Liberals Are Nuts

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• 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

It’s a good thing we can afford it, thanks to our strong US economy. Bahahahahaha!!

This is a world comprised of billions of sheep led by a small pack of incompetent wolves.

– The Liberator

Natalie Winters, WarRoom.org

• 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.

What could go wrong? – The Liberator

Ethan Letmekan, Breitbart

Kshama Sawant, a socialist Seattle councilwoman who has led efforts to defund the police, is asking for police to protect her home after feces was thrown at it.

Conservative radio host Jason Rantz reported that Sawant demanded the Seattle Police Department (SPD) place officers outside her residence from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. for protection until the suspect was arrested, according to multiple sources who told Rantz on the condition of anonymity.

The alleged demands were made in response to Sawant claiming that bags of human feces had been thrown at her house six times, with the most recent incident occurring on October 13. After one such incident on October 8, the councilwoman alleges an officer told her husband, “What do you expect us to do?”

After her house was targeted with feces in the October 13 incident, Sawant says she received an email calling her “the queen of s**t,” further reading, “you can sit on your throne of human excrement,” Fox 13 reported.

Sawant has since accused the SPD of “failing to investigate” the incidents, saying they did not open an investigation into the October 8 incident and did not investigate the October 13 one.

She then wrote a letter to city officials, saying:

There is obviously a glaring inconsistency between this approach and the way in which former Mayor Durkan, after a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest was held a short distance from her mansion, was provided with a 24-hour stakeout for a full year.

As a socialist City Councilmember who has participated in Black Lives Matter protests, I am being told that my case of six threatening incidents involving human excrement doesn’t merit even a serious investigation, let alone protection.

Sawant then blamed “right-wing” media for portraying the feces-throwing at her home as “justified” because she has criticized the police in the past.

“That is certainly a dangerous direction, especially if it is embraced by police and de facto supported by SPD leadership and the city’s Democratic Party establishment,” the councilwoman wrote.

The Seattle Police Department released a blotter on Thursday asking for the public’s help in finding the suspect who vandalized Sawant’s home but did not mention her name. Police say Witnesses described the suspect as an Asian man who is approximately 5’4″ in height.

Sawant, who is not a Democrat but a member of the Socialist Alternative, was an instigator of lawlessness in Seattle in 2020 before later voting to defund the city’s police budget.

In the early days of the June 2020 Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) protests — which took over a police precinct and saw two black teens die in the occupation protest — Sawant led a group of Black Lives Matter protesters into City Hall to demand the removal of then-Mayor Jenny Durkan.

Sawant then bragged on social media about her efforts to defund the Seattle Police Department, including the salaries of officers working in the department in August 2020, Breitbart News reported.

The Indian-born-and-raised councilwoman faced a recall election in her district in December 2021 but narrowly won by just over 300 votes.

“Protection for me but not for thee,” eh, bitch? You’re mentally ill, which makes you perfect for Seattle. – The Liberator

The Dems have NO answers for any of the above, so we the people will give them OUR answer on Nov. 8th. – The Liberator

Harmeet K. Dhillon

Dhillon Law Group, Inc.

The seal of the U.S. Department of Justice reads, “Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur”—“Who prosecutes for Lady Justice.” Depictions of Lady Justice are as familiar as they are instructive: she stands blindfolded while holding the scales of justice, representing her unyielding devotion to equal justice under the law. Contrary to this ideal, the DOJ today appears to be increasingly motivated by partisanship. Compounding the problem, it has access to the powers of the modern surveillance state. As someone passionate about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I believe there is no higher priority than addressing this danger. 

The tragic events of 9/11 marked a turning point in our nation’s recent civil rights history. First the terrorists attacked us—and then, in the name of national security, we began to attack ourselves. It has become almost cliché to say that we live in a surveillance state, but we do. Ever since Congress, on a fully bipartisan basis, enacted the Patriot Act six weeks after the attacks on 9/11, the ever-present eye of the government has been searching for new and creative ways to spy on American citizens. The government has the technology to monitor all of our electronic devices, listen to our phone calls, and read our emails and text messages—all under the auspices of national security. 

This special law designed for an emergency has become a permanent addition to the government’s investigatory toolbox. The unfortunate reality is that the bulk of the actions taken by law enforcement under the Patriot Act have almost nothing to do with combating terrorism. Once-rare applications for surveillance warrants to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have multiplied many times in relative peacetime. Most of the spying conducted under the Patriot Act is for run-of-the-mill crimes that we’ve long expected law enforcement to address without special surveillance authority.

Now, it is bad enough to have a politically-neutral surveillance state controlled by the national security crowd and their DOJ cousins. But take that panopticon and put it in the hands of an executive branch willing to weaponize its reams of information against its perceived political enemies, and we’ve got a frightening problem on our hands.

Laws such as the Patriot Act were designed to fight the unique problem of terrorism. But they quickly morphed into a mechanism by which the government keeps constant tabs on law-abiding Americans and threatens to disrupt their lives if they dare act contrary to those in power. And it’s within this world of omnipotent oversight and control that the U.S. Department of Justice now operates. They have all the tools of the surveillance state at their disposal, and the only thing standing in their way is an independent judiciary willing to enforce our constitutional rights. But we all saw how easy it is to spy on Americans—with virtually no judicial oversight—from the disgraceful episodes of broad surveillance applications, on flimsy and sometimes falsified pretexts, against citizens such as Carter Page.

*** 

Let me discuss three recent examples that illustrate the threats we face from a politicized DOJ: the DOJ raid on Project Veritas journalists, the DOJ raid on Mar-a-Lago, and the DOJ’s efforts to undermine election integrity and chill free speech. 

Project Veritas Raid

In July 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo forbidding federal prosecutors from seizing journalists’ records. He did this with much fanfare, hauteur, and virtue signaling. But even as Mr. Garland was decrying the seizure of journalists’ records as a “wrong” his department would “not let . . . happen,” the DOJ was in the midst of a year-long campaign of spying on Project Veritas—a campaign that involved no fewer than 19 clandestine subpoenas, orders, and warrants obtained from nine magistrate judges. The secrecy of this spying campaign was maintained through the use of wide-ranging gag orders, including at least two that were obtained without notice to the judge overseeing the Project Veritas case. Through this spying campaign, we now know that the DOJ obtained approximately 200,000 Project Veritas emails from Microsoft and countless text messages (and heaven knows what else) from Apple, Google, Uber, and other still unknown companies.   

Only six months after Mr. Garland’s memo was issued, the DOJ raided the homes of three Project Veritas journalists, seizing 47 electronic devices. And how did the world learn about this? Conveniently, someone leaked information about the raids to The New York Times—which Project Veritas happens to be suing. Indeed, The New York Times called Project Veritas for comment as the raids were still in progress.

What was the pretext for the raids? In the fall of 2020, confidential sources had approached Project Veritas journalists with a diary and other materials supposedly belonging to Ashley Biden, the President’s daughter. The sources said that the materials had been in their possession prior to contacting Project Veritas. The Project Veritas journalists proceeded to investigate whether the materials were authentic and whether the allegations they contained against Joe Biden were true. Ultimately, Project Veritas decided it could not sufficiently verify the allegations and that it would not publish the diary’s contents. It then turned the items over to local law enforcement in Florida.

The DOJ claims that Ashley Biden’s belongings were stolen. Project Veritas was told they weren’t, but even this is legally irrelevant. In the 2001 case Bartnicki v. Vopper, the U.S. Supreme Court held unequivocally that as long as journalists did not commit an alleged theft themselves, they were entitled to receive, investigate, and publish (or not publish) supposedly stolen materials. In the more recent case DNC v. Russian Federation, a federal court made it clear that the reporter could even ask for the stolen materials. This is not a crime—it’s called journalism.  

Compare the DOJ’s treatment of Project Veritas to the DOJ’s inaction earlier this year when a Politico reporter was given a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. The Politico reporter behaved precisely with this purloined document as the Project Veritas reporters had behaved with the diary, except that the Politico reporter did decide to publish the draft opinion. The different reactions on the part of the DOJ seemed to hinge entirely on whose ox was being gored.

But to repeat, the Garland Justice Department was rifling through the emails and phone messages of Project Veritas journalists before Project Veritas even knew of Ashley Biden’s diary. These documents contain donor information, source communications—including communications from whistleblowers within the federal government—and attorney-client communications. In its actions, the DOJ was not only ignoring court decisions and its own policies, it was violating the Privacy Protection Act, the common law Reporter’s Privilege, and the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.

The Project Veritas matter is ongoing. Thanks to the DOJ’s leaks to The New York Times, which themselves violate federal law, Judge Analisa Torres overruled the DOJ’s objections and ordered the appointment of a special master to review the seized materials for various privileges. It’s a hollow victory, because Project Veritas has to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, so to speak, of being able to protect its own privileged documents.

Mar-a-Lago Raid

Although I have represented and continue to represent President Trump in several matters, I do not represent him on the matter of the DOJ’s raid on his Florida home, Mar-a-Lago. But that raid is significant and worth some attention.

Consider first the raid’s timing. President Biden’s approval ratings have been abysmal, and it is a mid-term election year. Bloomberg reports that the DOJ will likely delay “charging” Trump with anything arising from the raid on his home until after the mid-terms. The effect of this is to create a cloud of perceived guilt running up to November 8, and use that as a political tool to smear pro-Trump voters and candidates. The DOJ hides behind its longstanding policy of not taking politically portentous actions close to an election—but how could the raid itself be construed as anything but such a portentous action? 

President Trump and his lawyers were engaged in a cooperative dialogue with both the DOJ and National Archives representatives on the issue of storing and archiving confidential documents. He went as far as to invite the DOJ to survey the documents he had on his property, and the DOJ seemed to have expressed little urgency in pursuing the matter.

This latest episode of G-men gone wild is not all that different from the FBI strategy before and after Trump’s election in 2016, when the FBI was weaponized to investigate claims of Russian collusion that ultimately proved to have been made up by Democrat operatives. But more importantly, the raid raises serious constitutional objections.

The Fourth Amendment provides that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The American Founders were intensely concerned about government intrusion. Breaking into the homes of political opponents and depriving them of their possessions was common practice under the rule of the British king in colonial America. The use of general warrants and writs of assistance by the Crown was the ultimate interference with the colonists’ right to political and personal autonomy. Such invasions were so pervasive, and so universally despised, that the Founders saw fit to ensure that the Constitution expressly forbids such practices.

For over 180 years after the Founding, the Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment’s protections largely to places and things. Unsurprisingly, this meant that dwellings were given a heightened sense of protection against government intrusion. The Supreme Court has reiterated, in the 1980 case Payton v. New York, that “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”

In addition to where and what receives Fourth Amendment protection is the question of how the government can conduct searches and seizures without offending the Constitution. Searches are only permitted if they are “reasonable,” and a search is generally considered “reasonable” only when the government first obtains a properly issued warrant. “Properly issued” means the warrant must describe with specificity the places to be searched and the things to be seized, must be supported by probable cause, and must be issued by a “neutral and detached magistrate.” Taken together, this is colloquially known as the “warrant requirement”—and it is central to any honest analysis of the Mar-a-Lago raid. 

At its core, the problem with the FBI’s search of President Trump’s home is its inconsistency with the letter and the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. The shroud of secrecy surrounding the probable-cause affidavit used by the FBI to obtain the warrant prevents the public from judging whether the government had a valid reason for this unprecedented search. Even more, the list of places to be searched and things to be seized contained in the warrant application comprised a blanket sweep of the former president’s entire private residence and offices, targeting “any evidence” supporting a potential violation of a handful of federal statutes that are the usual suspects when it comes to politicized prosecutions. 

While this alone doesn’t make the warrant defective, the Justice Department’s “just trust us” approach to support the raid makes it nearly impossible to determine the legitimacy of the government’s unprecedented actions. This leaves us no choice but to speculate. And based on the information publicly available, the DOJ’s actions have all the trappings and appearances of a vindictive and politically-motivated fishing expedition.

As in the Project Veritas case, the judge in the Mar-a-Lago case has issued an order appointing a special master. In doing so, the judge pointedly observed that some of the resultant delay the government complains of is caused by the government’s cutting corners, suggesting implicitly that the government abused the warrant process. 

Election Integrity and Free Speech

As has been widely reported, the DOJ is currently issuing subpoenas to individuals who have dared to question the 2020 election results. This is occurring against the backdrop of President Biden’s vendetta against what he calls “ultra MAGA Republicans.” This is the type of behavior you’d expect in a third-world dictatorship.

Included in the DOJ’s crosshairs are those who participated in the political process as alternate electors; those in Congress who voted against certifying the election results; those who organized or peacefully attended a permitted rally on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, even if they had nothing to do with the activities at the Capitol on that day; and those who have raised funds from donors with a promise to investigate and challenge election fraud. 

All of these activities have long historical precedents in our country and are protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, it was Democrats who challenged the presidential election results in 2000, 2004, and 2016. Let’s review the evidence.

In 2000, 15 House Democrats objected to counting Florida’s electoral votes. Several members of Congress called the 2000 election “fraudulent,” and Texas Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson vowed that there would be “no peace” because of the allegedly stolen election. 

In 2004, Democrats in Congress forced a vote to recess the joint session of Congress counting electoral votes in order to debate perceived election irregularities in Ohio. Thirty-one House Democrats voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes and were applauded for doing so by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, among others. 

In 2016, several Democrats objected to the certification of Trump electors based on “overwhelming evidence of Russian interference” in the election. Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin objected to ten of Florida’s electors based on a Florida statute that prohibits state legislators from being electors. Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee proclaimed, “If in that voting, you have glaring matters that speak to the failure of the electoral system, then it should be challenged.”

No DOJ action was taken in any of these previous years. What has changed, if not the politicization of the Justice Department?

Elections are the engine of our republic. They ensure the peaceful transfer of power and are the primary method for the people to influence their government. And our Constitution’s elections clause—Article I, Section 4, Clause 1—gives states the primary duty of regulating the time, places, and manner of elections for federal office. The DOJ’s role is very limited in this regard. It has the power to administer the Voting Rights Act, a power that was once necessary to push back on Jim Crow laws. But the era of Jim Crow is long gone, and it shouldn’t be up to a politicized DOJ to dictate what election integrity looks like.

The 2020 election was rampant with reports of irregularities. Some of these reports were more accurate than others. But states were right to take appropriate steps to increase the security of their elections in the wake of such reports. And yet, from its first days, the Biden administration has been bent on waging an intimidation campaign against states attempting to bolster election integrity. 

Consider Georgia. The midnight ballot dump that pushed Biden ahead of Trump had all the appearances of manipulative ballot stuffing. That was followed by days of uncertainty about who won. Reports soon surfaced of massive ballot harvesting—illegal in Georgia—as well as deeply concerning evidence that Mark Zuckerberg-funded nonprofits had placed personnel in election operations in blue counties with the effect of decreasing signature-matching efforts. 

Given the backdrop in which the 2020 election took place—with new and expansive vote-by-mail procedures—it’s not surprising that alarms went off and that many citizens questioned the final vote tally. So rather than allow this scenario to repeat itself in future elections, Georgia’s legislature took action, enacting a package of election-reform legislation designed to bolster ballot security. 

President Biden denounced these reforms—which, as many commentators noted, made voting easier than in Biden’s home state of Delaware—as “Jim Crow 2.0.” The DOJ sued Georgia to block the new law and issued two new guidance documents intended to put states including Georgia on notice of potential violations of federal election laws. It has used similar tactics in Arizona and Texas.

***

It is not just political activists who are subject to DOJ intimidation. Attorney General Garland recently issued a guidance document prohibiting DOJ employees from speaking directly to members of Congress. This was plainly in response to at least 14 FBI whistleblowers reaching out to members of Congress—including Ohio Representative Jim Jordan and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley—about misconduct within the DOJ. Garland’s action was highly improper, but it pales in comparison to the intimidation of concerned parents at local school board meetings. 

On October 4, 2021, Garland issued a memorandum directing the FBI to address “threats” at local school board meetings. This was in response to a request from the National School Boards Association that the DOJ leverage the Patriot Act and other counterterrorism tools to investigate moms and dads who were voicing their displeasure with school policies at local school board meetings.

Despite Garland’s sworn testimony denying the use of counterterrorism tools to investigate concerned parents, whistleblower evidence tells a different story. 

On October 20, 2021, Carlton Peeples, the Deputy Assistant Director for the FBI’s Criminal Investigation Division, sent an email directing FBI personnel to use the tag “EDUOFFICIALS” for all school board-related investigations. Whistleblowers say that the FBI opened investigations into parents in every region of the country. These included an investigation of a “right-wing mom” based on her participation in a “Moms for Liberty” group and personal ownership of a gun. Another investigation was opened when a dad was deemed to “fit the profile of an insurrectionist” after complaining about school mask mandates.

It is time to wake up to the danger.

On November 11, 1762, King George’s men had a warrant when they stormed and raided the home of pamphleteer John Entick. They broke open locked doors, boxes, chests, and drawers and seized his private papers and books—all because the Crown suspected Entick of fomenting political opposition against the King. If the FBI’s raid on Project Veritas journalists’ homes or President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago teaches us anything, it’s that the political oppression of the eighteenth century remains a threat today. But today, in addition to brute force, our government has the power of the modern surveillance state.

As a graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, I would be remiss in speaking about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without quoting Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: “the most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” We must find a way to return our Department of Justice to that central principle of American constitutionalism, as it carries out its duties in the name of Lady Liberty. 

Read it and weep for America and for Liberty. – The Liberator

How do you know when a Lib is lying? When his lips are moving.

– The Liberator

Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics

Comment: There is Canada, the next door neighbor … who could have avoided a North American oil crisis … but it’s Pipeline was shut down by Biden to spite Trump …. but no mention of this anywhere. Biden preferred to go begging to the Arabs rather than deal with Canada – AHP

REPLY: Liz Truss just resigned for she finally understood that being the head of state does not mean you have real power. I know certainly that the Globalists behind the curtain reversed her policy and she has resigned simply because she finally realized that Britain is run by a dark sinister force that is connected to the WEF.

Joe Biden is no more President than Liz Truss was the Prime Minister of Britain. Not only do we not live in democracies, but we also do not even live in actual Republics. We live under an Oligarchy and make no mistake about it, they are calling the shots.

The “Build Back Better” slogan was launched at the World Economic Forum (WEF). NEVER in the history of human civilization have we EVER seen all the world leaders adopting that very same slogan. We are on the path to 2032. We need to start thinking about what new form of government we must create. Our current version will collapse by 2028.

They put me in prison to try to stop the forecasts. That didn’t work. When the Crash came in 2007, they were calling it Armstrong’s Revenge. That is when members of Congress were coming to me asking for help even when the corruption of NY thought they silenced me. They can kill me if they want. That will not stop the collapse of their agenda. They are doomed.

Armstrong has been predicting for several years that serious worldwide political and economic disruption will occur beginning in 2028, with plenty of chaos occurring next year (2023) and total collapse in 2032. It is not he who is making these predictions, but rather his computer program “Socrates” which has yet to be wrong. Ever. – The Liberator

“AOC HAS GOT TO GO!”

Armstrong Economics

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is no longer the progressive sweetheart in the public eye. AOC’s willingness to thrust America into war has caused her supporters to see her as a hypocrite and a coward. “I believed in you, and you became the very thing you sought to fight against,” one member in a Bronx AOC town hall event yelled. “You ARE the establishment!”

Her entire platform is crumbling. She came into the political sphere as an “outsider” who would fight against the establishment, but she is another swamp member. This is the same woman who pretended to cry at the southern border and demand that the encampments be taken down, only for her to ask the migrants to leave New York. Barely anyone showed up to her town hall meeting, but those who did had choice words for her.

AOC has voted to supply Ukraine with weapons and training. Her supporters were under the false impression that a progressive Socialist would be against a nuclear Armageddon. “You voted to mobilize and send money to Ukrainian Nazis! You are a coward! Where are you against the war mobilization?” one citizen shouted.

Hecklers began shouting, “AOC HAS GOT TO GO!” Her true colors are finally showing. She was never anti-establishment and never intended to be a voice for Main Street. This comes on the heels of Pelosi being booed at a major concert in New York and Jill Biden facing heckling at a Philadelphia Eagles game. All these incidents occurred in blue states. Things are not looking good for the Democrats this November.

Don’t be surprised, this is what desperate Leftists do. In short: Whatever it takes to win. Know that it is true and fight back as hard as you know how or be prepared to lose. – The Liberator