Canadian ethics professor FIRED refusing vaccine
5 minute vid
ETHICS professor Julie Ponesse calmly states she's about to be FIRED bc she can't ethically advocate forced vaxxing.
"I'm entitled to make choices about what's allowed into my body."
She explains why this is an unethical demand with which she will not comply.
At the end, she cries.
Dr. Ponesse was dismissed from her position on Sept 7, 2021.
powerful and poignant redpill
VIEW MP4:
https://endchan.net/qrbunker/res/9395.html#9679
Here's another philosophy prof speaking out.
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/my-university-sacrificed-ideas-for
PSU Philosophy prof resigns because of "students not being taught to think"
Peter Boghossian has taught philosophy at Portland State University for the past decade. In the letter below, sent this morning to the university’s provost, he explains why he is resigning.
Dear Provost Susan Jeffords,
I’m writing to you today to resign as assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University.
Over the last decade, it has been my privilege to teach at the university. My specialties are critical thinking, ethics and the Socratic method, and I teach classes like Science and Pseudoscience and The Philosophy of Education. But in addition to exploring classic philosophers and traditional texts, I’ve invited a wide range of guest lecturers to address my classes, from Flat-Earthers to Christian apologists to global climate skeptics to Occupy Wall Street advocates. I’m proud of my work.
I invited those speakers not because I agreed with their worldviews, but primarily because I didn’t. From those messy and difficult conversations, I’ve seen the best of what our students can achieve: questioning beliefs while respecting believers; staying even-tempered in challenging circumstances; and even changing their minds.
I never once believed — nor do I now — that the purpose of instruction was to lead my students to a particular conclusion. Rather, I sought to create the conditions for rigorous thought; to help them gain the tools to hunt and furrow for their own conclusions. This is why I became a teacher and why I love teaching.
But brick by brick, the university has made this kind of intellectual exploration impossible. It has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division.
Students at Portland State are not being taught to think. Rather, they are being trained to mimic the moral certainty of ideologues. Faculty and administrators have abdicated the university’s truth-seeking mission and instead drive intolerance of divergent beliefs and opinions. This has created a culture of offense where students are now afraid to speak openly and honestly.
I noticed signs of the illiberalism that has now fully swallowed the academy quite early during my time at Portland State. I witnessed students refusing to engage with different points of view. Questions from faculty at diversity trainings that challenged approved narratives were instantly dismissed. Those who asked for evidence to justify new institutional policies were accused of microaggressions. And professors were accused of bigotry for assigning canonical texts written by philosophers who happened to have been European and male.
page 1
At first, I didn’t realize how systemic this was and I believed I could question this new culture. So I began asking questions. What is the evidence that trigger warnings and safe spaces contribute to student learning? Why should racial consciousness be the lens through which we view our role as educators? How did we decide that “cultural appropriation” is immoral?
Unlike my colleagues, I asked these questions out loud and in public.
I decided to study the new values that were engulfing Portland State and so many other educational institutions — values that sound wonderful, like diversity, equity, and inclusion, but might actually be just the opposite. The more I read the primary source material produced by critical theorists, the more I suspected that their conclusions reflected the postulates of an ideology, not insights based on evidence.
I began networking with student groups who had similar concerns and brought in speakers to explore these subjects from a critical perspective. And it became increasingly clear to me that the incidents of illiberalism I had witnessed over the years were not just isolated events, but part of an institution-wide problem.
The more I spoke out about these issues, the more retaliation I faced.
Early in the 2016-17 academic year, a former student complained about me and the university initiated a Title IX investigation. (Title IX investigations are a part of federal law designed to protect “people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.”) My accuser, a white male, made a slew of baseless accusations against me, which university confidentiality rules unfortunately prohibit me from discussing further. What I can share is that students of mine who were interviewed during the process told me the Title IX investigator asked them if they knew anything about me beating my wife and children. This horrifying accusation soon became a widespread rumor.
With Title IX investigations there is no due process, so I didn’t have access to the particular accusations, the ability to confront my accuser, and I had no opportunity to defend myself. Finally, the results of the investigation were revealed in December 2017. Here are the last two sentences of the report: “Global Diversity & Inclusion finds there is insufficient evidence that Boghossian violated PSU’s Prohibited Discrimination & Harassment policy. GDI recommends Boghossian receive coaching.”
Not only was there no apology for the false accusations, but the investigator also told me that in the future I was not allowed to render my opinion about “protected classes” or teach in such a way that my opinion about protected classes could be known — a bizarre conclusion to absurd charges. Universities can enforce ideological conformity just through the threat of these investigations.
I eventually became convinced that corrupted bodies of scholarship were responsible for justifying radical departures from the traditional role of liberal arts schools and basic civility on campus. There was an urgent need to demonstrate that morally fashionable papers — no matter how absurd — could be published. I believed then that if I exposed the theoretical flaws of this body of literature, I could help the university community avoid building edifices on such shaky ground.
page 2
So, in 2017, I co-published an intentionally garbled peer-reviewed paper that took aim at the new orthodoxy. Its title: “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” This example of pseudo-scholarship, which was published in Cogent Social Sciences, argued that penises were products of the human mind and responsible for climate change. Immediately thereafter, I revealed the article as a hoax designed to shed light on the flaws of the peer-review and academic publishing systems.
Shortly thereafter, swastikas in the bathroom with my name under them began appearing in two bathrooms near the philosophy department. They also occasionally showed up on my office door, in one instance accompanied by bags of feces. Our university remained silent. When it acted, it was against me, not the perpetrators.
I continued to believe, perhaps naively, that if I exposed the flawed thinking on which Portland State’s new values were based, I could shake the university from its madness. In 2018 I co-published a series of absurd or morally repugnant peer-reviewed articles in journals that focused on issues of race and gender. In one of them we argued that there was an epidemic of dog rape at dog parks and proposed that we leash men the way we leash dogs. Our purpose was to show that certain kinds of “scholarship” are based not on finding truth but on advancing social grievances. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous.
Administrators and faculty were so angered by the papers that they published an anonymous piece in the student paper and Portland State filed formal charges against me. Their accusation? “Research misconduct” based on the absurd premise that the journal editors who accepted our intentionally deranged articles were “human subjects.” I was found guilty of not receiving approval to experiment on human subjects.
Meanwhile, ideological intolerance continued to grow at Portland State. In March 2018, a tenured professor disrupted a public discussion I was holding with author Christina Hoff Sommers and evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. In June 2018, someone triggered the fire alarm during my conversation with popular cultural critic Carl Benjamin. In October 2018, an activist pulled out the speaker wires to interrupt a panel with former Google engineer James Damore. The university did nothing to stop or address this behavior. No one was punished or disciplined.
For me, the years that followed were marked by continued harassment. I’d find flyers around campus of me with a Pinocchio nose. I was spit on and threatened by passersby while walking to class. I was informed by students that my colleagues were telling them to avoid my classes. And, of course, I was subjected to more investigation.
I wish I could say that what I am describing hasn’t taken a personal toll. But it has taken exactly the toll it was intended to: an increasingly intolerable working life and without the protection of tenure.
This isn’t about me. This is about the kind of institutions we want and the values we choose. Every idea that has advanced human freedom has always, and without fail, been initially condemned. As individuals, we often seem incapable of remembering this lesson, but that is exactly what our institutions are for: to remind us that the freedom to question is our fundamental right. Educational institutions should remind us that that right is also our duty.
Portland State University has failed in fulfilling this duty. In doing so it has failed not only its students but the public that supports it. While I am grateful for the opportunity to have taught at Portland State for over a decade, it has become clear to me that this institution is no place for people who intend to think freely and explore ideas.
This is not the outcome I wanted. But I feel morally obligated to make this choice. For ten years, I have taught my students the importance of living by your principles. One of mine is to defend our system of liberal education from those who seek to destroy it. Who would I be if I didn’t?
Sincerely,
Peter Boghossian
page3
>>90091
anon, i understand
but plz do not post threats of violence on this board
i will delete this post and not ban you - for now.
anons plz refresh
Wendy Rogers
@WendyRogersAZ
Our petition to decertify the election is at 800k now. You all are amazing. Let's keep it going. Go to my website to sign.
https://twitter.com/WendyRogersAZ/status/1436156196143181827
Mark Finchem for AZ Secretary of State
@RealMarkFinchem
@katiehobbs rigging the election manual is what I expect, making what should be criminal legal. The Arizona House needs to reign her in and issue subpoenas.
https://twitter.com/RealMarkFinchem/status/1436136874037415946
@EpochTimes
'''19 Governors & 2 Attorneys General Immediately Resist Biden's #VaccineMandates
Multiple governors said they will seek legal avenues to resist the mandates.'''
https://twitter.com/EpochTimes/status/1436208093201829893
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche - Mid-Pandemic Mass Vax Campaigns Do Not Work
9-9-21
These are the key points one has to understand to be able to capture the never-ending discussion on whether or not mass vaccination campaigns work
- Pandemics are by definition not static but dynamic events
- Pandemics have both detrimental and beneficial effects (e.g., waves of morbidity & death and generation of herd immunity, respectively) that are phased in time
- Pandemic waves hit populations of different age groups at different points in time
- Normally (I should say: ‘naturally’), a pandemic starts with some bad news (a number of lives are lost) and ends with plenty of good news (all of the population protected by herd immunity)
This already illustrates that any assessment made during the course of a pandemic can only be a snapshot as long as the pandemic has not reached its ‘natural’ end station (which is herd immunity). As a result, one might erroneously assume that pandemic is over when the first wave ends with a steep decline in morbidity and mortality rates. That happens when someone doesn’t understand that herd immunity (HI) cannot be achieved if the number of vulnerable people who recovered from the disease and acquired robust immunity is too small. That is why - after the first wave - the virus launches a new attack. This results in an additional part of the population (i.e., younger age groups) contracting the disease. Survivors of that 2nd attack will build life-long protective immunity too and, thereby, further contribute to building herd immunity. The mechanism that allows the virus to proceed with its offensive, step-by-step strategy is sophisticated, as repeatedly explained in previous contributions of mine. Several waves can take place before the resulting immunological capacity of the population will suffice to establish full-fledged HI and hence, to control viral transmission. ......
Conclusion
The mass vaccination hype will undoubtedly enter history as the most reckless experiment in the history of medicine. It will be cited as the unequivocal proof of how overuse or misuse of man-made antimicrobials leads to antimicrobial resistance, regardless of whether the antimicrobial is an antibiotic or an antibody administered through passive immunization or elicited via active immunization.
Mass vaccination campaigns conducted in the middle of a viral pandemic will, for generations to come, become the most sobering example of the boundaries of human intervention in nature in general and of the boundaries of conventional vaccinology in particular.
This irrational experiment will unambiguously highlight the clear-cut limitations of conventional vaccine approaches. It will convincingly illustrate that – unlike natural acute self-limiting infection or disease – ‘modern’ technologies alone do not suffice to develop vaccines that are capable of preventing viral transmission or immune escape.
https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post/the-last-post
VIEW CAPS:
https://endchan.net/qrbunker/res/9395.html#9680
https://t.me/KanekoaTheGreat/1568
forwarded from surfing4truth
🔥 Waikiki was LIT tonight! 🔥
💪 HAWAII IS WAKING UP! 💪
#HIChooseFreedom
GREAT VID, view here:
https://endchan.net/qrbunker/res/9395.html#9682
>>90083 Hold-the-Line Dough
baker signing in
#575 EARLIES
>>90085 RE: Article 5 of Constitution - Convention of States - here's the info to address this type of hidden attack
>>90087 Canadian ethics professor FIRED for refusing vaccine
>>90090, >>90093 PSU Philosophy prof resigns because of "students not being taught to think"
>>90110 Wendy Rogers: Decertification petition @800,000 now - ONWARD!!
>>90112 AZ Hose needs to rein in Katie Hobbs NOW
>>90113 19 Governors & 2 Attorneys General Immediately Resist Biden's #VaccineMandates
>>90114 Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche - Mid-Pandemic Mass Vax Campaigns Do Not Work
>>90115 Waikiki PRO-FREEDOM Rally!!!
#575
Slow night, lots to think about w / Resident Emperor BIDAN's six-point proclamation release.
OBVIOUSLY PROVOCATIVE move by DS -
yes, time to H O L D T H E L I N E
let them p u s h - we stand f i r m
PS, highly recommend short but JOYOUS clip from Waikiki, looks like a Freedom Celebration in Full Swing
baker signing out
will take hours more to fill er up, best to give am baker a headstart
G O D B L E S S T H I S B R E A D
A N D A L L W H O P O S T U P O N I T.
g'nite and out.
sorry, din see post - have mod mode on, doesn't update
Real painful for these two profs - like their whole world is just shattered
New opportunities will open for them, but right now, the sense of loss must be immense
GOD WINS.
kek
yes i watched it live.
watched ON TV, yes - but coverage seemed authentic
why?
newscasters were in total disarray, not prepped
RAW coverage
heard the crashing of glass and bodies hitting the ground, saw the reactions of people on the ground
mebbe anything can be faked but it was pretty horrific
https://t.me/jim_watkins/1189
[ File : 8kun-Jan-6-Committee Response.pdf ]
'The 8kun.top response to the January 6 committee Please share this: No confidentiality designations were attached to the congressional request and we are free to share what we'd like with the public (who should know what's going on in their government)
STATEMENT ATTACHED
long but worth reading
> 8kun-Jan-6-Committee Response.pdf
1629 K St NW Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20006
www.barrklein.com
September 7, 2021
One Hundred Seventeenth Congress
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Select Committee 8kun Inquiry
Chairman Thompson and Members of the Committee:
We write in response to your letter dated August 26, 2021 asking 8kun to produce a broad range of
information related to “[m]isinformation, disinformation, and malinformation related to the 2020
election.” Without doubt, it is the duty of all citizens to cooperate with congressional efforts to obtain
relevant facts needed for legislation. Equally so, it is incumbent upon Congress to respect the
constitutional rights of the witnesses it calls upon. To be more direct, the “Bill of Rights is applicable
to investigations as to all forms of governmental action.”1
8kun will respond to appropriate requests issued by this Committee. But as the Supreme Court
reminded Congress just last year, congressional investigatory and subpoena requests are valid only
when they are “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress and must serve a valid
legislative purpose.”2 Because of constitutional and pertinence concerns, we seek to narrow and better
identify the information this Committee would like produced.
1. Introductory Constitutional Principles
Congress has sporadically wrestled with contentious issues of the day by means of investigatory
committees. Unfortunately, Congress also has a history of abusing that power through targeting
disfavored political actors and associations.3 This is forbidden by the First Amendment and the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.4
a. New Deal and “Un-American Activity” Analogues
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court struck down congressional investigatory
attempts to chill political speech and association in U.S. v. Rumely. There, the New Deal Congress was
1 Watkins v. U.S. (“Watkins I”), 354 U.S. 178, 197 (1957). 2 Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020). 3 Barsky v. U.S., 167 F.2d 241, 263 (D.C. Cir. 1948) n.8 (“‘Hollywood Fires 10 Cited in Contempt. Film
Heads Rule They Must Swear Theyre Not Reds To Be Rehired’. Washington Post, Nov. 26, 1947, . 1,
col. 4.”). 4 See Rumely v. U.S., 197 F.2d 166, 173 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (Congress “represents the people, and its power
comes from the people. It is not a source or a generator of power; it is a recipient and user of power”);
see also U.S. v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 46 (1953).
page 1
irritated with the conservative agitator Dr. Edward Rumely and the Committee for Constitutional
Government (“CCG”). They organized business opposition to New Deal legislation, perhaps too
effectively.5 The House Committee on Lobbying Activity demanded the names of anyone who
purchased books, pamphlets, or other literature from CCG.6 The D.C. Circuit found this inquiry to
be outside the power of Congress.7
The Court concluded the House Committee could never be constitutionally empowered to generally
investigate all aspects of lobbying. It could investigate particular abuses, particular people, particular
records, or particular criminal endeavors. But the First Amendment would forbid Congress from
examining, publicizing, or reporting the “names and addresses of purchasers of books, pamphlets and
periodicals” because that would serve as a “realistic interference with the publication and sale of those
writings.”8 The investigation into Rumely and CCG suffered from another malady: the congressional
mandate to investigate was flawed. Congressional desires to examine attempts to influence, encourage,
promote, or retard legislation or to influence public opinion are simply void under the First
Amendment.9
Courts have sometimes upheld limited inquiries where authorizing resolutions are sharply focused
about threats to overthrow the government. But the congressional power to investigate even serious
threats to overthrow the government is not limitless. In Watkins I, Congress stressed the urgency of
its need to root out domestic extremists and to “be informed of efforts to overthrow the Government
by force and violence so that adequate legislative safeguards can be erected.”10 But the Supreme Court
cautioned that broad congressional authorizations for investigations could produce disastrous results:
From this core, however, the Committee can radiate outward infinitely to any topic
thought to be related in some way to armed insurrection. The outer reaches of this
domain are known only by the content of ‘un-American activities.’ Remoteness of
subject can be aggravated by a probe for a depth of detail even farther removed from
any basis of legislative action. A third dimension is added when the investigators turn
their attention to the past to collect minutiae on remote topics, on the hypothesis that
the past may reflect upon the present.11
5 Rumely would not disclose donors after being served with a congressional subpoena asking him to
do so. See 96 CONG. REC. 13882 (Aug. 30, 1950) (statement of Rep. Buchanan); see also 95 CONG. REC.
6431 (May 18, 1949) (statement of Rep. Sabath) (“[M]any more millions have been spent on the part
of many corporations and businesses who are endeavoring to . . . stop legislation which they are
opposed to . . . . I have attacked these professional lobbyists for years. . . .This committee will
recommend ‘teeth’ that can properly be enacted into law thereby eliminating these abuses”). 6 Particularly pernicious for the House Committee were sales of “The Road Ahead,” “Labor Monopolies and Freedom,” “Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State,” and the “Constitution
of the United States.” Rumely, 197 F.2d at 169–70. 7 Id. at 173. 8 Id. at 174. 9 Id. at 173–74. 10 See Watkins, 354 U.S. at 204; compare with H.Res. 282, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (legislative purpose to examine “facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack”). 11 Watkins, 354 U.S. at 204.
page 2
In short, congressional resolutions setting few boundaries on nebulous topics violate constitutional
norms.12
b. Constitutional Limits at Hand: Watkins II13
Forcing raucous businessmen of the 1930s or unorthodox platforms of the 2020s to answer questions
about the most nebulous of topics—the underlying causes of political violence—is an unworkable
congressional command. Worse yet, prying into intimate ideologies and thoughts is a serious censorial
chokehold. As courts have realized, the requirement that one reveal purchasers of books, pamphlets,
or papers marks the start of a surveillance state. And just as courts would not embrace a surveillance
state arising out of congressional investigations in the past, so too is this approach inappropriate today.
Compelling online platforms to share information about users who posted about efforts to “overturn,
challenge, or otherwise interfere with the 2020 election or certification of electoral college results”
chills the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who were concerned about electoral
integrity during the 2020 election. They have every bit as much a First Amendment right to peacefully
gather with others, exchange ideas, and let their discontent be known by public officials as Rumely and
CCG did.14 Demanding that platforms produce mal-, mis-, or disinformation—terms that are
undefined but that are usually euphemisms for speech the powers that be disagree with—works an
equally pernicious chill against political speech in America. Once government is free to demand the
names of users espousing unpopular, unorthodox ideas, free speech and free press rights on the
internet disappear.
Like the problematic scope of inquiry in Watkins I, the present inquiries at hand here in “Watkins II”
are just as troubling. Where Congress sets out to investigate nebulous topics like “subversion and
subversive propaganda,” unlimited “influencing factors” behind the January 6 attack, or how misogyny
and racism might impact political violence, constitutional problems grow exponentially.
15 But the scope of this authorization is beyond Congress’s power due to its invasion into protected First
Amendment rights and its failure to offer pertinent queries related to its otherwise legitimate
concern—the spread of real political violence. Much like Rumely, particular queries focusing on
12 See Watkins, 354 U.S. at 214 (congressional subcommittee related to rooting out risk of Communist
overthrow of government could not rest its basis for information on the need to learn about
“subversion and subversive propaganda” because such a request was overbroad and indefinite);
compare with H.Res. 282, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (racism, misogyny, and Islamophobia may be drivers
for domestic violence extremism; listed congressional purpose includes an examination of
“influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while
engaged in a constitutional process”). 13 “Watkins II” is the authors’ nomenclature for the impending dispute over the present congressional
inquiry into Mr. Watkins and 8kun. 14 The National Park Service authorized a gathering of up to 30,000 people for the Washington, DC
pro-Trump rally. Stephanie Dube Dwilson, How Many Were at the MAGA Trump March & Protest in
DC? Crowd Size Photos, HEAVY, Jan. 6, 2021, available at https://heavy.com/news/maga-march-trump-
dc-rally-crowd-photos/ It is currently unknown what small percentage of the peaceful rally attendees
committed acts of political violence at the Capitol. 15 U.S. v. Peck, 154 F.Supp. 603, 608–09 (D.D.C. 1957).
page 3
particular people, particular records, or particular criminal acts may be examined. Fishing expeditions
into the closely-held thoughts and beliefs of the American people rest beyond Congress’s prying eyes.
The controversies surrounding the 2020 election, well settled within the Beltway, are hardly settled for
many Americans. Roughly one-third of Americans—almost 110 million people—believe that
President Biden’s 2020 victory was the result of widespread voter fraud.16 The First Amendment
encourages citizens to debate and talk about issues of self-government—without fear of the
government collecting and pouring over their communications. As Congress continues in this
direction, some citizens will fear to espouse, and some will fear to read, messages that those in power
dislike. The million-fold eyes of Argus Panoptes become a reality by congressional fiat.17 The resulting
shadow the government will cast over online discussion that does not conform to the dominant party’s
narrative should frighten every American.
2. Past Compliance with the Committee on Homeland Security
Mr. Watkins, as a representative of 8kun (formerly 8chan) freely appeared before the House
Committee on Homeland Security in September 2019 to address that committee’s concerns over the
proliferation of online extremist content. In doing so, 8kun produced relevant documents and Mr.
Watkins answered relevant inquiries about the site’s operations. We attach the submitted
“Congressional Primer on 8chan” for your reference as ADDENDUM A. Notably, 8kun included
more than fifty pages of voluntary interactions with law enforcement about particular criminal
investigations. Where requests are focused and particular and do not run afoul of constitutional norms,
8kun is enthusiastic to aid Congress and law enforcement in their operations. We hope we may be
equally helpful here.
3. Clarification of Existing Requests
It is Mr. Watkins’s desire that we continue 8kun’s practice of responding to lawfully issued requests
and to provide as much respectful cooperation with your committee’s investigation as the First
Amendment allows. However, the requests contained in your form letter dated August 26, 2021 are
an unworkable starting point for cooperation. For example, item 1 requests production of “All . . .
data . . . regarding your platform . . . .” Even if this sentence is read in conjunction with the items
described in items “i.” through “iv.,” this request is so broad as to render compliance impossible.
Other form requests, such as requests for “internal or external reviews and reports” regarding 8kun’s
“algorithms” seem misdirected. 8kun is a small organization and a relatively simple website. There are
no “internal or external reviews” nor are there website “algorithms.” This is but an entrée of errors—
the requests, as written, need substantial clarification and focus for 8kun to attempt cooperation.
Please contact Mr. McDonald at your convenience to discuss your requests and determine if there is
any specific information that the Committee is constitutionally empowered to seek and that Mr.
Watkins is capable of producing. Alternatively, 8kun may be accessed through the internet at
16 Max Greenwood, One-third of Americans believe Biden won because of voter fraud: poll, THE HILL, June 21,
2021, available at https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/559402-one-third-of-americans-believe-
biden-won-because-of-voter-fraud-poll 17 Argus Panoptes is a subject of Greek mythology and is a many-eyed giant who kept subjects of his
observation under close scrutiny. Mike Greenberg, Argus: Hera’s Hundred-Eyed Guard, MYTHOLOGY
SOURCE, available at: https://mythologysource.com/argus-greek-giant/
page 4
https://8kun.top/index.html.
All of the information the Committee appears to seek is likely available
in an open manner for viewing on the website. Should any substantive issues arise over related
constitutional concerns, please contact Mr. Barr directly.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Barr
BARR & KLEIN PLLC
444 N. Michigan Ave.
Ste. 1200
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (202) 595-4671
ben@barrklein.com
Tony McDonald
The Law Offices of Tony McDonald
1501 Leander Dr., Ste. B2
Leander, Texas 78641
Telephone: (512) 923-6893
tony@tonymcdonald.com
Stephen R. Klein
BARR & KLEIN PLLC
1629 K St. NW
Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 804-6676
steve@barrklein.com
page 5
plz refresh to see cleaned up post
everyone gotta do what's (relatively) comfy
no guarantees re security in the end
we all try to do what's reasonable
a lot of my security frankly comes from prayer - sometimes pray that the right info comes my way too
u know that any vpn ip can get banned, mebbe there's other shit coming down but who knows it all?
have known jw for a while, corresponded, trusting of him and of 8chan/8kun
that's a choice but i hope an informed choice - based on instinct and experience but again, no guarantees
blessings anon
you wanna pick up da bread?
Social media maestro Dan Scavino raises $31,967 for 9/11 fund
by Paul Bedard
9-10-21
The power of just one story, and help from former President Donald Trump’s aide-de-camp, has pushed over $30,000 to the Tunnel to Towers Foundation in advance of the 9/11 anniversary.
Dan Scavino Jr., who helped turn Trump into a social media juggernaut, said he was prompted to help the foundation after reading Washington Examiner contributor Nicole Russell’s story about the origins of the group.
“It was amazing, so I shared it on my Facebook page, and I was given an option to fundraise for them by Facebook, based on the story from y’all, where they send money to Tunnel to Towers Foundation," he said.
"Because of the Washington Examiner story, and my awesome followers, we just topped $30,900!” said Scavino, who pledged $1,000 of his own.
By today, his Facebook effort had raised $31,967.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/social-media-maestro-dan-scavino-raises-31-967-for-9-11-fund