The most basic definition of a “hypocrite” is someone who pretends to be something they’re not. By extension, an eco-hypocrite is a person who preaches to others about the dangers of climate change, the measures necessary to tackle it, and the steps they’ve taken in this sense so far, while still having a carbon footprint larger than average.
Elena Gorgen, autoevolution
Billionaire filmmaker Steven Spielberg is the very definition of an eco-hypocrite. If you believe buzz on social media, look up the definition in a dictionary and you’ll find a photo of Spielberg right next to it. That’s because, just three years ago, he was waxing poetic about how everyone “needs to be held responsible” for climate change, which “terrified” him, and here he is, burning more than $116,000 in jet fuel over just two months.
You might remember Jack Sweeney, the 19-year-old student who made headlines earlier this year, when Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk offered him $5,000, so he’d shut down the Twitter page tracking his (Musk’s) private jet, an offer Sweeney declined because he thought it was a low-baller. Since then, Sweeney has launched similar pages for a bunch of celebrities, politicians, public figures and even Russian oligarchs.
The same flight tracking data is now being used to comprise charts to determine which celebrity has the biggest carbon footprint, and the finding is, in turn, used in contrast with previous statements made by that celebrity on the issue of climate change. The number one celebrity, in case you were wondering, is Taylor Swift, though her publicist said that her 2009 Dassault Falcon 7X jet, which has flown more than 170 times this year alone, is also offered for charter. In other words, don’t blame Taylor.
The latest celebrity to come under fire on social media is Steven Spielberg. The film director, who is worth close to $3.7 billion and has made headlines before for his lavish purchases, including the $150 million Seven Seas superyacht, is now being criticized for his contradictory stance regarding private flight travel. Spielberg is also the owner of a Gulfstream G650, and data shows that he poured over $116,000 worth of fuel into it over a span of just two months.
In exact figures, since June 23, the jet took 16 trips spanning nearly 17,000 miles (27,359 km) at a cost of $116,159 in fuel. Fox News points out that some of these trips were abroad, like a couple to the Netherlands and one to Ireland, but most were local, across the States, and some of them so short as to undertake them by car.
Like with other celebrities, the outside impression is that Spielberg too hops on his private jet out of convenience and the force of habit, with little or even zero consideration for the damage that short flight does to the environment. This in itself wouldn’t be so controversial if it were not for the public record of Spielberg speaking against people who do just that. Talk the talk, but walk the walk too.
You can see it in the video below: during a 2018 promo appearance for Ready Player One, Spielberg said he was “terrified” by climate change, which was “not a political trick” but a scientific fact. We all know that celebrities tend to spew out platitudes and PR-fabricated anecdotes during these extended promo tours and are very rarely genuine in their replies. And it’s understandable, because their job is to promote the film and to rock the boat as little as possible where other topics are concerned. Spielberg was just playing along, saying all the right things that he knew were expected of him on the topic of climate change.
“We are going to have to have a kind of confrontation with destiny unless we do something about it today. Everybody has to be held responsible,” the director said. “You know when you’re not mindful of something that could pose a danger to your children and grandchildren? Then you just go blithely through life with aerosol cans and doing all sorts of things that are depleting the ozone.”
How’s that for depleting the ozone and for accountability? Two months’ worth of travel by private jet in Spielberg’s Gulfstream G650 equals 179 tons of carbon dioxide. By contrast, the average American has an annual carbon footprint of 16 tons, while the average global footprint is of 4 tons.
While we ditch aerosol cans and take pains with recycling our home waste, Spielberg is flying around in his private jet, then lecturing us about how we’re all responsible for the mess we’re in. We are responsible, it’s true, but it would be nice if the person who said it wasn’t such a huge eco-hypocrite.
“Eco-freedom for me, lectures for thee.” Two sets of rules, of course! He’s special, you know. – The Liberator
Censorship Lawsuit: Anthony Fauci, Biden Officials to be Deposed
A reckoning arrives for the self-appointed arbiters of truth and facts
Graham J. Noble, Liberty Nation News
Anthony Fauci was the central figure in the US government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but also perhaps the most controversial. He was lauded by many but maligned by probably at least as many others. His portrayal of himself as the embodiment of the science surrounding infectious diseases, while often giving out conflicting advice on the efficacy of masks, vaccines, and immunity did nothing to boost his credibility.
Now, he has been ordered by a federal judge to sit for a deposition in a lawsuit relating to the pandemic response. He’s not the only one; several other Biden administration officials will also be deposed. But this is not a case about the vaccines, the lockdowns, or the masks – at least not directly. It is about free speech, censorship, and the White House’s alleged collusion with social media companies to squelch “disfavored” information and opinions.
The suit claims that the Biden administration violated certain people’s First Amendment rights by colluding with social media companies to censor individuals and viewpoints that went against the official narrative. According to US District Judge Terry Doughty’s order, the following government officials are to be deposed:
“(1) NIAID Director and White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, (2) Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of White House Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, (3) former White House Senior COVID-19 Advisory Andrew Slavitt, (4) former White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki, (5) FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan, (6) CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] Director Jen Easterly, (7) CISA official Lauren Protentis, (8) Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, (9) CDC Chief of the Digital Media Branch Carol Crawford, and (10) Acting Coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center Daniel Kimmage.”
Doughty wrote, “On May 5, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants. In the Complaint and Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege Defendants have colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content ‘dis-information,’ ‘mis-information,’ and ‘mal-information.’ Plaintiffs allege the suppression of disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and contents constitutes government action and violates Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The Wholesale Censorship of ‘Disfavored’ Views
For the past two years it has been practically impossible to post “disfavored” content relating to the pandemic and the response to it. Opinions, statistics, and even scientific data or studies that question the usefulness of masks, the negative consequences of lockdowns, or the safety and effectiveness of vaccines have been quickly shut down. The posters had their accounts restricted, suspended, or were even banned from the platforms. Anyone who touted the importance and effectiveness of natural immunity or promoted alternatives to the COVID-19 vaccines were likewise penalized.
In his order, the judge listed various additional topics that, the suit alleges, were flagged for censorship on social media due to Biden administration interference. Those subjects include “the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election,” discussion of “the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origin,” and “speech about election integrity and the security of voting by mail.”
Several pages of the judge’s order were devoted to Dr. Fauci. As the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to the president, Fauci got a lot of television airtime, during which he is on record as making contradictory statements about the efficacy of masks and the level of protection provided by vaccines.
Ironically, while the official advice continued to “evolve,” critics of the pandemic response were being accused of spreading “misinformation.”
The lawsuit is led by Eric Schmitt and Jeff Landry, the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, respectively. The plaintiffs are represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which describes itself as a nonpartisan and nonprofit civil rights group founded “to protect constitutional freedoms from violation by the Administrative State.”
Also named as plaintiffs are Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, psychiatrist and medical ethicist Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Jill Hines, co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana and Reopen Louisiana, and Jim Hoft, owner of The Gateway Pundit. All these individuals were heavily censored or banned from social media platforms.
So, this is not a fight over science or how science is interpreted for political reasons. The issue is not whether the pandemic response succeeded or failed. Nor is this a question of whether companies that operate social media platforms can engage in censorship. The central alleged transgression, here, is the administration’s active encouragement – and even coercion, as Doughty describes it – of private companies to restrict freedom of speech to protect an official government position from independent analysis or criticism.
The First Amendment explicitly prevents the creation of federal laws that restrict free speech. It is for constitutional scholars and lawyers to determine whether this lawsuit should succeed or fail, then, but should executive branch officials be working with private entities to censor information for political reasons? If they can be permitted to do so with impunity, then Americans’ First Amendment right to free speech is lost forever, regardless of whether Congress has made a law to restrict it.
Lawyer up, Tony boy. Your ill-gotten gains will now be spent to keep you out of jail, you lying, low-life scum. – The Liberator
“Too long have we said to ourselves ‘intolerance of another’s politics is barbarous and not to be countenanced in a civilized country. Are we not free? Shall a man be denied his right to speak under the law which established that right?’ I tell you that freedom does not mean the freedom to exploit law in order to destroy it! It is not freedom which permits the Trojan Horse to be wheeled within the gates.”
“Over the past three years, mainstream media have promulgated the lie that the COVID shots will prevent infection and transmission, telling us that anyone who doesn’t get the shot is selfish at best, and at worst, a potential murderer at large. Anyone who refuses poses a serious biomedical threat to society, hence the need for heavy-handedness. Alas, it was all a lie from the start. The frustrating part is that we’ve KNOWN for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption, yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that.”
The premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19
In early October 2022, during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout
Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk”
We’ve known for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption. In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted that trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission. Yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that
It was never about science or protecting others. It was always about following a predetermined narrative that sought to get experimental mRNA technology into as many people as possible
February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a “vaccine.” In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don’t prevent infection or spread. In reality, they’re experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1
“The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were ‘a medical fraud’ and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.
Instead, the article claimed, the shots ‘alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch.’ Its assertions were easily disprovable …”
Pfizer Moved ‘at the Speed of Science’
Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.
As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:
“No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk.”2
This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. I find this shocking — even criminal. ~ Rob Roos, MEP
As noted by Roos, “This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.” Roos added that he found this deception “shocking — even criminal.”3
In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews this growing scandal. He points out that U.K. government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we’re told that was not the case after all.
The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they “had to move at the speed of science.” But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are “just words without meaning.” It’s complete nonsense.
Moreover, what does it mean to “do everything at risk”? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don’t either, but were I to venture a guess, I’d guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.
Government and Media Promulgated a Blatant Lie
Over the past three years, mainstream media have promulgated the lie that the COVID shots will prevent infection and transmission, telling us that anyone who doesn’t get the shot is selfish at best, and at worst, a potential murderer at large. Anyone who refuses poses a serious biomedical threat to society, hence the need for heavy-handedness.
Alas, it was all a lie from the start. The frustrating part is that we’ve KNOWN for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption, yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that.
In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted the fact that the trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission, which is key if you want to end the pandemic. He wrote:4
“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you’ll save the lives of others if you take it.
By then, Moderna had also admitted they were not testing its jab’s ability to prevent infection. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, stated that this kind of trial would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy he called “operationally untenable.”5
So, neither Pfizer nor Moderna had any clue whether their COVID shots would prevent transmission or spread, as that was never tested, yet with the aid of government officials and media, they led the public to believe they would. Below is just one example where Pfizer clearly obfuscated the truth.6 If stopping transmission was their “highest priority,” why didn’t they test and confirm that their shot was accomplishing this priority?
COVID Shots Have Been Fraudulently Marketed
As I stated in February 2021, the shots are a medical fraud. A true vaccine prevents infection; COVID shots don’t. Hence, they’ve also been fraudulently marketed. Governments around the world enabled this marketing fraud and media promulgated it.
As a result of mandating COVID shots and vaccine passports based on a blatant lie, millions have suffered potentially permanent harm and/or have died. Millions have also lost their jobs, forfeited careers and missed out on educational opportunities. This all happened because we DIDN’T follow the science.
Massive Conflicts of Interest Have Been Allowed
Why did government agencies go along with what was, to anyone with a microgram of critical thinking skills, an apparent fraud? Probably, because they’re in on it. As reported by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the same PR company that serves Moderna and Pfizer also staffs the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Viral Diseases team:8
“Early last month [September 2022], CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky endorsed recommendations by the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for updated COVID-19 boosters from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.
‘This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion,’ Dr. Walensky said in a statement. ‘If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it’ …
[The] PR firm Weber Shandwick, which has long represented Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies and began providing public relations support to Moderna sometime in 2020.
In an odd case of synchronicity — and let’s be honest, a whiff of undue influence — Weber Shandwick employees are also embedded at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), the CDC group that implements vaccine programs and oversees the work of ACIP [CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] …
The CDC has refused to respond to questions explaining this apparent conflict … ‘[It] is irresponsible of CDC to issue a PR contract to Weber Shandwick, knowing that the firm also works for Moderna and Pfizer,’ emailed Public Citizen’s Craig Holman. ‘It raises legitimate questions of whose interests Weber Shandwick will put first — their private sector clients or the public’s interest at NCIRD.’”
Incidentally, Weber Shandwick was in 2016 found to have ghostwritten a drug study for Forest Pharmaceuticals — another unethical practice that has undermined the foundation of medical science for decades.
One PR Company, One Consistent Message
Weber Shandwick’s responsibilities at the CDC include but are not limited to “generating story ideas, distributing articles and conducting outreach to news, media and entertainment organizations” to boost vaccination rates.9 The company provides similar services to Moderna.
For example, it helped generate 7,000 news articles internationally after Moderna applied for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its jab.
In June 2022, Moderna announced a “cross-discipline team drawing on talent and expertise from Weber Shandwick” would “drive the brand’s narrative globally,” and “support Moderna in activating and engaging key internal and external audiences, including employees, consumers, health care providers, vaccine recipients and policymakers.”10
Considering the primary COVID jab makers have the same PR company as the CDC, is it any wonder that the messaging has been so consistently one-sided? As noted by Doshi in a recent interview on German television,11 mainstream media have consistently ignored COVID jab data and have “not done a good job in providing balanced coverage” about the shots.
“We’re not getting the information we need to make better choices and to have a more informed understanding of risk and benefit,” he told the interviewer, adding:12
“It was very unfortunate that from the beginning, what was presented to us by public health officials was a picture of great certainty … but the reality was that there were extremely important unknowns.
We entered a situation where essentially the stakes became too high to later present that uncertainty to people. I think that’s what set us off on the wrong foot. Public officials should have been a lot more forthright about the gaps in our knowledge.”
Reanalysis of Trial Data Confirms COVID Shot Dangers
In late September 2022, Doshi published a risk-benefit analysis focused on serious adverse events observed in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID trials. Reanalysis of the data showed 1 in 800 who get a COVID shot suffers a serious injury. As detailed in Doshi’s paper:13
“Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 respectively.
Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated; risk ratio 1.43.
The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group … The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group … Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients …”
Doshi and his coauthors also concluded that the increase in adverse events from the shots surpassed the reduction in risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. So, in short, the shots confer more harm than good.
This is the single greatest crime against humanity. Let the indictments and lawsuits begin. Break out the ambulance chasers, prepare the jail cells! Gates, Fauci, Big Pharma, Government Officials, lawyer up! – The Liberator
The Carter Center will deploy “nonpartisan election observers” in Fulton County, Georgia for the upcoming midterms
The group is also combatting election “misinformation” in states including Arizona, insisting there is “no evidence of fraud”
It has a long track record of working with Chinese Communist Party-funded influence groups
The Carter Center is partnered with the Chinese Communist Party on election oversight in China
Other prominent partners of the Carter Center include Pfizer Inc., The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and George Soros’s Open Society Foundation
THE CARTER CENTER, which is partnered with several Chinese Communist Party-funded foreign influence groups, is dispatching “nonpartisan” election observers and sponsoring initiatives to combat election “misinformation” for the Nov. 8 midterms, War Room can reveal.
The center, founded by its namesake, former president Jimmy Carter, has also signed agreements with the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Ministry of Civil Affairs to cooperate on administering elections in China and has invited CCP officials overseas to observe elections in the U.S.
The Carter Center’s ample ties to Beijing have been repeatedly flagged by U.S. lawmakers, as it has worked with several groups operating under China’s “United Front.”
A multi-billion-dollar political warfare operation, the United Front has been described by former CCP Chairman Mao Zedong as a “magic weapon” to ensure communism’s victory over democracy. American officials have also identified the effort as working to “co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition” and “influence foreign governments to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing.”
ELECTION WARFARE
While maintaining these compromising ties, one of the primary operations of the Carter Center has been conducting “election observation” missions for over 100 elections across 39 countries.
Since 2020, it has pledged to carry out similar operations in the U.S.
“The Carter Center has been working to support elections at home by providing objective information about the election process and advancing good practices in transparency,” outlines the center before noting “our efforts have expanded in 2022 and will continue to grow in the run-up to 2024.”
Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Florida, and North Carolina are the primary states of interest for the Carter Center.
For example, the Carter Center was recently selected by Georgia’s Fulton County Board of Elections and the Performance Review Board to send “nonpartisan election observers” to oversee the upcoming Nov. 8 midterms. Fulton County, which includes the city of Atlanta, was reportedly a hotbed of voter fraud during the 2020 election.
The Carter Center will be responsible for “absentee ballot issuance and processing; early voting and election day polling places; election day operations in the elections office; and post-election procedures” in the controversial county, according to a press release.
The Carter Center’s unearthed efforts to influence the upcoming midterm elections follow the group playing a leading role in monitoring the audit of Georgia’s election results in 2020.
In 2020, the center worked on an election security task force for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office as the sole “nonpartisan” observer for the audit.
The Carter Center is also conducting operations in Arizona, recently launching the Arizona Democracy Resilience Network to suppress discussion of voter fraud among candidates and combat election “misinformation.” Among the group’s demands are that candidates “cooperate with elections officials” and “avoid spreading falsehoods.”
“When you have candidates talking about fraud when there’s really been no evidence of fraud and fraud before an election is even held, it presents the kind of atmosphere out there that can lead to things down the road that you just don’t want to see happen,” explained Arizona Democracy Resilience Network co-director Don Henninger.
The Arizona Democracy Resilience Network has identified Maricopa and Pima counties as its primary targets, both of which were believed to have been plagued with extensive voter fraud during the 2020 election.
In an effort to boost confidence in the security of Arizona’s elections, which will be administered by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs, the Carter Center’s group is sponsoring statewide events such as “Follow the Ballot: Be Confident Your Vote Is Counted” to undercut claims of voter fraud.
In addition to its Arizona and Georgia operations, the Carter Center is also behind the North Carolina Network for Fair, Safe, and Secure Elections, which is sponsoring a state-wide “Trusted Elections” tour.
The group is also set to launch a similar campaign in Florida and has pledged to deploy “non-partisan election observers” in Michigan.
CCP SELLOUTS
The Carter Center’s newfound interest in influencing American elections, however, follows decades of collaboration with the CCP and its foreign influence operations conducted through “United Front” groups.
Since 2012, the Carter Center has worked alongside the China United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), which was founded by the Vice-Chairman of the United Front’s oversight department. CUSEF has previously sponsored trips to China for American journalists and former congressmen in exchange for “favorable coverage,” as revealed by Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings.
The Carter Center, which has accepted funds from CUSEF, has sponsored a host of dialogues and events with the controversial group, providing a platform to argue fo increasing ties between America and the CCP.
The center also retains links to the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, which has been dubbed the “public face” of the United Front and flagged by the U.S. State Department for its campaigns to “directly and malignly influence” American officials.
Other United Front groups that the Carter Center has collaborated with include the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament, the Center for China and Globalization, and the U.S.-China Heartland Association, which explicitly targets American farmers and farmland.
The Carter Center has also hosted events alongside the China Research Center (CRC), which is financially supported by Confucius Institutes. Confucius Institutes have been described by Chinese government officials as “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up” and are notoriously rife with intellectual property theft and espionage.
FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE?
The Carter Center’s ties to the CCP run deeper, as it signed a memorandum of understanding with the regime’s Ministry of Civil Affairs in 1998 to collaborate on various election matters in China at the village and township level.
The Carter Center, which was the first foreign organization allowed to observe elections above the village level in China, has published extensive reports on the CCP’s elections, routinely failing to offer any harsh criticism of the regime’s electoral manipulation and intimidation.
“In those villages which we saw and heard about, the basic norms of a democratic election have been conveyed and are being implemented,” explained one report.
Under the memorandum, the Carter Center worked with the CCP’s Ministry of Civil Affairs “to set up a computer network system for election data gathering; to standardize electoral procedures; to design and organize training sessions of election officials; and to promote exchanges between China and the United States on election observations and researches on election-related topics,” according to a synopsis of the agreement.
“All Carter Center programming is done in consultation with Chinese government agencies and designed to deepen reform measures on the government agenda,” it adds.
The memorandum also led to the Carter Center hosting delegations of CCP officials visiting the U.S. to observe elections in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2006.
Déjà Vu Blue?
Beyond its Chinese Communist Party ties, the group’s expansion into American elections has been met with considerable pushback due to its apparent left-wing political bias. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, attacked President Donald Trump ahead of the 2020 election, insisting four more years of his presidency would be a “disaster.”
Other partners of the Carter Center include Pfizer Inc., George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the World Health Organization.
The news also follows controversy over hundreds of millions of dollars flowing from left-wing donors, most notably Mark Zuckerberg, into activist groups exploiting vote-by-mail.
