Connect with us


Senator Josh Hawley Slams Biden Admin’s Latest Report on The Origins of COVID-19



Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) panned the report as a ‘complete joke’ and evidence that President Joe Biden ‘continues to shill for China.’

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) of the Biden administration issued a study on probable connections between China’s contentious Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the global spread of COVID-19 on Friday, but eventually chose not to support a definitive judgment on the virus’s origins or divulge fresh material to the public.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO)  called the report a “complete joke” containing no information that was not already publicly available, which fell short of the law’s requirements and indicated that Biden was “continu[ing] to shill for China.”

Hawley’s COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023, which demanded that the federal government provide information on how the pandemic began, was signed by President Joe Biden in March. Biden committed to “declassify and share as much of that information as possible, consistent with my constitutional authority to protect against the disclosure of information that would harm national security.” Both Democrats and Republicans went on to support the plan.

The resulting DNI report, declassified June 23, opens with a disclaimer that it “does not address the merits of the two most likely pandemic origins hypotheses, nor does it explore other biological facilities in Wuhan other than the WIV.”

It notes that different federal agencies hold to different explanations, with the National Intelligence Council and “four other IC agencies” endorsing “natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor,” while the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) consider a “laboratory-associated incident” most likely. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) does not endorse one theory over another, but “almost all IC agencies” agree COVID was not genetically engineered.

“Information available to the IC indicates that some of the research conducted by the PLA [the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, whose scientists have worked with WIV] and WIV included work with several viruses, including coronaviruses, but no known viruses that could plausibly be a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2,” the report claims. “We continue to have no indication that the WIV’s pre-pandemic research holdings included SARSCoV-2 or a close progenitor, nor any direct evidence that a specific research-related incident occurred involving WIV personnel before the pandemic that could have caused the COVID pandemic.”

The report concedes that “[s]ome of the WIV’s genetic engineering projects on coronaviruses involved techniques that could make it difficult to detect intentional changes,” and that “[s]ome WIV researchers probably did not use adequate biosafety precautions at least some of the time prior to the pandemic in handling SARS-like coronaviruses, increasing the risk of accidental exposure to viruses.”

It notes that “several WIV researchers were ill in Fall 2019 with symptoms” that “were consistent with but not diagnostic of COVID-19” and apparently did not require hospitalization. It also cites the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) March 2021 report on WIV officials stating that “lab employee samples all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies,” without addressing longstanding criticisms of the international health body for uncritically accepting various false claims from the Chinese government. Former President Donald Trump announced plans to withdraw from the WHO in July 2020, but his successor President Joe Biden canceled the pullout.

Politico reports that House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chair Mike Turner and House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic chair Brad Wenstrup (both Republicans from Ohio) called the report a “promising step toward full transparency,” but the lawmaker who spearheaded the effort to force its release wasn’t nearly as impressed.

The DNI report fails to address developments in the case that have already been published, and in some instances appears to directly contradict them. It also fails to allay concerns that the government is working with a clear interest in denying any responsibility it may have for the epidemic.

Since Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) first suggested it in February 2020, the idea that COVID escaped from a Chinese facility has been widely derided and disregarded in public, and for months any mention of it has been denounced as false information. The first mainstream media sites to mention it as a possibility came in the middle of 2021, long after Democrats had retaken the White House.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a previous adviser to the White House on COVID, has been one of the main targets of the controversy because of his backing of the research that may have eventually resulted in COVID by granting funds for the non-governmental group EcoHealth Alliance to investigate gain-of-function (GOF) research, which involves purposely boosting viruses to better understand their potential effects, on corona.

Since then, stolen emails have shown that Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, a former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other leading scientists were aware of the risk of a lab leak as early as February 2020 but were reluctant to publicly acknowledge it for fear of damaging their “science and international harmony.”

The Washington Examiner reported in March that in early 2020, Drs. Robert Garry of Tulane University and Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Institute informed Dr. Anthony Fauci that they considered seriously their concerns that COVID initially escaped from WIV. Andersen said in his notification to Fauci: “one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” and that COVID’s genome seemed “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

In March, however, both signed onto a paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” (Proximal Origin), which concluded the lab-leak hypothesis was not “plausible.” Multiple sites have reported that Fauci himself had input into the final draft, which was not initially disclosed. The Examiner’s review found that, from 2020 to 2022, research projects led by Andersen and Garry received $25.2 million in NIH grants.

Former U.S. Army infantryman in Iraq Andrew Huff, a research fellow for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and vice president for EcoHealth turned whistleblower, have also confirmed to the fact that COVID’s financing came from sources supervised by Fauci and the federal government.


CIA Secret Report Reveals Warning to Russia of Terrorist Attack was Marked “Urgent” but Failed to Identify Target



US warning regarding a potential terrorist attack at a concert venue in Russia was labeled as “urgent.” However, the warning, according to Hersh’s source, did not specify Crocus City Hall as the target, despite some media reports suggesting otherwise.

The CIA allegedly provided the warning to Russian intelligence before the concert at the Crocus City Hall marking it “urgent,” meaning that the data in it “was credible and near term,” Hersh quoted the official as saying.

“The highly secret report on the attack in Moscow was prepared by the Counterterrorism Center at CIA headquarters and delivered to the terrorism division of the Russian Federal Security Service located in the old KGB building in Moscow. Separate briefings were presented in person by the FBI officer at the embassy. This is an established relationship,” the official said.

The warning, however, did not mention Crocus City Hall near Moscow and only said that an attack was being planned at some “public gathering,” according to the official.

The information provided by the official is contrary to a Washington Post report published on Tuesday claiming that Crocus City Hall was specifically identified in the warning as the target of a terrorist attack.

On March 22, several armed men broke into Crocus City Hall, a major concert venue just outside Moscow, and started shooting at people. They also started a fire in one of the auditoriums, which was full of people ahead of a concert. The attack left 695 casualties, including 144 dead, according to the latest data from the Russian Emergencies Ministry.

The four main suspects in the case — all of them citizens of Tajikistan — tried to flee the scene in a car but were detained and charged with terrorism. Russian authorities believe the perpetrators planned to flee to Ukraine, where a safe haven had been arranged for them. An investigation is underway.

Later in March, The New York Times reported, citing European and US security officials, that the US intelligence agencies did not provide the Russian side with all the information they had about the threat of a terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall in the Moscow Region out of fear that Russian authorities might learn about their intelligence sources or methods of work.

Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Director Alexander Bortnikov also said that the information transmitted by the United States on the preparation of a terrorist attack was of a general nature, and the Russian special services responded to it.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden Admin is Using Fraudulent Climate Dataset in Push For Green Agenda, According to Government Watchdog




A government watchdog group has filed a complaint with the Biden administration over its use of a dataset frequently used to push its climate agenda.

Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) filed the complaint with the Commerce Department over the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) “Billions Project” dataset, which purports to keep track of natural [and climate] disasters that have caused at least $1 billion in damages going back to 1980. The billion-dollar disasters (BDD) data — cited frequently by the Biden administration to insinuate that climate change is intensifying and justify sweeping green policies — is based on opaque data derived from questionable accounting practices, PPT alleges in the complaint.

“American families and businesses continue to struggle with persistently high inflation, which many attribute in large part to the energy policies and government spending of the current administration. The idea that blatant violations of scientific integrity could be underlying the rationale for these policies should concern every American,” Michael Chamberlain, PPT’s director, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated incident. The Biden Administration came into office pledging that its decision making would be grounded in the highest-quality science, but all too often has failed to live up to those promises.”

The complaint was filed with the Commerce Department, as NOAA operates under its auspices, Chamberlain told the DCNF.

PPT’s complaint alleges that NOAA does not adequately disclose its sources and methods for compiling the BDD dataset, adds and removes BDD events from the dataset without providing its rationale for doing so and produces cost estimates that are sometimes significantly different than those generated by more conventional accounting procedures.

While NOAA states that it develops its BDD data from more than a dozen sources, the agency does not disclose those sources for specific events or show how it calculates loss estimates from those sources, PPT’s complaint alleges.

The complaint further alleges that NOAA’s accounting methods are opaque and “produce suspect results.”

For example, when Hurricane Id alia took aim at Florida in 2023, NOAA initially projected that the storm would cause about $2.5 billion worth of damages before insured losses ultimately came in at about $310 million, according to PPT’s complaint, which cites the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation

 for that figure. Nevertheless, NOAA subsequently marked up its estimate for how much damage the storm caused to $3.5 billion, a discrepancy for which NOAA provided no explanation, PPT alleges in its complaint.

NOAA researchers have disclosed in the past that the agency considers factors such as functions pertaining to livestock feeding costs — in addition to more conventional types of damages — in their cost calculations.

Further, the complaint alleges that BDD events are quietly added and removed from the dataset without explanation, citing Roger Pielke Jr., a former academic who believes climate change to be a real threat but opposes politicized science. In a forthcoming paper analyzing the merits of BDD statistics, Pielke compared the dataset in late 2022 to the dataset in the middle of 2023 and found that ten new BDD events were added to the list and 3 were subtracted without explanation.

Apart from the issues with methodology alleged by PPT in its complaint, the use of BDD events as a proxy for climate change’s intensity is inherently misleading because economic data does not reflect changes in meteorological conditions, as Pielke has previously explained to the DCNF.

For example, increasing concentrations of assets, especially in coastal areas, can confound the usefulness of BDD events as an indicator for the intensity of climate change, as Energy and Environment Legal Institute Senior Policy Fellow Steve Milloy has previously explained to the DCNF. Hypothetically, the same exact hurricane could hit the same exact place, decades apart, with vastly different damage totals; this would be the case because there are simply more assets sitting in the way of the storm, not because the storm was any more violent due to worsening climate change.

NOAA has acknowledged this limitation of the dataset in prior communications with the DCNF.

Additionally, NOAA will add disasters to the list retrospectively because it adjusts for inflation, meaning that a hurricane that caused $800 million in damages in 1980 dollars would be added to the list because the damages exceed $1 billion when adjusted for inflation, for example.

The Biden administration has frequently cited the BDD dataset to substantiate its massive climate agenda.

For example, Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk cited the dataset in written testimony submitted to lawmakers in February explaining the White House’s decision to pause new approvals for liquefied natural gas export terminals.

The BDD statistics are also referenced Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5), the Biden administration’s landmark climate report that is intended to provide the most sound scientific basis for lawmakers and officials to craft climate policy.

NOAA asserted that the increasing frequency of BDD events is a sign of intensifying climate change in a January press release and blog post summarizing 2023, and then defended the use of the dataset in subsequent communications with the DCNF.

“Sensational climate claims made without proper scientific basis and spread by government officials threaten the public’s trust in its scientific officials and undermines the government’s mission of stewarding the environment,” PPT’s complaint states. “It also poses the danger of policymakers basing consequential government policy on unscientific claims unsupported by evidence.”

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

U.S. Military Has Started Recalling Retirees Due to Recruiting Crisis




The U.S. Army Publishing Directorate released the ALARACT 017/2024, titled, “Utilization of the Army Retiree Recall Program.”

The document cites Executive Order 13223 from the Bush administration in 2001.

A retiree recall is a “retired Soldier who is ordered to active duty (AD) from the Retired Reserve or the retired list under 10 USC 688/688a, 12301(a), or 12301(d). Per AR 601-10, Recalled retiree Soldiers must be aligned to a valid vacant AC requirement that matches the grade and skill of the retiree before he or she may be recalled to AD,” according to the document. “The retiree population will be utilized as a last resort to fill Active Component vacant requirements.”

The ALARACT 017/2024 comes as the U.S. military is experiencing a recruitment crisis.

The U.S. Army recently announced that it is cutting thousands of positions. Authorized troop levels will now be an estimated 470,000 by fiscal year 2029, down 24,000 from its 494,000 soldiers.

“While making these investments and adding formations, the Army must also reduce force structure to protect readiness in light of decreased end strength. The Army is currently significantly over-structured, meaning there are not enough soldiers to fill out existing units and organizations. Army leaders seek to have at least 470,000 soldiers in the Active Component by FY29, which is nearly 20,000 above the current end strength but a reduction of about 24,000 authorizations compared to currently planned force structure,” the report


It added that the Army is “undertaking a similarly important transformation of its recruiting enterprise so that it can man units sufficiently, continue to bring the right types and amounts of new talent into the Army, and rebuild its overall end strength.” Noting the ongoing recruitment failure within the U.S. military, the document noted, “The Army must solve its recruiting challenges to successfully transform for the future.”

Continue Reading