Blog

COVID Vaccine “Safe and Effective” Narrative Collapses on Camera

The “safe and effective” narrative collapsed on camera during Senator Ron Johnson’s explosive Senate hearing on COVID-19 vaccine injuries Wednesday afternoon.

Senator Ron Johnson brought the receipts, exposing how the Biden administration DELIBERATELY hid vaccine harms from the public.

Then Dr. James Thorp (OB-GYN) revealed miscarriage data so disturbing, it left the room silent.

This is the Senate hearing they never wanted you to see. I turned three hours of footage into a five-minute read.

Senator Ron Johnson opened the hearing with a bombshell: the Biden administration knew about deadly heart risks tied to the COVID shots, and deliberately kept it from the public.

Johnson released newly subpoenaed records exposing a detailed timeline of what officials knew and when. While Pfizer and Moderna received insider updates, doctors and citizens who raised concerns were silenced.

In February 2021, Israeli health officials warned the CDC of “large reports of myocarditis, particularly in young people” following Pfizer injections, just two and a half months after the vaccine received emergency use authorization.

By April, the CDC was already reviewing myocarditis data from Israel and the Department of Defense. But instead of alerting the public, they stayed quiet.

By the end of that month, VAERS had recorded 2,926 deaths, nearly half of which occurred within three days of injection. “Somebody ought to be looking at it,” Johnson said.

In May, the CDC considered issuing a formal health alert—but scrapped it. They replaced it with watered-down guidance that removed a key warning for doctors to restrict physical activity in myocarditis patients.

Francis Collins, then director of the NIH, brushed it all off. “Senator, people die,” he told Johnson.

In just six months, the toll was staggering: 384,270 reports of adverse events, 4,812 deaths, and 1,736 of those occurred within just 48 hours of injection.

Keep reading

NYT Reports FBI Closing FISA Office. FBI Denies It

FBI Director Kash Patel closed the agency’s surveillance watchdog unit, according to a Tuesday report by The New York Times (NYT).

The bureau’s Office of Internal Auditing ensured compliance with surveillance regulations, specifically concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), officials familiar told NYT.

“The FBI’s Office of Internal Auditing is not being shut down; it is being moved to the Inspection Division which is responsible for internal reviews of FBI policies, programs, and investigations to ensure they fully comply with our authorities. Oversight is important to the FBI, and we will continue to work with DOJ’s National Security Division for FISA review. The FBI is committed to ensuring that we are fully compliant with querying standards,” the FBI told the Daily Caller in a statement.

The assistant director of that department, Cindy Hall, has retired, according to the outlet. While a former official was informed she was “forced out,” another source familiar told NYT the FBI described her exit to Congress as “voluntary.”

Prior to the reported closure, Hall was working to onboard workers to expand the office’s operations, according to NYT.

The watchdog’s closure is part of a broader restructuring, people familiar told the outlet. The office’s functions, along with The Office of Integrity and Compliance, “have been absorbed by the inspection division,” NYT reported.

Keep reading

Ed Martin Identifies ‘Gatekeepers’ Involved in Biden Autopen Scandal, Says Whistleblower Has Come Forward with Shocking Allegations

DOJ Pardon Attorney Ed Martin discussed Biden’s growing autopen scandal this week with journalist Mark Halperin on the “2WAY Tonight” podcast.

Last Tuesday Ed Martin said that the Justice Department is reviewing Joe Biden’s last-minute pardons since it has become increasingly clear he was incapacitated during his presidency.

Ed Martin this Tuesday revealed he wrote to the Biden family and others and a senior Democrat whistleblower came forward with shocking allegations.

A couple of people “lawyered up” Ed Martin said.

“The Biden pardons are unprecedented,” he added.

“I had a whistleblower in my office 10 day ago, senior, senior Democrat saying, ‘Look, it was these three people that controlled access, and they were making money off of it,’” Ed Martin told Mark Halperin. “I don’t know if I believe it yet, but the point is I think we have to get to the bottom of it for the American people and to protect the process. And that’s what we’re doing.”

Although Ed Martin couldn’t name names, he said the senior Democrat whistleblower worked as a high level advisor in Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign.

The three gatekeepers who were allegedly selling access to the autopen were Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain, Mao lover and senior White House Advisor Anita Dunn and Biden attorney Bob Bauer.

Ed Martin said former Biden counsel Steve Ricchetti and Jill Biden were also lead ‘characters’ in the Biden White House.

Keep reading

George Simion files a formal request with the Constitutional Court to annul the elections, accusing France and Moldova of electoral manipulation.

George Simion, presidential candidate and vice president of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Party, has filed a formal petition with Romania’s Constitutional Court to annul the May 2025 presidential elections, citing massive foreign interference that he claims compromised the sovereign will of the Romanian people.

Simion, who secured the support of more than 5.3 million voters in an extremely tight race, shared an exclusive press release directly with Gateway Hispanic, detailing allegations of electoral manipulation.

In this document, the patriotic leader denounces the intervention of both state and non-state actors—primarily from France and Moldova—in a coordinated effort to manipulate institutions, control media narratives, and impose an electoral outcome that does not reflect the people’s will.

Keep reading

Shooting outside CIA headquarters hours after two Israelis were murdered at Jewish Museum in nearby DC

A woman was shot outside of the CIA headquarters after driving up to a gate at the facility and failing to stop, according to sources. 

The incident unfolded around 4am on Thursday outside of the headquarters in Langley, Virginia. 

Sources told CBS News that the woman had failed to stop and was shot in the upper body. She was taken to a medical facility, the outlet reported. 

The shooting occurred hours after Israeli embassy staffers Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim were gunned down in DC, just eight miles away. 

There is no evidence that the two incidents are linked at this time, the CIA has not responded to DailyMail.com’s request for more information. 

Fairfax County Officers had responded to the campus, and have described the shooting as ‘non fatal’. A CIA investigation is now underway, according to NBC.

Cops said that they had been called to the area at around 4am to help the agency with traffic control following the shooting. 

A spokesperson for the agency said: ‘There was a security incident that law enforcement responded to outside CIA Headquarters.

‘The main gate is currently closed, employees should seek alternative routes. Additional details will be made available as appropriate.’ 

Lischinsky and Milgrim were shot and killed on Wednesday night after leaving an event at a Jewish museum. 

The suspect in their killing, Elias Rodriguez, is said to have yelled ‘Free,free, Palestine’ after he was arrested, police said. 

Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter said that the two were about to be engaged, with Lischinsky buying an engagement ring just this week. 

Keep reading

Media Picks a Fight With Trump Over South Africa – Big Mistake

The establishment media has gotten itself into another fine mess, as the late, great Oliver Hardy would have put it. And, once again, it is destined for humiliation at the hands of President Donald Trump. On May 21, he hosted Cyril Ramaphosa, the president of South Africa, at the White House. This meeting came on the heels of 59 Afrikaners arriving in the United States – white South Africans of primarily Dutch descent who chose to flee a regime that is openly hostile toward them.

At one point during the encounter between the two leaders, Trump made his South African counterpart watch a video of a black South African politician, at a packed outdoor rally, inciting the murder of white farmers.

The US leftist media was not happy, but they have already picked out the paint and chosen the corner into which they will paint themselves – again. As if any more proof were needed that there is no independent journalism on the left and that these media outfits all draw from the same progressive talking points, the rebukes were swift and all but identical.

Trump’s claim that the white farmers of South Africa are the victims of genocide was attacked by much of the left-wing legacy media as “unfounded,” “false,” “unsubstantiated,” etc.

The New York Times and ABC News, in particular, took a drubbing on the X social media platform. Their attempts to deny the existence of a deadly situation for which the evidence is copious and beyond rational dispute drew much scorn and ridicule.

Keep reading

A Judge Of Her Peers? Judge Dugan Assigned A Judge Previously Rebuked For Political Comments

Five years ago, I wrote about a federal judge who, in my view, had discarded any resemblance of judicial restraint and judgment in a public screed against Republicans, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin judge represented the final death of irony: a jurist who failed to see the conflict in lashing out at what he called judicial bias in a political diatribe that would have made MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell blush.

His name is Lynn Adelman.

I was wrong in 2020. Irony is very much alive.

This week, a judge was randomly selected to preside at the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. A critic of Trump’s immigration policies, Dugan is accused of obstructing federal law enforcement and facilitating the escape of an unlawful immigrant.

The judge assigned to the Dugan case? You guessed it. Lynn Adelman, 85.

A judge is expected to come to a case like this one without the burden of his own baggage.

Judge Adelman is carrying more baggage than Amtrak in Wisconsin.

The selection of Adelman shows how political commentary by judges undermines the legitimacy of the court system. Now, in a case that has divided the nation, the public will have to rely on a judge who discarded his own obligations as a judge to lash out at conservatives, Trump, and conservative jurists.

Adelman was a long-standing Democratic politician who tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to run for Congress during his 20-year tenure in the Wisconsin Senate. For critics, Adelman never set aside his political agenda after President Bill Clinton nominated him for the federal bench.

Adelman was sharply rebuked for ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of a Democratic challenge over voting identification rules just before a critical election.  Adelman blocked the law before the election despite a Supreme Court case issued years earlier in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), rejecting a similar challenge.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a stinging reversal, explaining to Adelman that in “our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong.”

Adelman, however, was apparently undeterred. In 2020, he wrote a law review article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”

Adelman attacked what he described as a “hard-right majority” that is “actively participating in undermining American democracy.” He also struck out at Trump as “an autocrat… disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”

Keep reading

Democrats Don’t Get The Benefit Of The Doubt On Biden’s Health, ‘86,’ Or Anything Else

Joe Biden’s inner circle can’t stress this enough: Before last Friday, the former president had never been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Pinky swear.

A Biden spokesman “clarified” the “timeline” in a statement to multiple news outlets after widespread speculation that Biden’s Sunday cancer announcement wasn’t so much a new diagnosis as a new disclosure.

Even Democrat doctors came out of the woodwork this week to note that prostate cancer and metastasis to the bone don’t just happen overnight, meaning this cancer isn’t “new.” Either Biden and his team of elite health care practitioners are incompetent, or they covered up his diagnosis. So now his PR people are doing a full-court press to convince the suspicious public that Biden’s handlers aren’t lying liars who lie — they’re just really bad at their jobs.

This isn’t the only Democrat pinky swear of the week. Americans also got assurances from former FBI Director James Comey, who recently posted a threatening message to Donald Trump on Instagram in the form of a photograph of seashells spelling out “86 47.” We all know what that means. And considering a would-be assassin already shot Trump in the head and another tried to snipe him on the golf course, Comey’s message could credibly incite violence.

But no, seriously, guys, he had no idea what “86” connoted (even though he investigated the mafia for years). He also definitely just found those shells on the beach and had nothing to do with arranging them. And it’s crazy to think that this is all a cynical ploy to sell more copies of his weird new novel that’s out this week.

Biden doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt for the same reason Comey doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt for the same reason the Democrat Party and their media enablers don’t get the benefit of the doubt. They lie about everything.

This wouldn’t even be their first lie about Biden’s health. CNN propagandist Jake Tapper’s new book this week is yet another reminder that the corporate media and Democrats couldn’t even be trusted to tell the truth about Biden’s decline that we could see with our own eyes — no PSA test or urologist needed. When Americans observed Biden wandering aimlessly away from photo ops, falling down stairs, appearing to doze off in interviews, trailing off mid-sentence, slurring his words, and looking for a deceased congresswoman, Democrats, including fake journalists like Tapper, engaged in a cover-up to prop up Biden and hurt Trump. They said Biden was “sharp” and “focused,” “the best Joe Biden ever,” and that he just had a “bad debate.” When Lara Trump noted the cognitive decline, Tapper accused her of “mocking his stutter.” It was all a lie.

Before denying his “86” stunt, James Comey was a key architect of the lie that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election, also known as the Russia collusion hoax. Days before Trump’s first inauguration, then-FBI Director Comey briefed Trump on the bogus Steele dossier, a leak of which gave the corrupt media just the hook they needed to peddle the nonsense oppo research. Comey later used this dossier as a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign through Carter Page. Comey also attempted to ensnare Mike Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, in a perjury trap through an ambush interview to sabotage the Republican administration. As my colleague Matt Kittle so eloquently put it, “Comey tried to ‘86′ Trump’s first term.” It was all a hoax.

Keep reading

Former Florida congressional candidate sentenced to prison for threatening to kill opponent

A former Florida congressional candidate was sentenced to three years in prison on Wednesday for threatening to kill his opponent in a primary race in 2021.

William Robert Braddock III, 41, of St. Petersburg, was sentenced in Tampa federal court after being charged with interstate transmission of threat to injure. He pleaded guilty in February.

According to court documents, Braddock viewed Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who was the Republican frontrunner in Florida’s 13th Congressional District, as “his only obstacle to winning that race.”

While campaigning, Braddock, a former Marine, would disparage Luna and her peers to inject himself into his life. During a 2021 phone call with Luna’s acquaintance, a private citizen, Braddock threatened to have Luna murdered if she continued to poll well, specifically to “call up my Russian-Ukrainian hit squad” and make her “disappear,” according to a release from the Department of Justice (DOJ). 

Braddock subsequently fled to Thailand and eventually settled in the Philippines.

Keep reading

Supreme Court: Children of Illegal Aliens or Tourists are not U.S. Citizens

On the very day Donald Trump became president again, he signed an executive order prospectively eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

Immediately, lawsuits were filed in a half-dozen jurisdictions across the country challenging this order.

The groups bringing these suits claim the order disrupts long-standing legal norms governing citizenship. Yet, in fact, Trump’s contention — that birthright citizenship is not possessed by children of illegal aliens under the “correct interpretation of the law” — is exactly right.

Birthright citizenship is conventionally understood to apply to any child born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of that child’s parents. This view is based on the common law principle of jus soli (“right of soil”), which is said to be incorporated in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This understanding of the Citizenship Clause, however, despite its prevalence in academia and political commentary, is based on a mistaken and incomplete reading of controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In fact, birthright citizenship, as provided for in the Citizenship Clause, as that clause has been authoritatively construed by the Supreme Court, is possessed only by children born in the United States to at least one parent who is lawfully residing in the United States.

Ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War with the aim of remedying the injustices of the Dred Scott decision, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This latter phrase has been wrongly equated with “subject to the laws thereof,” and thus to entail that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens, with only a few narrow exceptions, such as children born to diplomats.

Yet the Supreme Court has construed the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” more narrowly, most notably in seminal cases that have been taught — well or ill — in law schools ever since.

Keep reading