Aletho News


The New Normal requires a NEW Response

By Catte Black | OffGuardian | February 12, 2021

Recently a prominent Covid-skeptic on Twitter announced their willingness to start a political party or “movement” to oppose lockdowns.

Several people expressed support.

I understand the good intention behind this idea, but we at OffGuardian consider it a major misdirection of energy – and we said so.

We got a flurry of replies from Marxists and socialists telling us people need to ‘organise’ if the New Normal is to be defeated.

Well, yes, I agree. But what does ‘organise’ mean in an age of fake ‘consensus’, rigged elections and pseudo-Left fascism?

Does it mean creating yet another ‘political party’ with rules, hierarchies and leaders?

Does it mean paying lip service to the senile, corrupt old system of representative ‘democracy’ that we KNOW is fixed and a fundamental lie?

I don’t think so.

I think the New Normal requires a New Response.

This isn’t 2003 and the anti-war protests. This isn’t 1984 and the miners’ strike. This struggle is actually potentially far more winnable. Because it isn’t about trying to force a change of action on remote beings who don’t give a damn and won’t listen. It’s about reaching ordinary people. Our friends, family, community.

What we are facing is not just a new level of tyranny, but a new kind of tyranny. One that requires more than passive obedience or inaction from people in order to preserve their status quo.

The New Normal demands people do things to positively reinforce that Normal, not simply passively consent. People are being asked to make fundamental changes to their daily lives and proactively DO things that inconvenience, impoverish or endanger them and their loved ones. They are being asked to wear masks, remain inside, refuse contact, close stores, all as individual acts of faith in the truth and reality of the narrative.

This means it’s not principally the PTB who are enforcing this narrative – it’s individual people. It’s everyone who is seen to be believing the story. It’s every man, woman and child wearing a mask or social distancing, or closing their business.

We are not merely bystanders to this event, we are required to be active participants. And that potentially gives us a lot more power. Because we can simply say no.

And if people really knew the truth they would say no – out of simple self preservation – the same instinct currently being exploited to get their co-operation.

This is why a bid to organise hierarchical resistance misses the point, and aims at the wrong target.

The fourth Industrial revolution is supposed to be in part about data – information. Those with the information will control the world.

Think about that.

If information is key to them maybe it should be to us. I think we need to see the war against the New Normal as an information war.

The Great Reset merchants are selling conformity through lies. We need to counter them with the truth. Which will, indeed, “set you free.”

We, all of us, everyone reading this, need to start sharing information as if it was ammunition.

Reblog it, print it out and distribute it. Leave it in leaflets, send it in letters or emails, tell people about it by word of mouth.

If only one person in a hundred listens to you, it’s still a step.

But the information needs to be simple and true. Here are the 4 basic facts-

  1. the ‘virus’ has a blurry definition and has a survival rate of over 99% – no more deadly than some recent flu strains
  2. the PCR tests DON’T work and are a fraud.
  3. The reported ‘deaths’ are often people dying of other things and having ‘covid’ added to their CoD based on the test that doesn’t work or on financial incentive.
  4. The vaccine is NOT a vaccine. It’s experimental gene manipulation which will need decades of testing over generations before it can really be pronounced safe.

Don’t let these basic truths be diluted with irrelevant chatter about bio weapons or ‘miracle cures’. Don’t think you can be more effective if you cut the truth with a few commonly believed lies.

Don’t be tempted to meet the lie halfway. Don’t say ‘sure the pandemic was real and the virus IS scary, but it’s all over now’.

No. Tell the truth. Tell it to at least one person you know every day, and help to set them free.

Tell people how powerful they are. That this sick farce of political/corporate narrative now more than ever needs their endorsement for it to mean anything, and if they simply decline to endorse and walk away eventually the farce will be playing to an empty theatre.

We need INFORMATIONAL organization laterally – getting info out about the ‘pandemic’, about legal rights, about how to get away from total dependence on the system.

Encourage people to form their own groups and spread this info. Organic, loose – hard to monitor and pin down, hard to infiltrate because there will be no hierarchy.

Tell people they don’t need to wait for self-appointed leaders to give them direction. They can be their own change. Starting now.

Take their slogans – ‘strength in unity’ and make it mean something in your own life.

Remember ‘they’ are weak in numbers but strong in cohesion, and they have taken our strength in numbers and used it against us – like a martial arts ninja.

They try to break us apart with internal divisions, setting black against white, male against female, “Right” against “Left”.

The old politics and its terminologies are meaningless in the face of this latest coup against humanity. It’s not a matter of Left v Right any more. It’s a simple division between those who believe in human freedom and those who want humanity enslaved.

The only way to fight this New Normal is to create another one. Where people rediscover independence of thought and genuine collectivism of action.

With thanks to Vanessa Beeley for her input and suggestions

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | | Leave a comment

Why antibody-enhancement of disease (ADE) might be a ticking time bomb

By Rob Verkerk PhD | Alliance for Natural Health – International | February 10, 2021

Associate Professor of Health Sciences Adam MacNeil at Brock University, Canada and his PhD student Jeremia Coish were among the earliest to warn, last June, of the dangers of not looking very carefully at the possibility that vaccines might trigger antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease. This could mean that people who are vaccinated might, paradoxically, suffer more severe disease when exposed to the wild virus than if they hadn’t been vaccinated

In their aptly titled article, “Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19,” published in the journal Microbes and Infection in June 2020, they argue that ADE is well known to be a risk for coronavirus-mediated infections, as well as dengue. For those not already familiar with ADE, it is the paradoxical immune response that makes a person who was previously exposed to the disease, or a vaccine targeting it, more – not less – susceptible in the event that they’re subsequently infected.

Proceed with caution

Seemingly countering this view, in August 2020, was viral epidemiologist Leah Katzelnick PhD, a dengue and zika specialist now in the employ of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr Tony Fauci. Along with co-author Scott Halstead, Dr Katzelnick argued that ADE shouldn’t be something to be feared. Katzelnick and Halstead proposed that the fundamental differences between SARS-CoV-2 infection that can cause covid-19 and other diseases, for which ADE has been shown, meant that ADE would be highly unlikely. They supported their arguments with evidence from cases of classic, intrinsic ADE, notably infectious peritonitis (FIP), a coronavirus infection in cats, as well as from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), dengue and SARS – suggesting significant differences in the pathology, epidemiology and immune responses involved in these diseases as compared with covid and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Careful readers of Halstead and Katzelnick’s paper will note that while the authors largely dismiss the ADE risk, they very clearly identify a risk of vaccine hypersensitivity (or VAH), a closely related immunological hyper-reaction that was first identified in the late 1960s when children developed atypical measles following measles vaccination. Many who’ve used the paper to dismiss ADE risks may only have read the title and abstract and not picked up that Katzelnick and Halstead dismiss only intrinsic ADE or iADE (i.e. the risk of disease enhancement on re-infection in the absence of vaccination). They also may not have read the sombre advisory in the paper’s last sentence: “Given the magnitude of the repertoire of COVID-19 problems and the need for an effective vaccine, the full force of worldwide investigative resources should be directed at unravelling the pathogenesis of VAH.”

There is not much to suggest that this advisory has been heeded, other than the fact that thousands of volunteers have been put through Phase 3 trials and there has been no evidence of spikes in more severe reactions among those vaccinated with the real thing, as opposed to the placebo.

Herbert Virgin, Ann Arvin and colleagues, writing in Nature, one of the most influential journals in the world, made a not dissimilar call for caution back in July.  These authors discuss the great difficulties in identifying the incidence and frequency of ADE (and VAH) and suggest that “… it will be essential to depend on careful analysis of safety in humans as immune interventions for COVID-19 move forward”.

Transparency is key

This requires full transparency of surveillance data so that cases of infection and re-infection post-vaccination can be correlated against severe reactions following infection or vaccination. It also requires time – much more time than we’ve had so far.

Presently, data released by VAERS in the US and the MHRA in the UK don’t come close to telling us anything about the ADE or VAH risk. In fact, there will have to be a lot more re-infection before we know conclusively one way or another. And will we be able to find out if there are genuine issues with ADE or VAH, or will the authorities manage to keep a lid on it by just not communicating them given many reactions will be substantially delayed following vaccination?

Timothy Cardozo from New York University and Ronald Veazy from Tulane University took it a step further in their article in the International Journal of Clinical Practice published in October, when Phase 3 trials for the covid frontrunner vaccines were in full swing. They argued not only that vaccine-mediated ADE (i.e. VAH) risks were more than just theoretical, they also suggest that the risks may be greater following particular types of mutations in the circulating viruses. In their discussion on SARS-CoV-2, they discuss how very tiny changes, such as changes in the conformity (shape) of its spike protein both before and after fusion with host cells, via ACE2 receptors might impact those who’ve been vaccinated. Several months on with emerging evidence that some variants are able to evade the immune response that has been trained to offer protection against the original Wuhan variants, there is cause for even greater concern. This risk also can’t be dismissed on the basis of the results of the Phase 3 trials.

What Drs Cardozo and Veazy also suggest is another point we’ve long been concerned about. That relates to the fact that trial subjects – let alone members of the public who’re now lining up for covid vaccines – are just not being informed of these potential risks, and the delayed nature of possible ADE/VAH reactions. What about vaccinees who become ill several months after being vaccinated, suffering the classic range of symptoms associated with many respiratory diseases (including covid), such as fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, headache, fatigue, and so on? Will they know that these symptoms might be related to enhanced covid disease mediated by the vaccination given to them months before, something that didn’t occur to them because they thought the vaccine gave them protection from covid?

Cardozo and Veazy then show how informed consent forms for volunteer subjects in vaccine trials fail to meet the required ethical standards for informed consent. While ADE is mentioned, it is generally added at the end of the list of possible risks and its implications and identification are unlikely to be adequately understood by the lay public.

With a tick in the box and a sense from regulators and vaccine makers that they’ve successfully negotiated the hurdle of ADE/VAH risks, there’s been no further discussion of the issue. The vast majority of pre-vaccinees lining up as part of the global mass vaccination roll out simply have no idea of the risk – because they’re not being told.

Could ADE be a ticking time bomb?

Does non-disclosure as part of the informed consent process constitute not only a breach of medical ethics, but also a breach of law? In our view, that’s highly likely and should evidence accrue in the future, this will be something the courts will need to grapple with.

Presently there is no evidence of any significant ADE/VAH signal – but it is too early to tell and many cases could have gone undetected.

Is it possible that some instances of ‘long covid’ could be a form of ADE? This is a possibility we have been considering. Typically people who get long covid don’t test as positive from nasopharyngeal swab tests. But in deep seated systemic infections the mucosa may no show evidence of viral multiplication, whereas the infection may become systemic in certain tissues and be enhanced. This possibility cannot easily be dismissed.

Could the problem increase with new variants of SARS-CoV-2? Yes, as explained above.

What you can do

  1. Anyone who is deciding to have the vaccine should inform themselves of the ADE and VAH risk, where there could be a considerable delay between vaccination and the experience of disease symptoms that may be more severe than those that would occur without the vaccine.
  2. Let those you know who are considering or planning to have the covid vaccine of this risk. Read and share our article, “Informed consent – is this fundamental right being respected?”
  3. Share this article widely.

Rob Verkerk PhD is the founder, executive & scientific director of Alliance for Natural Health – International.

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

“Swift and Meaningful Response” on Human Rights of LGBTQ, and Intersex Persons Around the World

An end to staged chemical attacks?

The White House Briefing Room


This memorandum reaffirms and supplements the principles established in the Presidential Memorandum of December 6, 2011 (International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons). That memorandum, for the first time, directed executive departments and agencies (agencies) engaged abroad to ensure that United States diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons everywhere. This memorandum builds upon that historic legacy and updates the 2011 memorandum.

All human beings should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear no matter who they are or whom they love.  Around the globe, including here at home, brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) activists are fighting for equal protection under the law, freedom from violence, and recognition of their fundamental human rights. The United States belongs at the forefront of this struggle — speaking out and standing strong for our most dearly held values. It shall be the policy of the United States to pursue an end to violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics, and to lead by the power of our example in the cause of advancing the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world.

Through this memorandum, I am directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that United States diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons. Specifically, I direct the following actions, consistent with applicable law:

Section 1.  Combating Criminalization of LGBTQI+ Status or Conduct Abroad.  Agencies engaged abroad are directed to strengthen existing efforts to combat the criminalization by foreign governments of LGBTQI+ status or conduct and expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, transphobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBTQI+ status or conduct. The Department of State shall, on an annual basis and as part of the annual report submitted to the Congress pursuant to sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d) and 2304(b)), report on human rights abuses experienced by LGBTQI+ persons globally. This reporting shall include anti-LGBTQI+ laws as well as violence and discrimination committed by both state and nonstate actors against LGBTQI+ persons.

Sec. 2.  Protecting Vulnerable LGBTQI+ Refugees and Asylum Seekers.  LGBTQI+ persons who seek refuge from violence and persecution face daunting challenges. In order to improve protection for LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers at all stages of displacement, the Departments of State and Homeland Security shall enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure that LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers have equal access to protection and assistance, particularly in countries of first asylum. In addition, the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security shall ensure appropriate training is in place so that relevant Federal Government personnel and key partners can effectively identify and respond to the particular needs of LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers, including by providing to them adequate assistance and ensuring that the Federal Government takes all appropriate steps, such as potential increased use of Embassy Priority-1 referrals, to identify and expedite resettlement of highly vulnerable persons with urgent protection needs.

Sec. 3.  Foreign Assistance to Protect Human Rights and Advance Nondiscrimination. Agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development programs shall expand their ongoing efforts to ensure regular Federal Government engagement with governments, citizens, civil society, and the private sector to promote respect for the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons and combat discrimination. Agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development programs should consider the impact of programs funded by the Federal Government on human rights, including the rights of LGBTQI+ persons, when making funding decisions, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 4.  Swift and Meaningful United States Responses to Human Rights Abuses of LGBTQI+ Persons Abroad. The Department of State shall lead a standing group, with appropriate interagency representation, to help ensure the Federal Government’s swift and meaningful response to serious incidents that threaten the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons abroad.  When foreign governments move to restrict the rights of LGBTQI+ persons or fail to enforce legal protections in place, thereby contributing to a climate of intolerance, agencies engaged abroad shall consider appropriate responses, including using the full range of diplomatic and assistance tools and, as appropriate, financial sanctions, visa restrictions, and other actions.

Sec. 5.  Building Coalitions of Like-Minded Nations and Engaging International Organizations in the Fight Against LGBTQI+ Discrimination. Bilateral relationships with allies and partners, as well as multilateral fora and international organizations, are key vehicles to promote respect for and protection of the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons and to bring global attention to these goals. Agencies engaged abroad should strengthen the work they have done and initiate additional efforts with other nations, bilaterally and within multilateral fora and international organizations, to:  counter discrimination on the basis of LGBTQI+ status or conduct; broaden the number of countries willing to support and defend the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons; strengthen the role, including in multilateral fora, of civil society advocates on behalf of the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons; and strengthen the policies and programming of multilateral institutions, including with respect to protecting vulnerable LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers.

Sec. 6.  Rescinding Inconsistent Policies and Reporting on Progress. Within 100 days of the date of this memorandum or as soon as possible thereafter, all agencies engaged abroad shall review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take steps to rescind any directives, orders, regulations, policies, or guidance inconsistent with this memorandum, including those issued from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021, to the extent that they are inconsistent with this memorandum. The heads of such agencies shall also, within 100 days of the date of this memorandum, report to the President on their progress in implementing this memorandum and recommend additional opportunities and actions to advance the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world. Agencies engaged abroad shall each prepare a report within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, and annually thereafter, on their progress toward advancing these initiatives. All such agencies shall submit these reports to the Department of State, which will compile a report on the Federal Government’s progress in advancing these initiatives for transmittal to the President.  The Department of State shall make a version of the compiled annual report available to the Congress and the public.

Sec. 7.  Definitions.  (a)  For the purposes of this memorandum, agencies engaged abroad include the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.

(b)  For the purposes of this memorandum, agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development programs include the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, USAID, DFC, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

                    JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

Social Distancing To Last Until Autumn, Masks Forever – SAGE

By Richie Allen | February 12, 2021

The Times is reporting this morning that social distancing measures will be with us until at least Autumn to reduce the transmission of Covid-19. Government sources told the newspaper that some restrictions might remain in place for the whole of 2021. The paper reported:

“The thinking is that social distancing will need to be in place for a long time to come,” a Whitehall source said. “It has repercussions for the scale of any reopening. Restaurants, pubs and offices will all need to be Covid-secure.”

Ministers believe it will allow other controls to be relaxed. A government source said: “The more restrictions we have in place like social distancing rules the more we can do in terms of easing.”

SAGE member Jeremy Farrar said that it is believed that there are around 750,000 Covid cases in the country. SAGE (the scientists advising the government), is recommending that lockdown measures remain in place until there are significantly less than 10,000 cases in total. Farrar, speaking on BBC Radio 4 said:

“If transmission were still at this level and we were not in lockdown, we would be going into lockdown. We’ve got to get it lower, we’ve got to get it, in my view, into the single thousands before we can possibly think of lifting restrictions. I appreciate that businesses have to plan and everything else. But the data has to drive us, and in 2020 we lifted restrictions too quickly when the data would not really have allowed that and as a result the transmission went back up in this country.”

Farrar’s SAGE colleague Professor John Edmunds, appearing on ITV’s Peston show, said that most of the current restrictions on daily life are likely to be in force until the end of this year, while wearing masks on public transport and indoors could possibly be in place “forever.”

If Jeremy Farrar is right and it’s a big if, and there really are 750,000 coronavirus cases in the UK right now, the great majority of them are asymptomatic people, who tested positive after a PCR test. Leaving aside the redundant, completely unreliable PCR test for a minute, the point is, these people are not sick. This is something the public has struggled to comprehend. Cases do not equate to illness.

The entire hoax hinges on this. Every day, the media gives the latest score. It goes something like this. “Yesterday there were 13,400 new coronavirus cases in the UK and 670 people died within 28 days of a positive test.” It’s the same every day of the week. I call it rinse and repeat journalism. Joe public hears 13,000 plus cases and believes that we are living through a plague, despite the fact that there is nothing wrong with the vast majority of those who have tested positive via the debunked PCR test.

He hears 670 deaths and said like that it sounds terrifying. But it’s deaths for “any reason” within four weeks of a positive test. If you drop dead of a stroke in that time, they’ll add you to the Covid death stats. If you have a brain haemorrhage and fall down dead, you’re added to the Covid death list. It is a hoax. I cannot put it any other way.

The government’s scientific advisers know this. They have not made a mistake here. They’re not simply applying the precautionary principle. They KNOW the truth, which makes them unimaginably evil. This is not about a virus. It never has been. The mainstream media is your enemy. It knows the truth too and works day and night to keep you in the dark. There are thousands of doctors and scientists, from some of the worlds most prestigious universities, calling out this hoax. But the media has denounced them as Covid deniers and banned them from the airwaves. I never saw this coming.

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Lockdowns are a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

“Non-pharmaceutical” interventions do not work, and are doing far more harm than good

By Daniel Jeanmonod MD | OffGuardian | February 12, 2021

I have chosen to write this text in addition to our two earlier contributions because of the development of the “second wave” which came afterward, and in reaction to the current relentless accumulation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs, also called corona, “social” or lockdown measures).

These are characterized by separation/isolation of human beings through the application of masks, distance maintenance between people, stay-at-home orders and business closures.

An important study in Frontiers in Public Health on the data delivered by 160 countries has found no correlation between death rate and stringency of lockdown measures[1].

Another study showed no significant benefits of stay-at-home order and business closure on epidemic case growth[2].

The following two examples confirm these results: a country with low lockdown stringency like Sweden has at the moment the same fatality rate per million inhabitants as France, but lower than Spain, Italy and UK, where severe lockdown measures were applied.

In addition, Sweden has had for the second wave a much smaller excess mortality than France, Italy or Spain, an observation which allows one to suspect that lockdown measures are delaying the establishment of herd immunity. This is not desirable, as the time during which the old, sick and frail can be exposed to the virus gets longer.

As NPIs are imposed in an overloaded ambiance of viral threat, they are additionally in position to activate destructive neuro-immunological mechanisms as well as to trigger secondary deleterious psycho-social, medical and economic developments5. Both have a direct effect on population mortality.

Analyses indicate that at least a third, and possibly more than half, of the observed excess mortality may be caused by the applied measures[3][4]. Measure-based mortality will proceed and may even accelerate if the fear-mongering stays and no end to the nightmare is presented to a now chronically overloaded population.

We are in the typical context of a “self-fulfilling prophecy”, where, through neuro-immunological overresponses, physical immobilization, social isolation and socio-economic difficulties, the death toll gets maximized and the expected death prophecy confirmed.

This requires then the maintenance and even increase of measures, and explains why people questioning their necessity are swiftly qualified as fools, idiots, conspiracy theorists or even murderers (heartlessly risking lives).

For almost a year, cultivated virus hysteria has fuelled the belief in a necessity to suppress “Covid19”.

Epidemiological models, revealed regularly as strongly pessimistic, justify preemptive NPIs even if collected data show positive reassuring evolutions. These measures are presented as unavoidable parts of the fight to be held, and are applied relentlessly without questioning their efficiency (see reference [1]), and without considering, as mentioned above, their lethality.

PCR tests are enacted for the whole population, with their extreme sensitivity and false positives5, maintaining in the population the awareness of the dreadful presence of the virus. The fact that a large percentage (88% in Italy) of deaths happened in the presence of corona (but not due to corona) in the context of end-of-life situations is not considered.

Science moves on to find new threat markers, like the reproduction factor R and recently the rise of mutated virus variants. Thoughts and emotions remain focalized on covid-19 and its threat, taken out of the regular context of the normal human/virus interactions.

For example, tests of corona presence have never been performed before to establish what normality is along the year, and variants can be seen as the logical and usual answer of viruses to the development of human herd immunity.

In our county of Solothurn in Switzerland, 2,662 deaths have been reported for 2020[5], among which 219 were attributed to covid-19 and of these 211 were living in nursing homes[6]. Median age of covid-19 death in Switzerland is 86 years old[7], and the rate of significant premorbidities is very high (97% with at least one premorbidity).

Switzerland, in spite of a clear-cut “second wave”, has experienced no excess mortality for ages below 65, and even for 70 and above, a correction for the increasing size of this old age group shows no excess mortality for 2020[4], and a lower mortality in 2020 than in 2012, 2013 and 20156. Finally, for the whole swiss population, the total death rate per 100,000 inhabitants was the same in 2003 and even higher in 2000[8].

Where do we find, here and around the world, any motivation and necessity to limit the professional and social activities of a whole population for now almost a year?

Should we have locked populations in the past during former flu epidemics? Obviously no.

Shall we have to do that in the future? How long can our human environment resist such heavy, deleterious and questionable measures? And when shall the people of the world get their basic human rights and freedom back?

Of course, fear takes the best out of us, and nobody is to blame for damages produced unwillingly and under the pressure of fear.

There is, alas, no doubt about the following fact: modern, technological medicine often lacks the compassionate therapeutic dimension one expects from it, and presents the unpleasant tendency to promote huge profits through drugs and medical-technical products, with less than appropriate up to fraudulent practices[9][10]

Fraud resides in the highest levels, as exemplified by the recent withdrawal of a fraudulent article from the famous journal the Lancet[11]. This article claimed wrongly the inefficiency and dangers of a plant-based, well known, efficient and inexpensive medication.

A proper decision and information strategy in the corona crisis would have been to open the scientific, political and public debate to different views, with the goal to come up together to a balanced, consensual program, in which nobody is right or wrong and all agree to have worked together on the best possible solutions.

It is extremely counterproductive and dogmatic to promote the exclusive value of the dominant view, proposed by governments and their scientific task forces and widely distributed by the media. Other views are being seen as unacceptable, not-an-option, or even ethically wrong.

Why propagate the idea the whole world needs to be vaccinated against covid-19 in the context of the above-mentioned epidemic data? What of the recent confirmation, published by the WHO and authored by Dr. Ioannidis[12], of a general average case fatality ratio of 0.23% (analyzed from 61 studies), in the range of a flu epidemic?

In addition, to the contrary of what the WHO has proposed recently, we may strongly consider that the natural herd immunization process, established by life processes along millennia, and non-dangerous for the immense majority of the active population below 65, will be more efficient than any vaccination.

Finally, the essential role of physical and emotional health as protections against severe infectious developments has been dramatically ignored in favour of medical technical interventions, precipitating many human beings into severe disease evolutions by physical inactivity and social isolation.

Our governments should contribute to protect without coercion the old, sick and frail and free the rest of the population from all general NPIs. We have all learned what to do in winter with our old and frail parents, who particularly need our presence and can decide for themselves what they prefer: state-imposed protection, or an evening to their life surrounded by their beloved ones.

Numerous human beings have died these last months in appalling physical and emotional conditions, immobilized in their rooms and isolated from families and friends. This has lasted long enough and should be considered as inhumane and stopped. The Great Barrington Declaration enacts the reduction of measures to “focal” protection. It was proposed by 3 epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford and has collected more than 50,000 signatures from medical and public health scientists and medical practitioners as well as from more than 700,000 concerned citizens.

The people need to regain their democratic rights and freedom of decision without delay.

With courage and scientific data at hand, we should stop hiding away from the virus on the order of our governments. We should trust nature that things will balance back to normal, instead of tampering chaotically and arrogantly with the natural dynamics regulating the human/virus interactions.

The relentless, never-ending confinement measures have led to the appearance of a host of absurd, even pathetic measures and situations, with some citizens wearing masks alone in their own cars, or jogging masked and alone in the countryside… I have heard many people around me wonder if they were not in a nightmare or a bad movie.

We need to wake up and work to fix this.

Daniel Jeanmonod MD, Professor Emeritus of Neurosurgery at Zürich University and Physiology & Neuroscience at New York University.

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

COVID: Patient Grills Doctor; Off the Record

By Jon Rappoport | February 12, 2021

Good to see you again. It’s been a while. You’re here because your employer wants you to get tested?

That’s right, Doctor. It’s more or less an order. If I don’t comply, I can’t work for the company. I lose my job.

And you don’t want to get tested?

I have problems with the test.

What problems?

The number of cycles.

Excuse me?

Doctor, you’re aware they run the PCR test in cycles?

Sorry, never heard of that. What are you talking about?

Well, they take a swab sample from me. Then they amplify a tiny, tiny part of the sample many times. That’s what the test does. Each leap in amplification is called a cycle.


The number of cycles determines the outcome. If they run the test at 36 cycles or higher, the result is meaningless. But at those high levels, there are many, many false positives. So I could easily register as “infected by the virus,” if the lab uses too many cycles.

Where are you getting all this information?

From a number of sources.

Name one.

Anthony Fauci.


Yes, Doctor. Let me read you a statement he made. July 16, 2020. “…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

Hmm. And how many of these cycles are labs using when they run the test?

The FDA and the CDC recommend up to 40 cycles, to look for evidence of the virus.

You’re sure you’re not overthinking all this?

No, Doctor, I’m not. It’s very straightforward.

The reason I ask—if what you’re saying is true, then millions of people have been wrongly diagnosed with COVID-19. Do you realize that?

I do. But right now, I’m worried about what’s going to happen to me if I take the test.

I’m not sure what you want me to do.

Well, I was hoping to get a note from you saying that I shouldn’t take the test. That there is a good chance of a false positive result.

I couldn’t do that.

Why not?

Because I would be making a blanket statement against the test, by implication.

And then?

The state medical board could yank my license to practice medicine.

Does the truth matter? Do facts matter?

Let me be frank. I think you’re misinterpreting what you’ve been reading.

Why do you say that?

Because if you’re right, the medical experts would all be wrong. And I don’t think they are. The test is valid.

How do you know?

Because they wouldn’t make such a gigantic mistake.

People do make mistakes. Even experts. Would you like to see my documentation?

That’s not necessary. You might be caught up in medical disinformation. It’s rampant these days. You should follow the guidelines. Go ahead, take the test. That would be my recommendation.

If the result is a false positive, I’d have to self-isolate for a week or two. Other people would have to move out of my home. They would have to get tested, too. And if I come down with a cough, or chills and fever, there would be a lot of pressure on me to get treated. You know, with toxic drugs, like remdesivir. When, actually, all I have is a common cold.

You’re jumping to all sorts of conclusions. I think you should speak with a COVID counselor. And maybe, a short course of therapy would help, too.

You mean psychological therapy?

I could refer you to a good person.

You think I’m a little nuts?

Just off-kilter. It happens. People with uninformed opinions can be persuasive. Perhaps you’re “under their influence.”

Or maybe you are, Doctor. Many so-called experts are uninformed.

I resent that. I spend every day helping people to the best of my ability. It’s not easy these days, believe me. I use every bit of my knowledge and experience to make a difference.

Well, then, you know how I feel when you suggest I’ve become mentally unbalanced.

There’s a difference. I’m offering a professional opinion. In this area, you’re not a professional.

I’m offering to show you evidence, documents. You don’t want to look at them. They might upset your apple cart.

They won’t.

How do you know?

Because I follow the highest authorities. The FDA, the CDC, the World Health Organization. I’m on very solid scientific and legal ground.

Legal ground? Are you suggesting I might sue you? Rest assured, I would never waste my time and energy. You’re golden. You’re protected. But that doesn’t mean you have your facts right.

You know, your wife and sister called the office. They said they want me to talk you out of your misguided opinions. They’re worried about you.

Here’s something else you can add to my pile of ideas. Testing labs never tell the patient or the doctor how many cycles they’re using in the PCR test. You can check with your staff. You won’t find that number on any of the lab reports.

We use an excellent lab. I don’t have any doubts about their work.

So you’ve got things buttoned up. You’re perfect.

I’m sad to say this is our last appointment. I won’t be seeing you anymore as a patient. When you find a new physician, let our office know, and we’ll forward your medical files to him or her.

Very good, Doctor. You pass.

What…? What are you talking about?

I’m now working as a contact tracer. I was asked to come in and ask you some questions and feel you out on the testing issue. The state medical board received a complaint from one of your patients, a John Jones.

I WAS CLEARED BY THE BOARD ON THAT MATTER MONTHS AGO. Mr. Jones came to my house at 4AM on a Sunday morning. He was hysterical. He’d heard that while he’d been sitting in my waiting room one afternoon, there was another patient there who subsequently tested positive for the virus. Mr. Jones was afraid he might have caught COVID from that patient. But you see, that other patient never tested positive. It was all a rumor. And my wife and I were out of town the weekend Mr. Jones came to my house. We were out of cell phone range. My service should have picked up his call, but for some reason they didn’t.

Yes, Doctor, we know all that. Nevertheless, we wanted to check up on you. Just to make sure.

I don’t appreciate this. We’re not living in a police state.

Actually, in some respects, we are. It’s necessary.

All that information you’ve just been feeding me about the test, the cycles, Fauci, the labs, and so on—

It’s all true. But we have to ignore it.


This is a State of Emergency. And in this situation, we need to follow orders. If we don’t, the whole system falls apart, and we’d be swimming in chaos.


Don’t worry, Doctor. As I said, you’re golden. You’re protected. Unless you’re upset by what I just confided to you.

No… no… I’m fine. I was shocked to find out you’re operating undercover, so to speak. Since you’ve been a patient of mine.

I understand. All you need to do is stay on the straight and narrow. You back us up, we back you up.

Of course… thank you.

No problem. I’ll be going now. We’re all in the new normal these days. You never know who’s going to walk in your door. If you ever feel you’re experiencing onset symptoms of paranoia, I suggest you see a psychiatrist. I could recommend a very good man…

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment




I think we are the only source to talk about this:

The vast communications network that is being used to sell the current Con.

Watch this for a glimpse of how it works and the people involved.


Click here to support Brasscheck

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

The American establishment has lost its mind in its obsession with trying to discredit Trumpism

Protest against U.S. President Donald Trump on Veterans Day on November 11, 2019 in New York City. © Getty Images / Stephanie Keith
By Michael Rectenwald | RT | February 12, 2021

An appallingly biased new article on Trumpism in Foreign Affairs shows that if the American establishment was an individual, it would be diagnosed as clinically insane, likely suffering from delusions of persecution and paranoia.

Yet this same establishment calls half the population of the US conspiratorial, delusional, and terroristic, even as it parades a lunatic’s version of events during a second unfounded, evidence-free impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump, and as it continues lamentations over the supposed malignancy of his presidency, weeks after it has ended.

At this point, it would be a misdiagnosis to call this illness Trump Derangement Syndrome. The idée fixe persists unabated, even in the absence of its favorite bogey, and extends well beyond any reasonable obsession with Trump himself. This syndrome, whatever it is, appears to be resistant to treatment. The ministrations of political outsiders have only left the patient with a firmer ideational conviction. Electoral engineering and repeated political exorcisms have apparently been to no avail.

This illness has affected every element of the broad political left, the political and corporate establishment, and the mainstream media. Unsurprisingly, the nation’s foreign policy “experts” remain in its thrall. Like Jonathan Kirshner, political science and international professor at Boston College, they display its symptomology without remission.

In an article titled Gone But Not Forgotten: Trump’s Long Shadow and the End of American Credibility, Kirshner exhibits the signs of the recalcitrant derangement with a fact-free, hyperbolic prognosis of US foreign policy in the wake of the Trump presidency. Like others bewitched by him, Kirshner repeats the tired shibboleths associated with hallucinatory Trump repudiation: he cozied up with dictators, scorned long-term allies, and represents “a deeply regrettable, and in many ways embarrassing, interlude” in American international relations.

The patient refers to Trump’s management of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and alludes to Trump’s most unreasonable demand that NATO partners pay their fair share of dues to the European peace-keeping organization that’s waning in importance. Yet evidence of the widespread “anarchy” caused by Trump is never given–no doubt because it doesn’t exist.

Kirshner exhibits the typical apriorism expected from the afflicted. Trump is guilty–of something, anything–in advance. The point of the exercise is to look for crimes committed by the presumed villain, even as the language for conviction must remain forever nebulous and abstract, as it does in this piece of feigned objectivity.

Somewhat off-topic for a commentator on foreign policy, Kirshner immediately excoriates Trump’s handling of “a pandemic that killed well more than a quarter of a million of the people under his charge.” Kirshner’s guilty verdict is meted out without evidence, and despite the fact that the death rate in the US is broadly on par with that of Europe and elsewhere.

It’s not as if Italy has fared any better, or that Sweden, which eschewed draconian lockdown laws, did any worse than Italy or France. But carrying on about Trump’s supposedly disastrous pandemic response measures is a requisite symptom of the establishment’s disorder, and Kirshner must display it like all the others. Never mind that, soon after taking office, Biden stated that there was nothing he could do to stem the spread of the virus.

As Kirshner sees it, one of Trump’s most egregious transgressions was the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the first week of his presidency. No mention is made of the fact that no one really knew what was in the deal. Never mind that, like NAFTA, it would likely cost more Americans their jobs, jobs probably shipped to China, where wage slaves work under penal colony conditions. And never mind that it would likely gut environmental regulations to please China.

Kirshner levies the usual charges against Trump’s foreign policy: “isolationism,” “nationalism,” and “knuckle-dragging Americafirstism.”

“America first” has been the most maligned and misrepresented element of the Trump doctrine, and Kirshner’s declamation is no exception. Like other detractors, he refuses to acknowledge what Trump meant by the phrase: the interests of the majority of Americans should come before all else when making any political decision, not that America should become a selfish, dominating player on the world stage. From the standpoint of the economic and political oligarchy, who stood to lose the most by it, “America first” was unconscionable, and remains impossible to excise from national and international consciousness.

Kirshner barely acknowledges the fact that the Trump doctrine follows from a particular brand of populist American nationalism, including a foreign policy stemming from 19th-century Republican politics. Those who have subscribed to this political position have been traditionally non-interventionist, while demanding that a premium be laid on national self-determination, the protection of national sovereignty via strong borders, and the promotion of national self-interest over international or “globalist” entanglements. Instead, Kirshner misrepresents “America first” by surreptitiously associating it with fascism and Nazism.

No mention is made of the fact that, of the past five presidents, Trump was the only one not to begin a new war, and the only one not to extend the American military presence throughout the world. Instead, Kirshner gives away his hand by mourning that the US may “soon simply be out of the great-power game altogether.” This admission signals Kirshner’s allegiance to the neocon military establishment, and practically disqualifies him as an interlocutor supposedly concerned with international order and stability. It’s as if George W. Bush’s unprovoked and disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have been entirely forgotten and forgiven, while Trump’s partially flouted attempts to withdraw troops from the Middle East and Afghanistan are the real international crimes.

Yet the biggest specter haunting Kirshner’s storyline is “the significant possibility of a large role for Trumpism” in the future, regardless of whether or not Trump himself continues to play a role in national politics. This is the crux of the matter, and the real problem Kirshner sees. How can the US be a reliable international partner while Trumpism persists? Kirshner’s real concern is that Trump’s policies were actually popular, and that Trumpism thus cannot instantly be extirpated from the national identity.

This fear of Trumpism haunts the entire political establishment. It explains the second impeachment trial, the calls for re-education, and the characterization of Trump supporters as “terrorists” and “the enemy within.” It is this new leftist McCarthyism, and not Trumpism, that really afflicts the country. And it is this which makes the US an unreliable player on the international stage. For how can the US act as a single nation when the entire establishment suffers from schizophrenia?

Michael Rectenwald is an author of 11 books, including the most recent, Thought Criminal. He was Professor of Liberal Arts at NYU from 2008 through 2019. Follow him on Twitter @TheAntiPCProf

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | | 2 Comments

The Omnipotent Power to Assassinate

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | February 12, 2021

It goes without saying that the Constitution called into existence a government with few, limited powers. That was the purpose of enumerating the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution was bringing into existence a government of unlimited or omnipotent powers, then there would have been no point in enumerating a few limited powers. In that event, the Constitution would have called into existence a government with general, unlimited powers to do whatever was in the interests of the nation.

If the Constitution had proposed a government of omnipotent powers, there is no way the American people would have accepted it, in which case America would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation. Our American ancestors didn’t want a government of omnipotent powers. They wanted a government of few, limited, enumerated powers.

Among the most omnipotent powers a government can wield is the power of government officials to assassinate people. Our American ancestors definitely did not want that type of government. That is why the power to assassinate is not among the enumerated powers of government in the Constitution.

Despite the enumerated-powers doctrine, our American ancestors were still leery. They knew that the federal government would inevitably attract people who would thirst for the power to assassinate people. So, to make certain that federal officials got the point, the American people enacted the Fifth Amendment after the Constitution was ratified. It expressly prohibited the federal government from taking any person’s life without due process of law.

Due process of law is a term that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta. At a minimum, it requires formal notice of charges and a trial before the government can take a person’s life. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, assassination involves taking a person’s life without notice or trial.

For some 150 years, the federal government lacked the power to assassinate people. For the last 75 years, however, the federal government has wielded and actually exercised the omnipotent power to assassinate, including against American citizens.

How did it acquire this omnipotent power? Certainly not by constitutional amendment. It acquired it by default — by converting the federal government after World War II from a limited-government republic to a national-security state.

A national-security state is a totalitarian form of governmental structure. North Korea is a national security state. So is Cuba. And China, Egypt, Russia, and Pakistan. And the United States, along with others.

A national-security state is based on a vast, all-powerful military-intelligence establishment, one that, as a practical matter, wields omnipotent powers. Thus, when the CIA, one of the principle components of America’s national-security state, was called into existence in 1947, it immediately assumed the power to assassinate. In fact, as early as 1952 the CIA published an assassination manual that demonstrates that the CIA was already specializing in the art of assassination (as well as cover-up) in the early years of the national-security state.

In 1954, the CIA instigated a coup in Guatemala on grounds of “national security.” The aim of the coup was to oust the country’s democratically elected president, Jacobo Arbenz, and replace him with a military general. As part of the coup, the CIA prepared a list of people to be assassinated. To this day, the CIA will not disclose the names of people on its kill list (on grounds of “national security,” of course) but it is a virtual certainty that President Arbenz was at the top of the list for establishing a foreign policy of peace and friendship with the communist world. To his good fortune, he was able to flee the country before they could assassinate him.

In 1970, the CIA was attempting to prevent Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile. Like Arbenz, Allende’s foreign policy was based on establishing a peaceful and friendly relationship with the communist world. The CIA’s plan included inciting a coup led by the Chilean military. However, the overall commander of Chile’s armed forces, Gen. Rene Schneider, stood in the way. His position was that he had taken an oath to support and defend the constitution and, therefore, that he would not permit a coup to take place. The CIA conspired to have him violently kidnapped to remove him as an obstacle to the coup. During the kidnapping attempt, Schneider was shot dead.

Schneider’s family later filed suit for damages arising out of Schneider’s wrongful death. The federal judiciary refused to permit either U.S. officials or the CIA to be held accountable for Schneider’s death. Affirming the U.S. District Court’s summary dismissal of the case, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that U.S. officials who were involved in the crime could not be held liable since they were simply acting within the course and scope of their employment. Moreover, the U.S. government couldn’t be held liable because, the court stated, it is sovereignly immune.

Central to the Court’s holding was what it called the “political question doctrine.” It holds that under the Constitution, the judicial branch of the government is precluded from questioning any “political” or “foreign policy” decision taken by the executive branch.

Actually though, the Constitution says no such thing. It is in fact the responsibility of the judicial branch to enforce the Constitution against the other branches, including the national-security branch. That includes the Fifth Amendment, which expressly prohibits the federal government from taking people’s lives without due process of law.

So, why did the federal judiciary come up with this way to avoid taking on the CIA? Because it knew that once the federal government was converted to a national-security state, the federal government had fundamentally changed in nature by now having a branch that could exercise omnipotent powers, such as assassination, with impunity. The federal judiciary knew that there was no way that the judicial branch of government could, as a practical matter, stop the national-security branch with assassinating people. To maintain the veneer of judicial power, the judiciary came up with its ludicrous “political question doctrine” to explain why it wasn’t enforcing the Constitution

Once Pinochet took office after the coup in Chile, the Chilean judiciary did the same thing as the U.S. judiciary. It deferred to the power of the Pinochet military-intelligence government, declining to enforce the nation’s constitution against it. Like the U.S. judiciary, the Chilean judiciary recognized the reality of omnipotent power that comes with a national-security state. Many years later, the Chilean judiciary apologized to the Chilean people for abrogating its judicial responsibility.

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Media Consider Trump Guilty by Accusation, Case Closed

By Stephen Lendman | February 12, 2021

Establishment fourth estate practitioners in the US and West transformed the term media into a four-letter word.

They find new ways to disgrace themselves daily, probing for new lows and finding them.

Trump’s sham Senate trial is a current example among many others, a travesty of justice.

There’s nothing remotely legitimate about impeaching and trying him for inciting insurrection.

The January 6 Capitol Hill false flag was staged by US dark forces in cahoots with undemocratic Dems to further vilify and frame him for what he had nothing to do with.

No respectable publisher would touch Big Media hate-mongering rubbish masquerading as news, information, and analysis.

The self-styled newspaper of record NYT is the worst offender.

On all things Trump, truth and full disclosure was banned in favor endless mass deception hateful enough to make some despots blush.

It doesn’t rise to the level of poor fiction. Yet it’s featured daily in multiple propaganda pieces.

Mindless of facts, it wants Trump vilified and convicted for invented reasons that took center stage on the Senate floor.

WaPo editors demanded Trump’s conviction, saying:

“The House impeachment managers’ presentation before the Senate has crystallized in graphic and compelling detail the horror of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — and Mr. Trump’s deep responsibility for it (sic).”

No credible evidence supports the above mass deception. Yet much of the nation is riveted on a stream of orchestrated fake news.

Remarks from Trump like “stop the steal” had nothing to do with inciting insurrection.

His legal team’s legitimate efforts to expose and reverse election rigging was mocked.

Perhaps the most brazen election fraud in US history was supported by Big Media, all the while pretending the illegitimate process was the other way around, knowing otherwise.

Trump was right saying “(i)f you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Passivity in the face of state-sponsored law-breaking assures worse to come.

WaPo long ago abandoned truth-telling journalism for deep state approved propaganda.

On all issues mattering most, including Trump’s politicized show trial, everything WaPo publishes is unfit to print.

Virtually across the board, Big Media want Trump hung out to dry for invented reasons while ignoring legitimate ones. Some examples:

WSJ : “(Dems) Argue Trump ‘Inflamed and Incited’ Capitol Riot (sic)”

Dems and supportive media lied.

Reuters : “Graphic riot videos not enough to convict Trump, some Republican senators say”

Instead of reporting that Trump had nothing to do with storming Capitol Hill, Reuters and other Big Media pretend otherwise — to their shame.

AP News : “Trump trial video shows vast scope, danger of Capitol riot”

No “riot” occurred. Trump and supporters were uninvolved with what happened on January 6 — an orchestrated false flag rally.

Fox News quoted unindicted war criminal, perjurer, serial liar Hillary, saying if Trump is acquitted, it’s “because the jury includes his co-conspirators (sic).”

Anti-Trump CNN expressed fury over Trump’s likely acquittal.

ABC News: “Majority of Americans say Trump should be convicted, barred from holding federal office”

Most Americans are brainwashed by Big Media, their minds filled with mass deception mush.

CBS News rubbish: “Trump’s tweets” show guilt.

Love, hate or otherwise reject them, Trump’s tweets exercise his constitutional right of free expression — eroding en route to disappearing altogether.

Chicago Tribune : “(Dem) impeachment of Trump puts his 74 million voters on trial (sic)”

LA Times : “Senate Republicans are as much on trial as Trump (sic).”

USA Today : “Trump Senate impeachment trial forces hard choices on Republicans and (Dems) alike (sic)”

National Pentagon Radio (NPR): “Impeachment Managers To Focus On Insurrection Damage”

Undemocratic Dems and complicit dark forces bear full responsibility for lawless actions ahead of and following events on Capitol Hill.

What’s going on in the Senate chamber is an attempted political lynching with no legitimacy.

Instead of exposing and denouncing it, Big Media share guilt for supporting what no one should tolerate.

February 12, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 4 Comments