07-04-2020- TIN PHỊA – TIN XUYÊN TẠC – TIN BÔI BÁC

07-04-2020- TIN PHỊA – TIN XUYÊN TẠC – TIN BÔI BÁC

TIN PHỊA – TIN XUYÊN TẠC – TIN BÔI BÁC

Trong thời gian qua, như đã trình bày cùng quý độc giả, cận ngày bầu bán, TTDC xả hết tốc lực ra đánh TT Trump. Truyền Thông Tỵ Nạn cũng vén áo chạy theo tối đa, tung hàng loạt tin bất lợi cho TT Trump. Không phải là tin bất lợi thật mà hầu hết đều là tin phịa, tin xuyên tạc, tin bóp méo, tin bôi bác rẻ tiền,… Nhai đi nhai lại từ cả mấy năm qua.

Tuần rồi có một cụ tỵ nạn cuồng chống Trump viết rất oai “… nhiều người Việt đang cố gắng tự đầu độc mình và cộng đồng bằng tin giả”.

Một cụ khác cuồng hơn dõng dạc “Một số người Mỹ gốc Việt … sử dụng tin giả, tin vịt để thuyết phục mọi người tin theo!

Một cụ khác cuồng nhất đã ‘hoành tráng’ hơn nhiều “Ngậm máu phun người, xuyên tạc, vu khống, đổ thừa và ngang ngược nói dóc lừa bịp là thứ đầu đường xó chợ.

       BRAVO! Quá hay! Quá tuyệt!

Kẻ này -chẳng mấy khi- xin hoan hô các vị này, bằng cả hai tay và hai chân.

Chỉ có ‘hơi khác ý’ với các cụ về chuyện ai đang làm những chuyện dối trá đó thôi. Bởi vậy mới có câu “Đừng nghe những gì mấy cụ cuồng chống Trump nói, mà hãy nhìn kỹ những gì họ đã, đang và sẽ làm”. Kẻ này xin phép điểm qua một số lập luận để quý độc giả thưởng lãm. Gọi là tóm lược tổng quát làm ‘hồ sơ lưu’, mỗi lần các cụ lôi ra thì ta cũng lại lôi ra đối chất chơi.

Xin thưa ngay, hầu hết những lập luận các cụ cuồng chống Trump vừa mới đưa ra đều không có gì mới lạ, đã được bàn qua cả vạn lần, bác bỏ cả triệu lần qua hàng tỷ bằng chứng cụ thể nhất. Các cụ bất cần sự thật, nhắm mắt, bịt tai, cứ tiếp tục nhai lại, theo đúng sách vở của Goebbels và Lê-nin: một điều dối trá lập đi lập lại mãi, sẽ có người tin là thật. Nhưng lập đi lập lại chưa đủ đâu. Còn phải vừa ăn cướp vừa la làng nữa, như 3 câu trích dẫn vừa nêu trên.

Người Việt đã là những nạn nhân lớn và đau nhất của TTDC Mỹ tuyên truyền, xuyên tạc, bóp méo,… đến độ mất cả nước vào tay CSBV, vậy mà giờ này vẫn còn không biết bao nhiêu người chưa tỉnh, vẫn coi TTDC Mỹ như Kinh Thánh, răm rắp làm vẹt lập lại. Kể cả những người vừa làm vẹt vừa đấm ngực ầm ầm khoe mình có đủ loại bằng tiến sĩ, thạc sĩ, bác sĩ, văn sĩ, email sĩ, phịa sĩ, cuồng sĩ,…

Bây giờ, xin quý vị theo dõi cho vui.

Phần chữ nghiêng là nguyên văn những lập luận hầu hết cũ rích được lập lại cùng với tên tác giả (viết tắt chỉ để xác nhận không phải do Vũ Linh chế ra thôi, ai viết người đó biết) và ngày kẻ này nhận được (để chứng tỏ lập luận mới được nhai lại!). Phần chữ thẳng ở dưới là ý kiến của Vũ Linh. Cũng phải xin thưa ngay là những lập luận các cụ đưa ra nhiều vô kể, không có cách nào liệt kê ra hết được trong khuôn khổ một bài viết trên DĐTC này, do đó, chỉ xin đưa ra vài chuyện lố bịch nhất thôi.

Các mẫu tin được liệt kê không theo thứ tự đặc biệt nào, đọc tới đâu viết tới đó. Diễn đàn sẽ không bàn về những bôi bác vô căn cứ, hay chửi bới lung tung lăng nhăng.

1.     4 năm đập phá. Cuồng Trump khen (PN- 29/6)

Tác giả biểu diễn cái dốt của mình, chẳng hiểu gì về nguyên tắc của nền dân chủ Mỹ. Trị quốc ở Mỹ có hai khuynh hướng: cấp tiến và bảo thủ. TT Obama là cấp tiến, ban hành những chính sách cấp tiến nặng trong 8 năm, dân Mỹ chán hay không chấp nhận, không muốn thấy bà Hillary tiếp tục chính sách đó, bầu cho ông bảo thủ Trump để thay đổi toàn diện, chứ không phải bầu ông Trump để tiếp tục như cũ. Đó là nền tảng của dân chủ Mỹ.

Thay đổi không phải là “đập phá”. Đập phá là việc những tên cấp tiến thiên tả cực đoan khùng điên BLM và Antifa đang làm hiện nay như biểu tình bạo động, đốt nhà, cướp của, giật tượng, xé cờ, chiếm khu phố, đòi giải tán cảnh sát,… được các cụ tỵ nạn cuồng chống Trump vặn vẹo tìm cách bênh vực, bào chữa.

2.     Đập phá chế độ dân chủ, dẹp bỏ đối lập, Trump muốn xây dựng nước Mỹ ra sao, giống Nga? Tàu? Việt Nam, Saudi Arabia? Bắc Triều Tiên? (PN-29-6)

Vừa ăn cướp vừa la làng.

Đập phá dân chủ? Bên nào đang bằng mọi cách cố xóa kết quả bầu cử dân chủ 2016?

Dẹp bỏ đối lập? Nếu nhìn kỹ, hình như đối lập chưa bao giờ được tha hồ chống đối, ồn ào chửi bới, xuyên tạc, bôi bác, đập phá như hiện nay. Nếu Mỹ giống như VN thì tất cả các cụ cuồng chống Trump đã bị đeo gông sắt vì tội ‘phản động’ từ lâu rồi. Nếu giống như Bắc Hàn thì các cụ đã ăn điểm tâm đạn phòng không rồi.

3.     Một phóng viên hỏi Trump chương trình tranh cử Tổng Thống kỳ này là gì?… Trump không có chương trình, không biết phải ưu tiên thực hiện gì, không có mục đích (PN- 29/6)

Bôi bác.

Nhìn vào những việc TT Trump làm trong hơn 3 năm qua mà chưa biết TT Trump muốn gì sao? Vậy mà cũng dám bàn chuyện chính trị sao? 

Thế chương trình cụ Biden là gì? Tiếp tục bí mật lãnh đạo bằng nói nhầm từ trong hầm trú hay sau lưng tất cả mọi người?

4.     Bãi nhiệm, phế bỏ ngân sách các trung tâm nghiên cứu và lo cho y tế cộng đồng phòng ngừa bệnh dịch, làm dụng cụ y tế thiếu thốn (MP – 27/6)

Tin phịa quá xưa rồi.

Hãng thông tấn Associated Press tìm hiểu vấn đề và khám phá ra ngân sách CDC và NIH chưa bị cắt một xu nào. AP cũng cho biết thêm là CDC thật ra cũng đã cắt giảm tiền trợ cấp gửi cho các tiểu bang và địa phương để phòng bệnh, nhưng những cắt giảm đó đã bắt đầu từ luật của quốc hội do DC kiểm soát ban hành dưới thời TT Obama, mà CDC dưới thời của Trump vẫn phải tuân theo thôi. Chính New York Times đã xác nhận không có ai bị bãi nhiệm và không có cơ quan nào bị đóng cửa hay cắt giảm ngân sách hết.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/03/17/no_the_white_house_didnt_dissolve_its_pandemic_response_office_142683.html

Dụng cụ y tế thiếu thốn? Đó là gia tài của TT Obama khi ông này xài hết mặt nạ và ống thở cho dịch H1N1 năm 2009, sau đó không mua/sản xuất lại cho kho dự trữ trong suốt 7 năm sau.

5.     Gần 130,000 người chết vì COVID-19 vì đã không chuẩn bị, lo cho việc bảo vệ người dân, ngăn ngưà lây nhiễm kịp thời (MP – 27/6)

Tin phịa.  

Giữa tháng Giêng, TT Trump cho kiểm soát dân từ TC qua Mỹ tại 5 phi trường lớn. Cuối tháng Giêng, Trump giới hạn du khách từ TC không cho vào Mỹ hay bất đắc dĩ vào Mỹ thì bị cấm cung quản thúc 14 ngày, bị cụ Biden tố “hysterical xenophobia”. Giữa tháng Hai, Trump giới hạn du khách từ Âu Châu qua, bị CNN tố bài ngoại vô lý. Cho đến đầu tháng Hai, toàn thể phe DC, nghị sĩ, dân biểu, cấp lãnh đạo đảng DC và tất cả báo và TV của TTDC vẫn lo chúi mũi đàn hặc TT Trump, không một phút để ý đến dịch. Đến tháng Ba, các tiểu bang mới bắt đầu đóng cửa trường học, đóng cửa kinh doanh, là những biện pháp tổng thống liên bang không có quyền làm.

https://diendantraichieu.blogspot.com/2020/04/bai-121-tom-luoc-dien-tien-oi-pho-dich.html

Từ ngày coronavirus tấn công Mỹ đầu tháng Giêng cho tới cuối tháng Hai, TTDC Mỹ vẫn khẳng định chỉ là cúm không có gì đáng quan tâm.  

New York Times:  99% ca sẽ là nhẹ, không cần chữa trị đặc biệt gì.

USA Today: không phải là một khủng hoảng y tế toàn cầu.

Washington Postmối đe dọa thật sự là bệnh cúm thường chứ không phải corona. Cảnh giác thiên hạ coi chừng cách đối phó quá cứng rắn và hấp tấp của tay độc tài Trump

CNN: corona không phải là đại dịch -pandemic-, chỉ là cúm -flu.

Đây là một thí dụ cụ thể: bài của Real Clear Science ngày 29/2/2020:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2020/02/29/five_reasons_you_dont_need_to_panic_about_the_covid-19_coronavirus.html

Ai lơ là, không chuẩn bị, không lo bảo vệ dân?

Đại Học John Hopkins đã công bố một nghiên cứu chi tiết của họ về việc các quốc gia trên thế giới đối phó với đại dịch trên thế giới, theo đó Mỹ đã là nước có chuẩn bị chu đáo và hữu hiệu nhất thế giới, sẵn sàng ứng phó với đại dịch nhất.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-was-most-prepared-country-in-the-world-for-pandemics-johns-hopkins-study-found-in-2019

Một điều không cụ nào dám bàn là tỷ lệ chết của Mỹ rất thấp so với các nước Tây Âu trong khi số thử nghiệm lên đến 35 triệu người, hơn gấp hai lần Pháp, Anh, Ý cộng lại chẳng hạn. Đây là thống kê ngày 30/6/2020:

6.     Quảng bá và công khai khuyến khích người dân tiêm chất khử trùng vào cơ thể là kẻ “ngu dốt” (HL-19/6)

Tin phịa.

Đây là nguyên văn câu nói của TT Trump: “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets on the lungs and it does a tremendous number, so it will be interesting to check that. So that you’re going to have to use medical doctors. But it sounds, it sounds interesting to me. So we’ll see”. [Trích nguyên văn tiếng Anh để khỏi mang tiếng là dịch bậy]

TT Trump thắc mắc không biết có cách nào có thể dùng thuốc khử trùng để trị vi khuẩn không, cần phải hỏi các bác sĩ.

“Quảng bá và khuyến khích” chỗ nào?

7.     Vào cuối tháng 2, tổng thống Trump tuyên bố “tháng Tư’ vi khuẩn sẽ biến mất, và mối quan tâm của đảng Dân chủ và giới truyền thông về đại dịch là một “trò lừa bịp mới”. (HL-29/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Đây là nguyên văn câu nói của TT Trump: “Now, the virus that we’re talking about having to do — you know, a lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat — as the heat comes in… One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear. And from our shores, we — you know, it could get worse before it gets better. It could maybe go away. We’ll see what happens. Nobody really knows. The fact is, the greatest experts — I’ve spoken to them all. Nobody really knows.”

Đại khái, TT Trump cho biết ông nghe nói vi khuẩn kỵ nóng, nhiều người nghĩ sẽ bị diệt tháng Tư, nhưng ông cũng nói thật sự không ai biết rõ hết, ta chờ xem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/28/yet-again-trump-pledges-that-coronavirus-will-simply-go-away/

TT Trump bị phe DC và đồng minh TTDC tố là lơ là, bất tài, chịu trách nhiệm để vi khuẩn phát tác. TT Trump nói đây chính là ‘hoax’ mới của phe DC để bôi bác ông, sau những cái hoax thông đồng với Nga và đổi chác với Ukraine. Nghĩa là những tố cáo của phe DC và TTDC là hoax, chứ không phải TT Trump nói vi khuẩn tấn công là hoax.

Nhà báo Kathleen Parker của WaPo chính thức xin lỗi TT Trump vì đã tố oan chuyện này: “Let the record reflect: The president never said the pandemic was a hoax.  I regret the error.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/now-is-not-the-time-to-cast-blame/2020/04/08/f0cf10b4-79d3-11ea-9bee-c5bf9d2e3288_story.html

8.     Tiền cứu trợ Covid19 là do các nhà lập pháp soạn thảo và thông qua chỉ đưa lên ký để hợp luật vậy mà tự in tên lên ngân phiếu đúng là hạng “chiếm đoạt lập công” (HL-19/6)

Bôi bác vớ vẩn.

Ký để hợp luật”? Không ký thì không thành luật, chứ không phải là chuyện “hợp luật”.

Việc đề tên trên chi phiếu là quyết định của bộ Tài Chánh theo đúng thủ tục hành chánh của bộ, không phải là quyết định của TT Trump.

Luật cải tổ y tế năm 2009 do Hạ Viện soạn thảo, lưỡng viện thông qua “chỉ đưa lên ký để hợp luật, sao Obama lại vỗ ngực nhận là ‘Obamacare’? “Chiếm đoạt để lập công”?

9.     Khuya ngày thứ năm 25/6 đã đệ đơn lên Tòa Tối Cao nhằm « khai tử » chương trình bảo hiểm y tế,… Đây là việc làm hết sức tàn nhẫn, vô lương tâm của chính quyền Donald Trump đang lúc dịch bệnh lây lan, gây tác hại, lo sợ đến mọi tầng lớp người dân. (MP – 27/6). Con số thất nghiệp đã tăng lên trên 40 triệu người, mất việc làm tức sẽ mất bảo hiểm. (MHN-29/6). Sẽ cúp bảo hiểm trên 24 triệu người (PN-29-6).

Xuyên tạc và hù dọa láo.

Ý muốn nói Obamacare cung cấp bảo hiểm y tế cho dân thất nghiệp, nếu không còn Obamacare mà bị thất nghiệp thì sẽ không còn bảo hiểm y tế nữa.

Hiện giờ đang có hơn hai tá tiểu bang kiện đòi thu hồi Obamacare; chính quyền Trump không xin gì cả, mà bộ Tư Pháp chỉ nộp ‘góp ý’ (legal opinion) ủng hộ việc này vì Obamacare có thể đã không còn hợp hiến nữa.

Thu hồi hay không là quyết định của Tối Cao Pháp Viện, muốn chửi là “tàn nhẫn” thì cứ chửi TCPV. Cho dù Obamacare bị TCPV cho thu hồi thì cũng không phải là ngày mai hay tuần tới, mà cũng chẳng ai mất bảo hiểm hết vì nếu thu hồi thì chỉ mất Obamacare, vẫn có thể thay thế bằng bảo hiểm của công ty, sở làm và cả chục công ty bảo hiểm đang hoạt động. Mỹ có 330 triệu dân, chỉ có 8,3 triệu người trong Obamacare, còn lại hơn 320 triệu người không cần Obamacare gì hết. Nói Trump thu hồi Obamacare để cho 24 triệu người mất bảo hiểm y tế là hù dọa phịa, rẻ tiền và ngớ ngẩn.

10.  Thủ đoạn của Barr, cố tình dấu diếm, tìm cách trì hoãn để cắt xén, sửa đổi, thêm bớt bản báo cáo chắc chắn không thể được chấp nhận trong một đất nước với tam quyền phân lập như Mỹ (TDL-27-6)

Xuyên tạc.

Phúc trình của công tố Mueller có 3 bản: một bản tóm lược rất ngắn có 4 trang do ông Barr nộp cho quốc hội hai ngày sau khi công tố Mueller nộp phúc trình trong khi chờ đợi bộ Tư Pháp kiểm duyệt; một bản nguyên văn đầy đủ sau đó được gửi cho quốc hội và công khai công bố cho công chúng nhưng bôi đen những đoạn mà theo luật an ninh quốc gia, không thể công bố được; và một bản nguyên văn không bôi đen đặt trong một phòng mật của quốc hội để các nghị sĩ và dân biểu hay các phụ tá chính thức vào đọc trong cả tháng trời. Chẳng có ‘thủ đoạn’ vớ vẩn nào hết.

Nếu có chuyện dấu diếm, cắt xén, sửa đổi, thêm bớt thì sao công tố Mueller và 18 luật sư hầu hết theo phe DC không ai lên tiếng khiếu nại? Nếu không chấp nhận được vì vi phạm nguyên tắc tam quyền phân lập, thì sao phe DC trong Hạ Viện chưa kiện ra tòa đi?

11.  Đối xử ác độc với những người tỵ nạn, di dân. Trẻ con phải xa cha mẹ, và một số đã chết trong các trại giam giữ (MP –27/6)

Xuyên tạc và tin phịa.

Chính sách cách ly trẻ em ra đời dưới thời TT Clinton, theo thỏa thuận giữa tòa án và bộ trưởng Tư Pháp Janet Reno thời đó, không phải là sản phẩm của Trump. Các quan chức Sở Di Trú bây giờ chỉ thi hành luật có hiệu lực từ hồi đó tới giờ thôi, không liên quan gì đến TT Trump hết.

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/family-separation-not-trump-administrations-fault

Bao nhiêu người đã chết trong các trại giam giữ? Có con số chính xác không? Bằng chứng?

12.  Trump cho phép và ủng hộ tinh thần nhóm Mỹ da trắng thượng đẳng KKK, Neo-Nazi, và nhiều nhóm lẻ tẻ khác, chống da đen da màu và di dân (PN-29-6)

Tin phịa.

TT Trump chưa bao giờ “cho phép và ủng hộ tinh thần” da trắng thượng đẳng KKK, Neo-Nazi hết. Cũng chưa bao giờ chống da đen da màu và di dân, chỉ chống di dân lậu, khác xa.

Các luật giới hạn một số di dân từ các quốc gia rối loạn Trung Đông chỉ có mục đích thanh lọc khủng bố, được Tối Cao Pháp Viện xác nhận hợp hiến vì nhu cầu an ninh quốc gia. Nếu đó là những biện pháp kỳ thị thì đã không được TCPV chấp nhận 9-0, kể cả các thẩm phán cấp tiến.

13.  Nợ quốc gia tăng, ngay cả trước đại dịch COVID-19 vì giảm thuế cho những người giàu nhất (MP –27/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Nợ quốc gia tăng mạnh, không sai, bắt đầu từ 2009 khi Obama nhậm chức cho tới cuối nhiệm kỳ với tổng số nợ tăng gấp hai, chứ không phải vì TT Trump “giảm thuế cho những người giàu nhất”.

Mức công nợ Mỹ

(TT Obama: 2009-2016)

14.  Thâm thủng mậu dịch với Trung Cộng tăng vọt trước đại dịch COVID-19 và vẫn tiếp tục thâm hụt thêmHơn 2 năm thương chiến hù dọa, đổi ý tới lui đối với Trung cộng làm thiệt hại hằng tỷ đô la, nhất là cho người dân, nhưng không đem lại kết quả hữu hiệu (MP–27/6)

Xuyên tạc và tin phịa.

Thâm thủng mậu dịch với TC tăng vọt, không sai, nhưng phần lớn là dưới thời Obama (2009-2016). Xin coi biểu đồ dưới. Đang xuống trong hai năm 2019-2020 (2020 là dự phóng dựa trên vài tháng đầu, cũng như dựa trên việc kinh tế đóng cửa, số cầu hàng nhập cảng sẽ giảm mạnh trong cả năm).

Hai năm thiệt hại bạc tỷ”? Bằng chứng đâu?

Thâm thủng thương mại Mỹ-TC

(TT Obama: 2009-2016 – TT Trump: 2017-2020)

15.  Chánh Phủ Mỹ dưới sự lảnh đạo của D Trump đã hoàn toàn thất bại đối với các vấn đề quốc tế quan trọng như sau: Tầu Cộng, Hàn Cộng, Hồi Giáo Cực Đoan Iran, Venezuela “vẫn còn sống nhăn” (HL-29/6)

Bá láp.

TT Trump chưa khi nào có ý định xóa 4 xứ này khỏi bản đồ thế giới, cũng chưa bao giờ có chủ trương lật đổ các chế độ hay lãnh đạo các xứ này. Sao lại là “thất bại”?

16.  Cái vụ mà Trump nịnh Tập và nói là hãy mua hàng giúp tôi thắng cử đó là Trump nói trước đám đông người chứ không phải tay đôi (DT-29/6)

Tin phịa.

Ông Bolton viết TT Trump đã nói câu này với Tập trong một buổi họp chung giữa hai phái đoàn Trump-Tập. Đại Diện Thương Mại Mỹ, ông Robert Lighthizer xác nhận đây là nói láo, TT Trump chưa bao giờ nói câu này, trong buổi họp ông Bolton kể lại (biên bản buổi họp vẫn còn đó), hay bất cứ nơi nào khác.

17.  Rốt cuộc sau 4 năm của Trump dân Mỹ chúng tôi thiếu thốn đủ thứ, mua cái gì cũng mắc thêm (PN-29-6)

Tin phịa.

Trump mới làm TT có 3 năm 5 tháng, chưa tới 4 năm.

Thiếu thốn cái gì? Cái gì mắc thêm?

Dưới đây là biểu đồ lạm phát giá cả Mỹ:

Tháng 2/2017: Trump nhận gia tài của Obama: 2,74%

Tháng 7/2018: 2,95%, tăng 0,21% trong gần một năm rưỡi 

Tháng 3/2020: 0,17%

Lạm phát Mỹ

(TT Obama -TT Trump)

18.  Ủng hộ, ngợi khen, “kết bạn” với những kẻ cầm quyền độc tài ác đức (MP-27/6)

Bá láp.

Các cụ cuồng chống Trump coi các quan hệ ngoại giao quốc tế giống như chuyện ba thằng nhóc tiểu học kết bạn vậy. Thân thì ôm vai bá cổ, không thì phải túm đầu đánh lộn ngay. Thế mới nới “các cụ già tuổi không có nghĩa là đã trưởng thành”. Đừng nói chuyện quan hệ ngoại giao quá phức tạp đối với các cụ.

19.  Mối liên hệ mật thiết giữa VN và Hoa Kỳ tăng trưởng rất nhiều dưới thời chính quyền Trump so sánh với chính quyền Obama trước đó? Có ai thấy tréo cẳng ngỗng không? (NL-27/6)

Tin phịa.

TT Obama: chính thức thăm viếng VNCS, thăm chùa Tầu ở Sàigòn,ăn bún chả ở Hà Nội, giải tỏa cấm vận quân sự, cho phép VNCS tha hồ mua vũ khí cho công an đàn áp dân chống đảng.

TT Trump: chưa chính thức thăm viếng VN lần nào, chỉ đi Đà Nẵng dự hội nghị ASEAN và Hà Nội gặp Kim Jong Un, rồi ghé chào xã giao lãnh đạo VC. Không đi chùa, không ăn bún chả, “mật thiết, tăng trưởng” chỗ nào?

Tất cả những người có mắt để nhìn, cho dù chỉ còn một mắt, đều thấy rõ quan hệ Mỹ-VC nở rộ trong các thời TT Clinton và Obama. (Tuần tới, ta sẽ bàn về chuyện TT Trump chống cộng hay không, đừng lo!)

20.  Ông Trump hoàn toàn chưa làm điều gì có ích lợi rõ rệt cho cộng đồng người Việt ở Mỹ hơn các cộng đồng khác nếu không muốn nói rằng chính sách nhập cư khắc nghiệt của Trump còn đang làm khốn khổ khoảng 8.000 người Việt và gia đình họ đang chờ bị trục xuất về VN… (TDL-27-6)

Phe đảng và tin phịa.

Thế các TT Clinton, Bush con và Obama đã ‘làm điều gì có ích lợi rõ rệt cho cộng đồng người Việt ở Mỹ hơn các cộng đồng khác”? Xin đưa bằng chứng cụ thể ra xem.

Chuyện Trump ‘còn đang làm khốn khổ khoảng 8.000 người Việt …” là tin phịa với mục đích hù dọa cộng đồng. 8.000 người là tổng số những người tỵ nạn phạm pháp từ khi mới đến đất Mỹ thời TT Ford cho tới giờ (45 năm) chứ không phải do TT Trump bắt, họ phạm pháp không được vào quốc tịch Mỹ nhưng Mỹ không gửi trả về VN được vì VC không nhậnCác TT từ thời Clinton đến Bush con, Obama và Trump đều cố điều đình mà VC vẫn không chịu, chỉ nhận những người tới đất Mỹ sau tháng 7/95 thôi.

Tin phịa xưa hơn trái đất, vẫn cố nhai lại.

https://diendantraichieu.blogspot.com/p/tr.html

21.  Khoảng mấy chục người Việt tị nạn bị trục xuất khỏi nước Mỹ, gửi trả về Việt Nam, có những người không biết nói tiếng Việt vì qua Mỹ có mấy tuổi đầu, bố mẹ của họ khóc lóc quá trời, xin cho con được tiếp tục ở trong tù nhưng không được (TDL-27/6)

Tin phịa.

VC cho đến nay nhất quyết từ chối không nhận dân tỵ nạn nào qua Mỹ trước tháng 7/95, chỉ nhận ‘Việt kiều qua sau thời điểm đó’ (du lịch, du sinh) phạm pháp bị Mỹ trục xuất về VN thôi. Con số ‘mấy chục người’ bị trục xuất KHÔNG phải là dân tỵ nạn, mà là Việt kiều du lịch hay du sinh, không có đứa nào ‘không biết nói tiếng Việt vì qua Mỹ có mấy tuổi đầu’.

Nếu kẻ này viết sai, tôi thách đưa bằng chứng cụ thể ra đó. Không tin đi hỏi ông Giao Chỉ cho xem các con số trục xuất chính thức đi.

22.  Ngay chính TT Trump cũng nợ nhiều triệu USD từ Bank of China (NL-27/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Nợ 200 triệu đô đã được một công ty tài chánh Mỹ mua lại cách đây 8 năm rồi. TT Trump không còn liên hệ gì đến Bank of China từ đó tới nay.

Con của cụ Biden giao dịch bạc tỷ với Bank of China qua Rosemont và Bohai, sao không dám hó hé bàn tới?

23.  The Guardian tung ra tin “Rửa tiền Deutsche Bank-Kremlin-Trump”. New York Times điều tra. Nếu tiền từ Nga-Deutsche-Trump là chính đáng, TẠI SAO Trump lại phải dấu diếm, tranh đấu “like hell” để hồ sơ tài chánh không được đưa ra cho mọi người (HMH-29/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Chưa có kết quả điều tra, sao đã vội tố vậy?

Nền tảng tư pháp Mỹ khác với tư pháp CS ở chỗ người tố phải chứng minh ra tội, chứ người bị tố không cần chứng minh vô tội khi chưa bị tố gì hết.

24.  Con gái ông Trump được cấp phép tổng cộng 34 thương hiệu tại Trung Quốc kể cả máy bầu cử (voting machines) (NL-27/6)

Dốt và phịa.

Thương hiệu chỉ là giấy xác nhận đặc quyền để cấm dân Tầu ăn cắp tên ‘Ivanka’ để bán hàng giả. Tất cả các công ty của thế giới muốn không cho các chú Ba ăn cắp tên để bán hàng giả ở TC  đều phải xin trademark của TC, kể cả CNN, Facebook, Channel, Louis Vuitton, Sony, Samsung, Nike, Apple,…

https://diendantraichieu.blogspot.com/p/tttn.html

 Bà Ivanka chẳng có liên hệ xa gần gì đến máy bầu cử, mà TC cũng chẳng bao giờ có nhu cầu mua … ‘máy bầu cử’!!! Ở TC làm gì có bầu cử mà phải cần máy bầu cử? Tác giả hình như chưa biết TC là gì?

25.  Gia đình Kushner, con rể của Tổng thống Mỹ Donald Trump, đã cố gắng “dụ dỗ” các các doanh nhân giàu có tại Trung Quốc đầu tư vào một dự án của gia đình với lời hứa cấp thị thực EB-5 vào Mỹ (NL-27/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Bất cứ ai đầu tư nửa triệu đô vào Mỹ đều được cấp giấy vào sinh sống ở Mỹ, đó là luật chung từ hồi nào tới giờ, cả triệu người đã vào Mỹ bằng cách này, kể cả hàng loạt đại gia đỏ TC và VC. Không phải là đặc quyền của Kushner tặng.

Chuyện bình thường đối với cả triệu người, nhưng với những người có thành kiến ghét Trump thì đây là con dòi to hơn con voi mà họ đã khổ công bới rác tìm ra được để đánh Trump.

—————-

Thích hay ghét Trump là chuyện bình thường. Phao tin phịa, tin xuyên tạc để công kích là không lương thiện, vô tư cách.

at July 04, 2020

05-11-2020- They Want Modify Us with the COVID-19 Vaccine

05-11-2020- They Want Modify Us with the COVID-19 Vaccine

Dr Andrew Kaufman: They Want to Genetically Modify Us with the COVID-19 Vaccine

Dear anh,

Dr Andrew Kaufman joins Spiro Skouras with his laser-like way of describing what is happening around the world with this Globalist “pandemic”.

“In an unprecedented way, we see all of the governments around the world, with very few exceptions, all adopting the same policies, all at the same timeframe, right? This tells us that that this is a highly-coordinated effort, internationally and it tells us that there is a group of people or individuals who are directing the governments, essentially what to do.

“This is compatible with a Globalist agenda, moving towards a One World Government, with tighter control over the population, with a reduced population, with a new financial, monetary and currency system, and there’s evidence for all these aspects and I think the overall plan has been well laid-out in the United Nations document, Agenda 21, later changed to Agenda 2030.

“There are many other supporting documents, like you pointed out, the Rockefeller document and there are several others, that essentially gives all the details to this plan and they all correlate to the policies that are taking place right now.

“They basically want to inject genes into us and they’re using this procedure called ‘electroporation’, where they apply an electric current through two extra needles with the vaccine that creates little holes in our cells that allow the DNA to go inside our own cells and then they are supposed to make foreign proteins that supposedly generate immunity…

“They want to make us into Genetically-Modified Organisms, because this is the exact same procedure that they would be using to make a Genetically-Modified Organism.”

Dr Kaufman is risking his reputation and his medical license to get this information out as widely as possible because he doesn’t want his children to live in a world with no freedom, which he believes is where we’re headed if this isn’t rejected by the people.

Citing the CDC’s own publicly-available data, updated daily on their website, Kaufman points out that there is no “excess mortality” charting. In fact, the number of deaths this season is lower than it has been for the past three years. This leads him to think that this so-called pandemic is a “manufactured public relations, marketing operation.” There is no virus or disease but there are major changes to government policies in all areas that are severely limiting our freedoms.

He says the novel coronavirus has, in fact never been isolated and that its identity is based on tiny snippets of DNA fed into a computer model – which, he says is also how the SARS virus of the 2003 was identified. The COVID-19 virus is being classified as a member of that SARS family because it shares 80% of its genetics with SARS, based on this very slipshod modeling.

For some perspective on how genetically distant 80% is, human beings share 80% of our genomes with cattle.

Moreover, the sample population originally used to collect materials and identify the COVID-19 virus was 7 people – and there was no control group. None of the basic scientific standards have been met in the identification of the novel coronavirus, such as purifying and isolating the virus particle through a filter. Its identification is based solely on theoretical and digital modeling.

These are just a few examples of the bad science involved. There’s much more that he details here. In short, this pandemic a massive medical fraud. 

Since beginning of this #CoronaHoax, we’ve been hearing all kinds of contradictory information about the very nature of viruses, themselves, with some subscribing to Rudolf Steiner’s suggestion that viruses don’t exist at all but that they’re the excreted toxicity of cells, aka exosomes.

Spiro asks Dr Kaufman, “At this point, they haven’t been able to successfully isolate the COVID-19 virus, so we don’t know if it really exists, because they haven’t been able to prove it. And then, the testing, itself is very flawed…resulting in many false positives and the method by which they are testing does not really make sense, scientifically…

Koch’s Postulates, which are meant to prove and…reproduce the effect of viruses have never been accomplished for any viruses – so, would that call into question viruses, themselves, their existence?

“And if that’s the case, then how do you explain when people get sick, like when they catch the flu and they just feel like crap, I mean, we all thought it was viruses. What can you tell us?”

Dr Kaufman says it’s true that Koch’s Postulates have never been satisfied for the disease causation of any virus, which means that our ideas about viruses consist largely of dogma and are based on a scientific system that rewards this theory-based approach.

When asked about the bioweapons angle of this story, Dr Kaufman gives a surprising reply: “I’m sure there are Top Secret labs that are researching all kinds of weapons…but…if there’s really no biological model for a virus to cause this disease, I’m not sure what they’re engineering, exactly.

“I imagine that it would be extremely difficult to create some kind of biological organism that would cause disease, because most of the time when we have parasitic problems, they’re opportunistic.

“They’re there because there’s something not right in our body and they’re actually trying to help us get rid of that but in the process, they might get out of control and cause us problems. But I’m not aware of any organisms that some in and take over when you’re healthy. So, I think that would be a really tall order and I’m not sure that it’s even possible. 

“But if they did want to make us sick, the easiest thing would be to put toxins into our bodies and there’s many ways this can be done – and that has been done. For example, they’re putting fluoride in our water supply, which is a known toxin to the central nervous system. And even the CDC put out a guidance in the early 2000s, instructing parents of newborns not to use fluoridated water to mix baby formula, because it would affect the children’s neurological development, right? Yet, they put it in our water. You can look at what happened in Michigan, with the lead pipes and the lead poisoning from the water…

“But getting back to the mortality figures, we haven’t seen excess mortality, so if there’s any strategy like this, I don’t see evidence that it’s been deployed. Now, am I concerned that it will be deployed in a second wave or a future part of this psychological operation? Yeah, I concerned about that.”

As for the “Contact Tracing” programs, now hiring tens of thousands of workers, aiming to remove individuals from their homes to put them into a quarantine prison, Dr Kaufman says that the term, “Contact Tracing” was created in the 1931 and all of this has been in the planning stages for a long, long time and that it absolutely does represent an end to our freedom.

The Royal Academy of Sciences journal in May of 2019 dedicated the entire issue to managing a pandemic and methods of controlling the population, which is what “Contact Tracing” is for.

“So, they took the easy way to do this, because if they just come up with a completely fake illness and get everyone to volunteer to give up all their rights, it’s much easier and much less risky than unleashing some kind poison on the population that would really make people sick and die – and that would also put themselves at risk. How would they make themselves invulnerable?

“In a sense, it’s a kind of genius plot but it’s a very sinister genius plot.

“[Contact Tracing] is the next step to further get us to volunteer to give up our rights and this time, it’s mostly about privacy. And they may say that, initially, they’re doing it for the public health but we don’t really know what their real intention is and I don’t think there’s going to be transparency.

“There was a Contact Tracing app…it would give you a red light or a green light and that would be to let you into your office building or to use public transportation. So, these things, where we have freedom of movement, now we have to be granted a privilege based on this…

“One of the [Contact Tracing recruitment] ads that you showed, they were looking for people with military experience…they know how to knock down doors, they know how to look for evidence and trash places, they know how to intimidate people. That’s what they’re doing and their training and their experience in a military operation. So clearly, there’s an intention to use these types of tactics with our own citizens.”

All of this is covered in the 2010 Rockefeller “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” paper, under the heading of “Lock Step”. (http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf)

Spiro says, “It’s beyond Orwellian…Under the guise of this pandemic, it could be used to achieve many goals…one of them…is disappearing dissidents. Remember, at the beginning of this outbreak, at the beginning of the year? We had see all these videos coming out of China…there were so many videos of men in full hazmat suits…dragging people out of their homes, literally kicking and screaming. And if you look at who was filming those videos…they were *with* those dragging people from their homes. So, how did those videos get shared on social media, with the tight clampdown that China has? I think that there’s a chance that they wanted the world to see those videos and to terrify people…and to normalize the idea.”

Dr Kaufman says that if you want to know what the vaccine agenda is, it very easy to find out, you just need to read their Agenda 2030 documents.

“All of these measures are really voluntary…If we rely on the authorities to give us approval to exercise our freedoms, they’re going to take more freedoms away, as they’ve been doing. So, while I respect people who want to go and protest at city hall or at the state capital, they are coming from the right point of view but they’re just asking the authority figures, the government to give them permission, when they don’t need permission from the government, they already have permission because they have inalienable rights.

“It’s not really a decision for me it’s just what I feel that I have to do to preserve a way of life and the way that I want to live, for me and for my children.”

Running Time 55 mins:

05-11-2020- Americans’ Views of the News Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak

05-11-2020- Americans’ Views of the News Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak

MAY 8, 2020

05-11-2020- Americans’ Views of the News Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Americans’ Views of the News Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Even in crisis, Republicans and Democrats remain starkly divided in their attitudes toward journalists

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

How we did this

To examine Americans’ attitudes of the news media during the COVID-19 outbreak, we used data from a broad survey of 10,139 U.S. adults conducted April 20-26, 2020.

Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel, an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. Recruiting our panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling). To further ensure that each survey reflects a balanced cross section of the nation, the data is weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.

Here are the questions asked in this survey, along with responses, and the methodology. Visit our interactive data tool to access the data on Americans’ attitudes of the news media during the coronavirus, as well as other issues related to news and the election.

This report was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Coverage of the current coronavirus outbreak has consumed much of the news media’s attention as Americans look for information in a time of high anxiety and uncertainty. Overall, more Americans hold positive than negative views of the news media’s coverage of the COVID-19 crisis, though broader views of the media are more evenly divided or more negative. And Republicans and Democrats continue to stand far apart in their opinions of the media during the pandemic, according to a new Pew Research Center survey conducted April 20-26, 2020, among 10,139 U.S. adults who are part of the Center’s American Trends Panel.

When asked to evaluate the news media’s coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak, Americans are more likely than not to think that the news media are fulfilling four key roles. For example, most Americans (59%) say the news media are providing them with the information they need about the coronavirus, compared with about a quarter (24%) who say this is not the case. And while nearly half of U.S. adults (49%) say the media’s COVID-19 coverage has been largely accurate, roughly a quarter (24%) say it has been mostly inaccurate. (The remainder say that neither of the statements in each case reflect their views.)

Americans also are more likely than not to say media coverage of the crisis is benefiting the public (rather than news organizations) and is helping the country (rather than hurting it).

The U.S. public continues to pay rapt attention to news coverage about the outbreak. Americans are following a wide range of coronavirus-related news topics at both the national and local level, and many have seen reporters change how they cover the news to some degree.

At the same time, tensions between the news media and President Donald Trump have continued, and the new survey finds that Republicans and Democrats do not see eye to eye on views of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are far less likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to think that the news media are fulfilling each of the four functions measured in the survey. For example, while two-thirds of Democrats (66%) say the media’s COVID-19 coverage has been largely accurate, just about three-in-ten Republicans (31%) agree. And the divide is even larger between Republicans who describe themselves as conservative and Democrats who describe themselves as liberal.

While the American public has a more positive than negative assessment of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage, Americans’ broader views of the media are more evenly divided or more negative. For instance, Americans are split in their confidence in journalists: About half (48%) have at least a “fair amount” of confidence in journalists to act in the best interests of the public, while a similar share (52%) say they have not much or no confidence. And the public is somewhat more likely to think that journalists have “low” or “very low” ethical standards (56%) than “high” or “very high” standards (43%). Views about the ethical standards of journalists are stable from last year, while confidence in journalists has dropped slightly since 2018.

Similar to views of coronavirus coverage, partisan divides also persist over opinions toward journalists more generally – and are wider than for any other group of individuals asked in the survey, including business leaders, elected officials and religious leaders. For example, there is a 47-percentage-point gap between the shares of Republicans and Democrats who have at least a “fair amount” of confidence in journalists, almost exactly on par with the 46-point difference in 2018.

Overall, the findings show that Americans are largely evaluating the news media in similar ways during the COVID-19 outbreak as they did prior. Surveys conducted before the pandemic have shown that Americans often see the news media as performing well at specific roles. But Americans tend to have less positive views toward the news media and journalists more broadly. And what seems to be an unbreakable rift – even in a time of crisis – is the continued disconnect between the two parties in attitudes toward journalists and the content they produce.

You can find much of the data from this report in the Pew Research Center’s Election News Pathways data tool and analyze it alongside other data points.

1. Americans are more likely than not to think the news media are fulfilling key roles during the coronavirus outbreak, but partisans are starkly divided

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

The American public is more likely than not to say that the news media are serving key functions through their coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak. But dramatic partisan differences emerge, which is consistent with deep-rooted partisan gulfs in attitudes toward the news media prior to the outbreak.

Survey respondents were asked about their views of four elements of the news media’s coverage of the coronavirus outbreak: whether the coverage is giving them the information they need, or not; whether it is largely accurate or inaccurate; whether it is benefiting the public or the media themselves; and whether it is helping or hurting the country.

Overall, more Americans see the news media as fulfilling these key roles during this crisis than not, which is in line with other recent findings showing that most Americans think that the news media are doing fairly well in covering the outbreak more generally.

The news media receive the highest marks for whether they are keeping the public informed. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) say that the news media’s coverage is getting them the information they need, compared with far fewer – about a quarter (24%) – who say coverage is not serving that role. The remainder (17%) say that neither phrase reflects their view.

The public also is much more likely to think that coverage of the outbreak is largely accurate (49%) rather than largely inaccurate (24%). And more Americans see the news media’s coverage as working for the benefit of the public (48%) and helping the country (46%) rather than benefitting the media themselves (36%) or hurting the country (34%). On each of these questions, between 15%-26% of respondents choose neither option.

This overall sense that news media are performing these key functions in this crisis is similar to the public’s general views that the news media do well at a number of specific roles, especially at the local level. For example, Americans say that one of the most positive things that the news media do is simply report the news and provide important information. And Americans overwhelmingly go into national news stories expecting they will be accurate.

Partisans sharply divided over whether the news media are fulfilling key roles during the coronavirus outbreak

Democrats and Republicans are far apart in their views of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage. Republicans generally express more negative sentiments of the news media than Democrats, particularly since the 2016 presidential election. The partisan divide during this crisis is just as stark as before – Republicans are far less likely than Democrats to think that the news media are fulfilling key roles for the public through their coverage of the outbreak.

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are between 29 and 38 percentage points less likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to hold a positive view of the news media’s coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak across the four different roles. For example, while two-thirds of Democrats (66%) think the news media are working for the benefit of the public, roughly three-in-ten Republicans (28%) share this assessment. More than half of Republicans (57%) say the media are working to benefit themselves.

Indeed, while Democrats are far more likely to view the news media’s coverage of COVID-19 positively than negatively across all four of these questions, Republicans are more likely to give a negative assessment in three areas. The only exception is whether the news media are giving them the information they need during the outbreak: 44% of Republicans say that the news media are providing this information, compared with 35% who say this need is not being met.

These partisan divides are even larger among those at the ideological ends of each party – liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are even less likely to see eye to eye. For instance, the 35 percentage point divide between the two parties in thinking that news coverage of the coronavirus outbreak is largely accurate grows to 46 points between liberal Democrats (72%) and conservative Republicans (26%).

Chart showing liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans stand far apart in their evaluations of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage

Many Americans – particularly Republicans – think news coverage of the outbreak is too negative

Another survey question asked about the tone of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage. Fully 43% of Americans say the news media’s coverage of the coronavirus outbreak has been more negative than it should be, far more than the share who say the tone of the coverage has been too positive (12%). Many Americans (44%) say that the coverage has been neither too negative nor too positive.

Republicans are particularly likely to think that the news media’s coverage is too negative. Two-thirds (66%) of Republicans and Republican leaners say this, compared with about a quarter of Democrats and Democratic leaners (24%). Instead, Democrats are far more likely to say the coverage struck the right tone (60%, vs. 25% of Republicans).

Pagination

2. Americans are more negative in their broader views of journalists than they are toward COVID-19 coverage

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

Even as Americans are more likely to give the news media positive than negative marks on key aspects of COVID-19 reporting, views of journalists broadly remain more negative – specifically in Americans’ confidence in journalists and their views of their ethical standards. Furthermore, major partisan divides are just as stark as before the outbreak began, and Republicans and Democrats disagree more strongly in their assessments of the media than they do about several other institutions.

Overall, Americans are about evenly split in their level of confidence in journalists. About half (48%) have at least a “fair amount” of confidence that journalists will act in the public’s best interests, including 9% who say they have a “great deal” of confidence. But the other half (52%) have “not too much” or “no confidence at all” in journalists to serve the public interest.

The public’s level of confidence in journalists is slightly lower than the last time this question was asked in late 2018, when 55% had at least a fair amount of confidence that journalists will act in the best interests of the public, including 15% who had the highest level of confidence. Since many issues and events have transpired since late 2018, the reason for the change is unclear.

Views of journalists’ ethics, meanwhile, are somewhat more negative than positive. Roughly four-in-ten Americans (43%) say journalists have “very high” or “high” ethical standards, while a majority (56%) say they have “low” or “very low” standards. Americans’ opinions about the ethical standards of journalists are largely stable compared to 2019, the last time this question was asked.

Partisans remain sharply divided in their opinions about journalists

Like their views of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage, Republicans and Democrats sharply diverge in their confidence in journalists and views of journalists’ ethical standards – divides that are just as stark as before the outbreak.

While a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents (70%) say they have at least a fair amount of confidence in journalists to serve the public interest, this share falls 47 percentage points to about a quarter (23%) of Republicans and Republican leaners. The size of this partisan divide is almost exactly the same as it was in late 2018, with slight overall decline in confidence occurring within both parties.

Partisans also disagree in their perceptions of the ethical standards of journalists. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say journalists have high or very high ethical standards (64% vs. 19%), a 45-point divide that is about the same as last year.

These gaps are even larger between the ideological ends of the parties. The 47-point gap between the shares of Republicans and Democrats who say they have at least a fair amount of confidence in journalists grows to 61 points between liberal Democrats (76%) and conservative Republicans (15%). And the 45-point partisan divide in views about journalists’ ethics swells to 57 points between liberal Democrats (70% of whom say journalists have at least high ethical standards) and conservative Republicans (13%).

Partisans are more divided in their assessments of journalists than any other institution

On a list of several different groups of individuals, journalists rank near the bottom when it comes to public confidence. And partisan divides in views toward journalists are larger than they are for these other groups.

Survey respondents were asked about their level of confidence in groups of people from 10 different areas to act in the public interest. Journalists are on par with business leaders (48%), and they rank higher than only one other group – elected officials, who have the confidence of just 37% of U.S. adults. In the new survey, medical scientists (89%), scientists in general (87%), public school principals for grades K-12 (83%) and the military (83%) rise to the top of the list.

Journalists are the only group for which public confidence has declined since the last time each question was asked.

Americans’ views of journalists’ ethical standards follow a very similar pattern. Journalists rank toward the bottom compared with five other groups of individuals asked about. And again, the one group that journalists outrank is elected leaders (just 27% of Americans think elected leaders have high or very high ethical standards).

The public is more likely to think medical doctors (92%), police officers (73%) and religious leaders (67%) have very high or high ethical standards, while journalists (43%) are about on par with lawyers (44%).

Partisan divides in these views of journalists stand out for being especially large.

The 47-point gap between Democrats and Republicans (including leaners) in the share who express at least a fair amount of confidence in journalists to act in the public interest is at least 10 points larger than the split for each of the other nine groups of individuals, a pattern that is very similar to views in 2018 to before the COVID-19 outbreak. The next largest gap is 37 points: 85% of Democrats express confidence in college professors, compared with 48% of Republicans.

Chart showing Republicans and Democrats are more divided over views toward journalists than other groups of individuals

And the same pattern emerges in views of ethics. The 45-point gap in whether journalists have high or very ethical standards between Republicans and Democrats shadows the divides for the other five groups asked about.

Republicans and Democrats are far more divided over the ethical standards of journalists than other groups of individuals

Chart showing Republicans and Democrats are far more divided over the ethical standards of journalists than other groups of individuals

Table showing American Trends Panel recruitment surveys

Weighting dimensions

Weighting dimensions

Acknowledgments

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

This report was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals. Find related reports online at journalism.org

Jeffrey Gottfried, Senior Researcher
Mason Walker, Research Analyst
Amy Mitchell, Director, Journalism Research
Michael Barthel, Senior Researcher
Kirsten Worden, Research Assistant
Maya Khuzam, Research Assistant
Margaret Porteus, Information Graphics Designer
Michael Lipka, Editorial Manager
Claudia Deane, Vice President, Research
Hannah Klein, Communications Manager
Rachel Weisel, Senior Communications Manager
Shannon Greenwood, Digital Producer 

Methodology

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

American Trends Panel survey methodology

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. The panel is being managed by Ipsos. This report was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. The panel is being managed by Ipsos. This report was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Data in this report is drawn from the panel wave conducted April 20 to April 26, 2020. A total of 10,139 panelists responded out of 11,022 who were sampled, for a response rate of 92%. This does not include three panelists who were removed from the data due to extremely high rates of refusal or straightlining. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 5%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 0.01%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 10,139 respondents is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

The subsample from the ATP consisted of 11,022 ATP members that responded to the Wave 57 survey and were still active.

The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of which 9,942 agreed to participate.

In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based recruitment. Invitations were sent to a random, address-based sample (ABS) of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. In each household, the adult with the next birthday was asked to go online to complete a survey, at the end of which they were invited to join the panel. For a random half-sample of invitations, households without internet access were instructed to return a postcard. These households were contacted by telephone and sent a tablet if they agreed to participate. A total of 9,396 were invited to join the panel, and 8,778 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. The same recruitment procedure was carried out on August 19, 2019, from which a total of 5,900 were invited to join the panel and 4,720 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. Of the 23,440 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 15,427 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted.

The U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range.1 The American Trends Panel never uses breakout routers or chains that direct respondents to additional surveys.

Weighting

The ATP data was weighted in a multistep process that begins with a base weight incorporating the respondents’ original selection probability. The next step in the weighting uses an iterative technique that aligns the sample to population benchmarks on the dimensions listed in the accompanying table.

Sampling errors and test of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Table showing unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.

05-10-2020- The Deep State Is Older Than You Realize

05-10-2020- The Deep State Is Older Than You Realize

The Deep State Didn’t Start with Donald Trump

By Steve Baldwin
Published May 10, 2020 at 6:05am


The term “Deep State” has become quite popular during the Trump years, only because of how these entrenched government networks have been exposed by the conservative media and by President Donald Trump himself. It refers to cabals of long-time government bureaucrats and officials who are part of the permanent political establishment.

These informal networks may also include well-connected Capitol Hill staff, influential political consultants, and leaders of leftist activist groups and foundations.

Advertisement – story continues below

Of course, there is no formal membership. Rather, such networks are held together by common ideology and interests.

They have sought to maintain their power and influence regardless of which party controls the White House and are imbued with an arrogant “We know what’s best for America” attitude. They regard themselves as the “real government” and consider most elected officials as ignorant, bothersome obstacles. Oftentimes, they operate in secret and many at one time may have been political appointees, but once someone hostile occupies the White House, they shift into protected Civil Service positions to maintain power and influence. They usually have establishment media allies and are far more connected to Democrat politicians than Republican ones.

Their ideology is on the left — and they are scornful of conservatives. More specifically, those who hold this ideology typically favor subverting U.S. interests to international entities such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court and support treaties and agreements that put the U.S. at a disadvantage. Examples of this would be the Iranian nuclear deal, the Kyoto global warming treaty and many of the so-called “free trade” deals.

TRENDING: Media Lies at Work: As NY Deaths Go Up, So Do Cuomo’s Polls – As FL Deaths Go Down, So Do DeSantis’ Polls

This globalist mentality stems from a belief that America was founded upon malevolent motivations and obtained its wealth and power immorally; thus America’s influence must be checked by international institutions and treaties whenever possible.

These globalists detest the “America First” attitude and will do whatever is necessary to subvert that concept. They are mostly socialists.

Advertisement – story continues below

The classic examples of Deep Staters from recent headlines are former Obama appointees John Brennan, Nellie Ohr and James Comey, all of whom played key roles in the Russian collusion hoax but also have deep Marxist influences in their backgrounds as documented in Diana West’s book “The Red Thread: A Search for ideological Drivers inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy.”

Deep Staters always claim to be defenders of the Constitution but in reality are hostile to the ideas of limited government, national sovereignty, a strong military and much of the Bill of Rights — especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments — since they believe such rights will inhibit their efforts to increase the power and scope of the federal government.

Do you believe the Deep State is aligned against Donald Trump?

Top of Form

Yes No 

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Bottom of Form

Deep State members are commonly involved in unethical or illegal activity, and they have assisted liberal presidents to carry out such activity — or, at the very least, helped conceal it. Indeed, Deep Staters have no problem working with foreign intelligence operatives to achieve their aims.

We know, for example, that the group of Obama appointees who initiated the Russian collusion hoax worked with a former British intelligence officer to assemble a dossier full of phony intel fed to him by Russians with close ties to Putin and by a “top level Russian intelligence officer.” Moreover, we know that this same Deep State network collaborated with intelligence sources in Italy and Australia as well.

All of this was directed toward, at first, the defeat of Donald Trump in 2016 and then, post-election, his removal. The reason, of course, is that Trump, an avowed American-Firster, posed the greatest threat ever to these entrenched Deep State networks.

Advertisement – story continues below

In an earlier era, such activity would be considered treasonous.

The Deep State networks often play a role in enriching their ideological leaders. Sometimes they will organize foundations staffed with former high-ranking government officials who then hit up nations and multi-nationals for money on the premise that, once back in power, they will carry out policies beneficial to them. (The Clinton Foundation is the perfect model here, but there are other such foundations.)

RELATED: Dick Morris: Four Senators Put Their Greed First

Another favorite Deep State tactic is to get the children of its leaders appointed to the boards of foreign companies which are controlled or deeply influenced by U.S. foreign policy or recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. These children will then become wealthy and pour money back into the Deep State network. The classic example of this is Hunter Biden’s board appointments and involvement with corporations in Ukraine, China and elsewhere that engaged in activity Hunter had zero background in — all while his father was vice president.

It is also common for Deep Staters to get their children appointed to domestic highly paid corporate boards. A classic example is the appointment of Chelsea Clinton to the board of IAC/InterActiveCorp, a media and internet investment company. Since 2011, she has reaped $9 million from this company, even though she has no background in media investments. Not surprisingly, this company is controlled by Barry Diller, a close associate of Hillary Clinton.

Advertisement – story continues below

The Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Obama and Romney families, just to name a few examples, are the beneficiaries of these and other enrichment schemes exposed by Peter Schweizer’s books, namely, “Profiles in Corruption” and “Secret Empires.” Indeed, many believe the main reason why the political establishment detest Trump and want to remove him from office is because he’s the first president in history to expose this corruption.

Finally, it should be noted that Deep Staters are hardly ever held accountable for their actions due to their ability to conceal their illegal activity, the contacts they maintain within the Department of Justice and the incompetence of congressional oversight committees.

In an earlier American Spectator article, I compared how Democrats handled GOP scandals, specifically Contra-gate and Watergate, with how the Republicans responded to the half-dozen scandals involving Barack Obama, such as using the IRS to suppress the Tea Party movement in order to ensure his re-election:

“Between Watergate and Contra gate, Democrats charged 83 Republicans with criminal conduct. Today, Republicans have not held even one Democrat accountable for the high crimes committed by the Obama Administration.”

Advertisement – story continues below

Perhaps that will change this summer, but don’t hold your breath.

This Op-Ed is Part I of a multi-part series on the Deep State by former California state assemblyman Steve Baldwin. The second part will appear on The Western Journal on May 14.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Submit a Correction

05-10-2020- Obama Worried Over Dropped Flynn Case

05-10-2020- Obama Worried Over Dropped Flynn Case

05-10-2020- Obama Worried Over Dropped Flynn Case

Obama Worried Over Dropped Flynn Case, Warns in Leaked Call ‘Rule of Law Is at Risk’

By Andrew J. Sciascia
Published May 9, 2020 at 1:26pm


The Justice Department’s official dismissal of the federal case against former Trump administration National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is not sitting well with former President Barack Obama.

According to Yahoo! News, Obama provided rare commentary on the matter Friday, referring to the decision as unprecedented and worrisome in a private online call with members of his former administration, now colloquially referred to as the Obama Alumni Association.

An audio recording of the call reveals the former president even alleged the “rule of law is at risk.”

“The news over the last 24 hours, I think, has been somewhat downplayed about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said. “The fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.

“That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.

TRENDING: Media Lies at Work: As NY Deaths Go Up, So Do Cuomo’s Polls – As FL Deaths Go Down, So Do DeSantis’ Polls

“And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places,” Obama added.

He went on to suggest the Flynn decision should underline for left-wing political operatives the importance of the upcoming 2020 election, in which his former vice president, Joe Biden, is now the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Advertisement – story continues below

Benny

✔@bennyjohnson

OBAMA PHONE CALL: ‘Rule of law is at risk’ after Michael Flynn case was dropped.

Embedded video

1,214

9:54 AM – May 9, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

761 people are talking about this

According to The Associated Press, the charges against Flynn were dramatically dropped in a Thursday court filing brought by the Justice Department after a lengthy investigative case review conducted by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen.

Amid then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to knowingly providing false statements in an interview with the FBI the previous January, Fox News reported.

Prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the incoming national security advisor had been under scrutiny for alleged Logan Act violations resulting from foreign policy conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transitionary period between the Obama and Trump administrations.

Despite his guilty plea, however, arguments raised by Flynn’s legal team over alleged potential evidentiary improprieties and prosecutorial misconduct prevented the courts from moving forward with sentencing — a matter further complicated by the subsequent withdrawal of the guilty plea after prosecutors retracted their recommendation that he serve no time behind bars. (The leniency guarantee was part of the original plea deal.)

Advertisement – story continues below

Increasingly relevant among the concerns raised by the defense were allegations the FBI had withheld from Flynn the knowledge that false statements would constitute criminal activity and further advised against the presence of White House counsel during the interview.

FBI notes unsealed last week only served to further undermine the basis for the interview, indicating investigators had questioned whether their goal in interviewing him was to catch Flynn in a perjury trap.

RELATED: Attorney: Then-President Obama Was Involved in Plot To Set Up Flynn

“What is our goal?” one of the notes read. “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Dan Bongino

✔@dbongino

“The White House is running this”
“The POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.” #ObamaKnew

View image on Twitter

8,748

6:29 PM – May 7, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

4,574 people are talking about this

The bombshell disclosure and immaterial nature of Flynn’s false statements would in turn lead the Justice Department to conclude the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis” and “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn,” according to The AP.

“Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case,” Jensen said in a statement. “I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.”

Do you think General Flynn has been exonerated?

Yes No 

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Advertisement – story continues below

Brought about by Attorney General William Barr’s ordered investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, the development is yet another in a series of revelations which seems to call into question the legitimacy of both the procedure and foundations of the probe.

Obama’s remarks on the decision come the same week that the investigation seems to have uncovered a baseline knowledge of the probe and its activities among members of the Obama administration.

According to Fox News, recently unsealed notes from then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates reveal Obama and his FBI director, James Comey, were aware intelligence agents had wiretapped Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak in December 2016.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Submit a Correction

Time to Wake Up, Flynn Exonerated, Pain

Time to Wake Up, Flynn Exonerated, Pain

Dear anh,

This is the moment we’ve been waiting for! The DECLAS has begun, starting with Acting DNI, Ric Grenell’s declassification and release of 53 transcripts on Thursday of the House Intel Committee’s Russia probe interviews. Later in the evening, Grenell was seen carrying a satchel to the DOJ with a second set of documents to be released today!

Grenell had previously prodded Adam Schiff to release these, who instead released cherry-picked, redacted documents, so Grenell decided to go over his head. These Russia probe documents are expected to reveal that Schiff and other investigators have long known there was no “Russia collusion”, even as Schiff continued to tweet on Thursday that there was.

Yesterday started with the abrupt withdrawal of Brandon Van Grack the prosecutor from the case against Gen. Michael Flynn. Of Van Grack, Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell had written that he “has suppressed evidence from the formation of the ‘Special Counsel Investigation’ and likely even prior to it — for the very purpose of putting Mr Flynn in the unjust position he now occupies while protecting the prosecutors, his team, and the cadre of malfeasant FBI agents from the discovery of their negligence, crimes, and wrongs.”

Van Grack’s withdrawal from the case was immediately followed by the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn. There was a need for damage control with the release of Van Grack’s suppressed evidence. Undercover Huber tweeted that the case’s dismissal means there will be no trial, “So no Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Yates or Pientka on the witness stand. No pre-trial discovery. No extensive press coverage leading up to and during the trial. No ‘not guilty’ verdict.”

Then Lindsey Graham came out, saying that all of this means there had been no legal justification for the appointment of Mueller as Special Counsel in the first place. As Dave from the X22 Report says here, “If there was no justification for the Mueller appointment, there was no case, no basis for it. Everything that Mueller did is null and void.”

Not only was Flynn just exonerated, “everything with Manafort, with Stone, everything that you saw happen: null and void. The impeachment that they had: null and void…there was nothing there. This is why they don’t want to release the information.”

Dave at the X22 Report takes a victory lap.

Running Time 43 mins:

53 HPSCI Transcripts – Adam Schiff – Russia collusion – Gen. Michael Flynn

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/features/2753-53-hpsci-transcripts

53 HPSCI Transcripts –  Adam Schiff – Russia collusion – Gen. Michael Flynn


The United States Intelligence Community (IC), at the bipartisan request of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), reviewed 53 transcripts for classification. The IC made appropriate redactions, lowering the classification level of all 53 transcripts to UNCLASSIFIED. Each transcript can be accessed by clicking on the names below.

1. Alexander Nix

2. Anatoli Samachornov

3. Andrew Brown

4. Andrew McCabe

5. Benjamin Rhodes

6. Boris Epshteyn

7. Brad Parscale

8. Corey Lewandowski (Jan 2018)

9. Corey Lewandowski (Mar 2018)

10. Daniel Coats

11. David Kramer (Dec 2017)

12. David Kramer (Jan 2018)

13. Diana Denman

14. Donald Trump, Jr.

15. Evelyn Farkas

16. FBI Special Agent

17. Felix Sater

18. Hope Hicks

19. Ike Kaveladze

20. Jake Sullivan

21. James Clapper

22. Jared Kushner

23. Jefferson Sessions

24. Jeffrey Gordon

25. John Carlin

26. John Podesta (Dec 2017)

27. John Podesta (Jun 2017)

28. Jonathan Safron

29. Keith Schiller

30. Loretta Lynch

31. Marc Elias

32. Mary McCord

33. Matthew Tait

34. Michael Caputo

35. Michael Cohen

36. Michael Goldfarb

37. Michael Sussman

38. Peter Fritsch

39. Rhona Graff

40. Rick Dearborn

41. Rinat Akhmetshin

42. Rob Goldstone

43. Roger Stone

44. Sally Yates

45. Samantha Power

46. Samuel Clovis

47. Shawn Henry

48. Stephen Bannon (Feb 2018)

49. Stephen Bannon (Jan 2018)

50. Susan Rice

51. Thomas Catan

52. Walid Phares

53. Yared Tamene

05-07-2020- Scam of Ages – Bill Gates – vaccination passport

05-07-2020- Scam of Ages – Bill Gates – vaccination passport

Dear anh,

This is a vaccine truth video, with some recent blurbs from two high-profile vaccine experts. It might  pulled within 24 hours.

***

Robert F Kennedy, Jr

It is impossible to make a vaccine that’s completely safe.

You are going to injure a certain amount of people.

Government is going to mandate this product.

No matter how grievous your injury or your child’s injury, no matter how toxic the ingredient, no matter how sloppy the line protocols, no matter how negligent that company, you cannot sue them for redress.

So, there’s no discovery, there’s no depositions, there’s no medical malpractice, there’s no class-actions. There’s zero consequence, if they kill you or if they injure you for life, that there’s no liability.

And for a every medical product, the biggest cost is paying liability at the back end. So they just said, “Now, that’s scrubbed. We don’t have to worry about that. We don’t have to safety test them.”

And there’s no reason to make it safe, because nobody can sue you, nobody can do discovery. There’s no consequence to giving you a really dangerous vaccine.

It’s almost mandatory consumption of that product.

It’s a gold mine.

If you can get a vaccine on the CDC schedule. It’s worth a billion dollars a year, typically to your company.

There was a Gold Rush and all of these companies rushed on CDC and captured the agency and got them to mandate all these vaccines.

Dr Andrew Kaufman

Some of the technological strategies that they’re using to create these vaccines are quite scary and unprecedented.

This vaccine doesn’t work in the way that, normally vaccines do, where you have a piece of a virus that’s inactivated in some way and inject that in, that causes an immune response and you would make antibodies to it.

They have to use a special technology. So, it’s not like a regular vaccine, where there’s just a syringe, with one needle and a liquid containing whatever’s in the vaccine and they just put it in.

This has three needles. So, the needle in the middle is the typical type, that the material would flow through but the other two needles on either side are actually electrodes and what they do is they generate an electric current inside of our cells and this creates what’s called electroporation.

And what happens is that the electricity causes the cell membranes to create little holes called pores and then, the genetic material can enter the cell through those pores whereas, normally the cell membrane would be a barrier and keep the genetic material outside the cells.

So, they’re using this technique and they’re basically – this is a form of gene therapy – so, they would actually be changing the genetic makeup of our own cells in the local area where they’re injecting this.

And I think this is something that could be used for all sorts of purposes that we may not know about, because we don’t really know what these genes represent.

Remember, I was talking about the source of this genetic material is undetermined.

The thing that keeps coming back to my mind, about Bill Gates; he made a statement to the effect of, “Through vaccines and family planning, we could reduce the world’s population by 15%.”

And 15% of the world’s population is somewhere around 1 billion people. Billion with a B.

And he certainly made other statements, recently that basically: “We will not be able to get back to any kind of ‘normalcy’ in our day-to-day lives.” And he specifically, mentioned things, like concerts or sporting events at arenas, where you have large gatherings of people – “until every single person is vaccinated.”

He’s also talking about having this “vaccination passport” or this tattoo or this ink, that shows you’ve had the vaccination and then that allows you like you to congregate, to travel on airplanes – almost put you in this high “social score” .

And yes, there is this invisible ink tattoo, which I believe was attempted to be implemented on some children in southern Africa – but was rejected by the local people there – rightfully so!

Running Time  mins:

05-06-2020- PLANDEMIC Part 1 – Shut Down WHO, FDA, CDC, AMA and

05-06-2020- PLANDEMIC Part 1 –  Shut Down WHO, FDA, CDC, AMA and

PLANDEMIC Part 1: Shut Down WHO, FDA, CDC, AMA and We’ve Got a Healthy World Again

Dear anh,

First, some housekeeping. As some may have noticed, the website has been under constant DDoS attack for over 7 weeks, since the state of emergency was declared.

The server has been configured for the site to come back up in about 5 minutes but last night, the attack was so intense that the site remained down for 8 hours.

This can cause users to see cached files of the site down when it is actually back up. So switch browsers, clear your cache/ browsing history and/or restart your computer if you’re having this problem.

***

PLANDEMIC

The Big Pharma global coup d’état that we’re experiencing right now is a scaled-up version of what Anthony Fauci did to Dr Judy Mikovits repeatedly over the course of decades, while they were colleagues at the NIH.

We’ve run a few videos with Mikovits over the past month but this one is very important, not only because of how her story crystallizes the situation of the entire human race at this moment, at the hands of a medical establishment that can only be described as evil but because, unlike previous interviews with her, it contains some real solutions to the monumental corruption of the healthcare industry that’s at the heart of the rot of our civilization.

Incredibly, Mikovits survived her ordeal. I feel very strongly that she represents a major turning point in the history of the West and that we are at the precipice of a transformative moment that is very positive for humanity.

This is Part 1 of the documentary, ‘PLANDEMIC’, coming out this summer. The producers will be releasing a series of these vignettes prior to the film’s completion.

Filmmaker Mikki Willis, interviewing Dr Judy Mikovits here says that most people in her situation would have taken an early retirement and laid low, “But you decided to come forth when your gag order was released to write a book called ‘Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science’ and you are naming names.

Apparently, their attempt to silence you has failed and I have to ask, how do you sit here with confidence to call out these great forces and not fear for your life, as you leave this building?”

She replies, “Because, if we don’t stop this now, we can not only forget our Republic and our freedom, but we can forget humanity, because we’ll be killed by this agenda.”

HIV/AIDS

Mikovits describes how Fauci held up for several months the publication of the paper on her work with Dr Frank Ruscetti that confirmed the findings of French virologist, Luc Montagnier, who’d isolated HIV from saliva and blood. Fauci’s associate, alowing Robert Gallo to steal their data and write his own paper, taking all the credit.

“Of course, patents were involved,” she says. “This delay of the confirmation literally led to spreading the virus around, killing millions…

“Think of how many people. The entire continent of Africa lost a generation, as that virus was spread through, because of the arrogance of a group of people – and it includes Robert Redfield, who’s now the head of the CDC, right along with Tony Fauci. They were working together to take credit and make money and they had the patents on it and tailored them to Interleukin-2 therapy, which was absolutely the wrong therapy.

“And had that not happened, millions wouldn’t have died from HIV.”

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: REPEAL THE BAYH-DOLE ACT

Mikki Willis asks, “How can a man…who’s giving global advice for health own a patent in the solution, in the vaccine? Isn’t that a conflict of interest – or shouldn’t it be?”

She says, “It is a conflict of interest and in fact, this is one of the things that I’ve been saying and would like to say to President Trump: Repeal the Bayh-Dole Act. That Act gave government workers the right to patent their discoveries. To claim intellectual property for discoveries that the taxpayer paid for. Ever since that happened in the early ’80s, it destroyed science and this allowed the development of those conflicts of interests and this is the crime behind letting somebody, like Bill Gates with billions of dollars – nobody elected him – he has no medical background, he has no expertise, but we let people like that have a voice in this country, while we destroy the lives of millions of people.”

Mikki Willis says, “If we activate mandatory vaccines globally, I imagine these people stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars, that own the vaccines.”

“And they’ll kill millions,” she says, “as they already have with their vaccines. There is no vaccine currently on the schedule for any RNA virus that works.”

Mikovits says she’s not an anti-vaxxer and she endorses immune therapies, like Interferon-alpha. “My job is to develop immune therapies but that’s what vaccines are.”

WAS THE CORONAVIRUS CREATED IN A LAB?

When asked whether the virus was created in a laboratory, she responds, “I wouldn’t use the word ‘created’ but you can’t say ‘naturally-occurring’… Somebody didn’t go to a market, get a bat – the virus didn’t jump directly to humans that’s not how it works.”

She describes the occurrence of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) as accelerated viral evolution. “If it was a natural occurrence, it would take it up to 800 years to occur. This occurred from SARS-CoV1, within a decade. That’s not naturally-occurring.”

Mikovits is positive that the SARS-CoV2 virus was developed, “Between the North Carolina Laboratories, Fort Detrick US Army Research Institute of Infectious Disease and the Wuhan Laboratory.”

As we all now know, $3.7 million flowed from the National Institutes of Health to the Wuhan lab in China, the same lab where many people have said that this corona virus infection first originated. We also now know that NIAID, the NIH department of which Anthony Fauci is in control had already been conducting experiments with the Wuhan lab with coronaviruses.

If Anthony Fauci cannot be honest with the public about his connection to the Wuhan lab, then Fauci is probably lying about everything.

In 1999, Mikovits was working in Fort Detrick, where she says, “My job was to teach Ebola how to infect human cells without killing them. Ebola couldn’t infect human cells until we took it in the laboratories and taught them.”

MURDEROUS MEDICARE FRAUD

Willis and Mikovits then turn to the discussion of the inflated numbers of cases and deaths attributed to COVID-19, citing the many doctors and nurses who have taken to social media to voice their concern about the protocols that the CDC had given them.

She says, “Medicare has been paying hospitals $13,000 for every COVID-19 admission. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, they get $39,000.

“And you’ve killed them with the ventilator, because you gave them the wrong treatment.”

With hospitals prohibited from treating anything except for emergencies and COVID-19 cases, they’re being incentivized to murder their patients with the “approved” modalities in order to stay afloat. This horrible bind crystallizes the complete evil of our Beast System of healthcare.

ITALY

Willis then asks her what happened in Italy, that they were so hard-hit?

“Italy has a very old population, they’re very sick, with inflammatory disorders. They got, at the beginning of 2019 an untested new form of influenza vaccine that had four different strains of influenza, including the highly-pathogenic H1N1.

“That vaccine was grown in a cell line, a dog cell line. Dogs have lots of coronaviruses and that’s why they’re not testing there. You could just say, ‘Oh, it was that.'”

CHLOROQUINES

In a survey polling nearly 2,300 doctors in some 30 countries, hydroxychloroquine was ranked as the most effective medication to treat the virus.

Yet, the Governors of Michigan, Nevada and Arizona enacted executive orders to prohibit its prescription to COVID-19 patients and the AMA threatened doctors with the loss of their licenses if they prescribe this class of drug, that’s been on the list of essential medicine worldwide for 70 years!

As for Fauci, he has called the real-time results of hydroxy-chloroquine treatment “anecdotal”, this, despite the fact that the NIH published a study in 2005 that said, “concentrations of 10 μM [of hydroxychloroquine] completely abolished SARS-CoV infection.”

Furthermore, in March 2020, the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents published an article that said:

“In vitro, chloroquine appears as a versatile bioactive agent reported to possess antiviral activity against RNA viruses as diverse as rabies, poliovirus, HIV, hepatitis A, hepatitis C, influenza A and B, influenza A H5N1, Chikungunya, Dengue, Zika, Lassa virus, Hendra and Nipah, Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever, and Ebola, as well as various DNA viruses, such as hepatitis B, and herpes simplex virus.”

Mikovits says, “It’s not ‘storytelling’ if we have thousands of pages of data saying it’s effective against these families of viruses.

“For 50 cents a dose, we could protect a thousand people for seven days, two doses a day with one $600 vial and that hasn’t been done.

PATENTED MEDICINE

“This is essential medicine and they keep it from the people – not only now, but back in autism, with our discovery [of] an old antiviral drug, a hundred-year-old drug called Suramin, on the WHO list of essential medicine. It literally gave kids with autism a voice, a life!

“What did Bayer and Monsanto do? They took it away from everybody. You couldn’t get it to save your life and we tried, believe me – every way we could.

“So, when you take away a medicine – and not just the WHO, the FDA, the CDC, Tony Fauci…”

Mikovits believes these agencies all need to be shut down. “Close everything. Just end it all and we’ve got a healthy world again – and we’ve got tons of money, because we can take all that money they’re making on their patents and we can give it to the victims of this Plague of Corruption.”

Willis then asks, “Is it safe to say that anything that cannot be patented has been shut down intentionally, because there’s no way to profit from it? All these natural remedies that we have had forever?”

“Absolutely, that’s fair to say and that’s exactly what’s going on in COVID-19. The game is to prevent the therapies till everyone is infected and push the vaccines, knowing that the flu vaccines increase the odds by 36% of getting COVID-19.”

Willis asks, “Where does that data come from?”

“A publication last year, where the military who had been vaccinated with influenza were more susceptible to coronaviruses. Coronaviruses are in every animal, so if you’ve ever had a flu vaccine, you were injected with coronaviruses…

MASKS MAKE NO SENSE

“And then to put on a mask – it doesn’t make sense. Wearing the mask literally activates your own virus. You’re getting sick from your own reactivated coronavirus expressions and if it happens to be SARS-CoV2, then you’ve got a big problem.”

Willis says, “You’re not the first biologists who has told me that we’re doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing to contain and to create immunity from this virus.”

Mikovits says, “Why would you close the beach? You’ve got sequences in the soil, in the sand. You’ve got healing microbes in the ocean, in the salt water. That’s insanity!

Willis comments, “These institutions that are polluting our environment and our bodies, there was a time when they actually had to fight their own battles. But they’ve done such a great job at manipulating the masses…and the Big Tech platforms follow suit and they shut everything down. There’s no dissenting voices allowed, anymore in this free country, which is something I never thought I would live to see.”

“Nor would I, except what I’ve experienced since 2011. It’s beyond comprehension, how a society can be so fooled, that the types of propaganda continue, to where they’re just driving us to hate each other.

“This is the wake-up call, for all America to realize this makes no sense and we win, because it will take down the whole program, with information like this and and for me, it’s the great news that the doctors are waking up and saying, ‘Wait a minute…’

“So, it’s not the scientists who are in any way dishonest, they’re listening to people who for more than 40 years have controlled who gets funded, what gets published. And I’m sorry to say, many, many people will simply take the money and the fame and support things that absolutely aren’t true.”

A MESSAGE TO DOCTORS

Willis asks, “What do you say to the medical professionals that are just beginning to get a glimpse of the depth to which they have been misled and steered away from their oath to do no harm?”

“I say forgive yourselves. It’s the hardest thing to realize – for all of us, is that, with all the best intention, we studied, we learned what we thought was the truth. We had no idea that the data that we were being told was true was not true.

“We’ve been taught now, in our schools a very different science. You don’t get funded if you don’t speak the party line. You don’t get published. That was probably the hardest thing for me to take, is understanding that scientific journals would twist the discovery that should have healed all.”

“So, what we did, ever since I got out of jail, we started an education company. We wake up doctors and it’s very difficult, but every doctor who realized they may have been part of the problem has now turned that around to march toward a better society and restore faith in the promise of medicine. That’s all we can do.”

“Well, Dr Mikovits, thank you so much for your time it’s been a real honor to sit here with you and particularly, thank you for your courage.”

“Thank You Mikki, I appreciate a lot.”

Running Time 26 mins:

05-05-2020- China is second only In Space

05-05-2020- China is second only In Space

China In Space: Does US Contest Or Cooperate?

The RAND report points out that China is second only to the US in the number of military and commercial imagery satellites it operates.

By   THERESA HITCHENSon May 04, 2020 at 1:26 PM