Wednesday, March 13, 2019


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
USA – -( Watch out. Capitol Hill and Silicon Valley have locked their sights on the next targets of a frightening free speech-squelching purge: independent citizens who dare to raise questions online about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
I'm vaccinated. My children are up to date. There's no dispute that vaccines have saved untold lives. But over the years, I've voiced my concerns about vaccine claims and government coercion in my newspaper columns and blog posts. These concerns include my objections to Gardasil mandates for schoolchildren in Texas and California; schools' threatening parents with jail time for refusing chickenpox shots for their kids; ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine; contamination issues at vaccine plants abroad; lack of data on vaccines' long-term and synergistic effects on children; and pharma-funded politicians' financial conflicts of interest.
In 2004, I recounted my family's firsthand experience with bully doctors who balked at even the mildest questioning of the wisdom of the newborn hepatitis B immunization. When my husband and I asked if we could simply delay this particular shot, as the vaccine is for a virus that is contracted mostly through intravenous drug use and sexual contact, my son's pediatrician angrily kicked us out of her practice.

Does this informed skepticism make me and other like-minded parents public health menaces, as the World Health Organization has proclaimed? Are we “sociopaths,” as a journalist at The Atlantic once sneered? Apparently so.

At a Senate hearing on last Tuesday, Washington state's public health secretary, John Wiesman, demanded that the feds launch a national campaign to counter “anti-vaccine” groups that are spreading what he condemned as “false information.” Weisman called for increased funding from the Centers for Disease Control to combat opponents of the state's push to prevent parents from opting their children out of immunizations for personal or philosophical reasons. Health officials have blamed vaccine critics' social media influence for recent measles outbreaks. So Wiesman further urged Twitter, Facebook and Google to “use whatever mechanism they have available to stop promoting pseudoscience.”
Let's be clear: Misinformation of all kinds abounds on the internet. The world's most influential “mainstream” media websites and celebrity social media accounts, for example, recklessly fanned the flames of the recent Covington Catholic High School and Jussie Smollett hate crime hoaxes. No one in Washington has called for the boycott of The Washington Post or TMZ over their false and misleading stories. But for some reason (hint: pharmaceutical big business), politicians and government bureaucrats are now hell-bent on de-platforming any and all dissenters who challenge mandatory vaccine regimens.
Under pressure from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Amazon pulled the documentaries “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” “Man Made Epidemic” and “Shoot 'em Up: The Truth About Vaccines” from its Prime Video streaming service. Last week, Google-owned YouTube moved to demonetize “anti-vaccine” channels, tweak algorithms to suppress vaccine “conspiracy” videos and combat “vaccine hesitancy.” Pinterest blocks users from using the search terms “vaccine,” “vaccinations” and “anti-vax,” no matter the quality of the results. Facebook plans to downgrade vaccine skeptics' content on newsfeeds, recommended user groups and ads.

Is there junk science on the “anti-vaccine” side? Sure.

But you can't address this issue without also addressing the problem with physicians and public health flacks who are unwilling to discuss the full risks of vaccines as well as their benefits; pro-vaccination groups that provide incorrect information about vaccines' duration of protection; physicians who refuse to care for children who are not “fully” vaccinated; and the comparative risk-benefit ratios of different vaccines.
As for efficacy, consider this new data: A recent whooping cough outbreak at the private Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles last week resulted in 30 students contracting the illness, all of whom were vaccinated. Of 18 unvaccinated students, none caught the disease. Will pointing this out on my Facebook and Twitter accounts to bring down the Silicon Valley ban hammer?
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who happens to be a physician and parent himself, was the lone voice of dissent at the Senate hearing this week. While acknowledging that the benefits of vaccines generally outweigh their risks, he noted the plain truth that “it is wrong to say there are no risks to vaccines.” He added that over $4 billion has been paid by the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for adults and children who have been injured or died as a result of receiving federally recommended childhood vaccines.
Is it unacceptable fearmongering to raise that point? How about to share information on vaccine manufacturers' astonishing exemption from product liability? Or to point parents to new research findings on brain injuries caused by vaccines, which can be found at Or to link them to a recent statement by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which “strongly opposes federal interference in medical decisions, including mandated vaccines.”
When it comes to protecting our children, skepticism is always the best medicine. We need more free speech, not less. Those who seek to suppress debate and discussion in the name of the “public good” are the true health threats.

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin
About: Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on As well as the author of “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs” and “Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America…” . Her email address is


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The House of Representatives recently passed legislation that would expand the national background check system to require almost everyone selling firearms, including private collectors who supplement their incomes by selling firearms at gun shows, to perform background checks on the potential buyers. The bill has a section purporting to bar creation of a national firearms registry. However, the expanded background check system will require the government to compile lists of those buying and selling guns. In other words, it creates a de facto national gun registry.
Similar to the experience with other types of prohibition, making it more difficult to legally buy a gun will enhance the firearms black market. Criminals, terrorists, and even deranged mass shooters will thus have no problem obtaining firearms.
It is no coincidence that the majority of mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones,” where shooters know their targets will be unarmed. This shows that any law making it more difficult for Americans to own and carry firearms makes us less safe. If Congress really wanted to reduce the incidence of gun violence, it would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act. This law leaves children easy prey for mass shooters by mandating that public schools be “gun-free zones.”
A nationwide system of gun registration could be a step toward national gun confiscation. However, antigun bureaucrats need not go that far to use the expanded background check system to abuse the rights of gun owners. Gun owners could find themselves subject to surveillance and even harassment, such as more intensive screening by the Transportation Security Administration, because they own “too many” firearms.
Republican control of the White House and the Senate does not mean our gun rights are safe. Republicans have a long history of supporting gun control. After the 1999 Columbine shooting, many Republicans, including many who campaigned as being pro-Second Amendment, eagerly cooperated with then-President Bill Clinton on gun control. Some supposedly pro-gun Republicans also tried to pass “compromise” gun control legislation after the Sandy Hook shooting.
Neoconservative Senator Marco Rubio has introduced legislation that uses tax dollars to bribe states to adopt red flag laws. Red flag laws allow government to violate an individual’s Second Amendment rights based on nothing more than a report that the individual could become violent. Red flag laws can allow an individual’s guns to be taken away without due process simply because an estranged spouse, angry neighbor, or disgruntled coworker tells police the individual threatened him or otherwise made him feel unsafe.
President Trump has joined Rubio in wanting the government to, in Trump’s words, “take the guns first, go through due process second.” During his confirmation hearing, President Trump’s new Attorney General William Barr expressed support for red flag laws. California Senator and leading gun control advocate Dianne Feinstein has expressed interest in working with Barr to deprive gun owners of due process. It would not be surprising to see left-wing authoritarians like Feinstein work with right-wing authoritarians like Barr and Rubio on “compromise” legislation containing both a national red flag law and expanded background checks.
My years in Congress taught me that few politicians can be counted on to protect our liberties. Most politicians must be pressured to stand up for freedom by informed and involved pro-liberty citizens That is why those of us who understand the benefits of liberty must remain vigilant against any attempt to erode respect for our rights, especially the right to defend ourselves against private crime and public tyranny.
Ron Paul is a former U.S. congressman from Texas. 

Firearms Registration Act Introduced in Pennsylvania

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Pennsylvania state Democrats introduce HB0768, known as the Firearms Registration Act.
Harrisburg, PA –-( A new bill introduced in Pennsylvania would establish a gun registry within the state.
HB0768 is known as the Firearms Registration Act. The Democrats that introduced the bill were Mary Louise Isaacson (D), Angel Cruz (D), and Mary Jo Daley (D). Last Friday, the General Assembly referred the bill to the committee on judiciary.
The bill would require gun owners in the Keystone State to register their firearms with the Pennsylvania State Police. Owners would have to provide the police with the make, model, and the serial numbers of all their guns.
Along with the application that the gun owner must swear to under oath, the gun owner would have to submit fingerprints, two photographs that are no older than 30 days and go through a background check for each firearm that they own. This background check is the same one that they must go through to purchase a gun.
In addition to this requirement, they must also provide the Pennsylvania State Police with their home and work address, telephone number, social security number, date of birth, age, sex, and citizenship. This requirement is more information than a person needs to vote.
If the State Police rejects the person's application, then they will have ten days to appeal the decision. The owner must turn their firearms into the State Police within three days of receiving notification of the rejection. If a person does not appeal the decision within ten days, their right is forfeit.
A gun owner cannot transfer any unregistered firearm. Anyone caught with an unregistered gun is guilty of a crime even if they are unaware of the firearm registration status. Also just holding an unregistered firearm at a range is a crime.
The gun owner must keep all firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. If a firearms owner doesn't secure their firearm that way, they would be guilty of a crime. This rule even applies to homes with no children.
The gun owner has 48 hours to update the State Police if they change jobs, phone numbers, addresses, or anything else on the application. If they do not update the State Police, then they could be prosecuted for violating the law.
The certificate which will cost $10 per firearm will expire after one year. The gun owner would have to start the process over again to renew their certification. This process must be done 60 days before the certificate expires. The procedure can get confusing for gun owners with large collections.

The bill makes no mention of how the state will enforce the law.

Other states that have tried gun registration and bans have seen limited success. New Jersey has had zero magazines turned in since their magazine ban went into effect.
New York saw nearly one million firearms owners defy the state law to register their “assault weapons.” The same thing played out in Connecticut when only 50,000 out of 350,000 registered their semi-automatic rifles.
Expanding a registry to all firearms will be impossible to enforce without conducting door to door searches of houses. It is unclear how these Democrats plan to deal with this reality.
None of the bill’s sponsor responded to our request for comment.

About John CrumpJohn Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at



Democrat extremism renders the party 

incapable of denouncing Jew-hate

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In the wake of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic slurs, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. But something went very awry.
Congresswoman Omar, Democrat from Minnesota, was born in Somalia and is one of the first two Muslim women to enter Congress. In recent weeks, she has unleashed a litany of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments including “Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel” (during an Israeli attack against terror organization Hamas in Gaza); “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby” (alluding to the concept that Jews rule through money); and accusations of “dual loyalty” (an old anti-Semitic trope implying that American Jews are more loyal to Israel).
Omar made a quintessential non-apology by stating that she was sorry for the hurt her words caused, but refused to retract her beliefs. She’s sorry “but”….
Prior to her run for Congress, Omar was on the Advisory Board of CAIR in Minnesota. CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front-group spawned out of Hamas and the Islamic Association of Palestine, both State Department-designated terrorist organizations. It is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial – the largest terror-financing trial in the history of the United States. Omar is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at a CAIR fundraiser in California on March 23, 2019. She will be speaking alongside Hassan Shibley, Director of CAIR-FL, who has praised both Hamas and Hezbollah and is representing the “ISIS bride’s family” in their quest to have her return to America after she called for the mass murder of Americans. 
Ilhan Omar openly supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which seeks economic implosion of the State of Israel. Despite this, freshman Congresswoman Omar holds a coveted seat on the powerful and prestigious House Foreign Affairs Committee where her anti-Israel attitudes can have a real-world impact in terms of funding and U.S. foreign policy. Committee appointments are determined by House leadership. It was Nancy Pelosi who placed Omar on this committee. To quell the rash of criticism unleashed upon the freshman congresswoman, House Speaker Pelosi initially sought to pass a resolution singling out anti-Semitism for condemnation, but the rank and file Democrats simply wouldn’t have it.
The original drafting of the resolution started on Friday, March 1, 2017. The drafters who advocated for a bill that would focus solely on anti-Semitism consisted of three Jewish Democrats: Eliot Engel (D-NY), Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee; Ted Deutch (D-FL), whose father earned a purple heart fighting the Nazis; and Nita Lowey (D-NY), who seeks debate on issues without the injection of anti-Semitic slurs.
Despite the fact that the original purpose of the resolution was to condemn Omar’s hateful comments, the bill did not mention Omar by name. There was no censure, and House Leadership refused to remove Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee. A resolution is simply words without real consequences. No actions are taken as a result. Despite this, the bill elicited complaints from several quarters within the Democrat Party. Zeroing in on condemnation of anti-Semitism was just too difficult a hurdle for the Democrats to manage, and the resolution was amended to include a broader range of “hate” and “phobias.”
Democrat factions pushed and tugged for an entire week regarding the language of the resolution and some even opposed having a resolution altogether. Even Nancy Pelosi was “taken aback” by the dissent and rancor that her party members exhibited.
Yet, revealing how far to the Left the party has gone, all the Democrats who have thrown their hats into the ring of running for President in 2020 opposed the initial resolution. Kamala Harris argued that calling out Ilhan Omar specifically would “put her at risk” of violence. Some Democrats contemplated requesting a special security detail for Omar at the U.S. Capitol. Senator Bernie Sanders expressed concern that a resolution would result in censorship of Israel debate more broadly. Eliot Engel, while condemning Omar’s comments, still dismissed suggestions that she should be removed from the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Additionally, members of the Congressional Black Caucus (of which Omar is a member), and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus all opposed a resolution focusing on anti-Semitism. For the Black Caucus, any possible mention of Omar by name would have been a non-starter. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MS), a close friend of Omar and a member of both the CBC and the CPC, insisted “we need equity in our outrage... Islamophobia needs to be included in this. We need to denounce all forms of hate.”
External pressure groups such as CAIR and Jewish Voice for Peace (a radical anti-Israel organization that uses the Jewish heritage of its members to ward off claims of anti-Semitism), as well as Linda Sarsour, known anti-Semite and advocate for Sharia, were also pressuring members of congress to refrain from singling out anti-Semitism in a resolution. So much for “Jewish influence” in Congress.
Ironically, the resolution was sent to the House Foreign Affairs Committee (where Omar sits) for vetting. Finally, at 5:05 PM on Thursday, March 8, 2019, a vote was taken on the floor of the House and passed with an overwhelming majority. The watered-down resolution is so all-inclusive as to be almost meaningless. It was expanded to include condemnation of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and bigotry against all minorities including the LGBT community. It invoked the events of Charlottesville and condemned - yet again - white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
And while it had several statements condemning anti-Semitic libels, it also asserted that in the wake of 9/11, Muslims shouldn’t be associated with terrorism, and that it is “unfair,”  “irrational,” and “prejudicial” to believe that [some] Muslims sympathize with terrorism or those who oppress women, Jews and minorities (thus denying Sharia’s ideology). The resolution also calls on law enforcement and government officials to refrain from “profiling.” Because this is the first congressional resolution condemning “anti-Muslim bigotry,” three Muslim Congressmen – Omar, Tlaib and Andre Carson (D-IN) – are claiming a victory in its passage.
Twenty-three Republican Congressmen, including Louie Gohmert from Texas and Liz Cheney from Wyoming, voted against the resolution because it wasn’t focused singularly on anti-Semitism. All of them supported the original version which singled out anti-Semitism.
Ilhan Omar insists that her comments were not anti-Semitic but either true or simply legitimate criticism of Israel. She asserts that the reason people are accusing her of anti-Semitism is because the comments are coming from a Muslim and those pointing the finger are "Islamophobic."  Like other Islamic supremacists, she has managed to turn everything upside down and backwards. If Islamists want to impose their religious views on you and you resist, then you are denying their right to "practice" their religion. If they want you to submit to their practices and you refuse, then you are "hostile" to their "religion." And now, if you accuse a Muslim who openly expresses anti-Semitism, then you are targeting them due to Islamophobia.  
This resolution was broadened to the point where it no longer serves its original intended purpose. In the recent past, Islamist groups have managed to put pressure on local governments and societal institutions to pass resolutions all across the country that condemn so-called Islamophobia, without any mention of "phobias" against other races, groups or belief systems. Democrats have gone along with it. Why now, are they totally unable, in the wake of hateful comments made by a member of their own party, to put forth a resolution focusing on condemnation of anti-Semitism?
The fiasco during the process of this resolution reveals a lack of moral clarity within the Democrat Party and the Left more broadly. If you vote Democrat and think you are voting for the party of JFK, of Martin Luther King’s colorblindness, or simply of equal pay for women, think again. That party is dead. You now belong to the party of Louis Farrakhan, Ilhan Omar, Linda Sarsour and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You belong to a party that hijacked a condemnation of Jew-hatred and twisted it to make Muslims, not Jews, the victims. If you are Jewish and vote Democrat, there can be no clearer wakeup call.



And the Left is seething.

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:




Welcome to the Left's election theft wish list.

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed an outrageous legislative assault on fair elections and the First Amendment last week that would drive up the occurrence of the voter fraud Democrats increasingly rely on to win elections.
The House approved H.R. 1, dubbed the proposed “For the People Act,” on a strict party line vote of 234 to 193 on March 8. Conservatives quite correctly denounced the measure as a “voter fraud and election theft” wish list.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) trashed the bill, saying it would “unconstitutionally infringe on the speech and associational rights of many public interest organizations and American citizens.”
In a tweet, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) described H.R. 1 as the “Democrat Politician Protection Act,” after previously saying the measure was “a massive power grab.”
“What is the problem that we’re trying to solve here? We had the highest turnout last year since 1966 in an off-year election,” McConnell reportedly said March 6. “People are flooding to the polls … because they’re animated. They’re interested. This is a solution in search of a problem. What it really is, is designed to make it more likely that Democrats win more often.”
On the day the House passed the bill, McConnell repeated his vow never to allow the bill to move to the Senate floor for a vote. This means H.R. 1 will likely become a big issue for both parties on the campaign trail in 2020.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tweeted: “Democrats did not design #HR1 to protect your vote. They designed it to put a thumb on the scale of every election in America and keep the Swamp swampy.”
At a leftist pep rally, Democrat lawmakers lied about the nation’s voting system, whining about how difficult it is for their poor bumbling voters to produce valid identification at the polls, even though presenting ID is now a requirement in our society to do virtually anything worth doing.
"For months, for years, really for decades, millions of Americans have been looking at Washington and feeling like they've been left behind," said the principal author of the bill, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.). "Too many Americans have faced this challenge where getting to the ballot box every two years is like getting through an obstacle course."
“H.R. 1 restores the people’s faith that government works for the public interest, the people’s interests, not the special interests,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday in a rare moment of coherence.
We’ve been down this pothole-riddled road before.
Democrats used their newly won House majority to approve H.R. 1 with minimal public discussion of the measure, just as the newly inaugurated Bill Clinton rammed a massive overhaul of the electoral system through Congress a short time after taking office. Clinton acted at a time when voter participation was rising and there was no popularly expressed demand for reform. Clinton and Democratic lawmakers sandbagged the Republican opposition before lawmakers had much of a chance even to digest the sweeping legislation.
The so-called Motor Voter law Congress passed 26 years ago opened up new frontiers for voter fraud.
As John Fund wrote in his book, Stealing Elections:
Perhaps no piece of legislation in the last generation better captures the 'incentivizing' of fraud... than the 1993 National Voter Registration Act[.] ... Examiners were under orders not to ask anyone for identification or proof of citizenship. States also had to permit mail-in voter registrations, which allowed anyone to register without any personal contact with a registrar or election official. Finally, states were limited in pruning 'dead wood' - people who had died, moved or been convicted of crimes - from their rolls. ... Since its implementation, Motor Voter has worked in one sense: it has fueled an explosion of phantom voters.
And who pushed Motor Voter?
Small-c communists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven spearheaded the drive to pass the law. They believed that poor people and radical agitators had every moral right to game the electoral system in order to bring about change. Cloward didn't worry about fraud, either. "It's better to have a little bit of fraud than to leave people off the rolls who belong there," he said. President Clinton gave a shout-out to Cloward and Piven at the bill-signing ceremony in 1993 that both attended.
Sentient Republicans knew the bill was an atrocity. On final passage, the Senate vote was 62 to 36, with only seven Republicans voting "yea." The House vote was 259 to 164, with only 20 Republicans voting "yea."
"Between 1994 and 1998, nearly 26 million names were added to the voter rolls nationwide, almost a 20 percent increase," according to Fund.  Motor Voter has "been registering illegal aliens, since anyone who receives a government benefit [including welfare] may also register to vote with no questions asked."
H.R. 1 is even more ambitious than Motor Voter, according to a summary of the bill’s provisions in The Epoch Times.
It would make Election Day a federal holiday (actually, that’s not a terrible idea), mandate automatic voter registration and same-day voter registration, strip state legislatures of redistricting responsibilities and give those powers to independent commissions, forbid federal lawmakers from serving on corporate boards, and force U.S. presidents –wink, wink, President Trump— to release their tax returns.
“H.R. 1 expands access to voting in a number of ways, including forcing states to implement early voting, online voter registration, and ‘no-fault’ absentee balloting, or the issuance of absentee ballots without requiring a reason for their request,” according to the summary.
Christian Adams, a former Department of Justice civil rights attorney and president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told lawmakers earlier this year that H.R. 1 is bound to boost fraud.
“The voter rolls are currently full of ineligible voters who have died or moved out of the jurisdiction where they are registered,” Adams said.
“H.R.1 would make the problem worse by stripping the power of states to manage their own voter rolls to keep them clean using well-established best practices, such as postal mailings and recurring inactivity of registrants in elections. H.R.1’s mandate that states stop using these tools is just bad public policy.”
According to the summary, “[t]he measure also requires eligible voters to be registered automatically through state driver’s license offices and welfare departments unless they affirmatively decline. Felons would be automatically registered upon release from prison, and prospective voters would be able to both register and vote on the same day, including on Election Day.”
The bill also “mandates federal funding to match small-dollar donations and would deposit the funding into campaign bank accounts. It further requires the disclosure of donors who give more than $10,000 to tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, such as 501(c)4 groups.”
Current tax law permits such so-called “dark money” donors to remain anonymous to shield them from political reprisals. The Supreme Court ruled in 1958 in NAACP v.
Alabama ex rel. Patterson that Alabama could not force the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People to hand over the names and addresses of all its members in that state.
But the Left is salivating at the prospect of using social media to hound conservative donors for daring to contribute to conservative causes.
Because terrorizing their adversaries is what leftists do.