American Medical Association instructs docs to use pro-vaccine language, push COVID jabs

Story at a Glance

  • The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,” issued by the American Medical Association raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members
  • The guide lists nine “key messages” the AMA wants doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. This includes stressing the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions, the importance of flu vaccines and COVID shots, and expressing confidence in vaccine development
  • In the guide, the AMA instructs doctors on how to disinform the public using psychological and linguistic tools. This includes explicit instructions on which words to swap for other more narrative-affirming choices
  • Word swaps include changing “hospitalization rates” to “deaths,” two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable
  • Swapping the term “Operation Warp Speed” for “standard process” is another rather egregious misdirection. The two are not interchangeable. In fact, they’re diametrically opposed to one another

(Mercola) – The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,” issued by the American Medical Association (AMA) raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members.

The AMA was founded in 1847 and is the largest professional association and lobbying group of physicians and medical students in the U.S. According to the AMA itself, its mission is to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.

How then do they explain this “COVID-19 messaging guide,” which explicitly teaches doctors how to deceive their patients and the media when asked tough questions about COVID-19, treatment options and COVID shots?

AMA teaches doctors how to deceive

“It is critical that physicians and patients have confidence in the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as they become available for public use,” the “AMA COVID-19 Guide” states, adding:

“To overcome vaccine hesitancy and ensure widespread vaccine acceptance among all demographic groups, physicians and the broader public health community must continue working to build trust in vaccine safety and efficacy, especially in marginalized and minoritized communities with historically well-founded mistrust in medical institutions.”

Indeed, the entire guide is aimed at teaching doctors how to foster confidence in the medical profession in general, as it pertains to treatment of COVID-19, but in particular as it pertains to the experimental COVID shots.

The guide provides “suggested narratives” for various engagements, such as when communicating on social media, as sell as “talking points to guide external communications,” such as when being interviewed. It lists nine specific “key messages” that they want doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. These key messages can be summarized as follows:

  • Express confidence in vaccine development
  • Stress the importance of vaccines
  • Highlight the need to combat the spread of vaccine misinformation
  • Adhere to updated ethical guidance for physicians and medical personnel, which says they have a moral obligation to get vaccinated themselves
  • Give general vaccine recommendations, such as the recommendation for everyone over the age of 6 months, including pregnant women, to get an annual flu shot
  • Stress the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions
  • Highlight the increased availability of flu vaccines, and the importance of getting a flu shot even if you’ve gotten a COVID injection
  • Highlight the importance of including minorities, both in vaccine trials and as trusted messengers who can “promote social pressure” to get minorities vaccinated and dispel historical distrust in medical institutions
  • Denounce scientific analyses “predicated on personal opinions, anecdote and political ideologies”

AMA concerned about disinformation

On page 7 of the guide, under the science narrative heading, the AMA declares it is “deeply concerned that rampant disinformation and the politicization of health issues are eroding public confidence in science and undermining trust in physicians and medical institutions,” adding that “Science should be grounded in a common understanding of facts and evidence and able to empower people to make informed decisions about their health.”

To that end, the AMA is calling upon “all elected officials to affirm science and fact in their words and actions,” and for media to “be vigilant in communicating factual information” and to “challenge those who chose to trade in misinformation.”

AMA then instructs doctors on how to disinform

It’s a disappointment, then, to find the AMA instructing doctors on how to misinform the public using a variety of psychological and linguistic tools. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of this is the recommended “COVID-19 language swaps” detailed on page 9.

As you can see below, the AMA explicitly instructs doctors to swap out certain words and terms for other, more narrative-affirming choices. Shockingly, this includes swapping “hospitalization rates” to “deaths” — two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable!

Hospitalization rate refers to how many people are sick in the hospital with COVID-19, whereas death refers to how many people have died. The first term refers to people who are still alive, and the other refers to patients who are not alive.

It strains credulity that the AMA would actually tell doctors to substitute a factual data point with an outright lie. But with this swap, are they not telling doctors to state that people are dead, when in fact they’ve only been hospitalized with COVID-19?

Another highly questionable word swap is to not address the nitty, gritty details of vaccine trials, such as the number of participants, and instead simply refer to these trials as having gone through “a transparent, rigorous process.”

Swapping the factual term “Operation Warp Speed” for “standard process” is another outrageous misdirection. The two simply aren’t interchangeable. In fact, they’re actually diametrically opposed to one another. Standard process for vaccine development includes a long process of over a decade and a large number of steps that were either omitted or drastically shortened for the COVID shots.

Following standard process is what makes vaccine development take, on average, 10 years and often longer. Operation Warp Speed allowed vaccine makers to slap together these COVID shots in about nine months from start to finish. You cannot possibly say that the two terms describe an identical process.

The power of language

Other language swaps are less incredulous but still highlight the fact that the AMA wants its members to help push a very specific and one-sided narrative that makes power-grabbing overreaches and totalitarian tactics sound less bad than they actually are, and make questionable processes sound A-OK.

Language is a powerful tool with which we shape reality, because it shapes how we think about things. As noted by storyteller and filmmaker Jason Silva:

“The use of language, the words you use to describe reality, can in fact engender reality, can disclose reality. Words are generative… We create and perceive our reality through language. We think reality into existence through linguistic construction in real-time.”

For example, “lockdown” sounds like involuntary imprisonment imposed by a totalitarian regime, which is what it is, whereas “stay-at-home order” sounds far less draconian. After all, “home” is typically associated with comfort and safety.

The same goes for using “COVID protocols” in lieu of “COVID mandates, directives, controls and orders.” “Protocols” sounds like something that is standard procedure, as if the COVID measures are nothing new, whereas “mandates, controls and orders” imply that, indeed, we’re in medical fascism territory, which we are.

— Article continues below Petition —

36383 have signed the petition.

Let’s get to 40000!

Thank you for signing this petition!

Add your signature:

  Show Petition Text

With the FDA’s decision to officially approve the Pfizer COVID jab, calls to vaccinate schoolchildren and more university students will become louder and more insistent.

But, America’s children and young people must be protected from unknown future side-effects of these drugs, and parents’ rights must be respected!

Please SIGN this urgent petition which demands that COVID vaccine mandates for schools and universities be prohibited in every U.S. state.

This petition will be sent to the leaders of every state legislature and to every governor in the United States, urging them to pass emergency legislation banning vaccine mandates for primary, secondary and university students.

Students simply have the right to be educated without being forced to violate deeply held principles and their own bodily integrity!

But, unfortunately, some private schools, like the Jesuit-run Brophy College Prep School in Phoenix, Arizona, have already mandated the COVID vaccine for their students, in spite of massive parental opposition. If parents or students reject the vaccine, students face intrusive weekly testing and exclusion from extra-curricular activities.

Also, more and more universities have actually started to disenroll unvaccinated students. But, even where that is not happening, not taking the vaccine often subjects students to masking, extra testing and additional administrative obstacles.

And now, with the Pfizer jab approval, Joe Biden’s Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, is threatening more mandates.

While it is true that the FDA approval for the Pfizer jab only pertains to those over 16 years of age, the pharmaceutical industry and some state actors have been pushing to get approval for pre-teens!

So, it stands to reason that the Federal government will try to impose vaccines on schools, for those 16 and over, as well as on all university students. But, eventually, such mandates could even apply to younger and younger schoolchildren.

That’s why state legislatures and governors must fight back against any attempt to coerce school students to take a COVID vaccine against their will!

Science and logic should dictate public health policy. And both say that mandatory vaccination for children and university students is not only unnecessary, but very likely dangerous for the future health of America’s youth.

The CDC reports that the rates of death, injury, and hospitalization are very, very low for children and adolescents and that COVID transmission in schools, both from student to staff and between students, is also very low.

And a European CDC study concluded that “no evidence has been found to suggest that children or educational settings are primary drivers of COVID transmission.”

So, right now, we know that schoolchildren are at very low risk of becoming very ill as a result of COVID, or of even transmitting the virus.

But, we don’t know how a hastily-prepared, unstudied vaccine will affect the health of millions of America’s youth in the future.

Gambling with their future, and the future of our nation, should not even be entertained for one second!

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition urging state legislatures to ban COVID vaccine mandates for schools and universities – both public and private. Urge them to respect parents’ rights, informed consent and bodily integrity.

Thank you!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

‘Ivy League schools mandate COVID-19 vaccines for fall’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ivy-league-mandates-covid-19-vaccines-for-the-fall/

‘FDA approval of Pfizer jab isn’t about our health, it’s about mandating the shots’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/fda-approval-of-pfizer-jab-isnt-about-our-health-its-about-mandating-the-shots

How to steer, block, deflect and stall inconvenient questions

The AMA could have instructed its members to simply stick to the facts and be honest — and in some sections, it does do that — but it doesn’t end there. Rather, the AMA provides a full page of instructions on how to steer the conversation, and how to block, deflect and stall when faced with tough questions where an honest answer might actually break the official narrative.

Here’s a sampling of these instructions. I encourage you to read through page 8 of the guide, and pay attention to these psychological tricks when listening to interviews or reading the news.

Interviewing techniques
Steer the conversation back to the narrative by saying: “Before we leave that matter, let me add …”
Block a tough question by saying: “That’s [proprietary, confidential etc], but what I can tell you is …”
Deflect an unwanted question by saying: “That’s a common misperception but the reality is …”
Redirect away from an unwanted question, back to the official narrative by saying: “I don’t have the details on that, but what I know is …”
Stall by saying: Repeat the question asked, or acknowledge the question by saying, “I’m glad you asked …”

It’s worth noting that the AMA also stresses that: 1) Doctors are to speak for the AMA, and 2) doctors are NOT to offer their personal views. Speaking for the AMA is listed under “Your Responsibilities” when being interviewed, while not discussing personal views is listed under “Interview Don’ts.”

AMA is rapidly eroding all credibility

The AMA’s guidance isn’t all bad. Some of its advice makes perfect sense. But the inclusion of language swaps that result in false statements being made, and tools for steering, blocking, deflecting, redirecting and stalling in order to avoid direct answers do nothing but erode credibility and thus trust in the medical community.

Its direct instruction to not share personal views is another trust-eroding strategy. When people talk to their doctor, they want to hear what that doctor actually thinks, based on their own knowledge and experience.

They don’t expect their doctor — or a doctor appearing in an interview — to simply rehash a narrative dictated by the AMA. If we cannot trust our medical professionals to give their honest opinions and give direct answers, there’s little reason to even discuss our concerns with them, and that’s the opposite of what the AMA claims it seeks to achieve.

The AMA is concerned about the proliferation of misinformation and eroding trust, yet it’s telling its members to keep their professional views to themselves and lie about COVID deaths. With this guidance document, the AMA is essentially implicating itself as a source and instigator of medical misinformation that ultimately might injure patients.

In a Stew Peters Show interview (see top of this article), Dr. Bryan Ardis criticized the AMA guidance document, pointing out that while the AMA claims it put out the guidance to prevent political ideologies from dictating medicine, it is actually proving that the AMA itself is deferring to political ideology rather than medical facts.

The AMA wants its members to act as propagandists for a particular narrative — using “politically correct language” — rather than sharing information and acting in accordance with their own conscience and professional insight. As noted by Peters:

“If a doctor’s just going to repeat what the AMA tells them, why have doctors at all? You can get plenty of starving propagandists at any liberal college, but instead we want to turn our medical professionals into ideological zombies with stethoscope.”

Reprinted with permission from Mercola



Source link

Docs Show Fetal Organ Trafficking Horrors

FDA Bought Fetal Organs, Heads and Tissue for ‘Humanized Mice’ Project
DC Police Seek Second Delay in Responding to Ashli Babbitt Records Suit
Delaware Supreme Court Considers Case on Biden Senate Records Secrecy
Obama Program to Expand Migrant Youth Entry Returns with Broadened Eligibility

FDA Bought Fetal Organs, Heads and Tissue for ‘Humanized Mice’ Project

Judicial Watch has uncovered more documents detailing the evil activities of your federal government – the trafficking of the remains of unborn human beings killed by abortion. 

We received another 198 pages of records and communications from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involving “humanized mice” research with human fetal heads, organs and tissue, including communications and contracts with human fetal tissue provider Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR). 

Most of the records are communications and related attachments between Perrin Larton, a procurement manager for ABR, and research veterinary medical officer Dr. Kristina Howard of the FDA.

We received the records through a March 2019 FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, of which the FDA is a part (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services (No. 1:19-cv-00876)). 

Our lawsuit asks for all contracts and related documentation on disbursement of funds, procedural documents and communications between FDA and ABR for the provision of human fetal tissue to be used in humanized mice research. After we successfully opposed the FDA’s redaction of certain information from its records, a federal court ordered HHS to release additional information about its purchases of organs harvested from aborted human fetuses – including “line item prices,” or the price per organ the government paid to ABR. The court also found “there is reason to question” whether the transactions violate federal law barring the sale of fetal organs. Documents previously uncovered in this lawsuit show that the federal government demanded the purchased fetal organs be “fresh and never frozen.”)

The records include an FDA generated contract with ABR, based on a “requisition” it issued on July 27, 2012, for $12,000 worth of “tissue procurement for humanized mice,” which indicates the requisition was for a “non-competitive award.” Although the initial award was for $12,000, the total estimated amount of funds allocated for the requisition was $60,000. Under “Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition,” the FDA writes:

Scientists within the FDA and in the larger field of humanized mouse research have searched extensively over the past several years, and ABR is the only company in the U.S. capable of supplying tissues suitable for HM research. No other company or organization is capable of fulfilling the need.

***

Costs are estimated [for the fetal parts] at $230 per tissue x two tissues per shipment = $460 plus $95 shipping = $555 per shipment. A total of 21 shipments = $11,655.00.

An April 1, 2013, “Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract” form that shows the FDA purchased fetal livers and thymuses from ABR going back to at least October 2012, billing $580 per liver/thymus set, but later paying a unit price of $685. 

A January 1, 2013, “Fees for Services Schedule” provided by ABR to the FDA includes:

FETAL CADAVEROUS PROCUREMENT                                         SERVICE FEE

2nd trimester D&E [Dilation and Evacuation abortion] (13-24 weeks)       per specimen     $275

1st trimester aspiration [abortion] (8-12 weeks)                              per specimen     $515 

Intact Calvarium [baby’s skull] (8-24 weeks)”                                  per specimen     $515

The fees for services schedule also includes “Special Processing/Preservation” of the fetal parts, such as “Tissue ‘Cleaning,’” “Snap freezing,” and “Passive freezing (Dry ice).” 

In a September 9, 2014, “Order for Supplies or Services,” the FDA writes regarding a $9,900 order: 

The Contractors shall ship 2nd Trimester thymus $325, 2nd Trimester liver $325. Overnight deliver $150 and EFT wire transfer fee $25, for a total per delivery of $825. Total of this contract not to exceed $9,900.00.

As the result of an August 21, 2015, “Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract,” ABR bumped up the price of baby livers and thymuses from $325 each to $340 each. 

A “Tissue Acquisition Quote” sent by ABR to Howard on July 5, 2017, provided a quote of $5,440 each to provide 16 sets of second trimester (16-24 weeks) livers and 16 sets of second trimester (16-24 weeks) thymuses at $340 per “sample.” The request for the quote notes that “tissue known to be positive for HIV, HepA, HepB, HepC or chromosomal abnormalities are not acceptable.” 

On June 28, 2017, a redacted FDA contract specialist sends Larton at ABR a request for a quote (RFQ) of pricing for human fetal tissue, aged “16-24 weeks,” including a “Statement of Needs”: 

The HM [humanized mice] are created by surgical implantations of human tissue into mice that have multiple genetic mutations that block the development of the mouse immune system at a very early stage. The absence of the mouse immune system allows the human tissues to grow and develop into functional human tissues…. In order for the humanization to proceed correctly we need to obtain fetal tissue with a specific set of specialized characteristics.

A May 2018, report from a company named “LABS,” which was employed by ABR to test fetal parts and their mothers for hepatitis and HIV, notes in its “methodology description” that they are approved by the FDA “for living and cadaveric donor screening.” 

The records include a recitation of requirements by the FDA for “Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer,” in which ABR must adhere to regulations relating to “Convict Labor” and “Child Labor-Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies.” 

On September 24, 2018, the Trump FDA terminated its contract with ABR for human tissue purchases and began an audit of its acquisitions of baby body parts. The records include the FDA’s letter terminating the contract:

Based on the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order as awarded to Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. (“ABR”) on July 27, 2018, the Government is not sufficiently assured that the human tissue provided to the Government to humanize the immune systems of mice will comply with the prohibitions set forth under 42 U.S.C. § 289g- 2. Furthermore, the Government has concerns with the sufficiency of the sole-source justification. Therefore, pursuant to FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] clause 52.213-4(f), the Purchase Order is being terminated effective September 24, 2018.

Here’s some background. 

In February 2020, we first uncovered through this lawsuit hundreds of pages of records from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) showing that the agency paid thousands of dollars to a California-based firm to purchase organs from aborted human fetuses to create “humanized mice” for HIV research.

In May 2021, this lawsuit uncovered FDA records showing the agency spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to buy human fetal tissue from ABR. The tissue was used in creating “humanized mice” to test “biologic drug products.” The records indicated the FDA wanted tissue purchases “Fresh; shipped on wet ice.”

On August 3, 2021, we announced that The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and Judicial Watch, through a separate lawsuit, received 252 pages of new documents from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that reveal nearly $3 million in federal funds were spent on the University of Pittsburgh’s quest to become a “Tissue Hub” for human fetal tissue ranging from 6 to 42 weeks’ gestation. The Pitt scientists note that, “All fetal tissue is collected through a collaborative process including Family Planning, Obstetrics and Pathology.” Pitt anticipated “being able to harvest and distribute quality tissue and cells … [and] do not anticipate any major problems related to the acquisition and distribution of the tissues.” Pitt’s target goal “is to have available a minimum of 5 cases (tissues and if possible other biologicals) per week of gestational age for ages 6-42 weeks.”

Chopping up aborted human beings for their organs and tissue is a moral and legal outrage. This issue should be front and center in any debate about America’s barbaric abortion industry.

DC Police Seek Second Delay in Responding to Ashli Babbitt Records Suit

Nancy Pelosi is using events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 to attack those who oppose the tyranny of the Left. What gives her political game away is the wholesale concealing of facts about that day.

The latest: The District of Columbia asked a court for an additional delay to respond to our FOIA lawsuit for records related to the U.S. Capitol Police shooting death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6. 2001.

In our opposition to the second requested 30 day delay, we argue that DC “has brazenly violated the law on an issue of significant public interest,” and “seeks delay for nothing more than delay’s sake.

We filed our May 2021 FOIA lawsuit filed after DC failed to respond to two FOIA April, 2021 requests to the Metropolitan Police Department and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for records related to Babbitt’s death (Judicial Watch v. The District of Columbia (No. 2021 CA 001710 B)).  

In August, our lawsuit led to the release of records from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner revealing that it submitted a request for permission to cremate Babbitt only two days after taking custody of her body and that ‘due to the “high profile nature” of Babbitt’s case, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Francisco Diaz requested that a secure electronic file with limited access be created for Babbitt’s records.  

The Metropolitan Police Department has yet to provide any records.  

Babbitt was shot and killed as she climbed through a broken interior window in the United State Capitol. She was unarmed, and a 14-year Air Force veteran. The identity of the shooter was kept secret by Congress, and federal and local authorities for eight months until U.S. Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd went public to try to defend his killing of Ms. Babbitt. 

Now that the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt has finally been identified – and has gone public – there is no reason for the DC Police to hide records on the homicide of Babbitt. America deserves to have the full details of what really happened on January 6.

We are pursuing several investigations into the events of January 6.

We recently asked the court for discovery in its lawsuit against the United States Capitol Police for emails and videos concerning the disturbance at the U.S. Capitol.

In March, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the District of Columbia for records about the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. Pressure from this lawsuit helped lead to the disclosure that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes.

In May, we sued both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense for records regarding the deployment of armed forces around the Capitol complex in Washington, D.C., in January and February of 2021.

We also filed a lawsuit for Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s communications with the Pentagon in the days after the January 6 incident.

(Update: The Court granted the extension of time but Judicial Watch will continue the legal pressure for full disclosure about the Babbitt killing and other January 6 information that Nancy Pelosi and her allies are hiding.)

Delaware Supreme Court Considers Case on Biden Senate Records Secrecy

Our quest to learn what Joe Biden is hiding about his Senate career has reached the Supreme Court of Delaware, which heard arguments this week in our state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. We sued on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation for access to records about President Joe Biden’s Senate records held by the University of Delaware. (You can view the arguments here.)

Biden’s papers include more than 1,850 boxes of archival records from his senate career. The university is withholding the alleged agreement with President Biden to keep them secret as well as communications between the university and representatives of the president about keeping them secret.

We and The Daily Caller filed requests on April 30, 2020, for all of Biden’s records and for records about the preservation and any proposed release of the records, including communications with Mr. Biden or his representatives.

Our appeal challenges a Superior Court of Delaware’s January 4, 2021, ruling upholding the Delaware state attorney general’s opinion that the records are not “public records” because, the opinion concludes without evidence, no public funds are used to support the Biden records project at the University of Delaware.

We argue that it is impossible for the housing of Biden’s senatorial records in the University of Delaware’s Library to not be supported by or have an effect on any public funds. We note that the University admitted that “[t]he State of Delaware provides the University with approximately $120 million each year through an appropriation in the state budget,” but has yet to show how any of these funds are not used to support the papers.

We also point out that “archival storage space and professional staff members’ time are things of value that it can be inferred are paid for with public funds,” and notes that the requests even listed the “University personnel who maintain the Senatorial Papers whose salaries, it can be inferred, are paid with State funds.”

“The University of Delaware’s argument that a public university housing public records is not subject to public disclosure requirements would be comical if all this weren’t so serious. We are hopeful that the court will not allow this attempt to hide President Biden’s rightfully public information to stand,” Daily Caller News Foundation President Neil Patel said.

We filed the July 2020 FOIA lawsuit after the University denied its April 30, 2020, request for:

  • All records regarding the proposed release of the records pertaining to former Vice President Joe Biden’s tenure as a Senator that have been housed at the University of Delaware Library since 2012. This request includes all related records of communication between the University of Delaware and any other records created pertaining to any meeting of the Board of Trustees during which the proposed release of the records was discussed.
  • All records of communication between any representative of the University of Delaware and former Vice President Biden or any other individual acting on his behalf between January 1, 2018 and the present.

Also on April 30, the Daily Caller News Foundation submitted its FOIA request to the university for:

  • All agreements concerning the storage of more than 1,850 boxes of archival records and 415 gigabytes of electronic records from Joe Biden’s senate career from 1973 through 2009.
  • Communications between the staff of the University of Delaware Library and Joe Biden or his senatorial, vice-presidential or political campaign staff, or for anyone representing any of those entities between January 1, 2010, and April 30, 2020, about Joe Biden’s senate records.
  • Any logs or sign-in sheets recording any individuals who have visited the special-collections department where records from Joe Biden’s senate career are stored between 2010 to the date of this request.
  • All records from Joe Biden’s Senate career that have been submitted to the University of Delaware Library.

It is more than a little bit curious that President Biden refuses to make not one page of his Senate records available to the American public. Delaware law requires state entities, including the University of Delaware, to provide public access to these records.

 

Obama Program to Expand Migrant Youth Entry Returns with Broadened Eligibility

Joe Biden’s minions are looking for every opportunity to open our border to any and all comers, and our Corruption Chronicles blog has details on their latest move.

A revived Obama program to allow more migrants under the age of 21 to come to the U.S. legally will begin accepting new applications this week and has been expanded to assure more candidates qualify, the Biden administration announced via the State Department. Known as the Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee and Parole program, it was initially launched in 2014 so youths from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras with a relative in the U.S. could qualify for asylum without having to apply in person as is customary. The Trump administration terminated the program in 2017 and earlier this year the Biden administration said it was “reinstituting and improving” it.

The new version, which officially begins accepting new applications today, will broaden eligibility and reopen cases that were closed when CAM was shut down, according to the State Department announcement that says “resettlement support center partners were trained to support families during the process” throughout August. That means it is highly likely the government paid leftist nonprofits to assist the illegal immigrants and their relatives. “The reopening of CAM coupled with eligibility expansion are components of President Biden’s multi-pronged approach to address the challenges of irregular migration throughout North and Central America,” the State Department further writes, adding that “a greater number of qualifying individuals now have access to this program.”

In addition to parents, eligibility to petition will now be extended to include legal guardians who are in the United States, pursuant to any of the following qualifying categories: lawful permanent residence; temporary protected status; parole; deferred action; deferred enforced departure; or withholding of removal. The expansion of eligibility will also include “certain U.S.-based parents or legal guardians who have a pending asylum application or a pending U visa petition” filed before May. “We are firmly committed to welcoming people to the United States with humanity and respect, and reuniting families,” the Biden administration writes in the press release, adding this: “We are delivering on our promise to promote safe, orderly, and humane migration from Central America through this expansion of legal pathways to seek humanitarian protection in the United States.”

The Obama administration enacted CAM in 2014 to allow youths from the three impoverished Central American nations with parents or relatives in the U.S. legally to apply for protective status from home. Typically, foreigners seeking asylum must apply in person. Originally, CAM only offered the perk to the children of “certain parents who are lawfully present in the United States.” To qualify the “child” had to be unmarried, under he age of 21, and a national of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras. In some cases, the government allowed an “in-country parent of the qualifying child” to also qualify for access. Those determined by the U.S. government to be ineligible for refugee status, were considered for parole, which does not lead to a permanent immigration status but allows illegal immigrants to lawfully enter and live temporarily in the U.S. and apply for work authorization. Under the original CAM, the U.S. generally approved parole for a three-year period.

Reinstating CAM will make tens of thousands of minors eligible to come to the U.S. even though the country is already overwhelmed with an influx of migrant youths, mainly from Central America, that have shown up at the Mexican border. The government classifies them as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and there are approximately 14,319 in taxpayer-funded shelters throughout the U.S., according to the latest figures released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency charged with caring for the UAC. The overwhelming majority (72%) are not young children but rather adolescents over 14 years of age, the government figures show, and 68% are boys. Most come from Guatemala El Salvador, and Honduras. Last fiscal year the U.S. released 75,165 UAC to “sponsors” around the country, with four states—Texas, Florida, California, and New York—absorbing the biggest chunk. Thousands also went to relatives in Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia.

Until next week …



Source link

After Biden Caves on 9/11 Docs, Declassified Info Sheds New Light on Saudi Connections

A newly declassified FBI document revealed information about a man with links to the Saudi government who allegedly provided logistical support to the first two 9/11 hijackers to arrive in the U.S.

According to The Hill, the heavily redacted 16-page report is the first to be made public after President Joe Biden issued an executive order declassifying some 9/11 documents.

Families of victims who are suing Saudi Arabia say the documents could substantiate a link between the attacks and Saudi government officials.

The document, which was declassified on Saturday, deals with a 2015 FBI interview with a Saudi man applying for U.S. citizenship.

The man, whose name was redacted from the report, had previous contact with Omar al-Bayoumi, a government-linked Saudi individual who was purportedly a student in California.

Trending:

Ex-Special Forces Soldier Beats Woman to a Pulp… And the Left Is Cheering Him for It

Al-Bayoumi had helped the first two hijackers who arrived in the U.S., Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, find an apartment in San Diego, according to Fox News. Al-Bayoumi claimed the three had had a “chance encounter” at a restaurant which led to the arrangement.

However, he had also provided assistance in the form of translation, financing, lodging and travel planning — and there was additional evidence linking him to al-Qaida.

“The report said that a month before the hijackers arrived, Bayoumi checked into a hotel in Culver City, Calif., along with a man whose phone numbers were connected to a spiritual adviser to a Bin Laden lieutenant,” The Hill reported. “Those two men reportedly had associations with the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.”

The man being interviewed for U.S. citizenship also had connections at the consulate.

In June, a two-page declaration was signed by a former American Airlines pilot who had flown American Flight 77 — the flight that, on Sept. 11, 2001, was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon.

The pilot, Robert M. Brown, was quizzed by the FBI about a drawing of a plane found in a notebook after a British raid on al-Bayoumi’s home.

The drawing included a mathematical equation that Brown said was “used to calculate the height of an aircraft necessary to see a target from two distances, specifically 50 and 70 miles from the target.”

He said the “the equation, together with airspeed, could be used to provide a rough but sufficient means to calculate the rate of descent for an aircraft to fly towards the target.

“I shared with the FBI my opinion that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the drawing and equation were used as part of the preparations of the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the 9/11 Attacks.”

The new document is the first to be declassified after Biden’s executive order, which came after the families suing the Saudi government called on him to stay away from 9/11 anniversary memorials.

Related:

To Commemorate 9/11 Fallen, West Point Remembers Those We Lost in Epic Fashion

“When I ran for president, I made a commitment to ensuring transparency regarding the declassification of documents on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America,” Biden said in a Sept. 3 statement. “As we approach the 20th anniversary of that tragic day, I am honoring that commitment.

“Today, I signed an executive order directing the Department of Justice and other relevant agencies to oversee a declassification review of documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s September 11th investigations. The executive order requires the Attorney General to release the declassified documents publicly over the next six months.”

This came less than a month after an Aug. 9 Department of Justice filing seeking to look at those documents again — something Biden supported in a statement.

Should Biden have declassified these 9/11 documents?

“As I promised during my campaign, my Administration is committed to ensuring the maximum degree of transparency under the law, and to adhering to the rigorous guidance issued during the Obama-Biden Administration on the invocation of the state secrets privilege,” Biden said.

“In this vein, I welcome the Department of Justice’s filing today, which commits to conducting a fresh review of documents where the government has previously asserted privileges, and to doing so as quickly as possible.”

On this account, however, the president was more or less caving.

It came in the wake of an August statement from about 1,800 individuals — not just family members of the victims, but survivors and first responders, as well — telling the president he wasn’t welcome at memorial ceremonies until the information was declassified.

“We cannot in good faith, and with veneration to those lost, sick, and injured, welcome the president to our hallowed grounds until he fulfills his commitment,” the group said.

“Twenty years later, there is simply no reason — unmerited claims of ‘national security’ or otherwise — to keep this information secret.”

“If President Biden reneges on his commitment and sides with the Saudi government, we would be compelled to publicly stand in objection to any participation by his administration in any memorial ceremony of 9/11.”

The official 9/11 Commission report found that while Saudi Arabia was a “problematic ally” and some Saudis had funded al-Qaida, no link could be established between Saudi government officials and the attacks.

The families suing Saudi Arabia allege the connections go deeper than the country being a “problematic ally” and 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudi.

While the document released on the 20th anniversary of 9/11 doesn’t prove a definitive connection, one of the families’ lawyers said in a statement that “the findings and conclusions in this FBI investigation validate the arguments we have made in the litigation regarding the Saudi government’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.”

“This document, together with the public evidence gathered to date, provides a blueprint for how [al-Qaida] operated inside the US with the active, knowing support of the Saudi government,” Jim Kreindler said.

Saturday’s declassification doesn’t necessarily go that far — but there’s more than enough smoke to suggest fire. What’s more, this could be just the beginning.

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One and football (of both American and world varieties).

Birthplace

Morristown, New Jersey

Education

Catholic University of America

Languages Spoken

English, Spanish

Topics of Expertise

American Politics, World Politics, Culture



Source link

Rutgers Virus Expert: Fauci, Collins “Untruthful” About Funding Gain-of-function Research. New Docs Disclose More Grants to Wuhan Lab

AP Images

A top microbiologist says Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, did not tell the truth in claiming his agency did not fund dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Richard Ebright, chief of the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University, leveled the charge after evaluating government documents obtained by the Intercept. He also fingered Francis Collins, Fauci’s boss and head of the National Institutes for Health. Collins also denied funding the potentially catastrophic lab work. The men were, Ebright says, “untruthful.”

Published on September 6, the revelations put Fauci under more pressure to come clean and resign. Gain of function is genetic manipulation that enhances the ability of viruses to infect human beings. Experts believe an enhanced virus escaped the lab in infected lab workers and spread around the globe.

The Documents

Fox News and Newsweek disclosed the U.S. subsidies for the lab last year. But the Intercept obtained 900 pages of new documents that concern EcoHealth Alliance, the outfit that funneled taxpayer money from NIH to the Wuhan institute. Included in the tome were two unpublished grant proposals.

One grant, Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence, “outlines an ambitious effort led by EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak to screen thousands of bat samples for novel coronaviruses,” the website reported:

The research also involved screening people who work with live animals. The documents contain several critical details about the research in Wuhan, including the fact that key experimental work with humanized mice was conducted at a biosafety level 3 lab at Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment — and not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as was previously assumed. The documents raise additional questions about the theory that the pandemic may have begun in a lab accident, an idea that Daszak has aggressively dismissed.

The bat coronavirus grant provided EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans. Even before the pandemic, many scientists were concerned about the potential dangers associated with such experiments. The grant proposal acknowledges some of those dangers: “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled.”

Ever since the pandemic struck almost two years ago, Daszak has said the virus did not escape from a lab in Wuhan. But multiple reports, including one from the minority staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, have all but established the lab-leak hypothesis as fact.

Though Daszak’s outfit funded the mad science in Wuhan, Daszak joined the team from the World Health Organization that exonerated the institute as the origin of the pandemic. He has also claimed that the lab-leak hypothesis is a “conspiracy theory.”

Now we know that Fauci — through Daszak — funded gain of function. The lab used it to enhance viruses.

“The viruses they constructed were tested for their ability to infect mice that were engineered to display human type receptors on their cell,” Ebright wrote to the Intercept: 

Ebright also said the documents make it clear that two different types of novel coronaviruses were able to infect humanized mice. “While they were working on SARS-related coronavirus, they were carrying out a parallel project at the same time on MERS-related coronavirus,” Ebright said, referring to the virus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

The Big Lies

Questioned by GOP Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Fauci has lied twice in sworn testimony when he denied subsidizing gain-of-function research. Paul has already asked the Department of Justice to investigate Fauci, whom the media have depicted as the only man who can save humanity from the virus his agency helped create.

But Collins fibbed, too, when he claimed that “neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”

In a long Twitter thread about the Intercept report, Ebright explained what went on at the labs.

“The materials confirm the grants supported the construction — in Wuhan — of novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses that combined a spike gene from one coronavirus with genetic information from another coronavirus, and confirmed the resulting viruses could infect human cells,” Ebright wrote:

The materials reveal that the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses also could infect mice engineered to display human receptors on cells (“humanized mice”).

The materials further reveal for the first time that one of the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses — one not been previously disclosed publicly — was more pathogenic to humanized mice than the starting virus from which it was constructed …

… and thus not only was reasonably anticipated to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity, but, indeed, was *demonstrated* to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity.

Thus, he concluded, “the documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful.”

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri expects Fauci to resign. “Anthony Fauci has repeatedly and deliberately mislead Congress and the American people,” he tweeted:

Resign. And face a congressional inquiry





Source link

Internal docs prove US gov funded Wuhan lab’s gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses

According to a report published on Monday, the U.S. government provided funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China for the highly controversial gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, denied that the National Institute of Health [NIH] has ever funded the gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Back in May, Fauci exchanged heated words with Republican Sen. Rand Paul, Fauci claimed that the “[National Institute of Health] has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

The Intercept, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, obtained 900 new pages of previously undisclosed information from the NIH, showing that the EcoHealth Alliance used federal grant money to fund dangerous bat coronavirus research in the Chinese labs.

The Intercept reported:

The bat coronavirus grant provided the EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans. Even before the pandemic, many scientists were concerned about the potential dangers associated with such experiments. The grant proposal acknowledges some of those dangers: “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled.”

A molecular biologist at Rutgers University, Richard Ebright, reviewed the material and told the Intercept that the “viruses they constructed were tested for their ability to infect mice that were engineered to display human-type receptors on their cell.”

Ebright also noted how scientists were not only conducting experiments with SARS-related coronavirus, but also MERS-related coronaviruses.

“The materials show that the 2014 and 2019 NIH grants to EcoHealth with subcontracts to WIV funded gain-of-function research as defined in federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and potential pandemic pathogen enhancement as defined in federal policies in effect in 2017-present,” Ebright added on Twitter. “The materials confirm the grants supported the construction — in Wuhan — of novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses that combined a spike gene from one coronavirus with genetic information from another coronavirus, and confirmed the resulting viruses could infect human cells.”

“The materials reveal that the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses also could infect mice engineered to display human receptors on cells (‘humanized mice’),” he continued. “The materials further reveal for the first time that one of the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses — one not been previously disclosed publicly — was more pathogenic to humanized mice than the starting virus from which it was constructed and thus not only was reasonably anticipated to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity, but, indeed, was *demonstrated* to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity.”

Ebright added that Fauci and NIH Director, Francis Collins, had been “untruthful,” when it came to the gain-of-function research support.

“The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful,” Ebright wrote on Twitter.





Source link

Medical examiner requested cremation of Babbitt’s body two days after Capitol breach, docs show

From Justthenews.com

The Washington D.C. Offices of the Chief Medical Examiner submitted a request to cremate Jan. 6 Capitol protester Ashli Babbitt two days after gaining custody of the body, according to documents obtained and released Tuesday by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.

Babbitt, an Air Force veteran and San Diego native, was fatally shot by a U.S. Capitol Police officer as she attempted to climb through a broken window of a door to the Speaker’s Lobby, a room off House chambers.

Among the 1,160 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Jan. 8 application to cremate Babbit’s body that is labeled “completed successfully.”

Read More Here.



Source link

Medical examiner requested cremation of Babbitt’s body two days after Capitol breach, docs show

The Washington D.C. Offices of the Chief Medical Examiner submitted a request to cremate Jan. 6 Capitol protester Ashli Babbitt two days after gaining custody of the body, according to documents obtained and released Tuesday by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.

Babbitt, an Air Force veteran and San Diego native, was fatally shot by a U.S. Capitol Police officer as she attempted to climb through a broken window of a door to the Speaker’s Lobby, a room off House chambers. 

Among the 1,160 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Jan. 8 application to cremate Babbit’s body that is labeled “completed successfully.” 

However, neither Judicial Watch nor the medical examiner’s officer could confirm Tuesday whether the entry meant the application or the cremation was successful.

The Justice Department said in April that it would not pursue charges against the unnamed officer accused of fatally shooting the 35-year-old Babbitt because there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.

The decision came about a week after the medical examiner’s office said Babbitt died of a gunshot wound to her shoulder, and that her death had been ruled a “homicide” because it was the result of “intentional harm of one person by another.” 

“The continued secrecy and delayed release of information about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt are suspicious and smacks of politics,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That Americans still have no information about who killed her or any police report about her death is a scandal of epic proportions.”

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch also appear to show that an email of Babbit’s fingerprints between a Metropolitan Police Department officer and a District of Columbia government official resulted in multiple Microsoft “undeliverable” messages being returned, written in what appear to be Chinese characters.



Source link

More Fauci Agency China Docs

Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Records on Alleged Transfer of Bank Financial Data of Every Person in Washington, DC Area around January 6
Judicial Watch Sues USPS on Tracking Americans’ Social Media Posts
BREAKING: New Documents Show Significant Wuhan Lab and NIH Collaboration
Judicial Watch Sues Defense Department over the Mistreatment of a War Hero
DC Racial Equity Office Rules Lincoln Statue Will Widen Racial Inequity

Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Records on Alleged Transfer of Bank Financial Data of Every Person in Washington, DC Area around January 6

The Left, including the Biden administration, seems to be using the January 6 disturbance as an excuse to target, intimidate and abuse political opponents. With those concerns in mind, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records of communication between the FBI and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transactions made by people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:21-cv-01216)). Last week, the FBI refused to confirm or deny any such records exist.

We sued after the FBI failed to respond to a February 10, 2021, FOIA request for:

All records of communication between the FBI and any financial institution, including but not limited to Bank of America, Citibank, Chase Manhattan Bank, Discover, and/or American Express, in which the FBI sought transaction data for those financial institutions’ debit and credit card account holders who made purchases in Washington, DC, Maryland and/or Virginia on January 5, 2021 and/or January 6, 2021.

Bank of America reportedly “actively but secretly engaged in the hunt for extremists in cooperation with the government” and, following the events of January 6, gave the FBI financial records of their customers who fit the following profile:

  1. Customers confirmed as transacting, either through bank account debit card or credit card purchases in Washington, D.C. between 1/5 and 1/6.
  2. Purchases made for Hotel/Airbnb RSVPs in DC, VA, and MD after 1/6.
  3.  Any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant between 1/7 and their upcoming suspected stay in D.C. area around Inauguration Day.
  4.  Airline related purchases since 1/6.

Here’s how the FBI is playing games with our investigation:

On June 8, 2021, the court overseeing the lawsuit ordered the FBI/DOJ to respond substantively to our request within 30 days.

On June 17, 2021, the FBI responded to our request, stating that the request was “too broad” and asked for “further clarification and/or narrowing” of the request.

On June 24, 2021, we responded to this request by sending a news article detailing Bank of America’s handing over transaction records to the FBI of people in the Washington, DC area around the date of January 6.

On July 1, 2021, the FBI responded to our FOIA request with a letter stating that it accepts our narrowing of the search, but that it neither confirms nor denies the existence of these documents. The FBI states:

The FBI accepts this supplemental correspondence as evidence you are further clarifying and narrowing the subject of your request to records/financial transaction requests from financial institutions pertaining to the alleged riot on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, to include records/financial transactions from January 5, 2021 for the 3 jurisdictions.

Please be advised that it is the FBI’s policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of any records which would disclose the existence or non-existence of non-public law enforcement techniques, procedures, and/or guidelines. The acknowledgment that any such records exist or do not exist could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of law.

We want the details on what looks to be an unprecedented abuse of the financial privacy of countless innocent Americans by big banks and the FBI. The FBI’s stonewalling and non-denial denial of our request speak volumes.

Judicial Watch Sues USPS on Tracking Americans’ Social Media Posts

Did you know that the Post Office has an Internet Covert Operations Program monitoring your social media posts? That’s right. This agency, which has lost $87 billion over the past 14 years, has time to look into your opinions, even though it has trouble getting a letter into your mailbox in a timely way – or at all.

To learn more about spy operation, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for information relating to the tracking and collecting of Americans’ social media posts through its Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service (No. 1:21-cv-01735)).

We sued after the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) failed to respond to an April 27, 2021, FOIA request seeking access to:

  1. All records from January 1, 2020 to the present identifying criteria for flagging social media posts as “inflammatory” or otherwise worthy of further scrutiny by other government agencies.
  2. All records from January 1, 2020 to the present relating to the Internet Covert Operations Program’s database of social media posts.
  3. All records and communications from January 1, 2020 to the present between any official of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and any official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding the Internet Covert Operations Program.
  4. All social media posts that the Internet Covert Operations Program has flagged and forwarded to other government agencies.
  5. Any analyses outlining the authority of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to monitor, track, and collect Americans’ social media posts.
  6. All records concerning the reasons for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to monitor, track, and collect Americans’ social media posts.
  7. All records of communication sent to and by Chief Postal Inspector Gary Barksdale from January 1, 2020 to the present regarding the Internet Covert Operations Program.

The FOIA request was prompted by an April 21, 2021, Yahoo! News report that the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service has been “running a program that tracks and collects Americans’ social media posts, including those about planned protests.” Again, according to a document obtained by Yahoo! News, this surveillance effort is known as the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP):

“Analysts with the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) monitored significant activity regarding planned [anti-lockdown] protests occurring internationally and domestically on March 20, 2021,” says the March 16 government bulletin, marked as “law enforcement sensitive” and distributed through the Department of Homeland Security’s fusion centers. “Locations and times have been identified for these protests, which are being distributed online across multiple social media platforms, to include right-wing leaning Parler and Telegram accounts.”

Did the Biden administration weaponize the United States Postal Service to improperly spy on Americans who object to lockdown policies? Judicial Watch, with your support, aims to get the truth.

BREAKING: New Documents Show Significant Wuhan Lab and NIH Collaboration

We continue to learn that U.S. agencies, including the one run by Dr. Anthony Fauci, collaborated extensively with the Chinese communist medical establishment in Wuhan and elsewhere in China. This collaboration occurred over many years before the pandemic erupted.

We received 301 pages of emails and other records from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials in connection with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, revealing relationships that began in 2014. These records reveal that Dr. Fauci’s NIAID gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself.

These records also include an email from the Vice Director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.

Additionally, a World Health Day announcement lists “successful activities” of the US-China collaboration that included “detailed surveillance throughout China and in other countries on the emergence of coronaviruses” and NIH’s receipt of influenza samples from China to “assess risks associated with emerging variants for pandemic and zoonotic threat.”

The records further show that, in 2018, Dr. Ping Chen, the NIAID Representative in China, learned of a “type of new flu vaccine using nano-technology from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology” and discovered that the Chinese had blocked all Internet links to reports on the new technology. This led Chen to write an urgent “night note” to U.S. government officials. The note said, “The intranasal nano-vaccine can target broad-spectrum flu viruses and induces robust immune responses.”

The documents also include a picture of the Wuhan facility building taken by Dr. Chen.

We obtained the documents through our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for records of communications, contracts and agreements with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:21-cv-00696)). The lawsuit specifically sought records about NIH grants that benefitted the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The agency is only processing 300 pages of records per month, which means it will take until the end of November for the records to be fully reviewed and released under FOIA.

The nine grants to the controversial EcoHealth Alliance include the following:

  • One grant awarded each year between 2010-2012 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Chinese collaborator Jinping Chen of Guangdong Entomological Institute, to study in China “Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats.”
  • One grant awarded each year from 2014-2017 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Chinese collaborator Changwen Ke of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Guangdong, in a project titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
  • grant was issued in 2012 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Xiangming Xiao of the East China Normal University, in a project titled “Comparative Spillover Dynamics of Avian Influenza in Endemic Countries.
  • grant was issued in 2018 to EcoHealth Alliance, again working with Ke in the project called “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

The records include an email on March 20, 2020, labeled, “navigating politics,” In which NIH virologist Jens Kuhn forwards to NIH colleagues Cliff Lane (NIAID Deputy Director) and Connie Schmaljohn (senior NIAID official), a 2016 email of “high importance” that Kuhn received from Wuhan Institute of Virology Vice Director Yuan Zhiming, with the subject line “asking for help.”

In his 2016 email, Zhiming told Kuhn:

I am writing to you to ask your help. Our laboratory is under operation without pathogens, and we are now looking for the disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and surface decontamination indoor decontamination. We have tried several ones do [sic] determine their antiviral efficacy and corrosion to pipeline and wastewater treatment equipment. Unfortunately, we have found a good candidate. I hope you can give us some help, to give us some suggestion for the choice of disinfectants used in P4 laboratory.

What kind of disinfectants for decontamination of airtight protective clothes?

What kind of disinfectants for surface decontamination in door?

What kind of disinfectants for air decontamination in door?

What kind of disinfectants for infectious materials indoor?

What is the approval procedure for the choice of disinfectants in laboratory?

I am sorry to disturb you and I really hope you could give us some suggestion and cooment [sic].

Best regards and looking forward to seeing you in Wuhan.

Yuan Zhiming

After the new coronavirus emerged, on March 20, 2020, continuing on this email chain, Zhiming writes Kuhn:

The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is a major challenge for global public health security. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with serious acute respiratory distress syndrome with large number of patients’ hospitalization and relatively high mortality. We had a very hard time in combating the infection in Wuhan, the epicenter of the COVID-19 in China, and now we can see the situation goes in good direction, with no reported confirmed case, no reported suspected case in last two days here.

My colleagues and I have been working on characterization of pathogens, antiviral screen, vaccine development, animal modeling since the early January this year, and some progresses have been made. I hope our understanding of the virus and the technology could be valuable in the global fighting to the virus.

As I can see from the media, the virus is spreading in your country, and more people are infected during the last days, and the situation worries me a lot. I am confident that we could finally curb the spreading of the virus with our joint effort, and our life will return back to the normal soon. I do not know what I can do for you in the special moment and I hope you could protect you and your family.

Kuhn tells Lane and Schmaljohn, “I know Zhiming for quite some time and also met him personally in Wuhan twice … He used to be responsible for the BSL-4 there.”

Some of Kuhn, Lane and Schmaljohn’s follow-on comments about Zhiming’s emails are redacted under “deliberative process” exemption.

In an email exchange on August 11, 2014, between Chen and the head of the NIH-funded biosecurity lab at the University of Texas in Galveston, Dr. James Leduc, Leduc provides the initial contact between NIAID (via Chen) and officials at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Leduc told Chen that he had been working on an initiative to “form long-term scientific and technical collaborations with the new BSL4 laboratory” in Wuhan, under the direction of Dr. Yuan Zhiming, with whom Leduc had met “repeatedly.” Leduc adds, “we are already attempting to build the kind of partnership [with the Wuhan Institute of Virology] that I think is envisioned under the GHSA [Global Health Security Agenda].”

A chart labeled “NIH Extramural Projects with a Chinese Collaborator, by IC, FY2010-2018,” indicates NIH provided a total of 2,221 grants between 2010-2018 for projects involving a “Chinese Collaborator,” with Anthony Fauci’s NIAID providing the most grants among all NIH subagencies, furnishing 490 grants. The remaining 1,731 grants were from 19 different NIH subagencies.

An additional chart shows that the NIAID financial grants increased steadily over those eight years, with a particular spike in 2013; and the number of grants jumped from 34 in 2012 to 61 in 2013.

Another spreadsheet shows the 2,221 grants disbursed among 261 universities, laboratories, and private companies. The vast majority are in the US, but others are in China, the UK, Canada, Thailand, and Australia.

Additional spreadsheets detail the 2,221 grants, including:

  • A grant to Wayne State University, working with Chinese collaborator Xiaoyi Fang, to study in China “Venue-based HIV and alcohol use risk reduction among female sex workers in China.”
  • A grant to Purdue University, working with Chinse collaborator Yinlong Jin, to study in China “Selenium, other risk factors and cognitive decline in rural elderly Chinese.”
  • A grant to Peking University, working with Chinese collaborator Yaohui Zhao, in a project in China titled “China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.”
  • A grant to Boston College, working with Chinese collaborator Wei Sun of Renmin University of China, to study in China “The impact of Long-Term Care Insurance.”
  • A grant to Florida International University, working with Chinese collaborator Sheng Li of Shanghai Institutes of Biological Sciences, to study in China “Regulation of juvenile hormone titers in mosquitoes.”
  • A grant to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, working with Chinese collaborator Yue Long Shu of the Chinese National Influenza Center, in a project titled “Southeast Regional Centers of Excellence for Biodefense & Emerging Infectious Di[seases].”
  • A grant to Zhejiang University, working with Chinese collaborator Shulin Chen, to study in China “Collaborative Care for Depressed Elders in China.”

In an email on October 26, 2017, Chen sends a “trip report” to NIH colleagues advising them that she visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She includes a photo of the lab and states,

My contact who helped arrange the visit is Dr. Zhengli Shi, who is a Chinese collaborator on a NIAID grant to EcoHealth for SARS like corona virus project.

The P4 lab is located in a new developing zone about one hour car ride from the current institute location in central Wuhan city. The location will be the new campus for the entire institute in the near future (a lot of construction is going on right now). Since we are not allowed to take photos so only the photo from the outside is attached.

In an email marked “high importance” on August 6, 2014, with the subject “Harbin Wuhan China Global Health Security,” Chen discussed collaborating more with Chinese health officials with her NIH colleagues. Chen states:

I had a meeting with [HHS Health Attache to China] Liz Yuan and Liz updated me with regarding the activities involving Global Health Security Agenda. China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission (Ministry of Health) and China CDC are supportive and should commit to be a part of the network. We do want to expand the Chinese participation in the network to include other partners and sectors, including agriculture and veterinary.

We could not so far identify any direct NIAID collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). However, from a quick search we found Dr. James Leduc of University of Texas at Galveston and Dr. Jian Han of the Hudsonalpha Institute of Biotechnology at Birmingham recently visited WIV… James Leduc is the head of the national lab at Galveston and I believe NIAID funded the establishment of the lab (biosecurity lab) … And please find if both James Leduc and Han Jian have any NIAID funded grants.

In an email on February 26, 2018, Chen messaged her NIH colleagues to report that she had learned of a, “type of new flu vaccine using nano-technology from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology” and discovered that the Chinese had blocked all Internet links to reports on the new technology.

Working with the State Department’s Environment, Science, Technology, and Health (ESTH) officer Sarah Oh, Chen then wrote a “night note” about this development. In the note she cites Cui Zongqiang, head of the Wuhan research group stating, “The intranasal nano-vaccine can target broad-spectrum flu viruses and induces robust immune responses,”

Chen adds, “‘In our study, an intranasal nanovaccine worked well against infections of H1N1 and H9N2 virus in mice,’ Cui said.” NIH official Gray Handley responded to Chen, saying, “Thanks, Ping. All quite interesting developments.”

In a January 20, 2017, report to NIH colleagues, Chen describes the, “Global Virome Project,” which is sponsored by USAID and other organizations, and would be led by the US and China. Chen notes:

The purpose of the project is to identify viruses present in the wildlife with potential crossing over to humans, causing human infection and disease. Following the identification of the viruses is the development of vaccines to protect human population… One of the partners in this project is EcoHealth Alliance. Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance is one of the leaders for the GVP project and he has NIAID grant from RDB looking at the coronaviruses in Bat populations in China in collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In an email exchange dated July 14, 2015, Chen, tells NIH colleagues that she has been coordinating projects and visits with the Wuhan Lab.

Chen states that she’s “been working with Ken [presumably the US Health Attaché in Beijing Ken Earhart] on preparing for the pre advance team visit in preparation for the possible HHS Secretary visit to China in Sept. 9-11. The pre advance team will be in Beijing this Wednesday. I will meet them on Wednesday to brief on the NIAID activities in China.”

Chen then identifies the individuals who she has been coordinating with in Wuhan:

I visited three Chinese PIs [presumably Principal Investigators] on NIAID funded projects in Wuhan (I contacted 5 PIs, one was not available and one never responded) last week. Briefly, one PI at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Dr. Shi Zhengli, is known as the bat lady. She studies the viruses carried by the Chinese bats trying to identify the viral reservoirs, particularly focusing on coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS. She has identified bat viruses that are genetically very close to the SARS virus that caused the outbreak in China in 2003. Another PI I visited is Dr. Yang Dongliang … Dr. Yang has one of the one-year programs where he collaborated with US PI on universal HIV vaccine research. His role in the collaboration was to collect HIV isolates from Chinese patients, sequencing the viruses, and close the envelope genes for the US collaborators to screen for conserved epitopes via a novel screening technology. The third PI I visited is Dr. Wu Jiangguo, who is the head of the state key lab of virology in Wuhan University. [Redacted]. George Gao [likely top Chinese CDC official George Fu Gao] is a close collaborator with the lab. In addition to basic research on virology, the lab also does translational research in antivirals, vaccines and reagents with industry partners.

In a previous March 16, 2015, email update to NIH colleagues, Chen informed them that “First week of May, visit Wuhan Institute of Virology with Ken to see its BSL4 lab and talk about common interests. While in Wuhan, I will meet the Chinese PIs on NIAID grants.”

In a report dated January 12, 2015, Chen advised her NIH colleagues on her attempts to get an invitation to the ceremony of the completion of the BSL4 lab:

I sent a request to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for invitation to attend the BSL4 laboratory completion ceremony. I got a message from the contact I have that limited number of international people outside France will be invited to the ceremony as it is the French who helped with the construction of BSL4 lab. I just received a reply that I won’t be able to attend the ceremony but will have the opportunity to visit the institute at a later time.

I received a message from ESTH [the State Department’s Environment, Science, Technology and Health Office] asking the representatives from US Fed agencies to provide information on China’s biosecurity. The message says: State’s office that deals with biosecurity has sent to Embassy Beijing the email below regarding China’s policies, capabilities, and activities related to a range of biological threats and risks: including infectious diseases, biosecurity, biological weapons, and bio-terrorism.”

In a proposed program that Chen provided to NIH colleagues for an upcoming virology conference which was to be held on March 9-10, 2015 in Beijing, titled “Advancement in Our Scientific Understanding of Avian Influenza and MERS as Emerging Respiratory Threat to Public Health in Asia and Beyond – From Viral Evolution to Animal and Human Hosts,” one of the scheduled speakers was Matt Frieman of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, who was going to address the topic “Repurposing FDA Approved Drugs for Coronavirus Infection.” Another speaker, Xinquan Wang, of Tsinghua University, was going to address the topic, “Potent Neutralization of MERS-Cov by Human mAbs to the Viral Spike Glycoprotein.”

In a redacted email dated November 3, 2014, Chen notes to her NIH colleagues that the Chinese government had begun screening people who merely came from Ebola effected regions of Africa:

Chinese government has been screening people who come from the Ebola regions of Africa. Two US CDC people in Beijing were sent to Sierra Leone one month ago and were scheduled to return. Last Friday I was able to help Ken [presumably the US Health attaché in Beijing, Ken Earhart] to acquire the information on the monitoring process and guarantee procedures that are implemented in three Beijing’s infectious disease hospitals through my contacts. The concern is [redacted].

In an email on March 6, 2018, Chen informs NIH colleagues that the US Embassy in Beijing was “collecting US-China collaboration stories in preparation for the World Heath Day on April 7.” One of the US-China collaborations labeled “successful activities,” was “Coronavirus: NIH-funded investigators are conducting detailed surveillance throughout China and in other countries on the emergence of coronaviruses (such as SARS and MERS-CoV) and studying the dynamics of viral transmission from animals to humans, which may identify potential outbreak threats  to the U.S. and other parts of the world.”

Another “success story” was titled, “Influenza: NIH receives influenza samples and information on circulating viruses from China and Hong Kong to assess risks associated with emerging variants for pandemic and zoonotic threat and to monitor the prevalence and evolution of the novel H7N9 and H10N8 viruses in China. These strains are otherwise unavailable and they are essential to the development of vaccines needed for a potential influenza pandemic.”

These documents are of world-wide interest, as they suggest that the Wuhan lab had major bio-safety issues and the American government was carefully monitoring its activities from a national security perspective even while funding it. Dr. Fauci and his colleagues have some more explaining to do.

Also from this lawsuit, in June 2021, we revealed that the NIAID under Fauci gave the Wuhan lab $826,000 for bat coronavirus research from 2014 to 2019.

In March 2021, we uncovered emails and other records of Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane from HHS showing that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020. Additionally, the emails reveal an independent journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in China to NIAID’s Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects Cliff Lane.

In a related lawsuit, in October 2020, we received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 300 pages of Fauci emails, including his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.

This latest tranche of documents is truly incredible – both in content and in the fact that it took a year and a federal lawsuit to disgorge them from the Fauci agency.

Judicial Watch Sues Defense Department over the Mistreatment of a War Hero

Too often, Pentagon bureaucrats mistreat genuine war heroes.

Maj. Fred C. Galvin (USMC, Ret.), commander of an elite U.S. Marine Corps Special Operations unit, was falsely accused of war crimes in Afghanistan in 2007. He was fully exonerated in 2019 but was still denied retroactive promotion to lieutenant colonel by the Marine Corps in 2020 despite an otherwise exemplary service record.

We filed a lawsuit on his behalf against the Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Darker and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Our suit alleges that the military violated the Administrative Procedure Act and another statute in denying Maj. Galvin a promotion (Maj. Fred Galvin v Thomas Harker et al, (No. 1:21-cv-01813)).

On March 4, 2007, Galvin and 29 members of the Marine Special Operations Company Foxtrot (Fox Company), the first combat unit of the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC), passed through the Afghan village of Bati Kot, near the Pakistan border, in a six-vehicle convoy. A suicide bomber driving a fuel and explosive-packed van approached the convoy at a high rate of speed. The van detonated, then fighters on both sides of the road opened fire on the convoy. Fox Company fought back and escaped, returning to their base with only one minor casualty. The Afghan government, numerous media outlets, and others falsely accused Maj. Galvin and the unit of war crimes in responding to the attack, and even the U.S. military, after a horribly flawed investigation, called for Galvin and six other Marines be charged with dereliction of duty and negligent homicide. Maj. Galvin was relieved of command, and Fox Company was redeployed out of Afghanistan.

Maj. Galvin and Fox Company were eventually exonerated by a Court of Inquiry that, in a historic finding, found the Marines acted properly and instead faulted both the Air Force colonel who investigated the incidents and senior U.S. military leadership. The Court of Inquiry also found that the Air Force colonel’s findings and conclusions ran counter to the weight of the evidence and faulted senior U.S. leaders for being unable or unwilling to respond appropriately to what was described as an “enemy information operation.”

The Court of Inquiry also faulted senior U.S. leaders for failing to stand by Maj. Galvin and Fox Company until competent evidence had been gathered. According to the Court of Inquiry report, “The redeployment of [Fox Company] was based, in large part, on unsubstantiated allegations related to the 4 March 2007 incident. The decision to re-deploy [Fox Company] was influenced by the high level of command, media, and governmental attention focused on the 4 March 2007 incident.” A video produced in 2019 documents what happened to Galvin and Fox Company after the ambush and how false charges ruined their reputations.

Galvin was due to be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel in August 2010, and although he was exceptionally well-qualified for promotion as compared to his peers, the board did not select him for promotion. Ultimately, he was forced to retire involuntarily from the Marine Corps.

In 2019, a U.S. Navy panel ordered that adverse fitness reports in Maj. Galvin’s service record regarding the 2007 ambush and a later event, in which Maj. Galvin also was found to have acted entirely appropriately, be removed from his service record. The panel also ordered that a special selection board be convened to consider Maj. Galvin for retroactive promotion to lieutenant colonel. The special selection board denied Maj. Galvin promotion again, despite his having an exceptional service record:

(Maj. Galvin) had served in several key leadership billets, a significant marker for promotion. He had extensive combat experience and had been “forward deployed” for more than three years, which also are significant markers for promotion. He had received multiple awards, including a Bronze Star with Combat V, and received glowing comments recommending him for promotion.  Plaintiff also had completed his Professional Military Education promotion requirement by attending the Marine Corps Command and Staff College and completing the Intermediate Level School in 2008.

Maj. Galvin was never provided an explanation – a “rational connection to the facts found and the choices made” – for why he was not promoted.

The Pentagon’s continued refusal to promote Maj. Galvin is an absolute disgrace. This American hero gave years of his life and his good name to serve our country selflessly and has been denied a well-deserved promotion because of anti-military politics, false narratives, and the cynical choices of his superiors.

We are honored to go to court on behalf of Major Galvin, a brave warrior and patriot who first and foremost acted to protect the lives of the soldiers under his command.

DC Racial Equity Office Rules Lincoln Statue Will Widen Racial Inequity

Racist and anti-American critical race theory is well-established throughout the government. Consider the latest effort to erase history in the name of “equity” in our nation’s capital, as uncovered by our Corruption Chronicles blog:

A government office launched recently to eliminate racial disparities and achieve racial equity in Washington D.C. has determined that installing an Abraham Lincoln Spirit of Freedom Emancipation Statue at the African American Civil War Museum will widen racial inequity even though the council unanimously voted for it and the mayor supports it. In fact, Mayor Muriel Bowser urged the D.C. Council to pass the resolution, known as PR 24-0238, approving the statue’s installation on the public space adjacent to the museum in the historic Archibald Grimke School at 1925 Vermont Avenue, NW.

In a May 14, 2021 letter to D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, the mayor refers to the project as “commemorative work” and writes that the Lincoln statue was delivered in July 2020 and the museum has filed the necessary paperwork to obtain a permit from the Department of Transportation to install it. Bowser reveals the piece was designed to create a sightline across Vermont Avenue from the Memorial to the Museum at Grimke, which is currently under construction, and it will rest on a podium adorned by ceremonial steps. “I urge the Council to take prompt and favorable action on the enclosed resolution,” Bowser writes, referring to the measure attached to her letter. On June 29, the council passed it by a vote of 13-0.

Nevertheless, a special D.C. panel created to tackle racism, the Council Office of Racial Equity (CORE), has nixed the idea, writing in a report that “Lincoln’s legacy has long been debated” and the statue will not increase representation of communities of color. The five-page document, officially called Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA), delves deeply into the supposed lack of diversity among statues and commemorative works in D.C. and offers a simple conclusion involving the new Lincoln fixture: “Although the overall impact on residents’ lives will be minimal, PR24-0238 would contribute to widening the racial inequity between the number of commemorative works dedicated to white men and those dedicated to Black persons and other persons of color in the District of Columbia.”

The CORE report seems to scold D.C. officials, stating that “commemorative works should be intentional about who is being honored, why they are being honored, and how that representation will inspire future generations.” Under the large, bold heading of “RACIAL EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS” the race council writes that there are at least four statues and commemorative works honoring President Lincoln’s legacy, “which has long been debated,” throughout D.C. It singles out the Emancipation Memorial for being funded by “formerly enslaved men and women” who had no say in the matter. “There is a severe lack of diversity amongst statues and commemorative works in the District of Columbia,” the CORE racial equity assessment states. “In 2019, of at least 115 statues in DC, just six were of American women and only one was of a Black woman, that being Mary McLeod Bethune. Duke Ellington was the only Black native Washingtonian with a statue dedicated in his honor.” Erecting yet another statue of Lincoln underscores the need to close the existing gap, the panel writes.

CORE was established this year as part of a broader measure called Racial Equity Achieves Results Act (REACH) enacted to establish a racial equity framework across the entire D.C. government. REACH requires mandatory racial equity training for D.C. government employees, the creation of a Commission on Racial Equity, Social Justice, and Economic Inclusion as well as racial equity impact assessment on certain council measures. The law also requires the mayor to include racial equity performance measures in the development of an agency’s annual performance plans and creates a racial equity tool to help all D.C. agencies incorporate racial equity into their operations, performance-based budgets, programs, policies, rules and regulations.

CORE is tasked with eliminating racial disparities and achieving racial equity by determining if proposed D.C. laws and policies advance racial equity or increase racial inequity. The panel accomplishes this by conducting a REIA like the one completed for the new Lincoln statue. REIA is described on the agency’s website as the careful and organized examination of how different racial and ethnic groups will likely be affected by a proposed bill or resolution. “A REIA can help prevent institutional racism, deconstruct structurally racist policies, and identify historic and structural causes of long-standing racial inequities,” according to CORE.

Until next week …



Source link

Psaki claims Biden didn’t discuss business with Hunter — despite docs that suggest otherwise

WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Jen Psaki insisted Friday that President Biden “does not” talk business with his son — despite new records indicating otherwise — and separately confirmed that Hunter Biden still co-owns a Chinese investment firm.

Psaki denied that the president talks business with his son in response to new evidence that he met, while vice president, with Hunter Biden’s business associates from Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan and Mexico.

“The president does not discuss business dealings with family members and otherwise I’m not going to respond to Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer,” Psaki said in response to a question from The Post at her daily press briefing.

Psaki, who also was asked at the briefing about ethical questions involving the first son’s new art career, additionally confirmed to The Post that Hunter Biden still co-owns a Chinese investment firm known as BHR Partners, which was formed 12 days after he joined his father aboard Air Force Two for a December 2013 trip to Beijing.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki
White House press secretary Jen Psaki insisted that President Biden does not talk business with Hunter Biden.
AP

A Hunter Biden-owned Delaware company, Skaneateles LLC, owns 10 percent of BHR, according to recently reported business records.

“He’s working to unload that. I’d point you to his representatives,” Psaki said. An attorney for Hunter Biden did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the firm is “controlled and funded primarily by large Chinese government-owned shareholders,” including the Bank of China. Although it had initial goals of raising $1.5 billion in investment capital, it reportedly fell far short.

Hunter and Joe Biden
Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive at the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, emailed Hunter to thank him for the opportunity to meet his father.
Getty Images for World Food Prog

Psaki made the swipe at Giuliani after being pressed on Biden’s 2019 claim that “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” Giuliani and his lawyer, Bob Costello, helped publicize the contents of a laptop formerly belonging to Hunter Biden.

Documents and photos from the laptop, first reported by The Post, indicate that Joe Biden attended a 2015 dinner at Cafe Milano in DC’s Georgetown neighborhood with a group of his son’s associates — including a trio of Kazakhs and the Russian billionaire Yelena Baturina and her husband, ex-Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov.

A photo depicts the elder Biden posing with the Kazakhstani group, and one day later, Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive at Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, which paid Hunter Biden $83,000 per month to sit on its board, emailed the then-second son to thank him for the opportunity to meet his father.

Pozharskyi’s email first emerged ahead of the November presidential election, but the Biden campaign cast doubt on its authenticity.

Hunter Biden
Hunter Biden still co-owns a Chinese investment firm known as BHR Partners.
Getty Images for World Food Prog

A Senate report released in September said a firm linked to Hunter Biden received $3.5 million from Baturina in 2014. The senators said they did not know the purpose of the payment and Psaki previously said she was unfamiliar with the Senate report, despite it coming up in both presidential debates last year.

Photos and emails published by The Post in June also indicate that Joe Biden in 2015 hosted his son and a group of Mexican business associates at the vice president’s official residence.

In 2016, Hunter Biden apparently emailed one of those associates while aboard Air Force Two for an official visit to Mexico, complaining that he hadn’t received reciprocal business favors after “I have brought every single person you have ever asked me to bring to the F’ing White House and the Vice President’s house and the inauguration.”

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki
“The president does not discuss business dealings with family members,” Psaki said.
AP

Hunter Biden’s business pursuits often invited questions about influence-peddling and corruption, and his father said his family would cease overseas business work once he assumed the White House.

The incoming president said in December that Hunter wouldn’t “be involved in any business, any enterprise that is in conflict with or appears to be in conflict with where there’s appropriate distance from the presidency.”

Hunter Biden recently announced plans for a debut sale of his art, seeking up to $500,000 per painting. The buyers won’t be named publicly and the White House claims Hunter Biden won’t learn their identities.



Source link

Major funder of Wuhan lab refuses House request for docs as Democrats fail to subpoena

A major conduit of federal research funding to the Chinese coronavirus lab at the center of ongoing speculation over the origins of the SARS-Cov-2 virus is not complying with a months-old request from House Republicans for documentation related to his work with that lab, while Democrats in the House have failed to issue a subpoena to compel that evidence.

Peter Daszak, the president of the U.S. nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, has been the subject of growing scrutiny over the last several months regarding his role in the funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. For several years leading up to the pandemic, EcoHealth Alliance funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal research grants to the WIV for the study of potential pandemic coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. 

As government investigators and journalists dig to uncover the full scope of Daszak’s links to the WIV, Daszak is continuing to spurn a congressional request for that information. 

In April, Republicans on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent Daszak a letter directing him to submit, among many other documents, “all letters, emails, and other communications between [EcoHealth] and [the WIV] related to terms of agreements, bat coronaviruses, genome or genetic sequencing, SARS-CoV-2, and/or laboratory safety practices” pursuant to key NIH research funding through EcoHealth to the Wuhan lab as a grant sub-recipient.

Yet Daszak himself has not cooperated with the request. An aide with the Energy and Commerce Committee confirmed to Just the News this week that the committee has “received no response still from EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak to the April 16th letter from Leaders Rodgers, Guthrie, and Griffith.”

Washington GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers has also publicly noted Daszak’s refusal to cooperate with the request made roughly two and a half months ago. 

“We have asked Daszak to provide information we know he has that sheds light on the origins of this pandemic,” Rodgers said during a House subcommittee hearing this week. “But he refuses to cooperate.”

“Dr. Daszak, you received American funds you used to conduct research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Rodgers continued. “You owe it to the American people to be transparent.”

Subpoena powers rest with Democrats

Neither Daszak nor multiple GOP and Democratic members of the committee responded to requests for comment on Daszak’s failure to produce the documents. 

The committee itself could subpoena Daszak for the materials; both House and Senate committees enjoy subpoena powers pursuant to investigations within their congressional purviews, something that has been upheld by the Supreme Court several times. 

Yet subpoena power in both chambers is controlled by whichever party is in the majority. Democrats still hold a slim majority in the House, meaning the ultimate authority to compel Daszak to produce the documentation rests with that party, specifically in this case with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone. 

Why a subpoena has not been issued after more than two months is unclear. Pallone’s office was among those that did not respond to requests for comment. 

The SARS-Cov-2 origin debate, meanwhile, has over the past year largely fallen along party lines. The “lab-leak theory” was most prominently advanced by then-President Donald Trump early last year. It was roundly rejected by most scientific authorities at the time, with virologists and other researchers claiming the evidence indicated a natural origin of the virus. 

Over the past year — in particular since the inauguration of President Joe Biden in January — popular consensus has shifted on the issue. Little new evidence has emerged to support the lab-leak theory, but a growing chorus of scientists have insisted that the lab-leak theory must be thoroughly investigated. 

Several public health officials and scientists, meanwhile, have alleged that a significant number of scientists last year were motivated to reject the lab-leak theory not by scientific judgment but by political opposition to President Trump.

“In the beginning, there was a lot of pressure against speaking up, because it was tied to conspiracies and Trump supporters,” one Yale immunologist said earlier this year.



Source link