RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/04/group-that-harassed-kyrsten-sinema-funded-by-leftwing-billionaire-george-soros/

Leftwing billionaire George Soros funded the activist group that harassed Democrat Sen. Kyrsten Sinema in a bathroom last weekend, The Free Beacon reported on Monday.

According to Soros’s Open Society Foundation grant database, Soros gave at least $1.5 million to Living United for Change in Arizona in 2019 and at least $250,000 in 2017 to become the group’s largest donor.

A group of demonstrators with Living United for Change followed Sinema into a bathroom at Arizona State University this weekend and filmed their repeated demands that she vote for President Joe Biden’s expensive “Build Back Better” plan and legislation that will give millions of illegal aliens U.S. citizenship.

Sinema later said that the pushy activists “deceptively enter[ed] a locked, secure building” before they posted a video harassing her and students using the restroom, behavior Sinema called “inappropriate.”

“Yesterday’s behavior was not a legitimate protest. It is unacceptable for activist organizations to instruct their members to jeopardize themselves by engaging in unlawful activities such as gaining entry to closed university buildings, disrupting learning environments, and filming students in a restroom,” Sinema said in a statement on Monday.

Living United, which devotes time and effort to promoting leftwing candidates, also notably received thousands of dollars in funding from Bold PAC, “the fundraising arm of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,” in August.

“The committee includes more than three dozen of Sinema’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate and House. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), and Robert Menendez (N.J.) are listed as members of the committee on the Bold PAC website. The senators did not respond to requests for comment about Living United’s confrontation of their Democratic colleague,” the Free Beacon reported.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/04/why-this-doctor-is-risking-the-nobel-prize-to-speak-out-against-universal-covid-19-vaccination/

American Greatness recently caught up with American doctor and virologist Robert Malone in Rome last month. He was there for the International COVID Summit at the Italian senate and hosted by senators from the radical Right Lega, which is a partner in Italy’s coalition government of national unity, led by the ex-boss of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi and dominated by the left-wing Partito Democratico and the alt-left Movimento 5 Stelle.

In this interview, Malone, who was among the pioneers of mRNA vaccine technology in the late 1980s, recounts his belief that genetic vaccines such as mRNA and viral vector vaccines may risk causing antibody dependant enhancement—where a vaccine causes the production of rogue antibodies, which coming into contact with the virus, act as a Trojan Horse shuttling it, now unchallenged by the immune system, directly into the host cell where it can replicate unhindered.

Malone is not against COVID-19 vaccines. But he is against compulsory and universal vaccination, which he thinks is potentially dangerous.

He believes that the viral load in vaccinated people who are infected is not just as high but possibly higher than the viral load in unvaccinated people who are infected—and thus that vaccinated people are potentially just as likely to transmit the virus as unvaccinated people.

The interview took place shortly before the announcement this week of this year’s Nobel Prizes, beginning with the prize for medicine on Monday, for which Malone was a contender.

Q: You are a frequent contributor to “The War Room”—the daily podcast by former Donald Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon—and on one occasion you said that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines might actually make COVID-19 infections worse. What did you mean by that?

Malone:  Not only the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, but also the viral vector vaccines Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca. Both these types of vaccines are genetic vaccines—they use genes to create antibodies—that’s different from traditional vaccines which work by introducing a small amount of the virus that causes antibodies. In vaccinology, one has to always be aware of the possibility that these genetic vaccines might enhance the development of immunologic disease—in other words, to cause the pathogen to become more infectious or cause more disease than would be observed without the vaccine. 

https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/04/the-radical-prosecutor-in-charge-of-the-january-6-investigations/

In July, the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia dismissed a case against a Black Lives Matter protester charged with attacking a federal police officer last summer in Lafayette Square. 

Channing Phillips, currently in charge of the office, dropped the charge after the defendant’s lawyer argued the facial recognition technology used to identify the suspect was unreliable and racist. Glenn Ivey, the defense lawyer, is a high-priced D.C.-area criminal attorney who just happened to work with Phillips in the 1990s.

The biased swamp in action.

Phillips, however, has not been as lenient with defendants facing charges for entering the Capitol on January 6. His office now is handling roughly 650 active criminal cases; the investigation is overwhelming his office and the court system. (On any given day, roughly half of the hearings in the D.C. federal district court are related to the Capitol breach probe.)

Channing Phillips is not a household name, but he is arguably one of the most powerful men in Washington right now, overseeing the Biden regime’s nationwide dragnet for Americans who protested Joe Biden’s election. This is Phillips’ third stint as acting U.S. attorney for D.C., having been twice appointed by Barack Obama to temporarily fill the position. In between, Phillips worked as senior advisor for Attorney General Eric Holder and then his successor, Loretta Lynch.

In March, Phillips replaced Michael Sherwin, the first prosecutor in charge of the Capitol breach probe who bragged about unleashing a “shock and awe” crusade to arrest at least 100 Trump supporters before Biden’s inauguration.

Phillips is more low-key in public but his office is no less ruthless. His prosecutors continue to seek pretrial detention for anyone accused of violence, including assault of a federal officer, the same charge his office just dropped against a BLM protester. In some instances, Phillips’ lawyers want even nonviolent offenders to remain behind bars for months awaiting a trial or plea offer. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/it-took-biden-prove-swamp-wider-and-deeper-trump-lloyd-pettegrew/

“We should remember George Orwell’s 1984 alarm, “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears…freedom is the freedom to say two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.” The Swamp’s two plus two equalizing whatever they want it to be must not continue to hollow out America! An almighty housecleaning is in order in 2022 and beyond.”

The late, great Angelo Codevilla (RIP), hardly the bombastic Donald J. Trump, offered a dire warning to Americans that the swamp (our ruling class) has pervaded nearly every aspect of American life. Republicans and conservatives in general must take heed or be permanently thrust into a minor party role. A menacing part of swampism is its absence of international borders as Mike Jones has articulated, Globalism belongs to a species of liberal thinking that deplores barriers to trade and disapproves strongly of borders…the key articulators of this movement now include not only Silicon Valley but also the military-intelligence complex, NGOs, and non-institutionalized protest groups whose global operations are facilitated by smartphones.”

Many of us find refuge in blaming our non-compos mentis current President. Sadly, the very system, from top to bottom and regardless of political affiliation, that derailed Donald Trump’s second term as President 45, has gleefully supported and defended Biden as their useful idiot. I have several friends who are never-Trumper Republicans, who I surmise voted against Trump and for Mr. Biden, regardless of his obvious and innumerable failings. Little did they know that the mean-tweeting Orange Man, who never did anything that wasn’t grand, boastful and beautiful, was our last hope against the Swamp becoming preeminent, possibly for our lifetimes.

When George W. Bush declared war on Afghanistan the evening of 9/11, 2001, one of his first squishy commitments was to hide credible information about our alleged friends, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Qatar, by neglecting to justly implicate them as enablers to Osama bin Laden’s terror strike on American soil.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/10/marines-forced-remove-anti-taliban-graffiti-daniel-greenfield/

To quote Barack Hussein Obama, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The Biden administration has expanded that to those who slander its new allies, the Taliban. 

A US Marine has shared his dismay at being forced to remove obscene messages insulting the Taliban and ISIS that they daubed on the walls of Kabul Airport. 

Three examples of the insults were shared to social media – with one showing a serviceman in front of a tiled wall at Hamid Karzai Airport sprayed with the phrase ‘F*** ISIS + Taliban’ in black paint, 

But an unnamed Marine stationed at Hamid Karzai said the graffiti painted on walls was removed at the orders of bosses, saying: ‘My boys had to go … pick up every last piece of … trash for who? The Taliban?’ a Marine told the Washington Post. ‘It was a slap in the face to us.’

That order was part of an edict which also saw troops ordered to pick up trash they’d strewn around the airport to frustrate the Taliban’s takeover. 

I’m guessing that any graffiti mentioning Biden also had to go.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/hillary-clinton-conspiracy-queen/

Two of the most corrosive dirty-tricks schemes in modern American history lead right back to her.

‘T here’s always been a kind of paranoid streak in American politics,” former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told Jennifer Senior at The Atlantic Festival recently. “But it never was given such voice, such a platform, or had so much money behind it until we saw the rise of the right-wing radio voices like Rush Limbaugh, and we saw the rise of Fox News. And then, of course, the Internet just put it on steroids.”

It’s true, no doubt, that democratized media exacerbates the worst (and best) of human tendencies. Yet, it is quite jarring to hear this complaint coming from a person whose operatives were likely involved in birtherism and later were the driving force behind the Russian “collusion” hoax — two of modern political history’s most corrosive conspiracy theories.

Even as Hillary was going on about the devastating role that paranoia plays in our political interactions, Senior somehow forgot to ask her a single question about an ongoing investigation by Special Counsel John Durham into her campaign’s role in concocting an oppo file and creating a narrative that the 2016 election was stolen by Putin. The week of the interview, Durham was reportedly handing down a new set of subpoenas on a law firm with ties to Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Last month, Hillary’s former lawyer Michael Sussmann was indicted for allegedly giving false statements to the FBI in connection to a Clinton-campaign deception that engulfed nearly the entire political world for nearly five years. There has now been one more indictment for allegedly lying about Russian “collusion” in 2016 than there was for any criminal conspiracy tied to the election. Has anyone even asked Hillary about these indictments?

Even if Clinton was kept in the dark about the oppo file that was filled with half-baked lies and unverified bar talk — and being kept in the dark is the excuse she’s heavily leaned on her entire scandal-ridden career — she wasn’t merely an innocent bystander, looking on while dirty tricksters damaged trust in the system for political gain.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/10/04/the-research-that-shows-how-destructive-the-biden-spending-will-be/

It’s truly frightening how obsessed the Democrats are with spending nearly $5 trillion on infrastructure and social programs. They’re behaving as if our republic would buckle and collapse if their agenda isn’t passed. The real danger, though, are their ideas, which are economic IEDs.

More than 20 years ago, UCLA professors Lee Ohanian and Harold Cole, now a University of Pennsylvania professor, produced a report that showed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policies not only didn’t end the Great Depression, they extended the misery by seven years. Simply put, there was too much government intervention in the economy.

FDR’s policies and those of President Joe Biden and the Democrats are not entirely analogous. Ohanian and Cole focused “primarily on the impact of Roosevelt’s early policies that allowed for monopolies and too much union power to increase prices and salaries.” The Democrats’ bills are mostly, but not exclusively, about spending other people’s money.

Another difference: We are not in a depression. The country is recovering from a downturn caused by officials foolishly locking down the economy, which they told us was necessary to beat the pandemic.

However, we can expect at best a sclerotic economy, and depression-like conditions, if the Biden bills become law. The unbridled spending will exacerbate the inflation that’s disrupting the U.S. economy as well as compound the supply chain problems that are blowing “a stagflationary wind through the global economy.”

Citadel professor of ethics and free enterprise leadership Richard Ebeling calls “the fiscal mindset of those in the White House and in Congress who are proposing new federal budgetary expenditure,” and tax hikes “in the trillions of dollars,” a “fantasy land of financial irrationality.”

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17831/president-advisors

Published reports reveal that John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff and senior counselor to Barack Obama, has sent a memo to every Democratic Congressman reminding them the party “must unite and act together” to pass Biden’s “infrastructure” agenda.

Podesta, according to an email released from Wikileaks, was also previously approached by an advisor to Dominion Voting Systems who was “offering ‘anything’ that might defeat Trump.” What was the advisor to the voting machines company offering?

Podesta’s older brother, Tony, was a long time mega Democratic lobbyist and fund raiser. His lobbying career has been resurrected with a New York Times report that the embattled Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei has hired Podesta. Huawei was identified as a national security threat by the Trump administration and faces federal charges of racketeering and conspiring to steal trade secrets from American companies. One supposes that Podesta’s retainer is in dollars and requires him to promote the interests of a company alleged to be an extension of the Chinese government.

Given Biden’s curious response to ABC News, one could legitimately ask, just whose national policy are we actually pursuing? The president’s or his advisors?

Henry the VIII had Thomas Cromwell as his Privy Counselor with Cromwell playing a vital role in the King’s personal, domestic, and international relationships.

Napoleon depended on Talleyrand as his Grand Chamberlain, a master diplomat who managed to serve King Louis XVI, the leaders of the French Revolution, and then Napoleon.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/03/our-woke-national-icons/

As we watch events unfold in 2021, obvious questions about the fitness of our national leaders present themselves. Who are these new woke national icons and how did they come to lord it over the rest of us? Here are some observations by way of preliminary explanation.

The Strategist

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley conceded to Congress last week that he has been an anonymous source to controversial “inside” progressive muckrakers detailing the supposed dysfunctions of the prior administration. He strangely characterizes such anonymous, self-serving, behind-the-scenes leaking as some sort of public-service transparency. Evidently, it is now a part of the chairman’s duties to serve the media.

Among the many “background” quotes that Milley provided to meet his journalistic obligations were his various comparisons of his commander-in-chief to Nazis—a violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He reportedly offered further allegations to journalists that news outlets like the Epoch Times and Newsmax were “terrorist” organizations. When pressed on such details the usually punctilious Milley shrugs, in the fashion of James Comey’s under-oath testimonies, that he does “not recall” such specifics.  Such is the honor of the nation’s most visible military officer.

Although by statute Milley lacks operational command, he admittedly has intervened in the operational protocols concerning the use of nuclear weapons. At one point, after a conversation with, and on the apparent prompting of, HouseSpeaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he redirected normal decision-making channels concerning the potential use of nuclear weapons through his own person. That is forbidden by law—despite what his beltway apologists have pleaded.

More interestingly, though, Milley took it upon himself to call up the major military leaders of Communist China, and to apprise them that (in his opinion) the United States was in crisis (“messy”). No worries, though: the freelancing Milley assured the People’s Liberation Army heads that they should not worry about any preemptive attack or aggression, since Milley himself apparently was in de facto charge of such strategic decision-making and would warn them in advance if his country seemed dangerously aggressive. Thus far in the imbroglio, the Pentagon and the retired military apparently seem comfortable with such a radically new role for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Milley ignored that Trump was the first president in memory who did not initiate a major new military engagement. And when pressed under oath, Milley himself later confessed that he did not think Trump was likely to start a war against anyone—which raises the question of why he even made such a peremptory call to our adversaries? Much of what Milley has testified to under oath before Congress is flatly contradicted by transcripts of his phone call with Pelosi, is in utter conflict with statements made by President Biden and the State Department and cannot be reconciled with his own frequent prior disclosures to journalists.

In sum, America’s highest-ranking honorific military officer has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, has violated the law concerning his own advisory role as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and has either serially not told the truth, or assumes that Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, several journalists (and various earlier incarnations of himself) are all not telling the truth.

Milley has set a new precedent for the leadership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: it is now permissible to be overtly political, to leak confidential conversations to progressive book-writing journalists, to freelance and warn likely enemies if and when the U.S. military might take action against them, and to pick and choose when to exercise (illegally) operational command, and when (legally) to refrain, or at least to remain “only” an advisor, when culpability for a disaster, like the one in Afghanistan, is determined.

Historians will later ponder why this officer has not resigned and what his continued tenure says about the status of the current U.S. military.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/trust-fauci-and-bureaucrats-joseph-hippolito/

Today’s controversy surrounding COVID-19 vaccines might seem unprecedented. But nearly four decades ago, the now-famous doctor encouraging them advocated an ineffective, dangerous medication for a far deadlier disease — and got away with it.

During the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic ravaged the world and long before Dr. Anthony Fauci became a household name, he promoted AZT as a treatment for HIV in his role as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Doctors once used AZT in cancer chemotherapy. But AZT not only failed to treat HIV. It made patients sicker.

The way that medical, pharmaceutical and political bureaucracies handled that crisis resembles the way they handle COVID-19. More importantly, both episodes suggest possible conflicts of interest among those charged with protecting public health.

Spin Magazine’s Celia Farber exposed the AZT debacle in her 1989 article, “Sins of Omission.” Farber described how the federal government, corporate media and a major pharmaceutical firm responded to public panic about AIDS by approving AZT and promoting it even after it proved to be deadly.

Doctors withdrew AZT as a cancer treatment because it destroys cells indiscriminately. But Burroughs Wellcome submitted it under an anonymous description to the National Cancer Institute in 1987, and AZT killed HIV in laboratory conditions. However, doctors at the Food and Drug Administration expressed extreme reluctance to approve AZT.

“We do not know what will happen a year from now,” said Dr. Itzhak Brook, the panel’s chairman. “The data is just too premature, and the statistics are not really well done. The drug could actually be detrimental.”

Despite Burroughs Wellcome’s promise to provide updated data every two years — a promise the firm never kept — and to limit AZT to emergency use for extremely ill patients, the panel considered rejecting the drug. Then FDA bureaucrats got involved.