James Comer Investigating Taxpayer Funds Granted to Blacklist Conservative Media: House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) on Thursday launched a probe into reports that taxpayer dollars administered by the State Department were granted to the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), an organization that seeks to demonetize conservative news outlets. GDI has recently received $330,000 in taxpayer funds administered by the State Department, according to media reports. Taxpayer funds flowing to GDI are significant because it maintains a media blacklist known as the “Dynamic Exclusion List,” which reportedly flags 39 conservative news outlets as “false/misleading.” The list is ultimately used by the establishment to discredit conservative news organizations, reduce their ad revenue, and de-platform them. The outlets known to be on the blacklist include Breitbart News, the Blaze, the Washington Times, Judicial Watch, MRC.TV, RealClearPolitics, and the Daily Wire. In a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Comer requested documents and a briefing on the scope of the State Department’s funds used to backlist conservative news organizations. “The Committee is disturbed by recent reporting that taxpayer money ended up in the hands of a foreign organization running an advertising blacklist of organizations accused of hosting disinformation on their websites, including several conservative-leaning news organizations,” Comer wrote. “The federal government should not be censoring free speech nor policing what news outlets Americans choose to consume,” Comer continued. “And taxpayer funds should never be given to third parties with the intent that they be used to censor lawful speech or abridge the freedom of the press.” “The State Department should not be funding woke organizations who seek to censor and demonetize conservative outlets,” Stefanik stated last week. “House Republicans will assert our oversight over the State Department’s funding of these types of groups.” JORDAN PETERSON: "Chat GPT and AI WILL TAKE OVER" Fair Use Are we surprised by this? Are They Trying To Kill Us? Lab Grown Meat Backed By Bill Gates Has CANCER CELLS And Could Cause Other Scary Health Issues per thegatewaypundit ——————— Also massive explosion at oil refinery in Veracruz, Mexico 3 separate fires at multiple oil facilities run by the state-owned Pemex Oil Company went up in flames Thursday …. - Fair Use - Perilous hard times conditioning the left behind … Climate Rationing of Meat and Fuel is Now on the Agenda, and In Advanced Planning Stages. An information campaign to promote the benefits of rationing, along with stricter regulations, would be required to condition the public. per the national pulse.com - Fair Use - Abortionist turned pro-life doctor affirms killing a baby is ‘never necessary’ to save the mother’s life; 'Intentional feticide is never necessary even in the worst-case scenarios,' attests Dr. John Bruchalski: Another former abortionist turned pro-life doctor is making the case that the most powerful argument for legal abortion, situations in which it is supposedly necessary to save the lives of pregnant women, is a “false flag operation” not rooted in medical fact. Dr. John Bruchalski is the founder of the pro-life, faith-based medical practice Tepeyac OB/GYN and the nonprofit Divine Mercy Care. He “performed abortions believing he was helping women” during his medical training, but “[a]fter a spiritual awakening, he realized abortion was not achieving freedom, health, and happiness for women. Dr. Bruchalski stopped performing abortions, returned to the faith, and felt God’s call to start a medical practice that truly helped women.” He cites the example of a “mother’s amniotic sac break[ing] prematurely at 14 weeks,” for which abortion may be presented as an option, but both patients can instead “be treated with antibiotics and close observation and even have a good chance of stabilization. If they make it to 22 weeks or more, the baby has a good chance of survival outside the womb.” He grants that many circumstances may necessitate delivering a baby before he or she can survive outside the womb or indirectly end the baby’s life, such as chemotherapy or treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, but stresses that such treatments are not abortion; they do not entail direct, intentional violence on the child for the purpose of ending his or her life. In fact, he stresses, “[e]lective abortions become more dangerous the further along in pregnancy, and that’s when the majority of these health complications arise. Abortions after 24 weeks cause massive fluid shifts, which can push the mom into heart, lung, or kidney failure. If the mother’s life is in immediate danger, a C-section takes one hour. A direct abortion after 24 weeks can take two to three days. The argument cannot be made that an abortion is necessary because it is faster than delivery.” Bruchalski quotes Dr. Byron Calhoun, a high-risk OB-GYN in West Virginia, who regularly handles such cases and agrees “it is never necessary to kill the baby to save the mother’s life.” The specter of women dying in childbirth due to being denied abortions is one of abortion activists’ most potent talking points. . . . They have successfully used such fears to help defeat some pro-life ballot initiatives, despite being unfounded not only medically, but as a matter of law. Every state with pro-life laws currently on the books explicitly makes exceptions for medical treatment to save the life of a mother, regardless of whether that treatment is classified as abortion. Further, the vast majority of abortions have never been sought for medical reasons, but for social, career, or financial considerations.
