Clyde said Republicans want to help Trump clean up D.C.

'Holy sh*t' is the first thing that comes to mind

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—A new letter from Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., puts federal health agencies on notice that he plans to subpoena unredacted records withheld by the Biden administration on potential adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.  “It appears that even in the waning days of the Biden administration, your agencies will remain defiant in providing the public with complete information about the COVID-19 vaccines,” writes Johnson, incoming chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Select Subcommittee on Investigations, in the Dec. 5 letter shared with The Daily Signal. “If it becomes necessary to subpoena these and other requested records in the next Congress when I become chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I will do so,” the Wisconsin Republican adds.  Johnson’s letter went to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra; Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf; and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Mandy Cohen. (CDC and FDA are agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services.) All three public health officials likely will be replaced shortly after President-elect Donald Trump takes office.  In 2021, the Israeli Ministry of Health requested data from officials with the CDC and FDA about adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Israeli health officials cited their concerns about heart conditions, myocarditis, and pericarditis in individuals who got a shot.  However, government documents released on the matter have been heavily redacted. “As a result of your agencies’ excessive redactions and incomplete productions, the complete account of how your agencies reviewed and analyzed the concerning health information from the Israeli Ministry of Health remains unclear,” Johnson writes in his letter to the HHS, CDC, and FDA officials.  The senator requested unredacted documents regarding the Israeli officials’ concerns as well as data on the COVID-19 vaccines.  “Your agencies’ lack of transparency is unacceptable,” Johnson tells the three Biden administration officials in the letter. “The public deserves the complete truth about your agencies’ awareness of and lack of response to the glaring health risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.” Johnson’s nine-page letter includes images of records and over 40 pages of enclosures demonstrating the heavily redacted documents he seeks information about. JohnsonLetter-2024-12-05 RHJ to HHS FDA CDC re COVID-19 vaccine documentsDownload After Republicans won a majority in the Senate in the Nov. 5 election, Johnson wrote to request that the three public health agencies produce other documents by Dec. 3. The agencies ignored his Nov. 19 request, perhaps because Johnson was still a ranking GOP member in the Democratic majority and not a chairman with the authority to compel production of records.  Spokespersons from the HHS, CDC, and FDA did not respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal for this story.  Johnson’s Dec. 5 letter includes a detailed timeline noting on Feb. 28, 2021, that CDC and FDA officials were notified about a request from the Israeli Ministry of Health for reports of young people contracting myocarditis after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.  On March 3, 2021, less than two months after President Joe Biden was sworn in, the Israeli Ministry of Health notified CDC again about reports of “a large number of myocarditis and pericarditis cases in young individuals.” The age range later was specified to be 16 to 30. A memo dated March 10, 2021, from Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, a member of the Biden administration’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, says: “The [Israeli] Ministry of Health stated they received reports of around 40 cases of this adverse event. They did not provide additional details about these cases.” The CDC’s March 10 response to Israel’s health officials says adverse conditions were found in only an “estimated 0.7 per million doses of vaccine administered.”  But, the CDC response notes, “limitations of passive surveillance such as under-reporting, lack of a control group, [and] missing and incomplete data make it challenging to assess causation.” By April 2021, the Israeli Ministry of Health had sent slides to the CDC and FDA, stating that “by the end of March 2021, 5.2 million Israelis received the first dose of the vaccine and 4.8 million received a second dose.” The Israeli agency added: “The incidence of myocarditis following dose 1 was 1.1 per million, and 11.7 per million following dose 2—a 964% increase in incidence between the two.” The Permanent Select Subcommittee on Investigations, which Johnson is expected to chair when the new Republican majority takes over Jan. 3, is part of the Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee.  Any member of Congress may request documents from an executive branch agency, but only a committee or subcommittee majority has the subpoena power to compel the production of information.  The post EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Ron Johnson Poised to Compel HHS to Cough Up COVID Documents appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Two dozen FBI confidential sources were part of the crowd outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and four of those informants illegally entered the building, according to a new report by the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General.  Another 13 of the 26 confidential human sources were in restricted areas around the Capitol that day as lawmakers prepared to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, the report by the DOJ’s internal watchdog found.  “None of the CHSs [confidential human sources] who entered the Capitol or a restricted area has been prosecuted to date,” the report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz says. “The WFO [the FBI’s Washington Field Office] did not know that a total of 26 CHSs would be in DC for the events of January 6 because only four field offices had informed the WFO or FBI Headquarters that CHSs under the relevant field office’s jurisdiction—5 CHSs in total—would be traveling to DC on January 6.” The electoral certification of Joe Biden’s win over incumbent Donald Trump in the presidential race was delayed by the Jan. 6 protest when a mob breached the Capitol.  As a result, the Justice Department has prosecuted nearly 1,500 defendants, almost all of whom were charged either with illegally entering the Capitol or entering a restricted area around the Capitol. The Justice Department has said it charged over 500 with assault, resisting arrest, or impeding police officers.  “We determined that of the 26 CHSs [confidential human sources] who were in DC on January 6 in connection with the events of January 6, four entered the Capitol during the riot; an additional 13 entered the restricted area around the Capitol, which was a security perimeter established in preparation for the January 6 Electoral Certification; and nine neither entered a restricted area nor entered the Capitol or otherwise engaged in illegal activity,” the DOJ inspector general’s report says. The IG report comes one day after FBI Director Christopher Wray announced he is resigning from his position before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Members of Congress have raised questions about the roles played by FBI informants leading up to the breach of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by some of the protesters who walked there after hearing Trump speak on the Ellipse south of the White House.  Marcus Allen, an FBI employee who raised questions about FBI informants at the Capitol that day, was suspended without pay.  The report from Horowitz released Thursday also says that only three of the 26 confidential human sources were authorized by the FBI’s Washington Field Office to attend the Jan. 6 protest.  “In addition to these three CHSs, we found that 23 other FBI CHSs were in DC on January 6 in connection with the events planned for January 6,” the report says. “None of these FBI CHSs were authorized to enter the Capitol or a restricted area, or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6.” The Office of Inspector General recommended that, in the future, the FBI “clearly define a mechanism for making a formal determination whether and what kind of a nationwide intelligence and CHS canvass is necessary and appropriate under FBI policies; and provide sufficient guidance to ensure that relevant intelligence can be timely shared among the relevant FBI components and with non-FBI stakeholders.” The IG’s office announced later in 2021 that it would begin the investigation, but Horowitz said his office “paused” the probe pending the Justice Department’s ongoing criminal investigations. He said his office reinitiated the probe last year. The FBI did not respond to an inquiry from The Daily Signal for this story.  IG-J6-CHSDownload The post 26 FBI Informants Were at Capitol on Jan. 6, Investigation Finds appeared first on The Daily Signal.

CNN Poll: Mar-a-Lago's a Honeymoon Hotel

WTH Is Going On in New Jersey?

One question emerging from the presidential election exit polls is the disconnect between Black men and women and Hispanic men and women. Donald Trump received support from 21% of Black men and 7% of Black women, a disparity of 14 points. He got support from 54% of Hispanic men and 39% of Hispanic women, a disparity of 15 points. There was also a disparity in Trump’s support among white men and women, but much smaller -- 7 points. So why is Trump having far greater success among Black and Hispanic men than Black and Hispanic women? It’s clear that the major issue that drove the vote in this election was the economy. A Gallup poll done in October showed the economy as the number one concern of voters. Per exit polling, 68% said the economy is “not good” or “poor” and 31% said it is “excellent” or “good.” Of the 68% saying the economy is not good/poor, 70% voted for Trump. Per a Gallup poll published last March, 27% of Black women under 60 said they are planning to start their own business in the next 12 months, compared to 14% of Hispanic women and 5% of white women. In the same survey Gallup asked, “Would you be interested in starting a business if you had the resources?” Among Black women, 57% said yes; among Hispanic women, 55% said yes; among white women, 38% said yes; 51% of all U.S. men and 44% of all U.S. women said yes. The entrepreneurial aspirations of Black and Hispanic women are among the highest in the country. Per Gallup, “while just 13% of men under 60 say they lack the financial and/or nonfinancial resources to start a business, a third of women in this age group (33%) say the same.” Gallup continues that improving access of women to capital is important “when women-owned businesses still make up only 22% of employer businesses in the United States.” I think that these entrepreneurial-driven Black and Hispanic women should care a lot about a healthy and growing national economy. Nothing is more important for business success and raising capital. I would urge these women to listen to a recent interview done with one of the country’s greatest entrepreneurs, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, done at the New York Times DealBook Summit. Bezos has never been known as a conservative or among the backers of President-elect Donald Trump. He owns The Washington Post, which is a left-of-center paper. However, in this interview, Bezos speaks positively about the election of Trump and specifically talks about the importance of deregulation to improving the economy. “He (Trump) seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation. ... If I can help him do that, I’m going to help him.” He also observes that our country “has the best risk capital system in the world ... You can raise $50 million of seed capital to do something that only has a 10% chance of working.” Bezos discusses his own experience, starting from nothing, building a business in a world of new technology and becoming one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. He describes raising his first million dollars for Amazon by meeting with 60 venture capitalists, of whom 22 agreed to put up $50,000 each. Bezos emphasizes that the way out of our economic problems is economic growth. And here he emphasizes the importance of deregulation and gives a vote of confidence to Trump. So why, when there is such disproportionate entrepreneurial spirit among Black women, did only 7% support the candidate who one of the nation’s most successful and legendary entrepreneurs says will deliver the economy the nation needs? Certainly, Black and Hispanic men are getting the message. It’s time for Black and Hispanic women to get it and start focusing less on identity politics and more on what experience tells us will work.

Standing up for the First Amendment is easy when you agree with the speech that’s being threatened. However, it’s standing up for free speech when you hate the words being spoken that really counts. That’s the difficult position Glenn Beck is taking when it comes to the vile things uttered by ex-Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz and BLM co-founder Hawk Newsome. While he loathes the violence both have celebrated in the wake of recent events, he nonetheless supports their First Amendment rights. Taylor Lorenz has come under fire for her comments following the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. While speaking to Piers Morgan, Lorenz said that she felt “joy” when she got the news of Thompson’s death. When Piers pressed her on this heinous sentiment, she somewhat recanted it and replaced “joy” with the word “celebratory” — as if that was any better. She then justified her statement by claiming that “greedy health insurance executives like [Thompson] push policies of denying care to the most vulnerable people” and thus his death should be seen as “justice in the system.” Newsome, angered by the acquittal of Daniel Penny, told a crowd, “We need some black vigilantes. People wanna jump up and choke us and kill us for being loud? How about we do the same when they attempt to oppress us?” While Glenn is revolted by these two statements that unabashedly condone violence, he knows that they fall under speech that is protected by the Constitution. He reads from a 1969 court case in which it was determined that speech must be evaluated according to a “two-prong” test: “Speech can be prohibited if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and it must be “likely to incite or produce such action.” “Two standards — both of them have to be met,” says Glenn. Neither statement meets both of these criteria, meaning that while they are reprehensible, they’re technically not illegal and therefore should be protected. “I hate what these people have said,” Glenn admits, calling the statements from both Lorenz and Newsome “evil,” but “because I'm an American constitutionalist, I defend their right to say it.” To hear more of Glenn’s analysis, watch the clip above. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Biden's Giving Everyone 'Get Out of Jail Free' Cards With Biggest One-Day Act of Clemency in U.S. History

ProPublica's Secret Talks Reveal Hegseth Fake News Was Deliberately Manufactured