Authored by Conor Freeman via The Liberarian Institute,

Two fifty-year old documents related to the coup in Chile were released by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department last week. The democratically elected, left wing government of President Salvador Allende was overthrown in 1973 by the Chilean military, with covert CIA backing. A US-supported dictatorship led by General Augusto Pinochet was subsequently installed.

President Richard Nixon’s daily briefs related to the coup on September 8th as well as the 11th – the day the Chilean military seized control of the government – were released. This declassification followed repeated calls for increased transparency by progressive members of Congress, human rights groups, and Santiago.

Nixon and then National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger strongly opposed the leftist Allende government and attempted to prevent its rule. George Washington University’s National Security Archive issued a statement which says “[the documents] contained information that went to President Nixon as a military takeover that he and [Kissinger] had encouraged for three years came to fruition.”

Nixon’s daily brief for September 8, 1973 reads “a number of reports have been received… indicating the possibility of an early military coup… Navy men plotting to overthrow the government now claim army and air force support.”

The document – written three days before the coup – continues with a discussion of how a fascist paramilitary group “has been blocking roads and provoking clashes with the national police, adding to the tension caused by continuing strikes and opposition political moves. President Allende earlier this week said he believed the armed forces will ask for his resignation if he does not change his economic and political policies.”

On September 11th, Nixon’s daily brief said “Plans by navy officers to trigger military action against the Allende government are supported by some key army units… The navy is also counting on help from the air force and national police.”

After Allende’s initial refusal to resign, tanks opened fire, Air Force aircraft launched rocket attacks and bombed the presidential palace. Troops stormed in and Allende shot himself.

“What followed [the coup] was a vicious, decades-long reign of terror and repression during which tens of thousands of Chileans were killed, tortured, or disappeared by the Pinochet regime, which continued to receive support from the CIA,” as Common Dreams’ Jake Johnson has written.

Indeed, in 2000, the CIA conceded that “many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses… Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or [US] military.”

The Coup In Chile: CIA Releases Top Secret 9/11/1973 President’s Daily Brief

– The two PDBs are among the most historically iconic of missing records on the September 11, 1973, military coup https://t.co/gZUFjmdYJP

— NatlSecurityArchive (@NSArchive) August 26, 2023

Peter Kornbluh, a Chile specialist for National Security Archive, said “I’m happy that the Freedom of Information Act, together with some positive diplomacy by the Chilean government, broke a secrecy barrier that has kept us from knowing this history for 50 years.” He added that he hopes the White House will soon be “releasing all the [US records on Chile relating to the coup and its aftermath] that, inexplicably, remain secret after all this time.”

As the Los Angeles Times noted, the US government “favored Pinochet, who for most of his 17 years of rule had good economic and military ties with Washington as he repressed many of his own people.”

Throughout Latin America, during the Cold War, the CIA was involved in overthrowing governments, while fueling a series of proxy wars and civil wars, as well as waging terror campaigns against others. To this day, the US maintains a more than 60-year old embargo on Cuba as well as a notorious torture prison at Guantanamo Bay.

During recent years, the US has supported coups against governments in Venezuela and Bolivia. The US currently imposes sanctions on Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. In Venezuela, Washington’s economic war led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths between 2017 and 2018 as a result of vital medicines being deprived.

Additionally, among GOP presidential candidates, there is substantial support for a potential military invasion of Mexico to ostensibly counter drug trafficking.

Submitted by Gun Owners of America,

We hate to say we told you so, but it’s official. The Justice Department announced a new rule to amend ATF regulations and expand the definition of a firearms dealer to include those who sell even a single firearm. 

The original rumors of the rule suggested anyone who sold five or more firearms could have to register as an FFL and conduct background checks, however the official released version says selling even ONE FIREARM without a license would be illegal.🤯 pic.twitter.com/U1s9SUFm2q

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 31, 2023

While earlier versions of the rule leaked to the public via the Biden administration’s allies in the corporate media hinted at a target of about five firearms sold without a license before requiring an individual to register as an FFL, the published rule seems more restrictive. Those who have sold or even “offer to engage” in a single transaction could be prosecuted for unlicensed activities.

That’s not all. The rule is also full of unclear language that gives ATF wiggle room to prosecute gun owners as they please. Examples of actions that ATF could use to define activity as operating as an unlicensed dealer are listed, but ATF notes that the list of examples is not exhaustive. This creates a system where gun owners must prove they are not dealers to be able to sell a firearm legally.

Just in case you thought the ATF was going to be clear and concise on this rule, think again!

Here are four pages of what you CAN’T do and then a catch all sentence that says it is “not exhaustive.”🙄

Well. We’re exhaustED. pic.twitter.com/1dUexIsY8Y

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 31, 2023

We can’t stress this enough: this ATF Rule is a direct result of Republican–backed gun control. Specifically, it’s called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, or the Cornyn-Murphy compromise. GOA and our grassroots membership warned Sen. Cornyn and his colleagues that the act could be used in this exact manner; unfortunately, our warnings fell on deaf ears, and the gun control bill became law last year.

And, of course, the rule itself isn’t about safety. It’s about building the ATF’s illegal firearm registry. With a massive digital registry of out-of-business records that GOA has covered in-depth, this rule only expands on who is subject to information collection on their firearms purchases.

Oops! @giffords_org said the quiet part out loud!🙄

This rule isn’t about “safety.” It’s about knowing who has what guns and building the ATF’s illegal registry. https://t.co/5z7LHP7BK1

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 31, 2023

Consider that on top of this new rule, Biden’s ATF has adopted a “Zero Tolerance” policy for Federal Firearms Licensees. Under this policy, gun stores can be shut down for even a single minor mistake on paperwork.

Another ATF rule. Another lawsuit. https://t.co/m5uSKw1TZZ

— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) August 31, 2023

Gun Owners of America stands ready to oppose this new ATF rule by any means necessary.

*   *   * 

We’ll hold the line for you in Washington. We are No Compromise. Join the Fight Now.

It appears that a new world order is emerging, with BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization offering trade alternatives to the hegemonic West. The latest example of a multi-polar world is the US being displaced by BRICS country Brazil as the world’s top corn supplier. 

The US held the crown for fifty years as the world’s top corn exporter. A new Blomberg report, citing data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), shows the five-decade reign is over:

In the 2023 harvest year, the US will account for about 23% of global corn exports, well below Brazil’s nearly 32%, US Department of Agriculture data show. Brazil is seen holding onto its lead in the 2024 planting year that begins Sept. 1, too. Only once in data going back to the Kennedy administration did America drop out of first place before: for a single year in 2013 following a devastating drought. The US corn-exporting industry has never before spent two back-to-back years in second place — until now.

It’s not corn. Brazil has also displaced American farmers in both soybean and wheat exports. Bloomberg explained more: 

Losing its lead in corn exports may feel familiar to American farmers, who in the last decade have also relinquished the top spot in both soybean and wheat exports. Soy was the first to go, with Brazil definitively taking the lead in 2013. The next year, the US lost its wheat dominance, too, with the European Union, then Russia, beginning to elbow out American farmers in the global market.

The export ag market share slide is troubling news for the domestic industry that exported $200 billion in farm products in 2022. Sliding dominance may suggest that farmer incomes may slide in the years ahead.

Stephen Nicholson, global grains and oilseeds sector strategist with Rabobank, an agricultural lender, told Reuters:

“When we look at US corn demand long term, we wonder where new demand is coming from. 

“Brazil is likely taking a bigger share of the global market, ethanol has likely peaked and animal protein is likely not going to grow fast enough.” 

The reason for the shift is a rejiggering of China’s ag trade away from the US to Brazil. China signed a deal with Brazil last year to increase gain purchases. 

“Brazil has the ability to ramp that planting area up to meet Chinese demand in a way that the United States doesn’t,” said Matthew Roberts, senior grain analyst with consultancy Terrain.

Plus, the Chinese are steering clear of US trade because lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been in a frenzy to weaponize the dollar and trade against Beijing. 

“The US reminds me of the frog being slowly boiled,” Ann Berg, an independent consultant and veteran trader who started her career at Louis Dreyfus Co. in 1974, told Bloomberg. 

Berg said, “It’s lost its dominance, but it took 40 years.”

We’ve outlined that the emergence of BRICS as an alternative to Western hegemony will cause the global economy to evolve in three phases. For more on that, read “Breaking Dollar Hegemony, BRICS Nations Are Leading The World To Hyperbitcoinization.” Also, read “A Multi-polar World Is Emerging.”

Authored by Megan Redshaw via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. government and pharmaceutical companies are investing a substantial amount to develop new mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases and cancer, fueling a lucrative mRNA platform valued at $136.2 billion.

A newly established White House program announced on Aug. 23 that it is granting a total of $25 million over three years to Emory University, Yale School of Medicine, and the University of Georgia to develop personalized therapeutic vaccines against cancers and emerging infections, similar to how COVID-19 mRNA vaccines target SARS-CoV-2. They aim to use mRNA—an essential element in COVID-19 vaccines developed to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections—to program a unique class of immune cells called dendritic cells to initiate a desired immunological response.

Pharmaceutical companies such as Moderna, BioNTech, and CureVac are conducting clinical trials using mRNA-based vaccines with advanced melanoma, ovarian, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. The National Institutes of Health is partnering with BioNTech to develop a personalized vaccine for pancreatic cancers. In addition to COVID-19 and cancer, other mRNA-based vaccines in development target influenza, genital herpes, respiratory viruses, and shingles.

Although mRNA platforms are appealing because they reduce costs and shorten the vaccine development timeline, evidence and experience suggest the mRNA technology used for novel COVID-19 vaccines is associated with various harms and neither prevents COVID-19 nor its transmission.

Evidence Challenging Vaccine ‘Safe and Effective’ Narrative

The unprecedented rates of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination overshadow the benefits, according to researchers from Australia who say the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, whether from the virus or created from genetic code in mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines, is toxic and causes a wide array of diseases.

In their recently published paper published in Biomedicines titled, “‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA,” the researchers explored peer-reviewed data countering the “safe and effective” narrative attached to new technologies used to develop mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines at “warp speed” to end the pandemic.

Spike protein pathogenicity, termed “spikeopathy,” describes the ability of the spike protein to cause disease, and the researchers say it can affect many organ systems.

Researchers noted the following key problem areas:

• Spike protein toxicity (spikeopathy) from both the virus and when produced by gene codes in people vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines.
• Inflammatory properties in specific lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used to transport mRNA.
• Long-lasting action caused by N1-methyl pseudouridine in the synthetic mRNA—also referred to as modRNA.
• Widespread distribution of mRNA and DNA codes via the LNP and viral vector carrier matrices, respectively.
• Human cells produce a foreign protein that can cause autoimmunity.

Now that vaccines utilizing mRNA technology have been available and widely distributed for several years, data show these vaccines produce foreign antigens in human tissues and increase the risk of autoimmune, neurological, cardiovascular, inflammatory disorders, and cancers, especially when the vaccine ingredients do not remain localized at the injection site. An antigen is any substance that stimulates an immune response. If the immune system encounters an antigen that is not found on the body’s own cells, it will launch an attack against that antigen.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data show the design of the mRNA and adenovectorDNA COVID-19 vaccines allow uncontrolled biodistribution, durability, and persistent bioavailability of the spike protein inside the body after vaccination. Pharmacokinetics is the study of how the body interacts with administered substances for the entire duration of exposure. Pharmacodynamics assesses the drug’s effect on the body more closely.

This may explain the unprecedented number of adverse events that appear to be associated with the spike protein produced by the gene-based technologies employed by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson, as well as the viral vector DNA technology used by other countries, researchers said.

mRNA Vaccines Are Gene Therapy and May Cause Harm

Gene-based COVID-19 vaccines are therapeutic products that actually fit within the FDA’s definition of gene therapy because they cause the cells of the vaccinated person to produce antigens for transmembrane expression that invokes an immune response. By design, these novel vaccine platforms risk tissue damage secondary to autoimmune responses raised against cells expressing foreign spike antigens, researchers said.

The FDA was aware of the pathogenicity of spike proteins before releasing COVID-19 vaccines to the public. In an October 2022 meeting with its vaccine advisors, the FDA presented a highly accurate list of potential adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines, including neurological, cardiovascular, and autoimmune “possible adverse events.”

React19, an organization that provides financial, emotional, and physical support to those experiencing long-term injuries from COVID-19 vaccines, provided a list of over 3,400 published papers and case reports of injuries affecting more than 20 organ systems. More than 432 peer-reviewed papers relate to papers and case reports of myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, myocardial infarction, hypertension, aortic dissection, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), tachycardia, and conduction disturbance—a problem with the electrical system that controls the heart’s rate and rhythm.

The most common group of adverse events reported following COVID-19 vaccination to both pharmacovigilance databases and Pfizer involve neurological disorders. According to the paper, neurological symptoms and cognitive decline with accelerated neurodegenerative disease are features of acute COVID-19 vaccine injuries and, to some extent, long COVID syndrome. Research suggests (pdf) LNPs transporting the mRNA to make spike proteins can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurotoxic effects.

Lipid Nanoparticles Are Toxic and Pro-Inflammatory

It’s not just the spike protein that can cause disease. LNPs that serve as the delivery method are also toxic and pro-inflammatory.

Research from 2018 showed even small amounts of nanoparticles taken up by the lungs can lead to cytotoxic effects. Ingested nanoparticles have been shown to affect lymph nodes, the liver, and the spleen, while when injected as a drug carrier, they can pass any barrier and translocate to the brain, ovaries, and testes, mainly after phagocytosis by macrophages, which help distribute them across the body. The effects on the reproductive system suggest lipid nanoparticles can be cytotoxic and damage DNA.

According to the authors, two components in the mRNA lipid nanoparticle complexes, ALC-0315 and ALC-0159, are concerning, as they have never been used in a medicinal product and are not registered in either the European Pharmacopoeia or in the European C&L Inventory database. A question posed to the European Parliament in December 2021 pointed out that the manufacturer of the nanoparticles specifies the nanoparticles are for research only and not for human use. The European Commission responded that the excipient in Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine “has been demonstrated to be appropriate … in compliance with the relevant EMA scientific guidelines and standards.”

Still, this could explain the root cause of numerous post-vaccination adverse events, researchers said.

Read more here…

Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClear Wire,

Americans are constantly debating policing and gun control. But to discuss these issues, we have to depend on government crime data. Unfortunately, politics has infected the data handling of agencies such as the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control.

Last year, the CDC became the center of controversy when it removed its estimates of defensive gun uses from its website at the request of gun control organizations. For nearly a decade the CDC cited a 2013 National Academies of Sciences report showing that the annual number of people using guns to stop crime ranged from about 64,000 to 3 million. The CDC website listed the upper figure at 2.5 million.

Mark Bryant, who runs the Gun Violence Archive, wrote to CDC officials after a meeting last year that the 2.5 million number “has been used so often to stop [gun control] legislation.” The CDC’s estimates were subsequently taken down and now lists no numbers.

The FBI is also susceptible to political pressure. Up until January of 2021, I worked in the U.S. Department of Justice as the senior advisor for research and statistics, and part of my job was to evaluate the FBI’s active shooting reports. I showed the bureau that many cases were missing and that others had been misidentified. Yet, the FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents that it identified for the period 2014-2022. The correct rate is almost eight times higher. And if we limit the discussion to places where permit holders were allowed to carry, the rate is eleven times higher.

The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. But it does not include shootings that are deemed related to other criminal activity, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf. Active shootings may involve just one shot being fired at just one target, even if the target isn’t hit. 

To compile its list, the FBI hired academics at the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. Police departments don’t collect data, so the researchers had to find news stories about these incidents.

It isn’t surprising that people will miss cases or occasionally misidentify them when using news stories, but the FBI was unwilling to fix its errors when I pointed them out. My organization, the Crime Prevention Research Center, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list. Back in 2015, I published a list of missed cases in a criminology publication.

Unfortunately, the news media unquestioningly reports the FBI numbers. After 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken used his legally-carried concealed handgun to stop what would have been a mass public shooting, an Associated Press headline noted: “Rare in US for an active shooter to be stopped by bystander.” A Washington Post headline proclaimed: “Rampage in Indiana a rare instance of armed civilian ending mass shooting.”

The CPRC’s numbers tell a different story: Out of 440 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2022, an armed citizen stopped 157. We also found that the FBI had misidentified five cases, usually because the person who stopped the attack was incorrectly identified as a security guard.

We found these cases on a budget of just a few thousand dollars. Though we found that armed citizens had stopped eight times as many cases as the FBI claims, I make no assertion that we unearthed all of these stories. It is quite possible that the news media itself never covers many such incidents.

While the FBI claims that just 4.6% of active shootings were stopped by law-abiding citizens carrying guns, the percentage that I found was 35.7%. I am more confident that we have identified a higher share of recent cases, and our figure for 2022 was even higher – 41.3%.

The FBI doesn’t differentiate between law-abiding citizens stopping attacks where guns are banned and where they are allowed, but you can’t expect law-abiding citizens to stop attacks where it is illegal to carry guns. In places where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms, the percentage of active shootings that were stopped is 51%. For 2022, that figure is a remarkable 63.5%.

In order to follow the FBI’s definition, we excluded 27 cases because a law-abiding person with a gun stopped the attacker before he was able to get off a shot.

In an email I received in 2015, a bureau official acknowledged that “the FBI did not come across this incident during its research in 2015, but it does meet the FBI’s active-shooter definition.” The official noted they will miss active-shooter cases because the reports “are limited in scope.” Yet, the FBI database never added the incident.

When the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler reached out to the FBI for comments on our earlier work up through 2021, they emailed: “We have no additional information to provide other than what is provided within the active shooter reports on our website.”

However, a researcher at Texas State University did respond to two of the cases we had identified in our earlier work. He argued that one case involving a shooting at a dentist office was excluded because it involved a domestic dispute and another at a strip club because it was a “retaliation murder.” We list 14 examples where the FBI list includes shooting resulting from domestic disputes and three others where a shooting started after someone was denied entry to a lounge or bar. So why the double standard? Domestic disputes and “retaliation murders” are only included when they don’t involve permit holders stopping the attacks.

The FBI data on active shootings is missing so many defensive gun uses that it’s hard to believe it isn’t intentional. Errors can happen, but the failure to fix past reports shows a troubling disregard for the truth. The reality is that armed, law-abiding citizens are unsung guardian angels.

John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.

A professor who was fired from the University of Southern Maine for challenging COVID-19 mandates has won a critical courtroom victory, after a district judge ruled that her First Amendment lawsuit against the institution can proceed.

Patricia Griffin, who says she was fired for asking valid questions about mask and vaccination policies on campus during the COVID-19 pandemic, was granted the narrow win after the university filed a motion to dismiss the case in part. US District Judge Jon Levy ruled that while Griffin’s First Amendment claim can proceed, other charges were dismissed.

On Aug. 18, 2021, the University of Main announced a mandatory mask policy. Six days later, Griffin took part in a luncheon meeting via Zoom, where the speaker was Glenn Cummings, president of the university. Griffin says Cummings wasn’t wearing a mask at the time.

Later that day she sent an email to the Dean of the College of Management and Human Service, claiming that she had been following “science, data, and evidence” related to the pandemic. Griffin said in the email that she was “searching for anything that will support wearing a mask while indoors as well as vaccinating an entire school population as the optimal method for stopping the transmission of the virus. The reality is that my research has found no evidence to support these measures.“

She attached a document to her email summarizing the results of her research, which did not find “any overwhelming support for the wearing of masks nor the mandating of vaccines, especially since the overall survival rate is 99.7 percent if infected with Covid. And finally, from a legal perspective, asking for my vaccination status is a violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act).”

She then met with the Dean in another Zoom meeting, in which she says she never refused to wear a mask, or violate university policy.

Then, her fall semester classes were canceled. In a subsequent disciplinary conference, she was allegedly told that she wouldn’t be allowed to teach her courses 100% online unless she resigned an accepted a part-time position.

On Sept. 8, 2021, she received a letter from Cummings notifying her that she had been suspended, and the university had moved to terminate her. She says the letter falsely stated that she refused to comply with university policy and wouldn’t wear a mask.

She was formally terminated on Sept. 22.

For those who enjoy deep legal dives Jonathan Turley opines further:

We now have a positive ruling for free speech out of the District of Maine where Chief Judge Jon Levy has ruled in favor of a professor terminated by the University of Southern Maine for questioning mask and vaccination policies.

Judge Levy’s decision in Griffin v. University of Maine System is balanced and fair. He does not offer a full-throated endorsement of the claim by Professor Patricia Griffin, but rules that she has a right to a trial on the free speech claim.

Here are the basic facts.

On August 18, 2021, the Chancellor of the University of Maine System announced a mandatory mask policy.  On August 24, University President Glenn Cummings held a a luncheon meeting via Zoom. Notably, Cummings was not wearing a mask. After the meeting, Griffin sent an email to the Dean of the College of Management and Human Service that read in part:

“I first want to say how much I love teaching at [the University of Southern Maine] as well as working with such a great faculty. It really has been the highlight of my career and I owe a lot to you for sticking with me. The reason for this email is because I have been following the science, data, and evidence regarding SARS-CoV-2 and searching for anything that will support wearing a mask while indoors as well as vaccinating an entire school population as the optimal method for stopping the transmission of the virus. The reality is that my research has found no evidence to support these measures. I wanted to share the information I gathered and relied upon when making my decision regarding these mandates before the start of classes next Monday to see that my decisions are science, evidence, and data based. However, I do not want to cause any issues, especially for you, if I come to campus on Monday morning to teach my one face to face class so I wanted to give you enough time.”

Griffin attached a letter addressed to the Dean on her own research and objections to the policies. She concluded:

“In conclusion, I have followed the science, data, and evidence and cannot find any overwhelming support for the wearing of masks nor the mandating of vaccines, especially since the overall survival rate is 99.7% if infected with Covid. And finally, from a legal perspective, asking for my vaccination status is a violation of HIPAA.

My expectation is the University of Southern Maine will appreciate a faculty member who embraces critical thinking and applies both inductive and deductive reasoning rather than emotions when making decisions. I am teaching three courses this fall, two online and one face to face. I welcome any evidence you can provide to the contrary of what I have found which will convince me that my conclusions about the efficacy of wearing a mask and vaccinating an entire population are wrong.”

What followed quickly went from bad to worse for Griffin, who met with the Dean and again asked for the data supporting the University’s Policy and vaccination requirement.  While universities attacked academics who questioned these policies as opposed to “the science,” they largely refused to share the basis for the policies.

Despite the firing or sanctioning of academics who questioned pandemic policies, many have recently admitted that the efficacy of masks (particularly the common surgical masks) were radically overstated and unsupported. Moreover, studies have shown that critics were right in claiming that natural immunities from prior bouts with Covid offered as good or better protection than the vaccine. Nevertheless, the media participated in the demonization of these experts who were disciplined at universities and denied key positions in their fields.

In this case, Griffin alleged that immediately following the Zoom meeting, her fall semester courses were removed from the fall class list. She still did not back down and continued to ask for the data. She alleged that school officials then told her that she would not be allowed to teach courses 100% online unless she resigned and accepted a part-time position. On September 8, 2021, Cummings sent a letter to Griffin suspending her and informing her that the University would be moving to terminate her employment. Griffin alleges that the letter falsely asserted that she had refused to comply with the policies and included other false assertions.

The issue for the court was whether Griffin was speaking as a public employee or as a citizen.

“The “threshold inquiry” to determine whether a public employee engaged in protected speech is “whether [the employee] spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” O’Connell v. Marrero-Recio, 724 F.3d 117, 123 (1st Cir. 2013). If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment retaliation claim. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006). “In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not conclusively establish that her speech was made as a citizen; ‘it is sufficient that the complaint alleges facts that plausibly set forth citizen speech.’” Cannell v. Corizon, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-405-NT, 2015 WL 8664209, at *8 (D. Me. Dec. 11, 2015) (quoting Decotiis v. Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2011)).”

The court found that there were factors under the relevant tests that cut both ways on whether Griffin was speaking as an employee or a citizen. However, given the governing standard for review, JudgeLevy read this evidence in her favor and the right to a trial on free speech claims (though he curtailed other aspects of her complaint):

Here, Griffin has pleaded sufficient facts to make it more than merely possible that once fully developed, the facts will support the conclusion that although Griffin’s speech related to her official duties as a public employee, the subject matter of her speech pertained to a matter of great public concern and was outside the scope of her duties as a professor of marketing. Whether the same conclusion may be true after the parties have completed discovery is another matter for another day. “[I]t is entirely possible that additional facts might show” that Griffin is not entitled to the relief that she seeks, but “absent factual development, dismissal is unwarranted” at this stage….

Putting aside the merits for trial, what should be clear is that, if the underlying facts are proven, the university acted in an abusive and capricious manner. Faced with a dissenting faculty member, the school opted to seek her termination rather than defend its policies or allow a dialogue on these measures.

As a public university, the Maine legislature should take note of this case and the need to reinforce free speech protections in the system. The level of intolerance for opposing views alleged in this complaint is chilling. If these facts are proven, there were grounds for termination but it was not the termination of Professor Griffin.

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

A pastor in Florida was forcibly removed from a school board meeting when he attempted to read aloud pornographic passages from a book that was available to children.

The man was one of around 30 parents at the Monday meeting at the Indian River County School Board.

Pastor John K. Amanchukwu Sr. began to read from the book titled 13 Reasons Why by Jay Asher, but he only got one sentence in before the board shut him down.

“As if letting him finger me was going to cure all my problems,” the pastor read, prompting one board member to yell into the microphone “Sir, I’ll stop you there.”

Amanchukwu’s mic was then cut off and security was called as he attempted to continue to read.

Watch:

GRAPHIC: A citizen read from a pornographic book available to students in @IRCSchools and was SHUT DOWN by the board then REMOVED by security.

Too graphic for the board to hear but perfectly ok for middle schoolers!

Make it make sense pic.twitter.com/Zof0JuJgcU

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 29, 2023

As Fox News reports, other parents at the meeting were also cut off when reading from different books, all available to school children.

However, Governor Ron DeSantis instituted a rule earlier in the year that that states parents “shall have the right to read passages from any material that is subject to an objection.”

The rule also decrees that if parents are prevented from doing so then the materials they are objecting to must be immediately removed and discontinued from use in the school.

BREAKING: Florida school voted to remove dozens of pornographic books after parents read from these books out loud and one was even escorted out by security. Huge W https://t.co/0ltfLD47Y5 pic.twitter.com/np52UoPUJq

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 1, 2023

Indian River County School Board member Jacqueline Rosario told Fox News that she was the only member to vote to remove the books last year and that until the new rule was instantiated, other board members ignored laws on pornographic, obscene, or sexually explicit content and continued to make the books available in school libraries. 

“The difference now is, HB 1069 has allowed parents to read explicit books at board meetings. And if they get shut down, then the book is immediately removed. This is a good thing,” Rosario noted.

“It is the litmus test for acceptable age appropriate and standards driven library books. If you can’t read them at a board meeting, then you can’t have them in our schools. All that is needed now is for a “passage” to be read and the book can be removed immediately,” she continued.

Rosario added that “The superintendent and board members refused to acknowledge the gross content made available to kids until now. Finally, they don’t have a choice. It’s about time the truth be made known. Explicit, sexually graphic, pornographic, and obscene material does not belong in any school.”

Related:

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.  We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Summit Vitamins – super charge your health and well being.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

Russia has on Friday announced its Sarmat ICBMs are on “combat duty”. RIA has quoted the head of the country’s space agency Roscosmos, Yuri Borisov, to confirm: “the Sarmat strategic complex has been put on combat duty.”

The nuclear-capable Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile system was previously touted by President Putin as being capable hitting “any target on Earth” – and is widely believed to be by far the longest-range missile in Russia’s arsenal (or in the world for that matter). It’s been nicknamed by NATO the “Satan II”. 

The Sarmat, which is in a “superheavy” class of missiles, has a short initial boost phase which gives it better ability to elude all conventional anti-missile defense systems, given this results in a much smaller window of time to track it.

By design, its super long-range gives it the ability to reach targets thousands of missiles away in the United States or Europe.

According to its specifications, it’s by far the heaviest missile Russia possesses – at over 200 tons – and heavier than all foreign competitors: 

This allows it to carry around 15 warheads, up to 750kt. (The bomb US dropped on Hiroshima was 15kt.)

This would be enough to wipe out a country the size of France. It can also carry hypersonic missiles, rendering most missile defense systems ineffective.

It has reportedly been in development since 2009, and has been in testing phase for several years, some test flights of which may have failed. The Sarmat has been touted as being able to reach speeds of nearly 16,000 mph.

Last year, after a successful test, Putin described: “The new complex has the highest tactical and technical characteristics and is capable of overcoming all modern means of anti-missile defense. It has no analogues in the world and won’t have for a long time to come.”

“This truly unique weapon will strengthen the combat potential of our armed forces, reliably ensure Russia’s security from external threats and provide food for thought for those who, in the heat of frenzied aggressive rhetoric, try to threaten our country,” Putin added at the time.

Without doubt, the timing of Friday’s announcement is also meant to spook Western leaders, as nuclear rhetoric related to the Ukraine war continues to rise, particularly in the context of Moscow having recently positioned tactical nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory.

Rare Breed Triggers (RBT), originally from Florida and currently headquartered in Fargo, North Dakota, along with the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), secured a “major victory” in their legal battle against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the case National Association for Gun Rights vs. Garland in federal court in the Northern District of Texas.

On Thursday, federal Judge Reed O’Connor issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against President Biden’s ATF’s attempt to classify Forced Reset Trigger (FRT-15) as an illegal machine gun. RBT’s email about the judge’s ruling said:

“Federal Judge, Reed O’Connor issues a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the DOJ/ATF related to their tyrannical overreach of the FRT-15 and other Forced Reset Triggers.”

Judge O’Connor stated, “[T]he court finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits… It is substantially likely that the ATF’s regulation containing a broadened definition of ‘machinegun’ exceeds the scope of its authority under the GCA [Gun Control Act of 1968].”

The TRO is maintained until “either September 27, 2023, or such time that the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22), whichever is earlier,” according to the court.

NAGR argued that the 5th Circuit’s recent ruling ‘bump stocks are not machine guns‘ should be applicable here. O’Connor agreed with NAGR: 

“The Fifth Circuit’s recent analysis of the exact statutory language at issue here shows that Plaintiffs [NAGR] are very likely to succeed on the merits… Because FRTs do not enable a weapon to automatically fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger itself, the court finds that FRTs most likely are not machineguns under Cargill’s reasoning.”

Owner of RBT, Lawrence DeMonico, explained in a video response: “If we win on forced reset triggers — we also win on pistol braces, bump stocks, 80% lowers, so-called assault weapons, and just about everything else the ATF is trying to ban by executive fiat right now.” 

DeMonico continued, “It’s no secret that Joe Biden and his ATF want to persecute and prosecute every person that has purchased an FRT trigger.” 

He noted the TRO only applies to the three plaintiffs in the case, adding, “Based on the language of the TRO — I think our chances are extremely good to get this extended to a full preliminary injunction that would protect all of NAGR’s members.” 

DeMonico said NAGR is suing on behalf of its members, which means if the court grants a preliminary injunction — anyone who is a member (and owns an FRT-15) “should have civil and or criminal protection from the federal government until a final decision is made in this case.”

We got a RESTRAINING ORDER against the ATF!

Lawrence DeMonico of Rare Breed Triggers is here to tell you about the temporary restraining order against the ATF in the lawsuit with NAGR against their unconstitutional ban on FRTs.

Join the fight: https://t.co/Wg7fIHdqs8 pic.twitter.com/upUBktWLU0

— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) August 31, 2023

Commenting on NAGR’s case is Defense Distributed, which also has a case in the 5th Circuit for ‘ghost guns’ said:

After the Fifth Circuit’s “Cargill” and “VanDerStok” decisions, this court and others have been able to sharply limit the ATF’s power to invent new regulations. This is a personal vindication for Mr. DeMonico as well, who has had to suffer DOJ’s weaponization of the courts against him and FRT innovation in New York.

For the last few years, we’ve thoroughly covered the ATF’s battle against RBT’s FRT-15 triggers that were once legally sold as a drop-in trigger for the AR-15-style rifle that forces the trigger to reset at such a high speed that it increases the weapon’s fire rate. However, the ATF felt it was necessary to arbitrarily label them as ‘machine guns’. 

• ATF Now Labels FRT-15 A Machine Gun, Turning Law-Abiding Citizens Into Criminals
• Rare Breed Triggers Fires Back At ATF, Says “Will Not Comply” ​​​​
• Rare Breed Triggers Responds To Alleged Leaked ATF Memo To Seize FRT-15s From Dealers
• ATF Declares Some FRT-15 Triggers “Prohibited Machineguns”
• Rare Breed Triggers Cancels Customers’ Orders After “ATF Raided Vendor”

Even to the extent that ATF agents were showing up at the homes of RBT customers to seize the trigger. 

Remember last summer when this video went viral after ATF agents tried to conduct an inventory audit of a man who legally bought firearms? 

ATF agents and a #Delaware state officer showed up to a man’s house without a warrant demanding to see his #firearms. #2A pic.twitter.com/DKuRd8UtKt

— Sarah Fields (@SarahisCensored) July 20, 2022

NAGR’s donation page for funding the lawsuit said, “At the request of Rare Breed Triggers, your donation will initially go towards counting you as an NAGR and NFGR member if we get an injunction against this Trigger Ban.”

They added: “We’re helping to defend our friends at Rare Breed Triggers with a lawsuit against the ATF to protect our members and supporters who own FRTs from the ATF’s reign of terror.”