Far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) doubled down on her support for defunding the police during a video event this week, and claimed that concern over exploding crime rates across the U.S. are “hysteria.”
“The F.B.I. does not release full statistics until September, but homicide rates in large cities were up more than 30 percent on average last year, and up another 24 percent for the beginning of this year,” The New York Times reported, later adding that “in the aftermath [of George Floyd’s death], some criminologists attributed the spike in homicides to hesitancy among residents to turn to the police for help.”
Ocasio-Cortez downplayed the rise in crime, claiming that news headlines were “hysteria.”
“We are seeing these headlines about percentage increases,” she claimed. “Now, I want to say that any amount of harm is unacceptable and too much. But I also want to make sure that this hysteria, you know, that this doesn’t drive a hysteria and that we look at these numbers in context so that we can make responsible decisions about what to allocate in that context.”
WATCH: Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls the concerns over the spike in crime "hysteria" pic.twitter.com/MMZ2dlAhpM
Ocasio-Cortez later agreed with far-left Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who said during the video event that the police should be defunded.
“I agree with Representative Bowman, that I do believe that we need to reallocate resources away and that a big, you know, major causes of this — and by the way, I also think it’s important context because we hear on the news and media, they perpetuate this idea of crime wave, crime wave, crime wave, right?” she said. “And so this idea that a lot of us are panicked thinking that we are at some unprecedented level that we’ve never seen before.”
Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doubles down on Defund the Police, downplays crime wave pic.twitter.com/rZEUmmudyR
Bowman is facing controversy over his repeated calls to defund the police after The New York Post reported this weekend that he requested special police protection at his home in New York earlier this year.
“About a week after the Jan. 6th incident at the Capitol, we received a request from the Congressman’s office for increased police presence at his residence,” Yonkers Police Department Detective Lt. Dean Politopoulos told the New York Post. “In response, our Intelligence Unit was notified of the request and the local precinct instituted what is called a directed patrol at the Congressman’s home for the next two weeks.”
Politopoulos reportedly said that nothing unusual had been detected in Bowman’s neighborhood for years. The report noted that the day after the January 6 riot, Bowman told a radio host that he had been “safe pretty much throughout the event.”
A spokeswoman for Bowman claimed that the police were called because Bowman “received threats,” although she did not elaborate on the “threats,” and she reportedly avoided questions about Bowman’s hypocrisy given his repeated support for defunding the police.
This report has been updated to include additional information.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.
Over the course of the past century, a number of truly awe-inspiring heists have been carried out by con artists, whose modus operandi is to exploit human frailties such as credulity, insecurity and greed. Con is short for confidence, for the con artist must first gain the trust of his targets, after which he persuades them to hand their money over to him. A con job differs from a moral transaction between two willing, fully informed trading partners because one of the partners is deceived, and deception constitutes a form of coercion. In other words, the person being swindled is not really free. If he knew what was really going on, he would never agree to invest in the scheme.
The "Ponzi scheme" was named after Charles Ponzi, who in the 1920s persuaded investors to believe that he was generating impressive profits by buying international reply coupons (IRCs) at low prices abroad and redeeming them in the United States at higher rates, the fluctuating currency market being the secret to his seemingly savvy success. In reality, Ponzi used his low-level investors’ money to pay off earlier investors, support himself, and expand his business by luring more and more investors in. More recently, Bernie Madoff managed to abscond with billions of dollars by posing as an investment genius who could deliver sizable, indeed exceptional, returns on his clients’ investments.
It is plausible that at least some of the early investors in such gambits, who are paid as promised, suppress whatever doubts may creep up in their minds as they bask in the splendor of their newfound wealth. But even those who begin consciously to grasp what is going on may turn a blind eye as the scheme grows to engulf investors who will be fleeced, having been persuaded to participate not only by the smooth-talking con artist, but also by the reported profits of previous investors. Eventually, however, the house of cards collapses, revealing the incredible but undeniable truth: there never were any investments at all. No trading ever took place, and all of the company’s transactions were either deposits or withdrawals of gullible investors’ cash.
Before a con artist is unmasked, nearly everyone involved plays along, either because they stand to gain, or because they truly believe. Sometimes the implications of having been wrong are simply too devastating to admit, and these same psychological dynamics operate in many other realms where most people would never suspect anything like a Ponzi scheme. It is arguable, for example, that the continuous siphoning of U.S. citizens’ income to pay for misguided military interventions abroad constitutes a form of Ponzi scheme. If President George H. W. Bush had never used taxpayers’ dollars to wage the First Gulf War on Iraq in 1991 and to install permanent military bases in the Middle East, then Osama bin Laden would likely never have called for jihad against the United States. If the U.S. military had not invaded Iraq in 2003, then ISIS would never have emerged and spread to Syria and beyond. Such implications are deeply unsettling, and even in the face of mounds of evidence, most people prefer to cling to the official story according to which the 1991 Gulf War was necessary and just, while the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were completely unprovoked, and all subsequent interventions a matter of national self-defense.
The series of bombing campaigns in the Middle East beginning in 1991 are plausibly regarded as a type of Ponzi scheme because the "investors" (taxpayers), have actually paid to make themselves worse, not better, off. Not only have the "blowback" attacks perpetrated in response to U.S. military intervention abroad killed many innocent persons, but the lives of thousands of soldiers have been and continue to be wrecked through dubious deployments abroad. Along with all of the blood spilled, much treasure has been lost. The more than $28 trillion national debt (as of June 2021) is due in part to the massive Pentagon budget, rubber-stamped annually by Congress, to say nothing of the many other "discretionary" initiatives claimed to be necessary in national defense. Afghanistan is a perfect example of how billions of taxpayer dollars continue to be tossed into the wind even as the formal U.S. military presence winds down. The reason why the War on Terror continues on is not because it is protecting the citizens who pay for it or helping the people of the Middle East but because it has proved to be profitable to persons in the position to influence U.S. foreign policy.
One might reasonably assume that anyone who stands to enrich himself from government policies should be excluded from consequential deliberations over what ought to be done, and in certain realms, the quite rational concern with conflict of interest still operates to some degree. With regard to the military, however, there has been a general acquiescence by the populace to the idea that because only experts inside the system are capable of giving competent advice, they must be consulted, even when they will profit from the policies they promote, such as bombing, which invariably increases the value of stock in companies such as Raytheon. Throughout history, there has always been a push by war profiteers to promote military interventions, but Dick Cheney, who served as Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush and vice president under his son, George W. Bush, took war profiteering to an entirely new level. By privatizing many military services through the Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), Cheney effectively ushered in a period of war entrepreneurialism, beginning with Halliburton (of which he was CEO from 1995-2000), which continues on today, making it possible for a vast nexus of subcontractors to profit from the never-ending War on Terror, and to do so in good conscience. When more people have self-interested reasons for supporting military interventions, then they become more likely to take place.
With the quelling of concerns that conflict of interest should limit the persons who advise the president on matters of foreign policy, the formal requirement that the secretary of defense be not a military officer but a civilian has been effectively dropped, with both James Mattis and Lloyd Austin easily confirmed as "exceptions" to the rule, despite the fact that, not only did both have significant financial interests in promoting war, but each also had a full career in the military before retiring and being invited to lead the DoD. Military men are inclined to seek military solutions to conflict, which is undoubtedly why high-ranking officers are invited to join the boards of military companies, making Mattis and Austin textbook examples of "revolving door" appointments.
Arguably even more ruinous to the republic in the longterm than the rampant conflict of interest inherent to "revolving door" appointments between the for-profit military industry and the government has been the infiltration of the military into academia, with many universities receiving large grants from the Defense Department for research. Academia would be a natural place for intellectual objections to the progressive militarization of society, but when scholars and scientists themselves benefit directly from DoD funds, they have self-interested reasons to dismiss or discredit those types of critiques—whether consciously or not—in publishing, retention and promotion decisions. In addition to the institutional research support provided by DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), successful academics may receive hefty fees as consultants for the Pentagon and its many affiliates, making them far more likely to defend the hegemon than to raise moral objections to its campaigns of mass homicide euphemistically termed "national defense".
As a result of the tentacular spread of the military, Cui bono? as a cautionary maxim has been replaced by Who cares? People seem not at all bothered by these profound conflicts of interest, and the past year has illustrated how cooption and corruption may creep easily into other realms as well. Indeed, there is a sense in which today we have two MICs: the military-industrial-complex and, now, in the age of Covid-19, the medical-industrial-complex. This latter development can be viewed, in part, as a consequence of the former, for in recent decades the military industrial complex has sprouted tentacles to become the military-industrial-congressional-media-academic-pharmaceutical-logistics banking complex. Long before Covid-19 appeared on the scene, the Veterans Administration (VA) adopted pro-Big Pharma policies, including the prescription of a vast array of psychotropic medications in lieu of "talk therapy" to treat PTSD among veterans and to preemptively medicate soldiers who expressed anxiety at what they were asked to do in Afghanistan and Iraq. The increase in the prescription of drugs to military personnel generated hefty profits for pharmaceutical firms, allowing them to expand marketing and lobbying efforts to target not only physicians but also politicians and the populace.
Since the initial launch of Prozac in 1986, the pharmaceutical industry has become an extremely powerful force in Western society, made all the more so in the United States when restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising were lifted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1997. Already by 2020, about 23% of Americans (nearly 77 million out of a population of 331 million) were taking psychiatric medications, and those numbers appear to have increased significantly during the 2020 lockdowns, which took a toll on many people’s psychological well-being. As medications are prescribed more and more throughout every sector of society, drug makers exert a greater and greater influence on policy, even as the heroin/fentanyl overdose epidemic, caused directly by the aggressive marketing and rampant overprescription of opioid painkillers, continues on.
Just as the military industry is granted the benefit of the doubt on the assumption that they are helping to protect the nation, the pharmaceutical industry accrues respectability from its association with the medical profession. Who, after all, could oppose "defense" and "health"? In reality, however, for-profit weapons and drug companies are beholden not to their compatriots, nor to humanity, but to their stockholders. War and disease are profitable, while peace and health are not. The CEOs of military and pharmaceutical companies, like all businesspersons, seek to ensure that their profits increase by all means necessary, the prescription opioid epidemic being a horrific case in point. Just as academics may enjoy Defense Department funding, many doctors and administrators of medical institutions today derive essential funding from drug companies and the government, whether directly or indirectly. These connections are immensely important because many politicians receive generous campaign contributions from Big Pharma, which by now has more lobbyists in Washington, DC, than there are congresspersons, and not without reason. Formulary decisions at the VA regarding the appropriateness of prescribing, for example, dangerous antipsychotic medications such as Astrazeneca’s Seroquel to soldiers as sleep aids are made by administrators who are political appointees, as are public health officials more generally.
With a functional Fourth Estate, it would be possible to question if not condemn the conflicts of interest operating in the for-profit military and medical realms. Unfortunately, however, we no longer have a competent press. Throughout the Coronavirus crisis, this has become abundantly clear as alternative viewpoints on every matter of policy have been squelched, suppressed, and outright censored in the name of the truth, when there may have been ulterior motives at play. In fact, the complete quashing of any directives regarding non-vaccine therapies for mitigating the effects of Covid-19—including Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine—may be best explained by the simple fact that FDA emergency use authorization of vaccines in the United States is possible only when "there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives," as is stated plainly on the specification sheets for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
Regarding the origins of the virus, early claims by some researchers that Covid-19 may have been produced in the virology lab in Wuhan and released accidentally were swiftly dismissed as "conspiracy theories." Anyone who suggested this eminently plausible origin of the virus was immediately denounced by the media and deplatformed or censored by the big tech giants. "Gain-of-function" research, often funded by the military, involves making existent viruses deadlier to human beings and is said by its proponents to be necessary in order to be prepared for future natural pandemics or in the event that some enemy might use such a virus as a bioweapon. The latter is a familiar line of reasoning among military researchers, invoked also (mutatis mutandis) in nuclear proliferation and the military colonization of space: we must develop the latest and greatest nuclear bombs and effect total spectrum domination of the galaxy before any other government has the chance to do so! Many of the scientists involved in these endeavors may have the best of intentions, but that does nothing to detract from the propensity of human beings to commit errors.
The Make-a-Wish Foundation, the organization that creates "life-changing wishes for children with critical illnesses," announced that the nonprofit will only grant wishes to terminally ill children and their participating family members if they are all vaccinated against COVID-19. The announcement was made by Make-a-Wish president and CEO Richard Davis in a video that went viral this week.
"We’ve approached this responsibility with a focus and diligence for your families health and safety," Davis says.
"Now we’ve consulted with doctors and medical professionals throughout the National Medical Advisory Council," Davis says in the video. "We’ve been monitoring public health organizations like the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics."
Davis noted that based on the guidance of public health agencies, they will "resume granting air-travel wishes within the United States and its territories, as well as granting wishes involving large gatherings for vaccinated wish families, as soon as Sept. 15 of 2021."
Make-a-Wish stopped granting wishes involving air travel at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in early 2020.
However, Davis said that the charity would require the critically ill children as well as any participants from the family to be two weeks past full vaccination in order to granted any wishes from the organization.
"All wish participants, including your wish kid and any siblings, will need to be two weeks past completion of either a one-dose or a two-dose vaccine," Davis says in the video.
The Make-a-Wish Foundation will not require proof of vaccination, but it will need all adults to sign a "letter of understanding that certifies that they and any minors participating in the wish are vaccinated and fully understand the risks of traveling at this time."
The CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for anyone 12 years of age and older.
Healthline reports, "On May 10, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to include adolescents as young as 12 years old."
The WHO website reads, "Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers."
"More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19," the WHO states.
"WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) has concluded that the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine is suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above," the health agency’s advisory states. "Children aged between 12 and 15 who are at high risk may be offered this vaccine alongside other priority groups for vaccination."
In the video clip, Davis doesn’t appear to explain the protocol for critically ill children under the age of 12, who are not permitted to receive the coronavirus vaccine.
This is literally a new low for humanity. Terminally ill children will not be granted a wish.. from the make a wish… https://t.co/q6IyxRmsT9
Hungary Told To Repeal Law Banning LGBT Promotion To Children "Or Else Leave EU"
EU leadership is now fanatically dictating that Hungary and its ‘defiant’ prime minister Vickor Orban must bow the knee to the Pride Flag or else "must leave" the European Union.
Quoting Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, The Telegraph describes massive pushback against a new Hungarian law which seeks to prevent the public promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism in front of children and minors:
Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands, said Hungary either "must leave" the EU or repeal the law, which bans TV shows and other content seen as championing LGBT lifestyles for the under-18s.
However, some eastern European governments refused to join 17 of the bloc’s 27 countries in a rare joint statement condemning a fellow member state.
Other EU leaders, like European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, have been claiming that the law actively discriminates against LGBT people.
However, defenders of the Hungarian law have pointed out it puts decision-making on presenting these issues to children in the hands of parents and family members. Orban himself, for example, said the law and policy is fundamentally about "defending the rights of the kids and the parents" and is not about discrimination.
Orban said this week at the summit: “Homosexuality was punished, and I fought for their freedom and their rights,” concluding that "I am defending the rights of the homosexual guys. But this law is not about that."
But the EU summit which met this is acting as if it’s a declaration of war on human rights, and is vowing to respond accordingly:
Here were Dutch PM Rutte’s words threatening to boot Hungary or any country that follows, though the actual power to do so remains a very different question…
"My goal is to bring Hungary to its knees on this issue," he said.
"They must realize that they are either part of the European Union and this community of values, which means that in Hungary… no one can be discriminated against and [everyone] can feel free on grounds of sexuality, skin color, gender whatever."
But again Hungary has maintained that it’s all about the protection of children at a time that transgender advocates and even certain NGOs operating in Europe and elsewhere in the globe are actively seeking to convince young people to take irreversible steps to alter their bodies through surgeries and be subject to potentially dangerous hormone treatments.
Just before the EU summit and these end of week Dutch-Hungary fireworks, a Hungarian spokesman had said:
"We stand ready to debate the law with those who have spoken out against it," he told the BBC on Tuesday. "The law is strictly about the protection of children. It says that for minors under 18, sexual education has to be appropriate and what we don’t want is the intrusion of so-called LGBTQ+ lobby NGOs and pressure groups walking into kindergartens and schools to explain to children why it’s a great idea to have hormone treatments and operations to change their sex before they’re 18. These are not acceptable practices."
Dutch leader tells Hungary: If you don’t like LGBT rights, you can leave the E.U. https://t.co/igCnRbiHTH
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 25, 2021
As has been amply documented, in places like the United Kingdom, Canada, and United States, this kind of thing is already happening.
Recall that over a year ago things had already gotten somewhat personal between Rutte and Orban, specifically related to the controversial push to link EU funding to ‘rule of law’ issues, something seen as specifically targeting Hungary as well as other more socially conservative states, particularly in Eastern Europe.
In summer of 2020 as that controversy raged, Orban had said of PM Rutte: "I don’t know what is the personal reason for the Dutch prime minister to hate me or Hungary, but he is attacking so harshly, and making very clear that because Hungary in his opinion does not respect the rule of law, [it] must be punished financially. That’s his position, which is not acceptable because there is no decision about what is the rule of law situation in Hungary."
A number of emails seen by CNN — which uses them to make the case that the platform isn’t censoring enough — show that the Biden campaign repeatedly pressured Facebook to censor posts from the Trump campaign and its supporters about election integrity.
CNN’s own reporting confirms that Facebook changed its policies following the email exchange with Biden officials, yet goes on to quote Democrat activists who complain that the platform is still not censoring enough conservative content.
One post that the Biden campaign tried to have censored during the 2020 election was a video from Donald Trump Jr. in September 2020 calling for supporters to monitor early voting and counting boards.
Biden campaign officials tried to characterize the video as a call for violence, because Don Jr used the term “army” to refer to the volunteer effort, claims that were rebuffed by Facebook.
After a Facebook official responded explaining the video did not violate the site’s policies that would warrant its removal, the Biden official responded with exasperation.
“The Trump Campaign has received the message that they may put videos on your platform saying that millions of fraudulent votes will be used to steal the election. And the solution to that is for ‘able-bodied people’ to enlist in an ‘army.’ So, their shrieks of fraud compound and their calls to ‘enlist’ multiply. Good gracious,” the Biden official wrote. “I struggle to believe that is the precedent you are intending to set.”
CNN goes on to admit that both Facebook and Twitter added “misinformation” labels to the video, and Facebook later instituted a new rule that would ban future videos like it.
The video of Trump Jr. was also posted to Twitter which also allowed the video to remain on its site. Both companies affixed labels to the videos pointing to accurate information about voting.
The following month, Facebook brought in a new policy against militarized language and polling locations, but the policy did not apply retrospectively, meaning Trump Jr.’s video could stay on the platform.
But this obvious kowtowing to Democrat pressure is apparently not enough for party activists, one of whom is quoted by CNN as calling Facebook — which has banned President Trump, potentially permanently, as well as numerous other high-profile conservatives — a “right-wing propaganda machine.”
Judges appointed by former President Donald Trump are creating trouble for President Joe Biden’s policies in the early months of the new administration.
Trump-appointed judges have ruled against the current president on policies related to immigration, COVID-19 relief and the environment, among others, Fox News reported.
Many of the court cases against Biden’s policies have yet to be decided and decisions against Biden could be overturned by higher courts.
“What you’re seeing is that ‘pen and phone’ initiatives are running into legal trouble right off the bat,” Ilya Shapiro, the vice president and director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, told Fox News.
“Trump appointed a lot of judges — more than anyone in one term than Jimmy Carter, for whom Congress created 152 new judgeships to fill — and these folks aren’t as deferential to executive power as past Republican-appointed judges might have been.”
Trump appointed 226 judges to the federal bench in one term, according to Pew Research Center.
This number includes 54 federal appeals court judges.
Trump-appointed Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana ruled last week that Biden’s order to “pause on new oil and gas leases,” likely violates at least three federal laws, according to Fox News.
“Although there is certainly nothing wrong with performing a comprehensive review, there is a problem in ignoring acts of Congress while the review is being completed,” Doughty wrote in his opinion.
Are you glad to see Trump-appointed judges pushing back against Biden?
Yes: 0% (0 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
Republican Montana Sen. Steve Daines praised the judge for “acting as a firewall to President Joe Biden’s harmful attacks on Made-in-America energy,” Fox Business reported.
Amul Thapar, who serves as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, issued an injunction on part of the coronavirus stimulus law that determined which restaurant owners could receive government aid based on race and sex.
“This case is about whether the government can allocate limited coronavirus relief funds based on the race and sex of the applicants. We hold that it cannot,” Thapar wrote, according to Fox News.
“Because these race-neutral alternatives exist, the government’s use of race is unconstitutional.”
He added, “Aside from the existence of race-neutral alternatives, the government’s use of racial preferences is both overbroad and underinclusive.”
Earlier in the year, District Judge Drew Tipton issued an order banning the enforcement of Biden’s Jan. 20 deportation memorandum indefinitely, Fox News reported.
“Texas’ claimed injury from unanticipated detention costs is sufficiently concrete and imminent,” the Trump-appointed judge wrote in his order, according to The Texas Tribune.
“The harm is concrete or de facto because Texas incurs real financial costs in detaining criminal aliens.”
Erin Coates was an editor for The Western Journal for over two years before becoming a news writer. A University of Oregon graduate, Erin has conducted research in data journalism and contributed to various publications as a writer and editor.
Erin Coates was an editor for The Western Journal for over two years before becoming a news writer. She grew up in San Diego, California, proceeding to attend the University of Oregon and graduate with honors holding a degree in journalism. During her time in Oregon, Erin was an associate editor for Ethos Magazine and a freelance writer for Eugene Magazine. She has conducted research in data journalism, which has been published in the book “Data Journalism: Past, Present and Future.” Erin is an avid runner with a heart for encouraging young girls and has served as a coach for the organization Girls on the Run. As a writer and editor, Erin strives to promote social dialogue and tell the story of those around her.
Birthplace
Tucson, Arizona
Nationality
American
Honors/Awards
Graduated with Honors
Education
Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, University of Oregon
Books Written
Contributor for Data Journalism: Past, Present and Future
The Arizona Audit officially completed both the hand count and paper evaluation inspections on Friday.
The audit workers will now vacate Veterans Memorial Coliseum and prepare to deliver a report to the Arizona Senate.
The Gateway Pundit reported earlier that this was taking place but it was made official by a tweet from @ArizonaAudit.
Audit Update: Paper examination and counting are finished today. Thank you to all the amazing Arizona volunteers who made this audit possible!
Audit Update: Paper examination and counting are finished today. Thank you to all the amazing Arizona volunteers who made this audit possible!
— Maricopa Arizona Audit (@ArizonaAudit) June 26, 2021
Earlier this afternoon, volunteers slammed a box closed and cheered in celebration after the final ballots were inspected.
TGP reported that the results will be released in two phases:
1.) On Monday we may see a preliminary report, which details the accuracy of the number of certified ballots.
2.) We then expect to see a full forensic report which details the forensic images and ballot findings.
This is HUGE.
On Monday or soon after, we will know the true number of ballots that were cast in Maricopa County. If it is drastically different than the number of certified ballots, as expected with the discrepancies found, there will be severe consequences for Doug Ducey and Katie Hobbs.
The Arizona State Senate will need to consider decertifying the results if they cannot prove that Biden was the winner. Attorney General Mark Brnovich will need to initiate an investigation into those involved in the scam and the cover-up.
This was just one of many issues encountered along the way as it seems county officials have done everything in their power to prevent this audit from finding the truth. Since day one, legislative subpoenas for Dominion routers and passwords have been violated and it leaves us wondering why.
On Monday, We will have the accurate total number of ballots that were received during Maricopa County’s 2020 election.
During his Saturday night rally in Wellington, Ohio, former President Donald Trump reminded attendees of his warning that Biden and the Democrats would try to take away their guns.
He said, “[The Democrats] are putting your family into a very, very bad position: releasing criminal aliens, defunding the police, abolishing cash bail.”
Trump talked about surging crime in New York and of how police “want to solve the problem” but suggested they are not allowed to do so. He said, “New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, they have great police forces that are not allowed to do their job.”
He then noted that in addition to handcuffing the police, the Democrats work to disarm the American people, saying, “They all try to take away your guns.”
Trump said, “If you remember, when I was campaigning against Joe Biden I said, ‘They are going to take away your guns’ and ‘Your Second Amendment is under siege.’”
He then pointed to Chicago, a city that had a total handgun ban 1982-2010, has very stringent gun controls now, and whose Mayor, Lori Lightfoot (D), pushes more gun control as the answer to rising crime in 2021.
Trump said, “People are being shot by the thousand every year. Worse than Afghanistan, how about that?”
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represents Dr. Francis Christian, Clinical Professor of General Surgery at the University of Saskatchewan and a practising surgeon in Saskatoon.
Dr. Christian was called into a meeting today, suspended from all teaching responsibilities effective immediately, and fired from his position with the University of Saskatchewan as of September 2021.
There is a recording of Dr. Christian’s meeting today between Dr. Christian and Dr. Preston Smith, the Dean of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Dr. Susan Shaw, the Chief Medical Officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and Dr. Brian Ulmer, Head of the Department of Surgery at the Saskatchewan College of Medicine.
In addition, the Justice Centre will represent Dr. Christian in his defence of a complaint that was made against him and an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. The complaint objects to Dr. Christian having advocated for the informed consent of Covid vaccines for children.
Dr. Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities.
On June 17, Dr. Christian released a statement to over 200 doctors which contained his concerns regarding giving the Covid shots to children. In it he noted that he is pro-vaccine, and that he did not represent any group, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, or the University of Saskatchewan.
“I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being.”
Dr. Christian noted that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a patient should always be “fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of the intervention, and if any alternatives exist to the intervention.”
“This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in humans… before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must know the risks of m-RNA vaccines,” he wrote.
Dr. Christian expressed concern that he had not come across “a single vaccinated child or parent who has been adequately informed” about Covid vaccines for children.
Among his points, he stated that:
The m-RNA vaccine, is a new, experimental vaccine never used by humans before.
The m-RNA vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada or the US CDC, and are in fact under “interim authorization” in Canada and “emergency use authorization” in the US. He noted that “full vaccine approval takes several years and multiple safety considerations – this has not happened.”
That in order to qualify for “emergency use authorization” there must be an emergency. While he said there is a strong case for vaccinating the elderly, the vulnerable and health care workers, he said, “Covid does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of Covid is less than 0.003% – this is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu. There is no emergency in children.”
Children do not readily transmit the Covid virus to adults.
M-RNA vaccines have been “associated with several thousand deaths” in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System in the US. “These appear to be unusual, compared to the total number of vaccines administered.” He called it a “strong signal that should not be ignored.”
He noted that vaccines have already caused “serious medical problems for kids” worldwide, including “a real and significantly increased risk” of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. Dr. Christian notes the German national vaccine agency and the UK vaccine agency are not recommending the vaccine for healthy children and teenagers.
The Saskatchewan Health Authority/College of Medicine wrote a letter to Dr. Christian on June 21, 2021, alleging that they had “received information that you are engaging in activities designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving Covid-19 vaccination contrary to the recommendations and pandemic-response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian public health authorities.”
Dr. Christian’s concerns regarding underage Covid vaccinations are not isolated to him. The US Centre for Disease Control had an “emergency meeting” today to discuss the growing cases of myocarditis (heart inflammation) in younger males after receiving the Covid-19 vaccines.
The CDC released new data today that the risk of myocarditis after the Pfizer vaccine is at least 10 times the expected rate in 12 – 17 year old males and females. The German government has issued public guidance against vaccinating those under the age of 18.
The World Health Organization posted an update to its website on Monday, June 21, which contained the statement in respect of advice for Covid-19 vaccination that “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.” Within 24 hours, this guidance was withdrawn and new guidance was posted which stated that “Covid vaccines are safe for those over 18 years of age.”
Dr. Christian says there is a large, growing “network of ethical, moral physicians and scientists” who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed consent. He said, physicians must “always put their patients and humanity first.”
Dr. Byram Bridle, a prominent immunologist at the University of Guelph with a sub-speciality in vaccinology, recently participated in a Press Conference on Parliament Hill on CPAC organized by MP Derek Sloan, where he discussed the censorship of scientists and physicians. Dr. Bridle expressed his safety concerns with vaccinating children with experimental MRNA vaccines.
Justice Centre Litigation Director Jay Cameron also has concern over the growing censorship of medical professionals when it comes to questioning the government narrative on Covid.
“We are seeing a clear pattern of highly competent and skilled medical doctors in very esteemed positions being taken down and censored or even fired, for practicing proper science and medicine,” says Mr. Cameron.
The Justice Centre represented Dr. Chris Milburn in Nova Scotia, who faced professional disciplinary proceedings last year after a group of activists took exception to an opinion column he wrote in a local paper. The Justice Centre provided submissions to the College on Dr. Milburn’s behalf, defending the right of physicians to express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square and arguing that everyone is entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – including doctors. The Justice Centre noted that attempting to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of public interest amounts to bullying and intimidation for speaking out against the government.
Last week, Dr. Milburn also faced punishment for speaking out with his concerns about public health policies, as he was removed from his position as the Head of Emergency for the eastern zone with the Nova Scotia Health Authority. In an unusual twist, a petition has been started to have Dr. Milburn replace Dr. Strang as the province’s Chief Medical Officer.
“Censoring and punishing scientists and doctors for freely voicing their concerns is arrogant, oppressive and profoundly unscientific”, states Mr. Cameron.
“Both the western world and the idea of scientific inquiry itself is built to a large extent on the principles of freedom of thought and speech. Medicine and patient safety can only regress when dogma and an elitist orthodoxy, such as that imposed by the Saskatchewan College of Medicine, punishes doctors for voicing concerns,” Mr. Cameron concludes.
Former President Donald Trump returned to the rally stage on Saturday, criticizing President Joe Biden at length for his failures in his first months in office.
“After just five months the Biden administration is a catastrophe,” Trump said after taking the stage. “I told you.”
The president delivered a long list of Biden’s failures, specifically on crime and immigration enforcement.
“Crime is surging, murders are soaring, police departments are being gutted, illegal aliens are overrunning their borders, nobody has ever seen anything like it,” he said.
Trump noted that he left the country in good shape, but Biden overturned a lot of good things he had done.
“We set Biden up so beautifully, all he had to do was ‘Go to the beach, Joe. Go to the beach,’” Trump joked.
He added, “Instead Biden is going to drive our economy and our country into ruin.”
Trump also condemned Biden’s policies on energy and foreign policy.
“Gas prices are spoking, inflation is skyrocketing, and China, Russia, and Iran are humiliating our country,” he said.
Trump noted that Biden canceled the Keystone pipeline and killed thousands of American jobs while approving a gas pipeline from Russia into Europe.
He also criticized Biden for bringing back the Paris Climate Agreement, which he said would cause “trillions of dollars of damage” to the American economy.
Trump also criticized Biden’s immense plans to raise taxes and spend trillions to redistribute wealth.
“Joe Biden is destroying our nation right before our very eyes,” Trump said, and added, “He puts America last, we put America first. It’s very very simple.”
