The IRS Finally Acknowledged that Racial Disparities in Taxpayer Audit Rates have Negatively Affected Black Taxpayers

From [HERE] The IRS finally acknowledged this month what Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy research uncovered in 2023: Racial disparities in taxpayer audit rates have negatively affected Black taxpayers. The IRS has committed to reevaluating the mechanisms that caused the disparity and refining their compliance approaches—but tweaking the dials on the algorithm is insufficient.

We need true, fact-based accountability for why data-driven algorithms exhibited decidedly human biases in their outcomes. The tax system’s integrity depends on the IRS’s willingness to outline what went wrong and how taxpayers can be certain that the issue is resolved. Furthermore, open-sourcing the audit algorithms would provide both transparency and an opportunity to engage in a feedback loop with researchers and watchdog groups.

Biased Algorithms

Concern over racial disparities in IRS audits isn’t just about statistics. These disparities undermine how much taxpayers can trust the fairness of the tax system—especially if the IRS wants to foster voluntary compliance. Commissioner Danny Werfel has acknowledged that such disparities “degrade trust in our tax system,” and such degradation isn’t going to be improved with a mere assertion that the issue has been resolved.

Algorithms aren’t biased. But the people who write the algorithms—or the people who collect the data that the algorithms are applied to—may be. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly popular for automating tasks and increasing operative efficiency, there are going to be more opportunities to scapegoat “the algorithm.” [MORE]

[racists spare no expense to Dominate non-whites] Costs to Arizona taxpayers to reach $314 Million in profiling verdict against Racist Sheriff Arpaio who Targeted Immigrants Based on Skin Color

Skin Color was the Criteria. The charge followed a 2011 court order by U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow forcing Arpaio to stop racial profiling people based on the color of their skin. Arpaio’s police department was found to routinely racially profile Latinos, by prolonging traffic stops to determine the immigration status of individuals. In violation of the 4th Amendment Officers stopped people merely on the belief that 'they looked illegal.' [MORE]

From [HERE] Seven years after Joe Arpaio was ousted as sheriff of Arizona’s most populous county, taxpayers are still footing the bills from a racial profiling verdict over his signature immigration crackdowns — and those costs have been getting heavier since.

The tab for the legal and compliance costs in overhauling the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is expected to reach $314 million by mid-summer 2025, including $41 million approved Monday by county officials — the most expensive for Maricopa County taxpayers since the lawsuit was filed in 2007.

Nearly 11 years ago, a federal judge concluded sheriff’s deputies had racially profiled Latinos in Arpaio’s traffic patrols that targeted immigrants. Consequently, the judge ordered costly overhauls of the agency’s traffic patrol operations and, later, its internal affairs unit.

The taxpayer spending is expected to continue until the sheriff’s office attains full compliance with the court-ordered changes for three straight years. Though progress has been made on some fronts, the agency hasn’t yet been deemed fully compliant. [MORE]

Under the Guise of Creating Bird Flu Vaccines, the US Govt and Bill Gates are Funding Gain-of-Function Research to Make Bird Flu Viruses More Lethal and Transmissible Among Mammals

From [HERE] U.S. health officials only recently admitted to funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China — but for decades, the U.S. government has funded the same type of dangerous research on bird flu in the U.S.

And that research continues today.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), theU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) — even the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — have funded or are funding research to make bird flu more pathogenic and/or more transmissible in mammals.

Appearing on the “Kim Iversen Show” on May 16, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defensechief scientific officer, said he is concerned the U.S. is “making agents of … biological destruction” that could “put us into another pandemic.”

Hooker echoed warnings by former CDC Director Robert Redfield, who suggested the next pandemic would be sparked by a leak from a lab working to humanize bird flu viruses.

Hooker told Iversen the CDC’s Influenza Division infected ferrets with the currently circulating H5N1 avian influenza strain, then infected human lung cells, to make the virus more infective to humans.

Their justification, he said, is to be prepared for a zoonotic outbreak — where a virus from a bird or other animal jumps to humans.

“The party line that you hear all the time is, ‘Well, we have to develop these pathogens because then we can develop the countermeasures,’ — the vaccines, the monoclonal antibodies, the therapeutics,” he said.

Long list of gain-of-function studies on bird flu

The CDC, BARDA, NIAID and the World Health Organization (WHO) have conducted or funded dangerous bird flu studies.

Jessica Belser, a lead researcher with the CDC, was involved in numerous studies exploring the pathogenicity and transmissibility of bird flu viruses. She is co-author of a March 2024 study on the H5N1 strain causing fatal disease and transmitting between co-housed ferrets.

In 2020, Belser studied how different strains of the H9N2 flu virus, which have genetic and antigenic differences, show varying patterns of replication and transmission in mammalian animal models. The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention was a collaborator.

In 2016, Belser studied how different bird flu strains, including H5N1, H7N9 and H9N2, could infecthuman pulmonary endothelial cells.

Richard Webby, Ph.D., a BARDA-associated researcher and director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Studies on the Ecology of Influenza in Animals and Birds, is co-author of a May 2024 paper studying the susceptibility and transmissibility in the pig population of highly pathogenic avian influenza derived from mink.

In a 2017 study funded by the NIAID, Webby tested bird flu vaccines on ferrets, infecting them with the wild virus to determine the vaccines’ efficacy.

Hooker told The Defender this research is dangerous because ferrets “are immunologically very close to humans. … It’s not a huge leap for them to suddenly get into the human population and start human-to-human transmission.”

Christine Oshansky, chief of Pandemic Vaccines and Adjuvants at BARDA, co-authored a 2021 study ofhighly pathogenic influenza H7N9 and a vaccine formulation.

In 2018, Oshansky tested H5N1 vaccines stored in the national Influenza vaccine stockpile for up to 12 years to determine if they could be effective against divergent A (H5) influenza viruses.

The WHO funded the May 2020 study, “Pandemic potential of highly pathogenic avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4 A(H5) viruses.” Collaborators included the CDC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and other organizations. Webby and Yoshihiro Kawaoka, DVM, Ph.D.of the University of Wisconson are among the listed authors.

“That’s the huge danger of doing this work,” Hooker said. “Whether it’s an accidental or intentional release, you’re playing with these pathogens so that they’re basically creating variants that are infectious in humans.”

This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.

The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write. 

The vaccine cash cow

Hooker told Iversen there are “myriad patents associated with bird flu vaccines [and] bird flu pathogens.”

Kawaoka, the researcher long funded by NIAID to conduct bird flu research, has 78 patents in his portfolio, many of them related to bird flu vaccination.

In 2023, Kawaoka filed patents on:

• Mutations that confer genetic stability to additional genes in influenza viruses (US-11802273-B2).

• Recombinant influenza viruses with stabilized HA for replication in eggs (US-11807872 – B2).

• A humanized cell line (US-11851648-B2).

In 2022, Kawaoka filed a patent for influenza virus replication for vaccine development (US-113906-B2).

Richard Bright, former BARDA director and a bird flu researcher at the CDC from 1998-2006, has an “extensive patent portfolio on — you guessed it — bird flu vaccines,” Hooker said. “And so these prophets of doom hit the airwaves and they scare everybody.” [MORE]

Will Federal Ct Uphold the Law of the Jungle or Hold Police Accountable for Murdering a Black College Student? White Cops 'Shot Jamarion Robinson to Bits' @ Close Range–Shot @ 76X, Engaged in Cover-up

From [HERE] The mother of a 26-year-old Black man who was fatally shot by police officers nearly eight years ago asked a federal appeals court Friday to reverse the dismissal of her civil rights suit. The three-judge circuit panel did not signal when they intend to issue a ruling.

Monteria Robinson's excessive force claims were dismissed by a lower court because the officers were acting as part of a federal task force law with the U.S. Marshal Service. 

On appeal, she argued that should be able to sue because the officers on the task force were acting under state law and abiding by state agencies' policies and procedures. 

Her attorney, Mario Williams, argued before the 11th Circuit panel on Friday that all members of U.S. Marshal Service enforcement operations are required to comply with state agency guidelines, including those concerning the use of firearms and deadly force. 

If the officers were not employed by local law enforcement agencies, which empower them with Georgia general arrest powers, they wouldn't have had the authority to execute the arrest warrant against Jamarion Robinson to begin with, Williams argued. 

But U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch noted differences between this case and the Supreme Court Bivens case, which found that an implied cause of action existed for an people whose Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Unlike in Bivens where federal narcotic officers executed a warrantless arrest, the task force officers in this case were acting in execution of valid arrest warrants. They also engaged in a gunfight with Jamarion Robinson who was armed, where as the suspect in Bivens was unarmed. 

"This is a very hard hill for you to climb up," said Branch. "How is having an arrest warrant for him not meaningful?"

Williams said the fact that the arrestee was armed does not mean the officers did not engage in excessive use of force. 

U.S. Circuit Judge Jill Pryor asked whether a Bivens remedy applies against officers working as fugitive task force agents of the Marshal Service. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Egbert held that any claim that isn't highly similar to the facts in Bivens provides a "new context" in which a damages claim can't proceed if there is any reason to think Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy.

Assistant U.S. attorney Gabriel Mendel, representing task force officers Eric Heinze and Daniel Doyle, argued the circumstances of this case present a new context requiring consideration of special factors.

Mendel defended the lower court's finding that alternative remedial structures exist, including an administrative scheme under the Federal Tort Claims Act that permits plaintiffs to sue those acting on behalf of the United States. Monteria Robinson had already done so, and the 11th Circuit previously affirmed the judge's dismissal of those claims on summary judgment. 

U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Hull, expressed concern that Monteria Robinson may be barred from raising her claims because she did not raise the question, during her first appeal, of whether the court correctly held the defendants were acting as federal officers.

That was in 2022, when she appealed a judge's previous dismissal of the case finding that the officers' "use of force was objectively reasonable” and granting them qualified immunity.

An 11th Circuit panel found that evidence from a bystander's video created a "genuine dispute of material fact" and remanded the case for further proceedings on claims that officers Heinze and Doyle used excessive force after a flashbang exploded. [MORE]

According to the complaint in the civil case the facts are as follows:

On August 5, 2016, at approximately 12:30, seven or more members of the Task Force, including the Defendant-Officers, met at a church near Washington Road and Interstate 285 in Atlanta for the purpose of receiving information about serving an arrest warrant on decedent Jamarion Robinson at 3129 Candlewood Drive in Atlanta. Among other things, Steve O'Hare “relayed…ROBINSON’S mental health history” to the defendant officers in attendance. Approximately an hour after the meeting in the church the Defendant-Officers moved from the church near Washington Road and Interstate 285 to positions around and in front of 3129 Candlewood Drive. One or more of the Defendant-Officers pounded loudly on the front door of 3129 Candlewood Drive multiple times. Then one or more Defendant-Officers broke down the front door and, without cause or provocation by Jamarion Robinson, began “spraying” bullets around the interior of 3129 Candlewood Drive with one or more H&K 9 mm submachine guns, one or more H&K .40 mm submachine guns, and one or more Glock .40 pistols.

When one or more of the Defendant-Officers began “spraying” bullets around the interior of 3129 Candlewood Drive, they did not know how many people were in the building. Fifty-nine bullets or more from the sub-machine guns and Glocks of the Defendant Officers entered the body of Jamarion Robinson, killing him. After killing Jamarion Robinson, one or more of the defendants ascended a single flight of stairs to a second-floor landing, where the bullet-riddled corpse of Jamarion Robinson was lying.

With the intention of covering-up their actions by manipulating the evidence on the scene and with the intention making it more difficult if not impossible to accurately reconstruct the shooting-event, the defendant officers:

• Set off a flash bang grenade after lethally shooting Jamarion Robinson;

• Stood over Jamarion Robinson corpse and mutilated it by firing into it two 9 millimeter bullets;

• Handcuffed the corpse knowing that it was lifeless and without the power of animation to react to them;

• Put an oxygen rebreathing mask over the corpse knowing that it was lifeless and without the power of respiration;

• Dragged the corpse from the second floor landing down a flight of stairs to the first floor, with the purpose of attempting to destroy the evidentiary connection:

• between the bullet entry-and-exit wounds on the corpse and the surrounding walls, floor and ceiling;

• between the corpse and the blood- and flesh-spatter patterns on the surrounding walls, floor and ceiling; and

• between the corpse and its actual position when found by the defendant officers; and f. Otherwise tampered with the evidence on the scene with the intention of destroying the evidentiary value

Heinze and Hutchens are accused of using unnecessary force by continuing to shoot at Robinson even after he fell to the ground and was unresponsive. 

Daniel Doyle, another task force member who opened fire that day, died of cancer in March 2020 and was never charged.

According to a medical examiner’s report, Robinson was shot 59 times, with 75 bullet wounds that either entered or exited his body.  The family said that a pathologist found that Robinson had been shot several times through the palms of both hands.[3] Attorney for the state Natalie Adams said Thursday that the report showed that Robinson’s “hands and arms were shot to bits.”

None of the officers were injured in the incident.[4] None of the police officers involved in the shooting wore body cameras.[13] [MORE]

Ambulance was 1 Hour Too Late Causing a Miscarriage. 'So What?' says Federal Court, 'There's No Constitutional Right to Receive Emergency Services and Govt Has No Duty to Provide Rescue Services'

PURSUANT TO THE SO-CALLED “SOCIAL CONTRACT,” Citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and GOVERNMENT commands and IF they fail to do so the government CAN punish the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. IN CONTRAST, authorities HAVE NO SUCH OBLIGATION TO THE CITIZEN - AS AUTHORITIES are bound ONLY to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. AS STATED BY THE COURT IN THE MATTER DISCUSSED BELOW, ‘THE GOVERNMENT IS UNDER NO obligation To provide competent rescue services - if it chooses to provide SUCH SERVICES. HERE, “OBLIGATION” means a legally enforceable and vested right to receive services the citizen is entitled to RECEIVE. WE ARE OBLIGED TO OBEY THE GOVERNMENT BUT GOVERNMENT CAN PROVIDE SERVICES IF IT SO DESIRES. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it? ” [MORE]

If there is no social contract then there is no rational basis for the belief in political authority.

From [HERE] A federal court in Pennsylvania dismissed the wrongful death and negligence claims brought against a county by a married couple whose unborn daughter died after an ambulance took over an hour to arrive during the wife’s medical emergency. Their claims do not sustain a constitutional violation, and without this, their state law questions are not appropriate for the federal court to consider. The court ruled:

Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims against the other Defendants fail because Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of Stephanie or Paisley Reiner’s constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties, prohibiting government action rather than requiring it. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is no different. It prohibits any state from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”66

The Third Circuit has long-standing precedent that there is no constitutional right to receive emergency ambulance services, nor is there “an affirmative obligation on the State to provide competent rescue services if it chooses to provide them.” 67 So any injuries resulting from flawed or incompetent emergency rescue services are not constitutional injuries, and hence not actionable under Section 1983.68 Plaintiffs’ argument that they only waited an hour for the ambulance because they did not know it would take so long requires a closer analysis of this Circuit’s “state-created danger” theory of liability.

According to the court’s decision:

The complaint in this case revolves around the negligent training and response of a 911 Center and dispatcher, whose response to a call requesting emergency medical assistance exacerbated Stephanie Reiner’s injuries and resulted in the death of her unborn daughter, Paisley.

On September 23, 2022, Stephanie Reiner was approximately 32 weeks pregnant with Paisley.8 Stephanie Reiner began experiencing stomach discomfort that same afternoon, which worsened and became constant.9 Reiner contacted a triage nurse in the labor and delivery department at Geisinger Medical Center at approximately 3:00 p.m.10 While on the phone with the nurse, Reiner felt a sensation similar to her water breaking and believed she was going into labor.11 After Reiner described her condition, the nurse advised her to contact 911 so that she could be admitted to the hospital.12 After the call, however, Reiner discovered that her water had not broken, and that she was bleeding profusely.13 She immediately called 911 and spoke to a dispatcher at the 911 Center, informing the dispatcher that this was a medical emergency and that she was in need of an ambulance.14 The dispatcher advised Reiner that an ambulance would be dispatched immediately.15

Reiner’s mother-in-law Luann Snyder came to the residence minutes after Reiner called 911.16 Snyder observed a pool of blood beneath Reiner and throughout the kitchen.17 After waiting for the ambulance for ten minutes, Snyder called 911 to find out when it would arrive.18 The dispatcher stated that an ambulance had been dispatched and was on the way.19 After waiting another ten to fifteen minutes, Snyder called 911 again, asking where the ambulance was coming from and how far away it was.20 But the dispatcher refused to tell Snyder where the ambulance had been dispatched from.21 Instead, the dispatcher reiterated that an ambulance had been dispatched and would be there soon, and that Snyder should be patient.22 Snyder waited another ten to fifteen minutes, and then again called 911.23 She advised the dispatcher that if they could not get Reiner to an ambulance, they needed to get her to a helicopter because she was bleeding out.24 After an additional fifteen minutes of waiting, the ambulance finally arrived.25 Throughout the time Reiner waited for the ambulance to arrive, she experienced severe pain and constant gushes of blood from her vaginal area.26

Two ambulance companies are located within approximately ten miles of Reiner’s residence, while a third is located approximately 24 miles from her residence.27 Yet unbeknownst to Reiner and Snyder, the 911 Center never contacted these companies, which were in service and available on the date of Reiner’s incident.28 Instead, the ambulance which actually arrived was in fact coming from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which was over an hour away from Reiner’s residence.29 If Reiner and Snyder had known that the ambulance was coming from Harrisburg, they would have driven to the nearest hospital immediately.30

Reiner’s misfortune did not end with the arrival of the ambulance. The ambulance that was dispatched was from CLT, located approximately 60 miles from Reiner’s residence.31 After arriving at Reiner’s residence, the Emergency Medical Technicians (“EMTs”) forced Reiner to walk approximately 100 feet to the ambulance outside, even though Reiner advised them that she believed she was hemorrhaging.32 The EMTs then asked Reiner to get on the stretcher by herself, despite her profuse bleeding and difficulty walking.33 They then downgraded the call from a Code 3 response to a Code 1 response,34 and did not leave for approximately an additional seven minutes after Reiner was secured in the ambulance.35 The ambulance did not use lights and sirens and stopped at every red light on the way to Geisinger Medical Center (“Geisinger”).36 And the EMTs never took Reiner’s blood pressure or administered intravenous (“IV”) therapy.37 During the ambulance ride, Reiner vomited four times.38

The EMTs never contacted anyone at Geisinger on the way to the hospital, and Geisinger personnel were unaware of Reiner’s condition when she arrived.39 After the ambulance arrived at Geisinger, the Geisinger nurses asked why Reiner did not have an IV and sent the EMTs away.40 Upon Reiner’s arrival at Geisinger, Paisley Reiner, her unborn daughter, still had a heartbeat.41 Reiner was rushed to the operating room for an emergency Caesarean section.42 Geisiner medical personnel informed Reiner that she had a full placental abruption and hemorrhage.43 Reiner’s surgery continued for five hours because doctors could not stop her bleeding, and doctors were forced to give Reiner large doses of medications to promote blood clotting to attempt to stop the bleeding.44

Ultimately, Paisley Reiner was delivered stillborn that same day.45 Reiner’s treating physician advised her that if she had arrived at the hospital sooner, Paisley Reiner would have survived the trauma.46 The physician stated that Reiner’s condition started as a partial placental abruption and developed into a complete abruption by the time she arrived at Geisinger. As a result of this incident, Reiner suffers from blood clots and has had three miscarriages.47 On September 26, 2022—three days after Reiner’s incident—Russell Fellman, the 911 Coordinator in charge of the Northumberland County 911 Center, modified the Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) station order relating to Reiner’s call at the 911 Center.48 Fellman changed the 13 EMS district station order to reflect the correct station order that should have been used when Reiner originally contacted the 911 Center.49 Although Area Services was not recommended for dispatch on September 23, 2022 because it was listed deep in the station order, Fellman also modified the CAD system station order to move Area Services higher on the list of emergency services dispatched to a particular location.50

The Northumberland County District Attorney’s Office investigated the incident.51 In October 2022, the Northumberland County Fire Chiefs Association’s vice president claimed that mismanagement of the 911 Center had placed the public in danger; another fire chief expressed concern that mismanagement of the 911 Center would result in civilian death.52 At this same meeting, fire officials aired grievances concerning prolonged dispatch times and significant dispatcher turnover, and called for Fellman’s termination.53 Fellman resigned as 911 Coordinator in December 2022.54 According to Plaintiffs, dispatchers at the 911 Center were not properly trained to dispatch ambulances.55

Chad Reiner, Stephanie Reiner, and the estate of Paisley Reiner now bring a five-count complaint against Defendants.56 Counts I and II seek damages against all defendants for alleged violations of Paisley Reiner and Stephanie Reiner’s federal constitutional rights under Title 18 U.S.C. § 1983.57 The remaining counts are brought exclusively against Defendant CLT under Pennsylvania state law. Count III states a claim for Gross Negligence, Count IV seeks damages under Pennsylvania’s Wrongful Death Act, and Count V seeks damages under Pennsylvania’s Survival Action statute.58 [MORE]

Tennessee Authorities Claim They Can Murder People Convicted for Child Sexual Assault in Direct Challenge to Supreme Court Death Penalty Precedent

From [HERE] On May 9, Governor Bill Lee of Tennessee signed a bill authorizing the death penalty for aggravated rape of a child, following Florida’s passage of a similar law last year. Both laws contradict longstanding Supreme Court precedent holding the death penalty unconstitutional for non-homicide crimes. Tennessee’s law takes effect on July 1. The state has had a death penalty moratorium in place since May 2022 after Governor Lee learned that state officials had failed to test execution drugs for bacterial contamination; he ordered a subsequent independent investigation which found that the state had systematically failed to follow lethal injection protocols. Governor Lee did not release a statement upon signing the bill and has issued no recent updates on the status of the moratorium.  

The Supreme Court held in Coker v. Georgia (1977) that the use of the death penalty is disproportionate to the crime of rape, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court extended that ruling to child rape in Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008). While the Court emphasized the “hurt and horror inflicted” by perpetrators of child rape and the “years of long anguish” endured by the victim, the Court noted that only a handful of states authorized the death penalty for child rape and only two men in the entire country were on death row as a result, making the punishment unconstitutionally “unusual” for the crime. The Court further noted the disproportionate nature of the punishment of death on a person who had not caused death, raising concerns about the “incongruity” between child sexual abuse and the “harshness” of the death penalty. “When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint,” the justices wrote.   

Critics have argued that such laws could further traumatize victims. Maria DeLiberato, Executive Director of Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, pointed out that 30% of child sex abuse victims are abused by family members and 90% of victims know their abuser. “You’ve got this whole dynamic where a child is going to bear the weight of a possible death sentence to a neighbor, an uncle, a grandfather,” she said. Similarly, the Court noted in Kennedy that it “is not at all evident that the child rape victim’s hurt is lessened when the law permits the death of the perpetrator,” as death penalty cases “require a long-term commitment by those who testify for the prosecution” and victims would have to relive their trauma through law enforcement interviews and testimony for decades. The practice “forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice,” the Court wrote.  

There is also evidence that such laws increase the risk of wrongful execution. The Kennedy Court discussed research showing children have a heightened susceptibility to suggestion or fabrication in law enforcement interviews. The National Registry of Exonerations has identified over 300 wrongful convictions involving child sex abuse.  

Governor DeSantis and Florida legislators designed their bill as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Kennedy. “This bill sets up a procedure to be able to challenge that precedent,” DeSantis said. Florida prosecutors announced their first case under the law in December. Some Tennessee legislators made the same argument; state Senator Janice Bowling suggested that “the atmosphere is different on the Supreme Court” and the bill’s sponsors were “simply challenging a ruling.” (Governor Lee denied signing the bill to “test” it in court.) These efforts come amidst challenges at the Supreme Court to the “evolving standards of decency” test used in Kennedy and numerous landmark capital punishment cases. A pending death penalty case from Alabama challenging the test, Hamm v. Smith, has been relisted by the Court fourteen times without a certiorari decision, and advocates recently appeared to sidestep a nearly-identical challenge to the test in a case argued before the Court in April.  

According to Pew Research FBI Data Shows the Violent Crime Rate Fell 49% between 1993 and 2022 and the Property Crime Rate Declined 59% between 1993 and 2022

From [HERE] A growing share of Americans say reducing crime should be a top priority for the president and Congress to address this year. Around six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) hold that view today, up from 47% at the beginning of Joe Biden’s presidency in 2021. [MORE]

How have crime rates in the U.S. changed over time?

Both the FBI and BJS data show dramatic declines in U.S. violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when crime spiked across much of the nation.

Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%). It’s not possible to calculate the change in the rape rate during this period because the FBI revised its definition of the offense in 2013.

[MORE]

The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property crime rate between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates of burglary (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) and motor vehicle theft (-53%).

Using the BJS statistics, the declines in the violent and property crime rates are even steeper than those captured in the FBI data. Per BJS, the U.S. violent and property crime rates each fell 71% between 1993 and 2022.

While crime rates have fallen sharply over the long term, the decline hasn’t always been steady. There have been notable increases in certain kinds of crime in some years, including recently.

In 2020, for example, the U.S. murder rate saw its largest single-year increase on record – and by 2022, it remained considerably higher than before the coronavirus pandemic. Preliminary data for 2023, however, suggests that the murder rate fell substantially last year.

How do Americans perceive crime in their country?

Americans tend to believe crime is up, even when official data shows it is down.

In 23 of 27 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993, at least 60% of U.S. adults have said there is more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the downward trend in crime rates during most of that period. [MORE]

BLACK CRIMINALS FUNCTION AS A NEGATIVE REFERENCE GROUP VITAL TO MAINTAINING THE WHITE AMERICAN SELF-IMAGE. THE BLACK CRIMINAL IS USED TO SUPPORT THE WHITE AMERICAN COMMUNITY'S SELF-SERVING, SELF-JUSTIFYING JUDGMENTS OF ITSELF. WHITE AMERICA'S PREOCCUPATION WITH BLACK CRIMINALITY BETRAYS ITS OWN NEED FOR REASSURANCE; BETRAYS ITS OWN BASIC INSECURITY REGARDING ITS PROJECTED MORAL PURITY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE HIGHER THE INCIDENCE OF REPORTED BLACK CRIMINALITY, THE MORE EXCEPTIONALLY RIGHTEOUS WHITE AMERICA FEELS ITSELF TO BE. THE MORE RIGHTEOUS IT FEELS ITSELF TO BE THE MORE INTENSELY AND GUILTLESSLY IT PROMULGATES AND JUSTIFIES ITS DOMINATION AND EXPLOITATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLES AT HOME AND ABROAD.” THE ABOVE GOES FOR RACIST LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE MEDIA [MORE] THE ONLY PURPOSE OF RACE IS TO PRACTICE RACISM. [MORE]

Determined by Politicians Rather than Judges, Mandatory Minimums Perpetuate Mass Incarceration, according to New Study [gullible scholars Don't Realize Decarceration is Incompatible w/White Supremacy]

From [TheSentencingProject] Eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing laws is essential to creating a more just and equitable criminal justice system. Widespread evidence shows that mandatory minimum sentences produce substantial harm with no overall benefit to crime control.1 Determined by lawmakers rather than judges, these sentences represent a uniquely American approach to sentencing that has accelerated prison growth. They constrain judicial discretion, deepen racial disparities in the criminal legal system, and cause far-reaching harm to individuals, families, and communities.2

Despite building bipartisan agreement that such sentences are a policy failure, mandatory minimum sentences continue to be promoted as a tool to combat crime, even as the public signals waning support. This fact sheet identifies the main issues associated with mandatory minimum sentences. It documents the modest progress toward ending them, as well as efforts to reinstate them, and offers solutions to hasten change that will aid in ending mass incarceration.

Overview

Mandatory minimums are legal provisions in each state and the federal government that require a specific minimum prison term for certain crimes, regardless of individual circumstances.3 A range of criminal legal experts from ideologically diverse backgrounds4 maintain that mandatory minimums are an overly harsh, disproportionate punishment.5

As crime rose in the 1980s and early 1990s, federal and state lawmakers scrambled to calm public concern.6 With some support from academics, community leaders from areas with rising crime, corrections, law enforcement, and the legal community, politicians built on growing momentum to end indeterminate sentences, consisting of a range of years with no set minimum, and instead opted for longer, determinate sentences upon conviction with a long, minimum term. By 1995, all 50 states and the federal government constrained judges’ discretion in sentencing by mandating minimum imprisonment terms for a wide variety of offenses.7These policies encompassed:

• Mandatory prison sentences for many drug-related crimes and longer, mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes and repeat (i.e., habitual) offenses;

• “Three strikes” laws that lengthened sentences, requiring minimum sentences of 25 years to life imprisonment for some, usually serious, offenses;8 and

• “Truth-in-sentencing” laws, which required people to serve most of their sentences, typically 85%, before eligibility for release.9

Problems with Mandatory Minimums

Prosecutors hold the power

A deterrence rationale underpinned mandatory minimum sentences: individuals were expected to refrain from committing new crimes if sentences were lengthened, and such sentences would also “send a message” to those considering criminal acts. The laws were professed to target violent crime, but their broad authority resulted in far more drug and other nonviolent convictions than violent convictions. The use of mandatory minimums effectively vests prosecutors with powerful sentencing discretion. The prosecutor controls the decision to charge a person with a mandatory-eligible crime and, in some states, the decision to apply the mandatory minimum to an eligible charge.10 Rather than eliminate discretion in sentencing, mandatory minimums therefore moved this power from judges to prosecutors. The threat of mandatory minimums also encourages defendants to plead to a different crime to avoid a stiff, mandatory sentence.

Racial and ethnic disparities flourish

Studies show that Black people receive mandatory minimum sentences more frequently than whites.11 A 2019 study found that people of color in New York made up 91% of arrests for crimes that carry mandatory minimums, whereas whites made up only 7%.12 At the federal level, a 2017 United States Sentencing Commission report on drug sentences revealed that Black people were the most likely to have been sentenced under a mandatory minimum than any other group, and that, despite equal rates of using drugs,13 Black and Hispanic individuals comprised the majority of persons convicted of drug-related offenses (which are the most common federal offenses subject to mandatory minimums).14

The racial disparity associated with the sentencing of crack and powder cocaine offenses in the federal system after Congress passed the draconian Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is well known. The law created a quantity-based 100:1 disparity between federal crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, imposing the same five and ten-year mandatory minimum penalties for selling five and 50 grams of crack cocaine as for 100 times the amount of powder cocaine. In 1986, before the law passed, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11% higher than for whites but within four years, this average was 49% higher.15 A 2007 analysis by the United States Sentencing Commission showed that 82% of people convicted of crack-related offenses were Black, a stunning difference compared to whites (9%).16 This injustice was reduced, but not eliminated through the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010 which lowered the disparity to 18:1 from 100:1.

DECARCERATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHITE SUPREMACY’S GOAL OF PLACING LARGE NUMBERS OF NON-WHITE PEOPLE INTO GREATER CONFINEMENT.

RWS REQUIRES THE GREATER CONFINEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF NON-WHITE PEOPLE. UNDECEIVER NEELY FULLER MAKES IT PLAIN THAT “THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS KNOW THAT A WORLD SYSTEM BASED ON RACISM WHITE SUPREMACY REQUIRES THAT SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF NON-WHITE PEOPLE BE GREATLY RESTRICTED IN THEIR MOVEMENTS FROM PLACE TO PLACE. THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS RESTRICT THE MOVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES OF NON-WHITE PEOPLE SO AS TO KEEP THEM IDLE, AND/OR KEEP THEM FROM BECOMING CONSTRUCTIVELY SUFFICIENT.

THE RACISTS MAKE CERTAIN THAT LARGE NUMBERS OF NON-WHITE PEOPLE EXIST UNDER CONDITIONS THAT WILL MOST LIKELY CAUSE THEM TO DO THINGS THAT WILL GIVE RACISTS AN “EXCUSE” TO PUT THEM IN GREATER CONFINEMENT.” [MORE]

Prison conditions worsen

In addition to their profound racial differences, mandatory minimum sentences have contributed to prison overcrowding, which exacerbates extremely unsanitary and dangerous living conditions. Overcrowded prisons create resource deficits for rehabilitation, mental and behavioral health needs, and education needs. Eliminating mandatory minimums would allow the reallocation of resources that could instead go toward funding these services and programs, which have known community safety benefits.17

State and Federal Reforms Underway

After decades of lengthening prison terms to discourage engagement in crime, the failure of this approach is abundantly clear, and some jurisdictions are reversing course. A few notable reforms in recent years include:

• Almost half of all states, as well as the federal government, have reduced or eliminated some mandatory minimums related to drug offenses.18

• Colorado, Iowa, and Washington now forbid mandatory minimums for youth who are transferred to the adult system.19

• Mississippi scaled back its truth-in-sentencing law so that certain nonviolent offenses committed by someone without a criminal history could be reviewed after serving one fourth of their sentence instead of the previous mandate of needing to serve 85% of their sentence.20

While states have yet to address the overuse of mandatory minimum sentences for violent offenses, the limits put on harsh penalties for nonviolent and drug offenses is encouraging. But even here, reform of mandatory minimums has been too sporadic and insufficient to meaningfully pull the prison population back to its pre-mass incarceration levels. Reforms should be strengthened so they point the way toward a new paradigm of sentencing that allows individualized assessments, that includes regular review, and earned release as soon as possible.

Support for Misguided Policies Remains

We are now in the 50th year of the uniquely American reliance on mass incarceration.21 Experts agree that this has come about by politics, not crime, and many of the policies are related to mandatory minimum sentences.9 From perpetuating racial disparities, hindering rehabilitation, and straining resources, these policies have had significant negative consequences for individuals, families, and communities.

While inroads have been made to reverse or reform mandatory minimum laws in select states, we are nowhere near an end to the “get tough” politics that brought them about. Old rhetoric tends to resurface when crime worries rise. In 2022, the Tennessee legislature passed a new truth-in-sentencing law,23which requires individuals to serve 100% of their sentence upon conviction for eight separate felonies. The law is expected to increase the prison population considerably.24

A successful push in California for two new mandatory minimums followed another highly televised crime by Stanford University student Brock Turner in 2016.25 Because the sexual assault did not fall neatly in the state definition of rape, the two new laws expanded the definition of rape and prohibited the use of probation in a wider range of crimes of a sexual nature. The case exemplifies the understandable emotional public outcry for immediate action. It is important to remember, though, that the burden of such quickly developed laws is likely to fall disproportionately on non-white individuals, unlike this defendant, perpetuating the crisis of punitiveness toward Black and Brown communities.26 [MORE]

Are Alabama Prisons for Confinement or Gender Annihilation? Gov Has Spent $10M Defending Claims that Overcrowded Inmates are Routinely Raped, Sexually Abused and Subjected to Horrific Sexual Violence

Findings issued by the United States Department of Justice documenting the extraordinary rise in violence and sexual assaults in Alabama's prisons over the last five years leave no doubt that there is a humanitarian crisis in our state's prisons. Photographs are now appearing in local and national media that provide a window into violence that state officials have long shielded from public view. [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY MAKES IT PLAIN:

prisons – U.S. Bureau of Gender Annihilation and Family Destruction. Prisons are indicative of society’s sickness, the political repression of the State and a corrupt—if not bankrupt—economic system of monopoly capitalism. There is a myth supported by Corporate media that prisons function to keep criminals away from society. This is patently false as most crimes are non-violent and actually go unreported. Most “criminals” operate and remain within agencies and boardrooms—though not in prison, making life for others a living hell. Prisons are but reflections of society’s infractions—refracted in the form of deformed grins and shadowed sins—missing the mark is the mark of the missing and exploited, the lost, oppressed, despised and compromised, left with only vices as their bootstrap devices in a misbegotten world gone astray. A place where the multitudes (have-nots) scrap amongst each other in order to taste the morsel of just another still-born day that brings the hope unborn aborted in the muffled moans of yesterday. The ghetto groans in the birth of a new dawn accompanied by the same old sirens serenading the pangs of hunger, souls murmur and pre-mumble the pre-amble to be free; free from the oppression of the OCTOCON and its emissaries. I’ve seen the whites of eyes, clear and teary—hold on my people, don’t get weary. We must all learn to discern and honor the sacredness of life—the life you deserve is the one you preserve, and the life you help save may help you save your own. (See: The OCTOCON, Penal Code, DL Brothers, Buck Rodgers Time, BOP, Capital Punishment, Monopoly Capitalism & Homo Tiempos) [MORE]

From [HERE] An incarcerated man sued Alabama, claiming state officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk of sexual violence in the state’s prisons. As the judge noted in 2023, Jacob Barefield’s complaint listed terrifying, credible examples. But something else caught the judge’s eye—the State’s response when asked why it spent over $10 million fighting such lawsuits.

We are “an easy target,” the State’s lawyers wrote in a court filing, and “baseless claims must still be defended.” Besides, the State said, Mr. Barefield’s complaint had not “plausibly” claimed a pattern of unchecked sexual violence.

U.S. District Court Judge W. Keith Watkins wrote:

Did they read the complaint? If they had then they would know that such a violent environment is exactly what [the plaintiff] alleges, and arguments to the contrary are disingenuous, if not bordering on outright dishonesty.

In Alabama, people incarcerated in overcrowded and understaffed prisons are routinely raped, sexually abused, and subjected to horrific sexual violence. Twenty years after Congress unanimously passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), sexual violence in Alabama’s prisons is at an all-time high. 

For years, officials have been notified about a pattern of sexual assaults, rapes, and brutal attacks. Last year, the Alabama Department of Corrections received almost daily reports of prison sexual assaults.

Mr. Barefield’s complaint, filed in federal court, details allegations of a harrowing episode at an Alabama prison. 

According to the complaint,  Mr. Barefield, 25, was standing in the canteen snack line at Ventress Correctional Facility, a sprawling medium security prison in southeastern Alabama, on Sunday morning, November 11, 2018, when an incarcerated man wearing a teal wristband approached him with a knife.

The wristband meant the man lived in F Dorm, the section of Ventress reserved for prisoners with recent serious infractions and needing the highest level of management. LL, the man flashing the knife at Mr. Barefield, had been transferred to Ventress from St. Clair, a maximum security prison where he had allegedly stabbed a man to death in a fight five years earlier.

LL’s wristband signaled that he had no business being in the canteen that morning with Mr. Barefield and the other men there. But no guard was there to stop him. LL encountered not a single guard as he walked Mr. Barefield out of the canteen at knifepoint, across the prison yard, past a number of buildings, and toward F Dorm.

The complaint alleges that Ventress officials knew Mr. Barefield might be a target. They had determined that he was especially vulnerable to sexual assault. He wore the yellow wristband of C Dorm, whose residents are not allowed in F Dorm. But the guard at the door to F Dorm did not check his wristband, and no correctional officer was on duty inside the dorm. 

The door should have been locked. It wasn’t. LL opened it and forced Mr. Barefield into the open-bay dorm, a big room that housed more than 100 men classified as high risk. 

Marching his captive past the rows of metal bunk beds, LL forced Mr. Barefield onto a lower bunk. A nearby television had its volume turned all the way up. Sheets and blankets hung from the upper bunk, creating a makeshift tent, or “hump” in Alabama prison slang, that concealed what went on inside.

LL told another prisoner he was going “to show him how to take control of another inmate.” Then he entered the tent.

What happened next, according to the complaint, is described by Judge Watkins in his August 22, 2023, memorandum opinion in Mr. Barefield’s lawsuit: 

There, in the middle of the morning, in a violent offender’s dorm that Barefield should never have been allowed to enter, in a crowded area that should have been supervised by a guard, in a makeshift tent that should have been immediately taken down, using a knife that should have been confiscated, [LL] raped Jacob Barefield…The T.V. drowned out any cries.

After the rape finally ended, LL and another incarcerated person held Mr. Barefield hostage inside the ”hump” for more than five hours. During that time, in violation of Ventress policy, no guards patrolled or even monitored surveillance cameras in that section of F Dorm.  

If Mr. Barefield told anyone what had happened, he’d be killed, LL warned. 

When a prison official arrived to do the daily count before dinner, LL released Mr. Barefield, who immediately sought aid. He told the shift commander in the yard he had been attacked and repeatedly asked for his help.

The commander did not take a statement or file a report, as required. He did not direct Mr. Barefield to the infirmary or ask who had raped him. He simply ordered him back to C Dorm. 

That night Mr. Barefield telephoned a friend and asked her to report the rape to the warden and other supervisors. She did, promptly. But Mr. Barefield’s suit said that for two days, in violation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, those officials took no action.

Weeks later, Warden Michael Strickland barged in on a meeting between Ventress’s PREA compliance officer and Mr. Barefield. As the ultimate authority at Ventress, the warden said to Mr. Barefield “something along the lines of ‘grow some hair on your chin,’” Judge Watkins wrote.  

“If true,” Judge Watkins wrote, “the allegations in this case tell a horrific story about excessively dangerous conditions in another Alabama state prison—and the failures of authorities to fix them.”

The judge added this footnote: 

This case does not come to the court in isolation. In the past year, several courts have found viable allegations of unconstitutionally violent conditions of confinement throughout the Alabama prison system. The common themes in these cases are easily detected: understaffing, overcrowding, proliferation of contraband weapons, and abject failures to monitor and supervise inmates—all of which have allegedly led to the highest rates of inmate-on-inmate violence in the country. And those failures, especially concerning egregious understaffing, are not new. Over five years ago, the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) was ordered to staff Alabama prisons at a constitutionally adequate level. He has not yet done so.  

11th Circuit Affirms Sheriff Victor Hill’s Abuse Conviction: Black Strawboss Handcuffed Inmates to Restraint Chairs for Up to 6 Hours at a Time in Atlanta Area Jail

ALTHOUGH DO-GOODER REFORMERS OFTEN CLAIM DIVERSE POLICE FORCES ARE A CURE FOR POLICE BRUTALITY, BLACK COPS BRUTALIZE AND HARM BLACK PEOPLE AT A RATE NEARLY EQUAL TO WHITE COPS. SAID DO-GOODERS ARE DRUNK-OFF THEIR JESUSIZED BELIEF IN STATISM. SCHOLAR ALEX VITALE STATES, “REFORMERS OFTEN CALL FOR RECRUITING MORE OFFICERS OF COLOR IN THE HOPES THAT THEY WILL TREAT COMMUNITIES WITH GREATER DIGNITY, RESPECT, AND FAIRNESS. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THIS HOPE. EVEN THE MOST DIVERSE FORCES HAVE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH RACIAL PROFILING AND BIAS, AND INDIVIDUAL BLACK AND LATINO OFFICERS APPEAR TO PERFORM VERY MUCH LIKE THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS.” HE STATES, “THERE IS NOW A LARGE BODY OF EVIDENCE MEASURING WHETHER THE RACE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS AFFECTS THEIR USE OF FORCE. MOST STUDIES SHOW NO EFFECT. MORE DISTRESSINGLY, A FEW INDICATE THAT BLACK OFFICERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO USE FORCE OR MAKE ARRESTS, ESPECIALLY OF BLACK CIVILIANS.” [MORE] and [MORE]AND [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY EXPLAINS

Quisling – the name for a traitor, coined in April, 1940, meaning one who is content to accept the yoke of the conqueror for the sake of being given office and trinkets, even against the feeling and expression of the conquered people, and moreover, prepared to use the force continuum against his/her own people to impose the conquerors decrees. (See: SNAGs)

"The notion that '[n]o man is above the law and no man is below it' is fundamental to our democratic republic's continuing viability." So says the Eleventh Circuit(link is external) as its opening statement in affirming the conviction of Victor Hill, a former Clayton County, Ga. sheriff for gratuitously putting detainees in a restraint chair for hours at a time, causing extreme pain and lasting injuries.

The case is United States v. Victor Hill, 23-10934 (11th Cir. 2024).

Former CDC Director Robert Redfield Admits that People Under Age 50 Had No Reason to Get COVID Injections. Also Admits Experimental Shots Caused Significant Injury. Claims He Warned Government

From [HERE] Former CDC Director Robert Redfield said Thursday that many officials who tried to warn the public about potential problems with COVID-19 vaccines were silenced and that it’s time to acknowledge the jab resulted in “significant” side effects.

“Those of us that tried to suggest there may be significant side effects from vaccines … we kind of got canceled because no one wanted to talk about the potential that there was a problem from the vaccines, because they were afraid that that would cause people not to want to get vaccinated,” Dr. Redfield told Chris Cuomo on NewsNation.

Dr. Redfield, who helmed the CDC during Operation Warp Speed, argued the COVID shots were “important” and saved “a lot of lives,” but also admitted that individuals under 50 years old had no reason to receive the experimental COVID injection and that the shots caused “significant side effects.”

“They’re important for the most vulnerable people, those over 60, 65 years of age. They really aren’t that critical for those that are under 50 or younger. But those vaccines saved a lot of lives, but they also—we have to be honest, some people got significant side effects from the vaccine,” he said.

“I have a number of people that are quite ill and they never had COVID, but they are ill from the vaccine,” he continued. “And we just have to acknowledge that.”

Redfield was one of the first major government health officials to claim that in his “professional opinion” the virus that caused COVID-19 originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Cuomo himself recently admitted he experienced health issues from the COVID jab.

A bombshell report published by the Correlation Research in the Public Interest in September found the COVID jabs were causally linked to a drastic increase in all-cause mortality in 17 countries, ultimately resulting in at least 17 million deaths.

And a recent large-scale study through the Global Covid Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project analyzed health data from 99 million patients encompassing eight countries and confirmed a causal link between the shots and myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and more.

Dr James Thorpe- The Purpose of COVID Injections is Depopulation; Killing, Injuring and Sterilizing People. Authorities Murdered or Intentionally Injured 585 Million People w/the Alleged "Vaccine"

Dr. Charles Hoffe: If an Unvaxxed Person Has Sex with Someone who Got COVID Injections the Unvaxxed Person Will be Exposed to Spike Protein which May Cause Illness, Inflammation

The Plandemic was Always about Genthanasia - Getting as Many Humans as Possible Injected with a Bioweapon to Kill Them in a Slow Motion Extermination

From [HERE] The pandemic end game was always about injecting the masses with the ultimate depopulation bioweapon of the globalists – mRNA "vaccines." Forget about the torture of lockdowns, the brain-suffocating masks, the society-crippling social distancing mandates, because it was, is and always will be about getting people injected with millions of forever-prions. Who's distracted? Who got so caught up in the frenzy, that they actually agreed to the most dangerous medical experiment in the history of Western Medicine?

Meet the mRNA-bioweapon disguised as a vaccine

Talk about camouflage. The mRNA so-called "vaccine" (which does NOT qualify as one) was planned to infect the entire human body with toxic spike prions that bind together using nanotechnology, clog the vascular system, pollute the cleansing organs, strain the heart, freak out the immune system, disrupt the central nervous system, and destroy any fetus. It gets worse.

What if you had "free medical coverage" to help you pay for the treatments you will need after being injected with the "technological" formula that tricks your cells into producing millions of toxic, virus-mimicking prions? Does that sound like a good deal? It's like telling people to shoot themselves in the foot with a shotgun, and then any medical work they need to help recover from the injury is covered. Sounds great, right? Where is the end of the line for that?

Today's war gas chambers are bioweapons disguised as vaccines. Today's nuclear war isn't nuclear at all, but it's likely to give you cancer, and a heart attack too, by using spike proteins to trick your body into malfunctioning, forever. How many years does each Covid jab remove from human existence? Is it decades? Did you know that since the Wuhan jab rollout, cancer rates are skyrocketing? What "standard of care" helps fight cancer that's invading every part of your body via every blood vessel?

End game was, is and always will be about "vaccinating" as many sheeple as possible

What more insidious way could there ever be to absolutely wipe out the majority of earth's population than with a "medicine" that 70 percent of the populace believes is one hundred percent "safe and effective"? At least 7 of every 10 humans that walk the earth right now think that vaccines are the best way to stay alive, prevent viral infections and keep pandemics from spreading. Nearly every one of these same people believe in climate change also, because… "science."

Although there is ZERO science proving mRNA vaccines prevent or lessen the impact of Covid-19, these sheeple have been brainwashed by falsified, globalist-funded 'research' and the fake news media complex. The same goes for "global warming," which had to be changed to "climate change" when all the NASA-faked statistics got revealed for what they really are.  The temperature graph got cherry-picked for the past 100 years, but none of the sheeple had a look at the 1,000-year graph, or the 10,000 year graph, that shows earth is actually in a slow cooling phase. Oops.

The globalist end game is to bankrupt America's middle class, infect them all with millions of deadly prions yearly, and replace them all with illegal immigrants from around the world. Get ready for the United Banana Republic of America, because that's where this is all directly headed. Have you been sucked in by the Covid jab cult or the climate change cult? Don't drink the Koolaid.

300 Pages of Emails Leave No Doubt: Fauci, NIH Knew Early on of Injuries, Deaths Caused by Experimental COVID Injections

According to documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense, reports of injuries and deaths following COVID-19 vaccines — including a child injured by the Pfizer vaccine during a clinical trial and a fatal vaccine-induced case of myocarditis — reached NIH researchers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and others in 2021 and 2022.

From [HERE] Several adverse event reports from people injured by the COVID-19 vaccines reached National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers in 2021 and 2022 — including a report of a child injured by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine during a clinical trial, according to documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

The documents also include reports of vaccine-injured people who were suicidal and emails sent to government officials — including Dr. Anthony Fauci — by a COVID-19 vaccine injury victim frustrated with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Board’s (CICP) slow pace of responding to their vaccine injury claims.

As reports of vaccine injuries came in, the agency advised one injured person that it was “not prudent” to get a second dose.

Some researchers cited a lack of knowledge about vaccine injuries due to the rapid speed at which they were developed.

The 300-page batch of documents released to CHD on April 21 contains emails between the NIH and people reporting COVID-19 vaccine injuries. CHD requested the documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in November 2022.

On April 12, 2023, CHD sued the NIH to obtain the records after the NIH did not respond to the request.

In an October 2023 settlement, the NIH agreed to produce up to 7,500 pages of documents at a rate of 300 pages per month. This month’s batch also revealed that Fauci and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials knew of serious COVID-19 vaccine adverse events as early as December 2020.

‘No doubt in my mind that the vaccine caused’ girl’s injuries

In emails sent to NIH researchers Farinaz Safavi, M.D., Ph.D., Dr. Avindra Nath and Amanda Wiebold starting May 24, 2021 (pages 237-243), the parents of a girl injured during the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine trial detailed their daughter’s condition.

For 2nd Straight Year Homelessness Increases in DC, a City Controlled by Elite White Liberals; Black Families Hit Hardest as Black People Make Up 86% of DC Homeless but are Only 46% of the Population

Photo courtesy of Vincent Brown, the undeceiver.

IN WASHINGTON, DC, AFRICAN AMERICANS MAKE UP 86.4 PERCENT OF THE HOMELESS POPULATION, WHILE REPRESENTING ONLY 46.6 PERCENT OF THE CITY’S POPULATION. ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS, THIS IMBALANCE IS NOT IMPROVING OVER TIME. IT CAN BE DEDUCED THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LANDLORDS ARE WHITE LIBERALS, AS DC IS ONLY 5% REPUBLICAN. [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY EXPLAINS

homeless – the informationally disenfranchised and in many cases also the psychologically disengaged. The streets may belong to the people, but they make less than ideal places to live. In the cold, the homeless look for the “grate” outdoors.

From [HERE] New data published Monday showed the number of homeless people living on D.C. streets increased for the second consecutive year — and many of those seeking shelter are families.

The D.C. mayor’s office said the city recorded a 14% increase in homelessness this year, according to the District’s annual Point-in-Time Count taken in January.

Raw numbers haven’t been released yet, but a 14% increase over the 4,922 people counted as homeless last year in the District would put this year’s number around 5,600 people. In 2022, the District recorded 4,410 people living on city streets.

“Across the last two years, we counted a higher percentage of people experiencing homelessness for the first time, which both points to the need for earlier interventions as well as our success at supporting those who have experienced long-term homelessness to regain housing,” Laura Zeilinger, director of the D.C. Department of Human Services, said in a news release. “We are committed to continue to build on and invest in proven solutions, and innovative approaches to enhance our system for District residents facing homelessness.”

Families accounted for 39% of the increase in homelessness, while single individuals represented 6% of the increase, according to the mayor’s office.

That’s a change from the PIT count last year, when both groups were relatively equal contributors to 2023’s uptick in homelessness. Families made up 12% of last year’s increase, and single individuals accounted for 10%.

City officials noted there are fewer transients in the city now than in 2020, when data was collected roughly two months before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold.

The mayor’s office said the 30% reduction in homelessness over the past four years stemmed from pandemic-era policies such as the eviction moratorium and an infusion of federal cash into cities and states.

The District’s homeless population dropped 31% between 2020-22 — which led the nation, according to the mayor’s office — until the trend began to reverse after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the eviction moratorium in 2021 and federal money slowly dried up.

But homeless advocates who work in the city believe the District’s numbers are finally correcting after being undercounted during the heart of the pandemic. 

“The District reported a significant decrease in homelessness overall during COVID, and we saw nothing to support that dramatic decrease that they were reporting,” Joe Mettimano, the executive director for Central Union Mission, told The Washington Times.

Mr. Mettimano said he saw the same number coming to Central Union’s men’s only shelter during COVID as he does now. 

And he mentioned that the organization’s food pantry, which is open to anyone, saw a 50-75% surge in visits from women and families during the pandemic that has yet to recede. [MORE]

Feds Keep the Poverty Line Artificially Low ($15,060 for 1 adult in 2024) to Conceal at Least 36 Million Households who Earn Too Much to Qualify for Welfare and Not Enough to Afford the Basics

From [HERE] Some of the country’s savviest economic trend predictors spend all day answering call-center phones. 

Operators at 211 emergency helplines raised alarm bells about a baby formula shortage ahead of the headlines about empty shelves. And they knew that families were defaulting on their mortgages before the subprime collapse in 2008.    

Now, even as the economy looks healthy by many measures, 211 workers say they are hearing something concerning: more people living very close to poverty than the federal poverty line might suggest. The disparity aligns with polls showing high levels of consumer malaise despite recent good news like cooling inflation, low unemployment and strong hiring in March.

United Way, the nonprofit that operates about half of the country’s 200-plus 211 centers, and other poverty researchers blame that disconnect partly on the federal poverty line, which they say hasn’t kept up with the real cost of living. 

The share of households below the census-designated federal poverty line has barely budged since 2010. Meanwhile, poverty researchers say a large and fast-growing group of people are earning too much to qualify for social services and not enough to afford the basics where they live.

“We wonder why there’s so much anger in public discourse today, and it’s in part because of the stress people feel to just keep themselves and their families afloat,” says Lisa Tepper Bates, president of United Way of Connecticut. “People feel like the system is not serving them.” 

United Way calls this population ALICE, or Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. The organization says about 36 million American households, or 29%, met the criteria in 2021, the most recent year for which data is available. That is up 18% from 2010. Preliminary data show the same trend continuing through 2022.

In nearby Hartford, where the cost of living outpaces the national average, 38% of households fit that description. Call centers operate locally, and Connecticut’s center hears from residents all over the state. 

Not many answers

During years of underemployment as a single parent, Theo Bonet got help from services—and later applied to work as a United Way contact specialist to help families who also needed assistance. The 42-year-old didn’t expect to tell so many callers that they earn too much for assistance. 

“It’s heart-wrenching to have to say to someone who’s struggling, ‘I’m sorry, you’re not eligible,’ ” says Bonet, adding that the frequency of these calls has risen sharply. 

Callers tell Bonet that they are embarrassed to ask for help and that they are often doing so for the first time after working throughout adulthood. “I always remind them it takes strength to make a call,” Bonet says. 

Trained to route callers to thousands of outside resources and service providers, United Way operators say those available to ALICE families struggling to pay their bills are often limited to food pantries and a smattering of religious and government programs without income restrictions. 

The federal poverty level for a family of four stands at $31,200. United Way of Connecticut estimates the bare-minimum survival budget for a family of four with two young children in the state to be as high as $126,000. United Way uses the local cost of housing, groceries, child care, healthcare, transportation, technology and taxes to come up with ALICE survival budgets for every U.S. county. 

Bonet recently spoke with a man who said he earned $10,000 a month and was looking for low-cost medical facilities because he couldn’t afford health insurance. 

“I just was kind of in disbelief to hear someone who makes that much struggling,” Bonet says. 

Defining poverty

United Way of Connecticut President Tepper Bates doesn’t mince words: “The federal poverty line is garbage.”

Although the Census Bureau raises the poverty line each year in step with the Labor Department’s consumer-price index, some poverty experts say the underlying math doesn’t reflect many financial realities. The core assumption that families spend a third of their total income on food, they say, is inconsistent with the fact that on average, housing consumes the largest share of household budgets. And the metric doesn’t adjust for differences in the cost of living across the U.S., which hurts residents of high-cost states such as Connecticut.  

The Census Bureau released its own supplemental poverty measure in 2011 that provides a more nuanced calculation. The official poverty line of $15,060 for one adult in 2024, however, remains the baseline for determining most public assistance. Among the benefits: Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the National School Lunch Program. 

A group of Democratic congressmen introduced a bill in December that would change the poverty line calculation more drastically than the supplemental measure and likely qualify more families for benefits. It hasn’t received a vote.   

Pandemic-era benefits cushioned families during the early period of rapid inflation, says Marianne Page, director of the Center for Poverty and Inequality Research and an economics professor at the University of California, Davis. Without those programs, more families are struggling, she says. 

“People are worse off now,” Page says. “There are a lot of other measures by which we might think the economy is doing OK. But at the end of the day, things like inflation and benefits being clawed back have an impact on a family’s ability to purchase the goods and services that it needs.” 

The Department of Health and Human Services and Commerce Department, which both play roles in federal poverty calculations and benefit allocation, directed the Journal to each other or to publicly available information. [MORE]

An Inside Job: 'The Oct 7th Attacks on Israel Were Organized and Enabled by Israel. The $2 Billion Fence at Gaza is Impenetrable to “Hamas” and is the Most Surveilled Border in the World’

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Israel – the name of the most successful and vicious terrorist groups that ultimately became a nation (Corporate State) on the heels of the British government controlled United Nations mandate. 2) Occupied Palestine—preoccupied by Palestinians prior to the time in history when there weren’t any Hebrews living on the dusty tiny strip of land on the western edge of the Asian continent erroneously referred to as the Middle East. 3) the name created by combining two Khemetic gods Isis, Ra with a Semitic one El. Israel or Is it Real? (See: Zionism, Twelve Tribes of Israel, Jews, Terrorism, Racism White Supremacy, Caucasian, Israeliens & Thugs)

Israeliens – impostor (pale interloper alien) Hebrews—Eastern European stock Caucasians who adopted the philosophy, myths, fables, and traditions of the so-called “Jews” while living in Russia—masquerading as if they had any genetic or historical ancestry and cultural heritage to the Afrikan Hebrews, the Afrim people, who occupied Canaan (Palestine) from ancient times. 2) those who currently are occupying Palestine (the land of Canaan), colonizing and killing its rightful descendants, historic owners and dwellers), and are undeniably alien (foreign—not aboriginal) to that land. 3) impostor Hebrews originating from the Pale of Settlement in Kazzarian Russia currently an occupying force (militarily holed-up and propped-up by US financial support and British skullduggery) in occupied Palestine. 4) alien Jews—Pinchbeck Hebrews. Israeliens are East Europeans with no genetic or actual historic ties whatsoever to the land now called Palestine. Israeliens have brainwashed (and fooled) themselves and many others into believing this historical lie and propaganda that they are the descendents of “Jews” (a misnomer for African Hebrews, itself a misnomer for the Afrim people). Anyone with a modicum of research skills, knowledge of basic geography, philology, and an unbiased-by-religious-myth mind can easily confirm or validate this fact for his or herself. Both so-called Sephardim and Ashkenazim “Jews” are not historically tied to the Afrim. It’s not that Caucasians who have adopted the “Jewish” religion shouldn’t have a place to live—but how about suggesting relocating where they came from—the hills of Russia, and not on another peoples’ land. You don’t invade (break into) someone’s house (property) and expect them to just go away and not fight to get it back (despite how much force, murdering, deception, and propaganda that is brought to bear to justify such wrongful invasion and genocide). Psychological repression is both invisible and reflexive. (See: Zionism, USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, Genocide, Immigrant Human, Jew, Twelve Tribes of Israel, Evolution, Caucasian, Pilgarlick, El & Judaism)