21 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-24-22

  1. I see they have some great Halloween costumes out this year…. 🙂

    Like

  2. Turns out running on nothing but abortion and Orange Man Bad isn’t the winning strategy Dems thought it was.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/new-senate-poll-shows-three-states-slipping-democrats

    “With the midterm homestretch underway, Republicans appear to have momentum on their side in their quest to flip the Senate as three states move in their direction in a key forecast.

    RealClearPolitics’s Senate projection recently moved three battleground Senate races to the GOP: Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. Meanwhile, FiveThirtyEight has tightened its projections for the Senate amid a deluge of polling showing the Republicans gaining ground.

    FiveThirtyEight gives Republicans a 45% chance of winning the Senate, which diverges from RealClearPolitics’s projection that the GOP will secure a 53 to 47 seat majority in the lower chamber.”

    Both forecasts project that Republicans are favored to win the House. Given the 50 to 50 split in the Senate, the GOP only needs to win one seat to secure the upper chamber. Vice President Kamala Harris serves as the tiebreaker vote when the Senate is evenly divided on issues.

    Republican Adam Laxalt is now polling ahead of incumbent Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) in the Battle Born State by 1.2 percentage points in the RealClearPolitics aggregate. However, Republicans Blake Masters of Arizona and Herschel Walker of Georgia are polling behind their Democratic rivals in their respective Senate contests.

    Walker has been rocked by a recent scandal following a bombshell Daily Beast report earlier in the month that he paid and encouraged a woman to have an abortion — an allegation he denies. But the forecast appears to assume that the race will head to a runoff, giving him more time to make up ground.

    Masters has long trailed incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), but he appears to have made a little headway in recent polling against him. He is trailing by about 2.5 points, but adjusting for October polls, that gap narrows to 0.7, per RealClearPolitics.

    Republicans have rebounded massively in generic congressional polling, now favored over the Democrats by 3.1 points. This is up from where they were in June before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that preceded a substantial GOP polling tumble in the metric.”

    It’s the economy, not abortion and TDS that will decide this election.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. In the abortion argument, the extremists are easy to spot.

    Hint: It’s not those against it who are extreme and out of the mainstream, it’s the abortion up until birth party that’s extreme.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/24/republicans_find_their_footing_on_abortion__148359.html

    “Earlier this week, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio stood his ground on a debate stage in Tampa. His opponent is seasoned Democratic lawmaker Val Demings, a black congresswoman and former police chief, and the discussion had turned to abortion rights – terrain that Democrats believe favor them and give Demings and other Senate candidates a chance to alter the expected outcome of the 2022 midterms.

    “I’m 100% pro-life not because I want to deny anyone their rights but because I believe that innocent human life is worthy of the protection under the law,” Rubio said. While noting he has supported legislation that includes exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother’s health, he then went on offense, arguing that “the extremist on abortion in this campaign” is his opponent.

    Like Democrats around the country, Demings had been running ads hitting her Republican opponent on abortion for more than a month. During their debate, Rubio delivered his rebuttal. “She supports no restrictions, no limitations of any kind – she’s against a four-month ban, she voted against a five-month ban,” he said. “She supports taxpayer-funded abortion on demand for any reason any time up until the moment of birth.”

    Demings, the former chief of police in Orlando who investigated rape and incest cases while in uniform, was equally forceful in her response. She accused Rubio of being dishonest with Florida voters because he had previously said he personally opposes all abortions without exceptions, including for victims of rape and incest. “How gullible do you think Florida voters are?” she retorted.

    Both sides strongly articulated their points and defended their views. But Rubio’s decision to come out swinging won rave reviews from pro-life groups. For months, these advocates have pressed Republicans to fight fire with fire when it comes to abortion because, they argued, Americans’ positions on the issue are much more nuanced than many topline poll results have shown.

    “It’s a basic rule of politics that you identify the contrast with your opponent, and you leverage it to your advantage,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told RealClearPolitics. “I think that after a little bit of clearing of the throat, our candidates are doing an excellent job. And in places where they don’t do that the abortion issue may get the better of them, but in places where they do, they’ll gain the advantage.”

    Yet, if this summer’s headlines were to be believed, Republicans were doing far more serious faltering than minor throat-clearing.

    “In sprint to November, Democrats seize on shifting landscape over abortion: No issue has upended the battle for Congress and state races so abruptly,” the Washington Post proclaimed in early September.

    “‘Pink Wave’ Poised to Upend Republican Midterm Prospects,” proclaimed U.S. News & World Report, citing a surge in women planning to vote in November.

    In the weeks following the Supreme Court’s late June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats aggressively took the fight to Republicans, many of whom either downplayed their anti-abortion stances or sought to avoid the topic altogether. Democrats were especially jubilant in late August after Republicans lost a special election in a swing New York district in which their candidate laid out clear battle lines on abortion.

    “Republicans can say good-bye to their ‘Red Wave’ because voters are clearly coming out in force to elect a pro-choice majority to Congress this November,” declared Sean Patrick Maloney, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. .

    In the final sprint toward November, however, Maloney himself is in a more competitive race than expected, against GOP Assemblyman Mike Lawler in a newly redrawn district. Nearly every poll shows that voters’ concerns over inflation and the economy are greatly surpassing any other issue in the race, including abortion.

    A few weeks ago, the political dynamic shifted as inflation continued to climb, and many economists predicted that the economy is on the brink of a recession. Several prominent voices on the left, including veteran strategist James Carville and Sen. Bernie Sanders, started warning fellow Democrats that their hyper-focus on abortion could backfire.

    “It’s a good issue. But if you just sit there and they’re pummeling you on crime and pummeling you on cost of living, you’ve got to be more aggressive than just yelling abortion every other word,” Carville told the Associated Press.

    There was plenty of criticism on the right too, as anti-abortion groups griped that GOP candidates were overreacting to the Dobbs decision by cowering in fear and hoping the issue would somehow just go away.

    Dannenfelser and others pointed to what they cast as encouraging data from a late June Harvard CAPS/Harris poll on the question of where Americans stand on late-term abortions. Even amid the huge media outcry over the overturning of Roe, 72% of Americans agreed that abortion should be banned no later than 15 weeks, while only 10% said it should be allowed up until viability, when the fetus can live outside the womb – or approximately 24 weeks.

    Anti-abortion advocates argue that the findings directly undermine the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would enshrine Roe v. Wade protections into law and make abortion legal until the point of viability. Every House Democrat except one voted for the bill in the wake of Dobbs, but the measure sank in the Senate, where Republicans opposed it.

    After the poll results were released, abortion opponents pressed Republicans to turn the tables and force Democrats to define precisely when during pregnancy they would draw the line and say abortion should be barred. “If candidates support laws that permit abortion all the way up to birth, they are out of step with the American public, and Republicans should not be afraid to call them out on it,” Dannenfelser wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in late August.

    Over the last month, J.D. Vance and Blake Masters, as well as Rep. Ted Budd, GOP candidates running for Senate in Ohio, Arizona, and North Carolina, respectively, have been doing just that – vigorously defended their pro-life positions while calling on their Democratic opponents to define theirs more precisely.”

    —–

    Keep running on this Dems, please.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Some of those halloween costumes are spot on. My favorite is Ukraine. At home we refer to Ukraine as the Laundromat—where dirty dollars go to be cleaned. That was before the war. Now it’s so much worse, but I really can’t laugh at it with so much bloodshed.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I guess Democrats don’t like kids much between their pushing of abortion up until birth, and stuff like this too.

    Homeschool your kids, for their benefit and yours.

    “CDC’s Child Vaccine Move Puts Dem Candidates on the Hot Seat”

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/24/cdcs_child_vaccine_move_puts_dem_candidates_on_the_hot_seat_148362.html

    “The CDC just made the closing weeks of 2022 campaigns a lot more volatile for some shaky Democrat candidates, especially for incumbent, pro-mandate Democrat governors like JB Pritzker, Kathy Hochul, and Gretchen Whitmer.

    Why?

    Well, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just delivered a stark rebuke to America’s parents. In a unanimous decision, its Committee on Immunization Practices voted to add COVID-19 vaccines to the regular immunization schedule for all children, starting at the age of 6 months old.

    Clearly, American parents do not concur, as a mere 3.5% of parents have injected their babies and toddlers, aged 6 months to 5 years old. For school age children, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study shows that only one-third of children aged 5-11 have received at least one shot.

    Contravening the CDC, The Florida Department of Health issued guidance that the data suggest that “healthy children from ages 5 to 17 may not benefit from receiving the currently available COVID-19 vaccine.” For young people of more advanced age, Florida’s Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo went further, announcing that he “recommends against the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines” for young men starting at age 18, due to myocarditis risks.

    The analysis of Dr. Ladapo, a scientist with two separate doctorates from Harvard, proves that science is, indeed, never “settled.” Moreover, the prevailing majority of American parents clearly agree with Florida’s skeptical approach on child vaccinations, and for valid data-based reasons. For example, after reviewing the relevant evidence, some European countries now actually forbid the injections for young people. Denmark’s Health Authority determined that because “children and adolescents rarely become severely ill from the Omicron variant of covid-19,” that child COVID vaccination is no longer possible except for “a very limited number of children at particularly higher risk.”

    Despite such appropriate concerns about vaccinating children who remain overwhelmingly invulnerable to dire effects of the virus, the CDC presses on with onerous guidance, pretending that these new Big Pharma injections carry the same risk/reward profile as the established, required childhood vaccinations that have been tested and used for decades. No wonder an NBC News poll from earlier this year found that a scant 37% of independent voters trust the CDC. For context on the marked decline in trust toward public health authorities: In the early days of the pandemic in the spring of 2020, a Pew Research survey found that 79% of Americans then had a very favorable view of the CDC.

    So, there is presently a contentious scientific debate over child COVID vaccinations, combined with wholesale rejection of child injections by parents, added to a public trust meltdown for Anthony Fauci and the CDC. This confluence of factors creates a huge political opening in the closing days of this election for incumbents and challengers willing to pledge to protect parents and children against public health bureaucrats forcing injections into the arms of children as a precondition for school and sports.

    Though the CDC itself cannot mandate such shots, states and local authorities can, and some will clearly use the approval of the CDC as cover to inflict such medical tyranny. One such vulnerable Governor is JB Pritzker of Illinois. Pritzker was so strident in his lockdown and mandate measures that Joe Biden chose to travel to Illinois last year to announce his vax mandate policy for every medium- and large-size employer in America. Thankfully, that draconian and illegal mandate was struck down by the Supreme Court, but Pritzker supported it and there is little doubt that a second term for him would mean a vaccine mandate for all school children in Illinois.

    Reassuringly, his opponent, State Sen. Darren Bailey, issued a strong statement that as governor of Illinois, he would stop any COVID vaccine mandates to attend school, explaining that “we all know the mandate candidate, J.B. Pritzker, will force it on your kids because he thinks the government knows better than parents.” That race is already tight, with the latest Osage Research poll finding Pritzker up by only 2%, with higher unfavorable ratings than Darren Bailey as well.

    With compulsory childhood vaccinations now clearly on the ballot, Pritzker and other pro-lockdown, pro-mandate Democrats face political peril, especially among the supermajority of mothers who have clearly opted out of vaccinating their children. Similar scenarios play out in New York, where Rep. Lee Zeldin remains locked in a tight race with Gov. Kathy Hochul. There, Zeldin smartly promised to protect New York parents from such intrusion: “As governor, I will oppose mandating the COVID vaccine.”

    Republican incumbents up for reelection also pledged protection to parents. In Florida, America’s best governor, Ron DeSantis, told citizens that “as long as I am Governor, in Florida there will not be a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for children in our schools.” Similarly, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee tweeted: “TN families won’t be impacted by today’s CDC vote. We’ll continue to stand for TN children.””

    —-

    Stop letting these people force perversion and unnecessary experimental drugs (that don’t actually prevent anything) on your kids. Get. Them. Away. From. The. Predators.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Poor Liz….

    Said no one but the NT true believers…..

    “Liz Cheney’s Plan To Divide The Republican Party Has Failed”

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/10/24/liz-cheneys-plan-to-divide-the-republican-party-has-failed/

    “The widespread and coordinated plan to divide the Republican Party has failed, and it’s a major reason why Democrat prospects for the 2022 midterms are so bad.

    Separating Republican officials from their growing coalition of voters and the issues they care about has been the Washington establishment’s goal for several years now. The “divide and conquer” plan is being run by the Democrat Party, its propaganda press, and former leaders of the Republican Party such as Liz Cheney, who see how the GOP’s new composition and approach has threatened or destroyed their hold on power.

    The D.C. partnership has worked overtime to try to marginalize, demonize, and make toxic those Republicans who don’t follow the establishment’s rules for how supposedly good Republicans, like Mitt Romney, act. They have been running the Jan. 6 show trial and warning Republicans in office to oppose many of the nominees that Republican voters selected during the primary season. These Beltway denizens watched in horror in recent weeks as Republican leaders have done the opposite, descending on tight races throughout the country to help all Republican candidates, not just those viewed as non-threatening to the D.C. establishment.

    Sens. Tim Scott, Tom Cotton, and Ted Cruz went to Ohio to help J.D. Vance in his bid to be the next senator of Ohio. Sen. Rick Scott and a succession of Senate colleagues went to Georgia to help Herschel Walker. The worst thing for the anti-GOP effort was when Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin endorsed Kari Lake in her battle to become Arizona’s next governor. Republican candidates aren’t toxic. They’re even enjoying the support of former Democrats.

    Tulsi Gabbard — a former Democrat congresswoman, former candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, and former vice chair of the Democratic National Committee — endorsed Lake, Republican Blake Masters in his Senate race against Mark Kelly in Arizona, and Republican Don Bolduc in his Senate race against Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire.

    Republicans Campaign for Republicans
    It was too much for partisan Chuck Todd to take on Sunday, turning over a full third of his lackluster show to Cheney, so they both could push Democrats’ 2022 campaign message that Republicans are a “threat to democracy.” Todd’s first question to Cheney was straight-up Democrat propaganda talking points. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to call it Democrat propaganda word salad: “I don’t want to presume anything, but is your number one issue threats to democracy, as a voter?”

    His second question — a defamatory statement, not a question — was that there are two “election deniers” on the Wyoming ballot. “Election denier” is the false and juvenile propaganda term the media and other Democrats use to describe Republicans who had problems with the 2020 election. Literally no one “denies” that there are elections. While contesting and opposing election administration is an incredibly common practice, and while the 2020 election included hundreds of radical changes to the manner and timing of voting, Democrats have tried to argue that any and all opposition to that election’s administration — but only that election’s administration — makes one an “election denier” and a “threat” to “democracy.”

    Incidentally, if for some reason you thought Cheney’s concern about elections was in any way legitimate or principled, this week she once again showed it wasn’t when she laughed uproariously about how Jamie Raskin, her colleague on the Jan. 6 show trial, wrote a book about how her father had stolen an election. She has not critiqued Raskin for his views nor suggested that they make him — or any of his many Democrat colleagues who have objected to Republican victories — unacceptable. She has not condemned the Democrats’ years-long campaign and information operation to reject the legitimacy of the 2016 election, a campaign joined enthusiastically and to great effect by the entire Democrat Party and its corporate media.

    Todd described Republicans campaigning for Republican candidates as putting their “party over country,” another utterly childish phrase used against Republicans who oppose Democrats’ political goals. Democrats who campaign for Joe Biden and John Fetterman, despite their radical positions and mental struggles, are not described by the propaganda press as putting “party over country,” for example.

    In any case, Youngkin dismissively waved off Cheney’s absurd demand that he not campaign for fellow Republicans by saying, “I believe that every state deserves a Republican governor and Arizona deserves another Republican governor.”

    Cheney said Youngkin and other Republicans campaigning for Republican candidates were making “really indefensible decisions.” She even endorsed Democrats, claiming without evidence that Republican candidates “are more dangerous right now.”

    Media activists who seek Democrat victories cheered her on. Tens of millions of Republican voters — who do not want Democrats to keep control of the House and Senate — did not cheer her on or find her in any way compelling.”

    Don’t go away mad Liz, just go away.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. You would think the media would be showing massive interest in this story, and yet…..

    “ABC Journalist James Gordon Meek Still Missing After FBI Raided His Home in April

    Meek covered many sensitive topics in his career. Did he come across something that frightened the government?”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/10/abc-journalist-james-gordon-meek-still-missing-after-fbi-raided-his-home-in-april/

    “In April, the FBI raided ABC investigative journalist James Gordon Meek’s apartment. People “believe the raid is among the first — and quite possibly, the first — to be carried out on a journalist by the Biden administration.”

    Are we in China?

    No one knows for sure why the FBI targeted Meek, who once worked as a senior counterterrorism advisor and investigator for the House Homeland Security Committee.

    No one has seen or talked to Meek since the raid.

    Believe it or not, Rolling Stone broke the story five days ago. John Antonelli described the raid at the Arlington, VA, apartment complex. It sounds like something right out of a movie, someone who committed a vicious crime:

    The first thing Meek’s neighbor John Antonelli noticed that morning was the black utility vehicle with blacked out windows blocking traffic in both directions on Columbia Pike. It was just before dawn on that brisk April day, and self-described police-vehicle historian Antonelli was about to grab a coffee at a Starbucks before embarking on his daily three-mile walk. He inched closer to get a better vantage, when he saw an olive-green Lenco BearCat G2, an armored tactical vehicle often employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, among other law-enforcement agencies. A few Arlington County cruisers surrounded the jaw-dropping scene, but all of the other vehicles were unmarked, including the BearCat. Antonelli counted at least 10 heavily armed personnel in the group. None bore anything identifying which agency was conducting the raid. After just 10 minutes, the operation inside the Siena Park apartment complex — a six-story, upscale building for D.C. professionals, with rents fetching about $2,000 to $3,000 a month — was over.

    “They didn’t stick around. They took off pretty quickly and headed west on Columbia Pike towards Fairfax County,” Antonelli recalls. “Most people seeing that green vehicle would think it’s some kind of tank. But I knew it was the Lenco BearCat. That vehicle is designed to be jumped out of so they can do a raid in that kind of time. It can return fire if they’re being fired upon.”

    But why? As far as we know, the government hasn’t charged Meek. Sources told Rolling Stone that Meek supposedly had classified information on his laptop. But a journalist who worked with Meek said, “it would be highly unusual for a reporter or producer to keep any classified information on a computer.”

    A new policy from last year says the federal government cannot take a journalist’s documents…except when the deputy attorney general approves the warrant. That means U.S. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco would have approved the search warrant for Meek’s apartment if the raid was about classified information.

    Rolling Stone reported that “[A] federal magistrate judge in the Virginia Eastern District Court signed off on the search warrant the day before the raid.”

    Could the raid have anything to do with Meek’s last tweet? It implied that we have been helping Ukraine much more than the administration told us. In fact, the help has been happening since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.

    The outlet explained that Meek was a prominent name at ABC (emphasis mine):

    But his track record of exclusives was undeniable, breaking the news of foiled terrorist plots in New York City and the Army’s coverup of the fratricidal death of Pfc. Dave Sharrett II in Iraq, a bombshell that earned Meek a face-to-face meeting with President Obama. With nine years at ABC under his belt, a buzzy Hulu documentary poised for Emmy attention, and an upcoming book on the military’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the 52-year-old bear of a man seemed to be at the height of his powers and the pinnacle of his profession.

    Could the book have anything to do with the raid and disappearance? The book’s details changed after the raid:

    Even stranger, in the months before he vanished, Meek was finishing up work on a book for Simon & Schuster titled Operation Pineapple Express: The Incredible Story of a Group of Americans Who Undertook One Last Mission and Honored a Promise in Afghanistan, which he co-authored with Lt. Col. Scott Mann, a retired Green Beret. Meek even featured a picture of the soon-to-publish book in his bio on social media and frequently tweeted about his involvement. But post-April 27, the book-jacket photo disappeared from his bio, and Simon & Schuster has scrubbed his name from all press materials. The first sentence of the jacket previously read: “In April, ABC News correspondent James Gordon Meek got an urgent call from a Special Forces operator serving overseas.” Now it says: “In April, an urgent call was placed from a Special Forces operator serving overseas.”

    Early press materials, available on the Wayback Machine, gushed about Meek’s credentials: “He has covered the rise of Al Qaeda since 1998, from the Millennium Plot to reporting from the ground outside the Pentagon after a hijacked plane hit it on September 11, 2001, to combat embeds with US and Afghan Special Forces in Afghanistan. James has looked terrorists in the eye including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at Guantánamo, ‘shoe bomber’ Richard Reid and ‘dirty bomber’ Jose Padilla inside the Supermax federal prison, and Zacarias Moussaoui at his trial.”

    The book was published in August. Mann is promoting the book but hasn’t heard from Meek:

    “He contacted me in the spring, and was really distraught, and told me that he had some serious personal issues going on and that he needed to withdraw from the project,” Mann tells Rolling Stone. “As a guy who’s a combat veteran who has seen that kind of strain — I don’t know what it was — I honored it. And he went on his way, and I continued on the project.”

    Mann says he hasn’t heard from Meek since.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Lying is second nature to Biden.

    “Biden Shows Support for Sex Changes and a Federal Fund for Abortion Expenses

    Biden also claimed his student loan debt bailout barely passed Congress with a vote or two and he signed it into law. Uh, no.”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/10/biden-shows-support-for-sex-changes-federal-fund-for-abortion-expenses-during-a-forum/

    “President Joe Biden, a “devout” Catholic, expressed his approval for child sex changes and abortion but also lied about his student loan forgiveness program during a forum with transgender activists.

    Sex Changes
    Transgender TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney is one who asked Biden questions. She has documented her transition in the “Days of Girlhood” series. According to Dylan, being a girl is wearing lipstick and big bows and dresses, crying during the day, and hating bugs. You can watch some of the cringy clips in the below video.

    Insulting. This girl doesn’t do any of that. Well, I hate bugs.

    Anyway, Mulvaney hosted the forum and immediately asked about sex changes. Biden, a supposed Catholic, said he disapproves of anyone banning child sex changes on a moral and legal level:

    Mulvaney: This is my 221st day of publicly transitioning.

    Biden: God love you.

    Mulvaney: Thank you. I am extremely privileged to live in a state that allows me access to the resources I need, and that decision is just between me and my doctors. But many states have lawmakers that feel like they can involve themselves in this very personal process. Do you think states should have a right to ban gender-affirming healthcare?

    Biden: I don’t think any state or anybody should have the right to do that. As a moral question and as a legal question, I just think it’s wrong. You know, I think I was saying before we started that my son, my deceased son, used to be the attorney general of the state of Delaware. He passed the broadest piece of legislation he, as attorney general, was able to convince the legislature and the governor to sign that dealt with all gender-affirming capabilities. I mean, there’s a lot of, you know, you sometimes—they try to block you from being able to access certain medicines, being able to access certain procedures, and so on. None of that should be available. I mean, no state should be able to do that, in my view. So I feel very, very strongly that you should have every single solitary right including use of your gender-identity bathrooms in public.

    Mulvaney: Thank you. Thank you. And it feels like Republicans have turned trans and non-binary people into this thing to blame society’s downfall on in some ways. And this narrative is not only dangerous to our mental health, but also our physical safety. And particularly trans women of color are being murdered at an alarming rate.”

    —-

    It’s fine…..

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Well I’m shocked….. 🙄

    “‘Astonishing Evidence’: Lawsuit Reveals Vast ‘Censorship Enterprise’ Between Biden Administration and Big Tech”

    https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2022/10/24/astonishing-evidence-lawsuit-reveals-vast-censorship-enterprise-between-biden-administration-and-big-tech-n647934

    “We’ve seen the reports and the evidence. For some of us, closer to home than we’d like.

    As I reported in mid-October, Joe Biden and Barack Obama accomplished what even Richard Nixon couldn’t do, despite his desperate efforts during the Watergate scandal. As Texas Senator Ted Cruz articulated, “Obama pushed hard partisans into career positions at DOJ, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and the IRS, and targeted his political enemies. It has now metastasized under Biden.”

    And as I reported in April, a group of former intelligence and national security officials issued a jointly signed letter warning that pending legislative attempts to restrict or break up the power of Big Tech monopolies — Facebook, Google, and Amazon — would jeopardize national security.

    Let’s break this down, so far: Former intelligence and national security officials argue that centralized censorship is not only crucial to protecting national security but also in advancing U.S. foreign policy, on one hand, and the Obama-weaponized DOJ, FBI, and IRS targeting political enemies metastasizing under the presidency of Joe Biden, on the other hand.

    What could possibly go wrong? We’re about to find out.

    The New York Post on Sunday published a piece by investigative journalist Miranda Devine about a little-noticed federal lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, that “is uncovering astonishing evidence of an entrenched censorship scheme cooked up between the federal government and Big Tech that would make Communist China proud.” (Note: While the lawsuit hasn’t been extensively covered by the legacy media, RedState has reported on it, including smoking gun emails obtained via the discovery process which demonstrate the coordination.)

    According to Devine, 67 government officials or agencies — including the FBI — are accused in the lawsuit of violating the First Amendment by pressuring Facebook, Twitter, and Google to censor users for alleged misinformation or disinformation.

    Victims of the Biden-Big Tech’s “censorship enterprise,” Devine said, include The Post, whose Hunter Biden laptop exposé was suppressed by Facebook, and then Twitter in October 2020 after “the FBI went to Facebook warning them with great specificity to watch out for a ‘dump’ of Russian disinformation, pertaining to Joe Biden, with an uncanny resemblance to our stories.”

    Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who’s leading the action, summarized the lawsuit:

    We allege that top-ranking Biden administration officials colluded with those social media companies to suppress speech about the Hunter Biden laptop story, the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks, and election integrity.

    Devine further said Big Tech censorship is related to alleged “misinformation” about COVID pandemic lockdowns and vaccines, as well as material from esteemed infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists that proved over time to be correct — and eventually, much of which was adopted as official policy by the CDC.

    The list of defendants includes:

    FBI special agents Elvis Chan and Laura Dehmlow, who gave Facebook that detailed “disinformation” briefing right before The Post was censored
    White House press secretaries, current and former, Karine Jean-Pierre and Jen Psaki
    Dr. Anthony Fauci, the president’s chief medical adviser
    Former White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andrew Slavitt
    Counsel to President Biden Dana Remus
    The DHS over the disbanded Disinformation Governance Board
    The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
    The FDA
    The State Department
    The US Election Assistance Commission.
    The civil action was filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, noted Devine, in partnership with “such red-pilled lawyers as Jenin Younes at the New Civil Liberties Alliance.” (Biden’s sleazy attorney general, Merrick Garland was unavailable for comment.)

    The case overlaps a separate lawsuit by COVID-response critic and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, whose legal victories so far forced Twitter to reinstate his account after he was banned over his COVID reporting. But as Devine noted, the “cat and mouse game continues as Berenson is currently suspended again.””

    Expose them.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. There was a lot of Covid misinformation, but mostly from “the experts”….

    They’ve been wrong and lied to us repeatedly.

    “A Closer Look at the Covid Mortality Rate”

    https://brownstone.org/articles/how-dangerous-was-covid-anyway/

    “One of the most consistent efforts made by “experts” during the early stages of the pandemic was to attempt to impress on the public that COVID was an extremely deadly disease.

    While it’s clear that for the extremely elderly and severely immunocompromised, COVID does present significant and serious health concerns, the “experts” did their best to convince people of all age groups that they were in danger.

    Initially the World Health Organization, in their infinite incompetence, made a substantial contribution to this perception by claiming that the mortality rate from COVID was shockingly high.

    In March 2020, with precious little data, the WHO made the alarming claim that 3.4% of people who got COVID had died.

    CNBC reported that an early press conference by WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus compared that expected mortality of COVID-19 to the flu:

    “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press briefing at the agency’s headquarters in Geneva. In comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected, he said.

    This stood in contrast to previous estimates, which were also above 2%:

    “Early in the outbreak, scientists had concluded the death rate was around 2.3%.”

    While “experts” could be forgiven for being unsure about the death rate of a brand new illness with very little data available, the fear-mongering and world-altering policy enacted based on these estimates has caused incalculable damage.

    It’s now widely known and accepted that these estimates were wildly incorrect, off by orders of magnitude.

    But a new paper out from one of the world’s leading experts confirms that they were off even more than we previously realized.

    John Ioannidis is one of the nation’s leading public health experts, employed at Stanford University as Professor of Medicine in Stanford Prevention Research, of Epidemiology and Population Health,” as well as “of Statistics and Biomedical Data Science.”

    You’d think that those impeccable qualifications and a track record of being one of the most published and cited scientists in the modern world would insulate him from criticism, but unfortunately that’s no longer how The Science™ works.

    Ioannidis first drew the ire of The Keepers of The Science™ early in the outbreak, when he cautioned that society might be making tremendous decisions based on limited data that was of poor quality.

    He also took part in the infamous seroprevalence study conducted in Santa Clara County, led by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

    That examination, which looked at antibody prevalence in the San Jose area, came to the conclusion that COVID was already significantly more widespread by March and April 2020 than most people realized.

    This had wide-ranging implications, but the most important revelation was that the estimates of COVID’s mortality rate used by “scientists” and the WHO were almost certainly much too high.

    Those estimates were created under the assumption that COVID cases were overwhelmingly detectable; that cases were captured by testing and thus tracking deaths could be achieved with a “case fatality rate,” instead of “infection fatality rate.”

    That was the mistake Tedros and the WHO made two and a half years ago.

    Of course, for providing substantial evidence and data that COVID was less deadly than initially feared, Ioannidis (and Bhattacharya) was attacked from within the “expert community.”

    In what has now become a familiar insult, those behind the study were vilified as COVID minimizers and dangerous conspiracy theorists who would get people killed by not taking the virus seriously enough.

    But Ioannidis remained undeterred, and with several authors, he recently released another review of the infection fatality rate of COVID. Importantly, the paper looks at the pre-vaccination time period and covers the non-elderly age groups; those who were most affected by COVID restrictions and endless mandates.

    The Numbers
    The review begins with a statement of fact that was almost entirely ignored by lockdown “experts” throughout the pandemic, but especially when restrictions, lockdowns and mandates were at their peak early on.

    The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years.

    Emphasis added.

    94% of the global population is younger than 70 years old.

    6% of is older than 70 years old.

    86% is younger than 60 years old.

    This is relevant because restrictions overwhelmingly impacted the 86-94% of people who are younger than 60 or 70 years old.

    Ioannidis and his co-writers reviewed 40 national seroprevalence studies that covered 38 countries to come to determine their estimates of infection fatality rate for the overwhelming majority of people.

    Importantly, those seroprevalence studies were conducted before the vaccines were released, meaning the IFR’s were calculated before whatever impact vaccines had on younger age groups.

    So what did they find?

    The median infection fatality rate for those aged 0-59 was 0.035%.

    This represents 86% of the global population and the survival rate for those who were infected with COVID pre-vaccination was 99.965%.

    For those aged 0-69, which covers 94% of the global population, the fatality rate was 0.095%, meaning the survival rate for nearly 7.3 billion people was 99.905%.

    Those survival rates are obviously staggeringly high, which already creates frustration that restrictions were imposed on all age groups, when focused protection for those over 70 or at significantly elevated risk would have been a much more preferable course of action.

    But it gets worse.

    The researchers broke down the demographics into smaller buckets, showing the increase in risk amongst older populations, and conversely, how infinitesimal the risk was amongst younger age groups.

    Ages 60-69, fatality rate 0.501%, survival rate 99.499%
    Ages 50-59, fatality rate 0.129%, survival rate 99.871%
    Ages 40-49, fatality rate 0.035% survival rate 99.965%
    Ages 30-39, fatality rate 0.011%, survival rate 99.989%
    Ages 20-29, fatality rate 0.003%, survival rate 99.997%
    Ages 0-19, fatality rate 0.0003%, survival rate 99.9997%
    They added that “Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025-0.032% for 0-59 years and 0.063-0.082% for 0-69 years.”

    These numbers are astounding and reassuringly low, across the board.

    But they’re almost nonexistent for children.

    Yet as late as fall 2021, Fauci was still fear-mongering about the risks of COVID to children in order to increase vaccination uptake, saying in an interview that it was not a “benign situation:”

    “We certainly want to get as many children vaccinated within this age group as we possibly can because as you heard and reported, that this is not, you know, a benign situation.”

    It’s nearly impossible for any illness to be less of a risk, or more “benign” than a 0.0003% risk of death.

    Even in October 2021, during that same interview with NPR, Fauci said that masks should continue on children as an “extra step” to protect them, even after vaccination:

    And when you have that type of viral dynamic, even when you have kids vaccinated, you certainly – when you are in an indoor setting, you want to make sure you go the extra step to protect them. So I can’t give you an exact number of what that would be in the dynamics of virus in the community, but hopefully we will get there within a reasonable period of time. You know, masks often now – as we say, they’re not forever. And hopefully we’ll get to a point where we can remove the masks in schools and in other places. But I don’t believe that that time is right now.

    Nothing better highlights the incompetence and misinformation from Dr. Fauci than ignoring that pre-vaccination, children were at vanishingly small risks from COVID, that vaccination uptake amongst kids was entirely irrelevant since they do not prevent infection or transmission, and that mask usage is completely ineffective at protecting anyone. Especially for those who didn’t need protection in the first place.

    The CDC, “expert” community, World Health Organization, media figures — all endlessly spread terror that the virus was a mass killer while conflating detected case fatality rates with infection fatality rates.

    Yet now we have another piece of evidence suggesting that the initial WHO estimates were off by 99% for 94% of the world’s population.”

    —–

    And there’s more. This is why they cannot be allowed to force this unsafe “vaccine” on children who it’s completely unnecessary for.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. It’s sad and appalling that so many doctors have been so utterly compromised or are simply cowards and therefore information like this is so hard to come by.

    These jabs could possibly be the biggest crime ever perpetrated on humanity.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/spike-protein-disrupting-immune-function-in-millions-after-covid-infection-or-vaccination-heres-how-its-being-treated_4813835.htm

    “Multiple studies have shown that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is a highly toxic and inflammatory protein, capable of causing pathologies in its hosts.

    The presence of spike protein has been strongly linked with long COVID and post-vaccine symptoms. Studies have shown that spike proteins are often present in symptomatic patients, sometimes even months after infections or vaccinations.

    The numbers of long COVID and post-vaccine cases have been climbing in the United States, increasingly posing as a healthcare problem.

    Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that around 7 percent of Americans are currently experiencing long COVID symptoms, which would be over 15 million people. Some people with long COVID have been so debilitated that they cannot go to work, the same has been reported in people experiencing post-vaccine symptoms.

    Over 880,000 adverse events have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database for possible post-COVID vaccine symptoms.

    However, statisticians argue that the number of people suffering from post-vaccine syndromes is much higher.

    Canadian molecular biologist Jessica Rose estimated an underreporting factor of 31, adding up to an estimation that more than 27 million Americans may have suffered from adverse events following vaccination.”

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Bribes and extortion aren’t just for the mob anymore.

    “The FBI’s Million-Dollar Men

    Three high-profile trials are shining much-needed light on how the bureau uses highly paid informants as political hit men.”

    https://amgreatness.com/2022/10/17/the-fbis-million-dollar-men/

    “Proceedings underway in three U.S. courtrooms are providing a coordinated view into the abuse of the FBI’s confidential human source (CHS) program, a cash-flush operation now primarily used to bolster Democratic Party narratives instead of detecting and preventing crime.

    As I’ve reported, the FBI spends an average of $42 million per year to pay informants and does so with absolutely no financial or legal accountability. Confidential human sources are paid in cash; they can offer their services for a variety of reasons including financial need or to obtain a change in immigration status. FBI agents are required to keep at least one informant on the books, an FBI whistleblower told me; successfully using a CHS to bust up a crime is one way to get promoted.

    But ongoing trials related to the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, January 6, and the Whitmer fednapping case are once again shining a light on the way the bureau hires snitches to advance political goals.

    After numerous investigations over the course of more than six years—not to mention an obsessive fixation by the national media—the scandal known as Russiagate produced another bombshell revelation during the perjury trial of Igor Danchenko, the key source for the Steele dossier. The FBI offered to pay Christopher Steele, its author, up to $1 million in cash if he could verify the dossier’s declarations about Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. He could not.

    Described for years as a “former British intelligence officer,” Steele, in fact, was a private consultant with several paymasters in 2016. Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee retained Steele to write his dossier that alleged shadowy connections between the Kremlin and Trump associates. At the same time, Steele was lobbying the U.S. government on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who ran afoul of the Obama Administration.

    When the cash offer was made in October 2016, Steele also was working as an informant for the FBI. (It’s unknown how much he was paid.) He moved seamlessly between the bureau, other government agencies including the State Department, and the national news media almost until Election Day. Steele met with journalists and editors in the fall of 2016 to spin the dossier’s content as legitimate—and some outlets took the bait.

    The bureau severed the arrangement in late October 2016 after learning Steele had met with reporters, but the damage was done. Steele’s fabricated dirt seeded the Trump-Russia election collusion hoax.

    Turns out, Steele wasn’t the only paid FBI informant tied to the dossier. Testimony revealed the FBI hired Danchenko as an informant in March 2017 and paid him at least $200,000 until the FBI cut him loose in October 2020—the same month Attorney General William Barr named U.S. Attorney John Durham as special counsel. (Stefan Halper, another FBI informant, also aided the FBI’s effort to smear Trump via Russiagate.)

    It’s unclear exactly what Danchenko did as an informant. Was he used as a behind-the-scenes leaker to give oxygen to the Russiagate hoax in the media? Did the bureau hire him as an informant to protect him, and the FBI, from the prying eyes of investigators?

    Either way, it’s clear the FBI didn’t hire these informants because the government had cause to suspect Trump was in cahoots with Russia to rig the 2016 election. To the contrary, the informants manufactured the falsehood, giving FBI partisans and the news media fabricated evidence to sabotage Trump with the FBI’s imprimatur.

    Seditious Conspiracy—Or Entrapment?
    The bureau’s crusade against Trump continued, climaxing with the events of January 6, 2021. Down the interstate from Dancheko’s trial in Virginia is the seditious conspiracy trial of five members of the Oath Keepers. Prosecutors working under U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves, a Biden campaign advisor, are trying to convince a D.C. jury that the Oath Keepers tried to overthrow the government that day.

    The case rests largely on inflammatory posts in group chats and social media; none is accused of committing violence that day, in fact, those who legally brought firearms from various states kept their weapons behind in a Virginia hotel on January 6. Evidence suggests they tried to help police calm the crowd inside—two never even entered the building.

    That isn’t stopping Graves’ office from insisting the Oath Keepers, a group of former military and law enforcement officers, plotted a traitorous coup. But at the last minute, the government admitted five informants had been embedded in the group, likely before the Capitol protest.

    Prosecutors, however, do not want jurors to hear much about those informants, particularly their work in past “investigations”—code for past “entrapment schemes.” (The New York Times reported last year that FBI informants had infiltrated the Proud Boys, another alleged “militia” charged in the Capitol breach, months before January 6. The group’s leader himself is a former confidential human source for the FBI.)

    Other unknowns in the Oath Keepers’ case raise serious questions about the FBI’s deeper involvement. A man who created an encrypted group chat and can be heard urging at least one Oath Keeper to commit violence remains unidentified and uncharged—following a pattern of other unindicted instigators such as Ray Epps. Dozens of alleged Oath Keepers who participated in similar conduct also are not charged. And defense counsel discovered that at least 20 FBI and ATF agents were near the group on January 6.

    Doing what, exactly? If federal agents were in the city that day, why didn’t they protect the Capitol and lawmakers inside?

    None of it adds up.”

    ——

    It adds up to a set up.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Stop the steal, again.

    “RNC Launches 73 Election Integrity Lawsuits Across 20 States”

    https://amgreatness.com/2022/10/24/rnc-launches-73-election-integrity-lawsuits-across-20-states/

    “In the year 2022 alone, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has filed 73 different lawsuits in 20 different states, alleging various violations of election procedure and resulting in several key victories, with two weeks to go before the midterms.

    As reported by Fox News, the lawsuits focus on such matters as the counting of ballots that are either undated or mismarked, as well as the rights of poll watchers to directly observe the counting of ballots. The large-scale legal action by the RNC comes after widespread accusations of voter fraud in the 2020 election cycle, which many believe was enough to swing the results away from President Donald J. Trump and in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.

    RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel described the 2022 election cycle as the “most litigious” in modern history, with many of the lawsuits directly targeting Democratic secretaries of state and other election officials who unilaterally changed their states’ election procedures in response to the coronavirus pandemic. These changes, which included expanded access to mail-in voting, ballot-harvesting by third parties, longer early voting periods, and the implementation of ballot drop boxes, all led to practices that are more susceptible to voter fraud.

    RNC spokesman Gates McGavick described the lawsuits as the result of a “multimillion-dollar investment into building an election integrity operations infrastructure that draws on its legal, political, data and communications resources.”

    The lawsuits were welcomed by election integrity advocates.

    “After the shortcomings of the last election, a proactive and preemptive legal strategy is critical to the election integrity voters deserve in 2022, 2024 and beyond,” said Michael Bars, executive director of the Election Transparency Initiative, further adding that there have been “significant strides” that have “restored voters’ faith in fair and secure elections.”

    Some of the most recent legal victories as a result of these lawsuits include successful efforts in Nevada and Arziona to force the state governments to produce data on all poll workers. In Michigan, the RNC won a lawsuit against Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D-Mich.) over her attempts to impose severe and unconstitutional restrictions on people who are appointed as poll-challengers.”

    Liked by 1 person

  14. If anyone thought the steal would stop in 2020, think again. The corruption of our government agencies and our elections will continue, because no one actually pays a price when they’re caught.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/early-voting-and-mail-ballot-turnouts-point-to-2020-replay_4815633.html

    “Nationwide early voting and vote-by-mail turnout trends for the 2022 midterm election reflect a pattern similar to that of the pandemic-skewered 2020 election.

    As a result, it may take several days after polls close on Nov. 8 for results to be confirmed in several key battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

    In-person early voting periods and vote-by-mail have grown increasingly popular over the last two decades. They became mainstream during the 2020 election when more than 101 million Americans cast early in-person votes or vote-by-mail ballots.

    The 2022 early vote and vote-by-mail turnout is expected to easily eclipse the record for midterm elections set in 2018, when more than 5 million voters cast early in-person ballots and 30.4 million voted by mail. The totals this year may come close to matching the number of ballots cast before Election Day in 2020.

    According to the University of Florida’s United States Elections Project, as of Oct. 23, more than 7.46 million Americans have already cast their midterm ballots.”

    Liked by 1 person

  15. We have had early voting in Tennessee for many, many years. Polls are open now and will be until Nov 3. I usually vote before election day, and will make my way to some early voting station in the next day or two. It’s very convenient. It takes away all legitimate excuse people use for not being able to vote–like long lines and long wait times.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. I will early vote tomorrow due to cancer surgery on the 4th, Friday. I don’t think I will be ready to stand in line on the followingTues, plus I’m supposed to stay away from people for a week or so. An infection of any type would be bad, so early vote it is.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Sounds like a good reason to vote early, AJ. We will certainly keep praying for you, especially on Friday the 4th. God is still working in you and through you, and I just don’t believe he’s finished yet.

    Debra

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.