Trump DOJ takes aim at Wikipedia's tax-exempt status over alleged violations, 'propaganda'



The Trump administration is working to ensure that institutions granted federal funding and tax-exempt status are compliant with federal law and policy.

Shortly after putting woke medical journals that receive funding from the National Institutes of Health on blast over their alleged bias, Edward Martin Jr., the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, announced an investigation into Wikipedia.

Martin noted in an April 24 letter obtained by the Free Press that "Wikipedia, which operates via its fiscal sponsor, the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., is engaging in a series of activities that could violate its obligations under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code."

The statute cited by Martin holds that tax-exempt organizations must be:

organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

The IRS law notes further that tax-exempt organizations are not to "carry on" propaganda, attempt to influence legislation, or "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Martin suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation, through Wikipedia, "is allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public," and is "permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security of the United States."

'Most readers assume Wikipedia is a reliable online encyclopedia, but in reality, it has become a biased platform.'

Blaze News previously reported that editors at Wikipedia, whose parent company spent nearly 30% of its 2023-2024 budget on DEI programs,

  • tried to hide Vice President JD Vance's military accomplishments in the lead-up to the 2024 election;
  • strategically eliminated any mention of Kamala Harris' appointment as border czar on the site's list of executive branch czars;
  • advocated deleting the entry detailing the mass killings executed by communist regimes, citing an anti-communist bias;
  • blacklisted right-leaning sources such as Blaze News, the Washington Free Beacon, the Federalist, RedState, the Media Research Center, and the Alexander Hamilton-founded New York Post and effectively prohibits their citation in articles, all but guaranteeing a site-wide leftist bias;
  • smears right-wing figures;
  • labeled Elon Musk's temporary suspension of journalists who allegedly violated his platform's terms of service as the "Thursday Night Massacre"; and
  • deceived readers about the history, existence, and nature of cultural Marxism, characterizing the well-defined and well-chronicled offshoot of Marxism as a "conspiracy theory."

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia suffers a "significant liberal bias in the choice of news media sources."

Wikipedia — which still claimed at the time of publication that COVID-19 lab leak "explanations are not supported by science" — has not only been criticized for being a repository of leftist propaganda but for its alleged "widespread antisemitic and anti-Israel" content.

While previously silent on the suppression of conservative voices, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League — whose censorious outfit Wikipedia categorized as an "unreliable source" last year — stated last month that "most readers assume Wikipedia is a reliable online encyclopedia, but in reality, it has become a biased platform manipulated by agenda-driven editors on many topics."

The ADL alleged that a group of at least 30 editors "acted in concert to circumvent Wikipedia's policies to introduce antisemitic narratives, anti-Israel bias, and misleading information."

Martin, who has reportedly been aiding the Justice Department's Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, noted in his letter, "Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia's 'educational' mission."

The D.C. attorney also took issue with Wikipedia's apparent direction from a board "composed primarily of foreign nationals, subverting the interests of American taxpayers."

Martin indicated that his office has received information that "demonstrates that Wikipedia's informational management policies benefit foreign powers."

'The public is entitled to rely on a reasonable expectation of neutrality, transparency, and accountability.'

Martin expressed additional concern about the amplification of the leftist and foreign propaganda on Wikipedia, noting that search engines such as Google have prioritized Wikipedia results, and AI platforms train their large-language models on Wikipedia data.

The Department of Justice has requested that the Wikimedia Foundation provide information by May 15 concerning its policy and operations, including what:

  • safeguards it has in place to both protect the public "from the dissemination of propaganda," and to fulfill its legal and ethical obligations as a tax-exempt organization;
  • actions the foundation takes when confronted with editor misconduct and/or coordinated efforts to "use editorial or administrative authority to systematically distort content";
  • the foundation does to ensure editorial transparency and accountability;
  • steps the foundation has taken to counter foreign influence operations;
  • efforts are taken to ensure a broad spectrum of viewpoints are represented, even if at odds with institutional backers; and
  • third-party entities the foundation has contracted with to use, redistribute, or process Wikipedia content.

"As a nonprofit corporation, which is incorporated in the District of Columbia, the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to specific legal obligations and fiduciary duties consistent with its tax-exempt status," wrote Martin. "The public is entitled to rely on a reasonable expectation of neutrality, transparency, and accountability in its operations and publications."

Although it did not acknowledge Martin's latter, the Wikimedia Foundation claimed in a statement obtained by the Washington Post that Wikipedia's content was governed by policies that ensure information is presented as "accurately, fairly and neutrally as possible."

"Wikipedia is one of the last places online that shows the promise of the internet, housing more than 65 million articles written to inform, not persuade," said the statement. "Our vision is a world in which every single human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

UK nurse shocks live TV audience: 'If you’ve voted Conservative, you do not deserve to be resuscitated by the NHS'



After President Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981, as he was about to undergo surgery, he joked to the doctors, "I sure hope all of you out there are Republicans!" His surgeon, a liberal Democrat, replied, "Today, we're all Republicans," in what was unquestionably a compassionate and dutiful response.

A nurse in the United Kingdom is under fire for having the opposite response after she said on live television that conservative voters do not deserve to be resuscitated by the National Health Service.

Miranda Hughes, a registered nurse with the NHS, made those highly inflammatory and controversial comments during a debate on "Britain on the Brink," hosted by Jeremy Vine. Her remarks drew swift backlash, with many calling for her to be suspended by the NHS or fired from her job.

“I could not handle the emotional stress of not being able to deliver for my patients," she said on the program. "You’re squeezed to a point, you can't treat them how you want to treat them. You’re told persistently on the news that care homes are being ring fenced. It’s a lie.”

"I’m sorry," she continued, "but if you’ve voted Conservative, you do not deserve to be resuscitated by the NHS.”

 
\u201cRegistered nurse Miranda Hughes says she is being sacked for saying Tory voters do not deserve to be resuscitated by the NHS. \n\nDoes she deserve to lose her job?\u201d
— TalkTV (@TalkTV) 1664960772 
 

Her outburst caused members of the live audience to gasp and shake their heads. “It’s harsh, but I’m looking at these gentlemen and it makes me so angry,” she said before backtracking.

"Of course, I would [resuscitate Conservative patients], but it's appalling the way we've been treated," she said.

The sound bite provoked outrage online, where Hughes was condemned for essentially wishing millions of U.K. voters dead.

"How can a nurse who is responsible for the health care of others continue in her job, if she believes 14 million patients should be left to die? The two are wholly incompatible: Miranda Hughes must go," former journalist and member of the European Parliament Martin Daubney tweeted.

"This isn't 'cancel culture.' It's the consequences of being an unbridled bigot," he added.

 
\u201cHow can a nurse who is responsible for the health care of others continue in her job, if she believes 14 million patients should be left to die? The two are wholly incompatible: Miranda Hughes must go. This isn't "cancel culture". It's the consequences of being an unbridled bigot\u201d
— Martin Daubney \ud83c\uddec\ud83c\udde7 (@Martin Daubney \ud83c\uddec\ud83c\udde7) 1664965892 
 

"This repellant woman #MirandaHughes was an utter disgrace to her profession before rightly sacked by the private hospital where she worked. She should never, ever, be allowed to work again in health or social care," said British media personality Christine Hamilton.

 
\u201cThis repellant woman #MirandaHughes was an utter disgrace to her profession before rightly sacked by the private hospital where she worked. She should never, ever, be allowed to work again in health or social care.\u201d
— Christine Hamilton (@Christine Hamilton) 1664964477 
 

Following the outcry, Hughes told the Telegraph she is set to lose her job with a south London-based private hospital.

"They can do that to me because of their media policy. I am not allowed to say anything. I have brought the company into disrepute. So yes, I am being sacked," she said in an interview.

“The reason I went on the program was that you cannot care for your patients. It’s impossible. Because I care too much. And even Jeremy Vine said to me, 'Working in the NHS broke you.'

“Well, yes it has, and it’s broken me again. I can’t do what’s right, and it frustrates the hell out of me because I’ve been sick myself. I’ve had to watch people die, and there are no resources to help.

"That is the point I was trying to make, and yet I had someone goading me from the other side of the studio and laughing. It made me so angry, and I directed the comment at him,” she said.

"I lost my temper and I said something inappropriate. Now I am going to lose my job because the Twitterati have gone to town," she added. "I am being vilified for being some monster that doesn’t care, and unfortunately, the problem is I care too much."

The Telegraph reported that Huges, a registered nurse with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, could face an investigation over whether her comments breached its professional code if someone files a complaint.

"Our Code is clear that professionals on our register must promote professionalism and trust at all times. Where concerns are raised with us, we'll always look into it and consider taking action if needed," the council said.

America's largest defense contractors have extensive ties to the Chinese government and military



Several of the largest defense contractors in the U.S. have extensive ties to the government of China and the Communist Chinese Party.

Raytheon, Bell Flight, and Boeing — three of the nation’s most prolific defense contractors — continue to maintain close relationships with firms that conduct business with the Chinese government. Fox News reported that Lockheed Martin has business interests in China.

Issac Stone Fish, the CEO and founder of Strategy Risks, a China risk consultancy company, warned that these defense contractors’ relationships with the Chinese government present severe risks for the U.S.

Fish said, “Doing a relatively significant amount of business in China changes the risk profile now more than ever for any U.S. company, whether for compliance, cyber, reputation, security or other risks.”

“Those risks are particularly critical for companies that safeguard U.S. national defense and security," he continued. "U.S. defense contractors need to better understand their risk exposure to China and the Chinese Communist Party, so they can reduce their China risks to better serve the needs of the U.S. military and national security."

Two of Raytheon’s subsidiary companies, Pratt & Whitney (P&W) and Collins Aerospace Systems, have ties to the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army.

P&W is a prominent player in the Chinese market and maintains offices in Shanghai and Beijing. P&W also reportedly powers two-fifths of China’s civilian helicopters with its engine technology. The company also manufactures engines for the Chinese state-owned Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, which is intimately tied to the People’s Liberation Army.

P&W also has joint ventures with Chinese companies including China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC) and Xi’an Aircraft.

AVIC is a conglomerate owned by the Chinese government and is tied to the People’s Liberation Army. It was previously placed on the Treasury Department’s Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List and the Commerce Department’s Entity List.

Collins Aerospace Systems, Raytheon’s other subsidiary in China, has more than 15 locations and nine joint ventures in the Chinese mainland.

The company’s website said, “For close to 40 years, Collins Aerospace has been demonstrating our commitment to China. Our growing presence in China has been made possible by our company’s significant investments in the country as well as strong corporate and personal relationships that have been formed over the last three decades.”

Bell Trexton, another contractor that produces military-grade aircraft, has a whole page on its website dedicated to its “China Service Center.”

Bell’s website says, “Zhenjiang Bell Textron Aviation Services Center offers comprehensive maintenance, repair and overhaul services to our customers in the Greater China region, including Macao, Hong Kong, and Mongolia. Our in-country product and customer support engineers will ensure your aircraft is ready and operational at all times.”

Horowitz: Science mag that warned about danger of leaky vaccines in 2018 posts false editor’s note to cover for COVID shots



Leaky vaccines are worse than no vaccine at all. That is the unmistakable conclusion one would derive from a May 2018 article in Quanta magazine, a top scientific publication, about the unsuccessful attempts to create vaccines for HIV, malaria, and anthrax that aren’t leaky and don’t run the risk of making the pathogens more dangerous.

Yet now that we are seeing such a microbiological Frankenstein play out in real life and people like Dr. Robert Malone have been citing this article to raise red flags about the leaky COVID shots, Quanta magazine took the unprecedented step of slapping an editor’s note on an article three and a half years later to get people to stop applying it to the leakiest vaccine of all time.

  

But the assertion that the shots reduce transmission is patently false, and the fact that these vaccines indeed don’t stop transmission or reduce viral load makes them the perfect candidate for the nightmare scenario the article’s author, Melinda Wenner Moyer, once warned about.

In order to distract from the failure of the shots to stop transmission, the injection cult focused on their purported ability to protect against severe illness. But as so many more vaccinated became severely ill as well – following like clockwork the timeline of events we witnessed from the leaky Marek’s disease chicken vaccine – they then focused on boosters to distract from the next failure. But any way you slice it, there is no way to run or hide from the fact that these shots have not reduced transmission one iota. In fact, some of the most prolific spreads are happening in places with near-universal vaccination rates among adults, often the most vaccinated region in the country having the highest number of cases per capita.

In many ways, this vaccine is much leakier than even the ones Moyer warned about in 2018. This is why Israel needs to authorize a fourth shot already for those with three shots, just to get them some protection from serious illness. The Pfizer CEO declared this week that in the U.S., “I think we will need a fourth dose.” At least 68 health care workers in a Spanish hospital got the virus despite already having been jabbed three times. 90% of those who recently rested positive on a flight from South Africa to the Netherlands were vaccinated, and all 14 who tested positive for Omicron were vaccinated. And of course, there is no denying the negative efficacy we are seeing on infection rates in the U.K. among the vaccinated.

Studies have consistently shown that transmission rates and viral loads were not different from vaccinated to unvaccinated people. An Oxford study even showed that the vaccinated did not experience lower rates of “long COVID” from infection. Researchers from the CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team recently posted a preprint study of prisoners and found that “no significant differences were detected in duration of RT-PCR positivity among fully vaccinated participants (median: 13 days) versus those not fully vaccinated (median: 13 days; p=0.50), or in duration of culture positivity.” They concluded, “Clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.”

So now that we’ve established that, contrary to the editors of Quanta, the vaccine is as leaky as it comes, what are the consequences? The 2018 article warns that unlike standard vaccines that drop in efficacy over time, leaky vaccine “failures caused by vaccine-induced evolution are different” because “these drops in vaccine effectiveness are incited by changes in pathogen populations that the vaccines themselves directly cause.” Moyer warns that RNA viruses have “a mutation rate as much as 100,000 times greater than that found in human DNA.”

But what if you threw 8.23 billion doses (and counting) of a leaky, non-sterilizing vaccine up against a mutant-prone RNA virus like a coronavirus? While the article focuses on potential leaky vaccines for HIV and malaria, working from the lesson of the Marek’s disease chicken vaccine, the concern that “these new vaccines may incite a different, and potentially scarier, kind of microbial evolution” should apply doubly for the COVID shots. Quoting professor Andrew Read of Penn State, Moyer shows how leaky vaccines in humans could potentially allow the virus to have its cake and eat it too – become very transmissible while remaining dangerously virulent, just like the learned experience with Marek’s chickens.

The problem with leaky vaccines, Read says, is that they enable pathogens to replicate unchecked while also protecting hosts from illness and death, thereby removing the costs associated with increased virulence. Over time, then, in a world of leaky vaccinations, a pathogen might evolve to become deadlier to unvaccinated hosts because it can reap the benefits of virulence without the costs — much as Marek’s disease has slowly become more lethal to unvaccinated chickens. This virulence can also cause the vaccine to start failing by causing illness in vaccinated hosts.

It's hard not to get goose bumps when observing that this is exactly what has been occurring since around July – roughly when the vaccines began leaking. The virus became extremely transmissible and was at least as virulent, as so many younger and healthier people were crushed by the virus. First it appeared to mainly affect the unvaccinated, then over time, as witnessed by the weekly data reports from the U.K., it began affecting even the protection from serious illness in the vaccinated – to the point that public health authorities could no longer hide the failure and had to throw a hail Mary calling for boosters.

 
12.2.21: UK infection rates among fully vaxxed remain higher vs the unvaxxed in most adult cohorts. Both vaxxed & unvaxxed of all ages continue to get infected & spread - and in most age groups, the vaxxed much more so - rendering vaxx passports & mandates pointless.pic.twitter.com/vJPLnW0Rrv
— Don Wolt (@Don Wolt) 1638466743 
 

Moyer notes that Read found a similar phenomenon with a leaky malaria vaccine in mice as with Marek’s disease vaccines in chickens:

In a 2012 paper published in PLOS Biology, Read and Vicki Barclay, his postdoc at the time, inoculated mice with a component of several leaky malaria vaccines currently being tested in clinical trials. They then used these infected-but-not-sick mice to infect other vaccinated mice. After the parasites circulated through 21 rounds of vaccinated mice, Barclay and Read studied them and compared them to malaria parasites that had circulated through 21 rounds of unvaccinated mice. The strains from the vaccinated mice, they found, had grown far more virulent, in that they replicated faster and killed more red blood cells. At the end of 21 rounds of infection, these more quickly growing, deadly parasites were the only ones left.

Now extrapolate that nightmare to humans, and you will understand the insane infection rates of a virulent virus creating death and mayhem since July at much higher rates than we saw before the vaccines ever appeared. Researchers at Queen Mary, University of London, noticed a strange phenomenon from ONS England mortality data that seemed to show a spike in deaths from the unvaccinated every time there was a large vaccination drive.

 
4.Correlating unvaccinated mortality with vaccine roll out we see curious patterns (dotted line the proportion of people getting first and second doses). Why are the unvaccinated dying after NOT getting the 1st dose? Why are the single dosed dying after NOT getting the 2nd dose?pic.twitter.com/dgLL3CFBGd
— Martin Neil (@Martin Neil) 1638550769 
 

What would the two factors have to do with each other? Could this be the effect of those vaccinated with a leaky virus – before their protection from severe illness wears off – absolutely blasting the unvaccinated with a more virulent and aggressive virus made stronger by the suboptimal evolutionary pressure placed upon it by the vaccine?

Moyer ends the article by noting that, as Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has warned, “the most crucial need right now is for vaccine scientists to recognize the relevance of evolutionary biology to their field.” However, she quotes Professor Read as saying that “researchers are afraid: They’re nervous to talk about and call attention to potential evolutionary effects because they fear that doing so might fuel more fear and distrust of vaccines by the public.”

So even three years ago, vaccination was just as sacrosanct in that you were not allowed to raise any red flags about flaws in some vaccines. And that is what we are seeing today. No matter how many red flags we see with this vaccine – from individual injuries to micro-evolutionary concerns about creating stronger resistant strains – you can never question any form of vaccine under any circumstance for any reason. And doing so will even get the publication to place an editor’s note three and a half years after publication wrongly suggesting that the leakiest vaccine of all time doesn’t leak.

Indeed, professor Read has already been forced to publicly denounce any comparison of COVID shots to his research on leaky vaccines, even if that required him to falsely assert that the COVID shots reduce transmission.

As New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern warned, “There’s not going to be an endpoint to this vaccination program.”

  New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern says "There’s not going to be an endpoint to this vaccination program" www.youtube.com 

She is correct. There is no endpoint to a leaky vaccine that directly induces viral immune escape. Precisely because those vaccines don’t work and actually make the virus stronger are why there is always a need for more vaccines that will make even more resistant pathogens so you can keep vaccinating and use the fear generated from the failures of the first round to facilitate the marketing of the second round. After all, we wouldn’t want a vaccine program to become a victim of its own success.