Understanding Election Integrity: Election Deniers, or Fraud Deniers? 

A veteran policy expert compares the US Election process to the norms of International elections to illustrate the integrity issues we face and highlight the partisan double standard 

Guest post by Tim Meisburger 

In the run up to the 2022 midterm elections, Democrat party leaders and their allies in the media are labeling any voters who express any level of doubt about the integrity of the 2020 elections as “election deniers”. They call the claim that fraud may have affected the 2020 elections “the Big Lie”, thereby suggesting that any voters who question the integrity of the 2020 election are akin to Nazis.

Interestingly, recent surveys indicate a majority of Americans now believe it likely that cheating affected the 2020 elections (including more than a third of Democrats), and more than half think cheating at least somewhat likely to affect the mid-terms. Are all of these doubters really Nazis? I have my doubts. Actually, I also have doubts about the integrity of the 2020 elections.

I spent most of my working life overseas, evaluating the quality and fairness of elections, and providing democracy and elections assistance in authoritarian one-party states for the United Nations, the OSCE, various NGOs, and the US Government. Currently, I am the Director for Election Integrity at the America Project, and in recent weeks I have been interviewed by email by both Reuters and the New York Times. They subsequently wrote articles characterizing the America Project as “election deniers”, but neither mentioned me or my credentials (ABC also did a piece recently on the America Project, and did mention me, but never actually contacted me).

Since my rationale for doubting the 2020 election wasn’t articulated by the traditional media, I thought I would do it myself, applying the same standards I would as an international election observer overseas.

First, international observers know that you cannot evaluate the quality of an election based solely on what happens on election day, as there are many things that can occur before an election that will affect the integrity and fairness of the process. Consequently, an observer might evaluate the pre-election environment by looking all the way back to 2016, when the Obama White House and the FBI conspired to spy on an opposition party campaign (shades of Watergate).

The same year the Hillary Clinton campaign, in collaboration with corrupt officials in the FBI, paid foreign agents to concoct the infamous Steel dossier, which was used to both distract the public from scandals surrounding the Clinton campaign, and to smear her political opponent in the runup to elections. Although this disinformation campaign surely reduced Donald Trump’s total votes in 2016, its impact was insufficient to deny him the presidency, so it was subsequently re-purposed to undermine the Trump Administration.

When the “Pee Tape” narrative lost traction, many of the same bad actors came up with the Ukraine hoax and impeachment, which again served a dual purpose by undermining the Trump presidency, while diverting attention from corrupt behavior of other politicians involved in shady business deals in Ukraine.

Throughout the President’s term left wing activists launched hoax after hoax, which the corrupt media eagerly and uncritically disseminated and amplified. These included the Kavanaugh hoax, the Smollett hoax, the Charlottesville hoax, the Covington hoax, the Russian bounties on US soldiers hoax, etc. One by one, these were disproven, but the propaganda media never acknowledged this. Instead, the issue simply disappeared, replaced in the news cycle by the next unfounded allegation. Finally, just before the election, corrupt media outlets colluded with the FBI, big tech, and former intelligence officials to suppress and censor any information about the Biden family corruption revealed when Biden’s drug-addled son forgot his laptop at a computer repair shop.

All of these illegal and immoral acts, conducted by partisan activists, propaganda media outlets, corrupt government officials, and unaccountable corporations, aimed to remove the president, or undermine his ability to implement the people’s agenda, or reduce his chances of reelection. In any election I ever observed overseas, facts like these would cause a nonpartisan international election observer to doubt the fairness of the pre-election environment.

In the months preceding the election, many last-minute changes were made to election processes at the state level in response to the Covid pandemic. These included changing standards for voter registration and voter ID, extending the voting period, allowing billionaires to privately fund election processes, allowing universal absentee voting through mail in ballots and drop boxes. Overseas, covid adaptation was accomplished at in-person voting through masks and social distancing.

An international observer of American elections might notice that, beyond masks and social distancing, all of the diverse adaptations adopted for Covid had one thing in common; they all reduced the safeguards and security of the election process.

On election day itself, and in the days following, there were many events reported that might have caused international observers to question the integrity of the election. For example, there were many reports and some video of poll watchers being prevented from observing the election process. If prevention of observation occurred during an international observation mission it would be all team leaders needed to conclude the process unverifiable, as transparency is the key to credible elections.    

During the counting process there were seemingly coordinated pauses in the counting in key battleground states, and after the counting resumed there were unexplained vote dumps and spikes in the totals for Biden that moved him from losing to winning. These seemed suspicious to ordinary voters, and might cause an international observer to question the integrity of the counting process.

To help assess the quality of elections overseas, organizations like the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute worked with the National Academy of Sciences to develop statistical tools that would reveal fraud in election processes. When these are applied to the 2020 elections, they indicate fraud occurred. Other statisticians compared results in neighboring districts and in some cases found massive differences in results, even though the populations were demographically identical. This type of statistical evidence would probably prevent an international observation mission from judging an election overseas as free and fair.

In the weeks and months following the election, other evidence emerged suggesting fraud and malpractice occurred during the election process. Analysis of private funding provided to state election officials for get-out-the-vote activities revealed that almost all of it went to Democrat-leaning districts. Recently, a comprehensive study used geo-tracking of cell phones and surveillance video to reveal a coordinated effort across many states to stuff drop boxes with presumably fraudulent absentee votes.  

Although there is more, given the evidence already cited, it would not be surprising if an international election observer had doubts about the integrity of the 2020 elections. Should he or she be called an “election denier”?     

Should Stacey Abrams, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris, all of whom expressed doubt about the integrity of the 2018 elections, be called “election deniers”?  What about Hillary Clinton, who denied the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and recently preemptively denied the legitimacy of the 2022 midterms? Is she an “election denier”?

Currently, the label is only applied to the ordinary Democrat, Independent and Republican voters who express doubt about 2020 election. Does it really make sense for Democrat party leaders, and their allies and minions in the corporations and propaganda media, to call all of these people, more than half of all voters, Nazi purveyors of the Big Lie? Or would it be more accurate to label those in the minority—the administration, much of Congress, the FBI, the CIA, big tech and the propaganda media—people who are surrounded by and enveloped in evidence of election corruption but refuse to see or acknowledge it, fraud deniers?  

The post OPED: People Like Joe Biden Who Are Enveloped in Evidence of Election Corruption but Refuse to Acknowledge it Are the Real Fraud Deniers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in cases challenging admissions rules at the University of North Carolina and Harvard that use race as one of many considerations.

The SCOTUS is hearing a significant case on affirmative action, and Justice Samuel Alito seems to be referencing Sen. Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren (D-MA) in a line of questions about Native American ancestry.

Solicitor General Ryan Park of North Carolina, who is defending the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action, was questioned by Justice Samuel Alito, about what prevents certain UNC students from making fraudulent claims about their heritage.

JUSTICE ALITO: It’s family lore that we have an ancestor who was an American Indian.

MR. PARK: So I — I think in that particular circumstance, it would be not accurate for them to say based on —

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I identify as an American Indian because I’ve always been told that some ancestor back in the old days was an American — was an American Indian.

MR. PARK: Yes, so I think in that circumstance, it would be very unlikely that that person was telling the truth. And the same is true for — you know, we rely on self-reporting for all the — the demographic and other characteristics that we ask for. And there’s nothing special about the racial identification on that score, Your Honor.

Listen to the audio below:

Hilarious

Justice Alito is definitely talking about Elizabeth Warren

Pocahontas lied to Harvardpic.twitter.com/xQ9XrjmSMk

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 3, 2022

Justice Samuel Alito seems to be referencing Sen. Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren (D-MA) in his arguments.

In 1996, the Harvard Crimson identified Elizabeth Warren as a woman of color and Native American.

In 1998, Harvard bragged Elizabeth Warren, “who is Native American,’ was their only minority-tenured woman on staff.

A 1997, article in the Fordham Law Review described Warren as Harvard law school’s “first woman of color.”

Then in 2018, Elizabeth Warren released a DNA study that claims she is 1/512th Native American.

Most tribes require a percentage of Native blood at least 1/16th to claim Native American heritage. If anything this study proves Elizabeth Warren is even more of a fraud than we already suspected.

The Boston Globe later issued a correction to their initial report — The DNA test revealed that Elizabeth Warren is not 1/512 Native American, she’s 1/1,024. That’s 0.0009765625.

Warren actually has less Indian in her bloodline than most Caucasian Americans.

Pocahontas bragged on Twitter after her results were released that showed she has less Indian blood than most Americans, but then she deleted it out of shame.

“My family (including Fox News watchers) sat together and talked about what they think of [Pres. Donald Trump] attacks on our heritage. And yes, a famous geneticist analyzed my DNA and concluded that it contains Native American ancestry.

Then in 2019, Sen. Elizabeth Warren apologized for past “mistakes” — like those thousands of times over the last 40 years that she claimed to be Native American.

“Before I go any further in this I want to say this — like anyone who’s been honest with themselves I know I’ve made mistakes. I’m sorry for any harm I’ve caused,” Warren said in a speech to the Native American Issues Forum in Sioux City, Iowa.

“I have learned a lot and I am grateful for the many conversations that we’ve had together. It is a great honor to be able to partner with Indian country and that’s what I’ve tried to do as a senator, and that is what I promise to do as President of the United States of America.”

The post “I Identify as an American Indian” – SCOTUS Alito Appears to Mock Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren with Native American ‘Family Lore’ Remarks (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

CNN’s Jake Tapper will no longer be hosting a primetime show on CNN after the midterm elections.

He will return to his previous time slot which was 4 p.m. ET.

@JakeTapper’s prime time show was an unmitigated ratings disaster. No one is surprised. #canceled

CNN’s experiment with Jake Tapper in primetime is coming to an endhttps://t.co/DAzIIYqpev

— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) November 2, 2022

Semafor reported:

Multiple sources told Semafor that Jake Tapper will be returning to his previous 4 p.m. ET time slot after the midterm elections.

A CNN spokesperson said, “As part of a special lineup, Jake agreed to anchor the 9p hour through the midterm elections. At the completion of that schedule, he’ll be returning to his award-winning program The Lead. We will announce post-election plans for that time slot in the coming days.”

…

One CNN source close to Tapper said the anchor only agreed to do the show through the midterms, and that he always considered it to be a temporary experiment. But there had been some speculation that the network’s lead Washington anchor could take over the slot permanently.

Tapper’s show was plagued by low ratings.

CNN Tonight with Jake Tapper averaged only 854,000 viewers and ended up in third place behind Fox News and MSNBC.

Ratings by show:

Sean Hannity: 2.6 million

Alex Wagner Tonight: 1.6 million

Jake Tapper: 854,000

Fox News reported:

Tapper made his primetime debut on Oct. 11 with a splashy broadcast that included interviews with President Biden and movie star Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Despite the big-named guests, “CNN Tonight with Jake Tapper” only averaged 854,000 viewers, which is a distant third behind Fox News’ “Hannity” with 2.6 million viewers and MSNBC’s “Alex Wagner Tonight” with 1.6 million viewers. Tapper’s audience substantially dipped since then.

…

In October, Tapper averaged only 691,000 viewers. Notably, his daytime program “The Lead,” which has been guest-hosted by other CNN anchors during his primetime stint, regularly had higher viewership than his 9 p.m. show and averaged 839,000 viewers last month.

Left-wing hosts at CNN are failing.

For the antidote to media bias, check out ProTrumpNews.com…

The post Failed Jake Tapper’s CNN Primetime Show Will Come to End After Midterms – Was a Distant Third in Ratings appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Elections have consequences, stolen elections have catastrophic consequences.

How did this get past the editors?

Trump-hating RINO George Will penned an oped that was published in the Washington Post less than a week before the 2022 midterm election.

Will wants Biden and Harris to not run in 2024.

Since they took office Joe Biden and Kamala destroyed the US economy, created the greatest inflation crisis in 40 years, obliterated our foreign policy, made America a laughing stock around the globe, opened the border to 5 million lawbreakers, flooded the country with deadly drugs and attacked our history and foundation.

Democrats are purposely working overtime to take down America. It is obvious that that is their goal. They just can’t be this stupid.

In walks George Will. George was at one time a well-respected conservative journalist. But when Donald Trump entered politics to save the nation George Will lost his mind. Will becase a favorite in the toxic mainstream media. He hated Trump and his supporters and he never hid this.

Now that the country is going to sh*t George Will is speaking out against Old Joe and Kamala.

Sit down, George.

The post WaPo Trump-Hating RINO George Will: “For the Good of the Country, Biden and Harris Should Bow Out of 2024 Election” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Brian Bolduc following attempted assault at his final senate debate.

Republican senatorial candidate Don Bolduc took the lead for the first time over far-left Democrat Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) in New Hampshire’s Senate race, a Tuesday Saint Anselm poll revealed.

Hassan is polling at 47 percent, which is well below the 50 percent threshold for an incumbent senator.

Prior to the final debate on Wednesday night, Don Bolduc went out to greet supporters. As he walked out to greet the cheering crowds a man jumps in his face, several supporters then jumped in to help Bolduc. And Don Bolduc tells police the man tried to hit him.

Don Bolduc is a veteran and retired US Army Sergeant who served his country for 33 years.

** You can donate to Don Bolduc’s campaign here.

The New York Post reported:

Republican New Hampshire Senate candidate Don Bolduc dodged a punch from a would-be assailant before stepping onstage to debate Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) on Wednesday,  according to reports.

Bolduc, 60, a retired Army brigadier general, was apparently unharmed, and the individual who attempted to assault the Senate candidate was arrested, according to his campaign.

“As the general said on stage tonight, it’s time to lower the temperature of the political discourse in this country. Prior to the debate, an individual in the crowd gathered outside attempted to punch the general and was quickly apprehended and arrested,” a Bolduc campaign spokesperson told Boston 25 News.

“We are grateful to the quick response from law enforcement on the scene,” the spokesperson added.

It is hard to make out the confrontation from this angle.

You can see Bolduc’s supporters jump in after the attempted assault.

From the debate tonight:

A Libertarian approaches @GenDonBolduc to ask questions

Bolduc points him out to the cops for doing so

Bolduc’s supporters break through the barrier to attack the Libertarian

Bolduc himself yells “HE HIT ME” to get the cops to arrest him #NHPolitics pic.twitter.com/3qShZynTJm

— Karlyn Borysenko, Libertarian for Governor of NH (@DrKarlynB) November 3, 2022

The post GOP CANDIDATE ATTACKED – Senate Hopeful Don Bolduc Dodges Punch by Alleged Assailant Prior to Final Debate appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On October 31, The Gateway Pundit published an article stating there are more questions than answers regarding the Paul Pelosi “break in”.  Many of those questions are legitimate questions that should be asked by local and national media with access to the FBI and local law enforcement.  But there’s one question that absolutely must be addressed.

In the official FBI Complaint, which reads more like something from The Babylon Bee than a federal law enforcement agency, we learned that there was reportedly mention of our Founding Fathers, the suspect wanting to take a nap while waiting for Nancy Pelosi to return in “days”, and 13 words directly quoted from David Depape, the alleged suspect.

We also learned something else extremely important from the “facts supporting probable cause”:  besides Paul Pelosi, David Depape, and responding SFPD officers, there was only one other witness to the events.  He is referred to as “Witness 1”.  This is all that is included in the complaint from Witness 1’s statement:

“SFPD Officer Colby Wilmes was able to interview a witness, Witness 1, who saw
an individual in all black, carrying a large black bag on his back, walking near the Pelosi residence where Witness 1 was parked. Witness 1 was working private security at an address nearby. Witness 1 then heard what sounded like banging on either a door or car and then heard the sirens within a minute or two.”

Keep in mind that Pelosi’s house is worth an estimated $8.5M and is in a very exclusive part of San Francisco.  When witness 1 states he is working “private security at an address nearby,” he is most likely not your average Wackenhut security guard checking IDs at a guard gate.  He was most likely hired by affluent people of some sort.  I would be willing to bet he has some form of either law enforcement, military, or special operations background.  So when he says he “heard what sounded like banging on either a door or a car and then heard sirens within a minute or two” he is probably pretty accurate in that timeline of “a minute or two” given situational awareness and attention to detail instilled in that profession.

According to a dispatch recording posted by Laura Loomer on TruthSocial, SFPD dispatchers sent out the call to units at 2:27:56.  The call from Pelosi, according to the complaint, was made at 2:23am from the bathroom in his residence.  The first car arrived on scene, according to the complaint, at 2:31am.

But according to Witness 1, from the time he heard banging, which is most likely someone banging on laminate glass with a hammer hard enough to break it, to the time he heard sirens, it was 1-2 minutes.  This timeline means that Witness 1, a security guard with professional training, was off by 6 or 7 minutes based on the above facts alone.  Count out 1-2 minutes and then 6-7 minutes.  There is a huge difference in those time frames that even a civilian with no experience can distinguish.

But that’s just the 911 timeline.

The complaint alleges that Depape provided the following information to SFPD:

Once Depape broke in, “which was a difficult task that required the use of a hammer,” he wandered around a fairly big house to find the master bedroom
Pelosi was then awaken by Depape
They had a conversation about Nancy’s whereabouts
They tried to negotiate, including Depape’s desire to tie Pelosi up so he can take a nap
Pelosi moves to another part of the house
Depape stopped him and “together they went back into the bedroom”
While talking, Pelosi gets up and goes to the bathroom
Apparently, in the bathroom, Pelosi grabs a phone and calls 911.

In the 911 timeline alone, Witness 1 was off by 6 or 7 minutes from the “break in” to the police arriving.  If Pelosi and Depape’s interactions above somehow only took a few minutes, this variation in Witness 1’s timeline and the actual timeline is getting close to double digits.  More than likely, all of this took long enough that anybody with any type of law enforcement training would realize it was more than “1-2 minutes”.

Some other interesting facts from the complaint that are worth consideration:

The Mirandized interview recorded by SFPD, but summarized by the FBI, only mentions a handful of direct quotes oddly placed in the FBI’s own explanation of the testimony:  “truth”, “lies”, “her kneecaps”, “leader of the pack”, “through”, and “taking the punishment instead”.  There is no reference to what the truth or lies are, or the exact terminology he used when he was saying he would break her kneecaps, or what going “through” Pelosi means and what Depape believed Pelosi was “taking the punishment instead” for.
Pelsoi, 82, who was reportedly knocked unconscious from the blow to the head and required brain surgery and is not yet reported as being out of the ICU, had a moment of clarity in the ambulance and was able to give SFPD officer Ariane Starks an interview and a statement on the drive to the Emergency Room.  Those medics should get a medal.
Pelosi also mentions that the hammer Depape used did not belong to the Pelosi family.  This is an odd, random statement.  But the complaint also mentions that Depape had a hammer in his backpack outside.  Perhaps he felt he needed a back up?  The complaint goes on to say that law enforcement found two more hammers at his garage residence.  Perhaps Depape has an obsession with hammers?
We learned that Special Agent with just 3 years experience, and a specialty in domestic terrorism, was put in charge of an investigation into the break in and attempted murder of the Speaker of the House’s husband, where an allegedly deranged 42 year old hemp sales man was able to gain entry without setting off any alarms or alerting any (apparently missing) security, other than Witness 1 working security for whomever is more important than the husband of the 2nd in line to the Presidency.
We also learned from the statement that Depape incited the Spirit of 1776 by calling upon the Founding Fathers to give him strength:  “much like the American founding fathers with the British, he was fighting against tyranny without the option of surrender.”  When police answered, he recalled that same Sons of Liberty motivation and once again stated he did not plan to surrender.  Since none of the Founding Fathers references are in quotation marks, it is unclear if Depape made that reference or if the FBI inserted it to describe Depape’s apparent unwillingness to go quietly.
Lastly, we learn that Depape was going to use Nancy Pelosi “generally” to lure another individual to Depape.  Who in the world are you trying to catch using the Speaker of the House, the most powerful woman in the United States, as bait??

This is all beyond bizarre.  Why was the glass to the rear door blown outward and not inward?  Is that the explanation for the 1-2 minutes as stated by the security guard known as Witness 1?

All of this can be validated or invalidated with transparency:

release the CCTV footage from the Pelosi’s house.
release all information regarding security details assigned to the Speaker of the House, second in line to the Presidency, and her husband and home, especially after the “insurrection” of J6 and the pigs blood vandalism incident at this exact home back in January 2021
release the Paul Pelosi call to 911 where he tells dispatch Depape is “a friend” but he “doesn’t know him”
release the officers body cam footage in its entirety with time stamps
release the recorded interview with David Depape

When there is a police involved shooting where someone loses their life, in an effort to immediately politicize it and/or quell protests, footage is released within days, sometimes hours, for someone that the entire country has no idea who they are.  When its the Speaker of the House’s husband in a bizarre story that makes absolutely no sense, we’re on day 7 without the footage from the known cameras that would have captured the entire forced entry.

Are we to honestly believe that any Joe Schmoe off the streets can just walk right up to the 2nd in line to the Presidency of the United States home and hold her husband hostage and demand God knows what?

The post EXCLUSIVE: A Huge Anomaly Identified Between 911 Information and FBI Witness Timing of Events at the Pelosi Home – CCTV, Body Cam Footage MUST be Released! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

How China gained full access to the U.S. Biodefense Center at Fort Detrick.

Guest post by Lawrence Sellin

In an appalling and historic act of national security malfeasance, U.S. government officials formulated policies, which allowed China to “colonize” every component of America’s research and development program, including the military.

As most bad ideas have, it all began under the Clinton Administration.

Starting In 1996, Clinton officials invited scientists from China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into U.S. Army laboratories, the following being examples.

Chunyuan Luo, quite literally, went from working at the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing, an element of China’s chemical warfare program, directly to Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, from where he conducted a ten-year research collaboration with the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

After leaving Walter Reed in 2012, Chunyuan Luo became a patent examiner for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with potential access to all U.S. patents related to biological and chemical warfare defense. He also appears on a talent database, which some consider as an indication of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) interest or friendship.

Despite lying about his nationality being Canadian, Chunsheng Xiang was, nevertheless, assigned to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), where he studied the highly pathogenic and potential biological warfare agent, the Ebola virus. He is now a professor at Zhejiang University in China and well-connected to the higher echelons of the CCP and the PLA.

Shockingly, one of the Chinese scientists brought to the U.S. under Clinton’s program is shown wearing a U.S. Army uniform, while studying advanced laser technologies at The US Army Medical Research Detachment in San Antonio, Texas.

It is unclear what she did after her tenure in San Antonio, but there is a Guo-Ping Li now working for the Chinese space program using laser technologies for radio telescopes.

By far, the most important factor facilitating China’s infiltration of U.S. research and development programs has been the legal immigration process, which the CCP has exploited.

Unlike the massive invasion of the United States by mostly poor illegal aliens across our southern border, China has been sending highly-skilled professionals to the United States, who obtain key positions in business and academia.

The formula has remained the same for 40 years.

A young scientist from the People’s Republic of China would complete a Ph.D. or postdoctoral training in the United States, then be hired by a U.S. university or research center, eventually applying for U.S. citizenship.

That Chinese scientist working in the U.S. would then establish extensive research collaborations with scientists in the People’s Republic of China and become an “anchor” for additional waves of young Communist Chinese scientists to be trained in the U.S., some taking American knowledge, skills and technologies back to China, while others also becoming U.S. citizens.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

In addition to Clinton’s program of placing PLA scientists directly into U.S. military research centers, Chinese scientists are often “sanitized” through civilian institutions in the U.S. before gaining access to military facilities.

The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, which is inside Fort Detrick, was initially the “soft underbelly” by which Chinese scientists gained access to USAMRIID.

Case in point, because the examples are too numerous to document here, is a 2007 scientific publication about the coronavirus from the first SARS pandemic in 2002-2004, entitled “Potent cross-reactive neutralization of SARS coronavirus isolates by human monoclonal antibodies.”

It authors represent a collaboration of scientists from the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, the Virology Division of USAMRIID and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID).

The individual authors are interesting as well.

What one notices first about the publication histories of the two China-trained Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research scientists, Zhongyu Zhu and Xiaodong Xiao, is that their work has dealt less with cancer than with viruses, many of which are highly dangerous pathogens also studied by China’s biowarfare program.

Another author is PLA-trained scientist Shibo Jiang.

Before returning to China as a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, Shibo Jiang had been employed by the Lindsley F. Kimball Research Institute of the New York Blood Center for nearly twenty years.

During that time, he developed an extensive network of collaborative research with other major U.S. virus research laboratories and received more than $17 million in U.S. research grants, the vast majority coming from Fauci’s NIAID.

At the same time, Shibo Jiang maintained extensive collaborative research with PLA laboratories, described in detail here, while simultaneously inviting into his U.S. laboratory and training scientists linked to the Chinese military, such as Yuxian He, another author on the cited 2007 publication.

One China-trained scientist, Xiankun “Kevin” Zeng, used that pathway, first studying fruit flies at the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research through, and then becoming a permanent employee of USAMRIID, where he has access to the U.S. military’s most sensitive information about biowarfare defense.

Xiankun Zeng obtained his Ph.D. degree at the Key Laboratory of Developmental Genes and Human Disease, Ministry of Education, Institute of Life Science, Southeast University, in Nanjing.

That laboratory has close collaboration with the Nanjing Military Command, now part of the PLA’s Eastern Theater Command.

As recently as October 2015, Xiankun Zeng was still claiming affiliation with Southeast University in Nanjing.

Even while employed by USAMRIID, Xiankun Zeng has maintained close ties to China’s virus research programs, shown in this photo giving a lecture about the deadly Ebola and Marburg viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on October 9, 2018.

Xiankun Zeng was brought into USAMRIID in 2015 by another Chinese scientist, Mei Guo Sun, who sponsored him as a National Research Council/U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Research Associate after earlier working together at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Mei Guo Sun is now the U.S. Army Portfolio Manager for Neurosensory research in the Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

The consolidation of all U.S. military and civilian biodefense programs at Fort Detrick in the last ten years has made it easier for China-trained scientists to gain entry.

The National Interagency Biodefense Campus is a facility at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Its umbrella organization is the National Interagency Confederation for Biological Research (NICBR), a biotechnology and biodefense partnership and collaborative environment of eight U.S. Federal government agencies:

U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC), DoD
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), DHHS
National Cancer Institute (NCI), DHHS
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
DHS Science and Technology Directorate, DHS
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), DHHS
Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC), DoD
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), DHHS

The two major biodefense research centers at Fort Detrick are USAMRIID and the more recently-established civilian component, the NIH’s Integrated Research Facility, which is part of the Division of Clinical Research of Fauci’s NIAID.

The mission of the NICBR is to manage, coordinate, and facilitate the conduct of research on some of the most dangerous emerging infectious disease and biodefense pathogens to develop medical countermeasures and improved medical outcomes.

The very nature of Fort Detrick’s now large, multi-agency, joint civilian-military program, a significant portion of which is administered by outside contractors with a minimal emphasis on national security, makes it vulnerable to potential infiltration.

In November 2007, the Battelle Memorial Institute won a $257 million, 10-year contract to run a future NIH biological defense laboratory at Fort Detrick, the one which would be eventually known as the NIH’s Integrated Research Facility.

Battelle also won a $250 million, five-year contract to run a Department of Homeland Security laboratory at Fort Detrick. That contract had five optional one-year extensions for a total potential value of $500 million.

At the time, Battelle said it would provide up to 119 scientists and technicians to staff the High Containment Integrated Research Facility planned by Fauci’s NIAID and 120 people for the Department of Homeland Security’s National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center.

According to Battelle, the subcontractors would include the Midwest Research Institute, Loveless Respiratory Research Institute, Charles River Laboratories, Tunnell Consulting and the Washington Technology Group.

It is important to note, that press releases and acknowledgements in scientific publications have repeatedly and, perhaps intentionally, misspelled “Loveless,” which is actually the occasionally controversial Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.

Many Chinese scientists gained access to Fort Detrick after being hired by contractors and subcontractors of the NIH’s Integrated Research Facility.

Yu “Lucy” Cong has worked for the NIH’s Integrated Research Facility at Fort Detrick since 2012, first for the Battelle Memorial Institute and more recently for Laulima Government Solutions, both of whom are NIH contractors.

Yu “Lucy” Cong received her M.D. degree from Jinzhou Medical University and a Master’s Degree in immunology from Peking Union Medical College in Beijing. Between 1995 and 2003, she worked in the Division of Viral Hepatitis, Institute for Viral Disease Control & Prevention at China’s Center for Disease Control.

Her mentor and research collaborator at China’s Center for Disease Control was Wenjie Tan, whose other affiliation is the Central Theater Command’s People’s Liberation Army General Hospital in Wuhan, as well as being a co-author on a recent (2018) publication about the deadly MERS coronavirus with PLA scientists Guangyu Zhao and Yusen Zhou.

As a scientist with the Fort Detrick consolidated Biodefense research program, Yu Cong also published a scientific article about MERS coronavirus in 2018.

Other Chinese scientists who work for contractors within the NIH’s Integrated Research Facility at Fort Detrick and have conducted research on the world’s most dangerous viruses include: Yingyun Cai, Shuiqing Yu and Huanying Zhou.

In addition to Xiankun “Kevin” Zeng and Mei Guo Sun, other Chinese scientists who have been working on highly pathogenic viruses at USAMRIID are Jun Liu, Xiaoli Chi, Lian Dong and Chih-Yuan Chiang.

It is yet to be fully determined the extent to which Chinese scientists employed at the National Interagency Biodefense Campus at Fort Detrick have links back to China’s military.

The time is long past to do so.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He had a civilian career in international business and medical research. Dr. Sellin is the author of Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution. His email address is lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

The post EXCLUSIVE: How China Gained Full Access to the U.S. Biodefense Center at Fort Detrick appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Jesse Watters destroyed the narratives being built around the Paul Pelosi and David DePape midnight escapade in San Francisco tonight. 

Jesse Watters mentioned many things that don’t add up.

“San Francisco isn’t letting our cameras into the courtroom for some reason, so that’s not a good sign.” he updated viewers after the 42-year-old DePape pleaded not guilty to charges against him at a court hearing.

After playing a video clip of San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins whose office announced multiple felony charges against the alleged attacker and who claimed that “misinformation” is the greatest problem with the case, Watters pointed out that the source of much of the “misinformation” was the city itself and its “sloppy press conference” and the information that an unnamed third party opened the door for police.

“We have a lot of basic questions about this case that San Francisco officials won’t answer,” he said. “Like, why didn’t the alarm go off when DePape allegedly broke in? We’re talking about the home of the Speaker of the House here. Not only is San Francisco experiencing a crime wave but what if a Chinese agent broke in and bugged the place? This house is so exposed you could just break into the house of the person who’s third in line to the presidency that easy? Do the Pelosis even have an alarm system?” Watters asked before playing another clip of Jenkins declining to say whether there was an alarm.

“you either see the alarm system in the house or you don’t. That takes about 30 seconds lady,” he said. “And they caught the perp red-handed, he’s behind bars with no bail and there’s a  mountain of evidence and eyewitness testimony that he smashed Paul’s head in with a hammer, and the DA thinks she needs to hold back key details from the public? It’s not like  hammer man’s still out and he’s watching the news from his little hideout and police don’t want to tip off the investigation.”

The post Jesse Watters Destroys the Narratives Surrounding the Midnight Escape at the Pelosi House appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

According to a new poll, liberal women are far less likely than conservative women to say a woman having an extramarital fair is wrong.

The poll found that only 36% of liberal women say that a married woman having an affair is always wrong. 71% of Conservative women say it is always wrong for a woman to have an extramarital affair.

57% of liberal women think a man having an affair is always wrong while 80% of conservative women think that a man having an affair is always wrong.

One of the explanations given for the difference is that liberal women are far more likely to believe in the concept of gender-linked fate. This means that they believe what happens to other women in the United States affects them.

71% of liberal women embrace the idea of gender-linked fate while only 30% of conservative women embrace this same idea.

Liberals are also far less likely to be religious — which leads to them having different moral views.

When judging women who engage in extramarital affairs, liberal women are far more willing than conservative women to withhold judgment. @dcoxpolls @AEI https://t.co/RdNp0yaGqT

— Brad Wilcox (@BradWilcoxIFS) November 1, 2022

IFstudies.org:

It turns out that Americans react to infidelity differently for men and women. The gap is particularly large among women: 70% of women say that it is “always” morally wrong when a man has an extramarital affair, but fewer (56%) say the same when it is a woman who has an affair. (Nearly 1 in 4 women say it is morally wrong “most of the time.”)

This moral double standard varies among women from different backgrounds, but the gap is particularly large among liberal women. Only 36% of liberal women say it is always wrong for a woman to engage in an extramarital affair, while 57% say the same for men. Conservative women, by contrast, are somewhat less likely to judge men and women differently for committing infidelity—71% say it is always wrong for a woman to engage in an extramarital affair.

Why is the gender gap so pronounced among liberal women? Part of the reason liberal women are less inclined to believe infidelity is always wrong may lie in their distinct backgrounds and experiences. Liberals are far less religious than conservatives, meaning their views on morality are less rooted in a particular theology or religious belief system. Most religious traditions offer unambiguous messages about the ethics of romantic engagements outside of marriage. Additionally, research has shown that liberals and conservatives “display different profiles of moral concerns, with liberals placing a greater emphasis on moral relativism.”

Another explanation may have to do with the concept of gender-linked fate. Most liberal women believe that what happens to other women in the US impacts their own lives. More than 7 in 10 (71%) embrace this idea. Less than 1 in 3 (30%) conservative women, by contrast, express such strong feelings of gender solidarity. If liberal women empathize strongly with the experiences of other women, they may feel less comfortable judging their decisions, or at the very least hesitant to express universal condemnation.

This says a lot!

For the antidote to media bias, check out ProTrumpNews.com…

The post WEIRD: Most Liberal Women Okay With Married Women Sleeping Around — But Don’t Want Men To Do It appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Green Beret and Republican congressional candidate Jeremy Brown attended the Stop the Steal protests in Washington DC on January 6, 2021. Jeremy joined the Oath Keepers in November of 2020 following the controversial elections and went to Washington DC to provide security at the many protests and rallies that were planned in DC that week.

In March of 2021, Jeremy Brown started speaking out about how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) contacted him and attempted to recruit him to spy on patriots and everyday Americans on January 6th.

In December 2020 FBI agents contacted Jeremy Brown at his home for “posting some things online.”

Jeremy released video surveillance of the FBI contacting him at his home. And Jeremy then later released an audio recording of his actual meetup with the FBI.

Jeremy struggled for months about whether or not to go public with this information. But according to his Facebook page — “After listening to politicians and the FBI Director, Chris Wray, tell lie after bald-faced lie to the American People, he could not stay silent any longer.”

Jeremy decided his desire to protect and defend the American people and the TRUTH are more important than privacy or personal safety.

So in March 2021 Jeremy joined Brandon Gray on Banned.TV to explain what happened to him after he joined the Oath Keepers in November.

Jeremy released a video of his encounter with government officials when they came to his home. Jeremy also released audio of his meeting with the FBI at a local restaurant when they tried to recruit him to work undercover for him on January 6th in Washington DC.

Jeremy explained in his video that the FBI called his cellphone and asked for a meeting after trying to contact him at his house. Jeremy then met with the FBI agents at a restaurant in Ybor City in December 2020. He told Brandon Gray that 38 seconds into the interview the FBI attempted to recruit him to spy on the Oath Keepers.

The Gateway Pundit first spoke with Jeremy Brown in 2021. Jeremy was SAFE at the time, but laying low and keeping on the situation until he says he has “a full grasp on any fallout that is sure to result.”

** You can support Jeremy Brown’s fundraising effort here.  

In September 2020 the same agents who tried to recruit him months earlier returned to Jeremy Brown’s home with nearly two dozen agents to arrest him.

At 3:45 PM Eastern, the FBI raided retired Army Ranger Jeremy Brown’s home and arrested Jeremy. The charge was trespassing. The Gateway Pundit was notified the next morning by his family and an attorney.

The FBI searched their house, RV, and trailer. Then they arrested Jeremy and took him away.

His family contacted The Gateway Pundit the following morning.

** You can support Jeremy Brown’s fundraising effort here.  

Jeremy Brown is a Green Beret and served in the United States Army from 1992 to 2012 and reached the rank of Special Forces Master Sergeant.

The Gateway Pundit spoke with Jeremy’s girlfriend after his arrest. She told us Jeremy would later appear in Pinellas County Court. Jeremy was charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor.

Jeremy Brown NEVER entered the US Capitol on January 6. His crime was in reality refusing to be an FBI informant as we describe below.

The FBI sent 20 vehicles for his arrest. DHS and Pinellas County law enforcement were also present. The FBI was in Jeremy’s home for 5-and-a-half hours looking for evidence. We were told the FBI did not read Jeremy his rights.

As we reported months ago, Jeremy Brown refused to be an informant for the dirty FBI — They wanted him to be one of their plants at the Jan. 6 Trump rallies. He refused So they stormed his home at 3:45 PM on Thursday and arrested him on bogus misdemeanor charges.

Fast forward to Wednesday of this week–

Jeremy Brown’s girlfriend contacted The Gateway Pundit on Wednesday and informed us that Jeremy Brown was offered a plea deal this week.

The federal prosecutors were willing to drop 7 felonies — all of the evidence they planted — if Jeremy Brown will plead guilty to two gun charges.

This is how the FBI rolls.

Jeremy Brown declined the offer.

We are living under the authority of an immoral regime today.

Jeremy Brown released audio from his prison cell earlier this week.

The post Jan 6 Protester and Green Beret Jeremy Brown Who Was Arrested for Turning Down FBI Request to Work as Operative on Jan 6 Is Offered a Plea Deal by Corrupt DOJ — Turns It Down appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.