Dr Jeffrey Jaxen

Former seven-term congressman Dr. David Weldon was chosen by President-elect Donald Trump going into this past weekend to serve as director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Amidst the flurry of possible appointments grabbing headlines, Dr. Weldon has the opportunity to change the way America has handled public health for decades.The Washington Post described Dr. Weldon in the second sentence of its breaking news article as “…a strong critic of the CDC, especially its vaccine program.” The reporting meant the sentence to be a negative, ironically, it’s probably now a breath of fresh air for most Americans post-COVID.

“…increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves” wrote Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, less than a month ago when admitting most people don’t believe corporate/legacy media anymore. It’s like WAPO’s recent reporting on Weldon already forgot this warning.

The New York Times claimed that Dr. Weldon was “skeptical of vaccine safety,” a designation that would have worked to neutralize his voice in years past when the outlet still garnered attention and respect.

STAT News wrote, “The former Florida congressman sponsored legislation that would have carved out the CDC’s vaccine safety research…”

The Vaccine Safety Bill to ‘carve out research’ Dr. Weldon introduced in 2007 wanted to establish an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services to handle the nation’s vaccine safety. His reasoning at the time was that the CDC had an inherent conflict of interest being responsible for both vaccine safety and promotion—an issue unchanged to this day.

In Weldon, the public also finds a rare leader who has been willing to ask politically forbidden questions about links between vaccines and autism along with the greater questions about health outcomes of children receiving HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule compared with children who had not been vaccinated. In addition to why there’s been limited investigation to determine what children may be as risk of being harmed by vaccines.

“The thing I continue to find extremely disturbing is the fact that the CDC still does not allow researchers access to the vaccine safety data…The best way to get answers on the vaccine safety data is to open it up and let objective scientists come in and look at it.” –Rep. Dave Weldon at the Vaccines & Autism House Government Reform Committee 2002

One of the key data tranches Weldon is referring is vaccine safety datalink or VSD. A monitoring system using electronic health record data from health sites around the country to assess vaccine safety and detect adverse events in near-real time. Also a system that the public and independent researchers are blocked from accessing.

Besides the possibility of allowing the sunlight of independent researchers to comb through once-hidden vaccine data while dedicating resources to health-affirming tools outside of one-size-fits-all shots, Dr. Weldon will have veto power over the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

ACIP makes recommendations about which vaccines are added to the U.S. schedule, among other decisions. The committee needs final approval from the director of the CDC to implement their calls. Dr. Weldon would hold a power position over a committee who unanimously rubber-stamped every COVID vaccine and booster from infants to the elderly, among other questionable call throughout the years leading to reduced public trust.

Another approach long-called for, and even once implemented by the CDC, would be to automate their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to instantly detect and report potential safety issues with the shots they promote.

In 2006 this was attempted through a $1M HHS grant to create a spontaneous reporting system to VAERS at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. The researchers found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” yet predictably, the CDC never followed up.

As many new to this conversation are rushing the gates to further their careers or gain influence and power on the back of the rapid political change we find ourselves at the beginning of, there have been those holding a strong space with little fanfare. Dr. Dave Weldon is one such individual.

His decades-long hopes to reform the CDC and, more importantly, protect American children and families from unrestrained harms brought upon so many by liability-free injectable pharmaceutical products which have enjoyed a privileged position away from full public and scientific scrutiny may soon see the light of day.

[…]

Via https://jeffereyjaxen.substack.com/p/corporate-media-meltdown-over-trumps

The Last Refuge

The President Trump transition team has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to start the process of transferring control of the federal government.  The landing teams from each of the cabinets will now begin to engage with their exiting counterparts.

There were many articles written about the delays in signing the agreements.  However, President Trump waited until he has his cabinet fully assembled before signing the first part that permits the landing teams to engage.  The second part with government provided offices and technology is NOT being accepted.

President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, announced the Trump transition team has refused to sign an MOU with the Government Services Administration (GSA), and will not be using cell phones, computers, offices or “any technology” provided by the GSA.  This is a smart move to avoid the Deep State surveillance situation that was faced in the first term.

In the first Trump administration, the GSA had wiretaps, office bugs, and gave all the electronic communication information from the Trump transition to the FBI, IC and later Robert Mueller. In essence, the GSA spied on the Trump team, then gave all the data to the operatives who were in place to target them.  The Trump team is not making this mistake again.

The Trump transition team is also not going to use the office space provided by the GSA and will instead have their own offices and security systems in place to coordinate the transition to power. From Politico:

WASHINGTON DC – […] The Trump team’s unprecedented delay in signing these agreements, weeks after being declared the winner of the election, had alarmed former officials and ethics experts who warned it could lead to conflicts of interest and leave the new government unprepared to govern on Day One.

In the Tuesday announcement, Wiles suggested the Trump transition will not sign a separate agreement with the General Services Administration, which would have allowed them to receive federal funding, cybersecurity support and government office space, pledging instead to fund the transition with private dollars, run it out of private facilities, and deploy their own “existing security and information protections” for sensitive data.

The transition, Wiles said, “will operate as a self-sufficient organization, adding that declining government funding will “save taxpayers’ hard-earned money.”

And while Wiles also pledged in the Tuesday statement to publicly disclose the private donors to the transition and “not accept foreign donations,” there will be no legal mechanism to enforce those promises of transparency.

The lack of federal cybersecurity support could also make the Trump transition a softer target for foreign hackers — who already successfully penetrated the campaign earlier this year.

“That’s something that in 2020 was maybe the single most important worry of the [Biden] transition team — that they would be hacked, and all of this information, including intelligence information, personal information about job applicants, would be threatened,” said Heath Brown, an associate professor of public policy at CUNY’s John Jay College who wrote a book about Biden’s transition. “It’s imperative that the Trump Transition Team has installed the proper procedures to protect itself.”

White House spokesperson Saloni Sharma said the Biden administration is concerned about the ramifications of their successors forgoing GSA support, but remains “committed to an orderly transition.”

“While we do not agree with the Trump transition team’s decision to forgo signing the GSA MOU, we will follow the purpose of the Presidential Transition Act which clearly states that ‘any disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and wellbeing of the United States and its people,’” she said.

In the White House memo, Sharma added, the Trump transition “agreed to important safeguards to protect non-public information and prevent conflicts of interest, including who has access to the information and how the information is shared,” and also agreed to publicly share the ethics agreements it is imposing on its own employees. (read more)

[…]

Via https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/11/26/trump-transition-team-signs-modified-white-house-agreement-without-govt-technology-to-conduct-surveillance/

Hooper’s War

The war has begun. It’s Trump, Elon, Vivek Ramaswamy, and their new Department of Government Efficiency versus the Federal bureaucracy in a no-holds barred cage deathmatch. The first punches have been thrown; who will win? At stake are your tax dollars.

U.S. election night 2024 was a somber affair in Europe, as U.S. officials in most European capitals abandoned the usual watch parties. Watch parties used to be a long-standing American diplomatic tradition, held at embassies with invited local guests to watch the election results dribble in, showcasing our democracy. Great care was taken to make the party patriotic but not partisan; both candidates were featured and usually a mock election was held, with host country government officials voting one way or another. About the only bad part of the night was listening to American diplomats like me struggling to explain the Electoral College system in bad Mandarin or high school Spanish.

But there were few parties this year, thanks to what some call “The Trump Effect.” Many officials are still hurting from the 2016 election that left many top members of America’s diplomatic corps exposed as they absorbed the killer election results in front of journalists, foreign diplomats, and local officials. “I don’t think there was appetite to watch another Trump victory,” said a senior American diplomat based in Europe, adding that the 2016 embassy events had been “calamitous.” “The decision to nix election night festivities may also reflect the unusually politicized nature of America’s diplomatic corps. There is deep unease about the strength of the U.S. democratic system after disputes about the outcome of the 2020 election led to an attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters,” says Politico.

With that as a scene-setter, Washington bureaucracy is preparing for war. Months before the election, in April 2024, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued new protective guidance to agencies as they implemented regulations strengthening “guard rails” on the conversion of career federal workers out of the civil service and into the excepted service. This refers to the infamous Schedule F planned by Trump as one of his Day One initiatives.

OPM’s regulations establish a definition of “policy-related” jobs, whittling it down to escape Trump’s campaign definition by referring only to noncareer political appointments, and stipulating when an employee’s position is “involuntarily” converted out of the Civil Service, they retain “the status and civil service protections they had already accrued,” which would render the new rules of Schedule F moot. OPM’s version also grants federal workers the right to appeal any job reclassifications resulting in the loss of civil service protections to the Merit Systems Protection Board, a creaky-slow agency which could tie up Trump’s changes for years, case-by-slogging-case.

But despite Biden’s OPM efforts to protect the federal workforce from any upcoming Schedule F changes, analysts say there may be little the bureaucracy can do to stop them. Even the April 2024 rule could easily be rescinded, either after a 90-day notice-and-comment period or immediately with a new interim final rule. Schedule F fights can be expected to get deep into the weeds of how the U.S. government system works (or doesn’t work) through its tangle of regulations and laws. Never mind snatching returning rockets from the air and self-driving cars, Elon Musk will have met the most complex challenge of his time. Give Elon a hand by delving into the dense OPM’s guidance on Schedule F yourself.

So what is Schedule F anyway? Though it failed to go into practice, in Term 1.0 Trump issued an executive order that would have stripped firing protections from many civil servants. This effort was labeled “Schedule F” because that is the name of the new employment category the executive order created (Schedules A–E already existed.) The administration created Schedule F based on language exempting positions “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character” from employment protections. Previous administrations and Congress always understood the language to apply only to a smaller number of positions traditionally filled by political appointees, Schedule C, not civil servants.

The civil service was once a good idea in theory to protect workers from politics and make sure the mail got sorted and the tariffs got collected. But fast forward to today and all sorts of employees, including many in organs like the National Security Council and the State Department, are now civil servants. Their protections against political interference have only grown stronger over the years, to the point where it is near impossible to fire one of them, even for cause. This leads to the legendary “lifetime jobs” most civil servants enjoy.

The problem is that some of those civil servants are in positions to oppose the president’s initiatives. They can block action relatively safely, protected as they are from being fired. This is what Trump wants to change in Term 2.0. He wants to be able to fire some of these servants at will. They will not go away easily. The terms are tough; Vivek has vowed to cut 75 percent of the federal workforce.

“This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in government waste, which is a lot of people,” Elon said.

Elon and Vivek are not fighting alone.

Some in Congress are already thinking ahead, anticipating the push-back from the affected civil servants. The Stop Resistance Activities by Federal Employees Act (STRAFE) would penalize federal employees if they obstruct a lawful order from administration officials. It requires agencies to report alleged violations to the White House every six months. Representative August Pfluger’s (R-Texas) Act directs OPM to craft new mandatory training for senior federal employees on the penalties imposed if they were to oppose, obstruct or impede directives from the president, vice president or any other political appointee.

“Career unelected bureaucrats cannot be allowed to undermine the agenda of any future president,” said Congressman Pfluger.”We must ensure that the network of federal employees that brazenly carried out resistance activities under the first Trump Administration is not unleashed again.” The STRAFE Act is designed to mitigate resistance within federal agencies, ensuring a more cooperative and compliant federal workforce.

STRAFE has four components: 1) training for federal employees clearly outlining prohibited activities intended to obstruct or undermine the directives of the sitting administration; 2) penalties, on par with Hatch Act violations, for federal employees who engage in resistance activities (civil penalties can reach $1,000); 3) an external complaint reporting process, bypassing the traditional Inspector General channels within agencies, to ensure a more transparent system and 4) periodic reports from each federal agency to the Executive Office of the President, providing updates on complaints and status of actions taken against those engaging in resistance activities.

Needless to say, civil service advocacy groups oppose the STRAFE Act, saying STRAFE and Schedule F are just veiled efforts to politicize the federal workforce.

“The election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States is not the result our union was hoping for,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. Matt Biggs, national president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers said “it feels different—in 2016, he was still something of an unknown. Now we have Trump’s first term anti-union executive orders and Schedule F on top of that, and we have Project 2025, the blueprint of exactly what they’re going to do. So it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out exactly what they have planned. As a union that represents federal employees, we have to prepare to defend our members.”

[…]

Via https://wemeantwell.com/blog/2024/11/26/trump-v-the-bureaucracy/

Watt’s Up with That

A two-day climate conference in Prague, organised by the Czech division of the international Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), which took place on November 12-13 in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague, “declares and affirms that the imagined and imaginary ‘climate emergency’ is at an end”.

The communiqué, drafted by the eminent scientists and researchers who spoke at the conference, makes clear that for several decades climate scientists have  systematically exaggerated the influence of CO₂ on global temperature.

The high-level scientific conference also declared:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.”

The declaration supports the conclusions of the major Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC [presented to the Conference by Marcel Crok, Clintel’s co-founder].

Moreover, the scientists at the conference declared that even if all nations moved straight to net zero emissions, by the 2050 target date the world would be only about 0.1 C cooler than with no emissions reduction.

So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas.

The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.

Finally, the conference “calls upon the entire scientific community to cease and desist from its persecution of scientists and researchers who disagree with the current official narrative on climate change and instead to encourage once again the long and noble tradition of free, open and uncensored scientific research, investigation, publication and discussion”.

The full text of the communiqué follows:

The International Scientific Conference of the Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague assembled on the Twelfth and Thirteenth Days of November 2024, has resolved and now declares as follows, that is to say –

1. The modest increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.
2. Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
3. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.
4. The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.
5. Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual.
6. Climate models are inherently incapable of telling us anything about how much global warming there will be or about whether or to what extent the warming has a natural or anthropogenic cause.
7. Global warming will likely continue to be slow, small, harmless and net-beneficial.
8. There is broad agreement among the scientific community that extreme weather events have not increased in frequency, intensity or duration and are in future unlikely to do so.
9. Though global population has increased fourfold over the past century, annually averaged deaths attributable to any climate-related or weather-related event have declined by 99%.
10. Global climate-related financial losses, expressed as a percentage of global annual gross domestic product, have declined and continue to decline notwithstanding the increase in built infrastructure in harm’s way.
11. Despite trillions of dollars spent chiefly in Western countries on emissions abatement, global temperature has continued to rise since 1990.
12. Even if all nations, rather than chiefly western nations, were to move directly and together from the current trajectory to net zero emissions by the official target year of 2050, the global warming prevented by that year would be no more than 0.05 to 0.1 Celsius.
13. If the Czech Republic, the host of this conference, were to move directly to net zero emissions by 2050, it would prevent only 1/4000 of a degree of warming by that target date.
14. Based pro rata on the estimate by the UK national grid authority that preparing the grid for net zero would cost $3.8 trillion (the only such estimate that is properly-costed), and on the fact that the grid accounts for 25% of UK emissions, and that UK emissions account for 0.8% of global emissions, the global cost of attaining net zero would approach $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ global annual GDP.
15. On any grid where the installed nameplate capacity of wind and solar power exceeds the mean demand on that grid, adding any further wind or solar power will barely reduce grid CO₂ emissions but will greatly increase the cost of electricity and yet will reduce the revenues earned by both new and existing wind and solar generators.
16. The resources of techno-metals required to achieve global net zero emissions are entirely insufficient even for one 15-year generation of net zero infrastructure, so that net zero is in practice unattainable.
17. Since wind and solar power are costly, intermittent and more environmentally destructive per TWh generated than any other energy source, governments should cease to subsidize or to prioritize them, and should instead expand coal, gas and, above, all nuclear generation.
18. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.

Therefore, this conference hereby declares and affirms that the imagined and imaginary “climate emergency” is at an end.

This conference calls upon the entire scientific community to cease and desist from its persecution of scientists and researchers who disagree with the current official narrative on climate change and instead to encourage once again the long and noble tradition of free, open and uncensored scientific research, investigation, publication and discussion.

Given under our signs manual this Thirteenth Day of November in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-Four.

Pavel Kalenda, Czech Republic [Conference Chairman]

Guus Berkhout, The Netherlands [Co-founder, Clintel]

Marcel Crok, The Netherlands [Co-founder, Clintel]

Lord Monckton, United Kingdom

Valentina Zharkova, United Kingdom

Milan Šálek, Czech Republic

Václav Procházka, Czech Republic

Gregory Wrightstone, United States

Jan Pokorný, Czech Republic

Szarka László, Hungary

James Croll, United Kingdom

Tomas Furst, Czech Republic

Gerald Ratzer, Canada

Douglas Pollock, Chile

Henri Masson, Belgium

Miroslav Žáček, Czech Republic

Jan-Erik Solheim, Norway

[…]

Via https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/19/climate-scientists-officially-declare-climate-emergency-at-an-end/

Episode 12 The Caucasian Languages

Language Families of the World

Dr John McWhorter

Film Review

The Roman Historian Pliny the Elder and the Greek navigator Timosthenes were the first to write about the Caucasus region in Eastern Europe. It was a popular tourist destination for wealthy Roman families.

According to McWhorter, the Caucasus is home to three or four dozen different languages belonging to three different language families.

• Northwestern Caucasian (includes the Kabardean and Abknaz languages)
• Northeastern Caucaian (includes Lezgian, Tsez, Archi and Avar languages)
• Southern Caucasian (with Georgian the best example)

The term “Caucasoid” (as an archaic racial classification) originated with the work of Friedrich Blumenbach, who identified a Georgian skull as “Caucasoid” to distinguish it from “African” or “Mongoloid.”

McWhorter asserts that the multiplicity of Caucasian languages relates mainly to high mountain ranges that isolated language groups. In general languages spoken at high altitudes are always more complicated. It’s typical for invading tribes to chase indigenous groups into the mountains, where they remain isolated. In contrast, languages spoken in lowland villages tend to become simplified when invaders learn them as a second language.

In any case all Caucasian languages remained extremely complicated because few outsiders wanted or needed to learn them. Northwest Caucasian languages have nouns with extremely complicated case markings, Northeast Caucasian languages have extremely complex verb endings and South Caucasian languages are full of prefixes, suffixes and infixes that subtly alter the meaning of words.

Inguish, a Northeast Caucasian language, has six genders, 1 1/2 vowels (“a” and a schwa sound), and ejective  consonants. According to McWhorter, ejective consonants are common at high altitudes (also found in the Andes, and Ethiopian mountains) because it’s easier to compress air when it’s thinner.

*An ejective consonant is an unvoiced consonant associated with a click in the back of the mouth. Increasingly some English speakers make this clicking sound when “k” occurs at the end of the word.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/6120000/6120026

Dr Joseph Mercola

Sputnik – 26.11.2024

MOSCOW – The ATACMS missiles used by Ukraine against targets in Russia’s Kursk Region were most likely originally produced in the 1990s and had been modified at least twice to extend their lifespan.

This is according to a Sputnik correspondent’s analysis of the photos of the destroyed missile parts released by the Russian Defense Ministry on Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, the Russian Defense Ministry said that Ukraine fired five ATACMS missiles on the S-400 division in the Kursk Region — three missiles were intercepted and two reached the target, injuring a number of service personnel.

In addition, seven ATACMS missiles have been destroyed and one reached the target in Ukraine’s strike on the Vostochny airfield also in the Kursk Region, where two soldiers have been wounded by falling missile fragments.

The photos released by the Russian Defense Ministry showed that the ATACMS missiles were produced by “Lockheed Martin Vought Systems,” which is the name the US defense contractor used until 1999, according to annual budget reports of the US Army.

From the year 2000, the US defense contractor changed its name to “Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control,” the budget report of the US Army released in 2000 showed.

The name of the manufacturer on the ATACMS missiles fired by Ukraine indicated that the weapons were most likely originally produced in the late 1990s, when the US Army began to procure such missiles in large quantities.

The ATACMS missiles have a service life of 10 years and would require about $1 million per unit to reset its service life, according to previous US Army budget reports.

[…]

Via https://sputnikglobe.com/20241126/atacms-fired-by-ukraine-at-targets-in-russia-likely-manufactured-in-1990s-1121011333.html

David Plouffe on Pod Save America./VIdeo screenshot.

Margaret Flavin

There have been extensive postmortems on Kamala Harris’s failed campaign and the absolute drubbing she received from Donald Trump.

Democrat strategist James Carville said the moment he knew the campaign was doomed was when ‘The View’ co-host Sunny Hostin asked Harris, “If anything, would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

Kamala answered, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

But legacy media keep gaslighting voters with polls showing Harris neck and neck with Trump and even leading in some surprising places.

Recently, Harris campaign advisor David Plouffe sat down with fellow Harris campaign alums Jen O’Malley Dillon, Quentin Fulks, and Stephanie Cutter on Pod Save America to discuss what went wrong.

The junk polls pushed by the legacy media were an overt gesture to help Democrats and influence the mindset of the electorate.  Case in point:  Ann Selzer’s shocking poll suggesting that Kamala Harris was leading Donald Trump in Iowa by 3 percent.

Leftwing outlets used the Iowa poll constantly in an attempt to embolden Harris supporters and suppress Trump supporters.

Selzer’s poll was precisely as it appeared: junk. Ultimately, Selzer was 16 points off. President Trump won the state of Iowa by +13.

Despite all the polls legacy media used to gaslight Americans, Plouffe admitted during the podcast that the campaign’s internal polling never actually had Harris ahead of Trump.

“We didn’t get the breaks we needed on Election Day,” he said.

“I think it surprised people, because there was these public polls that came out in late September, early October, showing us with leads that we never saw.”

The Harris campaign knew what was likely coming on election day.  Legacy media knew.  If they were actually journalists rather than the unpaid marketing wing of the DNC, they would have reported the facts.  But their motivation to shill for leftists outweighs their desire to deliver the truth.

Watch:

Here’s where Kamala Harris advisor David Plouffe admits internal polling never showed Kamala Harris ahead of Trump in battleground states — even after spending $1 billion pic.twitter.com/AVnH2kfll7

— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) November 27, 2024

You can watch the entire episode here:

David Plouffe initially deleted his account, likely so he didn’t have to answer public questions about the FAKE data he was peddling to media in the final week, which unsurprisingly, they didn’t even bother to confirm, but then the account reappears and now he is admitting on… pic.twitter.com/rsNC7a7qhE

— Tony Seruga (@TonySeruga) November 27, 2024

[…]

Via https://theblogginghounds.com/2024/11/27/harris-campaign-advisor-david-plouffe-accidently-exposes-how-legacy-media-lied-to-the-american-people-with-junk-polls/