Advisory: Be careful of what you read on social media. The algorithms used by these platforms have no regard for Biblical truth. They target your emotions to keep you engaged on their site so their advertisers can drop more ads. These platforms exist to enrich their stockholders. Consider God’s promise to Believers in James 1:5, “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.”
House Judiciary Committee Republicans said in a letter on Wednesday that whistleblowers claimed the FBI launched thousands of investigations on American parents who indicated disagreement to schools’ COVID-19 rules and designated them with a “threat tag.”
In a letter to the Justice Department (pdf), Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mike Johnson (R-La.) stated that “brave whistleblowers” from the FBI had informed them that the agency had reportedly created an internal threat tag called “EDUOFFICIALS” in October 2021 to track alleged threats against school boards, in response to an Oct. 4 directive from Attorney General Merrick Garland.
According to the reps, the instruction came in response to a request from the National School Boards Association, which requested that the federal government employ counterterrorism instruments, such as the Patriot Act, to target parents at school board meetings.
The congressmen said that such investigations involved parents who were “upset with mask mandates” and state elected officials who “publicly voiced disagreement to vaccination mandates.”
The congressmen wrote, “In sworn evidence before this Committee, you denied that the Department of Justice or any of its components used counterterrorism legislation and resources to target parents at school board meetings.” “We now have proof contradicting your testimony.”
“We’ve heard through courageous whistleblowers that the FBI has initiated investigations with the EDUOFFICIALS threat tag in nearly every part of the country, including all sorts of educational settings.” The material we’ve received demonstrates how federal law enforcement is deploying counterterrorism resources to pursue protected First Amendment conduct as a direct result of your direction.”
According to Jordan and Johnson, a news release accompanying the October instruction to examine such “threats” “highlighted the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center [NTOC] to act as a snitch-line for information regarding parents at school board meetings,” according to the press release.
The lawmakers mentioned many instances in which a parent was reported, including one case in which an FBI field office investigated a mother for reportedly threatening a local school board that “we are coming for you.”
The woman was a threat, according to the complaint, because she belonged to a “right-wing mom’s club” known as “Moms for Liberty” and because she “is a gun owner,” according to the FBI.
Moms for Liberty, according to its website, is a non-profit group that advocates for parental rights at all levels of government.
The parent allegedly told the FBI agent she was angry about the school board’s mask demands and that “her comment was a warning that her organization would seek to replace the school board with new members through the election process.”
Another investigation recounted by the legislators included a parent who was against masks.
The father “matched the description of an insurrectionist,” according to the complaint, since he “rails against the government,” “believes all conspiracy theories,” and “has a lot of firearms and threatens to use them,” they added. Later, the complainant stated that they did not have any particular information about any crimes or threats.
In another case, a Democratic Party official allegedly filed a complaint against Republican elected officials in an unidentified state, alleging that they “incited violence” by publicly opposing vaccination requirements in school districts.
The FBI eventually decided that none of the cases posed a threat and that they did not violate any federal laws.
Jordan and Johnson, on the other hand, said that FBI agents had “exerted their limited time and resources examining these accusations,” and that the time and resources might have been better spent on “actual and immediate dangers.”
The legislators wrote, “This whistleblower information is astounding.” “As a direct result of their exercising their fundamental constitutional right to speak and fight for their children, you have opened an FBI investigation into them, established an FBI case file that contains their political beliefs, and applied a ‘threat tag’ to their names.”
The congressmen said the whistleblower information raises “serious concerns” that Garland’s Oct. 4 memorandum will “chill protected First Amendment activity as parents will rightfully fear that their passionate advocacy for their children could result in a visit from federal agents,” and that “parents have an undisputed right to direct the upbringing and education of their children, which includes voicing their strong opposition to controversial curricula at local schools.”
They told the attorney general to promptly provide all of the papers and materials listed in their letter, as well as to take “reasonable precautions” to preserve all “records relevant” to the case.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in October 2021, Garland stated that “actual and tangible threats of violence against school officials” are “not protected by the First Amendment,” and that officials are “not investigating nonviolent protests or parent engagement in school board meetings.”
What is done is done, the mere rumor of federal investigations being conducted on parents who support medical freedom was enough to hold back a potential cultural shift in which nearly all sensible Americans would come to the conclusion that parents are the ultimate authority in a child’s life. But you can’t expect anything less than psy-ops from our government entities.
No one man can make sense of this elaborate illusion cast over the common man of society, but collectively we can point out each limitation forced upon us and bring it forward as an injustice to the public. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” We’re meant to go down preaching the gospel and guiding others to salvation. This could be considered the bravest task a man or woman of faith could undertake, but make no mistake it will bear fruit in the kingdom of heaven. Stay inquisitive in the word of God, and the world around you.
A group of experts from various fields, including medical statisticians and a medical anthropologist, have rebutted a recent article published in a Canadian medical journal defending the use of COVID-19 vaccine mandates by claiming that a mathematical model shows that unvaccinated people increase the risk of infection among the vaccinated.
“It is particularly troubling that a modelling paper so divorced from reality contains such explicit and strong condemnation of ‘the unvaccinated,’” James Doidge, a senior medical statistician from the UK’s Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, and his co-authors wrote in a reply published on the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) website on April 28.
“This approach has the potential to generate societal division, misguided anger, and blame, which is incompatible with public health principles.”
The experts were replying to a paper published in the CMAJ on April 25 by a group of Canadian scientists titled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”
According to the study, vaccinated persons who mix with unvaccinated people have a considerably higher probability of becoming infected than those who remain with those who have had the vaccine.
According to the mathematical model employed in the study, unvaccinated people’s chance of catching COVID-19 decreases when they spend time with vaccinated people because they operate as a transmission buffer.
The study found that being vaccinated should not be considered a purely personal decision, but rather something that should be done collectively for the benefit of public health.
“The decision of certain individuals to refuse vaccines is likely to have a disproportionate impact on the health and safety of vaccinated persons compared to the proportion of the population who are unvaccinated,” the paper stated.
The study’s result did not sit well with Doidge and his crew. In a tweet on May 1, he said that the study’s methodology is “based on an assumption that even the authors don’t believe.”
The experts concluded that the essay “oversimplified a complicated epidemiological, sociological, and bioethical issue.”
“The authors’ model design decisions predetermine the conclusions, which is something that should never happen in research.” “The poor design is made much more problematic by the authors’ strong ethical and political assertions, which fuel existing societal antagonism,” they stated.
The concept divides people into three groups: those who are susceptible to infection, those who are sick and infectious, and those who have recovered from illness and have immunity. Immunity after vaccination was viewed as a “all-or-none phenomena” by the study’s authors, which implies that persons who had the injections are presumed to enter the model immune, while those who didn’t would remain susceptible to infection.
The model does not account for diminishing immunity.
“By ignoring waning immunity (from both vaccination and prior infection), the authors have constructed a model in which herd immunity always occurs, leaving some residual proportion of the population uninfected indefinitely,” Doidge and his colleagues wrote, questioning how the mathematical model’s outcome would be influenced by the omission of scientific facts.
The article also claims that “nonvaccination is predicted to result in amplification of disease transmission in unvaccinated subpopulations” and “increases the risk of vaccinated populations,” a hypothesis that the experts refuted.
“It is a foregone conclusion that if one group with high baseline immunity is combined with another group with lower baseline immunity, a higher proportion of the high-immunity group will get sick before herd immunity is reached,” the authors said. “It’s just dilution at this point.”
If the immunity of the unvaccinated is put to a greater number in the calculation, the model will generate a “flawed” conclusion, according to the scientists.
“There are two critical factors in the model: vaccination effectiveness and baseline immunity in the unvaccinated.” The findings are reversed if these are adjusted to any combination where the latter is higher; the vaccinated increase danger for the unvaccinated. “Clearly, both findings are wrong in the same way,” they stated.
The study, according to Dr. Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at the University of Guelph, is “thinly veiled hate speech disguised as science,” with “huge inaccuracies.”
“By any stretch of the imagination, most of the individuals who remain ‘unvaccinated’ are hardly ‘anti-vaccine,’” Bridle said in his Substack newsletter on April 26.
“They are not in favor of the present generation of COVID-19 vaccines due to critical thinking and scientific evidence.” Remember that the definition of a vaccination was altered to include these injections. They’re nothing like the vaccinations that have been required in the past, such as those used in the childhood immunization series.”
According to Bridle, the article wrongly assumes that COVID-19 vaccinations confer complete viral immunity and that booster doses restore protection against the Omicron version.
“Yet the’real world’ data clearly show that the boosted sub-population is being diagnosed with disproportionately more cases than the ‘not fully vaccinated’ group, which includes the ‘unvaccinated’ and people who received a single dose,” he said, citing data from the Ontario Ministry of Health’s website on April 26 on the number of COVID-19 cases by vaccination status.
“Why would someone want to take a booster and increase their chances of being diagnosed with COVID-19 by more than twofold?!?”
Bridle also pointed out that the article failed to mention the vaccines’ safety concerns, and that it assumed only 20% of unvaccinated people had baseline immunity, despite the fact that another peer-reviewed paper “estimate[d] that between 90% and 99 percent of adults show positive antibody reactivity for SARS-CoV-2 spike, RBD, or the N antigen.”
The authors, according to Doidge and his colleagues, not only failed to account for the “vast difference” in healthcare demand between an 18-year-old and a comorbid 80-year-old in their modeling, but also failed to acknowledge that their calls for vaccine mandates “helped to ignite nation-wide protest.”
“A publication published in Canada’s leading medical journal should be retracted because of a mix of severely poor modeling, moral condemnation, and politicization,” they said.
The professionals conducting these studies have a thorough understanding of the importance of the protocol by which results are found. For these studies to have been wrongfully, and deceitfully conducted in bad faith should tell you something about the last couple years here on earth. The regulatory specialists aren’t the only people to blame here, obviously considering the broad strokes of totalitarianism seen throughout the world in light of COVID propaganda. This is clearly a concerted effort between people who belong to a group that we don’t subscribe to.
We likely will never see these people brought to justice, seeing as how corrupt the nation has become already. The events occurring have important impacts on humanity that amount to biblical prophecy almost certainly being fulfilled. As i’ve said before, technology can only innovate so far before divine intervention is deemed necessary. Now that we’re at a point in humanity in which people can have their God given traits edited to cater our every whim, it seems as though the ball may be rolling. 1 Corinthians 6:19 says: “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,” Stay inquisitive in the word of God, and the world around you.
The 127 Faith Foundation: We do not solicit donations from “those on disability, on a fixed income, or those who cannot afford to give.” Please Pray!
Or, make checks payable to:
The 127 Faith Foundation
PO Box 127
Pontotoc, TX 76869
The number of Orphans aging out of Child Protective Custody has grown at an alarming rate. The 127 Faith Foundation receives many requests each week to house them at our ranch. Our prayer is that the good people of our country will step up to the challenge and offer financial support for "the least among us." We need your help! StevieRay Hansen, Founder, The 127 Faith Foundation
Chicago He/She Mayor Could Have Solved This Problem Years Ago, but Chose to Persuade Illinoisans and the Rest of America to Accept the New World Order Instead. Six People Are Killed After a Gunman Opens Fire During a 4TH of July Parade in a Chicago Suburb, Not a Shocker!
HNewsWire: The death toll has risen to six, with 24 people wounded. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, a shooter opened fire on a Fourth…Read More
Paul says we each have a race to run that we should run to win. Not against each other. But, just to get where God…Read More
A ‘much see’ video for all still fearful over a non-existent deadly virus (just the flu re-packaged for the gullible). Dr. Roger Hodkinson is among…Read More
are Rev.17’s “10 kings with the beast” that are right now destroying the woman that rides the beast. And all who trust in her message…Read More
We make every effort to acknowledge sources used in our news articles. In a few cases, the sources were lost due to a technological glitch. If you believe we have not given sufficient credit for your source material, please contact us, and we will be more than happy to link to your article.