Blog

Whistleblower Reveals Defense Department Manipulated Data to Show Lower Vaccine Side-Effects

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., convened and moderated a Senate panel debate titled “COVID-19: A Second Opinion,” in which claims were made that the Defense Department falsified COVID data to reflect lower side-effects among US troops than the real data being reported.

Attorney Thomas Renz, who was defending three Defense Department officials, said the actual data reveals a 300 percent increase in miscarriages, a 300 percent increase in cancer, and a 1,000 percent increase in neurological disorder among U.S. military personnel, among other results.

The attorney stated that the word “corruption” was used frequently during the panel discussion, and that this whistleblower report involved corruption at the highest levels of government. He demanded an investigation into Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and the entire Defense Department reporting machinery.

While his office launches a whistleblower inquiry, Johnson has asked the Defense Department to preserve all documentation related to the immunizations. He stated that it “appears to be data doctoring.”

Keep reading

Capitol Police examines backgrounds, social media feeds of some who meet with lawmakers

After the Jan. 6 insurrection, the Capitol Police’s intelligence unit quietly started scrutinizing the backgrounds of people who meet with lawmakers, according to three people familiar with the matter.

POLITICO also viewed written communications describing the new approach, part of a host of changes that the department implemented after the Capitol attack. Examining the social media feeds of people who aren’t suspected of crimes, however, is a controversial move for law enforcement and intelligence officials given the civil liberties concerns it raises.

Among those who have been subject to new Capitol Police scrutiny are Hill staffers, the three people said. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) said in an interview that he is unaware of any members who know about the “very, very bad” practice.

Keep reading

Censorship By Algorithm Does Far More Damage Than Conventional Censorship

People make a big deal any time a controversial famous person gets removed from a major social media platform, and rightly so; we cannot allow such brazen acts of censorship to become normalized. The goal is to normalize internet censorship on every front, and the powerful will push for that normalization to be expanded at every opportunity. Whether you dislike the controversial figure being deplatformed on a given day is entirely irrelevant; it’s not about them, it’s about expanding and normalizing internet censorship protocols on monopolistic government-tied speech platforms.

But far, far more consequential than overt censorship of individuals is censorship by algorithm. No individual being silenced does as much real-world damage to free expression and free thought as the way ideas and information which aren’t authorized by the powerful are being actively hidden from public view, while material which serves the interests of the powerful is the first thing they see in their search results. It ensures that public consciousness remains chained to the establishment narrative matrix.

It doesn’t matter that you have free speech if nobody ever hears you speak. Even in the most overtly totalitarian regimes on earth you can say whatever you want alone in a soundproof room.

That’s the biggest loophole the so-called free democracies of the western world have found in their quest to regulate online speech. By allowing these monopolistic megacorporations to become the sources everyone goes to for information (and even actively helping them along that path as in for example Google’s research grants from the CIA and NSA), it’s possible to tweak algorithms in such a way that dissident information exists online, but nobody ever sees it.

Keep reading

Twisted: Dem Gov Enacts Sick Law That Punishes Seniors with Unvaccinated Grandchildren

Connecticut’s Democratic Governor Ned Lamont officially mandated that all nursing homes in the state must require visitors to show proof of vaccination for entry.

Issued in an executive order, Lamont said the highly contagious omicron variant is dangerous for the elderly.

“[T]he impact of COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes may be devastating based on the experience from prior COVID-19 surge periods where residents of nursing homes and persons over 65 experienced the highest morbidity rates,” the executive order read.

Lamont’s executive order also outlined that while nursing home residents do have the right to receive visitors and designate support persons and caretakers, it’s not unreasonable to ask these visitors to be vaccinated.

“[I]t is reasonable and necessary during the present spike in COVID-19 cases to require visitors to continue to wear a mask and show that they have received a booster vaccine, if eligible, or proof of a negative COVID-19 test to protect the public health of nursing home residents,” the order stated.

Keep reading

Activists complain bipartisan antitrust law proposal could make online censorship more difficult

The American Innovation and Choice Online Act that is currently making its way through Senate committees before being put up for the final vote, is attracting attention both from those who support it and Big Tech’s lobbyists, who earlier reports said had already launched a broad campaign against it.

The bill that has so far received bipartisan support, aims to significantly limit the way Apple, Amazon, and Google use their monopolistic business practices to undermine competition and antitrust laws.

Either by design or coincidence, it isn’t just openly lobbying firms who are attacking the bill from various angles; they are joined by organizations like Free Press, which claims it is nonpartisan and fighting “for your right to connect and communicate.”

However, in the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, Free Press sees a “flaw” that would, essentially, make connecting and communicating easier – and doesn’t like it. Namely, the bill, if passed, they argue, could prevent censorship, specifically of what’s labeled as “hate speech or misinformation.”

Keep reading

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries pays just $200 in property taxes thanks to sweetheart subsidy law

Brooklyn Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, a potential replacement for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, already lives in a “People’s House” — that’s heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Public records show that Jeffries and his family reside in a condo unit in red-hot Prospect Heights, paying just $213 a year in property taxes thanks to a sweetheart deal under a law he supported when he served in the state Assembly.

The condo the Jeffries bought in 2007 in the six-story, 40-unit complex on Underhill Avenue benefits from a massive property tax break granted under the 421-A abatement program that housing advocates have long complained is skewed toward wealthy developers and well-to-do tenants.

The law provides developers and residents property tax breaks over 25 or 35 years in exchange for making at least 20 percent of the apartments “affordable” for moderate- to low-income residents.

The generous subsidy program costs the city treasury up to $1.6 billion a year in property tax revenues, according to the comptroller’s office. The median property tax for city homeowners is more than $5,000.

One Staten Island condo owner told The Post their annual property tax bill is $5,000. A Queens homeowner said his bill is more than $9,000.

Keep reading