TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch - Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
The “mother of all migrant caravans” is said to be amassing in Honduras with plans to begin marching to Mexico’s southern border aimed at the U.S. Border.
A report from Fox news reveals that even New York officials are now admitting that the measles epidemic began after foreigners visited the area.
posted by Hannity Staff - 10 hours ago
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a dire warning to her Democratic colleagues this week; telling them to stop “wasting their time” on impeachment and calling the political move a “gift to the President.”
Pelosi was speaking with USA Today when she urged left-wing lawmakers to pull-back on their non-stop calls for the impeachment of President Trump.
“You’re wasting your time, unless the evidence is so conclusive that the Republicans will understand,” Pelosi told USA TODAY. “Otherwise, it’s a gift to the president. We take our eye off the ball.”
“I’m just not going to say it’s all about him,” she added. “No, it’s all about you and you and you.”
Billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer slammed Pelosi’s decision to abandon impeachment proceedings after her remarks.
“I felt she was rushing to judgment without all the information being in,” said Steyer. “She was, in effect, handing a veto to all the Republicans in terms of holding Mr. Trump to account.”
Read the full interview at USA Today.
BETOMANIA: O’Rourke Claims He Can ‘Win Texas’ in 2020, Says He ‘Knows How to Campaign’
Infowars.com - March 19, 2019
Image Credits: Mark Wilson/Getty Images.
President Trump responded to reports that Facebook temporarily censored his social media director Dan Scavino Jr., warning, “I will be looking into this!”
“Dear Facebook— AMAZING. WHY ARE YOU STOPPING ME from replying to comments followers have left me – on my own Facebook Page!!?? People have the right to know. Why are you silencing me??? Please LMK! Thanks,” Scavino wrote Monday.
Scavino, who has nearly 300,000 followers, included a screengrab showing that Facebook marked his post as “spam” with the message, “You’re temporarily blocked from making public comments on Facebook.”
Trump fired back at Facebook and Big Tech in response.
“I will be looking into this!” he tweeted.
I will be looking into this! #StopTheBias https://t.co/ZTWQolvmdM
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 19, 2019
“Facebook, Google and Twitter, not to mention the Corrupt Media, are sooo on the side of the Radical Left Democrats. But fear not, we will win anyway, just like we did before! #MAGA,” he added.
Facebook, Google and Twitter, not to mention the Corrupt Media, are sooo on the side of the Radical Left Democrats. But fear not, we will win anyway, just like we did before! #MAGA
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 19, 2019
Big Tech’s accelerated censorship and purging of conservative voices has become so prolific that Trump’s son Don Jr. penned an op-ed warning fellow conservatives to prepare to fight or be silenced on social media forever.
Indeed, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) announced a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter in the “first of many” lawsuits to come against Big Tech.
“Twitter is a machine,” Nunes’ personal attorney told Fox News. “It is a modern-day Tammany Hall. Congressman Nunes intends to hold Twitter fully accountable for its abusive behavior and misconduct.”
March 20, 2019
“today we will launch a criminal investigation about this and we will give legal assessment of this information,” Ukrainian Prosecutor
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said he opened an investigation into alleged attempts by Ukrainians to interfere in the United States’ 2016 presidential election on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
In an interview that aired Wednesday with The Hill’s TV, John Solomon Lutsenko said,”today we will launch a criminal investigation about this and we will give legal assessment of this information.”
The probe is based on a claim from a member of the Ukrainian parliament that the director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), Artem Sytnyk, was working to benefit Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
Further, Lutsenko told Solomon the parliament member “got the court decision that the NABU official conducted an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign.”
“It means that we think Mr. Sytnyk, the NABU director, officially talked about criminal investigation with Mr. [Paul] Manafort, and at the same time, Mr. Sytnyk stressed that in such a way, he wanted to assist the campaign of Ms. Clinton,” Lutsenko told Solomon. continued.
For more on this story and to watch the full interview, go to TheHill.TV
President Trump just got some great news as the Supreme Court, with Brett Kavanaugh casting the deciding vote, just ended the liberal 9th circuit court’s reign of terror.
Trump has complained about the runaway court as it has bloked many of Trump’s actions in the executive branch.
The court went along partisan lines and came back with a 5-4 decision and a big victory for Trump.
The 5-4 decision reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier ruling. Thankfully, Trump’s historic win and realignment of the courts is restoring sanity to America.
The Court sided with Trump and ruled that the U.S. government can detain immigrants with past criminal records without bond (for as long as needed) as they await deportation.
The four judges who opposed the ruling did so vehemently which goes to show what was at stake in America with the 2016 election. It is common sense to hold a criminal who is not a citizen, especially one who was violent, in custody before we deport them. Thankfully, America made a wise choice in Trump.
From CNN: The Supreme Court held on Tuesday that the government can detain — without a bond hearing — immigrants with past criminal records, even if years have passed since they were released from criminal custody.
The case centered on whether detention without a bond hearing must occur promptly upon an immigrant’s release from criminal custody or whether it can happen months or even years later when the individual has resettled into society. The statute says simply that the detention can occur “when the alien is released” from custody.
The court voted 5-4 in favor of the government.
In his opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said that the immigrants in the case had argued they were “owed bond hearings” in order to argue for their release. Alito said that the law did not support their argument.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately to say that the ruling was based entirely on the language of the statute at hand. He said it would be “odd” to interpret the statute as mandating the detention of certain “non citizens” who posed a serious risk of danger of flight, but “nonetheless” allow them to remain free during their removal proceedings if the executive branch failed “to immediately detain them upon their release from criminal custody.”
“The court correctly holds that the Executive Branch’s detention of the particular non citizens here remained mandatory even though the Executive Branch did not immediately detain them.”
From Reuters:
The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention anytime, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences.
The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, left open the possibility of individual immigrants challenging the 1996 federal law involved in the case, called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, on constitutional grounds – their right to due process – if they are detained long after they have completed their sentences.
The law at issue states that the government can detain convicted immigrants “when the alien is released” from criminal detention. Civil rights lawyers for two groups of plaintiffs argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime.
It is not the court’s job, Alito wrote, to impose a time limit for when immigrants can be detained after serving a prison sentence. Alito noted that the court repeatedly has said in the past that “an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never.”
Alito said the challengers’ assertion that immigrants had to be detained within 24 hours of ending a prison sentence is “especially hard to swallow.”
In dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer questioned whether the U.S. Congress when it wrote the law “meant to allow the government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing.”
How to protect your kids from Google predators
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2019
The father of the World Wide Web is right: It’s time to take back “complete control of your data.”
Tim Berners-Lee, who conceived the first internet browser 30 years ago this week, warned of its increasing threats to “privacy, security and fundamental rights.” To mark the anniversary, he argued that demanding transparency is key to stopping the web’s “downward plunge to a dysfunctional future.” So, where to start?
Berners-Lee specifically cautioned against the dangers of internet browsers’ keeping “track of everything you buy.” The world’s top browser is Google Chrome. But spying on our purchases is the least we have to worry about with Google and its $800 billion parent company, Alphabet.
It’s bad enough that the company’s executives match your offline credit card purchases to your online user profile without full disclosure, employ mobile tracking apps that collect location data even if users have turned off location tracking, hide and downplay massive security breaches (like the photo-sharing “bug” and hacker-friendly browser “flaws” revealed this past week), bow to Chinese communist censors and exhibit explicit bias against conservatives. No, it’s much worse. Google’s predation starts early, often with the most vulnerable members of society: our children.
The Silicon Valley giant has hooked legions of children and teachers into its data mining products through lucrative partnerships with public schools across America. Learning no longer starts with A, B, C but with G, G, G:
G Suite, Gmail, Google Cloud, Google Drive, Google Docs, Google Sheets, Google Slides, Google Hangouts, Google Vault, Google Jamboard, Google Chromebooks and Google Classroom.
Don’t forget: Google now has 80 million educators and students around the world using G Suite for Education, 40 million students and teachers in Google Classroom and 30 million more using Google Chromebooks inside and outside the classroom. Despite a report last fall from the U.S. Department of Education’s inspector general blasting the feds for failing to investigate a backlog of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act violations, the Trump White House has done nothing to repair the damage to FERPA done by the Obama administration. The Democrats’ tech-chummy bureaucrats busted open the door to third-party sharing of children’s personal data with government agencies, nonprofits and private educational technology vendors.
This is how Google has gotten away with unauthorized scanning and indexing of student email accounts (more here) and targeted online advertising based on search engine activity, as well as auto-syncing of passwords, browsing history and other private data across devices and accounts belonging to students and families unaware of default tracking.
While grandstanding opportunists in Congress now talk tough to Silicon Valley donors (hello, Elizabeth Warren), K-12 children in tens of thousands of schools began the academic year by lining up at the library to create Gmail accounts and Google Classroom logins without parental notification or permission. There’s no escape: No Google, no access. No access, no education. “Hell, some of the teachers don’t even teach the kids,” one parent complained to me. Instead, they “watch videos on Canvas on their Chromebooks.”
Canvas (by Instructure) is one of myriad “learning management systems” that stores students’ grades, homework assignments, videos, quizzes and tests — all integrated with almighty, all-powerful, omniscient Google. Google apps such as ClassDojo collect intimate behavioral data and long-term psychological profiles encompassing family information, personal messages, photographs and voice notes. The collection of such data is a nanny state nightmare in the making, as a new Pioneer Institute report on “social, emotional learning” software and assessments outlined this week. (See also: Who’s data-mining your toddlers.)
Meanwhile, preschoolers are being trained to flash “Clever Badges” with QR codes in front of their Google Chromebook webcams. These Badges “seamlessly” log them into Google World and all its apps without all the “stress” of remembering passwords. Addicted toddlers are being indoctrinated into the screen time culture without learning how to exercise autonomy over their own data.
Given the privacy breaches, public safety dangers, illegal data profiteering and child predation — not to mention the mental health crisis among America’s youngsters connected to social media pathologies — there should be a nationwide clamor to deplatform Google completely from public schools. Until that revolt among parents and educators across party lines swells, it’s up to moms and dads to seize control (thanks to parent watchdog Cheri Kiesecker for these tips):
1. Refuse to surrender your child’s privacy as the price of admission to school. Google logins must not be a requirement to participate in the classroom.
2. Demand disclosure of edutech terms of service for all apps, software and hardware.
3. If your child has already been dragooned into G Suite, dive into its “Activity Controls” and the “Manage Activity” section. Investigate the settings for password auto-save and auto sign-in, tracking of YouTube search and watch histories, live chat transcripts, sync and “Remove the Device” functions. Hold your school district’s administrators accountable for putting your kids’ privacy first.
4. Wean yourselves — not just your kids — off Google. Try the Brave browser, DuckDuckGo search engine, BitChute video hosting service, Minds or MeWe social networking, and ProtonMail.
Control begins with you, not G.
Michelle Malkin can be reached at MichelleMalkinInvestigates@protonmail.com.
The Justice Department 'negotiated' an agreement with Hillary Clinton's legal team to block FBI access to emails on her private server regarding the Clinton Foundation, according to testimony from former FBI special agent Peter Strzok; Catherine Herridge has the details.
The Justice Department "negotiated" an agreement with Hillary Clinton's legal team that ensured the FBI did not have access to emails on her private servers relating to the Clinton Foundation, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok testified during a closed-door appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last summer, according to a newly released transcript.
Republicans late last year renewed their efforts to probe the Clinton Foundation, after tax documents showed a plunge in its incoming donations after Clinton’s 2016 presidential election. The numbers fueled longstanding allegations of possible “pay-to-play” transactions at the organization, amid a Justice Department probe covering foundation issues.
Under questioning from Judiciary Committee General Counsel Zachary Somers, Strzok acknowledged that Clinton's private personal email servers contained a mixture of emails related to the Clinton Foundation, her work as secretary of state and other matters.
"Were you given access to [Clinton Foundation-related] emails as part of the investigation?" Somers asked
CLINTON FOUNDATION WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE COME FORWARD. WHAT ARE THEY SAYING?
"We were not. We did not have access," Strzok responded. "My recollection is that the access to those emails were based on consent that was negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton."
Peter Strzok arrives at a closed-door interview before the House Judiciary Committee in June. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Although the FBI eventually took possession of the servers, Strzok continued, the possession was "based upon the negotiation of Department of Justice attorneys for consent."
"A significant filter team" was employed at the FBI, Strzok said, to "work through the various terms of the various consent agreements." Limitations imposed on agents' searches included date ranges, and names of domains and people, Strzok said, among other categories.
The agreement was reached, Strzok said, because “according to the attorneys, we lacked probable cause to get a search warrant for those servers and projected that either it would take a very long time and/or it would be impossible to get to the point where we could obtain probable cause to get a warrant.”
Strzok did not elaborate on whether prosecutors made any effort to secure a search warrant, which could have delineated precisely what agents could and could not search.
But Strzok later said that agents had access to the "entire universe" of information on the servers when using search terms to probe their contents. He also told Somers that "we had it voluntarily," although it was unclear if he meant all emails on the servers -- including ones related to the Clinton Foundation.
Former Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who chaired the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee until 2017 and is now a Fox News contributor, said the arrangement signaled that agents wanted willful blindness.
"They had no interest in pursuing the truth."
— Former Oversight committee chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz
"What's bizarre about this, is in any other situation, there's no possible way they would allow the potential perpetrator to self-select what the FBI gets to see," Chaffetz said, noting that the FBI was aware that the servers contained classified information in unclassified settings. "The FBI should be the one to sort through those emails -- not the Clinton attorneys."
The DOJ's goal, Chaffetz said, was to "make sure they hear no evil, see no evil -- they had no interest in pursuing the truth."
Chaffetz added that the DOJ's behavior, including its award of immunity to top Clinton aides early on in the investigation, signaled a clear double standard: "They didn't go make a deal with anyone in Trump's orbit. They seized it. They used guns and agents -- and just went in there and took it."
"The Clinton Foundation isn't supposed to be communicating with the State Department anyway," Chaffetz continued. "The foundation -- with her name on it -- is not supposed to be communicating with the senior officials at the State Department."
The Clinton Foundation did not respond to Fox News' request for comment.
Republican-led concerns that the DOJ, under the Obama administration, was too cozy with the Clinton team during the 2016 presidential campaign have grown louder in recent days. Earlier this week, Fox News exclusively reviewed an internal chart prepared by federal investigators working on the so-called "Midyear Exam" probe into Clinton's emails. The chart contained the words "NOTE: DOJ not willing to charge this" next to a key statute on the mishandling of classified information.
The notation appeared to contradict former FBI Director James Comey's repeated claims that his team made its decision that Clinton should not face criminal charges independently.
But Strzok, in his closed-door interview, denied that the DOJ exercised undue influence over the FBI, and insisted that lawyers at the DOJ were involved in an advisory capacity working with agents.
Fox News also confirmed the chart served as a critical tip that provided the basis for Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe's explosive questioning of former FBI lawyer Lisa Page last year, in which Page agreed with Ratcliffe's characterization that the DOJ had told the FBI that "you're not going to charge gross negligence."
A transcript of Page's remarks was published Tuesday as part of a major document release by the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins.
Separately in the closed-door session, Strzok defended his affair with Page, repeatedly denying that the relationship presented a security risk when challenged by GOP aides.
Former FBI director James Comey speaks during the Canada 2020 Conference in Ottawa on Tuesday, June 5, 2018. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press via AP)
Strzok, who was fired from the bureau after months of scrutiny regarding anti-Trump text messages between him and Page, confirmed he was involved in an extramarital affair when asked about it during his interview before the committee on June 27, 2018. But Strzok was also asked by Art Baker, the GOP investigative counsel for the committee, whether that affair could have made him "vulnerable to potential recruitment" by "hostile intelligence service[s]."
“Yeah, I don’t think I would characterize it that way,” Strzok said. “I think it is not so much any particular action as it is the way that action might be used to coerce or otherwise get somebody to do something. I can tell you that in no way would that extramarital affair have any power in coercing me to do anything other than obeying the law and doing honest, competent investigation."
Fox News' Brooke Singman and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
March 13, 2019
Testimony provided to Congress from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveals contradictions as to when she learned about former British spy Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier, sheds light on the “insurance policy” and exposes the Obama Justice Department’s decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with allegedly violating the Espionage Act.
Page’s testimony, which was delivered behind closed doors last July before a joint task force of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, reveals the internal machinations between senior bureau leadership and the DOJ. Basically, her testimony adds more depth to what happened during the critical months during the FBI’s investigation into President Trump’s election campaign and the bureau’s “Midyear Exam” investigation into Clinton.
As for the Clinton investigation, Page said the bureau “did not blow over gross negligence.” She told Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, there were ongoing discussions with former FBI Director James Comey and other senior officials about the issue. She said “on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence,” she said.
She added “the Justice Department’s assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge.”
Page’s testimony does coincide with what former FBI General Counsel James Baker’s told the committee on “gross negligence.” In testimony he stated that he originally believed Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of highly classified information was “alarming” and “appalling,” as first reported at SaraACarter.com. He also believed her use of a private server to send the classified emails was sufficient enough to secure an indictment to possibly charge her for violations under the Espionage Act, for mishandling sensitive government documents.
However, her testimony focuses on the DOJ’s push not to charge Clinton, whereas Baker puts the onus on Comey. He said Comey did not believe the charges would stick and that he argued with Comey until just before the public announcement not to charge Clinton. Baker suggested he changed his mind shortly before Comey announced publicly on July 5, 2016 not to charge the then presidential candidate.
Page also expands on the FBI’s controversial “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into members of the Trump campaign and links the investigation to controversial text messages made between her and former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok regarding the “insurance policy” against Trump. Strzok and Page were removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation after their anti-Trump text messages were discovered. Page left the FBI and Strzok was fired shortly after DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz report was made public last year.
Page expresses in her testimony that during the investigation into the Trump campaign there was a sentiment at the time among bureau officials regarding the president’s electability: nobody believed he would win.
“So, upon the opening of the crossfire hurricane investigation, we had a number of discussions up through and including the Director regularly in which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right, which is, is there someone associated with the [Trump] campaign who is working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton,” states Page.
She adds, “and given that it is August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.”
“[W]e don’t need to go at a total breakneck speed because so long as he doesn’t become President, there isn’t the same threat to national security, right,” Page added. “But if he becomes President, that totally changes the game.”
Moreover, Page contradicts Ohr’s testimony regarding when she first knew about former British spy Christopher Steele’s dossier. She claims in her testimony that she did not know about the dossier in August 2016, however, Ohr’s testimony reveals that he delivered Steele’s information to the bureau shortly after meeting with Steele. In fact, he met with former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and specifically, Page at the bureau to deliver the information.
Ohr reveals this during an exchange with then-Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Trey Gowdy, R-SC.
“Why? Why did you meet with them,” asks Gowdy.
“To pass the latest information that I had received,” Ohr responds.
“How did you find out who to meet with? Who did you call to find out,” questions Gowdy.
Ohr explains that prior to that meeting with McCabe and Page he had met with Steele on July 30, 2016.
“After the July 30th meeting with Chris Steele, I wanted to provide the information he had given me to the FBI. I reached out for Andrew McCabe, at that time, Deputy Director of the FBI and somebody who had previously led the organized crime, Russian organized crime squad in New York and who I had worked with in the past, and asked if he could meet with me,” he said. “I went to his office to provide the information, and Lisa Page was there. So I provided the information to them. And some point after that, I think, I was given Peter Strzok, or somehow put in contact with Peter Strzok.”
Gowdy then asks when exactly did Ohr meet Strzok and Page.
“I don’t recall the exact date,” Ohr says. “I’m guessing it would have been in August since I met with Chris Steele at the end of July, and I’m pretty sure I would have reached out to Andrew McCabe soon afterwards.”
By Michelle Malkin • March 6, 2019 07:38 AM
Vaccine skeptics under siege
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2019
Watch out. Capitol Hill and Silicon Valley have locked their sights on the next targets of a frightening free speech-squelching purge: independent citizens who dare to raise questions online about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
I’m vaccinated. My children are up to date. There’s no dispute that vaccines have saved untold lives. But over the years, I’ve voiced my concerns about vaccine claims and government coercion in my newspaper columns and blog posts. These concerns include my objections to Gardasil mandates for schoolchildren in Texas and California; schools’ threatening parents with jail time for refusing chickenpox shots for their kids; ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine; contamination issues at vaccine plants abroad; lack of data on vaccines’ long-term and synergistic effects on children; and pharma-funded politicians’ financial conflicts of interest.
In 2004, I recounted my family’s firsthand experience with bully doctors who balked at even the mildest questioning of the wisdom of the newborn hepatitis B immunization. When my husband and I asked if we could simply delay this particular shot, as the vaccine is for a virus that is contracted mostly through intravenous drug use and sexual contact, my son’s pediatrician angrily kicked us out of her practice.
Does this informed skepticism make me and other like-minded parents public health menaces, as the World Health Organization has proclaimed? Are we “sociopaths,” as a journalist at The Atlantic once sneered? Apparently so.
At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Washington state’s public health secretary, John Wiesman, demanded that the feds launch a national campaign to counter “anti-vaccine” groups that are spreading what he condemned as “false information.” Weisman called for increased funding from the Centers for Disease Control to combat opponents of the state’s push to prevent parents from opting their children out of immunizations for personal or philosophical reasons. Health officials have blamed vaccine critics’ social media influence for recent measles outbreaks. So Wiesman further urged Twitter, Facebook and Google to “use whatever mechanism they have available to stop promoting pseudoscience.”
Let’s be clear: Misinformation of all kinds abounds on the internet. The world’s most influential “mainstream” media websites and celebrity social media accounts, for example, recklessly fanned the flames of the recent Covington Catholic High School and Jussie Smollett hate crime hoaxes. No one in Washington has called for the boycott of The Washington Post or TMZ over their false and misleading stories. But for some reason (hint: pharmaceutical big business), politicians and government bureaucrats are now hell-bent on deplatforming any and all dissenters who challenge mandatory vaccine regimens.
Under pressure from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Amazon pulled the documentaries “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” “Man Made Epidemic” and “Shoot ’em Up: The Truth About Vaccines” from its Prime Video streaming service. Last week, Google-owned YouTube moved to demonetize “anti-vaccine” channels, tweak algorithms to suppress vaccine “conspiracy” videos and combat “vaccine hesitancy.” Pinterest blocks users from using the search terms “vaccine,” “vaccinations” and “anti-vax,” no matter the quality of the results. Facebook plans to downgrade vaccine skeptics’ content on newsfeeds, recommended user groups and ads.
Is there junk science on the “anti-vaccine” side? Sure. But you can’t address this issue without also addressing the problem with physicians and public health flacks who are unwilling to discuss the full risks of vaccines as well as their benefits; pro-vaccination groups that provide incorrect information about vaccines’ duration of protection; physicians who refuse to care for children who are not “fully” vaccinated; and the comparative risk-benefit ratios of different vaccines.
As for efficacy, consider this new data: A recent whooping cough outbreak at the private Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles last week resulted in 30 students contracting the illness, all of whom were vaccinated. Of 18 unvaccinated students, none caught the disease. Will pointing this out on my Facebook and Twitter accounts bring down the Silicon Valley ban hammer?
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who happens to be a physician and parent himself, was the lone voice of dissent at the Senate hearing this week. While acknowledging that the benefits of vaccines generally outweigh their risks, he noted the plain truth that “it is wrong to say there are no risks to vaccines.” He added that over $4 billion has been paid by the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for adults and children who have been injured or died as a result of receiving federally recommended childhood vaccines.
Is it unacceptable fearmongering to raise that point? How about to share information on vaccine manufacturers’ astonishing exemption from product liability? Or to point parents to new research findings on brain injuries caused by vaccines, which can be found at VaccinePapers.org? Or to link them to a recent statement by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which “strongly opposes federal interference in medical decisions, including mandated vaccines.”
When it comes to protecting our children, skepticism is always the best medicine. We need more free speech, not less. Those who seek to suppress debate and discussion in the name of the “public good” are the true health threats.
***
I’ve posted a related Twitter thread here.
Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Written by TNA Video
The World Government Summit in the United Arab Emirates brought together leading globalists, communists, and crony capitalists under a replica of the Arch of the Temple of Baal, reports The New American's Foreign Correspondent Alex Newman. Despite not being reported much by the establishment media, many leading fake news outlets such as CNN and Sky News were actually listed as "partners" of the event who shared its "values." This should be a wake-up call to humanity.
Friday, 22 February 2019
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-ru4ku-a8b9a6
Top globalists are coming out of the closet. Thousands of leading globalists, communists, Islamists and others from around the world converged on the Arabian Peninsula this month for the World Government Summit. Their goal: promote technocratic globalism and plot the future of what they often call their “New World Order.” Senior officials from the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, Communist China, central banks, and even the Trump administration showed up to mingle with heads of state and advocates of Islamic Sharia law from across the region. Even Pope Francis delivered a message. As usual, despite top U.S. media outlets partnering with the summit, the establishment press in the United States largely failed to inform Americans about it.
News releases promoting the World Government Summit — yes, it is really called the World Government Summit — boasted that the event “is setting the agenda for the next generation of governments.” And one of the key goals of the summit was advancing the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), often referred to as UN Agenda 2030. UN Deputy-Secretary General Amina Mohammed opened the summit by demanding that the radical UN scheme be implemented to avoid “life-threatening consequences for billions of people.” UN “High Commissioner for the 2030 Agenda” Cristina Gallach echoed the hysteria. And throughout the summit, more than a few speakers touted the controversial UN agenda as if it were the key to saving humanity from every problem under the sun.
The UN goals, as this magazine has documented, include national and global wealth redistribution, government control over the economy, globalist indoctrination of all children, surrendering more sovereignty to global institutions, and much more. They are essentially a “master plan for humanity,” as UN bosses put it, to build a global technocratic government that would dominate every facet of human existence. Unsurprisingly, the mass-murdering Communist dictatorship enslaving China boasted that it played a “crucial role” in developing the UN agenda. And dictators from around the world celebrated the plan as well. The World Government Summit formally launched its SDG's in Action @ WGS platform in 2016 in partnership with the UN, the World Bank, and other outfits.
And the line-up of speakers was universally supportive of the agenda. In an address delivered to the World Government Summit after signing a controversial agreement with a top Sunni Muslim imam, Pope Francis, a fervent advocate of UN Agenda 2030, offered his “best wishes” for the work of summit attendees. Urging cooperation to address the “problems of each person in the global village,” the pope called for more environmentalism while using leftist rhetoric to drive a wedge between “people” and “capital and economic interests.”
Pope Francis also specifically promoted sustainable development, which is the ideology underpinning the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals that seeks to limit the human population and fundamentally transform civilization under the guise of saving the planet. “We cannot really speak of sustainable development without solidarity,” he said, using a buzzword that, along with “fraternity,” has become a staple for the pope and has raised alarm even among Catholic scholars. “We could even say that the good, if it is not the common good, is not actually good....I hope that your efforts at the service of the common good may bear fruit.”
The pope's blessing of the World Government Summit was especially bizarre considering that in 2017, the event took place under the shadow of a replica of the Roman arch in front of the pagan Temple of Ba'al. The monument to the demonic idol, who is frequently referenced in the Bible, originally stood in Palmyra, Syria, a city known in the Bible as Tadmore. Among other concerns, this false pagan god demanded child sacrifices and other horrors that outraged the God of the Bible. While a number of replicas were planned, the very first was prominently displayed at the 2017 World Government Summit, attracting fierce criticism and deep concern among religious scholars — especially in light of the “World Government” motif.
As in previous years, some celebrities showed up to lecture humanity about the alleged need to submit to global governance and sustainable development to supposedly save the planet from humanity. Actor Harrison Ford (shown), for instance, went on a tirade against “nationalism” and “isolationism” after a bizarre segment in which he pretended to speak for “nature.” “I could give a damn with or without humans, I’m the ocean,” Ford said, pretending to be “nature” while speaking in a strange voice. “I covered this entire planet once, and I can always cover it again.” It was not clear whether he intended to refer to the biblical flood of Noah's time or some other period during which he believes the oceans may have covered the entire planet.
Ford, a lifelong Democrat, also slammed President Donald Trump for allegedly denying “science” on climate change. “Around the world, elements of leadership including in my own country to preserve their state and the status quo, deny or denigrate science,” Ford said as whistleblowers and scientists from the UN continued to expose the UN's lies and pseudo-science. “They are on the wrong side of history.” According to UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sea-level reviewer Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, however, who resigned in disgust when the UN IPCC refused to correct its false information, the lies underpinning the man-made global-warming hypothesis will inevitably be exposed.
Globalists were everywhere at the event. IMF boss Christine Lagarde, who suggested the IMF might be moved from Washington to Beijing, was a key speaker. Other leading globalist managers speaking at the summit included the scandal-plagued chief of UN WIPO Francis Gurry, who has come under fire for retaliating against whistleblowers and trying to have a reporter prosecuted. UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) chief Audrey Azoulay, a socialist working to standardize the indoctrination of children worldwide, spoke as well. UN Development Program (UNDP) boss Achim Steiner, UNICEF boss Henrietta Fore, UN General Assembly President Maria Espinoza, World Food Programme chief David Beasley, totalitarian-minded UN SDG peddler Jeffery Sachs, World Economic Forum (WEF) boss Klaus Schwab, and numerous other globalist leaders spoke there, too.
Among the prominent “media partners” of the World Government Summit listed on the website were The New York Times, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, CNBC, the “fake news” kingpins at CNN, Sky News (owned by the owner of Fox News), and many others. It was not clear how they were expected to maintain impartiality about the agenda while also sponsoring the summit. Arianna Huffington of the fringe left-wing website Huffington Post and CNN International anchor Becky Anderson even spoke there, along with other media personalities. But as usual, there was very little coverage of the event in American media, perhaps because top globalists tend to openly promote globalism in a way that would alarm the U.S. public and jeopardize the agenda.
Consider, for instance, the speech delivered by Rwandan President Paul Kagame, who spent much of his time promoting the subversion of sovereignty via “regional and continental integration,” as he put it, to create a united African continent. “We will only realize our full promise, by joining together our historically fragmented markets, and making it easier for people, goods, and services to move across our continent,” he said, boasting of efforts by the globalist African Union (AU) to smash nation-states. “That is why the African Union adopted the African Continental Free Trade Area, which is due to enter into force later this year. We have also adopted a Protocol on the Free Movement of People.”
Of course, as leading globalist luminaries such as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger have explained, regional governments such as the EU, the AU, and more are a critical component of the globalist vision for the “New World Order.” That is why the EU, the U.S. government, and the Communist Chinese government have been pouring money into the AU and other emerging regional governments. Even Russian strongman Vladimir Putin is in the process of building a “Eurasian Union,” as globalists in the United States pursue deeper integration of “North America” via NAFTA and the USMCA.
Also attending the World Government Summit was Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, who urged investors to invest in Pakistan even while boasting about the glories of a welfare state. “I am really against this neo-liberal economics where you have 62 people owning as much wealth as 3 billion people on this Earth,” he told the audience, arguing that governments must take responsibility for taking care of poor people. Former Colombian President Juan Santos, who tried to hand his country over the Marxist terrorists with help from key globalists, spoke as well.
Aside from the major media outlets, Big Business partnered with the World Government Summit were Mastercard, KPMG, Deloitte, McKinsey & Company, and many other Big Business affiliates. A broad array of “global governance” institutions partnered with the World Government peddlers, too, including the UN, the IMF, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization, the UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and more.
Among the more than 4,000 participants from 140 countries were a number of high-profile Americans. Among those who spoke on stage was U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, a Bilderberg attendee, who announced a robotics competition from the stage. Daniel Kaniewski, the deputy administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was also there. Disgraced EPA boss Lisa Jackson from the Obama administration, who still serves on the disgraced Clinton Foundation board, was at the globalist summit as well. And former Trump Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's chief of staff Margaret Peterlin spoke, too.
While the establishment media keep Americans divided and distracted with deception and frivolity, ignoring real news such as the “World Government Summit,” globalists are dropping the mask and coming out of the closet for all to see. It seems everyone is welcome in the emerging New World Order — globalists, communists, Islamists, technocrats, Big Business, and more — except patriotic Americans and Christian conservatives. Liberty-loving Americans must expose the subversive globalist agenda before it snuffs out liberty, prosperity, and Western Christian civilization worldwide.
Photo of Harrison Ford at World Government Summit: AP Images
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.
Related articles:
Creepy “World Government Summit” Targets America, Freedom
At “World Government Summit,” Top Globalists Drop The Mask
World Government Summit Brings Together Top Globalists Under Baal's Arch
UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism
Creating a New World Order Out of Regional Orders
In African Union, Globalist Agenda Becomes Clear
UN Wants Artificial Intelligence to Advance Agenda 2030
At UN, Creepy Globalist Robot Vows to Help “Create the Future”
U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence
The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government
MUST READ!! This is one reason why "American" Millennial's, educated in the "public" and "private" sector, have been indoctrinated to accept, tout, and push for Communism, through Socialism and Marxism. All while they were being denied the opportunity to hear and debate all sides of the true history of America and the world.
If you have children of ANY age, start having this conversation! Do not let the legacy we are responsible for handing down to future generations be decimated by lies that will end the America you know! The Land of the Free will be gone forever, even as an ideology. The war on the human spirit has been going on since the beginning of time and it is up to us to not let our God given rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness be buried for another 100 years under tyranny and subjugation! Is that what we want for our children, grandchildren and on? There can be NO other way for humanity to truly become responsible for keeping freedom free unless WE are accountable for making sure it happens! The buck stops with you.
Home / Newsroom / Press Releases
New PSI Report Details Stunning Lack of Transparency & Reciprocity in How Chinese-Funded & Controlled Confucius Institutes Operate at American Universities
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following an eight-month long investigation, today U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Tom Carper (D-DE), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), unveiled a new bipartisan report that details the lack of transparency in how American colleges and universities manage Confucius Institutes—which are located at more than 100 American colleges and universities and have received more than $150 million in support from the Chinese government. These Confucius Institutes are controlled, funded, and mostly staffed by the Chinese government. The report also details China’s one-sided treatment of U.S. schools and key State Department programs in China, and documents the lack of oversight by the Departments of State and Education of U.S. Confucius Institutes.
“This bipartisan report documents the stunning lack of transparency and reciprocity from China in how Confucius Institutes operate inside the United States. As China has expanded Confucius Institutes here in the U.S., it has systematically shut down key U.S. State Department public diplomacy efforts on Chinese college campuses,” said Senator Portman. “We learned that schools in the United States— from kindergarten to college—have provided a level of access to the Chinese government that the Chinese government has refused to provide to the United States. That level of access can stifle academic freedom and provide students and others exposed to Confucius Institute programming with an incomplete picture of Chinese government actions and policies that run counter to U.S. interests at home and abroad. Absent full transparency regarding how Confucius Institutes operate and full reciprocity for U.S. cultural outreach efforts on college campuses in China, Confucius Institutes should not continue in the United States.”
“Given what our country experienced during the 2016 election and what we’re preparing to grapple with in 2020, it is critical that we be vigilant in combatting foreign efforts to influence American public opinion. This bipartisan report highlights the quiet effort by China to improve its image in Americans’ minds through its Confucius Institutes, which operate at our universities and K-12 classrooms across the country,” said Senator Carper. “While there is no evidence that these institutes are a center for Chinese espionage efforts or any other illegal activity, we must have our eyes wide open about the presence of these institutes in our schools and around young, impressionable students, especially since they were conceived by and are funded by a Chinese government that holds and exports a much different worldview than ours. This report raises awareness about Confucius Institutes operating within our country and China’s goals for those centers. It also highlights China’s resistance to our own cultural outreach efforts in their country. I hope this report encourages schools hosting Confucius Institute to evaluate how they impact free speech and debate on campus and take steps to ensure academic freedom remains paramount. It should also propel policymakers to learn how we can fill any gaps that may exist in Chinese language education in the United States to avoid having our schools rely on the Chinese government to assume a role that we should be taking on ourselves.”
Following are the key findings in the report:
Following are the key recommendations in the report:
Tomorrow, February 28, 2019, PSI will hold a hearing to examine China’s impact on the United States education system. For a list of witnesses, please click here. A livestream of the hearing will be available here.
###
As the story goes,
... that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created? His answer was "A Republic, if you can keep it."
*
“THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated” Thomas Paine, The Crisis 1776, December-23
