New Solution to Ridding Oceans of Microplastics Uses Acoustic Waves

Good News Network
December 1, 2021

Filtering microplastics from polluted water using acoustic waves is the new solution to cleaning up our oceans, according to new research.

Microplastics are released into the environment as cosmetics, clothing, industrial processes, and plastic products like packaging, break down naturally.

The plastic pollutants then make their way into rivers and oceans, endangering marine life.

Filtering and removing these particles from water is a difficult and timely task, but using acoustic waves may provide a solution to this impenetrable task.

Dr Dhany Arifianto from the Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember in Surabaya, Indonesia, created a filtration prototype using acoustic waves and presented his method and its data at the Meeting of the 181st Acoustical Society of America in Seattle, designed to showcase the latest research about the science of sound.

Dr Arifianto and his team used two speakers to create the acoustic waves and the force produced was able to separate the microplastics from the water by creating pressure on a tube of inflowing water.

MORE: 20,000 Pounds of Trash Removed From Pacific Garbage Patch: ‘Holy mother of god. It worked!’

As the tube split into three channels, the microplastic particles are pressed towards the center as the clean water flows towards the two outer channels on either side.

The prototyped device cleaned a staggering 150 liters of polluted water per hour and was tested filtering three different microplastics.

Each plastic was filtered with different efficiency, but all were above 56 percent efficient in pure water and a further 59 percent efficient in seawater.

The team measured different variables against their efficiency and found that acoustic frequency, speaker-to-pipe distance, and water density all affected the amount of force generated.

RELATED: Plant Opens to Change the Recycling Game by Breaking Down Plastic Bottles With Enzyme From Leaves

The group is now studying how acoustic waves may impact marine life if the wave frequency is in the audible range.

HELP Innovative News Resonate and Share It Far and Wide…

Recall of 300,000+ Wireless Earphones Due to Fire and Burn Injuries

By B.N. Frank,
December 3rd, 2021

Wireless wearables (activity trackers/watches, earphones, hearing aids, rings, Virtual Reality (VR) goggles, etc.) operate via biologically harmful wireless frequencies (aka “Wi-Fi”) and expose wearers to biologically harmful radiation.  They have been associated with

  • Cyberattacks
  • Fires, explosions, overheating (see 12)
  • Health complaints (rashes, electric shock, other undesirable symptoms) (see 12345)
  • Health monitoring / Invasion of Privacy (see 1234)
  • High Levels of Harmful Electromagnetic Radiation
  • Interference with medical implants (cardio defibrillators, pacemakers, etc.) (see 12)

Nevertheless, companies keep making and marketing them because they legally can.  Now additional wireless wearables are being recalled due to fire and burn injuries.

From MSN:

Wireless Earphone Users Report Fire and Burn Injuries, Prompting Recall of Over 300K Units

A specific brand of wireless earphones has been recalled due to safety concerns that can arise when the earphones overheat, product safety officials said this week.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent agency with the federal government based in Maryland, issued a press release announcing the recall on Wednesday. The recall covers more than 300,000 of the Jobsite Pro Wireless Earphones by DEWALT.

According to the CPSC’s release, the earphones can run the risk of overheating while they are either charging or in use. In some cases, the earphones can pose “burn and fire hazards” when they are overheated, the CPSC’s release said.

#Recall: About 300,000 E-filliate DEWALT Jobsite Pro Wireless Earphones can overheat while charging or in use, posing burn and fire hazards. Get replacement. CONTACT: 888-979-4439, [email protected], or Full recall notice:

— US Consumer Product Safety Commission (@USCPSC) December 1, 2021

E-Filliate, Inc., a consumer electronics company, initiated the recall after receiving 61 reports of the products overheating, according to CPSC. Among those were “five reports of fire and four reports of minor burn injuries,” the CPSC said.

E-Filliate said on its website that it launched the recall “to keep our customers safe and prevent injuries by removing the problem products.” The earphones covered by the recall were described as having “a black and yellow neckband with wired earbuds” and were sold in packaging that includes mention of the “DEWALT” brand and the specific product name.

All of the earphones have a manufacturing number printed on the left side of the neckband. Any earphones with the following codes are covered by the recall, according to E-Filliate: D4 1910, D4 1912, D4 2003, D4 2004, D4 2006, D4 2009, D4 2011, D4 2012, D4 2101, D4 2103, and D4 2104. Earphones without any printed manufacturing code on the neckband are also covered by the recall, E-Filliate said.

The recall covers an estimated 301,800 sets of earphones.

The earphones were sold between December 2019 and July of this year for an estimated $60 at The Home Depot, Lowe’s and other electronic and hardware stores across the U.S., as well as online at, according to the CPSC.

Individuals who believe they are in possession of a set of the recalled earphones were instructed to stop using them “immediately,” regardless of whether they have personally experienced an issue with the product. Those who have the product were encouraged to contact E-Filliate by phone or email to get a pre-paid return label, which can be sent to the consumers by mail or email. The consumers can then use the return labels to send the earphones back to E-Filliate and receive a replacement set. No receipt is necessary in order to return the earphones, E-Filliate said.

Newsweek reached out to DEWALT for comment.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the cable, telecom, and wireless industries.  Instead, they have catered to these industries for decades (see 123) and numerous lawsuits have been filed against the agency because of this.  In August 2021, a federal court ruled in favor of petitioners who sued the FCC for not protecting Americans from harmful radiation exposure (see 123).  Buyer, beware.

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Day 4: Grooming Expert and Former Employee Take the Stand

Ryan DeLarme
December 2nd, 2021

It is now day 4 of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial in lower Manhattan. Day 3 saw the first of three accusers, an actress going by the pseudonym “Jane”, being grilled by defense attorneys in an attempt to poke holes in her story. The day ended with the testimony of Daniel Besslsen, a man who received many generous donations from Epstein while VP of finance at Interlochen, the elite arts camp where Epstein and Maxwell first approached the accuser “Jane”.

Today we have the 2nd accuser, Teresa Helm, arriving at the courthouse alongside attorney Sigrid McCawley. We also have the finance director of a children’s school taking the stand this morning.

The day began with the prosecution calling their next witness, Paul Kane, the finance director of the Professional Children’s School on the Upper West Side. 

One of the four accusers attended the exclusive prep school – which counts Uma Thurman and Paris Hilton among its alumni – for her senior year, moving to the big apple from Palm Beach, Florida.

Kane was asked to look at the accuser’s application, specifically where it showed that Jeffery Epstein had “financial responsibility” for her schooling.

The next witness called to the stand was Dr. Lisa Rocchio, a clinical and forensic psychologist with expertise in traumatic stress and interpersonal violence. She was asked to describe the concept of “grooming” and tactics or strategies used by child sexual abusers to the court.

“They will exploit whatever vulnerabilities they’ve identified in a child,” Rocchio testified.

Dr. Rocchio is clear that grooming occurs in five stages: obtaining access to the victim; isolating them for abuse; engaging in deception to build trust/attachment; desensitizing the victim to sexual talk/touch; the process of control, to allow continuation of abuse and prevent disclosure.

Ms. Maxwell’s lawyer questioned Dr. Rocchio about what constitutes grooming of a child, asking: “My grandfather liked to take me to the Bronx Zoo. Was that grooming?”

The prosecution called its next witness, Juan Patricio Alessi, originally of Quito, Ecuador, but a Florida resident since 1984. The witness worked for a wealthy family in Palm Beach as a maintenance contractor.

Mr. Alessi then went on to work for Epstein as a housekeeper, having met him while working on billionaire Les Wexner’s mother’s house. He had a room at the house in Palm Beach and brought his wife to help out with the work, as well as other women.

Mr. Alessi testified that after Ms. Maxwell became involved with Epstein, things changed and were less cordial at the Palm Beach mansion. She told him that she was “the lady of the house”.

He says there was less conversation and he was instructed by Ms. Maxwell not to look Epstein in the eyes. The former housekeeper worked 14-hour days and was called “john” by the pair. One of his tasks was to regularly put $100 dollar bills in each of Epstein’s cars.

Today’s proceedings are still ongoing, updates will be added as new information emerges.

New Twitter CEO’s First Decision: Ban Mean Memes

The Free Thought Project 
November 30, 2021

One day after brand new Twitter CEO Parag ‘Not Bound by the First Amendment” Agrawal took the helm, the company announced that it will no longer allow people to share ‘images or videos of private individuals without their consent’ due to “growing concerns about the misuse of media and information” to “harass, intimidate, and reveal the identities of individuals.”

We assume this includes photos of protesters rioters, people looting a Louis Vuitton store, the driver of an SUV plowing into a crowd of people, and viral memes which include non-public figures.

In a Tuesday blog post, the company wrote:

“There are growing concerns about the misuse of media and information that is not available elsewhere online as a tool to harass, intimidate, and reveal the identities of individuals. Sharing personal media, such as images or videos, can potentially violate a person’s privacy, and may lead to emotional or physical harm. The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities. When we receive a report that a Tweet contains unauthorized private media, we will now take action in line with our range of enforcement options.”

What is in violation of this policy?
Under our private information policy, you can’t share the following types of private information or media, without the permission of the person who it belongs to:

  • home address or physical location information, including street addresses, GPS coordinates or other identifying information related to locations that are considered private;
  • identity documents, including government-issued IDs and social security or other national identity numbers – note: we may make limited exceptions in regions where this information is not considered to be private;
  • contact information, including non-public personal phone numbers or email addresses;
  • financial account information, including bank account and credit card details; and
  • other private information, including biometric data or medical records.
  • NEW: media of private individuals without the permission of the person(s) depicted.

Twitter does provide themselves an ‘out’ – writing that “there are instances where account holders may share images or videos of private individuals in an effort to help someone involved in a crisis situation, such as in the aftermath of a violent event, or as part of a newsworthy event due to public interest value, and this might outweigh the safety risks to a person. ”

Who makes that decision, and will the race of the suspect be a factor?

The move comes two days after CNN‘s Brian Stelter called for the censorship of memes.

According to the blog post, “When we are notified by individuals depicted, or by an authorized representative, that they did not consent to having their private image or video shared, we will remove it. This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”

“However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.”

Earlier today we shared Matt Taibbi’s “Will Twitter become an ocean of suck?”

Looks like it’s starting

Biden Legal Defeats Rapidly Piling up Across the Nation on Broad Array of Policy Fronts

Aaron Kliegman,
December 2nd, 2021

Since President Biden took office in January, federal courts across the country have ruled against his administration time and again, finding many of his policies violate the Constitution. The Biden legal defeats have extended nationwide, impacting a wide range of issues — most recently vaccine mandates.

On Tuesday, federal judges blocked the administration from enforcing two mandates requiring millions of Americans to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

In one case, Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction halting the start of Biden’s national vaccine mandate for health care workers. The injunction temporarily blocks the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from enforcing the order.

“There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million health care workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency,” Doughty wrote. “It is not clear that even an act of Congress mandating a vaccine would be constitutional.”

Doughty’s ruling applies nationwide except in 10 states, where CMS was already blocked from enforcing the mandate due to a separate order issued on Monday by a federal court in Missouri. The judge in St. Louis sided with the 10 states which joined a lawsuit against Biden’s requirement that all health workers in hospitals and nursing homes be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4.

In another adverse ruling, U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove of the Eastern District of Kentucky blocked the administration from implementing its vaccine mandate for federal government contractors and subcontractors.

“This is not a case about whether vaccines are effective,” Van Tatenhove wrote in his opinion. “They are. Nor is this a case about whether the government, at some level, and in some circumstances, can require citizens to obtain vaccines. It can.”

Instead, he continued, the question before him was whether the president had the authority to mandate employees of federal contractors and subcontractors to receive the vaccine.

“In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no,” the judge wrote.

Van Tatenhove’s ruling applies to Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee — the three states that filed the lawsuit.

These losses for Biden came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is based in New Orleans, last month temporarily blocked the president’s broader mandate requiring private businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure all workers get vaccinated or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is charged with enforcing the order through seldom-used emergency powers.

One week later, the Fifth Circuit Court reaffirmed its stay on Biden’s order, citing a retweet from White House chief of staff Ron Klain as a key piece of evidence. In September, Klain retweeted a post from MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle, who praised Biden’s mandate as “the ultimate work-around” to avoid potential constitutional challenges.

“The mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers),” Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote in his opinion, calling the order “staggeringly overboard.”

Beyond vaccine mandates, the courts have quashed several other efforts by Biden to respond to COVID-19, deeming them unconstitutional. In June, for example, a federal judge ruled the CDC can’t dictate rules for cruise ships, ruling against the administration for exceeding its constitutional authority.

Then in August, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s federal moratorium on residential evictions.

Citing the economic fallout from the pandemic, the administration had imposed the moratorium, leading to a legal challenge from a coalition of landlords and real estate groups.

“The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC] has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination,” the majority opinion read. “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.”

“If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it,” the opinion added. “Our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.”

The high court’s decision came two days after it denied Biden’s legal bid to rescind the Remain in Mexico Policy, officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols — another major loss in the courts. Under the protocols, a central feature of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, asylum seekers from Central America had to stay in Mexico during their immigration proceedings.

Despite being ordered to reinstate the Remain in Mexico policy, the Biden administration is still fighting to terminate it, so far to no avail.

This wasn’t the first time the courts proved to be a roadblock for Biden’s immigration agenda. Less than a week after Biden assumed office, a federal court in Texas temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s 100-day moratorium on deportations of some illegal immigrants.

In its opinion, the court derided the administration for omitting “a rational explanation grounded in the facts reviewed and the factors considered.” This omission, the court explained, made the Department of Homeland Security’s “determination to institute a 100-day pause on deportations an arbitrary and capricious choice.”

Biden’s losses in the courts also extend to farming. In Wisconsin, a federal judge halted Biden’s controversial $4 billion race-based federal relief program for farmers. The court found “the only consideration in determining whether a farmer or rancher’s loans should be completely forgiven is the person’s race or national origin.” Therefore, the order continued, farmers were “experiencing discrimination at the hands of their government.”

A federal court in Texas found similar discrimination by the Biden administration, but in a different context: restaurants. Indeed, the Restaurant Restoration Fund, approved by Congress to help struggling restaurants during the pandemic, gave preference to women, minorities and “socially and economically disadvantaged” people, leading the court to deem the program discriminatory.

Back in June, another federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Biden administration from pausing new oil and gas leases on federal land. Judge Doughty, the same one who ruled against Biden’s vaccine mandate for health care workers, wrote in his opinion that the administration can’t legally stop leasing federal territory for oil-and-gas production without approval from Congress.

One of Biden’s most notorious legal defeats was decided by the Supreme Court in June. In Terry v. United States, Tarahrick Terry, a criminal who pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute an unspecified amount of crack in 2008, argued for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, President Trump’s criminal justice reform law.

Both the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled against Terry, who then petitioned to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration was preparing to defend its position and argue against Terry, noting that the First Step Act was meant to provide leniency to minor drug offenders sentenced to disproportionately long sentences and that Terry was in a different category.

But once in charge, the Biden administration told the Supreme Court it wouldn’t defend the ruling, calling it an error and siding with Terry. The high court ruled unanimously against the administration, dismissing its arguments as “sleight of hand.”

Despite the above losses and others that Biden has suffered in the courts, he and his team appear undeterred in pushing the legal envelope in pursuit of their policy agenda. It seems their success — or failure — will be determined at least as much in the courtroom as in the Capitol.


Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Day 3: First Accuser Cross-Examined, Mentions Trump, Prince Andrew

Ryan DeLarme,
December 1st, 2021

Today was day 3 of the 6-week trial of British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who’s been accused of sex-trafficking minors. The first accuser, going by the pseudonym “jane”, took the stand again this morning at the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in lower Manhattan.

“Jane” testified yesterday, claiming that Ghislaine lured her into Epstein’s orbit. She also claimed that while visiting the late financier’s mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, Maxwell and Epstein led her upstairs to his bedroom where they “took her clothes off”.

“He asked me to take my top off,” the witness continued. “Then there were hands everywhere and Jeffrey proceeded to masturbate again. And Ghislaine was like rubbing on him, kissing on him.”

“During these incidents did Maxwell ever touch your body?” Assistant US Attorney Alison Moe asked.

“Yes,” Jane answered.

She also described group sex sessions taking place at Epstein’s lavish home in the mid-1990s, when she and others, including Maxwell, would “abruptly” be summoned to his bedroom or a massage room.

Her testimony goes into greater detail, and can be read here.

The theme seems to be that Ghislaine and Jefferey would single out young girls who were on hard times in one way or another, shower them in gifts and special attention, and eventually they would pounce. 

Maxwell’s brother Kevin appeared in court today, a sister of hers, Isabel, has also been present for the proceedings. Ghislaine’s siblings have been supportive of her, even petitioning the United Nations to get her out on bail.

The siblings were raised in luxury, the children of publishing tycoon Robert Maxwell and his French-born wife Elisabeth, a Holocaust scholar.

The Maxwell family, including Ghislaine (top center)

The day began with the defense, Laura Menninger, grilling the first accuser and attempting to poke holes in Jane’s claims that she came from a poor, broken family when Epstein and Maxwell allegedly began preying on her in 1994.

Jane, in yesterday’s testimony, claimed that her family fell into bankruptcy after her dad died of leukemia and that she lived in a pool house with her mom and siblings at the time she was drawn in by Maxwell and Epstein.

Defense attorney Menninger challenged Jane over her testimony from the day prior regarding the first time she saw Maxwell without her clothes on.

The alleged victim said that — shortly after she was first abused by Jeffrey Epstein at the age of 14 — he and Maxwell led her to his bedroom inside his Palm Beach mansion, moved her over to the bed and “took their clothes off.”

When questioning Jane this morning, Menninger said that in Dec. 2019 “you told the government that you do not have a specific memory of your first time with Ghislaine.”

“You have come up with that memory in the last two years, correct?” she asked.

“I don’t believe I’ve come up with a memory, no,” the witness answered.

During the cross examination, Jane said that Jeffrey Epstein took her to Mar-a-Lago in the ’90s when she was a teenager to meet Donald Trump.

The woman, identified by the pseudonym “Jane,” said Epstein drove her to Trump’s Palm Beach estate in a dark green car when she was 14 in 1994.

She wasn’t asked to describe the meeting, and defense attorney Laura Menninger then moved on to an unrelated line of questioning.

Jane then mentioned another big name: Prince Andrew.

testified today that she remembered Prince Andrew being on flights with her.

The Duke of York has been under fire for his close ties to the late pedophile and is also facing a lawsuit from Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims Epstein and Maxwell made her have sex with the UK royal three times, starting in 2001 when she was 17.

It is important to note that Giuffre’s claims are not part of Maxwell’s ongoing federal sex-trafficking trial.

More updates to come.

How the FBI Raid on Project Veritas Helped Protect the New York Times

Joy Pullmann
DECEMBER 1st, 2021

The FBI’s raids on Project Veritas had the effect of protecting not just the Biden family but also The New York Times. It’s yet another episode in a long history of the FBI and New York Times wildly abusing their power.

EDITORS NOTE: We’ve read the diary, there is no way to authenticate that it does indeed belong to Ashley Biden, which is why Veritas never ran the story and turned the diary into local law enforcement. What’s important here is how big media can work in tandem with the FBI to squash a rival media outlet (in the midst of a lawsuit no less).

Several observers have pointed out the terrible optics and even worse legal and cultural implications of the FBI’s raids earlier this month on three undercover journalists’ homes. Since the reporters’ organization, Project Veritas, is a political opponent of the American regime, the raids echo government behavior in unfree countries such as Russia, China, and Turkey.

Yet there’s another, less remarked, aspect to this story. It’s the raids’ effect of protecting a longtime, top-tier deep state information operations partner, The New York Times.

Project Veritas is a threat to The New York Times, not only in some of its undercover reporting about Times employees but also in its lawsuit against the Times for defamation. Curiously, then, The New York Times appeared to be aware of the raids about as soon as they commenced, as well as possibly obtaining private information about Project Veritas from the FBI operation.

Project Veritas founder O’Keefe noted: “Within an hour of one of our reporter’s homes being secretly raided by the FBI, The New York Times we are currently suing for defamation contacted the Project Veritas reporter to ask for comment. We do not know how The New York Times knew about the execution of a search warrant at our reporter’s home, or the subject matter of the search warrant, as the grand jury investigation is secret.”

Four business days after O’Keefe’s apartment was ransacked by the FBI, The New York Times on Nov. 11 published information from internal Project Veritas legal documents. It’s currently not public whether The Times obtained those documents from discovery in Project Veritas’s defamation suit or from an FBI leaker (or leakers). Project Veritas lawyers say they suspect a leaker.

“We have a disturbing situation of the U.S. attorney’s office or the FBI tipping off the New York Times to each of the raids on Project Veritas current and former employees,” O’Keefe lawyer Harmeet Dhillon told Tucker Carlson the evening of Nov. 11.

The FBI currently claims the raids stem from Project Veritas viewing what is alleged to be President Joe Biden’s daughter’s diary. Last week, a judge extended a ban on the Times publishing articles about Project Veritas until at least Dec. 1, reportedly due to its publication of those internal Project Veritas documents.

The FBI’s raids on Project Veritas, then, had the effect of protecting not just the Biden family but also The New York Times. It’s yet another episode in a long and troubled history of both the FBI and New York Times wildly abusing their power.

The FBI Has Been Politicized From Its Origins

From its very beginning, the FBI was racked with abuse of power. The FBI’s own history notes that “In the early twenties, the agency was no model of efficiency. It had a growing reputation for politicized investigations. In 1923, in the midst of the Teapot Dome scandal that rocked the Harding Administration, the nation learned that Department of Justice officials had sent Bureau agents to spy on members of Congress who had opposed its policies.” Spy on members of Congress — who are supposed to control the FBI.

The infamous J. Edgar Hoover who took the helm after that scandal kept secret police files on his political opponents and used them unlawfully, including to keep multiple presidents from firing him and to manipulate U.S. senators. That’s called “blackmail.”

Things haven’t changed. The long chronicle of FBI abuse of power has only lengthened, and persists to this day. Most recently, there’s the evidence still coming out about FBI incitement and provocations related to the Jan. 6 altercations and the trumped-up Gov. Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot.

A whistleblower recently claimed the FBI is surveiling moms and dads mad at public schools. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s denials about this don’t look too well against the backdrop of Democrat spy agency heads repeatedly lying to Congress under oath, as well as on TV, and facing zero consequences for doing so.

Those are only the most recent stories made public. One of the biggest stories of the past five years has been Spygate, the collusion between Democrat politicians and spy agencies including the FBI to frame and obstruct the man Americans elected president in 2016.

The FBI’s election interference also affected 2020. As Victor Davis Hanson noted recently, the FBI “did not disclose that it had possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop at a time when the media was erroneously declaring the computer inauthentic.” The FBI had possession of that laptop in 2019, in fact. As we now know, polling indicates that if the public had been informed of that story, Joe Biden likely would not have generated enough votes to declare himself president.

Hanson also resurfaces “the agency’s inability to follow up on clear information about the dangers posed by criminals as diverse as the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.”

Without writing a book about the FBI’s endemic failures on every level — investigative, political, constitutional — suffice it to say that the past five Trump years may have intensified this politicized use of police power, but they are not in any way an anomaly. It almost appears as if comprising a secret police is what the agency exists to do, using the law enforcement part as its cover story.

The NYT Has Propagandized For Tyrants For a Century

As Ashley Rindberg writes in this year’s “The Grey Lady Winked,” The New York Times has a long history of pimping propaganda for totalitarians and tyrants. It’s about as old as the FBI’s institutional history of using police powers for politics instead of justice, dating back to at least the 1920s.

The New York Times published reams of positive and Pulitzer Prize-winning press for Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, and now Xi Jinping and Joe Biden. It is quite literally a propaganda mouthpiece for mass murderers and tyrants.

Rindberg’s book documents that, and I won’t reprise his work here. Suffice it to say, The New York Times chose to prioritize manipulating readers over reporting the truth long ago, while very successfully claiming to do the opposite.

In numerous instances, the FBI and New York Times have worked together to manipulate public affairs. In fact, The New York Times has been a routine location for FBI and other intelligence leakers to plant news stories that often turn out later to be false but still accomplish political goals. In other words, they help the deep state manufacture and spread propaganda.

Just consider a few recent stories we know about that demonstrate this. There are plenty more, many related to starting or perpetuating wars, which are lucrative for intelligence agencies and news organizations alike.

Without intelligence agency leaks, often of false informationto The New York Times and similar outlets, the Spygate attempt to subvert the 2016 election might not have come off at all. The FBI was deeply involved in these leaks and the whole collusion conspiracy, to the point that my colleague Mollie Hemingway described intelligence agencies and corporate media as “co-conspirators” in the operation.

The Times’s use to FBI leakers hasn’t been limited to Spygate, of course. As a recent example, The New York Times ran a false story about the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick after Jan. 6, 2021, which suppressed public discourse about election integrity by falsely linking those concerns to murder and providing political cover for ongoing show trials of Democrats’ political opponents. Another obvious example is governments’ indefinite suspension of citizens’ rights and normal lives in response to COVID, which was clearly enabled by media hysteria exemplified by The New York Times’ COVID “death map.”

Take a step back for a second and imagine the power of being able to blackmail any American, member of Congress, or the president. That’s the power to control government itself. Consider also that the power to determine what the public knows also confers massive political power in a democratic republic. Control public opinion, and you control the country.

This is what the FBI and New York Times have done in the past century, sometimes in concert. That’s why the FBI raiding an antagonist of its longtime information operations partner, and possibly leaking information obtained in that raid to that partner, is no surprise at all.

As long as such ops keep working, there will be more government-media joint information operations designed to keep control of the United States well out of voters’ hands.

About the author: Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her brand-new e-book is “The Advent Prepbook.” Check out her recommended classic Christmas picture books, “The Read-Aloud Advent Calendar,” and her bestselling ebook, “Classic Books for Young Children.” Sign up here to get early access to her next full-length book, “How To Control The Internet So It Doesn’t Control You.” A Hillsdale College honors graduate, @JoyPullmann is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.


The FAA Accidentally Disclosed More Than 2,000 Flight Records Associated With Jeffrey Epstein’s Private Jets

Angela Wang
November 29th, 2021

In January 2020, Insider asked the Federal Aviation Administration for all the agency’s flight records, including departure and arrival data, associated with a fleet of private jets owned by Jeffrey Epstein. Filed under the Freedom of Information Act, our request seemed to have a decent chance of success: The agency in 2011 released its entire database of US-based flights to The Wall Street Journal.

In March 2020, however, the FAA denied our request, saying that “the responsive records originate from an investigative file” and were therefore exempt from disclosure. The agency cited Exemption 7(A), which Congress designed to shield records that were “compiled for law enforcement” and “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceeding.” The FAA did not specify which enforcement proceeding the records might interfere with; Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend and confidante, faces a trial over sex-trafficking charges this month.

But despite its original denial, the FAA inadvertently mailed Insider a portion of Epstein’s flight records alongside correspondence for an unrelated FOIA request earlier this year. The records contained data on 2,300 flights among four private jets registered to Epstein between 1998 and 2020. Most of them had appeared in Insider’s searchable database of all known flights connected to Epstein.

The new FAA records also reveal 704 previously unknown flights taken by Epstein’s planes. These include hundreds of trips from a three-year gap in the public record, from 2013 to 2016, when the jets’ movements were unaccounted for.

The new flight records do not include the names of passengers, but they may offer clues about the whereabouts of Epstein’s close associates. Maxwell was a frequent passenger aboard the disgraced financier’s jets.

Epstein owned a Gulfstream II (sold in November 2013), a Gulfstream IV (sold before his arrest), a Gulfstream GV-SP, and a Boeing 727 (nicknamed the “Lolita Express”) that notoriously ferried notable passengers and girls around the globe. According to flight manifests unsealed in a defamation case against Maxwell, travelers on Epstein’s planes included public figures from Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton to the supermodel Naomi Campbell and the astronaut John Glenn.

Insider has reported extensively on Epstein’s air travel, covering his jets’ flight patterns before his arrest and publishing a searchable database of every known flight made by his jets. The database, which has been updated, now includes flights compiled from court records; public flight-signal data from the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, or ADS-B, system; and FAA records. Flourish map

In addition to filling in the three-year gap in the mid-2010s, the FAA flight records corroborate the flight records compiled by Epstein’s pilots and found through Insider’s analysis of ADS-B data. They clarify start and end points that were ambiguous because of incomplete ADS-B data, which relies on the availability of land-based receivers that pick up signals from aircraft overhead; often, signals drop off in remote areas and over bodies of water. The data confirms that Epstein traveled to areas such as Cabo and Marrakech and frequented the US Virgin Islands, where his private island was.

Two of Epstein’s planes continued to travel after his arrest and subsequent death. His Gulfstream GV-SP — the plane he flew on right before his arrest — was moved in early 2020 to Palm Beach, Florida, where it was later put on the market. His Gulfstream IV, bearing the tail number N120JE, is still registered to Epstein’s former company, JEGE LLC, an enterprise that a Georgia pilot quietly acquired in the weeks before Epstein’s arrest in July 2019. The pilot sued Epstein’s estate in federal court on October 20, alleging that he hadn’t been aware the jet was used in a “criminal enterprise” and that the company had been “damaged by the stigma” connected to the sex offender.

The newly obtained FAA records follow the travel patterns established by Insider’s larger trove of Epstein flight data. Epstein’s jets flew most often between New York and Palm Beach, where his primary residences were, as well as to his estates in Paris, New Mexico, and the Virgin Islands.

While Epstein’s jets flew extravagantly over the last 24 years of his life, they traveled most prolifically in the early aughts, making 906 flights — more than a third of the flights compiled by Insider — between 2001 and 2006.

“Flight data is typically considered to be releasable information,” an FAA spokesperson told Insider. The agency declined to comment on its disclosure of Epstein’s flight records or any matter related to law-enforcement investigations.

Access our full searchable database here: We compiled every known flight made by Jeffrey Epstein’s fleet of private planes. Search them all for the first time.


Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Day 2: Epstein’s Pilot and 1st Accuser Testify

Ryan DeLarme,
November 30th, 2021

The Ghislaine Maxwell trial began Monday and will continue for the next 6 weeks, possibly leading to some slight justice for the accusers and the unknown victims who remain out of the spotlight. Unfortunately, several red flags have already emerged, and it is only day 2.

The first potential conflict of interest comes from lead prosecutor Maureen Comey, the daughter of the now-disgraced former FBI commissioner James Comey (who has controversial ties to the Clintons as well as a history of dishonesty and deep-state connections).  

Another red flag is the first witness, one Lawrence Paul Visoki Jr., who piloted the infamous “Lolita Express” for over a quarter of a century and was so close with Epstein that the late financier hosted Visoki’s daughter’s wedding at Zorro Ranch in New Mexico. This has caused some to wonder whether how Visoki will portray Epstein and Maxwell during his testimony.  

Update: While giving his testimony today, Epstein’s former pilot has claimed that he “never witnessed any sexual activity”, a statement which runs counter to claims put forth by Chauntae Davis and other accusers.

He claimed that he never saw any underage girls on any of the 1000 or so flights he piloted from the early 1990s to 2004, another statement that contests the claims put forth by the accuser and victim Virginia Roberts.  

Visoski said he flew Roberts in the mid to late 90s but believed her to be a “shorter woman with dirty blonde hair.” He added that he believed an Epstein associate named Jane that he met on one of the planes was a “mature woman with some piercing powder blue eyes.” Prosecutors entered a birth certificate for Jane into evidence under seal.

Bill Clinton name-dropped in testimony

Former President Bill Clinton was among the high-profile names brought up in today’s cross-examination of Jeffery Epstein’s longtime pilot. Visoki Jr. testified that he’d have been told in advance if a guest like Clinton was going to be flying on Epstein’s jet.

“There might be special catering?” defense attorney Christian Everdell asked about Clinton, who has been photographed with Maxwell aboard the Lolita express, to which the pilot replied “sure”.

When asked if remembered a victim in the case, identified as “Jane,” riding on the plane, the pilot said: “I can’t visualize her sitting in the passenger compartment like I would, say, President Clinton.”

During the cross-examination of Visoki Jr, Maxwell’s defense attorney asked about any gifts the late Epstein bestowed upon his longtime employee. Visoki, who worked for Epstein for nearly 30 years, received a number of pricey gifts throughout his employment, including 40 acres of land on the New Mexico property for the pilot to build a house.

Epstein even paid for Visokis’s two daughters’ education, the pilot testified. “He believed in higher education,” Visoki said.

Epstein also listed a number of expensive vehicles in Visoki’s name, including a Land Rover, Mercedes, and a Jaguar, he said. the pilot claimed that the cars belonged to Epstein but that he allowed Visoki and other staff to use them.

According to Visoki, the well taken care of pilot who Epstein employed for several decades, he never had the slightest inkling that is boss or Maxwell ever abusing young girls. “I would have quit my job” he claimed.

After lunch recess, the first accuser took the stand. She is one of the 4 alleged victims mentioned in the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell and is testifying under the pseudonym “Jane”.

A prosecutor asked “Who was most frequently in the room when you had sexual contact with Jeffery Epstein at 14 years old?” to which the accuser replied “Ghislaine Maxwell.”

“Jane” says she first met Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell when she was at Camp Interlochen in Michigan in the summer of 1994 — between 7th and 8th grade.

More updates will be provided as the trial continues.

You can also catch our nightly Livestream by signing up for our subscribestar (subscriptions help keep the lights on, it ain’t easy for us in the alternative-media world with the entirety of the fortune 500, big-tech, big-media, and big-government trying to shut down any and all dissent) or through our Rumble Channel.

CNN Reviewing Documents Showing Chris Cuomo Was Untruthful To Viewers

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

CNN is reviewing material released Monday that showed host Chris Cuomo was not truthful to viewers when he told them in August that he did not speak to fellow media members about the scandal that engulfed his brother Andrew Cuomo.

“The thousands of pages of additional transcripts and exhibits that were released today by the NY Attorney General deserve a thorough review and consideration,” CNN said in a statement.

“We will be having conversations and seeking additional clarity about their significance as they relate to CNN over the next several days,” the news outlet added.

Speaking on his show earlier this year, Chris Cuomo claimed that he “never made calls to the press about my brother’s situation.”

But the newly released material showed Chris Cuomo tapped sources, including some inside rival outlets, to try to ascertain if more women were coming forward to accuse his brother of sexual misconduct.

In one case, Chris Cuomo was tasked by Melissa DeRosa, at the time a top aide to Andrew Cuomo, with gathering “intel” about a looming story by New Yorker reporter Ronan Farrow.

Chris Cuomo was successful, telling DeRosa in a text message on March 15 that Farrow’s story “not ready for tomorrow.”

In another message, Chris Cuomo appeared to signal that he spoke directly with Farrow.

He also checked into rumored stories by other outlets, including Politico.

Other texts showed the CNN host drafted entire statements he hoped the New York gubernatorial office would release and attribute to Andrew Cuomo, who was governor at the time.

Chris Cuomo has not responded to requests for comment.

He told investigators during a deposition that he did not try to affect any reports.

“If I had tried to influence any of the reporting at CNN or anywhere else, I guarantee you, you people would know, and so would a lot of others,” he said.

“So the idea of one reporter calling another to find out about what’s coming down the pipe is completely business-as-usual.”

Experts have told The Epoch Times that Chris Cuomo’s behavior violates journalism standards and questioned CNN’s lack of transparency regarding the situation.

It is unethical for a journalist to use their position, contacts, and influence to help a family member or friend involved in an investigation by law enforcement,” Rebecca Aguilar, president of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), said in an email.

“The SPJ Code of Ethics clarifies the rules: Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, minimize harm and be accountable and transparent,” she added.