.@Heritage and @freedomcaucus hosted a worthwhile discussion on the topic of Covid-19 accountability last week. Here are some highlights from the portion that addressed the issue of medical censorship. 🧵
"[Censorship resulted in] this illusion of a consensus that never existed on so many topics. We robbed the American people of a true debate, a true discussion… The truth comes from people honestly engaging with the data." @DrJBhattacharya
"There is nothing more harmful, more chilling than these laws like [#AB2098] because patients are going to suffer from this. Patients already have suffered from self-cancellation by doctors who are afraid to say the truth to their patients… " -Dr. Scott Atlas
"AB2098 effectively puts the CDC in the room with you as a patient and a doctor, so that the doctor is now thinking about what the CDC will say… The main purpose of it is to chill public discussion by dissenting doctors on matters of public health importance." @DrJBhattacharya
"The last thing I would want is to censor those who have a different view than me because I want to be able to rebut what they're saying. So I want them to be heard and then I want because it gives me an opportunity to actually counter the arguments." @MartinKulldorff
Scott Atlas and @RepRosendale also touched on the important issue of the abuse of emergency powers under the guise of protecting public health.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A squirrel ran across the stage while everyone was waiting for Kamala's concession speech. 👀
For those questioning whether this is a real video, multiple videos of the squirrel of been shared.
I do appreciate the skepticism! This link will take you to the moment the squirrel enters the frame. Check the live chat, where people start commenting on it. 🙂 youtube.com/live/WckEFzGku…
Kamala Harris was admitted to law school under a program for students “who have experienced major life hurdles, such as educational disadvantage, economic hardship, or disability.”
Kamala Harris’s mother came from the highest caste in India, but by moving to the U.S. and Canada, obtaining a prestigious degree, marrying a future Stanford professor, having a successful career as a cancer researcher, and sending her daughter to private schools, her daughter became unusually disadvantaged?
Strange how that works.
In 1992, three years after Kamala graduated from Hastings Law School (a public university), there was a controversy after the dean of the law school realized the extent of student group involvement in admissions to the program for disadvantaged students (called LEOP).
Students who claimed to be eligible for the LEOP because of some special hardship they suffered would have their claims of being disadvantaged verified via a phone call by members of the student organization associated with the applicant’s race. The phone interviews were used by some students to screen out conservative candidates—to avoid future “Clarence Thomases,” as one student explained.
This would have been the process in place when Kamala Harris applied to law school in 1986. According to her resume, she also served as President of the “Black Law Student’s [sic] Association,” so she likely participated in the process of selecting admittees to the LEOP program while she was a law student as well.
While the program was advertised as a class-based affirmative action program—which Kamala Harris wouldn’t have qualified for—in practice it was based on race and politics, during her time.
In 2004, Kamala's mother recounted to an LA Times reporter how she was taken aback when an educator didn't realize Kamala came from a privileged background.
People have expressed an interest in hearing more dirt on Kamala Harris’s past, so I am collecting my posts that contain information that has been underreported or not reported elsewhere into one thread. 🧵
In this thread, you will find detailed information about Kamala Harris’s misuse of Biden’s FEC candidate ID number in order to take possession of his campaign funds. A complaint has been filed with the FEC but will not be resolved before the election.
Here is a summary from a longtime independent California politician Kamala Harris’s violation of campaign finance laws when she was running for District Attorney. (Harmeet Dhillon’s interview with Tucker Carlson has more information on that issue.)
UPDATE: Last night, Kamala Harris personally filed an updated Statement of Candidacy (aka Form 2) to designate Tim Walz as her running mate.
Since she used Biden’s personal candidate ID number (P80000722) instead of her own (P00009423), the FEC records are convoluted. Her newly filed Form 2 shows up on Biden's personal FEC page. But if you look at the 2024 election cycle, Biden is erased and replaced with Harris, as if he was never never running for President.
Looking at Biden’s campaign committee’s FEC record, it’s now associated with both Biden’s and Harris’s candidacies for President for the period of 2020-2022. But that makes no sense, because Harris’s Presidential run in 2020 was never linked to Biden’s, and she ceased her campaign for President in 2020 and did not run again until 2024. Now Harris’s personal FEC candidate ID number (P00009423)—which is supposed to follow her for all Presidential campaigns for life—is somehow linked to Biden’s Presidential campaign in 2020. Only her Vice-Presidential campaign was ever linked to Biden’s, but that is separate from any Presidential campaigns.
The current 2023-2024 FEC record for “Biden for President” (aka “Harris for President,” ID number C00703975) is linked to two Presidential candidates. Both are both named “Kamala Harris.” One of these candidates is associated with Harris’s candidate ID number (P00009423), and the other “Kamala Harris” is associated with Biden’s candidate ID number (P80000722).
The Statement of Candidacy that Kamala Harris filed on July 29, using Biden’s personal candidate ID number (P80000722), now shows up under Harris’s ID number. But last night’s filing for that same candidate—number P80000722—shows up for the other “Kamala Harris” who is running for President. (Based on what happened previously, I suspect the FEC will shift these records in the future, to make it seem like there aren’t so many discrepancies between the names and the ID numbers.)
Confused? That’s because these filings from Harris are irregular. If Kamala Harris had used her own candidate ID number, like every other candidate in modern history, this wouldn’t have been so complicated, but then it would have been difficult to make the case that she’s entitled to Biden’s war chest. Undoubtedly, these filings are trying to circumvent those pesky campaign finance laws.
By the way, since Walz has never run for President, he doesn’t have his own FEC candidate ID for a Presidential run. According the the logic of Harris’s supporters, Walz is equally entitled to any funds from the campaign committee associated with ID number C00703975. And, just as Harris felt entitled to file an amended Statement of Candidacy using Biden’s personal candidate ID number because she was the Vice Presidential candidate, Walz could do the same, using Biden’s personal candidate ID number to run for President if he wanted to. The Democrats could pass this campaign down in perpetuity, without even obtaining the formal agreement of the prior candidate.
This reminds me of a system of government that isn’t considered anything like a democracy.
Normally, I would include helpful screenshots to document and illustrate all the information I provided, but I just don't have the time right now. Sorry to disappoint! Maybe I will sign up for subscriptions so that I can find more time for this kind of reporting.
As I predicted, the FEC changed the way the filings appear on their website, so it doesn’t look quite as strange. Yesterday, there were two separate pages for Presidential candidates with the name Kamala Harris—one with Biden’s ID number and one with Harris’s. Today, Harris is linked only to her own ID number, and the new Statement of Candidacy is linked to her candidacy, despite the fact that she used Biden’s ID number instead of her own. (It also shows up on Biden’s page, but under “raw electronic filings,” meaning it will likely be dropped from his page at some point.)
San Francisco’s managed alcohol program provides homeless alcoholics with housing, meals, activities (including crafts and outings to Giants games), and a quantity of alcoholic beverages determined by their “need and desire,” with no expectation of reducing consumption. With a reported budget of $5 million for 20 beds (half set aside for Latinx or indigenous people), it would be cheaper to accommodate these people in all-inclusive resorts.
Advocates had wanted managed alcohol programs in San Francisco for years. In 2020, SF Dept of Public Health used Covid as an excuse to shut down their sobering center and set up an alcohol program in just 48 hours. Impressive how quickly the government can move when motivated.
Here the lead physician for SF’s managed alcohol program (MAP) explains how they justify giving alcohol to alcoholics ethically. They simply do not consider abstaining from alcohol as a possibility. Instead, they allow patients to exercise “autonomy” by making their own choices.
I appeared on this @KTVU news segment, which unfortunately grants far too much air time to Malak Afaneh, the law student who disrupted the Berkeley dean’s dinner. But it’s interesting to hear her thinking. She seems pretty smug for someone who claims to have suffered an attack.
“We felt that this dinner was, you know, a disgusting and extravagant and lavish display of wealth that was already being funneled using our tuition money for this genocide.”
So, Afaneh’s chief complaint was that the dinner was tacky. Instead of declining the invitation, she decided to ruin the event for everyone. Note she had no knowledge of whether a penny of tuition money was being spent on the dinner. (Here’s a shot of the intolerable extravagance, for the record.)
“We were invited to the premises, and we would willfully leave the premises. So that had always been the plan. We had even done a criminal defense consult with the National Lawyers Guild who, you know, pretty much thought that this was a pretty low-risk action.”
Here is a screenshot of Afaneh willfully REFUSING to leave, even after the homeowners told her over and over that she was unwelcome. (Sad that she has almost completed law school and doesn’t seem to know what “willfully” means.) I notice she doesn’t say the NLG told her the action was legal, only that it was “low risk.” 🤔