A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
White House Issues BIG Warning & Glenn Beck Doubles Down On It…
LISA HAVEN: Multiple warnings are now being sounded all across the globe. We are in the middle of a food, gas, and economic crisis and things are about to get much worse. Many leading officials are now sounding alarms and now the White House is finally starting to admit it. I hope you are ready. All that and more in this report…
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.
As further confirmation that universities have devolved into islands of repression in a sea of freedom, some 120 Yale Law School students seriously disrupted a March 10th event. Sponsored by the Yale Federalist Society, the event featured Kristen Waggoner, lead counsel for the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and Monica Miller of the progressive American Humanist Association (AHA), appearing together on the panel to discuss (ironically, it turns out) free speech issues.
Yale’s LGBTQ students had already mobilized their opposition to the appearance of Waggoner, particularly because ADF, they claimed in a flyer they distributed, “is an organization designated by the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] as a hate group” and that the Federalist Society’s invitation to Waggoner provided “a veneer of respectability [that] is part of what allows this group to do work that attacks the very lives of LGBTQ people in the US and globally.” Once it has been predetermined that the organization for which Waggoner is lead counsel was anti-gay, it no longer mattered what she would say at the event. The moral scolds at Yale Law School had already decided she should be canceled and forbidden from giving her opinions about anything at all.
Preventing someone with opposing views to even speak, to make his or her opinions known and heard by the campus community, means that the disruptors are so sure of their beliefs, so positive that their perception is the valid one, the only true one, that they are comfortable with suppressing the alternate beliefs and ideology of those whose speech they seek to silence. Students, even graduate law students, are certainly not omniscient nor do they know the single truths about a range of topics guest speakers bring into debates. Their experience is insufficient to make them credible arbiters of what may be said, and what must not be said, on university campuses.
They do not have the moral right or intellectual capacity to gauge what is bad speech and what is good speech.
And they exert their unearned moral and intellectual superiority to silence ideological opponents because feckless administrators have tolerated this outrageous behavior, the use of what is known as the “heckler’s veto,” for too long now and are reaping the inevitable backlash.
The heckler’s veto is an unethical tactic used the advance one’s own beliefs by defeating an ideological opponent’s argument by silencing him, instead of having to offer a compelling argument of one’s own; someone with alternate views has his speech canceled or, if it is held, shouted down, disrupted, and jeered at.
When students shout down a speaker with whom they disagree and refuse to even let that person voice their opinions—regardless of how abhorrent or aberrant the disruptors think them to be—they are acting both rudely and pretentiously, assuming that their opinions are so valid and powerful that someone with opposing ideas does not even deserve to have them aired and considered. And when law students behave in this manner, as they did in a similarly grotesque fashion recently at UC Hastings School of Law when they shouted down Georgetown’s Ilya Shapiro, one might question both their intellectual maturity and their ability to maintain suitable judicial temperament as future lawyers.
Additionally important, when a speaker like Waggoner is invited to the Yale campus, she is a guest of the entire law school, and it is neither the right nor role of a few self-selected students to censure speakers and decide—in advance—that the speaker has no right to even air his or her views. In most cases, speakers who have been shouted down and prevented from speaking are highly-educated, academically-accomplished, and appropriately credentialed individuals with many years of professional experience behind them, so their ideas are formed by far more education, accomplishment, and intellectual activity than the protesting college students themselves have, making attempts by activist students to suppress the speech of those whose intellects are superior seem not only discourteous and audacious but misguided.
Waggoner, for example, was the lead counsel for the First Amendment rights case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which she argued before the United States Supreme Court. The law students who disrupted her speech at Yale may disagree with her position on whether a baker should be compelled to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, but her legal skills and knowledge are evident, as is the insight and perspective she brings to a debate over this current cultural issue.
The censorious Yale brown shirts, like their fellow travelers on other campuses, have created their own definitions of free speech, putting limits on it that are contrary to what universities say it is and should be, and classifying certain speech—that with which they disagree—as harmful, cruel, even “violent”—sometimes manifesting itself as “hate speech” because it might, in their minds, discomfort a member of a victimized identity group.
But the Constitution and most university speech codes do not contain those exemptions, nor should they. So-called hate speech is a political categorization, not a legal one.
And the notion that an LGBTQ student, real or imaginary, somewhere may find offense if Waggoner speaks at Yale is no justification for silencing her, regardless of how unacceptable some tendentious, intolerant students may think she and her ideas are.
It is neither the responsibility nor duty of universities to foreclose certain debates because the discussion may hurt someone’s feelings somewhere. And it is certainly not the right of self-selected moral scolds to censor the speech of which they disapprove and promote and allow only speech with which they agree. Such an approach violates both the letter and spirit of academic free speech precepts.
In fact, this very sentiment is defined in the concise but eloquent 2014 University of Chicago Statement on Freedom of Expression, commonly referred to as the Chicago Principles. “The ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict,” the statement reads, in words echoing Yale’s own version of a free speech declaration, the 1974 “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale,” commonly known as the Woodward Report. “But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility . . . concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.” [Emphasis added.]
Universities, including Yale, encourage vigorous responses by students and faculty to speech with which they disagree, including courteous protests outside the venue, the use of placards, sitting in silence at the event with armbands, or issuing flyers and other material encouraging attendees to avoid the event or read alternate information. But vocal disruptions—shouting, pounding on desks, jeering, using noisemakers, or otherwise interfering with a speaking event in a way that prevents attendees to hear the speech—all of those modes of behavior are specifically prohibited. Reports describing the Yale event, however, suggested that the pounding on desks, shouting, and vigorous disruption were so excessive that faculty and students in other rooms in the same building felt and heard the noise through the walls.
Freedom of speech, contrary to the thinking of some activists, does not mean freedom to suppress the speech of another by drowning out his or her speech with yours.
“Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus,” the Chicago Principles read, “and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”
Additionally, the university has a duty to ensure that any individual on campus is allowed to speak and present his or her views, and the university has an obligation to protect that right by enforcing, if necessary, cordial behavior and decorum and removing anyone who violates that expected behavior. “To this end,” the statement continues, “the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.”
In fact, Yale law professor Kate Stith, who moderated the event, can be seen in a video recording of the event struggling to read aloud Yale’s free speech policy, although the rude response from the demonstrators was that “this protest is free speech,” and her admonition was ignored.
Yale’s own Woodward Report rejected the idea “that speech can be suppressed by anyone who deems it false or offensive . . . [and] [t]hey make the majority, or any willful minority, the arbiters of truth for all. If expression may be prevented, censored, or punished, because of its content or because of the motives attributed to those who promote it, then it is no longer free. It will be subordinated to other values that we believe to be of lower priority in a university.”
Students must be told during orientation that disruptions such as the type discussed here will never be tolerated, are never appropriate, and will lead to punishment of the offending students, up to and including suspension or expulsion.
Assuming a speaker is the invited guest of a registered student group and is recognized by the university as such, all invited speakers must be treated with civility, courtesy, and deference. Attendance at an event like the Yale lecture was not mandatory, so if a guest speaker’s ideas are toxic or repulsive then a student can choose to not attend an event, but it is not the right of an individual student or group of students to decide that a speaker because his or her ideology is in opposition to the students’, should not be allowed to speak and deserves to have his or her event shut down.
After the outrageous Yale event, D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman suggested in an email to his fellow federal judges that the behavior of the law students involved in shutting down the invited speakers should rightly disqualify them from holding future clerkships, “that students who are identified as those willing to disrupt any such panel discussion should be noted. All federal judges,” he wrote, “should carefully consider whether any student so identified should be disqualified from potential clerkships.”
Whether that punishment is appropriate or just, the truth is that when they do become lawyers, these law students will have to hear competing arguments in a case, convince a judge and jury of their interpretation of an argument, and successfully argue for their client based on reason, facts, legal precedent, and intellectual ability.
As future lawyers, they will not be able to pound on a table and suppress the speech of others in the courtroom, including opposing counsel and a judge. They will not be able to only present their side of a case without having the other side present theirs. And the university is a place where the same decorum and procedures for promoting views, developing intellectual arguments, providing facts and research to support one’s opinions, and inspiring academic inquiry and scholarly debate is fundamental to the advancement of learning.
That is precisely why universities exist and why any attempts to suppress certain speech—because it is currently out of favor or novel or even controversial—are antithetical to what the university represents and why, either in a law school classroom or in a courtroom, unfettered free speech is paramount, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it, even “for the thought that we hate.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Twitter has banned another conservative, this time for telling the truth about “transgenders,” the men and women who pretend or mistakenly believe they are members of the opposite sex and demand to be treated as such.
Say those unfortunate people are mentally ill, and into exile one goes.
The latest victim is Matt Margolis, who said as much in an exchange about the “victory” of “Lia” Thomas, the University of Pennsylvania swimmer who pretends he is a woman and won the NCAA’s 500-yard freestyle championship last week.
Margolis told what might be the truth about “Lia” — real name, William — and Twitter banned him.
Not Telling the Truth
“I figured it was inevitable that Twitter would find a reason to suspend me from their platform permanently, and now they finally have,” Margolis wrote for PJMedia.
A social worker had tweeted that we must not insult “transgenders” no matter our opinion about Thomas.
“No matter your opinion on Lia Thomas, I urge you to discuss the topic as if a transgender person were in the room,” Justin Spiro said. “Because one probably is.”
Well this blew up.
My first time being ratioed, and I stand by every word.
40% of transgender youth attempt suicide.
Prefacing your Lia Thomas criticisms with “Trans people have value” or “I respect trans people” is not difficult –
In fact, one probably isn’t, but in any event, the social worker continued:
We can agree or disagree with the NCAA without insulting our transgender friends, classmates, and neighbors.…
40% of transgender youth attempt suicide.
Prefacing your Lia Thomas criticisms with “Trans people have value” or “I respect trans people” is not difficult — and can literally save lives.
That 40 percent attempt suicide because they don’t get the psychiatric care they need to disabuse them of the false belief they are the wrong sex, as renowned psychiatrist Paul McHugh has repeatedly explained to no avail.
Margolis answered, and was sent packing for his trouble.
“Trans people represent a fraction of a percent of the population,” he wrote, and said that even if he were in a room with a person so afflicted, “I’d tell them the truth: they have a mental disorder.”
Not all of them are mentally ill; some are faking it to get into the ladies’ restroom or, perhaps, dominate in a women’s sport because they are weak men who cannot compete where they belong.
I was given no warning, and I woke up to find that my account was locked and suspended. Appeals were made, and Twitter promptly sent form responses back.
In short, I am now banned from Twitter. For telling the truth.
Gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder was until very recently considered a mental disorder. No one can honestly say that the decision to no longer classify it as such was based on objective science.
Strike Two
That, of course, is McHugh’s point, as he wrote for The Public Discourse:
The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.
This is Margolis’ second strike on the “transgender” issue.
When he tweeted that Richard “Rachel” Levine, the No. 2 federal health official as assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, is a man, Twitter forced him to delete it.
“I’m sorry; I don’t give a damn what Twitter thinks,” Margolis wrote:
Rachel Levine is a man, and Twitter banning me won’t change this biological fact. Rachel Levine can call himself a woman all he wants, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. This is what is so dangerous about the transgender movement. They aren’t satisfied unless the rest of us validate how they feel. It’s not enough for a man to call himself a woman. The rest of us are expected to participate in that delusion. They think their right to believe what they want trumps our right to believe the facts.
Does Twitter think they’ve won by banning me? They haven’t.
Maybe, but the “transgenders” certainly think they have won. If they are right, women’s sports are doomed.
In an address to his nation delivered Sunday, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky announced an order “combining all national TV channels, the program content of which consists mainly of information and/or information-analytical programs, [into] a single information platform of strategic communication” to be called “United News.”
The move means the end, at least temporarily, of privately owned Ukrainian media outlets in that country. Zelensky claimed the measure is needed to combat alleged Russian misinformation and “tell the truth about the war.”
Along with the media consolidation, he banned “any activity” by 11 political parties.
The emergency actions were taken under rules for martial law. Zelensky claimed he was trying to institute a “unified information policy.”
Those are all euphemisms for a totalitarian system.
Now, mind you, this kind of thing is standard in much of the world, including Russia, where there’s no meaningful political opposition on the air, and media outlets toe the party line. But the whole argument for Ukraine was that it was supposed to be better than Putin’s Russia.
It’s also hard to see what the point of such a move would be if Ukraine is truly unified. You only need to resort to totalitarian measures when the country isn’t.
Today we're giving what amounts to a Christian, conservative State of the Union (and world). And, spoiler alert, the state of America and the world is pretty bad. Between war raging in Europe and China looking to take America's spot as world superpower, it's a fair bet that tough times lie ahead. To anyone with an objective sense of reality, there is a direct link between the decline of the U.S. and the rise in chaos around the world and the proliferation of progressive policies that put ideology over prosperity. We discuss how progressive environmental and economic regulations create conditions like energy dependence and companies outsourcing manufacturing to our enemies, a situation that China and Russia are all too happy to exploit. However, it's not all bad news, as we discuss a few of the theological reasons Christians need not worry too much about worldly affairs, but a more in-depth theological and practical discussion about what's going on in the world is soon to follow as well.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Washington, DC –-(Ammoland.com)- Over the past 2 years, the ATF has been speaking out of both sides of their mouths by cracking down on solvent traps while saying that the agency does NOT regulate the devices.
Recently AmmoLand News broke the story about a secret rule change involving 80% suppressors ahead of ATF’s official rule change deadline. These new rules were implemented without any public notifications or comment periods.
The new secret rule makes it almost impossible for anyone to make their own silencer. The ATF denied 850 out of 3000 law-abiding Americans the right to build their own suppressors by rejecting their Form 1 application.
Worse yet, the ATF sent the personal information of those applicants to local ATF field offices to be investigated for crimes!
The rest of the applicants were asked to provide high-resolution pictures to ATF before their Form 1 Application could be approved.
AmmoLand News then urged Congress to get involved in bringing the Biden admins’ out-of-control government bureaucracy under control. Now some members of Congress are stepping up to the plate.
A letter has now been sent to the ATF from the Senate. 20 Senators signed a letter to the ATF demanding the agency stop making rules in secret surrounding Form 1 suppressors & force reset triggers.
A 2nd letter is going out from Republican House Judiciary Committee Members Rep. Andy Biggs & Ranking Member Rep. Jim Jordan… to the ATF and DOJ telling them to stop abusing their power.
Several gun rights organizations have helped Congress draft the letters, including Gun Owners of America, the American Suppressor Association, and the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition.
The American Suppressor Association is asking you to take action & demand Congress tell the ATF to abide by its previous determinations and not revoke any issued tax stamps.
The American Suppressor Association wants gun-owning Americans to let Congress know that the only way to fix the issue with these hearing-saving devices is to pass the Hearing Protection Act. The HPA would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act. Find those action links in our in-depth article linked in the description below.
The gun grabbers want American gun laws to look more like the laws in the UK. Let’s give them this win…. Silencers are purchased over the counter in most parts of Europe. In fact, shooting without a suppressor in many European countries is considered rude.
Tell us what you think in the comments below and share this video with your friend & family to help support AmmoLand News, America’s oldest 2nd Amendment News outlet.
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun owners.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Insanity over pronouns has hit the Midwest. Children and teachers are being pressured to declare their pronouns and parents are livid.
In the Olentangy school district near Columbus, a middle school language teacher required all the students to stand up and declare his or her pronouns. A high school teacher in that same district told the class to let her know if she should change a student’s pronouns when contacting parents.
In the Dublin (OH) City Schools, a class of elementary students was asked to name their individual pronouns. At Hilliard Davidson High School (a Columbus suburb), teachers are called to the principal’s office and forced to apologize to a student if an unwanted pronoun is used. At that same school, an assistant principal now signs his correspondence with “he/him” following his name.
How long before children are called to the principal’s office for being unwilling to state their pronouns? Or will all of our children go along with this? They will unless their parents spell it out for them.
T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y is what’s going on here. The “LGBTQ” folks are serious about obliterating “heteronormativity” and your children are their change agents.
Is it any wonder three percent of Ohio public school students have been removed in the past two years [53,000 students]? And Christian and Catholic schools are bursting at the seams?
Of course, pronoun insanity is already law in New York City, where “malicious” pronoun misuse by an employer or landlord can result in high fines.
But most of the country is still in touch with reality-- or so we thought. And little kids were, until recently, still spared from the “LGBTQ” bizarro fantasy world.
What I am wondering is, how long before this is a required identifier after each child’s name in not just a few, but most public schools? While we were frustrated about masks, special interest activists have been hard at work, securing lavish Biden administration American Rescue Plan funding for “safe re-opening” (i.e., “make sure all the radical agendas are set in stone”). In Ohio, $6.5 billion has been distributed from federal sources. Money, money, money!
Now, a flood of recent “diversity, equity and inclusion” staff positions have been filled to enforce uniformity, partiality, and exclusion. And a slew of counselors and social workers have been hired for “social-emotional learning” initiatives, so radical teachers are empowered and loaded for bear.
You, conservative Christian parent, are the bear. Do not mess with us while we tutor your child and his teacher in the ever-expanding perversion lexicon of invented human categories like “non-binary, gender fluid, genderqueer, two-spirit” to replace “male” and “female,” which are said to be “sex assigned at birth.” Reality is just too threatening, apparently.
Here’s what one Ohio mom wrote to me: “My son was surveyed by computer as to how he identified sexually by asking him to provide his preferred pronoun.” These parents were not notified in advance that their 12-year-old would be asked this question.
Unless outspoken parents can roll this back, pronouns will be a new form of passport affirming that a child is “ready to learn” ( aka, ready to be indoctrinated). Yet who among our bravest will stand up and say, “I refuse”? Because it really has to be done, by brave young warriors at as many schools as possible.
This is not just a manipulative way to compel acceptance of gender deviance, but it’s also an assault on our common language. One presenter at a recent teacher training workshop in Hilliard schools, an open advocate of homosexuality and gender deviance, mused that some activists globally are pushing to change languages that have embedded gender cases-- for instance, French. And to her, this is a good thing.
Many French-speakers are rebelling against linguistic activism because it unnecessarily complicates the language as an article in Forbes explains: “France doesn’t have a pronoun for ‘they’– in the third person plural, people must choose between the masculine ils or feminine elles.”
Praise God.
And even though radicals are pushing for a “non-binary” French pronoun like “iel,” it hasn’t happened yet, not even in Canada—unless progressive dictator Justin Trudeau will force this on his country, too.
In the U.S, activists persuaded Merriam- Webster to adopt “they” as a singular pronoun, and the dictionary publisher declared it the “word of the year” in 2019. Sigh.
But do children have to be forced to use such nonsense? Clear language reflects clear thinking.
Back to Ohio. Teachers in Parma schools, Hilliard schools, and Mariemont schools have been tutored in pronoun nonsense, with valuable professional development time spent on the nuances of using mythological pronouns like “ze/zir” and so on. The Mariemont presenter, who appears to be a female, goes by pronouns “they/them."
In Hilliard, teachers were instructed to engage in an exercise where they introduced themselves to one another adding their pronouns after their names. Many cooperatively went along with this lunacy.
Those who cooperate with pronoun tyranny are affirming the following:
1. That gender change is possible and is a worthwhile behavior, even for the developing child
2. That you “respect” the idea of gender change
3. That you are okay with fudging the science of male/female biology for the greater good of an invented “non-binary” standard
4. That religious objections do not need to be respected and should be scorned or ignored
Be sure this is okay with you. If it is, may God open your eyes and soften your heart.
If it’s not, then get ready to stand on your convictions--- and show our children how they can do the same.
Real America's Voice crew handcuffed and investigated while illegal border crossers watched
APRIL 29, 2021: Feds Harass Reporter for 'Trespassing' at Wide Open Border Where They Let Cartels Walk Across
Real America’s Voice correspondent Ben Bergquam reports live from the border where the feds are harassing him for “trespassing” — at the same spot where the cartels walk right through.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents detained journalists at gunpoint on the Arizona-Mexico border for filming illegal aliens freely crossing into the U.S. thanks to Joe Biden’s open border policy.
Real America’s Voice investigative journalist Ben Bergquam and his crew were detained by CBP at gunpoint on Friday while filming the network’s “Law and Border” program.
“I have been to this section of the border many times, both with law enforcement escorts and without, and have never had an encounter like this,” Bergquam said.
— Ben Bergquam – Real America’s Voice (RAV-TV) News (@BenBergquam) March 19, 2022
Footage shows that while numerous border agents were preoccupied harassing Bergquam and his crew, dozens of illegal aliens were seeing crossing the U.S. border unimpeded.
“There are guys out there fully armed, guns out while Washington DC is supporting the drug cartels. While our country is being invaded, there are 60 guys who are just standing around and they are worried about us, ” Bergquam said as he and his team were detained and questioned.
“While we have complete respect for law enforcement, we were stunned to be detained at gunpoint while illegal immigrants looked on right after crossing our southern border. This incident reveals the backward priorities of our leaders in Washington, unfortunately, as the border crisis worsens by the day,” he added.
Real America’s Voice CEO Howard Diamond condemned Biden’s targeting of journalists in a Saturday statement but added his company won’t relent in its coverage of the open border crisis.
“Such targeting of journalists has rarely ever happened in America,” said Diamond. “Though the Biden administration’s border agency’s detainment of our journalists greatly concerns us, we remain undaunted in our commitment to deliver consistent and fact-based news reporting on the crisis on the southern border while the rest of the media ignore it.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Ben Bergquam, a lead investigative reporter on the border for Real Americas Voice and founder of Frontline America, spoke with War Room host Steve Bannon last week and exposed the dangerous and corrupt actions being taken by the Biden administration, on the Southern border of the United States.
Bergquam posted an interview on Sunday- with more details:
Breaking: Admiral Chuck Kubic says Border Patrol in Roma, TX stated last night that they are now coordinating with the Cartel on cartel trafficking times in an attempt to save on manpower. Unthinkable that this is what we’ve come to because of the #BidenInvasion! @RealAmVoicepic.twitter.com/HsW4Ev5h6C
— Ben Bergquam – Real America’s Voice (RAV-TV) News (@BenBergquam) January 30, 2022
Listen to this exchange as Bannon and Bergquam describe Biden’s corruption- as law enforcement has to focus on a decoy raft of illegals- while another raft of drug smugglers goes by unrestricted by law enforcement.
“They are running drugs down the river here after having a distraction raft in this area. It is all being designed by the cartels- so all Biden is doing is helping them with these policies. They are raping our sovereignty,” Bergquams said, about the collaborative effort to help facilitate numerous crimes against the people of the United States of America.
“They are mocking the officials. We saw them point and laugh at the law enforcement- and they should laugh because they are watching the managed decline of America by our leaders,” Bannon said about the drug smugglers that Bergquam had seen hiding in the trees behind him, as he recorded.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-While the world’s attention is focused on the horrific events unfolding in Eastern Europe, the Biden-Harris administration quietly unleashed hell on American gun dealers.
As the NRA first noted,the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has started revoking licenses of gun dealers for the most minor of paperwork errors – errors that never led to license revocations until Biden took office.
The move was intended to bolster Biden’s politically motivated stratagem, which he first announced on June 23, 2021, that “rogue” gun dealers are responsible for skyrocketing crime rates in large cities that historically have been controlled by Democrats. The “epidemic of gun violence” wasn’t caused by weak prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable, or gangs or underfunded police departments or by any combination thereof, Biden claimed. It was all the fault of “rogue gun dealers.”
Back then, Biden said rogue dealers willfully transfer firearms to prohibited persons, fail to conduct background checks, falsify records, and/or refuse to cooperate with an ATF tracing request or inspection.
This week, The Biden-Harris administration added four more criteria to the rogue list – all minor paperwork errors: failure to account for firearms, failure to document a gun buyer’s eligibility, failure to maintain records needed to comply with an ATF tracing request, and failure to report multiple handgun sales.
FOIA the FOIA
To vet Biden’s rogue gun dealer theory, on the same day he made his “rogue” speech, the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the ATF, seeking the following:
Copies of documents that show the number of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and their state of residence, who have been prosecuted for willfully transferring a firearm to a prohibited person over the past three years (from June 23, 2018 to June 23, 2021.)
Copies of documents that show the number of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and their state of residence, who have been prosecuted for ignoring and/or refusing to cooperate with a tracing request from the BATFE, over the past three years (from June 23, 2018 to June 23, 2021.)
(Note: We did not seek the names or other identifiers of any FFL.)
The FOIA request would prove or disprove Biden’s claims, which everyone, even the ATF, likely knew were false. If the rogue dealers were responsible for the increasing violence, there should be hundreds if not thousands of prosecutions and subsequent FFL revocations. If Biden’s claims were false, there would likely be a half-dozen prosecutions in the entire country.
Four months passed without a word from the ATF — not even an acknowledgment they had received the FOIA request. Then, in October, the ATF finally admitted it had received the request, but warned it might take even longer to process.
“For your information, this office assigns incoming requests to one of three tracks: simple, complex, or expedited. Each request is then handled on a first-in, first-out basis in relation to other requests in the same track. Simple requests usually receive a response in approximately one month, whereas complex requests necessarily take longer. At this time, your request has been assigned to the complex track,” the ATF letter states.
The letter also provided the names of two FOIA liaisons, Darryl Webb and Zina Kornegay. Months of calls and messages left for these alleged liaisons were not returned.
In February, after another four months had passed, Kornegay finally answered her phone.
“I’m seeing a bit of back-and-forth,” she said of the request. “Let me look into this further. I will try and find out what’s going on with this.” She refused to say when the ATF would actually respond to the FOIA request. “Let me speak to my team leader,” she said. “I do see your request, but there seems to be some back-and-forth about the best way to handle it.” Kornegay was clearly alarmed by something she read in the FOIA file. She promised to call in a few weeks but never did.
Now, nearly nine months after the original FOIA was filed, there has been no further communication from the ATF, so the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project sent ATF a second FOIA request – an attempt to find out more information about the kerfuffle our first FOIA request seemingly ignited.
Specifically, we requested copies of all internal ATF emails related to our first FOIA, as well as copies of all external emails the ATF received related to our initial request – for example, emails that may have come from the White House. We will publish any response we receive.
True Intent
The Biden-Harris Administration clearly wants to revoke as many FFLs as they can. Their goal is simple and transparent: Fewer gun dealers will result in fewer gun sales. Like most of their anti-gun schemes, they did not take into account that criminals don’t buy their firearms from licensed gun dealers, they steal them or buy them on the black market, so the administration’s plan will only infringe upon law-abiding firearm purchasers.
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
It’s always fascinating to me how the left likes to pin a penchant for violence onto the right. After all, it’s wasn’t a GOP presidential candidate who urged his followers, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” and it wasn’t Republicans who dispatched the New Black Panther Party to intimidate voters during multiple election cycles.
But never mind all that; it’s the right who’s prone to violence.
Enter Elie Mystal. He’s a “justice correspondent” at The Nation, and he’s just written a book called Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, which “explains how to protect the rights of women and people of color instead of cowering to the absolutism of gun owners and bigots.” So we’re not talking about a voice of reason here by any stretch of the imagination.
“Although many courts and commentators herald these laws as valid regulatory measures, others reject them as punitive enactments that violate the rights of individuals who already have been sanctioned for their crimes,” Jackson once wrote.
In her questioning, Cross set Mystal up for a home run of ridiculousness.
Hawley is “going to focus on her pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their crimes both as a judge and a policymaker,” Cross said, because “Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have nothing, so their tactic is going to be erasure.”
Mystal went to town with his answer.
“What Josh Hawley is doing when he tries to do this is he’s trying to get her killed,” he claimed. “He is trying to get violence done against a Supreme Court nominee. And we know this because when these people go off making their ridiculous claims about child pornography, we know that some of their people show up violently to do stuff…”
Elie Mystal thinks @HawleyMO is trying to get Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson killed by bringing up her record of letting child porn offenders off easy. This guy is really unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/hzwqRyzy3Q
Cross is the one who said that the Republicans “have nothing,” but all left-wing extremists like Mystal have is preposterous attacks like these. Leftists can’t possibly defend Jackson’s statements at face value, so they have to resort to tactics like “Hawley wants her to die.” This is how the left operates: when they can’t defend their own, they simply accuse the other side of the most farcical behavior imaginable.
Elie Mystal, Tiffany Cross, and anyone who’s willing to believe their nonsense should know better. Josh Hawley doesn’t want Ketanji Brown Jackson to die. He just doesn’t want her to grace the bench at the Supreme Court — and plenty of other reasonable people agree with him.
In part 1 of this bombshell exclusive, Candace sits down with Dr. Robert Malone to discuss the effects of the vaccine on women's fertility, the corruption of Big Pharma, and the truth about how medical data is manipulated. This is the interview that Big Tech doesn't want you to see.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on Friday during the Celebration of Penance that he will preside over in St Peter's Basilica,the Vatican announced Wednesday.
The Director of the Holy See Press Office, Matteo Bruni, said in a statement: “The same act, on the same day, will be performed in Fatima by Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, papal almoner, who is being sent there by the Pope."
The day of the Feast of the Annunciation of the Lord was chosen for the consecration.
The news was greeted with joy by Catholic leaders in both Ukraine and Russia.
“In 1917, Our Lady of Fatima said that, in order to stop the war and the persecution of the Church, we must pray and consecrate Russia to her Heart and also take Communion on the first five Saturdays of the month,” he said.
Earlier Wednesday, Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church and Pope Francis discussed the war in Ukraine. It was the first known contact between the two religious leaders since the conflict began.
The Moscow Patriarchy said in a statement that the two discussed the "humanitarian aspects of the ongoing crisis" and the importance of pursuing peace talks.
They also discussed "what actions the Russian Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches could take to overcome its consequences," the Russian side said.
In its readout of the conversation, which took place in a video call, the Vatican said the pope told Kirill: "The ones who pay the price of war are the people, the Russian soldiers and the people who are bombarded and die."
Kirill, 75, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has made statements defending Moscow's actions in Ukraine and sees the war as a bulwark against a West he considers decadent, particularly over the acceptance of homosexuality.
At his general audience earlier on Wednesday, Francis evoked the specter of a nuclear war, where whoever is left of humanity would have to start all over again on "the day after," and appeared to ask God to stop the aggressor in Ukraine.
Metropolitan (Archbishop) Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church's external affairs office and Cardinal Kurt Koch, head of the Vatican Council for Christian Unity, also took part in the conversation, both statements said.
On Wednesday evening, the Vatican's number two, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, said a Mass for peace in Ukraine in St. Peter's Basilica attended by both the Ukrainian and Russian ambassadors to the Vatican.
Republican senators reacted to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's recent address to Congress. One America's John Hines has more from Capitol Hill.
Mariupol final stages. Russia says goodbye to Globalist system
Biden’s handlers’ new Iran deal allows Russia to cash in on $10,000,000,000 contract to build nuclear sites
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. How is this not treason? But Biden’s handlers have nothing to worry about. The only people in positions to prosecute them are on their side.
“New Iran Agreement Would Let Russia Cash in on $10 Billion Contract To Build Nuclear Sites,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 16, 2022:
Russia’s top state-controlled energy company is set to cash in on a $10 billion contract to build out one of Iran’s most contested nuclear sites as part of concessions granted in the soon-to-be-announced nuclear agreement that will guarantee sanctions on both countries are lifted.
Russian and Iranian documents translated for the Washington Free Beacon show that Rosatom, Russia’s leading energy company, has a $10 billion contract with Iran’s atomic energy organization to expand Tehran’s Bushehr nuclear plant. Russia and the Biden administration confirmed on Tuesday that the new nuclear agreement includes carveouts that will waive sanctions on both countries so that Russia can make good on this contract.
“We, of course, would not sanction Russian participation in nuclear projects that are part of resuming full implementation of the JCPOA,” State Department spokesman Ned Price confirmed on Tuesday, referring to the original 2015 nuclear accord. Russia’s foreign ministry made a similar statement on Tuesday, saying that “additions were made to the text of the future agreement on JCPOA restoration to ensure that all the JCPOA-related projects, [especially] with Russian participation, as well as Bushehr [nuclear power plant], are protected from negative impact of anti-Russian restrictions” by the United States and European Union….
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
(Natural News) However bad the food shortage was expected to be due to Russia’s invasion of its Ukrainian neighbor, they are going to get worse following a decision made by the Kremlin earlier this week.
According to reports, the government of President Vladimir Putin has decided to halt all exports of most agricultural commodities including wheat, rye, barley and corn at least until June 30 in what appears to be Moscow’s pushback on the sanctions imposed on his country by the West.
Interfax, Russia’s newswire agency, reported that the country’s Agriculture Ministry announced the ban, which began March 15 – just as some observers, including One River CIO Eric Peters – are likening the coming global food shortages to the original Holodomor (which, by the way, occurred in Ukraine under Stalin). The Holodomor was a man-made famine instituted by that authoritarian butcher “from 1932 to 1933, peaking in the late spring of 1933,” Britannica.com noted.
The site added: It was part of a broader Soviet famine (1931–34) that also caused mass starvation in the grain-growing regions of Soviet Russia and Kazakhstan. The Ukrainian famine, however, was made deadlier by a series of political decrees and decisions that were aimed mostly or only at Ukraine. In acknowledgment of its scale, the famine of 1932–33 is often called the Holodomor, a term derived from the Ukrainian words for hunger (holod) and extermination (mor).
“The Agriculture Ministry, together with the Industry and Trade Ministry, has drafted a government resolution that provides for a temporary ban on the export of basic grain crops from Russia from March 15 to June 30 of the current year inclusive,” the ministry’s press office told Interfax.
There is still some hope that a worst-case scenario can be avoided, but that is becoming more doubtful literally by the day.
According to Douglas Karr, founder of the business blog Martech Zone, a global food shortage means just that – it will be global – so it will be felt in the “land of plenty” as well: America.
Karr reportedly spoke with several U.S. food industry officials who said farmers in the Midwest and South are already having difficulty obtaining enough fertilizer to grow crops ahead of this year’s planting season, which is just around the corner for some parts of the country. He also said that farmers in the “Midwest are switching,” likely a reference to crops that need fewer nutrients because they “can’t get nitrogen nor fertilizer.”
Convo with farm today: – Meat processors booked out a year because stockpiling beef. – Farmers in South can’t get fertilizer for crops now. – Farmers in Midwest are switching, can’t get nitrogen nor fertilizer. Buckle up, folks! The media isn’t even warning you. #economy
There is also this: Even before Russian troops stormed across Ukraine’s border, there were already global food shortages, thanks in large part to the supply chain crisis created (and perpetuated) by months-long lockdowns and factory closures following China’s creation and release of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19). In addition to Russia curbing exports, Ukraine’s government has also halted food exports to ensure that its people have enough as Russian forces continue pounding their cities and taking over land used for food production.
All said, the United Nations has warned that prices for food – which were already at record highs – will spike even more, from eight to 20 percent from this point on. Add on skyrocketing oil, gasoline and natural gas prices and you have all the makings of a worldwide catastrophe (and the massive unrest it will spark).
If Russia winds up banning food experts, and especially wheat, for months or longer, the global food shortages will likely lead to a far worse crisis than the one that caused the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, tore Syria apart and spread to North Africa.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
A Christian teacher in Kansas is suing her school board, the superintendent, and the principal after allegedly being suspended for using a student’s wrong transgender pronouns.
Fort Riley Middle School teacher Pamela Ricard claims the suspension violated her First Amendment religious freedom rights.
Ms. Ricard believes that God created human beings as either male or female, that this sex is fixed in each person from the moment of conception, and that it cannot be changed, regardless of an individual person’s feelings, desires, or preferences. Any policy that requires Ms. Ricard to refer to a student by a gendered, nonbinary, or plural pronoun (e.g., he/him, she/her, they/them, zhe/zher, etc.) or salutation (Mr., Miss, Ms.) or other gendered language that is different from the student’s biological sex actively violates Ms. Ricard’s religious beliefs
The lawsuit claims the school board suspended her and issued a written reprimand for failing to follow the school’s policies regarding diversity and inclusion.
On April 7, 2021, Ricard allegedly called one of her students “miss” to gain her attention. Another classmate emailed Ricard after class informing her of the student’s different first name and new he/him pronouns.
The following day, Ricard addressed the student by her last name, avoiding using pronouns entirely. The same classmate who emailed Ricard, frustrated, left a note on her desk calling her “transphobic,” adding, “my pronouns are he/they btw.”
His pronouns are He/Him & if you cant act like an Adult & respect him & his pronouns then prepare yourself to deal with his mother since you cant be a decent human being and respect him. All youre doing right now is showing that youre transphobic & don’t care that youre being visibly transphobic.
Two days after the initial incident, Ricard discussed the issue with school officials, the complaint said. Later that day, the district put Ricard on a three-day paid suspension while school officials investigated any possible violations of school board policy, the complaint alleges.
Once Ricard returned from the suspension, the school reprimanded her for allegedly violating school board policies. The board also ordered Ricard to use the student’s new name and pronouns. Ricard signed the reprimand but handwrote, “I do not agree with this,” the complaint said.
During an August closed board hearing regarding Richard’s employee discipline, the board allegedly denied her request for a “specific accommodation and policy that would allow her to continue to address students by their names but refrain from using preferred pronouns or other gender-specific language, for a student when such pronouns or language were different than the student’s biological sex.”
Although the school suspended her in April, Ricard claims the school had no “formal policy regarding student preferred name and pronoun use at the time shewas suspended and reprimanded.”
One week after her suspension, the school principal sent all teachers training documents on “Diversity Training on Gender Identity and Gender Expression as well as a protocol document regarding the Use of Preferred Names and Pronouns,” according to the complaint. The district then implemented a policy requiring teachers to use their students’ preferred names and pronouns in October.
“No public school teacher should be forced to contradict their core beliefs in order to teach math to middle schoolers,” Ricard told the Washington Post. “I treat all students with respect, but the district has rejected any attempts to find a compromise that respects students without violating my convictions.”
“The school district disciplined Ms. Ricard not for something she said, but for something she couldn’t say,” Ricard’s attorney said.
The case is Ricard v. USD 475 Geary County Schools School Board, No. 5:22-cv-04015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Due to state laws in several states banning abortions either after a heartbeat is detected or after a certain number of weeks of pregnancy, Citigroup has taken the step of covering travel expenses for employees who go out of state for abortions. The bank announced Tuesday that the new policy is “in response to changes in reproductive healthcare laws in certain states in the US.”
Citigroup — the third-largest banking institution in the United States — made its announcement in a public filing ahead of its annual shareholders' meeting in April. And while the filing does not specifically mention abortion, it states that the policy of covering travel expenses was put in place to “facilitate access to adequate resources.”
And while Citigroup may have conspicuously left any direct mention of abortion out of the filing, the use of euphemism is hard to miss. By stating that the bank is covering employees' travel expenses to “facilitate access to adequate resources” “in response to changes in reproductive healthcare laws in certain states in the US,” Citigroup could not have been more clear if the filing has said, “We want to be known as the abortion bank.”
Citi will cover transportation and lodging for employees who need to leave states such as Texas for abortions, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Citigroup — which is considered a systemically important bank by the Financial Stability Board and is commonly cited as being “too big to fail” — was part of the U.S. government’s 2008 bailout of financial institutions. Since then, Citigroup has been no stranger to controversy. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Citigroup was — as of 2008, when the U.S. government bailed it out — the 16th-largest political campaign contributor in the United States. In 2014, of the 57 Democrats supporting the 2015 spending bill, 34 had received campaign cash from Citigroup’s PAC at some point since 2010. The line between Citigroup and the government is blurry indeed. And the line between Citigroup and the establishment is so faint it can scarcely be seen at times. The government bailed Citigroup out and Citigroup began buying the government off. Nice arrangement, if you can get it.
Buried in a filing released Tuesday night, the bank disclosed it will now cover travel costs for employees seeking an abortion after several states including Texas implemented or proposed a near-total ban on the procedure. The New York-based bank will pay expenses, such as airfare and lodging, that employees may incur if forced to leave a state for an abortion.
Of course, the idea that anyone could be “forced to leave a state for an abortion” is ridiculous. No one is ever “forced” to get an abortion, much less leave a state to do so. Abortion is — by its very nature — an elective surgery designed to kill an unborn human person.
The backlash from Texas Republicans who see the new Citigroup policy for what is was immediate.
Matt Rinaldi — who serves as chairman of the Republican Party of Texas — said, “Citigroup’s decision to finance the murder of unborn children with a heartbeat is appalling, but not surprising, considering its past adoption of far-left causes.” He added a call for Republicans to avoid entrusting their finances with Citibank and other companies that are hostile to them and their values.
And Texas land commissioner running for the Republican nomination for attorney general, George P. Bush (yes, of those Bushes) said, “The ‘travel benefits’ offered by Citigroup is nothing more than a PR stunt by a ‘woke’ company to support a culture of death,” adding, “Texas is a pro-life state, and if elected Attorney General, I will hold actors who attempt to find loopholes in our laws accountable.”
Bush’s warning that he will “hold actors who attempt to find loopholes in our laws accountable” may not be a hollow threat. The Texas law allows citizens to sue anyone who aids another in obtaining an abortion. And Bloomberg cited Columbia University law professor Carol Sanger as saying that the bank will be opening itself and its human resources employees up to “aiding and abetting” liability under the Texas law. She said the bank may be gambling it won’t get sued “because nobody has been sued yet” under the statute’s enabling provision.
While other financial institutions (and other major employers) in Texas are likely watching Citigroup’s policy closely to see how it pans out for them, most other large employers in Texas are sitting tight. In fact, as Bloomberg reported, most are staying mum:
Indeed, banks operating in Texas were mostly quiet on Citi’s move. JPMorgan Chase & Co. didn’t have an immediate comment. Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley all didn’t respond to requests seeking comment. Some of the state’s biggest employers — American Airlines Group Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Halliburton Co., AT&T Inc. and Toyota Motor Corp. — didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
One exception to that rule of silence is Wells Fargo. A spokesperson for the bank simply said, “We do not have a travel benefit for abortion services at this time,” indicating a desire to leave that door open for the future.
But some companies known for their liberal stances have taken the Citigroup approach on this and other “Culture War” issues. As Bloomberg reported:
Some CEOs have tried to openly navigate the culture wars as they strive to retain talent. Match Group Inc. CEO Shar Dubey, whose Dallas-based company owns some of the biggest dating apps, said last year she was creating a fund to help cover the costs for employees and dependents who need to seek care outside the state. Lyft Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc. pledged to pay legal fees for drivers sued under the Texas law.
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff said in September the company would offer assistance to employees who wanted to leave Texas in response to the anti-abortion law. On March 12, dozens of companies including Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Dow Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, took out an ad in the Dallas Morning News urging the state to scrap Abbott’s order on transgender kids.
As this unfolds, one thing is certain: The companies that are coming out in favor of these and other liberal policies and practices are unashamedly drawing a line in the sand and then boldly crossing it to declare their position. As this unfolds and the Supreme Court hands down a decision that is expected to return the abortion issue to the states, America is going to be segmented by Abortion States and Life States. It will be interesting to watch these “woke” companies try not to become broke companies if the residents of the Life States don’t want to work for them or do business with them.
Rep. Chip Roy slams Dems on Judiciary Committee, saying they don’t want to talk about skyrocketing murder rates, fentanyl deaths, or deaths resulting from COVID lockdowns or "radical environmental" policies because those are "not helpful to the agenda."
IT'S ON: Rep. Chip Roy Urges House Republicans to Impeach DHS Sec. Mayorkas
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) is urging his colleagues in the House to bring impeachment proceedings against Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Mayorkas was confirmed by the Senate just over a year ago, with six “Republican” senators voting in his favor (including opportunistic squish Mitt Romney), and he immediately got busy undoing President Trump’s excellent work securing the U.S. border with Mexico. Predictably, straight-up millions of illegal aliens have stormed into the country since then, and Mayorkas is pushing to remove the few safeguards and policies still in place that impede the flow. Not only that, but the Biden administration has also been transporting thousands of these invaders throughout the country’s interior and providing them with additional extremely expensive services at taxpayer expense.
Mayorkas previously worked in the Obama administration as Homeland Security deputy secretary and director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (an agency within the department). Most Republicans declined to approve his confirmation because a 2015 Inspector General report found that he had “intervened to help foreign investors in the EB-5 visa program who were connected to top Democrats” while he was heading up the immigration agency, according to Fox News.
In a letter sent to House Republicans on Wednesday, March 16, Roy declares “the border of the United States is more dangerous, broken, and insecure than ever. It demands our immediate attention and collective call for the impeachment of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas.”
Hear! Hear!
Enough is enough.
Rep. Chip Roy is calling on every single House Republican to join the fight to IMPEACH @SecMayorkas for refusing to secure the Southern border.
— Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) March 16, 2022
The letter also says:
The U.S. Senate confirmed Secretary Mayorkas just over one year ago & he subsequently took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” Yet, following the orders of President Biden or acting on his own – he has embarked on the purposeful abandonment of the laws of the United States and the successful policies of the previous administration to secure our borders and protect our people.
His actions have resulted in the death and endangerment of Americans, damage to property and communities across the border, loss of operational control of our border to dangerous cartels imprisoning thousands of migrants sold into human trafficking, and the fueling of deadly drug poisonings of thousands of Americans.
It is most certainly a “high crime or misdemeanor” for a public officer to purposefully endanger Americans while willfully ignoring one’s oath to enforce our laws. Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas is our duty. We should call for it now – despite Democrat control of the House – and make the case for immediate border security better than any speeches we can give or bills we can introduce.
The Epoch Times says it has exclusively obtained documents attached to the letter that makes the case for impeaching Mayorkas. According to Epoch Times, some of the impeachable offenses include:
“Secretary Mayorkas has not only failed to maintain operational control of the border, defined in law as the ‘prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband,’ but his actions have also actively facilitated the loss of it—he is an accomplice to the violation of our laws and our national sovereignty.”
Roy also argued that Mayorkas “has willfully, actively, and unnecessarily put Americans in danger” by “empowering criminal drug cartels, impairing the health of Americans with communicable diseases and lethal drugs, damaging U.S. economic health and wasting the hard-earned money of taxpayers, allowing illegal migrants to destroy private property, [and] placing American citizens at imminent risk of physical harm.
The document also points out that Mayorkas’s “refusal to faithfully execute the laws has drawn hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants to the border each month—creating a completely avoidable border crisis.”
It is always exhilarating to read or hear words that are sane, righteous, and true. What the Biden administration has done to this country through its reprehensible immigration policies — not to mention the damage, abuse, and deaths of countless desperate foreigners who enter the globalist migration pipeline — is criminal on a scale seldom seen. (Evil is a more accurate word, but impeachment is our remedy for crimes; it is not ours to administer the penalty for evil.)
Any reasonable person can see the veracity of Roy’s argument. With elections coming up and Democrats at risk of losing their seats, it’s not too hard to imagine some of them agreeing. If not, the Mayorkas impeachment and removal must be accomplished in 2023, once all the new Republican reps and senators are sworn in. Wouldn’t it be wild if the very same arguments were then used to remove the traitorous President and Vice President whose policies Mayorkas is enacting? Then we wouldn’t have to wait until 2025 to swear a Republican into the White House and begin saving what’s left of America.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
March 7, 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis hosted a roundtable discussion about COVID treatment, early treatment suppression, vaccine risks, the collateral damage from school closures and lockdowns, and more
March 8, 2022, the Florida Department of Health updated its guidance, formally recommending against COVID vaccination for healthy children, 5 to 17. Florida is the first state to go against CDC vaccine recommendations
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo stressed that, as we move forward, we must insist on holding decision-makers accountable for their harmful public health decisions. “Their choices, that they made for everyone, were the wrong choices that led to, basically, no appreciable benefit,” Ladapo said
According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the most egregious mistakes made was to ignore the fact that there’s a thousand-fold difference in risk between the lowest and highest risk groups. Children are at virtually no risk of dying from COVID, yet children have been forced to bear the burden of disease prevention. “Almost from the very beginning of the pandemic, we adopted policies that seem like they were tailor-made to harm children,” he said
According to Dr. Sunetra Gupta, what we’ve seen over the past two years is an “inversion of the schedule of uncertainty.” Doubt was cast on things that were certain, while certainty was claimed for things we had no clue about. Decision-makers chose to do the very things we knew, for certain, would cause harm. They inverted the precautionary principle to minimize harm and chose to maximize harm instead
March 7, 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis hosted a roundtable discussion1 about COVID treatment, early treatment suppression, vaccine risks, the collateral damage from school closures and lockdowns, and how to end the COVID theatre once and for all. Panelists included physicians, scientists and academics from around the U.S., including:
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, a former National Institutes of Health-funded researcher
Dr. Robert Malone, a molecular virologist, bioethicist, vaccine researcher, and co-developer of the mRNA vaccine platform
Dr. Tracy Hoeg, Ph.D., an epidemiologist
Dr. Jill Ackerman, a family physician
Dr. Christopher D’Adamo, Ph.D., an epidemiologist, and integrative medicine specialist
Dr. Shveta Raju, an internist
Dr. Harvey Risch, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology trained in mathematical modeling of infectious diseases
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Ph.D., professor of health policy at Stanford, research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for focused protection of the most vulnerable2
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., former professor of medicine at Harvard University, now senior scientific director of the Brownstone Institute, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in vaccine safety evaluation, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration
Dr. Joseph Fraiman, a rural emergency physician and clinical scientist, specializing in harm-benefit analysis
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D., Oxford University professor, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious disease, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration
We Must Hold Decision Makers to Account
As noted by Ladapo, one of the things we must remember and remain intent upon as we move forward is to hold people accountable for their public health decisions. Two years after the “two weeks to slow the spread,” we have ample evidence proving the decision-makers “didn’t know what they were talking about,” Ladapo says.
They abused their power, they manipulated data, they lied, and they now want us all to forget what they said and did. We cannot let them get away with it. Many errors were made, and those responsible must be held to account.
“Their choices, that they made for everyone, were the wrong choices that led to, basically, no appreciable benefit,” Ladapo says. “We cannot let them forget. We have to hold them accountable. We have to let the country, the world, know what the truth is — because it’s the right thing to do, and because it can happen again if we don’t.”
Thousand-Fold Difference in Risk Was Ignored
Bhattacharya was one of the first to investigate the prevalence of COVID-19 in 2020, and he found that by April, the infection was already too prevalent for lockdowns to have any possibility of stopping the spread.
He points out that one of the most egregious mistakes made was to ignore the fact that there’s a thousand-fold difference in risk between the lowest and highest risk groups. Children and teens are at virtually no risk of dying from COVID. Overall, the risk of COVID is primarily relegated to the very old and those with multiple comorbidities.
Bhattacharya has called the COVID-19 lockdowns the “biggest public health mistake ever made,”3 stressing that the harms caused have been “absolutely catastrophically devastating,” especially for children and the working class, worldwide.4
In some areas of the world, children have not been in school for two years, and the ramifications of that will likely reverberate for decades. Public health has also been negatively impacted by lockdowns and other measures — measures which Bhattacharya states were based on fear, not fact.
Stunning Denials of Science
Kulldorff, in his opening remarks, points out what he believes is one of the most stunning parts of this pandemic, and that is the denial of the basic science of natural immunity. Even doctors and hospitals that “should know better have demanded vaccine mandates for people who have already had COVID,” he says.
Perhaps even worse, hospitals have fired staff who have had COVID and have natural immunity, simply because they did not want to get the experimental jab. Those with natural immunity are not just less likely to get COVID again, they’re also far less likely to spread it to others. This makes them among the most valuable staff members a hospital can have, yet they were routinely discarded.
“That goes against basic principles of public health,” Kulldorff says. “And to have a director of the CDC who questions natural immunity, which we have now, is sort of like having a director of NASA who questions whether the earth is flat or round. It’s just mindboggling that we’ve come into a situation like that.”
Fraiman, whose clinical research expertise includes risk-benefit analysis, also expresses disbelief and frustration over the scientific censorship we’ve seen in the last two years. He points out that many of his colleagues are simply too afraid of getting fired to speak the truth.
DeSantis, similarly, highlights how incredibly difficult it has been to publish and find research that contradicted the official narrative, and even when available, the mainstream media would refuse to acknowledge it, whereas they would endlessly publicize speculation and statements of opinion that had no basis in fact or science, but supported — however flimsily — the official narrative.
I would add that so-called fact-checkers have even gone so far as to “fact check” scientific peer-reviewed publications,5,6,7 labeling them as “misinformation” or outright “false,” resulting in their being censored on social media!
That’s an astounding development. It does not bode well for science when noncredentialed individuals with zero experience in the topic at hand are given the authority to decide the “truthfulness” or accuracy of scientists’ work.
The Inversion of the Precautionary Principle
Gupta, who has some 30 years of expertise in mathematical modeling of infectious disease, points out that what we’ve seen over the past two years is an “inversion of the schedule of uncertainty.” In short, doubt was cast on things that were rather certain — so-called “unknowns were not unknown,” Gupta says — while certainty was claimed for things we had no clue about.
“The powers that be told us the measures and restrictions would work, but we didn’t know they would work,” she says. Moreover, we didn’t know what their purpose actually was. “It was a rather incoherent set of goals,” she says. One thing we knew for certain was that lockdowns and other restrictions “would have enormous cost,” she says.
“That was the one thing we were certain about, yet that’s what we went ahead and did. We inverted the precautionary principle of trying to minimize harm, by doing the one thing we knew would cause harm.”
I would add that the scale of that harm was never calculated or addressed at any point along the way. It’s as though it didn’t matter how great the harm was, as long as there was the appearance that we were doing everything in our power to prevent COVID.
Plausibility Versus Science
Risch brings up a similar point, saying we’ve seen a lot of misdirection. What’s been conveyed to the public have been things that are plausible, but not scientific. “There’s a big difference between things that seem plausible and things that are scientific,” he says.
For example, lockdowns are a plausible countermeasure, but they’re not based in science. In fact, all the science we have, shows them to be harmful, with little or no benefit whatsoever. “The same has been true for medications,” Rish says.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration put out warnings saying that hydroxychloroquine should not be used in outpatients, even though they had no data on outpatient use of the drug. They only had data on in-hospital use, and the two situations are not comparable.
Early COVID symptoms are completely different from symptoms of later-stage, severe infection and the two stages require completely different treatments. Hydroxychloroquine only works well when used very early. It’s not useful in the later stages, and frontline doctors were well aware of this.
No Justification for Mandating Vaccines for Children
Malone — speaking on behalf of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists,8 which currently has some 17,000 members — stressed that, in terms of COVID policies, the Alliance has “made a series of very clear, unambiguous statements.”
“There is no justification for mandating vaccines for children. Full stop,” he says. “We’re of the strong opinion that if there is risk there must be choice. This is fundamental bioethics 101.”
As noted in the second Physicians Declaration9 by dated October 29, 2021, children’s clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible, and long-term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to the enactment of mandatory vaccination policies. Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity. Malone continues:
“No. 2, as far as we’re concerned, there is no medical emergency now, and there is therefore no justification for the declaration of medical emergency and the suspension of rights ...”
The Alliance also condemns “the hunting of physicians and the restriction of physicians’ ability to prescribe and treat with early treatment.” With regard to vaccines, Malone also highlights the fact that while a Pfizer/BioNTech COVID injection has been approved by the FDA, that product is not available.
So, there is NO FDA-approved COVID “vaccine” on the market in the U.S. The only products available in the U.S., for children and adults alike, are emergency use authorization (EUA) products, for which liability is waived.
Now, in order for the COVID injections to qualify for EUA, there could not be any other treatments available, which appears to have been the driving factor behind the suppression of early treatment with repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Mask Mandates Have Not Had Any Benefit
Speaking to the issue of mask mandates, Hoeg has published several studies, looking at the effects of universal mask-wearing. One of them assessed compliance and outcomes in the Wisconsin school system. On average, 92% of children complied with the mask-wearing, and only seven students out of 7,000 caught COVID during the 2021 school year.
This was used by the media to proclaim that masks work. The problem is, there was no control group, and the low infection rate could have been due to anything. Hoeg points out we have studies from Scandinavia, where masks were not worn, and they too had extremely low infection rates among children.
Again and again, we’ve seen that children just aren’t susceptible to COVID, especially not severe infection. So, low incidence really says nothing about the effectiveness of masks.
DeSantis also notes that neighboring schools — one that had a mask mandate and another that did not — had no discernible difference in infection rates, which he believes is rather compelling evidence that mask mandates have no benefit. What’s more, of the two largest randomized controlled trials, both showed that masks do not prevent the spread of infection.
According to Hoeg, we’ve inverted the precautionary principle with respect to mask-wearing as well. Without any high-quality evidence of benefit, we’ve chosen to mask children even though we know there are harms. They interfere with communication, impede learning, hinder breathing, promote bacterial infections and more.
The Collateral Damage Has Been Immense
As noted by Fraiman, any time you consider a public health measure, you have to conduct a thorough risk-benefit analysis. Who may benefit and to what degree? What are the harms, who will be harmed the most, what’s the extent of the collateral damage? Do the benefits outweigh all of the risks?
In the case of school closures, “the collateral damage has been immense,” Fraiman says. Physical and mental health has been impacted. According to Fraiman, there’s been a doubling of obesity and diabetes, for example, during the pandemic. There’s been a dramatic increase in anxiety, depression, and stress.
Recent statistics show a shocking spike in fentanyl overdose deaths among high school-aged adolescents in the U.S. during 2020 and 2021. The following graph, from a December 24, 2021, preprint article10 posted on medRxiv and tweeted11 out by Dr. John B., a scientist, illustrates the situation better than words.
According to the authors:12
“Adolescent overdose mortality saw a sharp increase between 2019 and 2020, from 2.35 per 100,000 to 4.58 per 100,000, representing a 94.3% increase, the largest percent increase of any 5-year age group ...
Trends were driven by fatalities involving IMFs [illicitly-manufactured-fentanyls], which nearly tripled from 2019 to 2020, and represented 76.6% of adolescent overdose deaths in 2021 ... Our results should also be understood in the context of rising rates of adolescent mental illness during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“I think it’s quite clear that the collateral damage outweighed any benefit that was there,” Fraiman says. “So, I think we need to take a more systems-level approach before embarking on this kind of policy the next time.”
Was Harming Children Intentional?
Bhattacharya adds, “Almost from the very beginning of the pandemic, we adopted policies that seem like they were tailor-made to harm children.” Lower-income children were disproportionally harmed by lockdowns and school closures. “The effect on these kids has been catastrophic,” he says.
He cites a study that calculated that, as a result of the school closures during the spring of 2020, children in the U.S. will lose 5.5 million life years. Lost learning literally ripples through the child’s entire lifetime. They lead less healthy and shorter lives and are more likely to be steeped in poverty.
In some areas of the world, schools have been closed for nearly two years. As noted by Bhattacharya, we’ve “robbed an entire generation of their birthright.” Mask mandates have made the impact on children even worse.
He points out that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the only public health agency in the world that still recommends masking toddlers, “with literally not a single study showing it has any consequence on the spread of the disease.”
“The only reason they continue to mask [toddlers] is because [the toddlers] are powerless,” he says. “We’ve adopted this idea that children are the central problem; children are the ones who should bear all the burden of infection control.
In fact, that’s not true. It has revealed the values we have as a society, and it’s not a pretty picture. None of this has actually worked to protect the vulnerable. Still, 80% of the deaths are in people over 65. What have these restrictions on children bought? Not very much, if at all. And it’s caused tremendous harm that we’re going to have to address for years to come.”
Florida Recommends Against COVID Shots for Healthy Children
In late February 2022, Ladapo and DeSantis also updated the state’s policy on masks, formally discouraging mask-wearing.13 Toward the end of the roundtable, Ladapo announced the Florida Department of Health would also formally recommend against COVID shots for healthy children, aged 5 to 17,14 as they “may not benefit from receiving the currently available COVID-19 vaccines.”
During the roundtable, risks such ass myocarditis were also discussed. Florida is the first state to go against the CDC’s vaccine recommendations. In a statement published with the new guideline, March 8, 2022,15 Ladapo said:
“Based on currently available data, the risks of administering COVID-19 vaccination among healthy children may outweigh the benefits. These decisions should be made on an individual basis, and never mandated.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
As Trump and former VP part ways, Pence eyes POTUS.
QUICK FACTS:
President Donald Trump is effectively ruling out asking former Vice President Mike Pence to be his running mate should he run for a third White House bid in 2024 and win the Republican nomination,The Washington Examinerreports.
“I don’t think the people would accept it,” Trump told The Examiner Tuesday evening during a telephone interview from Mar-a-Lago, his private club and political headquarters in Palm Beach, Florida.
Trump pointed to disagreement between himself and Pence rising in the aftermath of the 2020 election, suggesting their differences are too stark to overcome, The Examiner notes.
Trump claims the election was stolen and wanted Pence to overturn the results during the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s Electoral College win.
But Trump did characterize Pence as a “really fine person,” even though he signaled their relationship might be irrevocably broken.
“Mike and I had a great relationship except for the very important factor that took place at the end. We had a very good relationship,” Trump said. “I haven’t spoken to him in a long time.”
#EXCLUSIVE: Former President Donald Trump is effectively ruling out tapping former Vice President @Mike_Pence as his running mate should he mount a third White House bid in 2024 and win the Republican nomination.https://t.co/Sm8vIlLp13
Pence is considering a 2024 bid, The Examiner reports.
He’s also signaled he wouldn’t automatically stand aside if Trump were to run, accelerating efforts to establish his independence from President Trump.
Pence recently told a gathering of conservative lawyers Trump is flat “wrong” to claim the vice president is constitutionally empowered to throw out the results of a presidential election.
He also took aim at Trump’s remarks toward Russian President Vladimir Putin during remarks to party financiers gathered for a Republican National Committee donor retreat, saying, “There is no room in this party for apologists for Putin.” Trump had previously referred to Putin as “smart,” “savvy,” and “a genius” in certain contexts while insisting that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine never would have happened on his watch.
“We cannot win by fighting yesterday’s battles or by relitigating the past,” said Pence.
Trump was recently the overwhelming favorite for the GOP nomination in the 2024 presidential election, garnering 59% of the vote in a straw poll conducted at a Conservative Political Action Conference‘s meeting in Orlando, Florida, even beating Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis by 31 points.
Pence was among the 1 percenters, along with Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Tim Scott of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin.
Pence argues the Constitution granted him no authority to overturn the Electoral College results.
“Mike thought he was going to be a human conveyor belt, that no matter how fraudulent the votes, you have to send them up to the Old Crow,” Trump said, using his nickname for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, The Examiner notes.
“But that turned out to be wrong. Because now, as you know, they are feverishly working to try and get it so that the vice president cannot do what Mike said he couldn’t do,” Trump said, referring to proposals to overhaul the Electoral Count Act. “Obviously, they were either lying, misrepresenting, or they didn’t know.”
