Saturday, July 18, 2020

Fake news exposed: Establishment media caught flat-out lying about McEnany 'science' quote



White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on reopening schools in the fall: “The science should not stand in the way of this."

That sounds spectacularly bad, doesn't it? If the science doesn't support it, the Trump administration doesn't care. They just want the schools open -- putting our kids at risk in order to make a political point.

That's not really what she said, mind you -- although you'd be hard-pressed to discover it in establishment media coverage of Thursday's White House news conference.

McEnany said those words as part of a longer answer about reopening schools for in-person instruction in the fall. Given that many districts have been saying they'll stay online for the next school year, a reporter wondered what the president would say to parents who were asking, “OK, what do I do with my kids?”

"You know, the president has said unmistakably that he wants schools to open. And I was just in the Oval [Office] talking to him about that. And when he says open, he means open in full — kids being able to attend each and every day at their school," McEnany replied.

"The science should not stand in the way of this. And as [public health expert] Dr. Scott Atlas said -- I thought this was a good quote -- 'Of course, we can [do it]. Everyone else in the … Western world, our peer nations are doing it. We are the outlier here.'

"The science is very clear on this, that -- you know, for instance, you look at the JAMA Pediatrics study of 46 pediatric hospitals in North America that said the risk of critical illness from COVID is far less for children than that of seasonal flu," she continued.

"The science is on our side here, and we encourage for localities and states to just simply follow the science, open our schools. It’s very damaging to our children: There is a lack of reporting of abuse; there’s mental depressions that are not addressed; suicidal ideations that are not addressed when students are not in school. Our schools are extremely important, they’re essential, and they must reopen."

That was fairly straightforward, right?

Anyone looking at the statement in totality would have seen what McEnany was saying: The White House felt the risk level to children from the coronavirus was low, given statistics, but the risk level that stems from keeping them out of school and opting for distance learning was high, particularly when you consider issues like depression and unreported child abuse.

Report her full quote fairly!

"The science should not stand in the way of this...the science is very clear on this...the science is on our side here. We encourage for localities and states to just simply follow the science. Open our schools."

— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) July 16, 2020

Becket Adams at the Washington Examiner cataloged the tweets and headlines reporting on what McEnany said. They were, um, very similar:

“The White House Press Secretary on Trump's push to reopen schools: ‘The science should not stand in the way of this,’” CNN's Jim Acosta tweeted.

The White House Press Secretary on Trump's push to reopen schools: "The science should not stand in the way of this."

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) July 16, 2020

Reporter Jim Heath: “‘The science should not stand in the way of this.’ You just can't make this stuff up. 108 days until the election.”

"The science should not stand in the way of this." -@PressSec response to school openings during pandemic.

You just can't make this stuff up.

108 days until the election.

— Jim Heath (@JimHeathTV) July 16, 2020

Ana Cabrera of CNN: “WH Press Secretary: ‘When he (Trump) says open, he means open -- in full -- kids being able to attend each and every day at their school,’ McEnany told reporters at the press briefing. ‘The science should not stand in the way of this.’”

WH Press Secretary: “When he (Trump) says open, he means open-- in full-- kids being able to attend each and every day at their school,” McEnany told reporters at the press briefing. “The science should not stand in the way of this.”

— Ana Cabrera (@AnaCabrera) July 16, 2020

"'The science should not stand in the way of this,' @PressSec says of fully re-opening schools," NBC News' Josh Lederman added.

“The science should not stand in the way of this,” @PressSec says of fully re-opening schools

— Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews) July 16, 2020

“From the White House podium: ‘Science should not stand in the way’ of reopening schools,” CBS News' Weijia Jiang said.

From the White House podium:
“Science should not stand in the way” of reopening schools.

— Weijia Jiang (@weijia) July 16, 2020

Adams cataloged more of this. Perhaps most frightening, everyone he cited all chose the same quote -- a phrase which wasn't verbally felicitous but also didn't have anything to do with the general thrust of what McEnany had to say.

This doesn't have much to do with whether or not reopening schools in the fall is a good idea.

There's scientific arguments to be made on both sides, though I tend to side with the aforementioned Dr. Scott Atlas, a former head of neuroradiology at Stanford.

“If you believe in science, science says that 99.97 percent of deaths in the United States are in people over 15, 99.9 are people over 24. The hospitalization rate for influenza according to the CDC is much greater than from COVID-19 for children," he told Fox News.

“There are virtually zero risks to children of getting something serious or dying from this disease,” Atlas added.

“Anyone who thinks schools should be closed is not talking about the risks to children. That’s factual. They should say that.”

He noted that 82 percent of K-12 teachers were under 55, meaning they weren't in high-risk groups, either -- and for those who were, there were measures that could be taken.

All of that is a digression, however, because the media chose, en masse, to distort what McEnany meant -- which was crystal clear -- based on a muddied phrase. And they all drank from the same cup of error.

McEnany isn't a science denier, which is what she was made out to be. The administration isn't putting your children or our teachers at risk unnecessarily given what we know about the science.

And every person who used this specific quote quote did so for a reason. It wasn't to enlighten their readership.

As a nation, we desperately need to have a series of discussions involving where we go from here, particularly when it comes to our students. When those who facilitate this discussion lie to our faces, nothing is served aside from an agenda.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Fake news exposed: Establishment media caught flat-out lying about McEnany 'science' quote appeared first on WND.


Narrative Managers Claim White Helmets Founder Was Driven To Suicide By Syria Skeptics

Imperialist spinmeisters are trial-ballooning a new Syria narrative that is so breathtakingly stupid it needs its own article solely for the purpose of mockery.


Viral Portland arrest was not by secret police, but by Trump's new PACT Force



Arrests of some protesters and rioters made by federal authorities in Portland, Oregon, including one arrest caught in a video that's gone viral, are the work of a new federal task force, according to a published report.

The task force has its roots in a June 26 executive order from President Donald Trump titled, “Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Activity," a July 1 Department of Homeland Security news release said.

In response to the executive order, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf announced the DHS had established the Protecting American Communities Task Force.

“DHS is answering the President’s call to use our law enforcement personnel across the country to protect our historic landmarks,” Wolf said in a statement. “We won’t stand idly by while violent anarchists and rioters seek not only to vandalize and destroy the symbols of our nation, but to disrupt law and order and sow chaos in our communities.”

The release said the PACT will "conduct ongoing assessments of potential civil unrest or destruction and allocate resources to protect people and property."

And in a sentence that links to recent activity in Portland, the release added: "This may involve potential surge activity to ensure the continuing protection of critical locations."

In response to unrest in Portland, media reports claimed federal agents with no clear identification on their uniforms have been detaining protesters.

One video in particular, which shows federal agents detaining a protester who claims he "hasn't done anything wrong," has sparked outrage, garnering nearly 11 million views as of Saturday morning:

Warning: The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive:

These federal officers (?) just rushed up and arrested someone for no reason

— Matcha chai (@matcha_chai) July 15, 2020

On Friday, a Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman told Reuters that CBP agents were sent to Portland to support the DHS in its PACT mission.

According to The Nation, which previously used the term "secret police" in reporting on the federal agents, the activity was guided by a CBP memo dated July 1. The memo was linked to deployments of CBP agents over the July 4 weekend.

"While the Department respects every American's right to protest peacefully, violence and civil unrest will not be tolerated," the memo said.

"Violent anarchists have organized events in Portland over the last several weeks with willful intent to damage and destroy federal property, as well as injure federal officers and agents,” a CBP spokesman, who confirmed that CBP agents operating as members of the PACT arrested the man in the viral video, told The Nation. “These criminal actions will not be tolerated.”

A group of Oregon-based Democratic legislators pushed back against the deployment of CBP agents.

Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden and Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici said these federal agents have no place in Portland.

“These tactics include deploying federal agents without identifying insignia in an apparent effort to evade transparency and accountability, snatching people off the street with no apparent reason for apprehension, and using potentially deadly munitions to harm peaceful protesters. These actions are out of control,” the delegation wrote Friday in a letter to Wolf and Attorney General William Barr.

“They are more reflective of tactics of a government led by a dictator, not from the government of our constitutional democratic republic.”

“The message crafted by the Trump administration to justify this escalation of force and intimidation in Portland borders on propaganda, apparently to serve the President’s perceived political interests," they said.

"This is unacceptable under our Constitution. There are undoubtedly dangerous acts being committed by a small number of individuals. Yet a Department of Homeland Security press release refers to ‘violent anarchists’ 72 times while describing graffiti," wrote the lawmakers, who have the support of Democratic Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler.

Mr. President, this is an attack on our democracy.

— Mayor Ted Wheeler (@tedwheeler) July 17, 2020

On social media, many liberals claimed Trump had deployed a "secret police" force:

Donald Trump has now activated the “secret police” setting in the autocrat’s playbook. #PortlandKidnappings #PortlandProtests #SecretPolice

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 18, 2020

For most of us, Trump irrevocably "crossed the line" a long time ago.

A question for the rest of you: if "secret police" wasn't your line, what is?

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) July 17, 2020

People need to stop being so alarmist. So what if the president is a blatant white supremacist authoritarian dispatching secret police to kidnap Americans while our law enforcement and military are full of fascistic, conspiracy theory cultists?

What’s there to worry about?

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) July 17, 2020

But Wolf, who visited Portland on Thursday, said federal agents are in Portland because of the violence taking place there.

“The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city," he said in a statement. "Each night, lawless anarchists destroy and desecrate property, including the federal courthouse, and attack the brave law enforcement officers protecting it.

“A federal courthouse is a symbol of justice -- to attack it is to attack America. Instead of addressing violent criminals in their communities, local and state leaders are instead focusing on placing blame on law enforcement and requesting fewer officers in their community. This failed response has only emboldened the violent mob as it escalates violence day after day.

“This siege can end if state and local officials decide to take appropriate action instead of refusing to enforce the law. DHS will not abdicate its solemn duty to protect federal facilities and those within them," Wheeler added.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Viral Portland arrest was not by secret police, but by Trump's new PACT Force appeared first on WND.


White Helmets Co-Founder Defrauded Organization To Fund Lavish Wedding

White Helmets Co-Founder Defrauded Organization To Fund Lavish Wedding Tyler Durden Sat, 07/18/2020 - 12:00

A little more than eight months after former British army officer and military contractor, then 43-year-old James Le Mesurier, who co-founded the shadowy 'White Helmets' (known as Syria Civil Defence), committed suicide, a new report details how he defrauded Mayday Rescue. This organization fundraised from Western countries to support the anti-government rescue group in Syria. 

RT News quotes a report via Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, who says Le Mesurier informed an accountant during an audit that he "forged receipts" for tens of thousands of dollars. At the time, he listed the funds as lined items to support efforts in evacuations for refugees in war-torn Syria, though the money was actually expensed for his lavish 2018 wedding.

Le Mesurier was paid a generous salary of €24,000 ($27,414) per month. It was noted he issued loans to his wife, former diplomat Emma Winberg, using funds from the organization. 

The accountant, instructed by Western countries to investigate Mayday, found "tens of thousands of dollars in cash" were used to pay for Le Mesurier's "fairytale wedding."

Shortly afterward, a number of countries that had donated to Mayday demanded an accountant have another look over the organization's books. According to De Volkskrant, this probe found that most of Mayday's financial records are "missing." Donations were not just handed to the organization in Amsterdam and forwarded to Syria, but distributed through a network of commercial organizations in Turkey and Dubai. -RT

A Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs' 2018 report showed Mayday received $127 million from mostly Western state donors between 2014 and 2018.

Le Mesurier's White Helmets promote themselves as 'first responders' to emergencies in Syria, the group has been accused of staging multiple chemical attacks - including an April 2018 incident in Duma, Syria, which the White House used as a pretext to bomb Syrian government facilities and bases.

White Helmets have been accused of partnering with Al-Qaeda and even seen operating in rebel-held territory. 

At the time of the audit, Le Mesurier wrote a letter to donors explaining the mishap but maintained the fraud was not committed on purpose. 

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said last November that Le Mesurier's death was no suicide, suggesting he was killed because he "knew major secrets."  

For more color on the questionable suicide of Le Mesurier, read: "Narrative Managers Claim White Helmets Founder Was Driven To Suicide By Syria Skeptics." 


Mueller, Weissman op-eds conflict with their own report


Robert Mueller (via YouTube)

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]

By Aaron Mate

Real Clear Investigations

In response to President Trump's commutation of Roger Stone's prison sentence last week, the Russia investigation's two lead prosecutors published op-eds in the nation’s top newspapers that fueled the collusion narrative their own investigation failed to validate. As they chided Stone and others for alleged deceptions, both Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and one of his top deputies, Andrew Weissmann, made claims greatly at odds with their official report, discrepancies that they did not acknowledge.

Neither responded to emailed requests Thursday for comment.

The Mueller op-ed, published in the Washington Post, does not just take aim at Stone – who was convicted for lying about his failed efforts to make contact with WikiLeaks regarding emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Mueller focuses, instead, on what he calls "broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper."

In a bid to refute that criticism, Mueller begins by defending the FBI's justification for launching the probe. "By late 2016," he writes, "the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled to a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate," Hillary Clinton. The campaign adviser is George Papadopoulos, whose barroom conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer served as the basis for the Trump-Russia probe. (Downer passed this tip to the U.S. government in late July – though Mueller writes "late 2016.")

Contrary to Mueller's assertion, the record shows the FBI was not acting on any evidence that "the Russians had signaled" anything to Papadopoulos, but instead on the Australian diplomat's recounting of vague hearsay -- which Papadopoulos never relayed to anyone else in the Trump campaign. The bureau’s own documents make this clear. The recently declassified FBI electronic communication (EC) that officially opened its Russia investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane, states that Downer had told the U.S. government that Papadopoulos had "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist" the Trump campaign by anonymously releasing damaging, yet "unclear," information about Clinton and President Obama. Not only was this tip vague, there was no evidence that the "some kind of suggestion" actually came from the Russian government or even a Russian national.

Instead, Downer was relaying what he claims Papadopoulos told him about an unspecified suggestion he had received of Russian assistance. Papadopoulos later told the FBI that the suggestion came from a conversation with Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic. But Downer did not hear about Mifsud at the time, and his tip to the FBI accordingly made no mention of him. Regardless of the exact date it learned of Mifsud, the U.S. government has never formally claimed or presented evidence that he was a Russian government representative or was relaying information that he had received from Russia. (After leaving office, former FBI Director James B. Comey claimed without evidence that Mifsud was “a Russian agent” in a Washington Post op-ed.)

The Mueller Report conspicuously avoided such a label. It instead stated that Mifsud had suspected "connections to Russia." Its inventory of such connections is this: Mifsud was apparently in touch with "a one-time employee" of the Internet Research Agency (the private Russian social media company that Mueller indicted before dropping the case) about "possibly meeting in Russia," but the investigation "did not identify evidence of them meeting." Mifsud was also apparently in contact with a social media account "linked to an employee of the Russian Ministry of Defense." At his congressional hearing one year ago, Mueller declined to discuss Mifsud's identity or explain why the FBI had not arrested him after interviewing him in Washington, D.C., in February 2017. Mueller also did not explain why his office did not charge Mifsud for perjury despite claiming in its final report that he had made false statements.

Recently declassified December 2017 testimony from Andrew McCabe, the former FBI deputy director who helped launch and oversee the Russia probe, support these details.

Speaking to the House Intelligence Committee, McCabe said the Papadopoulos-Mifsud tip was not considered evidence of a Russia connection. Asked to explain why the FBI never sought a FISA surveillance warrant on Papadopoulos, McCabe responded: "Papadopoulos' comment didn't particularly indicate that he was the person that had had -- that was interacting with the Russians." That admission not only contradicts Mueller's claim that the "FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled" something, it raises an important question for his team to answer: Why did the FBI open – and continue – the Trump-Russia investigation based on a hearsay comment from a Trump adviser whom they did not believe was actually interacting with Russia?

After claiming that the collusion investigation was predicated on evidence of Russian outreach to the Trump campaign, Mueller's op-ed turns to Roger Stone. The veteran Republican operative, Mueller writes, "lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks," as well as about "the existence of written communications with his intermediary."

But that claim from Mueller is at odds with his investigation’s failure to establish that Stone had an intermediary to WikiLeaks. In both public and private, Stone claimed to have intermediaries, but as the Mueller team found out, they were two individuals, Randy Credico and Jerome Corsi, who never made contact with WikiLeaks. The only interaction that either Credico or Corsi had with WikiLeaks during the campaign came when Credico interviewed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on his radio show in August 2016. And the only known contact between Stone and WikiLeaks before the election came when WikiLeaks wrote Stone, in a Twitter message, to cease making "false claims of association." This exchange was excluded from Stone's indictment and the Mueller Report, and Mueller's op-ed is no different.

Mueller also makes a striking claim about Stone's supposed Russian contacts and foreknowledge of WikiLeaks releases. "Stone became a central figure in our investigation," Mueller writes, "for two key reasons: He communicated in 2016 with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers, and he claimed advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by those Russian intelligence officers."

While Stone claimed advance knowledge, Mueller omits that he never asserted that Stone actually had such knowledge.

Mueller's reference to communication with Russian agents is likely the Twitter messages exchanged with Guccifer 2.0, the online persona that Mueller alleges was a front for Russian intelligence. Yet the only known communication between the two is in fact exculpatory for Stone. Stone sent Guccifer 2.0 just three short messages. None mentioned the stolen DNC emails. The closest they came to coordination was when Stone asked Guccifer 2.0 to retweet an article in The Hill. Mueller implies that all of this was grounds to investigate Stone, when it was evidence that Stone's contact with Guccifer 2.0 was minimal and inconsequential.

Three days after Mueller’s piece was published, the top prosecutor on his team, Andrew Weissmann, published an op-ed in the New York Times that went even further. While Mueller's article tried to defend his investigation, Weissmann effectively called for it to continue: Stone, Weissmann argued, should be brought "before a grand jury."

Weissmann – now a legal analyst for MSNBC and preparing for the September publication of his memoir on the Mueller probe -- bases his argument on the possibility that Stone hid incriminating information in order to protect Trump. Stone, Weissmann claimed (approvingly quoting the sentencing federal judge), "had been prosecuted for 'covering up for the president.'" Stone, Weissmann added, was found guilty of "lying to Congress about the coordination between the Trump 2016 campaign, Mr. Stone, WikiLeaks and Russia," and putting him before a grand jury would "get at the truth of why he lied."

Yet Stone's own case – and, of course the Mueller Report, which found no conspiracy -- underscored that there was no such "coordination," which is presumably why Stone was never accused, let alone convicted, of lying about it. The word "coordination" only appears once in his indictment: in describing the FBI investigation of potential Trump-Russia collusion, not in describing anything to do with Stone.

Stone was instead convicted of making false statements to Congress about his failed efforts to obtain information about WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign. Stone's case and trial underscored that these efforts went nowhere: Both individuals whom he tapped as his intermediaries, Corsi and Credico, had no contact with WikiLeaks and no inside information of its plans. The suggestion to the contrary by Weissmann in the New York Times' op-ed section is contradicted by the paper's own reporting on Stone's trial last year, when it noted that Stone "had no real ties to WikiLeaks."

Despite this, Weissmann goes on to suggest, without evidence, that Stone still has something to hide. "If there was nothing nefarious about his coordination efforts, why did he lie about them to Congress?" the investigator writes. "This question remains unanswered, as the Mueller report notes." Yet the Mueller team has already answered Weissmann's question. In revealing that the Trump campaign tried to learn about WikiLeaks' plans through Stone – who had no inside information – Weissmann and his colleagues showed that the campaign had no "coordination" with WikiLeaks and no advance knowledge of its publications.

Weissmann fails to mention that his own team of prosecutors consciously avoided the very action that he is now advocating. The Mueller team never interviewed Stone or tried to bring him before a grand jury after an exhaustive investigation of Stone and his associates. By November 2018, CNN reported, "[r]oughly a dozen of Stone's current and former associates have been contacted by Mueller's team for interviews or to testify before the grand jury."

The Mueller team's pursuit of Stone included an engagement with Corsi that descended into farce. The Mueller investigators, the Washington Post later reported, spent more than two months "chasing tantalizing leads offered by Corsi," even "dispatch[ing] FBI agents around the country to interview potential witnesses," but, after "expending valuable government money and precious time," found "themselves unable to untangle Corsi’s assertions." This included multiple sessions with Corsi where Mueller prosecutors "spent weeks coaxing, cajoling and admonishing the conspiracy theorist, as they pressed him to stick to facts and not reconstruct stories." They even delved into philosophical territory:  "At times, they had debated the nature of memory itself."

If, after all of this effort, Weissmann and the Mueller team thought that Stone was coordinating with WikiLeaks or had something to hide, they could have questioned him or brought him before a grand jury. But by the end of 2018, Stone was no longer claiming that he had a back channel to WikiLeaks and had corrected his prior statements to the contrary. Presumably, the Mueller team had reached the same conclusion after questioning scores of Stone's associates and chasing down leads from coast to coast. And presumably, they would have expected Stone to tell them the same story under oath.

That would have negated their ability to prosecute him, and it would have denied them an opportunity to advance the collusion theory with one final indictment. In January 2019, the Mueller team chose an off-ramp: Stone was indicted for making false statements to a House inquiry all the way back in September 2017. The Mueller team released a lengthy indictment that suggested a collusion angle, and conducted an early morning SWAT raid on Stone's Florida home with television cameras present.

Stone's January 2019 indictment appeared to be the Mueller probe's final act, the last in a series of cases that publicly implied collusion without ever alleging that such collusion occurred. These two op-eds suggests that effort continues.

Weissmann and Mueller's new public statements about Stone and the Russia investigation are only the latest in a series of contributions to the collusion narrative. In response, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham has said that he will seek Mueller's testimony. If Weissmann is summoned as well, this would be a critical opportunity, through sworn testimony under penalty of perjury, to get to the bottom of claims about the Russia investigation – although perhaps not the ones that the prosecutors behind it want the public to focus on.

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]


The post Mueller, Weissman op-eds conflict with their own report appeared first on WND.


My State Authorized Mandatory Vaccination…Has Yours?


Spiro Skouras is rightfully furious that his Governor, Doug Ducey (R-AZ) has authorized mandatory vaccination, although it hasn’t been enforced yet.

Has yours?


“Here we are, seven months into what we are being told and almost forced to believe is a global pandemic. We have been under a two-week lockdown that has lasted for months and months, with no end in sight, as new restrictions, requirements and mandates continue to be dictated by governments on the local, county state, federal and global levels.

“But it’s not just the governments who are having all the fun. No. The corporations are getting in on the action, as well, working in lockstep to reshape and re-imagine a new social construct, as we enter the “Great Reset” and the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

“The central banks will play a major role in this new digitalized system of control, as every day, we find ourselves another step closer to a Cashless Society. And then, there are the medical and pharmaceutical industries, who have and will continue to have a growing impact on our lives and well-being, as they will soon take center stage in this operation, when the vaccine is ready to be deployed.

“All of them, marching together, in lockstep towards global governance, using fear; the fear of a global pandemic to finally destroy this current system, which has been for generations, slowly but surely dismantled by design.

“We are in the process of the transition into this new era; a new paradigm, the new system of control, right now, justified by this crisis; a crisis which I believe to be manufactured, in my opinion, perhaps the greatest psychological operation of all time.

“Do you see where this is going? Do you see where this road takes us? These are the very things that we’ve been warning about for years, some for decades and it’s happening right now.

“I see people asking all the time, will the vaccine be mandated?

“The new experimental vaccine that’s being rushed through development as we speak, with rolled-back regulations, zero liability and guaranteed government contracts to the research and organizations, funded by Bill Gates. Right? The very same vaccine that President Donald Trump said, yet again yesterday, on July 16, that he would have the military, led by his generals deliver the vaccine across the country.

“Which leaves me wondering, what exactly does he mean by ‘delivery’?

“Will the vaccine be mandated? Well, in my state, the government has already authorized mandatory vaccination and there’s a real good chance that your state has, too, they just haven’t enforced it, yet. Because, well, everyone’s still waiting for this brand new vaccine to arrive right from the military.

“So, the question is, will they enforce it when the time comes? According to the Arizona Revised Statute Title 36: Public Health and Safety §36-787: Public Health Authority During State of Emergency or State of War Emergency Section C:

“‘In addition to the authority provided in Subsections A and B, during a state of emergency in which there is an occurrence or imminent threat of smallpox, plague or viral hemorrhagic fever or a highly-contagious and highly-fatal disease, with transmission characteristics similar to smallpox, the Governor, in consultation with the Director of the Department of Health Services may issue orders that mandate treatment or vaccination of persons who are diagnosed with illness resulting from exposure or who are reasonably believed to have been exposed or who may reasonably be expected to be exposed.’

“Folks, that’s pretty much everybody they want, okay? Everybody and anybody, at that point. ‘Item 2: Isolate and quarantine persons; Item D: Law enforcement officials of the state and national guard shall enforce orders issued by the governor under this section.

“Now, there are some outs, here despite the obvious questioning the constitutionality of this emergency order and the severity of the public health emergency at hand.

“Because they are cooking the books, Folks. They are manipulating the numbers but don’t worry, the same ones who close down the churches do provide religious exemption for this mandatory vaccine but they can still throw you in jail – or I mean, you know – isolation, according to this emergency declaration.

“Now, Item F states: ‘If during a State of Emergency, the public health is not endangered, nothing in this Title shall authorize the Department or any of its officers or representatives to impose on any person against their person’s will any mode of treatment, provided that sanitary or preventative measures and quarantine laws are complied with by the person.’

“So, it makes it kind of sound like, ‘You’re off the hook if it’s not a deadly pandemic,’ right? Well, aside from the part where they say that they can hold you against your will … So, again, the question is, will they enforce it?

“Will they enforce it here? Will they enforce it where you live?

“Remember, these are the same ones who have been mandating the lockdowns from the start, closing down businesses, locking up business owners who defy the lockdowns, while at the same time, releasing actual murderers and violent sex offenders from jail and destroying our way of life and the economy, while infringing on our civil liberties, all from behind a mask – if the hypocrite decides to wear one in front of the cameras.

“These are the same ones who have been mandating those masks, despite several studies saying that there is little to no evidence to suggest that the face masks worn by members of the public prevent people from being infected by breathing in the virus.

“There’s even a study showing people who do not wear masks do not shed the virus. Yes, this is from Nature Medicine, published at, on April 3rd, 2020:

“‘Among samples collected without a face mask, we found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols.’

“These are the same ones who have been locking down schools, despite multiple studies which show the virus does not affect kids and kids are not spreading the virus.

“These are the same ones selling fear of the rising cases, as testing has been ramping up. Yes, the cases have been increasing, but the deaths have been declining, despite the manipulation of the numbers.

“For example, the death certificate surveillance. They’ve been going back weeks, reviewing symptoms of people who have already died. In adding those mortality cases to the COVID numbers. And then, there’s the deaths who have absolutely nothing to do with the virus, at all, whatsoever, they’re being counted as COVID; the false positives, the testing scandals and the investigations being launched into them, finally into the numbers.

“So, will the vaccine be mandated? Well, if it is mandated, it likely won’t be by President Trump, at least, not initially – and I’m not saying this in support or defense of the President. I’m non-partisan.

“But let me ask you this: were the lockdowns mandated by the Federal Government? Are the masks being mandated by the Federal Government? No. This is a reminder, this is being done by people in your local levels.

“This is being done by people within your communities, in the local governments. Those will be the ones who will likely mandate and implement the mandatory vaccination, if it comes to that.

“And let me tell you right now, it is in the Emergency Orders for my state that was implemented by Governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey – the same Doug Ducey who does not feel the need for himself to isolate or lock down or social-distance or even wear a mask, unless he knows the cameras are around. But the language to forcibly vaccinate you and your family is in his Emergency Declaration.

“So, here’s a homework assignment do a little digging for yourself: See if your state’s emergency declaration authorizes the government to forcibly vaccinate you and your families against their will, in light of this crisis.

“If so, grab the link to the specific page and post it in the comments of this video we just might do in a follow-up and show all of the states who have already authorized, so they say, ‘mandatory vaccination’ in your areas.

“Now, it’s time to get active, people on all fronts: Identify who the tyrants are in your local government. This is the first step to resistance and let me make it clear right now: I am not anti-vaccine. I believe everyone should have the option to decide for themselves.

“I’m not trying to tell you what to do but I’ve already made my decision. I am not going to be taking the vaccine, regardless of any mandates. We should never be forced by the government to comply in this way. The government is supposed to be a representative of the people. The government is supposed to work for the people, not against them.

“Look around you right now. Is that what you have? Do you have representative government? If not, tell me what do you have.”

Alexandra Bruce

Contributed by Alexandra Bruce



Friday, July 17, 2020

YouTube is about to delete thousands of accounts

YouTube will delete thousands of accounts after banning "supremacists", conspiracy theorists and other harmful accounts, it has claimed. The decision was made after an in-depth review of its rules on hateful content, YouTube said.


Thursday, July 16, 2020

Bad News For Moderna: More Evidence Shows COVID-19 Antibodies Disappear Not Long After Infection

Bad News For Moderna: More Evidence Shows COVID-19 Antibodies Disappear Not Long After Infection Tyler Durden Thu, 07/16/2020 - 10:45

Following trial results released yesterday showing Moderna's vaccine candidate might not be safe for human consumption - apparently, the candidate caused "adverse" reactions in roughly 50% of patients who participated in a recent study - the dozens of companies, universities and governments working on COVID-19 vaccine candidates just received another piece of disheartening news: A growing body of evidence gleaned from research into the virus suggests that antibodies may not offer protection for more than 2-3 months, for many people.

Now, a study produced by researchers at King’s College London is showing recovered patients antibodies declined significantly within months of infection, raising the critical question of whether a vaccine could ever provide lasting protection. Moderna's vaccine candidate has shown the capacity to produce antibodies in test subjects, but it's still unclear exactly how much protection this might provide.

University of Nottingham Emeritus Professor in Immunology Herb Sewell, who consulted on the study, said it appeared to show that antibodies to the virus disappeared more quickly than antibodies for MERS and other coronaviruses. Viruses like SARS elicited an immune response that lasted at least a couple of years. 

This suggests that the eventual COVID-19 vaccine might need to be administered every year to offer a reliable level of protection.

"If the vaccine response drops off like the natural response does, it does mean we’d have to give repeat ones," he said.

But that's not set in stone - at least, not yet. As the FT points out, seeing some degree in decline of efficacy is typically expected. That doesn't mean the body won't be able to reproduce those same antibodies even more quickly the next time it is infected. 

Researchers also apparently found evidence showing a link between the intensity of symptoms and the durability of antibodies. The lighter the symptoms, the lower the level of apparent immunity.

It is normal to see some decline in antibody loads after a vaccine, which will still be effective if the body can subsequently produce antibodies more quickly when exposed to the virus again. Importantly, the body does not always respond in the same way to a vaccine as it does to an infection. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, said he believed it was “entirely plausible” that the antibodies fade, but that it might be because those patients were asymptomatic or started with lower levels of antibodies.

"They seem to lose them more quickly, which probably speaks to the quality and type of immune response to begin with," he said. “It’s reassuring to see that we achieve neutralising antibodies that are consistently above what you see from people who’ve actually been sick, so we expect they are going to be protected.”

Several high profile studies have raised doubts about whether these antibodies are permanent, or effective, or not. But only large-scale clinical trials will eventually lead humanity to the truth, even as local officials rely on antibody detection tests of questionable quality to try to estimate the number of people in an area who contracted the virus.

Only large-scale clinical trials will eventually lead humanity to the truth.

"Confirmation of the correlation between antibody titers [concentration] and protection against Covid-19 will be possible only in a large clinical efficacy study,” she wrote in an opinion article that accompanied the publication of the peer-reviewed data on Moderna’s vaccine candidate.

And as scientists try to leave all their options open, some of the vaccines in development are examining the body's T-cell response to the infection, something researchers suspect could help hold the key to developing a successful vaccine.

Mr Raffat said he had heard AstraZeneca would show a robust response from both T-cells and antibodies to the vaccine it is developing with the University of Oxford. AstraZeneca did not respond to a request for comment. On the call with investors on Wednesday, Mr Raffat said: “If I want to take a vaccine in January, I’ll probably want to take Astra for a T-cell response and Moderna or Pfizer BioNTech for a neutralising antibody response.”

If stocks keep moving lower, we imagine we'll be seeing some more positive-sounding vaccine news in the very near future.


Back To School? "No Thanks" Say Millions Of Newly Homeschooling Parents

Back To School? "No Thanks" Say Millions Of Newly Homeschooling Parents Tyler Durden Wed, 07/15/2020 - 22:30

Authored by Kerry McDonald via The Foundation for Economic Education,

With dehumanizing COVID-19 restrictions awaiting students at schools, many parents are opting to keep on homeschooling...

Next month marks the beginning of the 2020/2021 academic year in several US states, and pressure is mounting to reopen schools even as the COVID-19 pandemic persists. Florida, for example, is now considered the nation’s No. 1 hot spot for the virus; yet on Monday, the state’s education commissioner issued an executive order mandating that all Florida schools open in August with in-person learning and their full suite of student services.

Many parents are balking at back-to-school, choosing instead to homeschool their children this fall.

Gratefully, this virus seems to be sparing most children, and prominent medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics have urged schools to reopen this fall with in-person learning. For some parents, fear of the virus itself is a primary consideration in delaying a child’s return to school, especially if the child has direct contact with individuals who are most vulnerable to COVID-19’s worst effects.

But for many parents, it’s not the virus they are avoiding by keeping their children home—it’s the response to the virus.

In May, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued school reopening guidelines that called for:

  • Strict social distancing tactics

  • All-day mask wearing for most students and teachers

  • Staggered attendance

  • Daily health checks

  • No gym or cafetaria use

  • Restricted playground access and limited toy-sharing, and

  • Tight controls on visitors to school buildings, including parents.

School districts across the country quickly adopted the CDC’s guidelines, devising their reopening plans accordingly. Once parents got wind of what the upcoming school-year would look like, including the real possibility that at any time schools could be shut down again due to virus spikes, they started exploring other options.

For Florida mother, Rachael Cohen, these social distancing expectations and pandemic response measures prompted her to commit to homeschooling her three children, ages 13, 8, and 5, this fall.

“Mandated masks, as well as rigid and arbitrary rules and requirements regarding the use and location of their bodies, will serve to dehumanize, disconnect, and intimidate students,” Cohen told me in a recent interview.

She is endeavoring to expand schooling alternatives in her area and is currently working to create a self-directed learning community for local homeschoolers that emphasizes nature-based, experiential education. “There is quite a lot of interest,” she says.

According to a recent USA Today/Ipsos poll, 60 percent of parents surveyed said they will likely choose at-home learning this fall rather than send their children to school even if the schools reopen for in-person learning. Thirty percent of parents surveyed said they were “very likely” to keep their children home.

While some of these parents may opt for an online version of school-at-home tied to their district, many states are seeing a surge in the number of parents withdrawing their children from school in favor of independent homeschooling. From coast to coast, and everywhere in between, more parents are opting out of conventional schooling this year, citing onerous social distancing requirements as a primary reason.

Indeed, so many parents submitted notices of intent to homeschool in North Carolina last week that it crashed the state’s nonpublic education website.

Other parents are choosing to delay their children’s school enrollment, with school districts across the country reporting lower than average kindergarten registration numbers this summer.

School officials are cracking down in response.

Concerned about declining enrollments and parents reassuming control over their children’s education, some school districts are reportedly trying to block parents from removing their children from school for homeschooling.

In England, it’s even worse. Government officials there are so worried about parents refusing to send their children back to school this fall that the education secretary just announced fines for all families who keep their children home in violation of compulsory schooling laws. “We do have to get back into compulsory education and obviously fines sit alongside as part of that," English secretary Gavin Williamson announced.

When school officials resort to force in order to ensure compliance, it should prompt parents to look more closely at their child’s overall learning environment. Parents have the utmost interest in ensuring their children’s well-being, both physically and emotionally, and their concerns and choices should be respected and honored.

After several months of learning at home with their children, parents may not be so willing to comply with district directives and may prefer other, more individualized education options. Pushed into homeschooling this spring by the pandemic, many parents are now going willingly, and eagerly, down this increasingly popular educational path.


Monday, July 13, 2020

Scientists Discover That One Big Assumption That Everyone Has Been Making About COVID-19 May Be Dead Wrong

Scientists Discover That One Big Assumption That Everyone Has Been Making About COVID-19 May Be Dead Wrong Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2020 - 17:05

Authored by Michael Snyder via,

Over the past several months, there has been a tremendous amount of debate about almost every aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic.  People have been eager to debate about the severity of the virus, they have been eager to debate about the wisdom of the lockdowns, and they have been eager to debate about the effectiveness of wearing masks.  But the one thing that everyone could pretty much agree on is that eventually this pandemic would end.  Virtually all of us assumed that one way or another eventually most of the population would develop COVID-19 antibodies and that once we got to that point the pandemic would fizzle out.  Unfortunately, it appears that was not a safe assumption to make.

Yes, those that have had COVID-19 do develop antibodies.

But two new scientific studies have discovered that those antibodies start to fade very, very quickly.

For example, a study that was recently conducted in China found that more than 90 percent of COVID-19 patients experience steep declines in COVID-19 antibodies “within 2 to 3 months”

A new study from China showed that antibodies faded quickly in both asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients during convalescence, raising questions about whether the illness leads to any lasting immunity to the virus afterward.

The study, which focused on 37 asymptomatic and 37 symptomatic patients, showed that more than 90% of both groups showed steep declines in levels of SARS-COV-2–specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies within 2 to 3 months after onset of infection, according to a report published yesterday in Nature Medicine. Further, 40% of the asymptomatic group tested negative for IgG antibodies 8 weeks after they were released from isolation.

And a very large study that was just conducted in Spain found that some patients that had initially successfully developed antibodies “no longer had antibodies weeks later”

A large study from Spain showed that antibodies can disappear weeks after people have tested positive, causing some to question how possible it will be to attain herd immunity.

A study published in medical journal Lancet showed 14% of people who tested positive for antibodies no longer had antibodies weeks later.

Needless to say, this is absolutely devastating news, and it has very serious implications for vaccine development

Such findings have implications for vaccine development, since the efficacy of a vaccine hinges on the idea that a dose of weakened or dead virus can prompt your body to generate antibodies that protect you from future infection. If those antibodies are fleeting, a vaccine’s protection would be fleeting too.

Short-lived antibodies also diminish hopes of achieving widespread or permanent herd immunity.

If antibodies can fade in some patients within weeks, and if just about everyone loses them after a few months, that would render any vaccine almost completely useless.

And if these findings are confirmed, we can pretty much forget about ever achieving “herd immunity”.

Instead, we are potentially facing a future in which COVID-19 will be with us permanently, and people will need to understand that there is a possibility that they will be able to get infected repeatedly.

Sadly, there is evidence that this is already starting to happen for some patients.  In a recent article for Vox, a doctor in Washington D.C. named D. Clay Ackerly shared that one of his patients got infected with COVID-19 again three months after being infected the first time…

“Wait. I can catch Covid twice?” my 50-year-old patient asked in disbelief. It was the beginning of July, and he had just tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, for a second time — three months after a previous infection.

And in that same article, Dr. Ackerly explained that other doctors are starting to see similar cases….

Recent reports and conversations with physician colleagues suggest my patient is not alone. Two patients in New Jersey, for instance, appear to have contracted Covid-19 a second time almost two months after fully recovering from their first infection. Daniel Griffin, a physician and researcher at Columbia in New York, recently described a case of presumed reinfection on the This Week in Virology podcast.

If you stop and really think about what all of this means, it will chill you to the core.

It means that COVID-19 is never going away.

And every time you get it, the more severe it is likely to be.  Each time it will do even more permanent damage to your system until it finally finishes you off.

I seriously wish that what I was telling you was not true.  I do not want to have to worry about a potentially deadly virus every time I leave my house.

But sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that everything is going to be okay somehow is not going to do us any good.

In fact, denial can kill you.

A 37-year-old Ohio man named Richard Rose originally thought that all of the fuss about COVID-19 was just “hype”, and he angrily insisted that he would never buy a mask.  The following is what he posted on Facebook on April 28th

‘Let make this clear,’ he wrote, in a post that was shared 10,000 times.

‘I’m not buying a ******* mask. I’ve made it this far by not buying into that damn hype.’

Sadly, he eventually got infected, and COVID-19 killed him on July 3rd

Richard Rose, a 37-year-old man from Port Clinton, Ohio, recently died from coronavirus after slamming “hype” about the pandemic on Facebook.

Rose’s family told Cleveland CBS affiliate 19 News the US Army veteran died at home on July 3, just three days after testing positive for COVID-19.

He was a healthy 37-year-old man.

If the virus can take him down, it could potentially take just about anyone down.

So please take this pandemic seriously.

Over the past week, we have seen daily numbers soar to levels that we have never seen before, and some experts believe that the numbers will continue to go higher as we approach the end of the year.

And as I just discussed above, if those that have had the virus quickly lose immunity, there will be nothing to stop this virus from sweeping across the globe year after year.

Needless to say, a lot more scientific studies need to be conducted, and hopefully those additional studies will show that the studies that were done in China and Spain were completely wrong.

But at this point the outlook for fighting this virus is exceedingly bleak, and scientists assure us that it is just a matter of time before a pandemic that is even worse comes along.


Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Sues FDA for “Irrational” Interference of Access to Life-Saving Hydroxychloroquine

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ( filed a lawsuit against Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA for “irrational interference” by the FDA with timely access to hydroxychloroquine.


The Corruption of Science, The Hydroxychloroquine Lancet Study Scandal. Who Was Behind It? Anthony Fauci's Intent To Block HCQ on Behalf of Big Pharma

The Guardian has revealed the hydroxychloroquine study scandal which was intent on blocking HCQ as a cure for COVID-19.


The Great COVID-19 Deception ... and What You Need to Know to SURVIVE

(Natural News) Today we feature a contributed article by Gary Heavin, who has been intimately involved in working with doctors and hospitals to document the most effective treatments that can halt covid-19 and put an end to lockdown tyranny.


Why doesn’t the medical deep state want coronavirus patients to heal?

(Natural News) When it comes to dealing with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), the only prescribed course of action coming from the government is to wear your mask, avoid all human contact, and, should you feel like you have become infected, go to the hospital.


Position Statement


Clusterfuck Nation
For your reading pleasure Mondays and Fridays

Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page

Nothing moves and nothing wants to move, or even think about moving, under the punishing heat-dome. For the moment, the sore beset nation stews in a dreadful stillness. The mysterious consensus of the BLM mob has hit the “pause” button on street tantrums, though plenty of damage has been done to businesses, personal lives, undefended monuments, and the public interest. Each day is another frightful step in the creep toward mass default as rents, mortgages, car loans, insurance premiums, electric bills, business debts, and other common obligations go unpaid. It’s like one of those eerie interludes on a battlefield when forces stop to gather their wounded and reassess their positions.

Perhaps you, like me, are skeptical of the news reports about the surge in Covid-19 cases — or, more to the point, what it actually means. Cases may be surging, but deaths are way down. Media megaphones such as CNN and The New York Times eagerly retail maximum hysteria to provoke renewed business lock-downs, ensuring further destruction to the old service economy and, more importantly, to disparage Mr. Trump. I wonder if the virus is, in fact, close to burning itself out and the surge in cases signifies that it will soon run out of new victims. How many asymptomatic carriers are out there?  We just don’t know, but by August we’ll have an idea.

It’s certainly in the interest of the Woke Resistance and its inquisitors in the Woke media to keep the volume up on Covid-19 hysteria. It’s crucial to their strategy of forcing a vote-by-mail system that would easily invite voter fraud. It also provides a cover for keeping their mummified lead candidate, Joe Biden, moldering silently in his basement like the ghost of Hubert Humphrey, as well as an excuse to avoid a real convention in Milwaukee, which would force Mr. Biden to step up and speak before a huge, live audience. Imagine the mortification.

Just as I’m unconvinced about the meaning of the Covid-19 surge, I don’t buy the polls that show Mr. Biden ten points up on Mr. Trump. I suspect many actual voters were not pleased by the June reign of terror unleashed by Democratic mayors and governors, and did not fail to notice exactly how all that went down. And it is well-known now, four years after the last election and its janky polling, that many voters won’t reveal their true intentions to pollsters — fearing the vilification they’d invite.

I’ve gotten a lot of letters and comments lately condemning my failure to go all-out against Mr. Trump. So, I’ll state my current position plainly: I didn’t vote for him last time, but I would vote for him this time to keep the Democratic Party out of power. There’s a lot to not love about Mr. Trump in his persona and manner. There’s a great deal more to fear about the prospect of Democratic Party control of government. Their enmity to free speech cannot be doubted after a decade of promoting cancel culture. Their appetite for coercion is at odds with the Bill of Rights. Their bad faith and dishonesty have been on display through all the concocted melodramas of RussiaGate and its offshoots. Their economic program is a mashup of all the failed central planning regimes from the bygone 20th century and is wholly inconsistent with the new imperatives to downscale and re-localize the real productive activities of daily life in this country.

Beyond Mr. Trump’s deformities of personal presentation, I am more in favor with the blunt outlines of his policies. I’m for strict control of the nations borders and frankly for reduced immigration. Globalism is clearly winding down and Mr. Trump’s drive to produce more of what we need here in America is in step with that reality. Mr. Trump has been careful to avoid new foreign misadventures — though the military establishment and their pals in the war industries have obstructed the president’s will to quit the old adventures still being prosecuted in places across the Middle East and West Asia. I suspect Mr. Trump might have accomplished more in the nation’s interest if he hadn’t been hounded, harried, and sabotaged by the ceaseless bad faith hostilities of his opponents since Nov 3, 2016.

I’m not confident about Mr. Trump’s management of the nation’s financial quandaries, and especially the racking-up of epic new debt, but there’s plenty of evidence that the Democratic Party would do a lot worse in terms of spending money that doesn’t exist and destroying what’s left of the country’s productive capacity, along with what remains of the middle class. I believe anybody who has managed to stay sane through the travails of the past four years cannot fail to see that the clinically incompetent Joe Biden is an obvious stalking horse for something more sinister. I think we will learn what that is before much longer.

Following is an ad for a friend and esteemed fellow blogger

For sale: 1930’s renovated house with commercial front and vegetable garden, + community mom & pop thrift store business one block away, in Hope, British Columbia, a small frontier town of 6,000. The New2Yew business is beloved by the community and has weathered the covid-19 storm amazingly well (zero confirmed cases, and no enforced closings, quarantines, or lockdowns). With its close-knit community, clean air, fresh water, two rivers, mountains on every side, it has all the necessary elements to withstand the long-emergency. A veritable paradise with all the amenities. For more info, click here.

Note: I am posting on Parler now as jhkunstler.

This blog is sponsored this week by McAlvany ICA. To learn more visit: //

Your Summer Reading ! ! !


Attention Movie Producers!
JHK’s screenplay in hard-copy edition

Click to order!

A Too-Big-To-Fail Bankster
Three Teenagers who bring him down
Gothic doings on a Connecticut Estate.
High velocity drama!

Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page

The post Position Statement appeared first on Kunstler.


You are labeled a “dangerous anti-vaxxer” if you dare mention vaccine injury, so who is behind this coercive push to conceal it?

(Natural News) If you dare mention vaccine injury, talk about the risks of vaccination, or point out corruption in the vaccine industry, you are quickly branded as an “anti-vaxxer” who is engaged in “dangerous” anti-vaccination activity.


BOMBSHELL : Covid-19 infection rate may be 440% higher among children who received FLU SHOTS... while health "authorities" madly push more shots for the coming flu season

(Natural News) A new study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases ( finds that children who received inactivated influenza vaccines were 440% more likely (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.


Europe: Rape Victims Accused Of Racism

Europe: Rape Victims Accused Of Racism Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2020 - 02:00

Authored by Raymond Ibrahim via The Gatestone Institute,

An increasingly popular idea is that whenever races clash, only minorities can be victims. The notion is hardly limited to the recent riots in America. Elements of such thinking often appear in other contexts.

British women, for instance, including rape victims who drew attention to "Asian" (Pakistani and South Asian) sex grooming gangs, are also being attacked by the "woke" establishment.

Earlier this month in the UK, Sarah Champion, a Labor politician and MP for Rotherham (the epicenter of sex grooming), was accused of "fanning the flames of racial hatred" and "acting like a neo-fascist murderer."

Her crime? She had dared to assert that "Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls."

The same elements accusing Champion of being a "murderer" also characterized the UK's anti-extremism program, Prevent, as being "built upon a foundation of Islamophobia and racism."

A few weeks earlier, an article titled, "I was raped by Rotherham grooming gang—now I still face racist abuse online," appeared. In it, a British woman (alias, "Ella") revealed that her Muslim rapists called her "a white whore, a white b***h," during the more than 100 times she was raped in her youth by the Pakistani grooming gang.

"We need to understand racially and religiously aggravated crime if we are going to prevent it and protect people from it and if we are going to prosecute correctly for it," Champion said in a recent interview.

"Prevention, protection and prosecution—all of them are being hindered because we are neglecting to properly address the religious and racist aspects of grooming gang crimes.... It's telling them that it's OK to hate white people."

Ella's attempts to highlight the "religious and racist aspects" of her and many other girls' similar abuse led only to "a lot of abuse from far-left extremists, and radical feminist academics," she said. Such groups "go online and they try to resist anyone they consider to be a Nazi, racist, fascist or white supremacist".

"They don't care about anti-white racism, because they appear to believe that it doesn't exist. They have tried to floor me and criticise me continually and this has been going on for a couple of months. They tried to shut me down, shut me up ... I've never experienced such hate online in my life. They accuse me of 'advocating for white paedophiles' and being a 'sinister demonic entity.'"

Placing the blame -- or at least responsibility -- on the victim is not limited to the UK. According to an August 9, 2019 report, "in the Swedish city of Uppsala ... four women were raped in as many days." Although police failed to issue descriptions of the rapists -- usually a sure sign of their origins -- they did issue warnings for women to "think how they behave," to "think ahead," and not "go out alone."

Advice against alcohol, drugs, and reckless behavior would be more compelling if it were not made under duress.

After mobs of Muslim migrants sexually assaulted as many as a thousand women on New Year's Eve 2016 in Cologne, Germany, the city's mayor, Henriette Reker, called on women to "be better prepared, especially with the Cologne carnival coming up. For this, we will publish online guidelines that these young women can read through to prepare themselves."

In Austria, after a 20-year-old woman waiting at a bus stop in Vienna was attacked, beaten and robbed by four Muslim men -- including one who "started [by] putting his hands through my hair and made it clear that in his cultural background there were hardly any blonde women" -- police responded by telling the victim to dye her hair.

"At first I was scared, but now I'm more angry than anything. After the attack they told me that women shouldn't be alone on the streets after 8pm. And they also gave me other advice, telling me I should dye my hair dark and also not dress in such a provocative way. Indirectly that means I was partly to blame for what happened to me. That is a massive insult."

In Norway, Unni Wikan, a female professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, insists that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes," because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. So much for the feminist claim that women are free to dress as seductively as they want -- and woe to the man who misinterprets this, unless he is from a racial or religious minority group.

Professor Wikan's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West need to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

Even when it comes to rape, then, if the victim is white and the rapist is not, she is no victim at all; worse, she is a "racist" and "hater" who, if anything, apparently deserves what she got and more. "Blame the victim" is back with a vengeance and gaining ground throughout the West.