feed, NEWS CURRENT EVENTS

NBC Host Tries To Lecture JD Vance On Elections, Gets WRECKED

Reprinted from NOQ report.

To close out her interview of Senator JD Vance (R-OH), NBC’s Kristen Welker trotted out the tired election acceptance question asked of every Republican appearing on an Acela Media Sunday talk show, and especially of Trump vice presidential shortlisters.

Watch as Vance flips the question on its head and shuts Welker down (click “expand”):

KRISTEN WELKER: Well, here we are, about a week before the Republican convention. Before I let you go: can you say unequivocally- unequivocally, here and now, that you will accept the results of the 2024 election no matter what they are?

JD VANCE: So long as it’s a free and fair election, Kristen, of course, we will. We will use constitutional processes to challenge issues if we think there are issues, but if it’s a free and fair election we will do what the Constitution requires, we will respect the results and I expect these results are going to be to reelect Donald Trump. […]

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the NOQ REPORT are not necessarily those of "Cogny Mann." But it is certain that we share a lot of overlap in our philosophies and worldviews.

Read More
feed

Non-vaccinated declaration and other Freedom Products

Protect yourself and your family from unconstitutional treatment.

These products are now available on our webshop: www.livefree.be/en

 


















 

The post Non-vaccinated declaration and other Freedom Products appeared first on .

NOTE: The opinions expressed at GREAT REJECT are not necessarily those of "Cogny Mann." But it is certain that we share a lot of overlap in our philosophies and worldviews. Also note that Great Reject is a site that has been hit heavily by the cancel-culture that has invaded our world at an alarming pace. This is my effort to help them push back a little by making them a little more visible.

Read More
feed

To Understand the IDF and Hamas, Look at Their Military Texts

image

Studying battles, territorial gains and losses, or the impact on those directly affected by the violence in a war is not enough for a full understanding of a conflict. It’s also necessary to examine the belligerents’ ideological roots, and their founding documents and doctrines, in order to weigh the justice (or injustice) of each side’s cause.

For example, when studying the American Civil War, a comparative analysis of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America’s constitutions and declarations of independence/secession clearly shows the values that each side held and how it influenced their war aims and conduct.

So, too, with the current war between Israel and Hamas, to fully understand the conflict, it is important to examine the differences in both the ideological underpinnings and battle ethics of the Israeli military and the Gaza-based terror group.

It becomes clear that this war is an asymmetric battle between a military force that places a premium on life and human dignity and an organization that finds all human lives expendable in its eternal fight against the Jewish state.

[embedded content]

Purity of Arms: The Israeli Battle Ethic

The IDF’s battle ethic, commonly referred to as “purity of arms,” traces back to before the creation of the State of Israel, when the Jewish community took up arms against marauding insurgents during the Great Arab Revolt in the late 1930s.

Following the creation of the state and the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, Israel’s military ethic integrated the purity of arms doctrine (the use of arms in order to fulfill the mission and to use only when necessary) with the norms established by international law.

In the 1990s, this ethic became enshrined in The Spirit of the IDF, which explicitly laid out the Israeli army’s guiding moral principles and values.

According to this code, one of the core values espoused by the IDF is human dignity, which holds that “every individual is of inherent value, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender or status.”

Arising from this core value is the value of purity of arms, which states, in part, that “The soldier will not use their weapon or power to harm uninvolved civilians and prisoners and will do everything in their power to prevent harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.”

Commensurate with these values is one of the IDF’s chief principles, that “The IDF serviceman will treat enemy troops and civilians in areas controlled by the IDF in accordance with the letter and spirit of the laws of war and will not exceed the limits of his authority.”

[embedded content]
These basic moral values and principles have been upheld by the IDF’s leadership and have served as the basis for reprimands by the army’s command when soldiers have acted outside the parameters set by the code of ethics.

Even today, as Israel battles Hamas terrorists who have embedded themselves among Gaza’s civilian population, the IDF’s code of ethics guides it as it aims to damage Hamas’ terror network while also trying to reduce the number of civilian casualties.

As John Spencer, an American military veteran and the chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, recently wrote, “Israel has taken more measures to avoid needless civilian harm than virtually any other nation that’s fought an urban war.”

[embedded content]
Hamas’ Doctrine of Indiscriminate Cruelty & Barbarism

To understand Hamas’ battle ethics, one of the key documents is The Warrior’s Guide: Jihadi Version, an eight-page booklet that was recovered from the body of a dead terrorist following Hamas’ barbaric October 7 invasion of southern Israel.

This manual, which was first brought to light by Israeli President Isaac Herzog during a CNN interview, contained a detailed chart on the IDF’s hierarchy, in-depth analysis of the Israeli military’s arms and technology, as well as step-by-step instructions for taking Israeli hostages.

Included in the nine-step process were directions on how to assert control over the captives using threats, electric shocks, gunfire, and incapacitating grenades, the killing of hostages when necessary, and the use of hostages as human shields, regardless of their gender, age, or ethnic identity.

This barbaric guide is rooted in Hamas’ chief ideological documents, its 1988 charter which calls for a “struggle against the Jews” and its 2017 declaration of General Principles and Policies, which asserts that resistance against Israel “with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws” (emphasis added).

[embedded content]
Thus, between Israel’s efforts to reduce civilian casualties and Hamas’ flagrant use of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians as pawns for their own nefarious purposes,  it is clear that the values imparted by the IDF’s and Hamas’ texts are being fully expressed by each side on the battlefield.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region.

Photo Credits via Flash 90:

– David Cohen;
– Abed Rahim Khatib;
– Yonatan Sindel.

Honest Reporting is a website that seeks to bring balance to the left slant in the major news media.

Read More
feed, NEWS CURRENT EVENTS

It’s Inevitable: American Patriots Need Guns Because a War Is Coming

Reprinted from NOQ report.

Should the actions of a handful of criminals be used as an excuse to take away the rights of millions of innocent people? Any reasonable person would say no, but when it comes to gun related violence the standards of logic tend to go out the window. There are many government officials that view each major shooting as a gift – They believe that tragedies are political capital, a tool for leveraging away our freedoms.

In many cases of mass murder in the US the first inclination of the corporate media and the political left has been to rush to conclusions. They immediately blame conservative political motivations for the attacks, while also blaming our 2nd Amendment rights in general. If the shooter turns out to be anti-conservative or doesn’t fit the racial mold, they simply stop reporting the story. The agenda is obvious – To paint conservative men as a dangerous monolith plaguing the rest of society.

Why do they pursue this particular narrative, though?

Perhaps because, statistically speaking, conservative (and libertarian) men are the predominant group keeping authoritarians at bay. The government attacks us because they are afraid of us, and they are afraid of us for a reason.  It’s not about what we are doing, it’s about what we could do if they cross the line into accelerated tyranny, and this is on the verge of happening.

We came within a razor’s edge of war during the covid mandates. If Biden had got what he wanted with his vaccine passport executive order, the country would have erupted into conflict. Many Americans have no clue how close we were. Understand that no country, including the US, is immune to rebellion, and such events tend to escalate quickly.

Leftists often envision their own rebellion as a sort of modern French Revolution in which mobs march the streets and rule the day as heads roll in the town square. They believe their “righteousness” is a shield from harm. But this kind of mob intimidation only works within societies that still respect the rule of law. Leftist insurgencies use a nation’s freedoms and laws against them by saying “You can’t touch us because your principles prevent you…”

US patriots have no such delusions. We know that when it comes to corrupt governments, principles and the rule of law go out the window very quickly if their power is legitimately threatened. Leftists can exploit mob actions, invade government buildings and burn cities to the ground because the government ALLOWS them to. When we do the same thing? Well…how many years now have we heard the word “insurrection” over a single protest on January 6th 2021?

The strategies of the leftists cannot be our strategies because government protections apply to them and not to us. This double standard is leaving constitutional Americans with few options, and the hypocrisy is getting worse by the day. As I write this, Joe Biden is calling for an “assault weapons” ban over a shooting perpetrated by a transgender lunatic acting on her political motivations.  We used to call that terrorism. Instead, the White House is throwing their full support behind trans activist movements and blaming firearms for the deaths instead of the shooter’s twisted beliefs.

Numerous mass murder events have been perpetrated by people indoctrinated into the leftist fold. I would usually be the first to look at the psychological triggers for a shooter, rather than pure political motivation. But, more and more, it appears that the political left is creating the very monsters we now see targeting specific groups. And in each scenario, the media argues that these tragedies were STILL caused by conservative policies. For example:

1) On November 21st 2021, Darrell Brooks jumped into his SUV and deliberately drove it through a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, killing six and injuring 60 other people, including children and the elderly. He is cited on numerous social media posts supporting BLM related arguments and anti-white arguments. Some BLM activists took to social media to defend Brooks’ actions, and suggested that his act of mass murder was the “beginning of a revolution.”

At first, the media denied any race related motives or political motives for the attack. When Brooks’ comments were made public, they went silent. Suddenly, no one in the media was talking about the Waukesha Massacre anymore, and those that did talk about it argued that it was actually the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse (a young man who acted in self defense against an attacking mob) that justified the actions of Brooks.

2) On November 19th 2022, Anderson Aldrich entered a gay club in Colorado Springs called ‘Club Q’ and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring dozens of others. The immediate response by the media and the political left was to accuse conservatives of encouraging the crime and encouraging “hatred against the LGBT community.” Yet, when details finally emerged it became clear that the shooter identified as “non-binary” and had been a regular visitor to the club.

Once again, the media went utterly silent and the deaths at Club Q disappeared from the radar. When a mass murder event is not useful for leftists to push their agenda, they no longer care.

3) Then there was the recent mass shooting in Nashville at The Covenant school, a private Christian institution. Audrey Hale, a biological female trans activist, entered the school with a Keltec rifle that fires pistol rounds and killed 6 people, including 3 children. Hale reportedly left behind a “manifesto” which authorities have yet to release (Gee, I wonder why?), but going by her social media activity it is likely that she was politically motivated by Tennessee’s legislation against gender bending surgeries for children as well as bans against sexualized drag shows for minors.

Leftists and the media have aggressively tried to spin Hale’s attack as a gun control issue rather than what it is – Political terrorism.

4) Finally, we have the attack in Louisville, Kentucky at Old National Bank by a man named Connor Sturgeon, an employee of the bank that was about to be laid off who killed five colleagues while livestreaming the incident. Sturgeon has the look that the media likes (tall, young white man) but not the proper politics. Sturgeon’s social media history including his Reddit posts indicate he was a rabid leftist.

Using the pronouns He/Him, Sturgeon posted numerous anti-Trump and anti-NRA memes and rants, as well as pro-covid lockdown comments. There has in fact been a widespread effort by many platforms to scrub his comments from their pages as quickly as possible. In one group chat message, Sturgeon reportedly sent photos that included the statement “They won’t listen to words or protests, let’s see if they hear this…”

Media discussion on the Old National Bank shooting evaporated within a couple days, the fastest I think I have ever seen a story get buried.  I could list may other ideologically inclined attacks by verified leftists, but I think you get the idea.  Are there shooters with anti-leftist views?  A few, but they don’t receive protection from the media and the government like leftist attackers do.

Beyond the issue of directed attacks there is also the issue of overall violence in America. The vast majority of violent crime in the US occurs in Democrat run cities. This is a fact.  Data shows that 27 of the top 30 most violent cities in America are run by Democrat governments, including the cities with the most homicides. Fourteen of those cities also have Soros-backed prosecutors. This trend has been ongoing for years.

The problem is not guns, nor is it conservatives. Conservative towns are some of the safest places in America for the exact reason that there are guns everywhere in the hands of law abiding citizens. What the stats show is a trend that directly relates to a particular ideology – The leftist ideology (and by extension Globalism). Without leftists and leftist policies crime would plummet in the US. The more leftist extremism and globalism spreads the worse things get from generation to generation.

The inevitable outcome is war.

To be sure, there are peaceful means to delay conflict, such as separation or “national divorce.” This is already happening. Millions of Americans tired of leftist policies, taxes, mandates, bureaucracy, crime and cultism have left blue cities and blue states, and many millions more who have the means will leave in the near future.

There will come a point, however, when leftists and establishment elites will try to stop this separation from continuing. If they let people leave they then have to admit their ideology is failing, and that’s not an option for them. They will extort Americans into the society THEY want.  History shows us that when a population is disarmed the worst atrocities unfold.  The Soviet purge of millions of citizens through gun confiscation and then food confiscation is just one example that people should study before joining any anti-gun bandwagon.

One can easily see where this is going. The establishment will try to use force to make us submit to their system and we will not let them. That’s when the shooting starts. If we consider the problem from this perspective it makes perfect sense that these people are rabidly chasing after gun bans today. They know a war is about to happen because they know they are about to start one. And, they know there is a chance they will lose the fight should Americans remain armed. They’re afraid for a reason; they’re afraid of losing.

Article cross-posted from Alt-Market.

The post It’s Inevitable: American Patriots Need Guns Because a War Is Coming appeared first on NOQ Report – Conservative Christian News, Opinions, and Quotes.

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the NOQ REPORT are not necessarily those of "Cogny Mann." But it is certain that we share a lot of overlap in our philosophies and worldviews.

Read More
Are the WEF and the UN transforming our cities from within city leadership
Analysis, Current Events, NEWS CURRENT EVENTS

Is The UN Subverting Municipalities

UN Takeover Of Municipalities

I get a lot of feeds from all kinds of sources. Sometimes, too much. This post comes out of Canada, on Facebook, and it is discussing the UN takeover of our cities.

The US has been going down this rabbit hole for a while. But unlike the US, part of the problem for Canada is the same problem that plagues much of the rest of the world.

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right in the US. Take that and they take your ability to keep them in check.

Take note of the coverage here of a meeting with concerned citizens speaking up at a city council meeting in a city called Peterborough, Ontario (a few hours east of Toronto).

These people can only do what they do if we don't move to expose them for what they really want.

In the end, they want us to own nothing, eat bugs and be happy.

I'm not up for that. I think we need to make our voices be heard loud and strong.

I'm posting (for now) the Facebook post, as it was given. I will follow up with revisements and edits as I have opportunity to do so.

EMAIL TO PETERBOROUGH TOWN COUNCIL

Follow Up After June 26th, Meeting

A restructuring of Canadian "mayors" by the United Nations started in 1992. This is a fraud of public/private partnerships.

A summary: CANADA was signed on to U.N. Agenda 21 in 1992 by Brian Mulroney. A total of 178 countries agreed because this international agreement promised them "big money" to go "green."

Once signed, CANADA became a U.N. Member State (Nation State) & no longer a "sovereign country" under the rule of law & the supremacy of God. Any country signed on to U.N. Agenda 21 ceased to be a "nation," and all their governments restructured as the U.N. MEMBER STATES. All towns were to be abandoned or merged to form UN CITY STATES.

By 2000, we saw countries being "governed" by directions of the United Nations, G7, G20, Council of Foreign Relations, World Bank, World Economic Forum (WEF), World Health Organization, International Council on Local and Environmental Issues (ICLEI) etc...

Instead of following parliamentary procedures for law changes, the Municipal Primer was sent to all of our local towns in 1994 & it outlined how they were to restructure their governments.

-Our public officials/office - which is our elected mayor and councillors - were "partnered" with a private corporation (CITY OF PETERBOROUGH) that would "help" the local agenda implement these global goals HERE in Peterborough.

-Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) were brought into every town to "work" with the mayor to implement the global agenda instead of a local one and to commit local public funds to private sustainable development goals & foreign investors. Under the guise of "saving the planet." (CAO tells the mayor what to do.) They also brought ICLEI into our town. ICLEI is the United Nations.

Government restructuring included rewriting our local laws & this became the Municipal Act, 2001.

This initiated amalgamation, regionalization & incorporation of independent, autonomous local towns into a private 'governing' environment.

The Municipal Act converted the public mayor (head of local government) to a private Head of Council (for the CITY), making him answer to a BOARD & controllable.

The BOARD determines their own "Code of Conduct,".... which means ZERO liability for ALL of this, while the United Nations/ICLEI steals everything.... right in your town. This is a "corporatocracy" - where the corporations/partnerships (The CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PETERBOROUGH)/ International Council on Local and Environmental Issues-ICLEI) CONTROL EVERYTHING, and we no longer have a say.... and we no longer have a local government protecting us.

Now let's look at your reports,

Firstly, Report, PEAC 23–010

Here, a linked plan identifies the actions required to achieve NetZero by 2050.

-Measures include a vague reference to "targeting mobility."

-This report is to nominate one of you to sit in on an upcoming advisory working group hosted by an unnamed "project consultant" to launch this July.

-This project consultant is no doubt connected to ICLEL.

The PEAC 23–002 report states

-Peterborough declared a Climate Emergency in 2019. There was no local event that triggered this declaration. This declaration came into effect through the U.N.'s global agenda and not the local agenda of the residents of Peterborough.

-This report states that the city participated in ICLEL Canadas, Advancing Adaptation Project and received a grant of $15,000. "Big money for going green."This is a small fraction of the money Peterborough has received from ICLEL since 1994.

-Most disturbingly, the report you accepted states that the recent reductions in GHG emissions were PRIMARILY the result of the COVID-19 pandemic "modifying our travel patterns," and is repeated in report PEAC 23–009

When you put this together with the previous statement on "targeting mobility," the question of whether the SACRED mobility rights of residents of Peterborough are at stake and if your participation in the furthering of this agenda is not in violation of your oath to uphold the constitution of Canada along with the Bill of Rights.

I, Maggie Braun, gave a verbal notice that if you accepted these reports, a Notice of Liability would be issued to each of you individually.

Before I proceed with such actions, I will remind you that every man and woman is responsible and can be held personally liable for their actions. Positions of authority, such as a seat on the town council, do not protect you from liability.

I CONFIRM ALL COUNCILLORS AND THE MAYOR ACCEPTED THE REPORT WITHOUT QUESTION OR DISCUSSION.

As promised, the founding and local document references are listed below.

IMPORTANT LINKS

A global agenda

United Nations: Sustainable Development Goals- https://www.un.org/sustain.../sustainable-development-goals/

Canada is implementing Agenda2030- https://www.canada.ca/.../emplo.../programs/agenda-2030.html

World Economic Forum (link 404)

U.N. Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 -

https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../10/Agenda21-1.pdf

A Guide to Agenda 21 for Canada - https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../canadaguidetoagend...

U.N. General Assembly: Transforming Our World - https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../ungeneralassembly2...

Implemented Locally

A Municipal Primer on the U.N. Conference -

https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../municipal-primer...

https://www.peterborough.ca/.../city-climate-change-plans...

https://sustainablepeterborough.ca/.../City-of...

https://sustainablepeterborough.ca/.../Chapter-1-City-of...

https://www.greenup.on.ca/green-economy-peterborough/

https://www.peterborough.ca/.../climate-action-in...

https://sustainablepeterborough.ca/.../Chapter-1-City-of...

https://www.peterborough.ca/.../municipal-climate-action...

https://www.peterborough.ca/.../municipal-climate-action...

Summarization of Shelagh McFarlane Mayoral Candidate in Guelph ON -https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/?page_id=293

…implemented locally…

CITY OF GUELPH is implementing Agenda2030 - https://guelph.ca/plans-and.../climate-adaptation-plan/

ICLEI Local Sustainability 2012 review - https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../iclei2012-review.pdf

ICLEI Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide - https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../icleilocalagenda21...

Guelph Cease & Desist + Trucker Convoy Summary - https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../Guelph-CeaseDesist...

Guelph Flyer 2022 - https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../guelph-flyer-2022.pdf

A Municipal Primer on the U.N. Conference -

https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../municipal-primer...

Guelph Mayor Served - https://shelaghformayor.webcatt.ca/.../Guelph-Cam-mar22...

JOIN MAGGIES NEWSLETTER

https://thegreatcanadiangathering.memberful.com/join

OPERATION TAKE BACK OUR TOWNS

This can be imitated across the country...

- Go to your municipal website.

- Review their Environmental Committee Agenda/Reports and the Town Hall Agendas.

- Look for ICLEL and anything climate-related.

- Call the Town Clerks' office and get on the agenda to speak as a delegate when they are passing any “environmental” reports or motions.

- Take the information below and localize the content for your 5-minute speech.

- Afterwards, send this information to your Mayor and Councillors

- Utilize Stand4Thees Notices of Liability to serve the Mayor and Council.

Video and link for NOL - https://www.facebook.com/groups/Stand4THEE/permalink/2243130545870820/?mibextid=S66gvF

Read More
Covid-19

Ontario Police Pushing Back On Government Over Lockdowns

But for the highlight reel, the lawsuit alleges the following:

  • Quarantine is a federal jurisdiction, and “stay at home orders and curfews are acts of martial law and therefore federal jurisdiction
  • masking, social distancing, PCR testing and lockdowns, stay-at-home orders are not scientifically based
  • they are based on false and fraudulent use of the PCR test resulting in 96.5% false positivies
  • that these rules are all based on the 96.5% false positives
  • that the PCR test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead fragments
  • That isolaton and self-quarantine are cruel and unusual treatment
  • prolonged use of masks is HARMFUL, especially to children

Actually, it’s not just the police. It’s also being done by some of the members of provincial parliment.

As reported over at 6ix Buzz, one Ontario member of parliment is now suing the government over the lockdown restrictions.

“I am suing the attorney general of Ontario for our right to protest, pray and gather outdoors,” Baber wrote in a tweet which he posted Thursday afternoon.

“The risk of outdoor transmission is negligible, but the government enacted heavy-handed regulations that deny Ontarians their fundamental freedoms.

This is a good thing. The lockdowns are both unlawful and violate the Canadian Charter of Rights. This was supported recently in a decision in federal court.

As 6ix reported,

In his 14-page legal action document, which Baber filed on Wednesday with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the politician argues that the lockdown violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the free expression of ideas and peaceful assembly, including for protests.”

But Roman Baber is not alone. Let’s get back to the fact that the POLICE are suing the province regarding the overreach.

As of the writing of this post, this hearing is today. And you can tune in to watch LIVE COVERAGE if you wish.

Right now, the link is on the home page over at Wholehearted Media. Click this LINK to go to their website and you can see live coverage of the action.

The suit is being filed by the Constitutional Rights Center of Canada.

Police take Court Action against Ontario Government over COVID Measures Enforcement Duties

PUBLISHED: APRIL 29, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre

PUBLISHED: APRIL 29, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre

– PRESS RELEASE –

Ten (10) active, and five (5) retired, Police officers have launched an Application in Ontario Superior Court, to seek clarification, and challenge, the Province’s Covid-measures, and their enforcement, as breaching and violating their Police Oath which Oath includes upholding the Constitution.

Their Notice of Application can be viewed on the Constitutional Rights Centre website at: constitutionalrightscentre.ca

Some of the Applicants will hold a brief press conference, along with their legal counsel, on: Thursday, April 29th at 4:30 p.m. EST

You can join in at: www.wholeheartedmedia.ca

Any questions may be directed to legal counsel at: Rocco Galati

Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
Tel: (416) 530-9864
Email: rocco@idirect.com

Thank you for your continued and kind support of the CRC

Canada has a charter of rights and freedoms similar to the United States Bill Of Rights. But Canadians need to stand up against the tyrannical who will always want to strip their rights away.

Please make as many aware of this today as you can. In the end, it is only NUMBERS that make a difference.

For reference, you can view the document HERE or view the highlights below….

  • Quarantine is a federal jurisdiction, and “stay at home orders and curfews are acts of martial law and therefore federal jurisdiction
  • masking, social distancing, PCR testing and lockdowns, stay-at-home orders are not scientifically based
  • they are based on false and fraudulent use of the PCR test resulting in 96.5% false positivies
  • that these rules are all based on the 96.5% false positives
  • that the PCR test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead fragments
  • That isolaton and self-quarantine are cruel and unusual treatment
  • prolonged use of masks is HARMFUL, especially to children

Read More
feed, sara-carter

New York first state to ban natural gas and other fossil fuels in new buildings

The environmentalists are beating down policymakers are they have won a huge battle in New York. On Tuesday, New York became the first state in the country to ban the use of natural gas and other fossil fuels for heating and cooking in most new buildings.

The law does not affect existing buildings, and exempts renovations. “It also includes exceptions for a variety of new buildings, including hospitals, manufacturing facilities, and restaurants. But it does not allow cities or counties to opt out” reports National Review.

As is standard with government oversight, the rules do not apply equally across the board, highlighting its hypocrisy.

The state’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul endorsed a ban on natural-gas hookups in new construction during her state-of-the-state address in January. “Her spokeswoman reassured environmental activists earlier this week that the law would not include a loophole allowing localities to exempt themselves from the ban” adds National Review.

“The new law will not have any loopholes that will undermine the intent of this measure,” Katy Zielinski said in a statement provided to the New York Times. “There will not be any option for municipalities to opt out.”

State Republicans, however, oppose the measure, worried that it will raise costs for consumers, stress the electrical grid, and have little environmental benefit. “A first-in-the-nation, unconstitutional ban on natural gas hookups in new construction will drive up utility bills and increase housing costs,” state Senate minority leader Robert  Ortt said in a prepared statement.

Until recently, environmental groups tended to view natural gas positively and as a relatively clean bridge fuel in the transition to a low-carbon environment. The shift from coal to natural gas, which is cheap and abundant, helped the U.S. power industry lower its carbon emissions by a third between 2005 and 2019, according to a Cato Institute report from last year.

National Review writes:

But, over the past decade, many environmental groups have changed their position after research found that a larger fraction of methane in the atmosphere came from industrial sources than had previously been thought.

In 2019, Berkeley became the first U.S. city to ban gas hookups in most new homes or commercial buildings, drawing a lawsuit from the California Restaurant Association. Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ban. Gas-industry representatives and New York Republicans have suggested the new legislation could be struck down in court along similar lines.

Other progressive cities and counties have instituted their own bans on new gas hookups. In 2021, New York City passed a ban on natural-gas hookups in new buildings under seven stories, which is set to take effect in December. The law will apply to taller buildings beginning in 2027.

In March, the Bay Area’s air-pollution regulators voted to phase out and eventually ban the sale of new gas furnaces and water heaters in the Northern California region, a move that energy experts and economists say will be costly for residents and will likely have limited environmental impact.

“There is no problem with natural gas appliances,” Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute told National Review at the time. “They’re not zero-emitting, but they’re very, very low-emitting. There’s no real problem with the emissions, and they’re economical in use, and consumers prefer them for that reason.”

In New York, most homes rely on natural gas for heating, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and there will likely be significant legal battles for the new legislation ahead.

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
feed, NEWS CURRENT EVENTS

Bragg Drops Case Against Jordan, Allowing House GOP to Depose Ex-Manhattan Prosecutor

Reprinted from NOQ report.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has dropped his effort to quash a congressional subpoena to a former prosecutor who worked in his office, a congressional aide told The Epoch Times in a statement on Friday.

“This evening, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office withdrew its appeal in Bragg v. Jordan. Mr. Pomerantz’s deposition will go forward on May 12, and we look forward to his appearance,” Russel Dye, spokesperson for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to The Epoch Times in a statement.

“Bragg caved. Jim Jordan won,” the House Judiciary Committee wrote in a statement on Twitter Friday.

The development wrapped up a legal clash between Bragg and House Judiciary Republicans, whereby Bragg had attempted to stop the lawmakers from requesting testimony from Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor who investigated former President Donald Trump’s finances. Pomerantz left Bragg’s office in February 2022 in protest of Bragg’s initial unwillingness to bring an indictment against Trump.

A grand jury, encouraged by Bragg, brought an indictment against Trump in late March, prompting Jordan to initiate a probe into what he calls a “politically motivated” prosecution against a former president. Jordan subpoenaed Pomerantz to seek his testimony as a part of that probe. In response, Bragg sued the House Judiciary Committee and Pomerantz to prevent Pomerantz from testifying.

That lawsuit led to a hearing on Wednesday in the Southern District Court of New York, and a subsequent decision by District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ordered that the congressional panel has the authority to become involved in the investigation of Trump and declined Bragg’s request for a court injunction on the congressional subpoena.

Bragg wrote in a court filing that he intended to appeal the lower court’s decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19. On the same day, the court issued a temporary administrative hold on the return date of the House Judiciary Committee’s congressional subpoena of Pomerantz. This administrative hold did not reflect the court’s opinion on the merit of Bragg’s case, the court indicated in an April 19 filing, but serves as a short pause as the court considers whether to extend the freeze on the subpoena as Bragg appeals the case.

A three-judge panel was originally scheduled to decide early next week on this matter.

Bragg on Friday dropped the appeal, wrapping up the legal contention between him and the House lawmakers.

“Our successful stay of this subpoena blocked the immediate deposition and afforded us the time necessary to coordinate with the House Judiciary Committee on an agreement that protects the District Attorney’s privileges and interests. We are pleased with this resolution, which ensures any questioning of our former employee will take place in the presence of our General Counsel on a reasonable, agreed upon timeframe. We are gratified that the Second Circuit’s ruling provided us with the opportunity to successfully revolve this dispute,” Bragg’s office wrote in a statement on Friday on Twitter.

Judge’s Comments

During the district court hearing on Wednesday, the court affirmed the congressional lawmakers’ position that requesting Pomerantz’s testimony serves a valid legislative interest and that Pomerantz, due to his own conduct, is not protected by confidentiality privileges.

In her order, Vyskocil agreed with the congressional lawmakers’ reasoning that testimony by Pomerantz can help inform current and pending legislation. This includes a bill that, if enacted into law, would bar the use of federal funds to investigate a sitting or former president (the Accountability for Lawless Violence In our Neighborhoods, or ALVIN, Act) and another that would allow Congress to remove an action or prosecution against a former president (H.R. 2553).

“It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection,” the judge wrote, adding that the U.S. Constitution protects lawmakers from litigation when their actions serve a valid legislative interest.

She rejected Bragg’s attempt to use a Supreme Court decision (Trump v. Mazars) to justify his case. In that decision, the highest court ruled in Trump’s favor and stated that the congressional committees couldn’t subpoena Trump’s financial statements because doing so would violate the separation of power between the executive and legislative branches.

During the Wednesday hearing, Bragg’s attorneys said that the reasoning in Trump v. Mazars applies to this case, and that the committee’s subpoena is an unconstitutional intrusion of the legislative branch into a state executive branch prosecution. Vyskocil disagreed.

“The congressional subpoena in Mazars was directed at materials pertaining to the sitting President of the United States,” Vyskocil wrote in her ruling, noting that Trump clearly represented the executive branch then.

“In contrast, here, the subpoena was issued to a private citizen who is no longer employed by any state government and who has written a book and spoken extensively about the subject matter of the congressional inquiry,” she wrote. “The Court is not persuaded that Mazars applies to this case.”

In her ruling, Vyskocil also rejected Bragg’s reasoning that Pomerantz enjoys confidentiality privileges and thus must not be compelled to reveal information about his former employment at the Manhattan DA’s office. Vyskocil noted that because she cannot predict what Congress would ask and what Pomerantz would say, it is not logical to say that such hypothetical statements would violate privilege.

“Bragg’s throw-everything-at-the-wall approach to privilege is unpersuasive,” Vyskocil wrote. “This Court will not quash a subpoena based solely on Bragg’s seemingly endless string of ‘what ifs.’”

Pomerantz, in an April 17 court filing, wrote that he would be put in an “impossible position” if he were to testify in Congress because he could face criminal prosecution if he testifies—violating confidentiality laws—or if he refuses to testify—committing contempt of Congress.

The judge dismissed this concern.

“[T]he Court notes that Pomerantz is in this situation because he decided to inject himself into the public debate by authoring a book that he has described as ‘appropriate and in the public interest,’” Vyskocil wrote in her Wednesday order.

“[Bragg] cannot seriously claim that any information already published in Pomerantz’s book and discussed on prime-time television in front of millions of people is protected from disclosure as attorney work product (or otherwise).”

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

The post Bragg Drops Case Against Jordan, Allowing House GOP to Depose Ex-Manhattan Prosecutor appeared first on NOQ Report – Conservative Christian News, Opinions, and Quotes.

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the NOQ REPORT are not necessarily those of "Cogny Mann." But it is certain that we share a lot of overlap in our philosophies and worldviews.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

Biden’s not backing down…announces reelection bid for 2024

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Rep. Jim Jordan R-Ohio, claiming that Jordan is interfering in his investigation and waging intimidating tactics over Bragg’s indictment of President Donald J Trump, the lawsuit states.

President Trump was indicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records that were related to hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels. Bragg claims that President Trump was hiding other crimes within the falsification of his business records but has yet to provide any evidence to the public on what crimes were committed.

Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is investigating claims that the bureaucracy has been weaponized against Trump and the GOP. During the House Weaponization Subcommittee hearing Jordan, R-Ohio, has had numerous witnesses testify about the Biden administration’s alleged collusion with Big Tech companies that have violated First Amendment rights. Jordan, who has spoken to numerous FBI whistleblowers, allege that the bureau urged social media companies, to include Twitter and Facebook, not to distribute stories referencing Biden’s son, Hunter Biden’s laptop that contained a plethora of information on the Biden family’s business dealings, as well as exposed Hunter’s penchant for drugs and prostitutes. The New York Post was first banned on Twitter for Miranda Devine’s excellent investigative journalism exposed in her best selling book ‘Laptop From Hell.’

As for Bragg’s charges, Trump pleaded ‘not guilty’ to all counts. Bragg has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for bringing these very weak charges against the former President.

Even staunch Trump critic former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo blasted Bragg telling John Catsimatidis on WABC 770s radio, “you have a cynical public, they don’t believe anyone and when you start to see these prosecutors bring political cases, it just affirms everybody’s cynicism…It’s a coincidence that Bragg goes after Trump and Tish James goes after Trump and Georgia goes after Trump. That’s all a coincidence,” Cuomo scoffed.

Cuomo was referring to James’ investigation of the Trump Organization, as well as the “District Attorney of Fulton County’s probe into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election,” as reported by the New York Post.

Bragg’s lawsuit states, “in response to an unprecedentedly brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of former President Donald J. Trump.”

A statement from DA Bragg in the lawsuit states, “Chairman Jordan’s subpoena is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine an ongoing New York felony criminal prosecution and investigation,” Bragg continued,  “As our complaint details, this is an unprecedented, illegitimate interference by Congress that lacks any legal merit and defies basic principles of federalism.”

Jordan responded to Bragg’s lawsuit on twitter.

“First, they indict a president for no crime,” he said. “Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it.” 

On Monday, the house judiciary committee will be holding a hearing in Manhattan on the crime in New York. The hearing will be on what the committee calls the Soros funded DA’s “pro-crime, anti-victim” policies.

You can follow Alexander Carter on Twitter @AlexCarterDC 

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
Analysis, NEWS CURRENT EVENTS

Canadian federal court rules Trudeau COVID hotels violate the Canadian Charter of Rights

Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau seems to be a one-man wrecking ball.

He seems to be waging a systematic war on “disagreeable” Canadians and their rights under their Charter Of Rights And Freedoms.

Consider the following headline that was found on Rebel News:

Patient returning to Canada has $3,750 Quarantine Act ticket in limbo

Now, that may or may not sound scary. But consider the reality in Canada right now when you return to the country after travelling internationally.

According to the Canadian government, there is a “mandatory 3 day stopover.” Aren’t sure what that means? Check it out.

But all is not (yet) lost. According to a recent article in The Post Millenial,

An interim injunction which would have required nine Canadians to isolate in government-controlled hotels was denied by a federal court on Monday.

The nine people in question, despite having tested negative for COVID, would have had to stay in a hotel as directed by government officials. They would have had to remain locked in their hotel rooms for a total of at least three days, and would have been sent a bill for at least $2,000 for expenses.

According to a statement released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, the court involved in striking the injunction down is not the same court that issued it in the first place.

Thank God for some sanity in Canada (so far).

In the statement by the court, it was obvious they thought it was an overreach:

The Court went on to say: “History demonstrates why the bulwark of the robust protection of Charter rights by an independent judiciary is so important in times of crisis.”

“The forced isolation of returning Canadian air travellers is arbitrary, unnecessary, and totalitarian”, states Justice Centre Litigation Director, Jay Cameron.  “These quarantine hotels and restrictive measures are more consistent with a dictatorship than a free society.  We look forward to the full hearing of these issues in early June.”

You can read the statement by the Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms here. Please visit the JCCF website to see what they do and why Canadians need to speak up before it is too late.

The hearing where the constitutionality of quarantine hotels and quarantine will be determined will be held on Jun. 1-3, 2021.

The Prime Minister of Canada, his Liberal Party and the NDP (who seem to have decided the best they can do is ally with the Liberals to prevent a Conservative Party influence) are long overdue to be voted out of office.

In the meantime, consider supporting Rebel News and their efforts to push back against these draconian measures.

These are the kinds of ridiculous overreaches of authority being perpetrated on the Canadian population by a government and a police force out of control. Get a look:

Canada is on the edge of a strong tyranny against their rights to do anything except what the Prime Minister tells them. He needs to be stopped.

Read More