Mother Dies During Childbirth From Treatable Condition That Went Undiagnosed Due to COVID-19 Restrictions

A New York woman died during childbirth last month, and her husband said she tried to get treatment for the condition that killed her, but couldn’t because of coronavirus restrictions in hospitals, according to People magazine.

Amber Rose Isaac, 26, died on April 21 when her heart stopped shortly after giving birth to her son, Elias. The child’s father, Bruce McIntyre, called the death “100% preventable” if she had been able to get an in-person appointment in the months leading up to her death.

Isaac began noticing her platelet levels decreasing beginning in February, McIntyre said, but she couldn’t get an in-person appointment despite being seven months pregnant. Her regular check-ups were handled virtually, with her filling out a questionnaire and checking her blood pressure. . .

She was finally admitted to Montefiore Hospital in The Bronx in mid-April after her condition got worse. That same day, April 17, Isaac posted her final tweet — a criticism of how she was treated by the hospital.

Doctors induced labor three days later, more than a month ahead of her expected due date, because she had been diagnosed with HELLP Syndrome. HELLP is described by WebMD as a condition that “causes problems with your blood, liver, and blood pressure. If left untreated, these issues can hurt you and your baby.” (Read more from “Mother Dies During Childbirth From Treatable Condition That Went Undiagnosed Due to COVID-19 Restrictions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump on Unmasking: ‘This Was All Obama, This Was All Biden’

By Breitbart. In a preview of an interview set to air during Thursday’s broadcast of Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria,” President Donald Trump sounded off on the recently unveiled circumstances of the prosecution of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. . .

“They weren’t after General Flynn — they wanted him to lie about me, make up a story,” he said. “And with few exceptions, nobody did that. There were many people, I watched K.T. McFarland the other day, I watched where she was, ‘knock-knock FBI,’ you know, the FBI, this was all Obama, this was all Biden. These people were corrupt, the whole thing was corrupt, and we caught them, we caught them. And what you saw just now, I watched Biden yesterday he could barely speak. He was on ‘Good Morning America’ right? He said he didn’t know anything about it, and now it just gets released right after he said that. It gets released that he was one of the unmaskers. Meaning he knew everything about it, so he lied to your friend George Stephanopoulos.” (Read more from “Trump on Unmasking: ‘This Was All Obama, This Was All Biden’” HERE)

_____________________________________________________

Ex-Trump Advisor Michael Flynn Objects to Judge Letting Outsiders Oppose Criminal Case Dismissal

By CNBC. The judge who has been asked by the Justice Department to dismiss its prosecution of ex-national security advisor Michael Flynn said Tuesday that he will first accept recommendations on whether he should do so from people and groups not involved in the case.

But Flynn’s lawyers promptly opposed Judge Emmet Sullivan’s unusual decision to consider third-party legal arguments, saying in a filing that court rules do not allow it.

Defense lawyers also argued that the judge had previously “summarily refused to permit any third party to inject themselves or their views into this case” 24 times and should do the same now.

The move by Sullivan to allow third-party comments offers a rare chance for critics of Flynn, who briefly served as one of President Donald Trump’s top advisors, to possibly thwart the Justice Department’s controversial effort to dismiss the case. (Read more from “Ex-Trump Advisor Michael Flynn Objects to Judge Letting Outsiders Oppose Criminal Case Dismissal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Facebook-Backed Advocacy Group Will Spread Message that Big Tech Is ‘Essential’ to Free Speech

Facebook is helping set up a new political advocacy group in D.C., called “American Edge,” hoping to dissuade lawmakers against regulating big tech companies, according to a report in the Washington Post.

According to the report, the Facebook-backed lobbying group will attempt to convince federal lawmakers that big tech companies are “essential to the U.S. economy and the future of free speech.”

Via the Washington Post:

The organization is called American Edge, and it aims through a barrage of advertising and other political spending to convince policymakers that Silicon Valley is essential to the U.S. economy and the future of free speech, according to three people familiar with the matter as well as documents reviewed by The Washington Post. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the group because it hasn’t officially been announced.

(Read more from “Facebook-Backed Advocacy Group Will Spread Message that Big Tech Is ‘Essential’ to Free Speech” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrats Push ‘Devil’ Coronavirus Bill H.R. 6666

By American Priority. House Democrats are proposing H.R. 6666, a multi-billion dollar bill authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals’ residences.”

The COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act — what some appropriately note is filed as H.R. 6666 — provides $100 billion in grants distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “eligible entities” so they can “trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals, and to support the quarantine of such contacts, through mobile health units and, as necessary, testing individuals and providing individuals with services related to testing and quarantine at their residences.”

According to the legislation, recipients of the grant can use the funds to “hire, train, compensate, and pay the expenses” of individuals to carry out the tasks related to testing and contact tracing.

Eligible entities include federally qualified health centers, school-based health clinics, academic medical centers, non-profits, institutions of higher education, and any other entity that the secretary deems eligible.

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) formally introduced the bill this month, asserting that it will be “impossible” to reopen the economy and return to normal “if we do not step up our testing efforts and implement robust and widespread contact tracing.” (Read more from “Democrats Push ‘Devil’ Coronavirus Bill H.R. 6666” HERE)

___________________________________________________

H.R. 6666 a Devil of a COVID-19 Government Surveillance Plot

By Washington Examiner. A House resolution from Illinois Democrat Rep. Bobby Rush that would put Big Government in charge of tracking citizens’ movements as they relate to COVID-19 mitigation efforts — even sending health bureaucrats to “individuals’ residences,” “as necessary,” as the legislation states — has a most apt number: 6666.

Mark of the beast. Mark of the beast for a beastly, monstrously unconstitutional bill.

After all, what’s more devilishly un-American than launching one of the most massive government surveillance programs of private citizens in U.S. history, all under the guise of protecting people from the coronavirus? . . .

That means government comes to your home, taps on your door and demands you take a COVID-19 test. And if you test positive, that means the government makes sure you stay at home. How? Good question. Good unanswered question. Good chillingly unclear question.

The top dogs at the Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are in control of disbursing the $100 billion to local governments to carry out the COVID-19 testing — more specifically, to “hire, train, compensate and pay the expenses of individuals” to staff mobile health units and to knock on citizens’ doors and to enforce compliance with quarantining. (Read more from “H.R. 6666 a Devil of a COVID-19 Government Surveillance Plot” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Senator Questions Dr. Fauci, Drops a Bomb in Senate Hearing

By PJ Media. . .The doctor in Rand Paul took over for the questioning. He began by challenging Dr. Fauci on the media narrative that there is no evidence that patients who survive coronavirus have immunity.

. . .Paul then stated that his view is that the truth is the exact opposite of the media narrative. There is very good evidence that recovered patients will have some durable immunity. And recovered workers, in industries like meatpacking, should be reassured there is a strong likelihood they will not get reinfected. He then referenced that Dr. Fauci had said publicly that he would bet it all that survivors of COVID-19 have some form of immunity and asked him to set the record straight.

Dr. Fauci responded that it is indeed likely. Then he added the standard disclaimers that we won’t know for sure and for how long for years. He did concede you could make a reasonable assumption that recovered patients have some immunity. Paul concluded saying maybe a better way to frame the issue of immunity was to say in all likelihood recovery indicates immunity for some period of time. The public needs to hear Paul’s presentation, but you can confidently bet on the fact that the media narrative won’t change. . .

He then took on the narrative that we must listen to the health experts head-on. Explicitly, he challenged the reliance on the opinion of one man, Dr. Fauci.

Really the history of this when we look back will be wrong prediction after wrong prediction after wrong prediction starting with Ferguson in England. I think we ought to have a little humility in the belief we know what’s best for the economy. As much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you are the end-all. I don’t think you are the one person that gets to make a decision. We can listen to your advice, but there are people on the other side saying there is not going to be a surge and we can safely open the economy. The facts will bear this out. But if we keep kids out of school for another year, what’s going to happen is that the poor and underprivileged kids who don’t have a parent that can teach them at home are not going to learn for a year. I think we ought to look at the Swedish model. It’s a huge mistake if we don’t open schools in the fall.

(Read more from “WATCH: Senator Questions Dr. Fauci, Drops a Bomb in Senate Hearing” HERE)

_____________________________________________________________

Rand Paul Dings Fauci During Testimony, Tells Him ‘You Are Not the End All’

By Fox News. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., clashed with Dr. Anthony Fauci on Tuesday during a Senate Health Committee hearing, telling the public health official he is not the “end all” when it comes to the coronavirus pandemic while pressing him for information about immunity for those who have beaten the disease and the possibility of schools reopening.

In one of the more tense moments of Tuesday’s hearing, Paul – the only U.S. senator to have had a confirmed case of COVID-19 – said the public health response to the pandemic has been riddled with “wrong prediction after wrong prediction” and that Fauci should not be the one making decisions on issues outside his purview. . .

Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of the federal government’s most visible faces during the public health crisis, balked at Paul calling him the “end all” and said his recommendations do not extend beyond the realm of science and public health.

“I have never made myself out to be the end all,” Fauci said via videoconference from his office at the NIAID. “I’m a scientist, a physician and a public health official, I give advice, according to the best scientific evidence.” (Read more from “Rand Paul Dings Fauci During Testimony, Tells Him ‘You Are Not the End All'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

It Looks Like President Obama Ordered up Phony RussiaGate Scandal; Carlson: Obama Should Be Known as a Disgraced President Who Used the FBI Against His Political Enemies; Joe Biden Denies Then Admits to Knowledge of FBI’s Flynn Set Up

By New York Post. RussiaGate is now a complete dead letter — but ObamaGate is taking its place. Just how far did the then-president go to cripple his successor?

It’s now clear the Obama-Comey FBI and Justice Department never had anything more substantial than the laughable fiction of the Steele dossier to justify the “counterintelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign. Yet incessant leaks from that supposedly confidential probe wound up consuming the Trump administration’s first months in office — followed by the Bob Mueller-led special counsel investigation that proved nearly the “total witch hunt” that President Trump dubbed it.

Information released as the Justice Department dropped its charges against Gen. Mike Flynn shows that President Barack Obama, in his final days in office, played a key role in fanning the flames of phony scandal. Fully briefed on the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, he knew the FBI had come up with nothing despite months of work starting in July 2016. . .

This even as then-President Obama also directed that as many people as possible across his administration be briefed on the (utterly unsubstantiated) allegations against Team Trump — and as Rice and others took unprecedented steps to “unmask” US citizens like Flynn whose conversations had been caught on federal wiretaps of foreigners.

Indeed, the Obama administration went on a full-scale leak offensive — handing the Washington Post, New York Times and others a nonstop torrent of “anonymous” allegations of Trumpite ties to Moscow. It suggested that the investigations were finding a ton of treasonous dirt on Team Trump — when in fact the investigators had come up dry. (Read more from “It Looks Like President Obama Ordered up Phony RussiaGate Scandal” HERE)

_____________________________________________________

Tucker Carlson: Obama Should Be Known as a Disgraced President Who Used the FBI Against His Political Enemies

By Fox News. . .It was January 20th, the last day of the Obama administration. Outgoing National Security Adviser Susan Rice sat down at her desk to write her final memo. Rice described the presidential transition which had been underway for months. Then she wrote this, during a meeting two weeks before: “President Obama said he wants to be sure that as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

Now, Rice does not explain why Obama’s staff felt it might not be possible to give intelligence on Russia to Donald Trump’s staff, or for that matter, why the Obama people thought they had the right to withhold national security information from an incoming American president who had just won a national election.

But Rice didn’t need to elaborate. There was only one possible explanation for this: Donald Trump could very well be a Russian agent. Barack Obama himself said he believed that was possible. In Rice’s words: “The President asked [Jim] Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.”

Now, what exactly does that mean? Here is what it means. The president of the United States turned to the head of the FBI, the most powerful law enforcement official in America, and said continue to secretly investigate my chief political rival so that I can act against him. Comey’s response? Yes, sir. That’s what Obama was saying openly.

In any normal period in American history, this exchange would define Barack Obama forever. Obama would be known as the disgraced former president who used federal law enforcement to hurt his political enemies. That’s what he did. (Read more from “Tucker Carlson: Obama Should Be Known as a Disgraced President Who Used the FBI Against His Political Enemies” HERE)

_____________________________________________________

Joe Biden Denies Then Admits to Knowledge of FBI’s Flynn Set Up

By The Federalist. Former Vice President Joe Biden admitted Tuesday he was aware of federal prosecutors’ plans to question incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn after denying knowledge of any investigation.

“I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,” Biden said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” when George Stephanopoulos asked what he knew of the FBI’s operations in early 2017. . .

Stephanopoulos followed up, adding that Biden was present at a Jan. 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting where he and President Barack Obama was briefed by top White House national security officials on plans to question Flynn over conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislak as the presidential transition was underway.

“I thought you asked me whether or not I had anything to do with him being prosecuted,” Biden said. “I was aware that there was, that they asked for an investigation, but that’s all I know about.” (Read more from “Joe Biden Denies Then Admits to Knowledge of FBI’s Flynn Set Up” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Federal Judge Slams the Brakes on DOJ Attempt to Drop Michael Flynn Case

By Law and Crime. Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on Tuesday stopped — at least temporarily — the federal government’s attempt to drop its case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Sullivan made the move shortly after Flynn asked that the case against him be dismissed “immediately.”

The judge, in a minute order posted to the Flynn case’s electronic docket, said he anticipated amicus briefs would be filed in the matter and wanted to give any interested parties time to participate. The so-called “friend of the court” briefs allow others who are not a party to a case to submit arguments “only for the benefit of the court,” Sullivan noted.

“It is solely within the court’s discretion to determine the fact, extent, and manner of the participation” of amicus parties, the judge said. The briefs are helpful “when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide,” Sullivan added; he also noted reasons why parties should not be allowed to file amicus briefs.

The move raises questions about who will take the cue to file such a brief. (Read more from “Federal Judge Slams the Brakes on DOJ Attempt to Drop Michael Flynn Case” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Flynn Legal Team Blows up Over Judge’s Decision to Hold Criminal Case Open for ‘Watergate Prosecutors’

By Law and Crime. Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn late Tuesday voiced strong opposition to an order by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to keep the Flynn case open.

Per Flynn’s legal team, “a group referring to itself as ‘Watergate Prosecutors’ submitted an . . . email” stating that it wished to file amicus curiae briefs. The so-called “friend of the court” briefs help assist judges in making decisions. Flynn’s attorneys called foul on the move.

“However, this Court has consistently — on twenty-four (24) previous occasions — summarily refused to permit any third party to inject themselves or their views into this case,” Flynn’s attorneys said. . .

Sullivan’s decision to hold the case pending additional amicus briefing resulted in this backlash:

The proposed amicus brief has no place in this Court. No rule allows the filing, and the self-proclaimed collection of “Watergate Prosecutors” has no cognizable special interest. Separation of powers forecloses their appearance here. Only the Department of Justice and the defense can be heard. Accordingly, the Watergate Prosecutors’ attempted filing itself should not be registered on the docket, and any attempt by the group or any individual to make a filing in this case must be denied—as all others have been.

(Read more from “Flynn Legal Team Blows up Over Judge’s Decision to Hold Criminal Case Open for ‘Watergate Prosecutors’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

In a Retaliatory Move, the U.S. Shortens Visas for Chinese Journalists

The Department of Homeland Security is throwing the next punch in the escalating journalism battle between the U.S. and China.

The U.S. is shortening the validity period of visas for Chinese journalists to a maximum of 90 days to reciprocate for China’s recent expulsion of American journalists and nonrenewal of visas.

This journalism visa tit-for-tat is just one facet of rising U.S.-China tensions related to Beijing’s mishandling of the coronavirus, which has infected the world.

In March, China expelled American journalists from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post after writers criticized the Chinese government’s mismanagement of the coronavirus outbreak.

Beijing also demanded that those outlets—as well as Voice of America and Time magazine—give the Chinese government detailed information about their operations. The expulsion included Hong Kong and Macau, in addition to the People’s Republic of China itself.

Beijing argued the move was in retaliation for the U.S. limiting five state-run Chinese news organizations to 100 Chinese citizen employees who could work in the U.S.

The U.S. was set on May 11 to make the next move, by changing the terms of media visas for Chinese journalists.

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes “I” temporary visas for aliens visiting the U.S. as representatives of foreign information media.

To qualify, the alien must be a bona fide representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media having its home office in a foreign country. This type of visa is also statutorily required to be provided “upon a basis of reciprocity” with a foreign country’s media visa terms and conditions.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has, per regulation, been admitting foreign media traveling with “I” visas into the U.S. for a “duration of status,” as opposed to issuing a specific “admit until” date on the visitor’s entry record.

Duration of status is a much more flexible and generous term of admission that, in the context of foreign press, has been interpreted by Customs and Border Protection as the duration of the journalist’s employment.

In the Department of Homeland Security’s new rule published May 11, the department changes the term of admission for Chinese journalists from duration of status to a period not to exceed 90 days. The new rule does allow for extensions of stay, also for periods no greater than 90 days.

The DHS explains it is making this regulatory change toward China to achieve greater reciprocity between the U.S.’ and China’s treatment of foreign press seeking entry into the other country.

Unlike China’s journalist clampdown, however, the DHS rule change does not apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) or Macau SAR passport holders.

The DHS states in its rule change that “[i]nformation received from the Department of State, as well as open source information, demonstrates a suppression of independent journalism in [China], including an increasing lack of transparency and consistency in the admission periods granted to foreign journalists, including U.S. journalists.”

Notably, the reporters that the Chinese government expelled have reported on issues of interest to international audiences, but which are embarrassing to the Chinese Communist Party, such as its use of indoctrination camps, mass incarceration, forced labor, and corruption among the party’s leaders.

In addition, China has been shortening the media visas it issues to foreign press to periods of six months or less, as opposed to China’s prior 12-month validity period.

China has long used its foreign press to echo the Communist Party’s propaganda abroad, but those tactics have reached a crescendo following the coronavirus outbreak, which originated in Wuhan, China.

The Chinese Communist Party has used its money and threats to influence public statements made by others, such as international organizations like the World Health Organization, to initially downplay the severity of the infectious virus, followed by blaming the United States for the global outbreak.

The United States was founded on the principle of a free press and free speech. Given Beijing’s treatment of foreign press, and American journalists in particular, the DHS is right to reciprocally shorten “I” visas for Chinese media.

Further, the U.S. and all other countries need to strongly combat the Chinese Communist Party’s false coronavirus propaganda. After infecting more than 4.2 million people and instantaneously destroying economies globally, China owes it to the world to be open and transparent with scientific information about the virus.

Until China changes its ways, the Chinese Communist Party should not be rewarded with lengthy visas to spread its misinformation using American media. (For more from the author of “In a Retaliatory Move, the U.S. Shortens Visas for Chinese Journalists” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘Complete Government Cover-Up’: FBI Accidentally Reveals Name of Saudi Official Suspected of Directing Support for 9/11 Hijackers

The FBI inadvertently revealed one of the U.S. government’s most sensitive secrets about the Sept. 11 terror attacks: the identity of a mysterious Saudi Embassy official in Washington who agents suspected had directed crucial support to two of the al-Qaida hijackers.

The disclosure came in a new declaration filed in federal court by a senior FBI official in response to a lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims that accuses the Saudi government of complicity in the terrorist attacks.

The declaration was filed last month but unsealed late last week. According to a spokesman for the 9/11 victims’ families, it represents a major breakthrough in the long-running case, providing for the first time an apparent confirmation that FBI agents investigating the attacks believed they had uncovered a link between the hijackers and the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

It’s unclear just how strong the evidence is against the former Saudi Embassy official — it’s been a subject of sharp dispute within the FBI for years. But the disclosure, which a senior U.S. government official confirmed was made in error, seems likely to revive questions about potential Saudi links to the 9/11 plot. . .

“This shows there is a complete government cover-up of the Saudi involvement,” said Brett Eagleson, a spokesman for the 9/11 families whose father was killed in the attacks. “It demonstrates there was a hierarchy of command that’s coming from the Saudi Embassy to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs [in Los Angeles] to the hijackers.” (Read more from “‘Complete Government Cover-Up’: FBI Accidentally Reveals Name of Saudi Official Suspected of Directing Support for 9/11 Hijackers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

SICK: The Price is Right Promotes Drag Queen, Makes Massive Donation to Baby-Killing Group

CBS’ primetime special “The Price is Right At Night” sparked heated reactions from viewers on social media over its decision to donate nearly $100,000 to Planned Parenthood.

The longest-running game show in television history aired Monday evening with regular host Drew Carey joined by Emmy-winning host of “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” RuPaul. The famous drag queen was on hand to help raise money for charity, with the show promising to match all the contestants’ prize winnings with a donation to Planned Parenthood.

Contestants won big during the special, totaling $97,266 in prizes. This meant that the same dollar amount is now going to the organization as a charitable donation. . .

(Read more from “SICK: The Price is Right Promotes Drag Queen, Makes Massive Donation to Baby-Killing Group” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE