Hamas Loyalist Professor: Huda Fakhreddine at the University of Pennsylvania

“While we were asleep [on October 7th], Palestine invented a new way of life.”

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/hamas-loyalist-professor-huda-fakhreddine-at-the-university-of-pennsylvania/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

Editor’s note: American campuses are awash in a crisis of Jew hatred. Ineffectual college administrators have taken tentative steps to try and rein in the proponents of terror on their campuses, but they have yet to confront the most obvious source of this poisonous Jew hatred—their own radical faculty who have not only called for an end to Israel but have outright celebrated the barbaric bloodshed of the terror group Hamas.

The Freedom Center is exposing these radical, pro-terror faculty as the Top Ten Hamas Loyalist Professors. We will be publishing one school per day as a series on Frontpage. Huda Fakhreddine, an associate professor of Arabic literature at the University of Pennsylvania, is #4 on our list.

#4: Huda Fakhreddine, University of Pennsylvania

An associate professor of Arabic literature at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Huda Fakhreddine has repeatedly voiced praise for the Jew-hating terrorist group Hamas and has specifically lauded their barbaric attack on innocent Israeli civilians  on October 7th during which over 1200 were slaughtered and many more raped, mutilated, and taken hostage.

On October 7, 2023, just hours after the massacre, Fakhreddine tweeted in Arabic, “While we were asleep, Palestine invented a new way of life,” clearly celebrating the brutal slaughter of Israeli innocents.

A few days later, on October 12, Fakhreddine doubled down on her warped view of the conflict, posting a “Statement of Solidarity with Palestine”  which charged Israel with “sole responsibility” for Hamas’s October 7th massacre.  The statement claimed that “The Palestinian resistance efforts”—note the whitewashing of mass rape and baby-killing as acts of “resistance”—“are a response to 75 years of occupation, colonization, and apartheid by the Israeli settler colonial regime.”

In a Facebook post a week later, Fakhreddine added: “When we chant, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," we are calling for a one state, one person=one vote, where everyone living between the river and the sea is free and treated as a human being with rights and dignity." If some see freedom and equal rights for all as an existential threat, then they are the problem. No country should require oppression and apartheid to exist.”

As the anti-Semitism watchdog site Canary Mission notes, “‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free’ is a chant calling to dismantle the state of Israel. It has also been employed by Hamas leader Khaled Mashal to call for the replacement of Israel with an Islamic state.” It is a genocidal call for the annihilation of Israel and the destruction of its entire Jewish population.

So extreme are Fakhreddine’s views that she rejects even the common pro-Palestine descriptor of Gaza as an “open-air prison,” tweeting  that, “Gaza is not an open-air prison. Prisoners receive visitors and aid is allowed to be passed to them. Gaza is a Nazi-style concentration camp, a concentration camp under bombardment.” Fakhreddine’s comparison of Israel’s conduct to Hitler’s Nazi regime is a common and widely-used form of Jew hatred.

The professor has repeatedly made clear that she supports Hamas’s attack on innocent Israeli civilians. In a civil rights case filed in U.S. District Court, Jewish students at Penn allege that at a pro-Palestine rally in October 16, 2023, one speaker declared that “all settlers and all settlements are legitimate military targets and will be targeted.” The same speaker also told Jewish students to “go back to Moscow, Brooklyn . . . fucking Berlin where you came from.” According to the case filing, “Professors, including Huda Fakhreddine, cheered the speaker on and clapped in approval.”

Last May, when students created an illegal pro-Hamas encampment on Penn’s campus, Professor Fakhreddine was on hand to support them. When university officials finally allowed city police to clear the encampment, Fakhreddine sided with the students who illegally occupied university land and claimed that the students were “brutalized” by law enforcement. She further drew a parallel to the actions of Philadelphia and campus police and an instance from her childhood when Israeli military forces “invaded” her village in Lebanon.

Fakhreddine was one of the faculty organizers of the notoriously anti-Semitic Palestine Writes Literature Festival, held on campus in the fall of 2023. At the event, which brought many well-known Jew haters to Penn’s campus, Fakhreddine used the genocidal phrase “From the river to the sea,” promoting the destruction of Israel and its Jewish population.

The professor also denied the well-established fact that the Jewish people have deep ancestral ties to the land of Israel, stating “And now, as Zionists continue to forcibly remove us from our homes, destroy and build over our ancestral villages, cemeteries and archaeological heritage. They have invented a stunning new tale of indigeneity [that is] propagated in popular culture throughout the West in particular.”

She also invoked anti-Semitic tropes that Jews control the media, stating “An open collaboration with Israeli media continues to remove or shadow ban Palestinian content on social media, a phenomenon that was verified by an independent investigation commissioned by Facebook itself that revealed unequivocal anti Palestinian bias. Financial platforms like PayPal have been pressured by Zionists to disallow Palestinians from even the most mundane of transactions.”

Fakhreddine mocked concerns about the potential for anti-Semitism at the festival as “Hysterical and racist accusations that our presence here poses a threat to Jewish students on campus, making them feel unsafe and fearful of wearing their kippas” adding, “Again, this is an old, well worn colonial script of the violent, dark, irrational and savage native." Which I will not dignify with a response.”

In perhaps her most direct statement of Jew hatred, Fakhreddine alleged that “So many of us in this room have had to watch our elders die in refugee camps that aren’t fit for rodents, all so they [Jews] can have an extra country if they want, the violence of which is on full display on this campus every year when Zionists set up their so-called Birthright Trips propaganda tours to recruit young American Jews to become our colonizers, tormentors and Lords.”

For her outright and enthusiastic support for Hamas’s October 7 massacre targeting Jewish civilians in Israel and her well-documented record of anti-Semitism, Penn Professor Huda Fakhreddine deserves her place on the list of Hamas-loyalist professors.

Previous Articles in the Series:

#5: Hamas Loyalist Professor: Joseph Massad at Columbia University.

#6: Hamas Loyalist Professor: Samer Alatout at UW-Madison.

#7: Hamas Loyalist Professor: Steven Thrasher at Northwestern University.

#8: Hamas Loyalist Professor: Noura Erakat at Rutgers University.

#9: Hamas Loyalist Professor: Jairo Fúnez-Flores at Texas Tech University.

#10: Hamas Loyalist Professor: Jeffrey McCully at Moraine Valley Community College.

Controversy in Delaware County, PA Erupts After Election Board Dems Approve Last-Minute Voting Centers

“This is the Delaware County Democratic Party putting their hand on the scale."

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/controversy-in-delaware-erupts-after-election-board-dems-approve-last-minute-voting-centers/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

Delaware County election board member John McBlain has resigned, accusing the panel of rushing to add three “voter service centers” in deeply Democratic parts of the suburban Philadelphia county, something he said adds a "blatant element of unfairness to the county’s election process."

McBlain, the lone Republican on Delaware County’s election board, has been the minority party appointee on the three-member election board since 2021. All members of the election board are appointed by the county council, which has been majority-Democratic since early 2020. A provision in the county’s charter ensures a check on the majority party, however, requiring that at least one member of the election board be a representative of the minority party.

At a special meeting of the election board on Friday, McBlain announced his intention to quit effective at the end of November, saying his decision was due to the board’s approval of three voter service centers in Upper Darby, Chester, and Chester Heights — all three Democratic strongholds.

“I thought I could serve on this board as long as I believed that we were making sure the elections were both secure and fair,” McBlain began at the end of the meeting on Friday, October 11. “I think the board has put their finger on the scale, so I don’t think that that fairness aspect is there anymore. Therefore, I — as much as I’m tempted to do so, as of effective immediately — I tender my resignation as of November 30th, 2024, so that I can complete my duties during the election certification process. But then I hereby resign from the board after that date.”

Voter service centers (VSCs) are essentially no different than “satellite election offices,” which were controversial as far back as the 2020 general election. Whichever name is used, the creation is meant to be a literal extension of the county’s primary election office — the one place where a voter can register to vote, request a mail-in ballot, and return that ballot, all at the same time and same place. Philadelphia’s satellite election offices drew the ire of Republicans that year because Philadelphia refused to allow poll watchers anywhere inside, arguing that the locations were county election offices, so they could not be polling places. A Commonwealth Court ruling later upheld that argument to exclude poll watchers.

Like Philadelphia, Delaware County also used satellite election offices in 2020, the rationale largely being the pandemic. But according to McBlain, since 2020 “the only voter service center that we’ve maintained has been [the original and main election office] at the Media courthouse, and we’ve done that for every election, and that has been adequate.”

Now, McBlain says, the three VSCs seem to be created spur of the moment, and they’re in some of the deepest blue parts of the county.

“I don’t understand what has changed. We are down — I want to say by more than a third, if not two-thirds — the number of applications for mail-in votes as we were in 2020,” McBlain said.

“There’s no more pandemic where we need to sort of spread things out. There’s no need for it. The Media [county seat] office is more than adequately handling all requests for registration for applications to handle receipt of mail-in or absentee ballots,” McBlain told Broad + Liberty after his resignation. “No one has been calling publicly for [VSCs]. I don’t recall one member of the public attending a previous meeting this year [prior to Oct. 11] and advocating that we ought to have voter service centers to provide better service to the residents.”

At a September 24 meeting of the election board, county election director Jim Allen distinctly raised the possibility of adding VSCs, and listed only the sites in Upper Darby, Chester, and Chester Heights as possibilities.

But it’s what happened next that troubled McBlain the most.

McBlain says just after that meeting, he was talking to Allen. Then Donna Cantor, who McBlain says is a lawyer for the county Democratic party, approached them both.

“She [Cantor] came up to Mr. Allen and told him that Colleen Guiney, the chairwoman of the [county] Democratic Party, had a list of volunteers to staff the voter services center. I expressed shock,” McBlain said.

“I said, ‘I didn’t realize that we had decided that we were going to have voter services centers.’ And to Jim Allen’s credit, I mean, he immediately said ‘Well, listen at any voter services centers, we’re not going to have partisan volunteers staffing.’ But the Democratic Party was already prepared to staff these voter services centers at the September meeting where again, it was discussed almost in passing,” McBlain explained.

Election Director Allen did not directly refute that a conversation with Cantor happened, but he did offer his own context.

“[S]omeone approached me about the possible use of volunteers in front of Mr. McBlain, and I turned away the suggestion. There were no specifics or a ‘list,’” he said.

Cantor did not respond to a request for comment asking if she disputed McBlain’s version of the conversation.

Guiney responded to a request for comment, but did not answer specific questions about whether the county Democrats were somehow prepared to staff VSCs before the VSCs were even discussed publicly and approved. Guiney mostly filibustered.

“It is a matter of public record that voter services centers are located in areas convenient to public transit, and in facilities already wired into the secure Delaware County communications system,” Guiney said. “We have had Voter Service Centers in previous elections, and surrounding counties have already opened Voter Service Centers this cycle. This matter has already been discussed at the publicly streamed Board of Elections meeting leading up to the most recent meeting.

“The Democratic party has robust volunteer engagement, but the County is not using volunteers at the Voter Service Centers. Any Delaware County resident, of any political party, is welcome to apply for a temporary position with the Board of Elections by contacting the Bureau of Elections for more information,” Guiney concluded.

During the public comment portion of the Oct. 11 special meeting, 21 total people rose to address the election board. The Broad + Liberty analysis showed that five of them spoke about regular polling locations, one spoke about poll worker safety, thirteen spoke in favor of adding VSCs, and two expressed concerns about VSCs.

“So at the time of the [Oct. 11] meeting, it was clear that there was a partisan [effort] to pack the room in favor of this. There were dozens of Democratic committee people and volunteers,” McBlain said. “There were a dozen or more members of the League of Women Voters who were nothing more than the provisional wing of the Delaware County Democratic Party who were present to speak in favor of it.”

A request for comment to the two other members of the election board, sent to them via the county’s spokesperson, was not returned.

Democratic state Representative and chair of the Upper Darby Democratic committee Heather Boyd was among the thirteen who spoke in favor of the measure. Others included a county Democratic committee member, someone who ran for delegate to the Democratic National Convention last May, as well as a donor to a local Democratic candidate and the founder of a progressive group in Delco. Two people from the League of Women Voters also spoke.

One Drexel Hill resident questioned the rationale for the satellite site locations. “I’m also concerned about the equity of these polling places, these satellite polling places. Where is the equity for the communities that have a heavy Republican presence? Where is their pop-up satellite location [in] communities such as Parkside, Trainer, and Upland — communities that are also considered perhaps low income communities, where is their pop-up voting site?”

McBlain also said VSCs came up very briefly but somewhat unseriously months ago, he suggested the county survey all municipalities to see which ones might be interested, but that the county never acted on that suggestion.

To anyone thinking McBlain has a hair trigger for an election conspiracy need only listen to his Democrat counterparts to understand that’s not the case.

“I think you served on the board with great distinction,” Election Board Chairwoman Ashley Lunkenheimer said upon hearing McBlain’s intention to resign. “I think there are very few in the county or in the commonwealth who have a better knowledge of election law and I think that your viewpoint has always been well served on this board, but I appreciate that you’re continuing your duties through the election because we need — you have a really good perspective on elections.”

“John McBlain is someone who I’m gonna disagree with on a great many policy issues, but we both have the same factual understanding of how elections are conducted,” Democratic Councilwoman Christine Reuther told the Inquirer in November, when Reuther was about to renominate him to the election board. “He doesn’t see conspiracy theories every time you turn around.”

Reuther’s November comments to the Inquirer came just as a long-simmering partisan power struggle over the election board was about to come to a close. Earlier in the year, the county council passed an ordinance that would allow it to reject the minority party’s nomination for the election board. The resolution went further, saying that the county had the “unfettered discretion” to reject as many candidates from the minority party as it liked until it found a suitable candidate.

Council Democrats passed the ordinance in January 2023. Republicans quickly denounced the move as a power grab. When Republicans sued in June, a spokesperson for the council accused Delco Republicans of playing politics.

“Interestingly, the Delco GOP's public statements on this case suggest [sic] a ‘blatant power grab,’” the county said in a statement to the Daily Times. “However, the change in the law which is being challenged was passed in January 17, 2023. Now, more than five months later, has the lawsuit [sic] been filed. It appears less an effort to secure a fair election, and more a weak effort to develop a talking point for an upcoming county election.”

However, a judge ruled in December that the ordinance was illegal and struck it down.

“The Ordinance was an arrogant attempt by the County Council to create a veto power for themselves to block the right of the Delaware County Republican Party Chairman to nominate his preferred member to the Delaware County Board of Elections,” said Wally Zimolong, one of the attorneys who fought the suit on behalf of the county GOP.

Reuther, a member of council who oversees the county’s elections, has also danced on the partisan tightrope in a presidential election before.

In 2020, Reuther was clearly in the lead in the county’s pursuit of and eventual acceptance of election grants from the Chicago-based Center for Tech and Civic Life, or CTCL. Those grants would later become famous for receiving a $350 million infusion from Mark Zuckerberg

As Delaware County got nearer to accepting the grant, the county solicitor flagged to Reuther some of the left-leaning tendencies of the grant agency.

“Not at all surprising,” Reuther said in response. “I am seeking funds to fairly and safely administer the election so everyone legally registered to vote can do so and have their votes count. If a left-leaning public charity wants to further my objective, I am fine with that. I will deal with the blow back.”

The Pennsylvania General Assembly later banned local election offices from accepting grants from outside, private agencies, in part because of concerns that the grants resulted in improper and unbalanced political influence.

McBlain was not a part of the election board at the time.

But this time, he says it’s not election security he’s worried about.

“I think this is the Delaware County Democratic Party putting their hand on the scale with these voter services centers to literally get out the vote in highly partisan areas of the county without any consideration of [if] there’s a reason that they didn’t come in and offer it in Marple or Springfield. I just wasn’t going to be a part of it anymore. I’m disgusted that this partisanship is showing its head at the 11th hour.”

Todd Shepherd is Broad + Liberty’s chief investigative reporter.

Originally posted at Broad + Liberty.

The Siren Call for a Militarized Response to the Rise of Vaccine Hesitancy

By Barbara Loe Fisher
Published October 24, 2024 by Government
SEE:https://www.nvic.org/newsletter/oct-2024/militarized-response-to-vaccine-hesitancy; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

Public opinion surveys and polls all say the same thing. More Americans are doubtful that getting vaccinated over and over and over again is a reliable way to stay healthy. Especially since the extreme response by governments to the World Health Organization’s coronavirus pandemic declaration in 2020, more adults have lost trust in doctors and public health officials. Some have either personally experienced a COVID-19 shot reaction or know someone who has died suddenly or is suffering with chronic poor health problems after getting the shot. 1 Others can’t forget being fired from their job or being denied medical care or a school education for refusing to get a COVID shot, while others are still unable to access social media accounts that were suspended for simply talking about COVID shot reactions. 2 3 And now, just about everybody knows that mRNA COVID shots don’t prevent infection and transmission of the disease. 4 5

These negative experiences have prompted a growing number of Americans to question whether they or their children really need to get a flu shot every year or need many other government-recommended vaccines.6 7 8 9 10

Doctors call it “vaccine hesitancy,” and almost always blame doubts about vaccination on what they call “misinformation” published online. 11 In January 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) officials at the United Nations declared that “vaccine hesitancy” is among the top 10 threats to global public health. They defined vaccine hesitancy as “the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines.” 12

That 2019 WHO declaration triggered a global culture war targeting vaccine hesitant adults and their children, who are labeled “anti-vaxxers” for propaganda purposes. What followed was an orchestrated assault on freedom of thought and speech led by doctors working for industry, medical trade and government, who collaborated with media outlets to demonize and punish people who disagree with them about vaccination. 13

Medical Journals Help Escalate the War on “Vaccine Hesitant” People

The war on vaccine hesitant people is escalating. And demagogues like pediatrician Peter Hotez, MD, PhD that uber vaccine salesman from Baylor College of Medicine, 14 are ramping up persecution of people who refuse to worship vaccine pushing scientists like him.

Professor Hotez sure does know how to get attention, and he doesn’t care if it is positive or negative attention because he has the backing of the most powerful medical and scientific journals, academic institutions, government agencies, and media corporations in the world. For a long time, he has been stalking parents of vaccine injured children and enlightened doctors who criticize vaccine safety and advocate for voluntary vaccination. He labels them “anti-vaccine” and “anti-science” and part of a “killer movement” that is “a lethal societal force of enormous magnitude.” 15 Now, Dr. Hotez is demanding that the police forces of the world join together to neutralize the vaccine hesitant people he hates and fears so much.

It gives a whole new meaning to the battle cry of globalists: ONE WORLD, ONE HEALTH!  16 17 18 19

Every human being capable of rational thinking should be aware that Dr. Hotez and a growing number of doctors and scientists like him are lobbying lawmakers to criminalize dissent so we can be forced to salute smartly and accept every cell disrupter biological product Big Pharma manufactures and sells – no matter how sick we get.20 21 22 23

Describing himself as a “vaccine scientist” while others describe him as a “misinformation machine,” 24 this year Peter Hotez was listed by Time magazine in the top “100 Most Influential People in Health in 2024.” 25 But this summer, when he called the vaccine hesitant a “lethal force” and an international “security problem” and then wildly suggested during an international medical symposium that the US Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice, US Department of Commerce, and the United Nations, including the World Health Organization, plus the largest intergovernmental military alliance in the world – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – take action to eradicate “anti-vaccine aggression [and] anti-science aggression,” I thought it was time to take a closer look at this white coat with his hair on fire demanding that NATO go nuclear on people who know and tell the truth about vaccines.26

It is not the first time Peter Hotez has hoisted the science flag and praised the infallibility of vaccines and the scientists who create them, while personally attacking anyone who disagrees. Over the past decade, prestigious science publications and mainstream media outlets have put this master propagandist on a pedestal so he can spew hate-filled rants against those who criticize dodgy vaccine science and cruel one-size-fits-all vaccination laws that violate the informed consent ethic and either deny the existence of or dismiss vaccine injured persons as expendable for “the greater good.” PHOTO-Vaccine-Culture-War.jpeg

In 2017, the prestigious Scientific American magazine, which is owned by a German-British academic publishing company, gave Peter Hotez permission to use violent imagery to incite hatred of those who disagree with him. Professor Hotez called on the U.S. government and G20 nations to take steps to “snuff out” the American anti-vaccine movement, which he said may have “sufficient strength and momentum to affect vaccine coverage globally,” while reluctantly noting that vaccine hesitancy was linked to smart people with “high educational attainment and socioeconomic status.” 27 To “snuff out” means to “crush” or “kill” 28 and the extremist language he used in that once respectable scientific forum set the stage for what was to come.

In 2018, I wrote about how Peter Hotez demonized parents of vaccine injured children during a global health lecture he gave at Duke University. 29 In that lecture publicized by Duke’s student newspaper, he complained that “anti-vaccine websites exist with names such as the National Vaccine Information Center.” He pointed fingers at scientists for failing to “engage the public,” which he alleged has led to organizations “exporting this anti-vax garbage” to communities around the world. 30

In the lecture, Dr. Hotez castigated U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill from what he described as the “peace, love, granola” political left who believe that “we have to be careful what we put into our kid’s bodies,” and those from the political right, who tell doctors like him “you can’t tell us what to do with our kids.” But he reserved the bulk of his venom for parents of vaccine injured children. Like a schoolyard bully who engages in name calling when he can’t come up with anything intelligent to say, he slapped the “anti-vaccine” label on parents of vaccine injured children who describe how their children’s health deteriorated after vaccination and express doubts about the safety of vaccines.

Then, he went further and viciously accused those parents of hating their own children.  In a dark statement that reveals the depth of his uncontrolled rage, he said: 31

  “Anti-vaccine organizations camouflage themselves as a political group, but I call them for what they really are: a hate group,” Dr. Hotez snarled. “They are a hate group that hates their family and hates their children.” 32 Later he apparently instructed the reporter to alter that last sentence to read “They are a hate group that hates [our] family and hates [our] children,” which is just as ugly and ludicrous as his original statement. 

Branding an organization a “hate group” is not inconsequential. In the 21st century, the term “hate group” is most frequently used to describe groups of individuals associated with “hate crimes,” which are defined by state laws and include threats, harassment or physical harm. Hate crimes are motivated by prejudice against someone’s race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.33

A child health advocacy charity like the National Vaccine Information Center that highlights vaccine science research gaps, criticizes paternalism in medical practice, and challenges the use of utilitarianism as the moral foundation for public health policy and law does not qualify as a “hate group,” although Dr. Hotez has done his best to make that defamatory slur stick.

Now Being ”Vaccine Hesitant” Is Being “Anti-science”

In June 2019, in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, Peter Hotez wrapped himself in the martyred science crusader cape and wrote about heroically “combating antiscience” that he believes has caused a “deplorable situation,” because the mainstreaming of “antivaccine sentiments” has led to more parents requesting “conscientious exemption affidavits” for their children to attend school without being vaccinated. 34 He alleged that “the antivax and other anti-science movements have conquered the Internet and disseminate misinformation on a scale that far exceeds accurate messaging from scientists,” while complaining that “the vast majority of Americans cannot name a living scientist,” and have no conception of how hard he and his fellow scientists have it as they “struggle over NIH grant applications and wring our hands at weekly lab meetings.”

Oh, Peter. It must be so hard to figure out how to spend the millions of dollars in taxpayer money that your buddies at NIH give to you. Your suffering is so much greater than that of vaccine injured adults and parents struggling to raise vaccine injured children, who can’t afford to pay the crushing medical bills that pile up after vaccines destroy the lives of those for whom the risks of vaccination turn out to be 100 percent. 35 36 37 38 39

Over and over again, this Baylor doc cooking up new biological products, which he wants you to be required to put in your body and the bodies of your children, categorically denies that vaccines cause autism. Hotez argues that “as a parent of an adult daughter with autism,” he absolutely knows there is “no link between any vaccine and autism.” 40

Members of Congress Investigating Origins of SARS-CoV-2 Accused of Being “Anti-science”

Beginning in 2020 with the declaration of a coronavirus pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Hotez began ramping up his vendetta against the vaccine hesitant and encouraged scientists, medical doctors and lawmakers to join him in viewing parents of vaccine injured children and anyone who points out the risks and failures of COVID shots as enemies of the state. In the science journal Microbes and Infection, in May 2020 he accused an “accelerated antivaccine movement” of causing a return of measles to the U.S. and speculated that the “antivaccine movement has grown stronger from the COVID19 pandemic, fueled with fresh conspiracies and new alliances.” 41  He said that “the antivax lobby falsely claims the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the US National Institutes of Health, headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, is behind COVID19, and funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology to perform gain-of-function research to transform an innocuous coronavirus into the lethal and transmissible SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

A year later, in May 2021, US Senator Ron Johnson requested information on why the US State Department halted the government’s only investigation into the origins of the mutated virus. 42 At the same time, Hotez told US News & World Report that the mystery of the origins of COVID-19 should be solved by scientists, specifically Chinese scientists. He said, “we need to have the world’s best Chinese and global scientists leading the effort” to “investigate the true origins of COVID-19.” 43

However, the very next month the scientific journal PLoS Biology gave Peter Hotez permission to publish a vitriolic political attack on members of Congress holding an independent congressional investigation into risky NIH-funded gain-of-function research potentially linked to the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. 44 Unhappy that Congress was not confining its investigation to the WHO narrative alleging that a coronavirus virus jumped out a bat or another animal into a human and spontaneously created a mutant virus that immediately began killing lots of people,  Hotez charged duly elected members of Congress with creating “an unprecedented culture of anti-science intimidation,” and accused “conservative news outlets” of “repeatedly and purposefully promoting disinformation designed to portray key American scientists as enemies.” 45

What was really unprecedented about that attack on Congress was that a scientific journal known for scientific rigor gave its stamp of approval to an NIH funded doctor to use the journal as a bully pulpit to compare a former President of the United States and U.S. lawmakers from one political party to Hitler, Mussolini, Marx and Lenin.
Authoritarian-Dictator.jpeg

Intent on creating a link between what he terms “antiscience aggression” and those who do not agree with him politically, Professor Hotez said:

   “The rise of antiscience in an authoritarian America is notable for its intellectual cover. Experts affiliated with far right-leaning think tanks have adopted positions on herd immunity, vaccinations and other COVID-19 prevention approaches that fit the America First narrative.”

In a sinister aside, he whispered “In some cases, these views are reinforced by intellectuals on the dark web,” an innuendo which invoked disturbing images in the reader’s mind of pornographic and other illicit content. Blaming conservative members of Congress and “conservative news outlets” for “anti-science intimidation” and “aggression against science and scientists in America,” which he said promotes “illness and causes loss of life,” Hotez then delivered the punch line: he called on Congress to protect US government scientists from what he called “political interference” and “extend federal hate crime protections” to scientists like him employed by private universities and research institutes.

Presumably this would include categorizing all public criticism of vaccine science, policy and law and risky scientific research that scientists conduct as “hate speech” to legally silence critics. Doctors and scientists would be free to use violent rhetoric and engage in anti-social behavior to punish the vaccine hesitant, while cavalierly promoting medical misinformation and disinformation.

The Hotez diatribe in PLoS Biology was a low point in the history of scientific journal publishing, but more was to come.

A Call for Using Coercion to Force Americans to Get COVID Shots

In August 2022, at the height of the Orwellian COVID pandemic response policies featuring lockdowns, electronic surveillance and testing, masking and vaccine mandates imposed on millions of Americans by lawmakers being told by public health officials to do it, 46 Peter Hotez joined with 19 other professors, doctors, scientists, attorneys, and journalists from Stanford University, Texas A&M, Yale, Emory, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Rice, University of Washington and the Universities of California, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York and the Clinton Foundation and published in The Lancet a full-throated endorsement of the use of coercion to force children and adults in the U.S. to get a COVID shot in order to hold a job or attend school. 47

It was a page right out of Hotez’s old playbook.

One brave dissenting public health physician commented in an independent online forum that The Lancet was promoting “medical fascism.” Pointing out that the article lacked foundational scientific evidence about the safety of COVID-19 shots, the dissenting physician rightly pointed out that it is unethical and a human rights violation to use coercion to force use of a pharmaceutical product that can cause injury and death by threatening job security and the right to an education. 48

Critic of Gain-of-Function Research Investigation Cited for Conflicts of Interest

On Aug. 2, 2022, Dr. Hotez tweeted that congressional hearings  49 50 investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and its association with gain-of function research was “a big threat to American biomedical science.” 51 Like others still insisting that the sudden emergence of a mutated coronavirus in 2019 was a freakish act of nature, 52 he branded the lab-leak hypothesis a “conspiracy” theory.

It turns out Dr. Hotez had every reason to try to discredit the congressional investigation into coronavirus gain-of-function research.

Because a week later on Aug. 9, 2022, the U.S. Right to Know organization published an article exposing Peter Hotez for having used a $6.1 million dollar NIH grant spanning 2012 to 2017 to fund development of a SARS vaccine that would respond to a possible zoonotic spillover or “any accidental release from a laboratory.” 53 According to documents and published studies identified by U.S. Right to Know, 54 that NIH research grant in part funded gain-of-function research involving a lab-generated chimeric SARS-related coronavirus that was linked to Dr. Shi, also known as “the Bat Lady,” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology 55 being investigated by Congress as a potential source of an accidental release of the mutated coronavirus implicated in the COVID pandemic.

One of the oldest and respected scientific journals, the Lancet is owned by the publishing conglomerate Elsevier and wields global influence on the scientific community. Hotez was appointed in 2020 to The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, which had as one its goals an investigation into the origins of the mutated coronavirus. Even though Hotez had been involved in sponsoring gain-of-function research on the coronavirus for years, he apparently did not inform the head of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission of his glaring conflict of interest. When the chair of the Commission Jeffrey Sachs, PhD eventually learned about the gain of function research Hotez had conducted, he was quoted by U.S. Right to Know as stating: 56

   “Whenever I discussed the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was a laboratory release, Hotez strongly rejected that possibility, but never explained to me or to the Lancet Commission that he actually had a grant that was based on that very kind of risk. He should certainly have been clear on that….“I asked all of the Commissioners repeatedly to be transparent about any possible conflicts of interest,” said Sachs.

The Lancet Commission Attacks Natural Rights Guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

Two months later, on Oct. 8, 2022, The Lancet, published the controversial report entitled The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic. 57 Dr. Hotez was listed as a co-author, along with a long list of university professors, doctors, scientists, economists, as well as officials at the United Nations.

In a blatant swipe at civil liberties and natural rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, Hotez and the cadre of elitists at the helm of the global Public Health Empire used the Lancet Commission report to blame the “anti-vaccine movement” in the United States for their own pandemic response failures. Pledging “solidarity” with the United Nations, of course, they called on America to abandon individual freedoms that limit the power of the state and “reorient” toward a collectivist society, which would require disempowering local and state governments so that only the federal government has the authority to make public health laws and tell citizens what to think about, believe, and do with their bodies and the bodies of their children.

Accompanying the Lancet Commission report was a Lancet editorial entitled “COVID-19: the case for prosociality.” And if you do a Google search using the words “prosociality and communism,” what you find at the top is an article published in Frontiers in Psychology in September 2022 entitled, “How prosocial behaviors are maintained in China: The relationship between communist authority and prosociality.” 58

Comparing the “Anti-Vaxxers” to “Global Terrorism”

Frustrated and angry that the “Great Reset” embraced by the World Economic Forum (WEF) 59 and United Nations 60 in 2020 was met with widespread pushback against COVID shot mandates, in an article published in 2023 in Scientific American, Hotez broadened his attack on the “anti-vaxxers” who he said have created a “killer movement…a major societal lethal force” that is “undermining our national security.” 61 Linking up “anti-vaxxers” with “the far right” and “anti-science” and “anti-semitism” he accused the unbelievers of operating in a “well-oiled, well-financed antiscience ecosystem.”

Alleging that “This is part of how authoritarian regimes operate: you denigrate science and scientists,” Hotez then proclaimed:62

“We’re going to need help, both from the White House and the United Nations because this is now a politically motivated assault. So we need the White House, for instance, to treat this like any politically motivated attack on the country, whether it’s a cyberattack or global terrorism or nuclear proliferation.”

“The first step is bringing in people from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice and the Department of State… we need an interagency task force [in the U.S.] and the same at the U.N. I don’t think the World Health Organization can solve this problem. I think this needs to go to the attention of the U.N. General Assembly and maybe the Security Council and NATO, perhaps, because it is a security threat, and it undermines democracies and the security of countries.”

After Dr. Hotez in 2023 branded people, who talk about how they suffered chronic health problems after vaccination and want to be free to make voluntary vaccination decisions, as anti-science, anti-semitic global terrorists attacking America,63 in August 2024 he had a full blown hissy fit at an international pediatric conference in Columbia. 64 He claimed that “Two hundred thousand Americans died because of anti-vaccine aggression [and] anti-science aggression.” He said he had met with the Director of the World Health Organization 65 and, once again, upped the ante by calling for the enlistment of intergovernmental security forces like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to intervene because, he emphasized, “this is a security problem.”

Investigating SARS-CoV-2 Lab Origins Is “Anti-Science”

Hotez’s most recent battle cry for a beatdown of the unbelievers coincided perfectly with a paper published in the September Journal of Virology in which 41 immunologists, microbiologists, pediatricians, oncologists, pathologists, and public health doctors from more than two dozen universities attacked U.S. lawmakers, scientists and journalists for criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci and examining evidence that SARS-COV-2 is likely a manmade virus that leaked out of a lab in China. 66  Characterizing discussion of the lab leak hypothesis as an attack on science and scientists, they insisted that the origins of SARS-CoV-2 “may never be full resolved” but that “available scientific evidence supports a zoonotic origin.” They demanded that people stop talking about the “lab leak narrative” because it “fuels mistrust in science and public health infrastructures.”

They complained about what they described as “contentious, disrespectful and unfounded calls for Dr. Fauci to be ‘prosecuted’ and imprisoned for ‘crimes against humanity.” They complained about proposed restrictions on gain-of-function virology research. Then they declared that “major scientific organizations must unite in developing programs to counter anti-science movements.”

There was no humility or self-reflection about why the people may have legitimate reasons for losing faith in the advice of doctors and scientists. There was no compassion for those who may have been harmed by biohazard lab safety violations or risky scientific research and oppressive public health policies gone wrong. Instead, they chose to blame the people for no longer trusting them.

It is pretty amazing that what began In the late 20th century as a simple request by mothers and fathers of DPT vaccine injured children for government to license a less toxic pertussis vaccine, has triggered an all-out war in the 21st century waged by doctors and scientists on anyone who criticizes science, public health policy or law. What began as an effort to protect the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking has been turned into a culture war waged by propagandists and profiteers, who are politicizing science so they can use hate speech to eliminate freedom of speech 67 and call for use military force to compel people to give up fundamental natural rights.

We do not trust scientists and doctors who shame, threaten, coerce and sanction us for thinking rationally and for exercising freedom of thought, speech and conscience. The blame for the rise in vaccine hesitancy lies squarely at the feet of doctors and scientists in academia, industry and government who refuse to conduct the good science that will yield knowledge to give people confidence in the safety and effectiveness of public health policies and, instead, behave like thugs whenever they are called out for failing to do their jobs.

The outcome of the vaccine culture war, which is being played out right now in living rooms, schools, doctors ‘offices, government agencies, Congress and state legislatures, legacy and social media and in the board rooms of corporations and politically powerful institutions, will determine whether Americans will live free or be put in chemical chains for the rest of this century.

You can help make your family, your friends and your community aware of the danger of governments failing to resist the siren call for a militarized solution to the rise of vaccine hesitancy. You can defend your right to know and freedom to choose how you and your children stay healthy by educating and working on the ground in your own backyard.

The eight billion people on this planet, including the 340 million people in the United States, can stop the exploitation and the tyranny that threatens to overtake us if we don’t expect someone else to fight the good fight. No one individual or political party or organization, no one court or one book or movie will save us. Each one of us must arm ourselves with information and courage so we can stand up and save ourselves.

Join with NVIC, the oldest and largest consumer-led non-profit in America, a classic 501C3 charity, working to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and to defend your right to make voluntary vaccine decisions without being punished for the decision you make. Get information you can trust about vaccine science, policy and law at NVIC.org. Sign up for our free weekly journal newspaper The Vaccine Reaction at TheVaccineReation.org and register to use the free NVIC Advocacy portal at NVICAdvocacy.org so you can fight the good fight for vaccine freedom of choice in your state.

At NVIC, we believe in the power of one, 68 the power of each individual to make a difference.  With strength and commitment, with faith and good will, each one of us can do something every single day to defend truth and freedom.

It's your health, your family, your choice. And our mission continues:

No forced vaccination. Not in America.

References:

1 MedAlerts. Sept. 27, 2024 Release of Data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS): 1,648,532 cases where Vaccine targets COVID-19 (COVID19 or COVID19-2).

2 Fisher BL. Forced Vaccination Was Always the End Game. National Vaccine Information Center Sept. 22, 2021.

3 Attkisson S. CENSORED: National Vaccine Information Center. Mar. 8, 2021.

4 Franco-Paredes C. Transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 among fully vaccinated individuals. The Lancet 2022; 22(1).

5 Reuters Fact Check. Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants. Reuters Feb. 12, 2024.

6  Myshko D. Survey: One-Third of Adults Say They Don’t Need Fall Vaccines. Managed Healthcare Executive Sept. 16, 2024.

7 Williams E, Rudowitz R. Headed Back to School in 2024: An Update on Children’s Routine Vaccination Trends. Kaiser Family Foundation July 18, 2024.

8 Tyson A, Pasquini G. How Americans View the Coronavirus, COVID-19 Vaccines Amid Declining Levels of Concern. Pew Research Center Mar. 7 2024.

9 Lazarus JV, White TM, Wyka K et al. Influence of COVID-19 on trust in routine immunization, health information sources and pandemic preparedness in 23 countries in 2023. Nature Medicine Apr. 29, 2024.

10  Grills LA, Wagner AL.  The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental vaccine hesitancy: A cross-sectional survey. Vaccine 2023; 41(41): 6127-6133.

11 Pierri F, Perry BL, DeVerna MR et al. Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal. Scientific Reports 2022; 12(5966).

12 World Health Organization. Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019. Jan. 21, 2019.

13 Fisher BL. WHO, Pharma, Gates & Government: Who’s Calling the Shots? National Vaccine Information Center Jan. 27, 2019.

14 Peter Hotez, MD, PhD bio. Baylor College of Medicine.

15 Weintraub K. Anti-vaxxers loathe Peter Hotez. In his new book he mourns their unnecessary deaths. USA Today Sept. 16, 2023.

16 CDC. One Health History. June 6, 2024.

17 World Health Organization (WHO). One Health Initiative: About Us. Accessed September 2024.

18 Davis A, Sharp A. Rethinking One Health: Emergent human, animal and environmental assemblages. Social Science & Medicine 2020; 258.

19 Cheng I. What pathogen might spark the net pandemic? How scientists are preparing for ‘disease X.’ The Conversation Sept. 26, 2024.

20 Fraiman J, Erviti J, Jones M et al. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults. Vaccine 2022; 40(40): 5798-5805.

21 Trougakos IP, Terpos E, Alexopoulos H et al. Adverse effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: the spike hypothesis. Trends Mol Med 2022; 28(2): 542-554.

22 Parry PI, Lefringhausen A, Turni C et al. ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA. Biomedicines 2023; 11(8): 2287.

23 Bitounis D, Jacuinet E et al. Strategies to reduce the risks of mRNA drug and vaccine toxicity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2024; 23(4): 281-300.

24 Morefield S. ‘Complete Charlatn’: Tucker Carlson Rips CNN ‘Misinformation Machine’ Dr. Peter Hotez. Townhall Media Feb. 1, 2022.

25 Kluger J. Dr. Peter Hotez. 100 Most Influential People in Health (2024). Time Magazine May 2, 2024.

26 Thacker P. Hotez Calls for Police Deployment Against “Anti-Vaxxers.” Brownstone Institute Aug. 2, 2024.

27 Hotez P. Will an American-Led Anti-Vaccine Movement Subvert Global Health? Scientific American Mar. 3, 2017.

28  Collins Dictionary. Definition of “snuff out.”

29 Fisher BL. Baylor’s Doc Hotez Bullies Parents of Vaccine Injured Children. National Vaccine Information Center Mar. 10, 2018.

30 Chen Y. ‘Part of this is our fault’: Global Health expert talks anti-vaccine movement, preventable diseases. The Chronicle (Duke University) Feb. 20, 2018.

31 Ibid.

32  Fisher BL. Baylor’s Doc Hotez Bullies Parents of Vaccine Injured Children. National Vaccine Information Center, Mar. 10, 2018 p.m.

33 US Legal. Hate Crime Law and Legal Definition.

34 Hotez P. The physician-scientist: defending vaccines and combating antiscience. J Clin Invest 2019; 129(6): 2169-2171.

35 Office of Senator Ron Johnson. Helping People Be Seen, Heard and Believed After Adverse Vaccine Reactions. July 2, 2021.

36 Vogel G, Frankel JC. Rare link between coronavirus vaccines and Long Covid–like illness starts to gain acceptance. Science, July 5, 2023.

37 Hendler C. Lawsuit Alleges Federal Injury Compensation Program Violates Constitutional Rights of Those Harmed by COVID Shots. The Vaccine Reaction Nov. 21, 2023.

38 Fisher BL. Unknown Risks of COVID Shot Harm Revealed in New Report. The Vaccine Reaction May 13, 2024.

39 Barcavage S. The medical community must stop gaslighting COVID vaccine victims like me. The Hill July 14, 2024.

40 Hotez P. The physician-scientist: defending vaccines and combating antiscience. J Clin Invest 2019; 129(6): 2169-2171.

41 Hotez P. COVID19 meets the anti-vaccine movement. Microbes and Infection, 2020; 22(2020): 162-164.

42 Office of Senator Ron Johnson. Sens. Johnson and Scott Request Information on State Department COVID-19 Investigation. May 27, 2021.

43 Castaneda R. Dr Peter Hotez: International Team Should Investigate Coronavirus Origins. U.S. News & World Report, June 8, 2021.

44 Office of Senator Ron Johnson. Sen. Johnson and Colleagues Request Documents Regarding NIH’s Handling of COVID-19 Pandemic. June 14, 2021.

45 Hotez PJ. Mounting anti-science aggression in the United States. PLoS Biol 2021; 19(7).

46 Fisher BL. Forced Vaccination Was Always the End Game. National Vaccine Information Center Sept. 22. 2021 p.m.

47 Mello MM, Opel DJ, Benjamin RM et al. Effectiveness of vaccination mandates on improving uptake of COVID-19 vaccines in the USA. The Lancet 2022; 400(10351): 535-538.

48 Bell D, Gordon D. Medical Fascism in the Lancet. Panda Aug. 28, 2022.

49 Lee M. Rand Paul vows to get answers on COVID-19 origins in gain-of-function hearing. Fox News Aug. 1, 2022.

50 U.S. House Committee on Oversight & Accountability. COVID Origins.

51 X. Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD tweet. Aug. 2, 2022.

52 Thacker P. The Covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign? BMJ 2021; 374.

53 Kopp E. Critic of congressional probe into gain-of-function research helped fund Wuhan gain-of-function study. US Right to Know Aug. 9, 2022.

54 NIH RePORT. RBD recombinant protein-based SARS vaccine for biodefense. PI/Project Leader: Dr. Peter Hotez, Baylor College of Medicine.

55 Maiden S. 'Not acceptable’: Wuhan scientist hits out at COVID-19 origin claims. News.com.au May 14, 2021.

56 Kopp E. Critic of congressional probe into gain-of-function research helped fund Wuhan gain-of-function study. US Right to Know, Aug . 9, 2022.

57 Sachs JD, Karim SSA, Aknin L et al. The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet, 2022; 400 (10359): 1224-1280.

58 Sheng J, Luo S, Jiang B et al. How prosocial behaviors are maintained in China: The relationship between communist authority and prosocialityFrontiers in Psychology Sept. 29, 2022.

59 Schwab K. Now is the time for a ‘great reset.’ World Economic Forum June 3, 2020.

60 Wecke E. Conspiracy theories aside, there is something fishy about the Great Reset. Open Democracy, Aug . 15, 2021.

61 Lewis T. Vaccine Scientist Warns Antiscience Conspiracies Have Become a Deadly, Organized Movement. Scientific American Oct. 5, 2023.

62  Ibid.

63 Van Beusekom M. ‘A deadly societal force:’ A Q&A with author Dr. Peter Hotez on the anti-science movement. CIDRAP Oct. 4, 2023.

64 Thacker P. Hotez Calls for Police Deployment Against “Anti-Vaxxers.” Brownstone Institute Aug. 2, 2024.

65 YouTube. WHO Chief: Time to Aggressively Push Back on Anti-Vaxxers. 77th World Health Assembly 2024.

66 Alwine J, Goodrum F, Banfield B et al. The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 without evidence. J Virology Aug. 1, 2024.

67 Fisher BL. Blacklisting and Censorship Violates Freedom of Thought, Speech and Conscience. National Vaccine Information Center Nov. 1, 2023.

68 Reynolds S. The Power of One. Unlocking Autism, Mar. 23, 2021 p.m. Liam’s Story. CNN October 1999.

Musk Offers Cash to Voters in Swing States that Support Second Amendment

 

Elon Musk is offering $47 to registered voters in swing states for each signature referred to other registered voters who pledge support for the First and Second Amendments.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump held a return rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, to show his resolve in the face of two nearly successful assassination attempts. Elon Musk, a staunch supporter of the First Amendment and a genius entrepreneur, spoke in support of the First and Second Amendments. Elon made this generous offer:

In appreciation for your support, you will receive $47 for each registered voter you refer that signs this petition.

Our goal is to get 1 million registered voters in swing states to sign in support of the Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. The program is exclusively open to registered voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Expires October 21.

The petition requires first and last name, email address, cell phone number (to confirm the signer’s identity only), and mailing address. Once a person has signed the petition, they can refer others to sign.

The petition is available online. For the petition to be valid, the signer must be a registered voter in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, or North Carolina. You do not need to show who referred you to sign the petition.  This correspondent has signed the petition.

Elon Musk has placed himself squarely against former President Donald Trump in this election. It is a simple act of defense of the Republic of the United States of America. Elon is a naturalized citizen of the Republic. When Elon purchased X (formerly Twitter) in order to protect free speech and to fight censorship, he placed himself, and his fortune, in extreme jeopardy.

Elon Musk has been relentlessly attacked by the Biden administration. The current administration has used their power to hinder his operation of Space X by delaying permission for his launches. When the Biden administration held a conclave of electric vehicle manufacturers, Musk owned Tesla, the foremost electric vehicle manufacturer, was not invited.  When Elon Musk proffered a low bid for rural broadband delivery with Starlink, the bid was accepted by the FCC, then rejected by the Biden administration. Leftist influencer Keith Olberman has called for the Biden administration to deport Elon Musk.

Elon Musk has seen how this authoritarian abuse of power proceeds in other countries. If a Harris administration is placed in power, the enterprises owned by Elon Musk will be either be destroyed or co-opted by the government. The Biden/Harris administration has repeatedly ignored the rule of law. They have censored the opposition and conspired to illegitimately jail opponents. They have weaponized the Department of Justice to prosecute the opposition candidate, Donald Trump. They have been the most anti-Second Amendment administration in the history of the USA.

If candidate Harris becomes president with the Democratic Party in control of Congress, the election process will be altered to make a win by a supporter of the Constitution impossible. The Supreme Court will be neutered and/or packed with far-left Harris supporters. The current censorship will be magnified many times.

The Trump administration has already shown it will allow Elon Musk to maintain control of his enterprises and will encourage him to succeed in free market competition.

This correspondent believes those who sign the petition will be encouraged to vote. If you wish to show this correspondent, who is a registered voter in Arizona, as the person who referred you, you may put the email address of isherllc@gmail.com in the referral box.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten is a peace officer and a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Vanessa Guillén’s Sister Condemns The Atlantic for Claiming Trump Disparaged Soldier: ‘He Showed Nothing but Respect’

Candles and flowers decorate a makeshift memorial for US Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen at Power House Gym on August 14, 2020, in Houston, Texas. - Guillen's murder the subsequent suicide of the chief suspect, US Army specialist Aaron Robinson, has put a spotlight on sexual harassment in the US military. Guillen, a 20-year-old US Army specialist at Fort Hood in Texas, went missing more than two months ago. After a weeks-long search, a lawyer for the Guillen family confirmed that human remains found on June 30 near her former base were those of the missing soldier. (Photo by Mark Felix / AFP) (Photo by MARK FELIX/AFP /AFP via Getty Images)
Candles and flowers decorate a makeshift memorial for U.S. Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen at Power House Gym on August 14, 2020, in Houston, Texas. (Photo by MARK FELIX/AFP /AFP via Getty Images)

OAN Staff Blake Wolf
4:20 PM – Wednesday, October 23, 2024

SEE: https://www.oann.com/newsroom/vanessa-guillens-sister-slams-the-atlantic-for-claiming-trump-disparaged-the-murdered-soldier-trump-did-nothing-but-show-respect/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The sister and family attorney of Vanessa Guillén, a U.S. soldier who was murdered in 2020, slammed a report by The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief who claimed that Donald Trump refused to pay for Guillén’s funeral after previously agreeing to. He also claimed that the former president made racist remarks towards her ethnicity.

The article, written by Jeffrey Goldberg, claimed that Trump was extremely upset after receiving a $60,000 funeral bill during a 2020 meeting in the Oval Office. Goldberg claims Trump stated “It doesn’t cost $60,000 bucks to bury a f–king Mexican.”

Goldberg also claimed that Trump demanded his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, not pay the bill, stating “Don’t pay it!”

Vanessa Guillén was 20-years-old at the time of her death. She was murdered in 2020 by Aaron Robinson, a soldier who was stationed at the same base in Texas.

Robinson, along with his then-girlfriend, Cecily Aguilar, dismembered Guillén’s body after the murder and hid it in the woods. Robinson ended up committing suicide after a confrontation with police. Aguilar pleaded guilty for aiding Robinson’s crimes, which resulted in a 30 year prison sentence.

The release of the article sparked backlash from Vanessa’s sister, Mayra Guillén, as well as the family's attorney, stating that Trump has done “nothing but show[n] respect to my family.”

“Wow. I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics-hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members, “ Mayra stated on X. “President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today.”

Natalie Khawam, the Guillén family attorney, also released a statement accusing Goldberg of exploiting the tragic death of Guillén for political gain ahead of the election.

“After having dealt with hundreds of reporters in my legal career, this is unfortunately the first time I have had to go on record and call out Jeffery Goldberg@the Atlantic: not only did he misrepresent our conversation but he outright LIED in HIS sensational story,” she wrote on X.

“More importantly, he used and exploited my clients, and Vannesa Guillenss murder… for cheap political gain. I would also like to also point out that the timing of this “story” is quite suspicious, as this supposed conversation that Trump had would have occurred over 4 years ago! Why a story about it now?!” she continued, questioning Goldberg’s intentions.

“As everyone knows, not only did Trump support our military, he also invited my client to the Oval Office and supported the I Am Vanessa Guillen bill too,” she added.

Meadows also spoke out against Goldberg’s accusations, stating that “Any suggestion that President Trump disparaged Ms. Guillen or refused to pay for her funeral expenses is absolutely false,” he wrote in an X post. “He was nothing but kind, gracious, and wanted to make sure that the military and the U.S. government did right by Vanessa Guillén and her family.”

Additionally, the Trump campaign responded to the claims, stating that Goldberg’s report was “absolutely false.”

“President Donald Trump has spent his life caring for America’s military heroes…,” stated Alex Pfeiffer, a Trump campaign advisor. “There has been no greater advocate for our brave military men and women than Donald J. Trump.”

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

Patriot Nurse: Kamala’s Hail Mary – Officially Calls Trump Hitler

In this video, Patriot Nurse analyzes Kamala Harris' Hail Mary move as she officially calls Trump Hitler in an incendiary statement. This breaking news comes at a pivotal moment ahead of the 2024 election, with Harris' comparison likely to intensify political tensions and deepen divisions across the nation. What does this bold rhetoric mean for America's future? Could it spark societal unrest as the election draws closer? Join us as we explore the potential consequences of this explosive narrative on the country.

Bill Gates Supports Kamala Harris With $50M Donation

Bill Gates, Chair of the Gates Foundation, takes part in a discussion on improving the availability of vaccines for children at an event in Berlin on October 14, 2024. (Photo by JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP via Getty Images)

OAN Staff Brooke Mallory
12:31 PM – Wednesday, October 23, 2024

SEE: https://www.oann.com/newsroom/bill-gates-supports-kamala-harris-with-50m-donation/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest individuals in the world who received immense backlash for being closely associated with pedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, “disclosed in private” that he donated around $50 million to a nonprofit assisting Vice President Kamala Harris in her bid for president, according to individuals familiar with the matter who spoke with the New York Times.

The Democrat donations were intended to remain confidential, according to the sources. Gates’ net worth is currently 105.2 billion.

The insider further claimed that the Microsoft co-founder gave his donation to Future Forward, the primary external fundraising organization assisting Harris.

According to two of the people briefed, Gates discussed his pro-Harris donation with his colleagues, including Mike Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City whose owned news outlet was one of the first to break the story, and a leading Future Forward supporter who has contemplated making a gift of a comparable scale.

Gates’ payment was made specifically to the nonprofit arm of Future Forward. As a 501(c)(4) “dark money” organization, Future Forward USA Action does not reveal its contributors. Therefore, Gates’ donation will not be included in any public filings.

“I support candidates who demonstrate a clear commitment to improving health care, reducing poverty and fighting climate change in the U.S. and around the world,” he told the New York Times. “I have a long history of working with leaders across the political spectrum, but this election is different, with unprecedented significance for Americans and the most vulnerable people around the world.”

Gates and Bloomberg have reportedly been friends for a long time and became close thanks to their shared interests in public health, government, globalism, philanthropy, and climate change.

Yet in 2019, Gates voiced a commitment to not participate in handing out large political donations.

“I choose not to participate in large political donations,” Gates claimed in late 2019. “There are times it might feel tempting to do so, and there are other people who choose to do so, but I just don’t want to grab that gigantic megaphone.”

Trump has been the target of a flurry of condemning Democrat-funded advertisements, with Future Forward being the point of the spear. Even toward the end of the election, Gates’ gift could be used to fund even more anti-Trump advertisements.

Social media users chimed in and commented on the news of Gates’ hefty donation.

“Billionaires donate money not for altruistic reasons but for their own self interests. It always comes with strings attached. It’s sad to see liberals call out billionaires who flood the Trump campaign with cash (like Elon Musk and Bill Ackman), but then praise the ones (like Bill Gates) who donate to the Democrats,” said one commenter.

In 2022, Synchron, a new brain-computer interface startup that seeks to compete with businesses like Elon Musk’s Neuralink, received investments from Bill Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who have both voiced an interest in transhumanism. The idea of transhumanism holds that humans should be able to use technology to “improve and alter” their bodies and minds, extending their capabilities beyond what is now possible due to biological limitations or nature.

Additionally, Morrissey, a now-solo artist who was previously the frontman in the popular English band The Smiths, had some words to say this year about Gates, in addition to Dr. Fauci and Klaus Schwab, the founder of the controversial World Economic Forum.

Morrissey has long denounced the globalist elite for their destructive policies and abuses of power. Since the musician opposes unchecked illegal immigration and supports English nationalism, the UK mainstream media has attempted to portray him as racist and “anti-immigrant.”

Additionally, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had criticisms for Gates last year in regard to the funding of gain-of-function research related to COVID-19 and his close ties to China.

“Look, Bill Gates has been over there [China] recently. Bill Gates is the largest funder of trying to find these viruses in remote caves and bring them to big cities. What happened in China is they went 8 to 10 hours south of Wuhan, 2 to 300 feet deep into a cave, found viruses, and took them back to a city of 15 million people,” Paul said.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts