1

Freedom from Fear: Stop Playing the Government’s Mind Games | John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead

The Rutherford Institute

No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.”—Edward R. Murrow, broadcast journalist

America is in the midst of an epidemic of historic proportions.

The contagion being spread like wildfire is turning communities into battlegrounds and setting Americans one against the other.

Normally mild-mannered individuals caught up in the throes of this disease have been transformed into belligerent zealots, while others inclined to pacifism have taken to stockpiling weapons and practicing defensive drills.

This plague on our nation—one that has been spreading like wildfire—is a potent mix of fear coupled with unhealthy doses of paranoia and intolerance, tragic hallmarks of the post-9/11 America in which we live, and the constantly shifting crises that keep the populace in a state of high alert.

Everywhere you turn, those on both the left- and right-wing are fomenting distrust and division. You can’t escape it.

We’re being fed a constant diet of fear: fear of a virus, fear of the unmasked, fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, fear of people who are too religious, fear of people who are not religious enough, fear of extremists, fear of the government, fear of those who fear the government. The list goes on and on.

The strategy is simple yet effective: the best way to control a populace is through fear and discord.

Fear makes people stupid.

Confound them, distract them with mindless news chatter and entertainment, pit them against one another by turning minor disagreements into major skirmishes, and tie them up in knots over matters lacking in national significance.

Most importantly, divide the people into factions, persuade them to see each other as the enemy, and keep them screaming at each other so that they drown out all other sounds. In this way, they will never reach a consensus about anything and will be too distracted to notice the police state closing in on them until the final crushing curtain falls.

This is how free people enslave themselves and allow tyrants to prevail.

This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology, endless wars, COVID-19 mandates, etc., hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes.

All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat-downs, police raids, and round-the-clock surveillance.

Turn on the TV or flip open the newspaper on any given day, and you will find yourself accosted by reports of government corruption, corporate malfeasance, militarized police, marauding SWAT teams, and egregious assaults on the rights of the citizenry.

America has already entered a new phase, one in which communities are locked down, employees are forced to choose between keeping their jobs or exercising their freedoms, children are arrested in schools, military veterans are forcibly detained by government agents, and law-abiding Americans are finding their movements tracked, their financial transactions documented and their communications monitored.

These threats are not to be underestimated.

Yet even more dangerous than these violations of our basic rights is the language in which they have couched: the language of fear. It is a language spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure.

Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government.

So far, these tactics are working.

An atmosphere of fear permeates modern America.

Each successive crisis in recent years (a COVID-19 pandemic, terrorism, etc.)—manufactured or legitimate—has succeeded in reducing the American people to what commentator Dan Sanchez refers to as “herd-minded hundreds of millions [who] will stampede to the State for security, bleating to please, please be shorn of their remaining liberties.”

Sanchez continues:

“I am not terrified of the terrorists; i.e., I am not, myself, terrorized. Rather, I am terrified of the terrorized; terrified of the bovine masses who are so easily manipulated by terrorists, governments, and the terror-amplifying media into allowing our country to slip toward totalitarianism and total war…

“I do not irrationally and disproportionately fear Muslim bomb-wielding jihadists or white, gun-toting nutcases. But I rationally and proportionately fear those who do, and the regimes such terror empowers. History demonstrates that governments are capable of mass murder and enslavement far beyond what rogue militants can muster. Industrial-scale terrorists are the ones who wear ties, chevrons, and badges. But such terrorists are a powerless few without the supine acquiescence of the terrorized many. There is nothing to fear but the fearful themselves…

“Stop swallowing the overblown scaremongering of the government and its corporate media cronies. Stop letting them use hysteria over small menaces to drive you into the arms of tyranny, which is the greatest menace of all.”

As history makes clear, fear leads to fascistic, totalitarian regimes.

It’s a simple enough formula. National crises, global pandemics, reported terrorist attacks, and sporadic shootings leave us in a constant state of fear. Fear prevents us from thinking. The emotional panic that accompanies fear actually shuts down the prefrontal cortex or the rational thinking part of our brains. In other words, when we are consumed by fear, we stop thinking.

A populace that stops thinking for themselves is a populace that is easily led, easily manipulated and easily controlled.

The following are a few of the necessary ingredients for a fascist state:

·       The government is managed by a powerful leader (even if he or she assumes office by way of the electoral process). This is the fascistic leadership principle (or father figure).

·       The government assumes it is not restrained in its power. This is authoritarianism, which eventually evolves into totalitarianism.

·       The government ostensibly operates under a capitalist system while being undergirded by an immense bureaucracy.

·       The government through its politicians emits powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

·       The government has an obsession with national security while constantly invoking terrifying internal and external enemies.

·       The government establishes a domestic and invasive surveillance system and develops a paramilitary force that is not answerable to the citizenry.

·       The government and its various agencies (federal, state, and local) develop an obsession with crime and punishment. This is overcriminalization.

·       The government becomes increasingly centralized while aligning closely with corporate powers to control all aspects of the country’s social, economic, military, and governmental structures.

·       The government uses militarism as a center point of its economic and taxing structure.

·       The government is increasingly imperialistic in order to maintain the military-industrial corporate forces.

The parallels to modern America are impossible to ignore.

“Every industry is regulated. Every profession is classified and organized,” writes Jeffrey Tucker. “Every good or service is taxed. Endless debt accumulation is preserved. Immense doesn’t begin to describe the bureaucracy. Military preparedness never stops, and war with some evil foreign foe remains a daily prospect.”

For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary. In times of “crisis,” expediency is upheld as the central principle—that is, in order to keep us safe and secure, the government must militarize the police, strip us of basic constitutional rights and criminalize virtually every form of behavior.

Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring.

It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences.

For example, neuroscientists have observed how quickly fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Post reports:

In the experiment, researchers taught male mice to fear the smell of cherry blossoms by associating the scent with mild foot shocks. Two weeks later, they bred with females. The resulting pups were raised to adulthood having never been exposed to the smell. Yet when the critters caught a whiff of it for the first time, they suddenly became anxious and fearful. They were even born with more cherry-blossom-detecting neurons in their noses and more brain space devoted to cherry-blossom-smelling.

The conclusion? “A newborn mouse pup, seemingly innocent to the workings of the world, may actually harbor generations’ worth of information passed down by its ancestors.”

Now consider the ramifications of inherited generations of fears and experiences on human beings. As the Post reports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, fear, trauma, and compliance can be passed down through the generations.

Fear has been a critical tool in past fascistic regimes, and it now operates in our contemporary world—all of which raises fundamental questions about us as human beings and what we will give up in order to perpetuate the illusions of safety and security.

In the words of psychologist Erich Fromm:

[C]an human nature be changed in such a way that man will forget his longing for freedom, for dignity, for integrity, for love—that is to say, can man forget he is human? Or does human nature have a dynamism which will react to the violation of these basic human needs by attempting to change an inhuman society into a human one?

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is the founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.




Politicians Who Shill for Big Pharma ‘Not Fit to Represent the People’

Last week, Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) was one of three Democrats who cast a pivotal no vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rice shamefully voted against giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices as part of the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better package.

Despite the setback, we’re going to win. We’re going to give Medicare negotiating power to lower drug prices for everyone. And Pharma is scared.

Pharma is so scared that they’ve launched a massive campaign against giving Medicare negotiating power. Pharma’s lobbying frenzy includes multi-million dollar TV ad buys and spending over $6 million from April to June of this year on lobbying (a 19% increase during the same time last year).

Any politician who listens to Pharma and puts profits over people’s lives deserves to wear that shame forever. That’s why we have a mobile billboard in Rice’s Long Island district to let her constituents know she betrayed them. Clearly, Rice needs a reminder that she works for the people of New York’s fourth Congressional district, not Pharma.

It will come as no surprise that Rice (along with the other no voters Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) and Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.)) is in the pockets of Pharma. Rice has received $84,259 from campaign contributions from pharmaceutical and health corporations during her congressional career. And Peters and Schrader have collectively taken an appalling $1.7 million from Pharma during their time in Congress.

Rep. Kathleen Rice

Rice’s betrayal may come as a surprise to her constituents because Rice campaigned for years on taking on Pharma’s greed. And that’s why Rice is the perfect example of everything wrong with status quo corporate politicians.

Rice claimed to support the lowering of prescription drugs. In an October 2020 campaign ad, Rice promised to “always put the health and safety of Long Island first.”

Not to mention, an overwhelming 90% of Rice’s constituents support giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices. It’s hard to find a policy more popular with voters across the spectrum than taking on Pharma greed and lowering drug prices.

But when given the chance to make good on that promise, and represent the interests of 90% of her constituents, Rice still sided with Pharma and betrayed the people she works for.

But that’s exactly why we’re going to continue to fight for — and win — lower drug prices. We’re going to win because the American people — and the vast majority of the Democratic caucus and President Biden — are on our side.

We have the people, and we also have some big guns on our side spending money, AARP just dropped $4 million on an ad buy pushing for Medicare negotiation.

That is why carrying water for Pharma is not only a moral failure, it is also a political failure. Any politician who puts Pharma profits before the needs of their constituents will lose their jobs. And they will deserve it.

Pharma shills simply aren’t fit to represent the people of their districts.

Originally published by Common Dreams.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




Oregon Senators File Grand Jury Petition Alleging CDC, FDA Violated Federal Law by Inflating COVID Death Data

Oregon State Senators Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum jointly filed a formal petition for a federal grand jury investigation into both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Aug. 16 in the city of Medford, Oregon, Jackson County.

The official letter included eight exhibits and 20 references for evidentiary materials showing a clear need to formally investigate the agencies for willful misconduct.

In March 2020, according to a paper published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law, the CDC abruptly changed how death certificates were recorded for only one type of death — COVID-19 — and circumvented multiple federal laws to do so. This hyperinflation of death certificate reporting kicked off an avalanche of data degradation and destructive public health policies.

Now, two Oregon Senators have broken their silence in an exclusive briefing about their letter and the petition calling for a thorough investigation. The project has been a months-in-the-making combined effort between scientific, legal, and public policy experts.

The letter submitted exactly one month prior to public release to protect those involved, was addressed to the Honorable Scott E. Asphaug, U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, which stated:

“What we have learned is worthy of independent State and/or Special Federal Grand Jury Investigation from our vantage point as elected state policymakers. Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 3332 — Powers and Duties and the case-law cited within the Formal Grand Jury Petition, we respectfully request that the petition and preliminary supportive documentation be presented to the members of the grand jury we are petitioning for immediate deliberation.

“Public trust in elected officials, the Oregon Health Authority, and our ability to lead the resilient people of Oregon through this crisis has been eroded to an all-time low. The peoples’ trust in their ability to participate in their own governance and be heard by their elected officials is perhaps the most essential element for a thriving free and healthy society.

“As elected officials, it is our sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Oregon, the tenets of Informed Consent, and honor our legal obligation to comply with 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony. We are fulfilling our duty by calling for a Special Federal Grand Jury Investigation, or at the very least an independent state district-led grand jury investigation convened by a judge, into the issues and evidentiary materials presented.”

During this press briefing, Leah Wilson, J.D., executive director and co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom, which hosted the national public signature gathering, asked revealing questions that should have been asked long ago by mainstream media networks that vacated their duty to impartially investigate and objectively inform the public.

To date, more than 62,200 signatures have been gathered, including thousands across Oregon where the two senators reside.

Also included on the briefing panel was Dr. Henry Ealy, the lead researcher from a team who authored the peer-reviewed papers titled “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective” and “COVID-19: Restoring Public Trust During A Global Health Crisis.”

His work verified significant findings of federal law violations by the CDC and acts of willful misconduct by the FDA that were thoroughly vetted through nine attorneys and one judge as well as stringent peer-review prior to being released publicly.

The papers are also in use across several active court cases, including one filed at the federal level against HHS and the CDC.

In February 2021, Stand for Health Freedom launched a public petition to gather signatures to ask U.S. Attorneys to convene a Grand Jury investigation into the CDC and FDA responses toward COVID-19 following astounding revelations concerning federal law violations and data inaccuracy.

We are 20 months after “two weeks to flatten the curve.” Americans deserve to know the integrity of the data relied upon by agencies pushing national health policy and reshaping the fabric of American life.

The CDC and FDA are issuing guidance asserted with the authority of federal law that is influencing officials at all levels of government to mandate something created by an industry that holds no liability for risk in selling its experimental and novel vaccine products. Americans are being told that these products are the only viable pathway back to a free and open society.

Senators Thatcher and Linthicum call upon Americans to pursue the federal grand jury process in their respective states to demand greater accountability.

Official statements:

“Federal agencies like the CDC have committed atrocities in the name of ‘public health,’ resulting in extensive collateral damage that transformed society in ways that we are still grappling to understand.

“The CDC’s unlawful and questionable changes to death certificates related to COVID, the use of false-positive PCR tests and their callous indifference to individual rights—or science, for that matter—led to fraudulent data that was used to justify sweeping policy changes, not only in Oregon, but across the country.

“I refuse to stand by and watch as our constitutional rights and liberties are endangered by oppressive agencies, which is why I have chosen to take part in this effort to bring forth a petition for a grand jury investigation. Equal protection under the Constitution is still the right of every American.”

— Kim Thatcher, Oregon State Senator

“Plain and simple: the CDC acted illegally in March of 2020, which has led to these current ‘medical’ mandates stemming from the original lynchpin of corrupted data for COVID death certificates.

“Our health and the health of our children is our responsibility, not the government’s, yet the CDC, through pure data manipulation, has promulgated government overreach through incredulous policies in unimaginable ways through this wrongful sleight-of-hand, creating a falsified reality that has no place in a free society.

— Dennis Linthicum, Oregon State Senator

“Our COVID Research Team has dedicated more than 20,000 hours to investigating all aspects of COVID-19 and feels that it is imperative to produce high-integrity research to empower elected officials, attorneys, professional organizations, independent media, and the public to take action on behalf of good people throughout the world.

“Why am I doing this? I ask myself this question often, and then I think about Simone Scott, the 19-year old Northwestern student who died horrifically after receiving experimental inoculations. I think about Hayden Hunstable, the 12-year old who took his own life during the despair of being isolated from friends during ineffective lockdowns. And I think about how the CDC has violated multiple federal laws in order to hyperinflate COVID deaths and promote rampant acts of willful misconduct.

“What’s happened since 2-weeks to flatten the curve is wrong and while we can’t bring back the departed, we can make sure they are remembered as the inspirations for us making things right.”

— Dr. Henry L. Ealy, Researcher, Founder of the Energetic Health Institute

“Grand jury petitions are a way for any elected officials or individual to help drive forward an investigation into the widespread willful misconduct surrounding the response to COVID-19.

“The work that Oregon Senators Dennis Linthicum and Kim Thatcher have done provides a viable template for others to use in their own state to say ‘we have had enough’ and demand real answers, with real discovery, to end the harmful policies destroying the U.S.”

— Leah Wilson, J.D., Executive Director, and Co-Founder, Stand for Health Freedom

Take action

It’s not too late for you to add your name to the growing list of signatures calling for an investigation into the CDC and FDA. It’s more important than ever, on the heels of the White House calling for illegal, unnecessary and unethical medical mandates across the U.S.

Join more than 62,200 Americans by signing the official online petition or text the word CDC data to the number 50457 to create leverage with your voice to call for a formal investigation into violations of federal law that caused hyperinflation of counted COVID cases, hospitalizations, and recorded deaths.

This willful misconduct by agencies charged with guarding public health paved the way for massive collateral damage and destruction in America and beyond.

Our aim is also to help replicate this grand jury effort as a template with leaders across other states. We need to hold public health agencies accountable to ensure data integrity for national health policies is reliable and does not inflict greater harm than good on our nation.

Contact our team by emailing advocates@standforhealthfreedom.com with “Grand Jury” in the subject line so we can assist you and connect you with others taking a stand in your state!

Originally published by Stand for Health Freedom.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




Constitution Day 2021: It’s Time to Make America Free Again

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

The Constitution of the United States represents the classic solution to one of humankind’s greatest political problems: that is, how does a small group of states combine into a strong union without the states losing their individual powers and surrendering their control over local affairs?

The fifty-five delegates who convened in Philadelphia during the sweltering summer of 1787 answered this question with a document that called for a federal plan of government, a system of separation of powers with checks and balances, and a procedure for orderly change to meet the needs and exigencies of future generations.

In an ultimate sense, the Constitution confirmed the proposition that original power resided in the people—not, however, in the people as a whole but in their capacity as people of the several states.  To bring forth the requisite union, the people through the states would transfer some of their powers to the new federal government.  All powers not reserved by the people in explicit state constitutional limitations remained in the state governments.

Although the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, the fear of the new federal government was so strong that a “bill of rights” was demanded and became an eventuality.

Intended to protect the citizenry’s fundamental rights or “first liberties” against usurpation by the newly created federal government, the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments of the Constitution—is essentially a list of immunities from interference by the federal government.

Unfortunately, although the Bill of Rights was adopted as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, in America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom is damned.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, a viral pandemic, and more to come), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called name of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole-body scanners, stop and frisk searches, vaccine mandates, travel lockdowns, and the like (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, and the courts)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

What we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Sadly, most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution, post-9/11 and in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested, and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a so-called government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited to the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered nearly null and void.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise), and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty, or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land, or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state, and national entities has long since been rendered moot by centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress, and the courts.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws, and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one.

A survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsons television family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two, and one-fourth could name all three.

It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude, “Most educators think that students already have enough freedom and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting a prior review of school newspapers.”

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties”  is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is the founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.




Biden’s New MANDATE! Will You COMPLY?

Video Source: AwakenWithJP

Biden’s New MANDATE! Will You COMPLY? The Biden administration issued a new order for everybody to get the shot who works in a business with more than 100 employees. This is for everyone’s safety and is based on the latest science. Right? Or not? Will you comply?




What Exactly Is This “Great Reset” People Keep Talking About?

By Jeff Thompson | The Organic Prepper

For those who may not know, (and those who do) here is a primer on The Great Reset.

Buckle your seat belts for this one because it’s more chilling than any horror movie you’ve ever seen. You’ve heard your “crazy” friend at work bring it up in conversation. Perhaps you heard it briefly mentioned on TV the other day. And now you’re left wondering, “Just what on earth is The Great Reset?”

Meet the World Economic Forum (WEF)

You’ve heard of the WEF before. They’ve been in the news quite a bit for the past year or so. The reason? The Great Reset initiative. It is there that a man by the name of Klaus Schwabb runs the show. Schwabb founded the WEF and is one of the most powerful men in the world.

Each year the World Economic Forum hosts an event at a ski resort in the mountains of Switzerland where “the self-proclaimed global elite” meet to discuss global problems they can all work together to “fix.”

Generally, WEF invites 1500 people from roughly 70 countries to attend. All the attendees play major roles in various sectors of society, with a large portion of those invited being major players in the worlds of politics and business. 

In 2020, Schwabb released a book titled COVID-19: The Great Reset, in which he lays out his plans for what he believes needs to happen next.  

Now, let’s talk about Agendas

First, you need to understand one thing: the World Economic Forum and the United Nations march together hand in hand. In short, they’re two sides of the same coin.

The United Nations previously announced two separate agendas eerily similar to The Great Reset that contain many of the same components. These two UN agendas, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, include plans for what needs to happen on earth by 2021 and 2030 (there’s also an Agenda 2050, by the way).

Agenda 2030 has publicly stated goals of promoting racial and gender equality, eradicating global poverty, and abolishing violence, hate, and war from the globe. It also states it will reduce natural resource use in every country and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every industrialized country. 

And how do you suppose Agenda 2030 would accomplish those goals?

Suppose you’re a lumberjack. A global organization has just stated you’re no longer permitted to cut down trees to “reduce natural resource use.” You’re now out of a job and can’t afford to feed your newborn daughter.

Or, let’s say you’re a farmer. A global organization has just stated that your cows produce too much methane. They’re all slaughtered and left to rot in a field (we’ll get to why later). You’ve now lost a significant investment, your primary source of income, and are out of a job. Farmers in non-industrialized nations are permitted to raise cattle. But you’re an American, so you are not.

Why? Because we need to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every industrialized country.”

Here’s another example. You’re an American with unalienable rights, a Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. You have the Declaration of Independence and a long history of fierce protection of freedom. Protection of freedom necessitates the possession of arms.

But now, a global organization has landed troops on your shores. Why? To “abolish violence.” The organization deems your possession of arms as a hindrance to such. Therefore, the organization will take measures against you to abolish violence.

The Great Reset incorporates all these ideas into its plans

Publicly, the WEF states The Great Reset is going to be about completely revamping capitalism.

“Every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” – The WEF [source]

The WEF particularly likes to say they want to instigate “stakeholder capitalism,” where the bulk of the private sector works hand in hand with the government. They say that such “will require stronger and more effective governments.” According to the WEF, there are human and financial costs of capitalism not being addressed. [source]

What do you call it when the government owns and controls all private business?

Communism. You call it communism.

And, what happens when capitalism dies?

As Ayn Rand pointed out in her excellent book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, man on this earth without capitalism is bound. It’s inseparable from true human freedom. Collectivism leads to further and further slavery every single time.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

A significant component of The Great Reset is a term Schwabb coined back in December 2015 – The Fourth Industrial Revolution. The best way to describe it is to combine The MatrixMinority Report, and Will Smith’s I, Robot.

According to Schwabb, the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution is “Ubiquitous, mobile supercomputing. Intelligent robots. Self-driving cars. Neuro-technological brain enhancements. Genetic editing. The evidence of dramatic change is all around us, and it’s happening at exponential speed.”

In short, Schwabb wants to turn the world into a digital mecca

Perhaps you don’t care about the above “improvements” – they don’t bother you? Well, let’s continue to delve deeper.

As it is, the WEF has already alluded to the possibility of using an AI to govern humanity. Humans would no longer have elected representatives in office (not that the US has that now, but I digress). Instead, super-powerful AI would determine what supplies went where and what prices would be, and so on. 

It’s the surrender of humanity to a machine.

Furthermore, what about these brain enhancements and genetic editing?

Look around at the world before you and what “the powers that be” have forced upon society. In a world full of brain enhancements and genetic editing, do you genuinely think you would still be free to choose?

Remember that The Fourth Industrial Revolution heavily ties in with The Great Reset, which seeks a one-world government. In such a world, should it be decreed under the guise of law that overpopulation is a problem, the ability to genetically edit sterility into 20% of the population becomes a reality. Let’s say the lottery system selects both of your kids. Do you really think they would grant you a say?

Freedom would have long been rotting in the grave in such a world.

Further aspects of The Fourth Industrial Revolution include digital surveillance everywhere, made possible worldwide by 5G (with the hope of utilizing 6G eventually). [source] 

There would be no privacy in such a world. It would be Nazi Germany on steroids. Have you read Zamyatin’s dystopian novel We (in many ways, the inspiration for 1984)? Practically, you’d be living in a world of glasshouses.

It’s worth noting that there are several other aspects of TGR that bear mentioning. Consider the following:

Rural populations will be forcibly coerced into urban environments 

Allegedly, to combat climate change. In reality, it is to have easier control over potential dissidents. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to leave your farm. The good of the whole compels you, and men who have heartily devoured Mao Zedong’s philosophy on power (“Political power only grows out of the barrel of a gun.”) will be happy to assist you in your mental transition here. [source]

Citizens now rent everything because they own nothing

Aden Tate wrote about what the world would like without personal property in this article. Aden writes, “Within the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, the mantra has come out that by the year 2030, ‘you’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.’”

The government now owns everything, as a group of men comes in to tell you they are stealing what is rightfully yours. The world falls back to a system of feudalism. The Irish are well-familiarized with how such a system works out. [source]

All media is digital

Climate change, of course. And let’s not forget the recent trend to battle “disinformation’. If everything is digital, it is censorable. This serves as the ultimate means of wholly controlling what it is people read and say. [source]

A Chinese-style social credit system

Good global citizens of the one-world government will have a higher social credit score than the older American who supports those fighting against foreign invaders. These higher scores will permit access to travel “privileges,” better food, and better jobs. And in a world full of brain implants and genetic editing, I wonder what some of the punishments for low-scoring Americans could be? [source]

A digital blockchain currency is now the way forward

Cash becomes a vector of disease, expensive to produce, and inefficient. Of course, this means they can track every purchase you ever make. [source] There is no anonymity of purchases any longer. Given the new ability to pay for food with your palm, the push for using a QR code to pay for anything, and quantum dot tattoos that may be able to store your financial data, this may not be too far off.

What’s for dinner? Bugs and fake, food-like lab products

According to The Great Reset, animals are a “resource-intensive” form of protein. The GR seeks to steer you away from such foods and “towards four main categories of alternatives – aquatic, plant-based, insect-based, and laboratory-cultured.” [source] 

The Great Reset and the World Economic Forum are NOT your friends

Should The Great Reset succeed, the world will firmly fall into the grip of a totalitarian government. You will be a slave in every sense of the word, liable to medical experimentation and forced treatments. The state will own your children, and if history serves as a guide, you won’t get to keep them for long. Should the AI determine it’s convenient, your family will be uprooted and transferred to a newly created ghetto.

Forced to ingest chemicals rather than food, you will never know what genetic-altering agents and medications are in those foods. 

Your lifelong dream to be a parent could be vaporized as mandates of forced sterility begin. Should woke culture decide masculine men are an issue, would it be outside the scope of the power of a government that owns everything to mandate the creation of eunuchs throughout your town?

Though the rest of the world may have fallen, Americans can never let their country follow suit.

Too much depends upon it.

What are your thoughts about The Great Reset?

What are your thoughts about the Great Reset? Do you believe it is the stuff of conspiracy theories or the advent of global communism and control? Do you intend to fall in line or fight it? Share your thoughts in the comments.

About the Author

Jeff Thompson is an avid fisherman who likes to spend time sailing on his boat and reading while at sea.




SHOCKING! Australia Brazenly Announces a New World Order! | Luke Rudkowski (We Are Change)

Note: At the bottom of this post, watch the 1-min excerpt from George H.W. Bush’s “New World Order” speech on Sept 11, 1990

Source: WeAreChange

By Luke Rudkowski

Holy smokes. It’s here.

You’ve got to hear what Australian public health official Kerry Chant says at the beginning of the above video: “We will be looking at what contract tracing looks like in the New World Order.”

(CLN Editor Note: She announced the arrival of the New World Order almost exactly 31 years to the day after George H.W. Bush announced the coming on the New World Order on September 11, 1990: “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a New World Order…When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order – an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”)

Watch how she’s calling for denying people freedom and effectively enslaving them because they didn’t do what the government wanted them to do.

And specifically how contact tracing is a part of the New World Order and how the New World Order will play out.

So in the video above, I get into the background of this being a concept that has been espoused and been talked about for a very long time. And now it’s being promoted by a government that has gone totalitarian like China or North Korea.

Additionally, I delve into Twitter’s reaction and rush to censorship, as well as how the MSM is spinning all of this.

Plus, I give you an update on key economic developments in the US and El Salvador.

And I explain how Prince Andrew is fleeing in order to avoid being served in a case brought by his victims.
@@@@

George H.W. Bush’s New World Order Speech on 9/11/1990 

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order – a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order – an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.” ~ George H.W. Bush, September 11, 1990

See the transcript of the full speech HERE.




The Orwellian Vaccine Passport Agenda and the Lie of the “Social Contract”

By Brandon Smith | Alt-Market

There is a fundamental question that needs to be asked when examining the vaccine passport issue, and what I find is that almost no one in the mainstream is tackling it directly. The question is this:

Is it legally and morally acceptable to constrict the rights and economic access of people in order to force them to submit to an experimental “vaccine”, or any other medical procedure for that matter?

Furthermore, who gets to decide what medical procedures are acceptable to enforce? Who gets to be the all-powerful and benevolent overseer of every human being’s health path? I ask this because I don’t think many people realize the future repercussions of allowing governments or corporations (the same thing these days) to dictate covid vaccinations. It doesn’t stop there; in fact, we have no idea where this stops once Pandora’s box is opened.

For example, the primary argument of the covid cult and the establishment in favor of vaccine passports is the “social contract” fantasy. They claim that because we “live in a society”, everything we do affects everyone else in some way, and because we are all interconnected in our “collective” we are thus beholden to the collective. In other words, the collective has the “right” to micro-manage the life of the individual because if the individual is allowed to make his/her own decisions they might potentially cause harm to the whole group.

In case you are not familiar with this philosophy, it is an extension of socialism and cultural Marxism, and it stands at the very core of vaccine passport propaganda. I have actually had public debates with pro-socialist people in the past who have tried to defend the merits of socialism and every single time the argument comes down to one singular disconnect – I say that if a group of people wants to go off and start their own little socialist community they have every right to…as long as it is VOLUNTARY. Then if it fails and collapses it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect me or anyone else who did not want to participate.

The problem is that these Socialists/communists/Marxists/collectivists simply do not grasp the notion of voluntarism. They believe that people need to be forced into doing the right thing or helping others, and they are the people that get to decide what the right thing is and who gets the help. They are the people that get to decide what freedoms are acceptable and what freedoms are inconvenient to their agenda. When they say “We live in a society…”, what they really mean is “You live in OUR society, and WE will determine what is best for you.”

When I argue that a socialist community should be voluntary, they inevitably argue that people will not commit to such a system voluntarily so they must be forced to do what is best for the “greater good”.

In terms of vaccine passports, the collectivist social contract is a key element. They claim that being unvaxxed is not a personal freedom because the unvaxxed is a risk to the lives of everyone else. The social contract is therefore violated because by making a personal life choice you are endangering the rights of others.

It’s interesting though how the covid cult is made up of people that do not apply the same logic to other health issues like abortion. I mean, there is zero substantiated evidence to support the claim that unvaccinated people are any more of a threat to the lives of others than vaccinated people are, and we will get into that in just a moment. But, when we talk about abortion, we are talking about a personal medical decision that leads to the direct and observable death of another innocent human being with his/her own rights. Abortions end the lives of over 800,000 unborn people per year in the US, far more than covid supposedly does.

“My body my choice” apparently only applies to killing babies, but not to people who do not want to become guinea pigs for an mRNA cocktail with no long-term testing to prove its safety.

Imagine though if we reversed the scenario and applied the broad social contract argument to something like children and population? A collectivist/leftist member of the global warming cult could also argue that abortion should be legally mandated because having a child or “too many children” increases carbon emissions and this puts society “at-risk” even further (again, with no proof to support the claim). By allowing the social contract narrative to go unchecked, we open the door to horrific new oppressive measures and complete erasure of our autonomy.

I think it’s safe to say that the “social contract” ideology is highly selective and hypocritical. The covid cult does not care about saving lives, they only care about their ideological narrative and the power to make people submit to it. But let’s dig even further into the reasoning behind the social contract claim. Who is actually dying because of unvaccinated individuals, which according to state vax statistics make up around 50% of the US population?

The average Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of covid is a mere 0.26% according to dozens of studies and the government’s own numbers. Meaning, unvaxxed people are not even a remote threat to 99.7% of the population. Around 40% of all covid deaths are made up of people in nursing homes with preexisting conditions, which means that we do not know if they actually died of covid or due to the health problems they were already suffering from. The pool of people who might be affected by the unvaxxed grows smaller and smaller…

And what about the ridiculous contradiction that arises when we talk about the mandate narrative versus the passport narrative? If masks and vaccines actually work, then how is an unvaxxed or unmasked person a threat to a vaxxed person? If the vaccines and masks don’t work, then why use them at all, and why demand forced vaccinations through passport measures?

Mainstream propaganda asserts that the unvaxxed will somehow become Petri dishes for new mutations that will harm vaccinated people. There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, there is more evidence that suggests it is vaccinated people that will trigger mutations and variants. The media says that this is not causing any concern, but if it’s not then neither should we be concerned about mutations that gestate in the unvaxxed population, if there are any.

The fact of the matter is that more and more scientific evidence is proving that the experimental vaccines are NOT effective and that the unvaxxed are actually safer from covid regardless of the variant or mutation.

The true infection numbers within the US are impossible to know because up to 59% of people that catch covid and spread it are asymptomatic according to the CDC. They never know that they have it so they are unlikely to test for it. That said, it is clear that many millions of Americans have dealt with the virus and now have a natural immunity to it (I happen to be one of them). Establishment elitists like Anthony Fauci refuse to acknowledge natural immunity as a factor, and they say that ONLY people who are vaccinated are qualified to receive a passport. Why?

Multiple studies are being released from countries with high vaccination rates like Israel that completely contradict Fauci’s narrative on natural immunity. Israel has a vax rate of around 63% according to government stats, but scientific evidence they have released shows that vaccinated people are 13-27 times more likely to contract covid and 8 times more likely to be hospitalized when compared with people who have natural immunity. It almost appears as if the mRNA vaccines make people MORE susceptible to the virus rather than less susceptible.

Recent data released from the state of Massachusetts supports this concern. In the month of July, MA reported at least 5100 covid infections, all people who were fully vaccinated. Over 80 of them died, which is a much higher death rate than among the unvaccinated. In my county of 20,000 people, which has a low vaccination rate and no mask mandates, there were only 17 total covid deaths in the first year of the pandemic.

This begs the question: Why take the mRNA cocktail at all? What is there to gain? Well, there is nothing to gain in terms of health safety. Even if you happen to be part of the 0.26% of people at risk from covid, you are better off, in the long run, taking your chances with natural immunity than getting the jab.

The answer to the question is not about health, but about denial of access. The government and their corporate partners are trying to make it so you MUST take the vaccine in order to participate in normal social activities or even to keep a job. Not only that, but the process goes on forever because every year there will be new variants and new booster shots. The only reason to take the vaccine is to keep at least a handful of your freedoms and to avoid poverty and starvation.

Here is where we must go back to the original query presented at the beginning of this article:

Is it legally and morally acceptable to constrict the rights and economic access of people in order to force them to submit to an experimental “vaccine”?

The covid cult will say that private business rights trump individual rights so companies should be allowed to discriminate against employees based on their vaccination status. But then again, what we are facing in most cases are NOT private businesses but conglomerates that are funded by government bailouts and that are colluding to direct with governments to enforce the passport agenda. So I would have to say no, these businesses do not have a legal right to feed on public tax dollars and then claim they are private entities that have the freedom to invade the medical privacy of employees and customers.

And since when do collectivists actually care about private business rights, anyway? More hypocrisy…

If we are talking about small and medium businesses with no government stimulus then the issue gets more tricky. In many states and other countries, the businesses are only enforcing passports because if they don’t they will be punished by the government. In this case, the private business rights argument goes out the window. The covid cult respects business independence only when it suits them.

Frankly, it is small businesses that are being hurt the most by the covid mandates and the extra costs involved just in enforcing the passports in their own establishments are going to bury them. Any small business owner that voluntarily supports the passport rules must have a financial death wish.

In terms of government, the covid cult will claim that there are Supreme Court precedents for legal enforcement of vaccinations. Honestly, I don’t care, and neither do millions of other Americans. A bunch of high priests in black robes do not get to dictate my independent health decisions; I make those decisions and there’s nothing that they can do about it. This is where we have to come to terms with the morals and principles involved – The lives of others are in no way affected by my decision to refuse to comply with vaccine passports. And just because a group of people has irrational fears about the threat of covid does not mean people with more discernment about the facts should be required to make them “feel better” or feel safer.

The bottom line is this: Our freedoms are more important than our paranoid fears, and we will not comply. We do not subscribe to your false social contract, and you are in no position to dictate the terms of our “society”. Don’t like it? You are more than welcome to leave the country and start a vaccinated Utopia somewhere else. We’ll see how that works out for you in the long run.

About the Author

Brandon Smith writes for Alt-Markets.us. If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.




Harvard Epidemiologist Says The Case For COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished

Photo by Thérèse Soukar, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

By Jon Miltimore | Foundation for Economic Education

A newly published medical study found that infection from COVID-19 confers considerably longer-lasting and stronger protection against the Delta variant of the virus than vaccines.

“The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a ‘Don’t try this at home’ label,” the Scientific American reported Thursday. “The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”

Put another way, vaccinated individuals were 27 times more likely to get a symptomatic COVID infection than those with natural immunity from COVID.

The findings come as many governments around the world are demanding citizens acquire “vaccine passports” to travel. New York City, France, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and British Columbia are among those who have recently embraced vaccine passports.

Meanwhile, Australia has floated the idea of making higher vaccination rates a condition of lifting its lockdown in jurisdictions, while President Joe Biden is considering making interstate travel unlawful for people who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19.

Vaccine passports are morally dubious for many reasons, not the least of which is that freedom of movement is a basic human right. However, vaccine passports become even more senseless in light of the new findings out of Israel and revelations from the CDC, some say.

Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory since they disproportionately affect working-class individuals.

“Prior COVID disease (many working-class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,” Kulldorff, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter.

Nor is the study out of Israel a one-off. Media reports show that no fewer than 15 academic studies have found that natural immunity offers immense protection from COVID-19.

Moreover, CDC research shows that vaccinated individuals still get infected with COVID-19 and carry just as much of the virus in their throat and nasal passage as unvaccinated individuals

“High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus,” CDC Rochelle Director Walensky noted following a Cape Cod outbreak that included mostly vaccinated individuals.

These data suggest that vaccinated individuals are still spreading the virus much like unvaccinated individuals.

Vaccine passports would be immoral and a massive government overreach even in the absence of these findings. There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner.

Yet the justification for vaccine passports becomes not just wrong but absurd in light of these new revelations.

People who have had COVID already have significantly more protection from the virus than people who’ve been vaccinated. Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk.

Jon Miltimore
Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.




Glenn Greenwald: How Many Lives Will Be Lost Because of ‘Irrational’ COVID Policies?

American journalist Glenn Greenwald in a new video describes what he says is the “bizarre refusal” to apply proper cost-benefit analysis when it comes to COVID-related debates and policy.

There’s an “extremely irrational” component to the debates around COVID, said, Greenwald. He used the analogy that while deaths from car accidents are the leading cause of death worldwide for people under 50, no one is advocating for a ban on cars or significantly reduced speed limits, even though those policies would save countless lives.

Why not? Because we apply cost-benefit analysis, Greenwald suggested.

Greenwald said:

“We know that the policy we’re choosing, to allow cars, to allow everybody to drive, to allow people to drive 55, 65, 75 miles per hour, we know that’s going to cause a huge number of human beings in our society to be killed. But we think it’s worth it for those people to die because the benefits of allowing cars — i.e. convenience, the ability to go more places, the economic benefits to ourselves and our society — make those deaths worth it.”

Why don’t we use this same rationale when debating how to treat COVID? Greenwald asked.

In a recent article, Greenwald defined the cost-benefit analysis used by society as a tool that “compares project costs (capital and operating expenses) with a broad range of (social) impacts, e.g. travel time savings, travel costs, impacts on other modes, climate, safety, and the environment.”

The cost-benefit analysis used routinely by society has never been controversial, said Greenwald — that is, until COVID hit.

Greenwald wrote:

“It is now extremely common in Western democracies for large factions of citizens to demand that any measures undertaken to prevent COVID deaths are vital, regardless of the costs imposed by those policies.

“Thus, this mentality insists, we must keep schools closed to avoid the contracting by children of COVID regardless of the horrific costs which 18 months or two years of school closures impose on all children.”

Greenwald questioned why we use this “rational risk assessment in every single aspect of our public lives,” but not for COVID.

“Why when it comes to COVID, do we throw this rational framework out?” asked Greenwald.

People say we shouldn’t do anything that causes more deaths, said Greenwald. Governments around the world say we should close schools and businesses and keep people locked down in their homes — but they aren’t thinking about “the countervailing costs to those restrictive measures” and how many lives will be lost as a result.

How much harm is COVID restrictions “causing emotionally, psychologically, developmentally, economically?” asked Greenwald. “Where is the application of that cost-benefit analysis we do in every other realm to the COVID debate?”

Watch the video here:




Denmark Will Scrap ALL Covid Restrictions on September 10 and Stop Classifying It As ‘A Critical Threat To Society’

Denmark has not seen more than five coronavirus-related deaths per day since February

By David Averre | DailyMail

Denmark’s health officials will lift all of the country’s Covid restrictions by September 10, as they believe the virus no longer poses ‘a critical threat to society.

More than 70 percent of Danes are fully vaccinated and the low levels of Covid in the country led the health minister on Friday to announce that the virus is now ‘under control’.

‘The epidemic is under control, we have record vaccination levels. That is why, on September 10, we can lift the special rules we had to introduce in the fight against Covid-19,’ Health Minister Magnus Heunicke said.

However, he stressed that ‘the epidemic is not over and said the government ‘will not hesitate to act quickly if the pandemic once again threatens the essential functioning of society.’

Denmark was one of the first countries to introduce a partial lockdown in March 2020, and in April 2021 introduced a 'corona passport' granting holders access to businesses like restaurants, cinemas, gyms and hair salons

Denmark was one of the first countries to introduce a partial lockdown in March 2020, and in April 2021 introduced a ‘corona passport’ granting holders access to businesses like restaurants, cinemas, gyms, and hair salons

Denmark was one of the first countries to introduce a partial lockdown in March 2020, shutting down schools and non-essential businesses and services.

It has relaxed and reinforced its measures throughout the pandemic, and in April introduced a ‘corona passport’ granting holders access to businesses like restaurants, cinemas, gyms, and hair salons.

That requirement was already lifted in some places such as museums on August 1, and masks have not been mandatory on public transport in Denmark since August 14.

A number of further restrictions are set to end on September 1. From the start of the month, people will no longer be required to show a valid corona pass to sit in restaurants and bars, though a pass will still be required to enter nightclubs and other large events such as football matches until September 10.

The change in the classification of Covid-19 will not, however, affect rules on travel into Denmark, which are governed by a separate inter-party agreement that is due to expire in October, a spokesperson for the health ministry said.

Denmark has not seen more than five coronavirus-related deaths per day since February.

Meanwhile, in England, cases continued to grow last week with one in 70 people testing positive for the virus, official figures show.

Some 756,900 people had Covid on any given day in the week leading up to August 20, a jump of nine percent compared to the 698,100 figure seven days earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Across England, 1.39 percent of people had Covid, but as many as 1.8 percent of people tested positive in the worst-hit parts of the country. Up to 3.5 percent of school-aged children had the virus, sparking fears that cases will surge as children head back to the classroom in England and Wales next week.




How the Endless War Became the Endless Pandemic

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • In a recent article, journalist Glenn Greenwald lays out evidence showing the U.S. government has intentionally lied about its impact and progress in Afghanistan for the last 20 years
  • Evidence suggests the Afghan war was designed to funnel taxpayer money to security contractors and Afghan warlords
  • If the U.S. government routinely lies to protect financial war interests, could they be lying about the COVID pandemic and facets thereof as well, and for the same reason?
  • Biological threats and pandemics are a new form of war meant to continue in perpetuity, where the beneficiaries are both military and corporate
  • We’ve been repeatedly told that COVID shots will prevent disease far better than natural infection. This flies in the face of everything we know, scientifically, and data from around the world prove just how incorrect that claim is

In the video report above, journalist Glenn Greenwald elaborates on a recent expose’1 he published in which he accuses the U.S. government of downplaying the capabilities of the Afghan security forces trained by the U.S. military.

“Using the same deceitful tactics they pioneered in Vietnam, U.S. political and military officials repeatedly misled the country about the prospects for success in Afghanistan,” Greenwald writes.2

He points out how presidents over the past 20 years have repeatedly announced victory over the Taliban and Al Qaeda and bragged about what a great job the U.S. is doing in training and fortifying the Afghan Security Forces.

Most recently, on July 8, 2021, President Biden insisted a Taliban takeover was essentially impossible and that “the Afghan government and leadership … clearly have the capacity to sustain the government in place.”

A Miscalculation of Epic Proportions

When a reporter asked Biden to comment on intelligence reports warning that the Afghan government would likely collapse, Biden was quick to deny it, saying “That is not true. They did not — they didn’t — did not reach that conclusion.” He also stated that “the likelihood that there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.” In his article, Greenwald goes on:3

“And then, in an exchange that will likely assume historic importance in terms of its sheer falsity from a presidential podium, Biden issued this decree:

Q. Mr. President, some Vietnamese veterans see echoes of their experience in this withdrawal in Afghanistan. Do you see any parallels between this withdrawal and what happened in Vietnam, with some people feeling —

THE PRESIDENT: None whatsoever. Zero. What you had is — you had entire brigades breaking through the gates of our embassy — six, if I’m not mistaken.

The Taliban is not the south — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable.”

If you’ve watched the news over the past several days, you know those statements did not age well, as the Taliban took over the presidential palace in Kabul and U.S. embassy staff were helicoptered off the roof in a rushed evacuation4 after the security forces surrendered to the Taliban without a fight.

A Lie Repeated Does Not Make It True

July 21, 2021, General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted “there’s a possibility of a complete Taliban takeover,” but still insisted that the Afghan Security Forces “have the capacity to sufficiently fight and defend their country.”

Eight years ago, in September 2013, Milley stated the Afghan Security Forces “have been very, very effective in combat against the insurgents every single day.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken has also gone on record,5 mere months ago, denouncing fears that U.S. withdrawal would deteriorate the security picture in Afghanistan, and even if it did, it would not occur anytime soon.

“None of this was true,” Greenwald writes.6 “It was always a lie, designed first to justify the U.S.’s endless occupation of that country and, then, once the U.S. was poised to withdraw, to concoct a pleasing fairy tale about why the prior twenty years were not, at best, an utter waste.

That these claims were false cannot be reasonably disputed as the world watches the Taliban take over all of Afghanistan as if the vaunted ‘Afghan national security forces’ were china dolls using paper weapons.

But how do we know that these statements made over the course of two decades were actual lies rather than just wildly wrong claims delivered with sincerity? To begin with, we have seen these tactics from U.S. officials — lying to the American public about wars to justify both their initiation and continuation — over and over.”

Greenwald goes on to review how the Vietnam and Iraq wars were both predicated on complete fabrications “disseminated by the intelligence community and endorsed by corporate media outlets,” and how political and military leaders lied about our chances of success.

The Pentagon Papers, top-secret documents by military planners, were released in June 1971, proving U.S. officials were far more pessimistic about the Vietnam war than admitted publicly. A similar cache of documents relating to Afghanistan was published by The Washington Post in 2019.7 According to The Post, “U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it …”

Was the Afghan War Nothing but a For-Profit Scheme?

For 20 years, U.S. generals have claimed they’re making headway in training an Afghan army and national police force to defend the nation without foreign assistance.

In reality, military trainers “described the Afghan security forces as incompetent, unmotivated, and rife with deserters. They also accused Afghan commanders of pocketing salaries — paid by U.S. taxpayers — for tens of thousands of ‘ghost soldiers,’” The Post wrote.8

According to The Post, documents and interviews not only contradicted public statements by U.S. presidents and military commanders but proved such statements were intentional lies. Statistics and surveys were intentionally altered and manipulated at every turn to maintain the false appearance that progress was being made and that the effort was well worth it.

In reality, the entire Afghan venture appears to have been little more than a for-profit scheme. In a July 2021 article, independent journalist Michael Tracey interviewed a U.S. veteran of the Afghan war who participated in the training programs of Afghan police and military:9

“‘I don’t think I could overstate that this was a system just basically designed for funneling money and wasting or losing equipment,’ he said.

In sum, ‘as far as the U.S. military presence there — I just viewed it as a big money funneling operation’: an endless money pit for U.S. security contractors and Afghan warlords, all of whom knew that no real progress was being made, just sucking up as much U.S. taxpayer money as they could before the inevitable withdraw and takeover by the Taliban.”

Greenwald also points out that evidence given to him by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden showed the NSA was monitoring and recording every single cell phone call in five countries, including Afghanistan, making it highly unlikely the U.S. did not know the true state of affairs.

“There was virtually nothing that could happen in Afghanistan without the U.S. intelligence community’s knowledge. There is simply no way that they got everything so completely wrong while innocently and sincerely trying to tell Americans the truth about what was happening there,” Greenwald writes,10 adding that, in light of available facts:

“It is simply inconceivable that Biden’s false statements last month about the readiness of the Afghan military and police force were anything but intentional.”

Afghan Veteran Sets Record Straight

In a recent MSNBC interview, Matt Zeller, a former first lieutenant in the Afghan war, former Afghan Security Forces adviser, and cofounder of a veteran’s organization called No One Left Behind, also accused President Biden of telling “a bald-faced lie.”

According to Zeller, the U.S. military certainly has not planned for every contingency, as Biden claims, and the White House has repeatedly rejected plans for the safe and orderly evacuation of American personnel and wartime allies.

“I’m appalled [Biden] thinks we only need to take [out] 2,000 people,” Zeller says. “There are 86,000 people currently left behind in Afghanistan and we’ve identified all of them for the government.”

Are We Being Lied to About COVID Too?

By now you may be wondering where I’m going with this. After all, I’m not known for my political commentary. My point is this: If the U.S. government routinely lies to protect financial war interests, could they be lying about the COVID pandemic and facets thereof as well, and for the same reason?

Just like the military-industrial complex misleads the public, the oil, pharmaceutical, and banking industries pull strings and lie to the American public, and spread propaganda to maintain and augment their wealth, power, and control.

Just as the U.S. government has been blatantly wrong about its role in Afghanistan, they are equally, and just as blatantly, wrong about COVID-19 — its dangers, prevalence, prevention, and treatment. This is clear for anyone willing to actually look at the science and the data.

Interestingly, in 2011, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange noted: “The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the U.S. and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war.”11

Likewise, the goal of the pandemic does not appear to be to put an end to it. Rather, biological threats and pandemics are a new form of war meant to continue in perpetuity, where the beneficiaries are both military and corporate.

Truth May Be Slow to Emerge but Usually Prevails

However, just as their lies about Afghanistan are now blowing up in their faces, I suspect their lies about COVID will come back to bite them as well, eventually. For example, we’ve been repeatedly told that COVID shots will prevent disease far better than natural infection.12

This flies in the face of everything we know, scientifically,13 and data from around the world are now proving just how incorrect that claim is. In Israel, data show half of all COVID-19 infections are now among the fully vaccinated,14 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations are among the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated also account for 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients.15

Overall, Israelis who have received the COVID jab are 6.72 times more likely to get infected than people who have recovered from natural infection.16,17,18 Among the 7,700 new COVID cases diagnosed so far during the current wave of infections that began in May 2021, 39% were vaccinated, 1% had recovered from a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 60% were neither vaccinated nor previously infected.

In the U.S., where health officials and the White House Administration are now insisting that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” with 95% of hospitalizations and 99% of deaths occurring among those who have refused the vaccine,19 we find out that this is based on data from January through June 2021.20

January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,21 and as of June 30, 46.9% were “fully vaccinated.”22 Using data from a time when a majority of Americans had yet to get the shot is hardly honest and transparent.

What Makes Natural Immunity Superior?

The concept that natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity is easily understood when you consider the following: Viruses contain several different proteins. The COVID shot induces antibodies against just one of those proteins, the spike protein.

When you’re infected with the whole virus, on the other hand, you develop antibodies against all parts of the virus, plus memory T cells. So, rather than having just one small army of narrowly-focused “soldiers”, you end up with a very large army with a much wider range of attack capability.

This also explains why natural immunity offers better protection against variants, as it recognizes several parts of the virus. If there are significant alternations to the spike protein, as with the Delta variant, vaccine-induced immunity can be evaded. Not so with natural immunity, as the other proteins are still recognized and attacked.

Not only that, but the COVID jabs actually actively promote the production of variants for which they provide virtually no protection at all, while those with natural immunity do not cause variants and are nearly universally protected against them.

Follow the Money

The idea that COVID-19 is a for-profit enterprise is easy to recognize by the fact that we’re told vaccination is the only way forward, and that we’ll need booster shots on a regular basis from here on.

Combine that with vaccine passports, and it’s not hard to see how a never-ending injection treadmill can be generated, where you have to comply with the latest shot recommendations or forfeit your ability to freely go about your business and live your life.

Someone benefits from such a scenario, and it surely isn’t the population at large. The beneficiaries are the pandemic industrial complex, which includes Big Pharma, Big Tech, big multinational investment firms, and the military-industrial complex, all of which are vested in the profitability of these shots.

Sources and References



Naomi Wolf Warns About the Dangers of the Vaccine Passports and More

https://rumble.com/embed/vitrv1/?pub=omyzz

Video Source: Rumble

Naomi Wolf warns about the vaccine passports, saying that they are the last step towards a fascist reality.




‘Dangerous Territory Ahead:’ What Will Segregated Society Look Like for the Unvaxxed?

 

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | The Defender

Story at-a-glance

  • High-profile restaurant chains like Shake Shack and Union Square Hospitality will require staff and indoor diners in New York City and Washington D.C. to show proof of COVID “vaccination,” starting September 7, 2021
  • Vaccinated-only bars and restaurants have also popped up in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Boulder, St. Louis, and New Orleans
  • A growing number of private companies are also requiring workers to participate in human medical experimentation or forfeit their job. High profile examples include Facebook, Google, Twitter, Lyft, Uber, Saks Fifth Avenue, The Washington Post, BlackRock, Ascension Health, Netflix, Walmart, the Walt Disney Corporation, and Morgan Stanley
  • PayPal is vowing to block transactions and cancel accounts held by “extremists” and anyone endangering “at-risk communities,” which could include just about anything, including anti-vaccine rhetoric
  • CNN anchor Don Lemon has suggested unvaccinated people ought to be barred from buying food in grocery stores and have their driver’s licenses
  • taken away

In 2020, the proposition that COVID-19 countermeasures would come to include forced vaccination and vaccine passports, resulting in a segregated society where only those participating in the COVID injection experiment have human rights, was labeled a wild conspiracy theory unworthy of discussion.

Fast-forward to August 2, 2021, and Forbes announces, “No Vax, No Service: Here’s Where Bars and Restaurants Across U.S. Are Requiring Proof of Vaccination.”1

No Jab, No Dining

According to Forbes,2 high-profile restaurant chains like Shake Shack and Union Square Hospitality are leading the way, requiring all staff and indoor diners in New York City and Washington D.C. to prove they’ve received the required doses of COVID-19 injections, starting September 7, 2021.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio hailed the decision, saying others will follow — and indeed, they did, with de Blasio himself announcing August 3, 2021, that proof of vaccination will be mandatory for all indoor dining, visiting gyms, and going to movie theaters in the city:3

“This is a miraculous place literally full of wonders,” Mr. de Blasio said. “If you’re vaccinated, all that’s going to open up to you. But if you’re unvaccinated, unfortunately you will not be able to participate in many things.”

Several New York City eateries were already checking vaccination status, and during the last week of July 2021, the San Francisco Bar Owners Alliance urged its 300 members to require proof of COVID-19 injection or a negative COVID test for patrons wanting to have a drink indoors.

Several Los Angeles restaurants, bars, and comedy clubs are also following suit, as are more than 60 establishments in Seattle. Vaccinated-only restaurants have also popped up in Oakland, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Boulder, St. Louis, and New Orleans.

Since COVID countermeasures are a global lockstep operation,4 the same segregation trend is emerging in other countries as well. On the other hand, in Florida, where I live, businesses are prohibited by law5,6 from requiring customers to show proof of participation in the COVID jab experiment.

No Jab, No Job

A growing number of private companies are also requiring workers to participate in human medical experimentation or forfeit their job. As reported by Axios,7 includes Facebook, Google, Twitter, Lyft, Uber, Saks Fifth Avenue, The Washington Post, BlackRock, Ascension Health, Netflix, Walmart, the Walt Disney Corporation, and Morgan Stanley.

As mentioned, Florida prohibits businesses from requiring customers to provide proof of COVID “vaccination,” but it does not bar companies from mandating vaccination for its employees.

For now, Disney’s jab mandate only pertains to salaried and non-union hourly employees, but according to Yahoo! News,8 Disney is in negotiations with union officials who represent theme park employees and members of its movie and TV production crews. The goal is to extend the vaccine mandate to union employees as well.

In May 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decreed that it is legal for companies to require employees to get COVID shots.9 This is despite the fact that the four available COVID injections are only authorized for emergency use and are as yet unlicensed.10 Testing is not expected to conclude for another two years.

No Jab, No Business

Private companies also have the right to not mandate COVID shots, of course, but standing up for workers’ right to choose could hamper their ability to conduct business at all, as PayPal is now vowing to block transactions and cancel accounts held by “extremists” and anyone endangering “at-risk communities,”11 which could include just about anything at this point.

Seeing how the White House is promoting the idea that people who question the safety and effectiveness of COVID shots are “killing people” and the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) labels anti-vaccine rhetoric as a form of hate speech, is it a stretch to suspect PayPal will start taking down the accounts of so-called “anti-vaxxers”?

Business owners and self-employed entrepreneurs who speak out against other official narratives probably face the same risk. Venture capitalist David Sacks recently commented on the situation:12

“When I helped create PayPal in 1999, it was in furtherance of a revolutionary idea. No longer would ordinary people be dependent on large financial institutions to start a business …

But now PayPal is turning its back on its original mission. It is now leading the charge to restrict participation by those it deems unworthy … [W]e are talking about … shutting down people and organizations that express views that are entirely lawful …

If history is any guide, other fintech companies will soon follow suit … When … your name lands on a No-Buy List created by a consortium of private fintech companies, to whom can you appeal?

As for the notion of building your own PayPal or Facebook: because of their gigantic network effects and economies of scale, there is no viable alternative when the whole industry works together to deny you access.

Kicking people off social media deprives them of the right to speak in our increasingly online world. Locking them out of the financial economy is worse: It deprives them of the right to make a living.

We have seen how cancel culture can obliterate one’s ability to earn an income, but now the cancelled may find themselves without a way to pay for goods and services.

Previously, cancelled employees who would never again have the opportunity to work for a Fortune 500 company at least had the option to go into business for themselves. But if they cannot purchase equipment, pay employees, or receive payment from clients and customers, that door closes on them, too.”

If this trend continues, which it probably will, might people who question COVID shots and/or refuse to participate in human experimentation be barred from having a credit card or a bank account?

No Jab, No Food

https://youtu.be/EhlGC4EZ4Is

Some are promoting even more severe punishment for the unvaccinated. Yet, it’s not enough for some thought leaders that unvaccinated individuals can’t enter a bar or restaurant, and might lose their ability to send or receive money for goods and services using PayPal (and potentially other digital transaction services).

For example, CNN anchor Don Lemon recently suggested unvaccinated people ought to be barred from buying food and have their driver’s license taken away.13,14

I’d like you to conduct a thought experiment, and think this through from start to finish. What would your life be like if you were:

  1. Barred from driving
  2. Barred from working and earning a paycheck
  3. Barred from sending or receiving money online
  4. Barred from having a bank account and credit card
  5. Barred from eating food at a restaurant (assuming you somehow got the cash to pay for it)
  6. Barred from buying food in a grocery store (again, assuming you somehow got the cash to pay for it)

Our Lemon and countless others actually saying it is acceptable to make half the U.S. population homeless and starve them to death in order to, theoretically, prevent the spread of an infection that, so far, has had a 99.74% survival rate?15

Mob Morality

To understand what’s really happening and what Lemon’s rhetoric is accomplishing, I highly recommend reading Charles Eisenstein’s article “Mob Morality and the Unvaxxed.” It’s an excellent and thought-provoking piece. Here’s a few chosen excerpts:16

“We would like to think that modern societies like ours have outgrown barbaric customs like human sacrifice … we don’t actually kill people in hopes of placating the gods and restoring order. Or do we? …

Not just any victim will do as an object of human sacrifice. Victims must be, as [legal scholar Roberta] Harding puts it, ‘in, but not of, the society.’ That is why, during the Black Death, mobs roamed about murdering Jews for ‘poisoning the wells.’

The entire Jewish population of Basel was burned alive, a scene repeated throughout Western Europe. Yet this was not mainly the result of preexisting virulent hatred of Jews waiting for an excuse to erupt; it was that victims were needed to release social tension, and hatred, an instrument of that release, coalesced opportunistically on the Jews …

‘Combatting hatred’ is combatting a symptom. Scapegoats needn’t be guilty, but they must be marginal, outcasts, heretics, taboo-breakers, or infidels of one kind or another … If they are not already marginal, they must be made so …

[D]efying left-right categorization is a promising new scapegoat class, the heretics of our time: the anti-vaxxers. As a readily identifiable subpopulation, they are ideal candidates for scapegoating. It matters little whether any of these pose a real threat to society … their guilt is irrelevant to the project of restoring order through blood sacrifice …

All that is necessary is that the dehumanized class arouse the blind indignation and rage necessary to incite a paroxysm of unifying violence. More relevant to current times, this primal mob energy can be harnessed toward fascistic political ends …

Sacrificial subjects carry an association of pollution or contagion; their removal thus cleanses society. I know people in the alternative health field who are considered so unclean that if I so much as mention their names in a Tweet or Facebook post, the post may be deleted …

The public’s ready acceptance of such blatant censorship cannot be explained solely in terms of its believing the pretext of ‘controlling misinformation.’ Unconsciously, the public recognizes and conforms to the age-old program of investing a pariah subclass with the symbology of pollution …

This program is well underway toward the Covid-unvaxxed, who are being portrayed as walking cesspools of germs who might contaminate the Sanctified Brethren (the vaccinated).

My wife perused an acupuncture Facebook page today … where someone asked, ‘What is the word that comes to mind to describe unvaccinated people?’ The responses were things like ‘filth,’ ‘assholes,’ and ‘death-eaters.’ This is precisely the dehumanization necessary to prepare a class of people for cleansing …

To prepare someone for removal as the repository of all that is evil, it helps to heap upon them every imaginable calumny. Thus we hear in mainstream publications that anti-vaxxers not only are killing people, but are raging narcissists … and tantamount to domestic terrorists.”

Dangerous Territory Ahead

If deep down in your gut you sense that we’re speeding into dangerous territory, you’re probably right. The “vaccinated” public is actively encouraged and manipulated both by media and government officials into literally despising and wishing death upon the unvaccinated, and this is indeed a very dangerous thing. It breeds mob mentality devoid of reason and logic, which can have tragic consequences.

“Why is fascism so commonly associated with genocide, when as a political philosophy it is about unity, nationalism, and the merger of corporate and state power?” Eisenstein asks.17

“It is because it needs a unifying force powerful enough to sweep aside all resistance. The us of fascism requires a them. The civic-minded moral majority participates willingly, assured that it is for the greater good. Something must be done. The doubters go along too, for their own safety.

No wonder today’s authoritarian institutions know, as if instinctively, to whip up hysteria toward the … unvaccinated. Fascism taps into, exploits, and institutionalizes a deeper instinct.

The practice of creating dehumanized classes of people and then murdering them is older than history … The campaign against the unvaccinated, garbed in the white lab coat of Science, munitioned with biased data, and waving the pennant of altruism, channels a brutal, ancient impulse.”

The Constitution still offers some measure of protection in the United States, but it may be naïve to assume it will be adhered to in the long term unless we the people demand it. In Australia, the military is now roaming the streets of Sydney to make sure no one strays beyond their front door, as the country has implemented one of its strictest lockdowns yet.18

Fanning the flames of anger and hatred, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stated that vaccinated Australians might be able to regain some of their mobility once the vaccination rate reaches 70%, and broad lockdowns may be avoidable altogether if the vaccination rate hits 80%.

“If you get vaccinated, there will be special rules that apply to you,” Morrison told reporters. “Why? Because if you’re vaccinated, you present less of a public health risk.”

A rational person might question whether Morrison would actually hold true to his word. A person blinded by anger probably won’t, but will instead direct their frustration onto the holdouts that prevent the vaccination rate from reaching that magical threshold where they believe freedom will be restored.

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conscious Life News.




WATCH: Defiant Rand Paul Calls for Noncompliance: “They Can’t Arrest All of Us” (with Transcript)

https://rumble.com/embed/vib0y8/?pub=omyzz

Source: Dinesh Dsouza on Rumble

Rand Paul says we are at a moment of truth and a crossroads and that it is time for us to resist. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy and children? Or will we stand together and say absolutely not. Not this time. I choose freedom!

TRANSCRIPT (Rand Paul):
It’s time for us to resist. They can’t arrest to all of us. They can’t keep all of your kids home from school. They can’t keep every government building closed. Although I’ve got a long list of ones, they might keep closed or might ought to keep closed.

We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and bureaucrats. We can simply say, no, not again.

Nancy Pelosi: You will not arrest or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have either had covid, had the vaccine or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport. We will not wear a mask. We will not be forced into random screenings and testings so you can continue your drunk with power rein over the capitol.

President Biden: We will not accept your agency’s mandates or your reported moves towards a lockdown. No one should follow the CDC’s anti-science mask mandates. And if you want to shut down federal agencies again, some of which aren’t even back to work yet, I will stop every bill coming to the Senate with an amendment to cut their funding if they don’t come back to work in person.

Local bureaucrats and union bosses: We will not allow you to do more harm to our children again this year. Children are not at any more risk from covid than they are from the seasonal flu. Every adult who works in schools has either had the vaccine or had their chance to get vaccinated. There is no reason for mask mandates, part-time schools or any lockdown measures. Children are falling behind in school and are being harmed physically and psychologically by the tactics that you have used to keep them from the classroom during the last year. We won’t allow it again. If a school system attempts to keep children from full-time, in person school, I will hold up every bill with two amendments: one to defend them, and another to allow parents the choice of where the money goes for their child’s education.

Do I sound fed up to you? That’s because I am. I’m not a career politician. I practiced medicine for 33 years. I graduated from Duke Medical School. I’ve worked in emergency rooms. I’ve studied immunology and virology. And I ultimately chose to become an eye surgeon. I’ve been telling everyone for a year now that Dr. Fauci and other public health bureaucrats were not following the science. And I’ve been proven right time and time again,

But I’m not the only one who’s fed up. I can’t go anywhere these days without people coming up and thanking me for standing up for them. Whether I’m at work or at events in Kentucky at airports in restaurants or in stores, people thank me for taking a stand. They thanked me for standing up for actual science, for standing up for freedom, for standing against mandates, lockdowns, and bureaucratic power grabs.

I think the tide is turning. As more and more people are willing to stand up. I see stories from across the country of parents standing up to the unions and school boards. I see brave moms standing up and saying my kids need to go back to school, in person. I see members of Congress refusing to comply, with petty tyrant Pelosi.

We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy and children? Or will we stand together and say absolutely not. Not this time. I choose freedom!