09/23/20

Chinese Scientist Says COVID-19 was Created by China’s Military

By: Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) | CCNS

Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who investigated the origin of the COVID-19 virus during the initial outbreak in Wuhan China as a medical researcher in Hong Kong, has now provided unequivocal evidence that the virus was not of natural origin.

In the article, “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route,” Dr. Yan and her colleagues have offered a detailed description of how the virus was synthesized in laboratories controlled by China’s military.

The Chinese Communist Party and some Western scientists have long insisted that the COVID-19 pandemic was a naturally-occurring outbreak, acquired by humans after exposure to infected animals, an unsubstantiated conclusion eagerly promoted by a politicized media.

According to Dr. Yan, that politically-motivated “consensus” has undermined the integrity of science itself because scientific journals have clearly censored any dissenting opinions that suggest a non-natural origin of the COVID-19 virus.

Now, based on the work of Dr. Yan and others, the entire foundation of the naturally-occurring theory is in doubt.

China has claimed that a bat coronavirus named RaTG13 is the closest relative to the COVID-19 virus, but RaTG13 is not actually a virus because no biological samples exist. It is only a genomic sequence of a virus for which there are now serious questions about its accuracy.

Dr. Yan suggests that RaTG13 may have been used to divert the world’s attention away from the true source of the COVID-19 pandemic.

She claims that the COVID-19 virus originated in laboratories overseen by China’s People’s Liberation Army, using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 collected from Zhoushan, China and used as the viral “backbone” for genetic engineering.

Those bat coronaviruses were originally isolated and characterized between July 2015 and February 2017 under the supervision of the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).

The article goes on to explain how the receptor binding motif (RBM), which defines the coronavirus’ ability to bind to the specific human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor (ACE2) underwent genetic manipulation.

That critical segment of the COVID-19 virus is bounded by two “restriction sites” not found in any related bat coronaviruses, which allow researchers to easily splice, that is, cut and paste components of other viruses into the viral backbone.

The presence of those restriction sites is a known marker for genetic manipulation.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 virus contains a furin polybasic cleavage site with an amino acid sequence of proline-arginine-arginine-alanine or PRRA that facilitates membrane fusion between the virus and the human cell and widely known for its ability to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility.

Such a sequence is not found in any other related bat coronavirus and, so far, there is no natural evolutionary pathway identified that could explain the appearance of that PRRA segment.

In contrast, techniques for the artificial insertion of such a furin polybasic cleavage site by genetic engineering have been used for over ten years.

Dr. Yan and her colleagues note that the two arginine amino acids in that PRRA segment are coded by the nucleotide sequence CGG-CGG, which rarely appears in tandem and strongly suggests that this furin cleavage site is the result of genetic engineering.

In addition, the presence of a “FauI” restriction site at the furin polybasic cleavage site is also an indication of genetic manipulation.

The article concludes with a diagram describing the laboratory procedures for synthesizing the COVID-19 virus, which could have produced the virus within six months.

Given the scientific censorship that has been underway since the onset of the pandemic, we are only beginning to scratch the surface regarding the laboratory origin of the COVID-19 virus.

Further investigations are warranted and must be forthcoming. With nearly a million dead and trillions of dollars in economic losses, the stakes are too high to ignore, especially if this deadly virus was a product of China’s military.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, who previously worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and conducted basic and clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry. He is a member of the Citizens Commission on National Security. His email address is [email protected].

09/23/20

Call for an Investigation of NIAID’s Collaboration with China on the COVID-19 Virus

By: Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) | CCNS

Based on the preponderance of evidence, there is now little question that the virus that has caused the worldwide pandemic likely came from a laboratory in China. The question remains whether an accidental leak was a consequence of biological warfare experiments by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The Chinese government collaborated with the World Health Organization to downplay the threat and make the case that the virus appeared to not be transmitted from human to human, but rather from animals (primarily bats) to humans. There is also the question of why China cut off all domestic flights between Wuhan (population, 11 million) and Beijing and Shanghai, but not between Wuhan and Europe and America. 

There are also questions about the role of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, in directing U.S. grant funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the nature of the experiments that funding supported. With that, I am calling for an investigation of NIAID’s controversial research collaboration with China regarding the origin of the COVID-19 virus. A Senate committee or Justice Department investigation would be a good start. I have written a series of articles on this topic, which you can find here. 

As a summary, I have compiled this following list of evidentiary data points that could serve as the starting point for whatever entity takes on this very necessary investigation:

On April 27, 2020 it was reported that the National Institutes of Health, presumably with the authorization of President Donald Trump, suspended spending on the remaining $369,819 of a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant to the EcoHealth Alliance, a long-time scientific collaborator with Chinese scientists, in particular, the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Not privy to the actual facts related to the decision, that action precipitated outrage in the mainstream media and among some representatives of the scientific community.

Here are those facts.

Ten days earlier, during a press briefing by the Coronavirus Task Force, the following exchange took place between a White House correspondent and the President (1:10:57 – 1:11:33):

Question: “U.S. intelligence is saying this week that the coronavirus likely came from a Level 4 lab in Wuhan. There is also another report that the NIH under the Obama Administration in 2015 gave that lab 3.7 million dollars in a grant. Why would they give a grant like that to China?”

President Trump: “The Obama Administration gave them a grant of 3.7 million. I have been hearing about that. And we’ve instructed that any grants that are going to that area we’re looking at it literally about an hour ago and also earlier in the morning. We will end that grant very quickly.”

On April 19, 2020, Michael Lauer, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Deputy Director for Extramural Research, wrote to EcoHealth Alliance’s vice president for research, Kevin Olival stating:

“EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. is the recipient, as grantee, of an NIH grant entitled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” It is our understanding that one of the sub-recipients on this grant is the Wuhan Institute of Virology (“WIV”). It is our understanding that Wuhan Institute of Virology studies the interaction between corona viruses and bats. The scientific community believes that the coronavirus causing COVID-19 jumped from bats to humans likely in Wuhan where the COVID-19 pandemic began. There are now allegations that the current crisis was precipitated by the release from Wuhan Institute of Virology of the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. Given these concerns, we are pursuing suspension of Wuhan Institute of Virology from participation in federal programs.

While we review these allegations during the period of suspension, you are instructed to cease providing any funds to Wuhan Institute of Virology. This temporary action is authorized by 45 C.F.R. § 75.371(d) (“Initiate suspension or debarment proceedings as authorized under 2 C.F.R. part 180”). The incorporated OMB provision provides that the funding agency may, through suspension, immediately and temporarily exclude from Federal programs persons who are not presently responsible where “immediate action is necessary to protect the public interest.” 2 C.F.R. § 180.700(c). It is in the public interest that NIH ensure that a sub-recipient has taken all appropriate precautions to prevent the release of pathogens that it is studying. This suspension of the sub-recipient does not affect the remainder of your grant assuming that no grant funds are provided to WIV following receipt of this email during the period of suspension.”

On April 21, 2020, Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, responded by email to Lauer:

“I can categorically state that no funds from 2R01 AI110964-06 have been sent to Wuhan Institute of Virology, nor has any contract been signed. Furthermore we will comply with NIAID’s requirements, of course.”

On April 24, 2020, Lauer notified Daszak that the NIAID, headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, has elected to terminate the project “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence”, funded under grant R01 AI110964 because “NIH does not believe that the current project outcomes align with the program goals and agency priorities.”

On June 23, 2020, in response to a question by Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) regarding the reasons for the cancellation of the EcoHealth Alliance grant, Dr. Fauci said (5:32:20 – 5:34:03):

“It was cancelled because the NIH was told to cancel it. I don’t know the reason, but we were told to cancel it.”

In July 2020, Lauer sent the EcoHealth Alliance a letter stating the agency was reinstating the grant, but also instantly suspending it again pending the completion of certain actions, which the EcoHealth Alliance considered “impossible and irrelevant conditions”:

  • The EcoHealth Alliance must provide a sample of the pandemic coronavirus that WIV used to determine its genetic sequence.
  • The group must arrange for an outside inspection of WIV and its records “with specific attention to addressing the question of whether WIV staff had SARS-CoV-2 in their possession prior to December 2019,” Lauer wrote.
  • The nonprofit must explain purported restrictions at WIV including “diminished cell-phone traffic in October 2019, and the evidence that there may have been roadblocks surrounding the facility from October 14-19, 2019.”
  • The nonprofit must “provide the NIH with WIV’s responses to the 2018 Department of State cables regarding safety concerns.”

Despite that continuing controversy, on August 27, 2020, the day that Donald Trump was preparing to accept his party’s nomination for a second term as President of the United States, the NIH quietly and unceremoniously announced that the EcoHealth Alliance would receive $7.5 million as part of an $82 million program to create a global network of ten Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID).

Leading this effort is Dr. Anthony Fauci, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force and a frequent sparring partner with the President over how best to “slow the spread” of the virus.

It is unclear what the precise basis for the cancellation of the earlier EcoHealth Alliance grant was or how a new award over twenty times larger than the amount cut could be given to the EcoHealth Alliance while the original controversy remains unresolved.

Here is what is known.

On December 9, 2019, long before the world knew anything about COVID-19, a video interview took place with Daszak, whose comments may provide some insight regarding the Trump Administration’s reasons for questioning the research collaboration between the EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

9:22 – 9:30 Daszak states that the vast majority of EcoHealth Alliance’s funding comes from the U.S. government.

Daszak: “Over 80% of our funds comes from federal support. Like a university department we are going after federal money all the time.”

11:58 – 12:29 Daszak explains how the EcoHealth Alliance uses its funding to invest in the infrastructure of other countries like China through subcontracts and presumably hiring Chinese technicians and doctoral students.

Question: “So, give me an overview, you said you have labs throughout the world that you work with. Are they? They are not employees of yours. You contract them or some of them are?”

Daszak: “Usually we subcontract to labs, but we usually try and have in every country a country program officer, who manages the work we do in that country. And sometimes regional. And we often hire technicians in labs or Ph.D. students, in order to have a presence in the lab. There is more of a buy-in when you have a person there.”

12:48 – 12:56 Daszak says that he is personally directing the EcoHealth Alliances’s operations in China and Malaysia.

Daszak: “I have two countries that I am still, kind of, in charge of in the organization, China and Malaysia.”

13:04 – 13:21 Daszak repeats that the EcoHealth Alliance is training and building capacity in other countries like China.

Question: “So, the point is to establish capabilities in other countries, not just take specimens from them and bring them home?”

Daszak: “That’s right. That’s the strategy. And, you know, the old adage if you teach people how to do it, give them the capacity and the tools, then you have really made a difference.”

20:24 – 20:31 Daszak reiterates that he is paying people working locally presumably in China.

Question: “Now, in all these places we are talking about, you have people who are supported by you. They are paid by you?”

Daszak: “Yeah.”

Of the ten out of seventeen scientific publications listed as products of the cancelled NIAID grant, five are direct collaborations with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and one other research project was conducted with Chinese government laboratories.

Given the above information, there is reason to question Daszak’s statement in his April 21, 2020 email to NIH stating:

“I can categorically state that no funds from 2R01 AI110964-06 have been sent to Wuhan Institute of Virology, nor has any contract been signed.”

There are additional reasons to question the collaborative work between the EcoHealth Alliance and China regarding the collection of dangerous emerging coronaviruses in bat populations, the laboratory manipulation done on them and Daszak’s seemingly unquestioning support for the Chinese Communist Party’s narrative that the COVID-19 pandemic was naturally-occurring (emphasis added).

Beginning at 27:49, Daszak explains the basis of the naturally-occurring narrative and the collection of over one hundred bat coronaviruses capable of infecting humans, but untreatable with drugs or vaccines. Those coronaviruses are presumed to be stored in Chinese laboratories.

“So, we did a couple of things with it. So, one is around SARS. We focused on SARS coronavirus emerged from a wildlife market. And whilst the first pandemic of this century. So, it’s big event. And, so we started to trace back from the wildlife market, which species carried the virus, that came into those markets. We found that it was bats, not civets, was the original idea. So, we started looking where did they come from. And we went out to southern China. And did surveillance of bats across southern China. And we’ve now found, after six or seven years of doing this, over one hundred new SARS-related coronaviruses, very close to SARS. Some of them get into human cells in the lab. And some of them can cause SARS disease in humanized mouse models. And are untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals [antibodies] and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine.”

At 29:51, Daszak describes bioengineering of those viruses by inserting components of one coronavirus into another.

“Well, I think, coronavirus is a pretty good, I mean, you’re a virologist [the interviewer], you know all this stuff, but the, you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So, you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC [University of North Carolina] to do this. Insert it into a backbone of another virus, and do some work in the lab. So, you can get more predictive, when you find the sequence. You have this diversity. Now, the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s try to insert these other related and get a better vaccine.”

As director of the NIAID, Dr. Fauci should be obliged to answer questions and provide information regarding his support of Chinese research through the funding of the EcoHealth Alliance and other U.S. institutions under the new $82 million program to create a global network of ten Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, who previously worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and conducted basic and clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry. He is a member of the Citizens Commission on National Security. His email address is [email protected].

09/23/20

Ultimate Election Malfeasance: The Manipulation of Reality

By: Linda Goudsmit | pundicity

I am very worried about the November 2020 presidential election.

I have been writing about the unparalleled and sinister anti-American attempts to remove President Donald Trump from office for three years. In April 2020 I wrote, The Book of Humanitarian Hoaxes: Killing America with ‘Kindness’, to raise public awareness in advance of the 2020 election. The Book describes fifty of the most sinister leftist, Islamist, globalist attacks on America.

It is now 43 days until the election. The enemies of America are desperate and are behaving like cornered animals poised for attack. Their survival is at stake because if POTUS is reelected, he will take down the Deep State and expose them all. They know it and Trump knows it.

Even more than election fraud, I believe there is going to be an assault on objective reality using artificial intelligence technology called deepfakes. Wikipedia defines deepfakes as, “synthetic media in which a person in an existing image or video is replaced with someone else’s likeness. While the act of faking content is not new, deepfakes leverage powerful techniques from machine learning and artificial intelligence to manipulate or generate visual and audio content with a high potential to deceive.”

A sane society of ordered liberty requires agreement on what is real. We believe what we see with our own eyes. I believe the desperate Internet behemoths will try to manipulate what is perceived as real using deepfakes, to win their battle to oust POTUS and control society. It is the epitome of social engineering. Let me explain.

In 1995 I wrote the manuscript for my philosophy of behavior book, Dear America: Who’s Driving the Bus? I was trying to help people understand why they do what they do so that they could change their behavior. I never considered the book to be political. When I published the book in 2011, my editor remarked that the book is very political. I was stunned because I had never considered the political applications of the book. Now I do.

Dear America explains how our minds develop, and how thought precedes behavior. When we are in our most rational adult state of mind we behave like rational adults. If we are mobilized and regress back to childish thinking, we behave like children even though we are chronological adults. Of course, the book is political – we vote the way we think!

Ordered liberty requires a society of rational adults. Rational adults question information and use their critical thinking skills to formulate appropriate responses. Rational adults live in objective reality, the world of facts. They are unavoidably in conflict with chronological adults regressed back to childish thinking, who live in subjective reality, the world of feelings. Children believe what they are told unquestioningly and behave accordingly. So do regressed adults.

A large segment of the U.S. population has been deliberately regressed back to childish thinking – they live in a subjective reality where feelings matter and facts are ignored. Regressed adults are easily manipulated and have very little impulse control – they are basically emotional children disguised as adults.

Online freedom is not just a matter of censorship and freedom of speech – it is now a matter of reality! In Hoax 23: The Humanitarian Hoax of Multiple Realities, I discuss the catastrophic consequences of a society that no longer agrees on what is real. A sane society of ordered liberty requires agreement on what is real. We believe what we see with our own eyes. In my opinion, the ends-justify-the-means Internet behemoths are poised to manipulate what we see using deepfakes to win their battle to oust POTUS and control society. It is the ultimate election malfeasance and the epitome of social engineering. Manipulating reality is the nuclear weapon in the globalist war on America-first President Donald Trump.

A chilling article written by science writer, Rob Toews, appeared in Forbes May 25, 2020. “Deepfakes Are Going To Wreak Havoc On Society: We Are Not Prepared.” Toews explains the menace of deepfake technology and the artificial intelligence involved. Under the heading, When seeing is not believing, he writes:

“It does not require much imagination to grasp the harm that could be done if entire populations can be shown fabricated videos that they believe are real. Imagine deepfake footage of a politician engaging in bribery or sexual assault right before an election; or of U.S. soldiers committing atrocities against civilians overseas; or of President Trump declaring the launch of nuclear weapons against North Korea. In a world where even some uncertainty exists as to whether such clips are authentic, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

Deepfakes are the latest technological assault on reality. Toews quotes U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (FL), “In the old days if you wanted to threaten the United States, you needed 10 aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons, and long-range missiles. Today….all you need is the ability to produce a very realistic fake video that could undermine our elections, that could throw our country into tremendous crisis internally and weaken us deeply.”

Toews writes that according to USC professor Hao Li, the existence of deepfakes is also being used to discredit what is real. “People are already using the fact that deepfakes exist to discredit genuine video evidence. Even though there’s footage of you doing or saying something, you can say it was a deepfake and it’s very hard to prove otherwise.”

Brad Parscale’s USA Today article, “Trump is right: More than Facebook & Twitter, Google threatens Democracy, online Freedom“, was written two years ago and we are more vulnerable to Google, Twitter, and Facebook than ever before. The globalist tech giants need Beijing Biden in the White House and America-first Trump out. They will do anything and everything to remove him. According to Parscale, “Google, YouTube, and other tech giants already filter, suppress, and even directly attack conservatives.” These sins of omission and sins of commission are designed to change people’s perception of reality.

The Fake News media also threatens reality, but the greatest threat is that the tech giants will misrepresent President Trump using deepfake technology to steal the election. I have written extensively about the conflict between objective reality and subjective reality. The menace of technological virtual reality is here.

Deepfakers can manipulate reality using their deepfake technology to trick you into believing their falsified Trump messaging. If the public believes that what they see is real – that will form the basis for their voting behavior and for their responses to the election outcome. The Internet is now the public square. The Internet behemoths and technocrats who own AI technology now control the public square. Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Alibaba are likely to unleash a mass of deepfake unreality bombs in their ends-justify-the-means desperation to defeat Trump in November.

The final battle for America is the battle for reality. The technocrats are trying to force us into a post-truth world where shared standards for objective reality no longer exist. They are trying to convince us that snow is black. Don’t let them.

09/23/20

Amy Coney Barrett Exposes The Democrat’s Anti-Catholic Bigotry

By: Daniel John Sobieski

The notion that Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit will be President Trump’s third lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court has the liberal progressives in cardiac arrest. They threaten Trump with another impeachment for doing what the Constitution allows him to do – appoint Supreme Court justices and lower court judges (he has done 300 so far) up to the very last second before he leaves office, assuming he is not reelected. But it looks increasingly likely that he will be, particularly if he makes such a stellar pick. Trump has promised to pick a woman, so the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz will have to wait until Trump’s second term.

Barrett is as far from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s secular progressive and anti-Constitution philosophy as one can get. She does not support abortion on demand and does not want to lower the age of consent so pre-teens can have sex. She’s adamantly pro-life, she is the oldest of seven children and has seven kids herself, two of them adopted Haitian children. She is also Catholic and as such will be and has been a target of the Democrat Party’s virulent anti-Catholic bigotry.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden professes to be a Catholic but he has been denied Holy Communion by a Catholic bishop for his support of abortion on demand up to the moment of birth and has been charged by no less than Notre Dame’s great football coach Lou Holtz as being a Catholic in name only. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi professes to be a Catholic but also supports abortion until birth and complains that Catholics are burdened by what she calls the “conscience thing.” Saying they are Catholic is like saying Judas was an Apostle.

The likes of Dick Durbin and Diane Feinstein are sharpening their knives for Barrett who, while believing Catholic doctrine that life begins at conception and ends at natural death no matter what the government says, has never or is likely to never let that article of faith impact her rulings from the bench. Nevertheless, we have the likes of Feinstein speaking Yoda-like about “the dogma” screaming loudly over Barrett and Durbin who is looking up from gazing at his navel to wonder what “orthodox Catholic” meant during her confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit:

While ostensibly exploring the nominee’s judicial temperament, Feinstein instead targeted Barrett’s fealty to Catholic teaching. “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

Durbin was even more direct in his roasting of Barrett’s faith. He took issue with the phrase “orthodox Catholic,” which Barrett used in a two-decades-old law review article, on the grounds that it somehow marginalizes politically liberal Catholics: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Durbin asked her.

Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, certainly doesn’t think Durbin is one, having expressed the opinion at LifeSiteNews that it would be right and proper for Durbin to be denied a key Sacrament of the Catholic Church, Holy Communion:

We should not see the actions of Springfield, Illinois’s Bishop Thomas Paprocki as extreme for publicly stating that Sen. Dick Durbin is not properly prepared for receiving Communion. Durbin, who lives in the Springfield Diocese, has unapologetically and persistently promoted abortion.

The Democrat senator was one of 14 “Catholics” (and all the Democrats but three) in the Senate who voted in January against protecting babies at 20 weeks of development and beyond from late-term abortion. The bishop has not been extreme at all. In fact, it is encouraging to see bishops boldly doing their job in upholding Catholic teaching….

Perhaps some Catholic-in-name-only politicians fail to see how irreconcilable it is to defend abortion as a right and then to receive Christ in the Eucharist. It is the ultimate contradiction.

Simply put, an orthodox Catholic is one who accepts the dogma of the Catholic Church in its entirety and the infallibility of the Pope on matters of faith and morals. It does not mean being a “cafeteria” Catholic picking and choosing what will get you elected. This allows Durbin to be “personally opposed” to abortion while doing nothing to stop it. But neither does it mean distorting the law to conform to any particular belief which is what Barrett has told Feinstein she would not do:

What he (Durbin) was getting at, of course, was his own support for abortion, the dogma that lives loudly within almost all elected Democrats these days, and it was hardly made better by Durbin’s declaration that he was the product of 19 years of Catholic education. Feinstein put this bluntly. “You are controversial—let’s start with that,” California’s senior senator told Barrett at the outset of her questioning. “You’re controversial because many of us who have lived our lives as women really recognize the value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems, and Roe entered into that, obviously. … You have a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail.” Actually, Barrett has no history of any such thing. In response to Feinstein, she declined to discuss her personal view of Roe v. Wade, but said simply — and under oath: “I would commit, if confirmed, to follow unflinchingly all Supreme Court precedent.”

Catholic League President Bill Donahue addressed the issue on The Ingraham Angle on Fox:

Senate Democrats grilled Barrett over how her Catholic faith would affect her views on court precedents concerning abortion cases during her confirmation process after Trump nominated her as a circuit judge in 2017.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), in particular, showed what Catholic League President Bill Donahue called anti-religion “animus” during their questioning of her religious beliefs….

“Let’s remember … the seminal statement by Sen. Feinstein — she said the dogma screams loudly in you,” Donahue told Ingraham. “That’s coming awfully close to establishing a religious test.”

Feinstein received intense backlash after she told Barrett during her confirmation hearing, “Dogma and law are two different things. And, I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.”

Let us hope so. The Bible, the same one liberals are waving lately, says Christians, and Catholics, are the light of the world and are to place their light, not under a bushel, but on a nightstand where the light can lead all to the ultimate truth. It is unlikely Feinstein would tell a Muslim nominee, “The Sharia dogma lives loudly within you.”

Note the use of the word “dogma” in a pejorative sense, as if the Catholic Church was a cult-like the Druids chanting around a fire waiting for the human sacrifice to arrive. Barrett has been slandered as a member of a cult which is in fact a legitimate Catholic faith group:

Ingraham agreed that she saw “a very strong anti-Catholic bias running through all of this” outrage against Barrett’s Catholicism and her membership in the conservative Christian People of Praise enclave.

Donahue replied, “I think I know what a cult is. This certainly is not a cult. It’s a charismatic renewal group, which is a family-oriented Catholic organization. And in fact, the pope — who’s hardly considered a man of the Right — welcomed them just last year at the Vatican.”

Yes, Barrett believes that Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided and is a decision no more rooted in moral law than the Dred Scott decision. Whether defined as 3/5ths of a human being or not a human being at all, all are fully human in the eyes of the Creator who endowed all with the inalienable right to life. The Supreme Court occasionally gets things wrong and in both these cases, they did. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be because it was badly decided law and the matter returns to the states where it will be voted on by the people and their elected representatives. Voters, as do Presidents, have a right to choose to.

As the National Catholic Register reports, Barrett, who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, has been a favorite of Trump, the most pro-life President in American history and the first to appear in person at the annual March for Life in Washington D.C, for quite a while:

According to Axios, Trump reportedly in 2018 told confidantes of Barrett that he was “saving her for Ginsburg” in explanation of his decision not to appoint her to the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy….

As a nominee to the federal bench, Barrett was pointedly questioned by Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee in 2017 on how her Catholic faith would influence her decisions as a judge on cases of abortion and same-sex marriage.

Barrett is the mother of seven children, including two adopted from Haiti; one of her children has special needs. She is also reportedly a member of the People of Praise charismatic community, which was criticized as a “cult” during her 2017 confirmation hearings.

Bishop Peter Smith, a member of a related association of priests, told CNA in 2018 that there is not anything unusual or out of the ordinary about the group, which is a “covenant community,” mostly of laity.

“We’re a lay movement in the Church,” Smith explained. “There are plenty of these. We continue to try and live out life and our calling as Catholics, as baptized Christians, in this particular way, as other people do in other callings or ways that God may lead them into the Church.”

Just as John F. Kennedy was said by some to be a stalking horse for the Vatican who would clear each major decision with the Pope, Barrett a practicing Catholic who actually gets it right, was charged with embracing Catholic dogma so tight that there was no room left for the Constitution and those “emanations from a penumbra” that sanctified Roe V. Wade.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is not some sort of female Elmer Gantry or just some dogmatic member of a cult. She is a pro-life pro-family woman of faith who believes that faith should have more space and more impact on our daily life than just one hour on a Sunday.

As Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass notes, the anti-Catholic cabal led by Dick Durbin and Diane Feinstein are trying to apply a religious test to this nomination, something that is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution:

Democratic U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein are applying a religious test to public office, something expressly forbidden by the Constitution. And by their questions to Barrett, they reveal themselves….

This evokes a line of inquiry from an earlier age, one asked of leftists during the Cold War but now directed by the political left at Americans of faith. Concealed in their velvet voices was this meaning, this underlying shiv:

Are you now, or have you ever been, a Christian?

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” cooed Durbin in that oily voice of his….

The Constitution is clear that religious faith may not be used to prevent an American from holding office. But there is another faith now, a strident faith, that of the left, and anyone who stands in its way is to be marked.

Durbin is a Catholic Democrat from blue Illinois, and he seeks votes in Chicago. That he would ask whether someone was an “orthodox Catholic” is stunning.

Chicago is a Catholic town, a Democratic organization town in which parishes helped form the backbone of the Democratic machine. The numbers of church-goers across America is dwindling, including Chicago Catholics.

But there are many who stay true to their faith.

One of them is Amy Coney Barrett, a judicial Joan of Arc who will defend our religious liberty and hers with her last ounce of courage and devotion.

* Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

09/23/20

⚠ Communists Take Credit for Riots in Explosive Three Minute Video

“I can’t tell you the joy it brought all of us to see the third precinct destroyed.”

An explosive new video by the group “Choose Freedom” exposes pro-China communists taking credit and expressing “joy” over the horrific riots that took place in the wake of the death of George Floyd.

Marxist-Leninists from the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) take full responsibility for the chaos in Minneapolis and beyond in this three-minute video.

WATCH THE VIDEO HERE AND PLEASE SHARE!

Sign the Choose Freedom Petition for President Donald Trump to apply the Insurrection Act to those who persist in rioting and terrorizing innocent citizens across the country!

Follow Choose Freedom on Twitter and Facebook!

Know your enemy!

Please check out Trevor Loudon’s latest book: “White House Reds: Communists, Socialists, and Security Risks Running for US President, 2020.”

09/23/20

Report: VP Biden was Well Aware of Hunter’s Illicit Foreign Actions

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Senate report

DW: A bombshell report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) and the Committee on Finance makes a series of damning new allegations against Hunter Biden, the son of Democrat presidential nominee.

The investigation launched after Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) publicly raised conflict-of-interest concerns about the sale of a U.S. company to a Chinese firm with ties to Hunter Biden a month before Congress was notified about a whistleblower complaint that was the catalyst for Democrats’ impeachment of President Donald Trump. The Senate’s investigation relied on records from the U.S. government, Democrat lobbying groups, and interviews of numerous current and former officials.

Hunter Biden received $3.5M from Russian billionaire: report

The report outlined the following key findings from the investigation:

  • In early 2015 the former Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent, raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Kent’s concerns went unaddressed, and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”
  • In October 2015, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine.
  • Although Kent believed that Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board was awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine, the Committees are only aware of two individuals — Kent and former U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein — who raised concerns to Vice President Joe Biden (Hochstein) or his staff (Kent).
  • The awkwardness for Obama administration officials continued well past his presidency. Former Secretary of State John Kerry had knowledge of Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board, but when asked about it at a town hall event in Nashua, N.H. on Dec. 8, 2019, Kerry falsely said, “I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No.” Evidence to the contrary is detailed in Section V.
  • Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testified that confronting oligarchs would send an anti-corruption message in Ukraine. Kent told the Committees that Zlochevsky was an “odious oligarch.” However, in December 2015, instead of following U.S. objectives of confronting oligarchs, Vice President Biden’s staff advised him to avoid commenting on Zlochevsky and recommended he say, “I’m not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals.”
  • Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky.” Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the Resident Legal Advisor reported this allegation to the FBI.
  • Hunter Biden was a U.S. Secret Service protectee from Jan. 29, 2009 to July 8, 2014. A day before his last trip as a protectee, Time published an article describing Burisma’s ramped up lobbying efforts to U.S. officials and Hunter’s involvement in Burisma’s board. Before ending his protective detail, Hunter Biden received Secret Service protection on trips to multiple foreign locations, including Moscow, Beijing, Doha, Paris, Seoul, Manila, Tokyo, Mexico City, Milan, Florence, Shanghai, Geneva, London, Dublin, Munich, Berlin, Bogota, Abu Dhabi, Nairobi, Hong Kong, Taipei, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Johannesburg, Brussels, Madrid, Mumbai and Lake Como.
  • Andrii Telizhenko, the Democrats’ personification of Russian disinformation, met with Obama administration officials, including Elisabeth Zentos, a member of Obama’s National Security Council, at least 10 times. A Democrat lobbying firm, Blue Star Strategies, contracted with Telizhenko from 2016 to 2017 and continued to request his assistance as recent as the summer of 2019. A recent news article detailed other extensive contacts between Telizhenko and Obama administration officials.
  • In addition to the over $4 million paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s board memberships, Hunter Biden, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds.
  • Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.
  • Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow.
  • Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong to fund a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden.
  • Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and the People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow.
  • Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an “Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.”

The report also stated that the investigation found that the Obama administration “knew that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine.”

OUT TODAY: Report with @chuckgrassley found millions of dollars in questionable financial transactions between Hunter Biden & his associates and foreign individuals, including the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. https://t.co/R1MxQ4xGKP

— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) September 23, 2020

09/23/20

Mask or Burka — Two ways to one goal … submission

By: Dr. Ashraf Ramelah | Voice of the Copts

Growing up in a society ruled by a religious deep state drove me to begin thinking about living elsewhere in the world in spite of the fact that Islamic Sharia was not yet constitutional before I left Egypt. The imposition of and control by religious rules and my inability to counter them frustrated me to no end. Despite my youth, I had a tremendous amount of self-control, but I had not a go along, get along personality, and knew it best to remove myself from the dysfunctional culture of the Nasser regime.

My angst began during my elementary years when I attended a private Christian school run by the Coptic Christian Church and its non-profit organization. Our Christian religion education hour was forfeited and spent outside playing in the schoolyard while enrolled Muslim students attended the Islamic religion class inside with a special Islamic teacher. At an impressionable age, I sensed the injustice of this and felt marginalized.

This injustice came on top of an already damaged sensibility as I had been exposed since birth to caustic accusations from loudspeakers directed toward Christians during the five daily Islamic prayers (Azan). As a child, this felt like torture to me. It began daily at the aurora and ended around supper time.

Once a week on Friday at 10:00 in the morning I would watch what I called a massive incubator of hate assemble before my eyes. Islam, with its political and cultural privilege, was able to dominate the Cairo street below our apartment balcony with a thirty-meter distance of prayer rugs in preparation for the day’s prayer gathering. This menacing and threatening spectacle separated our home from the rest of the city.

Dreading the late morning when I would be forced to hear the amplified microphone shriek through our shut windows and vibrate our apartment walls the anticipation was enough to unnerve me at a very young age. This was a type of torment for me as I was unable to escape the chanted prayers of hatred spewed out against Christians and Jews – the expression of Islam in the heavenly, Arabic language.

In all these ways at an early age, I learned how powerful the majority mind-set could be in a culture, enough to overwhelm others with actions even when no laws existed to back them up. At the same time, we were bombarded with messaging from the president of the country who falsely claimed to bring us liberty and democracy just like the free world. Henceforth, the difference between what I witnessed and what I heard from officials became my education in cultural and government hypocrisy.  This condition was essentially unlivable especially if one’s definition of freedom included equality and individual will.

I finally left Egypt for Europe where I could breathe and speak freely. After some time had elapsed and I returned for a visit to my family, Sadat was already the Egyptian president, and there was a visible increase of Islamic legalism. Seeing a “chador” worn in the street (a black-tented woman walking) for the first time in Cairo shocked me because I knew immediately that her high-profile was seen as submission to a state-religious system against the will of the people. Until then, the burka (face covering) had forced women’s anonymity only in the poverty sections of the city.

Understanding all the spurious parts of the worldwide pandemic lockdown from the time of its “outbreak,” I have experienced the same “shock of the chador in Egypt” moment at the sight of masks worn in the United States under prolonged Covid-19 restrictions despite data proving the pandemic was non-existent with a survival rate of 99 percent. In both cases, the ignorant and fearful have been persuaded to submit.

When the Islamic deep state in Egypt began to spread Islamic fundamentalism through a media campaign and force face coverings for Islamic women against their will there was also great shame for Christian women who refused to do the same. Both virtue signaling and shame have been motivational for mask-wearing in the US as the media spreads fear of a “pandemic.”

In the West, a neighbor wearing a mask chastises another for choosing not to wear a mask even reporting them to retailers who in turn feel bullied into refusing service to unmasked customers or risk penalties. This relates to the Ramadan penalties in Egypt for retailers who dare to open coffee shops and restaurants and face arrest. Egypt, like the US to date, has no laws making noncompliance a crime, however, the influential and indoctrinating information from the TV renders laws unnecessary.

As Muslim women are discouraged against speaking out about their conditions of life in Islamic cultures, the face-covering is effectively a muzzle silencing them. In 2020, the free world populations experienced a similar sensory deprivation. Local regions mandate compliance without allowances to contest it on any basis and are bolstered by the national media campaign promoting masks and social distancing continuance as it censors varying opinions.

At the root of the mask and the burka mandates lie something more than meets the eye. At least since Nasser, Egypt’s government has been linked to Muslim Brotherhood power and its Freemasonic origins within the state to use religious fatwas as civil law to assert ultimate power and control by the state. What is the takeover of personal health by the state if not medical tyranny functioning much like a religion for those who refuse to think for themselves and sort out the truth. This proves there is more than one way for the state to sink the human spirit into lockstep and achieve the goal of humanity’s subordination.

09/23/20

CIA Labs Launches for Advanced Research Projects

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

This new initiative is to allow the agency to attract and retain scientists and engineers, who are highly sought after by some of America’s top technology firms, like Google and Oracle. MIT’s Technology Review, which wrote about this initiative, referred to it as a “skunkworks.”

The Central Intelligence Agency announced Monday the launch of its first-ever federal lab, a new internal organization that will allow its officers to obtain patents and licenses for intellectual property they create while working at the agency.

The new office, called CIA Labs, will be an in-house research and development office through which the spy agency will develop the future technology it needs for intelligence collection for national security, while also helping U.S. economic security, according to Dawn Meyerriecks, head of CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology, in an agency press release.

In a speech last week at the Intelligence and National Security Summit, Meyerriecks listed several broad areas where the agency has intellectual property that could “change the conversation” around key emerging technologies. She listed 5G, battery technology, augmented and virtual reality, artificial intelligence and machine learning, computation, geospatial information representation, navigation, and analytics as areas of focus.

“It’s an endless list that we collectively own, but the world desperately needs,” Meyerriecks said. “And if your attitude is ‘I will get this to production and then I will wait for the next procurement opportunity,’ then we are collectively part of the problem, not part of the solution.”

She added that the agency already has two provisional patents, but didn’t go into detail.

The lab is an investment the CIA is making to recognize the entrepreneurs inside the agency, an area not covered by the intelligence community’s other innovation and advanced research hubs, In-Q-Tel and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity.

The federal lab designation will allow the agency to strengthen its connection to academia, industry and the 300 federal labs across the United States. The CIA press release added that the labs will allow for internship and externships for officers. CIA labs will also provide career incentives at the agency because the investors can receive license revenue from users outside the agency.

“Some phenomenal innovations have come from CIA over the years, and with CIA Labs, we’re now better positioned to optimize developments and further invest in our scientists and technologists. In an evolving threat landscape, CIA Labs will help us maintain our competitive edge and protect our nation,” Meyerriecks said in a statement Monday.

 CIA Labs to focus on blockchain research among other areas ...

Officers who develop new technologies at CIA Labs will be allowed to patent, license, and profit from their work, making 15% of the total income from the new invention with a cap of $150,000 per year. That could double most agency salaries and make the work more competitive with Silicon Valley.

CIA Labs is looking at areas including artificial intelligence, data analytics, biotechnology, advanced materials, and high-performance quantum computing.

One example of an immediate problem Meyerriecks says the agency faces is being overwhelmed by the amount of data it collects. Militaries and intelligence agencies around the world deal in a multitude of sensors like, for instance, the kind of tech found on drones. The CIA’s own sensors suck up incalculable mountains of data per second, she says. Officers badly want to develop massive computational power in a relatively small, low-power sensor so the sorting can be done quickly on the device instead of being sent back to a central system.

Of course, efforts to develop new technology inevitably run into questions about how it will actually be used, especially at an agency that has long been a fundamental instrument of American power. Some inventions have been uncontroversial: during the Cold War, Meyerriecks says, the agency helped develop lithium-ion batteries, an innovative power source now widely used by the public. More recently, however, during the war on terrorism, the agency poured resources into advancing nascent drone technology that has made tech-enabled covert assassination a weapon of choice for every American president since 9/11 despite despite ongoing controversy over its potential illegality.