The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 7 will convene a special session to hear oral arguments in two cases related to the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates.
The two cases pertain to the mandates imposed on private businesses with 100 or more employees, and healthcare facilities participating in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
The Supreme Court announced Dec. 22, 2021, it would hold a special session to hear both cases, following a series of decisions in lower courts that successively implemented and lifted injunctions against the two mandates.
In both disputes, the formal legal question at hand pertains to whether the federal government can continue enforcing the mandates while legal challenges against them work their way through the judicial system.
In the first instance, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling Dec. 17, 2021, lifted an injunction against Biden’s vaccine mandate for private businesses previously issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The mandate is now set to come into force on Jan. 4, though the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it will not begin enforcement of the rule until Jan. 10. The mandate, if and when it is enforced, will impact an estimated 84 million U.S. workers.
Two of these requests, one filed by a trade group and the other by a group of states led by Ohio, were formally accepted for oral argument.
These groups were joined by more than 170 Republican lawmakers who on Dec. 30, 2021, jointly filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing OSHA has no legal authority to impose a vaccine mandate on private businesses.
The Supreme Court, via Justice Brett Kavanaugh — whose jurisdiction includes the 6th Circuit — asked the Biden administration to submit a response to the legal challenges by Dec. 30, 2021.
In its response, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued the Biden administration possesses the authority, under federal law, to impose the mandate and the Supreme Court should not block a program that will save thousands of lives.
The Supreme Court will also hear arguments pertaining to Biden’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers at facilities that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding. This rule is estimated to impact more than 17 million workers across the U.S.
In this instance, it was the Biden administration that filed an emergency request with the court, requesting it be allowed to temporarily enforce the healthcare worker mandate, which is currently blocked in 24 states following a series of injunctions issued by lower courts.
A brief filed with the Supreme Court by 14 Republican-led states described the mandate as “plainly unlawful.”
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service, which oversees the healthcare mandate, announced Dec. 29, 2021, it will begin enforcing the mandate in the 26 states where it is not blocked.
A modified enforcement timeline accompanied this announcement: Healthcare workers will now be required to receive the first dose of a COVID vaccine by Jan. 27, and the second dose by Feb. 28.
The Supreme Court’s move to hold oral arguments in deciding whether or not to issue an emergency stay is considered unusual. Typically, such cases are placed on the “shadow docket” and are decided without a full briefing or a presentation of oral arguments.
In this instance though, the Supreme Court may seek to alleviate the uncertainty which exists among employers and workers who remain unsure as to whether they are subject to a mandate or not.
It remains unclear whether a decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the injunctions against the healthcare worker mandate will impact all 50 states or only the 24 where the mandate is currently blocked.
Any emergency stay issued by the Supreme Court would not constitute a final ruling regarding either case, but would freeze the enforcement of the two mandates until legal challenges make their way through the federal appeals courts before, most likely, ending up in the Supreme Court for a full hearing.
Separate Biden administration mandates pertaining to such categories as federal contractors and military personnel also have been challenged legally.
In the most recent such example, Judge James “Wesley” Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled against a mask and vaccine mandate for participants in federal Head Start programs. The rules were set to take effect by the end of January.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton described the ruling as “a win for the children of Texas.”
However, the Supreme Court will not examine any of these other Biden administration mandates in the Jan. 7 special session.
While the Supreme Court previously rejected requests for emergency stays against state-level vaccine mandates, the court is also viewed as one that is skeptical of the power of federal agencies to issue mandates relating to COVID countermeasures.
This stance was evident, for instance, when the court lifted a moratorium on evictions imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, on the basis it was outside the agency’s authority.
Notably, a well-known Supreme Court decision from 1905, Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, which, according to proponents of vaccine mandates, sets a legal precedent for their legality, actually pertains to state-level mandates.
This argument was made by the state of Arizona in its lawsuit against the OSHA mandate, as previously reported by The Defender.
The lack of a federal-level precedent may therefore weigh into the justices’ decision.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.
The entire interwebs are ablaze with the term “mass formation psychosis”. Since a smart Ph.D. visited Joe Rogan everyone and their grandmother are now reading up on it, and emitting into the ether how the COVID panic (hysteria) is nothing but a mass psychosis. That is great. Except that it is January freaking 2022.
It has been a psychosis for nearly TWO YEARS now. It has been evident it is nothing but brain rot in the heads of excitable idiots this whole time. Aleksandr Lukashenko, a Belarusian potato farmer, and a much less educated man than Dr. Robert Malone, diagnosed it as a “psychosis” and an “info-demic” way back in March 2020.
“Despite some criticism on my part, I call this coronavirus nothing other than a psychosis, and I will never deny that, because I’ve gone through many situations of psychosis together with you, and we know what the results were.
“Coronavirus is yet another psychosis, which will benefit some people and will harm others.”
Doesn’t it seem to you that the powerful forces of the world would like to remake the world, without a ‘war’(Emmanuel Macron has already called it a war), through this so-called ‘corona-psychosis’, or ‘info-demic’? Many people are asking: ‘what will happen after the pandemic?’”
Some need the permission of a PhD to start thinking, preferably a PhD they saw on a massive media outlet like Rogan.* Others, like Lukashenko have their common sense.
*Who is on record as saying that without lockdowns you would have had more COVID deaths.
With over 1,200 daily COVID deaths for many weeks the US is on track to reach a total of one million COVID related deaths by the end of March. A shameful record for 2022.
To think that every week over 8,000 Americans are dying, mostly in hospital ICUs is unbelievable. But that is no excuse that there is no serious attention by the mainstream media. Take a moment to reflect that this is more deaths than those in the 9/11 attacks and Pearl Harbor, combined. And it is happening every week.
The late stage problem
Hospitals have become killing machines, places where the kiss of death is a protocol following government guidelines. Despite wide COVID vaccine use deaths in hospitals because of late stage viral infection remain at a high level. Difficulty in getting COVID testing quickly and often probably contributes to the high death rate. Too many people do not get their COVID infection addressed early. There remains too little use of monoclonal antibodies early for infected people. So their infection progresses to serious lung and breathing problems. That is the beginning of the end.
And it will be a long time before the new antiviral drugs from Pfizer and Merck are broadly available and there will be more information on whether they are really safe and effective for all diverse types of people.
In hospitals, patients with breathing problems and upper respiratory distress are giving medical actions that may address pain but inevitably lead to death, often after many weeks in the ICU. They get the useless and harmful drug remdesivir, supplemental oxygen, steroids, and are intubated, put on a ventilator and usually put into a coma. And eventually they die and become another COVID statistic.
It has been reported that the death rate for COVID patients prescribed remdesivir (26%) exceeds the fatality rate of COVID patients prescribed ivermectin, which is recorded by the Medicare database at 7.2%. And it has documented serious side effects.
In a few successful court actions, such late stage COVID patients were given the cheap, safe generic IVM and – much to the astonishment of hospital doctors – have walked out of the hospital, completely recovered.
And there is considerable medical research literature supporting such use of IVM, principally because of its anti-inflammatory property. As just one example, a published medical 2021 hospital study found nearly a 50% reduction in deaths for patients with severe pulmonary involvement, the typical late stage COVID death-bed patient condition. The many doubters of IVM should pay more attention to the medical science literature.
But published medical articles are ignored by the medical and public health establishments.
Hospital shame
Hospitals stubbornly refuse to honor the few court decisions directing them to give death-bed late COVID stage patients a chance of surviving by administering ivermectin. Hospitals use an army of lawyers and every dirty legal trick to overturn or delay those few court decisions that reach the sensible conclusion that there is nothing to lose by using ivermectin.
Indeed, here is the ugly truth: Hospital protocols for late stage COVID patients have nearly a one hundred percent record of failure. Their patients suffer and then die. Families desperate to get ivermectin used usually fail and watch their loved ones die.
This is a medical disgrace. This is the power of corporate medicine. This situation exemplifies the loss of medical freedom. This is the epitome of medical tyranny. This is a total loss of medical ethics. This is an extreme example of doctors failing to live up to their Hippocratic Oath. They follow hospital rules and let their patients die without trying what has a medical justification. Without doing what other doctors have successfully done.
Apparently, that weekly death total is not enough to push hospitals and doctors to use what several nations have used to curb the COVID pandemic and save many millions of lives.
Hospital care arguments
Consider this paradox and hypocrisy. Virtually all hospitals put a priority on patient centered care. Patient-centered care focuses on the patient and the individual’s particular health care needs. The goal of patient-centered health care is to empower patients to become active participants in their care.
Clearly, denying patient and family pleas for using ivermectin for people facing death is totally inconsistent with this philosophy and hospital commitment.
Add to all this that demanding all patients use a one-size-fits-all medical treatment or hospital protocol is also counter to personalized medicine, long the hallmark of medicine. Doctors need the freedom to use what suits their patient rather than what the government dictates or accepting what it withholds.
Court actions to get hospitals allowing IVM use might be more successful if both patient centered care and personalized medicine arguments were presented to judges.
Conclusions
Time to let those who want to use ivermectin in an attempt to save their life get it. It is medically and morally the right thing to do.
With now a long record of hospital protocols for late stage COVID utterly failing to save lives, how can the medical profession justify not using a generic medicine that both research and clinical results justify and explain its ability to save lives?
They cannot.
Families trying to find a lawyer and a friendly court face a very, very difficult race to save their loved one stuck in the ICU just like a prisoner sentenced to death.
Is it COVID killing these people or the medical profession and their hospital employers? Worth pondering as you keep watching mounting COVID death numbers.
A seasoned stock analyst colleague texted me a link today, and when I clicked it open, I could hardly believe what I was reading. What a headline. “Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”. This headline is a nuclear truth bomb masquerading as an insurance agent’s dry manila envelope full of actuarial tables.
People frequently write to Jill and myself. People we have never met. They call, they arrive at the farm by appointment or unannounced, they fill our email in boxes with their inquiries. They all want something; time, attention, an interview. Many want to tell us about their fear, illness, nightmares, or (what often seems like) outright paranoid conspiracies. And then, over time, these fears and “conspiracies” keep getting confirmed. As Jan Jekielek (a senior editor with The Epoch Times) recently said to me, it is getting harder and harder to tell which ones are mere conspiracy theories and which are true reality.
One farm visitor told me of his foreshadowing massive numbers of deaths within three years consequent to the genetic vaccines, and that this was all about the “Great Reset” and the depopulation agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF). I tried to reassure him that, in my opinion, this was highly unlikely- while privately thinking about how easily people fall into this type of conspiracy ideation, and how I need to be careful to avoid going there when confronting so many public health decisions that appear either incompetent or nefarious. At the time, I only knew of the WEF as the host of a big annual party in Davos Switzerland where the uber rich and the hoi oligoi of the Western nations went to watch Ted talks, drink the best wine, see and be seen. Silly me. What a long, strange trip this has been. I doubt that even Hunter S. Thompson could have imagined it in his most drug and booze addled state. Suffice to say, I nominate Ralph Steadman as official illustrator of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Or a resurrected Hieronymus Bosch.
But I am wandering from a point that I am afraid to clearly state.
It is starting to look to me like the largest experiment on human beings in recorded history has failed. And, if this rather dry report from a senior Indiana life insurance executive holds true, then Reiner Fuellmich’s “Crimes against Humanity” push for convening new Nuremberg trials starts to look a lot less quixotic and a lot more prophetic.
Here is what lit me up in this report from The Center Square contributor Margaret Menge.
“The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.
“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”
OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.
Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.
“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.””
So, what is driving this unprecedented surge in all-cause mortality?
“Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths,
Davison said.“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.””
AT A MINIMUM, based on my reading, one has to conclude that if this report holds and is confirmed by others in the dry world of life insurance actuaries, we have both a huge human tragedy and a profound public policy failure of the US Government and US HHS system to serve and protect the citizens that pay for this “service”.
IF this holds true, then the genetic vaccines so aggressively promoted have failed, and the clear federal campaign to prevent early treatment with lifesaving drugs has contributed to a massive, avoidable loss of life.
AT WORST, this report implies that the federal workplace vaccine mandates have driven what appear to be a true crime against humanity. Massive loss of life in (presumably) workers that have been forced to accept a toxic vaccine at higher frequency relative to the general population of Indiana.
FURTHERMORE, we have also been living through the most massive, globally coordinated propaganda and censorship campaign in the history of the human race. All major mass media and the social media technology companies have coordinated to stifle and suppress any discussion of the risks of the genetic vaccines AND/OR alternative early treatments.
IF this report holds true, there must be accountability. We are not just talking about running over the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and grinding it into the mud with an army of artificial intelligence-powered heavy infantry. This article reads like a dry description of an avoidable mass casualty event caused by a mandated experimental medical procedure. One for which all opportunities for the victims to have become self-informed about the potential risks have been methodically erased from both the internet and public awareness by an international corrupt cabal operating under the flag of the “Trusted News Initiative”. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.
There seems to be little effort to hide the fact that the Biden Administration does not plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison in his first term as he once declared. That pledge is but a whisper on the wind, much like the promises made by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. According to a recent New York Timesreport by Carol Rosenberg, who has been been covering the infamous GTMO for the 20 years since it opened, the military is building a new, secret courtroom on the premises — which won’t be completed until 2023.
It’s hard to say what is the most disturbing thread in her report, which came out right before the New Year and of course made no waves. (It must be quite difficult to dedicate one’s journalistic career to an issue that most Americans have lost all interest in. The torture and detention of other human beings without charge appeared to go out with the government spying illegally on Americans — no one seems to care) According to Rosenberg, the military is building a second courtroom to handle more than one case simultaneously, as the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks is still going on. That sort of sounds legit considering there are five others at the prison today charged and awaiting trials, too. However, she points out, this new courtroom will have no gallery for visitors, with proceedings broadcast for journalists and observers on closed circuit with a 40 second delay in a remote room so judges can cut off anything “classified” said during trials:
Only people with a secret clearance, such as members of the intelligence community and specially cleared guards and lawyers, will be allowed inside the new chamber.
As a workaround, the court staff is designing a “virtual gallery with multiple camera angles simultaneously displayed,” said Ron Flesvig, a spokesman for the Office of Military Commissions. The public would be escorted there to watch the proceedings, streamed on a 40-second delay.
During recesses in the current courtroom, lawyers and other court participants often engage with reporters and relatives of victims of terror attacks, routine contact that would be lost with the “virtual gallery.” So would the ability for a sketch artist to observe the proceedings live.
“I’ve observed trial proceedings in person at Guantánamo. The chipper ‘secrecy’ imposed by the military is insulting, anti-democratic, and cowardly,” tweeted Michael Bronner, producer of the 2021 film The Mauritanian, which portrays the plight of GTMO detainee Mohamedou Ould Slahi (incidentally, the former 14-year prisoner spoke at a special Quincy Institute panel on June 8 on the subject of the facility’s closure). “The entire enterprise makes a mockery out of what the US pretends to stand for,” added Bronner.
Rosenberg said this was the latest in a serious of moves to make the court and the prison itself less transparent to the public:
For example, for 17 years the military routinely took visiting journalists to the detention facilities where most captives are kept, but required them to delete photographs that showed cameras, gates and other security procedures. Then, the military undertook a consolidation that moved Mr. (Khalid Sheikh) Mohammed and other detainees who were held by the C.I.A. from a secret site to the maximum-security portion of those once showcase facilities — and declared the entire detention zone off limits to journalists.
Their empty, formerly C.I.A.-controlled prison is off limits to reporters too. Defense lawyers who are seeking a preservation order on the site describe it as a rapidly deteriorating facility that was clearly unfit for the prisoners and their guards. One military lawyer who visited there recently described carcasses of dead tarantulas in the empty cellblocks.
The other obvious disturbing angle is that despite earlier reports that the Biden Administration was “quietly moving to close the prison,” Rosenberg’s report indicates no such thing. Either they have hit a brick wall with Congress and/or those efforts have been suspended, but as I wrote in October, even those prisoners cleared for release have zero-to-no chance of getting out anytime soon. Currently there are 27 men at the scrubby island base who are not charged with any crime and/or awaiting repatriation (compared to the 10 awaiting trail and two already convicted). The administration and military rules have made it virtually impossible for the men who have been cleared to be placed in another country at this point.
To be fair, Congress has shown no willingness to budge on the issue of trying the charged in federal courts, even though we know they would be just as secure, cost the taxpayer less, and adjudicate faster. However, that does not explain why they are making it less transparent, and why there has been no progress on resolving the abomination of keeping 27 souls locked away indefinitely without charge. The administration points to the elaborate legal process set up by the military tribunal system, but that is not enough. Moral courage is in order here, and it seems this administration has as much as any of its predecessors in this regard. Very little.
Any pretext or none at all unjustifiably justifies Israeli aggression against blockaded/defenseless Gazans.
At its discretion, the apartheid state bombs, shells, invades, and otherwise immiserates long-suffering Strip residents.
Despite Israeli state terror repeating with disturbing regularity, the world community yawns and ignores its worst crimes of war and against humanity against Palestinians for the “crime” of not being Jewish.
NGO Gisha supports enforcement of the rule of law and free movement of Palestinians — especially illegally blockaded Gazans, explaining the following:
Since Israel illegally occupied the West Bank and Gaza with intent to steal and develop Palestinian land for exclusive Jewish use, its ruling regimes instituted “a complex system of rules (and) restrictions” in flagrant breach of international law.
Fundamental rights of Palestinians — especially Gazans — are consistently and repeatedly violated.
Israeli regimes deny them “the right to life, the right to access medical care, the right to education, the right to livelihood, the right to family unity and the right to freedom of religion.”
Gisha’s website explains the following:
For nearly 15 years under illegal Jewish state blockade, Gazans suffer from oppressively “high unemployment, long blackouts, and severe shortages of clean water.”
Their basic rights Gazans are denied — with no world community to help reverse what no one should have to tolerate.
“Electricity is only available for about half the day” — on some days for a few hours alone or none at all.
The vast majority of Gazans have no access to clean water.
“More than 70% of Gaza’s population relies on humanitarian aid to meet basic needs.”
“The vast majority of residents do not meet Israel’s (apartheid) criteria for travel permits.”
They have little or no chance to leave the Strip for employment, education, medical care unavailable to them under blockade,
“or to visit or reunite with family members living in Israel, the West Bank, and abroad.”
Israel blocks free land, sea and air movement to or from the Strip.
It “oversees entry of goods into Gaza… demands to know (what) they’re intended for, (who’ll) receive them, and who paid for them.”
Its ruling regimes decide “what goods produced in Gaza can be sold outside the Strip, how much, when and where.”
They also decide how much electricity the Strip is allowed to have — reducing or cutting it off entirely at its discretion.
They repeatedly close “Gaza’s crossings and den(y) access to its sea space as a means of punishing and pressuring the population.”
At all times, Israel enforces severe restrictions on the movement of goods and people.
It “blocks access to opportunities, prevents economic development, and violates basic human rights.”
B’Tselem said Gazans endure made-in-Israel “humanitarian crisis” conditions at all times.
Its ruling regimes “sentenced” two millions Gazans “to a life of abject poverty and… inhuman conditions.”
They control “critical aspects of life” in the blockaded Strip.
“Isolating Gaza from the rest of the world, including separating it from the West Bank,” is part of a longstanding Israeli policy.
What began in the 1990s has grown more oppressive since that time for invented reasons.
Two million Gazans are virtually held captive in the world’s largest open-air prison.
Over 80% of Gazans need humanitarian aid to survive.
Even with what Israel allows into the Strip, nearly two-thirds of its people are food insecure — unsure where their next meal is coming from.
Gazan infrastructure and public services are bare-bones.
Over 95% of Strip water is contaminated and unpotable.
What’s considered normal in Israel and the West is nonexistent in Gaza.
At its discretion for invented reasons, Israel wages war on Gaza.
Any time for any reason or none at all, it terror-bombs, shells, or otherwise strikes Strip targets — including residential buildings, schools, hospitals, mosques, and shops.
Free-fire policy lets IDF soldiers shoot Gazan children, farmers in their fields, and other Strip residents for target practice.
Blockades are acts of war by other means, Law Professor Francis Boyle explained — “because of the(ir) belligerent use of force…”
Gazans pose no threat to Israel.
Blockading the Strip is solely for political reasons, not security ones.
On most issues, Al Jazeera’s reports resemble US/Western propaganda — fake news over the real thing.
All things related to Israeli state terror against Palestinians is an exception to its standard practice on most other issues.
On New Year’s eve, Qatar-based Al Jazeera (AJ) spoke to Gazans injured and disabled from Israeli aggression last May.
“The assault… killed at least 260 people, including 39 women and 67 children, and wounded more than 1,900, according to the health ministry in Gaza,” AJ reported, adding:
“The bombardment also destroyed 1,800 residential units and partially demolished at least 14,300 other units.”
Since that time, the Netanyahu and Bennett regimes blocked entry of many reconstruction materials on the phony pretext of alleging their dual use, including for military purposes (sic).
Israeli aggression last May blinded 7-year-old Mohammed Shaban.
His new year’s wish is to see his mother’s face, he said.
Badly damaged by Israeli terror-bombing last May, his eyes couldn’t be saved and were surgically removed.
“I can’t stop crying whenever I see him,” his mother said, adding:
“He keeps asking his siblings, ‘Why can I only see black darkness? Why can’t I go to my school?’ ”
“Last night, he told me: ‘Mum, I wish I could see your face.’ ”
Recently enrolled in a school for visually challenged children, his mother, Somayya Shaban, expects no positive change in the new year.
“I believe Gaza’s destiny is to face more torture and suffering,” she said.
She wishes her son ,Mohammed, could see again. “I wish I could give him my eyes,” she stressed.
Countless thousands of other Gazans were killed, injured or disabled from multiple Israeli wars and other attacks on the Strip since 2008.
On New Year’s weekend, Israel terror-bombed and shelled Strip targets again.
Its latest aggression came in response to two rockets allegedly fired from the Strip on New Year’s day.
Reportedly, they fell harmlessly into offshore waters, harming no one, doing no damage.
According to an IDF statement, no sirens were sounded for Israelis to take cover.
The Bennett regime’s Iron Dome air defense system wasn’t activated.
In its yearend annual report, Israel said only five rockets were fired from the Strip, injuring no one.
According to the Times of Israel (TOI) on Sunday:
IDF “warplanes and helicopters hit (multiple) Hamas targets” overnight — over virtually nothing, TOI left unexplained.
“Palestinian media first reported airstrikes in the southern part of the Strip shortly before midnight” on Saturday.
“Hamas media claimed ‘resistance fighters’ launched ‘experimental rockets’ toward the sea.”
Gaza’s health ministry said three Palestinians were wounded from strikes on northern Strip targets.
How many others may have been injured or killed is unclear as of early Sunday morning — or the extent of damage to Strip targets.
Life in blockaded Gaza is harsh by any standard.
Israeli inflicted misery on Strip residents followed Hamas’ sweeping January 2006 electoral triumph to become historic Palestine’s legitimate government.
At the dawn of a new year, the message of weekend terror-bombing and shelling of the Strip shows that dirty Israeli business as usual continues unchanged.
Two million Gazans are victimized by apartheid ruthlessness — with no end of it in prospect.
The same goes for all occupied Palestinians.
Largely ignored by the world community, the highest of Israeli high crimes of war and against humanity continue to go unpunished.
The same reality applies to US-dominated NATO’s war on humanity at home and abroad.
Ontario’s former privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian has warned that the government cannot be trusted with cellphone tracking amid the pandemic. The warning came after it was revealed last week that a federal agency has been using cellphone data to track the movements of Canadians since the beginning of the pandemic.
“It concerns me enormously that this would enable the government to collect more and more information,” Ann Cavoukian told The Epoch Times.
“I do not want to [see] a trend where the government is consistently doing this and starting now. You can’t trust the government.”
Last week, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) confirmed it has been using cellphone data to analyze movements for the purposes of pandemic policies. The agency plans to continue with the data analysis until 2026, expanding it to other health issues.
“In March 2020, [Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau said that tracking cell phone users was not being considered. Well, they did it, PHAC’s been doing it, and they want to do it even more,” Cavoukian said.
“[Officials] say ‘as soon as the emergency is over, we’re going to return to privacy.’ They don’t. The privacy invasive measures that are introduced during emergencies, pandemics, etc., often continue well after the emergency is over,” she added.
According to the former privacy commissioner, who served from 1997 to 2014, PHAC kept the data collection a secret because “they know people do not want their mobile devices tracked.”
Cavoukian was particularly concerned with the PHAC partnering with other unknown data providers, like the Communications Research Center (CRC).
“In partnership with CRC, PHAC has been producing report summaries to look at how movement trends of the Canadian population have changed over the course of the pandemic, including identifying new patterns to help direct public health messaging, planning and policy development,” PHAC said in a statement to The Epoch Times.
The agency insisted that it did not “receive or collect any individual mobility data” and that it has not stored or acquired individual level data.
On December 16, the PHAC posted a Research for Proposal for a contractor that could “provide it with a steady flow de-identified cell phone data,” reported The Epoch Times.
In a statement, the agency said it “requires access to cell-tower/operator location data that is secure, processed, and timely in addition to being adequately vetted for security, legal, privacy and transparency considerations to assist in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
According to Cavoukian the language in the RFP “reflects an intention to collect this data and retain it.”
She is concerned that the de-identification of data could be done so poorly that it could easily be re-identified.
“At the very least, the Privacy Commissioner’s Office should be all over this, and saying we need to examine exactly what measures you introduced to do this and how you’re going to protect privacy and de-identify data such that it cannot be re-identified,” she said.
“Examine this from end to end. Look under the hood.”
CLIMATE change and coronavirus lockdown policies have diametrically opposite approaches to valuing life in the present and the future, yet they are both enthusiastically endorsed by state bureaucracies around the world, not least in the United Kingdom. Have they something in common in spite of their apparent differences?
Vaccines to protect against Covid-19 have not apparently excused the Prime Minister from his perceived obligation to put most of the population under what is little better than house arrest at the appearance of any variant of the present virus, and it seems inevitable that the British government, acting as a Committee of Public Safety, will immediately resort to this policy in the case of future pandemics. Many of us are struggling to understand how this extraordinarily oppressive state of affairs has come about, and so quickly, and with so little real resistance. Comparison with another risk management policy, climate change mitigation, sheds a little, not very reassuring, light on the matter. Superficially different in character, these two contrasted policies share a common answer to the ever-relevant question, Cui bono? But let us start with the differences.
Climate change policy applies little or no discount to the interests of the infinite future, and so as a consequence gives the interests of the present little or no weight. Those currently alive are asked to make unlimited sacrifices to save an infinitely distant future generation.
Lockdown policy applies a zero discount to a small selection of present interests and thus attempts to prevent death, with only scant regard for the long-term societal damage incurred. The interests of the future are heavily discounted and thus sacrificed to preserve a subsection of the present whose interests are ostensibly given overwhelming privilege.
Neither of these policies is consistent with the way that human beings in actual behavioural fact value their own lives and the lives of others in the present and in the future. This is puzzling since it is not particularly difficult to determine what human beings are maximising through their varied behaviour.
Banal though it may seem, we have no evidence that humans are anything more than straightforward reproductive organisms that value their own lives insofar as they gather resources and secure their reproduction. They do not maximise their individual longevity or their individual hedonic experience, both of which are proxies and not ultimate ends. The only final goal that we can infer from evident human behaviour is the securing of reproduction, bearing in mind that this is achieved through the extended family as well as immediate offspring. This behavioural purpose is so far from transcendent that it will seem to many hardly worthy of the name, but observation has so far indicated no other human goal.
Of course, human behaviour is characterised by balanced self-sacrifice in the interests of offspring, but climate and lockdown policies require unbalanced sacrifices of a kind that men and women do not as a matter of behavioural record spontaneously offer. The policies run against the psychological grain.
Consider the details. The coronavirus lockdown is intended to save human life. But the virus does not, apparently, threaten the young, only the very old who are post-reproductive and in most cases contributing little or perhaps nothing to the wellbeing of their nevertheless much-loved children and grandchildren.
The sacrifice is predominantly required of the young and the active who are still gathering resources to produce and rear families. But lockdowns do indeed harm the life’s work of the old by putting their continued personal existence before the interests of their offspring and extended families, a preference that the old themselves would never express.
Thus, coronavirus lockdown policy frustrates the bedrock of altruism underlying the family, and also burdens the old, against their will, with a terrible responsibility.
Climate policy tends in a different direction. The interests of the infinite future are put before those of everyone or nearly everyone at present living. Great sacrifices must be made in the short run to reduce emissions and protect populations as yet unborn. This is, once again, a decision that actual men and women would never spontaneously make, for if the interests of the present are not sufficiently well served there can be no future generations. Climate preachers urge their congregations to ‘think of the kids’ and not themselves, but the advice is both absurd and redundant. Parents care for their families but must first care for themselves. The pelican certainly tears its breast to feed its young, but it does not start by cutting its own throat.
The rhetoric of climate policy describes present generations as selfish hedonic maximisers who must be compelled to relegate their own experiential hunger to protect the interests of future generations. But, as we have seen, this is false and needless; living generations are already engaged in a balancing of interests to produce and secure the existence of future individuals, far into the future, and they need no pressure from climate policy to think in this selfless way. Indeed, extreme climate policy, and at present we have no other for Net Zero comes in only one flavour, is harmful to the interests of future generations as well as those living because it frustrates precisely those current interests that must be satisfied if there is to be a future generation of human beings.
Both lockdown and climate policies, therefore, suffer from an ostensibly uncompromising and absolutist morality which demands that equal value is put on all human lives regardless of their position in the reproductive trajectory. As a matter of real-world fact, this runs counter to the interests of all parties involved, and, unsurprisingly, is not how men and women behave in practice. Parents must satisfy enough of their own requirements to reproduce and care for their families, but they will not absolutely sacrifice the interests of their descendants to preserve their own lives. The pelican, we have noted, will not cut its own throat, yet, mythically speaking, it most certainly does tear its own breast curtailing its hedonic satisfactions and shortening its life in order to rear its young.
Nonetheless, and contrary to observation, lockdown policy must presume that mature human beings would wish to preserve their individual lives at the cost of sacrificing the future of their offspring, which in fact they do not and would never do.
Climate policy, on the other hand, claims that the living will not willingly sacrifice themselves for a future generation, which as a matter of routine fact they do, though in a necessarily pragmatic way which is incompatible with the extreme action required by the currently predominant low-carbon policies.
Climate mitigation and lockdown policies are not only inconsistent with human wishes and actual behaviour, but they are clearly inconsistent with one another; lockdown policy insisting on the absolute value of some present lives, and climate policy insisting on the absolute value of all future lives. In addition, climate policy suffers from an internal flaw: it threatens future lives by leaving the present unable to raise a viable generation with a secure societal future.
These policies are obviously errors, but are they pure errors, random walks in possibility space that have strayed quite accidentally from the path of practicality? One has to allow that this is a possibility; delusions and mistakes do occur even in minds of the finest quality, and it is possible that both these faulty policies arise from a very widely distributed popular misconception or from an honest administrative error.
But a population-wide delusion does not seem likely. Humans are extremely good at perceiving and acting on their own interest, and they rarely go down the wrong path for long. To err is certainly human; but so is learning from error. A population-wide mistake that endures for long periods has never been observed. Some peoples have been said to try every other available course before doing the right thing, but the joke has its laugh because they do eventually find their way back to the path. Populations may indeed be destroyed by the weight of circumstances, but not by their errors; they do the best they can in the most miserable and constrained of conditions. One thinks of the desperate jeopardy of the Melians.
Pure errors, then, are quickly corrected, but climate policy, at least, has been with us in its present form for some 20 years, and in spite of manifest failures and vast costs appears to be insusceptible to criticism, even when extremely well aimed. It is therefore unlikely to be a pure population-wide error. Some other force accounts for its survival. We cannot be certain if this is also true of lockdown policies, since these are not even two years old, but they are already showing signs of extreme resilience in the face of informed opposition and public resistance. Lockdown may not be a pure populational error either. Perhaps this very ill wind blows good to someone.
If these policies are not pseudoxia epidemica, perhaps they are administrative errors, arising from a deeply rooted governmental misconception? That is not unlikely; civil servants are people and people make mistakes; but unlike people outside the chalk circle of the state apparatus, civil servants are very slow to learn from their mistakes because they are insulated from the consequences of failure. But if this were the case for climate and lockdown policies one might expect them both to possess or to flow from similar logical structures, a departmental or cross-departmental ‘view’ on societal emergencies for example. But as been argued above this does not appear to be true. Indeed, these policies approach discounting in diametrically opposing and contradictory ways, one privileging the present and the other privileging the future. They possess different logical foundations.
It would appear, then, that these policies are not based on pure errors. In which case they must be impure, and instead serve some more or less concealed interest. But whose interest? The ultimate beneficiaries are hardly likely to raise their hands when asked, and they may not even be aware of their involvement. As a little candid introspection will begin to dimly perceive, we all hold some of our vested self-interest in blind and frequently offshore trusts.
But the situation is not hopeless. We can confidently identify the way harm is distributed, and in doing so we will arrive at a common feature in the policies that points us in the direction of those who probably benefit.
Both lockdown and climate policies are to the disadvantage of people who are vigorous, active and present. In the case of lockdown policies, they directly harm anyone not old. Furthermore, they even harm the interests of the old indirectly by compromising the future wellbeing of their offspring and extended families. Climate policies harm anyone alive, with benefits being imagined for the abstract, absent, unborn.
In other words, both policies appear to harm people living, while pretending to act on behalf of a weak and voiceless population, the very old and the as yet unborn.
Thus, at a gross level these policies appear to be universally harmful. But a moment’s reflection will show that the net effect is different. Both sets of policies frustrate the free wishes of a population that seeks to secure its own reproduction through balanced self-sacrifice, and the frustration of such firmly held wishes requires coercive regulation and enforcement, activities that can be delivered only with the sanction of state violence and through the offices of secure and securely remunerated positions within the state and its associated clients. The ultimate net beneficiaries of both lockdown policies and climate policies are state employees and state contractors.
Government policies with contradictory approaches to present and future can occur simultaneously because their ultimate end, the reason that they are preferred over other policies, is to provide plausible justification for coercive intrusion into the lives of the vigorous population. The policies efficiently disarm criticism by claiming to act on behalf of parties that are practically unable to disown and reject the ‘help’ offered to them; the old because they are infirm, and the unborn because they are absent. Because these parties lie at opposite ends of the life-cycle, in the process of justification those responsible for state policy have been compelled to adopt two incompatible discounting models in their rhetoric. The future is seen in different ways because the beating of different dogs calls for different varieties of stick.
But it is the hand wielding those sticks that interests us. The historical record provides ample evidence, quite apart from our own recent experience, to suggest that the administrative opportunities of large societies will create a clerisy which comes to have strong interests that can be in deep and considerable conflict with the wishes of the population it claims to serve. This divergence is on occasion betrayed by the character of the altruism, the public interest, called for by policies such as the public health measures addressing the coronavirus or the emissions reduction strategy employed to mitigate climate change.
This suggests a political litmus test. If any public interest policy is inconsistent with the balanced self-sacrifice of parents, then it is almost certainly exploiting the population to serve the administration and its clients. History suggests that this will not be a stable situation. All normative discounting models, such as those employed explicitly by Lord Stern in his notorious climate review, and implicitly in the current lockdown policies, should be firmly rejected as politically dangerous. Naturalistic models derived from the observed behaviour of the population are to be preferred on all occasions.
And better still, let us dispense with discounting models altogether except as academic descriptive and predictive tools. A free society can confidently rely on the spontaneous judgment of men and women correctly to value the future and the present, themselves and each other, as their intuitions direct them in the expression of familial love and friendship. The outcome will be qualified self-sacrifice and a prosperous society with as long a future as fate permits.
As we come to the end of the second year in Covidia, I reflect on just how much the instigators of the entire scam have managed to reshape reality in an amazingly short timeframe, such that what was considered normal 12 months ago is now considered abnormal, and what was considered abnormal 12 months ago is now seen as normal.
For instance, had one predicted 12 months ago that after “vaccinating” the elderly and those considered vulnerable, which was the “route back to freedom”, the Johnson Regime and countless others around the world would:
Proceed to push the injection onto all adults
Move on to getting it into children
Make thousands jobless who do not wish to partake in the experiment
Begin the introduction of Vaccine Passports
Announce that the allegedly 95% effective products wane so quickly they’ll need to be taken every few months
Start talking about the possibility of mandatory jabs
Reintroduce the restrictions that these injections were supposed to do away with
… why such a person would have been called a Conspiracy Nut. Yet a year later the same person is called a Conspiracy Nut for opposing these very things they got called a Conspiracy Nut for predicting, but which are now reality.
There is something horribly ironic, and also deeply chilling about this. For it shows not only how easily manipulated so many people are, but also just how easy it has been for the Covidian Regimes to reshape reality such that millions have come to accept as normal the very things they would have dismissed just months earlier as the product of deranged minds.
The last two years has felt like people are living in parallel universes, so much so that it’s almost tempting to wonder whether Zuckerberg’s hideous Metaverse is already a thing, with millions having unwittingly entered it in early 2020 without noticing.
In the Metaverse, SARS-CoV-2 is a new Black Death that kills indiscriminately no matter what age. In the real world, it is a virus that has a 99.9% Survivability Rate, and there are effective early treatments available to the 0.1% for whom it might potentially be lethal.
In the Metaverse, Lockdowns of healthy people are how we’ve always dealt with outbreaks of transmissible illnesses. In the real world, other than a hastily ended five-day trial in Mexico during the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak, the quarantining of the healthy has never been done before the Chinese Communist Party implemented it in early 2020, to be copied all over the world by Governments ignoring their own long existing pandemic preparedness plans.
In the Metaverse, masks are about loving your neighbour because wearing them stops you passing on the virus you don’t have to others. In the real world, masks do not and cannot stop viral transmission, and thus they are a not a health aid, but a political and psychological tool of subjugation and dehumanisation, designed to humiliate and perpetuate fear.
In the Metaverse, a public health crisis caused by a virus has zero medical advice given out to people, but just a relentless barrage of talk about cases, hospitalisations and deaths, with all knowledge of effective early treatments ruthlessly suppressed. In the real world, a public health crisis caused by a virus would see Governments, health officials, and doctors recommending cheap and effective ways of boosting one’s immune system, such as Vitamin C and D, Zinc, Quercetin, sunshine and plenty of exercise and fresh air.
In the Metaverse, people who aren’t ill can spread the illness they don’t have, and so must take a test which cannot diagnose illness and which gives huge numbers of false positives, after which they must stay in their house for a prolonged period to stop the virus they don’t have from spreading. In the real world, if you’re well, you go about your daily life; if you have what are called “symptoms”, you stay home and rest.
In the Metaverse, the injection of billions of lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA, which has never been injected into people before, which tricks the cells into allowing it to enter, which then causes billions of cytotoxins to be produced in cells throughout every organ, and for which the manufacturers have indemnity but no proper safety data, is hailed as a saviour. In the real world, this is the most dangerous, reckless medical experiment ever performed on masses of people without their knowledge of what they are being given, and the long-term consequences could be unimaginably disastrous, as Professor Sucharit Bhakdi explains in this horrifying warning.
In the Metaverse, a product which doesn’t prevent infection, doesn’t provide immunity, and which requires top-ups every three months, is a vaccine, even if it needs the dictionary definition of what a vaccine is to be changed to accommodate it. In the real world, the Groucho Marx rule about ducks applies — if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. Thus if it doesn’t stop infection, doesn’t provide immunity, and wanes after 10 weeks, then it probably isn’t a vaccine.
In the Metaverse, willfully going along with abnormal, illegitimate and authoritarian rules & behaviours is the way back to normality and freedom. In the real world, willfully going along with abnormal, illegitimate and authoritarian rules & behaviours is about conditioning us to accept abnormality, the end of a law based society, and the long term loss of freedom.
In the Metaverse, bringing in Vaccine Passports for nightclubs and other large venues is about keeping people safe, and of course won’t be extended to other venues. In the real world, Vaccine Passports are a Trojan Horse, firstly to be extended into other venues of much smaller size (as has been the case in many European countries), but ultimately to facilitate the creation of a Digital ID Social Credit Hellhole where your every move and transaction can be tracked, you have credits not money, and freedom as we knew it is a thing of the past.
In the Metaverse, people who refuse to submit to the mass medical experiment only have themselves to blame if they find themselves excluded by law from entering certain venues, doing certain jobs, buying certain goods, and even being able to avail themselves of the basic necessities of life. In the real world, this unscientific, unholy, sinister apartheid system shows that we are edging eerily close to repeating the ugliness and depravity of certain 20th century regimes that we smugly told ourselves we were not capable of repeating, due to our apparent goodness.
It is baffling that people can view what’s going on so differently, but I would point out that all the views in the real world are derived from facts, data, reason, logic and historical examples, whereas all the views in the Metaverse are taken from Government and media propaganda.
One of the exasperating things in dealing with this is that whilst there are an endless potential number of lies that can be told, there is only one truth. And what the Government and media are very skillful at doing is layering lies upon lies upon lies, such that whilst the critical thinkers and data analysts are busy trying to debunk lie number one, lies number two, three, four and following are already being laid on that foundation so that by the time the original lie has been shown to be false, things have moved on and hardly anyone can remember, let alone care about the original claim.
However, the good news is that this is also the Achilles Heel of the Globalist’s narrative. Firstly, the more lies that are told, the harder it is to sustain the story because it can only be kept going by more lies, each of which tends to become increasingly blatant and absurd, such that even those who have been slumbering for two years begin to stir. For instance, if you try to assure the huge numbers of people that have had adverse events from the injection, or who know others that have suffered, that they must get the next one and it’s perfectly safe, clearly you are going to have your work cut out as stark reality highlights the lie in what is being told.
But the other part of this Achilles Heel is this: The Truth will win because The Truth must win. It is The Truth. It cannot not win. Attempting to suppress it is like trying to hold a cork under water. It will always be wanting to get to the surface, and as soon as you tire of holding it and release your grip, that’s what it will do. And so although these lies will continue, and although they will appear to prevail for some time to come, there is coming a time when they will be defeated because The Truth, not lies, is the ultimate reality:
“Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.” (Proverbs 12:19)
As we look forward to 2022, although we do not know the details of what is to come, because it is very clear that the goal of the Covidian Regimes is to get everybody injected with their mRNA witches’ brew over and over again by carrot or by stick, by hook or by crook, we can be absolutely sure there will be many more lies, many more difficulties, and much more wickedness. Yet we can also be equally sure that these lies will ultimately be defeated, because he who is The Truth (John 14:6) is guaranteed the victory (Revelation 17:14), and he will suffer their lies only so far, until such time as he destroys their unholy, totalitarian, anti-human agenda. There will be a Reckoning. Just make sure that you are on the right side when it comes.
‘There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.’ George Orwell: 1984
COVID has shattered our lives and our faith in a great many things. Social psychologist Roy Baumeister warns in Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty that ‘Evil usually enters the world unrecognised by the people who open the door and let it in.’
Regardless of their original motives, it must be plain to our leaders by now that the impact of their actions is evil. Governments the world over have contrived to weaken the independence and strength of individual minds by forcing people to live in a perpetual state of propaganda-induced fear by the imposition of illiberal and capricious rules.
Do not be deceived by the fake normality around you – this is war. A putsch so outrageous, so duplicitous and of such a scale that it surpasses anything attempted before. There is no lie too small, and no betrayal too large, that has not been used to further the elite vision of the ‘New Normal’.
Let’s remember before Covid, a time when we were being warned of the catastrophic dangers of leaving the EU and the MSM was characterising Brexit as a collective suicidal act committed by xenophobic proles given too much licence, harking back to a lost age of empire.
Elites were badly shaken, and people naïve to believe that their democratic decision would go unpunished. We had exhibited wrong-thinking, economic illiteracy and, importantly, set a dangerous precedent. Our future, as a sovereign nation, was consequently crushed, and we find ourselves in thrall to globalist powers.
Before history is erased, we should set down some truths. On Monday, March 9, 2020 the World Health Organisation reported that cases of a ‘novel’ virus [patents applied for the previous year] had topped one hundred thousand worldwide. The virus origin was unclear, most likely manufactured, a bioweapon, but certainly not to be named Wuhan, for that would be racist.
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the WHO, was reticent about classifying the outbreak as a global pandemic, saying: ‘This is a respiratory pathogen that is capable of community transmission, but which can be contained with the right measures.’
The ‘right measures’ which were adopted almost universally are the oppression and lockdowns beloved by the Communist government of China. The separation of people into the compliant and the non-compliant – the ‘good collectivist’ from the bad. The globalist elite saw a pandemic as their opportunity for the Great Reset.
SARS‐CoV‐2 is the virus identified as causing Covid-19. Last year the US Centers for Disease Control estimated its mortality rate at 0.25 to 3 per cent of those who became ill with it. The true Covid mortality rate is disputed, due in no small measure to the ubiquitous use of ‘scientifically meaningless’ PCR tests, an unprecedented conflation of ‘case’ numbers with actual illnesses, and changes in how causes of death are attributed.
Post-mortems were restricted and most deaths certified as Covid – even if, as in care homes, there had been no examination or formal diagnosis by a doctor and residents had multiple co-morbidities.
Matt Hancock ditched the UK’s well-established pandemic plans to shelter and protect the vulnerable and permit the healthy to continue their lives. The government then abdicated public health decisions to a group of unelected ‘experts’ misnamed Sage; the majority of its members have ties to Big Pharma.
The collective brain that is Sage promoted only one solution: vaccines. Quickly repurposed with taxpayer funds, given emergency authorisation and indemnity from liability for harm; the gene therapies sold to patsies everywhere. Clinicians proposing alternatives found themselves denigrated then silenced, and the use of cheap, proven interventions such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine blocked: the consequence, thousands of avoidable deaths.
Sage is a tyrant: infallible, like Anthony Fauci. Both have the hubris to declare they are ‘the science.’ High-handed and broaching no dissent, it seeks, asMax Aitken, later Lord Beaverbrook did, power over the masses, to ‘Kiss ’em one day and kick ’em the next.’ But, as Kipling said, ‘Power without responsibility [is] the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.’
‘Our National Health Service’ was an early casualty – repurposed into a machine unresponsive to anything but Covid and the mass distribution of gene therapies as vaccines. These, especially the mRNA formulae, do not meet any previous definition of a vaccine, and offer little protection or immunity from the virus. They look increasingly like ‘elaborately engineered toxins’.
Resultant harms are widespread and known to be under-reported. Those who complied, out of fear or a false sense of communitarianism, now find themselves officially unvaccinated and ‘eligible’ for new regular boosters: betrayed ad infinitum for base profit.
Do not be afraid, our masters tell us, this is not coercion, but any who do not comply will be separated out and denied their freedom. ‘Democratic’ states are stigmatising healthy people as unclean and wicked, dangerous to the safety of us all; detention camps are already built.
World leaders’ actions are ‘not about restricting people’s rights’; there is no assault on liberty but only necessary action ‘for the Common Good’ – the collective benefit – the calling card of totalitarian rule.
We have become a diminished little nation, fearful and cowed, mesmerised by Newspeak and content to believe that government cares for our wellbeing. It does not, nor does Big Pharma, the ‘Guardians’ of the World Economic Forum, or billionaires flying around in private jets warning that we must all prepare for the next global emergency.
Re-educated, we now understand that freedom is whatever the Covidocracy says it is. Democracy is a good thing, provided you vote for the right people. Health is what a PCR test shows, experimental gene therapies are vaccines; vaccines do not prevent you from getting a disease or passing it on; consent is doing what you are told; bodily integrity applies only to abortion; all flu is Covid, but not all Covid is flu; and the National Health Service is nothing of the kind.
Science is whatever Gates and Schwab are investing in (hint – common cold and smallpox vaccines, synthetic ‘meat’ and biometric nano chips). A man is a woman if he says so, and 2+2 does indeed, make 5.
JERUSALEM – Israeli occupation authorities demolished 69 homes belonging to Palestinians in the East Jerusalem town of Silwan, and issued 172 other home demolition orders during the year 2021.
Fakhri Abu Diab, the member of the Defense of Silwan Land Committee, said the Israeli municipality of West Jerusalem, and its Planning and Building Committee, delivered during the year 2021, 172 demolition orders against Palestinian homes in Silwan, noting that 150 other homes are threatened with demolition under the Israeli Kaminitz Law; which means that the occupation municipality can demolish it at any moment.
He said that the occupation demolished 69 houses in the town of Silwan in 2021, and displaced 342 Jerusalemites; 66% of whom are children and minors. The occupation during the year 2021 filed indictments against 90 houses and fined their owners 4,370,000 Shekels under the pretext of the so-called illegal construction, he added.
The number of demolition orders against homes and structures in Silwan has reached 7800 orders since the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, he added.
The implementation of the demolition and eviction orders will leave 10,000 Jerusalemites threatened with displacement and ethnic cleansing.
He noted that settlers and Israel’s ‘Nature Authority’ confiscated 2015 dunums of land during the year 2021.
According to American media, defense news outlets, and independent analysts, the 12-day Israeli military aggression against Iran significantly depleted the US stockpile of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) interceptor missiles.
Citing official sources, American magazine Newsweek reported on Friday that the US transferred a substantial portion of its advanced missile defense capabilities to support the Israeli regime, an effort with questionable results and a critical impact on US strategic reserves.
THAAD, developed by Lockheed Martin arms manufacturing company, is a key component of Israel’s multi-layered air defense architecture. It is designed to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles, including those launched from Iran and Yemen.
The US-made system is capable of targeting short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles during their terminal phase, whether inside or outside Earth’s atmosphere.
THAAD uses a “hit-to-kill” method, relying on kinetic energy rather than explosive warheads to destroy incoming threats, intercepting at altitudes of up to 150 km and ranges between 150-200 km.
Operated exclusively by American personnel, the US military maintains eight THAAD batteries with an estimated 350–400 interceptors in total. The eighth battery was activated during the June 20 Israeli aggression against Iran and is capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
