Black Lives Matter has led the charge to make seemingly every issue in America a referendum on race. One example of this came during a protest outside Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s mansion in St. Paul on Sunday. The New York Post reported that dozens of protesters were kneeling outside the mansion amid reports of a…
As if anyone needed any more evidence that the mainstream media are biased against conservatives, this study proved it. A Media Research Center study published Monday shows a stark contrast in media coverage from the first three months of former President Donald Trump’s administration to the same timespan of President Joe Biden’s term. According to…
Georgia’s Raffensperger did it too – received millions in ‘Zuckerbucks’ and the best information is that he spent it on public service announcements promoting his election actions.
We just reported that millions was given to Maricopa County in Arizona from a ‘non-profit’ related to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg:
A report released by the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society at a press conference on Wednesday alleged Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife made $419.5 million in contributions to non-profit organizations during the 2020 election cycle–$350 million to the “Safe Elections” Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and another $69.5 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research–that, “improperly influence[d] the 2020 presidential election on behalf of one particular candidate and party.”
Now the Georgia Star reports that millions went to Georgia’s Secretary of State’s office as well:
A group directly linked to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg donated nearly $5.6 million to the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office last year…
…The Georgia Star News contacted Raffensperger’s communications staff Monday for comment. Raffensperger Spokesman Walter Jones, in his emailed response, took a dig at this publication.
“Any grant or funding source, as allowed by Georgia law, has enabled this and local elections offices to combat disinformation similar to recent articles published by this outlet that undermine the confidence of Georgia voters,” Jones said referring to the events of last year.
The Georgia Star News did not debut until November 2020, and only after Election Day.
Apparently, CEIR’s website shared how Secretary of State Raffensperger’s office spent the money:
Jones did not specifically describe how Raffensperger spent the money — but the CEIR website did.
“Georgia used CEIR grant funds in both the November general election and January runoff election to encourage voters to apply for a ballot online,” the CEIR website said.
“This approach sped up the process for both voters and election officials while also making it easier to track application status. Georgia also used the funds to counteract disinformation, issuing public service announcements warning voters of disinformation and encouraging them to report fraud to the Secretary of State hotline.”
So the only information we have on $5 million given to Raffensperger is that he spent it on propaganda. So $5 million was spent on election propaganda – $5 million.
According to the Georgia Star, Raffensperger issued a press release on this but we don’t know when because it wasn’t dated:
Raffensperger announced the partnership with CEIR in a press release. The press release is undated. Members of Raffensperger’s staff presumably published it last year. In that press release, Raffensperger praised the CEIR staff as “the greatest minds that the country has to offer” and, because of that, he said Georgia could have a secure and reliable paper-ballot system.
We know Raffensperger certified the election and to this day there are over 350,000 ballots that are illegitimate.
Now we know Raffensperger received $5 million before the election and he won’t provide detailed information on how it was spent. This doesn’t look good. This doesn’t look good at all.
War is fought on multiple fronts and the effort to keep America a republic is under assault from all sides… and borders.
In one day this week, Congress undertook introduction of radical legislation to accomplish what amounts to a hostile takeover of the republic, attempting to nullify the Constitution in hopes of cementing a socialist reconfiguration of the United States.
Today, April 18, will be our 682nd consecutive peaceful Sunday protest against the most corrupt VA in the nation—the Los Angeles VA.
Join us from 1-3 PM at the northwest corner of Wilshire & San Vicente Boulevards—west of the 405 Freeway outside the Los Angeles VA as we continue in our noble cause to “Save Our Veterans Land” and to “Bring Our Homeless Veterans HOME”.
The judge in the trial of former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin blasted the incendiary comments from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and said that they could lead to the overturn of the trial if the defense chose to appeal the ruling.
Chauvin is on trial for the death of George Floyd during an arrest on May 25 in Minneapolis. His attorney Eric Nelson argued Monday for a mistrial based on the fact that jurors were exposed to public comments because they had not been sequestered during the trial.
"It is so pervasive. I just don’t know how this jury can really be said to be that they are free from the taint of this," Nelson said. "Now that we have U.S. representatives threatening acts of violence in relation to this specific case, it’s mind-boggling to me, judge!"
"I will give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," responded Judge Peter Cahill.
"I will give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole tri… https://t.co/6Oy4whNiTh
Cahill did not grant the defense’s request for a mistrial, but he went on to excoriate Waters for her comments.
"This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law, and to the judicial branch and our function," the judge said.
"I think if they want to give their opinions they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a coequal branch of government," he added.
"Their failure to do so is abhorrent!" he added.
Cahill went on to say that he did not believe the jury would be prejudiced by Waters’ comments because they had been instructed to not watch television.
"A congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot. Anyway," Cahill said.
Waters has been castigated by many for the comments she made on Sunday in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, calling for more protests and telling protesters to "get more confrontational" over the trial of Chauvin.
Here are the judge’s comments against Waters:
Judge Peter Cahill rips Rep. Maxine Waters for "abhorrent" comments over the weekend on the trial:
"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law." pic.twitter.com/8QHDXcmaTI — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 19, 2021
House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy told Breitbart News exclusively that he will move to formally censure House Financial Services Committee chairwoman Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) over her call to violence in Minnesota this weekend.
McCarthy’s move, which comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to hold Waters accountable, will force a censure vote in the House. Pelosi cannot stop McCarthy’s resolution censuring Waters from receiving a vote, because it is a privileged resolution. If Democrats lose just three of their members on this vote and all Republicans vote for it, then Waters will be formally censured by the House and likely lose her powerful position as chair of the Financial Services Committee.
If Waters is successfully censured by the House, it would also invoke a powerful but little-known rule in the House Democrat Caucus rules called Rule 25, which would formally strip her of her ability to serve as chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee.
McCarthy’s statement, provided exclusively to Breitbart News ahead of its public release, makes clear that it is his belief that Waters “broke the law by violating curfew” before she “incited violence” with commentary she made to reporters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, this weekend.
“This weekend in Minnesota, Maxine Waters broke the law by violating curfew and then incited violence. Increased unrest has already led to violence against law enforcement and her comments intentionally poured fuel on the fire,” McCarthy said. “We’ve heard this type of violent rhetoric from Waters before, and the United States Congress must clearly and without reservation reprimand this behavior before more people get hurt. But Speaker Pelosi is ignoring Waters’ behavior. That’s why I am introducing a resolution to censure Rep. Waters for these dangerous comments, and I hope that all my colleagues – both Republican and Democrat – will stand up for peace on America’s streets.”
Waters appeared with protesters in Brooklyn Center in Minnesota who for days have been protesting the death of Daunte Wright. During remarks to reporters, Waters specifically urged people to “get more confrontational” if the jury in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin does not return a murder conviction in the death of George Floyd.
“We’re looking for a guilty verdict,” Waters said. “And we’re looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd, if nothing does not happen, then we know that we’ve got to not only stay in the street, but we’ve got to fight for justice. But I am very hopeful, and I hope we are going to get a verdict that says ‘guilty, guilty, guilty.’ If we don’t, we cannot go away.”
In response to a follow-up question on what protesters should do if Chauvin is not convicted of murder, Waters said: “We’ve got to stay on the street and we’ve got to get more active. We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure they know we mean business.”
After video of Waters’ remarks circulated widely on social media, McCarthy on Sunday night pressed Pelosi to do something about Waters inciting violence. Pelosi has not acted, other than defending Waters and saying she should not apologize for the commentary.
“Maxine talked about confrontation in the manner of the Civil Rights movement,” Pelosi said, according to CNN. “I myself think we should take our lead from the George Floyd family. They’ve handled this with great dignity and no ambiguity or lack of misinterpretation by the other side.”
“No, no, I don’t think she should apologize,” Pelosi added about Waters.
Waters took a similar approach to Pelosi’s defense of her—claiming Republicans were deliberately misinterpreting her call for protesters to “get more confrontational”—in an interview with the Grio attempting to clean up the mess.
“I am nonviolent,” Waters told the outlet, before claiming right-wingers were deliberately twisting her words to infer she was calling for violence:
Republicans will jump on any word, any line and try to make it fit their message and their cause for denouncing us and denying us, basically calling us violent … any time they see an opportunity to seize on a word, so they do it and they send a message to all of the white supremacists, the KKK, the Oath Keepers, the [Proud] Boys and all of that, how this is a time for [Republicans] to raise money on [Democrats] backs.
Waters also claimed this was part of some grand conspiracy theory strategy by Republicans against her. “This is a time for [Republicans] to keep telling our constituents that [Democrats] are the enemy and they do that time and time again,” Waters said. “But that does not deter me from speaking truth to power. I am not intimidated. I am not afraid, and I do what needs to be done.”
And, in the Grio interview, she said when used the word “confrontational” she really meant legislatively and through civic reform. “I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that’s going on, I’m talking about speaking up,” Waters said. “I’m talking about legislation. I’m talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.”
Waters again in the Grio interview reiterated her belief that Republicans are trying to “distort” her comments. “I am not worried that they’re going to continue to distort what I say,” Waters said. “This is who they are and this is how they act. And I’m not going to be bullied by them.”
Pelosi’s and Waters’ after-the-fact defense of Waters’ comments this weekend aside, the matter of a censure vote comes to simple math in the House of Representatives. Democrats have a very slim majority, and assuming all current members of the House vote on this forthcoming privileged censure resolution, Pelosi and Waters can only afford to lose two Democrats and block the measure. If three House Democrats join with all House Republicans in approving the censure, then efforts to defend Waters would fail and the censure measure would succeed.
There have only been a handful—five to be exact—successful censures of sitting House members in modern history. The last censure was in 2010 of now-former Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) over corruption, and before that was of then-Reps. Daniel Crane (R-IL) and Gerry Studds (D-MA) way back in the early 1980s for sexual misconduct with House pages. Democrats Charles Wilson and Charles Diggs faced censures in 1980 and 1979 respectively. The last censure before that was way back in the early 1920s.
A recent Stanford study released by the NCBI, which is under the National Institutes of Health, showed that masks do absolutely nothing to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and their use is even harmful.
NIH published a medical hypothesis by Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim (Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States).
Did you hear about the peer-reviewed study done by Stanford University that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that face masks have absolutely zero chance of preventing the spread of Covid-19? No? It was posted on the the National Center for Biotechnological Information government website. The NCBI is a branch of the National Institute for Health, so one would think such a study would be widely reported by mainstream media and embraced by the “science-loving” folks in Big Tech.
Instead, a DuckDuckGo search reveals it was picked up by ZERO mainstream media outlets and Big Tech tyrants will suspend people who post it, as political strategist Steve Cortes learned the hard way when he posted a Tweet that went against the face mask narrative. The Tweet itself featured a quote and a link that prompted Twitter to suspend his account, potentially indefinitely.
The NCBI study begins with the following abstract:
Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.
The study concludes (emphasis added):
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
Here is the table for physiological and psychological effects of wearing a facemask:
What an absolute joke. American has been led down an insane path of wearing masks that don’t prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and cause more health risk than ever imagined.
Copyright and license information of the research:
Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company’s public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre – including this research content – immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
Twenty-two Republican Attorneys General wrote a letter to Congress and the Biden administration, contending Washington, D.C. cannot become a state through legislation but only through a Constitutional amendment.
“If this Congress passes and President Biden signs this Act into law, we will use every legal tool at our disposal to defend the United States Constitution and the rights of our states from this unlawful effort to provide statehood to the District of Columbia,” Fox News reported.
“Accordingly, not only does Congress lack the authority to create an entirely new state out of the District, but it also does not have the authority to reduce the size of the District to the equivalent of a few federal buildings and surrounding parks,” the letter concluded.
The letter comes as Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) has introduced H.R. 51 to shrink the district while transitioning the vacated area into a state, dubbed the “State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.”
Republicans regard D.C. statehood as a naked power grab, and many legal scholars are confident the Supreme Court would strike down D.C. statehood as unconstitutional for the reasons these authorities have set forth over the years.
For instance, the Office of Legal Council in 2007 said it was unconstitutional when Democrats attempted to give D.C. voting power in Congress without making it a full state. The Justice Department of former President Carter and former President Reagan believed the conversion of Washington D.C. into a state was unconstitutional, along with Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy—a Democrat—who also said in 1963 a similar proposal was unconstitutional.
Moreover, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, when he was sitting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, opposed such a measure, saying, “It is … fanciful to consider as ‘politically powerless’ a city whose residents include a high proportion of the officers of all three branches of the federal government and their staffs.”
The Heritage Foundation also points to three arguments against H.R. 51:
Our nation’s capital was always meant to be unique. The founders wanted it to be a federal district, existing beyond the confines or influence of any one state.
H.R. 51 would require Congress to ignore the plain command of the 23rd Amendment.
Even those who support D.C. statehood admit district residents enjoy special benefits due to where they live and would enjoy an outsize influence in Congress.
The bill will be considered Wednesday in a House Oversight Committee hearing before a potential House vote the following week. 215 Democrat members have co-sponsored the bill.
The states which joined the letter were South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Florida, Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, West Virginia, Idaho, Kansas, Arizona, and Oklahoma.
