Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Kiev orders forced evacuation of Ukraine-controlled DPR areas

Samizdat | July 30, 2022

Kiev has ordered mandatory evacuations from the parts of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) that remain under the control of Ukrainian forces. Deputy Prime Minister Irina Vereshchuk explained on Saturday the decision by saying that it would be impossible to provide the region’s residents with heating in the cold months.

Speaking during a national TV marathon, Vereshchuk, who also heads up what Ukraine calls the ‘Ministry for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories’, said that given the complete lack of gas supplies and widespread electricity outages, “there will be no heat in Donetsk region in the winter period,” and therefore about 200,000-220,000 residents will have to leave their homes.

“There is absolutely no gas supply in the Donetsk region, all the gas pipelines that could be repaired were repaired, but, unfortunately, the enemy destroys again and again everything that would help to warm people in winter,” she claimed.

Even before Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine, the DPR had been accusing Ukraine of targeting civilian infrastructure. With the launch of the operation, the bombings only escalated, as have the accusations from both sides.

Vereshchuk emphasized that the evacuation of households is “the duty of every adult member of the family.”

“For example, there are 52,000 of our children in the Donetsk region. They must be evacuated, they cannot be exposed to danger if left without heat and light in the winter,” the minister stressed.

Vereshchuk emphasized that mandatory evacuations are permitted under Ukrainian law and said that those who refuse to leave will have to sign a document confirming that they understand the consequences of their decision and take full responsibility for it.

Zaporozhye Region, 65% of the territory of which is without gas supply, may be the next to be evacuated, Vereshchuk added.

According to the minister, the authorities have taken all of the necessary measures to provide evacuees with accommodation and proper social services.

“There is an understanding of where these people will be resettled, in which regions, where their children will study,” she said.

On Friday, the government supported her ministry’s initiative to create a coordination center, which will supervise the evacuation from Donbass.

“Donetsk is now on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. Active hostilities continue there, the infrastructure is destroyed. People are not only at risk of coming under fire every second – it will not be easy to survive in the absence of light, heat, medicine and food in winter. The solution – evacuation,” the government said in a statement.

July 30, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Settlement Reached in First COVID Vaccine Mandate Class Action Suit Involving Healthcare Workers

Liberty Counsel | July 29, 2022

Today, Liberty Counsel settled the nation’s first classwide lawsuit for health care workers over a COVID shot mandate, for more than $10.3 million. The class action settlement against NorthShore University HealthSystem is on behalf of more than 500 current and former health care workers who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate. The agreed upon settlement was filed today in the federal Northern District Court of Illinois.

As a result of the settlement, NorthShore will pay $10,337,500 to compensate these health care employees who were victims of religious discrimination, and who were punished for their religious beliefs against taking an injection associated with aborted fetal cells.

This is a historic, first-of-its-kind class action settlement against a private employer who unlawfully denied hundreds of religious exemption requests to COVID-19 shots.

The settlement must be approved by the federal District Court. Employees of NorthShore who were denied religious exemptions will receive notice of the settlement, and will have an opportunity to comment, object, request to opt out, or submit a claim form for payment out of the settlement fund, all in accordance with deadlines that will be set by the court.

As part of the settlement agreement, NorthShore will also change its unlawful “no religious accommodations” policy to make it consistent with the law, and to provide religious accommodations in every position across its numerous facilities. No position in any NorthShore facility will be considered off limits to unvaccinated employees with approved religious exemptions.

In addition, employees who were terminated because of their religious refusal of the COVID shots will be eligible for rehire if they apply within 90 days of final settlement approval by the court, and they will retain their previous seniority level.

The amount of individual payments from the settlement fund will depend on how many valid and timely claim forms are submitted during the claims process. If the settlement is approved by the court and all or nearly all of the affected employees file valid and timely claims, it is estimated that employees who were terminated or resigned because of their religious refusal of a COVID shot will receive approximately $25,000 each, and employees who were forced to accept a COVID shot against their religious beliefs to keep their jobs will receive approximately $3,000 each.

The 13 health care workers who are lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit will receive an additional approximate payment of $20,000 each for their important role in bringing this lawsuit and representing the class of NorthShore health care workers.

Liberty Counsel will receive 20 percent of the settlement sum, which equals $2,061,500, as payment for the significant attorney’s fees and costs it has required to undertake to sue NorthShore and hold it accountable for its actions. This amount is far less than the typical 33 percent usually requested by attorneys in class action litigation.

In October 2021, Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to NorthShore on behalf of numerous health care workers who had sincere religious objections to NorthShore’s “Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.” If NorthShore had agreed then to follow the law and grant religious exemptions, the matter would have been quickly resolved and it would have cost it nothing. But, when NorthShore refused to follow the law, and instead denied all religious exemption and accommodation requests for employees working in its facilities, Liberty Counsel filed a class action lawsuit, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction.

Liberty Counsel Vice President of Legal Affairs and Chief Litigation Counsel Horatio G. Mihet said, “We are very pleased with the historic, $10 million settlement achieved in our class action lawsuit against NorthShore University HealthSystem. The drastic policy change and substantial monetary relief required by the settlement will bring a strong measure of justice to NorthShore’s employees who were callously forced to choose between their conscience and their jobs. This settlement should also serve as a strong warning to employers across the nation that they cannot refuse to accommodate those with sincere religious objections to forced vaccination mandates.”

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel said: “This classwide settlement providing compensation and the opportunity to return to work is the first of its kind in the nation involving COVID shot mandates. This settlement should be a wake-up call to every employer that did not accommodate or exempt employees who opposed the COVID shots for religious reasons. Let this case be a warning to employers that violated Title VII. It is especially significant and gratifying that this first classwide COVID settlement protects health care workers. Health care workers are heroes who daily give their lives to protect and treat their patients. They are needed now more than ever.”

July 29, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

US judge throws out malicious anti-Semitism claim against university professor

MEMO | July 29, 2022

In a victory for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, a US judge has thrown out bogus anti-Semitism claims against a professor at Pittsburgh university in a lawsuit based on the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Jewish racism.

Pro-Israel groups have been advocating IHRA’s adoption for several years saying that the non-binding definition will not stifle free speech on Israel. Critics, however, have consistently warned that not only will the IHRA have a chilling effect on free speech, but it will also give ammunition to radicalised Zionist groups to pursue malicious lawsuits against critics of the Apartheid State.

Robert Ross, who teaches literary arts and social justice studies at Point Park University appears to have been the victim of such spurious and malicious lawsuits which are designed to intimidate critics of Israel as much as to instil fear in anyone advocating for Palestinian rights.

The lawsuit against Ross was filed in 2019 by Channa Newman, a professor at the university. Newman claimed that she was a target of anti-Semitism due to her Zionist beliefs. According to the Electronic Intifada, Newman’s lawsuit alleged Ross used his position to foster “a militant version” of the BDS movement and “hateful views against Israel” that “are anti-Semitic.”

Newman, who made her case using the US State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism which has very similar wording to the IHRA, further alleged that the political views of Ross, and those of his students, led to a hostile work environment for her. As is the case with the IHRA, the State Department definition includes claims that it is anti-Semitic to say Israel’s foundation was a “racist endeavour” or to apply “double standards” to Israel by requiring from it “behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

In his ruling, the judge asserted that if the court accepted Newman’s allegations, it would “invalidate” on its face and on civil rights grounds “an entire academic and public debate” and that it would give Newman “a veto over others engaging in that same debate.” The judge further added that Newman was effectively seeking to “compel” the speech and views of others to be consistent with hers.

“I am relieved and thrilled,” Ross told the Electronic Intifada. “The judge took the time to articulate why he’s not granting this work environment claim and that there’s nothing inherently hostile with [advocating for] BDS. In these times, we’ll take what we can get. I think it’s a victory,” he explained.

“The judge, to me, made it clear that there’s nothing legally wrong with teaching BDS, participating in BDS, or advocating for it,” Ross added. The dismissal of the hostile work environment claims, Ross added, “should be empowering, it should be a green light for other folks to engage in this movement.”

July 29, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU goes from ‘Je suis Charlie’ to upholding ban on Russian state media

By Ramin Mazaheri | Press TV | July 29, 2022

Paris – The censorship of Russian media outlet, Russia Today, in Europe has been widely denounced as hypocritical. Despite that, the European Union’s General Court has denied an appeal by Russia’s RT France to uphold liberty of the press for all nations. Ramin Mazaheri reports from Paris.

In a major blow to freedom of the press, European Union’s second highest court has upheld the ban on Russian media outlet RT France for alleged “disinformation”.

Launched in 2017 with a €20 million budget and well over 100 employees, RT France burst on the scene with reporting that the billionaire-dominated French mainstream media refused to touch. Their coverage of the Yellow Vest social revolt won widespread praise, and – like PressTV – they rejected the total Western media blackout on the movement which began in June 2019.

It was no surprise that President Emmanuel Macron was the first leader to call for a Europe-wide ban on Russian state media. The French government then orchestrated the rapid implementation of the ban – less than a week after Russia started its military operation in Ukraine.

The fact that freedom of the press is granted to far-right media such as the Islamophobic Charlie Hebdo magazine but denied to the Russian people has already left its impression: the citizens of France and Europe have not been allowed to hear both sides of the long-running conflict in Ukraine.

This one-sided media domination has allowed European elite to whip up Russophobia and war hysteria unopposed, and provided them with the opportunity to impose unprecedented economic and diplomatic pressure on Moscow.

Upon relinquishing the EU’s rotating presidency in June, Macron was criticized for saying that the Ukraine war ‘accelerated’ the bloc’s collective agenda. Many said the EU was, once again, not relying on democratic means to achieve political ends.

A final appeal by RT France to the European Court of Justice is expected to fail as well.

In 2012, on the orders of the European Commission, Press TV was removed by top European satellite provider Eutelsat. Last year the Presstv.com domain was seized and shut down by the United States federal government.

July 29, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Swedish politician’s Bilderberg attendance exposed through FOI

Free West Media | July 29, 2022

Sweden’s Minister of Social Affairs Lena Hallengren traveled to the US at the beginning of June to meet globalist politicians and vaccine companies, as well as to attend the Bilderberg Group meeting in Washington DC. The whole thing became an expensive trip for Swedish taxpayers. Hallengren not only chose to fly business class on all flights, but she also stayed in several different luxury hotels.

The bill of over SEK 50 000 was sent to taxpayers. Swedish weekly Nya Tider has obtained important documents and can now provide a unique insight into the Swedish government’s participation in the infamous globalist lobby organization the Bilderberg Group. On its website, the government chose to omit all information about Hallengren’s participation in the Bilderberg meeting. The government also marks large parts of the participant list as confidential for the media – even though the Bilderberg group themselves made it public.

The globalist Bilderberg group’s infamous meetings took a break in 2020 and 2021, meaning this year’s meeting in Washington DC was the first in three years.

Nya Tider can now offer a unique insight into Hallengren’s trip to the US and the parts that both the government and the rest of the establishment are discussing behind the backs of their voters.

The government tried to hide their involvement

On May 25, the government published a press release with the title “Lena Hallengren visits New York and Washington DC”. The purpose of the trip was said to be to “strengthen Sweden’s relationship with the United States linked to global health issues”. The government chose to publish a “selection” from her schedule for the first three days.

On May 31, she met with Amina J. Mohammed, UN Deputy Secretary-General, to discuss the 2030 Agenda. She also met with George Bickerstad, president of the International Vaccine Institute (IVI), Pfizer’s head of research Mikael Dolsten “for talks on future pandemic management”, and New York’s health commissioner for “exchange of experiences after the pandemic and talks about measures now being taken to prevent and detect infection earlier”.

Meetings were held in secrecy where the participants were not allowed to tell who said what.

On June 1-2, she met, among others, Andrea Palm, deputy health minister in the US, to “discuss the WHO’s upcoming pandemic treaty”. She also met with several US health authorities.

After that, the information on the government’s website about Hallengren’s trip dried up, and the reader gets the impression that there were no further engagements. What the government chose to cover up was that Hallengren had several more days booked in the US. After her official schedule ended in Washington DC on June 2nd, she immediately headed to the Bilderberg Group meeting which began that evening and continued for three more days, until June 5.

‘PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL’

The entire luxurious Mandarin Oriental hotel in Washington DC had been booked by the Bilderberg group, security was rigorous. Facsimile Twitter/Max Blumenthal

Nya Tider requested all email correspondence between the Swedish government and the Bilderberg group, which showed how the contact between the parties proceeded. The Bilderberg Group is very keen that the discussions are kept secret. However, thanks to Swedish public policy, we have been able to bypass their wishes and have taken part in the conversation.

On March 11, the invitation came from the Bilderberg group to the government. “Sensitivity: Confidential”, it said in the classification of the email, which was sent to government official Sara Båging from “Secretariat Bilderberg Meetings”.

“PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL”, read the first words of the message.

“Dear Mrs Hallengren, attached you will find an invitation from Co-chairs Victor Halberstadt and Marie-Josée Kravis for the Bilderberg meeting 2022”.

Hallengren was asked to respond by March 25 at the latest. The message ends with a text stating that it is confidential and “intended exclusively for the recipient”. The content may not be passed on to third parties.

Swedish oligarch decided that Hallengren should be invited

The invitation itself was attached to the email as a separate file. It was signed by Victor Halberstadt. The latter has been in contact with Sweden’s leading businessman, SEB chairman Marcus Wallenberg, who has been called a Swedish oligarch by critics because of the enormous influence he had and has over Sweden’s government.

It also turns out that Marcus Wallenberg was involved in deciding to invite Lena Hallengren.

The email to Lena Hallengren

“As kindly agreed with Marcus Wallenberg, we are very pleased to invite you to our meeting in Washington, DC, from noon on Thursday, June 2 to noon on Sunday, June 5”.

Marcus Wallenberg sits on the Bilderberg group’s steering committee, a kind of management body. His position there is also confirmed by the information in the list of participants, where everyone who is part of the committee has a star next to their name.

Sweden’s government was legally obliged to release the documents that the Bilderberg group had sent to Lena Hallengren regarding the meeting, but chose to censor some of the participants. However, the entire list has been published by the Bilderberg Group itself. The blacked out names in this part of the document are: Feltri, Stefano (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, Domani; Fleming, Jeremy (GBR), Director, British Government Communications Headquarters; Freeland, Chrystia (CAN), Deputy Prime Minister; Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Co-Chair Bilderberg Meetings; Professor of Economics, Leiden University. It is unclear why they did not want these to become known to the Swedish public. Screenshot: Government

The fear of the information reaching the public is palpable in the communication. Participants are requested to treat the invitation, location and dates as confidential.

In addition, it is required that all participants are “fully vaccinated” and that they can also present a negative PCR test when they arrive at the Bilderberg Group’s designated hotel.

Brief program

Although the meeting runs over four days, from June 2 to June 5, the schedule is brief, almost rudimentary. It appears that the meeting begins on Thursday, June 2, 7 pm with “drinks and dinner”. On Friday and Saturday, talks take place in plenary from 8.00 am to 7.00 pm, then dinner both days. On Sunday 5 June, talks in plenary continue until 11.30, followed by lunch. The topics to be discussed can be found on one page:

● Geopolitical shifts
● NATO challenges
● China
● Indian Ocean
● Sino-US tech competition
● Russia
● Continuity of government and economy
● Disruption of the global financial system
● Disinformation
● Energy security and sustainability
● Post-pandemic health
● Fragmentation of democratic societies
● Trade and globalization
● Ukraine

Soft power

The Bilderberg Group provides all participants with guidelines on how the meeting will take place. Everyone must follow the rules set by the group. A participant’s official position is irrelevant. “Participants participate in a private role, regardless of their official position,” the rules state.

All participants to the meeting in the US must be fully vaccinated according to this message. Click for larger image.

The purpose of the discussions is to have “an exchange of views on the topics that are on the agenda, based on this the participants can draw their own conclusions”.

The nature of the meeting is, if the document is to be believed, completely informal. It is clear that the Bilderberg group chooses “soft power” as a strategy for influence. The term was coined in 1990 by the Harvard professor Joseph Nye, but it is only in recent years that the term has really caught on, not least in analyzes of foreign policy.

The basics of soft power are influencing someone through attraction, and not through financial rewards, persuasion or coercion. The idea is that a country, organization or person is inclined to think and act like the person one is attracted to. The Bilderberg group creates its attractiveness by offering an exclusive context where politicians, business leaders, journalists and academics can meet each other.

It is clear from the invitation that it is a relaxed meeting being held. “No proposals are put forward, no votes are taken and no policy decisions are made,” the invitation states. The participants are given the feeling that they are special, and that it is an exclusive club of friends that meets.

“The Bilderberg group meetings offer fruitful discussions in an atmosphere of mutual trust where participants can express themselves freely. The aim is better understanding of trends and new developments among leading and emerging individuals in politics, business, work, media and academia.”

It is strictly forbidden to record anything from the meeting. The media is not allowed to participate, except for the trusted journalists and editors who have been invited, and who are not allowed to write anything about the meeting. They are there to be informed – some say it is more about being instructed – and not on behalf of their readers or viewers.

“All discussions are private and off-the-record, no recordings are made and the media is excluded from the meeting,” reads the information. The meetings are held according to the “Chatham house rule”, which means that one could divulge the information received, but never the source.

It is forbidden for participants to bring personal secretaries with them. Lena Hallengren traveled with her press secretary Elin Aarflot, who was with Hallengren on the entire trip but was not allowed to participate in the Bilderberg meeting itself.

“Personal staff may not attend the session or eat at the same table as the invitees. Family members are not allowed to come along either.”

It is also Aarflot that wrote the press release on the government’s website about Hallengren’s trip to the US, where all information about the Bilderberg meeting is omitted. Nya Tider has tried to contact Aarflot to ask why it was done that way, but she has not responded.

Book an exclusive hotel

The Bilderberg Group have themselves booked an entire hotel exclusively for the participants, who are not allowed to stay anywhere else but at the intended hotel. Room bookings are not made through the hotel but through the Bilderberg group’s secretariat. However, the cost of the luxury hotel, 460 dollars per night, must be borne by the participants. In Lena Hallengren’s case, it was the Swedish taxpayers who were left with the bill

“Minimum stay is three nights. Room bookings are arranged by the secretariat”, the invitation stated. They also added that the entire hotel had been booked for the group and that only accredited personnel have access there. Very high security would be guaranteed inside and outside the hotel.

The Bilderberg group also provided a special car service that picked up the participants after arrival in Washington DC. “Transportation between the airport or train station and the hotel will be provided. All participants will be met in the arrival hall by a VIP Service Assistant holding a sign that reads DC2022, not your name.”

The contact information that participants receive for the meeting, washington2022@bilderbergmeetings.org and the phone number +1 202 787 6932 “will only be active until Sunday June 5”.

Nya Tider has scrutinized the list of around 150 participants which was sent out to all those attending. While the Swedish government chose to mark many names as confidential, the entire list was published on the Bilderbergs’ official website bilderbergmeetings.org.

Some of the famous and influential participants are:

Peter Thiel, venture capitalist
Anne Applebaum, author
José Manuel Barroso, former president of the European Commission, now president of the global major bank Goldman Sachs
Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer
William Burns, head of the CIA
Ben van Beurden, CEO of Shell
Mustafa Suleyman, Google’s head of artificial intelligence
Charles Michel, chairman of the EU Council of Ministers
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO chief
Mark Rutte, Dutch prime minister
Sanna Marin, Finnish prime minister
Yuriy Vitrenko, CEO of Ukraine’s largest oil and gas company Naftogaz

Sweden had an unusually large delegation of three people. In addition to Hallengren and Wallenberg, Martin Lundstedt, CEO of Volvo, also participated. The government confirmed that they did not incur any costs for Wallenberg’s and Lundstedt’s participation.

Confidential communication

Hallengren’s secretary Theodora Jönsson informed the Bilderberg group secretariat that Hallengren was already in Washington the day before the meeting, and therefore wondered if Hallengren could be picked up from her hotel when she checks out. She also requested transportation to the Bilderberg meeting.

Hallengren flew business class and stayed in expensive luxury hotels on the taxpayers’ buck. “In addition, her international flight home to Sweden departs at 1:37 p.m. from Washington Ronald Reagan National. Therefore, it is very important that she arrives at the airport by 11.30 at the latest. Is it possible to get private transport to the airport? Thanks in advance!”

Both of these requests were heeded by the Bilderberg group.

“Everything is possible. We arrange pick-up from the Georgetown Hotel and transport to the airport in good time,” Marlies ter Haar assured the secretary.

Before the meeting, all participants had to upload vaccination certificates to the Bilderberg group. “Dear Mrs. Hallengren, attached you will find information about the Bilderberg meeting 2022 as well as the link to upload your vaccination certificate,” writes secretary Ter Haar to Hallengren.

No one reported on the meeting

Social Affairs Minister Lena Hallengren’s participation in the meeting went unnoticed in the Swedish mainstream media. Nya Tider was the only media to pick up on the event despite the fact that no less than five editors of well-known newspapers such as the British The Economist were present. They chose not to write a word about the matter, let alone review the trip, for example how it rhymes with the principle of publicity to use tax money to stay in luxury hotels while the discussions are kept secret and the list of participants is censored for the public by Swedish authorities.

No member of the opposition in the Riksdag has yet asked Hallengren or the government about the purpose of the meeting.

July 29, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | | Leave a comment

US Should Not Fund Ukrainian ‘Blacklist’

Consortium News | July 27, 2022

Scott Ritter was among those blacklisted by a Ukrainian government agency that appears to be funded by the United States. Ritter has written the following letter to his representatives in Congress.

Senator Charles Schumer

Leo W. O’Brien Federal Office Building

11A Clinton Avenue, Room 827

Albany, NY 12207

Senator Christine Gillibrand

Leo W. O’Brien Federal Office Building

11A Clinton Avenue, Room 821

Albany, NY 12207

Representative Paul Tonko

19 Dove Street, Unit 302

Albany, NY 12210

July 27, 2022

Dear Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, and Congressman Tonko,

My name is Scott Ritter. I am a New York State resident, currently residing in the Town of Bethlehem, in Albany County. My family and I have lived at our current address since July 2000.

I am writing to you in your collective role as my elected representatives in the United States Congress, specifically regarding H.R. 7691, the Additional Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022, which became Public Law 117-128 on May 21, 2022, which each of you voted in favor of.

I draw your attention to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically the following language: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

By enacting Public Law 117-128, you appear to have abrogated your Constitutional responsibilities in so far as you may have, in fact, made a law which both abridges the freedom of speech and a free press by enabling the Government of Ukraine, through the use of US taxpayer dollars appropriated under Public Law 117-128, to publish a “blacklist” singling out US citizens as “Russian propagandists” for exercising their Constitutional rights pertaining to free speech and a free press.

The “blacklist” in question was published on July 14, 2022, by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation, and consists of a list of politicians, academics, and activists who the Center claims promote “Russian propaganda.” Many on this list are citizens of the United States, some of whom, like me, have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

While the specific criterion used by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation for selecting persons for inclusion on this “blacklist” is not known, in my case the Ukrainian government appears to have taken umbrage against my articulation of Ukraine as a NATO base of operations, my analysis of the Bucha Massacre in early March which assigns responsibility to Ukrainian security services, and my description of the current Ukraine-Russian conflict as a “proxy conflict” being waged on behalf of the United States.

Whether one agrees with my positions on these and other matters pertaining to Ukraine is not the point; by articulating my views, I am exercising my rights under the Constitution of the United States. While the Government of Ukraine is free to express its opinions regarding my viewpoints as it sees fit, the Government of the United States, by using funds appropriated by the United States Congress, should not facilitate the actions of the Government of Ukraine in this regard.

I draw your attention to Section 507(a) of Public Law 117-128, which directs that “[f]unds made available by this title under the heading Economic Support Fund may be made available for direct financial support for the Government of Ukraine.”

Public Law 117-128 makes available $8,766,000,000 for assistance for Ukraine under the heading “Economic Support Fund.”

On July 12, 2022, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) issued a press release in which it announced that $1.7 billion in direct budgetary aid was provided to Ukraine under Public Law 117-128, which allowed the Government of Ukraine, among other things, to pay the salaries of Ukrainian civil servants. This would logically include the salaries of the employees of the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation.

As a constituent whose name has appeared on a so-called “blacklist” published by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation, my personal and professional life has been, and continues to be, detrimentally impacted by the chilling effect of being labeled a “Russian propagandist” for simply exercising the right to free speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Moreover, Ukraine has a history of converting “blacklists” of this nature into “kill lists”, where those who speak out against the policies of the Ukrainian government are being murdered or threatened with violence. I am certain you agree with me that Congress cannot be in a position where, through its actions, foreign governments are provided the means to intimidate citizens of the United States from exercising their Constitutionally protected rights regarding free speech.

As such, I respectfully request that each of you investigate what role, if any, funds authorized by you under Public Law 117-128, have been used to underwrite the actions of the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation, and more specifically, if any funds appropriated under Public Law 117-128 have been used to pay the salaries of Ukrainian civil servants employed by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation involved in the preparation and dissemination of this so-called “blacklist”.

Under Section 507(d) of Public Law 117-128, Congress directs that “[t]he Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, as appropriate, shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the uses of any funds provided for direct financial support to the Government of Ukraine pursuant to subsection (a) and the results achieved, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act and every 90 days thereafter until September 30, 2025,” and that such a report “shall also include the metrics established to measure such results.”

I request that each of you become personally involved in preparing the appropriate questions to be asked of either the Secretary of State or the Administrator of USAID when they next appear before Congress to carry out their mandated reports regarding the use of funds provided for the direct financial support of the Government of Ukraine. The specific metric of interest here is whether any of these funds were used to pay the salaries of civil servants employed by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation involved in the preparation and dissemination of the aforementioned “blacklist”.

If funds were, in fact, used in this manner, I would respectfully request that you, in your status as my elected representatives to the United States Congress, take the appropriate action necessary to ensure that funds appropriated by the United States Congress are not used to suppress the free speech rights afforded to citizens of the United States, including myself, by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Moreover, I would insist that you take the appropriate action to guarantee that the Government of Ukraine immediately cease and desist in all activity designed to threaten and intimidate citizens of the United States. You are duty bound to protect the interests of the United States and its citizens rather than facilitate the actions of a foreign power that are, by design, intended to accomplish just the opposite.

Congress cannot be allowed to bypass Constitutionally imposed constraints on its actions by allowing a foreign government to do that which would not be permitted here in the United States. By paying the salaries of the civil servants employed by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation, who have prepared and disseminated the so-called “blacklist”, you and your fellow Senators and Representatives appear to be doing just that—allowing the Government of Ukraine to suppress the right of free speech guaranteed to United States citizens under the Constitution.

I look forward to hearing back from each of you as to how you propose to proceed in this matter.

Sincerely,

Scott Ritter

July 28, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

FBI manipulating domestic terror stats – whistleblowers

Samizdat | July 28, 2022

The FBI is instructing its agents to reclassify cases as ‘domestic violent extremism’, Republican Representative Jim Jordan has claimed, citing agency whistleblowers. Jordan argued that the FBI may be inflating the statistics to satisfy the Biden administration’s crackdown on the supposed threat of homegrown terror.

“From recent protected disclosures, we have learned that FBI officials are pressuring agents to reclassify cases as ‘domestic violent extremism’ even if the cases do not meet the criteria for such a classification,” Jordan wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday.

“Given the narrative pushed by the Biden administration that domestic violent extremism is the ‘greatest threat’ facing our country, the revelation that the FBI may be artificially padding domestic terrorism data is scandalous,” Jordan continued.

In the days after he took office in January 2021, Biden repeatedly talked up the threat of “domestic terrorism” in the US, describing the pro-Trump riot on Capitol Hill earlier that month as a prime example of this threat. He followed this rhetoric with a domestic terrorism strategy that increased funding to the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department, while the former agency issued a memo classifying a broad range of dissidents and criminals – from racial extremists to animal rights activists and all others with “personal grievances and beliefs with political bias” – as domestic violent extremists.

This crackdown was necessary, Wray told Congress last summer, stating in June that the FBI had a “very, very active domestic terrorism investigation program,” and that it had “doubled the amount of domestic terrorism investigations.” Attorney General Merrick Garland cited this apparent doubling of investigations as proof that domestic extremism, particularly that involving white supremacists, was the “most lethal” threat facing the US at the time.

However, whistleblower testimony indicates “that the Biden administration’s narrative may be misleading,” Jordan, who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to Wray.

“One whistleblower explained that because agents are not finding enough DVE [domestic violent extremism] cases, they are encouraged and incentivized to reclassify cases as DVE cases even though there is minimal, circumstantial evidence to support the reclassification,” Jordan continued, adding that the agent in charge of one field office offered awards and promotions to subordinates who could reclassify the most cases as domestic extremism.

“This information … reinforces our concerns regarding the FBI’s politicization under your leadership,” Jordan told Wray. Citing an alleged “purge” of FBI employees with conservative views, the Ohio Republican argued that the FBI seems “more focused on classifying investigations to meet a woke left-wing agenda” than addressing his committee’s concerns.

As of Thursday afternoon, the FBI has not publicly addressed Jordan’s allegations.

July 28, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , , | Leave a comment

WHO calls for global censorship to combat monkeypox “misinformation”

TCS WIRE | July 27, 2022

WHO Director-general Tedros Adhanom has requested that social media companies around the world combat all “misinformation” regarding monkeypox.

“As we have seen with COVID-19, misinformation and disinformation can spread rapidly online. So, we call on all social media platforms, tech companies, and news organizations to work with us to prevent and counter harmful information,” Adhanom said earlier today.

This news comes only four days after the WHO chief Adhanom declared monkeypox an international health emergency, overruling a majority of panel members that voted against making such a declaration.

Now, it looks like the WHO is taking the next step: censoring anyone who isn’t on board with their monkeypox madness.

This is the same step the World Health Organization took in 2020 and 2021 when the WHO claimed that all information that went against the narrative was part of a broader “infodemic.”

“Soon after the world started getting used to the terms coronavirus and COVID-19, WHO coined another word: “infodemic” — an overabundance of information and the rapid spread of misleading or fabricated news, images, and videos. Like the virus, it is highly contagious and grows exponentially. It also complicates COVID-19 pandemic response efforts,” reads a 2020 article entitled “Immunizing the public against misinformation.”

Over the course of the pandemic, the WHO began partnering with countries to combat the “infodemic,” which, more often than not, meant censoring people online who had genuine concerns or were trying to proliferate the truth of adverse reactions following mRNA jabs.

Such adverse reactions are now known to be a fact, and health officials worldwide have begun warning people of the risk from things like post-vaccine myocarditis, which the WHO has consistently waved away as a conspiracy theory.

July 27, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Jacinda’s duplicity as pupils are told to mask up again or be punished

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | July 27, 2022

LAST week the New Zealand government called for mask wearing to be enforced in schools – and many schools have apparently decided to punish students who do not comply.

Asked whether she was happy with that situation, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ducked the question, denied the mandate, passed the buck, and still managed to appear happy for students to be punished.

She said: ‘We are really open-minded on this issue. We in fact went back multiple times to education and health and said, “Look, if you believe we should bring that mask mandate back we are happy to do that. Whatever you think is going to be in the best interest of our learners, our schools, and our health outcomes.”

‘They came back to us and said we should strongly encourage their use, but we should still allow schools to implement the policies themselves. That’s where we have landed. We have not said mask wearing is compulsory, but we are strongly encouraging it.’

You can watch the full interview here. There is plenty of spin, but not a lot of ambiguity. Head teachers have been given a green light to dust off the detention book.

Some schools are giving students detention either during lunchtime or after school (the modern equivalent of writing out ‘I will wear my mask’ a thousand times), which translates into loss of opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities and sports. This should be unacceptable and is certainly deleterious to a student at any age and may result in them becoming alienated or adversely affected emotionally or socially. Students go to school to learn and understand the process of verifying knowledge, to engage socially, and to develop skills in communication; whereby they may debate and agree or disagree with one another, without the fear of being punished or discriminated against.

There is a considerable body of scientific evidence pointing to the ineffectiveness of masks to stop transmission. Long-term mask use also poses health risks and causes significant learning deficits.

Some parents, and hence their children, will be well aware of this. A policy of punishment for non-mask wearers is the antithesis of a constructive learning environment and teaches: ‘Comply without question or face a penalty.’

School attendance in New Zealand is already at an all-time low. As a result of this move, it is going to fall further. The opportunities for constructive debate are fast disappearing in education, and we can understand why many parents are turning their thoughts to home-schooling.

The problem here is that the public is being deliberately kept in the dark about the ineffectiveness of masks and the dangers of prolonged mask-wearing. Most are following government advice, thinking that they are protecting themselves and others from Covid. They are ending the day with a headache and a sore face, but sure that they have thereby saved the world.

So far, the NZ government has kept a tight hold on the Covid narrative by warning people that alternative news sources and social media conversations are full of misinformation, whilst government announcements are closely following ‘the science’. They also give cash grants to the mainstream media and advertise to the point of saturation.

That is all set to ramp up from today. The government has concluded a formal binding agreement with Meta (Facebook and Instagram), TikTok, Google (Gmail and YouTube), Amazon (Spark) and Twitter to limit the availability of harmful content including ‘misinformation and disinformation’ in New Zealand.

In a world first, the code is described as ‘voluntary’, but it includes a ‘commitment’ to being held ‘accountable’ which allows its provisions to be ‘enforced’. How is that for doublespeak? And who is deciding what is harmful?

The mask mandate rules and the information censorship have something in common. The government is asking others to do its dirty work, then asking us to believe it has nothing to do with those others. We are not naive: we already know how this works.

The agreement cleverly conflates things that we all feel should be controlled, such as child sexual exploitation and incitement to violence, with rational discussions about drug safety and effectiveness.

YouTube has previously withdrawn Covid content from view at the private request of the Ministry of Health. Apparently this can happen if any content causes the NZ government embarrassment.

I don’t suppose it has escaped your notice that internet censorship is a tool of oppressive governments. The dangers are becoming all too obvious here, where the majority of the public, subjected to blanket government advertising, still believe that regular mRNA boosters and flu shots offer protection for life that is stronger than natural immunity.

This is all taking on a macabre aspect, because official Covid data here and in the EU is showing that boosted individuals are increasingly more likely to die with Covid than are the unvaccinated. The apparent reluctance on the part of the government to engage with the implications of this official Covid data is seriously worrying. Governments traditionally have a general duty of care when it comes to policing public health measures.

This year has been one of the wettest on record in NZ. As a result, ants are coming into homes in record numbers and you may have been struck with how expendable ant populations are.

Ant colonies appear to have a centralised administrative policy whereby any number of workers can be put at risk in the search for homes and food for queens. This is a sort of groupthink which starkly contrasts with human ethics, wherein the individual is highly valued.

Here in New Zealand, we are 90 per cent mRNA vaccinated and we currently have the highest rate of all-cause mortality in the world. Even the Ministry of Health has admitted this is not because of Covid. Yet if you follow the government advertising and press statements, you will probably be unaware of this and happily sure that ‘the science’ is being followed.

I don’t need to draw conclusions for you here. If you are following the current Covid science journal publishing, you will be well aware of mathematical arguments entirely based on collected data which are taking place within a rational framework. Ignoring or hiding these is dangerous.

The author is in New Zealand 

This blog is co-authored with Narayani Hatchard. 

July 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

A Pandemic of the Triple Vaccinated

By Ramesh Thakur | Brownstone Institute | July 26, 2022

Deborah Birx was the White House Covid-19 response coordinator under President Donald Trump. Jeffrey Tucker recently wrote a brutal takedown of her deliberate misrepresentations of science and data in order to manipulate Trump into going along with her preferred but misguided policy interventions to deal with the Covid outbreak.

In an ABC podcast on December 15, 2020, she said: “I understand the safety of the vaccine … I understand the depth of the efficacy of this vaccine. This is one of the most highly-effective vaccines we have in our infectious disease arsenal.”

Appearing on Fox News on July 22, however, she claimed: “I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines. And it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization.”

This might help to explain why there has been such a concerning collapse of public confidence in leading health institutions and “authorities.”

Biden’s claim of a pandemic of the  unvaccinated

During a CNN Town Hall event on July 21, 2021, President Joe Biden said: “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you are not going to die.”

On May 16, 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed that vaccination did not just protect the individual, but also the community, because “by preventing the spread of the virus … you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere.”

Relying in the judgment of his chief medical adviser, Biden took to talking about the pandemic of the unvaccinated in a two-track effort both to encourage vaccine takeup and to vilify, demonize and shame those who remained uncertain enough of the balance of benefits and short and long-term risks of the rushed Covid-19 vaccines to avoid succumbing to the multiple pressures to go along with the zeitgeist in order to get along with everyone.

We have now had both Dr. Fauci, the public face of the US management of the pandemic, revered in some quarters and reviled in others, and President Biden himself get infected with Covid, despite both being double-vaccinated and double-boosted.

Inevitably, to try and stop the official narrative on the benefits of the vaccine from unraveling completely and in order to encourage continuing vaccine and boosters takeup, they insist that their updated vaccination status helped to limit the severity of their infection. This is based on a cult-like faith, akin to self-validating and self-canceling explanations put forth by astrologers for predictions that come true and don’t, as the case may be.

Although on July 20, Fauci admitted that the data do make it clear that “vaccines – because of the high degree of transmissibility of this virus – don’t protect overly well, as it were, against infection.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asked why the media was not holding Fauci “accountable for the costly national policies and the lockdowns that were utterly built upon his initial assertion that the vaccines would prevent transmission and end the pandemic.”

Equally, of course, one must ask again: if vaccines don’t stop transmission, how does the government justify vaccination mandates for travel to the US?

In a matching vein, the New South Wales (NSW) Health report for the week ending 16 July claims that: “The minority of the overall population who have not been vaccinated are significantly overrepresented among patients in hospitals and ICUs with Covid-19.”

The following challenges that claim using their own data.

By drawing on the distinction between the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines, it’s possible to argue that in NSW, rather than a pandemic of the unvaccinated, what we have witnessed is a pandemic of the triple-vaccinated.

NSW health facts

In September 2021, NSW had 844 staffed ICU beds, of which 173 (20.5 percent) were occupied by Covid-19 patients. (Australia-wide, the number of ICU beds is 2,183.) By January 2022, the number had increased to around 1,000. If necessary, this can be bumped up further by utilizing the limited number of ICU beds in private hospitals.

There are 9,500 general ward beds in public and another 3,000 beds in private hospitals in NSW. In mid-July 2022, there were 2,058 people in hospital with Covid-19 in NSW, or 21.7 percent of the public system’s capacity and 16.5 percent of the state’s total hospital beds capacity. An additional 6,500 people were in hospital for non-Covid reasons.

During the week of July 10–16, a total of 806 people were admitted to hospital with Covid-19, another 77 into ICU, and 142 people died with Covid-19 illness (though not necessarily as the primary cause of death). Moreover, of the 142 deaths, only four were aged below 60, so that people aged 60 and above accounted for 97.2 percent of all Covid-related deaths in the state.

Additionally, of the 142 dead, the vaccination status of 2 was not known. One hundred and eighteen of the remaining 140 – 84.3 percent – were at least double-vaccinated and 69 had received three doses of the vaccine: by far the biggest single cohort and almost equal to all the others combined. Hence the thought that perhaps what we are experiencing is a pandemic of the triple-vaccinated.

Efficacy vs. effectiveness

The Cambridge Dictionary defines efficacy as “how well a particular treatment or drug works under carefully controlled scientific testing conditions.” By contrast, effectiveness is defined as “how well a particular treatment or drug works when people are using it, as opposed to how well it works under carefully controlled scientific testing conditions.”

Thus doubts about the effectiveness of a new product in treating any disease can only be resolved once the vaccine is widely available and administered in the target population. GAVI (the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), now called Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is a partnership between the World Health Organization, Unicef, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Writing for GAVI, Priya Joi offers similar definitions, describing “efficacy” as the measure of how much a vaccine prevents infection (and possibly also transmission) under ideal, controlled conditions where a vaccinated group is compared with a placebo group. She adds: “Vaccines do not always need to have an exceptionally high effectiveness to be useful, for example the influenza vaccine is 40-60% effective yet saves thousands of lives every year.”

Examining the percentage of the thrice-jabbed in hospital admissions, ICU beds, and dead against the baseline of their share in the overall population, preferably age-adjusted, is critical to calculating vaccine efficacy. I’m not sure how helpful that is to assessing the effectiveness of vaccines in keeping the absolute numbers down below the state’s or country’s capacity thresholds of hospital and ICU beds.

If the primary public health justification for universal vaccination is to reduce the burden on the health infrastructure and prevent hospitals and ICU capacity from being overwhelmed – which was indeed the main justification in the language of two-three weeks to flatten the curve – then the key question becomes: How effective are the vaccines in preventing hospital admissions and ICU occupancy? Their role in preventing infection by itself is less important than their effectiveness in controlling the severity of the disease.

For example, a report from the Dutch health ministry found that the effectiveness of two doses of vaccines after one year had fallen overall to 0 percent against hospitalizations and minus 20 percent against ICU admission. Perhaps more pertinently in relation to NSW, Dr. Eyal Shahar notes signs in Israel of a short-term fatality rate of a third dose.

Efficacy is more helpful to an individual in assessing the relative risk of infection if vaccinated or not. Because Covid vaccines were granted emergency-use authorization and long-term efficacy and safety profiles were simply not available, doubts have persisted about the integrity, credibility and long-term reliability of data and results from the trials conducted by the vaccine manufacturers.

Moreover, as we’ve been made aware with respect to the UK, different branches of the government like the Health Security Agency and the Office of National Statistics use different and hotly contested methodologies for calculating the numbers and proportions of the population infected by Covid, which in turn determines the estimated infection fatality rate (IFR).

In any case, even if we agree that the IFR and case fatality rate (CFR) of flu and Covid are broadly comparable by now, the scale and magnitude of Covid means that similar IFR and CFR still produce vastly different orders of challenges for public health policy.

By contrast the effectiveness of the vaccines for controlling hospital admissions, ICU bed occupancy and mortality is measured by solid and reliable information that is both accurate and comprehensive in Western countries. This makes vaccine effectiveness a better policy tool for deciding on population-wide mandates while efficacy might be the more relevant for informed individual decisions.

Covid in NSW

In the period for the weeks ending May 28 to July 16, 2022 in NSW, of those whose vaccination status was known, only eight unvaccinated people were among the 3,509 who required hospital admission (Figure 1). The numbers in ICU were 5 unvaccinated and 316 with 2-4 doses (Figure 2); the number of Covid dead were 110 unvaccinated and 662 with 2–4 doses (Figure 3).

With 83 percent of people at least double-vaccinated, they accounted for 99.4, 96.3, and 85.4 percent, respectively, of NSW Covid hospital admission, ICU and deaths in these seven weeks.

In the final week of this seven-week period, of those whose vaccination status was known, there were exactly zero – zilch, nada – unvaccinated people among the 624 hospital and 59 ICU Covid-19 admissions, compared to 615 with two, three and four vaccine doses in hospital and 58 in ICU beds. Just the triple-vaccinated, who account for 68 percent of the population of NSW, made up 57.5 percent in hospital, 53.7 percent in ICU and 53.5 percent of the Covid dead.

The claim that the unvaccinated are “significantly overrepresented” in Covid-19 hospital admissions and ICU occupancy is not just misleading, it’s downright false. Seriously, do they look at the data in their own reports before drawing policy conclusions?

As knowledge about the rapidly fading efficacy of the vaccines, and in particular of each successor booster dose, has firmed, and also as the vaccine escape properties of the newer variants of Covid-19 have become better known, the equivalent question now is: are we into the era of the pandemic of the triple -vaccinated? The biggest strain on NSW hospitals and ICU beds is coming from their numbers.

Public health officials can talk and dissemble all they want about the baselines for comparisons and pretend to possess great sophistication in their understanding of the current state of the disease. They still cannot spin their way out of the hard data.

Instead they are exhibiting a severe case of cognitive dissonance in encouraging the double-vaccinated to get boosted and double-boosted. The ineffectiveness of vaccines in reducing hospital admissions and ICU demand is in itself sufficient to torpedo vaccine mandates. Doubts on their efficacy and concerns about their adverse effects and long-term safety further strengthens the case against mandates.

Ramesh Thakur, a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, is emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

July 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

CHD Demands D.C. Schools Rescind COVID Vaccine Mandate, Says It Violates Federal Law

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | July 25, 2022

Schools in Washington, D.C., will require all students ages 12 and older to get the COVID-19 vaccine before they can attend school in the fall, despite warnings from legal experts who say the mandate violates federal law.

The Office of the State Superintendent of Education announced on July 19 that student immunization requirements for the upcoming 2022-2023 school year will include the COVID-19 vaccine for all students who are of an age for which there is a vaccine fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“On July 8, 2022, the FDA fully approved the COVID-19 vaccine commonly known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for individuals 12 to 15 years old,” said State Superintendent of Education Christina Grant in a press release.

“The approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 12 to 15 means that, unless exempted, any student age 12-15 at the start of the 2022-23 school year must have received the primary COVID-19 vaccine series or have started receiving the shot by Sept. 16, 2022,” she said.

“We want to make sure that all of our students have everything they need for a healthy start to the school year,” Grant added. “This means making sure children see their primary medical provider for a well-child visit and receive all needed immunizations.”

D.C. law requires students in all area schools, including private, parochial and independent schools, to be fully compliant with mandated vaccinations, unless they have an approved exemption. The law also requires schools to verify immunization certification for all students.

The requirement was detailed in a law the D.C. Council approved last year and is the first legislation of its kind in the region.

CHD demands D.C. Schools rescind mandate

In a letter sent today to Grant, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), asked Grant to rescind the program or CHD would sue to overturn the mandate.

Kennedy said Grant’s press release was incorrect because the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was never fully approved and still remains under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

The FDA earlier this month granted full approval to Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old, without convening its vaccine advisory panel.

In August 2021, the agency granted full licensing of the Comirnaty vaccine for ages 16 and older.

However, there are no Comirnaty-labeled vaccines available in the U.S., for any age group.

Although courts have upheld many childhood vaccination requirements for licensed and approved vaccines, no court has ever upheld a mandate for schoolchildren for an EUA vaccine, according to Kennedy.

Kennedy wrote:

“In fact, a District of Columbia United States District Court held that EUA vaccines cannot be mandated to soldiers in the U.S. military, who enjoy far fewer rights than civilians. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (2003). That court held: ‘… the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.’ Id. at 135.

“Federal law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requires that the person to whom an EUA vaccine is administered be advised, ‘of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.’

“The reason for the right of refusal stems from the fact that EUA products are by definition experimental.

“Under the Nuremberg Code, a universal legal norm, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is ‘absolutely essential.’ The liability for forced participation in a medical experiment, not to mention liability for injury from such coerced medical intervention, may be incalculable.”

Commenting on the D.C. mandate, CHD President Mary Holland said, “It violates fundamental human rights and international law to force people, and especially children, to take experimental medical products.”

“We sincerely hope the District will reconsider its misguided policy for schoolchildren,” Holland added.

Another organization — Liberty Counsel — said it may also challenge the District of Columbia’s vaccine mandate.

“There is no FDA-approved COVID shot available and therefore, individuals have a right under the emergency use authorization to refuse these shots,” Matthew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told The Epoch Times.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, people receiving an EUA product must be advised that some benefits and risks “are unknown” and given the “option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

“It is your choice to receive or not receive [the vaccine],” Staver said. “Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care,” according to FDA fact sheets on EUA COVID-19 vaccines.

Several other school systems have attempted, so far unsuccessfully, to implement a COVID-19 vaccine mandate:

• Louisiana: The Louisiana Department of Health in May said it would no longer seek to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for the upcoming school year because the shot had not received full FDA approval for people under the age of 16.

The decision came after CHD and thousands of concerned parents on March 16 filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit seeking to stop the Louisana Department of Health from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the state’s school immunization schedule.

The joint lawsuit was filed in December 2021, by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and state Rep. Raymond Crews against Gov. John Bel Edwards after he announced COVID-19 vaccines would be mandatory for all children age 5 and over at public or private schools.

• Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Superintendent Alberto Carvalho on April 28 recommended the district postpone its COVID-19 student vaccination mandate until at least July 2023 because the FDA had not fully approved the COVID-19 vaccine for all ages covering grades 7 through 12.

LAUSD officials announced last fall students 12 and older would be required to be vaccinated by the start of the 2022-2023 school year but delayed the mandate because tens of thousands of students still had not complied with the requirement.

• Washington: The Washington State Board of Health in April voted unanimously against adding COVID-19 vaccines to the requirements for students to attend K-12 schools this fall after its advisory group recommended against the requirement. The board said more data was needed about vaccines for ages 5 to 11 and raised concerns that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has yet to be fully approved for ages 5 to 15.

Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

July 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Ugly Covid Lies

By Ron Paul | July 25, 2022

After two years of unprecedented government tyranny in the name of fighting a virus, the prime instigators of this infamy are walking free, writing books, and openly pretending they never said the things they clearly said over and over.

Take Trump’s White House Covid response coordinator Deborah Birx, for example. She was, as the Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker points out in a recent article, the principal architect of the disastrous “lockdown” policy that destroyed more lives than Covid itself. Birx knew that locking a country down in response to a virus was a radical move that would never be endorsed. So, as she admits in her new book, she lied about it.

She sold the White House on the out-of-thin-air “fifteen days to slow the spread” all the while knowing there was no evidence it would do any such thing. As she wrote in her new book, Silent Invasion, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.”

She was playing for time with no evidence. As it turns out, she was also destroying the lives of millions of Americans. The hysteria she created led to countless businesses destroyed, countless suicides, major depressions, drug and alcohol addictions. It led to countless deaths due to delays in treatment for other diseases. It may turn out to be the most deadly mistake [?] in medical history.

As she revealed in her book, she actually wanted to isolate every single person in the United States! Writing about how many people would be allowed to gather, she said: “If I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’—the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”

She wanted to prevent even two people from meeting. How is it possible that someone like this came to gain so much power over our lives? One virus and we suddenly become Communist China?

Last week in a Fox News interview she again revealed the extent of her treachery. After months of relentlessly demanding that all Americans get the Covid shots, she revealed that the “vaccines” were not vaccines at all!

“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection,” she told Fox. “And I think we overplayed the vaccines. And it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization.”

So when did she know this? Did she know it when she told ABC in late 2020 that “this is one of the most highly-effective vaccines we have in our infectious disease arsenal. And so that’s why I’m very enthusiastic about the vaccine”?

If she knew all along that the “vaccines” were not vaccines, why didn’t she tell us? Because, as she admits in her book, she believes it’s just fine to lie to people in order to get them to do what she wants.

She admits that she employed “subterfuge” against her boss – President Donald Trump – to implement Covid policies he opposed. So it should be no surprise that she lied to the American people about the efficacy of the Covid shots.

The big question now, after what appears to be a tsunami of vaccine-related injuries, will anyone be forced to pay for the lies and subterfuge? Will anyone be held to account for the lives lost for the arrogance of the Birxes and Faucis of the world?

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

July 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »