The Patriots

Whistleblower claiming Biden WAS involved in a $5m criminal bribery scheme with a foreign national while he was vice president is a ‘highly credible’ FBI source – that agency has used since the Obama administration

Well. it looks like the Biden Crime family is having problems hiding the corruption. Be sure and look at the attached picture documenting the Chinese money flow to Hunter Biden and others through some 20 shell companies.

Congressman Comer threatened to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress after his subpoena of the document in question was rejected by the bureau. ..The FBI said it withheld the information, an FD-1023 document used by FBI agents to report allegations from confidential sources, in an attempt to protect sources and methods. 

In response, Comer said: ‘FBI Director Wray confirmed the existence of the FD-1023 form alleging then-Vice President Biden engaged in a criminal bribery scheme with a foreign national. ..’This form, generated by the FBI from a highly credible human informant with years of experience, tracks closely with what we are seeing in our investigation into the Biden family’s influence peddling schemes. ‘The Committee has been clear in its intent to protect Congressional oversight authorities and is prepared to hold the FBI Director in contempt of Congress if the agency refuses to comply with a lawful subpoena.’

In response, Comer said: ‘FBI Director Wray confirmed the existence of the FD-1023 form alleging then-Vice President Biden engaged in a criminal bribery scheme with a foreign national. 

So when Congress threatens contempt charges against Wray, suddenly he decides to co-operate. Meanwhile every piece of evidence that affects the Biden’s immediately results in Trump being indicted or further charges are filed against him to defer or detract from the Biden investigation.

by Hannah Cox & Brad Polumbo

Civil asset forfeiture is so unethical that most people won’t believe it’s true.

Did you know police steal more from Americans every year than burglars do?

Civil asset forfeiture (CAF) is a legal practice so bad and so unethical that most people won’t believe it’s true until they read up on it. But under this system, police are allowed to take your property if they even just suspect you of a crime (No, not charge you with a crime. No, not convict you for a crime. Suspect). And they basically just get to keep it unless you have the ability (i.e. the funds) to challenge them in court and prove your innocence.

It’s a total perversion of our Constitution, which is supposed to ensure individuals are innocent until proven guilty and which places the burden of that proof on the accuser (the state).

Recently, Vera and Apollonia Ward had a run-in with the CAF system. The women run a successful dog-breeding business and sent $17,500 via Fedex to purchase two additional dogs. But the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office seized the funds and accused the women of drug-trafficking. Never mind the fact that they had all the documentation needed to back-up their story, never mind the fact that police had no evidence whatsoever of their involvement in the drug-market.

“To me, it felt like being treated like a criminal, even though you’re not, it makes you question everything,” Vera said. “They tried their hardest to intimidate us, and to say that we’re basically putting our freedom on the line: ‘Give us this money, we’ll make it go away—or put your freedom on the line for it,” Vera continued.

But the women wanted to fight. Fortunately, they got in touch with pro-bono, constitutional litigators at the Goldwater Institute in Arizona who agreed to take on their case. And within a few months, the government had to return the money.

But this is their game. Police regularly use CAF to bully people out of their money and other property, and they mostly get away with it because (without pro-bono attorneys) the average person can’t afford to fight the government. The government has endless, tax-payer funded resources at its disposal, and its attorneys can easily run up the clock for those attempting to pay a defense attorney by the hour to get their money back. Police then get to keep these funds and add them to their budget much of the time.

CAF is not only a disgustingly unconstitutional law, it also leads to really corrupt police behavior. When police get to profit off the property they discover on people just because they merely suspect them of a crime, they are far more apt to behave like road pirates—targeting and profiling certain kinds of cars and finding reasons to search people and their cars. They should be focusing their time on solving and preventing violent crimes, but instead, we see a vast amount of their resources go to these endeavors instead.

All of this, unsurprisingly, traces back to the War on Drugs. Politicians and police argue that police need this authority to stop high-profile drug lords and their drug trafficking operations. It’s a bogus argument of course. The vast majority of these seizures were for less than $1000 and against people who were never even charged with a crime.

Bottom line, police should never be able to take a person’s property until they have been convicted of a crime. There’s really no ethical or constitutional if, ands, or buts about it. CAF needs to be outlawed at both the federal and state level, and you should pay close attention to the police, District Attorneys, and other politicians that benefit from this system working to keep it in place.

Litigators at places like The GoldWater Institute are heroes fighting the bad guys. Ironically, that’s what we pay the police to do.

By Brian Lupo

For those of us that are concerned with election integrity, “Human Error”, “technical glitch”, “the problem has been corrected” are all statements and explanations we seem to hear repeated over and over again regarding elections in this country.  For those who are still plugged into the mockingbird media, they hear “Big Lie”, “most secure election in American history”, and “‘MAGA Republicans’ are trying to overturn the election.”

The media asks “then show us the fraud.”  Well, “show us the election first.”  It’s difficult to prove a murder without being allowed to see the body, the crime scene, the weapon, etc.  We still cannot get access to hand marked paper ballots in any of these jurisdictions mentioned below.  Hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars, maybe millions, are being spent to thwart the inspection of physical ballots.  We are still being stonewalled in many jurisdictions from open records request for election materials.

But citizens turned investigators have still found some compelling evidence.  For example, citizen investigators found through publicly available ballot images, a peculiar addition of a vote from the first machine count on Nov 3 to the second machine recount a couple of weeks later.  This added vote, a perfectly filled in circle, was only able to be found because of some writing at the top of the ballot that gave away it’s identity because the tabulator, batch and ballot number all changed between the original count and the recount, as if the ballots were shuffled up.  If they ran a batch through a different tabulator, then perhaps that number changing could be argued.  But to change the batch ID and ballot positioning from one count to the next seems to be a deliberate obfuscation.

The obvious question here is how does a ballot end up with an extra vote from one count to the next?  And are there more like it that were hidden by the shuffling of the ballots prior to the recount?  The “overvote” on the ballot cancels out the original vote for Donald J Trump for President.  We have reached out to Cherokee County twice, once in June and once again this week, for explanation.  We will update the article if they respond.

We know that these machines can be manipulated in a way that they can change votes in real time faster than the machines can scan, as reported in August by The Gateway Pundit.  Ironically, the two students who presented this information also studied under J. Alex Halderman.  Halderman is the author of a sealed report that warranted this CISA advisory back in June.

For a recent episode I did on this ballot, check out the foll

This is not the only major discrepancy…

This potential violation of the voter’s civil rights as well criminal law is just one of many instances where there doesn’t seem to be any interest in resolving the issue:

Antrim Co, Michigan and Dekalb Co, Georgia

RELATED: HUGE! Computer Expert Jeff Lenberg: "The Biggest Smoking Gun That Exists Anywhere In All Of This [Elections]"

The Gateway Pundit reported on votes flipping in Antrim County, MI in 2020.  In strikingly similar circumstance, we saw votes flipped in Dekalb County, GA in the 2022 Democrat primary.  Both instances were blamed on failure to update the voting machines after a last minute election update.

While the case Bailey v. Antrim gave us a forensic imaging of the machines, it did not allow for a hand recount of any race other than the Presidential, despite claims that votes flipped in the House and Senate races as well.  And again in Dekalb, they did not do any sort of hand recount down ballot to verify the results were accurate.  Antrim County flipped all the races, but apparently the same reported issue (failure to update ALL machines to accommodate one precinct update)

Cherokee Co, Kansas

We reported on a race flip in Cherokee Co, KS in the 2022 primary.  A race for County Commissioner saw votes flip from one candidate to the other in a post election audit.  Thankfully, that race happened the only county race that was audited, otherwise it would have been missed.  And somehow, those machines passed the Logic and Accuracy Test with programming error on the USB drives.  Someone please explain how they passed an all encompassing Logic and Accuracy Test.

Chavez Co, New Mexico

We saw a vote flipped by the machine in a judicial race during a Risk Limiting Audit in Chavez, New Mexico, as presented by Professor David Clements and Erin Clements (1:57:53 mark) during their audit of New Mexico elections.  The clerk in Chavez reported the flip to the authorities, including the New Mexico Secretary of State and the FBI.  There was no follow up investigation.

Coincidentally, Dominion once bragged about the machines having a “huge library of hand made marks.”  Eric Coomer quickly attests “It’s all about preserving voter anonymity!”  Sure it is.  [video]

Williamson Co, Tennessee

We know that the EAC found “erroneous code” on Dominion machines in Williamson County, TN.  This “must read” report should have been the end of voting machines.  Especially considering they passed EAC accreditations:

“The report
indicates that erroneous code is present in the EAC certified D-Suite 5.5-B and D-Suite 5.5-C
systems.”

This “erroneous code” circumvented the voter’s rights by allocating certain ballots to a “provisional” folder:

“…the ICP scanner mistakenly interprets a bit in the code that marks the ballot as provisional. Once that misread happens, the provisional flag is not properly reset after that ballot’s voting session. The result is that every ballot scanned and tabulated by the machine after that misread is marked as provisional and thus, not included in the tabulator’s close poll report totals“

Had it not been for an alert poll worker who manually kept tabs of each ballot ran through each machine and compared them with the poll tapes, this may not have been discovered at all.

Despite all of this, those of us who demand accountability and integrity in our elections get persecuted in the mockingbird media and by Joe Biden himself.  In the meantime, we will continue to provide evidence that shows we need a thorough investigation into not just the 2020 election, but all elections run on these machines.

SOURCE:  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/icymi-georgia-county-using-dominion-machines-adds-vote-nov-3-count-machine-recount/

by Robert W. Chandler, M.D., M.B.A. - Team 5

[https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M2_26_pharmkin-tabulated-summary.pdf] and the heavily redacted  report “R&D STUDY REPORT No. R-20-0072 – EXPRESSION OF LUCIFERASE-ENCODING MODERNA AFTER I.M. APPLICATION OF GMPREADY ACUITAS LIPID NANOPARTICLE FORMULATION “[https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_R-20-0072.pdf] — all examine tissue distribution of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine BNT162b2. These documents will be addressed in this report. 

Pfizer Study 185350,” Final Report: A Tissue Distribution Study of a [3H]-Labelled Lipid Nanoparticle-mRNA Formulation Containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 Following Intramuscular Administration in Wistar Han Rat”, is one of 21 preclinical Prizer studies involving mice, rats and rhesus macaque non-human primates. Study No. 185350 (Sponsor Reference ALC-NC-0552) was summarized in Pfizer’s “2.4 Nonclinical Overview” and was separately published as a Final Report dated September 24, 2020.

Contained in that document is the following identification of the source:

Test Facility Study No. 185350 REDACTED

SPONSOR: Acuitas, 

6190 Agronomy Road, 

Ste. 402, 

Vancouver, V6T 1Z3 Canada

Sponsor Reference No. ALC-NC-0552

This study was made up  of 42 male and 21 female Wistar Han rats. These rats were injected with 50 or 100 micrograms of BNT162b2 mRNA/LNP (lipid nanoparticle) product labelled with a radioactive tracer material, 3H. Then the rats were sacrificed at intervals of 0.25 hours (15 minutes); 1 hour; 2 hours; 4 hours; 8 hours; and then at 1 and 2 days.

The results of 21 male and 21 female sacrificed rats are presented.

The 100-microgram dose was associated with loss of weight and apparent toxicity in two animals. Unfortunately, the full results of the 100-microgram dose were not presented at all. [https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf, p. 11.]

The injection did not stay at the injection site, as we were promised it would. Rather, following injection, the drug was persistent at the injection site, with a third of the dose remaining in muscle tissue for two days in males, and a sixth of the dose remained in females for the same duration.

 

Top: highest mean concentrations. Bottom: equivalent % dose.

The final chart on page 19 contrasts ovaries vs testes with approximately 38 times more drug concentration of drug in ovaries. More work is needed to see if there is a connection between menstrual cycle changes as have been reported by Lee, et. al. and elsewhere.

 

Similarly, although the data is incomplete with known outcome in only 27 of 270 pregnancy cases as reported in Pfizer document 5.3.6, the first three months of Adverse Events reporting following widespread release after an Emergency Use Authorization was given by the FDA. What data does exist is disconcerting.

 Several serious questions are raised by these results:

1. How long does the BNT162b2 mRNA persist in human tissues? Where does it go in the host cell? How long does it persist inside the cell? What proteins does it produce, and for how long?
2. Is there any possibility that the BNT162b2 mRNA can be transcribed into DNA, then incorporate into the host genome? If this happens what are the implications?
3. What are the toxicities from the lipid nanoparticle coating?
4. Was Pfizer obligated to answer these questions prior to human testing?
5. Doesn’t proper informed consent require answers to these questions?

Fortunately, answers to these important questions are beginning to appear:

1a. Duration of mRNA in tissues:

In a July 19, 2022, article, the essayist Joomi reviews the topic of how long BNT162 b2 containing mRNA stabilized by a synthetic nucleotide 1N-methyl pseudouridine persists in human tissues. [https://joomi.substack.com/p/were-still-being-misled-about-how?r=chkp3&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web]

A January 2022 human lymph node biopsy study from Stanford University found that the mRNA from both Pfizer and Moderna persists for at least two months, which was the duration of the study. [https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2822%2900076-9]

1b. Proteins produced from BNT162b2 mRNA:

Spike protein is produced after the mRNA is transcribed, and has been found in vivo for at least four months after inoculation. [https://joomi.substack.com/p/were-still-being-misled-about-how?r=chkp3&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web]

Proteins transcribed from the mRNA have not been completely characterized yet. SARS-CoV-2-like Spike protein has been identified as long as four months after inoculation with LNP/mRNA in human exosomes. Toxicity of Spike protein has been described and is reviewed in  the essay “We’re still being misled about how long the mRNA vaccines last in the body.” [https://joomi.substack.com/p/were-still-being-misled-about-how?r=chkp3&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web]

2. What is the fate of BNT162b2 mRNA?

We were informed that “RNA is required for protein synthesis, does not integrate into the genome, is transiently expressed, and is metabolized and is eliminated by the body’s natural mechanisms and, therefore is considered safe.” [Alberer, M. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomized, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial. Lancet 90, 1511-1520 (2017).] [Sahin, U. e al. Personalized RNA mutanome vaccines mobilize poly-specific therapeutic immunity against cancer. Nature 547, 222-226 (2017).]

However, Alden, et. al., reporting in Current Issues in Molecular Biology 2022, 44, 1115-1126, found BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed into host DNA beginning six hours after contact with BNT162b2:

“In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.” [https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

This study did not identify DNA transcribed from BNT162b2 mRNA in the host genome following transcription.

However, Zhang et. al., working at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, demonstrated fragments of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA integrated in host DNA in “Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues,” published in 2021 in PNAS, vol. 118, no. 21:

“We show here that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of the infected cell and be expressed as chimeric transcripts fusing viral with cellular sequences. Importantly, such chimeric transcripts are detected in patient-derived tissues.” [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105968118]

So, scientists are getting close to knowing whether BNT162b2, with its synthetic mRNA, is translated into host DNA and is now a permanent part of human genetic material. If so, the next step is to determine what the implications are.

3. What are the toxicities from the lipid nanoparticle coating?

More research is required to understand the implications of LNP concentration in various organ tissues. It is thought that the PEG component (the polyethylene glycol that coats the LNP) is responsible for anaphylaxis, an often rapid-onset major physiologic event that requires emergency treatment.

4. Was Pfizer obligated to answer these questions prior to human testing?

5. Doesn’t proper informed consent require answers to these questions?

The answers to questions 4 and 5 are “yes,” and the reasons should be obvious now. Basic information about functioning of this mRNA product, BNT162b2, was not known at the time of mass inoculation; and, therefore, a proper risk, benefits and complications discussion was compromised by lack of information. Informed consent is not possible in such a situation.

In conclusion, many negatively consequential shortcuts were made in the development of BNT162b2.

Many omissions in basic research evaluation of BNT162b2 were kept hidden, and there was outright misinformation regarding some of the work that was done.

Assumptions rather than actual research to determine where BNT162b2 goes, what it does, and how long it lasts were made that proved to be false and constitute intentional mis/dis/mal information. We were told that the prodrug, BNT162b2, consisting of a lipid nanoparticle coating of synthetic messenger ribonucleic acid (modRNA), would be deposited in muscle tissue at the injection site and would be migrate to local lymphatics prior to rapid degradation producing Spike antigens for a limited period of time that would produce a desired immune response.

However, Pfizer in its very early Phase 1 trial with mice, rats, and rhesus non-human primates learned that the LNP/mRNA is rapidly disseminated throughout the body and remained in tissues for as long as it was studied, 48 hours for BNT162b2 and 12.5 days for the LNP/Luciferase mRNA test product.

No effort was expended to determine what proteins are produced by the modRNA, what their physiological actions are and how long they are produced as well as what toxicities and adverse events might be anticipated with widespread usage of the LNP/mRNA prodrug.

FOIA requests for internal documents from federal health care agencies, independent review board members, approximately 140 clinical investigators and Pfizer personnel should be made.

Billions of doses were administered to billions of p