a moment to March 17th. That’s the day that you filed a lawsuit with 20 other Republican attorneys general against President [Joe] Biden’s executive order that stopped the construction of the Keystone pipeline. So share with us why you chose to sign on and file this lawsuit.

Carr: Well, first of all, Virginia, because the president doesn’t have the power to overturn the permit that was granted by an act of Congress. So on the legal side of things, we firmly believe it was an unconstitutional act, and he needs to be prevented from pulling that permit.

But let’s look at this also: This was a symbolic move. Pulling Keystone’s permit was, just plain and simple, political symbolism with real-world implications.

When you look at the number of jobs that had relied on this permit, that was already in place, the amount of investment, when you look at the impact on increased costs for fuel and energy for families and for businesses, these types of actions—in addition to being unconstitutional—are going to impact folks all across this country.

I really commend my colleague [Attorney General] Austin Knudsen from Montana for really spearheading this issue and all my other colleagues, because this is an issue that’s going to impact everybody around the country.

Allen: And we know that, of course, the environmental groups are some of the loudest individuals on this issue, that they have been so opposed to the pipeline for a long time.

So we’re hearing that argument a lot in the news, but we’re also hearing the argument that the global price of oil has dropped so much that it makes sense for America to continue importing our oil because it’s cheaper. What’s your response to this argument?

Carr: My response is that energy security is national security. And one, we need to be focused on our own energy resources, but two, here we have a partner in Canada that’s been our partner in the Keystone pipeline. Great security partner, great trading partner. And we are undermining that relationship in and of itself.

But at the end of the day, we want to be able to continue to grow and cultivate and focus on our energy security. Because now, again, if this pipeline is not built, it’s not going to come to the U.S.. It’s going to go somewhere, and it’s most likely going to go to China or overseas.

But in addition, we’re going to have to then rely on sources like Venezuela and the Middle East and others for our energy needs. It doesn’t make sense.

And to your point—that environmental groups on the left, that this has been an issue for them—this political symbolism of pulling this permit is simply a political reward for those that supported the Biden-Harris campaign, plain and simple.

Allen: So really, at the end of the day, in other words, you’re saying that this is also political fanfare on the part of the Biden administration, that there’s not really a concrete reason for pulling this permit.

Carr: That’s right. And again, you look at it, it’s political in nature, but it’s going to have an economic impact. To the point about the cost of energy, it’s going to go up. Supply is going to go down. Demand is where it is. The price is going to go up. That’s simple economics. And so, it’s very, very frustrating.

And in addition, though, we keep going back and pointing this out, Congress in 2011 authorized this program and this project. In 2019, President [Donald] Trump issued the permit. These companies, these states, these workers, and many of which are union—so it seems like that is something that may cut against the president kind of going down the line.

It’s union jobs too, but it’s an estimated 42,000 jobs with $2 billion in associated earnings that, again, would be positively impacting folks in the United States. So it just doesn’t make a lot of sense legally or politically or from a policy perspective.

Allen: Wow. Well, and obviously, the pipeline won’t run or wouldn’t run through Georgia, but how does its cancellation even affect the people of your state?

Carr: Absolutely. Look, again, when you’re talking about supply and demand, you’re talking about a supply of energy from Canada, there’s a tremendous amount. It’s going to increase costs for Georgia families and for Georgia businesses. It’s going to impact everybody from agriculture to manufacturing. You name it.

This is an issue that is going to impact everyone, and particularly if it doesn’t just stop here. If today it’s Keystone and tomorrow it’s the next pipeline, whatever it is down the line, this could be an issue that impacts everybody.

But again, going back to the legality of it, the president has to follow the law as well. The president has to follow our constitutional provisions as well.

Congress authorized this. The president doesn’t have the authority to do that, so that impacts all of us and how we govern ourselves, whether we’re in Georgia or Montana or Nebraska or wherever it may be.

So this is an issue that impacts all of us, but it is going to be felt economically both at the dinner table and across the industry down the line.

Allen: Regarding the lawsuit that you filed with 20 other attorneys general, what do you think is next for that lawsuit, and how quickly do you think we’ll be able to learn what’s next for the pipeline?

Carr: Well, it’s going to work its way through the system, sometimes it takes a little while. But again, I commend my colleague, Austin Knudsen. His office and our colleagues, we’re going to continue to push forward, because again, American companies, American jobs are on the line.

Folks have relied on this permit. Money has been invested. Time has been invested. The states have invested time and resources as well. There was a reliance on this. So with every day that goes by, more American jobs are being harmed. And so with that in mind, I hope this goes as quickly as possible.

Allen: Let’s take a minute to talk about another lawsuit that you filed with 12 other state attorneys general to block the Biden administration’s violation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Mineral Leasing Act.

So before we get into the details of the lawsuit, could you first just explain what the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Mineral Leasing Act are?

Carr: Yeah. So whether or not you can drill offshore or whether you can drill onshore, that’s basically the way to understand those two pieces of legislation.

And again, the bottom line, it goes right back to what we were just talking about. Energy security is national security. And to limit and prohibit our ability to tap into, safely, I would remind everybody, safely and in an environmentally responsible way, it matters. We need to be able to tap into those resources, and we can do it.

And the left is saying that this is intended to protect the environment, but the way we see it is it’s likely one of the single largest divestments of revenue for environmental protection in American history because of the revenues that come off of those leases.

So, again, once again we have just said that the president has overextended himself and gone beyond what he should be able to do, and we are asking the court to halt that moratorium on oil and gas leasing and drilling permits.

Allen: And talk a little bit about that larger long-term economic impact on America if this drilling is not able to continue.

Carr: Well, again, it goes back … We have done an outstanding job during the Trump years to really focus on a way to safely and securely ensure that we are secure from an energy perspective.

We’ve shown that we can utilize these resources, as far as offshore drilling and onshore drilling on government property, in order to benefit American families and American industry.

If you are going to continue, if the administration and others are going to continue to hinder that and limit it, it only drives up the costs for American families. And it also encourages us and it forces us to go rely on, again, the Middle East or Venezuela and other overseas countries and locations that we’re going to have to rely on for our energy needs, and that doesn’t make sense.

Again, going back to Keystone here, we’ve got a great trading partner in Canada. Why would we not rely on and continue to work with a great trading partner and a security partner like Canada?

Here we’ve got an opportunity with offshore drilling, and on government lands as well. We know we can do it. We know it can be done safely. We know it can be done in an environmentally responsible way.

Why would we not continue to do that? That is good for the nation. It is good for individual families. It’s good for states. It’s good for American industry.

Allen: And on that note of the environmental side of things, we hear this argument, as we’ve talked about, of environmental groups saying it’s not good for the environment.

But when you consider the safeguards that America has in place compared to other countries like China, Venezuela, how can we really say, “Wait a second, actually, we are taking much more precautions and doing a better job of stewarding our planet, taking care of the environment”?

And really because of that, it would be more beneficial for America to be taking the lead on this, instead of leaving it to other countries who aren’t going to take as much care in really protecting their environment.

Carr: Well, Virginia, you’ve just explained it probably better than I could, but that’s exactly right. We know that the technology is there.

Again, when was the last time that you heard of a major pipeline issue? The technology is there to make sure that there is double and triple backstops and protection in order to make sure that this is done safely and securely.

I would argue also, again, this is a philosophical difference, and I think it’s important to get the word out, but I do think the private sector has an extra incentive to do it the right way.

And whether it’s clean air, clean water, whatever we’re talking about, we all have to breathe that same air and drink that same water. We believe in, as conservatives, taking care of the environment. But the question is, who’s going to do it?

I don’t want to defer simply and solely to the federal government, because I think the state of Georgia does a pretty good job of protecting our natural resources.

I know companies can’t afford to have spills and disasters that occur that could impact their ability to do business and hire people to make things. So I firmly and fundamentally believe that the private sector has incentives to do this, and I also believe that the technology that we have in the U.S., to your point, is second to none.

We continue to innovate, we continue to be strong, and we have this incentive. But the question is, do you believe the government’s in a better position to do it, or do you believe that the private sector or even the states [are]? There’s a federalism argument here. Do you think it’s the federal government? Do you think your own state and local communities can do it?

And again, I trust the people of our state and the people that are involved in these issues from a private sector perspective. I think we’ve got good safeguards in place and … I put the U.S. up against anybody.

Allen: Considering what we’ve seen already from President Biden regarding his environmental and energy priorities, what do you think we can expect to see over these next four years?

Carr: More of it. There’s no doubt about it. And I think you’re going to see it particularly as you look at—we’re in a situation now that you have the White House, the Congress, and the Senate are in Democratic hands.

And I think you see the stronger and stronger pull all the time from those on the far left that are going to continue to push President Biden and his handlers to go farther and farther to the left.

So I think you’re just going to continue to see more and more. And I think, Virginia, that’s the reason I believe that my Republican attorneys general colleagues and I play such an important role. We’re big believers in federalism, and we know that the federal government’s got its role, state governments have [their] role, and it’s up to us to push back.

And if Congress and the Senate are all going to be in one political party’s hands and the White House is as well, there’s got to be a pushback from somewhere, and that’s coming from the states.

And we as the chief legal officers and chief law enforcement officers of our states are uniquely positioned to push back, to make sure that that tension based on the principles of federalism is there.

So I think you’re just going to continue to see more and more. And you saw folks on the other side during the Trump years, our Democratic colleagues filed lawsuits all the time, and that was largely based on personality.

We believe in the rule of law. We believe in the principles of federalism. You’re going to see the lawsuits that we bring based on those principles.

And I believe we’re going to be more strategic based on the law and on what we bring, but I think we’re going to be very effective as well, because the president said he wanted to be bipartisan, he wanted to work with Congress, and yet you see more and more use of executive orders.

You’ve seen more use of executive orders under this administration than any other in modern history. So we’ve got to push back, and we’re uniquely positioned to do that.

Allen: And why do you think that is? Why do you think that there is this sort of, almost seems like newfound boldness to be willing to use that executive power a little bit more forcefully than we’ve seen in the past?

Carr: Well, I spent a little bit of time in the Senate. I worked for one of Georgia’s senators, Johnny Isakson, who’s a great public servant. So I’ve had a chance to be able to see this.

And again, when the administration is of one party and the Congress and the Senate are of that same party, so often Congress defers to the executive branch. And I’ve never really completely understood that, because the legislative branch is supposed to be the first among equals and the representatives of the people.

But I see that more and more, and I think the world that we’re in right now is so polarized that you’re seeing a tremendous amount of pressure to go farther and farther. And again, when all of Washington is in one party’s hands, right now the Democratic hands, you’re going to just see that tension to go farther and farther.

I think it’s just kind of political physics, and that’s what you’re seeing. And I also think that oftentimes, there were folks that maybe they, on the left, that voted against Donald Trump. They didn’t necessarily vote for Joe Biden. And when they look up, they said, “Wait a minute. I’m not necessarily for him. I’m for something farther to the left.” They were for Bernie Sanders or they were for someone else.

So you’re seeing that pull farther and farther to the left, which is where it’s important for us as Republican AGs, as state Republican AGs, to provide that backstop, to provide those guard rails, and make sure that, again, the federal government doesn’t overstep its bounds, because I think there is a tremendous temptation now in Washington to federalize everything.

I mean, you’ve seen it. They want to do it with elections, with HR 1. They tried to do it in the COVID bill to prohibit our ability to provide tax cuts and tax treatment for our state’s increased deductions or credits just in the recent bill. You see it in our right to defend ourselves. You’ve seen it with health care. There’s going to be a tremendous temptation to federalize everything at this point, and that’s not right.

Allen: Attorney General Carr, thank you so much for your time. We just really appreciate you breaking down these issues for us and your leadership there in Georgia.

Carr: Well, Virginia, thank you so much for having me on. I really appreciate it.

Soros Group Pledges $20M to Boost Biden INFRASTRUCTURE Plan

Soros Group Pledges $20M to Boost Biden Plan



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

The George Soros-founded Open Society Foundations are pledging $20 million for a campaign to rally progressives to support President Joe Biden's infrastructure proposal, Axios reported on Monday.

Financial support from the group could help spur a vital call to action for Democrat donors and activists who back Biden's initial $2 trillion-plus infrastructure plan but are determined to see the president do more.

Biden is considering revealing later this month a second part of his overall proposal, which would have a broader focus on social welfare proposals — such as health care, the care-giving economy, climate, and community colleges.

The idea of the $20 million pledge is to help jumpstart as much as $100 million in funding to help encourage support for Biden’s overall agenda.

The money is expected to help activate many of the grassroots progressive groups that led the fierce opposition to the agenda of former President Donald Trump.

The  $20 million is expected to be funneled to such grassroots organizing — and not be used for paid advertising.

"We hope this effort on the part of organizers and donors will give the Biden administration and Congress the assurance that they need to go as big, bold, and fast as possible,” said Leah Hunt-Hendrix, who co-founded Way to Win, a progressive donor network.

Tom Perriello, the executive director of Open Society-U.S., said that "Every initiative proposed by President Biden has broad public support. But we’ve seen popular reforms get demonized before by partisans and special interests, and we are not going to let that happen."

Perriello added that "Facts don’t always win without some real muscle put behind getting those facts in front of the American people."

The funding for the campaign comes as progressives are walking a fine line between encouraging and antagonizing the White House, according to Axios.

Some progressive insist that Biden is not going nearly far enough in his proposals with, for example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez demanding $10 trillion in spending.

However, any such ultimatums that jack up the price tag and lead to more significant increases in taxes more could alienate moderate Democrat votes that Biden cannot afford to lose in his political battles.

Already, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed that his party will do all it can to oppose Biden's plans in their current form "every step of the way."

This, however, has not deterred Biden officials, who have said they are determined not to moderate their ambitions too much.

Those officials are strident in their belief that the Obama administration did not exert enough energy in battling for a larger stimulus package back in 2009, and they do not intend to repeat that move this time around.

The funding effort also comes as Republican congressmen are criticizing both the size of Biden’s proposed $2.25 trillion infrastructure plan and the fact that its funding is based on an increase in the corporate tax rate, while Democrats are touting it as a way to generate long-term job growth, The Hill reported.

Related Stories:

Raphael Warnock Preached Heresy on Easter

Sen. Warnock, a PASTOR Preaches Damnable Heresy on Easter



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

On Easter Sunday, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) — pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the same church Martin Luther King, Jr. pastored — tweeted a message that subverted the gospel of Christianity and preached utter heresy, rejected by Christian churches for more than a millennium.

“The meaning of Easter is more transcendent than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whether you are Christian or not, through a commitment to helping others we are able to save ourselves,” Warnock tweeted.

Warnock Easter Jesus
Twitter screenshot.

The senator received swift backlash for this heretical message.

“This is a false gospel and heresy. We cannot save ourselves. The absolute truth and only meaning of Easter that matters is the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and we must accept Him as Lord and Savior. Read Romans, ‘Reverend’ Warnock,” constitutional law attorney and former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis responded.

Trump Lawyer Stands Up for Christianity, BLM Leader Says It’s All About Her ‘Whiteness’

Indeed, Warnock’s statement is damnable heresy, and it is particularly tragic to see such heresy from a pastor of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s church.

First, Easter is significant primarily because of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection is the centerpiece of Christianity.

In the words of St. Paul, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (I Corinthians 15:14-19).

The Resurrection of Jesus flipped the world on its head. This event transformed disciples who had rejected Jesus on Good Friday into preachers who would die gruesome deaths standing by their message. That transformation arguably sparked an astounding movement toward individual freedom, since Christianity has been the driving force behind limited government, science, universities, capitalism, the abolition of slavery, medicine, organized charities, and more.

Christianity stands or falls on the Resurrection, and so much of the modern blessings we enjoy trace back to Christianity.

Yet the worst aspect of Warnock’s tweet came in the second statement: “through a commitment to helping others we are able to save ourselves.” Non-Christians may accept this statement, but Christians certainly must reject it. In fact, Christians have been rejecting it for more than 1,000 years.

In his letter to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul made clear that those who do not believe in Jesus Christ are spiritually “dead,” separated from the Creator of the Universe and the Source of ultimate joy by their own rebellion. The only solution to this horrible condition is the grace of God, not works that people can do to achieve salvation.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, lest any man should boast,” Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Warnock was far from the first to suggest that people could “save themselves” through good works. The heretical priest Pelagius taught that human beings are born without sin and that it was possible for people to achieve salvation through works without the grace of Jesus Christ. In 418, the Council of Carthage condemned this heresy in the strongest of terms, yet Warnock preached a form of Pelagianism on Easter.

Pete Buttigieg Twists Christianity: ‘Salvation’ Depends on Being ‘Useful’

So, where did Warnock get the idea that he should share outright heresy on Easter? The senator earned three degrees — master of divinity, master of philosophy, and doctor of philosophy — from Union Theological Seminary, the bastion of “progressive” Christian scholarship. Union has a powerful influence on the mainline Christian denominations, and it is partially responsible for the fact that mainline Christianity has long drifted to the Left, and away from the doctrine of the Resurrection.

As Allie Beth Stuckey explained, “as an advocate of Liberation Theology, [Warnock] views Jesus as an example of political activism, not as King & Conqueror of sin & death.” In Liberation Theology, “Jesus/Christianity is a means to their political and social activist ends, which they like to categorize as ‘helping others.'”

“Warnock’s ‘Christianity’ is that of social justice moralism, wherein Jesus is a mascot for his left-wing causes and beliefs & righteousness is earned via wokeness,” Stuckey added. “It’s the same view as Ibram X Kendi: Jesus is not a savior but a ‘liberator’–and not from sin, but from ‘systems.'”

For this and other reasons, Warnock was not even the first Democrat to recently preach a form of Pelagianism. Back in 2019, then-Mayor Pete Buttigieg declared that his faith says “salvation has to do with how I make myself useful to those who have been excluded, marginalized, and cast aside and oppressed in society.”

Warnock may have intended his heretical tweet to be “inclusive” of non-Christians on Easter, but in doing so, he excluded the gospel of Christianity.

While Warnock deleted his tweet, some on the Left came to his defense, condemning Ellis for calling a spade a spade.

“Sorry, but what are your credentials to debate theology with an actual pastor??? Defending Donald Trump, the golden idol of the right, as he lied to his supporters to further a grift on them?” MSNBC host Joy Reid asked Ellis.

“I’m an actual Christian,” Ellis replied.

Don Lemon Butchers a Key Christian Doctrine While Trying to Lecture America on Statues

Another MSNBC host, Mehdi Hasan, attacked Ellis for questioning Warnock’s credentials after supporting Trump, who “declared himself ‘the Chosen one’ and the ‘second coming’ of Jesus.” Yet the former president did not declare himself the “Chosen one” or the “second coming of God.” He merely shared a statement from Wayne Allyn Root claiming that “the Jewish people in Israel love him like he’s the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God.”

Hasan attacked Ellis for “questioning the Christian credentials and beliefs of a black pastor. ‘Reverend’? Shameful.”

“Trying to make this about race simply because he’s black is shameful. What matters is his heresy, not the color of his skin,” Ellis replied.

Indeed, the heresy has nothing to do with Warnock’s race and everything to do with the claim that human beings can save themselves. Pelagianism does not cease to be Pelagianism when a black person or a liberal champions it.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

VIP: Jesus Christ: A Solid Rock in Trying Times
Marco Rubio’s Easter Week Bible Verse Triggers the Woke Mob
CPAC Leader Warns ‘Statues of Jesus Are Next.’ Leftists Immediately Confirm His Concerns
BLM Leader: Statues and Stained Glass of Jesus Are ‘White Supremacy,’ Must Be Torn Down


DEBUNKED: Heretical Hot Takes on Jesus & Easter

Yesterday was Easter, and most of us were spending time with our families, thinking about the ultimate sacrifice made by God and Jesus. However, progressive Christians on Twitter were as active as ever, offering their wrong opinions on how Easter and Jesus' resurrection are actually about being anti-capitalist, or anti-racist, or something. These are aspects of liberation theology, a wholly un-biblical way of looking at the Bible.

The Biden Effect: China to deploy 5,000 troops in Iran, build military base there~Iran Wants Over $3 Billion to Negotiate with Biden



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

This will prop up the mullahs, who are so unpopular among the Iranian people that the Islamic regime might otherwise have fallen.

“Urdu-Language Daily: ‘More Than 5,000 Chinese Troops Will Be Deployed In Iran, And A [Military] Base Will Be Built,'” MEMRI, April 2, 2021:

On March 27, 2021, China and Iran signed an economic and security cooperation agreement according to which Beijing will invest $400 billion in Iran over the next 25 years. This is a far-reaching agreement that is certain to increase the Chinese strategic influence in the Middle East for decades to come.

The article in the Urdu daily Roznama Ummat.

Pakistani analysts are also watching how China’s new focus on Iran will influence Chinese investment in Pakistan. In a report, the Urdu daily Roznama Ummat tried to assess the impact of the Chinese agreement with Iran. 

The report is titled: “The Deployment Of 5,000 Chinese Troops In Iran [is] Part Of The Agreement.” The Roznama Ummat report sees the deployment of 5,000 Chinese troops in Iran in positive terms for regional stability. Following is the text of the report.

“More Than 5,000 Chinese Troops Will Be Deployed In Iran, And A [Military] Base Will Be Built For Them”

“In the agreement with Iran regarding the investment project, China has also included a clause for deployment of its troops there; and more than 5,000 Chinese troops will be deployed in Iran, and a [military] base will be built for them. Before this, China has also put its signature on investment projects with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which shows that China is implementing a plan to increase its influence in the Middle East.

“Contrary to the general impression, analysts are also seeing positive impact of the Chinese investment in Iran on the CPEC [China-Pakistan Economic Corridor] project underway in Pakistan… China is going to get cheap oil from Iran which will go to China via Pakistan. Similarly, China’s [investment projects] with Pakistan are, instead of financial benefits, of strategic nature.

“Pakistani experts and analysts who observe these matters deeply completely reject the general concern in Pakistan that China is now moving in the direction of Iran [thereby abandoning Pakistan]. They say that the recent pact between China and Iran for economic cooperation will not be an alternative to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and will be rather nourishing it.

“According to experts, China has tried to wriggle itself out of the consequences of the American sanctions by cooperating with Iran in long-term economic and infrastructure construction and security matters. Iran has agreed to sell its oil to China at a price cheaper than international rates to get an assured source of income and so that the sale of its oil can continue without any obstacles. The documents of this [China-Iran] agreement have not yet emerged, but as per the known details, during the next 25 years Chinese projects worth $400 billion can significantly help in creating economic stability in Iran’s damaged economy. In exchange for it, China will get oil, gas, and petrochemical products at cheaper prices from Iran.”

Former Pakistani Ambassador Iqbal Ahmed Khan: “America Has Sidelined Both Pakistan And Iran Which Forced Us To Look Toward Others; China’s Cooperation With Iran Will Benefit Pakistan Directly”

“According to the agreement signed between the two countries, 5,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army of China will also be deployed in Iran which is being opposed in Iran – at the forefront of which is the former President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. An analyst… has written that that this agreement, giving China an opportunity to deploy 5,000 security and military officials on the Iran territory, is a regional game-changer.

“Meanwhile, as per Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed, the chairman of the Pakistan-China Institute, the Iran-China agreement is positive for the interests of Pakistan and the region because this will nourish a regional economic cooperation whose center is Pakistan, that is CPEC [China-Pakistan Economic Corridor]. Mushahid Hussain expressed the hope that it will help in providing stability to the role of [Chinese-built] Gwadar port in promoting regional cooperation between China, Afghanistan, Iran, and the countries of the Middle East and in stabilizing Baluchistan [the insurgency-affected Pakistani province along Iran’s border].

“Former Pakistani ambassador Iqbal Ahmed Khan, who is the professor of international affairs at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), says that China’s investment project with Iran is part of its $8 trillion Border and Road Initiative (BRI) projects, the CPEC being one of them. It is not correct to compare China’s investment in Iran with the CPEC in Pakistan because both of them are Chinese investments and the two will be aiding each other, and its benefits will reach all the three countries [China, Pakistan, and Iran].

“The former ambassador [Iqbal Ahmed Khan] said that China’s investment in Iran is not at the cost of Pakistan. He said that America has sidelined both Pakistan and Iran, which forced us to look toward others; China’s cooperation with Iran will benefit Pakistan directly. Iran’s oil, which currently travels 13,000 miles to reach China, will now travel 1,500 miles through the safe passage in Pakistan to reach China…”

Source: Roznama Ummat (Pakistan), April 1, 2021.


Iran Wants Over $3 Billion to Negotiate with Biden~

How many billions will Biden’s date with terror cost?



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.

After North Korea’s latest missile test and a threat from Kim Jong-Un’s sister that if the Biden administration “wants to sleep in peace for [the] coming four years, it had better refrain from causing a stink”, the administration had a firm and unyielding response to the threats.

Officials told the media that the Biden administration sees North Korean missile tests as "normal military activity" and that they "don’t want a situation where it is perceived that our door is not open to talk.”

North Korea knows that Biden’s barn door is wide open. The snarling threat by Lil Kim's sister was the first North Korean response to a month of diplomatic overtures from Biden.

That came after Biden's people had waged a desperate campaign of "diplomatic outreach" to everyone from North Korea's UN mission to Kim Jong Un's hairdresser.

Yet another senior Biden administration official claimed that they had been reaching out “through several channels", but "have not received any response from Pyongyang.”

The response finally came in the form of a missile launch and a vicious threat.

All of that is a long way from Biden’s tough talk on the debate stage when he attacked Kim Jong-Un as a “thug”, and vowed to meet with him only “on the condition that he would agree that he would be drawing down his nuclear capacity.” So much for that. Now Biden is begging the thug to talk on any terms and getting nowhere in that department.

Or in any other department.

Biden would like to get back into bed with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not only was restoring Obama’s Iran nuclear sellout one of the biggest foreign policy pledges of his campaign, but the Democrat pol has been funded by the Iran lobby for much of his career.

After 9/11, he thought a fit response would be to send a $200 million check to Iran. 

He picked Rob Malley, the lead negotiator for the Iran deal, as his envoy to Iran, and a guy who loves Islamic terrorists almost as much as Biden loves groping protesting women.

With that kind of political pedigree, you would think that Tehran Joe could get a mullah or two on the phone. Unfortunately for Joe, even the mullahs have higher standards.

Iran's foreign ministry turned down informal talks with the Biden administration, while the Bidenites pleaded for another chance.

"While we are disappointed at Iran’s response, we remain ready to reengage in meaningful diplomacy,” Biden’s White House pleaded.

Nobody else seems very interested in a meaningful diplomatic relationship with Biden that will include long walks on the DMZ beach, sipping champagne from radioactive warheads, and holding conferences that have no purpose except to make him appear competent.

Maybe that’s because they know that Biden’s meaningful diplomacy is meaningless.

Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who had often met with Senate Democrats and top Obama officials during the Trump administration, initially suggested that Iran might agree to consider an “informal meeting ... in which the United States is not a member, but is invited.”

That would have been the most awkward date ever, even by the standards of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, a guy who likes smelling strange women’s hair in public, and Kamala Harris, who built her political career by dating a married politician twice her age.

But the Iranians decided that they couldn’t even participate in a meeting at which a United States representative was present, even if that rep, like Rob Malley, was really representing everything and everyone but America, possibly from George Soros to his father’s Egyptian Communist Party, unless there was money in it for Tehran in the form of direct sanctions relief.

Iran wants to be paid to even sit at the same table or it’s not coming. That’s not diplomacy: it’s prostitution. The only date Biden can get with Iran will cost billions of dollars. That’s a lot even for a five-star restaurant near the UN patronized by the corrupt diplomats of Turtle Bay.

How many billions will Biden’s blind date with terror cost? More than a billion. Or three billion.

Biden had told CBS's Face the Nation that he was not going to lift sanctions on Iran to get it to negotiate with him. As usual, he was lying. Behind the scenes, the Biden administration was looking for a way to get sanctions relief to Iran without making it public.

Obama had illegally airmailed pallets of foreign currency on unmarked cargo planes. The Biden administration told South Korea that it could send a billion to Iran in exchange for releasing a tanker that it was holding hostage. But that’s still not good enough for Iran. It wants more.

After that initial $1 billion, the Islamic regime announced that the Biden administration had approved the release of $3 billion from South Korea, Oman, and Iraq.

Still not good enough.

Iran wants the full $7 billion from South Korea, some estimates place it at $8.5 billion, and there’s another $6 billion sitting in Iraq. It’s unclear how much of the money has been released yet, with Biden’s people vocally claiming that all of these reports are wholly and entirely false.

Iran's Central Bank governor Abdolnaser Hemmati however has said, “The payment will be in cash which will be transferred to our banks.”

That’s more convenient than Obama’s pallets of foreign currency on unmarked planes.

But whatever amount Iran has been paid hasn’t been enough to get it to sit at the same table with a bunch of Bidenites. That’s going to cost more than a mere $3 billion.

As long as Biden keeps paying, Iran will negotiate over whether to attend an informal negotiation as a prerequisite to a formal negotiation to return to an accord that it won’t keep.

And if you think that’s absurd, Biden has paid out $3 billion without even getting his foot in the door. It’s going to cost a lot more than $3 billion to go to the actual formal negotiations and then to a renewed agreement which the Iranians will violate while laughing all the way to the bank.

Meanwhile, Biden can’t fulfill his campaign promise to revive the Iran Deal because the Iranians won’t even start negotiating with him on the best way to get America to pay for its nuclear program, until the Democrats start presenting the cash to the terrorists up front. Or no deal.

Having gotten nowhere with Iran on its nuclear weapons program, the Biden administration proposed resolving the mess in Afghanistan by asking "the United Nations to convene Foreign Ministers and envoys from Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, India and the United States to discuss a unified approach to supporting peace in Afghanistan". Too bad that 4 out of 6 of those countries actually benefit from an ongoing war in Afghanistan and want us to bear the brunt of it.

Iran is behind much of the terrorism on the planet: including in Afghanistan. Why would it want to work with Biden on bringing peace to Afghanistan when it can bring terror and death instead?

The Biden administration can’t answer that or anything else. Its solution to everything is to call some sort of multinational conference. The wave of proposed multinational conferences is as staggering as it is silly and pointless. Biden wants to partner with China on denuclearization for North Korea. But why would China want to relieve the pressure on America and South Korea?

That’s about as likely as Iran relieving the pressure on America.

When Biden ended support for the campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, the Iranian-backed Jihadist group whose motto is “Death to America” responsed by ramping up its attacks.

“Tragically, and somewhat confusingly for me, it appears that the Houthis are prioritizing a military campaign ... over suspending the war and moving relief to the Yemeni people,” State Department special representative Tim Lenderking wondered.

Only a madman, an idiot, or a diplomat would think that it’s unexpected for an Islamic terrorist group to respond to appeasement by “prioritizing a military campaign” rather than providing relief for a famine that it had caused to begin with. But Democrats insist on being surprised by the obvious and the inevitable all the time. They’re surprised that Iran is demanding cash for negotiations and they’re surprised that their meeting with China was an even bigger disaster.

They’re surprised that North Korea isn’t interested in a meeting either.

Biden begs America’s enemies to negotiate and is then surprised when they demand that he pay for the privilege. And that makes sense. If the Democrats want North Korea or Iran to waste its time pretending to negotiate with them, there had better be a carrot or a stick involved.

Whether there’s a carrot or a stick won’t change the pointlessness of the negotiations. But if there isn’t a stick, then the dictators, tyrants, and terrorists want to be paid for their time.

That’s not unreasonable.

If Biden wants to date Iran, the mullahs warn him that he’s going to have to pick up the check.

There’s only one enemy country that wants to talk to Biden and it’s the world power that Democrats use as both a pretext and a model for domestic repression in America.

The Trump administration had refused to renew the START treaty that limited America's military capabilities while allowing Moscow to cheat as much as it wanted. The Russians had asked for at least a one-year extension, while the Trump administration had demanded a tougher deal.

Biden offered a five-year extension, no questions asked, and the Russians happily took it. Unlike Iran, they didn’t even make Biden pay them to humiliate his own country and undermine its national security. Now that’s what a good diplomatic relationship looks like to a Democrat.

Democrats may be striking out with North Korea and Iran, but they’ll always have Russia.

At least until they have to blame whatever horrible thing Hunter Biden did this time on Moscow.