Home Blog

Man Of God Document-1

Declaration of the People of the United
States for Global Peace and Prosperity

By Man of God


When the Course of recent human EVENTS, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the each State in the United States of America, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them! A decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation from the authorities imposed by those oligopolists that control all via corruption and influence. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these States in the United States; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


Download and Share!
Read Full Document Here


Man Of God Document-4

Swiss National Day on August 1 in Zurich, Switzerland.

Man of God Solution and Map of Success

Here is what we can look forward to with all of humanity in unity for global peace and prosperity.
Each problem has many solutions with contingencies.
Since most of the very hard work is completed now we must activate true Law and Order, Peace and Prosperity and the love of God to all of humanity worldwide.
Eliminate all issues with COVID 19 including all illegal actions, false reporting, fake mass media nonsense, and remove all those representatives that supported the fabricated base of fear.
Now to deal with the mess of those innocent humans that have been infected by the fake COVID 19 vaccines and related booster shots that have the following elements:
1. Formaldehyde/Formalin. High toxic systemic poison and carcinogen.
2. Betapropiolacton – Toxic chemical and carcinogen.
3. Hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide. Damages liver, cardiovascular system and central nervous system.
4. Aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate and aluminum salts – Neurotoxin that causes long term brain inflammation / swelling, neurological disorders, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer’s , dementia and autism. It penetrates the brain where it persists indefinitely.
5. Thimerosal (Mercury), Neurotoxin. Cellular damage, degeneration and death.
6. Polysorbate 80 & 20 Trespass the Blood-Brain Barriers and carries with it aluminum, thimerosal and virus entering the brain.
7. Glutaraldehyde – Toxic chemical used as a disinfectant for heat sensitive medical equipment.
8. Fetal Bovine Serum Harvested from bovine (cow) fetuses taken from pregnant cows before slaughter.
9. Human Diploid Fibroblast Cells – aborted fetal cells. Foregn DNA has the ability to interact with our own.
10. African Green Monkey Kidney cells – carry the SV-40 cancer causing virus that already tainted about 30-50 Million Americans and many more abroad globally.
11. Acetone – can cause kidney, liver and nerve damage.
12. E.Coli – yes that is correct.
13. DNA from porcine (pig) Circovirus type 1.
14. Human embryonic lung cell cultures (from aborted fetuses)
Please note you can view all of these ingredients on the CDCs website and we all encourage everyone to do their own verification.
Fact check vaccine here: https://www.cbc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
More references for the document:
https://www.vaccinesafety.edu/components-COVID-19.htm Part of the list.


Download and Share!
Read Full Document Here


Man Of God Document-3

Photo by Schoolhouse Rock! via ABC

How to Kill a Bill: Five Tips for Keeping
Bad Legislation from Getting Passed
by Roberto Gutierrez | Jan 2, 2019 Photo

Bad bills are introduced in state legislatures nearly every day. Whether in a state house or in the halls of Congress, lawmakers regularly write bills that restrict freedom, raise taxes and enact harmful regulations. Often, special interests spend significant time and money trying to get these bad bills passed. But if you know the right techniques, you can take them on – and win. Here are some tips and tricks from our Legislative Training program that you can use to make sure bad bills never become law. Get Out in Front The best time to kill a bill is before it even sees the light of day. If you know the issues lawmakers are planning to tackle during a legislative session, you can shape the discussion about the issue before there’s even a bill. A preemptive strike is often enough to stop harmful legislation. By generating a lot of opposition to the idea, you can keep lawmakers from even submitting a bad bill. Know the Process It’s important to know the path a bill takes once it’s filed—what committees it needs to be approved by, what procedures the legislature takes and how the legislature votes. Your state website likely has information on how the process works. Get Your Ducks in a Row Take time to map out a potential coalition before engaging in the fight. Ask yourself what other groups would care about the issue or who else might be harmed. If you’re fighting a corporate welfare bill that would hand out taxpayer dollars and free land to a big, out-of-state corporation, there are any number of potential allies. Environmental groups might care about the land use. Local businesses might be concerned about unfair treatment and competition. Families might care about misuse of their hard-earned tax-dollars.



Download and Share!
Read Full Document Here


Man Of God Document-2

How are Laws Made

This is a web-friendly presentation of the PDF “How Our Laws Are Made” (House Document 110-49); revised and updated by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, United States House of Representatives, July 2007.


This online resource provides a basic outline of the numerous steps of our federal law-making process from the source of an idea for a legislative proposal through its publication as a statute. The legislative process is a matter about which every person should be well informed in order to understand and appreciate the work of Congress. It is hoped that this guide will enable readers to gain a greater understanding of the federal legislative process and its role as one of the foundations of our representative system. One of the most practical safeguards of the American democratic way of life is this legislative process with its emphasis on the protection of the minority, allowing ample opportunity to all sides to be heard and make their views known. The fact that a proposal cannot become a law without consideration and approval by both Houses of Congress is an outstanding virtue of our bicameral legislative system. The open and full discussion provided under the Constitution often results in the notable improvement of a bill by amendment before it becomes law or in the eventual defeat of an inadvisable proposal. As the majority of laws originate in the House of Representatives, this discussion will focus principally on the procedure in that body.


CONGRESSArticle I, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, provides that:All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.The Senate is composed of 100 Members—two from each state, regardless of population or area—elected by the people in accordance with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The 17th Amendment changed the former constitutional method under which Senators were chosen by the respective state legislatures. A Senator must be at least 30 years of age, have been a citizen of the United States for nine years, and, when elected, be an inhabitant of the state for which the Senator is chosen. The term of office is six years and one-third of the total membership of the Senate is elected every second year. The terms of both Senators from a particular state are arranged so that they do not terminate at the same time. Of the two Senators from a state serving at the same time the one who was elected first—or if both were elected at the same time, the one elected for a full term—is referred to as the ‘‘senior’’ Senator from that state. The other is referred to as the ‘‘junior’’ Senator. If a Senator dies or resigns during the term, the governor of the state must call a special election unless the state legislature has authorized the governor to appoint a successor until the next election, at which time a successor is elected for the balance of the term. Most of the state legislatures have granted their governors the power of appointment.Each Senator has one vote.As constituted in the 110th Congress, the House of Representatives is composed of 435 Members elected every two years from among the 50 states, apportioned to their total populations. The permanent number of 435 was established by federal law following the Thirteenth Decennial Census in 1910, in accordance with Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution. This number was increased temporarily to 437 for the 87th Congress to provide for one Representative each for Alaska and Hawaii. The Constitution limits the number of representatives to not more than one for every 30,000 of population. Under a former apportionment in one state, a particular Representative represented more than 900,000 constituents, while another in the same state was elected from a district having a population of only 175,000. The Supreme Court has since held unconstitutional a Missouri statute permitting a maximum population variance of 3.1 percent from mathematical equality. The Court ruled in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969), that the variances among the districts were not unavoidable and, therefore, were invalid. That decision was an interpretation of the Court’s earlier ruling in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), that the Constitution requires that ‘‘as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.’A law enacted in 1967 abolished all ‘‘at-large’’ elections except in those less populous states entitled to only one Representative. An ‘‘at-large’’ election is one in which a Representative is elected by the voters of the entire state rather than by the voters in a congressional district within the state.A Representative must be at least 25 years of age, have been a citizen of the United States for seven years, and, when elected, be an inhabitant of the state in which the Representative is chosen. Unlike the Senate where a successor may be appointed by a governor when a vacancy occurs during a term, if a Representative dies or resigns during the term, the executive authority of the state must call a special election pursuant to state law for the choosing of a successor to serve for the unexpired portion of the term.Each Representative has one vote.In addition to the Representatives from each of the States, a Resident Commissioner from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Delegates from the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are elected pursuant to federal law.


Download and Share!
Read Full Document Here


Barrett concerned about public perception of Supreme Court

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concerns Sunday that the public may increasingly see the court as a partisan institution.

Justices must be “hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too,” Barrett said at a lecture hosted by the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center.

Introduced by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who founded the center and played a key role in pushing through her confirmation in the last days of the Trump administration, Barrett spoke at length about her desire for others to see the Supreme Court as nonpartisan.

Barrett said the media’s reporting of opinions doesn’t capture the deliberative process in reaching those decisions. And she insisted that “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.”

“To say the court’s reasoning is flawed is different from saying the court is acting in a partisan manner,” said Barrett, whose confirmation to the seat left open by the death of the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cemented conservative control of the court. “I think we need to evaluate what the court is doing on its own terms.”

Barrett’s comments followed a high-profile decision earlier this month in which the court by 5-4 vote declined to step in to stop a Texas law banning most abortions from going into effect, prompting outrage from abortion rights groups and President Joe Biden.

Barrett was asked about that decision by students who submitted questions in advance and also asked about another recent decision by the court in which it refused to block a lower court ruling ordering the Biden administration to reinstate a Trump-era program informally known as Remain in Mexico. Barrett said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on specific cases.

Several supporters of abortion rights demonstrated outside the Seelbach Hotel, where the private event was held.

Barrett, 49, also spoke about her introduction to the court in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, saying it “certainly is a different experience.” The court has for more than a year been hearing arguments by telephone though it recently announced a return to the courtroom in October.

Barrett described the court as a “warm, collegial place.” She said that after she was confirmed a colleague brought Halloween candy for her children. The first mother of school-age children on the nine-member court also spoke about balancing her job and family life.

“I have an important job, but I certainly am no more important than anyone else in the grocery store checkout line,” Barrett said, describing how her relationship with her children — who are not “particularly impressed” with her high-profile post — helps her stay grounded in her “regular life” where she is busy “running carpools, throwing birthday parties, being ordered around.”

When asked what advice she would give to young women who would like to pursue a career in public service, the justice said she would like young women to know it is possible to raise a family and be successful.

Barrett was confirmed by the Senate in a 52-48 vote last year, a little over a month after Ginsburg’s death.

Democrats opposed her nomination, arguing that the process was rushed and that the winner of the 2020 presidential election should have been able to choose Ginsburg’s replacement. McConnell’s decision to move forward with Barrett’s nomination was a contrast to the position he took in 2016, when he refused to consider President Barack Obama’s choice to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February of that year. McConnell blocked hearings for then-judge Merrick Garland, now Biden’s attorney general, saying the choice should be left to voters in an election year.

The lecture was held in celebration of the McConnell Center’s 30th anniversary. Founded in 1991, the nonpartisan center provides educational and scholarship opportunities to students at the University of Louisville. Three other Supreme Court Justices, most recently Justice Neil Gorsuch, have spoken at the center.

Read more: politico.com

Iowa Republicans face dilemma after commission scrambles congressional map

Iowa finally has a proposed congressional map — now Republicans in Des Moines just have to decide if they can tolerate it.

Nonpartisan state legislative staffers unveiled their first stab at redrawing the political boundaries with a draft that upended the political slant of key districts and lumped some state legislators into new seats together.

GOP legislators huddled on Thursday as the proposal was released but have yet to give an indication of whether or not they will vote to adopt it or send the commission back to the drawing board.

"I’m going to study it. I’m going to see what I and my colleagues think is best for the state as a collective whole," said state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, who chairs the state government committee. "And then we’ll make a decision in the next couple of weeks about whether to do a yes vote, or roll the dice and say no and see what map two brings."

Their choice could have huge implications for the battle for control of Congress. Back in D.C., Republicans privately griped that it left them worse off in their quest to reclaim the House. But legislators are still analyzing the state legislative maps, and they must reject or approve them all in union in a process that the state holds up as a "gold standard" for nonpartisan redistricting.

This new congressional map takes two current swing seats in the east and makes them less competitive — with one leaning toward each party. The Des Moines-based district of Democratic Rep. Cindy Axne remains a true toss up, and the western Iowa seat held by GOP Rep. Randy Feenstra stays firmly in the Republican column.

The biggest loser in the proposal could be GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson. While a seat like hers in the state’s northeast corner is better for Republicans, her home county is shoved into a new, Democratic-leaning district farther south. Much of that territory overlaps with GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ current seat, but Miller-Meeks’ home is in the more Republican district.

Trump carried Hinson’s and Miller-Meeks’ current districts by 3 and 4 points, respectively. In their new configurations, Joe Biden would have won the southeastern seat where Hinson lives by a significant margin, while the northeastern seat became even more Republican. Though members are not required to live in their districts. Hinson could run in the more GOP-friendly seat that absorbed more of her territory.

If the legislature rejects the first map, the agency produces a second. If that one is rejected, they create a third and — unlike the first two — this map can be amended or changed by the legislature. Iowa has used one of the commission-created maps without amending it since this process began in 1980.

But the congressional delegation has no say in the maps. And the state legislators are perhaps more likely to make a decision based on their own fates.

An initial tally devised by a source in the legislature found that over 50 of the state’s 150 incumbents would be drawn into districts with at least one other current member. But Iowans are used to that every redistricting cycle, and incumbent-on-incumbent pairings haven’t been a strong deterrent in the past. Many legislators either move into a new district or use the new maps as an excuse to retire.

"There are a lot of districts that either stayed or got more conservative," Kaufmann said. "That’s the positive. The negative is that there are a lot of Republicans that are now living in the same districts as their friends. There’s six one way, half dozen the other, to use an old farm term."

Democrats in the state were more willing to tip their hand. The state House Democratic caucus leader, Jennifer Konfrst, came out in the support of the proposed map.

Iowa has been a rare bright spot for congressional Democratic recruitment this year. They finally landed state Sen. Liz Mathis, a former TV anchor who the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had long hoped would run. She launched a bid against Hinson.

Miller-Meeks eked out a victory in a swing seat in the southeast corner of the state by the slimmest of margins: six votes. State Rep. Christina Bohannan has filed to run in that seat.

These new maps would shake up the boundaries of those two districts — so much so that Mathis, Hinson and Bohannan would all live in the same district.

Axne’s district maintains a similar partisan lean. Though it no longer reaches all the way to the Missouri River, which forms the border with Nebraska, Axne keeps the city of Des Moines.

In D.C., Republicans are privately hoping their counterparts in the legislature decide to reject the map and some operatives believe they will.

"It’s kind of like the allure of the unknown, that you always think it can be better," said Doug Gross, a longtime GOP operative in the state. "And I think just looking at the congressional side, I think they’ll think it could be better."

Read more: politico.com

Gonzalez, House Republican impeach-backer, won’t seek reelection

Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio), one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach then-President Donald Trump earlier this year, has announced he won’t run for reelection in 2022.

Gonzalez, who represents a Northeast Ohio district, cited the need to focus on his family, including his two children. But the second-term congressman, in an interview with The New York Times, also said the strain placed on his family since his impeachment vote in January played a role in his decision.

Gonzalez, 36, is the first of the group of 10 to step aside after a perilous few months, in which anti-Trump Republican lawmakers faced harassment in airports and censure votes in their home states.

He said he knows supporters will find the news disappointing, “given the political realities of the day.”

“While my desire to build a fuller family life is at the heart of my decision, it is also true that the current state of our politics, especially many of the toxic dynamics inside our own party, is a significant factor in my decision,” Gonzalez said in a statement.

Gonzalez, who insisted he could win his seat, was set to face what he said would be a “brutally hard primary” against Max Miller, a former Trump White House aide who was endorsed by the former president earlier this year. The district will be redrawn before next May’s primary, and Ohio is losing one of its 16 congressional districts, likely scrambling the new map.

Even if he were to win in 2022, Gonzalez questioned if he would truly be happy holding public office in a fractured Republican Party largely dominated by Trump backers.

“Please know that every word has meant the world to me and given me hope that the chaotic political environment that currently infects our country will only be temporary,” he said in the statement.

Read more: politico.com

DeSantis opens new war with Biden over Covid treatments

TALLAHASSEE — First came masks. Then a feud over vaccine mandates.

Now a new front has opened in the Covid battle between President Joe Biden and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis: Covid-19 antibody treatments.

On Thursday, DeSantis ripped into Biden’s plan to distribute doses of monoclonal antibody treatments to states across the nation. Florida and six other Southern states have relied on the therapies to treat patients infected with the virus but also took up 70 percent of the orders in early September.

That lopsidedness prompted the Biden administration to start redistributing the more than 158,000 doses made available this week — and provoked DeSantis to attack the president for taking the therapies away from Floridians.

“We’ve been handed a major curveball here, with a really huge cut from HHS and the Biden administration,” DeSantis said at a press conference in Broward County. “We’re going to make sure we leave no stone unturned. Whoever needs a treatment, we’re going to work like hell to get them the treatment.”

He added that Florida is being punished for peddling the Covid-19 antibody treatment before the White House while the highly transmissible Delta variant began spreading in Southern states like Florida, Texas or Louisiana.

“I think we could have averted, in this country, a lot of people going to the hospital,” DeSantis said. “I think it would have saved a lot of lives.”

DeSantis has prioritized monoclonal treatments such as Regeneron in his Florida pandemic battle plan, spending the past several weeks flying across the state supporting the treatments. Monoclonal antibody treatments are considered effective if administered early in an infection. At the same time, he has opposed Covid-related restrictions such as requiring students to wear face coverings, vaccine passports or mandatory vaccine mandates for workers. That has put him repeatedly at odds with the Biden administration.

DeSantis’ opposition to Covid mandates has raised his profile, with conservatives across the nation cheering him on as he prepares to run for reelection and possibly challenge Biden in 2024. But the summer surge in Florida’s Delta variant cases pose a threat to DeSantis’ electoral ambitions, with the governor’s approval ratings dropping as the state broke grim Covid milestones such hospitalizations and new infections almost weekly.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday defended Biden’s plan to cut Florida’s allotment of the antibody treatments, saying the administration is increasing the distribution of antibody treatments in September by 50 percent. But she also warned that the supply isn’t unlimited.

“Our role as the government overseeing the entire country is to be equitable in how we distribute,” she said during a press briefing. “We’re not going to give a greater percentage to Florida over Oklahoma.”

Federal records show that Florida is due to receive 27,850 does of Regeneron this week, which is still the most in the country. It’s down from the state’s weekly average of 72,000, according to DeSantis’ office. Florida and the six other states that were receiving 70 percent of the federal supply are now receiving more than 55 percent, while the rest are shared among the other states, districts and territories including Oklahoma, which will receive 2,840 doses.

But Biden’s plan didn’t sit well with Florida’s Republicans beyond DeSantis. GOP Sen. Marco Rubio on Thursday took to Twitter to condemn the White House, posting that the redistribution of antibody treatments “reeks of partisan payback against states like Florida.”

More than 49,000 people in Florida have died from Covid-19 since the pandemic first hit the state in March 2020. The Delta surge over the summer led to more than 9,600 deaths in August, and more than 818,000 new infections, according to weekly reports from the state Department of Health.

DeSantis spokesperson Christina Pushaw told POLITICO that Florida health officials told the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Monday that the state would need at least 36,000 doses of the antibody cocktails for the state’s 25 treatment sites, not counting locations where it’s offered privately statewide. In an email sent by HHS on Tuesday, which Pushaw provided a copy, federal officials told the state to expect about 30,000 doses.

Notably, DeSantis on Thursday said Florida is seeing a drop in new cases, and demand at the 25 therapy sites has waned. But the state historically has seen another spike around the holiday season.

“We’re going to work like hell to make sure we can overcome the obstacles that HHS and the Biden administration are putting in,” DeSantis said.

Read more: politico.com

China howls at perceived threat of new ‘AUKUS’ agreement

Beijing is denouncing the U.S. government’s new “AUKUS” technology-sharing working group with the U.K. and Australia as a threat to peace in the Indo-Pacific region.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian on Thursday slammed the grouping as a reflection of “outdated Cold War zero-sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical perception” that "intensified" a regional arms race and harmed international non-proliferation efforts.

That rhetoric — including Zhao’s reference to “cliques” designed to target “third party” countries — reflects the Chinese government’s recognition that the U.S. has been able to rally allies in the Indo-Pacific to counter Beijing’s increasingly aggressive moves in the region. The AUKUS deal makes no explicit reference to China, but two U.S. officials noted that the subtext of the announcement is that this is another move by Western allies to push back on China’s rise in the military and technology arenas. But White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday responded to questions about the AUKUS agreement’s focus on China by insisting that it “is not about any one country,” adding that “we do not seek conflict [with China].”

Zhao hinted that the Chinese government may accuse Australia of violating its commitment under the Treaty of Rarotonga, which includes prohibitions on the production, possession or acquisition of nuclear weapons.

That tactic would ignore or misconstrue the fact that the AUKUS deal includes equipping Australia with technology for nuclear propulsion, not nuclear weapons. Both President Joe Biden and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison emphasized that Australia doesn’t seek a nuclear weapon. The three countries will undertake discussions over the next 18 months to figure out how best to deliver the technology, which the U.S. traditionally has only shared with the U.K.

But the Chinese state media platform Global Times took a more extreme position on Australia’s membership in the AUKUS grouping. Citing unnamed “military experts,” the Global Times warned that Australia’s deployment of nuclear-powered submarines will “potentially make Australia a target of a nuclear strike if a nuclear war breaks out, even when Washington said it won’t arm Canberra with nuclear weapons, because it’s easy for the U.S. to equip Australia with nuclear weapons and submarine-launched ballistic missiles when Australia has the submarines.”

That threat reflects the perception among elements of the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army that the U.S. wants to use its Indo-Pacific relationships to militarily encircle China.

Those sensitivities were already heightened on Monday when the White House announced that the leaders of "the Quad" — the U.S., India, Australia and Japan — will meet in person on Sept. 28. The spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington D.C., Liu Pengyu, implicitly referenced such concerns in an emailed statement to POLITICO on Thursday that warned against the creation of “exclusionary blocs” bound by “ideological prejudice.”

The prospect of Australia deploying long-range nuclear-powered submarines will inevitably intensify concerns about military miscalculations in the region that could lead to potential conflict.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned last month about “worsening frictions with China” in the South China Sea and said that a U.S-China military conflict there “would have serious global consequences for security and for commerce.” The sources of those frictions include China’s increasingly aggressive stance toward the self-governing island of Taiwan and China’s refusal to comply with a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague that rejected China’s claims of sovereignty over vast swaths of the South China Sea.

Multiple former senior U.S. military personnel have told POLITICO that the potential for an unintended U.S.-China conflict is growing due to bilateral military crisis communications systems that remain highly unreliable. They warn that lack of regular communication could fuel a U.S.-China military confrontation at a time of heightening bilateral tensions in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

The foreign ministry’s Zhao also warned of such negative unintended consequences. Those countries that don’t “do more to contribute to regional peace, stability and development … will only end up shooting themselves in the foot,” Zhao said.

Read more: politico.com

Doocy Goes HARD After Team Biden on Covid Origins, Praising the Taliban

Ahead of President Biden’s early Thursday evening speech calling for more forced vaccinations and touting masks, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki took to the Briefing Room podium and faced fire from Fox’s Peter Doocy and Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann on Afghanistan and also CBS’s Weijia Jiang and ABC’s Rachel Scott about the sudden change of heart on vaccine mandates.



Doocy did get to Afghanistan, but he first brought up the government documents unveiled by The Intercept showing that Dr. Tony Fauci had some explaining to do on his claims the U.S. hasn’t funded gain of function research in Wuhan:

You’ve said from that podium that, under no circumstance would President Biden ever fire Dr. Fauci. Is that still the case since Fauci told Congress the NIH never funded gain of function research for coronaviruses in Wuhan, but documents published by The Intercept suggest that is not true, which would mean that he misled Congress?

Psaki insisted that the “NIH has refuted that reporting” because “NIH has never approved any research that would make a coronavirus more dangerous to humans” and “the bat coronavirus sequences published from that work NIH supported” wasn’t Covid-19.

After a quick follow-up about Fauci’s job safety, Doocy wanted to know “why the White House in a statement is calling the Taliban businesslike and professional.”

Psaki replied that the statement was meant to commemorate the first flight and acknowledge that “the Taliban was cooperative in facilitating the departure of these American citizens and legal permanent residents from HKIA.”

She went onto say that the administration has proven they follow through on their promises, but Doocy was unmoved and reminded her that new Afghan Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani is on the FBI’s Most Wanted list (click “expand”):

DOOCY: But you’re saying the Taliban is businesslike and professional. Their interior minister has a FBI Wanted poster. He’s got a $10 million bounty on his head. That’s — what’s the business?

PSAKI: We are here to celebrate the return of American citizens who wanted to leave Afghanistan, of legal permanent residents, of Afghans who fought by our side to Qatar successfully on a Qatari airlines flight and in order get them out, we had to work with some members of the Taliban to press them and to work in a businesslike manner to get them out.

DOOCY: Okay.

PSAKI: That is what we were stating in this statement. 

DOOCY: And in that statement, it says, “this is a positive first step.” Towards what?

PSAKI: Towards getting additional people out who want to leave Afghanistan.

Wegmann came up later and pushed back on Psaki’s claim that there’s only about 100 Americans stranded in Afghanistan (click “expand”):

WEGMANN: This morning, you noted that the current count is that there’s about 100 Americans in Afghanistan. My colleague, Susan Crabtree, is hearing from sources with direct knowledge who say that it’s about 143 U.S. citizens and then also, permanent legal residents there at the airport. Did the number that you are referring to this morning on Morning Joe — did that include permanent legal residents? Does the administration have a count of how many might be there? And then, how — I guess, how hopeful are you that a lot of these folks are clustered there at the airport and can get out? 

PSAKI: We do have counts and the State Department is the best source to give accurate information about all of these numbers. And of course, we account for permanent legal residents as well. The reason I said — and to give just a little more context because I know that this feels confusing to people — not anyone in this room, but — is that — the number can range. I mean, one of the — the important pieces of context to understand is that even as we work to get American citizens — and we’ll get you the number later this afternoon once it’s confirmed — out, there were individuals who didn’t show up today for a range of reasons. We know that will happen. We will continue to remain engaged with these individuals about when they need to leave. And there are days when people are not ready to leave. That may change next week, so it’s around 100. The State Department will have the most up-to-date numbers.

On the Covid front, the ever-compliant liberal media surprisingly came with some sensible questions.

Jiang brought up the sudden change to mass vaccination mandates given the fact that “[t]he original mandate for federal workers that included an option for testing, regular testing, just went into effect a little over a month ago.”

Psaki cited the delta variant and wanting the federal workforce to serve as an example of requiring the vaccine or be fired, but Jiang noted that the delta variant “was already circulating.”

To that, Psaki spun the change as the “next” move in a “series of steps” to get the virus under control.

Jiang also asked for “how many federal workers have not been vaccinated” and why the federal workforce will only require a verbal claim of vaccination. On the latter, Psaki said she herself wasn’t sure and, on the other, she said it’ll be different “agency to agency.”

Scott came next and she wondered if Biden was “overconfidence in July” when he declared “independence from” the virus and, in a follow-up, whether he gave “Americans a false sense” of security.

Of course, Psaki punted by blaming both the delta variant and an insufficient number of unvaccinated Americans.

In contrast, CNN’s Jeff Zeleny had a softball: “What is the frustration level from the President that he’s giving yet another speech urging Americans to get vaccinated?”

Longtime radio correspondent Bob Costantini was also on Team Biden: “[H]ow bold is the President willing to be as far as the private sector is concerned in the vaccine mandate area? Even if they don’t have federal contracts, can the Department of Labor or anybody else compel major employers[?]”

To see the relevant briefing transcript from September 9, click here.

Read more: newsbusters.org


- Advertisement -