New Trump policy would restore voting to its rightful owners — citizens

By Ben Weingarten

The hidden lessons of the Tower of Babel and the Babel Tower effect
The hidden lessons of the Tower of Babel and the Babel Tower effect

Political representation should not be driven by foreign citizens.

All Americans who claim to care about voting rights should be cheering the Trump administration’s new policy on congressional apportionment, which would help restore representative government by transferring political power from illegal immigrants back into the hands of citizens.

That our political class granted power to those unlawfully in America ought to outrage anyone who cares about the sanctity of the ballot and the rule of law. Yet this fact has persisted for decades under administrations both Democratic and Republican. The Trump administration, on behalf of forgotten Americans, has been uniquely willing to challenge a convention that had long gone unquestioned.

Prior to the release of the president’s new “Memorandum on Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census,” the federal government distributed congressional seats based on the total number of people residing in an area, including illegal aliens, rather than on the number of people legitimately represented, namely citizens.

Should the president’s memorandum hold, the United States will now exclude illegal immigrants from the population counts used to apportion House seats. This is right as a matter of lawfairness, and common sense.

Voting Rights Belong to Citizens

The president’s memorandum lays out the executive’s authority by statute and precedent to determine who constitutes the “whole number of persons in each state,” and to “settle[] the apportionment of representatives” among the states. More fundamentally, although neither the courts nor Congress has settled the issue, it is legally dubious that illegal aliens should be considered “persons” to be counted in the census, which is used for apportionment, pursuant to the relevant portions of the Constitution.

As constitutional scholar Dr. John Eastman notes, the Constitution begins, “We the people of the United States,” not “[We] the people of the world,” or “[We] any foreign nationals who happen to be in the United States when a census is taken.”

The 14th Amendment, which concerned not illegal aliens but primarily freed slaves, addressed, per Section 1, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Section 2, concerning apportionment, called for “counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed” — almost certainly referring to the primary subjects of the amendment, citizens, for whom the founders crafted the Constitution.

Including illegal immigrants in the figures used to distribute congressional seats also makes a mockery of the “one-person, one vote” principle. If one congressional district consists disproportionately of illegal immigrants, and another of voting-eligible citizens, the power of the voter in the former district is vastly greater than the power of the voter in the latter. Americans in areas of the country that are not sanctuaries for illegal aliens see their votes diluted and are effectively disenfranchised.

Noncitizens significantly affect representation

At an even more basic level, as President Donald Trump says, “[W]e should not give political power to people who should not be here at all.”

To understand the cost of the status quo, consider the practical effect of counting illegal aliens for purposes of congressional apportionment in 2020. According to the White House, a single state includes 2.2 million illegal aliens, more than 6 percent of that state’s population. Counting this population would result in allocating two-to-three more congressional seats to the state than it would have otherwise received.

Similarly, a December 2019 Center for Immigration Studies analysis estimated that by counting illegal aliens in the 2020 census, the federal government would be redistributing three seats, one each from Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota to California, New York, and Texas.

The effect is more pronounced as we broaden the population from illegal aliens to all noncitizens. Per the Center for Immigration Studies, if one counts illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born minor children — children who would not have been counted in the census had their parents not arrived or remained in the country illegally prior to having them — the federal government would redistribute five seats. Looking at all noncitizens and their U.S.-born minor children, the federal government would redistribute 10 seats.

In a country as closely divided as ours, illegal aliens and certainly all noncitizens have a material effect on representation. That the Trump administration is focused solely on the illegal population, rather than all noncitizens — when a case can be made that solely the voting-eligible population should be counted for purposes of apportionment — shows how relatively narrowly tailored the president’s policy is.

Trump detractors are fighting the policy

The reason I speak in hypotheticals and note the policy’s modest focus is that the Resistance has announced its intention to fight this policy in the courts.

This is another round in a battle that started with the Trump administration’s effort to reinstate a citizenship question on the census, reading, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” At the time, I surmised that one reason the administration’s opponents fought against including this question was that if Americans learned of the size of the noncitizen population and its effect on both representation and the allocation of hundreds of billions of federal dollars per year, they would be livid.

The left ultimately prevailed in the Supreme Court not because the question was illegal but on a technicality, ostensibly because the court disapproved of the process by which the administration went about adding the question. It appeared once again that the court was making our government one of men rather than laws, judging on the basis of politics rather than on the merits because of the majority’s antipathy to Trump.

The Trump administration’s reasoning behind putting this policy into practice is both reasonable and prudent. As the president states:

Affording congressional representation, and therefore formal political influence, to States on account of the presence within their borders of aliens who have not followed the steps to secure a lawful immigration status under our laws undermines those principles. Many of these aliens entered the country illegally in the first place. Increasing congressional representation based on the presence of aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status would also create perverse incentives encouraging violations of Federal law. States adopting policies that encourage illegal aliens to enter this country and that hobble Federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws passed by the Congress should not be rewarded with greater representation in the House of Representatives. …

I have accordingly determined that respect for the law and protection of the integrity of the democratic process warrant the exclusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base.

If our courts cannot see the merit to this argument, American citizens will be rendered defenseless once again on a fundamental matter. Striking down this policy would demonstrate yet again that it is only Trump, and a tiny cadre of like-minded officials in the executive and legislative branches, standing up for justice for Americans against a political class that opposes us.

Ben Weingarten is a Federalist senior contributor, senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, and fellow at the Claremont Institute. He was selected as a 2019 Robert Novak Journalism fellow of the Fund for American Studies, under which he is currently working on a book on U.S.-China policy. You can find his work at, and follow him on Twitter @bhweingarten.

Source: The Federalist

Joe Biden’s first-day-in-Office Plan is a betrayal of working-class Americans

By Christopher Bedford

Biden's plan against American workers
Biden’s plan against American workers

Biden’s promises to the citizens of Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, El Salvador, and the rest of the world stand in stark contrast to what he plans to accomplish for the American worker on Day One, which is nothing.

Sunday marks 100 days until the 2020 election. That might come as a surprise to some Americans, who are so used to being neck-deep in conventions, speeches and rallies by now, without them they’d forgotten how close we were. The Republican convention is now cancelled, and for the past few months Joe Biden has barely been seen outside his home, dodging questions from even his sympathetic press pool.

The former vice president ran his primary campaign as a moderate. He refused to go along with the more radical proposals of his opponents, instead relying on his old centrist reputation and key endorsements to harness the black working-class voters he plans to combine with the white workers who sent Donald Trump to the White House.

Since then in his work to unite the modern Democratic Party, his direction has shifted hard to the left, earning praise from proud socialist Bernie Sander, who reiterated Wednesday, “The reasonI think Biden has a chance to be the most progressive president since FDR is that is exactly what Joe Biden said to me.”

Still, just last week The New York Times’ David Brooks predicted day one of a Biden presidency would bring soothing quiet and an end to the divisive class hate his friends and colleagues have hurled down on powerless Americans for years. Joe, he assures the people who read David Brooks, will govern with “radical centrism” informed by his working-class sensibility. Pay no mind to the hard-left class-war argued by the advisers who are writing his policies and, given his rapid cognitive decline, will soon be helping him dress in the morning.

So who is more right, Bernie Sanders or David Brooks? Let’s see what Joe Biden says.

President Biden, Day One

Day 1 of the Biden administration is going to be very busy!” his campaign site declares. And with a team of professional Democrats and veteran operatives at his side, this should be taken seriously. He’ll be far better situated, for example, than Trump was on his first day to accomplish a lot of what he plans.


So what does he plan? While there’s no official list just yet, in campaign events, interviews, and releases over the past year, Biden has teased it out for us. Thus far, his proposals run the gamut from international organizations to international treaties, from harsher regulations to reclaiming federal land from American workers, and from legal to illegal immigration. What’s missing — completely and utterly — from his plan is a single thing that helps the American working class he’s counting on to win.

Shortly after President Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization for corrupt subservience to China’s communist dictator, its active dampening of Taiwanese coronavirus warnings, and its repeat and systemic failings, Biden promised to rejoin on day one of his presidency.

Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health,” he wrote on Twitter. “On my first day as president, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage.”

It was second promise Biden had made to other world leaders, after last fall’s debate-stage promise to redo the Paris Climate Accord Trump withdrew from in June 2017. “The first thing I would do as president of the United States,” he pledged during CNN’s seven-hour climate change town hall, “is to call a meeting of all the nations who signed on to the accord in Washington, D.C., to up the ante. Because we have learned so much just in the past three years of the science, of what has to happen quicker. And the world knows it.”

The 5-7 p.m. town hall finished dead last in cable news ratings, averaging 600,000 viewers behind MSNBC and 1.4 million viewers behind Fox News. Ratings weren’t the point, Deadline Hollywood argued in CNN’s defense: left-wing activism was the point.

Hobbling American industry is just the beginning of President Biden’s “very busy!” first day in the Oval. “To immediately make progress on his climate agenda,” his campaign site reads,

Biden will take actions including requiring aggressive methane pollution limits for new and existing oil and gas operations; developing rigorous new fuel economy standards aimed at ensuring 100 percent of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be zero emissions and annual improvements for heavy duty vehicles…”

He doesn’t stop there. Next up, he plans to re-institute the ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ending energy exploration in the largely uninhabited north of the country — energy exploration long sought by Alaska. Next, he plans to ban all “new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters.” Woe to the American workers and companies in an industry already hard-hit by the coronavirus depression.

After this, Biden gets the rest of the people on his to-do list. Not the American people, though: His focus is on the citizens of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

On Monday, Biden pledged to “end the ‘Muslim ban’ on day one– day one,” referring to the administration’s extra scrutiny on immigration from countries with high rates of anti-Western terrorism or that are run by anti-American dictators, specifically Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia,  Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Tanzania and North Korea. Restrictions were also put in place on visits by Venezuelan government officials or their families.

The pledge followed his promise two months earlier to begin legalizing illegal immigrants to the United States, which he estimated at 11 million people, plus their children. “Number one, on day one, I’m sending, no matter what the state of this is, to the United States Congress a bill to provide for a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people, number one, in the United States,” he told MSNBC. “Number two, every DACA student will be able to stay.”

A “very busy!” day indeed. Of course, his promises to the citizens of Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, El Salvador, and the rest of the world stand in stark contrast to what he plans to accomplish for the American worker on Day One, which is absolutely nothing.

For years Biden was a centrist voice in a Democratic Party drifting further leftward each day. Some hoped his nomination would mark a turn for the party more than a turn for the candidate. Just more than 100 days from the election, those hopes are dashed. American working-class voters should take stock of the man asking for their support and ask themselves if he’s still their man at all. On day one, they’ll get their answer.

Christopher Bedford is a senior editor at The Federalist, the vice chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a board member at the National Journalism Center, and the author of The Art of the Donald. Follow him on Twitter.


Source: The Federalist

Joe Biden supports killing babies in abortion up to birth. The Liberal Media is trying to hide it

By Dave Andrusko

Joe Biden supports killing babies in abortion up to birth
Joe Biden supports killing babies in abortion up to birth

If the stakes weren’t so high, it would be almost amusing. On those rare occasions when he is allowed to speak, pro-abortion former Vice President Joe Biden throws everything including the kitchen sink and the garden hose at pro-life President Donald Trump. Not a peep, not even a raised eyebrow from the media. That’s okay (anything’s okay), because anything hostile said about President Trump is treated as if there is no other opinion.

By contrast, in a July 17 speech delivered at Ripon College, pro-life Vice President Mike Pence labeled Biden for what he is—an abortion extremist—but these are “attacks,” “exaggerated claims,” and (worst of all for Biden-supporting reporters) is “drawing sharp contrasts.” (To be clear, the two are virtually 180 degrees apart on almost all issues of consequence. The public truly will have a choice.)

So, what did Mr. Pence say about Mr. Biden? Drawing from the transcript posted at, after stating that “I couldn’t be more proud to be Vice President to a President who has stood without apology for the sanctity of human life,” Mr. Pence said

By contrast, Joe Biden supports taxpayer funding of abortion, repealing the Hyde Amendment, ending a Mexico City policy that prevents federal funding from supporting abortions around the world. And Joe Biden even supports late-term abortion — allowing innocent, unborn children to be aborted right up to the moment of birth.

If you read the Newsweek account, you couldn’t miss that Benjamin Fearnow’s primary purpose is to manipulate, obscure, and misread what Biden has said (or recommended in documents such as the “Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force”) so as to come to the conclusion that what Pence said was nothing more than “aggressive claims.”

(As an aside Fearnow states, “He [Pence] did little to tout President Donald Trump’s own re-election campaign ….” That is flatly untrue, not even close to being true, and just sloppy, sloppy journalism.)

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.

Read the following paragraphs from Fearnow’s story carefully:

But despite Pence’s aggressive claims, Biden has only publicly expressed support for the codification of Roe v. Wade into federal law, and he only recently announced he no longer supports the Hyde Amendment that banned the use of federal funds for abortion except in rare cases. …

But health experts say that just because someone supports abortion rights, it doesn’t mean they back “extreme late-term abortions.” One expert told the Washington Post after Trump’s March claim that the concept of “abortion up until the moment of birth” is not rooted in reality.

So (1) Biden dumped his support for the Hyde Amendment last year, the day after reaffirming his support, when the Abortion Industry laid the hammer to him. Suddenly, Biden discovered that the public paying for elective abortions was a kind of moral mandate.

(2) “Doesn’t mean they back ‘extreme late-term abortions.’” But Biden does! He refuses to stake out any territory that abortionists are forbidden from entering. None.

(3) “Codification of Roe” is the catch phrase euphemism pro-abortion Democrats employ as shorthand for eliminating any and all limitations on abortion and—AND—compelling taxpayers to pay for elective abortions. Before the Hyde Amendment went into effect, we paid for 300,000+ abortions each year—and the number was increasing!

For more on “Joe Biden’s unbridled abortion extremism,” go here. Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.

Source: Life News

Emergency Alert: Pelosi announces plan to remove Trump, make herself President under COG martial law


The left against Trump
The left against Trump

Alex Jones breaks down the radical left’s coup against America:

VIDEO: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) claimed President Trump will be leaving the White House “whether he knows it yet, or not.”


Bill Gates addressed his multiple meetings with Jeffrey Epstein: ‘I made a mistake in judgment’


Gates and Epstein
Gates and Epstein


  • Bill Gates addressed his ties to Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday, saying that he “made a mistake in judgement” by associating with the convicted sex offender.
  • It was the first time Gates has spoken publicly on his relationship to Epstein since a New York Times report last month revealed that the Microsoft cofounder met with Epstein multiple times despite his past.
  • Gates said he thought affiliating with Epstein would encourage the financier to commit money to global health initiatives, but that the money never materialized.


Bill Gates apologized on Wednesday for his association with financier Jeffrey Epstein, making his first public statements since news surfaced that he had met with Epstein, a convicted sex offender, more often than previously believed.

I made a mistake in judgment in thinking those discussions would go to global health … that money never appeared,” Gates said during a panel discussion hosted by The New York Times Dealbook series.

And I gave him benefit of my association,” Gates said.

The Microsoft cofounder has maintained that he believed meeting with Epstein would lead to investments in charities supported by Gates, who along with his wife, runs one of the world’s largest philanthropic organizations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Gates had previously waffled on his association with Epstein. In September, he distanced himself from Epstein, telling The Wall Street Journal that he “didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him.”

But a New York Times investigation published in October found that Gates met with Epstein multiple times after Epstein’s conviction in 2011, including at least three meetings at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. Following the publication of that story, a spokesperson for Gates said he regretted the association, but Gates himself hadn’t publicly addressed it until Wednesday afternoon.

Gates isn’t the only tech mogul with ties to Epstein — Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk each met with Epstein at least once, years after after Epstein was convicted.

Source: Business Insider

NYT: Bill Gates repeatedly met with Jeffrey Epstein

By Stephanie Ruhle

A new report is shedding light on a surprising relationship between the late Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates. New York Times columnist James Stewart joins Stephanie Ruhle with reporting on their meetings and to discuss his new book, “Deep State: Trump, the FBI, and the Rule of Law.”

Source: MSNBC


Trump takes ‘historic’ action to move Pharmaceutical manufacturing out of China, back to U.S.

Trump takes historic action to move Pharmaceutical manufacturing out of China, back to U.S.
Trump takes historic action to move Pharmaceutical manufacturing out of China, back to U.S.

In an “historic turning point,” the Trump administration has taken bold action to bring America’s pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the U.S. from China and India.

Seeking to secure the nation’s supply of critical medications, the Trump administration has signed a $354 million contract that would create the nation’s first strategic stockpile of key ingredients needed to make medicines,” NBC News reported. “The agreement was signed Monday with Phlow Corp., a generic drug maker based in Virginia.”

White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro, a staunch China hawk who is the mastermind behind President Donald Trump’s trade war with the communist nation, said that the move “will not only help bring our essential medicines home but actually do so in a way that is cost competitive with the sweatshops and pollution havens of the world.”

Navarro added, “This is an historic turning point in America’s efforts to onshore its pharmaceutical production and supply chains.”

The New York Times reported that the company could see the contract “extended for a total of $812 million over 10 years, making it one of the largest awards in” the history of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

Dr. Eric Edwards, the chief executive and president of Phlow, said in an interview with The New York Times, “There are not a lot of people wanting to bring back generic medicine manufacturing to the United States that has been lost to India and China over decades. You need someone like the federal government saying this is too important for us not to focus on.”

On its website, Phlow Corp bills itself as an America First company. “The United States’ drug supply chain is broken, becoming dangerously dependent upon Foreign Suppliers for our most essential generic medicines,” the website reads. “Phlow was formed to manufacture low-cost, high quality, essential generic drugs for the United States.”

HHS Secretary Alex Azar said that the move was “a significant step to rebuild our domestic ability to protect ourselves from health threats.”

Phlow plans to make drugs via a technique called ‘continuous manufacturing,’ widespread in other industries but still novel for pharmaceutical companies,” Forbes reported. “Continuous manufacturing involves nonstop production within the same facility, which can save time and more quickly respond to drug shortages, though this can increase upfront costs.”

The move comes as the U.S. and other countries around the world have realized in recent months that they cannot depend on China to be a reliable manufacturer of products that are critical to the U.S. supply chain, including medicines, due to China’s lies and cover-up that of the coronavirus pandemic that originated in Wuhan, China.

Trump announced late on Monday evening that the U.S. would make its suspension of funding the World Health Organization permanent, and would even consider leaving, if “major” immediate changes were not made.

The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member 

Source: Channel 411 News  

Engineered llama antibodies neutralise COVID-19 virus

How llama blood could help fight coronavirus
How llama blood could help fight coronavirus

Antibodies derived from llamas have been shown to neutralise the SARS-CoV-2 virus in lab tests, UK researchers announced today.

The team involves researchers from Oxford University, the Rosalind Franklin Institute, Diamond Light Source and Public Health England. They hope the antibodies – known as nanobodies due to their small size – could eventually be developed as a treatment for patients with severe COVID-19. The peer reviewed findings are published in Nature Structural & Molecular Biology.Llamas, camels and alpacas naturally produce quantities of small antibodies with a simpler structure, that can be turned into nanobodies. The team engineered their new nanobodies using a collection of antibodies taken from llama blood cells. They have shown that the nanobodies bind tightly to the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, blocking it from entering human cells and stopping infection.

Using advanced imaging with X-rays and electrons at Diamond Light Source and Oxford University, the team also identified that the nanobodies bind to the spike protein in a new and different way to other antibodies already discovered.

There is currently no cure or vaccine for COVID-19. However, transfusion of critically ill patients with serum from convalesced individuals, which contain human antibodies against the virus, has been shown to greatly improve clinical outcome. This process, known as passive immunisation, has been used for over 100 years, but it is not straightforward to identify the right individuals with the right antibodies and to give such a blood product safely. A lab-based product which can be made on demand would have considerable advantages and could be used earlier in the disease where it is likely to be more effective.

Professor James Naismith, Professor of Structural Biology at Oxford University  and Director of The Rosalind Franklin Institute, said,’These nanobodies have the potential to be used in a similar way to convalescent serum, effectively stopping progression of the virus in patients who are ill. We were able to combine one of the nanobodies with a human antibody and show the combination was even more powerful than either alone. Combinations are particularly useful since the virus has to change multiple things at the same time to escape; this is very hard for the virus to do. The nanobodies also have potential as a powerful diagnostic.’

Professor Ray Owens from Oxford University, who leads the nanobody program at the Franklin, said, ‘This research is a great example of team work in science, as we have created, analysed and tested the nanobodies in 12 weeks. This has seen the team carry out experiments in just a few days, that would typically take months to complete. We are hopeful that we can push this breakthrough on into pre-clinical trials.’

Professor David Stuart, from Diamond Light Source and Oxford University said, ‘The electron microscopy structures showed us that the three nanobodies can bind to the virus spike, essentially covering up the portions that the virus uses to enter human cells.’

The team started from a lab-based library of llama antibodies. They are now screening antibodies from Fifi, one of the ‘Franklin llamas’ based at the University of Reading, taken after she was immunised with harmless purified virus proteins. The team are investigating preliminary results which show that Fifi’s immune system has produced different antibodies from those already identified, which will enable cocktails of nanobodies to be tested against the virus.

Source:  Oxford University

How Bill Gates fits into the GMO discussion

By Joseph P Farrell PhD

Bill Gates fits into the GMO discussion
Bill Gates fits into the GMO discussion

Last week I blogged about I.G. Farbensanto’s latest gimmick to avoid legal entanglements when it (Bayer) bought out Mon(ster)santo, to become I.G. Farbensanto. I won’t go into the latest gimmick all over again. Rather, there’s something else coming down the pike that M.W. spotted and shared (and again, thank you!), and it’s such a whopper doozie I have to pass it along.

That something is “gene drive organisms”, and if that sounds to you a little “scary and creepy”, it’s because it’s far worse than that:

Normally I’d comment a great deal on stories like this, and I do intend to comment a bit today, but I don’t really think I need to do so extensively, because I’m sure that regular readers here will appreciate the rather horrifying implications of the following quotation from the article:

Synthetic gene drives are a new form of genetic engineering, created via the genetic engineering method CRISPR/CAS9, and are intended to permanently modify or eradicate populations, or even whole species, in the wild.

They are currently defined as a system where genetic elements or traits have more than the usual 50% chance of being inherited, irrespective of whether they benefit or harm the organism inheriting them.

The idea of gene drive technology is to force the inheritance of detrimental genetic traits. In this way, scientists hope to reprogramme or eradicate species such as disease-carrying insects and invasive species.

This is a key distinction between GDOs and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are explicitly designed to contain the spread of modified traits.

Most recently, Imperial College London created a modification that was able to eliminate populations of malaria-carrying mosquitoes in lab experiments. This work was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation under the Target Malaria project.

This is something that Martin Häusling, agricultural policy spokesman for the Greens and member of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, called a “fundamental step for biodiversity,” warning that the long term consequences of this technology is “not foreseeable”.

Mareike Imken, from the German initiative Save Our Seeds, concurred, saying that “while the risks of gene drive technology have not yet been scientifically assessed, it could have a massive impact on already damaged ecosystems,” adding that it is “irresponsible to expose species and ecosystems to further risks“. (Emphasis added)

So, boiling all this down, virus-spreading expert (both computer and the other kind) Baal Gates, through his Baal and Malicious Gates Foundation, is funding research into gene drive organisms (GDOs) in the hopes of reprogramming species or just eradicating them if they’re nasty and we don’t like them and they carry nasty diseases. (Notice the criterion here could be applied to just about any organism, including us, and let’s not forget that Baal Gates is one of those overpopulation nuts that have been with us since the Most Serene Republic of Venice.)

Well, I have to confess part of me is attracted to the idea of getting rid of certain things. High on my list would be spiders and snakes (and those big lizard things in Japan). But, much as I dislike spiders and snakes, I realize that they do some good, if they’re not the human versions thereof. And as for Baal Gates, when I think of him (and I try not to do so), I think of the Peanuts cartoon character Pig Pen, surrounded always in a cloud of dust, dirt, and flies, or in this case, viruses.

And speaking of Baal Gates and gene driven organisms…

… what happens if, for example, those genetic drive traits jump species? I recall back when I entertained this outlandish speculation many years ago with respect to GMOs, I was roundly denounced by “scientific authorities” for being… well…outlandish.

Perhaps I am, and like all outlandish people, I claim the right to be wrong, or just simply outlandish. It later turned out that a couple of obscure papers had noticed that some genetic traits from GMOs started showing up in other organisms.

No apologies from the “scientific authorities” were ever forthcoming. My point at the time was rather simple: it wasn’t as if certain things had never jumped from one species to another before. So I wonder the same thing here: what happens if one modified the genes of, say, a species of reptile such as serpentus baalus gatus, in order to eradicate the species, or reprogram it not to spit bile and poison everywhere it slithered, or better, to make its own bile and poison poisonous to itself.

But if one allows the possibility of species jumping, this modification might jump to a particularly deadly species of spider, arachnidia sorosia, and serpentus baalus gatus would be depriving itself of one of its best friends, not to mention another vector by which to spread vitriol and bile.

Of course, the types of people involved in such research aren’t the cleverest of people and will press ahead with their research, in spite of the possibility that they might be caught in their own plans and snares.

In which case, it might be worth letting them do it after all.

… nah… it isn’t. They’re just insane, and colossally stupid.

See you on the flip side…

Scottish X-files kept secret for years by CIA finally released

By Andy Shipley

Scottish X Files
Scottish X Files

American spies kept close tabs on Scotland with probes into UFOs, spoon-bending and psychics among the declassified documents released.

Incredible evidence has emerged of the extent that American CIA agents have kept tabs on Scotland.
Declassified documents range from paranormal research to political intrigue – lifting the lid on the Scots ‘X-files’.
Dusty files locked away include UFO sightings, psychic powers and Cold War espionage over decades of spy games.
Some of the weirdest records relate to the controversial Stargate programme which has long fascinated conspiracy theorists.

The shadowy work was widely credited for influencing the 2009 movie The Men Who Stare at Goats – starring George Clooney and Ewan McGregor.

In the film, US special forces attempt to harness paranormal powers as a weapon – by trying to explode the hearts of animals just by looking at them.
Lecturer in intelligence and international security at the University of Glasgow Damien Van Puyvelde said: “The references reflect the global scope of CIA activities and the evolution of its interests”.

From assessments of the Soviet economy, to public perception of the Vietnam War abroad, to perceived communist influence in Latin America, to the rise of the terrorist threat, and more eccentric issues like UFOs and psychists”.

All of these can be linked to the broader context of the Cold War.”
Buried in the historical files is a 1964 report by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena research group – which included retired armed services chiefs.

Kept in closed CIA files for nearly 40 years, the 186-page document lists UFO sightings across the globe and includes a mysterious case in Wigtownshire on April 4, 1957.

It tells how three radar posts tracked a UFO which “dove and circled” at between 60,000 and 14,000ft.

The close encounter was described by Wing Commander W P Whitworth, based in Scotland, as: “Quite definitely this was no freak”.

It was an object of some substance and no mistake could have been made.”
Recommendations in the report include boosting attempts to communicate with extraterrestrials and even drafting ‘space law’ to govern how humans interact with ET.

It concludes: “On the basis of the evidence in this report, NICAP has concluded that UFOs are real and that they appear to be intelligently controlled”.

“We believe that it is a reasonable hypothesis that UFOS (beyond those explainable as conventional objects or phenomena) are manifestations of extraterrestrial life.”

However, the report accepted that evidence was too “sketchy” to suggest what aliens looked like or the purpose of their visits to earth.

Van Puyvelde said: “Sightings of unidentified flying objects could provide information on Soviet ballistic missiles or airplanes”.

“It was also important to understand and manage people’s threat perception.”

He said a CIA study group concluded the Soviets could use UFO reports to generate “panic” and wage a form of information warfare.

Van Puyvelde added: “UFO reports could also be used to overload the US air warning system.”

It certainly appears to have been too early to break out the intergalactic welcome mats.

Van Puyvelde said: “In general though, CIA and US Air Force investigations into these found that most of them could be linked to optical illusions and hallucinations, hoaxes and misinterpretations.”
In the 1980s, the CIA took an interest in the work of leading Edinburgh University parapsychologist Deborah Delanoy.

She exposed a “bright and very affable” 17-year-old self-proclaimed metal-bender called Tim as a fake in 1983-84.

Delanoy’s report reads: “Tim claimed to have started bending metal, mostly cutlery, at the age of four and to have been doing so ever since.”

After seven-and-a-half months of lab tests, researchers began to suspect Tim was a fraud and used a hidden camera to expose him.

The report continues: “Tim confessed to deceptive behaviour. He said that he was a practicing magician who had wished to see if it were possible for a magician to pose successfully as a psychic in a laboratory.”

Delanoy concludes: “We must never let ourselves forget that our subjects may be deceiving us”.

Van Puyvelde explained why CIA agents tasked with defending the most powerful country in the world against all foes might be interested, at least for a time, in Scots spoon-bending teens.

He said: “The focus on psychics also sounds quite eccentric. But when digging further we can see an agency that looks for scientific studies to inform its views, following rumours that the Soviet Union was interested in psychics in the 1970s.

“This search for scientific evidence inevitably creates links with universities, more often than not in indirect ways“.

The CIA’s own conclusion by the mid-1990s was that the entire program was not useful to its operations.”
An offshoot of the Stargate programme was project Sun Streak – which tried to tackle the Lockerbie bombing in unorthodox fashion.

Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down over the Scottish village by the device on December 21, 1988, killing all 259 passengers and crew on board and a further 11 people on the ground.

By 1990, the investigation was still ongoing and it would be another year until Libyans Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah were indicted.

On June 7 of that year at an unknown location, a psychic was tasked with describing a photo of the reconstructed baggage carrier which held the plane’s bomb.
Filed under “special access required”, the notes are headed: “Warning notice: Intelligence sources and methods involved.

Sun Streak’s mission was to collect intelligence information through ‘psychoenergetics’ – including telepathy.

The Lockerbie test produced 22 pages of scrawled notes and sketches and a typed up account of the session.

Notes state: “There is a bomb in the box and it explodes.

It makes me think of a bomb blowing up a person. I can see red, fire and jagged flames. Something about the target makes my eyes burn.”
An information report, marked ‘secret’ from August 1951 shows the lengths the CIA went to in order to monitor activity in the Eastern Bloc – however mundane it might appear.

Released 50 years later and still with redacted sections, the file contains two reports on the production of screws and bolts in what was then Czechoslovakia.

US intelligence services are known to have meticulously monitored industry output in the Societ bloc for fear of any military or technological use.

Intelligence experts say firms in the Eastern Bloc were often used as fronts for the USSR to get around trade barriers with the West for any goods on watch lists.

Buried in the report is an order in June 1950 for one tonne of two-pointed rivets imported to Prague from Dieck’s Ltd in Glasgow.

The report adds: “There is a complete lack of all sizes of winged screws. There are none at all in stock.”

However seemingly innocuous the order, authors of the report requested “evaluation of this material” within a month.

Glasgow was even mentioned in dispatches during the Vietnam War – at what would become one of American foreign policy’s darkest hours.

A memo marked ‘confidential’ on August 6, 1964, examines foreign reaction to the “Crisis in Vietnam”- specifically US airstrikes against the North.

The date is highly significant coming the day after a report to Congress on the notorious Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the escalation of US action in Vietnam.

It detailed an attack on a US warship by North Vietnamese torpedo boats – reports later debunked as US government lies to justify a war against the communist North.

The memo mentions how the escalating crisis in South East Asia was front page news in the UK – with most media backing US action.

Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home was returning to London from a holiday in Scotland and was expected to issue a statement.

The memo adds: “The only anti-American incident reported was in Glasgow where demonstrators daubed slogans outside the US consulate.”
A terrorism review from 1983 delves into a rise in letter bombs in the UK – with the Scottish National Liberation Army among those responsible.

Branded ‘secret’, the report was deemed so sensitive, it was only released in 2010 and even then in a “sanitized” form.

It chronicles eight letter bombs attributed to the SNLA in a little over a year between March 1982 and the following spring.

Targets were identified as an undisclosed location in Edinburgh on March 1, 1982, followed by government offices in both the capital and Glasgow on March 17.

In May, letter bombs were sent to the Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh, followed by unnamed political party headquarters in the capital on June 19.

On November 22, 1982, the British Industry Secretary was targeted in London, followed by Glasgow’s City Hall on February 17, 1983.

Later that year, letter bombs were set to the Prime Minister’s Office in London on successive days – March 15 and 16.

Authors describe the SNLA as “a Scottish separatist group opposed to British rule.”

They conclude: “In the attacks to date, the letter bombs have contained only small amounts of explosives, probably to avoid personal injury and to preclude discovery by security measures.”
A ‘top secret’ national intelligence cable from March 1982 reveals the extent of the CIA’s interest in UK domestic politics.

It includes analysis of Roy Jenkins’ Glasgow by-election victory on March 26 when he won a third of the vote in overturning a Tory majority of 2,000.

It credits the win as reviving the Social Democrat/Liberal alliance of the day but predicted “potentially serious differences” to come.

The report’s writers comment: “Jenkins’s victory at least temporarily will breathe new life into the Social Democrats’ sagging fortunes and should make him the clear favorite to be elected party leader at next fall’s annual conference.”

Jenkins was indeed made leader of the SDP ahead of the 1983 general election – only to resign after a disappointing SDP performance.
A quarterly report on ‘significant international terrorist incidents’ from 1981 documents an attack on the US consulate in Edinburgh.

CIA analysts embarrassingly refer to the consulate as being in England before giving an account of the September 5 incident.

They report how three “gasoline” bombs were hurled at the ground floor windows of the consulate on plush Regent Terrace.

The author’s assessment goes on: “A security-glass window cracked but kept the bombs out of the building.

Damage was minor and no injuries were reported. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack.”
In the mid-1950s, CIA analysts bemoan Pakistan’s move into jute production – to the detriment of Dundee.

A confidential report from 1955 links the shift into the trade in Asia to nationalism.

It adds: “Formerly the jute produced in Pakistan was manufactured in India and at Dundee, Scotland; and that city was the center for the marketing of the finished product.”

Report authors list three Dundee firms as jute kingpins – MacGregor, Gateshead and John Ireland and Son.

They conclude: “Now they will be forced to turn to other activities or their employees will be thrown out of work.”

A ‘secret’ intelligence report from March 1984 tackles European, including Scots, support for communist regimes in Central America.

At the time, CIA chiefs were trying to stop the toppling of regimes to their south by revolutionaries aligned with the Soviet Union.

Intelligence chatter was rife over where the next Cuba would be with Nicaragua only recently falling to the Sandinistas.

Worse still, the leftist guerillas appeared to be winning the propaganda war in the west by drumming up sympathies.

The report points the finger at the Soviet Bloc with a “massive propaganda and disinformation” campaign launched in 1980.

Documents seized from captured insurgents in El Salvador reveal guerillas coordinating their international activities through Mexico City, claims the report.
It states: “During 1981, some 80 mass meetings were held ranging from 15 people in Adelaide, Australia, to 75 people in Vancouver, Canada, to a few hundred in Edinburgh.

“This process could one be carried out through the apparatus that the communists have put together in the world peace movement, student groups, unions etc.

“There is no way a small Central American country or even Cuba could mount a worldwide propaganda campaign of this kind.”
Van Puyvelde praised the CIA for making nearly one million documents available online – and encouraged other nation’s intelligence agencies, including the UK’s, to follow suit.
He said: “Overall, it is quite remarkable that the CIA is making all of this material available online.

“By comparison, the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) does not make its records available at The National Archives or its website.

“This is a missed opportunity to improve public understanding of intelligence.

Source: Daily Record UK