Category: Government

Washington is too big, too powerful and too intrusive in our lives. Led by out of control agencies like the NSA and IRS, which have literally persecuted Americans for political reasons, Washington has become a threat to opportunity, freedom.

It’s Outrageous.

Dr. Roger Hodkinson

Dr. Hodkinson is the CEO and Medical Director of MedMalDoctors.

He received his general medical degrees from Cambridge University in the UK (M.A., M.B., B. Chir.) where he was a scholar at Corpus Christi College. Following a residency at the University of British Columbia he became a Royal College certified general pathologist (FRCPC) and also a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists (FCAP).

He is in good Standing with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, and has been recognized by the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta as an expert in pathology. Current chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling a COVID-19 test.

General practitioner in the UK and Canada

Staff pathologist, Misericordia Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta

Pathologist with the Medical Examiner’s Office, Edmonton, determining the cause of death at autopsy

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, with extensive teaching responsibilities

President, the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians

Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Examination Committee in General Pathology, Ottawa

Laboratory accreditation inspector for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta

CEO of Stirrat Laboratories, a large private medical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta

CEO and Medical Director of an IME company: Western Medical Assessments Corporation, Edmonton, Alberta

 

The bottom line is simply this, there is utter unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous, this is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus other than protecting our older more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season, this is not EBOLA, it’s not SARS, it’s politics playing medicine, and that’s a very dangerous game. There is no action of any kind needed other than what happened last year when we got the flu. I felt unwell, we stayed home, we took chicken noodle soup, we didn’t visit granny, and we decided when we would return to work. We didn’t have anyone, need anyone to tell us.

Masks are utterly useless, there is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever. Paper masks and  fabric masks are simply virtue signaling…they’re not even worn effectively most of the time. It’s utterly ridiculous seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people and not saying that in a purchaser’s sense, seeing these people walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge but to put the mask on their face. Social distancing is also useless because…because COVID is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so before landing.

Enclosures have had such terrible unintended consequences…everywhere should be open tomorrow, as was stated in the Great Barrington Declaration that I circulated prior to this meeting. And a word on testing, I do want ot emphasize that I’m in the business of testing for COVID. I do want to emphasize that positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection, it’s simply driving public hysteria, and all testing should stop unless you’re presented to hospital with some respiratory problems. And I would remind you all, that using the province’s own statistics, the risk of death under 65 in this province is 1 in 300,000. You’ve got to get a grip on this. The scale of response that you’re undertaking with no evidence for it, is utterly ridiculous given the consequences of acting in a way that you’re proposing. All kinds of suicides, business closures, funeral, weddings, etc., etc…it’s simply outrageous.

It’s just another bad flu and you’ve got to get your minds around that. Let people make their own decisions, you should be totally out of the business of medicine. You’re being led down the garden path by  the Chief Medical Official of Health for this province (Alberta). I’m absolutely outraged that this has reached this level, it should all stop tomorrow.

 

 

Please follow and like us:

The Law Is There’s No Presidential Transition Until Congress Certifies the Election

The Democrats made the rules, but they don’t want to live by them.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Even though the votes are still being counted, Joe Biden declared that he is the President-Elect, a shadow government office invented by Obama and invested with a pseudo-government seal, and he has been holding fake briefings and taking phone calls with foreign leaders.

The United States only has one president at a time. Maintaining a fake shadow presidency undermines the sitting administration to the American people and to foreign governments.

It’s illegal and inappropriate. So the Democrats are doing it anyway.

Incoming presidents, since Truman’s day, receive briefings and, since Kennedy’s day, get funding for their transition teams, but, according to the law, only once it’s clear who won. The last time this happened, the Bush transition was blocked by Democrats until December.

But the media is boosting its Biden cable network coup by threatening the head of the GSA.

A week after the election, the media descended on Emily Murphy, the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), demanding that she release funds to a Biden transition.

Media hit pieces like the New York Times‘ “How Emily Murphy Stands Between Biden’s Team”, Bloomberg‘s “Who Is the GSA’s Emily Murphy, Trump Appointee Holding Up Biden Transition”, and the Washington Post‘s “Trump Appointee at GSA Declines to Sign Letter Authorizing Biden Transition”, personalized the issue and set off a lynch mob swiftly leading to threats against her.

It’s still early in November. The media conveniently forgot the time its party blocked a presidential transition for over 4 weeks, not just through November, but into December.

David Barram, a top Clinton donor who supported every one of their campaigns since 1992, and tech industry figure, who had been appointed to head the GSA, didn’t get this kind of treatment when he turned down transition funding to the Bush-Cheney campaign after the 2000 election.

Not only did Barram block funding until Florida’s vote was certified, but he kept blocking it until the Supreme Court had made its decision, leaving very little time for any transition to happen. The Bush-Cheney campaign pursued its own privately funded transition, as did Al Gore, the way presidential transitions used to work until the Presidential Transition Act changed all that.

Despite all this, Barram was never publicly attacked or threatened the way that Murphy is.

Worse still, the media recently trotted out Barram to argue that the GSA should release transition funding to the Biden-Harris campaign. “First off, all these media outlets who call the election have called it for Joe Biden, I think the winner is pretty clear,” Barram recently insisted.

Media outlets, it ought to go without saying, but no longer does, don’t pick presidents.

But, as with so much else, the same media that amplified claims that Gore votes were thrown out in Florida, that Secretary of State Katherine Harris discriminated against minorities, and that Jeb Bush had rigged the election for his brother, now yells that such claims are not only false, but dangerous, and must be censored at all costs. The media that had allowed every Democrat to hold forth about the Florida election, now won’t even allow Republicans to speak.

Democrat claims of election fraud must be heard, but Republican claims are “disinformation”.

Even while the Washington Post warns Republican claims of election fraud are dangerous, it just ran an article suggesting that Harris rigged the 2000 election to win an ambassadorship.

It’s dangerously irresponsible for Republicans to cast doubt on an election result, but not for Democrats. And it’s also dangerous for Republicans, but not Democrats, to block a transition.

And yet the arguments that Barram made to block GSA funds back then hold up well today.

“With legal action being pursued by both sides, it is not apparent to me who the winner is,” Barram had argued.

“Until the results are clear, and as long as both sides are going to court, the results are not clear yet,” GSA spokeswoman Beth Newberger had insisted.

The legal standard for authorizing a GSA transition is, in the words of the Democrats, the end of legal action over the results of the election. As long as legal action is being pursued, including a trip to the Supreme Court, the GSA cannot and should not release funds to a transition.

In congressional testimony, Barram took it further and cited an authoritative Democrat source.

“Congress made it perfectly clear that if there is ‘any question’ of who the winner is ‘in a close contest’ this determination should not be made,” Barram pointed out.

He then quoted, Rep. Dante Fascell, the sponsor of the Presidential Transition Act.

Rep. Fascell had stated that, “If the Administrator had any question in his mind, he simply would not make any designation in order to make the services available as provided by the Act. If as an intelligent human being and he has a doubt, he would not act until a decision has been made in the electoral college or in the Congress.”

Kennedy had recently won, through Daley’s voter fraud in Chicago, and after spending $360,000 on JFK’s expenses, the Democrats wanted government funding for presidential transitions. They also wanted some assurance of getting government assistance from the administration of an opposing party even though no such issues had come up to date.

Fascell’s boundary went further than Barram’s, with the cutoff being the electoral college and congressional certification. That’s an objective and solid constitutional standard, unlike the end of legal proceedings, let alone cable news network election calls, that are subjectively partisan.

More importantly, these are the rules that Democrats, not Republicans, had made. And Democrats were happy to live by these rules in Bush v. Gore when they helped them.

Now the same rules are suddenly oppressive, dangerous, corrupt, and treasonous.

Much like casting doubt on the election results in 2000, 2004, and 2016, was “patriotic”, but casting doubt on the election results in 2008, 2012, and 2020, is “deeply dangerous”.

Political factions can have different views, but they cannot be allowed to have different laws.

That’s called equality, not “equity”, before the law.

The core crisis of political power is that Democrats only respect the law when it’s in their favor and ignore it, attack it, or dismiss it when it isn’t. A Democrat Senate blocking Bush’s judicial nominees was a noble defense of civil rights, but a Republican Senate blocking Obama’s judicial nominees was an attack on democracy, and then Democrat Senate members trying to block Trump’s judicial nominees was once again noble. The legitimacy of the Senate as an institution, or the filibuster as a tactic, changes every time the Senate changes hands.

Counting every legal vote was noble in Florida in 2000, but is a disgusting lowball tactic in Pennsylvania in 2020. Fighting the election results in the Supreme Court was in the highest traditions of our political system in 2000, but is an outrageous abuse twenty years later.

It was appropriate for the GSA to block presidential transition funding in 2000, but doing so in 2020 may kill people, and the relevant GSA officials should be threatened and harassed.

Living in a nation of laws means having to live with those laws.

Harassing the head of the GSA is political intimidation and only highlights the fundamentally terroristic and abusive nature of the political coup that the Democrats are perpetrating.

Rep. Dante Fascell, the Democrat sponsor of the Presidential Transition Act, was quite clear about the GSA administrator not taking personal initiative in a disputed election. So was Bill Clinton’s GSA boss. As long as a presidential election is being contested, there’s no transition.

That’s not only the law, it’s the rules that Democrats made. Now they have to live by them.

Please follow and like us:

Antifa’s violent, organized tactics are getting exposed

By Monica Showalter

ATLANTA, GA – MAY 29: A man holds a Black Lives Matter sign as a police car burns during a protest on May 29, 2020 in Atlanta, Georgia. Demonstrations are being held across the US after George Floyd died in police custody on May 25th in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)

Based on the arrest photos of apprehended Antifa rioters, the impression is out there that the group is little more than a bunch of extremist fringe crazies.

Sadly, it’s not so.

Report after report shows that Antifa is highly organized, in its rioting, its killing, and its press coverage.

It’s shocking, really. This account from SurvivalBlog, by J.D., someone who went to several of Antifa’s riots, describes all the security that Antifa and Revolutionary Communist Party (RevCom, or RCP) coevals put into their operations. Based on his account, Antifa and RCP appear to be the same thing:

The first one I attended was on the University of Michigan campus. The protest was rather large, about 1,500 people. What I found interesting was that the first speaker pointed out that “allies from RevCom/ANTIFA” were present, just to provide “logistical support” including medical and security teams. The local RevCom leader got up and explained how to find the medics (Large red or green crosses) and explained that security was “circulating among the crowd” for safety. That was an ominous statement, as I’ll point out later.

I began moving through the crowd and quickly spotted several security team members, obviously watching the crowd for anyone who wasn’t clapping or cheering along. It’s important to note that these protests require 100% ideological agreement or they will approach you and become confrontational, so I made sure I was chanting along. I noticed almost immediately that despite the man who said he was the RevCom leader, a young man named Ethan, that I would later have many interactions with, was actually in charge. He is a security team leader within the ANTIFA organization.

The biggest observation from the first protest was that despite the claims that they aren’t organized, they are highly organized by a central organization. Ethan and his security/medical team have been at every protest I’ve attended in Michigan, including one at the Capitol an hour away. They use the ubiquitous BaoFeng Handi-talkie radios to communicate.

The creepy security followed him everywhere. He had to change costumes a few times to get away from their “security” surveillance. Photographs were forbidden, rioters were supposed to riot on cue without taking pictures, picture-taking was the province of the party elite. The same rioters, and riot leaders turned up in different cities, same people every time. When one group of protestors didn’t want Antifa to hijack their protest, Antifa’s “security” came anyway, undercover. They followed people. They made threats. And this was just a garden variety of groups in Michigan with its riots directed from someone above.

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA – JUNE 06: Michael B. Jordan participates in the Hollywood talent agencies march to support Black Lives Matter protests on June 06, 2020 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Rich Fury/Getty Images)

The big league is Portland, where rioters marked their 100th night of rioting, and chased the city’s leftist mayor, Ted Wheeler, from his condo after organizing to try to burn it down, with all the residents in it. They’ve made Portland a hellhole.

And it turns out they’re not just creepy stalkers and “security,” some are actual killers. The latest news from Portland is that Antifa’s denizens stalked and shadowed young Aaron Danielson, who was murdered in cold blood by “100% Antifa” Michael Reinoehl, who was later rubbed out by the Portland cops as he resisted arrest upon apprehension. This account here shows how Reinoehl laid in wait behind a thin but concealing barrier, gun held in two hands, for his target to walk by, in what appears to be a very strong instance of premeditated murder, or assassination. According to PostMillennial:

Graphic: #Antifa rioters throw a Molotov cocktail in direction of police in SE Portland. It lands next to people, setting one on fire. Video by @TaylerUSA. #PortlandRiots

 

Which takes the Antifa activity to a whole new level. J.D. notes that they are always prepared for violence in their choice of gear as they prepare to go to the riots.

Besides the atrocities, they also have help. Apparently, someone on the inside in Portland’s government is providing shelter for them on the city’s dime, in the form of a homeless tent camp. They deny it, of course, but it certainly does seem to explain how Antifa, with all its pan-United States cast of characters, can operate for 100 nights of mayhem in Portland alone.

 

They also have the press. A number of them serve as Antifa’s own press – you can see it on their crudely printed helmets here:

 

 

And they tightly control that press. Anyone coming to one of their riots, where they set fires, attack police and passersby, and damage property, will be spotted by Antifa “security” and chased off. All news agencies have nothing but Antifa-generated footage to work with, mostly showing cops going after protestors, rather than the acts of the protestors that prompted the police to avt.

But they also have reporters on the outside on their string — New York Times stringer here, Oregonian reporters there. Reason magazine has a link to a Google sheets list of Antifa-approved reporters here.

They report:

These protester-approved journalists are producing much of the news you see about the protests, with an assist from the national press. Kate Shepherd isn’t on the list, but she was previously a sympathetic reporter for local Portland media, and she is now filing such stories for The Washington Post, with headlines like “Portland police arrest a hate crime survivor and Wall of Moms organizer in crackdown.”

Which paints a terrible picture of just how organized and controlling and lethal this group really is.

Their tactics – mob action, control of the press, opposition to any manifestation of law and order, willingness to kill, a claim to actually being the order – paints a disturbing picture, very redolent of Caracas, Venezuela, where this kind of controlled chaos has been going on for years/

I visited some of the Chavistas engaging in this kind of behavior when I was in Caracas. I went up to visit the Chavista “education” sessions in the Caracas hillside slums. Who was there at their side as they showed me around? That’s right, member of the RCP, same group that is impossible to distinguish Antifa from. Same group that engaged in violent acts during San Francisco’s Rodney King riots of the early 1990s.

Now they’ve gone big. And if this kind of modus operandi — killings, illegal censorship, violence, as well as Chavista historic background isn’t reason enough to declare war on them and shut them down, what is?

 

 

Please follow and like us:

How the Left Creates Fake Studies to Fabricate Right-Wing Terrorism

By Bode Lang

After weeks of violence, Democrats have some public relations needs to redirect attention away from the awfulness of leftism.

Insert the latest report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which concludes that the greatest domestic threat comes not from leftists or Muslims, but from right-wing terrorists!

The CSIS study’s findings are not new.  The New America Foundation (NAF) and the Center of Investigative Reporting (CIR) have published similar studies with the same conclusions.

Each study is fake, but the most recent CSIS study is the most pathetic of them all — partly because the CSIS doesn’t provide a list of incidents to fact-check.  Just trust them.

There’s an art to creating this type of propaganda, which provides the Democrat narrative a halo of credibility.  A tremendous volume of subtle manipulation is concocted within studies on right-wing terrorism, and each demonstrates variations of the same basic formula.

1. Use “incidents” as a key metric

Written in the methodology of the CSIS study is this: “We coded threats of violence as attacks rather than plots, even if the threat turned out to be a hoax.”

This statement is an incredible admission.  The CSIS includes threats of violence as terrorist attacks — even if the threat was a hoax.

Such low standards for terrorism allow the authors to leverage vaguely defined “hate crime” data from the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center to inflate right-wing occurrences.

This way, NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace’s paranoia could be counted as a terrorist threat.

2. Manipulate definitions

Each study is careful about the definitions for terrorism.  The CIR defines right-wing terrorism as follows: “militia movements, as well as white supremacist, anti-government, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-abortion extremists, including radical Christians.”

These are standard terms Democrats use to attack conservatives — which is the point.  The definitions are deliberately vague to increase subjectivity.

The NAF study uses the same broad criteria as the CIR.

The latest CSIS study casts an even wider net for right-wing terrorism by including, “incels,” “misogyny,” and “hatred based on sexuality or gender identity; and/or opposition to certain policies such as abortion.”

Notice that they do not suggest merely opposition to abortion policies — but opposition to certain policies such as abortion.  Basically, right-wing terrorists are defined as anyone who opposes the left, plus incels.

For Muslim terrorists, the variables are much more rigid. The CIR criteria for Islamic terrorism is as follows:

We use the term “Islamist” to describe theocratic extremists inspired by groups such as the Taliban, al-Qaida and the Islamic State. We chose the term “Islamist,” rather than “Islamic,” in an effort to uncouple the Muslim faith from the political ideology of Islamism.

The first sentence limits Islamic terrorism only for violence from those with a clear connection to specific terrorist groups.  The second sentence reminds us this is not a legitimate study.

The NAF uses a similarly limited criteria for Islamic terrorism.

Each study follows the same model of broad definitions for right-wingers but restrictive ones for Muslims.

In a fatal self-own, the CIR implies that racism and Islamophobia are the cause of 84% of Islamic incidents resulting in terrorism charges, compared to only 9% of right-wingers.  But this statistic reveals how deceptive these studies are.  Most right-wing incidents don’t result in terrorism charges because what they’re calling terrorism for right-wingers, isn’t terrorism.

Fortunately, our legal system does not redefine words to achieve more equitable sentencing outcomes for the purpose of creating better propaganda (yet).

3. Lone wolves are not terrorists

By limiting Islamic terrorism only to cases with direct ties to specific terrorist groups, they define away “lone wolf” terrorist attacks and exclude them from the studies.

The Washington mall shooter, Arcan Cetin, who killed five people in 2016?  Lone wolf.

Esteban Santiago, who killed five people at a Fort Lauderdale airport and told FBI agents he carried out the attack on behalf of ISIS?  Lone wolf.

The Beltway snipers, who killed ten people in 2001?  Not terrorism.

Stabbing two men at a mall in Minnesota, or pleading guilty to an ISIS-inspired plot to commit mass murder in Texas?  Lone wolves.

None of these incidents or fatalities at the hands of Islamic terrorists are included in the NAF or CIR studies.  While the CSIS does not list their incidents, undoubtedly, they mimic the same restrictions.

4. Apply inconsistently

The NAF study enables anti-government statements to classify someone as a right-wing extremist.

This flimsy definition does not apply to Muslim extremists.

Yelling “down with the government” while carrying out an act of violence is enough to be counted as right-wing terrorism.  However, a Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” while committing the same violence is not sufficient to be an Islamic extremist.

This tactic helps reduce Islamic terrorism while increasing occurrences of right-wing terrorism.

5. Count violence unrelated to ideology

While the CSIS study doesn’t list specific terrorist acts, it discloses some sources — one of which is the Anti-Defamation League.

This inflates numbers by including incidents committed by those who fit the ideological criteria, even if the acts were unrelated to ideology.

For example, the ADL includes the murder of KKK member Frank Ancona, who was killed by his wife —also a KKK member.  It’s unlikely that Ancona’s wife shot him in the name of white supremacy, but it counts as right-wing terrorism anyway.

Another white supremacist, Edward Blackburn, murdered a white man dating his ex-girlfriend.  Did he kill him to advance white supremacy?  Unlikely.

Two white supremacists in Georgia broke out of prison and killed two guards in the process.  One guard was white and the other black.  Were the guards killed for their skin color? Probably not.

While the CSIS claims to have excluded non-ideological incidents, fatalities attributable to right-wing terrorism are significantly larger for CSIS than previous studies.  Couple that with a complete lack of transparency, and that’s enough to consider its claim a lie.

The CIR study includes as right-wing terrorism Gavin Long, a black man, who killed three police officers in Louisiana. They describe Long as “influenced by black nationalist ideology and angry over the shooting of a black man by Baton Rouge police[.]”

Long also tweeted a news story about Dallas shooter Micah Johnson (who assassinated five police officers at a BLM rally) and wrote that the shooter was “one of us! # MY Religion is Justice.”

What makes Gavin Long a right-wing terrorist?  He didn’t like police, and police work for the government, therefore he was an anti-government extremist.

These are only a few examples of many similar cases.

The timing of the studies is also peculiar.  The NAF starts tracking deaths after 9/11, excluding 9/11 from the study.  The CSIS starting tracking deaths in 1994, claiming that it selected that start date because it didn’t have enough reliable data to track before 1994.

A start date that begins just after the 1993 NYC bombings but just prior to the 1995 Oklahoma city bombings was purely a coincidence.

Oh, and don’t forget: Muslims are 1% of the American population, while these broad definitions of right-winger terrorists easily encompass 50% of Americans.  To be proportionate, right-wing terrorism should be 50 times greater than Islamic terrorism.  Best to omit any mention of that.

Studies on right-wing terrorism are fake — they are nothing but propaganda.

Most left-wing studies on other topics model the same framework: manipulate definitions and variables, fabricate data to fit or exclude based on the falsified definitions, and apply criteria inconsistently.

 

Please follow and like us: