"Fear is the foundation of most governments." -- John Adams, Second President of the United States

Bidgear ad




Litigation against pharmaceutical giant Merck regarding one of its common childhood vaccines has lingered in the court system for more than a decade even though there has been seemingly little dispute about the veracity of the fraud claims against it.

Blaze News reviewed court documents related to the Merck cases and spoke with one attorney as well as several individuals who have put together a feature film, "Protocol 7," about the allegations made in them. According to this evidence, it appears that Merck knew about problems with the mumps component of its measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, often referred to as MMR II, in the 1990s and has spent significant resources in the decades since to cover up those problems rather than admit the truth or improve the vaccine's quality.

Posted on:

Judicial Watch announced today that it received a recording of a phone message left by an FBI special agent for someone at the Secret Service in the context of the raid on President Trump’s home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida.

The August 11, 2022, recording says:

Yes, hi, this is Special Agent [redacted] from FBI [unintelligible]. We met on Monday [the day of the raid]. We have a couple of specific follow-up asks of you, um, so give me a call so we can discuss that. My number is [redacted]. Again, my name is [redacted]. Thanks, bye.

 The recording was uncovered in an October 2022 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for all communications of the U.S. Secret Service internally and with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding the raid on President Trump’s home and for any video or audio recordings made during the raid on August 8, 2022 (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:22-cv-03147)).

“This recording is real-time evidence of the Biden administration’s whole government operation to abuse Trump by raiding his home. Judicial Watch will continue to piece together the details of the conspiracy to launch an unprecedented and malicious raid on the home of Biden’s chief political opponent,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. 

Posted on:

The largest newspaper in Atlanta is putting the writing on the wall for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Moments after the state Court of Appeals agreed to hear a challenge on Willis’ qualifications to continue prosecuting former President Donald Trump, a reporter for the Atlanta Constitution-Journal wrote up a story quoting experts who predict that the Democrat’s case may never be resolved before Election Day. The case has already been sidelined for months by revelations of her romantic relationship with former subordinate Nathan Wade. Now that an appeal has been granted, Willis will lose more weeks or months in her rush to prosecute Trump before Election Day.

“There’s no way this case gets to trial this year,” Atlanta defense attorney Andrew Fleischman told the outlet. “I would expect the appeals court to issue its opinion sometime next year. This issue is important. You’re prosecuting the former president of the United States. This is obviously an area of the law that needs clarification. … It’s so important to the outcome of the case.”

Posted on:

The legal team said the two students, in solidarity with a friend who was instructed by a doctor to use an acne-fighting face mask, also wore the medication.

A photograph was taken. Then several years later, that surfaced, and school officials charged they were in “blackface.”

The legal team noted, “The students, who were minors at the time, became the center of a controversy due to a photograph of them wearing green acne facemasks. The photo, which was taken three years earlier, was misinterpreted by the school as ‘blackface’ in June 2020, amidst heightened racial tensions and unrelated racist incidents within the school community. St. Francis expelled the boys within 24 hours, without considering their evidence or offering any hearing.”

Posted on:

Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Mike Lee (R-Utah), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) wrote a letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra rejecting the Biden administration’s new rule allowing illegal immigrants who are currently "protected by the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to obtain health care coverage" through the Affordable Care Act commonly known as Obamacare.

“In Biden’s economy, inflation is on the rise while job growth is slowing down. Unemployment is at a two-year high, and foreign born workers are flooding the workforce," the senators wrote in the letter to Becerra released on Wednesday. "Struggling American taxpayers are already on the hook for the costs of housing and welfare for illegal immigrants. And now, with this misguided rule, President Biden is asking these same hardworking, taxpaying Americans to foot the bill for illegal immigrants’ health care. This new policy is not only unjust, it is economically unsustainable for millions of American citizens.”
The senators laid out a series of questions for Becerra to answer, including, "precisely how many immigrants will be able to enroll in ACA or state-based health care plans?" and "Is this coverage limited to individual plans for DACA recipients, or does such coverage extend to family plans covering relatives—many of whom are illegally present in our country—as well?"

Posted on:

Most of my columns for this newspaper relate to the Constitution. A common reaction among some readers—both in the online “comments” section and in direct correspondence—is that I’m wasting my time because the Constitution doesn’t matter any more. It’s irrelevant.

I have spent most of the past 30 years working in constitutional law. I think I know something about the subject. And I can report to you that the Constitution, while wounded in a few places, is mostly alive and well. This column will explain why the Constitution still matters—and matters very much.

Image removed.

An honor guard stands next to the original copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights at the National Archives in Washington on July 4, 2001. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Confusing Exceptions for the Rule

Let’s begin with a stock market analogy:

Over time, the price of a publicly traded company tends to follow (among other factors) the company’s earnings and projected earnings. Similarly, the valuation of the market as a whole tends to follow corporate earnings and projected earnings.

If earnings and projected earnings drop in a way unlikely to be remedied soon, then the price of stock generally falls. If they rise in a way that does not appear to be a fluke, the price of stock generally rises.

But this is not always so; sometimes there are exceptions. In other words, sometimes stock prices rise or fall without regard to earnings or projected earnings.

When deviations persist for any amount of time, self-promoting pundits claim that “the rules have changed” and “earnings don’t matter any more.” People who believe them irrationally buy stock (causing a bubble) or irrationally dump it (panic selling). And when the market corrects—as it always does—those people get nailed.

Their mistake is in thinking that an exception to the rule (a one-time bump or slump) is the rule itself.

Posted on: