1

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies At 87

By Elias Marat | The Mind Unleashed

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday at the age of 87, bringing to an end a long career that saw her rise to the level of a national legal icon who was known to liberal supporters as the “Notorious RBG.”

Ginsburg died at her home after an ongoing battle with metastatic pancreatic cancer, the court announced.

The Brooklyn-born jurist is most well known for her work laying the groundwork for settled case law in relation to women’s rights, specifically through landmark cases argued before the Supreme Court regarding gender discrimination against both women and men.

She was rewarded for her legal achievements in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton, who nominated her to the court, making her only the second woman to serve on the country’s highest legal body. In his announcement, Clinton said that Ginsburg would serve as “a force for consensus-building on the Supreme Court” and would be “too thoughtful” to be tagged either a “liberal” or “conservative.”

In a statement, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts eulogized the late justice as having “historic stature.”

“We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague,” Roberts added. “Today we mourn but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her, a tired and resolute champion of justice.”

With November’s presidential elections looming, Ginsburg’s death is sure to light the fuse for a potentially bruising and harsh political battle over her successor, as well as the future of the nation’s highest court.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…..




Shocking Number of Women in ICE facility Were Sterilized Against Their Will, Nurse Reveals

Elias Mara | Nexus Newsfeed

“When I met all these women who had had surgeries, I thought this was like an experimental concentration camp. It was like they’re experimenting with our bodies,” one detainee said.

A nurse at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center has filed a shocking whistleblower complaint through several legal advocacy groups that accuses the ICE facility of “jarring medical neglect” toward detainees, including an ongoing practice of performing mass hysterectomies performed on female prisoners.

The complaint, filed by a number of detained immigrants and the nurse, Dawn Wooten, alleges that there are dreadful conditions of severe neglect at the Irwin County Detention Center (ICDC) in Ocilla, Georgia, which is operated by private prison company LaSalle South Corrections. The issues include a failure to test for infectious diseases, shredding of medical requests by incarcerated immigrants, fabricating medical records, as well as other hazardous and reckless actions by ICDC management, all while punishing immigrants with solitary confinement when they speak out against this treatment.

The complaint was filed with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by advocacy groups Project South, the South Georgia Immigrant Support Network, Georgia Detention Watch, and Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights.

Multiple women interviewed by Project South say that women incarcerated at the private facility were subject to a strikingly high rate of hysterectomies, an operation in which the entire uterus or parts of it are surgically removed. A large number of the immigrant women subject to the procedure were also confused when asked to explain why the surgery was necessary.

“Recently, a detained immigrant told Project South that she talked to five different women detained at ICDC between October and December 2019 who had a hysterectomy done,” the complaint said. “When she talked to them about the surgery, the women ‘reacted confused when explaining why they had one done.’ The woman told Project South that it was as though the women were ‘trying to tell themselves it’s going to be OK.’”

One detainee even likened her treatment to that of an experimental lab rat in a concentration camp.

“When I met all these women who had had surgeries, I thought this was like an experimental concentration camp. It was like they’re experimenting with our bodies,” the detainee said.

The woman said that one particular gynecologist outside of the facility was responsible for the hysterectomies.

One woman wasn’t properly given anesthetics during her hysterectomy and overheard the doctor claim that he had removed the wrong ovary. She eventually returned to the doctor to have her other ovary removed as well, Wooten said.

“We’ve questioned among ourselves, like, goodness, he’s taking everybody’s stuff out,” said Wooten, a former full-time employee at ICDC until July. “That’s his specialty, he’s the uterus collector. I know that’s ugly.”

“Is he collecting these things or something … Everybody he sees, he’s taking all their uteruses out or he’s taken their tubes out,” she added. “Everybody’s uterus cannot be that bad … What in the world.”

Wooten also noted that the detained women didn’t understand the medical purpose of the forced procedure, and some of the nurses who didn’t speak Spanish managed to force consent from the detainees “by simply googling Spanish.”

Another woman was scheduled for the hysterectomy but after questioning why the surgery was necessary, she was given several explanations about the procedure that were completely different.

OIG Complaint by Law&Crime

“She was originally told by the doctor that she had an ovarian cyst and was going to have a small twenty-minute procedure done drilling three small holes in her stomach to drain the cyst,” the complaint alleged.

“The officer who was transporting her to the hospital told her that she was receiving a hysterectomy to have her womb removed,” the complaint continued. “When the hospital refused to operate on her because her [CV-19] test came back positive for antibodies, she was transferred back to ICDC where the ICDC nurse said that the procedure she was going to have done entailed dilating her v***** and scraping tissue off.“

One immigrant complained that incarcerees are generally afraid that their stay at ICDC is tantamount to a death sentence.

“I don’t want to die here,” the immigrant said. “Please release me, let me be with my family … a lot of people are afraid.”

Another woman said that a nurse informed her that the procedure was meant to prevent her from continued heavy menstrual bleeding. When the woman explained that she had never experienced such problems, the nurse snapped and “responded by getting angry and agitated and began yelling at her.”

The incarcerated women also claim that they were forced to endure extremely unsanitary conditions in the medical and quarantine unit of the ICDC. One woman claims that she was forced to use her shampoo to clean her cell because staffers deprived her of cleaning solutions, while another woman had to use her socks to wipe down her cell.

“This place is not equipped for humans,” one of the immigrants said. “This is the dirtiest facility I have ever been in: everything is dirty; one shower for more than 50 people; one bathroom for all of us; I don’t even know how to give more details because it is all nasty, really nasty; only God is taking care of us here.”

[Read more here]




Why Immunity For the CIA?

By Jacob G. Homberger | Nexus Newsfeed

Amidst the controversy over the doctrine of qualified immunity for cops, no one is talking about the full immunity accorded to the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency within the national-security establishment that wields omnipotent power.

RELATED POST: Dr. Ron Paul Interviews Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Who Admits the CIA Killed his Father and Uncle

Among the most interesting lines in the new Amazon Prime series The Last Narc is what a CIA official says to DEA investigator Hector Berrellez, who was charged with leading the investigation into the kidnapping, torture, and murder of DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena. The official tells Berrellez that the CIA is not a law-enforcement agency and, therefore, doesn’t have to comply with the Constitution. Its mission, he said, is to protect the United States. Therefore, the implication is that the Constitution cannot be permitted to serve as a barrier to that end.

That’s the way it’s been since the beginning. The CIA has had omnipotent power to do whatever it deems necessary to protect “national security.” That includes, of course, the power of assassination, a power that the CIA assumed practically since its inception. In fact, as early as 1952, the CIA was developing a formal assassination manual for its assassins.

The CIA also wields the power of torture, the power to record its torture sessions, and the power to destroy such recordings to prevent Congress or the public from listening to them or viewing them.

The CIA also wields the power to lie, at least if it’s in the interest of “national security.”

No one jacks with the CIA. Not the Justice Department, including every U.S. Attorney in the land. Not the Congress. Not the president. Not the military. Who is going to mess with an organization that wields the omnipotent power to destroy or kill people and is more than willing to exercise that power in the name of protecting “national security”?

The kidnapping, torture, and execution of Kike Camarena

A good example of this phenomenon is found in The Last Narc, which I wrote about in a blog post last week.

In 1985, 37-year-old DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena was kidnapped on the streets of Guadalajara, Mexico, and brutally tortured for 36 hours before finally being executed.

It was commonly believed that the crime had been committed by the Guadalajara drug cartel, which was headed by Rafael Caro Quintana, Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, and Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, all of whom are featured in Netflix’s series Narcos: Mexico. But Mexican officials steadfastly refused to extradite the three drug lords to the United States for trial.

The DEA assigned Berrellez to take charge of the investigation. Berrellez, who felt as comfortable operating in Mexico as he did in the United States, found three former members of the Jalisco State Police who were willing to talk. They came to the United States and told Berrellez that back in 1985, they had been working double jobs — as state policemen and also as bodyguards for Caro, Fonseca, and Gallardo.

Berrellez interviewed them separately to ensure the integrity of their statements. They each pointed toward complicity of high Mexican officials with the cartel in the distribution of drugs into the United States, which I don’t think would surprise anyone.

The three former cops and bodyguards told Berrellez that they were in the room while Camarena was being tortured. Each of them stated that there were several high Mexican officials present in the house in which Camarena was being tortured while he was being tortured.

The heroism of Hector Berrellez

But then Berrellez discovered something else. According to the three former Mexican state policemen, a man named Max Gomez, also known as Felix Rodriguez, was inside the torture room and taking an active role in the brutal interrogation of Camarena. Berrellez investigated and determined that Rodriguez was a “retired” CIA agent.

Among the principal questions that was being addressed to Camarena was the extent to which he had discovered, in the course of his investigation, the nexus between the drug cartel, the CIA, and the Mexican government in the drug trade.

It was later learned that the interrogation was being recorded, which is something that one would not expect drug lords to do but that one would expect a CIA agent to do.

At that point, Berrellez was in trouble. It’s one thing to conduct an investigation that leads to the Mexican government’s involvement in Camarena’s torture and murder. It’s another thing to conduct an investigation that leads to the U.S. government’s involvement in the torture and murder of a DEA agent who is also an American citizen.

As Berrellez states in The Last Narc, he was warned to back off and let sleeping dogs lie. He was warned that if he didn’t, his life would be in jeopardy. U.S. officials even threatened to forcibly return him to Mexico to face criminal charges that the Mexican government had leveled against him.

But Berrellez refused to back off, and so U.S. officials removed him from the investigation. Even though he could have remained silent, he instead decided to go public with his findings. He cooperated in the making of The Last Narc, where he comes across as a heroic figure in the series.

For his part, Rodriguez denies that he was in the torture room or that he has had anything to do with Guadalajara cartel and with drug dealing, The problem, however, is that CIA agents will lie if they believe that it is in the interest of “national security.” And they all know that they have immunity when it comes to lying anyway on anything else that relates to “national security.”

Full immunity for the CIA

Here you have a prima facie case of U.S. governmental involvement in the torture and assassination of a U.S citizen, one who was an agent of the DEA. The alleged purpose of the torture was to determine if Camarena had uncovered evidence of CIA complicity with the Guadalajara Cartel and the Mexican government in the drug trade. Three witnesses, all giving their testimony separately, identified Rodriquez as one of Camarena’s interrogators.

That’s clearly enough evidence to launch a formal and aggressive investigation into the matter, whether by federal grand jury or congressional hearings. Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that Camarena’s murder took place during the Iran Contra scandal, when U.S. officials were breaking the law to raise the money to give to the Nicaraguan contras.

 




Frontline Doctors on Censorship: We’re Coming After you Big Tech – We Will not be Silenced!

By Brian Shilhavy | Nexus Newsfeed

Less than 24 hours after the Frontline Doctors first press conference in Washington D.C. was censored and removed from Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, and after having their own website knocked offline in an attempt to silence them, the doctors were back in front of the steps of the Supreme Court building for their second press conference, at great risk to their lives, their families, and their jobs, as they remained determined to bring the truth directly to the American people that a cure for COVID exists, and that the public does not need to cower in fear anymore.

While the corporate media continues to blacklist the group of doctors and refuses to cover their press conferences, some hecklers showed up to try and drown out the speakers.

The fact that these doctors are seeing a 100% cure rate for COVID patients is a message Big Pharma, Big Tech, and their political leaders do not want the public to hear. Because it would mean that their drugs and their coming vaccines are worthless and unnecessary.

They do not want healthy Americans. They want sick Americans cowering in fear so they can control us for their own purposes.

Dr. Simone Gold was the first doctor to speak today, and she said:

We are finally coming forward, at great personal and professional costs to ourselves.

We’re tired of seeing patients die in front of us, and we’re even more upset to see the spider web of fear that is enveloping the American public.

When there’s a treatment, there’s a cure. People have been afraid to say that.

But what else do you call it if you give somebody the medication early, and it aborts the disease process?

We’re coming after you Big Tech. We’re coming after you.

We won’t be silenced. The First Amendment is first for a reason. There’s thousands of us.

Dr. Richard Erso was another doctor who spoke today:

We cannot let our patients die without treatment. And that’s the major thing that’s happened.

We’ve been told to hide in our houses, wear a mask, and wait for a vaccine.

That’s not a strategy. We have a strategy.

Hydroxychloroquine works. Withholding it from patients is shameful.

Watch the full press conference as filmed by Breitbart News (let us know if it disappears).

[Read more here]

Here’s the first press conference:

“Nobody Needs to Die” – Frontline Doctors Storm D.C. Claiming “Thousands of Doctors” are Being Silenced on Facts and Treatments for COVID

Disclaimer: Content from the ConsciousLifeNews.com website and blog is not intended to be used for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.  The information provided on this website is intended for general consumer understanding and is NOT intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice.  As health and nutrition research continuously evolves, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any information presented on this website.

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 

 




Dr. Wakefield on COVID-19, Robert De Niro & The Wuhan Research Facility

By Brian Rose | London Real

Editor’s Note: Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been the subject of controversy for about 25 years. Questioning vaccine orthodoxy at that time flew in the face of a growing and popular industry with a credible claim that to scientific legitimacy. About fifteen years later evidence began coming out that the claim he made – that there was a connection between autism and vaccines – was indeed correct. The film Vaxxed helped to bring this issue into the public consciousness and poked more holes in the vaccine industry’s armor. Wakefield has a new movie coming out, called 1986: The Act. This film could be huge. Brian Rose recently interviewed Wakefield and discussed the movie and other matters, as you can read below.

Hi there,

Enjoy this episode and new and exclusive clips package featuring Dr Andrew Wakefield, the British academic gastroenterologist, filmmaker, researcher and activist. His discoveries have opened up new perceptions of childhood autism and vaccine safety. Download these clips from our interview today!

Despite attempts to silence his work, Andrew Wakefield has refused to waiver, costing him his career, reputation and medical honours.

In 2016, his documentary Vaxxed was banned from the Tribeca Film Festival. His upcoming movie, 1986: The Act, exposes the truth behind the National Childhood Injury Act.

In 1995 Andrew started investigating a possible role between gastrointestinal issues, the MMR vaccine, and neurological injury in children. In pursuit of this possible link, he participated in a study of twelve children with both stomach and developmental issues. The ensuing report, written with twelve other authors would catapult him into becoming one of the most controversial figures in the history of medicine.

Despite attempts to silence his work, Dr. Wakefield continues to share his revelations around vaccinations, and the role of big pharma.

In this episode we discuss everything from his latest film, to the best day of his life. I really appreciate his tireless efforts and think everyone should go watch his film.

Join us as we discuss:

  • Michael Moore, censorship, and Robert De Niro
  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
  • Maternal intuition, whistle blowing, and Anderson Cooper
  • The polio vaccine, Contagion, and the Wuhan research facility
  • Antibodies, Dengue fever, and chloroquine
  • Autism rates, the measles vaccine, and herd immunity

A number of clips from this groundbreaking interview are now available to download, share and repost. Spread the word and defend our human rights: grab these clips today!

  1. Censorship Thoughts
  2. Why 1986 The Act
  3. Logic Vs. Instinct
  4. More About 1986 The Act
  5. From 3 To 72 Doses
  6. The Aim of the 1986 The Act Movie
  7. The Movie Contagion in The Context of COVID-19
  8. Andrew On the COVID-19 Pandemic
  9. You Don’t Rush Science
  10. About the Conflicts of Interests in The Vaccine Industry
  11. Would You Do Things the Same Way?
  12. The MMR Story
  13. About the Measles Vaccine
  14. What Do You Make of Bill Gates
  15. The Silent Plague
  16. Can Trump Do Something About Vaccination
  17. From Doctor to Filmmaker
  18. Advice for Aspiring Filmmakers

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Is Moderna and NIH Partnership “Rotten To The Core”? | Ben Swann

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2sJwbL_Y0A

Source: Ben Swann

Ben Swann takes a look at the highly unusual timeline by which Moderna Therapeutics is developing its COVID-19 virus vaccine. Now, 4 scientists with the NIH claim they hold partial patent rights on that vaccine and stand to make up to $150,000 each per year. Meanwhile, as Moderna’s stock price continues to soar, 5 top executives have sold off $89 million dollars worth of shares, even as the company continues to bypass standard vaccine protocols in the development of its COVID v@ccine.




Schools MUST go “Back to Normal” in the Fall—A Scientist’s Perspective

By Renata Dziak | Childrens Health Defense

Children in today's schools are not getting the education they need in order to thrive

**CHD Note: This is a letter from Renata Dziak, a Canadian forensic scientist trained in immunology and microbiology (and the mother of two children), explaining in detail, on the basis of (real) science, why schools should reopen as usual, without smaller classes, “social distancing” or face masks.

She wrote this letter to her representative in Parliament; and a group called Fearless Ontario has posted it on Facebook, as a template to be used by other parents who don’t want their children’s schooling to become the daily nightmare that the CDC  is recommending here [in the United States].

Dear ____________ ,

I am a scientist and mother of two children who attend Runnymede Junior and Senior PS in Toronto. I am writing to you in response to the Ontario Ministry of Education’s request for input on how schools should reopen in September.

The science does not support the need for reducing class sizes, social distancing in classrooms or at recess, or the wearing of masks or other PPE. It is deeply concerning that the federal and provincial governments, as well as public health authorities appear not to have adjusted their COVID-19 strategies to take account of the large and growing body of scientific data that shows that COVID-19 is not the deadly threat that was originally thought.

There are thousands of scientists from around the world, including Nobel-Prize winners, doctors, virologists, immunologists, epidemiologists and molecular biologists who have spoken out against the lockdown and any forms of social distancing, with some even stating that these measures should never have been put in place for COVID-19.[1]

As you determine how schooling will work when the children return, I respectfully ask you to consider the following points – information based in real science.

Covid-19 is No More Infectious or Deadly Than a Seasonal Flu

The lethality of COVID-19 has been massively overstated, especially when compared to the seasonal influenzas we face every year.[2][3][4][5] Recent data from the CDC suggests that COVID-19’s lethality is about 15 times lower than originally assumed and stands at 0.26% in the US, one of the worst hit countries. For those aged under 50, the rate is even lower, at 0.05%.[6] The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 1% of the deceased had no serious preconditions.[7][8][9]

In Canada “the combined influenza and pneumonia, which is a common complication of influenza, kills more than 8,000 people a year.”[10] At the time of writing, there have only been 7,717 COVID-19 deaths in Canada [11] – and this is despite the COVID-19 death toll being erroneously elevated by systematic over-reporting.[12][13][14]

Additionally, there is no scientific evidence that strict ‘social distancing’ measures are the reason why COVID-19 fatalities are lower than the regular flu.[15] Countries without contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea or Sweden (which kept restaurants, bars and grade schools open), have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries.[16][17] The WHO even declared Sweden’s response a model for the rest of the world.[18]

Science is emerging to show that COVID-19 is less infectious than previously thought. Epidemiologist Dr. Gerald Evans, the medical director of infection control at Kingston Health Sciences Centre, recently stated, “To get infected with this virus, you have to be in close contact with another person (and) that contact has to be for a significant amount of time. It’s not 10 or 15 minutes, it’s hours. It needs to be in a closed environment, a house, and in the environment, there has to be a significant amount of contamination. I’m describing exactly what you would see in a household.”[19]

Children Not Seriously Affected by Covid-19

When determining what the future of school looks like, please consider that children are the least affected by COVID-19 in both number and severity. Since January 15, 2020 Public Health Ontario has not recorded any COVID-19 deaths in anyone aged under 19 – that’s zero deaths in a population of 3.14 million children and teenagers.[20]

The vast majority of people who do get COVID-19 experience no or very mild illness[21] and Ontario’s Deputy Premier and Minister of Health, Christine Elliott, said that data indicates the majority of COVID-19 infections in children are mild and do not require hospitalization.[22]

Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from COVID-19 have turned out to be false: many of these people either did not die from COVID-19[23], or they had already been seriously ill[24] (e.g. from undiagnosed leukemia).[25] 

There’s no scientific evidence to support recent news reports of a mysterious Kawasaki-like illness in children that “could” be linked to COVID-19. Of 20 pediatric cases in the UK, half tested negative for COVID-19.[26] Of 147 children with Kawasaki-like symptoms in New York City, only 69 (47%) tested positive for COVID-19 or the virus antibodies.[27] Kawasaki disease is a vasculitis that can be caused by any infection and last year, Canadian researchers identified Kawasaki disease as a condition of interest for pediatric vaccine safety surveillance. In fact, over 27 separate studies have identified a potential link between immunization and Kawasaki disease.[28]

Children Not Major Vectors of Covid-19 Transmission

Studies show that children do not appear to spread the virus. A survey of Australian COVID-19 cases at schools shows almost no transmission to other children,[29] a result echoed by a study in France.[30] Furthermore, a Swiss study found that, “Children are very rarely infected and do not pass on the virus”, and that children under 10 pose no risk of coronavirus infection because they do not have the receptors targeted by it.[31][32] A study in The Lancet shows that closing schools in order to manage the spread of coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19 was never medically warranted.[33]

In fact, emerging science shows that asymptomatic carriers of any age do not transmit the disease. When 455 individuals who had close contact with an adult asymptomatic COVID-19 patient were tested, none of them were positive for the virus, despite the median contact time being between four and five days.[34] The government of India has stated that COVID-19 cases with mild symptoms and no fever do not spread infection.[35]

Covid-19 Responses Causing A Mental Health Crisis

Over 120 experts, including Nobel Prize winners, scientists and doctors have criticized the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.[36] The Ontario Civil Liberties Association has called the government’s approach unscientific, unnecessary and unconstitutional.[37] Researchers have warned that the COVID-19 lockdown has created a mental health crisis,[38] and children are suffering too.

Save the Children surveyed over 6,000 children and parents in the US, Germany, Finland, Spain and the UK, and found that almost one in four children living under COVID-19 lockdowns, social restrictions and school closures are dealing with feelings of anxiety, with many at risk of lasting psychological distress, including depression.[39]

We should not inflict further psychological damage on our children with unnecessary and unscientific social restrictions and forced separation when school finally reopens.

Social Distancing and Mask Wearing Ineffective

There is no peer reviewed scientific literature that proves the ‘six feet’ rule stops the spread of viruses like COVID-19. In fact, the concept of forced human separation or ‘social distancing’ comes from a 14-year-old student’s high school science project, which was based on a simplistic computer simulation.[40][41]

Many scientists, including the highly esteemed Prof. Dolores Cahill, Vice Chair European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative Scientific Committee, argue that social distancing is unnecessary and should stop immediately.

Nobel Prize-winning professor Michael Levitt from Stanford School of Medicine has been statistically analyzing the COVID-19 outbreak and declared that strict lockdowns are a huge mistake and that developing herd immunity is a better strategy.[42]

Studies have shown that the COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets, not through airborne transmission[43] or smear infections (e.g. on door handles).[44]

Additionally, the latest studies show that masks “do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses.”[45] In fact, wearing a mask may even be harmful, causing problems from “headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications.”[46]

Excessive and Harmful Sanitization Methods

The CDC has recently updated its guidelines to note that touching contaminated objects or surfaces does not appear to be a significant mode of transmission.[47][48] This means that the over sanitization of school surfaces and objects with harsh chemical cleaners is not necessary and actually poses serious and potentially long-lasting health effects, especially for the young and those with pre-existing conditions.

According to the Environmental Working Group, “Cleaning products can release a plethora of chemicals into the air including ones linked to asthma, developmental harm and cancer.” For example, it rates Lysol IC brand disinfectant spray as posing “potentially significant hazards to health or the environment,” because it contains “ingredients with potential for developmental/endocrine/reproductive effects; damage to DNA.”[49]

Any cleaners that use ammonia and chlorine bleach are highly toxic. Those containing hydrochloric acid, phosphoric acid, sodium or potassium hydroxide, or ethanolamine can cause skin burns, blindness and lung irritation. Air fresheners and scented products can trigger allergies and often contain suspected endocrine disruptors, such as phthalates. The antimicrobial Triclosan has been linked to increased allergen sensitivity and disruption of thyroid function even at low levels.[50]

However, natural cleaners with active ingredients like thyme oil and citric acid have been approved for use as disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2 by both Health Canada[51] and the US Environmental Protection Agency[52] and pose significantly less health risks than chemical cleaners.

The Recommendation of Flu Vaccines

In a letter from Dr Eileen De Villa, City of Toronto Medical Officer of Health, dated February 28th, 2020 it was recommended that all school-age children and their families should get an annual flu vaccination in order to protect themselves from COVID-19. However, a number of peer reviewed studies indicate that flu vaccination actually raises the risk of coronavirus by 36%[53] and of other non-influenza viral respiratory infections in both adults and children.[54][55][56][57]

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




Is Funding Police the Best Way to Keep Everyone Safe?

By Jill Suttie | Greater Good Magazine 

In response to George Floyd’s recent killing by police, Minneapolis decided to disband its current police department and invest more in community-led public safety measures. For some, this seems like a radical move. But, for those who’ve seen police reform doing little to prevent police brutality against African Americans, it’s not so far-fetched.

“We have failed [African Americans], and we need to entirely reshape the system. We need a full-on cultural shift in how our Minneapolis Police Department and departments throughout the country function,” said the mayor of Minneapolis during an interview for ABC News.

Other cities are considering following suit. Some, like Los Angeles, have already diverted police funding to community services. Many recognize a long history of police departments using racial profiling to fight crime, leading to larger arrest rates, incarceration, and killings of African Americans. They worry the problems are systemic, and nothing short of a complete overhaul of police will curb the violence. Some also point to the rising costs of policing without added public safety and the undue influence of police unions in maintaining the status quo.

Does the Minneapolis plan make sense? Will divesting from police and investing more in communities make people safer?

It’s hard to know for sure. After all, we can’t do experiments and randomly assign communities to have or not have police departments. But we can still turn to criminologists and other experts to shed some light on the state of policing. While some research suggests that there are things to be done to decrease bias in policing, other research suggests that today’s protesters may be right: Strengthening communities and creating social safety nets could be a better model for public safety than investing more in the police.

The problem of bias in policing

In light of previous, highly publicized police killings of unarmed Black people, efforts have been made to train police to reduce bias and unnecessary use of force and to increase public confidence. For example, some departments have instituted training in how to handle mental-health crisescommunicate respectfully with community members, recognize their own implicit bias and stereotypes, and practice stress-reducing techniques like mindfulness, all having some positive effects. Departments also have tried eliminating chokeholds, making officers wear body cameras, and more.

But, as a group of criminologists found out when analyzing the data behind recommendations like these, the research is often fairly weak, and many police departments institute them out of a sense of urgency rather than a wealth of data. “As police executives seek to answer calls for reform while meeting expectations of evidence-based practice, there is limited scientific research to support them,” they write.

Even with these training and policies in place, police still kill unarmed Black people. For example, New York had a chokehold ban in place when Eric Garner was killed in a chokehold, and several police killings of unarmed Black men—most recently, Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta—happened when police wore body cameras. So, while reforms may be implemented in good faith, they don’t necessarily work in practice.

Barriers to reform

While criminologists call for more and better research on police reform efforts, there are barriers to this—not having good data about police shootings among them. As criminologist Franklin Zimring points out, the lack of government oversight and the independent nature of many police departments around the country make it hard to get adequate data on police shootings that would aid researchers in creating good policies.

There may be other underlying issues in police not addressed by reform research.

Some argue that having a military-like approach to policing—what is sometimes referred to as a “warrior” culture—as opposed to an approach that focuses on community relations—a “guardian” approach—is problematic. Research suggests that when police favor the warrior approach, they tend to be more willing to use force in an encounter.

However, it may be hard to change police culture, even with the best of intentions, says Geoff Ward of Washington University. That’s because policing is rooted in a history of racism, white supremacy, and punitive retribution that is hard to overcome, he says.

“The police, court systems, and legislative systems we have in this country have always been dominated by white Americans, by men, and by wealthier people, and have specifically excluded people of color,” he says. “This is harmful to our democratic culture and to the realization of the idea of equal justice.”

While his research suggests that diversifying staff in criminal justice institutions can make a difference in reducing prejudice and lead to fairer outcomes, it’s likely not enough to overcome institutional racism, he says. Police view criminal behavior through a racial filter that runs deep and has been exacerbated by campaigns like “the war on drugs” and by media depicting African Americans as dangerous criminals, he says.

So, while officers from under-represented groups may join a police force in hopes of changing the culture, they’re often pressured to participate in the racist (and sexist) norms of the department or risk losing career mobility and, possibly, their own safety on the job.

“To expect women or people of color to come into these positions as part of a diversity initiative, and expect them to change how police operate, is naïve,” says Ward.

Though he is hopeful about efforts to mandate police officers intervening when they see another officer abusing their power, Ward also sees that as a hard lift for them.

“To redirect your law enforcement energy away from a civilian and toward a fellow officer means facing a pretty tremendous barrier: the culture of impunity and loyalty within police culture and the pressures to close ranks and ‘back the blue,’” he says.

Science suggests that Ward may be right about the culture of loyalty within police departments and how it can interfere with reforms. Law professor John Rappaport of the University of Chicago has been studying the effects of police unions and police hiring practices, and he’s found that they often insulate officers from the consequences of misconduct, perpetuating violence.

For example, one of his studies found that when sheriffs were given an opportunity to unionize, violent incidents of misconduct in their ranks rose. Another study showed that officers fired from one police department were often rehired elsewhere, and, when they were, they had higher chances of repeated misconduct in the new location.

These issues imply that problems run deep in police departments and restructuring them from the ground up may be needed. Ward says that it makes sense to dismantle a system and culture that dehumanize people who commit crimes while promoting unhealthy hero-worship of police.

“When people talk about abolishing police, they are saying we need to imagine and redevelop what public safety is, and begin by acknowledging that the policing system we have created does not in fact provide public safety,” he says.

Investing in community programs could reduce crime

Like many of today’s protesters, Ward believes that public safety could be achieved by investing in and strengthening communities of color. He argues that much of the money that has been funneled into police and prisons could be better spent on things like after-school programs, neonatal health care, and more.

“We have to basically break the system down and build something else up in its place that is more honest, more sincerely oriented toward providing public safety, and is better equipped to do it,” he says.

“We have to basically break the system down and build something else up in its place that is more honestly, more sincerely oriented toward providing public safety”

―Geoff Ward, professor of African and African-American studies at Washington University in St. Louis

This is what happened in the town of Camden, New Jersey, in 2013, where a high crime rate and decimated city budget led city officials to disband their police department, break up the union, and start over. The town instituted a community policing approach that involved a stronger collaboration between police and the community they served. The city also focused funds on increasing public services. This resulted in a huge drop in crime.

Of course, Camden is just one example of how this can be done. But research suggests that focusing on community health may indeed be more important to crime prevention than warrior-style police forces.

In a meta-analysis of over 200 studies, criminologists Travis Pratt and Francis Cullen of the University of Cincinnati looked at how different factors in the community and police force predicted crime.

“If you want to reduce crime, the first thing you need to know is what’s associated with crime, right?” he says. “Things we think of as ‘get tough blue’—like large police forces and expenditures, and enhanced sentencing structures—were pretty uniformly weak across the board when it came to predicting crime.” In other words, they didn’t seem to make a difference in the crime rates.

Instead, he found that variables like “concentrated disadvantages”—like poverty and family disruption in a community—and “collective efficacy”—the ability of a community or neighborhood to band together with a common set of goals and to find ways to regulate itself—were what reduced crime. To him, these findings suggest that policies aimed at eliminating poverty and building self-reliance would be better for public safety than increasing the police force.

Pratt says these results were the same no matter what kind of crime was measured—whether it was a violent crime, property crime, robbery, burglary, or homicide. And the results didn’t vary by decade, either: What was true in the 1980s was also true in the 1990s, he says.

Indeed, research supports the contention that providing better education to communities is connected to reduced crime rates. After-school programs that focus on social skills and character education also help prevent youth delinquency, which suggests investments in these programs would increase public safety.

Health care access also reduces crime. As one study found, expanding Medicaid is associated with a sharp decrease in crime rates. Providing local access to drug treatment facilities has also been tied to less crime, meaning that we can improve public health and reduce crime rates effectively by providing better health care.

Still, says Pratt, it can be a hard sell for some people to divest from police and invest in healthier communities. That’s because people prefer simple explanations to complex social problems, he says, and it seems logical that tougher policing should translate into less crime. This notion is hard to dispel, even if it’s untrue.

“Every complex problem seems to have an infinite number of simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answers,” he says. “This is certainly one of them.”

A better model for public safety

Ward agrees that investing in communities is important. But, he says, we must first broaden our sense of what “policing” and “public safety” can be.

“We’ve funded policing agencies that actually made us safer—like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Security Exchange Commission,” he said. “If we take a broad definition of policing, then I don’t think there is any society that can function without some kind of policing to help enforce normative sensibilities.”

That means reforming our social contract in ways that truly enhance people’s well-being while removing what harms it, he says. So, while national attention is rightfully focused on the abuses of police and how to eliminate the killing of unarmed Black people, we need to also think about how to end institutional racism, in general, if we want to have a safer, more just society.

It’s clear that African Americans still suffer from higher rates of discrimination in housingeducation, and employment, which all contribute to poor health and reduced opportunity. These barriers have at their roots policies that were designed to enforce white supremacy.

Also, lifelong experiences of racism place a psychological and physiological burden on African Americans. In fact, one study found that African Americans experience a much faster rate of health deterioration as they age than whites—so much so that the average health of an adult Black person is comparable to the health of a white person who is 10 years older.

Yet, while the burdens of racism fall squarely on African Americans and other people of color, they are not the only people negatively affected by it, says Ward. Living in a racist society and working to uphold white supremacy instead of focusing on uplifting the general welfare of citizens hurts everyone, he says.

“I deeply believe that the history of white supremacy in this country has not only hurt the life chances of people of color, but it also undermines the full realization of the (so-called) white population,” he says. “We’re all suffering under these economic conditions because we’ve allowed this system to be created.”

That means that we can’t just stop with reforming police—even though it’s a good place to start. We need to look deeper into the roots of racism and “othering” to affect social change on a larger scale.

How to do that?

We can start by encouraging all Americans to educate themselves about our history and how it has led us to this moment. It’s hard to make a change if you don’t first understand racism’s historical roots. As law professor Rhonda Magee says when talking about the inner work of racial justice, “We can do better. Our culture’s (frankly) infantile way of dealing with our history of racism and how that still shows up today has to change if we’re going to get through this period.”

We also need to enter more honest conversations about race, she adds. Too often, white people are unwilling to consider the effects of white supremacy and racism in society, preferring to think of themselves as “colorblind” or believing that racism is something in the distant past. Though George Floyd’s death may have dispelled that notion for many, white Americans still have work to do on this front.

“If we are trained against understanding how we do see race, if we can’t understand that and we can’t talk about it, we will be less able to address it,” says Magee.

But white people can’t just stop at personal edification. All Americans have to do their part to steer society toward a new kind of public safety—one that eschews racism and violent forms of community control, and instead puts people’s well-being first. That means lobbying our government to restructure the way we police society and to provide social safety nets—like paid parental leavegood public educationjob training, and universal health care—that could benefit not only African Americans but everyone.

“We really need to think about the things we should be doing in the interest of transformative justice,” says Ward. “Only then will our nation realize its potential.”

About the Author
{author}

Jill Suttie

Jill Suttie, Psy.D., is Greater Good’s book review editor and a frequent contributor to the magazine.




Bill Gates Made Contact Tracing Deal With Congressman 6 Months BEFORE Coronavirus Outbreak

By Mike Moore | * True Pundit

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped negotiate who would score a $100 Billion government-backed contact tracing contract in August 2019 — six months before the ‘pandemic’ arrived in the United States and four months before it swept through China. (Listen Above)

The shocking revelations were unveiled on the Thomas Paine Podcast and the Moore Paine Show on Patreon by the two investigators who blew the whistle on the massive Clinton Foundation tax fraud during a Congressional hearing in 2018. John Moynihan and Larry Doyle testified in Congress, detailing the fraud and schemes utilized by the Clinton’s to avoid paying up to $2.5 BILLION in federal taxes.

The investigative duo, in their first interview since that bombshell Congressional testimony, revealed to Paine that representatives from the Gates Foundation met with U.S. Congressman Bobby L. Rush at a sit down in Rwanda, East Africa in mid August 2019 to hash out who would score the windfall from a government contact tracing program. And just last month — nine months after the meetings with the Gates Foundation in Rwanda —  Rush, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced the $100 BILLION H.R. 6666, the COVID-19 Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.

Rush’s bill would establish a program run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for national coronavirus testing and contact tracing.

Paine has since learned Congressman Rush traveled to Rwanda with his spouse from August 12th to 19th, 2019 to take part in talks and a week-long event underwritten by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

[Read more here]

*Originally entitled: “Exclusive: Bill Gates Negotiated $100 Billion Contact Tracing Deal With Democratic Congressman Sponsor of Bill Six Months BEFORE Coronavirus Pandemic Share”

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




How Exactly Should the US Reinvent Its Police Departments?

The Founders of the United States of America had it right: control the guys with guns.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, our nation’s Founders put our military in a box, which has prevented a military coup for over 240 years.

We have to do the same today with our police.

While the Supreme Court today is deciding whether to reevaluate “Qualified Immunity” for police officers, cities across America are considering how to reinvent their police departments.

Minneapolis is leading this charge, with one suggestion being to eliminate the police altogether and replace them with a community-based “public safety” service.

This is a great start, and at the very least cities should require 100% of their police to be residents of their communities and emphasize public safety.

But there are other vital steps communities should consider.

All across America, we need police oversight boards that are independent of police departments, complete with subpoena and indictment powers, and that can impartially rule on police actions and matters.

We also need the leadership of police departments, the top authority, what we now call the Chief of Police, to be an elected civilian whose main responsibility is to protect the community, not the cops.

When the Founders sat down to write the Constitution, they had a big debate over whether America should have a standing army during times of peace. They had that debate because armies had a nasty habit of overthrowing elected governments, all the way back to the time of the Greeks.

Our Founders didn’t want an armed military under the control of a military official, because they knew how badly that could turn out.

As James Madison told the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787, “A standing military force… will not long be safe companions to liberty. […] Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

So, our Founders wrote in the Constitution that the chief executive of the military and armed forces had to be an elected civilian, the president, who could be replaced by the civilian voters every four years.

They also time-limited military appropriations to a maximum of 2 years to force Congress every session to re-evaluate the military.

But the military coups that our Founders feared have now been undertaken at the level of our cities by another armed force: our police.

That same constitutional principle—that the head of the armed force, the ultimate authority to which they must daily answer, should be an elected civilian—is needed for oversight of police in America.

Additionally, funding for police needs to come under regular scrutiny.

When it came to the army in 1787, the Framers of the Constitution said explicitly that Congress must, every two years, reevaluate the entire military appropriation from top to bottom. It is the only place in the entire Constitution where the ability of Congress to appropriate and spend money is time-limited.

They wrote in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, that Congress only had the power: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years…”

Similarly, police departments should have their entire budgets, from top to bottom, reevaluated by their communities every two years and subject to complete control by their elected officials.

The power to carry and use weapons, and employ violence in general, is one that has been limited in the United States since our founding when it comes to the military.

We need to extend that idea to the police so that citizens nationwide are protected from what are now clearly far too many out-of-control police departments.

Thom Hartmann
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share it widely.



Five Solutions You Won’t Hear From Politicians On How To End Police Violence Now

Image Credit: Waking Times

Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

Since the George Floyd protests began last week, they have since morphed into a much broader movement which is now exposing a problem this country has suffered from for a long time. The system of law enforcement in this country has morphed into a militarized standing army, preying on the poor, and rife with corruption. Naturally, people are pissed.

As we have stated from the beginning of the riots, this reaction was inevitable. Minorities and the poor have been pushed into a corner and ignored as the state preyed on them through a system of extortion and violence. One can only be ignored for so long before they eventually lash out.

Remember when football players were peacefully protesting by taking a knee, and the country — including the Commander in Chief — collectively lost their minds telling them to shut up and sit down? Trump even called for them to be fired for this. Now, because these folks were ignored and told to shut up during their peaceful protests, the inevitable non-peaceful protests have begun.

 

 

For decades there has been a perfect storm brewing in this country as minorities and poor people have their doors kicked in and are terrorized by cops during botched raids for substances deemed illegal by the state and watch helplessly as their family members die in video after video at the hands of cops. Now, we have record unemployment, lockdowns, cops murdering people on video and facing no immediate charges, and those in charge sit at the top and point fingers.

Because the system will always refuse to accept responsibility for the situation it has forced onto the people, the blame game always comes next. Instead of realizing the error of their ways, government is now blaming the riots on Antifa, White Nationalists, the Alt right, “thugs,” and any other scapegoat they can find to blame besides taking responsibility. They are even blaming Russia now. You cannot make this up.

Naturally, this will never lead to any positive change. It will only prolong suffering, create more divide, and perpetuate a system of injustice for decades to come. Those who want to incite peaceful change, however, have been pushing these ideas out for a long time. Now, people may finally listen.

To lower the likelihood of future chaos, America’s system of law enforcement needs radical change. Instead of threatening to execute suspected looters with no due process — the discussion we should be having right now is how to fix this broken system. It is not difficult, it is based in logic and reason, and its effects would be significantly felt almost overnight.

Over the years, TFTP has been proposing these solutions and below we have compiled a list of five main actions that could affect this much needed change, right now.

The first and most significant solution to this pain and suffering would be to end the war on drugs — today. Legalize every substance out there. 

Richard Nixon, in his effort to silence black people and antiwar activists, brought the War on Drugs into full force in 1973. He then signed Reorganization Plan No. 2, which established the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Over the course of five decades, this senseless war has waged on. At a cost of over $1 trillion — ruining and ending countless lives in the process — America’s drug war failed, miserably, and has created a drug problem that is worse now than ever before.

This is no coincidence.

For years, those of us who’ve been paying attention have seen who profits from this inhumane war — the police state and cartels.

The reason why the drug war actually creates a drug and violence problem is simple. And those who profit most from the drug war — drug war enforcers and cartels — all know it. When the government makes certain substances illegal, it does not remove the demand. Instead, the state creates crime by pushing the sale and control of these substances into the illegal black markets. All the while, demand remains constant.

We can look at the prohibition of alcohol and the subsequent mafia crime wave that ensued as a result as an example. The year 1930, at the peak of prohibition, happened to be the deadliest year for police in American history. 300 police officers were killed, and innumerable poor people slaughtered as the state cracked down on drinkers.

Outlawing substances does not work.

Criminal gangs form to protect sales territory and supply lines. They then monopolize the control of the constant demand. Their entire operation is dependent upon police arresting people for drugs because this grants them a monopoly on their sale.

It is incredibly racist too. The illegality of drug possession and use is what keeps the low-level users and dealers in and out of the court systems, and most of these people are poor black men. As Dr. Ron Paul has pointed out, black people are more likely to receive a harsher punishment for the same drug crime as a white person.

This revolving door of creating and processing criminals fosters the phenomenon known as Recidivism. Recidivism is a fundamental concept of criminal justice that shows the tendency of those who are processed into the system and the likelihood of future criminal behavior.

The War on Drugs takes good people and turns them into criminals every single minute of every single day. The system is set up in such a way that it fans the flames of violent crime by essentially building a factory that turns out violent criminals.

It also creates unnecessary police interactions — disproportionately carried out on black people — which leads to resentment, harassment, civil rights violations, and even death. When drugs are legal, there are far fewer doors to kick in, fines to collect, profit prisons to fill, and money to steal.

Secondly, we need to end qualified immunity for police. 

When it comes to police accountability, one overarching question remains. ‘Do we want to live in a society whereby law enforcement officials can completely violate a person’s constitutional rights and get away with it?’ For our society to be free, the answer to that question must be a resounding, powerful, unwavering, ‘Hell No!’

Unfortunately, however, this is the case most of the time thanks to law enforcement personnel’s use and abuse of Qualified Immunity.

For those who may be unaware, qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated “clearly established” federal law or constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court created qualified immunity in 1982. With that novel invention, the court granted all government officials immunity for violating constitutional and civil rights unless the victims of those violations can show that the rights were “clearly established.”

As Anya Bidwell points out, although innocuous sounding, the clearly established test is a legal obstacle nearly impossible to overcome. It requires a victim to identify an earlier decision by the Supreme Court, or a federal appeals court in the same jurisdiction holding that precisely the same conduct under the same circumstances is illegal or unconstitutional. If none exists, the official is immune. Whether the official’s actions are unconstitutional, intentional or malicious is irrelevant to the test.

An example of this would be the family of George Floyd attempting to seek compensation for his death. Because there has never been a “clearly established” case of a cop kneeling on a man’s neck until he dies being declared unconstitutional, a judge in Minnesota could easily dismiss their case.

It is essentially a get out of jail free card for cops and it perpetuates the problem of police violence by giving bad cops a free pass.

After removing a cop’s ability to trample rights without consequence, it is time to hold them liable. That’s where personal liability insurance comes in.

As the Free Thought Project has reported extensively, police officers, even when found at fault for their abusive actions, are almost never held personally liable. It is the taxpayers who foot the bill. However, all that can change overnight by requiring cops to carry personal liability insurance.

Imagine, for a moment, the result of all police officers being held personally liable for their actions and forced to pay their victims. In nearly every other profession on the planet, if someone hurts someone else while on the job, they are held liable — personally. Why can’t cops carry personal liability insurance just like doctors?

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE……




Sweden’s COVID-19 Response Was A Success Despite What You May Have Heard

https://youtu.be/1f91Q5FuoKs

Video source: Kim Iversen

Article by Robert O’Leary

The mainstream media have recently characterized Sweden’s choice, to keep their economy and their schools open, as a failure with such articles as “Sweden: 22 Scientists Say Coronavirus Strategy Has Failed As Deaths Top 1,000” and “Sweden ‘wrong’ not to shut down, says former state epidemiologist“. The journalist, Kim Iversen explains in the video why those articles omit certain important facts and considerations from their analysis. She goes further to suggest that, when you do include these facts and considerations, Sweden’s experiment has actually been a success.

She goes on to explain that Sweden’s Scandinavian neighbors are suggesting that during a second wave, they may very well choose to remain open and rely on eventual herd immunity to address the virus. This is likely because Sweden’s economy has reportedly grown while at the same time Sweden’s death toll has come in at their own expert’s predicted levels (between 4,500 and 5,000), and far below other estimates of 70,000 to 80,000.

President Trump indicated within the last month that he does not wish to see America shut back down once it reopens. Frankly, the cost to our economy and health would not handle a continued shut down well at all. Iversen goes so far to state that perhaps the protests are this bad because people have been coped up so long. She also rightly suggests that we do not yet know the true death toll of the shutting down of our lives and economy. Trying a different approach during the second wave may be an enlightening exercise for us all, and help us to better understand the nature of this virus and our own immune systems better.

As always, you should do your own research on this and any other subject, and determine what is best and right for your body and your health.

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.


Disclaimer: Content from the ConsciousLifeNews.com website and blog is not intended to be used for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.  The information provided on this website is intended for general consumer understanding and is NOT intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice.  As health and nutrition research continuously evolves, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any information presented on this website.




Contact Tracing in the Circus of Robots

By Jon  Rappoport | No More Fake News

“Hi Hank. So glad your deli is finally open. I’ll have the Fauci baloney on rye with apocalypse sauce and extra Birx pickles on the side…you know, the sandwich with the tiny microchip in it…”

So I chose a state at random and started to look at their rollout of contact tracing. The first group I found—what were they? A non-profit, a government agency, a bunch of nameless robots with cushy jobs pulling down secure paychecks for the rest of their lives?

Finally, on their site, way down on a page, I saw references to a CEO. They’re a company. A business. Their new money maker is hiring, training, and launching contact tracers.

They’re collaborating with two other groups I’ve never heard of, and all three groups are plugged into state public health officials.

It’s as if these people want to conceal themselves, or perhaps more accurately, distance themselves from the population, in their “vital work.”

“Thanks for getting in touch with your question, Mr. Citizen. Actually, that contact tracing issue comes under the CVDR. You can contact them at their office. They may in turn refer you to the BGTD or the GKTH2V…”

Vagueness is the cardinal feature of the whole contact tracing program. Intentionally so. Words like “could” and “may” show up at key junctures. We could do this, we may do that.

For example, when some pleasant android of the State shows up at your home and knocks on the door, because you shopped at a hole-in- the-wall hardware store where an employee was later found to be “positive for,” or “infected by,” or “sick from” (which one is it?) the virus, and this contact tracer asks you about your health, and asks you to get tested, what happens if you say NO?

Are you put into isolation in your home, alone? For 10 days? Fourteen days? Do other people in the home have to leave? Do you have to leave? Do they take you to some fleabag hotel prison and put you in a room and deny you visitors? If so, for how long? Suppose, while in the fleabag, you still refuse to get tested? Do they keep you there for a year? The rest of your life? Suppose you start coughing in the middle of the night because the room is full of mold? Do they break in and hold you down and take a swab and test it and then ship you with your brand new false-positive result to a hospital and put you on a ventilator? Meanwhile, are your children sent to live with relatives, or are they hustled into foster care? And if the vaccine has been approved, do they shoot you with it whether you consent or refuse? If they let you refuse, do they extend your stay at the fleabag hotel? For how long?

State governors are running the following psyop: “Yes, we’re opening up the economy, but this is CONTINGENT on doing more and more contact tracing and testing.” On a national level, Pelosi tried to make that point the other day, but her Thorazine kept kicking in and caused gaps in her speech. Finally, she managed to remember—“It’s the three t’s; tracing, testing, and treatment.” Really. She and Joe Biden should run together on the Mental Lapse ticket in the fall.

Go ahead. Read the CDC guidelines on contact tracing. Read HR 6666 and the new Hero Bill. Try to figure out EXACTLY how the tracing program works. Count how many holes there are in the Swiss Cheese.

The bottom line is: they’ll do what they can get away with. They’ll make up reasons for doing it.

They’ll tap into every latent little fascist in your community and put them to work tracing and snitching and testing and shooting up as many people as possible. Including you.

“Hi, Jolene. What are you doing here? I thought you were cleaning teeth at Dr. Homunculus’ office? What? You’re a contact tracer now? It’s not enough to pretend you’re a Hell’s Angel chick on weekends? You’re now an agent of the State? What’s that patch on your sleeve? Didn’t the Stasi wear that in East Germany?”

In India, the government has released a contact tracing app. It’s voluntary and mandatory. In “containment areas,” you have to have it. Apparently, it’s been accepted on a hundred million cell phones so far. Well, it would be. Don’t leave home without it. Otherwise, you can’t gain access to work, or stores. India is chasing China for most-repressive-government awards.

Of course, it’s happening in America, too. “We’d love to get you on board. Install our new app and let us spy on you 24/7. It’s fun. We’re all in this spying together. It’s Heaven on Earth. By the way, your employer won’t let you work at the office without the app.”

Here, from the CDC, are a few statements about contact tracing.

“Based on our current knowledge, a close contact is someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 48 hours before illness onset until the time the patient is isolated. They should stay home, maintain social distancing, and self-monitor until 14 days from the last date of exposure.”

The precision is breathtaking, isn’t it? And they’re talking about “close contacts.” Do the same rules apply to “ordinary contacts?” They’re really going to try to estimate the “48 hours before” and the “15 minutes?” Does the contact who maintains social distancing at home stay at least six feet away from other family members at all times for 14 days? The answer: yes. Are you kidding?

“Contacts are encouraged to stay home and maintain social distance from others (at least 6 feet) until 14 days after their last exposure, in case they also become ill. They should monitor themselves by checking their temperature twice daily and watching for cough or shortness of breath [hopefully inducing fear and consequent illness]. To the extent possible, public health staff should check in with contacts to make sure they are self-monitoring and have not developed symptoms. Contacts who develop symptoms should promptly isolate themselves and notify public health staff. They should be promptly evaluated for infection and for the need for medical care.”

So, again…just because you came in contact with someone who is “infected,” you need to self-isolate at home, more than six feet apart from family members, for 14 days? Yes.

“If possible, contacts should be asked to voluntarily stay home, monitor themselves, and maintain social distancing from others. However, health departments have the authority to issue legal orders of quarantine, should the situation warrant that measure.”

Wait. What’s the difference between self-isolating at home and quarantine? Well, quarantine must mean everyone except “the contact” clears out of the house and stays elsewhere; or the contact is taken from the house and put in a “facility.”

And under what circumstances would quarantine be ordered? Let’s see. Refusal to get tested. Refusal to maintain the six-feet rule. Refusal to stay home. Refusal to have a cell phone with the tracing app installed. Refusal to take the vaccine. That would be my surmise.

Frankly, I prefer a Mussolini approach, if you’re going to install contact tracing:

“Listen up, everyone. The researchers never used proper procedures to prove a new virus existed in the first place. That, and the fact that the diagnostic tests churn out false positives like Niagara Falls in the rainy season, make all case numbers and death numbers meaningless. The whole COVID narrative is a fairy tale. No need for masks, gloves, social distancing, or lockdowns. Get it? But we want to know everything about you 24/7, so we’re doing contact tracing. This is a police state. Cooperate, or pay the price.”

Contact tracing is just the forward edge of a MUCH larger program of surveillance.

In his devastating article, “The Brave New World of Bill Gates and Big Telecom,” May 8, 2020, Robert F Kennedy, Jr. writes: “Suppose that computers discover your [anti-lockdown] beach trip by tracking your movements using a stream of information from your cell phone, your car, your GPS, facial recognition technology integrated with real-time surveillance from satellites, mounted cameras, and implanted chips. Desk-bound prosecutors or robots will notify you of your violation by text while simultaneously withdrawing your $1,000 penalty in cryptocurrency from your payroll account. Welcome to Bill Gates’ America. It’s right around the corner.”

“Recently, Bill Gates announced his financial support for a $1 billion plan to blanket Earth in video surveillance satellites. The company, EarthNow, will launch 500 satellites to live-stream monitor almost every ‘corner’ of the Earth, providing instantaneous video feedback with only a one-second delay. According to Wikipedia, the company expects its customers to include ‘governments and large enterprises.’ 5G Antennas¬¬¬ deploying a vast array of ground-based 5G spy antennas. Through his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gates purchased 5.3 million Crown Castle shares currently worth a billion dollars. The Foundation’s second-largest tech holding after Microsoft, Crown Castle owns 5G infrastructure in every major U.S. market. It operates and leases more than 40,000 cell towers, 65,000 small cell nodes which are the central infrastructure for 5G and 75,000 route miles of fiber to every major U.S. market that, instead of going to your home, providing you safe, fast, wired internet, has been confiscated to connect 5G cell towers.”

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




This Is Not a Revolution. It’s a Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation

George Floyd protests in Washington DC, Lafayette Square. (Image source: commons.wikimedia.org)

By John W. Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute

“When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you—pull your beard, flick your face—to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you.”—John Lennon

Brace yourselves.

There is something being concocted in the dens of power, far beyond the public eye, and it doesn’t bode well for the future of this country.

Anytime you have an entire nation so mesmerized by political theater and public spectacle that they are oblivious to all else, you’d better beware.

Anytime you have a government that operates in the shadows, speaks in a language of force, and rules by fiat, you’d better beware.

And anytime you have a government so far removed from its people as to ensure that they are never seen, heard or heeded by those elected to represent them, you’d better beware.

What is unfolding before us is not a revolution.

The looting, the burning, the rioting, the violence: this is an anti-revolution.

The protesters are playing right into the government’s hands because the powers-that-be want this. They want an excuse to lockdown the nation and throw the switch to all-out martial law. They want a reason to make the police state stronger.

It’s happening faster than we can keep up.

The Justice Department is deploying federal prison riot teams to various cities. More than half of the nation’s governors are calling on the National Guard to quell civil unrest. Growing numbers of cities, having just barely emerged from a coronavirus lockdown, are once again being locked down, this time in response to the growing upheaval.

This is how it begins.

It’s that dystopian 2030 Pentagon training video all over again, which anticipates the need for the government to institute martial law (use armed forces to solve domestic political and social problems) in order to navigate a world bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots.

We’re way ahead of schedule.

The architects of the police state have us exactly where they want us: under their stamping boot, gasping for breath, desperate for freedom, grappling for some semblance of a future that does not resemble the totalitarian prison being erected around us.

This way lies certain tyranny.

For just one fleeting moment, “we the people” seemed united in our outrage over this latest killing of an unarmed man by a cop hyped up on his own authority and the power of his uniform.

That unity didn’t last.

Indeed, it didn’t take long—no surprise there—for us to quickly become divided again, polarized by the misguided fury and senseless violence of mobs taking to the streets, reeking of madness and mayhem.

Deliberately or not, the rioters have directed our attention away from the government’s crimes and onto their own.

This is a distraction.

Don’t allow yourself to be so distracted.

Let’s not lose sight of what started all of this in the first place: the U.S. government.

More than terrorism, more than domestic extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, the systemic violence being perpetrated by agents of the government constitutes a greater menace to the life, liberty, and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us.

Case in point: George Floyd died at the hands of the American police state.

The callous, cold-blooded murder of the unarmed, 46-year-old black man by police is nothing new: for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, police knelt on Floyd’s neck while the man pleaded for his life, struggled to breathe, cried out for his dead mother, and finally passed out and died.

Floyd is yet another victim of a broken system of policing that has placed “we the people” at the mercy of militarized cops who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

Daily, Americans are being shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, challenge an order, or just exist.

I’m talking about the growing numbers of unarmed people are who is shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Killed by police for standing in a “shooting stance.” Killed for holding a cell phone. Killed for holding a baseball bat. Killed for opening the front door. Killed for being a child in a car pursued by police. Killed for approaching police while holding a metal spoon. Killed for running in an aggressive manner while holding a tree branch. Killed for crawling around naked. Killed for hunching over in a defensive posture. Killed because a police officer accidentally fired his gun instead of his taser. Killed for wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey. Killed for reaching for his license and registration during a traffic stop. Killed for driving while deaf. Killed for being homeless. Killed for brandishing a shoehorn. Killed for peeing outdoors. Killed for having his car break down on the road. Killed for holding a garden hose.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings, and in fact, that’s exactly what you’ll hear from politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials, and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police. However, as these incidents make clear, the only truly compliant, submissive, and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one.

Sad, isn’t it, how quickly we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat us all like suspects and criminals?

This is not how you keep the peace.

This is not justice. This is not even law and order.

This is certainly not freedom. This is the illusion of freedom.

Unfortunately, we are now being ruled by a government of psychopaths, scoundrels, spies, thugs, thieves, gangsters, ruffians, rapists, extortionists, bounty hunters, battle-ready warriors and cold-blooded killers who communicate using a language of force and oppression.

The facts speak for themselves.

We’re being ravaged by a government of ruffians, rapists, and killers. It’s not just the police shootings of unarmed citizens that are worrisome. It’s the SWAT team raids gone wrong that are leaving innocent citizens wounded, children terrorized and family pets killed. It’s the roadside strip searches—in some cases, cavity searches of men and women alike carried out in full view of the public—in pursuit of drugs that are never found. It’s the potentially lethal—and unwarranted—use of so-called “nonlethal” weapons such as tasers on children for “mouthing off to a police officer. For trying to run from the principal’s office. For, at the age of 12, getting into a fight with another girl.”

We’re being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers—a standing army. While Americans are being made to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to exercise their Second Amendment right to own a gun, the government is arming its own civilian employees to the hilt with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorizing them to make arrests, and training them in military tactics. Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles, and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities. There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government civilians armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines. That doesn’t even begin to touch on the government’s arsenal, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, and the speed with which the nation could be locked down under martial law depending on the circumstances. Clearly, the government is preparing for war—and civil war, at that—and “we the people” are the perceived enemy.

We’re being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots, and cowards. American satirist H.L. Mencken calculated that “Congress consists of one-third, more or less, scoundrels; two-thirds, more or less, idiots; and three-thirds, more or less, poltroons.” By and large, Americans seem to agree. When you’ve got government representatives who spend a large chunk of their work hours fundraising, being feted by lobbyists, shuffling through a lucrative revolving door between public service and lobbying, and making themselves available to anyone with enough money to secure access to a congressional office, you’re in the clutches of a corrupt oligarchy. Mind you, these same elected officials rarely read the legislation they’re enacting, nor do they seem capable of enacting much legislation that actually helps rather than hinders the plight of the American citizen.

We’re being locked up by a government of greedy jailers. We have become a carceral state, spending three times more on our prisons than on our schools and imprisoning close to a quarter of the world’s prisoners, despite the fact that crime is at an all-time low and the U.S. makes up only 5% of the world’s population. The rise of overcriminalization and profit-driven private prisons provides even greater incentives for locking up American citizens for such non-violent “crimes” as having an overgrown lawn.  As the Boston Review points out, “America’s contemporary system of policing, courts, imprisonment, and parole … makes money through asset forfeiture, lucrative public contracts from private service providers, and by directly extracting revenue and unpaid labor from populations of color and the poor. In states and municipalities throughout the country, the criminal justice system defrays costs by forcing prisoners and their families to pay for punishment. It also allows private service providers to charge outrageous fees for everyday needs such as telephone calls. As a result, people facing even minor criminal charges can easily find themselves trapped in a self-perpetuating cycle of debt, criminalization, and incarceration.”

We’re being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms. The government, aided by its corporate allies, is watching everything you do, reading everything you write, listening to everything you say, and monitoring everything you spend. Omnipresent surveillance is paving the way for government programs that profile citizens, document their behavior, and attempt to predict what they might do in the future, whether it’s what they might buy, what politician they might support, or what kinds of crimes they might commit. The impact of this far-reaching surveillance, according to Psychology Today, is “reduced trust, increased conformity, and even diminished civic participation.” As technology analyst Jillian C. York concludes, “Mass surveillance without due process—whether undertaken by the government of Bahrain, Russia, the US, or anywhere in between—threatens to stifle and smother that dissent, leaving in its wake a populace cowed by fear.”

We’re being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers, and professional pirates. The American people have been repeatedly selling a bill of goods about how the government needs more money, more expansive powers, and more secrecy (secret courts, secret budgets, secret military campaigns, secret surveillance) in order to keep us safe. Under the guise of fighting its wars on terror, drugs, domestic extremism, pandemics, and civil unrest, the government has spent billions in taxpayer dollars on endless wars that have sown the seeds of blowback, surveillance programs that have subjected all Americans to a surveillance society, and militarized police that has turned communities into warzones.

We’re being robbed blind by a government of thieves. Americans no longer have any real protection against government agents empowered to seize private property at will. For instance, police agencies under the guise of asset forfeiture laws are taking property based on little more than a suspicion of criminal activity.

And we’re being forced to live in a perpetual state of emergency. From 9/11 through the COVID-19 lockdowns and now the threat of martial law in the face of growing civil unrest, we have witnessed the rise of an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security.

Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly not looking out for our best interests, nor is it in any way a friend to freedom.

When the government views itself as superior to the citizenry when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government when government officials cease to act as public servants when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution, then you no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

What we have is a government of wolves.

Our backs are against the proverbial wall.

The government and its cohorts have conspired to ensure that the only real recourse the American people have to express their displeasure with the government is through voting, which is no real recourse at all.

The penalties for civil disobedience, whistleblowing, and rebellion are severe. If you refuse to pay taxes for government programs you believe to be immoral or illegal, you will go to jail. If you attempt to overthrow the government—or any agency thereof—because you believe it has overstepped its reach, you will go to jail. If you attempt to blow the whistle on government misconduct, there’s a pretty good chance you will go to jail.

For too long, the American people have obeyed the government’s dictates, no matter how extreme. We have paid its taxes, penalties, and fines, no matter how outrageous. We have tolerated its indignities, insults, and abuses, no matter how egregious. We have turned a blind eye to its indiscretions and incompetence, no matter how imprudent. We have held our silence in the face of its lawlessness, licentiousness, and corruption, no matter how illicit.

We have suffered.

How long we will continue to suffer depends on how much we’re willing to give up for the sake of freedom.

America’s founders provided us with a very specific explanation about the purpose of government and a roadmap for what to do when the government abuses its authority, ignores our objections, and establishes itself as a tyrant.

We must choose between peaceful slavery (in other words, maintaining the status quo in servitude to the police state) and dangerous freedom. That will mean carving out a path in which we begin to take ownership of our government, starting at the local level, challenging the status quo, and raising hell—nonviolently—whenever a government official steps out of line.

We can no longer maintain the illusion of freedom.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are at our most vulnerable right now.

WC: 2624

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.




These People Need To Be Stopped Immediately And Held Accountable!

By Luke Rudkowski | We are Change

Editor’s Note: The more you know … Despite various censorship efforts, more and more information is coming out and people are questioning the COVID-19 pandemic’s response, narrative, and the actions of those in whom we have placed our trust. An increasing number of people are calling for legal consequences and solutions. Luke Rudkowski’s latest video makes his concerns clear. Among the important questions answered by Luke in the above video are:

Why did Andrew Cuomo send 4,300 COVID-19-positive elders back into New York nursing homes rather than to reportedly near-empty hospital facilities?

How did Bill Gates double his fortune during the last decade after pledging to give all his money away?

Did Bill Gates really state with glee that the return on investment, for 20 years of investment in vaccines, was 20 to 1, or as much as $20 billion dollars?

Are deaths by suicide higher than COVID-19 deaths?

Others calling for accountability are journalists Ben Swann and Mike Adams, Dr. Rashid Buttar, Dr. Judy Mikovits, and Attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Sources:

Fauci’s NIAID Gave $3.7 Million To Wuhan Lab To Study Coronavirus in Bats?

Should “death science” operatives like Dr. Fauci face the DEATH SENTENCE if found guilty of collaborating to build the Wuhan coronavirus bioweapon?

The Truth About Vaccines 2020: Vaccine Roundtable with the Experts, Part 1

The Truth About Vaccines 2020: Vaccine Roundtable with the Experts, Part 2

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.