Author name: LifeZette

DSA Radical Crumbles When Asked Where Rapists Go After Prison Abolition [WATCH]
News

DSA Radical Crumbles When Asked Where Rapists Go After Prison Abolition [WATCH]

/

A Democratic Socialists of America official was confronted with one of the most obvious questions imaginable about abolishing prisons.

When asked what society would do with rapists after jails disappear, she offered talking points instead of an answer.

Frances Gill, a member of the DSA National Political Committee, appeared for an interview with NBC 4 Los Angeles anchor Conan Nolan

. The discussion covered policing, immigration, public safety, and the radical policy demands promoted by the socialist organization.

Nolan pressed Gill on what defunding the police would actually mean outside the comfortable world of activist slogans and academic theory.

That is where the conversation began exposing the enormous holes in the DSA vision for public safety.

Gill declared, “What we really want to see is a horizon where folks are not reliant on armed enforcement to meet our public safety needs,” presenting a vague aspiration instead of a functioning plan.

Nice language may impress a campus seminar, but it does not stop violent predators.

Nolan then noted that the DSA website calls for defunding police while also supporting the elimination of prisons and jails.

Gill confirmed that those sweeping goals accurately reflected the organization’s agenda, leaving the obvious question of what replaces those institutions.

The anchor made the issue personal and painfully clear by asking, “So if my daughter is assaulted and raped, is there any agency that would seek to find her assailant and bring him to justice?”

Gill initially claimed that someone would, but provided no identifiable agency or process.

Nolan immediately followed with the question that dismantled the entire sales pitch.

“What would it be if not police and where would he be if not a jail?” he asked, forcing the socialist activist to face the practical consequences of her own position.

Gill responded, “So I guess I really want to avoid getting caught into these hypotheticals and talk about the reality that we’re actually facing right now,” retreating to a familiar political escape hatch.

WATCH:

Apparently, violent crime becomes a mere hypothetical when it threatens a cherished leftist slogan.

The problem is that rape, murder, assault, and other serious crimes are not theoretical concerns dreamed up by conservative critics.

They happen every day, and innocent people depend on law enforcement officers, prosecutors, courts, jails, and prisons to identify dangerous offenders and remove them from society.

If an organization wants to abolish the institutions responsible for investigating criminals and holding them, it has an obligation to explain the replacement.

Refusing to answer does not make the question unfair; it reveals that the activists demanding revolutionary change have not considered the most basic consequences.

This is the flaw behind so many radical DSA proposals.

They sound bold when presented to friendly audiences, but they collapse the moment someone asks how they would work in an actual community filled with real families, real victims, and real criminals.

People who rape and murder cannot simply be redirected toward social services and trusted to behave.

A civilized society has a duty to protect law abiding citizens, and that includes locking dangerous offenders away when the evidence proves their guilt.

The interview produced another remarkable revelation when Gill disclosed that she carries more than $500,000 in student loan debt.

WATCH:

Someone buried beneath that staggering obligation still wants the public to trust socialist activists with sweeping decisions about economics, policing, and the structure of American society.

Half a million dollars in student debt raises its own set of questions about judgment, accountability, and who is expected to pay the bill.

The socialist answer usually ends with taxpayers being ordered to clean up somebody else’s financial decisions.

The exchange offered a sharp reminder that slogans are not policies and ideological wishes are not public safety plans.

When Nolan asked where a rapist would go without police or jail, the DSA representative had every opportunity to explain, yet the promised socialist future suddenly had no answer.

WATCH:

‘Disliking Islam Doesn’t Make You Islamophobic, It Makes You a Decent Person’: Josh Seiter [WATCH]
News

‘Disliking Islam Doesn’t Make You Islamophobic, It Makes You a Decent Person’: Josh Seiter [WATCH]

/

Commentator Josh Seiter criticized Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed during a recent discussion, arguing that voters should closely examine what he described as the candidate’s political and religious beliefs before casting their ballots.

Seiter framed his remarks as a broader criticism of the Democratic Party, contending that its messaging often relies on language that means the opposite of what he believes it conveys.

“Well, it’s very Orwellian, which the Democrats are expert at using this newspeak, where they always say a word means the opposite of what it actually does.”

He said that, in his view, voters should draw conclusions from the language used by Democratic candidates.

“So you can actually infer and deduce from this that he is the opposite of practical.”

Seiter continued by criticizing what he described as the ideological direction of the Democratic Party.

“And like most Democrats and leftists, he’s a lunatic.”

He then broadened his criticism to issues involving gender identity, saying:

“Look, these people think that men in dresses are women…”

Turning specifically to El-Sayed, Seiter expressed his opinion about Islam and argued that the candidate’s faith should be a consideration for voters.

“And obviously El Sayed subscribes to a religion that has a problem with democracy, equality, consent, the West, dogs, women, bacon, and art.”

Seiter argued that opposition to a Muslim candidate should not automatically be viewed as anti-Muslim prejudice.

“And so, disliking a Muslim candidate doesn’t make you Islamophobic. It makes you a decent human being.”

He said voters should evaluate both El-Sayed’s religious beliefs and his personal views before making a decision at the ballot box.

“And so I think people should know where El Sayid stands, both in his religion and his personal life.”

According to Seiter, he believes a candidate’s religious convictions can influence political decision-making.

“And it’s natural to infer that you know these are the things that instruct him, and it’s his moral compass.”

Seiter argued that voters should consider what they believe a candidate’s values would mean in public office.

“So if you want to elect someone that you know believes it that democracy, equality, consent, bacon, and dogs are noxious, and that women shouldn’t have equal rights. Then you should vote for the guy.”

He contrasted that position with what he believes should motivate those who disagree.

“If you don’t like those things, you should oppose him because he’s not practical.”

Seiter concluded his remarks with another criticism of El-Sayed and the political movement he believes the candidate represents.

“He’s a lunatic that is in a leftist Islamic cult.”

WATCH:

Throughout his comments, Seiter argued that voters should carefully examine the beliefs and values of candidates seeking public office.

His remarks reflected his personal opinions about the Democratic Party, Islam, and El-Sayed’s candidacy, while urging voters to weigh those considerations before the election.

WATCH:

Move Over Florida Man: Phoenix Man Robs the Shake Shack Where He Works… Finds Out… [WATCH]
News

Move Over Florida Man: Phoenix Man Robs the Shake Shack Where He Works… Finds Out… [WATCH]

/

Some criminal schemes are complicated enough to keep detectives guessing for months.

Then there is the Arizona Shake Shack employee accused of robbing his own workplace and casually returning two days later, apparently expecting the regular schedule to continue.

Authorities say Keondre Simmons, 33, decided his normal paycheck was not enough.

Prosecutors allege he entered the Shake Shack where he worked and attempted to “give himself a raise,” through a method that was neither legal nor especially clever.

The robbery reportedly unfolded Monday, August 3, at the Shake Shack near Scottsdale and Greenway Road.

Simmons allegedly entered through a rear door while carrying a semiautomatic handgun, giving him access to coworkers who presumably recognized him.

According to prosecutors, Simmons forced one coworker into a walk in cooler at gunpoint.

He then allegedly ordered the manager to open the restaurant safe and surrender approximately $2,800 in cash.

Authorities say Simmons locked the employees inside the cooler before leaving.

He is also accused of taking and destroying their cellphones, then destroying the restaurant landline in what appears to have been a truly inspired effort to make telephones themselves responsible for police work.

Smashing the phones might have delayed an emergency call, but it did not erase witnesses, workplace records, schedules, security evidence, or the awkward fact that the alleged robber worked there.

Details like those tend to complicate even the finest criminal “master plans.”

Perhaps Simmons should have spent some time watching “The First 48,” or “Forensic Files,” before allegedly launching his grand operation.

Even casual viewers understand that robbing the place where everyone knows your face creates certain investigative challenges.

The most remarkable decision, however, came after the alleged robbery.

Simmons reportedly returned to the same Shake Shack just two days later, as though stealing thousands of dollars at gunpoint was merely an inconvenient shift dispute.

Police arrested Simmons on Wednesday, August 5, in the restaurant parking lot.

Yes, the accused robber allegedly came back to the exact location where authorities say he had threatened two coworkers, locked them in a cooler, destroyed communications equipment, and fled with cash.

WATCH:

One can only imagine the confidence required to stroll back into that environment.

Either Simmons believed investigators had abandoned the case, or he assumed destroying several phones had somehow caused law enforcement to vanish from the face of Arizona.

Officials said Simmons was unhappy about being taken into custody, which is hardly surprising.

Criminal suspects rarely enjoy the consequences portion of the program, especially when those consequences arrive outside the same workplace they allegedly robbed.

Authorities also said Simmons confessed to the location of the handgun allegedly used during the robbery.

Police recovered the weapon, adding another significant piece of evidence to a case that apparently did not require Sherlock Holmes levels of deduction.

The allegations remain subject to the court process, but the reported sequence is astonishingly straightforward.

An employee allegedly robbed his own restaurant, terrorized coworkers who knew him, attempted to eliminate their communications, and then returned to work within roughly forty eight hours.

There is bold criminal behavior, and then there is walking directly back to the scene while investigators are still working the case.

The latter strategy tends to produce less freedom and more uncomfortable conversations with officers carrying handcuffs.

People should enjoy life, make responsible choices, and perhaps “Touch grass,” as the saying goes.

Just do not allegedly rob your own employer and return two days later expecting everyone to forget, because stupid games still produce stupid prizes.

Islamic Terrorist Organization Cheers Abdul El-Sayed Win [WATCH]
News

Islamic Terrorist Organization Cheers Abdul El-Sayed Win [WATCH]

/

Conservative commentator Jeffrey Mead is raising alarms after the Muslim Brotherhood’s official website publicly celebrated the victory of Abdullah Sayed in a Michigan Democratic primary.

In a recent statement, Mead pointed directly to the group’s online presence as evidence of deeper ideological alignment.

“So this right here is the Muslim Brotherhood’s website, and this is them celebrating Abdullah Sayed’s win in the Democratic primary,” Mead said.

He then detailed the organization’s core ideology, reading from materials that outline its foundational beliefs.

“Now, the Muslim Brotherhood’s-I’m going to read you a little bit about it. So, its central belief is that Islam is a complete system for governing every aspect of life-personal, social, economic, legal, and political-and that Muslim societies must return to rule by Islamic law, Sharia,” Mead explained.

He continued by citing the group’s classic motto: “The group’s classic motto is Allah is our objective, the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

Mead emphasized the Brotherhood’s patient, long-term strategy.

“And they pursue a lot of these things primarily through gradualism, building parallel social institutions, schools, clinics, charities, professional associations, and political participation when possible, while maintaining a longer goal for Islamic order.”

According to Mead, this methodical approach allows the organization to expand influence within democratic systems while never abandoning its ultimate objective of establishing Sharia governance.

The commentator did not stop at ideology. He highlighted the group’s documented track record of violence.

“But also, you should know the Muslim Brotherhood has a documented history of involvement in political violence, assassinations, bombings, and the creation or support of armed offshoots. For example, Hamas was founded as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Mead described Hamas in stark terms.

“And again, if you don’t know who Hamas is, they are a genocidal terrorist organization in Gaza. And on October 7 of 2023, they went into Israel and indiscriminately slaughtered civilians and took civilians hostage, and when I say indiscriminately slaughtered, I mean indiscriminately like targeted them and slaughtered them. It wasn’t like a collateral damage. It was like we’re here, we know you’re unarmed, and we want to kill you, and we’re going to kill you. This is part of our mission. They see terrorism as a legitimate way of doing things.”

Returning to the Michigan race, Mead connected the dots.

“But again, now back to the Muslim Brotherhood. Their long-term goal is for societies to be governed by Sharia, and again, when Abdul Al Sayed won the primary in Michigan, the Muslim Brotherhood was on their website celebrating this. If he wasn’t on their team or wouldn’t be furthering their cause, I doubt they would be celebrating him being the winner of that democratic primary. Something to think about.”

WATCH:

Mead’s comments arrive amid growing conservative concern over foreign ideological influence in American politics.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, has long been designated a terrorist organization by several U.S. allies, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

While the group maintains a public face of political participation and social services, critics argue its foundational texts and historical actions reveal a consistent commitment to replacing secular governance with Islamic law.

WATCH:

The celebration of Sayed’s primary win on the Brotherhood’s website has intensified scrutiny of candidates who receive such endorsements or attention.

WATCH:

Mead’s analysis suggests that public praise from an organization openly committed to Sharia and historically linked to groups like Hamas should not be dismissed as insignificant.

For many on the right, the episode serves as a reminder to examine not only candidates’ policy positions but also the external forces that celebrate their successes.

As Michigan voters prepare for the general election, Mead’s pointed remarks have fueled discussion among conservatives about the need for greater vigilance regarding ideological networks seeking to shape American political outcomes.

Radical Socialist El-Sayed Demands Medicare for All While Wife Rejects It at Her Own Practice [WATCH]
News

Radical Socialist El-Sayed Demands Medicare for All While Wife Rejects It at Her Own Practice [WATCH]

/

Abdul El Sayed has made Medicare for All a defining promise of his Michigan campaign, presenting government controlled health care as the answer for American patients.

Yet his own wife reportedly rejects that system within her psychiatry practice, creating a glaring contrast that voters are unlikely to miss.

El Sayed, who has also embraced the radical ‘Abolish ICE’ slogan, wants the public to trust Washington with sweeping power over medical care.

His family, however, appears far less eager to rely on the same arrangement when operating an actual practice.

That contradiction cuts directly into the credibility of his campaign message.

Politicians can offer grand promises from a podium, but their personal decisions often reveal what they really believe about the policies they want everyone else to accept.

Medicare for All is not a modest adjustment to existing health care programs.

It represents an enormous expansion of federal authority, with taxpayers financing a system in which government officials would wield greater influence over payments, coverage, doctors, and treatment options.

El Sayed is asking Michigan voters to believe that this expansion would improve access and fairness.

The reported policy at his wife’s psychiatry practice raises an obvious question: If government coverage is so reliable and desirable, why is it not good enough for the family business?

That is not a minor campaign detail or a distraction invented by political opponents.

It goes to the heart of whether El Sayed lives according to the principles he promotes when seeking votes, influence, and public power.

Psychiatry practices operate in a difficult corner of the health care system, where reimbursement, administrative burdens, and patient access all carry serious consequences.

Those realities are precisely why the practice’s reported rejection of Medicare matters in evaluating El Sayed’s sweeping promises.

Private medical professionals must balance patient needs with staffing expenses, regulatory demands, paperwork, and payment rates.

A politician can ignore those pressures while delivering a campaign speech, but a functioning practice does not have that luxury.

El Sayed’s pitch depends on convincing voters that government can efficiently manage health care for an entire nation.

The decision associated with his wife’s practice suggests that those closest to him may understand the practical shortcomings of government coverage better than his campaign rhetoric admits.

The episode also follows a familiar progressive pattern.

Left wing candidates demand expansive government programs for everyone else, while their own households, businesses, and professional circles frequently preserve private choices and avoid the consequences of those demands.

Voters have seen this routine before in education, public safety, energy policy, and health care.

The political class praises centralized control in public, then quietly searches for flexibility, quality, and independence when its own interests are involved.

El Sayed may argue that Medicare for All would differ from the current Medicare system.

Even so, his campaign must explain why voters should trust promises about a vastly larger federal program when the existing government structure is apparently unwelcome at his wife’s practice.

The distinction cannot be brushed aside with ideological slogans.

WATCH:

If current payment rules or administrative requirements make Medicare unattractive to providers, expanding federal control could spread those same problems across far more doctors, practices, hospitals, and patients.

Michigan voters deserve a direct explanation instead of another polished lecture about fairness.

El Sayed should address whether his wife’s practice accepts Medicare, why it does not if that is the policy, and how his national plan would avoid similar provider resistance.

The controversy is especially damaging because Medicare for All is not a secondary plank buried in campaign materials.

It is a core element of El Sayed’s political identity and a major part of the case he is making to Michigan voters.

Campaigns are supposed to test judgment, consistency, and honesty before a candidate receives power.

On this issue, El Sayed faces a simple credibility problem that no amount of progressive branding can erase.

If El Sayed wants Americans to surrender more control of their health care to Washington, he should first explain why the system he celebrates is reportedly rejected closer to home.

Until then, Medicare for All looks less like conviction and more like a prescription reserved for everybody else.

‘Wake Up, Buddy’: Iranian American Blasts Political Islam Marching in Texas Streets [WATCH]
News

‘Wake Up, Buddy’: Iranian American Blasts Political Islam Marching in Texas Streets [WATCH]

/

Iranian-American advocate Meeda warned that a recent demonstration in Houston, Texas, reflects what she believes is a broader ideological movement rather than a simple expression of political activism, drawing comparisons to events that preceded Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Speaking in a video message, Meeda said Americans should pay close attention to demonstrations she believes are presented as peaceful calls for justice but may carry a broader political message.

“Pay attention, please, because this is not the Middle East. This is Houston, Texas, 2026.”

She described seeing marchers carrying signs with messages supporting the oppressed and invoking Hussein.

“People marching, holding up these beautiful signs. Stand beside the oppressed. Hussein stood against injustice. So moving, right? So peaceful.”

According to Meeda, however, those images reminded her of events she experienced through Iran’s history.

“Except I’m Iranian, and I know exactly what I’m looking at.”

She argued that Americans should view such demonstrations with caution.

“In America, you need to wake up, buddy, because you are looking at a Trojan horse.”

Meeda then reflected on Iran before the Islamic Revolution, describing the country as one where women held professional positions and enjoyed greater freedoms.

“Let’s do a quick history lesson here. Before 1979, Iran was a powerhouse. We were free. Women were judges, doctors. We had music. We had life. Tehran was called the Paris of the Middle East.”

She said those conditions changed following the revolution.

“Then came the Islamic Revolution, and it did not start with guns. It started with marches just like this one, slogans about justice, and then, boom! Hijab became the law. Music was banned. Nine-year-old girls could be married off. The real oppression began, all in the name of the exact same religion on those sides.”

Meeda also discussed the history of Persia’s conquest in the seventh century, arguing that Islam spread through military conquest rather than peaceful conversion.

“But let’s go back even further. How do you think Iran became Muslim in the first place? Did they just politely hand out pamphlets? No, of course not.”

She continued, “In the seventh century, the Arab Islamic conquest invaded Persia. They destroyed 1000-year-old Zoroastrian civilization. They burned libraries. They forced conversions or made people pay a tax just to stay alive.”

According to Meeda, similar events occurred in Egypt.

“They did the same thing to Egypt. Egypt was Christian, for God’s sake. The Copts were conquered, subjugated, and erased.”

She argued that this history demonstrates what she believes is an ideological pattern.

“This is not a religion just peacefully hanging out. Historically, it is an ideology of conquest.”

Meeda also addressed the historical Battle of Karbala, saying she believes it is frequently portrayed in a misleading way.

“And these signs about Hussein and Karbala. Let’s talk about the actual Battle of Karbala in 680 A.D. It was not some noble fight for human rights. It was a political power struggle.”

She added, “Hussein and Yazid were fighting over the land, over the caliphate, over who got to rule the empire.”

She further challenged common narratives surrounding the event.

“And by the way, Karbala is not some barren desert where they were dying of thirst for no reason. It sits right between two rivers. The whole romanticized victim story, political propaganda designed to keep people mourning and compliant.”

Meeda said Iranians have attempted to warn Western countries about the ideology promoted by Iran’s current government.

“My people were not told the truth, but we tried to warn you.”

She referenced both the late Shah of Iran and Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

“The late Shah of Iran warned the West decades ago. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has been shouting this from the rooftops.”

According to Meeda, she believes the ideology promoted by the Islamic Republic extends beyond Iran.

“The Islamic Republic’s ideology does not stay in the Middle East; it exports itself.”

She pointed to Europe as an example of what she views as that expansion.

“Look at Europe; it is already a mess. Parallel legal system, neighborhoods where secular law doesn’t even apply anymore. The cultural and demographic shift is already happening there, and now it’s in Houston, in our backyard.”

Meeda concluded by saying she supports constitutional freedoms while arguing that ideologies seeking to replace those freedoms should not receive constitutional protection.

“I believe in the constitution. I believe in freedom of speech, but the constitution does not protect ideologies whose stated goal is to conquer and replace the constitution.”

She continued, “We banned communism for trying to overthrow the government. Why are we blind to political Islam doing the exact same thing?”

Closing her remarks, Meeda urged Americans to learn from Iran’s experience.

“They conquered Persia. They conquered Egypt. They took my beloved Iran in 1979, and now they are marching in America, holding signs about justice, while the regime they represent hangs people from cranes in Iran. We warned you, please do not let America be next.”

WATCH:

Florida Trolls Mamdani Hard with Massive Times Square Billboard [WATCH]
News

Florida Trolls Mamdani Hard with Massive Times Square Billboard [WATCH]

/

Florida is thanking New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for sending jobs, companies, wealth, and residents south.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce delivered that message in unmistakable fashion with a massive Times Square billboard declaring, “Thanks for the jobs!”

Located at Broadway and West 43rd Street, the digital advertisement names Mamdani Florida’s “Economic Developer of the Year.”

It is a sharp jab at progressive leadership and a public celebration of the economic migration enriching the Sunshine State.

The campaign reflects a broader national battle between free enterprise and growing government control.

Florida leaders argue that lower taxes, lighter regulation, and personal liberty encourage investment, while socialist experiments drive productive citizens toward the exits.

Florida Chamber of Commerce CEO Mark Wilson said the organization wants Americans to recognize what is happening in plain sight.

New York keeps squeezing businesses and taxpayers, while Florida welcomes them and enjoys the economic rewards.

Wilson described Mamdani’s agenda as dangerous for New York and harmful to the country.

His concern is that Democratic socialist policies attack the economic freedoms that allowed generations of Americans to build businesses, create jobs, and pursue prosperity.

The Chamber says Florida gains approximately $2.4 million in net taxable income every hour, based on Internal Revenue Service migration data.

New York, by comparison, loses about $1.1 million in taxable income during that same period.

Population figures tell a similar story, according to the organization.

Florida gains a net 551 residents each day, while New York loses approximately 115, giving the Sunshine State a steady stream of workers, consumers, entrepreneurs, and tax revenue.

“What do people like Mayor Mamdani do? They want to then increase taxes on the people who are left, which just further accelerates people leaving places like New York,” Wilson explained.

WATCH:

That cycle is hardly complicated, despite the left’s best efforts to dress it up in academic jargon.

Higher taxes push people away, the tax base shrinks, government demands more money, and the remaining residents receive another bill for progressive mismanagement.

Florida has taken the opposite approach, reducing taxes more than 50 times during the past 15 years while collecting record revenue.

Economic growth has expanded the state’s tax base without relying on the familiar blue state ritual of punishing success.

The Chamber also highlighted the enormous difference in government spending between the two states.

New York’s state budget is more than twice the size of Florida’s, while New York City’s municipal budget alone exceeds Florida’s entire state budget by more than $8 billion.

Those numbers raise an obvious question about what New Yorkers are receiving for all that spending.

Florida is building a $1.8 trillion economy while attracting wealth and residents, yet New York continues demanding more from a population already looking for escape routes.

City Hall rejected the Chamber’s argument and claimed New York City’s economy under Mamdani remains historically strong.

The administration also said it intends to continue growing the economy while ensuring that workers benefit, the usual promise accompanying another progressive expansion of government.

Wilson insisted the billboard is not about cheering for New York’s decline.

He said Florida wants other states to succeed, but that success requires rejecting socialism and returning to the principles of freedom, competition, and private enterprise.

The Chamber views the states as competitors in a national contest of ideas.

Florida’s results offer a powerful scorecard, while New York provides a warning about what happens when politicians treat businesses and affluent residents like permanent sources of government cash.

Wilson said the campaign could eventually expand beyond Manhattan, with Chicago, California, and Minneapolis among the possible future targets.

Each has become associated with progressive governance, rising burdens, and policies that give residents and employers fresh reasons to consider Florida.

The campaign arrives as the United States celebrates 250 years of independence and debates which economic direction it will follow.

Florida’s message is refreshingly direct: freedom and enterprise create opportunity, while socialism creates moving trucks headed south.

They Knew: CDC, Fauci, and the Great Cover-Up as 82% Miscarriage Rate Buried in ‘Safe and Effective’ Study [WATCH]
News

They Knew: CDC, Fauci, and the Great Cover-Up as 82% Miscarriage Rate Buried in ‘Safe and Effective’ Study [WATCH]

/

Newly released text messages show leading Biden administration health officials privately discussing whether COVID 19 vaccination early in pregnancy could raise the risk of miscarriage.

The concerns surfaced during the first week of the Biden presidency, even as officials publicly worked to reassure Americans about vaccine safety.

The messages came from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s government-issued cellphone and were released by Republican Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

WATCH:

They involved Fauci, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and then Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky.

Murthy asked Fauci and Walensky whether there was “any data or theoretical reason why vaccinating early vs late in pregnancy would be preferred.”

The question went directly to a major uncertainty surrounding pregnant women, a group that had not been meaningfully represented in the original vaccine trials.

Murthy said he had been telling pregnant women there was no “evidence of concerning adverse outcomes in the trials.”

At the same time, he acknowledged that the number of pregnant participants was “likely […] limited,” while Fauci reminded him that “pregnant women were not allowed” in those trials.

Fauci initially described as a “misperception” the concern among some people, including “female health care professionals,” that vaccination “very early in pregnancy” might be harmful.

Within two hours, however, his private assessment became considerably less dismissive.

Fauci told the group he had “asked around a bit more.”

WATCH:

He said he was warned that the “significant cytokines storm and fever” commonly associated with the second dose “theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.”

WATCH:

Walensky and Murthy each called the concern a “good point.”

Walensky also said she had heard worries about “mRNA causing mutations in the developing fetus as well,” showing that the questions circulating privately went beyond the narrow issue officials were discussing publicly.

The following day, Murthy reacted with alarm after the World Health Organization recommended that pregnant women avoid the Moderna vaccine “unless they are at risk of high exposure.”

He warned that the recommendation was “potentially quite damaging to public confidence among pregnant women,” and Walensky agreed.

WATCH:

Fauci sought to calm the group by pointing to vaccinations administered after emergency authorization.

“No issues have arisen,” he wrote, after saying that “more than 10,000” pregnant women had already received a vaccine.

WATCH:

The messages add fuel to criticism that federal health leaders entertained concerns behind closed doors while people raising similar questions publicly were smeared as dangerous cranks.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said those skeptics were branded anti vaccine and accused of lying or trying to cause COVID deaths.

Murrill told Just the News, No Noise that people “on the ground” could see “rampant and pervasive” problems.

She said her own son spent a week in an intensive care unit with myocarditis after receiving a COVID vaccine.

According to Murrill, “Parents were being told ‘vaccinate your kids’” as young as five. She said officials claimed “that there’s no side effects [..] that myocarditis is not severe and that they bounce back within a few days,” an assertion she called “just frankly not true.”

Murrill argued that pediatric heart specialists understood the seriousness of such cases but feared consequences for speaking candidly.

“I think pediatric cardiologists know this,” she said, while alleging that medical professionals faced threats involving their licenses if they warned parents.

The Louisiana attorney general also pointed to Fauci’s repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment during recent congressional testimony.

She suspects he did so because “he knows he has exposure in the states,” including Louisiana.

Murrill has pursued a criminal case connected to Fauci’s contemporaneous notes, which she says may conflict with his deposition testimony in Louisiana litigation over federal pressure on social media companies.

That lawsuit challenged government efforts to suppress disfavored claims involving COVID treatments and other pandemic disputes.

“We’re looking at, I’m looking at what Fauci did in the context of our litigation to see whether he lied and whether there are potentially perjury charges that could arise from that,” Murrill said.

Her review places the former federal health official’s sworn statements under renewed scrutiny.

The larger issue is public trust after years of officials presenting certainty to Americans while privately discussing unresolved risks and potentially damaging information.

The public reassurance machine apparently had room for private doubts, just not for ordinary citizens voicing them.

“I think the public needs to hear the truth,” Murrill said.

She added that “we need people to be able to question the science without threat of retaliation from the government,” a basic principle that pandemic era authorities too often treated as an inconvenience.

WATCH:

Conspiracy Theory No More: Intel Files Reveal 5 Foreign Regimes Can Flip Voting Machine Votes [WATCH]
News

Conspiracy Theory No More: Intel Files Reveal 5 Foreign Regimes Can Flip Voting Machine Votes [WATCH]

/

Investigative journalist John Solomon said newly discussed intelligence findings show the U.S. intelligence community identified vulnerabilities in American voting machines before the 2020 election but failed to ensure those weaknesses were addressed, despite concluding that multiple foreign adversaries had the capability to exploit them.

Speaking with Benny Johnson, Solomon said the intelligence assessments dated back to January 2020, when officials were already examining election-related security concerns.

Johnson introduced the topic by asking about the security of electronic voting systems.

“And then, so let’s shatter the the next myth of the 2020 election, which is that the electronic voting machines were secure. You just said in your last answer that Venezuela can just straight up switch out electronically the votes. Please.”

Solomon responded by describing what he said were classified intelligence assessments produced at the beginning of 2020.

“So, beginning in January of 2020, the same time they warned about the vulnerabilities of the voter registration data, the intelligence community unanimously, albeit secretly, assessed that American voting machines could be compromised by five foreign powers.”

According to Solomon, intelligence officials concluded that five countries possessed the capability to exploit known vulnerabilities in voting systems.

“There were five foreign powers who could take the known vulnerabilities of the machines and potentially flip votes: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.”

He said intelligence officials understood where the weaknesses existed but that no action was taken to eliminate them during either the final year of President Donald Trump’s first administration or during President Joe Biden’s administration.

“They knew what the vulnerabilities were at that point. Nobody acted to in the Trump presidency at the end of Trump One, or at any time in the Biden presidency to close those vulnerabilities down.”

Solomon said later intelligence reporting intensified those concerns.

According to Solomon, the CIA observed an exercise in September 2020 involving a voting machine that operated similarly to those used in the United States.

“And that becomes even more alarming when you realize nine months after the first warning in January 2020, in September 2020, the CIA detected Venezuela taking a voter machine that worked a lot like American machines.”

He said the equipment involved in the exercise was not an American voting machine but shared many of the same operating protocols.

“It wasn’t an American machine, but it had a lot of the protocols that we use here, so it was relevant to the United States.”

Solomon said intelligence officials determined that, during a controlled test, participants successfully manipulated vote totals.

“And they were able, in a controlled environment, to swap out votes. Now, it wasn’t in a real election; it was a test. It was in a test environment, but they were able to get through the encryption, take out the votes that were filed, put in fake ballots and fake numbers, and then send them up to the central repository as part of a test.”

He described that development as a significant warning inside the intelligence community.

“That was a red alarm inside the intelligence community.”

According to Solomon, however, the information remained classified and did not result in broader action.

“But you know what? Other than reporting it internally secretly, nothing changed.”

He argued that the vulnerabilities remained in place through multiple election cycles.

“And so we went through the 2020 election, the 2022 election and the 2024 election, with those same vulnerabilities sitting there.”

Solomon criticized what he described as a failure to notify state officials, Congress and the president about the identified risks.

“We basically stuck a glass chin out and told a foreign power, ‘Come on and punch us, because we haven’t told the states, we haven’t told the president, we haven’t told the Congress.'”

At the same time, Solomon said he has not found evidence showing that any foreign government actually exploited those vulnerabilities to alter election results.

“Now, to date, I’ve not seen anything, Benny, that said that a foreign power exploited in flip votes. I haven’t found a document that says any votes have flipped in any election.”

Even so, he argued that failing to correct known weaknesses represented a serious lapse by intelligence officials.

“But it is gross negligence for our intelligence community to have left that glass chin unfixed for six months. Just because Avar Power didn’t do it didn’t mean it was the right thing to do.”

Solomon said the intelligence community’s responsibility extends beyond identifying threats to ensuring the country is better protected against them.

“We should have hardened our defenses. That’s why we have an intelligence community.”

He concluded by arguing that the vulnerabilities remained unresolved for years.

“They left us with a glass chin for six years, and that is no longer in doubt. That is no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s another one that came true.”

WATCH:

Dems Boycott Hearing on the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Organization [WATCH]
News

Dems Boycott Hearing on the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Organization [WATCH]

/

Sen. Ted Cruz criticized Democratic members of a Senate subcommittee for not attending a hearing focused on the Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that their absence reflected a broader unwillingness to confront what he described as the organization’s influence and activities.

Speaking at the opening of the hearing, Cruz drew attention to the empty seats on the Democratic side of the dais and questioned why no members of the minority party chose to participate.

“You may notice that there are empty chairs on the Democrat side of the dais,” Cruz said.

“The American people should ask themselves why not a single member of the minority decided that a hearing on terrorism was worth their time.”

Cruz said he viewed the absence as a failure to address issues involving terrorism and national security.

“It is an embarrassment and a disservice to the 1000s of American victims of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He argued that history demonstrates the dangers of underestimating extremist organizations and warned against dismissing threats because they appear unlikely or distant.

“History has taught Americans the danger of dismissing determined jihadist movements because their ambitions seem too extreme to be real.”

According to Cruz, the hearing was organized to examine two primary topics related to the Muslim Brotherhood’s presence and influence.

“The present members of this subcommittee will look at two questions: first, how the Muslim Brotherhood built its network in America, and second, what that network looks like today.”

During his remarks, Cruz described the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization that has influenced or given rise to multiple terrorist groups.

“The Muslim Brotherhood spawned Hamas, influenced the ideology of Al Qaeda, and gave rise to multiple terrorist organizations.”

He also noted that several governments have designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

“Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and now the United States have all designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.”

Cruz then turned to Michigan’s Democratic Senate race, referencing Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed while discussing what he characterized as connections between political campaigns and organizations examined during the hearing.

“Abdul Al-Saad, the son-in-law of a leading member of several brotherhood groups, won Michigan’s Democrat primary for U.S. Senate.”

He argued that the timing of the hearing and the Democratic primary may explain why no Democratic senators attended the proceedings.

“Perfect timing for this hearing, probably explains why no Democrats are here and none intend to attend, because their campaign is now openly embracing terrorist organizations waging war on America.”

Cruz further contended that organizations discussed during the hearing have spent decades building influence in the United States and that political leaders have failed to recognize that effort.

“Behind El Sayed’s political rise sits a much older and more entrenched institutional network.”

He continued, “Two major parties refuses even to see is exactly the outcome these organizations that we’re discussing have spent 40 years working to produce.”

Throughout his remarks, Cruz argued that congressional oversight of organizations accused of supporting terrorism should continue regardless of political considerations.

He said his focus remains on investigating individuals and entities that provide material support or financing to terrorist organizations operating within the United States.

“My promise to the American people is to hold accountable those who finance and support terrorism on American soil.”

Cruz concluded by saying that organizations should not be shielded from scrutiny because of their legal status or organizational structure.

“No matter how many tax exemptions, charitable registrations, or civil rights letterheads, they hide behind.”

WATCH:


Scroll to Top