Biden’s plan to open separate Jerusalem consulate for Palestinians violates US law



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

The White House lived up to its promise to send Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the Middle East to “rebuild ties” with Palestinians. In fact, it exceeded expectations, with a pledge by Biden to ask Congress to donate $75,000,000 to the Palestinians. It didn’t stop there. Blinken formally announced the decision to reopen the Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem during a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. But to do so isn’t legal according to the article below, which was written by Mark Meadows, chief of staff to former President Donald Trump, and David Milstein, who served as special assistant to the US ambassador to Israel.

A Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem violates the Jeruslem Embassy Act that Trump activated in 2017. The Act recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and calls for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city.

Although Biden stated that Israel has a right to defend itself, his administration has bent over backwards to send the message to Palestinians that America under Biden supports the Palestinian cause —

which is jihad for the eradication of Israel.

“Biden’s plan for a diplomatic mission to the Palestinians blatantly violates US law,” by Mark Meadows and David Milstein, New York Post, May 26, 2021:

As presidential candidate, Joe Biden was asked if he would reverse President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Biden promised, “I wouldn’t reverse it.”

But candidate Biden also proposed re-opening the US diplomatic mission to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, which had merged with the Jerusalem embassy in 2019.

Now Team Biden is moving forward with the latter initiative. On May 25, Secretary of State Antony Blinken formally told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Washington would seek to reopen this diplomatic mission. The move contradicts Biden’s campaign promise not to renege on the recognition of Jerusalem, since a pair of missions in the same city undercuts Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital. It also breaks the Jerusalem Embassy Act that sought to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem no later than 1999 — a law Biden voted for along with 92 other senators.

The 1995 law states that “Jerusalem should remain an undivided city, in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. … Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.” In 2017, on the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem’s reunification in the Six Day War, the Senate unanimously voted to reaffirm the act and called upon the US to “abide by its provisions.”

Former President Donald Trump fulfilled the will of the American people, as expressed by Congress, by relocating the embassy in 2018. In February 2021, the Senate also adopted an amendment by a 97-3 vote to “make the US Embassy in Jerusalem permanent, effectively preventing it from being downgraded or moved out of Israel’s capital, Jerusalem.”

The Biden administration’s intent to reopen a separate diplomatic mission to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital and the location of the US Embassy, would be a violation of US law, wrongly signaling that Washington supports dividing Jerusalem.

If implemented, this could signal the return to a misguided diplomatic arrangement, under which the US ambassador to Israel historically lacked jurisdiction over the eastern part of Jerusalem, the West Bank or Gaza. Instead, a US consul general led a separate diplomatic mission to the Palestinians, who had jurisdiction over those geographic areas. The consulate general didn’t even report to the US ambassador to Israel, but directly to the State Department, often sending conflicting reports to DC.

The diplomatic mission included the US consulate general’s official residence, located in the western part of Jerusalem, thus resulting in the US having a diplomatic mission to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, despite that the fact that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.

The Trump administration’s decision to merge the US diplomatic mission to the Palestinians into the US Embassy in Jerusalem remedied the prior arrangement and implemented a key aspect of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which requires that the US Embassy in Jerusalem include the ambassador’s official residence.

Reopening this separate diplomatic mission to the Palestinians would therefore render the US government noncompliant with American law…..

Biden Statement on Anti-Semitism Fails to Mention Violent Muslim Assaults on Jews



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

Like so many of these hollow condemnations, antisemitic attacks seem to spring out of thin air. They occur as a result of some sort of disembodied force to which we are witness, but which we are unable to name.

“We have seen a brick thrown through the window of a Jewish-owned business in Manhattan, a swastika carved into the door of a synagogue in Salt Lake City, families threatened outside a restaurant in Los Angeles, and museums in Florida and Alaska, dedicated to celebrating Jewish life and culture and remembering the Holocaust, vandalized with anti-Jewish messages,” Biden says.

Bricks somehow fly on their own and swastikas carve themselves on doors.

People did these things. Some of them have been arrested. Certainly, the attackers in New York and LA had things in common. Most notably they were flying PLO flags.

Biden carefully avoids mentioning that.

Only one of the paragraphs in his 2-page statement even lays out what is happening, and it actually fails to mention a single violent attack.

Muslim attacks in the last few weeks put at least two people in the hospital, one with burns and the other after a severe beating.

Biden’s statement focuses on vandalism. Only one of the incidents references any of the physical attacks and instead of describing it as an attack, Biden says merely “families threatened outside a restaurant in Los Angeles”.

People weren’t just threatened. They were assaulted. It’s on the damn video.

Biden makes no mention of any of the violent physical attacks on Jews in New York City but finds it much more important to mention swastika vandalisms by white supremacists in Alaska and Utah. Those are legitimate issues, but when people are being violently assaulted and put in the hospital by Muslim thugs, focusing on vandalism is a clear distraction from a subject Biden doesn’t want to address.


COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Still the Power Behind the Throne OF BIDEN

CFR: Still the Power Behind the Throne



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

For a century, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations has been the “power behind the throne” in U.S. politics. This tradition has continued under the Biden administration.
William F. Jasper

2021 is a big year for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an organization that often is heralded as the most influential think tank in America, if not the entire world. Prominent on the Council’s website ( is its centennial page, “Celebrating A Century,” a self-congratulatory promo of the organization’s accomplishments over the past hundred years. The promotional features an impressive cavalcade of pictorials, videos, and articles showcasing the Council’s worldly influence and power, as demonstrated by the hundreds of presidents, prime ministers, princes, potentates, politicians, kings, diplomats, and dictators — including mass-murderers — who have graced the organization’s meetings, and/or have written for its famed journal Foreign Affairs. 

The CFR does indeed wield unparalleled influence in political, financial, business, media, and academic circles, and is regularly showered with accolades by “the great and the good.” It is the public face, the brain trust, and the central nervous system of what critics refer to as the Deep State — the unelected “permanent government” that has hijacked our country.

In April 1945, just days before the end of World War II, Secretary of State Edward Stettinius journeyed to Pratt House, the CFR’s headquarters in New York City. He had come, he said, to “bear witness, as every Secretary of State during the past quarter of a century, to the great services and influence of this organization in spreading knowledge and understanding of the issues of United States foreign policy.” Every secretary of state since then has continued the tradition. As you will see in the accompanying table showing CFR influence in the State Department (pages 26-27), Secretary Stettinius and almost every one of his successors — until the Trump administration — has been a member of the Council. And now, with the enthronement of Joe Biden, that CFR control of the State Department has resumed, with CFR member Antony Blinken taking over as secretary, and a bevy of Council members filling out the top posts at State and in the rest of the Biden Cabinet.  

Authors Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas referred to the Council’s leading lights as “The Wise Men,” a reverential term that has been generously applied to the CFR at large by the Council’s academic and media shills. Journalist and presidential speechwriter Joseph Kraft famously referred to the Council as a “School for Statesmen.” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist-historian David Halberstam called it “the Establishment’s unofficial club.” Historian and presidential advisor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. described the CFR as a “front organization” for “the heart of the American Establishment.” Like Secretary Stettinius, all of the individuals offering these respectful remarks were themselves prominent CFR members, though they were not identified as such when they made the comments. 

However, a description by another Council member, author-journalist Richard Rovere, conveys a more ominous and telling image. “The directors of the Council on Foreign Relations,” he said, “make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation.” Rovere’s choice of the word “Presidium” was apropos. He obviously was comparing it to the murderous, unelected, and unaccountable gang of criminals that ran the Soviet Union and still runs communist dictatorships such as China and North Korea. That such a body “guides our destiny as a nation” should be a truly chilling thought for every American. However, Rovere appears to have offered that evaluation as a compliment to his fellow CFR members, not as a condemnation, thus reinforcing the perception gained from decades of observing the CFR elite hobnobbing with the communist elite that the Pratt House princelings are far more comfortable with communist absolutism than with constitutionally limited government.

Those familiar with the true history of the Council on Foreign Relations know full well that its hundred-year history is a sordid record of treachery, treason, subversion, and betrayal. That is a serious charge, but it is not hyperbole, as we will show within the limits of this short survey. The history of the CFR is a chronicle of a century-long war against national sovereignty, and an unremitting effort to build an all-powerful world government, which CFR globalists have frequently referred to as their “New World Order.” 

Yet, despite being composed of the high and mighty of American society, and despite its central role in global events and its extensive connections to world movers and shakers, the Council was largely unknown to most Americans for much of its existence. That is as the Council’s leaders desired since they preferred to be the power behind the scenes. Modesty was not the reason they operated in the shadows; they knew that openly revealing their agenda would invite a severe public backlash from the American people. In the past two decades, the CFR has come out more into the open, and its president, Richard N. Haass, and various CFR spokesmen and “experts” now appear regularly as Wise Men in the major media, dispensing their wisdom to the masses on sundry topics. Their increased public visibility has not brought any genuine transparency, but for those with eyes to see and brains to reason, the past four years and the past few months have removed all doubt about the existence of the Deep State and its tyrannical designs for our future. 

The unprecedented fury of the non-stop attacks on President Trump, his family, his administration, and his supporters — not only by the “liberal” media and “progressive” Democrats, but also by neoconservatives, “moderate” Republicans, and a host of high-level government officials (some retired and some still serving) — has awakened millions of Americans to the fact that there is a hostile power operating not only within the highest levels of our government but within the top levels of institutional power throughout our society. If you are among the newly awakened, it is crucial that you understand that this hostile power — this “power elite,” as leftist professor C. Wright Mills and conservative columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt referred to it — is not a recent phenomenon. The CFR Deep State, as noted above, has been building and concentrating its power for a century, patiently penetrating and corrupting all of our foundational institutions.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ founders were the architects of, and propagandists for, the failed League of Nations following World War I, as well as engineers of the successful effort that launched the United Nations after World War II, and the multitude of UN agencies and international organizations that have burgeoned forth since then. They have been the primary moving force behind virtually every destructive policy that has been undermining America on all fronts, while simultaneously aiding our enemies. Through both Democrat and Republican administrations, the CFR’s members and minions have provided the leadership for the devastating programs and policies that are now dangerously close to extinguishing freedom as we know it and terminating our constitutional republic. They are, for example, the main promoters of, and cheerleaders for, open borders, unsustainable spending and taxing, foreign aid, LGBTQ “diversity,” racial polarization and discord, election thievery, gun confiscation, feminization and politicization of our military, fanatical environmentalism, global-warming hysteria, COVID panic and medical dictatorship, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Fake News, Big Tech censorship, oppressive regulation, trade policies that are outsourcing our industry and technology, communistic cancel culture, federal usurpation of state and local authority, indoctrination of our children and youth in immorality and Marxist ideology — and much, much more.

Deep State Comes Out

The CFR elite are celebrating 2021 not only because it is their organization’s centennial year, but because they have succeeded fabulously in creating chaos by undermining our nation in all the areas listed above. And they have succeeded in ousting President Donald Trump and installing their favored candidate, Joe Biden, in the White House. Biden is not a CFR member, but he has loaded his administration with Pratt House “Wise Men” (see page 17) and has reversed course on nearly every front where President Trump had moved against the CFR globalists’ New World Order agenda. During a videotaped appearance on January 23, 2018 at the Council’s headquarters, Biden uttered a revealing comment. When CFR President Richard N. Haass introduced himself and remarked that he worked for the Council, Biden, who was sitting next to Haass, quipped, “And I work for Richard.” Just a harmless joke, right? But, as the well-known adage goes, “Many a truth is spoken in jest.” The same applies to the comment by Hillary Clinton, who, while secretary of state, admitted at the CFR’s new Washington, D.C., office that she had been many times to the organization’s “mothership” in New York, but that the new office was much more conveniently located. “We get a lot of advice from the Council,” she claimed, “so, this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing, and how we should think about the future.” (Emphasis added.)

Having surrounded himself with CFR globalists, Joe Biden will likewise rely on the Council to tell him what to do and how to think — except that in Biden’s case his mental deterioration before our very eyes makes it increasingly doubtful that he is capable of doing or thinking anything independent of his handlers. That being said, Biden’s allegiance to that subversive agenda has never been in doubt. While the CFR-dominated Fake News Media (see page 18) have continuously portrayed Biden as a moderate and a centrist, his votes, words, and actions during his 36 years in the U.S. Senate and his eight years as vice president under President Obama clearly showed that he was one of their agents. In addition to his official record as a career politician, Biden has telegraphed his true orientation repeatedly over the past nearly half-century. Take, for instance, his 1992 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled “How I Learned to Love the New World Order,” which we have referenced many times in this magazine over the years. Besides the title, another big tell in Biden’s op-ed was his proposal to “breathe life into the U.N. Charter” by, among other things, providing it with permanent military forces. 

It’s worth noting the timing of Biden’s WSJ article as well as its content. Recall that it was published in the same time frame in which then-President George H. W. Bush was repeatedly invoking the New World Order (NWO) in televised speeches and sending massive U.S. military forces to war in Iraq for the purpose, he said, of helping bring about “a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders.” (We’ll return to those “visionary” founders later on.) So, Joe Biden was one of the prominent globalist Democrats chosen to reinforce globalist Republican George Bush’s NWO message. In truth, both Biden and Bush, like thousands of other Democrats and Republicans, wear their party labels to disguise the fact that they are actually members of a CFR-directed duopoly, a globalist Uniparty.

Joe Biden: The CFR’s Man in the White House

Want another clue as to Joe Biden’s real loyalties? Consider that when Joe and Jill decided to get married in 1977, they chose the chapel of the Church Center for the United Nations (CCUN) at UN Plaza in New York City. The CCUN refers to itself as “A Door to the U.N.” and is a stalwart promoter of the UN drive for “World Order.” The CCUN building was dedicated in September 1963, with UN Secretary-General U-Thant, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Adlai Stevenson (CFR), and U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk (CFR) all speaking at the ceremony. The Church Center was originally administered by the National Council of Churches, a Rockefeller-financed operation to coopt Christianity to support a world religion and world government. Subsequently, the United Methodist Women, a radical feminist organization that supports the entire UN agenda, took charge of the Church Center and continues to run it today.

Does it not speak volumes that Joe Biden, a “devout Catholic,” chose the UN’s Church Center for his wedding when he had dozens of Catholic churches in Washington, D.C.; New York City; and his native Delaware from which to choose? It certainly fits with his pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ “marriage” positions that clash with the teachings of the Catholic Church but are perfectly in sync with the UN agenda. During the administration’s first press conference, on January 21, 2021, when Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked about Biden’s pro-abortion stance conflicting with Catholic doctrine, she immediately replied with this canned response: “I will just take the opportunity to remind all of you that he is a devout Catholic and somebody who attends church regularly.” And that “devout Catholic” response has been endlessly echoed by the controlled media’s talking heads, not only with regard to Biden, but also with regard to Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo, and other “Catholic” politicos who push a leftist agenda at odds with the official teaching of their church. President Barack Obama was similarly described by his deputy press secretary, Bill Burton, as a “devout Christian.” The same description has been applied to Jimmy Carter, and, yes, even Bill and Hillary Clinton. 

All of this proves the adage that “hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” Globalist politicians who scorn Christian morality nonetheless realize that most Americans still consider themselves to be Christians. Thus, woke politicians (such as Biden) make sure to include campaign photo-ops at churches and to sprinkle their speeches with biblical quotes and references to God. But Biden’s speechwriters must have missed the “God thing” memo. How else to explain the bizarre neglect of God in his presidential “prayer” for the 70th anniversary of our National Day of Prayer. It was a first! “Devout Catholic” Joe Biden didn’t mention God, Jesus, or the Bible even a single time, although he did work in Marxist notions of “a reckoning on racial justice” and “the existential threat of climate change,” among other politically correct themes. This is in keeping with the Deep State’s ongoing campaign to de-Christianize America: First remove God and prayer from schools and the public square, then remove God and prayer from prayer! 

Perhaps Biden was channeling Karl Marx during his odd National Day of Prayer event. He certainly has been channeling World Economic Forum CEO Klaus Schwab and the WEF’s “Great Reset” scheme to “reset” the entire planet — politically, economically, socially, morally, and spiritually — in accord with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. According to the WEF’s website, “COVID-19 offers a chance to reset and reshape the world in a more sustainable way.” It calls on everyone to “imagine another world, one in which we can sustain ourselves as envisioned in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” The UN’s SDGs, as regular readers of The New American recognize, are the centerpiece of Agenda 2030, the UN’s detailed plan for total control of everyone and everything on, in, and above planet Earth — all in the name of saving “the environment” and establishing “equity.” Hence, the world’s richest billionaires and their kept politicians flew into Davos, Switzerland, for the WEF’s annual champagne-and-caviar confab in 2020 to announce to the world’s proletariat (that’s the rest of us) that we must tighten our belts, give up driving cars and eating meat, and submit to draconian regimentation (including lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine passports) and a host of other new regulations. The World Economic Forum’s rollout of their Great Reset in 2020 was well-timed to assist Joe Biden.

Team Biden launched into its first 100 days in the White House with a rush of activity to implement the joint WEF-UN “crisis” agendas related to COVID-19 and global warming. Biden announced the United States would again support the UN’s Paris Climate Agreement, which President Obama had illegally committed us to (without Senate ratification), but which President Trump had subsequently backed us out of. Mimicking the central planning of the Chinese Communist Party, Biden launched a whole-of-government assault on carbon-based fuels and brought out a $2 trillion climate deal that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) says is very similar to her socialist Green New Deal. He further announced that he was reversing President Trump’s orders that had stripped the UN’s scandalous World Health Organization (WHO) of U.S. staff and funding. Trump had scheduled a U.S. pullout of the WHO for July 2021, which Biden has also reversed. 

Biden’s moves in these and other areas mirror the “global governance” plans of the wannabe world commissars of the WEF and UN. They also mirror the schemes of the CFR, which is not surprising, since CFR leaders played key roles in setting up and promoting both the WEF and the UN. Top CFR members also help govern the WEF and serve as major presenters at the WEF’s glittering soirees. Billionaire David M. Rubenstein, chairman of the CFR (and co-founder and co-executive chairman of the Carlyle Group) sits on the WEF board of trustees. Among the other CFR notables on the WEF board are Marc Benioff, founder and CEO of Salesforce, and Laurence D. Fink, chairman and CEO of BlackRock. Former U.S. Senator and Secretary of State John Kerry (a CFR member), who now serves as Biden’s “climate envoy,” has been a frequent attendee of Davos, and this past January he gave a double thumbs-up to the Great Reset, telling the privileged Davos crowd, “I think it will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine.” Kerry, who is also referred to as Biden’s “climate czar,” has been given a seat on the National Security Council, a signal by the Biden administration that it has adopted the CFR’s claim that climate change is a national-security issue, thereby justifying — even demanding — more government control over everything affecting climate change. According to the climate alarmists, this means virtually all human activity.

CFR Running the Executive Branch — Again

Kerry is not the only CFR member to be appointed to the Biden administration. In fact, Joe Biden’s Cabinet and higher echelon “public servants” choir are beginning to look like the CFR White House stables of old. As the tables on pages 24-27 show, the Council has, over the decades, gained a lock hold on the Executive Branch of our federal government. From FDR through Obama — through both Republican and Democrat administrations — the CFR has functioned as our “Invisible Government,” as constitutionalist author and former FBI agent Dan Smoot called it in his 1962 book of that title, one of the earliest critiques of the Council. From Secretary of State An-tony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, and Director of the CIA William J. Burns, to White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki (and many more — see page 17), Joe Biden — or whoever is overseeing him — has stuffed the upper management of our government with the usual CFR retreads. And there are yet many important vacancies to be filled, many of which undoubtedly also will go to Pratt House camp followers. 

Why is it not a concern — or even a news story or topic of discussion — that a semi-secret club of uber-powerful individuals such as the Council on Foreign Relations has attained a virtual monopoly on the running of our nation? The CFR, with an exclusive membership numbering a little more than 5,000, serves as a revolving-door placement service that rotates its people from government “service” into top slots in the corporate, philanthropic, media, academic, and think-tank worlds, and then back into government stints as “public servants.”

Elite Wall Street banker/lawyer John J. McCloy, who served as chairman of the CFR from 1953 to 1970, was an advisor to nine U.S. presidents and was known as “the chairman of the Establishment.” In an interview with the New York Times, he recounted how he filled the top government posts with CFR members. “Whenever we needed a man we thumbed through the roll of the Council members and put through a call to New York,” McCloy said. His successor as chairman, David Rockefeller, continued the process, as have Rockefeller's successors. The Council’s 2020 Annual Report says that 374 of its members hold posts in government. Imagine the media outcry if the National Rifle Association, with 5.5 million members, had that many members in such important posts! Or Christian, conservative groups such as National Right to Life with seven million members, the Knights of Columbus with two million members, or any number of other organizations. But we won’t have any national conversation about that because, as you will see on pages 18-20, the CFR has managed to place its members into controlling positions in the major corporate media. In plain words, the fix is in. The three-letter “news” organizations — ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, NYTWSJ, FOX, NPR, etc. — are merely echo chamber adjuncts of the CFR. They simply tell us, “Nothing to see here, move along.”

Just “Conspiracy Theory”?

However, the power and influence exercised by the Council go far beyond the sowing of their members throughout our government, the media, and other American institutional power bases. The Council has its counterpart in England, a sister organization known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), also known as Chatham House, which, like the CFR, traces its origins back to the aftermath of World War I. In more recent years, the CFR has launched the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and the Council of Councils (CoC), which brings together CFR affiliate organizations from 24 countries, including Russia and Communist China. In addition, the CFR is joined at the hip with the David Rockefeller-founded Trilateral Commission and the super-elite, super-secret Bilderberg Group. Moreover, its members move in and out of top posts at the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN. To top it off, it has a corporate membership that includes global giants of Big Business, Big Banking, Big Tech, Big Data, Big Media, and Big Pharma. In short, the CFR has unparalleled reach and clout. 

Whenever anyone brings up concerns about the outsized influence wielded by the Council, its collaborators/defenders are ready with the all-purpose “conspiracy theory” label, which is supposed to render critics immediately non-credible. George Gavrilis (CFR), the author of the CFR’s recent centenary book, The Council on Foreign Relations: A Short History, attempts to dismiss legitimate public concerns with the usual resort to ridicule. He recounts in the book “a particularly colorful theory that linked the Council to an intergalactic conspiracy.” “Back in 1954,” Gavrilis writes, “Eisenhower met secretly with aliens in Morocco, and they appointed the first extraterrestrial ambassador to the United States. With the help of the Council, the government was keeping the alien invasion a secret from the American people.” Ah, yes, ha ha, those crazy people with their tinfoil hats and aliens in flying saucers.

This type of attempt to silence critics by gaslighting and derision still works with those who are weak of mind and/or weak of backbone, but it is having less and less effect on millions of Americans who can see with their own eyes that we are headed in a very bad direction, and also can see who is leading us there. 

On February 17, 1950, Wall Street banker James P. Warburg, an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt, told a U.S. Senate Committee, “We shall have world government whether or not we like it ... by consent or by conquest.” He was in favor of it and did all within his power to advance it. He was also a member of the CFR, as was his father, Paul Warburg, known as the “father” of the Federal Reserve System. Various prominent Council members have made similar statements and have used their positions of power to advance the CFR objective of world government. With the COVID and climate-change “crises,” the Council and its globalist allies are pushing the Great Reset to wipe out the middle classes all over the world to concentrate all power — political and economic — in their hands.

Over the past century, many brave Americans have exposed this conspiracy reality — it’s no longer “conspiracy theory” — and have absorbed the slings and arrows of mockery and ridicule. The John Birch Society has been the tip of the spear in these efforts and has provided not only rock-solid information exposing this criminal effort to steal our country and our freedom, but proven, reliable leadership and an action program to stop and defeat this scheme. For books and videos covering these issues in-depth, see the advertisement on the inside back cover. The Deep State’s infernal grip on our nation — and the entire world — will not be broken unless more Americans awaken, expose the CFR’s growing control, and oppose its diabolical New World Order agenda.


POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: RUTGERS UNIVERSITY Chancellor Apologizes For Condemning Anti-Semitic Attacks~Students for Justice in Palestine Protests Condemnations of Antisemitism



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

It’s George Orwell’s world and we’re only living in it.

There’s an insidious argument being advanced in the wake of the Israeli-Hamas war. It posits the notion that criticizing anti-Semitism in the United States is the same as being anti-Palestinian. How that topsy-turvy, upside-down logic made its way into the mainstream is unclear. But the argument has been embraced by the left — probably because it stifles debate on their own rabid Jew-hate.

A case in point is what happened to Chancellor Christopher Molloy of Rutgers University. Molloy issued a somewhat confusing statement, condemning anti-Semitism on Wednesday.

“We are saddened by and greatly concerned about the sharp rise in hostile sentiments and anti-Semitic violence in the United States. Recent incidents of hate directed toward Jewish members of our community again remind us of what history has to teach us. Tragically, in the last century alone, acts of prejudice and hatred left unaddressed have served as the foundation for many atrocities against targeted groups around the world.”

Of course, Molloy had to check all the boxes in condemning all hate.

“Last year’s murder of George Floyd brought into sharp focus the racial injustices that continue to plague our country, and over the past year there has been attacks on our Asian American Pacific Islander citizens, the spaces of Indigenous peoples defiled, and targeted oppression and other assaults against Hindus and Muslims.”

Ordinarily, that reference to “targeted oppression and other assaults” against Muslims might be seen as condemning anti-Palestinian hate.

But Molloy failed to condemn Israeli violence against Palestinians. This hurt the feelings of Palestinians who have worked hard to create their own status as victims and get angry when their labors aren’t recognized.

So Molloy sent out another email the next day, apologizing for his oversight and implicitly acknowledging that it was wrong to condemn anti-Semitism so prominently.

“We are writing today as a follow-up to the message sent on Wednesday, May 26th to the university community. We understand that intent and impact are two different things, and while the intent of our message was to affirm that Rutgers–New Brunswick is a place where all identities can feel validated and supported, the impact of the message fell short of that intention. In hindsight, it is clear to us that the message failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community members. We sincerely apologize for the hurt that this message has caused.”

Causing hurt to some of those who hate just isn’t part of the social justice agenda. Hate, at least against certain people and certain groups, should be allowed to grow in the breast of a social justice warrior until it bursts forth in a spasm of righteous indignation.

Or a Molotov cocktail thrown into a police station.

In his eagerness to be “inclusive” in condemning hate Molloy has beclowned himself.

David Bernstein:

If a condemnation of antisemitism in the U.S. because of a recent upsurge in violence, threats, and vandalism, combined with a condemnation of all other forms of bigotry, triggers Students for Justice in Palestine, the chancellor’s response could have taken many forms, including silence. The one response that’s completely unacceptable is to endorse SJP’s view that condemning antisemitism in the United States makes you anti-Palestinian, or indeed reflects any view on the Arab-Israeli conflict at all.

This kind of Orwellian doublethink has become the norm on the left. That you can both condemn hate while at the same time condemning calling out the haters would have been considered insane a few years ago.

Now it’s mainstream thought at a major university.

An earlier version of this article misattributed the quote above to Eugene Volokh. We apologize for the error.


Students for Justice in Palestine Protests Condemnations of Antisemitism



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

The antisemitic attacks led to fewer and even weaker condemnations. And now an apology for the condemnation.

A Rutgers University chancellor and provost apologized on Thursday for a previous message that condemned recent incidents of antisemitic violence in the US after it was denounced by a pro-Palestinian campus group — with school administrators regretting that their original statement “failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community members.”

The original message, issued Wednesday by Rutgers–New Brunswick Chancellor Christopher J. Molloy and Provost Francine Conway, was titled “Speaking Out Against Acts of Antisemitism,” and expressed sadness over a rise in anti-Jewish harassment and attacks during the past several weeks.

This is exactly the argument that lefties had used against All Lives Matter only to completely embrace it when it comes to antisemitism.

There wasn’t a surge of violence against Muslims or specifically those Muslim settlers who claim to be “Palestinians”. There was one against Jews.

And yet even that condemnation had to be pulled.

The backstory is that the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) hate group is very active at Rutgers. And the college has seen a good deal of antisemitic incidents. One of which they were being investigated for during the Trump administration where campus antisemitism was being taken seriously.

SJP Rutgers was really unhappy with the condemnation of antisemitism.

The statement by the Rutgers chapters of the SJP hate group complains that the college’s statement “exclusively addressing antisemitism comes during a time when Israel’s occupation of Palestine is finally receiving widespread criticism”.

The SJP hate group chapter suggested that condemning antisemitism was an effort to “conflate antizionism with antisemitism and derail Palestinian voices and activism.”

SJP also insisted “if the Chancellor and Provost were truly committed to creating “a safe learning environment that is inclusive of difference” as claimed in their statement, they would stand in active support of the Rutgers New Brunswick Palestinian population as well as its Jewish population.”

As the media continues advocating for Emily Wilder, this is a good time to remember just how antisemitic SJP really is.


Creepy Joe Biden Tells Little Girl She ‘Looks Like She’s 19’



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

Let me start by saying this is not normal. This is creepy. It’s not funny or amusing. This is just awful.

During a speech at Joint Base Langley-Eustice in Hampton, Virginia on Friday, Joe Biden got distracted by a young girl, reportedly elementary school-aged remarked on her barrettes and how she “looked like a 19-year-old”  the way she sat “with her legs crossed.”

Right after praising Governor Northam, whom he called on to resign two years ago, Biden spoke of military families present, before calling out one family that was sitting on the stage.

“And I want to thank — thank you for all that you do to represent these service veterans because they’re devoted to you; for the family members, the caregivers, survivors who call Virginia home. I’m especially honored to share the stage with Brittney, and Jerdan, and Nathan, and Margrit Katherine,” he began, before going off-script and talking to the little girl sitting on the side of the stage. “I love those barrettes in your hair, man.  I tell you what — and look at her; she looks like she’s 19 years old, sitting there with her — like a little lady with her legs crossed.”

This is hardly Joe Biden’s first time making creepy statements or doing creepy things with young girls.

Two years ago, Biden’s remarks towards a ten-year-old girl at a campaign event raised some eyebrows. He’s been photographed many times over the years being very handsy with young girls and women. Eight women also came forward accusing Biden of inappropriate behavior, including one woman, Tara Reade, who accused him of sexual assault. In 2019, she said that Biden used to touch her inappropriately while she was a staffer in his Senate office in 1993. “He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck,” Reade said. “I would just kind of freeze and wait for him to stop doing that.”

Reade later expanded on those allegations, claiming in March 2020 that Biden sexually assaulted her by pushing her up against the wall, kissing her and sliding his hand up her shirt and up her skirt. Reade says she attempted to file a claim, but Biden was ultimately protected by loyalists on his staff. The credibility of her claims was boosted by the release of a clip of the Larry King Live show during which her mother called in anonymously asking the panel for advice on how to handle a situation with her daughter and a prominent U.S. senator.


On Memorial Day, Celebrate Such Men and Women Because They Lived

American Wood Sign Flag iStock-509865809

“There’s a serenity about Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery. It is a peaceful place.” – Mark Oliva IMG iStock-509865809

BY JIM GRANT & Mark Oliva


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

U.S.A. -( There’s a serenity about Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery. It is a peaceful place. It’s where I choose to celebrate Memorial Day.

Some might feel it is an odd expression to say someone celebrates Memorial Day. This is the day, of course, set aside to memorialize those who have fallen in war defending our nation. Arlington National Cemetery’s Section 60 is where many of those men and women who fought and died in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other far-flung places in the War on Terror are buried.

It is where they are at rest. Arlington National Cemetery is where I know too many names etched on the white marble headstones. It is 639 acres of ground sanctified by the blood of our nation’s warriors dating back to the Civil War. This ground, and the hundreds of national cemeteries around the country and overseas, is where millions will pause, remember these men and women and take stock of what they fought so bravely to preserve.

Their Lives

We visit their final resting places but hold them in our memories and in our hearts. That’s where they live. I celebrate them for the indelible mark they made on my life and the devotion to our nation’s highest ideals.

They are Marines with whom I served. I lived with them. I laughed with them. I struggled through dark days with them. And now, I celebrate them.

They were men like Major Doug Zembiec, known as the “Lion of Fallujah” who stood on tanks in the middle of battles to direct fire into buildings so his Marines could advance. Buried here too is Master Sgt. Aaron Torian, a Marine Special Operator who I came to know in 2006 when he patrolled areas south of Fallujah that were wrought with danger. There’s also Major Megan McClung, a marathoner who organized a forward-deployed Marine Corps Marathon race, complete with medals for the finishers.

They are among the dozens and dozens of men and women we pause to remember. I celebrate them.

Nothing negates the loss of these warriors. Time heals, but the absence lingers. There are moments for that. That’s not where I remain. I choose to celebrate them.

Their Gift

I celebrate that such men and women lived. They truly lived life to its full potential. They poured out their hearts for their nation they loved. They fought valiantly on the field of battle and they honored the ideals and promise of our nation with their sacrifice.

Many of us in the firearm industry know this. Many of us have worn our nation’s uniforms and ran to the sound of gunfire. We’ve mourned the days we lost men and women like these. Those were hard days, carrying flag-draped transfer cases aboard aircraft to be sent home one final time.

Especially those of us in the firearm industry, we know how truly fortunate we are to have such men and women among us. We are blessed that they stood to be counted and those who served alongside them know how much better we are because of them.

That’s why on Memorial Day, I invite you to celebrate them too. I invite you to recognize the gift of freedom they preserved for our nation. Take a moment to honor that sacrifice and weigh the cost of the freedom we enjoy.

Then celebrate that such men and women lived.

Mark Oliva is Director, Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. He is a retired Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant with 25 years of service, including tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Albania, and Zaire.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit

National Shooting Sports Foundation



Vatican hails Berlin interfaith shrine containing synagogue, church and mosque



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

The non-Muslims involved in this project have no idea of how they’re being played, and would accuse anyone who tried to explain it to them of “Islamophobia.”

Here is the full statement I sent to Church Militant:

This is a deceptive project that will not lead to any good outcome. It is a manifestation of this Qur’an verse: “And do not argue with the People of the Book except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 29:46)

This may appear to be a generous statement of interfaith understanding, but it is actually an example of Islamic proselytizing. Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb explained what is behind it: “The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers] is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.” Dialogue, in other words, is a means of dawah, Islamic proselytizing, not a genuine discussion or exchange. The proclamation that we all believe in the same God is a prelude to the appeal to accept Muhammad as a prophet and the Qur’an as a holy book.

Meanwhile, in this building, presumably the Gospel will be proclaimed, as well as the Qur’an. In the Qur’an, the Virgin Mary gives birth to Jesus, but it is stated that he is not the Son of God (19:35), not divine (5:17), and was not crucified (4:157), and thus could not be and is not the savior and redeemer of the world. This will be a decidedly mixed message. If past experience of “interfaith dialogue” is any guide, it will be resolved by the Christians toning down proclamation of the distinctive aspects of their faith so as to avoid offending the Muslims. This will make their proclamation closer to Islam in its character, as all will be left will be a declaration of monotheism and little else, and this will be viewed by the Muslim party as a victory of their proselytizing and sign of the submission of the Christians required in Qur’an 9:29.

Nothing will be said of Muslim persecution of Christians. Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, Massachusetts even said explicitly a few years ago that he didn’t want to have a public discussion of Muslim persecution of Christians for fear that it would harm Muslim-Christian dialogue. That epitomizes the futility and self-defeating nature of this dialogue. It won’t save a single Christian from persecution or a single church from being destroyed. This interfaith “temple” will make the Jews and Christians feel good about their openness and generosity, and the Muslims think they’re making progress in proselytizing. It will fuel all the worst impulses in Islam for supremacism and the superseding of Judaism and Christianity.

“Berlin Builds Rome-Backed Interfaith Shrine,” by Jules Gomes,, May 27, 2021:

BERLIN ( – In a historic first Thursday, a coalition of Jews, Christians and Muslims laid the foundation stone of a 47-million-euro interfaith shrine on the ruins of the 12th century St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Berlin.

Hailed by the Vatican as a “house of prayer bringing the three world religions together under one roof,” but slammed by faithful Catholics as “gnostic” and “syncretistic,” the House of One anticipates Pope Francis’ own pet project of an Abrahamic House.

The federal and state governments are pouring 30 million euro of taxpayer cash into the edifice, besides financing several staff positions including a social media team. Private donors are supplementing the remaining costs.

However, none of the revenue from Germany’s church tax will go into building the House of One, the organizers clarified.

The Berlin archdiocese is involved in the project. “The archbishop of Berlin is not a sponsor but is linked to the project. Archbishop Heiner Koch is a member of the foundation’s board of trustees,” the Catholic Saint Hedwig Centre announced.

Singing Praise

“We consider ourselves very lucky to have our Catholic brothers and sisters from Berlin archdiocese and Archbishop Heiner Koch on our side,” House of One organizers tweeted during the inauguration.

L’Osservatore Romano, the pope’s official newspaper, praised the project as an “innovative project that creates a common space for the three great, monotheistic religions.”

Former German president (2010–2012) Christian Wulff urged critics of the House of One to read Pope Francis’ recent encyclical Fratelli Tutti.

“I think it is very helpful for the concept of the ‘House of One’ — especially the pope’s advice that God loves all people regardless of their religious affiliation,” Wulff said.

Archbishop Koch, known for his support of homosexual relationships, told Catholic critics the interfaith project would “enable a dialogue process that does not exclude the intellectually critical” and would also include nonreligious people.

Reality: Islamic Proselytizing

In comments to Church Militant, renowned Islamic historian Robert Spencer warned that the “deceptive project is actually an example of Islamic proselytizing,” and “will not lead to any good outcome.”

Spencer cited Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb as saying: “The chasm between Islam and jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.”

“Dialogue, in other words, is a means of dawah, Islamic proselytizing, not a genuine discussion or exchange. The proclamation that we all believe in the same God is a prelude to the appeal to accept Muhammad as a prophet and the Qur’an as a holy book,” Spencer warned.

Spencer, author of over 21 books on Islam and the Middle East, elaborated:

If experience of “interfaith dialogue” is any guide, it will be resolved by the Christians toning down proclamation of the distinctive aspects of their faith to avoid offending the Muslims. This will make their proclamation closer to Islam, as all will be left will be a declaration of monotheism and little else, and this will be viewed by the Muslims as a victory of their proselytizing and sign of the submission of the Christians required in Qur’an 9:29.

Nothing will be said of Muslim persecution of Christians. It won’t save a single Christian from persecution or a single church from being destroyed. This interfaith “temple” will make the Jews and Christians feel good about their openness and generosity, and the Muslims think they’re making progress in proselytizing. It will fuel all the worst impulses in Islam for supremacism and the superseding of Judaism and Christianity.

A wooden model of the piazza has already been erected on the site and “multifaith meditations” are already being held in this provisional edifice as a marketing tool for donations.

The shrine is being built on the Petriplatz in Berlin’s oldest district of Cölln on the Spree Island on the site of the bombed-out St. Peter’s Church, which was torn down in 1964 after it suffered severe damage during World War II.

The ancient Catholic Church is mentioned in a document dating back to 1285 and was converted into a Protestant church after the Reformation….

FDA document reveals 86% of children who participated in Pfizer covid vaccine trial experienced adverse reactions



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

(Natural News) A publicly-available FDA “fact sheet” document reveals that 86% of children who participated in a Pfizer covid vaccine trial reported adverse reactions ranging from “mild” to “serious.”

As part of the vaccine experiments, children aged 12 to 15 are being injected with mRNA sequences that take control of their cells, causing them to churn our spike proteins in their blood. Spike proteins cause vascular disease and blood clots. Even the Jonas Salk Institute conclusively identifies spike proteins as the culprit behind vascular disease and blood clots.

This is all openly admitted by the FDA, which has published extremely disturbing reports of adverse reactions experienced by children in a Pfizer covid vaccine “fact sheet” labeled 144413. See the original FDA document here (PDF).

In case the FDA removes this sheet, we have archived it at Natural News servers here (PDF).

FDA admits mRNA vaccines cause adverse reactions in 86% of children, but calls it “safe” anyway

This Pfizer page at the FDA provides links to all the fact sheets and press releases where the FDA celebrates expanding its emergency use authorization to children aged 12 to 15.

That fact sheet contains the following table that details the alarming rate of side effects and damage experienced by 12 – 15-year-olds (i.e. children) who were given the mRNA injections:

Table 5: Study 2 – Frequency and Percentages of Adolescents With Solicited Local Reactions, by Maximum Severity, Within 7 Days After Each Dose – Adolescents 12 Through 15 Years of Age

As you can see from the table, 1127 children were given the first dose of the vaccine, and 1097 children received the second dose. What happened to the 30 children who didn’t show up for the second dose? Did they die? Why were they removed from the second dose?

Among those children injected with the mRNA vaccine medical experiment:

  • A shocking 86% experienced side effects.
  • Nearly 44% suffered “moderate” side effects defined as “interfering with activity.”
  • 66% of the children experienced fever.
  • 65% suffered headaches.
  • Other side effects experienced by these children as part of these medical experiments include chills, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, muscle pain and even joint pain.
  • Even after 86% of children experienced such side effects after being injected with the first dose, researchers continued to inject the children with a second dose.

The FDA claims this is all about “protecting” children while pushing more vaccine sales to generate billions of dollars in profits for Pfizer

The FDA claims in its celebratory press release that expanding Pfizer’s experimental vaccine to 12 to 15-year-olds is a kind of breakthrough, not a crime against children:

“The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15 years of age is a significant step in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D. “Today’s action allows for a younger population to be protected from COVID-19, bringing us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy and to ending the pandemic. Parents and guardians can rest assured that the agency undertook a rigorous and thorough review of all available data, as we have with all of our COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorizations.”

In other words, the FDA is admitting they are fully aware of the 86% side effect rate when it comes to injecting children with experimental mRNA “vaccines.”

Vaccine medical experiments are harming children in the name of Big Pharma profits

When it comes to mRNA vaccine trials in the USA, when serious reactions such as facial paralysis are identified in the vaccinated group, the FDA (and presumably, the researchers) dismiss them as coincidence. From the FDA’s own document:

Bell’s palsy (facial paralysis) was reported by four participants in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine group. Onset of facial paralysis was Day 37 after Dose 1 (participant did not receive Dose 2) and Days 3, 9, and 48 after Dose 2. No cases of Bell’s palsy were reported in the placebo group. Currently available information is insufficient to determine a causal relationship with the vaccine.

Thus, no matter what horrific side effects are caused by the vaccine experiment, they are dismissed and ignored. After all, there are billions of dollars to be earned from authorizing vaccines for widespread use in children. (It’s a whole new demographic market to target.)

This FDA document even admits the vaccine is not approved and may cause serious injury or even death:

FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which is not an FDA-approved vaccine.

Adverse Reactions in Clinical Trials

Adverse reactions following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that have been reported in clinical trials include injection site pain, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, fever, injection site swelling, injection site redness, nausea, malaise, and lymphadenopathy (see Full EUA Prescribing Information).

Adverse Reactions in Post Authorization Experience

Severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and other hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritus, urticaria, angioedema), diarrhea, vomiting, and pain in extremity (arm) have been reported following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outside of clinical trials. Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

The FDA also admits that life-threatening anaphylactic shock may occur following the vaccine, or that vaccine recipients may lose consciousness:

Appropriate medical treatment used to manage immediate allergic reactions must be immediately available in the event an acute anaphylactic reaction occurs following the administration of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

Syncope (fainting) may occur in association with the administration of injectable vaccines, in particular in adolescents. Procedures should be in place to avoid injury from fainting.

Any rational person, after reading this “fact sheet” from the FDA, would express serious concern over the continued recruitment and exploitation of children as human guinea pigs in vaccine medical experiments.

This is why we continue to sound the alarm on such practices.



Covid vaccine spike proteins attack male fertility, too


Jim Meehan, MD, has a candid “doctor to doctor” discussion with Professor of Medicine, Peter McCullough, MD, about why he changed his mind on recommending the Covid vaccine to his patients, especially if they have already recovered from #Covid19.

BOMBSHELL: Fauci Pushed for ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research in 2012, Said It Was Worth the Risk of Pandemic

Paul Amendment bans funding for 'gain of function' research in China

Rumble — In an exclusive interview, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told One America News about his amendment to ban gain of function research amid questions on the origins of coronavirus. One America's John Hines has more from Capitol Hill.

Sen. Rand Paul: Rejection of Trump Theory of Wuhan Virus is Standard Tactic of Left

Rumble — In an exclusive interview with One America News Senator Rand Paul discussed the evidence that the coronavirus may have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China. This is the same claim that President Trump made over a year ago. One America's John Hines has more on this report from Capitol Hill.



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

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director and medical advisor to Joe Biden, defended controversial “gain-of-function” research in 2012, and said the research was worth the risk of a pandemic.

“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” Fauci wrote in an article in  the American Society for Microbiology in October 2012—which was first reported by The Australian. “Scientists working in this field might say — as indeed I have said — that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Gain-of-function research involves extracting natural virus samples from animals and engineering them to infect humans for the development of therapeutics and vaccines.

This stunning revelation comes on the heels of researchers raising new questions about the origins of the COVID-19 virus. It also comes after Dr. Fauci’s recent admission that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sent $600,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for research into the transmissibility of bat coronaviruses to humans, and his concession that COVID-19 may not have been naturally occurring after insisting for over a year that it was. Earlier this week, Facebook made an unusual reversal of its policy banning posts suggesting that COVID-19 may have originated in a Chinese laboratory. A House GOP report also found that “significant circumstantial evidence raises serious concerns that the COVID-19 outbreak may have been a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” and that Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID funded work there that “appeared to directly or indirectly involve controversial ‘gain of function’ research.”

Gain-of-function research is not only controversial, but two years after Fauci defended it, the U.S. government banned the practice on account of it being too dangerous. But it seems Fauci found a loophole and used NIH grant money to fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Fauci may be trusted by Joe Biden and many other Americans, but he may have been directly involved in funding the research that ultimate caused the COVID-19 pandemic.

Elementary School Teacher Placed on Leave After Insisting Biological Boys Can’t Become Girls



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

A Virginia elementary school gym teacher has been placed on leave after delivering a speech to his school board announcing that he will not “affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa,” according to a report from Fox News.

“My name is Tanner Cross and I am speaking out of love for those who are suffering from gender dysphoria. ’60 Minutes’ this past Sunday interviewed over 30 young people who transitioned but they felt led astray because of lack of pushback or how easy it was to make physical changes to their bodies in just three months. They are now de-transitioning,” he pointed out.

Cross proceeded to speak out about a new school policy, 8040, requiring staff in Loudoun County, Va., schools to use the preferred pronouns of students.

“LCPS staff shall allow gender-expansive or transgender students to use their chosen name and gender pronouns that reflect their gender identity without any substantiating evidence, regardless of the name and gender recorded in the student’s permanent educational record,” policy 8040 reads. “School staff shall, at the request of a student or parent/legal guardian, when using a name or pronoun to address the student, use the name and pronoun that correspond to their gender identity. The use of gender-neutral pronouns are appropriate. Inadvertent slips in the use of names or pronouns may occur; however, staff or students who intentionally and persistently refuse to respect a student’s gender identity by using the wrong name and gender pronoun are in violation of this policy.”

Another policy, 8350, instructs staff to “allow gender-expansive and transgender students to participate in such activities in a manner consistent with the student’s gender identity.”

“It’s not my intention to hurt anyone,” Cross continued in his speech to the school board. “But, there are certain truths that we must face when ready. We condemn school policies like 8040 and 8035 [sic] because [they] would damage children, defile the holy image of God. I love all of my students but I will never lie to them regardless of the consequences. I’m a teacher but I serve God first and I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it’s against my religion. It’s lying to a child, it’s abuse to a child, and it’s sinning against our God.”

Fox News obtained an email from the school’s principal announcing Cross had been put on leave.

“I’m contacting you to let you know that one of our physical education teachers, Tanner Cross, is on leave beginning this morning,” Principal Shawn Lacey wrote. “In his absence, his duties will be covered by substitute staff already working in our building.”

“I wanted you to know this because it may affect your student’s [sic] school routine. Because this involves a personnel matter, I can offer no further information,” Levy continued.

The email did not explain why Cross was put on leave.

FBI harasses MassResistance. Agents come unannounced to our Organization Director’s home to interrogate him.


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

He orders them to “Get out!”

Since January 6: Federal government is viciously targeting conservatives.  

May 28, 2021
Two FBI agents suddenly showed up at Arthur Schaper's door.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has a sordid history of targeting those it disagrees with politically. In recent years that has been Republicans and conservatives. President Trump and General Michael Flynn are only two of its more prominent victims.

Even more frightening is the FBI’s tactic of finding or concocting some civil infraction they claim the person committed (sometimes using a previous surprise interrogation to catch the person “lying”) and then conducting a brutal early-morning, guns-drawn, swat-team raid at his residence. They terrorize the person and his family, search their belongings, and take their computers and cell phones.

This has happened to prominent Trump allies like Roger Stone and Rudy Giuliani, NSA whistleblower Bill Binney, and many others.

This totalitarian tendency has been building since the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Clinton. Americans should never forget what happened at Ruby Ridge (1992) and Waco (1993). The intent of this excessive force is to intimidate both the individual and the citizenry.

But the FBI’s aggressiveness has escalated tremendously against conservative and pro-Trump citizens since the Biden administration took control of the US government.

The pretext of having some connection to the January 6 so-called “insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol has become the FBI’s justification to harass individual conservatives or members of conservative groups. Sometimes that is followed by the person being held in custody for weeks or months without bond or even actual charges, often under unusually harsh conditions.

It is not an exaggeration to say that this so-called “law enforcement” organization has become reminiscent of the East German Stasi and the Soviet Union’s KGB. A visit from the FBI can be the beginning of a nightmare for a citizen.

Over the past several months, MassResistance has had strong words to say about what really happened at the January 6 rally, the U.S. Government’s outrageous over-reaction to it, and the FBI’s reluctance to investigate the actual riots across America:

Furthermore, MassResistance has strongly opposed other controversial Biden administration policies, such as the transgender movement’s aggressive targeting of children, as well as the radical LGBT agenda in general. So it’s not too surprising that, being a serious conservative activist group, this eventually attracted this administration’s attention.

The FBI comes to “question” MassResistance

On Wednesday morning, MassResistance’s national Organization Director Arthur Schaper got a knock on his apartment door (in suburban Los Angeles). Two FBI agents flashed their IDs, identified themselves as “special agents,” and started asking him questions:

“We're following up on leads from DC. We're just curious if you went to DC or if you knew anybody who had gone to DC, and if you'd be willing to talk to us about any of that.”

Arthur answered,

“I did not go to DC. But honestly, I think this is a massive abuse of power which you guys are doing. It’s disgusting. I want to have a lawyer with me before I talk to you. You guys are violating the Constitution.”

Arthur asked them how they got into his apartment building, since only residents have keys to the complex. They said, “We're not going to talk to you about that.” Arthur told them to “GET OUT!” They stared at him again, then turned around and left.

Afterwards, Arthur asked the management of his apartment building how the FBI got inside. They told them they have no idea, but the police and 911 responders have a code to get in for emergencies. Arthur asked someone who works with the local police department about that. He was told that the FBI would likely not go through the bureaucratic process of getting the code. They probably just waited for a resident to open the main door, and just followed that person in. In other words, they probably trespassed.

What happens after this? Is more to come from the FBI?

Later that day, MassResistance president Brian Camenker called the FBI offices in Los Angeles and Boston (where the MassResistance headquarters is located). He asked them for answers: What is this all about? What are they investigating? Who else are they going to be "visiting"? They wouldn’t give him any direct answers. Camenker told them that if they need to talk with us again, they should contact us and we’ll come to their office with our legal counsel. They said they’d pass the word on.

Final thoughts

It’s certainly frightening that the Biden administration has militarized the FBI and much of the federal government against conservative Americans. But as free people, we must stand up to it. We cannot back down or be intimidated.

We have actually heard conservatives say, “If I’ve done nothing wrong, I have no problem with the FBI coming to my house and asking questions.” That’s what General Flynn – and many others – have thought. But tyrants are skilled at manipulating what you might say. (Read The Gulag Archipelago for vivid descriptions of that.)

This is not the America we once knew. But we are doing our best to bring our country back.

Is this next? FBI agents with weapons drawn charge through the front door of Trump ally Roger Stone's home at 6 am on Jan. 25, 2019.

Chicago Mayor Sued Over Refusal to See White Reporters

Chicago Mayor Sued Over Refusal to See White Reporters



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

The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) has partnered with nonprofit watchdog group Judicial Watch to sue Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) after the mayor refused an interview with DCNF reporter Thomas Catenacci, who is white. Lightfoot recently made headlines after announcing that she would only grant interviews to “black and brown” reporters and is now being sued for discrimination and for violating Catenacci’s First and Fourteenth Amendment-protected rights.

Fox News reported in mid-May that Chicago journalists were claiming that Lightfoot was deciding who would be granted interviews based on the reporter’s race, accusations that Lightfoot later confirmed. Lightfoot defended her remarkably discriminatory actions by pointing to what she contends is the “overwhelming whiteness and maleness” of the press.

“In looking at the absence of diversity across the City Hall press corps and other newsrooms, sadly it does not appear that many of the media institutions in Chicago have caught on and truly have not embraced this moment,” Lightfoot wrote in a two-page letter to the media. “I have been struck since my first day on the campaign trail back in 2018 by the overwhelming whiteness and maleness of Chicago media outlets, editorial boards, the political press corps, and yes, the City Hall press corps specifically.”

“If I as the black woman mayor, the first-ever, don’t challenge us, the collective us, to do better, to really make sure that in every institution it reflects the diversity, nuance, and texture, then shame on me,” she continued.

“This isn’t my job. It shouldn’t be,” she added. “I don’t have time for it. But as with so many festering problems, it has only gotten worse with time. So here I am, like so many other Black women before me, having to call your attention to this problem.”

No, it certainly is not Lightfoot’s job to rage against “whiteness and maleness,” especially when her city is overwhelmed with crime and skyrocketing murder rates committed by and against “black and brown” individuals. Lightfoot’s constituents should be infuriated that the mayor has made the race of the press corps a priority when the city has become nearly unlivable for many people of color under her watch.

Lightfoot also took to Twitter to defend her policy.

“Diversity and inclusion is imperative across all institutions including media. In order to progress we must change,” she tweeted. “This is exactly why I’m being intentional about prioritizing media requests from POC reporters on the occasion of the two-year anniversary of my inauguration as mayor of this great city.”

According to the DCNF lawsuit, Catenacci made several attempts to interview Lightfoot on Chicago’s efforts to vaccinate its citizens and other COVID-related topics following the mayor’s May 19 letter, but the mayor never responded.

“On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff Catenacci requested, by email, a one-on-one interview with Mayor Lightfoot,” reads the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. “Plaintiff Catenacci sent a follow-up email on May 21, 2021. He also sent a third email on May 24, 2021.”

“As of the date of this Complaint, Mayor Lightfoot’s office has not responded to Plaintiff Catenacci’s request nor has Mayor Lightfoot agreed to an interview with Plaintiff Catenacci,” the suit continues.

The lawsuit states that Lightfoot “is aware that Catenacci is ‘not a journalist of color’” and deliberately failed to respond to Catenacci’s requests as a result.

“Failing to respond in a timely manner” to the interview requests is akin to denial, the lawsuit contends.

“It’s absurd that an elected official believes she can discriminate on the basis of race,” DCNF Editor-in-Chief Ethan Barton said. “Mayor Lightfoot’s decision is clearly blocking press freedom through racial discrimination.”

Lightfoot’s policy has prompted criticism from all sides. Critics took to Twitter, with some noting that Lightfoot’s policy is likely meant to distract from her failure to address the city’s crime problem.

“Lori Lightfoot presided over an enormous increase in homicides, almost all of them in African American or Latino communities, and she’s hoping these PR stunts get liberal America to give her a pass for failing to save people’s lives,” journalist Zaid Jilani pointed out.

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a Pulitzer Prize finalist and contributing writer for the New Yorker magazine and the New York Times, made similar observations on Twitter, the Daily Mail reported.

“Such astonishing mastery of deflection and distraction … always hiding from her disastrous record of boldly upholding the status quo in Chicago,” Taylor, who also is a professor at Princeton University, tweeted.

Chicago Tribune journalist turned down a scheduled interview with the mayor in protest of the policy, The Hill reported.

“I am a Latino reporter @chicagotribune whose interview request was granted for today,” tweeted the Tribune’s City Hall reporter Gregory Pratt.

“However, I asked the mayor’s office to lift its condition on others and when they said no, we respectfully canceled. Politicians don’t get to choose who covers them,” Pratt added.

Carol Marin, co-director of the Center for Journalism Integrity and Excellence at DePaul University in Chicago, also criticized the policy.

“It’s a very good lesson for our journalism students to learn,” Marin tweeted. “Public officials don’t get to pick their reporters. And reporters need to stand up for fellow reporters.”

Catenacci contends all journalists and Americans are affected by the mayor’s discriminatory actions and have a vested interest in the lawsuit.

“Every journalist and every person who consumes the news should be concerned by Mayor Lightfoot’s actions,” he said in the news release. “This affects everyone. I look forward to holding the mayor accountable.”

BLM Co-founder Patrisse Cullors Resigns

BLM Co-founder Patrisse Cullors Resigns



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

Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors is leaving after nearly six years in the top spot but insists her departure has nothing to do with the recent controversy over her real-estate purchases.

On Thursday, BLMGNF announced a “leadership transition,” saying Cullors leaves the organization in a strong position to support grassroots, art/culture work, and policy work that invests in the future of black lives. During her tenure, Cullors helped the organization reach several milestones, it is noted, such as advocating for “a future that is divested from police, prisons, and all punishment paradigms and replaces it with greater investment in justice and culture programs,” as well as “emphasizing creativity and joy in Black communities by supporting and showcasing Black artists and cultural influencers,” and financially supporting families of “victims” of “police violence,” and donating millions of dollars to black-led organizations and black families struggling during the pandemic, “especially organizers, those affected by police violence or who are LGBTQIA.”

“I’ve created the infrastructure and the support, and the necessary bones and foundation, so that I can leave,” Cullors said. “It feels like the time is right.”

BLMGNF also confirmed an appointment of two senior executives to replace Cullors. “As a strong advocate for the transformation of Black lives and the end of white supremacy, I’m eager to continue the foundation’s great work over the coming months,” said one of them, Monifa Bandele.

Earlier this year, property records showed that Cullors had purchased four homes worth $3.2 million combined, including a $1.4 million home in Topanga Canyon, a wealthy area of Los Angeles where only 1.4 percent of the population is black.

When the ritzy real estate purchases of the self-described “Marxist” Cullors became public, she defended herself, saying there is no contradiction between her socialist ideals and her getting wealthy. The way that I live my life is in direct support to black people, including my black family members,” Cullors insisted during a CNN interview.

Cullors also sent out a stream of defensive Instagram posts, insisting she did not receive a salary or benefits from BLMGNF — while mentioning nothing about her handsome remuneration for her work as one of the figureheads of the BLM movement, the healthy paychecks she has received from book and TV deals, or the speaking fees she has pocketed over the last few years. She did not attempt to deny any of the allegations regarding her profligate spending, acknowledging she had “definitely made mistakes” without explaining what those mistakes were.

Cullors insisted her splashy spending was normal for “so many black folks who are able to invest in themselves and their community,” pointing out that “they choose to invest [their earnings] in their family and that’s what I’ve chosen to do.”

Cullors claimed her departure has been in the works for some time and has nothing to do with the controversy over her recent home purchases, for which she has been widely criticized.

“Those were right-wing attacks that tried to discredit my character, and I don’t operate off of what the right thinks about me,” she said.

Left unaddressed was the criticism from BLM chapters around the United States, which have been complaining since December that even though the foundation’s funds had skyrocketed in 2020 and reached $90 million, only crumbs were doled out to the grassroots rank-and-file. 

In an open letter, 10 BLM chapters aired a range of grievances over the leadership’s lack of transparency and the exclusion of local chapters from input-giving processes. The statement, released by Politico, noted:

We became chapters of Black Lives Matter as radical Black organizers embracing a collective vision for Black people engaging in the protracted struggle for our lives against police terrorism. With a willingness to do hard work that would put us at risk, we expected that the central organizational entity, most recently referred to as the Black Lives Matter Global Network (BLMGN) Foundation, would support us chapters in our efforts to build communally. Since the establishment of BLMGN, our chapters have consistently raised concerns about financial transparency, decision making, and accountability.

Chapters also voiced their dissatisfaction with Cullors becoming BLMGN’s executive director “against the will of most chapters and without their knowledge.”

The 10 chapters encouraged BLM supporters to donate funds directly to local groups instead of the global network.

Another aspect of the BLM’s internal dissatisfaction with Cullors lies within her exploitation of black families’ real struggles.

“That is the most tragic aspect,” said the Reverend T. Sheri Dickerson, president of an Oklahoma City BLM chapter and a representative of the #BLM10, a national group of organizers that has publicly criticized the foundation over funding and transparency.

“I know some of [the families] are feeling exploited, their pain exploited, and that’s not something that I ever want to be affiliated with,” Dickerson said.

Tamika Palmer, the mother of Breonna Taylor — who was shot by the police during the investigation into drug-dealing operations, which sparked BLM protests across the nation — called BLM a fraud.

In a since-removed Facebook post, Palmer claimed the group used “dead black people to fund and empower white Democrats.”



BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Steps Down From BLM With Four Mansions, Possibly a 5th, to Pursue a Marxist Life 



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

“Racism” Pays

BLM co-founder, mega-millionaire Marxist, race-baiter, and mansion-collector Patrisse Cullors is stepping down from BLM amidst a financial scandal. It seems Cullors has made enough money off the bodies of dead black men. She told AP it’s time to focus on her second book and her TV deal with Warner Brothers.

Cullors says her leaving BLM has been planned for about a year and has nothing to do with the New York Post story regarding her four mansions, all in white neighborhoods, and a fifth home she is looking at in the Bahamas, in the same luxury resort as Justin Timberlake and Tiger Woods. Homes there sell for from $5 million to $20 million dollars each. Fellow Marxist Bernie Sanders must be proud. 

Cullors acquired her swanky empire while stating that the housing market is “racist” and full of “white supremacists.”

Last year, as BLM protestors were burning America, Cullors bought a “custom ranch” on 3.2 acres in rural Conyers, Ga., with a private airplane hangar, replete with a large studio apartment above it, as well as the use of a 2,500-foot paved/grass community runway that can accommodate small airplanes. Not bad for a Marxist. 

Big tech did their part to protect Cullors when the New York Post, Tucker Carlson, AND other members of BLM went on the attack. Facebook blocked links to the New York Post story. Twitter locked conservative writer Jason Whitlock out of his account after he tweeted a link to a report and mocked Cullors for buying a home in an area of Topanga Canyon, Calif., outside of Malibu, with a black population of 1.4%. As expected, she labeled the aforementioned New York Post story as “racist” and full of “white supremacy.”

The attacks on Cullors aren’t just coming from the phantom right-wing, “racists” and “white supremacists” Cullors mentions every time things don’t go her way. Hawk Newsome, the head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City, which is not affiliated with Cullors’ Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, called for “an independent investigation” to find out how and where the global BLM network spends its money.

“If you go around calling yourself a socialist, you have to ask how much of her own personal money is going to charitable causes,” he said. “It’s really sad because it makes people doubt the validity of the movement and overlook the fact that it’s the people that carry this movement.”

Cullors responded to the threat with legal action and denied any association with Newsome. She also added that Newsome had no right to use the Black Lives Matter name.

Cullors’s last day of cashing in on the myth of systemic racism is set for May 28.

CANADIAN Pastor Henry Hildebrandt: We’re back in court on May 31st – what’s next?

Another week another hearing, please pray for the Judge to make the right decision. Will it be jail, house arrest, or more fines, God knows.

Pastor Henry Hildebrandt The Church of God Aylmer Ontario Canada

Blinken to ask Congress for $75,000,000 to help Palestinians in Gaza



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

That’s $75,000,000 of American taxpayer money to repair damage that was caused by Hamas in its jihad war against Israel. The White House announced a couple of days ago that Blinken was leaving for the Middle East to “rebuild ties” with the Palestinians; that is exactly what he is doing, lavishly. Meanwhile, Hamas is gloating, knowing full well that the next time it launches rockets at Israel and Israel defends itself, the Palestinians will suffer as nothing more than tools to utilize in its war against the state of Israel. Then America will come to the rescue.

Hamas has faced no consequences; instead, it has been rewarded for its rocket attacks against Israeli citizens, and for the fine job it has done in purveying propaganda.

“Blinken Announces New US Disaster Relief for Gaza,” by Nike Ching, VOA News, May 25, 2021:

RAMALLAH, WEST BANK – U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says he will ask Congress for $75 million in assistance for Palestinians in Gaza following the recent cease-fire that brought an end to the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Blinken made the announcement after talks in Ramallah with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas Tuesday.

“We know that the last round of violence is symptomatic of a larger set of issues that we have to address if we’re going to prevent its recurrence and that’s what we talked about today,” Blinken said. “We welcome the cease-fire that continues to hold but that’s not enough, we have to build on the cease-fire and try to move things in a genuinely positive direction.”

Blinken also reiterated Tuesday that the Biden administration’s belief that a two-state solution “is the only way to truly assure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. And, of course, to give the Palestinians the state that they’re entitled to.”

The top U.S. diplomat said the U.S. would reopen its consulate in Jerusalem after the Trump administration closed it in 2019, provide $5.5 million in immediate disaster assistance and more than $32 million for a United Nations emergency humanitarian relief campaign.

Blinken said the consulate’s reopening is “an important way for our country to engage with and provide support to the Palestinian people.”

Of the U.S.-designated terror group that controls Gaza, Blinken said “We will work to ensure that Hamas doesn’t benefit from these reconstruction efforts.”

Earlier in the day, the secretary of state underscored Israel’s right to defend itself as he visited Jerusalem on Tuesday as part of an effort to build on a cease-fire.

Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Blinken said both Israel and the Palestinians experienced “profound” losses during the fighting, and that there is a lot of work ahead to restore hope, respect and trust.

“Casualties are often reduced to numbers, but behind every number is an individual human being — a daughter, a son, a father, a mother, a grandparent, a best friend,” said Blinken. “And as the Talmud teaches, to lose a life is to lose the whole world, whether that life is Palestinian or Israeli.”…



Secretary of State Blinken Meets with Supporter of Third Intifada

Inside Communist China’s Plans to Dominate the Middle East: Michael Doran

Rumble — 🔵SUBSCRIBE to #EpochTV:
🔴Watch the FULL EPISODE: 👉👉👉

“When I started to think about what the Middle East looked like from Beijing, the place suddenly looked very different.”

The Chinese Communist Party is seeking to, step by step, dominate the Middle East, says Hudson Institute senior fellow Michael Doran—from building ports in strategic locations to expanding its naval presence in the region.

“They’re positioning themselves to be able to threaten the two major chokepoints for energy in the region,” Doran says. And they’re building a strategic alliance with Iran.

And while the world’s eyes are fixed on the Hamas-Israeli conflict, Iran is “piggybacking” on the conflict to weaken Israel, says Doran.

What is really going on in the Middle East?

#hamasisrael #iran #china

Biden Frees Al Qaeda Ally Who Plotted to Smuggle Nukes Into US

Why settle for helping Iran nuke America, when you can also help Al Qaeda nuke America?

Saifullah Paracha (pictured below) was a Pakistani businessman and New York travel agent with some big plans. The Gitmo inmate now being set loose by Biden wanted to “do something big against the US.”



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.

With inflation rising almost as fast as gas prices and the cost of a home, Joe Biden ain’t doing much for most Americans. But if you’re an Al Qaeda terrorist, he’s got your back.

Just ask three of Gitmo’s finest who are benefiting from Biden’s generosity.

Saifullah Paracha (pictured above) was a Pakistani businessman and New York travel agent with some big plans. The Gitmo inmate now being set loose by Biden wanted to “do something big against the US.”

9/11 was in Al Qaeda's rearview mirror and its mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was plotting a sequel. The Gitmo dossier for Paracha first details a plan to use his “textile business to smuggle explosives into the US” and these "ready-made explosives, specifically C4" would go into shipping containers full of "women and children's clothing".

Shipping Al Qaeda’s C4 to America would be more lucrative than dumping sweatshop labor sweatpants because “if al-Qaida used detainee’s textile company for shipping explosives to the US, he would likely be paid additional money beyond the standard shipping fees”. No word on whether there would have been a bonus for every American blown up.

And then things escalated from there with testimony that Paracha allegedly claimed that he, “believed he could obtain unspecified chemicals from Chinese sources”. The fellow he was talking to about the unspecified chemicals, Ammar al-Baluchi, one of the few Gitmo Jihadis whom neither Obama nor Biden had managed to release yet, had helped out the 9/11 hijackers with flight simulators, and manuals, and allegedly chatted with Mohammed Atta.

After 9/11, Al-Baluchi was looking at all sorts of plans for crashing planes into things, like the American consulate in Karachi or London’s Heathrow airport, but there were other options on the table. The nature of the chemicals out of China was never specified, but the KSM lieutenant believed they were” chemical or biological agents” that could be used “as a weapon”.

Paracha reportedly advised Al Qaeda that “one should look for a similar-looking chemical and put it in between the good chemicals and it would be very easy to get [through] customs.” With his business experience, he could offer Al Qaeda tips on smuggling such as warning them about the “radiological sensors at ports or places of entry into the US” that would make it difficult to smuggle radioactive materials into the country”.

But Biden’s newest charity case wanted something bigger. The dossier describes the 9/11 mastermind's associate and Paracha chatting about Al Qaeda getting some "radiological or nuclear items several times" because Paracha wanted "to help al-Qaida 'do something big against the US.'”

Paracha "also discussed nuclear attacks and attacks against nuclear power plants" and had an idea for “al-Qaida to attack a nuclear power plant”.

So you can see why Joe Biden is letting him go.

Why settle for helping Iran nuke America when you can also help Al Qaeda nuke America?

The Pakistani graduate of the New York Institute of Technology “expressed strong anti-US sentiment” and allegedly “stated that nuclear weapons should be used against US troops, as thousands of the troops would be killed at once”.

The pro-terror lobby has spent all these years claiming that Paracha was an innocent victim of American imperialism who was never charged with anything and was smeared with confessions obtained by acts of horrifying torture like Barney songs played on a non-stop loop.

Curiously the dossier mentions that Paracha's diary had  "references to military chemical warfare agents and their effects on humans" including Sarin nerve gas.

But what New York travel agent hasn't filled his diary with entries about the effects of nerve gas on humans along with the contact information for an alleged Al Qaeda anthrax operative?

You’d have to be an Islamophobe to find anything suspicious about that.

Sadly, none of these plans worked out. Instead, the agents of the Great Satan told Palacha that they wanted him to come to Thailand to discuss a deal with Kmart. When Palacha showed up to pitch Kmart reps on a blue light special that might or might not glow in the dark, they weren’t there to get a deal on some Pakistani underwear but offering a place off Cuba with a view.

Even Obama didn’t set Paracha loose, but Biden is determined to out-Obama him.

The media understandably doesn’t want to trouble Americans with any uncomfortable mentions of nuclear weapons and Chinese chemicals when explaining Biden’s latest gift to Al Qaeda.

The New York Times only mentions that Paracha is "a former businessman and longtime legal resident of New York" and that he has "heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure".

Also some years ago a spiritual leader with a Buddhist symbol made famous by an Austrian house painter carved into his forehead died of colon cancer while one of California's oldest inmates. It’s almost as awful as when that elderly former house painter committed suicide after a long struggle with syphilis along with his new bride in a bunker that Biden would have envied.

The Hill plaintively whines that “Paracha was the oldest and reportedly among the sickest detainees held at Guantánamo Bay. He suffered from heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure.” Since Paracha is still alive and the description is in the past tense, we can only assume that being freed by Biden is a cure for heart disease, diabetes, and blood pressure.

If Biden really wants to cure cancer, he can drop all of that moonshot nonsense, all he needs to do is give all of Al Qaeda cancer, and then release them. If it doesn’t cure them, it’ll kill them.

Releasing Paracha might also be a concern for the Brits as the dossier also states that he had discussed with Al-Baluchi “how to smuggle explosives and chemicals into England”.

When Paracha wasn't exploring the exciting possibilities of nuclear weapons, he met Osama bin Laden on a trip to Afghanistan and "offered to let UBL and al-Qaida use his media broadcasting business to film and distribute propaganda and training films'' that would include "depicting UBL quoting Koranic verses". While a lot of Paracha's other plots were theoretical, the dossier indicates that Al Qaeda used Paracha's "video broadcasting facility" to make a movie featuring "a senior Saudi al-Qaida facilitator associated with a cell targeting Americans in Saudi Arabia."

But no doubt after all that time having to listen to Barney sing, “I Love You, You Love Me” on repeat at Gitmo, with nothing to read except the Koran and Harry Potter novels, Paracha has come around and now loves America. And from now on will commit to only shipping women’s and children’s clothing to Kmart without C4, Chinese chemicals, or nukes.

The other beneficiaries of Biden’s generosity are Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, an alleged bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, and Abdul Rabbani, allegedly a member of an Al Qaeda cell plotting car bomb attacks against Americans.

Biden intends to continue Obama’s work of freeing all the Islamic terrorists of Gitmo.

Paracha had apparently told American investigators that "he did not think meeting with al-Qaida was a crime, just business".

Biden clearly doesn’t think aiding Islamic terrorists is a crime either. That’s why he’s doing it.



Biden’s ATF Nominee David Chipman to Ban All “Assault-type” Weapons

Biden’s ATF Nominee David Chipman to Ban All “Assault-type” Weapons



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

During a Senate confirmation hearing on Monday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pressed Biden pick, David Chipman, who is poised to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), to explain his position on banning the popular semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Asked Cruz, “The AR-15 is one of if not the most popular rifles in America. It’s not a machine gun, it’s a rifle. Your public opinion is that you want to ban AR-15s. Is that correct?”

Chipman was crystal clear: “With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban.”

He then expanded on his remark, calling the rifle “particularly lethal”:

The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF’s S.W.A.T. team and it’s a particularly lethal weapon, and regulating it as other particularly lethal weapons, I have advocated for.

This was the first among many lies, distortions, and prevarications that punctuated the nominee’s responses to intense probing and questions by Republican senators. The lie: the firearm Chipman was issued was no doubt a fully automatic weapon, capable of firing many rounds rapidly with a single press of the trigger. This is a far cry from popular AR-15s now owned by an estimated 20 million law-abiding American citizens.

The second statement — that the AR-15 is a “particularly lethal weapon” — is even more chilling: it suggests that the mere ownership of the firearm provides sufficient proof that its owner is intent on committing mayhem and, it would follow, he should be banned for owning the weapon.

Chipman prevaricated when asked by Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to define an “assault weapon”: “An assault weapon would be … what Congress defines it as,” trying to avoid the question.

Cotton pressed Chipman: “Can you tell me what is an assault weapon? How would you define it if you were the head of the ATF?” Chipman finally came up with an answer: “any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22, which would include the .223 which is largely, you know, the AR-15 round.”

Cotton leaped at his response: “I’m amazed … that might be the definition of an assault weapon … that would basically cover every single modern sporting rifle in America today!”

Cotton missed an opportunity: under Chipman’s definition nearly every semi-automatic weapon — rifles and handguns — would be banned if the nominee had his way. That would include the 9mm, 40 caliber, and popular .45 calibers for which most handguns are chambered to accept.

Senator Cotton was just getting warmed up:

On March 25, Politico reported that Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, applied for a handgun that was later thrown in the trash and had to be recovered by Secret Service agents in 2018. Politico reported that Hunter Biden completed this background check and answered “no” to the question of whether he was an unlawful user or addicted to any drug.

Hunter Biden has since published a book and gone on a nation-wide book tour conducting numerous interviews stating that he was, in fact, very much addicted to drugs at the same time that he purchased this firearm. This would mean that by his own admission Hunter Biden lied on that form, and by your earlier testimony, committed a serious felony.

Should Hunter Biden be prosecuted for breaking the law?

Chipman’s effort to evade the question was revealing:

If I’m confirmed as ATF director, it will be my responsibility to enforce all federal laws without political favor. I do not know any factors in this particular case, but I am familiar with the press account of it.

His response was totally inadequate, and Cotton pressed Chipman again:

Can I get your commitment that if you are confirmed you will, in fact, look into this matter and refer it for prosecution if you find that Hunter Biden violated the law?

Chipman sidestepped the question once again:

I will ensure that all violations of law are investigated and referred to.

And then came the masterstroke that topped the lengthening list of Chipman’s double-speak prevarications:

I’m not sure that it has not been investigated.

For all intents and purposes, the confirmation was over and Chipman is history. Other senators peppered the nominee with questions about his comments that mocked new gun owners who have been setting records in acquiring firearms. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) summed them up: “It concerns me that you, as the nominee to be the director of the ATF, would have such a flippant and, if I may say so, utterly condescending attitude toward first-time gun owners in this country. Why would you choose to insult so many of your fellow Americans with a statement like this based on the fact that they purchased a gun?”

Other senators quizzed the nominee about his comments following the ATF’s attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, in 1993. Chipman said: “Cult members used two .50 caliber [automatic weapons] to shoot down two Texas National Guard helicopters.”

Again, the nominee waffled:

I could have done a better job be describing them as being “forced down” because of the gunfire, as opposed to shot down, which might have left the impression that they were blown out of the sky, which they were not.

I regret that confusion.

Chipman was one of the chief investigators into the Waco incident and so had to know his statement was a canard. It was only under public pressure brought by the senators that he even came close to apologizing, calling it a “confusion” that he “regrets.”

Chipman lied when he was pressed by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas): “Is a law-abiding gun owner a threat to public safety, in your view?”

Chipman revealed his anti-gun, and anti-gun owner, ideology:

Thank you for that question, senator. If the term “law-abiding” means someone has lawfully possessed a gun, there are often occasions that that person then goes on to commit a violent crime.

Wrong. Very few of the horrific mass shootings Americans have witnessed and suffered involve a rifle; the vast majority involve handguns. Semi-automatic rifles are almost never involved.

Aidan Johnston, spokesman for Gun Owners of America (GOA), summed up Chipman’s performance:

Today clearly showed that David Chipman is too radical to lead an agency that should not exist in the first place. The tyrannical gun control advocated by Chipman will be totally ineffective to stop criminals.

That “tyrannical gun control” refers to the bill offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in March. The proposed bill would ban more than 200 firearms, including the AR-15, the AK-47, and Uzi models.

But this bill has little chance of passage. Only 35 Senate Democrats have co-sponsored it, and it will take 60 votes for passage. A similar bill offered by anti-gun/anti-gun owner senators in 2013 received only 40 votes.

Chipman’s dismal performance could have lasting and favorable implications for worried gun owners. If he is confirmed, every gun owner in the country will know that the government has now officially declared war on his right to purchase, own, and use firearms, and they will remember come election time in November 2022. And they will continue to purchase them in record numbers.

If Chipman isn’t confirmed, the next in line to be nominated by Biden to head the ATF will face the same sharp questioning, providing Americans with still another opportunity to appreciate the lengths to which the Biden administration is prepared to go in its attempt to disarm them.

Related video and articles:

ATF Chief: Waco Whacko? | 2A For Today

April Gun Sales Continue Surge After Record-breaking March

You Knew DOJ’s Kristen Clarke Was a Radical, But It’s Much, Much Worse Than They’re Letting On



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

Newly confirmed Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke is a thoroughly modern woman. She could never have been confirmed even during the Clinton administration because of her racially-soaked radical worldview.

But these are revolutionary times, where skin color has gained newfound importance in a way we haven’t seen since June 1964 when segregationists chased civil rights marchers down the streets of St. Augustine, Florida.

If you think the comparison doesn’t work, then you haven’t been paying attention, or you are watching too much MSNBC.

I suppose everything old is new again. Content of character is out. Color of skin is in.

And thus Clarke squeaked by this week on a 51-48 vote to manage the most powerful division of the Justice Department.

The Civil Rights Division has its tentacles in every single aspect of American life – schools, jails, elections, hotels, mortgages, movie theaterschurch sermons, bathrooms, computer software, rent rates, service animals on planes, pool chair lifts, mental hospitals and forcing police departments to adopt radical policing policies. I left 100 other topics off the list.

And now, another racialist radical is in charge in the division where I was once an attorney.

Clarke is no ordinary racialist radical, though. She brings a reputation for being racially greedy. I have some personal experience with her on this point.

In 2007, I was working on what would become the Voting Rights Act case of United States v. Georgetown School Board.  I was one of the lawyers who spent many days in South Carolina investigating violations of the Voting Rights Act. Georgetown had a voting-age black population of 34 percent but the at-large elections for school board resulted in no blacks ever being elected to the nine at-large seats.  While there is no right to proportional representation, in theory, blacks could conceivably have won three of nine seats.

Regardless, they had none, and in a school district where the students were almost majority black, this created a system that stoked discontent and lack of responsiveness. No matter how you feel about these sorts of lawsuits, it was the law under the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act—an amendment even Strom Thurmond voted for.

The plan adopted in a DOJ settlement agreement created three majority-black districts out of seven (two seats remained elected at large) where it was likely a black preferred candidate would be elected.

Back to Clarke’s racial greed. The DOJ team got wind that Clarke—representing the NAACP—was shadowing the DOJ lawyer interviews in the field with local African-American stakeholders, disrupting the progress the DOJ was making and urging locals to hold out for four or more black seats. Four seats out of seven (or nine) would have been well in excess of the general proportion of the black population.  Clarke wanted more black seats than the law would allow and was willing to disrupt a settlement that created three black seats where none had existed before.

I highlight this instance of racial greed not as a mere anecdote, but rather as a warning.

Sometime, soon, the Justice Department Voting Section will be on the prowl looking for counties or school districts to sue. You might be a lawyer representing them (call me). In the past, even under Democrat leadership, the DOJ has largely been fair and sought only minority districts that could be supported by the law. Expect Clarke to jettison compliance with the law, because she takes it all personally, and it is all about skin color.

Attorney General Merrick Garland defended Clarke, calling her a “person of integrity” who has views in line with his own.

Garland hasn’t spent much time around her. Lawyers at the Voting Section who worked with her characterize her as a brutish and uncouth racial activist. She seethed racial animosity toward whites (who were not liberals) and Southerners. If there is any consolation, she is viewed as “no Tom Perez or Vanita Gupta” in the lawyering department. She’ll leave that to the hundreds of brighter lawyers who work in the Civil Rights Division.

The FBI made a serious mistake when it failed to interview her former husband prior to her confirmation. The police came to Clarke’s house no fewer than six times for domestic abuse. Had they done so, the Senate would have learned who made those 911 calls. (Don’t look for that story at Google because they are hiding it. Here’s a link.)

Much has been written about how Clarke invited black racist anti-Semites to speak at Harvard. Meow. That was indeed in college and she never disavowed it. I was more concerned about her criticism and sabotage of the Justice Department’s voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, another case I worked on.

Clarke poked around the Voting Section, asking anyone who would listen about when the Panther case was going to be dismissed. Recall that the incoming Obama officials spiked most of the case. Clarke was pleased because she doesn’t want the Voting Rights Act to be used against black defendants.

Her opposition to the Panther lawsuit wasn’t an isolated event. Clarke also opposed the lawsuit by DOJ against Ike Brown, a black Democratic Party official who became the first African-American found liable for violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A court found that he manipulated and canceled the valid votes of white voters in Mississippi and allowed defective absentee ballot votes of black voters to be counted. He also engaged in a ballot-harvesting scheme that is documented page after page by the United States District Court and is required reading for anyone who actually wants to know what voter fraud looks like.

Clarke didn’t want anything to happen to Brown. She didn’t want the Justice Department to bring the case.

It’s even worse. Expect Clarke to give preferential treatment to liberal activist groups making FOIA requests to the Civil Rights Division. Why? Because she used to get the same express service herself. Don’t expect Judicial Watch to get the same treatment. As I documented in my book Injustice:

The NAACP’s Kristen Clarke made particularly revealing requests, such as the one she sent by email late on the afternoon of June 17, 2009. Hunting for whatever Louisiana was telling the DOJ about a submission under Section 5, she asked for “any information provided by the State of Louisiana in connection with Submission No. 2008-3512 between January 1, 2009 and this request.” She wanted to know Louisiana’s official views, particularly since the NAACP was so engaged in the matter. As Clarke reminded Justice, the “NAACP Legal Defense Fund submitted a Comment Letter in connection with this submission.” At 6:59 a.m. on June 19, Clarke got just what she wanted, by email no less.

One of the most lawless things that Clarke did at DOJ was cook up a crazy objection against Alabama. This should be a warning to Senators like Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) who want to return power to Clarke to reject state election changes.

Under a now-dormant portion of the Voting Rights Act, the bureaucrats at the Voting Section had power to reject or approve every election change in sixteen states. The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated the triggers that decided which states were subject to this obligation. Nevertheless, when Clarke was there, the law was alive.  Again, from Injustice.

[The DOJ Voting Section] sent a letter to Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor warning that Alabama could not enforce a 1994 law because it had not been submitted to the DOJ for preclearance under Section 5. The statute in question required felons to submit to a DNA test as a mandatory precondition to applying to the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles for a restoration of civil rights, including the right to vote. Part of a nationwide effort to build up DNA databases, the program was facilitated by Congress through federal legislation and through DOJ-administrated federal grants to states.

Clarke was behind the Alabama shakedown, trying to stop the state from collecting DNA from prisoners, using a provision of the Voting Rights Act. Again, Injustice:

[The DOJ] letter was based on a legal memorandum received from deputy Gilda Daniels (now a law professor teaching critical race studies) and from Kristen Clarke. The memorandum cited a New York Times article on voting rights that quoted Pryor’s views of the Alabama statute as well as a critical report by the Sentencing Project, a group that lobbies against felon disenfranchisement laws.

Only through the intervention of Hans von Spakovsky, then counsel at DOJ, was this lawless shakedown stopped.

Expect more shakedowns to come, and even more if the power to reject state election laws is returned to the Justice Department. Giving Kristen Clarke that power would be like giving a toddler a weapon.

Clarke also fought against DOJ deploying assistant United States Attorneys at the polls in the 2008 election, a bipartisan practice that occurred under both Clinton and Bush. This was designed to document problems, deter fraud, and ensure that voting rights were protected.

Clarke’s opposition to federal lawyers observing an election should serve as a warning that this thoroughly modern woman wants nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of our elections. She has other priorities, and it isn’t the content of your character.

China Rejects “Lab Leak” Theory, Suggests America Developed COVID in Its Secret Labs

China Rejects “Lab Leak” Theory, Suggests America Developed COVID in Its Secret Labs



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

Beijing has responded to President Joe Biden’s Wednesday announcement of a probe into COVID-19 origins by denouncing the “lab leak” hypothesis as a conspiracy theory and urging an investigation into secret U.S. bio-labs around the world.

On Thursday, the Chinese Embassy in the U.S. released a statement on the origin tracing of COVID-19, saying:

“Lately, some people have played the old trick of political hype on the origin tracing of COVID-19 in the world. Smear campaign and blame shifting are making a comeback, and the conspiracy theory of ‘lab leak’ is resurfacing.”

Without naming names, the statement implies that “some political forces have been fixated on political manipulation and blame game, while ignoring their people’s urgent need to fight the pandemic and the international demand for cooperation on this front,” something that has “caused a tragic loss of many lives.”

China is calling for international cooperation to trace the origins of Covid-19 “on the basis of respecting facts and science, with a view of better coping with unexpected epidemics in the future,” the statement said. Politicizing the probe will make it “hard to find the origin of the virus” but also “seriously hamper international cooperation on the pandemic.”

Out of a sense of responsibility towards the health of mankind,” Beijing supports “a comprehensive study of all early cases of [COVID]-19 found worldwide and a thorough investigation into some secretive bases and biological laboratories all over the world,” the embassy said, which will be “full, transparent and evidence-based, and shall get to the bottom to make everything clear.”

While it’s become conventional wisdom in the United States to believe that the novel coronavirus first appeared in the Chinese city of Wuhan in late 2019 — with the only mystery being whether it was transmitted from animals to humans via the city’s filthy wet market or escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab — China has rejected both theories.

At a press conference in March 2020, Lijian Zhao, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry instead voiced his suspicion that it actually was the U.S. scientists who developed the virus. He claimed that the covert research took place in one of America's bioweapon laboratories and then was sent to China during the Wuhan military games in October that year.

Pointing to a video of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield apparently admitting several deaths from COVID-19 before they were able to test for it, Zhao also tweeted that the United States “owes us explanation:”

It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan,” Zhao suggested, calling for the CDC — and the Americans in general — to be transparent” and share what they know about where and when “Patient Zero” was first diagnosed.

In the video, Redfield acknowledged that some cases of coronavirus were misclassified as influenza as the medics did not have an accurate test for the new epidemic at the time. He did not elaborate on when these misdiagnosed cases first appeared — saying only that “some cases have been diagnosed that way.”

Chinese officials repeatedly called the U.S. to follow China’s lead and invite the WHO experts to Fort Detrick, a U.S. Army Futures Command installation that is believed to conduct medical and biological experiments, along with the American “200-plus” overseas bio-labs, and disclose the detailed data and information on the outbreaks of respiratory disease in northern Virginia in July 2019 and the EVALI (E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury) outbreak in Wisconsin.

U.S. officials from both Trump and Biden administrations have condemned China’s effort to pin the blame for the pandemic on America as “false, baseless, and unscientific claims.” They assert that the Chinese government worked for more than a year to thwart an independent investigation into the origins of the deadly virus, and both administrations cast doubt on the manner in which a joint WHO-China report released was conducted in early 2021. The study states that transmission of the virus from bats to humans through another animal is the most likely scenario and that a lab leak is “extremely unlikely.” Later, the WHO added to the confusion and suspicions, saying the report “was not extensive enough,” and that further investigation of the Wuhan lab is needed.

Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced in January that U.S. officials had “reason to believe” that Wuhan lab staff contracted a virus that produced “symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.”

The “lab leak” theory is gaining credibility among U.S. top federal officials. Naturally, the question about holding the entities responsible for the outbreak accountable is hanging in the air. As of today, the White House won’t say if China will be punished if the Wuhan “lab leak” is proven correct.

1 2 3 8