Directed to investigate possible wrongdoing related to COVID-19 vaccines, a statewide grand jury released a report Tuesday that found “deceptive and obfuscatory behavior” that “straddled the line between ethical and unethical conduct.” While it didn’t find criminal activity, the grand jury recommended a series of changes at the state and federal levels.

A strange connection. The post Soupy Sales: The kids TV show host who shaped Iggy Pop first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

by Sean Adl-Tabatabai, The Peoples Voice: Big Pharma giant Moderna covered up clinical data that showed toddlers suffering heart attacks and strokes during their COVID-19 booster trials. In Late 2022, a preschool-aged child enrolled in Moderna’s KidCOVE clinical trial for a COVID-19 booster died of cardio-respiratory arrest. The death, which Moderna hid from the public, has […]

from World Alternative Media: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Buckle up folks, because starting at noon on January 20th, things are going to start moving EXTREMELY FAST! Speaking to reporters and specifically to Peter Doocy, President Trump was asked about the drones and his response was fascinating! He clearly knows what they are, but he isn’t authorized to disclose until after he is sworn in. So he just promised that on January 21st (he’ll be a little busy with Executive Orders and dozens of other things on the 20th) he will give a full declass explaining exactly what the drones are. Watch here: BREAKING: President Trump promises to give a full declass on the Drones on January 21st. He clearly knows what they are, but he isn’t authorized to disclose until after he is sworn in. Buckle up folks, things are going to move EXTREMELY FAST starting at noon on Jan. 20. pic.twitter.com/B9voPwbZLI — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 10, 2025 FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Trump: You know, not utilized. In some cases, they’re protected, which I can take that protection off. And you take down a tree, and you grow a better tree. That’s, you know, pretty common. But we don’t need anything. We don’t need their fuel. We don’t need their energy. We don’t need their oil and gas. We don’t need anything that they have. And I said to Trudeau, I said, why are we subsidizing you two hundred and two hundred and fifty billion dollars a year? He said, I really don’t know. And I said, well, I don’t know either. I said, what would happen to Canada if we didn’t? He said, Canada would be obliterated if that happened. I said, then Canada should be a fifty-first state. And that’s where we are now. A story that kind of disappeared very suddenly. Do you have any idea whatever happened to the drones? What happened to drones? Well, you said that you thought the government knew what was happening with these drones over New Jersey. There were some by Bedminster. I don’t know. They were over Bedminster a lot, so I can imagine. I’m going to give you a report on drones about one day into the administration because I think it’s ridiculous that they’re not telling you about what’s going on with the drones. And it’s not only with me. Glenn was telling me today that in Virginia they have drones all over the place too, and nobody’s reporting it. I don’t know why they’re not. Do you want to say something about that? Speaker (Unspecified): Just one quick comment, which is we are home to the largest naval base in the world, and Quantico, and we house a lot of the SEAL teams and have a huge national security infrastructure. And now, for 2 years running, we have had drone incursions over secure airspace, and we still don’t know why. And I think that’s absolutely unacceptable. And I think President Trump and the new leadership coming in, I think will work diligently to understand who’s behind this and what we do in order to stop the digital surveillance of all of our secure infrastructure. President Trump: Well, I can tell you this. While we were dealing with a terrorist attack in New Orleans, we had drones being flown over our nuclear reactors in Louisiana. And we brought that attention to the FAA. We’ve been asking the FAA to give these states the ability to mitigate these drones. And it’s sitting on some bureaucrat’s desk. And that’s real. Nobody knows. They don’t want to talk about it. Go ahead, Governor. Governor (Unspecified): Are you going to say— I was just going to say, we have drones in Wyoming flying over our infrastructure as well. And it’s incredibly frustrating that we not only have no way of knowing what it is, but nobody knows how to deal with them. They don’t want to talk about it, and nobody knows why. They don’t want to talk about it. President Trump: That could be us sending drones. I hope that’s the case—us doing it and doing research. And maybe they don’t want to talk about it from that standpoint. I hope it’s not an enemy, but we’re going to find out on the 21st, the day after. You have to give me a little time for the inauguration, but shortly thereafter, we’ll give you a report on it. We’ll tell you exactly what it is they know. And it’s very strange that they aren’t talking about it. Peter, thank you.

This is a breaking news alert…. President Trump had appealed his conviction in the so-called “hush money case” to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to halt his sentencing. With a 5-4 majority of conservatives, there was a decent chance the Court would rule in his favor, but after Amy Coney Barrett flipped sides, the Court has declined to stop the sentencing. Amy Coney Barrett just sided with the Liberal minority in declining to halt Trump’s sentencing in New York. Unforgivable. pic.twitter.com/h3WRbhT2rb — johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) January 10, 2025 Let’s just say she’s not exactly popular right now online: Amy Coney Barrett is comprised and is a gutless coward. Any thoughts? pic.twitter.com/8M6VsfRN2b — Matthew Nichol (@MatthewNichol5) January 10, 2025 Amy Coney Barrett is a POS. Do you agree? pic.twitter.com/m1x3AlaqzE — Freedom (@PU28453638) January 10, 2025 You can read the order right here: But what actually happened here? Jonathan Turley was on Fox News with Laura Ingraham and I think he did an excellent job breaking this down. Watch here with captions and I’ll put the full transcript down below if that’s helpful to you: JUST IN: Legal expert Jonathan Turley explains why the Supreme Court just ruled against President Trump. pic.twitter.com/sUuaEOWfxE — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 10, 2025 FULL TRANSCRIPT: Laura Ingraham: Tomorrow for reaction to this, Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law prof, and Charlie Hurt, Washington Times opinion editor, both Fox News contributors.Professor Turley, let’s start with you.Look, the court doesn’t like to intervene in what may be considered political matters.Your take on this then I’ll tell you what I think the court should have done. Prof. Jonathan Turley: Well, this is what some of us predicted when the appeals were just begun.Merchan really played this perfectly, and I say that not as a compliment.He knew that he was giving President-elect Trump very little runway by which to take an appeal off.He also knew that appellate courts generally prefer for sentences to be finalized to review the case as a whole.And he played those 2 cards to guarantee that he’ll be able to sentence President Trump tomorrow.And when that occurs, in many ways he’s going to create the ultimate mandate for President Trump.He will have established with finality the effect of lawfare on our political system.So President Trump will go in as many on the left want him to go in, as a convicted felon.But for many people in this country, he will also go in as someone who was the victim of lawfare.You know, this was the most outrageous of the cases.It was built on really not a novel but an unprecedented theory.One that even the Democratic senator from New Jersey recently called BS, I mean, said that it was completely invalid.And that’s the mandate that he will give this president going into office. Laura Ingraham: Professor, we’ll get to Charlie in just a second.When you look at this though, one of the justifications for not granting the application for this stay was that it wasn’t a real inconvenience to the presidency because the judge had indicated there’s not going to be jail time, it’ll be there but it won’t be really inhibiting his work as president.But 4 justices disagreed with that.And the only one who didn’t, who was one of the Republican nominees, is Amy Coney Barrett.Of course, John Roberts, the other one.But Amy Coney Barrett voted with the majority.So there were a core 4 who believed that this was significant enough to say uh-uh, not pulling this nonsense. Prof. Jonathan Turley: That’s right.And the division on that court really does reflect how troubling the case is overall.What this trial-level judge has done in Manhattan is to hold a presidential candidate, first now a president-elect, to his courtroom on a short leash.This is the same judge that gagged the leading candidate for president in a campaign where his case was one of the issues of most concern with voters.And it obviously is an equal concern among at least 4 justices. Laura Ingraham: Yeah, Charlie, look on this case, I think it’s such a travesty.It’s one of those extraordinary cases where you know allowing the process to go forward in normal course to the appellate, we have serious problems facing this country.President Trump doesn’t need one more thing to deal with.That’s my view.And I think those justices saw this for what it was in the dissent.And unfortunately, there are 5 who, you know, disagreed.But you know, look, I guess it was a close call according to Professor Turley.It’s an important point and certainly the point that I think every American, whether you voted for Donald Trump or not, if you’re part of that 59, 60 percent of Americans who are, you know, express the pollsters that they’re hopeful that we can sort of move in a positive direction.They’re like, wait a minute, we got all these problems.This is not anywhere in the list of problems that I have.And of course, in this particular case, as Professor Turley just pointed out, you know, the real damage here was letting the case go forward in the first place. Prof. Jonathan Turley: That’s right, the real damage occurred here.And the gagging of somebody who’s actually running for president, it runs counter to everything that we believe in in terms of free speech and running robust campaigns in this country.And of course, Donald Trump won, and he beat all of it.And this is just a reminder, I think, for a lot of people of what the left and what these crazy prosecutors did and tried to do to try to thwart the will of the American people.And the American people looked at it and said, yeah, we don’t care.We’re not going to be confused about this.We’re going to stick with the issues that we care about.And the issues in this case are not one of them, yeah. Laura Ingraham: And Bragg today, Alvin Bragg was out today crowing about the case, saying how important it is for the country, Professor Turley.And I would also argue that Judge Mershon, by issuing this quote, unconditional discharge in this case, also kind of implicitly in my view admits this is ridiculous.I mean, I’m sorry, but unconditional discharge?But he’s a felon.To me, again, this is preposterous.I think the court should have done away with this.I just think that I think the court got this one wrong.And I don’t say it just because I support President Trump.I do support the presidency though. Prof. Jonathan Turley: Yeah, I’m not surprised by Chief Justice Roberts.He often experiences a bit of sticker shock when it comes to institutional issues.He doesn’t want to get the court ahead of the politics of the moment.This is fairly consistent, I would say, with his past rulings.And I say that because I truly believe that what motivates him is the court as an institution.And he doesn’t want to see the court at these critical moments making this decision.But the problem with what’s happening in Manhattan is that this is the rawest form of lawfare.And of course, Bragg is its happiest warrior.But at the end of the day, you have a case that was a dead misdemeanor that was zapped back into life with this novel theory, then turned into this mountain of felonies, and then went before a judge and in my view discarded any sense of due process.We still do not know what the jury decided as to the underlying conduct in the case.I mean, I was in that courtroom.So was I.I was in disbelief as to how the court was ruling.This was a raw abuse of judicial and prosecutorial power in the United States.That’s what it was.But apparently, we have 5 justices on the Supreme Court who think this just has to go through its normal course.Are we surprised, Jonathan, by Amy Coney Barrett in this or not? Prof. Jonathan Turley: No, Justice Barrett has been playing more and more of a central role or centrist role on the court.She’s often voting with the left of the court.She’s sort of carving out her own voice, her own place.And I’m not, I don’t want to condemn her for it.I can disagree with her decision.She’s a very thoughtful jurist.And what she did here is consistent with what a lot of appellate judges do.They really prefer overwhelmingly to have these cases completed, to have the sentence in so they can review the whole case.They hate interlocutory appeals.They hate these things coming up in partial form.And so she’s consistent in that regard.Well, anytime you say interlocutory appeal on the Ingraham Angle, it’s time to take a pause.

I’m not here to say this is a massive conspiracy, or that the insurance companies knew and were in on it and it was all planned in advance. I’m not saying that. I’m simply reporting the facts that hundreds, if not thousands, of homeowners were suddenly and abruptly canceled by their insurance providers for homeowner’s insurance in California, in the EXACT areas that were burned to the ground by the fires. Absolutely tragic and horrific timinig. State Farm canceled hundreds of policies in Pacific Palisades last summer, where wildfires are ravaging the region, to avoid “financial failure.” Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/9JiNYwBj2t — AF Post (@AFpost) January 8, 2025 Here’s Newsweek with more: State Farm, one of the biggest insurers in California, canceled hundreds of homeowners’ policies last summer in Pacific Palisades—the same area which is now being ravaged by a devastating wildfire. The move was justified by the company as an attempt to avoid “financial failure” as the frequency and severity of wildfires is growing in the Golden State, especially in at-risk zones. But as the multiple fires currently burning through Southern California threaten to cause devastating losses for residents, many will likely need to rely on their insurers to get back on their feet after the blazes are contained. “Our number one priority right now is the safety of our customers, agents and employees impacted by the fires and assisting our customers in the midst of this tragedy,” a spokesperson for State Farm told Newsweek in response to a request for comment on Wednesday. Newsweek contacted the office of Commissioner Ricardo Lara for comment by email on Wednesday early morning, outside of standard working hours. Why It Matters Several private insurers have cut coverage in at-risk areas across California in the past three years, leaving homeowners scrambling to find options for coverage. As a result, California’s FAIR Plan, which works as an insurer of last resort in the state, has more than doubled its policies between 2020 and 2024, reaching a total of 452,000, as reported by CapRadio. Most insurers who have limited their offer in the state mentioned the rising wildfire risk as well as the state’s regulations as the main reasons behind their decision. Unable to increase their premiums to a level that will match their growing risk, companies have decided instead to cut coverage. This has triggered an ongoing property insurance sector crisis in the Golden State as homeowners are finding it increasingly harder to find coverage at a time when they so desperately need it. What We Know About The Fire There are three fires currently burning in Southern California: Palisades, Eaton, and Hurst. The Palisades Fire started on Tuesday evening and scorched the affluent neighborhood of Pacific Palisades, spurred on by strong winds. As of Tuesday night, it was estimated to have burned 2,900 acres. California Wildfire Palisades The Eaton Fire started near Pasadena, in Eaton Canyon, on Tuesday evening. It was estimated to have burned 1,000 acres as of later that same night. Another fire, Hurst, was reported burning near San Fernando on Tuesday evening, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The Angeles National Forest wrote on X on Tuesday night that the fire had spread across approximately 500 acres. The fires continued to burn across Southern California as of Wednesday early morning, propelled by winds gusting at nearly 100 mph, as reported by The New York Times. Who Was Affected By State Farm’s Cancellations State Farm announced in April 2024 that it would have canceled a total of 72,000 policies in the state for houses and apartments, 30,000 of which were homes, as reported by ABC 7. According to State Farm, about 1,600 insured homes in Pacific Palisades lost coverage because of the decision. The move came nine months after State Farm announced it wouldn’t issue new homeowners policies in California. Some ZIP codes saw a large percentage of their policies with State Farm being discontinued. More than 65 percent of policies in ZIP code 95033, in the Santa Cruz mountains, ended last summer; in 95409, near Santa Rosa, nearly 48 percent were canceled, as reported by CBS News. Why Did State Farm Cancel So Many Policies? In a letter sent to the Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara in March 2024, State Farm President and CEO Denise Hardin explained that the decision to cut coverage in at-risk areas of the state was one they were “reluctant” to make, but that was necessary for the future of the company. “As shared with the Department prior to the February 2023 filing, rate increases alone would likely be insufficient to restore SFG’s financial strength,” Hardin wrote. “We must now take action to reduce our overall exposure to be more commensurate with the capital on hand to cover such exposure, as most insurers in California have already done. “We have been reluctant to take this step, recognizing how difficult it will be for impacted policyholders, in addition to our independent contractor agents who are small business owners and employers in their local California communities.” Here’s what it looks like after the destruction: WATCH: Malibu waterfront properties are gone. pic.twitter.com/BgTXWn9cOk — Officer Lew (@officer_Lew) January 9, 2025 Everything is just GONE. It’s like Maui 2.0 but worse. Real life apocalypse: “Real life apocalypse” pic.twitter.com/jd3KcNXFbz — Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) January 9, 2025 This is hilarious, here is Gavin Newscum in 2021 saying things will be better now with Biden in office: April, 2021. Gavin Newsom explains that wildfire preparedness will be better now that Biden is in office instead of Trump. pic.twitter.com/jTnSgagQsF — MAZE (@mazemoore) January 8, 2025 That didn’t age well! The footage looks like something out of a movie…. An end of the world dystopian movie: UPDATE: CA Fires Drone Footage shows the Destructive Aftermath in the Palisades • As of now, 5 reported dead, with over 135,000+ evacuations. Many of the fires are STILL 0% contained This is truly heartbreaking… we all know this was intentional. A truly despicable act of… pic.twitter.com/BsQR8jGbme — MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) January 9, 2025