Justin Amash Nixes 2020 Presidential Run as Third-Party Candidate

/0 Comments/in , /by

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash has announced that he will not run for president as a third-party candidate, CNN reported Saturday.

“After much reflection, I’ve concluded that circumstances don’t lend themselves to my success as a candidate for president this year, and therefore I will not be a candidate,” he tweeted Saturday.

The Republican-turned-independent said in early April he was looking “closely” at a bid as Libertarian Party candidate, after he stopped actively campaigning for his House seat in February while he considered jumping into the presidential race.

The move brings to an end to his extended flirtation with a third-party candidacy that could have introduced a new element of uncertainty into the race between President Donal Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, according to the New York Times.

He came into the national spotlight last May when he announced his support for impeaching President Trump over the findings in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He was the first and only House Republican to support impeachment, eventually voting for both articles of impeachment against the President as an independent late last year. (Read more from “Justin Amash Nixes 2020 Presidential Run as Third-Party Candidate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

We Have Been Lied To: 6 Facts That Change Everything We Know About SARS-CoV-2

/0 Comments/in , , /by

James Madison once said, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” The coronavirus fascists have succeeded in cementing their illogical, immoral, and illegal policies through the prism of false information about the timing of the virus, the specific nature and severity of the overall fatality rate, the number of actual deaths, and the utility (or perhaps harm) of lockdown policies in actually mitigating deaths – all the while obfuscating the much higher collateral deaths and damage caused by the lockdown itself.

Every day we learn new information demonstrating the lies driving lockdown. Here are some of the most important ones from over the weekend.

1) The shocking inflation of COVID-19 death numbers: From day one, we were warned that states are ascribing every single death of anyone who happens to test positive for the coronavirus — even if they are asymptomatic — to the virus rather than the clear cause of death. Now, thanks to a lawsuit in Colorado, the state was forced to revise its death count down by 23 % over the weekend — from 1,150 to 878. The state is now publishing numbers of deaths “with” COVID-19 separate from deaths “from” COVID-19. As I reported on Thursday, county officials started accusing the state’s department of health of reclassifying deaths of those who tested positive for the virus but died of things like alcohol poisoning as COVID-19 deaths just to insidiously inflate the numbers. This revision in Colorado is a bombshell story that, of course, will remain unknown to most Americans. Every state needs to do this, and if they did, we would find an across-the-board drop in numbers by at least 25%, the same %age by which Dr. Birx reportedly believes the count is being inflated, according to the Washington Post. For example, in Minnesota, state officials are now admitting that every single person who dies in a nursing home after testing positive is now deemed to have died from the virus, never mind the fact that 25% of all natural deaths in a given week occur in nursing homes and that most cases of COVID-19 are asymptomatic, which means more often than not, they died exclusively of other causes.

2) States with longer lockdowns had worse results: Kyle Lamb posted a solid analysis on Twitter, grouping states by how long they implemented a lockdown and averaging out the deaths per 100,000 people by each grouping. The results are stounding, as there is a perfectly inverse relationship between how long a state implemented a lockdown and how successful it was in keeping the deaths down. I independently cross-checked these numbers, and they appear to be accurate.

While this doesn’t necessarily prove that lockdowns cause more COVID-19 deaths (although they definitely cause other deaths), it’s nearly impossible to assert the other way around – that lockdowns prevent deaths – if we see zero correlation in the data. This is especially true given that Florida is the third most populous state and has the highest concentration of seniors, yet deaths and hospitalizations are way down since the state reopened on May 4. Florida is more densely populated than Michigan and Pennsylvania, yet has one-sixth and one-fourth of the deaths per capita, respectively. The same holds true for Georgia, which is a fairly densely populated state. Infections are down over 40% and deaths are down 31% since reopening. As Secretary of Health Alex Azar said yesterday, “We are seeing that in places that are opening, we’re not seeing this spike in cases. We still see spikes in some areas that are, in fact, closed.”

3) Outside nursing homes, the fatality rate never warranted such action, even if it would work: Every day we find more hard data showing that the overwhelming majority of cases are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and outside nursing homes, the chance of dying is very low and very limited to a population we can more efficiently shield. For those who are younger and healthier, deaths are almost nonexistent. Spain was one of the hardest-hit countries and has a higher overall fatality rate than others, yet its age-stratified fatality rates mirror what we have seen in the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and elsewhere. One Twitter commentator has broken down the age-based fatality rates of the comprehensive Spanish antibody study, and the results are similar to what we’ve seen elsewhere:

He used public information to calculate the case data and the population age data, and I have spot-checked some data points and they all seem on target. It’s identical to what the Netherlands found.

Remember, Spain was one of the hardest-hit countries, but even there, 57% of all deaths and the overwhelming majority of deaths of those above age 80 were in senior care facilities. When you take them out of the equation, the death rates are shockingly low. Yet the same politicians who focused on locking up an entire country failed to care for those in nursing homes. . .

It’s essentially the same story in every state.

4) Outside New York, this is barely worse than bad flu seasons: While Europe is opening its schools, almost every U.S. state continues to keep schools shut. Yet according to the CDC’s latest weekly report, “For children (0-17 years), COVID-19 hospitalization rates are much lower than influenza hospitalization rates at comparable time points during recent influenza seasons.” Even the World Health Organization’s top scientist just admitted that children “seem less capable of spreading the virus.” As for everyone else, if you look at the bump in overall deaths for most states (outside the tristate area), they are either at, slightly below, or slight above the 2018 flu season. But at this point, everything is way below a typical flu season in the winter, yet you wouldn’t know it from listening to the media. According to the CDC, hospitalizations and deaths have been declining in all 10 designated regions for the past 3-7 weeks. Still, we are now being more fascist that even Italy in violating civil rights.

5) Excess deaths are from the lockdowns, not the virus: While there is zero evidence that lockdowns saved any lives of coronavirus patients, there is clear evidence they cost other lives. It has been observed in a number of states that there are excess deaths being detected, primarily from people dying at home. The CDC is predicting 21,462-40,097 excess deaths NOT due to COVID-19, likely from those too scared to come to the ER because of the exaggerated risk being associated with COVID-19. Also, a recent analysis of excess deaths in England shows that they are seeing thousands of people dying at home from other symptoms because of the lockdown.

6) Social distancing was invented by a high-school kid and politicians, not scientists: Jeffrey Tucker of the American Institute for Economic research reports that the origin of this cult of “social distancing” being used for totalitarian lockdowns was the brainchild of a high schooler’s sociology paper in 2006, promoted by the Bush administration during the avian flu. It was widely mocked by the epidemiological community, including by Johns Hopkins, for “causing the potential for a ‘serious adverse outcome,’” thereby ensuring that “a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”

How have we allowed such an illogical approach to crush our liberties, economy, hospitals, education, and criminal justice? How have we lost our freedoms?

The answer is that the public is not getting the right information. This is why the political class is doing everything in its power to censor anyone who dares question the idolatry of this lockdown cult. YouTube has censored the videos of Knut Wittkowski, who was a top epidemiologist in Germany and then served as the head of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design at Rockefeller University. One would think we’d want to hear his opinion, but there is only one view that is allowed to gain traction. Why is it that only one side is scared of the information of the other side?

As James Madison warned, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” (For more from the author of “We Have Been Lied To: 6 Facts That Change Everything We Know About SARS-CoV-2” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Failures of an Influential COVID-19 Model Used to Justify Lockdowns

/1 Comment/in , /by

Professor Neil Ferguson, who led the COVID-19 modeling team at Imperial College in London, resigned May 5 from his government advisory role after breaking the very same British lockdown rules that he had a role in influencing.

Ferguson led the Imperial College team that designed the computer model that, among others, had been used to justify the recent stay-at-home orders in England as well as in the United States. We now know the model was so highly flawed it never should have been relied upon for policy decisions to begin with.

Epidemiology—the study of the incidence, prevalence, and impact of disease—frequently calls upon models to forecast potential outcomes of diseases. Not surprisingly, once COVID-19 became a pandemic, policy experts from all across the world began relying on such models.

The Imperial College researchers ran one such model they had used in prior research and forecast a number of potential outcomes, including that, by October, more than 500,000 people in Great Britain and 2 million people in the U.S. would die as a result of COVID-19.

The model also predicted the United States could incur up to 1 million deaths even with “enhanced social distancing” guidelines, including “shielding the elderly.” Imperial’s modeling results influenced British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to impose a nationwide lockdown and influenced the White House as well.

I asked Ferguson and his colleagues for their model on multiple occasions to see how they got their numbers, but they never replied to my emails.

According to Nature, they had been “working with Microsoft to tidy up the code and make it available.” I also asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the codes it used to develop its COVID-19 forecasts, but got no response.

So, my colleague Norbert Michel and I decided to take a publicly available COVID-19 epidemiological model and forecast the prevalence and mortality of the disease under a variety of plausible scenarios.

The results varied, depending on the assumptions we made about mortality rates within hospital intensive care units, asymptomatic rates, and the specification of the R0 (pronounced R-naught) value, which measures how easily the virus spreads.

We found mortality rate predictions can be quite variable depending on the age and comorbidities of those contracting the virus.

Under varying assumptions regarding a mortality rate in intensive care units between 5% and 30%, we found that predicted mortality because of the disease could range from near 78,000 deaths to as many as 810,000 deaths in the U.S. by Aug. 1.

Recent testing data indicates that the asymptomatic rate for COVID-19 is likely not trivial, and data from Iceland indicates this rate can be as high as 50%. Assuming an asymptomatic rate ranging from 15% to 55%, one can project deaths in the U.S. of between 118,000 and 394,000 by Aug. 1.

Lastly, we looked at the model’s assumption about the virus’ basic reproductive number, the aforementioned R0 value. Popularized in the 2011 movie “Contagion,” the R0 value quantifies the average number of people who will get the virus from someone who is an infected.

Under assumptions of the R0 value ranging from 1.5 to 3.5—plausible estimates based on medical research as discussed in our paper—the model predicted from 44,000 dead to 1.1 million dead by Aug. 1 in the U.S.

According to the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus tracker, we are currently over 83,000 deaths, which exceeds our lower-end estimates. But the point our research made is that these types of models produce many plausible scenarios, depending on reasonable assumptions.

As we learn more about the new coronavirus, it is imperative to continue to update the assumptions used in these models.

After we had published our work, news surfaced that Microsoft had actually made some headway in making the Imperial College team’s model available. But the codes it released are a highly modified version of what the Imperial team actually used.

And, it turns out, the model has serious flaws, which a former software engineer from Google discusses at length in his blog.

The Imperial College code provides different answers using the same inputs. In particular, the same assumptions can provide results that differ by 80,000 deaths over a span of 80 days. The software engineer has noted there are apparently myriad other problems as well—including undocumented codes and numerous bugs.

This isn’t the first time bad models have made their way into policy. As we discussed in our work, statistical models can be useful tools for guiding policy, but they are only as credible as the assumptions on which they are based.

It is fundamentally important for models used in policy to be made publicly available, have assumptions clearly stated, and have their robustness to changes to these assumptions tested. Models also need to be updated as time goes on in line with the best available evidence.

Bottom line: The Imperial College model didn’t meet any of these criteria. And sadly, its model was one of the inputs relied on as the basis for locking down two countries.

The codes we used at The Heritage Foundation are available here. Our assumptions are clearly stated in our paper here. (For more from the author of “Failures of an Influential COVID-19 Model Used to Justify Lockdowns” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

AG Barr Just Made Major News on ‘Obamagate’

/0 Comments/in , /by

That sound you hear is the deep groan of disappointment by people who had hoped that Attorney General Bill Barr would investigate former President Obama for his part in “Obamagate.”

In just the past few days it’s been publicly disclosed that both Obama and Vice President Biden were in an Oval Office meeting in which the investigation into Trump National Security Adviser General Mike Flynn was discussed. It was also revealed that Biden personally “unmasked” Flynn’s name to discover more information about Flynn. President Trump calls the spy program “Obamagate.” . . .

But Barr said Monday that the Department of Justice is unlikely to charge either former President Obama or Vice President Joe Biden in the “Obamagate” spying program on the Trump campaign, Law and Crime reports.

“This is especially true for the upcoming elections in November,” Barr said, adding that it is “critical” that we have a 2020 election in which the American people have a chance to vote based on “robust” policy debate — not criminal debate.

“Any effort to pursue an investigation of either candidate has to be approved by me,” Barr noted. In January, Barr said that the FBI, heading forward, would have to get approval from him before “opening of a counterintelligence investigation of a presidential campaign.”

(Read more from “AG Barr Just Made Major News on ‘Obamagate'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Naval Air Station Shooter Turns out to Be Al-Qaeda Operative

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Associated Press reported Monday that “the gunman who killed three U.S. sailors at a military base in Florida last year repeatedly communicated” with al-Qaeda operatives “about planning in the months leading up to the attack.” And he didn’t just communicate with them. Attorney General William Barr noted that the shooter, Mohammed Alshamrani, had “significant ties to Al Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula not only before the attack, but before he even arrived in the United States.” Yet he was still able to get into the country and execute the attack he planned – and that is the real story here.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said that Alshamrani’s attack on December 6, 2019, at Naval Air Station Pensacola was the “brutal culmination of years of planning and preparation.”

He added: “We now know enough to see Alshamrani for what he was — a determined AQAP [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] terrorist who spent years preparing to attack us. He wasn’t just coordinating with them about planning and tactics. He was helping the organization making the most it could out of his murders.” Wray said that al-Qaeda “certainly more than just inspired” Alshamrani’s massacre.

How many Americans know that al-Qaeda claimed — three months ago — to be behind the murderous attack by a Muslim from Saudi Arabia at a U.S. Naval Base in Florida last year? How many Americans do you think even know that there was a murderous attack by a Muslim at a U.S. Naval Base in Florida last year? (Read more from “Naval Air Station Shooter Turns out to Be Al-Qaeda Operative” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Tweets an Ultimatum to the World Health Organization

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Blaze. President Donald Trump sent a letter to the World Health Organization laying out their failures in the response to the coronavirus pandemic, and giving them an ultimatum. . .

The letter accuses the WHO of downplaying the pandemic and echoing propaganda from the communist Chinese government.

“You also strongly praised China’s strict domestic travel restrictions, but were inexplicably against my closing of the United States border, or the ban, with respect to people coming from China,” the letter read.

“I put the ban in place regardless of your wishes. Your political gamesmanship on this issue was deadly, as other governments, relying on your comments, delaying imposing life-saving restrictions on travel to and from China,” the letter claimed.

The president says that unless the WHO makes substantive changes, the U.S. may leave the organization and take away its funding permanently. (Read more from “Trump Tweets an Ultimatum to the World Health Organization Over Coronavirus and China” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Trump Threatens to Keep WHO Funding Freeze in Place After WH Investigation

By Fox News. . .The White House has insisted that Beijing downplayed the virus’ threat in December, which led to the subsequent outbreak. China has denied the charge.

Trump announced in April that the U.S. would halt funding to the organization. He said at the time that his administration would undertake a 60-to-90 day investigation into why the “China-centric” WHO had caused “so much death” by “severely mismanaging and covering up” the coronavirus’ spread, including by making the “disastrous” decision to oppose travel restrictions on China.

The U.S. was the WHO’s largest single donor. Trump said the United States contributes roughly $400 to $500 million per year to WHO, while China offers only about $40 million.

The WHO “consistently ignored credible reports of the virus” in December 2019. By the end of that month, it was clear at the organization that the virus was a “major health concern.” Taiwanese authorities told health officials at the organization about human-to-human transmission, but that revelation was not shared with the international community. . .

Dr. Rick Bright, a whistleblower who ran the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, blamed the Trump administration for its own slow response to the pandemic and said the administration was instead worried about politics instead of science. (Read more from “Trump Threatens to Keep WHO Funding Freeze in Place After WH Investigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

4 Big Unanswered Questions About the ‘Unmasking’ Scandal

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As the “unmasking” scandal unfolds, the Senate Judiciary Committee will delve into the conduct of the Obama administration and the intelligence community in secretly investigating the incoming Trump administration.

Two Senate Republicans released previously secret information Wednesday listing top Obama administration officials who made the same request in early 2017: that the intelligence community disclose to them that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was the American whose phone conversation with the Russian ambassador had been intercepted by intelligence officials.

Flynn at the time had been chosen by President-elect Donald Trump as his first national security adviser. Flynn’s “unmasking” at the request of some of outgoing President Barack Obama’s closest advisers set in motion events that led to Flynn’s resignation after only 23 days in office during the new Trump administration.

Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, both Republicans, released the names of the Obama officials requesting Flynn’s identity as part of information declassified by Richard Grenell, acting director of national intelligence.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced Thursday that his committee would hold hearings in June examining issues surrounding the Flynn case and related to the initial FBI investigation of possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

In a joint statement, Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senate’s chief oversight panel, and Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said:

Our investigation of these matters has been ongoing for years, and as information finally comes to light, our focus on these issues is even more important now. The records are one step forward in an important effort to get to the bottom of what the Obama administration did during the Russia investigation and to Lt. General Flynn. We will continue to review this information and push for additional relevant disclosures until we are satisfied that the American people know the full truth.

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut continues to look into the origins of the Russia investigation, and the Justice Department has said that the Flynn unmasking requests is one part of that probe.

Here are four big unanswered questions as the Senate and the Justice Department scrutinize actions taken by the Obama administration between Trump’s election on Nov. 8, 2016, and his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017.

1. Can Obama Be Compelled to Testify?

It might well be must-see TV, but at this point it seems highly unlikely that Obama himself would be subpoenaed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Trump made the demand in a tweet Thursday.

“If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama,” Trump said in the tweet. “He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!”

The previously classified documents released this week show that in the waning days of the Obama administration, these six well-known officials each submitted an unmasking request that would reveal Flynn’s otherwise protected identity under U.S. law: FBI Director James Comey, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, Vice President Joe Biden, United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

The Justice Department’s case against Flynn for lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador largely fell apart after other documents recently surfaced. They included notes of a discussion among Comey and two other top FBI officials about whether the goal in questioning Flynn at the White House was to “get him to lie” so that he could be fired or prosecuted.

The Justice Department last week dropped the case against Flynn for misleading the FBI, but a federal judge this week called in outside authorities to dispute that action. Flynn has withdrawn his guilty plea.

Graham, in a statement Thursday, appeared to be reluctant about Trump’s call for Obama to testify.

“I am greatly concerned about the precedent that would be set by calling a former president for oversight,” Graham said. “No president is above the law. However, the presidency has executive privilege claims against other branches of government.”

Graham continued:

To say we are living in unusual times is an understatement.

We have the sitting president (Trump) accusing the former president (Obama) of being part of a treasonous conspiracy to undermine his presidency. We have the former president suggesting the current president is destroying the rule of law by dismissing the General Flynn case.

All of this is occurring during a major pandemic.

As to the Judiciary Committee, both presidents are welcome to come before the committee and share their concerns about each other. If nothing else it would make for great television. However, I have great doubts about whether it would be wise for the country.

Graham is striking the correct balance, said Charles Stimson, a senior legal fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation.

“Chairman Graham should go after the facts, and see where that leads. He’s going to hold hearings,” Stimson told The Daily Signal on Thursday. “To take the president up on that suggestion [of calling Obama to testify] would risk looking political and could delegitimize the inquiry.”

2. What Are the Legal Issues?

Graham said the first part of his committee’s comprehensive inquiry would focus on the Flynn matter.

“Our first phase will deal with the government’s decision to dismiss the Flynn case as well as an in-depth analysis of the unmasking requests made by Obama Administration officials against General Flynn,” Graham said in his written statement. “We must determine if these requests were legitimate.”

If Obama administration officials engaged in improper conduct, it’s not clear whether a law was broken, or who violated the law if one was broken.

Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, U.S. intelligence agencies may intercept and listen to the telephone calls of foreign citizens, including foreign officials. That would include Flynn’s call with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on Dec. 29, 2016, roughly three weeks before Trump’s inauguration.

If a foreign citizen is speaking to an American citizen on the intercepted call, the law requires the name of the American citizen to be blacked out, or masked, in documentation.

So unmasking is the process by which authorized federal officials request to see information regarding American citizens mentioned anonymously in classified transcripts of calls or other communications involving foreigners.

However, someone leaked Flynn’s communication with the Russian ambassador to the media shortly after the unmasking requests were made. Leaking classified information is a crime.

Brennan, Clapper, Comey and the others named in the documents released by Grenell were authorized to ask for the unmasking. The question is whether there was a legitimate reason to ask for the unmasking, Stimson said.

Another question, besides who leaked Flynn’s name, is whether the unmasking was an attempt by officials of the outgoing Obama administration to undermine the incoming Trump administration.

“I’m not there yet. I want to see more facts,” Stimson told The Daily Signal.

Stimson added that congressional hearings typically seem political, but could produce further lines of inquiry.

He said he is more focused on the probe by Durham, whose career has been as a “stand-up, just-the-facts-ma’am, Joe Friday type of guy.”

3. How Did FISA System Go ‘Off the Rails’?

Graham said the next phase of the Judiciary Committee’s inquiry will revisit the apparent abuse of the process for obtaining warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, highlighted in a scathing report late last year by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Horowitz testified to the committee in December about his report’s findings. Among the most startling: The FBI relied almost entirely on the so-called Steele dossier, an opposition research document financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, as the basis for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

The inspector general’s report also determined that FBI overreach wasn’t limited to Page, but included other Trump campaign aides such as Flynn, then an adviser; George Papadopoulos, a campaign volunteer; and one-time campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

“Our next area of inquiry, later this summer, will be oversight building upon the Horowitz report about FISA abuses against Carter Page,” Graham said. “My goal is to find out why and how the system got so off the rails.”

4. What Was the Point of the Mueller Probe?

After an investigation lasting nearly two years and costing taxpayers $32 million, special counsel Robert Mueller, Comey’s predecessor as FBI director, determined that the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

The problem, critics of the Mueller probe say, is that prior to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s appointing him as special counsel, no evidence existed to suggest a Trump-Russia conspiracy.

Thus, the Judiciary Committee will look into the predicate of initiating a special counsel probe, Graham said.

“Finally, we will look at whether Robert Mueller should have ever been appointed as Special Counsel,” he said. “Was there legitimate reason to conclude the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russians?”

Mueller secured grand jury indictments against some two dozen Russian operatives—none of whom is expected ever to stand trial because they are in Russia.

The special counsel’s team also scored a conviction of Manafort for financial crimes unrelated to the presidential campaign. (For more from the author of “4 Big Unanswered Questions About the ‘Unmasking’ Scandal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Obama-Appointed CDC Chair Caught on Camera Lobbying to ‘Get Rid of’ White Americans

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A newly surfaced video features Dr. Carol Baker lobbying to “get rid of whites” to reduce “vaccine refusers.” She is a former chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). . .

In the 2016 footage uncovered by Patrick Howley at National File from the Achieving Childhood Vaccine Success in the US panel in New York City, Dr. Baker asserted that the way to get everyone vaccinated is to “get rid of all whites in the United States.”

“So I have the solution. Every study published in the last five years, when you look at vaccine refusers. I’m not talking about…hesitance, most of them we can talk into coming to terms. But refusers. We’ll just get rid of all the whites in the United States,” Baker said at the event on May 9, 2016. “Guess who wants to get vaccinated the most? Immigrants.”

(Read more from “WATCH: Obama-Appointed CDC Chair Caught on Camera Lobbying to ‘Get Rid of’ White Americans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Republican Who Flipped California Congressional District: People Are ‘Underestimating’ Trump’s ‘Popularity’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican Mike Garcia credited the power of President Trump’s popularity for his success in flipping a California congressional district — the first such defeat for Democrats since 1998.

“California’s 25th District — Northern L.A., parts of Ventura County, very purple district — and people are underestimating the popularity right now of President Trump,” Garcia, a former military pilot, said Saturday on “Cavuto Live.”

“And it’s not just among the Republicans, but also the middle third of Americans … who just want to be able to continue to afford to live in California and want to see jobs improve, wages go up, and this economy get back on its feet,” he told host Neil Cavuto.

“So when you look at who you trust to lead us through this recovery, it should be put back in the hands of the folks that got us to this thriving economy, the record-setting economy around the world, and that is this administration and the Republican Party,” he added.

Garcia won the district’s special election earlier this week, replacing former Rep. Katie Hill, a Democrat who resigned amid scandal after admitting to an affair with a campaign staffer. (Read more from “Republican Who Flipped California Congressional District: People Are ‘Underestimating’ Trump’s ‘Popularity'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘Facebook Sucks’: Elon Musk Slams Social Network Exec Who Criticized His Knowledge of AI

/0 Comments/in , /by

Elon Musk took a swipe Thursday at a Facebook exec who criticized his knowledge of AI (artificial intelligence).

“Facebook sucks,” Musk wrote in response to a tweet from Jerome Pesenti, Facebook’s head of AI.

Pesenti had earlier tweeted that Musk “has no idea what he is talking about when he talks about AI” in response to a CNBC article about the Tesla and SpaceX CEO’s “complex” relationship with the AI community. . .

In his tweet, Pesenti wrote that “there is no such thing as AGI [Artificial General Intelligence] and we are nowhere near matching human intelligence.”

The CNBC article cited “multiple” unnamed AI researchers from different companies who described Musk’s comments on the technology as “inappropriate.” They also urged the public not to take Musk’s views on AI too seriously. (Read more from “‘Facebook Sucks’: Elon Musk Slams Social Network Exec Who Criticized His Knowledge of AI” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE