https://jamieglazov.com/2023/01/13/glazov-gang-the-great-reset-and-the-green-fraud/
This new Glazov Gang episode features Marc Morano, the founder of ClimateDepot.com and the author of The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown.
Marc discusses The Great Reset and The Green Fraud, exposing The global elites’ pernicious agenda.
https://victorhanson.com/the-january-6th-insurrection/
Here is what we do not understand about the January 6th Committee—if it truly was intended to appear as a disinterested investigatory body.
1. Why for the first time in memory did Speaker Pelosi forbid the House Minority Leader’s pro forma nominees to a special House committee? Fairly or not, the result was that the only two Republicans who did serve shared two embarrassing requisites: they would likely be out office, and not by their own volition, in January 2023; and two, they despised Donald Trump and voted for the second Trump impeachment.
So, what were the Democrats afraid of to make them break all precedents with past hearings? Pelosi, in other words, ensured that there would be no cross-examinations of any witnesses, no disagreements about witness lists, no contrasting interviews to the media about the work of the committee, and no diversity in staff interrogatories.
2. Why did not the Committee investigate whether the FBI had numerous agents and informants present on January 6th? Michael Rosenberg, the New York Times assigned reporter to the demonstration, claimed they were ubiquitous. Were they?
3. Why did not the Committee review the circumstances in detail of the deaths of Officer Brian Sicknick and the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt. These were the two most high-profile and controversial deaths on January 6th, and Babbitt’s perhaps was the only violent death at the direct hand of a known other?
4. Why did not the Committee investigate and release all the communications between the House leadership and the Capitol police to learn why the Capitol was virtually open and unsecured on a day that everyone knew would be the scene of mass protests there?
5. Why did not the Committee investigate all incendiary speech by major elected officials at iconic Washington buildings, deemed inflammatory and allegedly resulting in violence at a subsequent time? For example, in 2020 then Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer screamed to a large demonstration massed at the doors of the Supreme Court:
I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh—you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
When renewing my ballet subscription for 2023, after submitting the order this was sent online:
https://www.metopera.org/cart/confirmation/
Your purchase qualifies you to purchase single tickets to the 2023 ABT season. When purchasing through the website, you will be sat in the best available seats in your chosen section.
When trying to cancel my late daughter’s health coverage automatic payments, after an hour of listening to horrible music, the very polite agent told me:
“In order to expedite your request, I would have to speak to the deceased to confirm that you can speak on her behalf.!!!???
And the best of all from a subscriber to the newsletter:
“Is there a word in the dicktionary to describe Senator Schumer? “
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19316/george-santos
Unless he has lied on government forms, it is unlikely that he can be successfully prosecuted or civilly sued. His victims are primarily the voters who cast ballots for a person who was very different from who they believed him to be.
No congressman has ever been removed for defrauding voters, but if there were ever a case for doing so, this would be it. The House would be reluctant to use that nuclear option because it would subject many incumbents to scrutiny for their electoral lies.
The dangers of punishing general falsehoods is demonstrated by the laws of other countries. In Poland it is a crime to state that the Polish people participated in the Holocaust, although that statement is absolutely true as a matter of history. Polish people not only collaborated with Nazis, some continued to kill Jews even after the Nazis left. The Polish parliament has declared the historic truth to be a punishable lie.
In Turkey, it is a crime to say that the Armenian genocide occurred. In France it is a crime to say that this very same event did not occur.
The alternative to freedom of speech is necessarily some form of censorship. Throughout history censorship by governments, churches and other powerful institutions has been the rule. It has not worked. Nor has untrammeled free speech worked perfectly. But history has clearly demonstrated that censorship is far more dangerous to liberty than is free speech.
“[W]e have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasoning of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors…” – Thomas Jefferson, July 3, 1801.
[A]s long as truth tellers are able to respond to liars, we have far more to fear from censorship than from free speech.
Congressman George Santos has lived a life of lies. He has lied about his early life, his academic record, his business experience, his wealth, his heritage, his personal life and his criminal record. He is fortunate that the vast majority of these lies have not been under oath. Nor have they defamed specific individuals. Unless he has lied on government forms, it is unlikely that he can be successfully prosecuted or civilly sued. His victims are primarily the voters who cast ballots for a person who was very different from who they believed him to be.
https://amgreatness.com/2023/01/12/what-the-january-6-videos-will-show/
The jury trial of Richard Barnett, the man famously photographed with his feet on a desk in Nancy Pelosi’s office on January 6, 2021, is underway in Washington, D.C. Nearly two years to the date of his arrest, Barnett finally had a chance to defend himself in court on multiple charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding.
But it was not the fiery, outspoken Barnett who provided the most jaw-dropping testimony in the trial so far. To the contrary, one of the government’s own witnesses confirmed under defense cross-examination that “agents provocateur” were heavily involved in instigating the events of January 6.
Captain Carneysha Mendoza, a tactical commander for U.S. Capitol Police at the time, testified Wednesday how a group of agitators destroyed security barriers and lured people to Capitol grounds that afternoon:
Defense Counsel Brad Geyer: Isn’t it true that you had a lot of people, a large quantity of people walking down two streets that dead-ended at the Capitol?
Mendoza: Yes, sir.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/stanford-failed-academic-freedom-test
Thanks to Dr. John Abeles at https://johnhabelesmd.substack.com/p/academic-freedom-under-attack?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
“The same priests of public health that have the authority to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy also cast out heretics, just like the medieval Catholic Church did.”
We live in an age when a high public health bureaucrat can, without irony, announce to the world that if you criticize him, you are not simply criticizing a man. You are criticizing “the science” itself. The irony in this idea of “science” as a set of sacred doctrines and beliefs is that the Age of Enlightenment, which gave us our modern definitions of scientific methodology, was a reaction against a religious clerisy that claimed for itself the sole ability to distinguish truth from untruth. The COVID-19 pandemic has apparently brought us full circle, with a public health clerisy having replaced the religious one as the singular source of unassailable truth.
The analogy goes further, unfortunately. The same priests of public health that have the authority to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy also cast out heretics, just like the medieval Catholic Church did. Top universities, like Stanford, where I have been both student and professor since 1986, are supposed to protect against such orthodoxies, creating a safe space for scientists to think and to test their ideas. Sadly, Stanford has failed in this crucial aspect of its mission, as I can attest from personal experience.
I should note here that my Stanford roots go way back. I earned two degrees in economics there in 1990. In the ’90s, I earned an M.D. and a Ph.D. in economics. I’ve been a fully tenured professor at Stanford’s world-renowned medical school for nearly 15 years, happily teaching and researching many topics, including infectious disease epidemiology and health policy. If you had asked me in March 2020 whether Stanford had an academic freedom problem in medicine or the sciences, I would have scoffed at the idea. Stanford’s motto (in German) is “the winds of freedom blow,” and I would have told you at the time that Stanford lives up to that motto. I was naive then, but not now.
Academic freedom matters most in the edge cases when a faculty member or student is pursuing an idea that others at the university find inconvenient or objectionable. If Stanford cannot protect academic freedom in these cases, it cannot protect academic freedom at all.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/01/with_all_the_evidence_of_mrna_vaccine_injury_why_arent_more_doctors_speaking_out.html
I listened to an interesting interview recently with Dr. Aseem Malhotra by Bret Weinstein of The Darkhorse Podcast on Dec. 31, 2022.
The beginning of the interview focused on Dr. Malhotra, a British cardiologist, telling his story of how he went from being a COVID-19 vaccine advocate to someone who was questioning the mRNA jabs, at least partially brought on by the death of his own father. His father was also a physician and had been in favor of the shots, which Dr. Malhotra said in a recent tweet “…should likely never have been approved and certainly not without informed consent.”
It was a very touching story, and it was very clear that Dr. Malhotra cared deeply for his father. Any loss of this type — unnecessary and wasteful — is tragic, and anyone with an ounce of compassion can’t help but empathize.
But there were some troubling aspects of the interview. One in particular was that Dr. Malhotra had been onboard with the mRNA jabs, and I couldn’t help but wonder how many people he recommended take the shots. How many people may have suffered an adverse affect or worse because of his advice?
Very early on, I was skeptical of these new treatments. I graduated college with a B.S. in Biology more than 25 years ago, but my career is in finance (long story)…so I understood enough about the scientific process that I was doubtful of their proclaimed “safety.” Long term safety at that point (and still now) literally could not have been known. It was far too early.
I researched them and quickly found people like Dr. Simone Gold (America’s Frontline Doctors) and Dr. Peter McCullough…individuals who were willing to risk their careers and reputations to get the message out that maybe we needed to slow down and learn more about the new vaccines.
https://pjmedia.com/columns/davidhasanyi/2023/01/13/on-classified-documents-joe-biden-is-out-of-excuses-n1661357
Every president probably stashes away classified documents. The chances of any president being successfully prosecuted for pilfering them are infinitesimal. Nevertheless, Joe Biden has engaged in the same behavior as Donald Trump — perhaps worse, since vice presidents are unable to declassify documents — and precedent and transparency, our very democracy, demanded that Attorney General Merrick Garland name a special counsel to investigate.
Right now, none of the rationalizations offered by the media for Biden’s actions over the past few days work anymore. When the story first broke, outlets stressed that one of the vital “distinctions” between the two incidents was that Biden was in possession of fewer documents than Trump. Biden aides, we learned, had been utterly shocked to discover only a “small number” of classified documents “locked” in the personal offices of the president’s “think tank” — as if the location or the number of documents, or the alleged lock, rather than the contents, were the most newsworthy aspect of the story.
Soon we learned that a second “batch” of classified documents was uncovered at an “undisclosed” location. Biden aides, we are told, began diligently rummaging through boxes to ensure they were in complete compliance with the law. NBC News reported that “the search was described as exhaustive, with the goal of getting a full accounting of all classified documents that may have inadvertently been packed in boxes when Biden cleared out of the vice president’s office space in January 2017.” It’s heartening to know that the Bidens are such diligent, law-abiding folk.
Yesterday, we were told that classified documents that are found in a serious office setting, rather than just “lying around” in a home, was an important difference between the two cases. Today, Biden’s lawyer says that “small number” of classified documents was also found “locked” in Biden’s garage and an “adjacent” room of his Wilmington, Delaware, home. (Don’t worry, the president assures us it was safely stored next to his beloved Corvette.) You know, if we find another “small number” of documents, we might just have ourselves a full cache.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2023/01/12/should-someone-this-dumb-to-be-the-special-counsel-investigating-joe-bidens-stolen-classified-documents-scandal-n1661310
We’re assured that the person hired to be special counsel in the Joe Biden classified document scandal, Robert Hur, “has a great record. He is a superb lawyer.” He was a pivotal right-hand man in a high governmental office. He “has a long and distinguished career as a federal prosecutor.” And was a key person dealing with a very special, special counsel.
That guy sounds like a total legal dreamboat. Except that those accolades were spoken by none other than disgraced former-deputy attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who conspired with the fellow disgracee Andrew McCabe to wear a wire to catch Donald Trump in a 25th Amendment-worthy meltdown because they hated him so much.
Pardon me if I don’t swoon.
The high government official was at the right hand of the awful FBI Director Chris Wray, who has overseen the complete transmogrification of the bureau from a law enforcement agency to an intelligence entity that spies on Americans. And the man touting his “distinguished career” is none other than the most ideologically Leftist hack who’s ever disgraced the office of the attorney general, Merrick Garland. And that’s saying something. Looking at you, “wingman” Eric Holder.
And there’s more. Robert Hur is the man who served as the DOJ point man to Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation looking into Donald Trump’s alleged side hustle as a Russian secret agent — Double 45.
He is the same guy who vetted retired British spy Christopher Steele, a disgraced (sensing a pattern here?) spy who was fired by the FBI (and then used on the QT by his cutout Bruce Ohr) and hired actual Russian spies on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to make up information on Trump.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/dem-classified-capers/
“Documents with classified markings were found inside an institution at which President Joe Biden worked before he took office,” The Epoch Times reports. Biden’s lawyer Richard Sauber found the documents at the Penn Biden Center last November 2, but did not disclose the finding until January 9, 2023.
Donald Trump and assorted Republicans wondered when the FBI would raid the home of Joe Biden and institutions where the Delaware Democrat stored government documents. A search could start with Biden’s Senate papers, now locked up at the University of Delaware.
In 2010, as Fox News reports, vice-president Biden expressed concern that “political sensitivities” could arise from releasing the papers. Biden associate counsel Katherine Oyama emailed Hunter Biden’s longtime business partner Eric Schwerin that the vice president and the White House “will have strong views on some of these items, especially those related to the timing and scope of any public release.” Similar concerns arose in the spring of 2020.
After Tara Reade accused Biden of sexual assault, the Delaware Democrat made a public request for a search of Senate records from 1993 for the alleged complaint. Senate secretary Julie Adams proclaimed that “disclosing the existence of such specific records would amount to a prohibited disclosure under the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991. Furthermore, we are not aware of any exceptions in law authorizing our office to disclose any such records that do exist, if any, even to original participants in a matter.”
Top Stories @ Fox News