A major witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
PortaJohn
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
-
- Tags
Am I the only guy in America that's waiting for the POTUS State of the Union address? Dammit I want to hear how fucking great I'm doing!
You got $0.16 for July 4th, what else do you want?
Watch the video embedded in this article.
www.yahoo.com
Now watch this video and what he says before the video above starts.
I'll buy a steak dinner to the first person that catches him on video saying; "Jill, I just shit my pants."
Biden: Dreamers need 'pathway to citizenship'
Known as 'dreamers,' many of those who grew up in the U.S. are currently protected from deportation by an Obama-era executive order known as 'Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals' or DACA.But their legal status remains subject to change without legislative action by Congress, and Democrats and...
Now watch this video and what he says before the video above starts.
I'll buy a steak dinner to the first person that catches him on video saying; "Jill, I just shit my pants."
Question 1: What percentage of Twitter is bots? 10%? 20%? 50%?
Question 2: Who is responsible for running these bot accounts?
Question 3: Why is Congress so scared of asking these simple questions?
Chris Whitty gave the order to give alleged Covid-19 patients lethal doses of Hydroxychloroquine to both kill them and sabotage trials
On April 1st 2020, the Chief Medical Officers of England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, and the National Medical Director Stephen Powis signed a message sent to their NHS colleagues to ask that e…
dailyexpose.co.uk
And so the vaccines temporarily make the recipient more susceptable to Covid, and they aren't working well over a period of several months, and they may very well be making the pandemic worse for the unvaccinated by creating a hundred million or so extra-virulent asymptomatic carriers, but at least there isn't any evidence that the vaccinated population has developed antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) which would make subsequent Covid infections even worse than if not vaccinated. But let's give this another few months and a new mutation or three; maybe we'll get there.
In the meantime, I'll be eagerly awaiting the announcement of a link between RSV and the vaccine.
Watch the video embedded in this article.
Biden: Dreamers need 'pathway to citizenship'
Known as 'dreamers,' many of those who grew up in the U.S. are currently protected from deportation by an Obama-era executive order known as 'Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals' or DACA.But their legal status remains subject to change without legislative action by Congress, and Democrats and...
Now watch this video and what he says before the video above starts.
I'll buy a steak dinner to the first person that catches him on video saying; "Jill, I just shit my pants."
Maybe his butt was wiped, but he still looks like he shit his pants.
REDPILLED MEDIA EXCLUSIVE: CIA Agent Named Dan Bailey Assaulted Tucker Carlson At Outdoor Store Also Named Dan Bailey's — His Boss Previously Worked At Dan Bailey's (CIA HITJOB FOILED! MAJOR COVERUP UNDERWAY!) - REDPILLED MEDIA
Yesterday we reported on the vicious attack on Tucker Carlson by an aggressive liberal inside a fishing store in Montana....
redpilled.ca
Banks was getting damning info from Capitol Police union the day Pelosi banned him from 1-6 committee
“That’s all that this comes down to. She has already predetermined a narrative about Donald Trump, about Republicans," Banks charged.
www.bizpacreview.com
There were stories at one time that Soros/DNC paid twitterers could manage over 100 accounts each and that overall 90% of twitter accounts were fake. This would have been in the lead up to Obama taking office. These claims were mostly being made by the right but I did hear an NPR discussion on it and their consensus was sure, lots of fake accounts but not enough to move the needle politically or factually so just ignore the story.
I'm not on twitter but I did find it funny when on election night just after Trump came out and said there was a bunch of election fraud, one of the MSNBC ladies is looking at her phone and states to the camera that this cannot be true, because she doesn't see anything on twitter about it. I'm not joking, a "professional" "news" person actually used twitter as a source as if it was legitimate. And legacy media wonders why no one watches them anymore.
Here's a wonderful Howdy-do-FUCK-YOU-from the crowd~! 
Amid Troubling Audits, Poll Reveals 10% of Democrats Now Doubt Biden Won the Election Fairly
A whopping 41 percent of likely voters don’t believe Biden won the 2020 presidential election fairly, according to a new poll.
www.westernjournal.com
Imagine my glee!
www.politico.com
‘We’re f---ed’: Dems fear turnout catastrophe from GOP voting laws
There’s growing concern — bordering on alarm — about the potential impact in 2022 of the raft of new voting restrictions.
www.politico.com
This is true for both TV and print "journalism" - they basically repeat whatever comes through the feed. Now, we all know that there is some legitimately interesting and novel information shared via this media by subject matter experts (if one has the capability to filter out the garbage and decode the cryptic language often used by such sources), but that isn't what we're seeing happen. Basically, it turns into a big echo chamber/circle jerk/human centipede of reinforcing biases.
Meanwhile, Total Information Awareness lives on in spirit if not in name:
ugenti is the cunt that is fighting the audit. they are all deviants.
ummmmm......this is useless without those pictures,
So 59% of our population are officially idiots.Amid Troubling Audits, Poll Reveals 10% of Democrats Now Doubt Biden Won the Election Fairly
A whopping 41 percent of likely voters don’t believe Biden won the 2020 presidential election fairly, according to a new poll.
"Your government is lying to you about the vaccine in a way that could lead to your death."
~Dr. Michael Yeadon,
Dr. Michael Yeadon - Pfizer's former VP & Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 yrs in the industry leading new medicines research & retired from the pharma giant with the most senior research position in his field.
www.reuters.com
~Dr. Michael Yeadon,
Dr. Michael Yeadon - Pfizer's former VP & Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 yrs in the industry leading new medicines research & retired from the pharma giant with the most senior research position in his field.
The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax hero.
The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax hero.
Amid Troubling Audits, Poll Reveals 10% of Democrats Now Doubt Biden Won the Election Fairly
A whopping 41 percent of likely voters don’t believe Biden won the 2020 presidential election fairly, according to a new poll.
From the article:
According to the new Rasmussen poll, “Democrats (56%) are more likely than Republicans (47%) or unaffiliated voters (38%) to believe that expressing doubt about the outcome of elections undermines democracy in America.”
These are the percentages of people who think it's wrong to question the government... so yeah officially idiots indeed.
And those numbers would have been flipped between R's and D's in 2004. Not saying that election was ass questionable as the most current or trying to draw any other false equivalence, but rather simply making the point that the acceptance of a philosophical viewpoint which questions a process is inversely proportional to the acceptability of the process outcome. See also: mass surveillance, federal policing, right to privacy, freedom of speech, et al.
Protests break out in Iran… Mullahs are losing control…
Footage is starting to come out of Tehran.
citizenfreepress.com
Ironic they mention Ron Johnson appears the only one fighting COVID untruths without trying to bulk out their own campaign coffers...and today its announced he has a Youtube ban for supporting hydroxychloroquine.
"Ah! Monsignor! It seems that they want us to give everything back, yet while in the game I had advised you to play trumps."There hasn't been a good protest in France since 1789. I don't speak French so maybe someone could translate the illustration below; which BTW, makes one wonder what other grievances the Jacobins had against the monarchy and some of the ruling clerics.
Apparently during the French Revolution, priests who didn't swear allegiance to the new France were given enemas as a means of shaming them and criticizing how equally corrupt the Church had been alongside the monarchy.
So Podesta now shilling for Huawei.
Justice lets five PRC army spies caught red handed (no pun intended) go free.
Hunter gonna be selling his art to China and wants to be the China/US business and govt conduit.
Yeah, the dems are not controlled by Chinese communists......
Justice lets five PRC army spies caught red handed (no pun intended) go free.
Hunter gonna be selling his art to China and wants to be the China/US business and govt conduit.
Yeah, the dems are not controlled by Chinese communists......
Protests break out in Iran… Mullahs are losing control…
Footage is starting to come out of Tehran.
We will be providing resources to identify leaders and tech to shut down the protesters internet.
You sort of see the same thing her in the US. There are members of the clergy that embrace political correctness and "social justice" because they are afraid of losing members in the congregation.
Some Catholic priests have been brave enough to condemn the Presidential house plant for his pro-death agenda against unborn babies but there are some that will probably still give him communion if he asked for it.
There are also some denominations that don't have a problem ordaining homosexual ministers, forgetting what the bible says about that "abomination."
When and if the tide turns against the marxists in this country, some of those leftist clergymen will see an exodus from their churches.
On the other hand, you have one of our new GA senators who's a Democrat and is also some sort of "minister" or other. Somehow I doubt the majority of his congregation are OK with abortion, for example. And yet somehow I also don't think I'd be welcome in his church even if I were a Christian, so who knows...
Does anyone have any insight on the "new" UN (Nato) installation in Virginia and the 740B Xiden is giving the UN? I guess he felt the need the make-up for Trump demanding other countries pay their portion of the UN bill, but this goes quite a bit further.
Does anybody else feel a little uncomfortable about this?
Does anybody else feel a little uncomfortable about this?
Last edited:
For those whom might want to HARD push back on any employer's vaccine mandate --this came to us via Robert Barnes (Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyer)
Robert Barnes Jul 26, 2021 at 5:10pm
No authorship claim or copyright asserted...this letter just came to me in a bottle, and I have no idea who might have penned it, nor can I possibly vouch for it, and what you fine folks do with it is entirely in your own hands, as the Gentlemen of the Bar remind me I can proffer no general legal advice in the matter, and must officially disclaim proffering any such advice here...edit and excise as you see fit, amend and append as you desire, and claim authorship or anonymity as may best befit you...as always, as you wish...
Vaccine Mandate Protest Letter
Dear Boss, Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates)
Three key concerns:
First, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947;
Second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and
Third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment. At the outset, consider the "problem" being "solved" by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren't they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the vaccine as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine.
This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees? First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 )
This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ).
As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).
Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/...ance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA.
The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate.
This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.
Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee.
The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )
Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)
With Regards,
Employee of the Year XXX
Robert Barnes Jul 26, 2021 at 5:10pm
No authorship claim or copyright asserted...this letter just came to me in a bottle, and I have no idea who might have penned it, nor can I possibly vouch for it, and what you fine folks do with it is entirely in your own hands, as the Gentlemen of the Bar remind me I can proffer no general legal advice in the matter, and must officially disclaim proffering any such advice here...edit and excise as you see fit, amend and append as you desire, and claim authorship or anonymity as may best befit you...as always, as you wish...
Vaccine Mandate Protest Letter
Dear Boss, Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates)
Three key concerns:
First, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947;
Second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and
Third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment. At the outset, consider the "problem" being "solved" by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren't they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the vaccine as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine.
This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees? First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 )
This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ).
As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).
Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/...ance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA.
The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate.
This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.
Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee.
The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )
Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)
With Regards,
Employee of the Year XXX
Don't want to undermine your intent, but, oopsies.......
First, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947;
CDC doesn't "approve" vaccines, the FDA does.
Notwithstanding, the CDC is a criminal organization. And, the screws are being turned on the FDA and they'll fold like a cheap suit in fairly short order. Sorry to say....
Not mine -- but Roberts! I'll pass the info on to him! Doesn't seem like a big issue --I'd still shove it up in my employer's face if one tried that mandate crap with me
Thanks very much!
Hate logging in...so don't know if addressed in this article but as I recall France was originally hired to complete the construction of this lab, but after funding achieved China pulled their French contract and substituted architects not familiar with level 4 biohazard architecture.
BREAKING: Georgia's Raffensperger, Sterling and Fuchs All Connected to Firm that Helps Georgia Democrats Run as Republicans | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
Georgia’s corrupt Secretary of State Raffensperger, his corrupt CFO Sterling, and his corrupt deputy secretary of state Fuchs weren’t upset about Democrat election wins in Georgia, they wanted it that way. Instead, they slandered President Trump for calling out obvious fraud in their state.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
