Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Nerd immunity is the way forward

By Andy Lambeth | The Conservative Woman | June 19, 2021

WE learnt on Monday that lockdown restrictions are being extended for one more month. Like millions of others up and down the country I was shocked and quite deflated by this depressing news. However, having had time to reflect, I feel certain that there is a very cunning plan behind Boris Johnson’s seemingly pointless and cowardly dithering. You may disagree and be of the opinion that if someone looks and sounds like a pathetic, spineless, lying nincompoop then he is indeed a pathetic, spineless, lying nincompoop. It’s a fair point, but please hear me out on this one.

People are still very frightened. They have been queuing up in their thousands to get vaccinated and now eighty per cent of the population has had at least one jab. But this still is not enough to make us feel safe, hence the substantial support for vaccine passports and now child vaccination. Face masks are still everywhere. Not only do we see masks where they are a legal requirement but also on the high street and in the park. Many people are wearing them in their cars and on their bicycles. The other day I saw my neighbour wearing one in his back garden. The really worrying thing is that he was in his swimming pool at the time. Recent polls suggest that eighty per cent of people are completely behind Covid restrictions and a large majority want them to continue until we are all completely safe from the virus. There is genuine fear amongst people everywhere and there is a very good reason for this: They have all become nerds.

This pandemic of nerdishness has completely beleaguered this once brave nation of ours. We have become a society of hopeless, wretched supernerds. We put on our nerdy masks to go to the pub, where we check in with our nerdy apps and clean our hands with nerdy hand sanitiser. When inside we greet our friends with a nerdy elbow rub. We take our nerdy mask off to sit down and socialise and then we put it on again to go to the loo. Our level of nerdishness makes Mr Bean look like James Bond. Many of us who find all of this weird do it anyway because we are too nerdy to realise nothing will happen to us if we refuse. Nerdishness has become ingrained into our psyche and our British way of life.

Mr Johnson is faced with the impossible task of putting an end to all this strange behaviour. He cannot simply say the virus has disappeared, because no one would believe him. On the other hand it would be political suicide for him to admit that the whole thing was an overreaction in the first place. His only option is to give people the opportunity, one by one, to come to that realisation themselves and to develop the confidence to start acting like normal people. In other words we need to develop nerd immunity. This cannot be achieved by the government lifting restrictions: it can only be achieved by them doing the very opposite and pushing our patience and tolerance to its limits. Johnson must therefore ensure that we all have continued exposure to never-ending, ridiculous coronavirus regulations until we build up a natural resistance to it and stop acting like frightened little nerds.

So how does the human body actually develop nerd immunity? I put this question to Professor Dai Ifyougettit, Head of Immunology at Cardiff University Hospital. The professor recounted the story of Kevin, one of the volunteers in his clinical study group, who has fully recovered from being a nerd. When this all started back in March 2020, like many people Kevin thought the pandemic was just as deadly as the Spanish flu of 1918. However, increased exposure to Covid news conferences on the BBC made Kevin start to wonder if things were being exaggerated. As restrictions became more ludicrous and unnecessary Kevin began to start questioning things. The official narrative just didn’t add up and even David Icke began to make a bit more sense than Matt Hancock. ‘I hadn’t become a Covid denier or a conspiracy theorist as such,’ Kevin said, ‘but I had serious doubts about what the Government was telling us.’

Professor Ifyougettit explained how Kevin’s change in perception was the body’s immune system doing its job. To protect him from nerdishness Kevin’s internal defences had forced him to do something that did not come naturally: critical thinking. Some individuals may have major concerns about the adverse side effects of critical thinking and are therefore hesitant. However, if we are to achieve nerd immunity we will all have to be more open to thinking critically. Just one application of critical thinking would be enough to give someone sixty per cent nerd immunity but another one a few weeks later would give up to ninety per cent. After that, critical thinking boosters might be needed. I asked the professor if a stronger dose of critical thinking would offer complete protection from nerdishness. ‘No, it is important to get the dose exactly right,’ he said. ‘Too much critical thinking can cause adverse side effects, such as making you even nerdier.’

Many people are asking why the situation is so different in the US. In particular, states such as Florida and Texas have already made excellent progress with their levels of nerd immunity. I questioned one of the epidemiologists working with the Government advisory body NERDTAG (New and Emerging Really Dorkish Threats Advisory Group). She told me it is likely that progress in some American states has been possible due to pre-existing levels of immunity against nerdishness. On average Americans are a little less nerdy than Brits so they may have had some protection already. She said that the estimated level of nerd immunity in the UK is currently standing at about ten per cent but this has to rise to at least fifty per cent if we are ever to return to normal.

Clearly we have some way to go and so Boris Johnson is doing exactly the right thing in having us on for a little longer until the penny drops. If restrictions are simply lifted at this stage we are under serious threat of a third wave of nerdishness. This would be utterly disastrous for both the country and the Government. Mr Johnson really has no choice but to remain in lockdown and continue his Simple Simon routine until all age groups have been given the opportunity and the incentive to think critically about their nerdish compliance.

Of course some people might argue that although this is a clever and pragmatic strategy there is a hefty price to pay for it. UK debt is over two trillion pounds already and it is rising all the time. More financial compensation will be necessary for any continuation of lockdown measures and so we will undoubtedly need to borrow even more money. However, anyone who knows anything about getting into debt will tell you what you need to do when you cannot afford to pay off what you owe. You borrow more. Then you keep borrowing more and more until paying it back is absolutely inconceivable. That is the only way you can get your debt written off.

So we’re in this for the long haul. There are no easy solutions and we are all going to have to grin and bear it. But don’t despair because if we go through enough pain, nerd immunity will be the light at the end of the tunnel.

June 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

How Ron Paul Stopped the US Government from Imposing a National Vaccine Passport

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | June 18, 2021

Who do Americans have to thank for the United States government not subjecting them to a national vaccine passport like those being imposed by national governments in Europe? Megan Redshaw wrote in a Wednesday article at Children’s Health Defense that the credit goes to Ron Paul who, while serving as a member of the US House of Representatives, led the effort to bar the US government from creating for each American a “unique health identifier” number.

Redshaw wrote:

So far, the Biden administration has resisted the idea of a “vaccine passport” for the U.S. On May 28, U.S. Director of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro Mayorkas said the U.S. was taking a “very close look” at vaccine passports for international travel. Later that day, the DHS clarified there will be no “federal mandate” for vaccine passports in the U.S.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. does not have a national database for immunization records that could act as the source of vaccination data for use in digital passes. That’s because a national system to create a unique identification number to link the health records of every American has been banned since 1998, spearheaded by then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who said such a system would be an unwarranted privacy intrusion.

An attempt to overturn the ban passed the U.S. House in 2019, but was rejected by the Senate.

Paul left the US House in January of 2013.

Paul’s son Rand Paul has been a key person working in the US Senate to keep in place the prohibition on a unique health identifier. A September of 2019 press release from Rand Paul’s Senate office recounts the following:

Dr. Paul’s father, former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), introduced language to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill in 1998 to restrict the use of federal funds to develop the identifier, and such a ban has been continually renewed in each Labor-HHS appropriations bill since.

This June, however, an amendment stripped this critical protection for Americans out of the version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill ultimately passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Enacting the bill into law with this amendment or a similar provision would open the floodgates for a government-issued ID to be linked with the private medical history of every man, woman, and child in America.

Prior to introducing standalone legislation to repeal the original authority created under HIPAA, Dr. Paul successfully advocated this month for keeping language banning federal funding for the unique health identifier in the proposed Senate version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

June 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

NHS Doctor: Matt Hancock is “Not Fit for Public Office and Needs to be Removed Before He Inflicts Further Harm”

By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • June 18, 2021

NHS GP Dr Helen Westwood, a member of HART, has written a letter to her MP Sir Graham Brady expressing her concerns about the possible Government plans for mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers and others. She previously wrote to him at the end of April and received a reply from Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi that we published on Lockdown Sceptics offering the paper-thin reassurance that the U.K. “currently operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations”. “Why does he need to use the word ‘currently’?” she asked. “Are there plans for mandatory vaccination in future?” There were indeed, and she is not impressed – to the point of calling for Health Secretary Matt Hancock to be shown the door before he does any more damage. Here is her letter in full.

Dear Sir Graham,

I refer to my earlier correspondence dated March 2nd and April 26th regarding the concerns I have about the COVID-19 vaccination program.

I am grateful to you for raising these concerns with the Minister for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment. Sadly Mr Zahawi seems to be either unwilling or unable to respond to my questions. Perhaps he is just delaying until the vaccine rollout has reached the whole adult population as it is due to imminently.

Mr Zahawi said in his letter to you that “the UK currently operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations”. Clearly the current proposals to make vaccinations compulsory for care home workers and possibly frontline NHS workers is completely counter to this. If a medical intervention is mandated for one group in society why not others? What about visitors to care homes? Delivery drivers? Shop workers? The list will go on and on.

I would like to draw your attention again to Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. It states that “any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice”. If an individual is being coerced into undergoing vaccination, through fear of losing their livelihood, then they are not giving “free and informed consent”. In effect, the person administering the vaccine in such circumstances is committing the criminal offence of Assault and Battery. We know that the pharmaceutical companies have been granted legal indemnity by the Government but what indemnity does the vaccinator have in this situation?

In my opinion to ask anyone to undergo a medical intervention for the benefit of others is profoundly unethical. Population immunity, achieved through high vaccine take-up, is a by-product rather than the primary reason for immunising an individual. This ethical problem is particularly pertinent to the arguments given for rolling the program out to children, but is also relevant to the majority of healthy working-age adults. The mortality risk from COVID-19 in this cohort is lower than that for seasonal influenza. People are being persuaded to have these vaccines to protect society at large. Why is nobody in Government paying attention to the significant morbidity and mortality being reported on the Yellow Card system in relation to the administration of the vaccines? Young healthy people are being exposed to risks, both known and unknown, in taking these vaccines yet have little to gain in terms of personal benefit. Dr Tess Lawrie wrote an open letter to MHRA Chief Executive Dr June Raine saying that “the MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans”. At the very least we should be pausing to review the data before coercing young care home workers into having this vaccine when the results of the phase 3 trials are not yet known or understood.

In my discussions with patients who have undergone vaccination I have come to realise that many are unaware that these vaccines do not yet have full marketing authorisation. Sadly, the vaccine trials have now been compromised by being unblinded and control arm participants being offered the active drug. Given that these vaccines are still in their experimental phase, surely point 1 of the Nuremberg code applies: the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. How is this in any way compatible with mandatory vaccination?

According to Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister referred to Matt Hancock as “fucking hopeless”. Having heard the Health Secretary say that there is a “material difference” in the duty of care owed by the state to those who have not yet been offered the vaccine compared to those that have not taken up the offer of vaccination, I would go as far as to say he is dangerous and a menace. He is not fit for public office and needs to be removed from his post before he inflicts further harm on the people of this country. The GMC’s Good Medical Practice guidance states that Doctors must “treat patients and colleagues fairly and without discrimination“. I do not think there is an exception to this based on vaccination status. Similarly the NHS constitution says that “the NHS provides a comprehensive service, available to all” and that staff has a “duty not to discriminate against patients or staff and to adhere to…human rights legislation”. With regard to patients it says “you have the right to accept or refuse treatment that is offered to you, and not to be given any…treatment unless you have given valid consent”. Perhaps the Health Secretary ought to familiarise himself with these documents.

Having read my comments you will not be surprised to learn that I still do not intend to take this vaccine currently. I refuse to be bullied into undergoing a medical intervention against my will. It is against everything I would advocate for my patients. With record waiting lists in the NHS it would seem to me to be unwise to risk losing a proportion of the workforce by forging ahead with plans for making COVID-19 vaccination compulsory.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Westwood

June 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Hypocrisy 101

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | June 18, 2021

When President Biden predictably began lecturing Russian President Vladimir Putin about human-rights abuses in Russia, Biden was chagrined when Putin turned the tables on him by asking about human-rights abuses at the hands of the U.S. government.

I’ve often wondered why foreign dictators don’t do that more often. Biden’s position is truly a classic case of Hypocrisy 101.

Consider the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s torture and prison center in Cuba. It could easily fit comfortably within any communist country or other totalitarian regime.

Consider the types of policies that the Pentagon and the CIA have implemented at Guantanamo Bay:

1. No trial by jury. Trials, if they are ever held, are by military tribunal. That means a kangaroo trial. The verdict of guilt is already established before the trial even begins.

2. No trials. Yes, that’s right — people at Gitmo don’t even get a kangaroo trial. There have been people locked up in there for more a decade. Why haven’t they been accorded even a kangaroo trial? That is what is called the power of indefinite detention — the power to take a person into custody and keep him incarcerated for the rest of his life.

3. Torture. U.S. officials torture inmates into confessing their crimes. They also torture witnesses into testifying against people who are accused of crimes. Evidence acquired by torture is admissible at the kangaroo trials (if they are ever held).

4. Hearsay. People who are on trial (if a trial is ever held) are prevented from confronting the witnesses against them and cross-examining them. Instead, witnesses are permitted to recite out-of-court statements made by others as a way to secure convictions.

5. Denial of effective assistance of counsel. The Pentagon and the CIA eavesdrop on communications between inmates and their attorneys.

Now, if I told you that all of these things happen in communist or totalitarian regimes, you would not be surprised. But what is sad is that today no American is surprised that the U.S. government does these things too. It’s all become a normalized and acceptable part of American life, just like assassination has.

Consider assassination. The Fifth Amendment expressly prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life without due process of law. Due process is a principle requiring formal notice and a trial.

Yet, the Pentagon and the CIA have a formalized program of state-sponsored assassinations. That’s just legalized murder — the taking of people’s lives without notice and trial.

Not surprisingly, the power to assassinate people is wielded by communist and other totalitarian regimes. The power of assassination has also been wielded by Pentagon and CIA officials ever since the federal government was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state.

Consider Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. All they did was disclose the truth about these types of sordid, dark-side, communist-like, totalitarian-like policies and actions of the U.S. national-security establishment.

How have U.S. officials treated Snowden and Assange? The same way that communist and totalitarian regimes treat dissidents.

Maybe the pandemic is something that will cause Americans to do some serious soul-searching as to where we are as a nation, how we got here, and what we need to do to get things back on the right track.

In the meantime, Biden needs to keep in mind that when he wags his finger at communist or totalitarian regimes regarding human-rights violations, there are three more fingers pointing back at himself.

June 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Willem Engel Interview – The Fight For Freedom In The COVID Age & The Battle For Our Very Humanity

Willem Engel has been neutralized by the Netherlands/EU Totalitarian Regime

By Taylor Hudak | The Last American Vagabond | June 16, 2021

Joining me today is scientist and activist Willem Engel, here to discuss his ongoing legal efforts to fight back against what many are referring to as  ‘crimes against humanity’ being committed under the guise of fighting COVID-19 – and rightly so – as well as what’s at the center of this battle, and that is the fight for humanity itself.

(https://www.rokfin.com/TLAVagabond)
(https://odysee.com/@TLAVagabond:5)
(https://www.bitchute.com/channel/24yVcta8zEjY/)

Source Links:

https://viruswaarheid.nl

https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_person=Willem+Engel

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56084466

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/02/police-backpedal-on-congratulations-for-curfew-court-case-win/

https://netherlandsnewslive.com/virus-truth-leader-willem-engel-must-go-to-court-for-sedition-inland/118325/

June 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The FBI’s Mafia-Style Justice: To Fight Crime, the FBI Sponsors 15 Crimes a Day 

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | June 17, 2021

Almost every tyranny being perpetrated by the U.S. government against the citizenry—purportedly to keep us safe and the nation secure—has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by our own government.

Think about it.

Cyberwarfare. Terrorism. Bio-chemical attacks. The nuclear arms race. Surveillance. The drug wars. Domestic extremism. The COVID-19 pandemic.

In almost every instance, the U.S. government (often spearheaded by the FBI) has in its typical Machiavellian fashion sown the seeds of terror domestically and internationally in order to expand its own totalitarian powers.

The U.S. government isn’t protecting us from terrorism.

The U.S. government is creating the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror.

Consider that this very same government has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.

We’re not dealing with a government that exists to serve its people, protect their liberties and ensure their happiness. Rather, these are the diabolical machinations of a make-works program carried out on an epic scale whose only purpose is to keep the powers-that-be permanently (and profitably) employed.

Case in point: the FBI.

The government’s henchmen have become the embodiment of how power, once acquired, can be so easily corrupted and abused. Indeed, far from being tough on crime, FBI agents are also among the nation’s most notorious lawbreakers.

Whether the FBI is planting undercover agents in churches, synagogues and mosques; issuing fake emergency letters to gain access to Americans’ phone records; using intimidation tactics to silence Americans who are critical of the government, or persuading impressionable individuals to plot acts of terror and then entrapping them, the overall impression of the nation’s secret police force is that of a well-dressed thug, flexing its muscles and doing the boss’ dirty work.

The FBI has been particularly criticized for targeting vulnerable individuals and not only luring them into fake terror plots but actually equipping them with the organization, money, weapons and motivation to carry out the plots—entrapment—and then jailing them for their so-called terrorist plotting. This is what the FBI characterizes as “forward leaning—preventative—prosecutions.”

This is the government’s answer to precrime: first, foster activism by stoking feelings of outrage and injustice by way of secret agents and informants; second, recruit activists to carry out a plot (secretly concocted by the government) to challenge what they see as government corruption; and finally, arrest those activists for conspiring against the government before they can actually commit a crime.

This is the danger of allowing the government to carry out widespread surveillance, sting and entrapment operations using dubious tactics that sidestep the rule of law: “we the people” become suspects and potential criminals, while government agents, empowered to fight crime using all means at their disposal, become indistinguishable from the corrupt forces they seek to vanquish.

To go after terrorists, they become terrorists. To go after drug smugglers, they become drug smugglers. To go after thieves, they become thieves.

It’s hard to say whether we’re dealing with a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves), a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that pander to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens), or if we’ve gone straight to an idiocracy.

This certainly isn’t a constitutional democracy, however.

Some days, it feels like the FBI is running its own crime syndicate complete with mob rule and mafia-style justice.

In addition to creating certain crimes in order to then “solve” them, the FBI also gives certain informants permission to break the law, “including everything from buying and selling illegal drugs to bribing government officials and plotting robberies,” in exchange for their cooperation on other fronts. USA Today estimates that FBI agents have authorized criminal informants to engage in as many as 15 crimes a day (5,600 crimes a year).

In addition to procedural misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, the FBI’s laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, and harassment.

To those familiar with COINTELPRO, an FBI program created to “disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and neutralize” groups and individuals the government considers politically objectionable, it should come as no surprise that the agency has mastered the art of government disinformation. For example, the Associated Press lodged a complaint with the Dept. of Justice after learning that FBI agents created a fake AP news story and emailed it, along with a clickable link, to a bomb threat suspect in order to implant tracking technology onto his computer and identify his location.

The FBI has also repeatedly sought to expand its invasive hacking powers to allow agents to hack into any computer, anywhere in the world.

Indeed, for years now, the U.S. government has been creating what one intelligence insider referred to as a cyber-army capable of offensive attacks. As part of this cyberweapons program, government agencies have been stockpiling all kinds of nasty malware, viruses and hacking tools that can “steal financial account passwords, turn an iPhone into a listening device, or, in the case of Stuxnet, sabotage a nuclear facility.”

We’re the ones to suffer the consequences when these government programs get sabotaged, which they inevitably do.

It always follows the same script: the government creates a menace—knowing full well the ramifications such a danger might pose to the public—then without ever owning up to the part it played in unleashing that particular menace on an unsuspecting populace, it demands additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threat.

Unfortunately, “we the people” are the ones who keep reaping what the government sows.

We’re the ones who suffer every time, directly and indirectly, from the blowback.

As I point out Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

The powers-that-be are not acting in our best interests.

“We the people” are not free.

The government is not our friend.

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

June 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

End the Draft Permanently

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | June 17, 2021

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider a challenge to the all-male draft. The plaintiffs in the case argued that excluding women from the draft was unconstitutional. Apparently the Court is simply letting Congress decide the issue. 

I’ve got an idea — an idea grounded in freedom. How about abolishing the draft — and, of course, draft registration? In fact, better yet, how about enacting a constitutional amendment prohibiting the draft from ever being enacted again?

Young people might think the matter is irrelevant, given that there hasn’t been conscription since the Vietnam War. That is naive, wishful, and dangerous thinking. Every 18-year-old male is required, on pain of a felony conviction, to register for the draft. The reason? Because in the event of some major foreign war, make no mistake about it: The Pentagon will not hesitate to restore the draft because it will need soldiers to fight, kill, and die. Young men — and also most likely young women — will begin receiving draft notices ordering them to report to military facilities for training and “service” to “their country.”

The fact that the national-security establishment continues doing everything it can to gin up such a war — like with Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea — makes the the possibility of a draft even more likely. And once it happens, there is little anyone will be able to do to stop it. In fact, in the event of another major foreign war, I wouldn’t be surprised if they started jailing people for just challenging the draft, as U.S. officials did in World War I.

There is no way to reconcile conscription with the principles of a genuinely free society. Either people are the masters of their own lives or the government is their master. It’s one or the other.

With conscription, the government wields the power to order a person to leave his family and his regular life and report to a government facility to serve the state. That is the opposite of freedom. In a genuinely free society, a person has the right to live his life the way he wants — free of governmental interference, so long as his conduct is peaceful and non-fraudulent.

In fact, there is actually no difference between slavery and conscription. Under slavery, a person is being force to serve his master. That’s what conscription is based on. It’s a system in which the individual is being forced to serve his master, with the master being the federal government, and specifically the Pentagon.

Under 19th-century slavery in America, the slave’s service usually consisted of work on a plantation. Under conscription, the work consists of military training on a Pentagon-run facility and then killing, maiming, or torturing people on orders in some faraway land. But that’s just a distinction without a difference. What matters is that under both systems, the individual is being forced to serve his master. 

Proponents of the draft say that sometimes it is necessary to force people to fight for “freedom.” But that’s ridiculous because if you have a system where the government can conscript people, you no longer have a free society. Freedom has been destroyed in the name of protecting freedom. 

Moreover, when you have a genuinely free society, you don’t need to force people to fight for their freedom. A free people will fight vociferously to protect their freedom. In fact, foreign regimes that attack and invade a genuinely free society soon find that they have swallowed a porcupine. 

The problem is that the U.S. government wages foreign wars — that is, wars in faraway lands, where no foreign regime has attacked or invaded the United States. In those wars, many Americans aren’t interested in giving up their lives to fight the “enemy.” World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam come to mind.

In every one of those wars, Americans had to be forced to go fight, kill, and die. Oh, yes, they were all told that they were fighting for their “freedom,” but that was palpable nonsense. 

If any of the enemies in those wars were really invading the United States, there would have been more than enough Americans ready and willing to defend their country, their lives, and their freedom. No one would have had to have been forced to fight.

Yes, I know, in World War II Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. But my hunch is that many Americans realized that President Roosevelt had manipulated Japan into attacking in order to circumvent widespread American opposition to entry into the war. Moreover, many Americans realized that Japan never intended to invade and take over the United States, Instead, it was simply trying to knock out the Pacific fleet to give Japan a free hand to secure oil in the Dutch East Indies, as a way to overcome FDR’s pre-war oil embargo on Japan. Moreover, if FDR had not been successful in maneuvering Japan into “firing the first shot,” Germany would not have declared war on the United States.

If you’ve never read the essay “Conscription” by Daniel Webster, I highly recommend it:

Today, the American people have a unique opportunity to lead the world to a genuinely free society. A great place to begin would be a constitutional amendment, modeled after the 13th Amendment, that prohibits conscription forever. 

June 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Putin Lashes Out at US Regime After Meeting with Biden

teleSUR – June 16, 2021

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday lashed out at the United States on arms control, human rights, cyber-attacks, among other issues, after meeting with his U.S. counterpart Joe Biden.

“The West believes that the Russian policy is unpredictable. Well, let me reciprocate. The U.S. withdrawal from the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty in 2002 wasn’t predictable,” Putin said at a solo press conference.

He criticized the U.S. on human rights, citing U.S. attacks in Afghanistan and the existence of the Guantanamo Bay prison.

“One single strike can kill … (about) 120 people. All right, assuming this was a mistake that happens in a war, but shooting from a drone, (at) an unarmed crowd, clearly the civilian crowd, what is this about? How would you call that? And who’s responsible for this?” said Putin.

“And how would you call this person? Who is the killer now?” he asked.

On Cyberattacks, Putin said that it is of vital importance globally, “for the United States in particular, and for Russia as well in the same volume.”

Putin noted that his country has not yet received any response from the U.S. on Russia’s request regarding cyber-attacks this year.

The White House on Wednesday posted on its website a U.S.-Russia Presidential Joint Statement on Strategic Stability.

The statement said that the two heads of state noted that the two countries “have demonstrated that, even in periods of tension, they are able to make progress on our shared goals of ensuring predictability in the strategic sphere, reducing the risk of armed conflicts and the threat of nuclear war.”

“The recent extension of the New START Treaty exemplifies our commitment to nuclear arms control. Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” said the statement.

The summit between Putin and Biden officially kicked off here Wednesday afternoon, the first of its kind since Biden took office in January 2021.

June 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Leaked tapes reveal Bolivian coup regime had plot to overturn 2020 election loss with US mercenary help

RT | June 17, 2021

Top cabinet officials in the caretaker government of Jeanine Anez plotted a second coup to stay in power in Bolivia, according to leaked documents. The plan allegedly involved hundreds of US mercenaries flown in from Florida.

Anez took power in Bolivia in November 2019, after mass protests backed by the country’s military and police forced Evo Morales to flee from the country rather than continue governing for a fourth presidential term after winning elections. The protests were triggered by claims of election fraud, which were promoted by the Organization of American States and were later proven to be groundless.

The new government used force to suppress dissenting people from Morales’ left-wing Movement towards Socialism (MAS) party and made a sharp right-wing turn. It also repeatedly delayed holding a new election, which was supposed to be the primary goal of Anez’ caretaker presidency.

Pressured by mass protests, she eventually agreed to hold the ballot last fall. MAS candidate Luis Arce, who served as Morales’ economy minister, won it in a landslide, avoiding a second round by getting 55.1% of the vote. Anez herself came a distant fourth.

As Arce was celebrating his victory, Anez and her ministers were plotting a second coup, which would allow them to overturn the will of the Bolivian people, the Intercept reported on Thursday, citing records of conversations and email exchanges detailing the conspiracy.

The key figures in the plan were Luis Fernando Lopez, who served as Anez’ defense minister, and Joe Pereira, a former civilian administrator with the US Army, according to the report. Pereira was supposed to recruit mercenaries in the US and help fly them to Bolivia. There they would join forces with elite military troops from the Bolivian army, police units and right-wing vigilante mobs to quash MAS supporters.

“I can get up to 10,000 men with no problem” Pereira bragged in one alleged conversation. “All special forces. I can also bring about 350 what we call LEPs, Law Enforcement Professionals, to guide the police.”

“If there’s something else I need, I will have them fly in as undercover, like if they were photographers, they were pastors, they were medics, they were tourists.”

The number of troops appears to be a boast on Pereira’s part. One of the US-based recruiters he turned to for help told the Intercept that one “couldn’t get 10,000 people even if Blackwater was back in business and going back to Iraq.” But email exchanges indicate the planning was in an advanced stage and that at least 250 contractors were ready to take part in the ‘Bolivia project’, before it was called off.

On the Bolivian side, officials had three Hercules C-130 transport aircraft that could airlift the hired guns and their weapons from the US. Pereira said he wanted to “pick up personnel in Southern Command in Homestead Air Force Base in Miami.” Two US military sources told the Intercept that the US Special Operations command was aware of the coup plot, but one source said that “no one really took them seriously.”

Some details of the conversations matched very closely the claims that Morales made in early November. He accused General Sergio Orellana, who was appointed commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces by Anez, of pressuring other top military officers into launching a military junta to prevent an Acre presidency. Lopez assured co-conspirators that Orellana was ready to initiate “the military operation” against MAS.

The plans were never put into action. Lopez apparently couldn’t secure support of enough military commanders and had a falling out with then-Interior Minister Arturo Murillo, who was in charge of the police. General Orellana and both ministers were among members of the Anez administration who fled Bolivia after Arce’s victory and before his inauguration.

Murillo was arrested by the FBI last month. He is suspected of taking a bribe to sign a contract for supply of tear gas from a Florida-based firm at an inflated price.

Anez was arrested and charged with crimes related to how she took power in Bolivia. Pereira is likewise held in a Bolivian jail awaiting trial on fraud charges.

The Intercept believes it was highly unlikely that the plot had some tacit approval or support of the US government. It seems closer in nature to the attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government, which involved the private security company Silvercorp USA.

The incursion of US mercenaries, which took place in May 2020, ended in a humiliating failure and was dismissively dubbed by some media ‘Bay of Piglets invasion’, referring to the CIA-baked failed invasion of Cuba in 1961.

June 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

FBI Operatives Likely ‘Unindicted Co-Conspirators’, Organizers Of Capitol Riot: Report

By Tyler Durden – Zero Hedge – June 16, 2021

Tucker Carlson dropped several bombshells on his show Tuesday night, chief among them was from a Revolver News report that the FBI was likely involved in organizing the Jan. 6 Capitol ‘insurrection,’ and were similarly involved in the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchin Whitmer.

“Why are there so many factual matters that we don’t understand about that day?” asked Carlson.

Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the US capitol on January 6th? What could possibly be the reason for that – even as they call for more openness… they could release those tapes today, but they’re not. Why?”

Carlson notes that Revolver News has dissected court filings surrounding the Capitol riot, suggests that unindicted co-conspirators in the case are likely to have been federal operatives.

We at Revolver News have noticed a pattern from our now months-long investigation into 1/6 — and in particular from our meticulous study of the charging documents related to those indicted. In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called “conspiracy” serving as the basis for charging those indicted.

The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency.

Key segment from Tucker:

“We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers that were present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one that killed Ashli Babbitt. According to the government’s own court filing, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot – sometimes in violent ways. We know that because without fail, the government has thrown the book at most people who were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. There was a nationwide dragnet to find them – and many are still in solitary confinement tonight. But strangely, some of the key people who participated on Jan. 6 have not been charged.”

Look at the documents, the government calls those people ‘unindicted co-conspirators.’ What does that mean? Well it means that in potentially every case they were FBI operatives… in the Capitol, on January 6th.”

“For example, one of those unindicted co-conspirators is someone government documents identify only as “person two.” According to those documents, person two stayed in the same hotel room as a man called Thomas Caldwell – an ‘insurrectionist.’ A man alleged to be a member of the group “The Oathkeepers.” Person two also “stormed the barricades” at the Capitol on January 6th alongside Thomas Caldwell. The government’s indictments further indicate that Caldwell – who by the way is a 65-year-old man… was led to believe there would be a “quick reaction force” also participating on January 6th. That quick reaction force Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called “Person 3,” who had a hotel room and an accomplice with them. But wait. Here’s the interesting thing. Person 2 and person 3 were organizers of the riot. The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them. Why is that? You know why. They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th according to government documents. And those two are not alone. In all, Revolver news reported there are “upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities and in some cases much, much more severe activities – as those named alongside them in the indictments.”

Watch:

https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1404984630160203781?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1404985019420987398%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ffbi-operatives-were-unindicted-co-conspirators-organizers-capitol-riot-report

Revolver, meanwhile, has important questions about January 6th

  • In the year leading up to 1/6 and during 1/6 itself, to what extent were the three primary militia groups (the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters) that the FBI, DOJ, Pentagon and network news have labeled most responsible for planning and executing a Capitol attack on 1/6 infiltrated by agencies of the federal government, or informants of said agencies?
  • Exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous “siege” and what roles did they play (merely passive informants or active instigators)?
  • Finally, of all of the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the charging documents of those indicted for crimes on 1/6, how many worked as a confidential informant or as an undercover operative for the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, etc.)?

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has demanded an explanation from FBI Director Christopher Wray:

More:

We recommend you read the entire Revolver piece, which includes the fact that at least five individuals involved in the “Whitmer Kidnapping Plot” were undercover agents and federal informants.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Video | , | Leave a comment

The EEOC Did NOT Say Federal Law Permits Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine

Informed Consent Action Network | June 16, 2021

In the article, “Can employers require workers to get the COVID vaccine?”, Bailey Aldridge claims that, given the updated rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “your employer can require you to get a COVID vaccine.”   Aldridge even claims that “The EEOC says there are no federal laws that prevent an employer from requiring employees who are physically in the workplace to get the COVID-19 vaccine.”

The EEOC’s guidance, however, does not claim that an employer can legally require an emergency use COVID-19 vaccine. The EEOC guidance merely states that the “federal EEO [Equal Employment Opportunity] laws do not prevent an employer from requiring” an emergency authorized COVID-19 vaccine. That is not surprising because the EEO laws apply only to discrimination based on certain protected classes, such as race, religion and national origin.

Federal law is, of course, far broader than the narrow EEO laws. In recognizing that there are other federal laws that do prohibit an employer from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine, the EEOC’s guidance also states that, “These three vaccines were granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) by the FDA” and that, “It is beyond the EEOC’s jurisdiction to discuss the legal implications of EUA or the FDA approach.”

When one reviews the FDA’s EUA and its approved labeling, a.k.a. “fact sheets,” for each COVID-19 vaccine, they each clearly provide that: “It is [the vaccine recipient’s] choice to receive or not receive the COVID-19 Vaccine.”  The reason each fact sheet includes this language is because the same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant an EUA also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

That same section of the Act also authorized the Secretary, and only the Secretary, to provide the “consequences” for refusing to receive an EUA product and the EUAs for each COVID-19 vaccine do not include permission to terminate an employee for refusing the vaccine.

ICAN hopes that the Department of Justice will do its job and enforce the federal law prohibiting mandating an EUA vaccine and will continue to push it to enforce this important law.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »