Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I do appreciate this boards attention to various subject matter I have posted and you're overall patience with same. But the allowances granted to me on this board is once again the proof of the power of tyranny you hold based upon your Party affiliation and the other Parties who control all the power in America today. It is not you're fault you fee this way as though you "allow" me a voice here as that is all you have learned by following these two main tyrannical parties we are stuck with in this Country. Don't get me wrong along the way the Federal Government has done some great things here but they are not all great. For example the Social Security system which assist older folks in retirement who for whatever reason could not support themselves otherwise due to hardships in their lives, is a good thing. The USPS although having its issues over the years is really the only Federal Government locally in every jurisdiction that still serves this nation well in their delivery of goods to folks. Abuses and waster are the norm though and abound in our Military, Medicare, Education, Transportation systems and the thought process that has become popular is that of well if we throw enough money at these systems some good with come of it. As those being paid tax money to oversee such things are usually years behind in catching up on all the fraud that abounds here as those systems have simply gotten too big and out of control for the most part. And our foreign expenditures are totally unwarranted and out of control today.
Now these Countries expect these payments to be made even if we ourselves are going bankrupt, they do not care as long as they get their money. One argument this past week about the shutdown was stated "We have to fund our Government or else our friends in Israel will not get their $1 billion". Sad but true. Who the heck approves such craziness these days? Not I. Taxation by the way is illegal as established today. Wages are what you earn for doing a job for someone else, that is your earned money. If you take what you earn and invest it and make money with that earned money that is the only real taxes you owe is on that invested gains only, not your wages. But the IRS saw fit years ago that wages had to be put on the forms used. So again we all simply accepted it after WWII. It is illegal what has been done here to tax our wages.
Do not let this power go to your heads because there are other ways to look at this Country and others are trying to make it a better place to live, others like the systems created to take money from innocent American's and we all have learned to live with the takers in our Country. As stated this Libertarian Party can do little to resolve what has been done by these two major Parties in this Country, but we aim try to let folks know that the way we are going and headed is not the right way.
Thanks for the reminder on allowing me to post here. I do not over do it here sometimes I get on dumb tangents and you all point that out to me rightfully so. There are two sides to every story. And now with A.I. no one will ever know the real news until they simply witness it themselves in person, otherwise it is all subject to be phony. Need to rid the World of the A.I. scourge that is to come, and is here now in full play by those who aim to do us all harm. Good luck to all here.
Thanks for your worldly view on Libertarianism below is U.S.A. Libertarian Party related information. Thanks.
The Current Libertarian Party in the U.S..
Home | Libertarian Party (lp.org)
Libertarian Party, U.S. political party devoted to the principles of libertarianism. It supports the rights of individuals to exercise virtual sole authority over their lives and sets itself against the traditional services and regulatory and coercive powers of federal, state, and local governments.
The Libertarian Party was established in Westminster, Colorado, in 1971 and fielded its first candidate for the presidency in the next year’s elections. In 1980 it achieved its height of success when it was on the ballot in all 50 states, and its presidential candidate, Edward E. Clark, a California lawyer, received 921,199 votes. Although this vote represented only about 1 percent of the national total, it was enough to make the Libertarian Party the third largest political party in the United States. Libertarian candidates ran in every subsequent presidential election, and several of its members were elected to local and state office, particularly in the West. Though subsequently the party failed to match its 1980 total, its presidential candidates consistently attracted hundreds of thousands of votes, and from 1992 the party consistently secured ballot access in all 50 states. In 2000 the party contested a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, and though it captured no seats, its candidates combined to win 1.7 million votes. The party maintains a national office in Washington, D.C., and has affiliates in every state. The Cato Institute, a public-policy research organization, was founded in 1977 in part by prominent members of the Libertarian Party.
In opposing the purported right of the state “to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor,” the Libertarian Party contends that a completely free market is a necessary economic condition for prosperity and liberty. To this end most Libertarians call for the repeal of personal and corporate income taxes; the replacement of most government-provided services, including Social Security and the post office, with private and voluntary arrangements; the repeal of regulations, including minimum wage and gun-control laws; and the dismantling of all regulatory bodies that do not promote freely contracted trade. In supporting an individual’s “right to liberty of speech and action,” the Libertarian Party opposes all forms of censorship, insists on the right to keep and bear firearms, and defends the choice of abortion. Noting that “the initiation of force against others” constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, the Libertarian Party supports the prosecution of criminal violence and fraud but also advocates the repeal of laws against such “victimless” crimes as gambling, drug use, and prostitution.
Libertarian Party principles are incorporated into its platforms, which are established at semiannual conventions of national party officers and delegates from state affiliates. To direct the ongoing functions of the party, convention delegates elect an 18-member Libertarian National Committee, composed of a chairperson and 3 other officers, 5 at-large members, and 9 regional representatives. Presidential candidates are elected by a simple majority of convention delegates. The party publishes a number of pamphlets and newsletters, including the Libertarian Party News (monthly).
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, which seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. The central philosophical issue is not individuality versus community, but rather consent versus coercion.
Libertarianism has deep roots in Western thought. A central feature of the religious and intellectual traditions of ancient Israel and ancient Greece was the idea of a higher moral law that applied universally and constrained the powers of even kings and governments. Libertarianism also was influenced by debates within Scholasticism on slavery and private property.
Libertarian Party (United States) - Wikipedia
Platform[edit]
The preamble outlines the party's goals: "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. [...] Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands". Its Statement of Principles begins: "We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual". The Statement of Principles is foundational to the ideology of the party and was created specifically to bind the party to certain core principles with a high parliamentary burden for any amendment.[65]
The platform emphasizes individual liberty in personal and economic affairs, avoidance of "foreign entanglements" and military and economic intervention in other nations' affairs, and free trade and migration. The party opposes gun control. It calls for Constitutional limitations on government as well as the elimination of most state functions. It includes a "Self-determination" section which quotes from the Declaration of Independence and reads: "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty". It also includes an "Omissions" section which reads: "Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval".[66]
The party favors minimally regulated markets, a less powerful federal government, strong civil liberties (including LGBT rights, with the party supporting same-sex marriage), the liberalization of drug laws, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations, free trade and free movement to all foreign countries and a more representative republic.[66] In 2018, the Libertarian Party became the first in the United States to call for the decriminalization of sex work.[67] The party since 2022 has no official stance on abortion.[68]
The Statement of Principles was written by John Hospers.[69] The Libertarian Party's bylaws specify that a 7/8ths supermajority of delegates is required to change the Statement of Principles.[70] Any proposed platform plank found by the Judicial Committee to conflict with the Statement requires approval by a three-fourths supermajority of delegates.[71] Early platform debates included at the second convention whether to support tax resistance and at the 1974 convention whether to support anarchism. In both cases, a compromise was reached.[72]
What Happened?: The 2020 election showed that libertarians have a long way to go before they can become a national movement. | USAPP (lse.ac.uk)
In the 2020 presidential election, the Libertarian Party candidate, Jo Jorgensen, gained 1.2 percent of the vote, less than half the party’s 2016 election result. Jeffrey Michels and Olivier Lewis write that despite signs that pointed towards the potential for libertarian voters to be king makers in the 2020 election, their dislike of Donald Trump turned many to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.
• Following the 2020 US General Election, our mini-series,?‘What Happened?’, explores aspects of elections at the presidential, Senate, House of Representative and state levels, and also reflects on what the election results will mean for US politics moving forward. If you are interested in contributing, please contact Rob Ledger (ledger@em.uni-frankfurt.de) or Peter Finn (p.finn@kingston.ac.uk).
In the 2016 US Presidential election, the former Republican Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson gained 3.3 percent of the national vote share, the highest on record for a Libertarian Party presidential candidate. This modest milestone could have been written off as the result of a race featuring two highly unpopular mainstream candidates, Donald Trump and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. But it might also have portended a more meaningful movement in US electoral politics, one in which a growing Libertarian Party – or at least an increasingly independent bloc of libertarian voters – gains the critical mass to tip the race. In fiercely competitive bipartisan contests, protests voters could position themselves as power brokers.
The Libertarian Party and the 2020 election
When we entertained this possibility during the primary season, plenty of signs were pointing to another strong result for the Libertarian Party. The frontrunners of the Democratic Party primaries were relatively radical candidates like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who were proposing a new push of state intervention in the economy – anathema of course to libertarian ideology. Meanwhile, Trump’s dominance of the Republic Party was unquestioned, blocking any attempt to move the party away from the incumbent’s brand of blunt nativism. And the one Republican House Representative, Justin Amash, who did dare question this dominance – and in doing so became a minor cult hero – threw in his hat for the Libertarian Party ticket.
But then, a lot changed. Democrats rallied behind moderate former Vice-President Joe Biden, while Libertarians chose Jo Jorgensen, a familiar face within the party but a stranger beyond it. The COVID-19 pandemic then rendered impossible the in-person canvassing necessary to raise Jorgensen’s profile. And it left little place for libertarian discourse in public debate. In the run up to the election, the question was not whether government intervention was justifiable, but rather how much and what kind was needed.
As a result, in Libertarian candidates finished with just under 1.2 percent of the vote in the 2020 election, losing nearly two-thirds of their share compared to 2016.
Did the 2020 ‘setback’ confirm that the Libertarian spike of 2016 was not a sign but a fluke? Looking at the bigger picture, was it rash to consider that libertarian voters could become kingmakers in US Presidential elections?
Libertarians were not 2020 spoilers
One straightforward response was put forth immediately after the election by commentators and politicians who argued that the Libertarian Party nonetheless decided the election, “spoiling” a Republican victory. Despite underperforming relative to the previous election, Jo Jorgenson’s ticket still was the second-best result in Libertarian Party history, and it was enough to cover the difference between Trump and Biden in several swing states.
This “spoiler” argument rests on the false assumption that voters of the Libertarian Party, and more generally voters whose identification with libertarian values rivals their loyalty to any particular party, belong, in the end, to the GOP. It was precisely the extent to which this assumption was false that provides a key to answering the questions set out above. The Republican Party showed in 2016 that its turn to Trump could cost it a large portion of voters to a Libertarian Party protest ticket. Doubling down on Trump in 2020, the GOP proved it could push the lion’s share of these same voters into the enemy camp, assuring its defeat.
I lean more so to the Libertarian Party not the main two parties snd some reason no one wishes to believe my own words here that I have to deal with the two sad Parties in power here as the norm. You folks seem to prefer it that way, I simply do not and I do not like certain posters putting words in my mouth. I wish American’s serving our Government for us would cut spending but posters here seem to think everything is just hunky dory. It is not snd spending cuts are needed for this Country to continue to be as such. Foreign payments every year to Counties where is that in our Constitution???? It’s not in there but has become the norm. Needs to go away altogether. But it’s not popular. Do we continue to spend money on things we do not need to. If you do not understand wasteful spending this conversation is pointless.
Math does not care how dumb we are pal. Numbers do not lie. But some folks sure do here.
Again Zab, Republican’s are NOT my Party. In your head too much buddy. Sad you are. All these folks you name are just noise to the reality which is our modern day sad Government. You live it so you must agree to spending our way into oblivion. I do not agree with your point of view regardless of what Party you bow down to here. It’s wrong regardless and totally irresponsible to keep spending money we do not have and never will have to spend it.
Again not my policies. Read math is not political one more time here. Read a book will you!!!!!
You are exactly why folks never listen to any reality. Math does not lie folks. You can tax all the billionaires until you are blue in the face it does not matter until you cut spending. Period. It’s simple math which obviously the posters on here cannot follow. This is why speaking facts here and to the American public does no good. We all want to feel good. Well fine the. Go out and feel fine in your soon to be dissolved Country. Fools all of you are.
Let’s do some math folks as math is apolitical. Representative Schweikert's from Arizona on the House floor the other day worth a view and understand what he is stating folks.
Geez I guess than your team is the same. By the way check the laws borders are Federal crimes not a Texas crime. Only reason Texas has to act is because your boy Joey will not. Hence 5.3 million illegal entries into our Country on little Joey’s watch your boy. And over 1.2 million got always which means no one know who they are, not even you so maybe you’ll get a knock on your door tonight from Pedro!!!
Sorry it’s a Federal issue but made a State issue due to your fearless brainless leader.
Read a law once in awhile and you will slowly get it. Read aloud and slowly it may help you get it!!!!!
But of course they are. To you. End of that story. Hey!!
I beg to differ as I am not an expert on what you state here at all. I am a very simple common sense type of person. I have no ideas about such creatures and hold no opinion and if I had one it would not be something to share as again not an expert in such things.
No. Not my butt is how I know.
Ok then wait for the full story to be known here and we will simply see here together. Ain’t that pretty!!!!
Trust me I am not telling everyone or anyone to do Jack here. Just want those with the seemingly limited news sources to know there are safer choices out there versus their medias pushing the genetic changing types is all. Do what you all want to hear or do nothing up to you grown ups here to do or not as you wish to. Geez glad I can help you all blow off your steam at my expense here. Thank you all.
And somehow I care about the cost of tea in China? WTF are you talking about here Biden!!!!
Also of late the CDC is issuing the use of new booster vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer for six years and up to be taken to prevent sickness resulting from their latest fashioned virus going around. Bear in mind there is nothing related to a large percentage of children within our nation that never had the original vaccine, so booster is no good to them. Oh well details, details you know always lacking, just like those who have recently come off from having COVID lately no notation to them that they do not require to get a vaccine now due to their immunity from just having recovered from it. Details, details you know always missing just so you get your next genetic made shots. By the way the alternative here is Novavax which is approved as well but is not of the MRNA type but rather like or made as all of our original older form of vaccines that are protein based, seems they want us all to get the genetic shots not the safer ones, oh well details, details keep getting in the way here about these multiple virus fears and scares. Oh well that is our today's CDC hard at it as usual.
So not really sure what you do for your news here but again this board likes the news it agrees with all the time so you have that out there right out the gate. But besides telling us all masks help and now knowing that they have zero affect for these viruses here is some items below you perhaps did not know about. Gain of function research lying to congress and then one month later the NIH affirming that was in fact the case, you must have missed those items hey. Alot out there for you to read if one has the time and from multiple sources so please do not take my word on it these just simply exist in our world as is.
Not sure where you have been over these past years this is all old news except the latest from the CIA payments to folks to change their tune on their decisions over creation of this virus via whistleblower testimony.
Documents Provide New Evidence U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research (theintercept.com)
NIH DOCUMENTS PROVIDE NEW EVIDENCE U.S. FUNDED GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH IN WUHAN
U.S.-funded experiment in China posed biosafety risks but did not cause Covid-19 pandemic, scientists say.
Sharon Lerner, Mara Hvistendahl, Maia Hibbett
September 9 2021, 9:03 p.m.
DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY The Intercept contain new evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the nearby Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, along with their collaborator, the U.S.-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, have engaged in what the U.S. government defines as “gain-of-function research of concern,” intentionally making viruses more pathogenic or transmissible in order to study them, despite stipulations from a U.S. funding agency that the money not be used for that purpose.
Grant money for the controversial experiment came from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci. The award to EcoHealth Alliance, a research organization which studies the spread of viruses from animals to humans, included subawards to Wuhan Institute of Virology and East China Normal University. The principal investigator on the grant is EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, who has been a key voice in the search for Covid-19’s origins.
Scientists unanimously told The Intercept that the experiment, which involved infecting genetically engineered mice with “chimeric” hybrid viruses, could not have directly sparked the pandemic. None of the viruses listed in the write-ups of the experiment are related to the virus that causes Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, closely enough to have evolved into it. Still, several scientists said the new information, which the NIH released after it was sued by The Intercept, points to biosafety concerns, highlighting a general lack of oversight for research on pathogens and raising questions about what other information has not been publicly disclosed.
“As a virologist, I personally think creating chimeras of SARS-related bat coronaviruses that are thought to pose high risk to humans entails unacceptable risks,” said Jesse Bloom, who studies the evolution of viruses at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, is a disease caused, like Covid-19, by an airborne coronavirus.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci listens during a briefing on the coronavirus pandemic at the White House on March 26, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The experiment also raises questions about assertions from Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins that NIH-funded projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology did not involve gain-of-function research. In May, Fauci testified before Congress: “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” The documents do not establish whether Fauci was directly aware of the work.
Scientists working under a 2014 NIH grant to the EcoHealth Alliance to study bat coronaviruses combined the genetic material from a “parent” coronavirus known as WIV1 with other viruses. They twice submitted summaries of their work that showed that, when in the lungs of genetically engineered mice, three altered bat coronaviruses at times reproduced far more quickly than the original virus on which they were based. The altered viruses were also somewhat more pathogenic, with one causing the mice to lose significant weight. The researchers reported, “These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.”
But the terms of the grant clearly stipulated that the funding could not be used for gain-of-function experiments. The grant conditions also required the researchers to immediately report potentially dangerous results and stop their experiments pending further NIH review. According to both the EcoHealth Alliance and NIH, the results were reported to the agency, but NIH determined that rules designed to restrict gain-of-function research did not apply.
The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH’s criteria for gain-of-function research.
One said that the experiment “absolutely does not meet the bar” for gain-of-function research. “You can’t predict that these viruses would be more pathogenic, or even pathogenic at all in people,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist with the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan. “They also did not study transmissibility at all in these experiments,” meaning that the scientists did not look at whether the viruses could spread across a population.
Three experts said that, while they did not have enough knowledge of U.S. policies to comment on whether the research met NIH criteria, the experiment involving humanized mice was unnecessarily risky.
One virologist, Vincent Racaniello, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, said while he considered the mouse experiment described in the document to clearly fall into the gain-of-function category, he didn’t see it as problematic. “You can do some kinds of gain-of-function research that then has unforeseen consequences and may be a problem, but that’s not the case here,” said Racaniello.
Robert Kessler, communications manager for EcoHealth Alliance, denied that the work on the humanized mice met the definition of gain-of-function research. Kessler insisted that bat viruses are not potential pandemic pathogens because, he said, “a bat virus is not known to be able to infect humans.” The proposal justified the work on WIV1 by explaining that it is “not a select agent” — referring to a list of closely monitored toxins and biological agents that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health — and “has not been shown to cause human infections, and has not been shown to be transmissible between humans.”
But the group’s bat coronavirus research was focused on the very threat that bat viruses pose to people. Kessler did acknowledge that, while the original bat coronavirus in the experiment did not spread among humans, the research was designed to gauge how bat coronaviruses could evolve to infect humans.
All but two of the scientists consulted agreed that, whatever title it is given, the newly public experiment raised serious concerns about the safety and oversight of federally funded research. “In my point of view, the debate about the definition of ‘gain-of-function’ has been too much focused on technical aspects,” said Jacques van Helden, a professor of bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille Université. “The real question is whether or not research has the potential to create or facilitate the selection of viruses that might infect humans.” The experiments described in the proposal clearly do have that potential, he said.
NIH spokesperson Elizabeth Deatrick said that the agency had considered the research — and decided not to restrict it under its own rules. “In 2016, NIAID determined that the work was not subject to the Gain-of-Function (GoF) research funding pause and the subsequent HHS P3CO Framework,” Deatrick wrote, referring to criteria put in place in 2017 to guide the agency’s funding decisions about research that involves, or is reasonably anticipated to involve, potential pandemic pathogens.
Origins of Covid
Republican members of Congress have alleged, without sufficient evidence, that gain-of-function research in Wuhan sparked the coronavirus pandemic. As part of an inquiry into the origins of the pandemic, they have twice grilled Fauci in Congress on his role as NIAID director.
In a heated exchange in July, Republican Sen. Rand Paul accused Fauci of lying when he claimed that NIH did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Experts now say that the documents support the contention that NIH funded gain-of-function work, though not in the specific instance where Paul alleged it. “There’s no question,” said Racaniello, of Columbia University, who pointed to the decreased weight of the mice infected with the chimeric viruses that was described in the research summaries sent to NIH. “From the weight loss, it’s gain of function. Tony Fauci is wrong saying it’s not.”
But the documents do not prove Paul’s claim that Fauci was lying, as they do not make clear whether Fauci read them. Nor do they in any way support Paul’s allegation that Fauci was “responsible for 4 million people around the world dying of a pandemic” — or that anyone intentionally caused Covid-19. What is clear is that program officers at NIAID, the agency that Fauci oversees, did know about the research.
A paragraph describing the research, as well as two figures illustrating its results, were included in both a 2018 progress report on the bat coronavirus grant and an application for its 2019 renewal. And NIH confirmed that it reviewed them.
“NIH has never approved any research that would make a coronavirus more dangerous to humans,” the agency said in a statement, echoing remarks by Collins, the NIH director, posted to its website in May. “The research we supported in China, where coronaviruses are prevalent, sought to understand the behavior of coronaviruses circulating in bats that have the potential to cause widespread disease.” Similar research funded by NIH had aided in the development of vaccines against the coronavirus, the statement continued.
The White House did not respond to questions about the research.
Shifting Definitions, Growing Viral Load
The humanized mouse experiment fits with the overall goal of the $3.1 million grant, which was titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” and aimed at preventing a pandemic by predicting the circumstances under which a bat coronavirus could evolve to infect humans. The researchers took an ambitious three-pronged approach: screening people with high exposure to wildlife, mathematical modeling, and lab experiments on viruses. Peter Daszak, the EcoHealth Alliance president, has worked closely with scientists in China for years, and roughly $750,000 of the grant was allocated for the Wuhan Institute of Virology. An additional nearly $300,000 went to East China Normal University, where researchers did field sampling.
In a 2005 paper, Daszak’s team showed that the first SARS virus originated in bats. Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, is caused by a coronavirus that emerged in 2012 and also believed to come from bats, which are now a prime target for virologists trying to understand and combat emerging diseases. Daszak has long maintained that his research is critical to preventing outbreaks.
But the research on the bat viruses in Wuhan showed that infecting live animals with altered viruses can have unpredictable consequences. A report to NIH on the project’s progress in the year ending in May 2018 described scientists creating new coronaviruses by changing parts of WIV1 and exposing genetically engineered mice to the new chimeric viruses. Research published in 2017 in the journal PLOS Pathogen showed that, in cells in a laboratory, similar chimeric viruses reproduced less effectively than the original. NIH cited that research as one of the reasons the moratorium on gain-of-function research of concern didn’t apply to this experiment. “It was a loss of function, not a gain of function,” the email from NIH explained. (NIH also pointed out that the changes to the chimeric viruses “would not be anticipated to increase virulence or transmissibility in humans.”)
Inside the lungs of the humanized mice, however, the novel viruses appear to have reproduced far more quickly than the original virus that was used to create them, according to a bar graph shown in the documents. The viral load in the lung tissue of the mice was, at certain points, up to 10,000 times higher in the mice infected with the altered viruses than in those infected with WIV1. According to Deatrick, the NIH spokesperson, the difference in the rates of viral reproduction — which were particularly pronounced two and four days after the mice were infected with the virus — didn’t amount to gain of function because, by the end of the experiment, the amount of virus produced by the parent and chimeric strains evened out. “Viral titers were equivalent by the end of the experimental time-course,” Deatrick wrote. The email also said, “NIH supports this type of research to better understand the characteristics of animal viruses that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease.”
Scientists The Intercept consulted expressed differing views on whether the increase in viral load could be translated to an increase in transmissibility, which relies on the virus’s ability to replicate. To some, the jump in viral load indicated that the modified RNA virus could replicate far more rapidly than the original in the lungs of the mice, likely leading to increased pathogenicity and spread. Rasmussen, of the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, pointed out that viral load is not identical to reproduction rate, noting: “This shows the chimeric viruses replicated a little faster, but that tells us exactly nothing about transmissibility. Furthermore, WIV1 caught up by the end of the experiment. We see differences in the rate of viral replication all the time, but it is often not directly correlated with pathogenicity.”
Another figure in the documents suggests that at least one of the altered viruses not only enhanced viral reproduction, but also caused the humanized mice to lose more weight than those exposed to the original virus — a measure of the severity of illness.
A graph from a report on NIH-funded research in Wuhan shows viral load in lung tissues of humanized mice.
NIH requires the increase in viral reproduction to be immediately reported, according to a note in the Notice of Award the agency issued in July 2016. “No funds are provided and no funds can be used to support gain-of-function research covered under the October 17, 2014 White House Announcement,” the note said. If any new MERS-like or SARS-like chimeras show “enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log over the parental backbone strain,” the note continued, the researchers were instructed to stop all experiments with the viruses and send the data to NIAID grant specialists, as well as to the Wuhan Institute of Virology biosafety committee. The enhanced growth of the chimeric coronaviruses in the humanized mice was, at one point, up to 4 log greater — or 10,000 times — the rate of the original virus. But there are no indications the research was stopped.
In fact, the bat coronavirus grant was renewed for a five-year period in 2019, although the Trump administration suspended funding in April 2020 amid the Covid-19 pandemic and spiraling concerns about its origins. (Funding was later reinstated but under strict conditions that Daszak said were impossible for his group to meet.)
Kessler, EcoHealth Alliance’s communications manager, also pointed to the fact that the grant was renewed in 2019 — after EcoHealth Alliance had twice submitted documents detailing the experiment — as evidence that the organization did nothing wrong. “If there had been any violations, they would not have done so,” he said.
Long History of Controversy
The practice of making chimeric viruses in order to study how they might become more contagious was under scrutiny long before the pandemic. Proponents of such gain-of-function research argued that it can help virologists better understand and defend against natural outbreaks. But critics said that they were unreasonably dangerous.
In October 2014, the federal government put a moratorium on funding gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens that could be “reasonably anticipated” to lead to spread in humans, as outlined in a 2017 guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 2017, the moratorium was lifted and replaced with new guidelines for oversight of research using potential pandemic pathogens. The grantees reported that the humanized mouse experiment was done between June 2017 and May 2018. Gain-of-function research was thrust into the spotlight again in 2020, amid speculation that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had conducted such research and that it was somehow linked to the pandemic.
While the new information about the research on humanized mice does not provide the “smoking gun” for proponents of what has become known as the “lab leak theory,” it lends the hypothesis credence, according to Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology who directs the developmental biology laboratory at New York Medical College. “Making chimeric coronaviruses, mixing and matching RBDs [a part of the virus that allows it to attach to receptors] and spike proteins is exactly the scenario imagined by many lab-leak scenario proponents,” said Newman. “The fact that this was an established research paradigm in the Wuhan lab … definitely makes the laboratory origin more plausible.”
The documents about the research were released by NIH after The Intercept submitted a Freedom of Information Act request in September 2020, later suing to have it fulfilled. The request sought copies of these and other grant proposals that Daszak submitted to the agency, as well as the agency’s communications about the proposals. NIH originally denied The Intercept’s request on the grounds that releasing Daszak’s proposals would undermine an ongoing investigation. Counsel for the agency later admitted that NIH had not reviewed many of the records before making that assertion.
“The contents of the grants raise serious questions about the review processes and oversight relating to risky pathogen research,” said Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and co-author of the upcoming book “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.” The new information in the documents warrants further inquiry into whether researchers may have omitted information about other concerning experiments, she said. “The question is: What else did they do in more recent years that we’re not aware of?”
In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan | Vanity Fair
In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan
A spokesman for Dr. Fauci says he has been “entirely truthful,” but a new letter belatedly acknowledging the National Institutes of Health’s support for virus-enhancing research adds more heat to the ongoing debate over whether a lab leak could have sparked the pandemic.
BY KATHERINE EBAN
OCTOBER 22, 2021
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases on April 13, 2021. .
“I totally resent the lie you are now propagating.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared to be channeling the frustration of millions of Americans when he spoke those words during an invective-laden, made-for-Twitter Senate hearing on July 20. You didn’t have to be a Democrat to be fed up with all the xenophobic finger-pointing and outright disinformation, coming mainly from the right, up to and including the claim that COVID-19 was a bioweapon cooked up in a lab.
The immediate target of Dr. Fauci’s wrath was Senator Rand Paul, who was pressing the nation’s top doctor to say whether the National Institutes of Health had ever funded risky coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Based on new information disclosed by the National Institutes of Health, however, Paul might have been onto something.
On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold.
The NIH based these disclosures on a research progress report that EcoHealth Alliance sent to the agency in August, roughly two years after it was supposed to. An NIH spokesperson told Vanity Fair that Dr. Fauci was “entirely truthful in his statements to Congress,” and that he did not have the progress report that detailed the controversial research at the time he testified in July. But EcoHealth Alliance appeared to contradict that claim, and said in a statement: “These data were reported as soon as we were made aware, in our year four report in April 2018.”
The letter from the NIH, and an accompanying analysis, stipulated that the virus EcoHealth Alliance was researching could not have sparked the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, given the sizable genetic differences between the two. In a statement issued Wednesday, NIH director Dr. Francis Collins said that his agency “wants to set the record straight” on EcoHealth Alliance’s research, but added that any claims that it could have caused the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are “demonstrably false.”
EcoHealth Alliance said in a statement that the science clearly proved that its research could not have led to the pandemic, and that it was “working with the NIH to promptly address what we believe to be a misconception about the grant’s reporting requirements and what the data from our research showed.”
But the NIH letter—coming after months of congressional demands for more information—seemed to underscore that America’s premier science institute has been less than forthcoming about risky research it has funded and failed to properly monitor. Instead of helping to lead a search for COVID-19’s origins, with the pandemic now firmly in its 19th month, the NIH has circled the wagons, defending its grant system and scientific judgment against a rising tide of questions. “It’s just another chapter in a sad tale of inadequate oversight, disregard for risk, and insensitivity to the importance of transparency,” said Stanford microbiologist Dr. David Relman. “Given all of the sensitivity about this work, it’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have still not explained a number of irregularities with the reporting on this grant.”
The disclosures of the last four months—since Vanity Fair was first to detail how conflicts of interest resulting from U.S. government funding of controversial virology research hampered America’s investigation into COVID-19’s origins—present an increasingly disturbing picture.
Early last month, The Intercept published more than 900 pages of documents it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the NIH, relating to EcoHealth Alliance’s grant research. But there was one document missing, a fifth and final progress report that EcoHealth Alliance had been required to submit at the end of its grant period in 2019.
In its letter Wednesday, NIH included that missing progress report, which was dated August 2021. That report described a “limited experiment,” as the NIH letter phrased it, in which laboratory mice infected with an altered virus became “sicker than those infected with” a naturally occurring one.
The letter did not mention the phrase “gain-of-function research” that has become so central to the bitter clashes over COVID-19’s origins. That type of controversial research—the manipulation of pathogens with the aim of making them more infectious in order to gauge their risk to humans—has divided the virology community. A review system established in 2017 requires federal agencies to particularly scrutinize any research proposals that involve enhancing a pathogen’s infectiousness to humans.
Dr. Fauci’s spokesperson told Vanity Fair that EcoHealth Alliance’s research did not fall under that framework, since the experiments being funded “were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence in humans.”
However, Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and coauthor of the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19, said the NIH was in a “very challenging position. They funded research internationally to help study novel pathogens and prevent against them. But they had no way to know what viruses had been collected, what experiments had been conducted, and what accidents might have occurred.”
As scientists remain in a stalemate over the pandemic’s origins, another disclosure last month made clear that EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was aiming to do the kind of research that could accidentally have led to the pandemic. On September 20, a group of internet sleuths calling themselves DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) released a leaked $14 million grant proposal that EcoHealth Alliance had submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
It proposed partnering with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and constructing SARS-related bat coronaviruses into which they would insert “human-specific cleavage sites” as a way to “evaluate growth potential” of the pathogens. Perhaps not surprisingly, DARPA rejected the proposal, assessing that it failed to fully address the risks of gain-of-function research.
The leaked grant proposal struck a number of scientists and researchers as significant for one reason. One distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic code is a furin cleavage site that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells. That is just the feature that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology had proposed to engineer in the 2018 grant proposal. “If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect,” said Jamie Metzl, a former executive vice president of the Asia Society, who sits on the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing and has been calling for a transparent investigation into COVID-19’s origins.
The claims of a lab origin, made without evidence in April 2020 by President Donald Trump, have turned into a legitimate, long-haul hunt for the truth that even U.S. intelligence agencies cannot seem to determine. This summer an intelligence review ordered by President Joe Biden drew no definitive conclusions but left open the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
The NIH’s letter to Congress stated that the agency is giving EcoHealth five days to submit any unpublished data from the experiments it funded. Republican leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, who in June asked the NIH to demand such data, said in a statement Wednesday that “it’s unacceptable that the NIH delayed asking EcoHealth Alliance to submit unpublished data about risky research that they were required to under the terms of their grant.”
Meanwhile, members of the DRASTIC coalition have continued their research. As one member, Gilles Demaneuf, a data scientist in New Zealand, told Vanity Fair, “I cannot be sure that [COVID-19 originated from] a research-related accident or infection from a sampling trip. But I am 100% sure there was a massive cover-up.”
Latest news about CIA paying off decision making on where this virus originated. Six of Seven in the test group stated it came from a lab and their leader said it did not. This payment to the six lab thinkers was to change their mind to the data is not reliable to make any determination. Fauci involved in this as well folks.
https://www.westernjournal.com/cia-whistleblowers-devastating-testimony-spooks-paid-off-analysts-suppress-wuhan-origins-covid/?utm_source=site&utm_medium=MSN&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=2023-09-12
https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/cia-tried-to-pay-off-analysts-to-bury-covid-lab-leak-findings-whistleblower/
Sorry Teach will try to do better, give me an "F" then and go home happy!!!! That you have made the attempt at destroying another human being and put the notch on your belt, good job boy.
I guess you never have met experts or academics who were found out to be wrong or incorrect on things of recent past. Doctor Fauci comes to mind right off the bat. But as for Colorado and the 14th Amendment issue they have come up with again due to hatred of one person, their interpretation of this Amendment is incorrectly being applied in my reading of it and the understanding of it. What was done was not an insurrection, this did not rise to the level of this word. That is the word within the Amendment. My interpretation is not the same as the folks in this State. Not sure what they are smoking there but perhaps clearer heads pardon the pun will prevail there once the smoke clears, pardon the pun again.
Again another extremist comment about something you have incorrect thinking about. I was simply pointing out that Amendment 14 Section 3 which was passed in 1868 and used certain language and wording that I looked up what their meanings were at the time period in history and stated such on my post. Why again a Liberal goes to an extreme position here not knowing your limits due to be blinded by hatred. I do not promote anything here related to being violent so do not with your extremist position put your words into my mouth. Your extremist post is what is wrong with this Country. Put everyone in jail you disagree with versus having a conversation of ideas. Sorry that you got rattled to this extreme position, but I think you were already there without my help. Chill pill time perhaps.
Sorry but these are two totally different situations here. Does not really deserve a reply. Read a book called "Triple Cross" by Peter Lance and about Mohamed Ali whom the CIA/FBI had in their hands and let him disappear prior to 9/11.
These terrorists killed anyone in their path. the Jan. 6th acts does not rise to the killing done on 9/11 at all in any comparison.
Again a Liberal point of view taken to the extreme because you folks do not know or understand limits of where you all go with your brain and decent conversation.
Also the flight school who notified the authorities that these terrorists now known did not want to learn to take off or land the aircraft during their training. So many things were known way ahead of time that no action was taken on by our great secret service/CIA/FBI they looked the other way. Sorry to say.
Sedition is not against the 14th Amendment as it is written. Insurrection is. Simple enough now? What occurred was Sedition if it were an insurrection millions of supporters would have been present and it was less than 700 who violated the law here known as Sedition. An insurrection is similar to a mutiny whereas more than half the ships crew takes over or attempts to take over the ship. Numbers here from this day are far from any insurrection, which is the violation per the 14th Amendment. Sedition is the violation. Again as I read the proper definition of each, they are not the same thing. That’s all I am saying here. You all can read and misinterpret it your way as well.
I do not need to convince others here as to what words actually mean when applied correctly, that is up to the modern day smarter than thou attorneys to figure out what anyone who does very little research finds from history. I did not create their meanings here but they are what they are back when this law was created. How the folks today like the easy way out due to their prejudices is not my issue. I know what the reality is and what they have decided to do is inaccurate here. So be it. Could careless how they apply or convince folks otherwise. Many people today misinterpret things every day no time to read is the issue which gets us all back to poor educational systems in place today. Thanks for your comments here as I assume you agree with the majority of non readers of history and these newly created hanging crews of justice that simply love their powers.
Insurrection and Sedition are two separate words and mean differing things. Insurrection in the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary which was the meaning of the word prior to the passing of the 14th Amendment in 1868, not the meaning as shown in today’s version of Webster’s and the intertwine both words into one meaning, they were never meant to be the same meaning. Jan. 6tth and the folks that stormed the Capital were less than (700) people not even close to the voting public of 70 plus million who cast their votes for this person. Armed insurrection where no weapons in the group were used or fired see article below. A real insurrection would have millions of supporters descending on the Capital which did not happen less than 700 were there that were violators which in fact makes this a week Sedition case at best. Words have meaning and again at the time of the passing of this law these were the definitions and meanings that were to be used for implementation of these laws, not today’s version of what they think these meant back in 1828. Sorry but Insurrection is not Sedition and Sedition is not Insurrection. Sedition is not stated in the 14th Amendment Section 3 at all. Thanks for playing.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Sedition
Sedition SEDI'TION, noun. [Latin seditio. The sense of this word is the contrary of that which is naturally deducible from sedo, or sedeo, denoting a rising or raging, rather than an appeasing. But to set is really to throw down, to drive, and sedition may be a setting or rushing together.] A factious commotion of the people, a tumultuous assembly of men rising in opposition to law or the administration of justice, and in disturbance of the public peace. sedition is a rising or commotion of less extent than an insurrection, and both are less than rebellion; but some kinds of sedition in Great Britain, amount to high treason. In general, sedition is a local or limited insurrection in opposition to civil authority, as mutiny is to military.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Insurrection
Insurrection INSURREC'TION, noun [Latin insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.]
1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.
It is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. Ezra 4:19.
2. A rising in mass to oppose an enemy. [Little Used.]
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
• Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Amdt14.S3.1 Overview of Disqualification Clause
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals.1 In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.2 Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed
'Armed insurrection': What weapons did the Capitol rioters carry?
by Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent
October 11, 2021 06:00 PM
Newsletters
Recently, Scott MacFarlane, an NBC4 reporter in Washington who covers the Capitol riot prosecutions, tweeted, "As of tonight at least 65 of the Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with 'entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.' A counterpunch to those who argued this didn't appear like 'an armed insurrection.'"
It was just a tweet, which, by definition, can't contain much information, but it left open the question: What weapons did they have? What were the arms in the "armed insurrection"?
The Justice Department maintains a website listing the defendants and the federal charges against them in the sprawling Jan. 6 investigation. At this moment, about 670 people have been charged, many of them with misdemeanors such as "Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building."
Of the cases involving weapons, there are four main charges: "Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon"; "Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon"; "Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon"; and "Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon."
Going through the Justice Department site, as well as some media databases, I counted 82 defendants who have been charged with at least one of those offenses. It's possible I missed a few, but I think they represent the vast majority of those who face weapons-related charges in the Capitol riot investigation. In each charge, prosecutors have specified the weapon the defendant is accused of using. Below is a list of all the defendants, and all the weapons:
DEFENDANT WEAPON
ALAM, Zachary Jordan Helmet
ALBERTS, Christopher Michael Handgun (Alberts was arrested after the riot was over, at 7:25 p.m., on a street near the Capitol and was accused of having a firearm.)
BALLARD, Thomas John Police baton
BARNETT, Richard Stun gun, walking stick
BARNHART, Logan James Baton, flagpole, crutch
BLACK, Joshua Matthew Knife
BLAIR, David Alan Flagpole, knife
BROCKHOFF, Nicholas James Fire extinguisher
BYERLY, Alan William Taser
CALDWELL, Daniel Ray Pepper or mace spray
CAPUCCIO, Steven Baton
CHRESTMAN, William Ax handle
COFFEE, Luke Russell Crutch
COFFMAN, Lonnie Leroy Multiple firearms (Coffman is not charged with being on Capitol grounds; allegedly had two guns on his person, plus firearms in his truck parked on 1st Street SE in Washington D.C.)
COPELAND, Landon Kenneth Metal fence
CUA, Bruno Joseph Baton
DEMPSEY, David Nicholas Crutch, metal pole, "lacrimal spray," and "club-like object"
EISENHART, Lisa Marie Taser
FAIRLAMB, Scott Kevin Baton
FOY, Michael Joseph Hockey stick
GIESWEIN, Robert Baseball bat, "aerosol irritant spray"
GOSSJANKOWSKI, Vitali Taser
HARKRIDER, Alex Kirk Tomahawk ax
IBRAHIM, Mark Sami Firearm
JACKSON, Emanuel Metal baseball bat
JAMES, Aaron Shield
JENKINS, Shane Leedon Tomahawk ax, flagpole, desk drawer, and "stick-like objects"
JENSEN, Douglas Austin Knife
JOHNSON, Paul Russell Metal crowd control barrier
JONES, Chad Barrett Flagpole
JUDD, David Lee Firecracker
KHATER, Julian Elie Chemical spray (Accused of attacking Officer Brian Sicknick)
KLEIN, Federico Guillermo Shield
KRAMER, Philip Edward Snowboarding helmet, walking cane, Master Lock, climbing rope
LANG, Edward Jacob Bat, shield
LANGUERAND, Nicholas Traffic barrier, "stick-like objects"
LAZAR, Samuel Chemical irritant
MCABEE, Ronald Colton Baton, flagpole, crutch, and "reinforced gloves"
MCCAUGHEY, Patrick E. III Shield
MCGREW, James Burton Pole
MCHUGH, Sean Michael Bear spray, "metal sign"
MCKELLOP, Jeffrey Flagpole
MEREDITH, Cleveland Grover Jr. Firearms (Meredith arrived in Washington after the riot was over but was charged with having three guns in his possession.)
MELLIS, Jonathan Gennaro Stick
MILLER, Matthew Ryan Fire extinguisher
MINK, Jorden Robert Baseball bat
MUNAFO, Jonathan Joshua Flagpole
MUNCHEL, Eric Taser
NEEFE, Marshall Wooden club, "metal sign frame"
NICHOLS, Ryan Taylor Crowbar, pepper spray
OWENS, Grady Douglas Skateboard
PADILLA, Joseph Lino Flagpole, "large metal sign"
PALMER, Robert Scott Fire extinguisher, "stick-like object"
PERKINS, Michael Steven Flagpole
POLLOCK, Jonathan Daniel Flagpole, riot shield
PONDER, Mark K. Pole
POWELL, Rachel Marie Ice ax, "large wooden pole"
QUAGLIN, Christopher Joseph Shield, pepper spray
RANDOLPH, Stephen Chase Metal crowd control barrier
REFFITT, Guy Wesley Handgun
RODRIGUEZ, Daniel Flagpole, "electroshock weapon"
RODRIGUEZ, Edward Francisco Chemical irritant
SABOL, Jeffrey Baton, flagpole, crutch
SAMSEL, Ryan Stephen Metal crowd control barrier
SANFORD, Robert Fire extinguisher
SCHAFFER, Jon Bear spray
SCHWARTZ, Peter J. Pepper spray
SILLS, Geoffrey William Baton
SMITH, Charles Bradford Knife
STAGER, Peter Francis Baton, flagpole, crutch
STEVENS, Tristan Chandler Shield
SULLIVAN, John Earle Knife
TAAKE, Andrew Quentin Pepper spray, metal whip
TANIOS, George Pierre Chemical spray (Accused of attacking Officer Brian Sicknick)
TAYLOR, Russell Knife
THOMPSON, Devlyn Baton
WATSON, William Pepper spray
WEBSTER, Thomas Flagpole
WESTBURY, Isaac Shield
WHITTON, Jack Wade Baton, flagpole, crutch
WILSON, Duke Edward Pipe
WORRELL, Christopher John Pepper spray
A few observations on the list. First, on the issue of guns. Five suspects — Christopher Michael Alberts, Lonnie Leroy Coffman, Mark Sami Ibrahim, Cleveland Grover Meredith Jr., and Guy Wesley Reffitt — are charged with possessing firearms. But none are charged with using them during the riot.
Alberts was arrested at 7:25 p.m., after the riot was over, when police enforcing the District of Columbia curfew suspected he had a handgun under his coat as he was leaving.
Coffman was arrested at about 6:30 p.m. after he told police that he was trying to get to his parked pickup truck. Officers found two handguns on Coffman's person and two more guns, along with possible bomb-making materials, in the truck.
Ibrahim was a Drug Enforcement Administration agent who had given his notice to resign and was on personal leave on Jan. 6; at the riot, he was carrying his DEA-issued badge and pistol.
Meredith was not in Washington at all for the riot. He arrived later that evening after allegedly texting a threatening message about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Meredith told police that "he had two firearms in his truck, and he knew that he was not supposed to have the firearms in Washington, DC. Therefore, he moved the firearms to his trailer," according to court documents. Officers found a handgun, a rifle, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in the trailer.
Finally, court papers say Reffitt had a handgun on his person on Jan. 6.
So, those are the gun cases. Many observers have pointed out that other rioters surely had guns. Since so few were arrested and searched at the scene, that is impossible to know. But it's certainly possible. What is more certain is that none of the suspects fired any guns at any point during the riot. The only shot that was fired during that time was by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, who shot and killed rioter Ashli Babbitt as she tried to force her way into an area near the House chamber.
As for the rest of the weapons, six defendants are charged with having a knife, although none are accused of using the weapon on another person. Five defendants are accused of having a Taser or stun gun. Three are charged with having an ax. Four are charged with having a baseball bat. Seven are charged with having a crutch. Eleven are charged with having a baton of some sort. Thirteen are accused of having some sort of pepper or other irritant spray. Nineteen are charged with having a pole, usually a pole for the flags they carried. Eight are accused of having a shield, several of them police shields they apparently took at the scene.
Some of the weapons were obviously brought with the intention of being in a fight. Others were clearly improvised on the spur of the moment; in one case, the deadly or dangerous weapon used was a desk drawer. In another, it was a traffic barrier. In yet another, it was a helmet. That doesn't mean those objects could not be dangerous; one could beat a person to death with a desk drawer. But it does suggest the rioter did not arrive at the Capitol bent on armed insurrection.
In addition, the overall numbers are relatively small. Eighty-two people charged with weapons-related offenses, out of how many? That is about 12% of the 670 or so currently charged. And 670 is smaller than the total number of rioters on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6. Does that amount to an "armed insurrection"? Especially when just five people have been charged with possessing firearms, the weapon of choice for modern armed insurrectionists, and one of them didn't arrive until after it was all over, and none of them fired the weapons, even in the intensity of the physical struggle that day?
And that is the problem with the "armed insurrection" talking point. By any current American standard of civil disorder, what happened on Jan. 6 was a riot. There were some instigators, and there were many more followers. A small number were anticipating a fight, probably with antifa. And as the day went on, some people lost their heads and did things they should regret for a very long time. But a look at the Justice Department prosecutions simply does not make the case that it was an "armed insurrection."
Insurrection and Rebellion are the words and the language used in the 14th Amendment and what happened on this date was neither.
All Democrats!!! No politics to see here. Oh that’s right you do not see it that way because these fools are on your team do to speak snd do no wrong at all. Again just like your Democrat fact checking apparatus is all Liberalized and political. It again you folks have drank so much Kook-Aid it has gone to your heads. Politics is not Constitution. Individuals are all faulty in life snd mix politics to it now it’s an overwhelming fault. They cannot see or understand the limits of what Americans wish to deal with. Overboard all the time. You become who you all hate, just like children. Again my opinion here.
I have no issue with following the rule of law, as long as a law was in fact broken in this and those instances. It will all come out if true or not and based on what is allowed by a former President and at the time current President to verify that they either won or lost an election. I would be supportive either way whether Biden or this guy. I just think brining a former President to trial and charging him after the fact years later is not a good look and is suspiciously at a time when the person is running for office again and is leading against your illustrious leader. Be that as it may as stated here before this person should have walk away graciously but they did not do so more than likely based on the facts he was chased from Government by other evil forces prior to his arrival at the office of President. Just the way he is dealing with it all I guess. But to me not a very American thing to do to any former President. Reeks of politics not the law and brings to mind that great socialist & marxist statement "For my Friends Everything, For My Enemies, The Law". This is exactly what is occurring here to the tee. Tell me it isn't so Jethro.
Again speaking about an individual versus a Country snd the perception to others in the world about our Country. Many will see this as a big fail not a win, glad you all are happy here and we will see how long that will last. Good luck with whatever Country you all live in as I sm not quite sure anymore. I understand what this person is charged with here. He also was the President at one point under attack by insiders from the start. You all selectively forget that false incrimination because it makes you feel better to think it was all true. It was not. Anyway enough already you got your rocks off on a man you follow incessantly every day. Hope you have time to hug your wife and kids instead of spending hours on this orange person.
Very sad day for all Americans today. Politics has won the day. America will now move to a place where States now will be indicting anyone they want to in power, out of power does not matter any longer. Anyone who supports this atrocity and is having fun at the expense of America is a sick person. Be very careful what you all wish for folks.
Not a good day for our now third world Country. Does not have to be the orange man here it could be anyone and could be someone you or I support in the future.
This should never occur in this Country. Republicans and Democrats should be hanging their heads as to their role in making this day in our History happen.
What Country?
We can all only hope that the idiots on Fox News at tonight's so-called debate will contain zero questions about the former President here on this dais. They should all use their canned answers for any question related to this person. I am sorry but this person decided not to attend this debate so I cannot answer anything related to this person nor do I want to, nor do any of the others on this stage. Next question please. But I am sure Fox News has them teed up here, shows their ignorance here as well. We can only hope they address the folks solely on stage and not some other plan to input the former President somehow on this dais.
You seem to be as delusional as your esteemed flunky leader. Oh well cannot grow more brains. It appears that you are stuck with what you were given at Walmart. Not much.
How’s Joey’s little kitchen fire out in twenty minutes compare to Maui fire? No one knows but Joey does. Forrest Gump is alive at 80+ and in Biden’s body and dumber than ever. Tone deaf to this suffering crowd there, gee I almost lost my 1967 corvette!!!! Whew!!!
You're brain hurt yet?
Dear, dear someone has some trust and anger issues. I know what to do. There are a lot of Liberals that went to College and have their doctorates in psychology, oops I forgot they cannot help you either. All of you are just like Wilde E. Coyote, you think you are miles ahead of your competition but in actuality your not even in the same State, us roadrunners have it all over you folks. Well at least you have a cartoon character to look up to maybe give them a call to help your trust issues?
So I guess if you know Brea here then you believe these words in this article. Again, let's give money to our enemies, where is that U.S. policy written down? Brains say no so you all must be AI robots without any management skills to allow payments to our mortal enemies to continue. Just sayin.....
So you are good with not changing the monies going here even though our death enemies control the country? No change in status for these funds going to a group of folks who want us all dead. Status quo means you do not have to use you're brain to refigure things out here. Most of us with a brain would not continue to send money to our enemies now even though for years we have done so but then our enemy was not in charge. So your method of management is maintain the status quo no matter who gets our money. Got It!!!!! CRAZY is as CRAZY does. I have a working brain and I say stop these payments and pay down our fake debt with it.
Sorry for the delay, but I must say the pre-empt the below links and articles they are by folks who may know the truth. Unlike all of the links I see on here that are supposedly trusted vetted sources of grand information. So I take no responsibility if any of you get hurt in your brains reading this information, have at it then.
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/biden-admin-has-given-2-35-billion-to-taliban-controlled-afghanistan/
The Biden administration has provided more than $2.35 billion in taxpayer dollars to Afghanistan since the Taliban retook control of the government in 2021 following a deadly U.S. evacuation.
The United States remains Afghanistan’s top patron, even as lawmakers and federal oversight officials warn that these funds could be propping up the Taliban’s terrorist government. Updated spending figures were disclosed Tuesday in a report by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), a federal watchdog that documents waste, fraud, and abuse related to U.S. expenditures in the war-torn country.
Around $1.7 billion "remained available for possible disbursement" at the time of SIGAR’s report, meaning that this money is ready to flow into non-profit groups and other entities working on reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. With the Taliban exerting control over nearly every sector of the country’s infrastructure—including the NGO community—it is more than likely that a sizable portion of these funds will end up in the terror group’s coffers.
The latest figures are certain to increase congressional pressure on the Biden administration to stop sending taxpayer funds into Afghanistan until officials can ensure the Taliban is not stealing the money. John Sopko, head of SIGAR, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in April that he "cannot assure this committee or the American taxpayer we are not currently funding the Taliban." Sopko also accused the Biden administration of blocking his investigatory efforts and refusing to hand over documents that could show if the Taliban is being propped up by American cash.
In the two years since the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan following the Biden administration's withdrawal of American forces in 2021, it has become increasingly clear that the terrorist group views international assistance as a "revenue stream," according to SIGAR’s latest report.
The United States Institute of Peace recently warned the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the primary vehicle for U.S. spending in Afghanistan, that the Taliban is "pushing for ever-increasing degrees of credit and control over the delivery of aid." United Nations officials also disclosed to the watchdog that "the Taliban have effectively infiltrated and influenced most UN-managed assistance programming."
This reality is raising questions about the nearly $2 billion in funds the Biden administration has made available for disbursement in the country. As U.S. aid money flows to the country, "Taliban interference with NGO work escalated, leading to a steady decline in humanitarian access in 2023, with a 32 percent increase in incidents between January and May 2023 as compared to the same period in 2022," according to the report.
The Taliban is "comfortable accepting foreign support insofar as they can closely monitor the organizations, including restricting and controlling them, and claim some credit for the provision of the benefits," SIGAR reported. USAID told the watchdog group that "Taliban interference in humanitarian assistance is the main barrier to beneficiaries accessing aid in 2023."
The Taliban government also has not moderated its jihadi principles since seizing the country.
"Despite Taliban promises made since gaining power in August 2021 to be more inclusive, counter terrorism, respect human rights, and not pose a security threat to the region, the U.N. says that the Taliban shows no signs of bending to pressure for reform or compromise,'" according to the report.
As SIGAR and congressional oversight committees raise concerns about the Biden administration’s push to pump money into Afghanistan, the government agencies in control of these expenditures are not cooperating with investigations.
Sopko revealed in April that the "the Department of State, USAID, the U.N., and other agencies are refusing to give us basic information that we or any other oversight body would need to ensure safe stewardship of tax dollars."
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/08/10/iran-releases-five-iranian-american-prisoners-to-house-arrest/
Latest Developments
The United States and Iran reached a deal on August 10 for Tehran’s release of five Iranian-American dual nationals to house arrest in exchange for Washington’s release of several jailed Iranians and the unfreezing of about $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue. The prisoners Iran freed include Siamak Namazi, Emad Sharghi, and Morad Tahbaz — all of whom Tehran incarcerated on spurious espionage charges — as well as two unnamed detainees. A lawyer for Namazi said Iran transferred the three named prisoners and one other to a hotel in Tehran, where they will remain for several weeks before they can board a plane to Qatar, which helped broker the agreement. Tehran released the fifth prisoner to house arrest earlier.
Expert Analysis
“It’s good news that American hostages, illegally seized by the regime in Iran, are coming home. But paying $6 billion in ransom payments means the regime will only take more hostages. This has become a lucrative means of international extortion for Iran’s supreme leader. The $6 billion will not only be used for humanitarian purposes. In the real world, where cash is fungible, it will free up $6 billion to be used for terrorism, funding drones for Russia, domestic repression, and nuclear weapons expansion. Only when the regime is severely punished for illegally seizing hostages, not rewarded with billions in ransom payments, will it put a stop to these humanitarian abuses.” — Mark Dubowitz, FDD CEO
“This is not a prisoner exchange; it’s the largest hostage ransom payment in American history. This money isn’t for humanitarian relief; it’s budget support to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. At more than $1 billion per hostage, Iran, Russia, and China will be more likely to take Americans hostage, not less.” — Richard Goldberg, FDD Senior Advisor
“A prisoner swap deal with Tehran and Washington is emerging. But this time, the Islamic Republic reportedly stands to receive access to both frozen funds and the release of persons jailed by the United States —assumedly on sanctions busting or worse violations — in exchange for hostages it has taken. Should this be the opening salvo of a lesser or unwritten political arrangement with Iran over its nuclear program, Washington will have truly, to borrow a phrase, learned nothing and forgotten nothing about how to conduct diplomacy with Tehran.” — Behnam Ben Taleblu, FDD Senior Fellow
A History of Ransom Payments
The latest prisoner release is not the first time Iran has demanded ransom payments in exchange for releasing hostages. In 2015 and early 2016, the Obama administration negotiated a similar scheme alongside the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, sending Iran $400 million — the first installment of a $1.7 billion payment — as Tehran released four Americans. The result was more hostages taken by the clerical regime, which transferred the $1.7 billion to its military budget. If $1.7 billion encouraged the regime to take more hostages, $6 billion will guarantee much more hostage-taking to come.
Iran Deliberately Pursues Hostages
Iran deliberately seeks hostages as a form of economic pressure against the West. “We’ll take 1,000 Americans hostage,” Mohsen Rezaei, a former vice president of Iran for economic affairs who has held multiple senior positions in the regime, said in 2021. “America will have to pay several billions to get every single one freed. This is how we can solve our economic problems.”
You all do realize that the more you all say Trump is a threat to our democracy as Liberals, this alone drives independent voters Trumps way because if you like the way things are now you are a fool. But you are Liberals you do not understand that simple process yet. You will get there someday. It is not today this I can tell you.
By the way does Maui have to be at war in order to get Joey's money for free or what? Seems the SBA is at the ready with low interest loans for small businesses there.
Hey here's an idea just give it to them who need it no loans just give them their tax dollars back.
I finally figured out what we can do to support snd house our illegal alien invasion issue. Send them to Bagram AFB. To our Taliban friends. Joey knows them well and understands they will take good care of them if past history is any indicator.
On another note let’s take a vote on naming Maui, Ukraine No.2. Then perhaps we can send them easily billions of dollars as they are a part of the United States, versus the real Ukraine Country of which has been corrupt for years and will be years to come. Oh we will give each person $700 one time payment snd our SBA is working on giving low interest loans for the businesses in Maui. Hey Joey how about just giving them $10 billion dollars set aside of our tax money with no strings or interest attached like Ukraine gets and wastes-proven as well. Ask the American public who they would rather support for ONCE!!!!
I sm not defending him I am simply stating what folks are attempting to do will finalize the ending of our Country as we used to know it to be. Again if he is guilty of a crime it will be discovered and dealt with. But the antagonism is being the pale here against one human being for crying out loud, move on his time has come and gone already. What you all need more nails for this coffin??? Still dissatisfied. Standing up for America versus one person is not a thing. Country is the only thing. Not one person. Get over it already. Geez. Take a chill pill. Let the process work no matter how overblown it is to spend time on one person. It’s the process overall and gaiety about it that is troublesome done call it overkill. America is watching. Go get him though if it will let you sleep better at night I guess but understand other less strategic or smart Countries do this same thing to their opponents snd it is not a good look. Especially if you really are American.