Connect with us


Border Patrol Agents upset over new vaccine mandate



Screen Shot 2021 10 01 at 9.46.17 AM

[brid autoplay=”true” video=”845490″ player=”23886″ title=”Sara%20Carter%20calls%20Biden’s%20border%20policy%20a%20’disaster'” duration=”381″ description=”Fox News contributors Joe Concha and Sarah Carter and former acting ICE Director Tom Homan call Biden’s border policy a ‘disaster'” uploaddate=”2021-08-14″ thumbnailurl=”//” contentUrl=”//″]

A new COVID-19 vaccine mandate for Border Patrol agents requires them to receive the vaccine by Nov 1 or face termination. A whistleblower revealed the new policy. Carter reported on the story on Fox News’ Hannity.

But National Border Patrol Council President Chris Cabrera pointed out the hypocrisy of the mandate. Many of the migrants crossing the border don’t take COVID tests. “Agents are upset and rightfully so,” Cabrera told Carter. “We’re being required to take it. However people that are coming into the country illegally are already breaking one law and they’re getting preferential treatment.”

Meanwhile, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas sets new policies that allow more migrants to stay in the states. “Morale has never been lower,” Carter said. She’s reported on border issues since 2004. “In fact, Border Patrol agents say with these new guidelines issued by DHS Secretary Mayorkas, they don’t even know what their job description is.”

“I think that’s just silly,” Cabrera said of Mayorkas’ policies. “You’re in the country illegally you’re subject to removal, that’s what the law says. For him to say otherwise, I don’t know if it’s wishful thinking on his part, if he doesn’t know what we do for a living. It’s ridiculous.”

Now, with these expectations that migrants can stay, border patrol agents anticipate bigger waves. “They’re saying as the weather starts to temper they’re going to expect more and more people,” Carter said. “They don’t have the resources, Sean, to handle this.”

Notably, between 50,000 and 85,000 people from Haiti alone are currently on their way to the border.

You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism.

You may like

Continue Reading


Prestigious Science Journals Confirm Censored Views: Masks at Best Don’t Reduce COVID Infection



Screen Shot 2021 05 18 at 12.58.58 PM scaled

Just The News reports that a prestigious science journal has confirmed what was highly censored among social media regarding the novel coronavirus pandemic: “the best-case scenario for one of the most common COVID-19 interventions may be that it has no measurable effect on infection.”

A systematic review of studies of mask mandates for children, published Saturday in the British Medical Journal‘s Archives of Disease in Childhood, found “no association” with infection or transmission in 16 of the 22 observational studies and “critical” or “serious” risk of bias in the six countervailing studies. It got the attention of Elon Musk, owner of X, formerly Twitter.

Emails turned over under public records requests show that National Institutes of Health officials were privately questioning the effectiveness of cloth masks and forthcoming vaccines just a month after then-NIH Director Francis Collins appeared to plot with colleagues to organize a “quick and devastating take down” of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration.

Self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher the more often people said they wore masks, according to a Norwegian study accepted for publication Nov. 13 in the Cambridge University Press journal Epidemiology and Infection.

An analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Nov. 20 suggests that “scientific censorship is often driven by scientists” and not just “authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance,” as popularly believed.

The paper, co-authored by dozens of scholars known for challenging orthodoxies in their fields, cited “self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups” as motives for censorious scientists.

Heterodox COVID scholarship may suffer hard-to-prove “camouflaged censorship” by way of “double standards” applied to such research, the paper states.

The findings cast further doubt on the practice of not only public health authorities but scientists themselves in demonizing science-based skepticism of the effectiveness of COVID interventions, particularly in relation to their potential medical, mental and social harms.

“Masking recommendations appear to be entirely based on mechanistic and observational data,” they wrote, noting that a much broader systematic review of mask RCTs by the research collaborative Cochrane concluded masks make “little to no difference” against flu or COVID.

(Cochrane unilaterally reinterpreted the study to downplay its findings, over the authors’ objections, after facing media scrutiny.)

You may like

Continue Reading