A Video Message to Biden from Freedom Convoy USA 2022

/in , , , , , , , /by

Trucker Convoy is Coming to DC— Their Leader Has a Message for Joe Biden.

TRANSCRIPT

“This message is for the President of the United States of America.

“My name is Kyle Sefcik of the Freedom Convoy USA 2022 and our routes meet here in DC on March 1st, in time for your State of the Union address.

“We are very organized and our routes are public. I even put a permit for the National Mall to be respectful.

“I just want to be as transparent as possible from the start so there’s no confusion.

“We are coming peacefully and we’re going to do this lawfully and Constitutionally.

“I want the rest of the world to know our plans so that there’s no twisting and lying about who and what we are.

“I’m coming to you as a father, a small business owner who’s unaffiliated to any parties.

“We just want government overreach to end.

“On behalf of Freedom Convoy USA 2022, we are asking you to end the State of Emergency. End the mandates once and for all.

“Sir, the world is watching us, because they know that if what’s happening in Canada happens to us here in the Land of the Free, then freedom as we know it is gone.

“So, we are leaving the choice to you. The decision is in your hands.

“This whole convoy, this whole assembly on the national mall – it doesn’t even have to happen, if you just end things now and we can get on with our lives.

“To you other convoys that plan on meeting us here, we look forward to seeing you and joining with you.

“We’re going to do this right. We’re going to do this honorably.

“Mr President, we have no other motives in this mission.

“You see, the Government, our elected officials of both parties have failed us tremendously in the last two years and now it’s time for us, We the People to fix this. To end this.

“We’re ready to get back to our lives, the ones promised and guaranteed in the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights and the contract that you signed and swore an oath to under the One True God.

“This is simple. End this.”

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

We must not forget that just because war is unthinkable to us, it’s unthinkable to dictators

/in , , , , , , /by

A former Prime Minister of Australia warns that Vladimir Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine threaten us all.

History isn’t malicious, just instructive. It tells us that progress isn’t inevitable; that justice isn’t always done; that good won’t always win; and that danger always lurks.

Above all, it tells us that individual and collective choice matters: that our beliefs drive our actions, and that havoc can be wreaked, or stopped, because people decide to make a stand.

Few things have been more telling than the reaction of key countries to the Russian army poised on Ukraine’s borders.

Britain and America have sent anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles but no troops. Germany has been reluctant even to threaten sanctions, should Russia invade. And in shades of Munich, France has championed a peace deal based on changing the Ukrainian constitution to meet Russia’s demands.

In trying to extract a pledge from his smaller neighbour that it will never join NATO, the Russian president is exploiting the universal fear of war in an attempt to dictate the policy of NATO and to smash the independence of Ukraine.

He’s relying on everyone’s unwillingness to take risks for someone else. And so far, he’s succeeding; the Europeans and the Americans are divided and the West looks impotent.

The only ones to emerge with much credit are the Ukrainians themselves, who’ve manned their defences and insisted on their right to conduct an independent foreign policy, including joining NATO and the EU.

But regardless of how this particular episode plays out, let’s be under no illusion. Vladimir Putin sees himself as the new Tsar, a ruler for life, determined to restore greater Russia.

To that end, he’s invaded Georgia, annexed the Crimea, occupied the Donbas, killed-without-compunction opponents at home and abroad, and restored Russia as a military superpower despite an economy smaller than Italy’s.

Ukraine is but his present target, because it persists in looking west not east; and because the 1994 Anglo-American security assurance, named for this very city, in return for the surrender of Soviet-era nuclear weapons, failed to replicate the one-in, all-in provision of Article 5 of the NATO Charter.

However the current stand-off ends, we can be confident that Putin’s campaign will continue, remorseless, relentless, by all means up to and including all-out-war, until Ukraine becomes a Russian colony.

And then his attention will turn to the Baltic States, and then to Poland, and then to the other former Soviet satellites, until Russia is again the overlord of Eastern Europe.

I fear the only thing that will stop him is death, defeat, or the conviction that he would lose.

On what do I base that?

Well, after a Russian missile battery shot down MH17 over the eastern Ukraine, killing 38 Australians, I promised to “shirtfront” the Russian president – it’s an Australian sporting term for a rough tackle.

I had that very robust conversation with him on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Beijing in 2014. With rare intensity, he insisted that Ukraine was really Russian and that their government was fascist or worse – and that provocateurs had brought down the plane.

And then he grabbed me with both hands and said something both strange and revealing: “you are not a native Australian”, he said, “but I am a native Russian”.

It’s this passion for blood and soil and sacred mission that drives my sense that he’s ready to take big risks, to restore the Russia of his dreams, especially against weakness and vulnerability.

Of course, Putin is not Hitler, and Ukraine is not Czechoslovakia, and these are not the 1930s, but there are plenty of disturbing parallels, including a new “axis” of great powers ready to disturb the peace to get what they want.

A fortnight back, the Russian dictator and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, issued a declaration on “International Relations Entering a New Era”. We know the type of new era they have in mind from their preposterous claim that both Russia and China enjoy “long-standing traditions of democracy”.

This would be news to the gaoled Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, and to the gaoled Australian news anchor Cheng Lei, and to the tennis star Peng Shuai now doomed to life in a cage.

For Beijing, ”democracy with Chinese characteristics” obviously covers the internment of more than a million Uighurs, the strangulation of Hong Kong despite the solemn promise of one country, two systems, and the near daily intimidation of Taiwan, a genuine democracy that proves there’s no totalitarian gene in the Chinese DNA.

Not for nothing has China built what’s already the world’s largest navy, plus a militarised coast guard, plus a maritime militia, and achieved what many defence planners think is military superiority over the United States in the Western Pacific.

The main purpose of this joint declaration, this Moscow-Beijing axis, is to bury, they say, the “political and military alliances of the Cold War era” – so no more NATO, no US troops in Japan and South Korea, and ultimately an end to the Pax Americana – through a dictators’ partnership that has, they say, “no limits” and no “forbidden areas of cooperation”.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, maybe it’s not; but it’s definitely a free hand from each, for the other to do its worst.

At heart, what they both reject is the American-backed world order, a liberal and humane set of understandings and arrangements, that’s enabled the very best time in human history; with the world’s people more free, more safe and more prosperous than ever before.

Even though they’ve both befitted from it, with half a billion Chinese moving from the third world to the middle class in scarcely a generation, after President Clinton bent the rules to admit China to the WTO; and with Russia becoming a petro-power that can turn Europe’s energy on-and-off like a tap.

For years, American officialdom ignored the Chinese leadership’s much- stated intention to be the world’s top country by mid-century; only for the secretary of state, just a week ago in Melbourne, belatedly to declare that China’s goal was indeed global domination.

So, with these latter-day dictators clearly on the march, as Lenin once asked: what is to be done?

In his celebrated speech attacking the Munich sell-out as a “defeat without a war”, Winston Churchill declared that this was but “the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless by a supreme recovery of moral health” – let’s underline that – “moral health” he said, “and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom, as in the olden time”.

A response to the dictators starts with appreciating that just because war is unthinkable to us, doesn’t make it unthinkable to them.

Since the beginning of time, the strong have always been tempted to take advantage of the weak; and the tough and the hungry have always sought to usurp the indolent and the soft.

Throw in what [British philosopher David] Hume recognised, that passions drive reason, and what’s unthinkable to most can become entirely reasonable to some, especially those on a quest for national glory.

Last week, the German chancellor proclaimed that “war has become unthinkable in Europe and we have to make sure it stays that way” – even though he must know, that up against someone who thinks differently, and who routinely uses war to achieve his ends, the only way to avoid war is to surrender.

Is Germany so ashamed of its past, and so enervated by its wealth, that it can no longer stand up to those set on taking advantage of it, including a Russian president bent on economic and military blackmail?

We must hope that events don’t give us the wrong answer.

That’s the baleful side of 1989: this notion that the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the “end of history” and the era of universal peace based on the triumph of liberal capitalism.

Rather than a new beginning, 1989 was simply one brief shining moment in time, when liberal nations were clearly ascendant over illiberal ones.

But that was soon squandered, through misplaced idealism: by bloody, expensive and largely futile nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, that’s sapped the West’s strength and self-confidence; and by welcoming China and Russia into global markets, that’s increased their wealth and strength but not their goodwill.

As their current adventurism shows, both countries’ exceptionalism still includes the conviction that they should dominate their regions, if not the wider world.

All that’s lingered from those heady days, three decades back, is the conviction of Western elites that their obsessions with climate change and identity politics are widely shared; coupled with their strange unwillingness to call-out in other cultures what they condemn in their own.

As the five decades after 1945 show, the only way to keep aggressors at bay is collective security; otherwise, the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.

Take Eastern Europe: if it’s Russia against Ukraine, sooner or later, Russia will prevail; as Russia ultimately did against Finland in 1940.

Take East Asia: if it’s China against Taiwan, China will inevitably prevail.

But if it’s Russia or China versus the democracies, one for all and all for one, that’s an entirely different matter.

Perhaps this military crisis might awaken the people of Western countries, so recently discombobulated by a virus, and so unaccustomed to sacrifice, to how readily a freedom that’s not cherished and defended can be lost.

We have to make the war that’s unthinkable to us, for moral reasons, unthinkable to them for prudential reasons. We who shrink from war because it’s morally wrong have to make others shrink from war because they’d likely lose.

Of course, our instinctive initial reaction is to avoid entirely “quarrels in faraway countries between people of whom we know nothing”.

Yet what other countries’ freedom might be dispensable, if theirs is? And who would we fight alongside, if not them? And if others’ fights aren’t ours, who might help us, when our turn comes?

This is where moral health is indeed called for, as much as martial vigour, in any contest between nations.

We can’t forget Churchill’s other observation that “jaw-jaw is better than war-war”, provided we remember that the point of diplomacy with dictators is to deliver a stern message that their demands are unacceptable.

It would be shameful were any pressure to be put on Ukraine to accept Putin’s demands because concessions would just embolden a bully.

Even now, I’m not sure how widely it’s grasped what’s at stake in this confrontation between democracy and autocracy, between sovereignty and subservience – and how the whole trajectory of history could change.

Meanwhile, comrades Putin and Xi watch the scuttle from Kabul, because a long-term military presence was judged to be too hard; the toppling of statues, because yesterday’s heroes have to be damned by today’s standards; and our self-flagellation over race and identity, even though there’s never been less racism, and minorities have never had a fairer go, and conclude that a decadent West is unlikely to defend itself with vigour, let alone stand up for others.

They see America in retreat, and no other country or collection of countries with strength and goodwill sufficient to be the guardian of peace with freedom.

For all of us as individuals and for each of our countries, the challenge is to prove them wrong. As long there are millions who would seek a better life in Western countries, we need to accept that vote of confidence in ourselves, and never weaken on what’s made us great.

This is an edited excerpt from a speech this week to the Danube Institute in Budapest.

COLUMN BY

Tony Abbott

Tony Abbott was Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015. This is an edited excerpt from his speech this week to the Danube Institute in Budapest. More by Tony Abbott

RELATED ARTICLES:

Putin Sends Forces Into Ukraine After Recognizing Breakaway Regions

Putin’s fabricated history of Ukraine is cancel culture on steroids

RELATED VIDEO: Putin Told Us In 2012 About His Intentions on Ukraine… And we put our heads in the sand.

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Transgender Permanence Is A Myth

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” – John F. Kennedy, Commencement Address at Yale University, June 11 1962.

If you are new to the crazy world of gender, you’ve heard that trans is something you just know. So, if your kid comes out as “trans”, that’s who they are, who they’ve always been. You just somehow missed the obvious.

And now that you are aware you have a trans kid, your job is to help them “become” the sex that they are inside through social changes (pronouns, clothing choices), drugs (hormones) to halt their development and develop alternate secondary sex characteristics to the extent possible, restrictive garments that hide their secondary sex characteristics (binders), and cosmetic surgeries.

Coercion

This is the Myth of Permanence. Similar to the Suicide Myth (affirm your child’s trans identity or they will kill themselves), which says you must affirm a trans-identified person or they will kill themselves, with the Myth of Permanence, you must instantly medicalise people who proclaim they are trans because if one says they are trans, it’s because it’s an irrefutable, immutable fact about you that cannot change.

Along with the Suicide Myth, the Myth of Permanence is used to bully parents into actions they feel are against the best long-term interests of their children.

If you believe in this ideological dogma, it is wrong to do anything except enable social and medical transition immediately and fully because, to do otherwise, would cause certain, immediate and extreme harm to the trans-identified person.

Imagination vs reality

The Myth of Permanence has thrown a lot of good people into logical tailspins trying to do the correct thing, in the absence of physical/biological evidence that trans is an actual state of being, and not just a metaphysical or religious concept.

However, the Myth of Permanence has been clearly disproved both in long term studies, through parent experiences, and by detransitioners and desisters that felt certain they were “trans” and then later changed their minds.

If Trans-ness was permanent, none of this would be possible. But yet, it is.

Republished with permission from Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans (PITT).

COLUMN BY

Anonymous author

In exceptional circumstances, MercatorNet allows contributors to publish articles anonymously. Sometimes the author’s privacy or safety might be at risk. More by Anonymous author

RELATED ARTICLE: Binary [Science] or Non-Binary [Myth] – That is the Question!

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How the Concept of ‘Misinformation’ has been Weaponised to Silence Dissenting Voices

/in , , , , , , , , /by

It’s being used as a slur and means almost nothing.

The concept of “misinformation,” or “misleading, false and/or harmful information,” has been repeatedly invoked by Big Tech media companies and governments to justify the suppression and invalidation of information and perspectives they disapprove of.

It has been employed by Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and national health authorities either to delegitimate or silence views they deem to be false or harmful to the public interest. But the concept of misinformation is very slippery indeed, and wide open to ruthless exploitation on behalf of political or ideological causes.

Consider the case of American podcaster Joe Rogan. He hosts the podcast with the largest listenership in the history of podcasts, leaving mainstream media like CNN far behind. Rogan asks tough questions and brings on controversial guests. He does not deal in cheap soundbites but extended, multi-hour interviews. There are now calls by a whole range of public figures, from the United States Surgeon General Vivek Murphy to music artists like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, for Spotify to censor Rogan on grounds of spreading anti-vaccine misinformation.

What sparked this campaign to silence Joe Rogan was a recent interview he conducted with Twitter-censored virologist Dr Robert Malone (here are some excerpts from the interview) to discuss a number of issues related to pandemic policy, most notably the rollout of the Covid vaccines.

Dr Malone is an outspoken critic of the pharmaceutical industry and of the vaccination campaign. He is himself vaccinated, but believes the administration of the vaccine on a massive scale to all age groups is a reckless experiment that unnecessarily puts people’s lives and health in danger, given that the long-term risks of the vaccine remain unknown and that many people being vaccinated are at very low risk from Covid-19.

Was Joe Rogan guilt of spreading “misinformation,” as alleged by people like Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, and Prince Harry, by allowing Dr Malone to voice his concerns about pandemic policies on his podcast?

One might think that this question could be settled by simply deciding whether or not one is in agreement with Dr Malone or finds his arguments persuasive. But this would be to naively assume that in every serious political or scientific disagreement, one party to the disagreement can be identified authoritatively, before the argument has even taken off, as a perpetrator of “misinformation” to be shut down, while the other, as the bearer of Truth, to be given a red carpet.

If that were so, public debate and disagreement about high stakes issues could be short-circuited in advance by a censor under the direction of an elite class of handpicked philosophers or scientists. But that starts to sound a lot like the death of science and the birth of totalitarianism.

The question at issue, then, is not whether we agree with Dr Malone’s assessment of the vaccination campaign, but whether the mere fact of interviewing this controversial individual makes Rogan complicit in the propagation of “misinformation.” I doubt it very much, even if Joni Mitchell and Prince Harry think otherwise.

Accusations of misinformation certainly carry some rhetorical “umph”. They have an air of scientific rigour and objectivity. The person who leads the charge immediately assumes a position of epistemic and possibly moral superiority with respect to the accused.

After all, if I accuse you of peddling “misinformation,” that means that I must be more “scientific,” more knowledgeable, and more in touch with the “facts” than you. In opposing “misinformation,” it may appear that my motives are above reproach.

If the motives of accusers of misinformation are as pure as the driven snow, and the content of misinformation is just determined by inconsistency with the plain facts of science, then why has the concept of “misinformation” become so politicised and contested?

Is it just because ignorant, misinformed people, don’t like to hear their falsehoods exposed? Or might it be that the term is being used dishonestly to arbitrarily silence people the censor happens to disagree with?

It seems fair to assume that some statements genuinely constitute “misinformation” — for example, the statement that drinking lots of tea will cure severe cases of Covid-19. Similarly, it is hard to deny that there are some types of information that are intrinsically dangerous or harmful — for example, a bomb-making YouTube video.

Fair enough. But scratch beneath the surface, and it quickly becomes clear that the category of “misinformation” is infinitely malleable and very easily weaponised for political and ideological purposes. In practice, “misinformation” is very much in the eye of the beholder and is rarely deployed in a politically or scientifically neutral manner.

This becomes clear as soon as we consider how charges of misinformation have been weaponised during the pandemic to selectively suppress certain opinions deemed politically unacceptable, until the “right people” started uttering them.

For example, for a long time, Facebook slammed virtually every statement connecting SARS-CoV-2 to a lab in Wuhan as erroneous or misleading — even though some high-level scientific experts viewed the lab leak hypothesis as plausible. When experts Facebook relied on, like Dr Anthony Fauci, admitted the lab leak hypothesis could not be ruled out, Facebook embarrassingly reversed themselves (here is a detailed account of those events). Suddenly, the lab leak hypothesis was no longer deemed to constitute a quack conspiracy theory, or “misinformation.”

Again, consider the fact that a corona roundtable of highly qualified scientists (Dr Kulldorff from Harvard, Dr Bhattacharya from Stanford, Dr Gupta from Oxford, and Dr Scott Atlas from Stanford) moderated on March 18, 2021 by the Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, was abruptly removed from YouTube, allegedly because at least one of the participants was critical of the practice of masking children.

Putting aside the fact that the “fact-checkers” of Google, Facebook and Twitter are hardly qualified to review the soundness of the opinions of highly qualified scientists on a matter as complex as disease control, how might we justify the decision of a media platform to censor a contested scientific opinion on community masking (or any other matter) as a piece of “misinformation”’?

Is it because a majority of scientists disagree with it? In that case, we would have to suppress every unpopular scientific opinion before it even got a chance to be publicly considered, and endorse a crude majoritarian view of scientific truth, which is completely contrary to the spirit of open scientific inquiry.

Or is it the fact that the claim in question is not accepted by some official scientific authority, such as the WHO or the CDC? But “official” opinion could only be a gold standard for scientific truth if two things were true: first, that all official experts will converge automatically on the same “truth”; and second, that some people, by virtue of their position as “official” experts, are so smart, or wise, or virtuous, that their pronouncements may be considered as infallible wisdom, and could never be corrected or proven wrong by being challenged in public.

However, there is absolutely no reason to assume that a medical expert nominated to the World Health Organisation is more likely to share true and safe information than a professor of medicine at Harvard or Stanford medical school. Science does not work like that, nor does any field of knowledge. To believe otherwise is to be in the grips of an extraordinarily naive and childish conception of expert knowledge.

Charges of misinformation are consistently levelled against those who threaten the censor’s cherished opinions, and almost never against those who reaffirm the views of the censor. For example, Twitter aggressively censors opinions that question Covid vaccination campaigns or support the development and use of cheap and safe pharmaceutical treatments for Covid-19, yet they happily turn a blind eye to false and misleading claims that support their own narrative.

Here are some examples of false and/or misleading claims that have been given a free pass by Twitter and Youtube:

  • gross exaggerations of the dangers Covid-19 poses for young and health individuals
  • the misleading and arguably fraudulent use of PCR “case” data in spite of repeated warnings by experts that it was a deficient diagnostic tool
  • false statements suggesting that the vaccines are all “perfectly safe” for anyone to take, in spite of clear evidence that some Covid vaccines are associated with worrying increases in the incidence of diseases like myocarditis, especially in young populations
  • the constant equation of “death from” and “death with” Covid-19
  • plenty of defamatory claims about critics of Covid vaccination policies, including the claim that they are all “anti-vaxxers.”
  • statements implying that Ivermectin is a drug intended exclusively for horses.

All of these claims are manifestly “false or misleading,” yet Big Tech giants turn a blind eye to them. Why? Because they swim in the same direction as the narrative they are determined to push through.

Do not be fooled: “misinformation” is not a politically neutral, scientific criterion of correctness, but a powerful tool of political propaganda and persuasion.

It is imperative that the advocates of heavy-handed political censorship, parading under the banner of “misinformation-detectors,” do not win the day, because if they do, then the public sphere will become a hall of mirrors, in which the lazy, self-serving mantras of a few powerful actors bounce, virtually unchallenged, from one platform to another, while dissenting voices, however intelligent or discerning, are consigned to the shadows and dismissed as the rantings of crazy people.

This article has been reposted from David Thunder’s The Freedom Blog.

Check out his video explanation of his aims.

COLUMN BY

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump’s Truth Social Goes Live, SOARS to Number ONE on App Charts

/in , , , , , , /by

Fantastico! Make free speech great again.

TAKING BACK THE TRUTH: Trump’s Truth Social Goes Live, Already Number 1 on the App Store

By Hannity.com, February 21, 2022

Led by former Rep. Devin Nunes, Trump Media & Technology Group has high hopes for the launch, anticipating some big numbers within the first month.

“This week we will begin to roll out on the Apple App Store. That’s going to be awesome, because we’re going to get so many more people that are going to be on the platform,” Nunes said in a Sunday appearance on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo.

“Our goal is, I think we’re going to hit it, I think by the end of March we’re going to be fully operational at least within the United States,” he added.

Truth is positioning itself as a champion of free speech with one of the biggest draws being the former President, himself.

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1495768091229368320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1495768091229368320%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2022%2F02%2Ftrumps-truth-social-goes-live-soars-to-number-one-on-app-charts.html%2F

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

CDC is Refusing to Publish Data it has Collected on the Vaccine

/in , , , , , , /by

They’ve been lying to us all along.

CDC is refusing to publish data it has collected on booster effectiveness for those aged 18-49

  • CDC is refusing to publish data it has collected on booster effectiveness for 33 MILLION Americans aged 18-49 over fears it might show the vaccines as ineffective: FDA expert tells CDC to ‘tell the truth’
  • Two weeks ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published data about the effectiveness of boosters against COVID-19
  • The CDC failed to publish a tranche of their data, however – omitting the impact on those aged 18-49, who are least likely to benefit from boosters
  • The CDC are also being criticized for failing to publish their information about child hospitalization rates and comorbidities
  • A spokeswoman for the CDC said they were concerned that the data would be misinterpreted, pointing out that it was incomplete and not verified
    Critics said that it was always better to publish the information rather than withhold, and allow scientists to analyze and explain what they could

By Harriet Alexander For Dailymail.com, 22 February 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has withheld vast swaths of the information it holds about the impact of COVID-19, leading to anger from the scientific community and speculation the agency is not releasing the data because it weakens the case for booster shots in certain demographics.

Two weeks ago, the CDC published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65.

But the agency, led by Dr Rochelle Walensky, did not share the information on those aged 18-49, who are considered to be the least likely to benefit from a booster.

It has also failed to provide information they held on child hospitalizations, scientists complained.

Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the CDC, said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data ‘because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.’

She said the agency’s ‘priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable,’ and told The New York Times that they were concerned it might be misinterpreted to show the vaccines were ineffective.

She also said that they were reluctant to publish the data because it represents only 10 percent of the population of the United States – accounting for 33 million people – the same sample size the CDC has used to track influenza for years.

VIEW MAP ON PERCENT OF RESIDENTS FULLY VACCINATE

VIEW CHARE ON NUMBER OF U.S. INFECTIONS PER DAY IN JANUARY & FEBRUARY

VIEW CHART ON NUMBER OF U.S. DEATHS PER DAY IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY

Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC. The agency has been criticized for withholding some of its data

The 18-49 year old age group is considered least likely to benefit from the booster, given that death rates among the age group are already low. It is far more likely for the elderly and immunocompromised to get sick without their booster than healthy young and middle aged people.

Boosters became available for children aged 12 and upwards only last month, and so would not be covered by the dataset.

As of Monday, 65 percent of Americans are fully vaccinated. There were 103,150 new cases reported nationwide, on a seven day rolling average – a dramatic decrease from January, when there were regularly over 700,000 new cases a day.

Outraged scientists stressed that publishing the data went hand in hand with educating the public about vaccines – explaining that as more people are vaccinated, the percentage of vaccinated people who are infected or hospitalized would also rise.

They urged the CDC to publish the information.

Dr Paul Offit urged the CDC to ‘tell the truth, present the data’

‘Tell the truth, present the data,’ said Dr Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and adviser to the Food and Drug Administration.

‘I have to believe that there is a way to explain these things so people can understand it.’

He noted that, because the CDC had not published the information, American scientists were forced to rely on Israeli data.

‘There’s no reason that they should be better at collecting and putting forth data than we were,’ he said.

‘The CDC is the principal epidemiological agency in this country, and so you would like to think the data came from them.’

Another expressed shock that the CDC had the data at all.

‘We have been begging for that sort of granularity of data for two years,’ said Jessica Malaty Rivera, an epidemiologist and part of the team that ran the Covid Tracking Project, which brought together data on the pandemic for a website they ran until March 2021.

She denied that there was a risk of the data being misinterpreted, adding that it instead ‘builds public trust, and it paints a much clearer picture of what’s actually going on.’

She added: ‘It gets really exhausting when you see the private sector working faster than the premier public health agency of the world.’

Read the rest…..

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: NYC Stands With Trucker Convoy Against Canadian Tyranny (PHOTOS AND VIDEO)

Majority Of Democrats Back Trudeau’s Tyrannical Crackdown, Freezing Bank Accounts Of Truckers

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

WATCH: Muslim Migrants Attack French Actress Mila a Critic of Islam in Broad Daylight

/in , , , , , /by

Mila, however, says, “I’m not attacked as Mila, but as a woman,” and describes “an everyday life that has become unbearable for women.”

This is because she and other women who are harassed are walking around unveiled. “O prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their veils close around them. That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not molested.” (Qur’an 33:59

[Video] ‘Always the same profiles’: Mila ‘annoyed every 30 seconds’ on the banks of the Rhône,” translated from “[Vidéo] “Toujours les mêmes profils” : Mila “emmerdée toutes les 30 secondes” sur les bords du Rhône

Valeurs Actuelles, February 19, 2022 (thanks to Medforth):

A warning cry, but also a cry of rage. On Instagram and later on Twitter, Mila recounted her nightmarish afternoon walking along the banks of the Rhône in Lyon. On the phone with her boyfriend, she first declared that she was being “annoyed” everywhere she went, “every 30 seconds”: “You get harassed, any young woman could confirm it the same way,” she said at first. Then she explains the assaults she has just experienced: “You have a nice ass, we are going to spank you, we are going to rape you,” etc.

She is quite annoyed and admits that she reacted by insulting them, which she did not really want to do. While she was reporting the first attacks, she was again harassed by a group of other people who spoke poor French. When she videoed them, the situation finally got out of hand. As can be seen in the footage she posted, one of the men pretended to show her his private part and spat in her direction. He then grabbed her arm and took her mobile phone away.

She managed to free herself, but another interfered and started deleting the videos on the mobile phone that incriminated him. At the same time, her attackers call her a “son of a bitch” and threaten to throw her mobile phone into the Rhône. When she started screaming but no one came to her aid, a man who was actually jogging managed to save the mobile phone and drove the attackers away.

She recounted these scenes later that evening, still in her posts. “I get so annoyed all the time, but 99% of the time you don’t feel like filming it,” she laments. “I’m not attacked as Mila, but as a woman,” she adds, describing an everyday life that has become unbearable for women. Finally, in the evening, she decided to press charges. On Twitter, she revealed that the police “probably can’t do much” because the main attacker was “probably an illegal.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nigeria: Three women brought before Sharia court for throwing Qur’an in toilet after staining it with blood

France: Mayor threatened in his office by Muslim who played Islamic music and put a Qur’an on his desk

Sundance Film Festival apologizes for showing documentary about rehabilitation of jihadis

Germany: Muslim migrant hits woman and pushes her to the ground after she kisses another woman

India: Muslims throw stones at funeral procession of murdered Hindu activist, damage 20 vehicles

Another Toronto school reports ‘Hitler salute,’ Jew-hating graffiti

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrats By Wide Margin Support Trudeau’s Move Against Truckers

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Democrats widely support Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s handling of the “Freedom Convoy” protests, according to a Trafalgar Group poll released Tuesday.

A majority of respondents, 55.3%, said they disapprove of Trudeau’s handling of the protests, while 35.1% said they approve. When polling Democrats only, a whopping 65.7% said they approve of Trudeau’s handling while 17.2% said they disapprove.

Republicans offered a stark contrast, with 87.3% saying they disapprove and 8.1% saying they approve. Among those who offered no party affiliation, 74.4% disapprove.

The poll was conducted among 1,080 likely general election voters between Feb. 18 to Feb. 20. There was a 2.99% margin of error.

In an unprecedented move, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14. The move allowed him to take additional steps to quell the protests against mandates in Canada. With the invocation of the act, Trudeau said police would be given additional tools to strengthen their ability to impose fines or imprisonment on those who do not comply with orders.

The government could then ensure essential services are rendered, such as towing vehicles blocking roadways, while permitting financial institutions to regulate and prohibit the use of property to fund or support illegal blockades.

“This is not a peaceful protest,” Trudeau said. “The blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety. This is hurting workers who rely on these jobs to feed their families.”

“I want to be very clear, the scope of these measures will be time limited, geographically targeted and reasonable and proportional to the threats they are meant to address. This is about keeping Canadians safe.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association publicly opposed Trudeau’s invocation, calling it a “threat” to democracy and civil liberties.

“The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met,” the association said. “Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.”

Since the invocation, dozens of protesters have been arrested. Some police officers on horseback were recorded trampling over protesters.

COLUMN BY

BRIANNA LYMAN

Reporter. Follow Brianna on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Crackdown Begins: Canadian Police Send Banks Names Of ‘Freedom Convoy’ Protesters, Accounts Frozen

House Democrat Ruben Gallego Says He Wants Government To Seize And Redistribute Truckers’ Vehicles

Canadian Liberal MP Claims Pro-Freedom Convoy Phrase ‘Honk Honk’ Is A Hidden Message For ‘Heil Hitler’

Canadian truckers protest organizer denied bail, judge cites ‘safety of the public’

‘We Need To Be Honest’: Biden Suggests US Gas Prices Will Increase Because Of His Russian Sanctions

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘What A Mess’: Trump Weighs In On Ukraine Conflict Ahead Of Biden Speech

/in , , , , , , /by

Former President Donald Trump weighed in on Russia’s Ukraine aggression ahead of President Joe Biden addressing the country on the same issue Tuesday, saying Russian President Vladimir Putin would have never took such an action during Trump’s presidency.

Trump’s statement came hours before Biden’s scheduled speech Tuesday afternoon addressing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin took the step of officially recognizing two separatist-controlled territories in eastern Ukraine as independent states Monday, and then ordered “peacekeeper” troops into the contested regions. Trump argued that Putin only made the advance because he believes Biden’s economic response will be “weak.”

“If properly handled, there was absolutely no reason that the situation currently happening in Ukraine should have happened at all. I know Vladimir Putin very well, and he would have never done during the Trump Administration what he is doing now,” Trump said. “The weak sanctions are insignificant relative to taking over a country and a massive piece of strategically located land. Now it has begun, oil prices are going higher and higher, and Putin is not only getting what he always wanted, but getting, because of the oil and gas surge, richer and richer.”

“What a mess our Country is in,” he added.

Biden has vowed severe economic consequences for Russia should Putin move forward with an invasion, but some analysts argue Putin orchestrated his move to test the U.S. and NATO’s definitions of “invasion.”

“Putin has choreographed this with the hope that we and the Europeans will debate whether this is an ‘invasion’ or not,” former CIA Acting Director John McLaughlin stated Monday. “And hoping that throws us enough off balance that he will pay a minimal price for this first slice of salami.”

While Germany has already taken the step of halting the certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the U.S. has yet to unleash its threatened sanctions. Biden is set to deliver an update on the Ukraine conflict later Tuesday, however. The White House has not provided details as to what he will be announcing.

Putin also took the step of asking Russian lawmakers Tuesday to authorize him to use force outside of Russia, a formality given Putin’s control over the country. The lawmakers granted his request within hours. The authorization is yet another sign that Putin may plan to escalate the conflict with Ukraine beyond even the deployment of “peacekeeper” troops.

COLUMN BY

ANDERS HAGSTROM

White House correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Admin In Midst Of Diplomatic Retreat Struggles With Definition Of ‘Invasion’

EXCLUSIVE: Ukrainian MP Tells Biden What Would Really Stop The Russians From Invading

Republicans, Democrats Demand ‘Crippling’ Sanctions After Russia Sends Troops Into Eastern Ukraine

ANALYSIS: Is Putin’s End Game To Make Biden Look Stupid?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How to End Vaccine Mandates — A History Lesson

/in , , , , , , , , /by

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • If you’re wondering how we’ll ever put an end to these draconian COVID-19 mandates that are destroying lives and sanity across the world, take heart. History can serve us in this regard
  • Over 135 years ago, in 1885, England became the host to a massive anti-vaccination movement that ultimately resulted in people overturning the government’s compulsory vaccination rule
  • Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to compulsory smallpox vaccinations. Many were fined and jailed, but in the end, the government relented and abolished the mandate
  • The trucker protest in Canada and elsewhere is almost identical to what happened during smallpox vaccination campaigns more than a century ago, when mass protests and peaceful disobedience broke the government’s tyrannical hold
  • The Leicester Model was proven successful in the wake of that 1885 anti-vaccination protest and has been standard ever since. By quarantining infected patients and improving public hygiene, smallpox was finally eradicated

If you’re wondering how we’ll ever put an end to these draconian COVID-19 mandates that are destroying lives and sanity across the world, take heart. History can serve us in this regard. The parallels between the COVID-19 pandemic and its countermeasures that of previous smallpox pandemics are fascinating to behold, and therein we can also find the answer to our current predicament.

Smallpox, a highly infectious and disfiguring illness with a fatality rate around 30%,1 has been with us for many centuries, probably thousands of years. During the last four centuries, forced mass vaccination has been a recurring countermeasure relied on by government during these kinds of outbreaks, often with devastating results, and there have always been large portions of society that opposed it.

In the 1700s, Boston, Massachusetts, was hit by a series of outbreaks, and the introduction of a vaccine led to violent rebellion by those who believed it was dangerous and a violation of God’s will. Local newspapers were rife with disputes for and against the vaccine.2

The hypodermic needle had not yet been invented at this time, so the vaccination consisted of rubbing some cowpox pus into an open wound on the arm. Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, who introduced the inoculation at the urgings of Rev. Cotton Mather, was forced into hiding and was eventually arrested. Mather’s home was firebombed.

In 1862, it was Los Angeles, California’s turn. Compulsory vaccination was again rolled out, and anyone who refused was subject to arrest. Infected people were terrified of being forcibly quarantined in a “pest house,” miles outside the city limits, and for good reason. It was a place where you were dumped to die, with not so much as a bedsheet for comfort.3

The Anti-Vaccination Rebellion of 1885

In the decades to come, smallpox outbreaks were occurring all over the world, and forced inoculation was typically the answer, even though it had its own risks. In 1885, England became the host to a massive anti-vaccination movement that ultimately resulted in people overturning the government’s compulsory vaccination rule.

As reported by the BBC, December 28, 2019, mere weeks before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic:4

“In the late 19th Century, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to compulsory smallpox vaccinations. There were arrests, fines and people were even sent to jail.

Banners were brandished demanding ‘Repeal the Vaccination Acts, the curse of our nation’ and vowing ‘Better a felon’s cell than a poisoned babe.’ Copies of hated laws were burned in the streets and the effigy was lynched of the humble country doctor who was seen as to blame for the smallpox prevention program.”

A Substack user going by the moniker “A Midwestern Doctor”5,6 details this part of history, explaining why it matters to us today. He writes:7

“What is occurring now in Canada and other places is almost identical to what happened with the smallpox vaccination campaigns over a century ago, and I believe it is critical we understand these lessons from the past and it is vital this message gets out to the Truckers.

Briefly, the original smallpox vaccine was an unusually harmful vaccination that was never tested before being adopted. It increased, rather than decreased smallpox outbreaks.

As the danger and inefficacy became known, increasing public protest developed towards vaccination. Yet, as smallpox increased, governments around the world instead adopted more draconian mandatory vaccination policies.

Eventually, one of the largest protests of the century occurred in 1885 in Leicester (an English city). Leicester’s government was replaced, mandatory vaccination abolished, and public health measures rejected by the medical community were implemented.

These measures were highly successful, and once adopted globally ended the smallpox epidemic, something most erroneously believe arose from vaccination.”

The alternative countermeasure implemented in Leicester involved quarantining infected people and notifying anyone who’d been in close contact with the patient. They also used “ring vaccination” in which hospital workers who took care of infected patients had been inoculated.8

As a result, when smallpox broke out again between 1892 and 1894, Leicester got off lightly, with a case rate of 20.5 cases per 10,000. In all, the town had 370 cases and 21 deaths — far lower than the towns of Warrington and Sheffield, where vaccination rates were high.

On the other hand, there were well-vaccinated areas that had lower case rates and fewer deaths, and areas with low vaccination rates that also fared worse in this regard, so vaccination was probably not the determining factor either way.

In 1898, the U.K. implemented a new law that allowed people to opt out of vaccination for moral reasons. As reported by the BBC, this was “the first time ‘conscientious objection’ was recognized in U.K. law.”9 Now, we have to fight to regain that right yet again, all around the world.

Dissolving Illusions

“A Midwestern Doctor”10 goes on to discuss Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ 2009 book, “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” in which she shatters the notion that vaccines (and certain other medical interventions) have been single-handedly responsible for improved health and increased life spans. As a nephrologist (kidney specialist), Humphries noticed a pattern among her patients.

Many who experienced kidney injury or kidney failure had recently received a flu vaccine. It was a singular common denominator. So, she began to challenge the hospital’s routine practice of vaccinating patients. Humphries was roundly ignored and was ultimately forced to leave. The book grew out of her frustration with people who insisted that vaccines had eliminated scourges like polio and smallpox. Once she delved into the research, what she found was something else entirely.

With regard to smallpox and smallpox vaccination, living conditions during the industrial revolution were horrid. Plagues and infectious outbreaks were commonplace, not because of insufficient vaccination, but because sanitation was near-nonexistent and people, including children, were overworked and underfed. Early progressives believed deadly plagues could be prevented by improving living and working conditions, and they were correct.

We know this because other plagues for which there were no vaccines disappeared right along with smallpox and polio. While the medical industry eventually embraced vaccination, and increasingly over time treated it as something that could not be contested or questioned, Humphries’ book details the opposition.

Smallpox Opposition

As it turns out, many doctors have spoken out against smallpox vaccination and published data demonstrating its dangers. For example:11

In 1799, Dr. Woodville, after having administered the vaccination to many children, stated that “in several instances, the cowpox has proved a very severe disease. In three or four cases out of 500, the patient has been in considerable danger, and one child actually died.”
In 1809, the medical observer reported more than a dozen cases of often fatal smallpox, contracted as long as a year post-vaccination. The 1810 medical observer contained 535 cases of smallpox after vaccination (97 of which were fatal), and 150 cases of severe vaccine injuries.
An 1817 London Medical Repository Monthly Journal and Review reported that many who received the smallpox vaccination were still getting sick with smallpox.
In 1818, Thomas Brown, a surgeon of 30 years and ardent proponent of vaccination, after vaccinating 1,200 people stated: “The accounts from all quarters of the world, wherever vaccination has been introduced … the cases of failures are now increased to an alarming proportion.”
In 1829, The Lancet described a recent smallpox outbreak, stating: “It attacked many who had had small-pox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers.”
In 1845 George Gregory M.D. reported: “In the 1844 smallpox epidemic, about one-third of the vaccinated contracted a mild form of smallpox, but roughly 8% of those vaccinated still died, and nearly two-thirds had severe disease.”
In 1829, William Cobbett, a farmer, journalist and English pamphleteer, wrote: “Why, that in hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF have taken the real small-pox afterwards, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives!”
An 1850 letter to the Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle claimed there were more admissions to the London Small-Pox Hospital in 1844 than during the smallpox epidemic of 1781, before vaccination began, and that one-third of the deaths from smallpox were in people who had previously been vaccinated.

The Moving Goal Post

Once it became clear that the smallpox vaccine was incapable of providing long-lasting immunity as initially promised, the medical profession moved the goal post and started justifying vaccination on the basis that it could protect against more severe illness, even if it couldn’t provide lifelong “perfect” immunity the way recovering from the infection could.

This has been a basic mantra ever since, and we’ve gotten a double-dose of it during this COVID pandemic. Within months, the goal post was switched from “two doses are near-100% effective,” to “two doses wear off in six months and leave you more vulnerable to severe illness thereafter.” Some bargain!

Corruption of Vital Statistics Protect Vaccination Narrative

What’s worse, the trend of not reporting vaccine injuries due to “allegiance to the practice,” as noted by Henry May in the Birmingham Medical Review in January 1874, has continued unabated. According to May, vaccinated people who died were typically recorded as having died from some other condition, or were erroneously listed as “unvaccinated.”12 As noted by “A Midwestern Doctor”:13

“This corruption of the vital statistics creates many challenges in assessing the efficacy of immunization, and is also why many authors have noted no metric can be used to assess COVID-19 immunizations except total number of deaths (independent of cause) as this cannot be fudged.

Of note, a different significant overlap exists with the early polio campaigns (also detailed within ‘Dissolving Illusions’), where ‘polio’ diagnostic criteria was repeatedly adjusted to meet the political need for polio cases.

Governments responded to this skepticism by progressively using more and more force to mandate vaccination. Vaccination was made compulsory in England in 1853, with stricter laws passed in 1867. In the United States, Massachusetts created a set of comprehensive vaccination laws in 1855 (which created the Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts a case that is frequently cited about state enforced vaccination).

Lemuel Shattuck emphasized the need for vaccination and pushed for house-to-house vaccination to be enforced by the authority of the City of Boston in an 1856 report, also noting ‘The City has already provided that no unvaccinated child shall be admitted into the public schools.’

A situation emerged I term the ‘Vaccine positive feedback cycle.’ Keep in mind that most systems in nature are instead negative feedback systems. In these, when something occurs, it self-corrects the system and turns it off rather than accelerating it, as occurs in a positive feedback system. The cycle is as follows:

A concerning disease exists.

↓

Immunization is cited as a potential solution to the problem.

↓

An immunization campaign is conducted and makes the problem worse.

↓

As the problem is now worse, the need for immunizations to address it increases and another campaign is conducted.

↓

This makes the problem worse.

↓

This increases the need for more aggressive measures to increase immunization.

↓

This makes the problem worse and further perpetuates the cycle, before long leading to very questionable governmental policies designed to force unwilling parties to vaccinate.

The underlying drivers of this process seem to be an unquestionable faith in vaccination, a conviction dating back to the days of smallpox, that vaccinating an ever-increasing proportion of the population through vaccination can end epidemics (now termed herd immunity), and the government having limited options to address the issue besides immunizations and governmental force.”

The Effects of Forced Smallpox Vaccinations

“A Midwestern Doctor” continues describing the effects of the government’s insistence of forced smallpox vaccination:14

“In accordance the positive feedback cycle, these results were found everywhere. Within the United States, as smallpox worsened in Boston, in 1855, the government made enacted strict enforcement of vaccination.

It was followed by the epidemics of 1859-1860, 1864-1865, 1867 (these were all similar in size to earlier epidemics), and then infamous 1872-1873 epidemic which dwarfed all previous epidemics (proving fatal to 1040 persons, at a rate of 280 deaths per 100,000 people).

By the end of 1868, more than 95% of the inhabitants of Chicago had been vaccinated. After the Great Fire of 1871 … strict vaccine laws were passed, and vaccination was made a condition of receiving relief supplies. Chicago was then hit with a devastating smallpox epidemic in 1872 where over 2,000 persons contracted smallpox, with over 25% dying, and the fatality rate among children under 5 being the highest ever recorded.

A 1900 medical article discussed vaccination in three European nations. In England, of 9392 small-pox patients in London hospitals, 6,854 had been vaccinated and 17.5% of the 9,392 died.

In Germany ‘official returns show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated persons died from small-pox.’ In France, ‘every recruit that enters the French army is vaccinated. During the Franco-Prussian war there 23,469 cases of small-pox in that army.’

An 1888 article in the Encyclopedia Britannica describing Prussia’s strict vaccination practices throughout the population (including mandatory re-vaccination for school pupils), noted: ‘Notwithstanding the fact that Prussia was the best revaccinated (boosted) country in Europe, its mortality from smallpox in the epidemic of 1871 was higher (59,839) than in any other northern state.’”

Other countries reported the same smallpox trends, including Italy and Japan, where smallpox death rates after successful vaccination campaigns were unprecedented. Vaccine injuries, including deaths, were also common. It is shocking how closely the miserable failures of the smallpox vaccines mirror the COVID jabs.

One of the most common causes of death after smallpox vaccination was erysipelas, a painful bacterial skin disease. An 1890 Encyclopedia Britannica article reported that smallpox vaccination had triggered a disastrous epidemic of erysipelas. Other side effects included jaundice, syphilis, tuberculosis, eczema vaccinatum (a rare and lethal skin condition).

Massive Historic Public Protests Over 135 Years Ago

As skepticism of and opposition against smallpox vaccination grew, enforcement increased. Vaccine refusers were fined, jailed and sometimes vaccinated by force. Parents were even forced to vaccinate their second child even if the first one died from the inoculation. Intermittently, riots would break out. A Midwestern Doctor details what happened next:15

“In 1884, 5,000 court summons had been issued against the unvaccinated, a case load that completely overloaded the court system. Letters in local newspaper at this time revealed widespread disdain for the irrationality of the procedure and the medical profession’s steadfast defense of a dangerous practice that had clearly failed over the last 80 years.

Tensions reached a boiling point and on March 23, 1885, a large protest estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 people erupted. It was composed of citizens of all professions from across England and receive support from citizens across Europe who could not attend it.

The procession was 2 miles long, with displays showing the popular sentiments against vaccination present throughout the crowd. The demonstration was successful, and the local government acceded to and acknowledged their demands for liberty. Many of the description of this protest (and the jubilant mood there) are extremely similar to reports I have read of the Trucker’s protest.

Mr. Councilor Butcher of Leicester addressed the protest and spoke of the growing opinion that the best way to get rid of smallpox and deadly infectious diseases was to use plenty of water, eat good food, live in light and airy houses, while it was the municipality’s duty to keep the streets clean and the sewers in order. He emphasized that if this was not done, it was unlikely any act of Parliament or vaccination could prevent the diseases.

That year, following the protest, the government was replaced, mandates were terminated, and by 1887 vaccination coverage rates had dropped to 10%. To replace the vaccination model, the Leicester activists proposed a system of immediately quarantining smallpox patients, disinfection of their homes and quarantining of their contacts alongside improving public sanitation.

The medical community vehemently rejected this model, and zealously predicted Leicester’s ‘gigantic experiment’ would soon result in a terrible ‘massacre,’ especially in the unprotected children, who were viewed by government physicians as ‘bags of gunpowder’ that could easily blow up schools (along with much other hateful and hyperbolic rhetoric directed at them).

This smallpox apocalypse would forever serve as a lesson against vaccine refusal the medical profession bet their stake upon. [But] the predicted catastrophe failed to emerge and Leicester had dramatically lower rates of smallpox in subsequent epidemics than other fully vaccinated towns (ranging from 1/2 to 1/32).

Various rationalizations were put forward to explain this, but as the decades went by, a gradual public acceptance of Leicester’s methods emerged, but even 30 years later, a New York Times article still predicted a disaster was right around the corner and it was imperative Leicester change their methods.

Fortunately, the value of Leicester’s novel approach of quarantining and improvement public hygiene was recognized and gradually adopted around the world, leading to the eventual eradication of smallpox.”

Keep in mind that these protests occurred when the population was much lower, so as a percentage of the population it was much higher. In 1885, the U.K. population was only 36,015,500,16 so a protest with 100,000 was just under 0.3% of the entire population. As of February 16, 2022, today’s U.K. population is 68,471,390,17 so to match that protest, percentage-wise, about 205,400 would have to hit the streets.

History Repeats Itself

Those who don’t know their history are bound to repeat it, and it seems that’s precisely what we’ve allowed to occur in the past two years. Many doctors predicted and warned that the pandemic would be prolonged and worsened by rolling out non-sterilizing vaccines (i.e., vaccines that do not prevent infection and transmission). And that’s precisely what we’ve witnessed.

Predictions of devastating side effects have also come true. And, as resistance to the shots grew, draconian mandates followed. History tells us forced vaccination is not the answer. History also tells us how to get out from underneath a tyrannical government’s insistence on forced vaccination.

The answer is peaceful noncompliance. The answer is standing together, en masse, and saying “No more. Enough.” The truckers in Canada, the U.S., Belgium and elsewhere have the right idea, and the rest of us need to join and support them, in any way we can.

“Like the smallpox vaccination campaigns, the COVID-19 immunization campaign has been so egregious it has inspired a large global protest movement with the large scale current protests being very similar to those that occurred 135 years ago,” A Midwestern Doctor writes.18

“My hope is that this movement can remember the lessons from the past and carry them forward to now so a future generation does not have to repeat our mistakes.”

If you want to learn more about the fraud of all vaccines, I would encourage you to carefully review Suzanne Humphries’ excellent book, “Dissolving Illusions.” In my view it is the best book out there on the subject.

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Radical Democrats’ Reign of Terror Began With Immigration and Metastasized Throughout the Criminal Justice System

/in , , , , , /by

On July 27, 2006, I testified at a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic, “Whether the Attempted Implementation of the Reid-Kennedy Immigration Bill Will Result In an Administrative and National Security Nightmare.”

The Reid-Kennedy Bill upon which that hearing was predicated would have created a massive amnesty for unknown millions of aliens who were illegally present in the United States, not unlike the sort of massive amnesty for which the Biden administration has been advocating since before he took office — except the number of illegal aliens who would eligible to participate in this dangerous and ill-conceived program has grown exponentially.

I began my prepared testimony for the hearing by saying, in part:

“The principle by which most responsible and sensible people live their lives could be summed up by the phrase, ‘Safety first.’ Yet this fundamental and common sense approach is clearly lacking among all too many of the senators of our nation. They voted for a bill that utterly ignores the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission at a time when our nation is threatened by acts of terrorism.”

It has been said that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Safety should be the number one priority for our leaders.

However, radical Democrats have prioritized the concerns of law violators, including violent criminals, over those of everyone else — and not just where immigration is concerned, but across the broad spectrum of issues that are encompassed within the criminal justice system — by advocating for the defunding of police, bail reform and criminal justice reform under the guise of seeking “social justice.”

In point of fact, immigration law enforcement has always been “defunded” by both political parties who have bowed to the demands of the globalists and special interest groups that fund their political campaigns.

This was the focus of my recent article, “Profiteers of Biden Administration’s Open Borders Policy Malfeasance Has Its Rewards.”

Advocates for effective and fair enforcement of our immigration laws are frequently vilified as being “anti-immigrant” while those who seek immigration anarchy are lauded as “pro-immigrant.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

America’s immigration laws were enacted to protect public health, public safety, national security, and the jobs and wages of Americans.

A review of section 8 U.S. Code § 1182 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which establishes the categories of aliens who are deemed inadmissible, would dispel the lies and propaganda deployed to denigrate the importance and reasonableness of our immigration laws and reinforce the absolute need for our nation to enforce those laws.

Failures to enforce our immigration laws undermine the safety and wellbeing of Americans and lead to the exploitation of desperate and vulnerable illegal aliens.

Effective immigration law enforcement requires emphasis on enforcement within the interior of the United States. Meaningful interior enforcement has never been a part of any proposed legislation or strategy for any administration. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) only has a few thousand employees and since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE agents enforce a broad spectrum of laws that have nothing to do with immigration.

Not long after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, I was invited to meet with several members of Congress and their staffs. During our meeting I asked them if they knew how many times an aspiring illegal alien could attempt to enter the U.S. without inspection. One of the congressmen appeared perplexed and asked if there was a specific number. I told him that the numbers might vary but there is a formula that works — aliens simply had to attempt illegal entry one more time than the number of times they get caught.

The point is that any alien who is determined to gain entry into the U.S. will ultimately succeed. Consequently, interior enforcement is the key to success.

Consider this excerpt from an article published by The Epoch Times entitled, “Illegal Aliens Ran Sex-Trafficking Ring in New York City, Using Minors From Mexico.”

The border-crossing records of two of the convicted sex traffickers reveal a common pattern of continually crossing the border illegally until they make it past law enforceemnt.

Abel Romero-Melendez, who received a 20-year sentence, was apprehended by Border Patrol and returned to Mexico eight times after crossing illegally. The crossing dates included March 22, 2002, near Casa Grande, Arizona; July 14, 2006, near Nogales, Arizona; July 21, 2006, near Sasabe, Arizona; July 25, 2006, near Nogales, Arizona; July 30, 2006, in the Tucson sector of Arizona; June 4, 2012, in the Tucson sector; June 15, 2012, near Willcox, Arizona; and Oct. 29, 2012, in Falfurrias, Texas.

Fabian Reyes-Rojas, who is awaiting sentencing, was apprehended by Border Patrol and returned to Mexico seven times after crossing illegally, and jailed once for illegal re-entry.

Border records show Border Patrol apprehended Reyes-Rojas on March 11, 16, and 18 in 2003; Sept. 7 and 13 in 2007; and Sept. 8, 2011.

After being caught near Douglas, Arizona, on May 16, 2012, Reyes-Rojas was charged with illegal re-entry and spent 30 days in jail before being returned to Mexico.

No further entry records exist, but Reyes-Rojas resided in New York City from at least 2014, according to the complaint.

The illegal alien thugs noted above coerced young Mexican girls they smuggled into the United States into working as prostitutes by raping them, beating them, and threatening to kill their parents.

Today, there are thousands of similar criminals from countries around the world plying their “trades” in our country, turning the U.S. into a “Land of Opportunity” for lawbreakers, members of transnational gangs, drug traffickers, and terrorists — and the Biden administration is determined to do nothing to prevent their entry into our country or seek their removal.

There is no justice of any sort to be found in the policies and actions of this morally bankrupt administration. As I recently noted, for the Biden administration, national security is ‘mission irrelevant.’

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Loudoun County Sheriff raises questions about DHS plan for Afghan refugees

You’re already paying more for groceries and gas. Here’s where consumers will feel the next round of ‘sticker shock.’

/in , , , , , /by

FAIRtax’s Market Watch reports:

Consumers may already be reeling from higher prices for things like groceries and energy, but S&P Global Ratings says inflation has more surprises in store.

“Packaged food and household products companies have yet to pass through all of their price hikes, and so consumers will likely face more sticker shock before prices stabilize,” wrote Sarah Wyeth in a note published Thursday.

“As grocery and gas bills increasingly squeeze budgets, we expect that consumers will defer some expenditures and switch to less-expensive brands in the second half of the year.”

The U.S. inflation rate has reached a 40-year high of 7.5%. With prices heading north, some shoppers are already tightening their belts with the help of off-brand everyday goods.

Join The FAIRtax Movement by signing up to “Get-Updates”

COLUMN BY

 Tonya Garcia

RELATED ARTICLES:

JPMorgan now sees Fed hiking interest rates 9 times to combat red-hot inflation

Bidenflation Runs Hot Sending Rents Soaring Across the Country

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR Tax column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Conservative Success: Locally Sourced in 2022

/in , , , , , /by

In the four million square miles known as America, it’s easy to forget that Washington, D.C. is just a sliver. While most of the attention is focused on the noisy rectangle that holds our nation’s capital, a lot of incredible things are happening outside the District — especially on the issues we care about. From life and election reform to sports and gender, the states are teed up for a record year. So while the president might not be pushing good policy, take heart. Your locally-elected leaders are more than making up for it!

Like a lot of conservatives, FRC’s Quena González knows the temptation is to be discouraged by what’s happening on the federal level. But as radical as Democrats in Washington have been, they’re only part of the story. Believe it or not, conservatives are having an enormous impact in the early days of the 2022 local legislative session. We’re talking about a record number of abortion-related ballot measures, quadruple the number of election reform bills, and a grassroots education uprising unlike any other. FRC’s team is tracking more than 1,000 bills in the states right now, and hundreds of them could stop the Left’s extremism in its tracks.

Of course, at the top of everyone’s minds right now is the abortion issue. Nationally, González explained on “Washington Watch,” we’re seeing the influence of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization trickle down. The case, as most people know, was heard before U.S. Supreme Court several weeks ago and has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the question of abortion back to the states.

“This is the first time in a generation that we’ve seen this opportunity. We don’t know how the Supreme Court will react,” Quena said, “and neither do the state legislatures. But the states aren’t waiting.” There’s “a lot” of pro-life action at the state level, he pointed out. “And I would say if you’re on the pro-abortion side, at the state level, you’re very much on the defensive these days… We’re seeing state after state pick up that [pro-life] mantle and begin to really whittle away at abortion in their state.” There’s so much enthusiasm over the issue that 2022 could break the record for the most abortion-related ballot initiatives ever. As it stands, states will vote on more than they have in 36 years.

But it’s not just the life movement that’s motivating people. Since the mess of November 2020, conservatives have been more keyed up about election reform than almost any other issue. And that shows, experts say, in the record wave of bills in the legislatures. As of January 14 (and there are almost certainly more now), at least 27 states have “introduced, pre-filed, or carried over 250 bills” aimed at safeguarding our elections. That’s more than quadruple the number of proposals last year (75).

Among other things, leaders are trying to eliminate ballot drop boxes, abolish no-excuse absentee voting, strengthen voter ID laws, move election administration to the legislatures, make it easier to audit elections, outlaw third-party donations, and more. FRC’s vice president for FRC Action, Brent Keilen, thinks “This should be a great encouragement to all voters who want to make sure their votes will be fairly counted as they go to the polls in 2022.”

Another interesting twist in the states is the intense reaction to transgender politics. In Washington, D.C., González pointed out, it takes a really brave member of Congress to speak out on sexual orientation and gender identity — but that’s not the case in the states. “I think because [local leaders are] closer to the people and sometimes closer to the problem, there seems to be an upwelling of courage, in my view, in the last few years, to address some of the ways in which the ideologically-driven agenda of the Left has impacted women. And we certainly see this in women’s sports bills that are being introduced all across the country-well over a dozen at this point, as well as bans on gender transition procedures being performed on young people.” More states, he says, are watching children as young as six use hormones and puberty blockers and saying, “Not in our state.”

A lot of people might be aware that Arkansas overrode the governor’s veto on a gender transition ban for minors a few months ago. “But what they may not know is that 19 other states introduced that legislation last year,” Quena said, “and we are on a good clip this year to see just as many states introduce the same type of bill this year to protect the children of their state. And again, this is an example of where our viewers and listeners need to be vocal and need to support these laws.”

The biggest mistake conservatives can make, González argued, is to think of your state in terms of red or blue. People don’t speak up because they think they know where their state stands. If it’s a Republican-leaning state, they think state leaders have things covered. If they’re in a liberal state, they think their involvement won’t make a dent. Both approaches are wrong. “Trust me,” González said, “there are good and bad bills moving right now in your state that need your voice of opposition or support — no matter where you live.”

To make sure you’re up-to-date on the debates in your state, sign up for FRC’s action alerts here. We’ll make sure you have all the information you need to weigh in on key policies at the community and state level.

COLUMN BY

Tony Perkins

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Government Tyrants Losing the War on Parents [For Now]

/in , , , , , , /by

The school board recall in San Francisco sent shockwaves through Progressive quarters throughout the country.  Three school board members were recalled for spending too much time renaming schools for Woke folk and putting progressive politics over the needs of children during COVID.  The recall effort was started by Democrats and passed by 78 percent of the voters in what is a very Progressive city.  Progressives around the country were shaken to the core, and deservedly so. Their policies stink and everybody knows it.  One petulant school board member who was thrown out said the vote was white supremacy.  This shows you just how bankrupt the Left’s propaganda on race is.  Everybody knows that, too.

San Francisco wasn’t the only recent battle in the war on parents.

A teacher admitted on video keeping a “transition closet” for students to change into clothing that “fits who they are”, inducing gender confusion into students without parental knowledge or consent.  A California public charter schools asks for and uses preferred gender pronouns, also without parental consent.  A California Democrat running for Congress helped bring a program run by the Chinese Communist Party into his community’s classrooms.  Parents were blocked from school board meetings and prevented from speaking in Virginia and Pennsylvania .  A county board chairman in Virginia scoffed at the elected legislature and Governor and said school boards and health officials should be the ones deciding mask mandates in schools.

Parents are fighting back.

A parent in Virginia confronted a school board member at a school board meeting with pictures of the member without a mask on in a crowd while advocating masks for children.  The member called security, pounded the gavel, yelled at the parent “you are done!”, and stormed out of the meeting.

California parents demanded answers after learning “nonbinary” male counselors slept in the same cabins as their daughters at school science camp.  The parents’ outrage made a difference.  The school district opened an investigation.

A biracial father in North Carolina attacked Critical Race Theory at a school board meeting, saying “I’m biracial, I’m bilingual, I’m multicultural. The fact is, in America, in North Carolina, I can do anything I want and I teach that to my children…. And the person who tells my pecan-color kids that they’re oppressed, based on the color of their skin, would be absolutely wrong and absolutely at war with me.”

Parents in two Virginia towns handed subpoenas to fleeing school board members who were illegally maintaining mask mandates.  A sportscaster resigned from NBC to be free to speak out against Critical Race Theory which she said separates kids and amounts to segregation.

Parents are winning, in some instances. The Virginia Senate passed a bill allowing parents to review sexually explicit materials schools want to give their kids.  A school board in Pennsylvania voted to shut off CNN in the classroom, recognizing that the network is biased.  A county commissioner in Wyoming compared parents to ignorant and hate-filled Nazis for objecting to obscene library books in schools.  The parents fought back, publicizing the remarks and continuing to show up at public meetings.  They kept the pressure on and the commissioner finally resigned.

But the war on parents is not over.  Progressives are calling in the heavy artillery.  The Biden Justice Department just established a new domestic terrorism office.  This comes after Attorney General Merrick Garland called parents domestic terrorists in a memo.  Critics worry the new office will be used to target parents who speak up at school board meetings.  Who knows, the feds might even try to arrest every parent who voted to throw the school board out in San Francisco.  I wouldn’t put anything past our government these days.  Stay tuned.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Evil MUST Be Resisted

/in , , , , , , /by

Throughout the known history of the world, there have been nearly constant military confrontations.  The reason for some of them is easily seen, with one hostile force openly attacking another, a situation that in most cases demands a response from the attacked.  In other cases, there have been hostilities, intrigues and covert actions between forces or nations, seething for years or even centuries, that finally erupted into open warfare.  In those cases the reasons for the eventual wars may be much more difficult to determine.  The resulting visible and lasting physical damage due to the ravages of the wars is often the ONLY thing easily seen, but very difficult to accept, especially for the loser.

There is a war raging in this world today, not a new one, but one that has been ongoing since the early days of man’s creation. The battles and battlegrounds have changed from nation to nation, empire to empire, continent to continent; the combatants also change with the geographic locations, but though there have been many such changes, the ultimate goal, being “to the victor goes the spoils”, has not.

Just as a physical battle has its leadership, with the generals directing the strategy and allowing their orders to flow down through the ranks where they are to be obeyed by the ground level fighters, so does the spiritual battle being discussed here today.  That battle is often started, and many times won, by the use of deception.  The author of the brilliant work, “The Art of War”, Sun Tsu, the Chinese general, military strategist and philosopher, once stated: “All warfare is based on deception”.  Because the end goal of any conflict is to overcome and and control an opponent, deception allows a well-trained warrior to confuse and disorient his enemies, providing an advantage and thus enabling a swift and sure victory.

The Propaganda War

Propaganda is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as, 1) the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; and 2) ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.  It can be surmised that, based on the definitions above, there is likely little truth in any propaganda.

In fact, the first ‘world war’ was a Propaganda War. It started in the Garden of Eden when Satan, speaking through the serpent, questioned the words that God had said to his new human creation.  Satan was trying to get Adam and Eve, the only residents of earth at that time, to change the way they were taught, by God Himself, to think and believe.  The purpose of his attack was to undermine God’s influence on man by questioning the truth of God’s words and to get man to give the dominion over earth to Satan. The first word out of Satan’s mouth started the Propaganda War, and unfortunately, he won that first battle when Eve accepted his words and ate of the forbidden fruit.

All propaganda is deception cleverly clothed in smooth words.  It is mostly the ideas of an individual, or possibly a political regime, that wishes to control the thinking of those to whom the propaganda is sent. The war now plaguing the world and especially the United States, is simply a newer version of the original propaganda war, one that uses propaganda, cleverly disguised words instead of bullets.  And in the same manner that the top generals in a real ‘shooting war’ lead their troops by providing the battle strategy to the lower echelon, the top leader of the war we are now in directs his minions on how to ‘propagandize’ all those who might challenge his authority and his agenda.  Those demonic minions have used their cunning and treacherous skills to pass on the use of propaganda throughout the ages to evil people whose deception has corrupted the minds of millions of the ignorant and unsuspecting.  The Propaganda War is a war of deception.

The human propaganda minions of today also have become very skilled at their work; they likely learned some tricks from those in Nazi Germany who were masters of propaganda.  For example, here are some quotes from the Nazi Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels

“The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.” ~ Goebbels

“It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion.” ~ Goebbels

The propagandists use their skills  as well as the trained military uses guns and bullets.  Because the ‘work’ they do has been given some legitimacy in the world, mostly by ‘academia’, they are listened to and their ideas are often accepted and adopted by many targeted individuals as well as those who determine  national policy in many countries.

Edward Bernays, the man considered ‘the father of public opinion’, who was also the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis guru, wrote in his book, “Propaganda”, published in 1928: “Those who manipulate the organized habits  and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country…it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons….it is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world….As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.”

Defense Against Propaganda

The use of propaganda to change the way people think is inherently evil.  If left unchecked, it will lead to the subjugation of the human mind to forces that only wish to steal, kill and destroy.  All that we hear MUST be carefully considered as to its true purpose.  This means that all the information provided by mainstream media must be carefully examined to determine whether it is truth (unlikely) or simply propaganda.  For those who are ‘news junkies’, a proper defense starts with weaning oneself off the propaganda teat of Mainstream Media and ALL social media.

It should now be very evident that the 2020 election fiasco was caused by the overwhelming control exhibited by the MSM and social media over what Americans think, and thus how they act.  And before that event, the introduction of much false information about a ‘new (novel) coronavirus being touted as the most deadly in many decades caused a panicked and fearful public to quickly follow the guidelines issued by a corrupt government and medical industry, thus leading to the near collapse of our economy and the changes in our election system that caused the election fiasco.

It remains to be seen whether the damage done to America is permanent or whether our nation can ever again be considered the land of the free.  I would like to express optimism but I will admit I am NOT overly optimistic about the future of America as a free and prosperous nation.

Wolves Among The Sheep

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15 KJV)

Even in Christian settings, the words being used by those who have a public voice should be closely scrutinized to determine whether they align with the words given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scriptures.

Not every person claiming to be Christian is actually that.

Not every pastor is a true shepherd of the flock.

Throughout the history of the Church age, many wicked men have infiltrated into the Body of Christ and attempted to separate the sheep from the true Shepherd, Jesus Christ.  They do this using smooth-sounding words that, when carefully considered, actually question what the Bible has said.  They may sound wonderful, but in reality, they are nothing more than evil propaganda and deception and they must not be listened to or received into our minds.

When we understand the processes being used against the world at large, propaganda campaigns that are intended to influence, mold and forever change the thinking of the people in every  area of their lives, the instruction below from the Apostle Paul takes on a new urgency for every true believer.  As Christians, we are taught to have our minds renewed, not by propaganda, but by every word that proceeds from God.  The Apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the believers in Rome: “And be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2 KJV). 

The first step in this godly transformation is the submission of ourselves to God as outlined in verse 1 of that same chapter: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Romans 12:1 KJV).  This requires a thorough knowledge of what God says about truth, lies and deception, and an understanding of God’s word so that we can only allow our minds to be influenced, or transformed, by His truth.

At some point in the life of every believer, an event will occur that requires the evil we encounter be challenged.  For example, the people pushing the war of propaganda now demand we all accept their accounts of events and the reason for the events rather than searching for the truth of the matter.  To these people, truth means little or nothing, only the winning of the war matters to them.  As Christians, we MUST not allow ourselves to be moved by their evil propaganda.

One of the loudest cries now from the unsaved and the propagandists is what they are calling the ’systemic racism’ they say is destroying our nation.  They throw the word ‘racism’ out as though they actually know what they are talking about; they usually define racism as the hatred of people of one skin color against people of a different skin color.

For generations, the propagandists have tried to convince the world, with some amazing success, that there are multiple races of people on earth and that the ‘race’ is primarily determined by their skin color.  While it is true that there are masses of humans with varying skin colors, physical features and languages, this does not mean that each ‘skin color group’ is a different race from the others.  According to the Bible, man was created as ‘one’, and ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26-27 KJV).  The man, and the woman who was made ‘from man’, were created/made by God, in his image and likeness.

From that perspective, all men and women proceeded from the joining (marriage) of Adam and Eve to reproduce, multiply and to replenish the earth.  It can be further argued that all men and women alive today and who were born after the ‘Flood of Noah’, proceed from Noah, since he, his wife, his three sons and their wives were the only eight humans to survive the devastating flood that God used to destroy all unrighteous people on earth in hopes of erasing the evil that had corrupted the earth since the Propaganda War resulted in the disobedient acts of Adam and Eve.

After that flood, the only people capable of reproducing in their likeness were Noah and his wife  and his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their wives; all humans who have lived since the flood proceeded from those eight men and women, who had themselves proceeded from the union of Adam and Eve.  So from that perspective, there has only been one ‘race’, the ‘human race’, from the beginning of time.

I will not venture too deeply into the murky waters of the question of why there are now people with white skin, brown skin, black skin and yellow skin.  But there has been some interesting scientific research on the part that genes play in determining human skin color.  In fact, geneticists  have determined that many hundreds of ‘stretches of DNA’ sometimes work together to decide a specific skin color.  It has also been determined that, over a long period of time, human actions can change the way a human body ‘reads’ its DNA.  One example might be that a person who spends long periods of time out in the sun, thus darkening his or her own skin, causes his DNA to activate the genes that decide skin color, thus producing offspring that have the inherited features of the parents, including skin color.  Is this a scientific explanation for the existence of many people with dark brown or black skin?  No, and I would be the first to say that it is only a possible explanation.  Moreover, I believe that if God had wanted us to have a thorough explanation for it, He likely would have put it in His word.

I am perfectly willing to accept the simple answer that, perhaps God allowed the skin of people from one generation to another to adapt and produce additional shades of color, possibly as a means of living successfully in certain geographical areas where temperatures are much hotter than other, more moderate areas.  That idea does not mean that they are of a different race, which could only have happened if a totally different individual, with a unique DNA, different from that of God, had entered the human race and somehow changed the DNA from its original makeup.  Another, more simple explanation might be that God just likes variety.  After all, no two leaves on a tree are exactly alike, nor are any two snowflakes exactly alike.  Personally, I like the ‘variety explanation’.

Why Does Evil Persist?

God in His infinite wisdom, had created Adam and made Eve to be ignorant of evil, knowing that, in the day they became aware of evil, and the difference between evil and good, they would have to choose between the two.  That has been a requirement for nearly 6,000 years now, since man and woman decided to choose the knowledge that required the difficult and deadly choice, the choice to know the difference between good and evil.  That choice brought sorrow, suffering and death into the world that God had originally made as a perfect dwelling place.

Since the day that God’s created people followed the serpent, being used by Satan, evil has existed in the world and has brought great misery and torment to billions of humans.  Seemingly, from the human perspective, there appears to be no way to defeat evil.  I truly believe that most people have accepted as fact, the premise that we are doomed to live in a cursed world that is dominated by evil forces with little or no way to free ourselves from its control.  However, we who truly believe what God has said, KNOW that the means to eliminate evil was born of a Jewish virgin nearly 2000 years ago, and He is the only way to a life free from evil.  He can raise up the ones who will actively resist and challenge evil.  Unless we see one of God’s fearless warriors do this, America will not likely survive the coming onslaught of pure evil.  The problems facing this nation now are spiritual in nature and are not going to be solved by any politician, in fact politicians of every stripe and letter have been the cause of most of the problems we have ever seen.  Bonnie Harvey of Hebrew Nation News (Radio) once said: “There is no political solution to a spiritual problem.”

It is true that we must live in the world as it was passed on to us, and it is indeed evil, being under the control of Satan, who is called “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV).  As long as he has any control over a majority of humans living in this world, alongside us, things will be somewhat difficult.  Evil does not just “play nicely with others”; it always tries to rise up and dominate everything in sight and if it cannot easily dominate, it will use whatever means available to destroy all that oppose it.

How to Resist (Challenge) Evil

In 1 Kings, we find that Israel was under the control of one of the most wicked women who ever lived, Jezebel, the wife of a weak Jewish king, Ahab.  Jezebel instituted the worship of Baal, the false Canaanite god to whom Israel began sacrificing their children.  This wicked woman had tried to eliminate all opposition to her evil plans and might have succeeded except that a true prophet of God, Elijah, stood forth and challenged the prophets of Baal.  The account of his victory over Jezebel, Baal and evil can be read in 1 Kings 18.  The main point is that, when a true man of God was needed, the Lord had one ready, willing and able to challenge evil.  It raises the question that every American believer should now be asking: “Where is our Elijah”?  In fact, where are the silent pulpits of America?  Has anyone seen or heard them actively challenging, or even resisting evil in recent times?

Though there be many Christians who fear Satan, and all things evil, fear of him will not only NOT stop him, because fear negates our faith, it will strengthen him in his pursuit of our destruction.  He plays on our fears and uses them against us.  No, we must find and constantly use the spiritual tools that will challenge evil and stop him in his tracks.  In the book of James we are told:

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you”  (James 4:7 KJV).  Also, in the book of 1 Peter we are taught, “Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, AS a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he MAY devour; whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world” (1 Peter 5:8-9 KJV emphasis mine).

Please notice that Satan is NOT a roaring lion, he only masquerades as one, hoping that the fear he can induce will ALLOW him to devour and destroy.  Fear will change the ‘may devour’ into a definite ‘can devour’.

Consider Jesus as our example of challenging, resisting and stopping Satan and all evil.  When He was driven into the wilderness to be tempted, He used the only tool that was completely effective: The Word of God!.. No matter what Satan offered Jesus to try to get Him to turn from God, Jesus only said: “It is written….” Satan knows what God has said and he also knows that God DOES NOT change, WILL NOT change and he also knows that the words God has spoken are eternal and are just as effective today as they were when Jesus used them to chase Satan from His presence.  Jesus knew that He had to set the example of proper resistance to evil so that we, 2,000 years later, could also put Satan on the run.  Jesus knew that, had he accepted the evil that Satan offered, He would be the defeated one, NOT Satan.

Conclusion

The ideal way to stop evil would be to evangelize the whole world and get everyone born again, thus destroying Satan’s kingdom forever.  But we all know this is only a pipedream; with that human trait, called free will, no matter how hard we might try, there will be those who refuse to listen to truth, instead choosing to follow evil, sadly, to their own destruction.

It still behooves us all to do our utmost to reach as many as possible to urge them to hear and choose truth.  Doing so will make eternity a much better time for all.  But, in the here and now, we must still face the challenge of living in the ‘cursed world/cursed earth’ state and do what we are commanded by Jesus: “Occupy till I come” (Luke 19:13 KJV).

We all should now be aware of the evil that has infiltrated all levels of human existence, but especially at the highest levels of ALL governments.  The evil ones have used, and will continue to use, their propaganda against us in their endless efforts to influence how and what we think and believe, and thereby, our behaviors.  We MUST NOT give in to this propaganda.  If it means cutting all ties with the MSM ana all social media and their lies, that is what will be required to keep ourselves from evil.  Now is the most critical time in history for all believers.  The time for trying to keep one foot ‘in the world’ and the rest of the body ‘in Christ’ is over.  Remember the words of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, “Abstain from all appearance of evil”.  If anything we encounter has even a slight tinge of evil connected to it, abstinence from it is our only godly choice.  The only way to do that is by living a fear-free, faith-filled life, and the only way to do that is by digging deeply into, and following, God’s word: “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17 KJV).

To occupy successfully, we must cast aside all fear and, using our faith, boldly challenge and resist evil with the word of God.

ACCEPTANCE OF EVIL IS AS DANGEROUS AS PARTICIPATION IN EVIL, THEREFORE, EVIL MUST BE CHALLENGED/RESISTED!

EVIL UNCHALLENGED IS EVIL UNCONTROLLED!

Blessings!

budaroo@twc.com

©Bud Hancock. All rights reserved.