As the war of words between Israel and Russia heats up, Russian officials welcomed Hamas leaders for a meeting.

According to Tass, an official Russian news service, the deputy head of the Hamas Political Bureau abroad Mousa Abu Marzook and two more representatives of the movement’s leadership, Fathi Hamad and Husam Badran, flew out to Moscow for high level meetings.

Russia is already in partnership with Hezbollah and Iran. Adding Hamas to their proxy list puts Israel in a very precarious position. It’s one thing to go head to head with Iran, but Russia is a whole different level.

This is what makes the Lavrov comments do dangerous. The content is one manner, but where they lead to and bring the region is a whole other matter.

I believe that we may be getting very close to the Ezekiel 38-39 war. We must pray and we must trust that God is in full control, because HE is!

Read the Word and share the Gospel!

How Can I Be Saved?


Chief Justice Roberts Goes Nuclear, Activates Police Force Answerable Only to the Court Itself: And 3 Theories on Who the SCOTUS Draft Decision Leaker Might Be


It’s an unprecedented leak with an unprecedented aim — and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is taking unprecedented steps to get to the bottom of it.

In a media release Tuesday, one day after Politico first published a draft opinion from the court that indicated it would overturn Roe v. Wade, Roberts announced he had “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

In a media release Tuesday, one day after Politico first published a draft opinion from the court that indicated it would overturn Roe v. Wade, Roberts announced he had “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

(Here at The Western Journal, we’re staying on top of the fast-moving news regarding the Supreme Court’s biggest abortion case since Roe was decided — and what the leak means for the future of the court. If you support our news and analysis from a conservative, Christian perspective, please consider subscribing.)

Advertisement – story continues below

The draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by four other conservative justices, held the logic of the original Roe v. Wade decision was “extremely weak” and said the decision “was egregiously wrong from the start.” The ruling also attacked another abortion case — 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established the “undue burden” standard for abortion laws.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Even as Politico published the draft opinion, reporter Josh Gerstein acknowledged the breach that it represented:

“No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term,” he wrote.

In the media release, the Supreme Court acknowledged the authenticity of the draft opinion while stressing it was in no way final.

“Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case,” the release stated.

“Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

In a release, Chief Justice John Roberts stated the matter would go directly to the Marshal of the Supreme Court, a law enforcement official that answers directly to the court.

“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed,” Roberts wrote.

“The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.

“We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law,” the statement continued.

“Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

“I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

The current Marshal of the Supreme Court is Col. Gail A. Curley, according to Fox News, who was appointed in May of 2021.

“As Marshal, Col. Curley will serve as the Court’s chief security officer, facilities administrator, and contracting executive, managing approximately 260 employees, including the Supreme Court Police Force, which provides security for the Justices, Court staff, visitors, the building, and surrounding grounds,” the Supreme Court stated in a media release when she was appointed last year.

“Col. Curley will call the Supreme Court to order in argument sessions, maintaining order and decorum during Court proceedings.”

And now, she’ll be charged with figuring out who leaked Alito’s draft opinion.

It’s unclear what other organizations will be involved in the investigation, although CBS News’ Jan Crawford reported it would “likely” involve the FBI.

According to Reuters, experts say that leaking draft opinions isn’t illegal in and of itself, given that they aren’t classified documents. However, the leaker may have committed an ancillary crime to obtain the opinion, like unauthorized use of a computer to obtain the file.
It could also lead to disbarment for the individual who leaked the document, if he or she is a practicing lawyer.
“This is the most egregious violation of confidentiality for a staff member or employee of the court that you can imagine,” University of California, Berkeley, law professor Orin Kerr told Reuters.

The leak appears to have been designed to put pressure on both the Supreme Court and/or Congress to somehow change the decision, either by swaying votes on the court or getting the Senate to pass a bill that would codify Roe v. Wade guarantee of abortion rights at the federal level.

What’s more, that pressure has come via mobs that resemble nothing so much as the “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests of 2020:

Constitutional scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Twitter post that the leak represents “the greatest crisis that Chief Justice John Roberts has faced in his tenure on the Court.”
“If this is a true copy of the draft opinion it is hard not to view this as a malicious act. What is the motivation of releasing such a decision? The only intent of such a leak is to trigger a response from outside of the Court,” he tweeted. “It is a breach of the most fundamental obligations and traditions of the Court.”
It’s a breach that, one hopes, will mended from the inside — if only to preserve whatever integrity remains in the court’s decision-making process. Source

Here Are the 3 Theories on Who the SCOTUS Draft Decision Leaker Is


The publication of a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion overturning the monumental Roe v. Wade abortion decision has spurred political chaos.

The leaked document, published by Politico on Monday, is unprecedented in the modern history of the Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court is known for confidentiality, with justices as a rule loathe to voice political controversy or make the body’s internal deliberations public.

No hard evidence ascertaining the identity of the individual responsible for the leak was published in Politico’s report.

Three possibilities seem to be the most likely, judging from the leak’s timing, content, and circumstances.

The motivations of a liberal law clerk or SCOTUS staffers to release the document would be readily apparent.

Even if the leaker faced disbarment or criminal charges, he or she would stand to reap the benefits of a book deal and progressive “heroism” (perhaps even a tenured professorship at a left-wing law school).

The leak is likely to set up Stalinist harassment and attacks on the court’s justices, who are accustomed to ruling independently of the political partisanship treasured by the left.

And yet, as some liberals argue, a conservative staffer who works for one of the court’s Republican-appointed justices could also have motives.

The leak may have been primed to solidify votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.

With Chief Justice John Robertspotentially unwilling to support the full termination of the 1973 ruling that created and enshrined a legal right to abortion, the court’s conservative justices will have to decide it in a thin 5-4 majority.

Putting the justices on record now supporting the draft ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito could lock down their votes in an expected June ruling, preventing last-minute reassessments on a case of huge consequence.

And yet, it’s worth noting that the law clerks typically hired to work at the Supreme Court are known to be risk-averse and committed to legal processes to an extreme.

Even partisan ideologues gunning for a career in the political-legal establishment would have been hesitant to leak draft documents.

The leak could even have been made possible through a compromise of Supreme Court computer systems, possibly by a foreign government. As some noted, one of the authors of the Politico piece was Alex Ward, a national security reporter. (The other author of the piece, Josh Gerstein, is Politico’s senior legal affairs reporter.)

foreign adversary working to radicalize American progressives through a combination of extremist disinformation and aggressive partisanship could’ve been responsible.
This would effectively distract the public from key national issues with a culture war in defense of a legally flawed and antiquated court ruling. Source

I will not venture to say who I believe may have leaked the SCOTUS Draft Decision, although my mind does wonder if this was a Leftist crime.

In our government, I have come to trust NO ONE.


WARNING: PAXLOVID Can be Deadly-Why Are Standards So Lax on Covid Therapeutic Drug Approvals?

Many readers will remember that my friend and neighbor of over 30 years died in the hospital from Covid. I have kept in touch with her sister since the death of Donna.

Donna’s sister and her husband got Covid and she told me about an “amazing” new therapeutic which was fast-tracked recently. She said that she was very ill and that she was given Paxlovid. She even said that she found it to be amazing that this drug was made available by the FDA so quickly. She told me that it did make her feel better, but she woke up in the middle of the night with a metallic taste in her mouth. Hmmmm……not good.

Oh, did I mention that Pfizer makes Paxlovid?


Many scientists made a career fighting for better regulatory standards. Strangely, when it comes to the regulatory policy around COVID-19, they are dead quiet. 

First, consider that EUA ( emergency use authorization ) is like accelerated approval. Both require lower levels of evidence, and are predicated on the fact that we’re dealing with a situation that is dire, with few available options. That’s the justification for lower standards, including acceptance of surrogates.

Next, consider that COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness in an older person, for instance someone over the age of 80. For an older person, it rivals cancer or heart disease.

But also consider that COVID-19 is a flu-like illness for most children, particularly in the era of Omicron. It would be incorrect to say children have ever faced an ’emergency’.

Now think about what regulatory experts have said for years. We should be cautious with accelerated approval. We should use it sparingly, and when appropriate. We can’t use accelerated approval for high blood pressure.

It’s naturally follows from this logic that the use of EUA for kids was unjustified. There was no emergency in those ages. The IFR was always comparable with flu. The appropriate regulatory pathway was biological licensing authorization. However, with the exception of a single article that I co-authored in the BMJ, I’m not aware of any one making this case.

Regulatory experts have told us for year that if outcomes are generally favorable, you need a very large randomized control trial to show a benefit. You can’t use a surrogate endpoint. They say, you have to use a measure of what matters to people. This means we should not accept disease-free survival, as it is an unreliable surrogate for adjuvant breast cancer. 

But now think of boosting a 20-year-old man. Antibody titers are also an unreliable surrogate endpoint. Boosting 20-year-olds should not come under the auspices of an EUA. You should do a very large randomized trial to show it has a benefit. And if you can’t run the trial because the sample size is too large that tells you something about how marginal the effect size is.

Think about what regulatory experts said about aducanumab. They said that only 6% of all Alzheimer’s patients would be eligible for the trial. Therefore, we should be careful about generalizing. 

Similarly, take Paxlovid. The only trials that have been published to support its use are in unvaccinated people. There are zero trial data published for vaccinated people. And yet the majority of the uses in vaccinated people. 

Why are the experts who say you can’t extrapolate aducanumab to all’s Alzheimer’s patients not saying you can’t extrapolate Paxlovid to all vaccinated people?

Why are those who say accelerated approval is abused not saying that EUA authority is abused when you move to children, who face thousandfold less times the risk?

Why are the same people who say we need large randomized trials for clinical outcomes for blood pressure pills dead silent on the question of boosting adolescents?

There are at least 3 possible reasons:

Number one. They have not made the connection between the same principles in their mind. This explanation should be rejected. Because you would have to be quite dense to not see the parallels. 

Number two. They think that it is a stronger argumentative position to press the issue in the world of non COVID-19 drugs than COVID-19 drugs. This is the great blunder of their thinking. When you push for the equal application of rational principles, you must push for the equal application of rational principles. If you think you can omit or make sacrosanct some category, then you are irrational. And your opponents can rightly argue that their categories should be exempted. Why should cancer have a higher standard than COVID?

If you want to persuade people on issues, you won’t persuade them if you don’t issue principles. Consistency and clarity hallmarks of clear thinking. 

Number three: They are scared to voice their opinion on COVID-19 issues because they are afraid of the mob. Quite possibly, this is it. And this is likely paired with the fact that it is to there career benefit to not comment on issues outside their perceived scope. And thus they can go to conferences for another 40 years saying the same thing they’ve always said without any progress or advancement. Or, as a friend of mine likes to say, no new ideas. 

I fear the right answer is number three. Even though most of these people run large groups or have tenure. They still are thinking of themselves.

And I think it has logical consequences. It’s the reason why people don’t want to be in the academy. You don’t have the freedom, or the incentive to fight when it actually matters. You labor under a curse. You can’t speak of the things that truly matter, when they matter. Your focus is narcissistic, and you will not accomplish any meaningful goals. And we will all fail together. Because regulatory science is just going to get worse and worse. 

And the industry is going to take advantage of the crack we have shown in our foundation.


FDA admits Pfizer antiviral oral drug paxlovid causes life-threatening reactions when taken with common medicines

The antiviral oral drug, paxlovid, that was developed by Pfizer to treat the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) can cause severe or life-threatening effects when used with common medications. The pill is also not recommended for people with severe kidney or liver disease.

On Dec. 22, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency use authorization for paxlovid. The drug supposedly prevents COVID patients with initial symptoms from becoming too ill and getting hospitalized. But the agency is now admitting that the drug can be fatal when used with common medications like statins, blood thinners and some antidepressants.

Pavloxid is recommended for patients 12 years old and above with mild to moderate symptoms of COVID-19.

Patrizia Cavazzoni, FDA’s director for Drug Evaluation and Research, said that the granting of EUA to paxlovid will provide a new tool to fight the virus as new variants emerge. “Paxlovid promises to make antiviral treatment more accessible to patients who are at risk for progression to severe COVID 19,” Cavazzoni said.

The Biden administration in November had already purchased some 10 million courses of paxlovid. It inked an agreement with Pfizer amounting to $5 billion.

The paxlovid cocktail is made up of two tablets of the antiviral nirmatrelvir and one tablet of ritonavir. Ritonavir suppresses a key liver enzyme called CYP3A, which metabolizes many medications, including nirmatrelvir. But when the paxlovid treatment is paired with other medications that are also metabolized by the CYP3A enzyme, the ritonavir component may boost the co-administered drugs to toxic levels.

Pfizer announced in December that the pill can reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by 89 percent when taken by those with COVID-19 symptoms. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Dec. 8 told CNBC that shipments of the pill have already arrived in the United States.

Paxlovid is said to be effective when taken by a suspected COVID-19 positive within three days. Data also suggests that it will be effective in combatting the omicron variant. But doctors and researchers agree that the pill will not stop the transmission of the COVID virus. (Related: Pfizer, Merck launch trials for new oral COVID-19 drugs you’ll have to take ALONGSIDE vaccines.)

Some doctors also expressed concerns that the availability of the oral drug will lead people away from vaccination. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), millions of Americans remain unvaccinated.

UK approves use of second oral COVID-19 pill

Meanwhile, the U.K.’s drug regulator also approved the use of paxlovid. According to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), paxlovid can be given to to people aged 18 and older with mild to moderate symptoms and who are at risk of developing severe disease.

For those who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, “this treatment could be life-saving,” said June Raine, chief executive of the MHRA.

The omicron coronavirus variant rapidly spreading across the U.K. has squeezed the availability of effective treatment options. The variant has mutations that can dodge the protective effects of Roche/Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody ronapreve, which has been used for some time in the country.

Paxlovid is the second oral antiviral to be conditionally approved for use in the United Kingdom. MSD/Ridgeback’s molnupiravir was also authorized on November 4, 2021. Both are used to treat people at home and both medicines must be given within five days of symptoms. SOURCE

Brothers and sisters, did you know that Remdesivir (a so-called therapeutic) was made by Gilead Health which is owned by Fauci, Gates and Soros??

Were you also aware that Remdesivir is a deadly drug which can cause multi-organ shut down?

Are the puzzle pieces falling into place??