DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF? MSNBC’s Ari Melber Worries Twitter Can Now ‘Ban One Party’s Candidate’ —SeriouslyThis is real.

On a recent episode of The Beat with Ari Melber, the MSNBC host shared his concern that, with Elon Musk running Twitter, “you could secretly ban one party’s candidate” —kind of like what already happened with former President Donald Trump.

Melber doesn’t see the irony.

“You could secretly ban one party’s candidate…secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else and the rest of us might not even find out about it until AFTER the election,” Melber says.

Watch the clip above —Twitter reactions below:

See more Twitter reactions on

BREAKING: Kamala Harris’ Approval Numbers Have Dropped To 28%, The Lowest In Modern History For A Vice President

BREAKING: Kamala Harris’ Approval Numbers Have Dropped To 28%, The Lowest In Modern History For A Vice President

BREAKING: Kamala Harris’ Approval Numbers Have Dropped To 28%, The Lowest In Modern History For A Vice President

Photo Source: AP

Republicans have a strong lead on the congressional ballot a year before the 2022 midterm elections, as President Joe Biden’s popularity rating drops to a record low of 38%. 

A USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll conducted from Wednesday to Friday indicated that Biden’s popularity has dwindled among the independent voters who gave him a one-year triumph against President Donald Trump. 

Advocates claim that Biden and his party are on the mend after the House passed a $1.2 trillion “hard” infrastructure plan late Friday, bringing it to Biden’s desk for his signature.

Stronger-than-expected employment growth was reported in an upbeat economic report issued Friday morning. However, the poll reveals the depth of the hole Democrats must climb out of as they prepare for the elections in a year – on Nov. 8, 2022 – that will determine congressional power and influence Biden’s second two years in office. The president’s opinions are currently sour.

The following are some of the findings:

  • Large percentage of those polled, 46%, believe Biden has performed worse than expected as president, including 16% of those who voted for him. Independents feel he’s done worse, not better, than they expected, by a 7-1 margin (44 percent -6 percent).
  • Nearly two-thirds of Americans, or 64%, do not want Biden to run for re-election in 2024. Democrats account for 28% of the total. Trump’s re-election in 2024 is opposed by 58 percent of voters, including 24 percent of Republicans.
  • Vice President Kamala Harris has a 28 percent approval rating, which is significantly worse than Biden’s. According to the poll, 51% of people disapprove of the job she’s doing. One in five people, or 21%, are undecided.
  • Americans are solidly in favor of the infrastructure package that Biden is about to sign, but they are divided on the more expensive and far-reaching “Build Back Better” legislation that is now being considered in Congress. Only one in four people believe the bill’s provisions will benefit them and their family.

Those polled said they would vote for their Republican congressional candidate over the Democratic one by 46 percent to 38 percent if the election were held today, an advantage that would help the GOP achieve a majority in the House and Senate. 

A president’s party normally loses ground in his first midterm election, but the GOP only needs to flip five seats in the House and one in the Senate to reclaim power. That scenario would make it much more difficult for Biden to enact legislation, which is already challenging in a Democratic-controlled Congress and would allow robust Republican supervision of his administration.

The poll, which was conducted by landline and cellphone among 1,000 registered voters, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Tony Emmi, 62, a retired health care worker from Wilmington, Delaware, who was among those surveyed, voted for Biden for president and derides Trump as “deceitful” and “malicious.” The Democrat, on the other hand, claims Biden hasn’t done enough to hold his party accountable and get things done. “I believe our country is heading in a bad manner,” Emmi adds.

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) believe the country is on the wrong road, while one-fifth (20%) believe it is on the right track. That’s not much different from the public’s unease in the last weeks of Trump’s presidency. The infrastructure package, which received bipartisan approval on Friday, is supported by a margin of 2-1 (61 percent to 32 percent) among those polled. 

A third of Republicans are among the backers. Kathleen Loyd, 70, a former juvenile court officer from Piedmont, Missouri, says, “We’re not keeping our infrastructure updated – I don’t mean recently updated, I mean since 1930, some of these things have been in existence.” When she drives, she avoids potholes and had to renovate her kitchen after a water main burst.

The “Build Back Better” bill, championed by House Democrats, has a split public. The $1.85 trillion measure is supported by 47 percent of those polled, while 44 percent reject it. 

More than $500 billion in climate change and sustainable energy financing is included in the massive package. Pre-K for all 3- and 4-year-olds would be established, the child tax credit would be extended for one year, Medicaid coverage would be expanded in some areas, Medicare hearing coverage would be added, and affordable housing initiatives would be funded. 

Most Americans aren’t convinced that the measure will help them, at least not yet, according to the White House and its friends. Those polled are slightly more inclined to believe that its policies would harm rather than aid their family (30% vs. 26%). Thirty-one percent believe it would have little impact.

These findings point to either a lack of communication on the part of the bill’s supporters or a gap between what people believe they need. “Is this budget bill out of hand? I’m not sure, “Nia Anderson, 45, a stay-at-home mother of three from the Twin Cities in Minnesota, agrees. She voted for Biden and believes he’s doing “great,” but she’s concerned about her children and family. 

She was getting ready to drive her three children, aged 13, 9, and 6, across town to obtain COVID-19 vaccines. “That’s what keeps me awake at night,” she explains. Congress receives poor marks in the poll, with only 12% approving and 75% disapproving. The Democratic Party in Congress has a 29 percent positive rating, while the Republican Party has a 35 percent favorable rating.

A blowout is common for the party of a president whose popularity rating has fallen below 50%. Republicans lost 41 House seats in the 2017 midterm elections, while Trump’s support rating was at 37%. Democrats lost 54 seats in the 1994 midterm elections, when President Bill Clinton’s support rating was at 48 percent. 

Since winning last year’s election, Biden has lost ground with voters, but Trump hasn’t gained any. Two-thirds of those polled said their view of Trump hasn’t changed in the previous year. Fourteen percent think their opinion of him has improved, while 19 percent believe it has deteriorated.

Trump, on the other hand, has a stronger hold on his core fans than Biden. Nearly 4 in 10 of those who voted for Biden last year say they hope he doesn’t seek for re-election; 50% say they hope he does. 1 in 4 people who voted for Trump last year hope he won’t run again, while 65 percent think he will. Lynda Ensenat, 54, a Trump voter and independent insurance adjuster from New Orleans, says, “I think he did a terrific job then, and I believe he’ll do a great job in the future.” “There’s a lot wrong with this society right now, and all the Democrat liberals are 100 percent for fixing it.”

Rapid Antigen Tests – Making “Viruses” Real Again

Rapid Antigen Tests – Making “Viruses” Real Again

Since February 2022, we have been told by the government that there has been an explosion of COVID-19 cases in New Zealand, as has occurred in most other countries following the purported discovery of the “highly infectious Omicron variant” in South Africa.  However, as I have previously explained, Omicron is as fictional as the original SARS-CoV-2 “virus”, which was invented, not discovered, in Wuhan by taking over 50 million small genetic fragments of unknown provenance and instructing a machine de novo to organise a selection of these “short reads” into a new genome using two other invented genomes as the reference templates.

Sticking a swab up your nose and other pointless activities, courtesy of the NZ Ministry of Health

These days, such “viral genomes”, which exist only in computers and cloud-based gene banks, are taken as proof by many intelligent people that pathogenic viruses exist in actuality and that the science is therefore settled.  After all, laboratories around the world continue to process samples that reference the invented genome called “SARS-CoV-2” and upload their computer models to databases such as GISAIDby the millions.  In fact, at the time of writing there are 9,605,822 “SARS-CoV-2 genomes” on the leaderboard as it climbs to the moon.  However, not one of these in silico-assembled genomic sequences has ever been shown to exist in nature, let alone come from inside a disease-causing particle.

Over the past two years, many people, both sceptics of and believers in the COVID-19 narrative, have come to the conclusion that the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is not a reliable way to diagnose “infections”, including, most recently, Dr Anthony Fauci.  For those aware of the deeper issues, it should be apparent that the PCR is not just unreliable in this application, but it is completely invalid.  Aside from all the other issuesrelated to the interpretation of crude nasopharyngeal sample test results, if the genetic sequences the PCR is calibrated to have not been shown to belong to a pathogenic microbe, what is it supposed to be testing for?  Never mind that as has been pointed out previously, COVID-19 is a meaningless clinical entity, with no specific symptoms, signs, or confirmatory investigations, and thus all COVID-19 PCR test results are worthless.  

Unfortunately, despite the above, even COVID sceptics appear to have been seduced by Rapid Antigen Testing (RAT), also known as lateral flow testing.  In fact, some have suggested that a bout of illness that corresponds to a positive result from one of these tests, can be presented as evidence that the “virus” exists – Sam recently responded to one such claim.  We also dealt with the issue of these pointless tests in early 2021, when they were rolled out in many countries around the world.  Essentially, it is one indirect test piggybacked on another indirect test (the PCR), with the latter having no established diagnostic validity.  This doesn’t stop RAT researchers from calling the PCR, the ‘gold standard’, and extending the nonsense of the casedemic a bit longer.  Put otherwise, because this phantom pandemic was built not on the basis of a clinical diagnosis of an illness but on the fraudulent misapplication of the PCR, a newer, cheaper and easy-to-use-at-home test for purportedly detecting the imaginary SARS-CoV-2 was introduced so as to perpetuate the fear of this phantom illness and to extend the life of its prescribed narrative.

Here in New Zealand, RAT is a relatively new phenomenon and it is currently all the rage for those participating in the COVID-19 circus.  On February 1, the government announced that  “along with the 5.1 million tests already in the country, New Zealanders will have access to over 55 million rapid antigen tests in the coming two months.”  Two weeks later, “cases” of the meaningless entity COVID-19 went parabolic.  In early March, RAT was said to be detecting 97 percent of these cases.  By that stage, Rapid Antigen Tests were being provided for “free” for all and sundry, with many feeling the need to test themselves or their children several times a day. 

I wonder what happened here?

Unlike the PCR, which amplifies selected genetic fragments, RAT purports to detect a protein, currentlythe “SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid” or ’N’-protein.  There are no published papers proving the existence and biochemical properties of a pathogen termed SARS-CoV-2, so the protein cannot be claimed to have any specificity to a “virus” – it is simply a protein class found in some humans and mammalian tissue culture experiments.  The typical test kit contains a membrane onto which a few drops of nasal-derived fluid are placed.  The fluid is drawn along the membrane and mixes with a fixed “anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody” (read: something that will react with the non-specific N-protein) conjugated with gold.  If this reaction occurs a visible bar is produced on the strip.  But what does this actually mean?

In October 2021, I contacted one of the government’s approved RAT suppliers and put several questions to them, including the following:

With regards to the new test you are advertising where can I find the following information?:

1. Its analytical sensitivity and specificity. 

2. Its diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.

Email to NZ Government approved RAT supplier, Oct 2021.

In December 2021, they sent an email back to me with colourful promotional pamphlets produced by the Ministry of Health and an offer to buy a box of 25 test kits for NZ$260 + GST, but with no answers to my questions. 

When we sought information about the accuracy of Rapid Antigen Testing, we consulted a section titled “RAT results and their accuracy” on the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH) website, which claims that the tests “are quick and relatively simple to do but are not as accurate at telling whether you have COVID-19 as the PCR test you may have had before.”  In other words: they are completely useless.  We found that below this section is another section titled “PCR test results accuracy” which continues to conflate the analytical specificity of the PCR to detect pre-selected genetic fragments, with its diagnostic specificity for a condition (“COVID-19”).  We pointed out this fundamental error to the MOH (and even lodged a complaint) a long time ago but they continue to refer to a website that contains only analytical performance data of the tests in a laboratory. 

The wonders of circular reasoning!

If you read a typical manufacturer’s product information, you will see incredible performance claims, such as this onereporting their kit as having a specificity of 99.8%.  But specificity for what exactly?  The methodology reveals that they have compared their RAT kit results to PCR results “using an FDA EUA RT-PCR reference method.”  As has been pointed out already, this has nothing to do with diagnosing a clinical condition: it is simply comparing one in vitromolecular reaction with another in the laboratory.  They didn’t seem too worried that the PCR protocol they compared their test against was positive in 50 out of 483 asymptomatic subjects.  But these subjects with no illness whatsoever have COVID-19 according to the WHO, as a “confirmed case” simply requires a positive PCR result!  (And just as ridiculously for a confirmed case: “an asymptomatic person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT who is a contact of a probable or confirmed case.”)  In this new world of “pandemics”, diseases no longer require people to be unwell apparently.

So, in this application, RAT is as pointless as using the PCR for diagnostics: they are both equally meaningless. Unfortunately, RAT has become one of New Zealand’s most common pursuits in recent weeks and hundreds of thousands of people now think they have the “virus”. There are certainly a lot of sick people I’m seeing, but in my assessment it has nothing to do with a novel pathogen. Two years of draconian restrictions, face masks, government-concocted fear narratives, and being gulled into accepting toxic injections have taken their toll on the island nation. Many are deconditioned, demoralised, and socially isolated. In the latest chapter of COVID mass formation, the RAT frenzy has convinced many that, whatever symptoms they have (or don’t have), the test kit informs them it is all due to a “virus”, even though the chemical reaction they are witnessing on their little test strip does not require the existence of one. It certainly keeps the COVID narrative alive but hopefully more will wake up soon and ignore the nonsense when they realise that it has all been part of The Viral Delusion.