WTF is the president thinking?
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In a move that will make globalists squeal with delight, President Trump says he would mobilize the military to give out the Covid-19 vaccine to the American public.
What a horrible idea! This is literally an idea the deep state would cook up. Does the president realize the pro-mandatory vaccine crowd is not his base?
According to CBS:
President Trump says he would “rapidly” mobilize the U.S. military to distribute a coronavirus vaccine once it’s ready, focusing first on nursing homes and the elderly most vulnerable to deadly complications from the virus. Mr. Trump made the comments during an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo.
“We’re mobilizing our military and other forces but we’re mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine. You know, it’s a massive job to give this vaccine. Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year we’re going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly,” the president said.
“We will have a tremendous force because assuming we get it, then you have to distribute it,” he added. “And unless you’re mobilized and ready, you’re not going to be able to do it for a long time. So we’re starting now.”
Voice of America also reported that the president would release more details on Friday.
Notice the number of downvotes on this video posted by his base:
Scientists in Iceland said they have already found at least 40 different mutations of the coronavirus, which suggests that the vaccine could be as ineffective as a flu shot.
“So now they’re telling us they’re gonna rush a COVID vaccine when we know there have been twenty to thirty mutations of this virus already, and I’m very, very concerned that they’re rushing out a vaccine that will be dangerous, ineffective, et cetera, so I said this,” radio host Michael Savage said last week. “
…And I don’t care who tells me I have to take it, if Donald Trump tells me to take it, I’m not taking it, you hear me? I’m not taking it for Jesus, I’m not taking it for Trump, I’m not taking it for Moses, I’m not not taking it for Isaiah, I’m not taking it for Muhammad, I’m not taking it for Charlie Parker, I’m not taking it.”

Did you listen? Will you listen now?


WVNG sanitizes daycare


Governor Carney toured the contact tracing staff room at the Delaware Emergency Response Center in March:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research

Approximately 200 Delawareans will be hired as contact tracers

WILMINGTON, Del. –  Governor John Carney on Tuesday announced that the State of Delaware entered into an agreement with the nonpartisan research institution NORC at the University of Chicago to build Delaware’s statewide contact tracing program, to contain COVID-19, limit Delawareans’ exposure to the disease, and restart Delaware’s economy.
The contact tracing program builds on Delaware’s statewide plan to test up to 80,000 Delawareans monthly for COVID-19. Expanded testing and contact tracing efforts are key to reopening Delaware’s economy under guidance from the White House and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
NORC also has partnered with the State of Maryland to perform contact tracing. Delaware and Maryland will share information to more effectively monitor COVID-19’s spread across state lines.
Approximately 200 Delawareans will be hired as contact tracers and support staff.
Applications for contact tracers and other associated positions will be posted at in the coming weeks.
“To safely reopen our economy, we need to be able to quickly identify positive COVID-19 cases and reach out to those residents who may have been exposed. This contact tracing program brings us one step closer to returning Delaware to a new normal,” said Governor Carney. “We’ve been working with Maryland to coordinate our reopening efforts, and this partnership will build on that collaboration. Going forward, hiring a contact tracing workforce of Delawareans that reflects the diversity of our state will be a top priority.”
“This is a critically important complement to the statewide testing plan the Governor announced last week and the two plans are really integrally linked,” said DPH Director Dr. Karyl Rattay. “Contact tracing is a basic public health practice for containing an epidemiological event by talking with the person who is infected and reaching out to their contacts in order to decrease transmission. It will help us track positive cases of COVID-19 and limit the spread of the virus both short-term and long-term.”
“One of our highest priorities is making sure that our workforce of contact tracers reflects the entire community we serve,” saidDepartment of Health and Social Services (DHSS) Secretary Dr. Kara Odom Walker, a practicing family physician. “When positive cases of COVID-19 are identified through widespread community testing, our tracers will need to work quickly to talk with known contacts and help them self-quarantine with any necessary supports.”
“We are proud to be part of Delaware’s solution for COVID contact tracing during this critical time in the state’s history,” said David Cotton, PhD, NORCs project director for this effort. “We are bringing to bear our decades of experience with high volume, scientifically rigorous data collection and public health expertise to help the State and DHSS stem the tide of new infections.”
Over the next week – as the State of Delaware scales up its contact tracing operation – 100 members of the Delaware National Guard will embed with the Division of Public Health to begin wide-scale, statewide contact tracing.
National Guardsmen and women began their training on Monday.
“I’m proud of our Delaware National Guard Citizen Soldiers and Airmen who volunteered to serve the state in this mission,” said Major General Michael R. Berry, Adjutant General of the Delaware National Guard. “Our Guardsmen and women live in these communities and are best positioned to assist DPH with such a critical role to help fight the spread of COVID-19 in Delaware.”
Under Delaware’s contact tracing program, Delawareans who have tested positive for COVID-19 should expect a phone call from a case investigator asking for information which includes a list of the person’s known contacts. Contact tracers will then reach out to each of those contacts to help them safely quarantine, to find alternate arrangements as necessary, and to help them get tested for COVID-19, if recommended.
Delawareans who need extra support to safely self-quarantine – such as grocery delivery or alternative housing – will be referred to a network of local community health workers. Healthy Communities Delaware will coordinate the community health worker effort, in partnership with community-based organizations.
“Healthy Communities Delaware believes that using community-based partnerships and providing necessary and life-sustaining resources and other social services supports directly to those individuals in vulnerable communities who are most impacted by COVID-19 is paramount in reducing the spread of this disease in our state,” said Rita Landgraf, Managerial Partner for Healthy Communities Delaware, University of Delaware Partnership for Healthy Communities.
The Delaware Department of Technology and Information will work with NORC’s technology partner, Enovational, and the Delaware Health Information Network to build a technology platform that allows the Division of Public Health to efficiently share data with contact tracers.
“Technology has played a critical role during this pandemic to gather, track, and share data,” said Chief Information Officer James Collins of the Delaware Department of Technology and Information. “In the hands of contact tracers, it will be an invaluable force multiplier that helps prevent the spread of COVID-19 and save lives.”
About NORC
From 2015 to 2020, NORC has conducted more than 3 million hours of telephone interviews. A significant portion of those interviews were in support of major public health-related studies such as the National Immunization Survey, which NORC conducts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, which NORC conducts for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; and the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project, which NORC conducts for the National Institutes of Health.
Many of these studies involve nuanced, carefully scripted conversations about sensitive health issues, and interviewees are often members of underrepresented or difficult-to-reach demographic groups. Through these and similar studies, NORC has derived significant methodological expertise, including how best to deploy and integrate different modes of data collection and the technologies that support them.
Anyone with a question about COVID-19, whether related to medical or social service needs, should call Delaware 2-1-1. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing can text their ZIP code to 898-211. Hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday; 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.
Questions can also be submitted by email at
DPH will continue to update the public as more information becomes available. For the latest on Delaware’s response, go to

Delaware National Guard Receives Contact Tracer Training in the First State

Soldiers in a class room in front of computers with mask on
DOVER, Del. (May 11, 2020) — Soldiers with the Delaware National Guard and its Joint Task Force listen in at a Division of Public Health session on COVID-19 contact tracing. Contact tracing is the process used in public health to find and reach out to the contacts of someone testing positive for an infectious disease.
U.S. Army National Guard photo by Capt. Brendan Mackie

Photo by FEMA – May 13, 2020


This Isn’t a Public Health Problem

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
U.S.A. –-( Politicians said we can’t go to work because of a public health emergency. That doesn’t make sense. The actions of our politicians don’t match their words.
  • If we release violent criminals from jail, and then jail peaceful shop owners, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If cops who are not wearing a mask, arrest you for not wearing a mask, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If police threaten to give tickets to a husband and wife because they are sitting next to each other in public, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If police ticket couples who are driving together during a mandatory lockdown, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If you can walk on the beach, but you’ll get arrested for sitting down on the beach, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If you can go to the beach, but you can’t fish from the shore, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If churches are closed but abortion centers are open, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If people die of preventable causes while our hospitals are empty, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If the liquor store clerk can serve thousands of people a day, but you can’t open your business for a few dozen customers, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If golf courses are open, but shooting ranges are closed, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If the grocery clerk can see over a thousand people a day, but your priest can only have 9 other people his his church, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If the court is open for marriage or divorce, but not to renew your concealed carry permit, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If counties who shelter in place have similar death rates as counties who don’t, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If we treat counties that have never seen a death from Covid-19 the same way we treat New York City, then this isn’t a public health problem.
One third of Covid deaths in green, one third in yellow, and one third in red area.
  • If politicians send sick people back to nursing homes, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If politicians demand help, and then refuse to use emergency hospitals staffed by volunteers, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If you’re told to socially isolate even after you’ve had covid-19 and are now immune from it, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If politicians say we shouldn’t jail people for disobeying the regulations that the politician just wrote, then this isn’t a public health problem.
  • If politicians go to the gym, go get their hair cut, and go to a nail salon, but you can’t, then this isn’t a public health problem.
Make haircuts safe and legal
We have a political problem during an epidemic, but not because of the epidemic. Politicians want to control you. Please get off the couch and solve it, or we won’t have a country by the November elections.
Call your elected representatives and demand your freedom.

Set us free!

About Rob MorseSlow Facts
The original article is here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob was an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.


Contact Tracing Group Funded By Soros and Gates, Has Chelsea Clinton on Board


What do these investigators really want?

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Partners in Health was recently selected by Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker to conduct Coronavirus “contact tracing,” a process that involves teams of investigators finding out who infected people have come into contact with.
The group is already “training and deploying hundreds of contact tracers.” Some citizens fear the potential for mass surveillance posed by contact tracing, especially in light of a Democrat-introduced bill in Congress to authorize contact tracing “at individuals’ residences.” Partners In Health’s involvement will not assuage many fears, considering the group has received funding from George Soros and Bill Gates organizations and counts Chelsea Clinton on its board of trustees.
Partners in Health lists George Soros’ Open Society Foundations as an official partner, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Partners In Health lists Open Society Foundations on its 2015 annual report as a supporter to the tune of $1 million or above, along with the Gates Foundation. Chelsea Clinton serves on Partners in Health’s Board of Trustees, according to its 2019 annual report. 
Partners in Health co-founder Paul Farmer’s bio notes: “Farmer’s work attracted the support of philanthropists, including George Soros and Bill and Melinda Gates. In 2002, PIH received a $13 million grant from the Global Fund for improvements in the Cange complex. In 2005 the William J. Clinton Foundation funded a Partners in Health AIDS program in Rwanda.” Farmer and Chelsea Clinton did a Clinton Foundation podcast together in 2019.
In response to a 2007 tuberculosis outbreak in Africa, NBC News reported: “Soros’ Open Society Institute announced a $3 million grant to the non-profit organization Partners in Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The donation will be used to design a model project of community-based XDR-TB treatment in Lesotho. Once treatment guidelines are developed, experts hope the program will be adopted in other poor countries.”
Soros personally announced the grant and said he hoped it would spark a larger project. For this initiative, Partners In Health was cited by name in the propaganda book The Philanthropy of George Soros: Building Open Societies.
In 2011, International Women’s Health Coalition noted, “YP Foundation Founder to Join Paul Farmer, George Soros, at IWHC Gala.” Farmer was honored at the gala, which Guest of a Guest noted had David Rockefeller in attendance.
In 2014, Partners In Health co-founder Paul Farmer secured multi-million dollar Soros financing for a coalition project in Africa. Farmer was featured in an October 2014 video interview on Soros’ Open Society Foundations website, which stated, “In between trips to Liberia, Paul Farmer of Partners In Health visited Open Society’s offices to discuss his work on Ebola. Paul talked about the need to ensure sustainable health systems for people in nations where the virus has spread.” Farmer blasted “fear and conspiracy theories around fatal illnesses” in the video and talked about how to “attack” conspiracy theories with activism.
Forbes reported in September 2014: “There’s never been a connection between Ebola and first-rate medical care,” says Paul Farmer, the renowned co-founder of Partners in Health, before pointing out that none of the health care workers flown back to the U.S. for treatment have died. Could the answer to the outbreak lie in the care regiment for those afflicted?
We’ll soon find out. Farmer landed in Liberia this morning, at the center of a coalition quietly formed to specifically – and quickly – test that thesis. In the next few weeks, the Farmer group will open a top-notch treatment facility in one of Liberia’s most rural provinces, along with strategies designed to maximize its effectiveness.
“This has been coming together for years,” Farmer tells Forbes, a few hours before departing on the trip. “The Ebola crisis pushed it over the edge.”
The impetus for this coalition began with a meeting two weeks ago, convened by Farmer’s co-founder at Partners in Health, Jim Kim, who is now president of the World Bank. Attendees included Director-General Margaret Chan of the World Health Organization, Tom Frieden, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute for Health. Dismayed by the global response – Kim told the group that the outbreak already ranks among the worst health crises in world history — Kim tabbed Farmer as the World Bank’s special Ebola advisor and also enlisted another attendee at the meeting, Raj Panjabi, who runs Last Mile Health in Liberia. (Full disclosure: Panjabi was mentored at last year’s Forbes 400 Summit on Philanthropy and I now chair the advisory board for Last Mile Health, which hires, trains and manages front-line health care workers in remote villages.)
George Soros’ Open Society Foundations quickly provided $4 million to fund this project. “The coalition got us a proposal the next day, they answered all our questions the day after, and we got them the funds they needed before the week was out,” says Chris Stone, the organization’s president. The project was appealing to Soros’ team because it features a local group familiar with the turf, an entrepreneurial mentality and the ability to scale.”
Forbes passage ends

Prospective Coronavirus contact tracers in New York City are required to understand “institutional and structural racism” and to support immigrants and the LGBTQ community. The government is employing contact tracers to investigate who infected persons come into contact with, leading to civilian concerns that privacy is being attacked.

job posting on Columbia University School of General Studies states: “The Fund for Public Health in New York City (FPHNYC), in partnership with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), is seeking contact tracers to perform case interviews and contact tracing to support the citywide COVID-19 response. using a trauma-informed, culturally respectful approach that builds trust and facilitates the free sharing of information.” The job includes “Conducting in-person investigations into congregate settings and selected cases and contacts.”
Listed requirements include: “Ability to understand the concepts of institutional and structural racism and bias and their impact on underserved and underrepresented communities” and “Have a demonstrated commitment to supporting communities who have experienced systemic oppression and bias (e.g. people of color, LGBTQ people, immigrants, justice involved persons, etc.)”

Democrat Rep. Bobby Rush has introduced a bill in Congress to authorize the federal government to grant approved entities the right to conduct contact tracing for Coronavirus at “individuals’ residences.” Contact tracing involves investigators tracing every interaction that infected people have.

Rep. Rush introduced HR 6666, “COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act” on May 1, 2020 and it has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill has 45 co-sponsors. According to the text of the bill: “To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID-19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals’ residences, and for other purposes.”
People are concerned that the government might be angling to use contact tracing to remove people from their homes and place them in quarantine, after a Ventura County, California health official suggested doing just that (and later walked it back, though it’s unclear what his proposed policy actually is at this time).
WHAT WOULD YOU DO if your six year old son or daughter tested positive for COVID19 and was taken from your home to a quarantine center by Ventura Health Authorities? This SHOCKING VIDEO demands that you plan ahead.

Embedded video

27.6K people are talking about this
Former Democrat president Bill Clinton extensively discussed contact tracing recently in video interviews with Democrat leaders including governors Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom:
The video I highlighted of Bill Clinton discussing a potential “Contact Tracer Corps” was taken down, but here is another version of it that features Bill talking to Cuomo and Newsom 
96 people are talking about this

Alex Jones discusses the dismemberment of the coronavirus task force & Fauci’s fraud!



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Nothing says anti-Christ statism like turning the Church into a government-funded 
institution. While church leaders around the country are caving to the state’s demands 
that they shut their doors and Democrat governors are blaming the spread of coronavirus on Christians, some Evangelical leaders are tramping around begging Caesar to give money to these churches.
This is exactly what top Southern Baptist leader and president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Russell Moore is doing.

Moore, who has a difficult time grasping the concept of the Separation of Church and State from numerous fronts, sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi begging her for money to keep the doors of churches from shuttering permanently. In this letter, he asks for restrictions on charitable businesses to be removed and more money to be handed out to them through the Payment Protection Program in Phase 4 of the COVID-19 Relief Package.
The inability to access those loans will hinder the good work of many nonprofits, and could permanently close other charitable organizations. This could be solved through a nonprofit charity grant program that would be accessed by faith-based charities to support employee retention, hiring, and programming. The funds could be administered through a nonprofit PPP program, and a nonprofit grant program administered by the U.S. Treasury.
It’s bad enough that the most influential leader in the largest Protestant denomination in the country is begging Nancy Pelosi — of all people — for more money. But that’s not all he’s doing. He is also begging her to release more prisoners from federal prison.
He writesIncarcerated men and women are especially vulnerable in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis because of contained physical space. This is especially true for aging and immunocompromised incarcerated populations. Congress should expand compassionate release during the pandemic, so that higher-risk individuals would be protected from medical harm. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and federal courts use this tool to reduce sentences for federal prisoners on a case-by-case basis for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.”
Congress should temporarily reduce the 30 day waiting period for federal prisoners to file a motion for compassionate release directly with a federal court in order to speed up the process and provide quicker physical and medical relief to those incarcerated.
We learned last night on Tucker Carlson that Nancy Pelosi — who joined Russell Moore and other Southern Baptist leaders last year at the NAE Conference to oppose the border wall — has taken Russell Moore’s concerns to heart and has included massive provisions that would release enormous amounts of prisoners into the streets of America.
Southern Baptists are paying for this. And church leaders who keep sending money to this rogue entity rather than speak out boldly and publicly against him are part of the problem.


In this episode of Behind the Deep State, host Alex Newman explains how subversives and collectivists deliberately turned tens of millions of Americans into illiterates using quackery such as the whole word / look say / sight word method of teaching reading. This often produces symptoms of dyslexia, and was first exposed as ineffective quackery in the 1840s when it was tried in Boston under Horace Mann. Alex also gives some phonics programs–the proper way to teach reading–that you can use to protect your children from becoming illiterates. And he gives a brief overview of the reading wars. 🎓 Special Issue – Rescuing Our Children:  ▶️ More Videos: Educating for the New World Order Dumbing Down Your Children Deep State Sexualizing Children at School Public Schools Created to Collectivize Society 🇺🇸 The New American: 📲 Let’s Connect!… #Education #AlexNewman


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
The Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) has developed a website and an application known as the “Chi COVID Coach “ app where Chicagoans can now pre-register to receive a COVID-19 vaccine once it is licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the U.S.1
According to the Chicago Sun Times, the “Chi COVID Coach” mobile app was developed by Google and MTX in collaboration with the CDPH to help communicate with Chicagoans who have either tested positive for the coronavirus or may be experiencing symptoms.1 The application uses Google Cloud’s technology to provide residents with real-time information.

Pre-Registration for Future Mass Vaccination in Chicago

The CDPH website states that the main purpose of the “Chi COVID Coach” app is to coach COVID-19 patients on symptoms, provide testing information, announce the availability of future antibody testing information and allow pre-registration for when a vaccine becomes available.2
The website states, “Looking even further ahead, registering with Chi COVID Coach will ensure CDPH has your individual information as we plan for Chicago’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign–which likely will not happen until 2021, once a vaccine is available.”
CDPH Commissioner Allison Arwady said officials are building their plans with the intention to vaccinate the whole city of Chicago.3 According to a press release from Mayor Lori Elaine Lightfoot’s office, “Though a vaccine may be many months away, CDPH is already taking steps to prepare for mass vaccination. Because of this, everyone is encouraged to sign up, whether they have symptoms or not.”4
Although Mayor Lightfoot and CDPH Commissioner Arwady said a COVID-19 vaccine is not expected until 2021, both said they are already mapping plans to vaccinate the whole city by purchasing syringes and equipment and choosing locations where the vaccine will be administered.1

Using Technology For “Contact Tracing” and Mapping Plans

Even though a COVID-19 vaccine is not expected to be licensed for emergency use until the end of this year with widespread use not expected until 2021, the goal of pre-registering Chicagoans and collecting personal medical information in an electronic database will make the data immediately available to public health officials once a licensed vaccine is distributed in the United States.5
Public health officials in Chicago are weighing technology options needed to link a person’s symptoms to COVID-19 test results, vaccination status and ultimately, contact tracing.5
Contact tracing involves electronically monitoring the movements of people, usually through smartphones carried by the majority of people, and tracing everyone that a person, who tests positive for the coronavirus, has been in contact with. Public health officials have said that this practice is viewed as a crucial step to safely re-open the Chicago economy.5
Mayor Lightfoot said that the city of Chicago is looking at adopting a mobile app technology being developed in Germany.1 She states, “The German government is working on an app that will automatically be able to do and facilitate contact tracing on the basis of proximity to somebody who is subsequently tested positive. The app will collect information about who you’ve been in contact with, then automatically send out an alert.”1
Chicago officials maintain that the electronic surveillance data is protected and will only be used by CDPH for public health purposes related to controlling the spread of COVID-19.5
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Opinion | Politicians are dreaming of a “Manhattan Project-style effort” to develop and distribute a coronavirus vaccine “for most Americans by year’s end.” To accomplish this dramatic cut in vaccine development time, “the program will pull together private pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and the military.” Normal vaccine development time is significantly longer.
Fourteen potential coronavirus vaccines are vying to be selected as the winner of “Operation Warp Speed.” Government will shield pharmaceutical companies from liability for damages that their vaccines may inflict. Taxpayers will reimburse companies for development costs for vaccines that don’t make it to market.
If you’re cheering the government for cutting red-tape, think again. Liability shields for crony capitalists and no cost for failure policies guarantee errors will be made. Without market safeguards significant injuries to human beings are highly likely. Errors will be exacerbated if medical tyranny prevails with legal mandates requiring the COVID-19 vaccination for employment and travel.
Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as efficient food distribution in the Soviet Union? Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as a safe East German Communist Trabant automobile? There is no such thing as efficient and safe, centrally planned pharmaceutical development. As we will see later in this essay, the last time government sought a “warp speed” vaccine, dead and paralyzed vaccine recipients were the tragic consequences.

Limits on Liability

Pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, have benefits and costs. We don’t have to resolve our cognitive dissonance by denying the benefits of vaccines or denying the harm they can do.
Faced with “challenges to vaccine orthodoxy, scholars, commentators, and public health officials are quick to characterize dissent as mere propaganda of ‘anti-vaxxers,’” writes law professor Efthimios Parasidis in his Boston University Law Review article “Recalibrating Vaccination Laws.”
Parasidis wrote his essay a mere three years ago. Could he have imagined what is happening today, just a few years later? A group affiliated with the FBI is labeling those who question the vaccine orthodoxy as a “threat to national security.” In a similar vein, California State Senator Dr. Richard Pan claims that those demanding an end to lockdowns and those who question vaccines “have the same message: We want you to get sick.” Demonizing dissenters is rhetoric straight out of a totalitarian playbook. People who threaten “national security” and who “want you to get sick” will be ideal “devils” for politicians to blame when their own policies fail.
Parasidis wrote that such tactics obfuscate safety and legal issues, “Focusing contemporary vaccine policy debate on anti-vaxxer rhetoric detracts from adequate consideration of important vaccine-related issues.” In his article, Parasidis points to both “the health benefits of vaccines” and “the shortcomings of the legal framework governing immunizations.”
The shortcomings of the legal framework to which Parasidis refers stem from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act).
The Vaccine Act granted pharmaceutical manufacturers broad legal immunity from lawsuits for vaccine injuries. Further, Parasidis writes, “once a vaccine is approved and made available to the public, a manufacturer does not have a statutory obligation to actively collect and analyze safety and efficacy data, nor are manufacturers obligated to update vaccine formulas in light of new scientific advancements.”
On top of the protections in the 1986 Vaccine Act, vaccine manufacturers have received additional liability protections under a February 2020 declaration by Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services. Azar claims his authority to make such a declaration is granted by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
Azar’s order makes “immune from suit and liability…to all claims of loss,” for all those who “manufacture, distribute, administer, prescribe or use” any treatments or vaccines. Administer a rushed-to-market vaccine to healthy individuals at no particular risk from COVID-19 and the government will shield you from liability. Lobby to make the vaccine mandatory and government will shield you from liability.
Noted vaccine advocates and developers such as Dr. Paul Offit have expressed alarm that “warp speed” developers might ignore standard vaccine development safeguards. “Remember,” Offit cautioned, “You’re giving this vaccine, likely, to healthy people — who are not the people typically dying from this infection.”
Liability shields warp decision-making and increase risk. Having to pay insurance premiums provides incentives to reduce risk. Think of insurance premiums on cars. Insurance premiums might help us decide against the sports car we have been coveting for years in favor of a sedate sedan. High insurance premiums for drivers involved in crashes or caught driving drunk or frequently speeding help those drivers make needed behavioral changes.
If the government indemnified us from damages from driving, risky driving would become more common. Those taking added risks would fool themselves with an illusion of competency. They might be indignant when charged with endangering others.
Libertarian law professor Richard Epstein has explored the problem in limiting liability. Writing about the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he explained why “the best way to deter future spills is to expose drillers to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near an oil derrick.”
Let’s rewrite Epstein’s observations: the best way to ensure vaccine safety is to expose pharmaceutical companies to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near a human body.
Epstein was adamant:
The legal system should never allow self-interested parties to keep for themselves all the gains from dangerous activities that unilaterally impose losses on others—which is why the most devout defender of laissez-faire must insist, not just concede, that tough medicine is needed in these cases.
As Epstein explained, insurance companies are the best regulators:
“A tough liability system does more than provide compensation for serious harms after the fact. It also sorts out the wheat from the chaff—so that in this case companies with weak safety profiles don’t get within a mile of an oil derrick. Solid insurance underwriting is likely to do a better job in pricing risk than any program of direct government oversight. Only strong players, highly incentivized and fully bonded, need apply for a permit to operate.”
Epstein’s logic applies to the Vaccine Act. Pharmaceutical companies are highly incentivized to produce the safest vaccines when they are subject to the discipline of obtaining insurance coverage.
Those advocating in favor of liability shields say that protecting public health requires this waiver. Without the waiver, they claim, too few vaccines would be produced.
The case against liability shields is not a case against vaccines; it is a case against the distorted production of vaccines. Limits on liability override the risk-reducing incentives provided by having to pay insurance premiums and thus result in vaccines that are less safe than they would otherwise be.

Swine Flu Lessons

In his book, The Myth of Scientific Public Policy, economist Robert Formaini challenges the view that elite experts can evaluate public policy objectively “while remaining neutral on troublesome ethical issues.”
Formaini looks at lessons we should have learned from the 1976 swine flu outbreak. The outbreak began at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The flu outbreak was not unusual; it was winter, and in the close quarters of army barracks, respiratory illnesses and flu were common. Formaini writes, “The outbreak may have passed unnoticed except for a bet between two doctors about the nature of the disease.” Throat cultures were sent to multiple health organizations; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found swine flu.
The CDC asked Congress “for a $134 million program to vaccinate virtually every person within the United States.”
Formaini writes, “Private drug companies did not want to make the vaccine unless they were statutorily protected from liability from torts.” Congress granted such protection despite warnings from some such luminaries as polio vaccine pioneer Dr. Albert Sabin. Sabin “castigated the rush to vaccinate everyone and urged that vaccines be stockpiled for ‘high risk’ groups.” Sabin also derided “scare tactics” used to get people to vaccinate.
Within months, a swine flu vaccine was produced and approved. The CDC failed “to alert the public to any serious potential side effects other than a possible case of ‘mild’ flu.” Even a mild flu can lead “to fatal complications” for “high-risk groups.”
Within days, 33 people who received the vaccine died. Health officials refused to acknowledge the connection between the vaccine and the deaths. “Walter Cronkite chastised his media colleagues” for covering the deaths. Vaccinations continued, and an alarming number of Guillain-Barré syndrome cases, a known potentially fatal side effect of flu vaccines, appeared.
Shortly after that, the CDC director resigned, and government shelved the vaccination program.
Formaini raised pointed questions that should be asked again today in the rush for a COVID-19 vaccine. Among those questions were:
  1. Why did “experts immediately decide” that “universal vaccination was the only option?”
  2. “Why were the drug companies released from liability if the ‘risks’ were so small?”
  3. “Why was disengagement so difficult when the program’s consequences began to materialize?”
  4.  “Who ought to have been liable for this policy?”
Today’s experts are like the experts in the 1970s who were full of hubris and overconfidence. Policy analysts who later examined the 1976 swine flu concluded among other things:
  1. “There was overconfidence by medical specialists in theories ‘spun’ from ‘meager evidence.’”
  2. “Conclusions were reached ‘fueled by conjunctions’ with pre-existing ‘personal agendas.’”
  3. “There often was ‘premature commitment’—deciding more than had to be decided.”
  4. There often was “insufficient questioning of scientific logic and implementation prospects.”
Distorted decision-making was driven by “rent-seeking” by public officials during this crisis where “the heads of bureaucratic departments or agencies,” sought expansion of “their personal empires within the government.”
Reading Formaini, it is easy to see the same mistakes of 1976 repeated in 2020. In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius observed of politics, “All of this has happened before. And will happen again—the same plot from beginning to end, the identical staging.”

Biochemical Individuality

The late biochemist Roger J. Williams is famed for his study of the implications of biochemical individuality. His research explains the importance of understanding that “real people exhibit individuality and in a sense are always exceptional people.” Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly.
In his essay “Individuality and Its Significance in Human Life” contained in the Liberty Fund book Essays on Individuality, Williams writes: “Concerning the ubiquity of individuality, we can, I believe, accept without danger of contradiction the categorical statement that every human individual (even in the case of identical twins) is distinctive and different.”
Yet, in medicine, often only lip service is paid to individuality. We like “the idea of distinctiveness,” yet, as Williams observes, we are “all the time being ignorant about the character of the differences and perhaps even assuming they are inconsequential.”
Williams explores startling differences in our organs: “Although the textbook picture of the human stomach, for example, is well stereotyped, there are enormous variations in shape and about a sixfold variation in size.” Even the position of the stomach in the body may vary by up to eight inches.
Similar differences in size and position are found in livers and intestines. Should we be surprised, Williams asks, “that people exhibit individuality in their eating?”
Williams explains that “Each individual has a highly characteristic breathing pattern,” and “has a distinctive heart action.”
“Endocrine glands vary widely from individual to individual.” Williams adds that “our entire nervous system is subject to the same wide variation, which is not only anatomic but physiological as well.
If you’re thinking all these differences even out and most people are average, you would be wrong. The chance that we have an average anatomical makeup, according to Williams, is only about one in 1024.
Physiological individuality is also the norm. For example, there are up to “100 fold variations in the taste sensitivity of different individuals for such common substances as sugar [and] salt.” Nutritional needs vary up top fivefold for vitamins, minerals, and amino acids.
In short, Williams writes, “Whether we consider heart action, brain waves, circulation, breathing, the endocrine functions, the blood, temperature regulation, or a multitude of other facets of physiology, the story is the same—abundant evidence of individuality involving differences of great magnitude.”
Biochemical individuality has great significance for the administration of drugs or vaccines. Since body chemistries differ among individuals, reactions to pharmaceuticals also differ.
According to Williams, “Some specific chemical reactions may be taking place 10 times as fast in one individual as in another.” Consider that “Using objective tests 10.5 percent were intoxicated when the alcohol blood level was 0.05 percent, whereas 6.7 percent were sober when the alcohol blood level was eight times this high or 0.4 percent.”
There is no “normal man” for which a particular reaction is guaranteed.
Williams emphatically rejects the assumption of “every recognized treatise in the fields of biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and physiological psychology… that normal man, the prototype of all humanity, is the primary if not the exclusive object of study—he, above all is to be fathomed and understood.”
Caution is warranted. Previous attempts to develop “SARS coronavirus vaccines” led to “pulmonary” issues in animal testing. Vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) led to enhanced disease response among infants and toddlers. “Frequent hospitalization” was the result; an unacceptable result since RSV illnesses are usually mild. Despite “expert” assurances to the contrary, medical research suggests receiving a flu vaccination “may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference.”

The Greater Good?

Some might say, yes, mandatory vaccines may harm some, but the greater goal of protecting public health is worth the price. This “greater good” mindset led to the famed New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty covering up Stalin’s atrocities. Duranty was fond of saying, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”
Immunization levels thought to generate herd immunity, “magic numbers,” have never been proven as public health historian James Colgrove reports in his book State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America.
In 2009, during another swine flu outbreak, in their essay, “Does the Vaccine Matter?” Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer report of doctors challenging the medical orthodoxy about flu vaccines and antivirals. They provided evidence that “flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu.”
Vaccination may have unintended psychological consequences as well. Brownlee and Lenzer observe a connection between vaccinating and “breeding feelings of invulnerability, and leading some people to ignore simple measures like better-than-normal hygiene, staying away from those who are sick, and staying home when they feel ill.” Feelings of invulnerability lead people to eschew responsibility and become potential breeding grounds for disease.
Nothing we can do will guarantee health, but there are steps we can take that tilt the odds in our favor. Sugar-laden diets suppress the immunological system, while exercise boosts it. This year, the average American will eat nearly 200 pounds of disease-promoting sugar and corn syrup and will consume only about 6 pounds of disease-fighting broccoli and a mere “2 to 3 cups of kale every year — one of the healthiest foods on the planet.”
Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly. Biochemical individuality also explains why there is no one best way to a healthy immune system. Some thrive on keto diets, while others thrive on vegan diets. Others seek a middle ground in a Mediterranean diet.
For some, perhaps those in crowded urban environments, taking a COVID-19 vaccine may seem like a wise choice. Individuals choosing to be vaccinated deserve the safest possible vaccine, a vaccine for which insurance companies insuring vaccine manufacturers will provide liability protection.
For those who wish to avoid a COVID-19 vaccine, fundamental natural rights guarantee that freedom. No individual should be forcibly injected with a vaccine because of policy mandates from self-interested and zealous “expert” decision-makers.
Williams is clear: “Among the myriad of potentialities with which every individual is born, there still are an infinite number of possibilities of development—provided this ability to order one’s own life exists.” “In medicine,” Williams writes, “recognition of the scope and importance of individuality is indispensable to progress.”
For a central planner, individuality is a meaningless idea. Central planners will ignore Williams’s admonition at our peril.

This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is senior contributor at Intellectual Takeout and the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership.
Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers.  The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie focuses on The Witch-Hunts by the ‘Stay-at-Home’ Zealots, unveiling Virtue-signaling and shaming in a mass fascist health hysteria. Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch Jamie discuss Corona and the Serpent’s Lie to Eve, where he sheds a disturbing light on Suicide in the name of perfection and safety.
Follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

Fear, Surrender and Snitching Under Covid-19


The Leftist-Islam Supreme Court of Social Media Censorship is here
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Facebook controls as much as 80% of social media traffic. That means that it has the power to erase conversations, shift narratives, and control how people speak to one another.
With 190 million users in the United States, the social network monopoly has more control over what people see than all of the media giants combined do. And now Facebook is putting some very troubling political activists in charge of its Oversight Board who will decide how it censors.
“You can imagine some sort of structure, almost like a Supreme Court, that is made up of independent folks who don’t work for Facebook, who ultimately make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech in a community that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world,” Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg had described the Board.
What does Facebook’s Supreme Court of Censorship look like when you zoom in?
Only a quarter of the Oversight Board originates from the United States. That means three quarters of the censorship court comes from countries with no First Amendment. While people from outside the United States may believe in certain kinds of free speech, political speech in this country will be determined by a majority Third World board of left-leaning political activists.
And even there the balance is curiously tilted.
3 members of the 20 member board are Muslim or come from Muslim countries. Only one board member is Hindu. Considering that there are approximately 1.1 billion Hindus and 1.8 billion Muslims, the Facebook Oversight Board favors Muslim countries at the expense of Hindus.
Considering the pressure by Islamists and their allies to censor India’s Hindu political movements and civil rights organizations combating Islamic violence, this is troubling.
The Oversight Board also has only one Asian member for around 1.8 billion people.
Of the 3 Muslim nationals, Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy has noted that Tawakkol Karman was a top leader in a Muslim Brotherhood linked group with ties to Al Qaeda.
“The Brotherhood is a movement fighting for freedom,” Karman wrote of the organization whose leaders have called for the murder of Jews and whose history includes Nazi collaboration.
“Because it is an integral part of this region, the Brotherhood is the one who will rule Riyadh and Abu Dhabi,” she even predicted.
Facebook has added an Islamist who believes that a theocracy will rule the region, and put her in charge of determining content moderation policies for the entire planet. A member aligned with a violently bigoted organization will help Facebook police “hate speech”.
What will happen to ex-Muslims and secular activists in Muslim countries under this setup?
These numbers make it clear that the Board is not proportional by population, and despite its international makeup, reflects the political agendas of Facebook’s left-leaning leadership.
The first member, in alphabetical order, is a program manager at the Open Society Initiative, a part of the George Soros global political empire of NGOs. There is no indication that the Soros employee will be stepping down from her role so that, despite previous clashes with the radical billionaire, George Soros will effectively control a seat on Facebook’s Oversight Board.
At least.
Andras Sajo has held positions in Open Society organizations, including on the Board of Directors of the Open Society Justice Initiative and is allegedly an old friend of Soros.
Helle Thorning-Schmidt sits on the Board of Trustees of Soros’ International Crisis Group along with the extremist billionaire and his son.
Maina Kiai sits on the Advisory Board for the Human Rights Initiative of Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
Sudhir Krishnaswamy also appears to have benefited from an Open Society grant. This is not unusual considering that the Oversight Board is weighed heavily toward NGOs with members from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Even dismissing members who have only appeared at Soros events or made use of grants from Soros organizations, four Oversight Board members are deeply involved in Soros organizations. And Soros has made his hostility to free speech, and his conviction that conservatives must be censored, abundantly clear.
Soros has demanded that Facebook “should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site” and complained that the company “fails to adequately punish those who spread false information.” Will Oversight Board members who work for Soros or sit on the boards of his organizations protect free speech or support the billionaire’s crusade to censor the opposition?
If the Oversight Board is going to be the final determinative body for Facebook censorship, why stack it with so many professional human rights activists who are not lawyers or professors? Courts don’t invite in activists to issue rulings. That’s because activists come with agendas. And their agendas may involve empowerment, but usually for a small and narrowly defined group.
They are also rarely independent, but often funded by billionaires with their own agendas.
But even the Oversight Board’s academic members can be as repressive as a Soros.
Nicolas Suzor had written that “neutrality” on social media platforms is “causing problems” and that “neutral tools that do not actively take inequality into account will almost inevitably contribute to the amplification of inequality.” He even suggested that dissent from the Left’s global warming positions could also be viewed as dangerous. “Racism, misogyny, and bigotry, anti-vaccination content, misinformation, self-harm, and climate change denial — all require difficult judgments about when one person’s speech is harmful to others.”
In a Twitter exchange, a prof argued that, “many of the most controversial content moderation decisions are about leave-ups. Think: Pelosi video, hate speech in Myanmar, Alex Jones… not having this in scope for the Board from the start is a huge… Oversight.” Suzor replied that, “totally agree that expanding the scope as soon as we can is really important.”
That should worry anyone whose speech might one day fall afoul of the Soroses and Suzors.
Dubious claims that some form of speech is dangerous have been used to justify crackdowns by social media giants on everything from pro-life views to support for conservative candidates. The current wave of censorship has been justified by insisting that conservative speech is either a product of foreign disinformation (the Russia hoax), that it’s medically dangerous (suppression of political protests, dissent on coronavirus policy, or opposition to abortion), or that any speech offensive to an identity politics group causes inequality and psychological harm.
Combine the three together and they add up to censoring any political speech the Left opposes.
And, as Michael Moore’s censorship by environmentalists shows, not even career leftists are immune from the Orwellian political orthodoxy that brands some views anathema overnight.
(That is why leftists might want to reconsider their abandonment of liberalism before it’s too late. History shows that the ideology most likely to purge lefties for ideological dissent is the Left.)
Facebook set up the Oversight Board to outsource its censorship while evading responsibility for its repression. The dot com giant wants to be a monopoly that has a stranglehold on the marketplace of ideas, but it doesn’t want to be open to the marketplace’s diversity of ideas.
That is the totalitarian fallacy of most of the Big Tech giants who want users on their terms.
Stacking the board with Soros cronies and assorted human rights activists, digital experts, and the other sorts of people who spend all their time appearing on panels and giving TED talks, is how Big Tech companies have their censorship cake and eat it too. After this, when conservatives complain about Facebook censorship, it won’t be Mark Zuckerberg’s fault.
But it will be.
The Oversight Board, like most Facebook initiatives, is rigged from the ground up. It contains a few token libertarians, but is tilted toward lefties. It contains an Islamist, but hardly anyone likely to advocate for the values of traditional Christians and Jews. Behind the facade of international diversity, the Supreme Court of Censorship has very little intellectual or religious diversity.
Two libertarian/conservative establishment figures don’t balance out eight lefties just as bringing in an Israeli leftist does not balance out a Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood figure. Giving Soros four seats and Koch one is not only rigging the game, but failing to address the real issues at stake.
The social media giant is responding to pressure to censor conservative views, especially in the US, the UK, Israel, Latin America, Myanmar, and India, yet has no representatives of the sorts of people who are likely to be censored. Instead it stacked the deck with those likely to censor.
Where are the Trump supporters, the Modi backers, the Bolsonaro fans, the Zionists, the Buddhist monks of Myanmar, or any group that dissents from the Left on any major issue?
Of the groups likely to be censored, only the Islamists get their own representative at Facebook.
The Supreme Court of Censorship is rigged in favor of the censors and against the censored.
Facebook has assembled a grab bag of globalist personalities that wouldn’t be out of place at a UN conference (and a number have worked at or for the UN in some capacity) and put them in charge of determining what can be said by billions of people around the world.
And by countless millions in the United States of America.
The United States is tasked with protecting the essential freedoms of its citizens from interference by its government, by foreign governments, or by any force so powerful that it can singly blot out any of the Bill of Rights. The Big Tech monopolies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook pose a unique threat to the unalienable rights among which are, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, for whose protection, “Governments are instituted among Men.”
This is the role that Jefferson envisioned for government in the Declaration of Independence.
Governments wield power by the “consent of the governed” who can vote and remove any government. Facebook would like us to think that its powers to censor will derive from a bunch of globalist NGO activists and lefty law professors. No individual or group has the power to stop Facebook’s monopoly over social media. It has become too rich and powerful.
Only our government can fulfill its role by restoring our freedom to speak and be heard.
Otherwise all political speech that is not of the Left will be erased from the public square. If there were any doubt about that, Facebook’s Supreme Court of Censorship has settled it.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, governors in almost every state in the country
issued executive orders bypassing state legislature to enact Unconstitutional lockdowns
that kept businesses closed, churches from gathering, and people locked away in their
homes under the threat of force by law enforcement who chose to uphold these governor’s
orders rather than the Constitution they swore to uphold. Thankfully, in many local and
county governments, many did not — including some in Michigan.
Following widespread protests in the state of Michigan — which included tens of thousands of citizens driving into the state capital city of Lansing — several sheriffs in the state vowed not to enforce the draconian orders. Instead of listening to the citizens’ protest of her infringement of their constitutional rights, instead, Governor Janet Whitmer proceeded to blame and ridicule them.
Now, several churches, pastors, laypeople, and a former Republican delegate have filed a joint lawsuit against the Michigan tyrant claiming that her orders continue to hinder religious gatherings against afforded them in the First Amendment of the Constitution despite the “exceptions” that are made.
Whitmer’s executive order, which is in effect until May 15, says “neither a place of religious worship nor its owner” could be penalized or charged with a misdemeanor for “allowing religious worship at such place,” and that “no individual would be subject” to penalties for not wearing a face mask, which is currently a legal requirement in confined public places, including grocery stores.”
However, the lawsuit argues that “Nothing in this provision applies to individuals attending a place or worship as clergy or congregants,” and “A promise to not subject a geographic location or its ‘owner’ to the criminal penalty … merely adorns the Constitution with a fig leaf and does not protect individuals or change the clear language of the order prohibiting any religious services or other ministry functions at a church or religious organization.”
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to deem the 1945 Emergency Powers Act and the 1976 Emergency Management Act, which afforded Whitmer the power to issue her executive orders, unconstitutional.
“Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes a state governor to suspend constitutional representative governance by declaring new emergencies every 28 days into perpetuity,” the complaint says. “Allowing one person to wield absolute power is not a republican form of government, it is tyranny.”
The entire lawsuit can be seen at this link.



The de-evolution of healthcare in the western world

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
In this exclusive report, Infowars’ Greg Reese dives into the history of vaccinations and highlights dangers the establishment has tried to hide for decades.


Lutherans Pray to Mother God
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
(Friday Church News Notes, May 8, 2020,,, 866-295-4143) -
On April 28 the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America posted a prayer tweet addressed to “Mother God,” asking her to “raise us up to salvation ... so we may share the sweetness of your holy word with all the world.” This was one of the ELCA’s #Bread4theday Twitter posts. The ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in America, and it is obviously apostate. The ELCA Publishing House has printed countless volumes which promote unbelief. For example, in 1988 an ELCA book by Ragnar Leivestad, entitled Jesus in His Own Perspective, goofily claimed that Jesus never invoked for himself a special position and did not claim messianic titles. The World Council of Churches, of which the ELCA is a member, is filled with mother goddess worship. ELCA women participated in the WCC’S “Re-imagining Conference” in 1993 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Star Tribune reported that “throughout the conference worship experiences will celebrate Sophia, the biblical goddess of creation” (Nov. 3, 1993). On Sunday morning, the conferees joined together in repeating a prayer to their female goddess, including these words, “Our maker Sophia, we are women in your image. ... With the honey of wisdom in our mouths, we prophesy a full humanity to all the peoples.” At the WCC’s Seventh Assembly in 1991 South Korean Presbyterian Chung Hyun-Kyung evoked a female Holy Spirit (Religious News Service, Mar. 5, 1991). The WCC publication No Longer Strangers, a joint project with the Lutheran World Federation, which includes the ELCA, suggested that God be addressed as “The Source, Lady of peace, Lady of wisdom, Lady of love, Lady of birth, Lord of stars, Lord of planets, Mother, Home, Presence, Power, Essence, Simplicity.” Consider the poem “Bakerwoman God,” which is to be used in church services: “Bakerwoman God, I am your living bread. Strong, brown, Bakerwoman God ... Put me in your fire, Bakerwoman God ... Break me, Bakerwoman God. ... Bakerwoman God, remake me.” The hour is very late, folks!




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
(Christian News Network) — More than 100 pastors recently signed a letter to the Ohio Board of Education, which was also sent to 39 school districts, to express opposition to yoga and transcendental meditation being taught in schools as they are rooted in Eastern religion and are a spiritual practice at their core.
The letter, signed by 105 pastors from various denominations, notes that yoga has been taught during school hours in Clear Fork, Galion, Lexington, Lucas, Mansfield and Shelby counties and asks for an assurance that such practices will be discontinued.
“Yoga is not merely an external physical practice with a purely physiological effect, but rather an internal spiritual practice advertised as being able to provide the power to change an individual and transform the world,” it reads. “Specifically, yoga’s ‘stretching’ and ‘breathing’ components, called ‘asanas’ and ‘pranayama’ in Sanskrit, are intended to be spiritually transformative.”
The correspondence points to various court decisions characterizing yoga as being rooted in Hinduism, including the 1988 case of Powell v. Perry, which concluded that “yoga is a method of practicing Hinduism,” and the 1995 case of Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, which spoke of the “Hindu-yoga spiritual tradition.”
The pastors further provide examples of classroom or physical education sessions that incorporated yoga, including where a Lexington language arts teacher allegedly taught sixth-graders how to “salute the sun god Surya,” or “bow to the sun,” as well as how to get into a “praying hands posture.”
In Plain School District, an elementary school is said to have created a “mindfulness room” that featured quotes from the Dalai Lama. Its yoga program was discontinued in 2013 following complaints from parents.
One of the groups behind in-school teaching cited by the pastors also teaches Reiki to its followers. Examples of general Facebook posts include, “We will use ushas mudra this week to support the awakening of new and creative possibilities in this new year. What are you ready to manifest in 2020?” “How is your third eye? Are you connected to your vision center?” “How will you raise your vibration today? Come play some yoga with us!” and “Take a screen shot and see what you the Universe wants to tell you.”
The letter also notes that those involved in Eastern religion refute assertions that yoga is not a religious activity. It cites Subhas Tiwari, professor at the Hindu University of America and graduate of Bihar Yoga Bharati University, who once said, “The simple immutable fact is that yoga originated from the Vedic or Hindu culture. Its techniques were not adopted by Hinduism, but rather originated from it.”
The pastors concede that while “[m]ost initiate yoga practice for exercise and stress relief,” for others, “spirituality becomes their primary reason for maintaining practice.” They point to a study of mindful yoga retreat participants, which found that “longer-term meditators were less likely to be religious monotheists and more likely to identify as Buddhist or with ‘all’ religions.”
Photo Credit: Facebook
Further, “[w]hile proponents of Eastern religion allege yoga brings benefits to student practitioners, our biblical faith tradition brings just as many, if not more, scientifically-proven benefits,” the clergy contend. “Yet, ironically in a nation with Judeo-Christian heritage, it is school sanctioned prayer, Intelligent Design curriculum and the display of the Ten Commandments that are strictly prohibited from public schools.”
They therefore ask that the school districts discontinue teaching yoga and transcendental meditation to students.
Signees include pastors Howard Burnett of Perryville Baptist Church, Floyd Allen of Philippian Community Church, Ron Smals of Woodville Grace Brethren, Paul Larson of First English Lutheran Church, Russ Smith of Shiloh Wesleyan Church, Dan Zediker of Mission Point Mansfield, Bill Strader of Bucyrus First Alliance Church, Sylvester Ginn of Hesed Agape Fellowship, Layton Broom of Paradise Hill United Methodist Church, and William Jordan of Faith Temple Church of God in Christ.
Read the letter in full here. View some of the pastors sharing their thoughts at the end of the article.
As previously reported, in a booklet entitled “Yoga: Exercise or Religion — Does it Matter?”, author Ray Yungen outlines that while many view yoga as harmless exercise, there is no denying that the practice is rooted in Eastern New Age religion.
Hindu god Shiva. Photo Credit: Kalyan Kumar/Flickr
“The word ‘yoga’ actually means to be yoked to or united in body, mind, and spirit with Brahman (the Hindu concept of God). It doesn’t get more spiritually obvious than that,” he outlined. “… Even the traditional Hindu greeting, Namasté, that is said at the end of yoga classes, is spiritual. When translated, it means, ‘The god in me bows down to (or salutes) the god in you.’”
“If you go to the fitness section of any bookstore and look in the yoga subsection, you will find references to the spiritual aspects of Yoga such as the chakra system, kundalini, etc. in almost every book on yoga. It is quite rare to find a book on yoga that does not incorporate spiritual concepts found in classic Hinduism,” Yungen explained. “To devout Hindus, yoga cannot be separated into physical and spiritual parts. Both are relevant to the practice, with the end desire being a profound religious experience.”
He said that some Christians have wrongly concluded that yoga can be adopted by believers as long as it is stripped of its pagan aspects.
“We live in an age where the acceptance of trendy practices, such as yoga, is hammered into us from every side, with the end result being an ecumenical generic inter-spirituality that fits everybody,” Yungen lamented.
“Believers in Christ have fallen prey to some dangerous ideas. One is that we feel free to draw from pagan sources. Or, as is popularly stated, we can chew the meat and spit out the bones. But this doesn’t make any sense from a biblical standpoint,” he said. “As a Christian, we can’t segregate into portions what part we think will do us harm and what part will profit us. If the foundational spirituality is contrary to God’s word, then it will be folly to interact with it.”


US Universities Creating Social Credit Coronavirus Surveillance System

App will generate “personal risk scores” and determine the need “for quarantine and decontamination.”

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Three US universities are responding to the coronavirus crisis by creating (irony of all ironies) a Chinese style social credit surveillance system that will ‘score’ people based on their exposure to the virus.
According to a report from Tech site dot.LA, researchers at the University of Southern California, Emory University, and the University of Texas Health Science Center are jointly working on the system after receiving federal grant funding.
Like the Chinese social credit system, the scheme will consist of a mobile app for contact tracing the virus, and promises to track the real-time location and symptoms of individuals to calculate “personal risk scores”.
The score would be used to determine the need “for quarantine and decontamination,” according to the report, with “aggregate risk scores” also assigned to “locations like your neighborhood grocery store.”
The universities hope to have a working mobile app by August, in time for the start of the fall semester.
Welcome to the new normal. Surely the fallout of this system will all be positive.
When the coronavirus vaccine eventually comes along the system will presumably be updated to show who has had it and who hasn’t.
High social credit points for those who have taken it, no travel privileges for those who refuse!
We’re in this together!
The report notes that “Countries such as South Korea or China have used location-based digitized contact tracing. However, it has only been successful because citizens are forced to download it, opt into location monitoring, and regularly check in or otherwise be visited by enforcement authorities.”
“In that setting where there’s 100% mandated compliance, it’s been shown it can work, in our setting in the United States, I don’t see that really happening,” said Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a professor of medicine at UCLA.
“We have enough problems with governors issuing orders and denying free personal movement, that the idea that people are going to be ordered to download apps to monitor their movement is highly unlikely and probably not constitutional.” Klausner added, conceding that  “It’s going to be difficult to get Americans to agree to involuntary surveillance.”
The report further notes that the social credit scoring could “become problematic if a school or employer requires students or workers reveal them as a condition of receiving a benefit, entering a building or returning to their office.”
“When you introduce ‘scoring’ that takes other factors into account, it complicates everything, and increases the risk that users will be misinformed or discriminated against due to factors beyond their control,” noted USC’s Cyrus Shahabi, a professor of computer science.
Indeed, the Chinese social credit system has reportedly blacklisted more than 13 million citizens as “untrustworthy,” state media recently bragged.
And what heinous behaviour led to the distinction? Well, jaywalking for one. According to Chinese media, other violations stretch to the following:
– Bad driving. – Smoking on trains. – Buying too many video games. – Buying too much junk food. – Buying too much alcohol. – Calling a friend who has a low credit score . – Having a friend online who has a low credit score. – Posting “fake news” online. – Criticizing the government. – Visiting unauthorized websites. – Walking your dog without a leash. – Letting your dog bark too much.
The punishment for such a designation as “discredited entity” is to be barred from traveling by train or plane.

Global Times


China restricted 2.56 million discredited entities from purchasing plane tickets, and 90,000 entities from buying high-speed rail tickets in July: NDRC

View image on Twitter
159 people are talking about this
Is this our collective future?

James O’Malley


Here’s a dystopian vision of the future: A real announcement I recorded on the Beijing-Shanghai bullet train. (I’ve subtitled it so you can watch in silence.)

Embedded video

19.5K people are talking about this
Apple and Google announced this year that they are working on a Bluetooth applications that will provide contact tracing of the coronavirus using smartphone location data.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
All my life, I have dismissed paranoids on the right (“America is headed to communism”) and the left (“It can happen here” — referring to fascism). It’s not that I’ve ever believed liberty was guaranteed. Being familiar with history and a pessimist regarding the human condition, I never believed that.
But the ease with which police state tactics have been employed and the equal ease with which most Americans have accepted them have been breathtaking.
People will argue that a temporary police state has been justified because of the allegedly unique threat to life posed by the new coronavirus. I do not believe the data will bear that out. Regardless, let us at least agree that we are closer to a police state than ever in American history.
“Police state” does not mean totalitarian state. America is not a totalitarian state; we still have many freedoms. In a totalitarian state, this article could not be legally published, and if it were illegally published, I would be imprisoned and/or executed. But we are presently living with all four of the key hallmarks of a police state:
No. 1: Draconian laws depriving citizens of elementary civil rights.
The federal, state, county and city governments are now restricting almost every freedom except those of travel and speech. Americans have been banned from going to work (and thereby earning a living), meeting in groups (both indoors and outdoors), meeting in their cars in church parking lots to pray and entering state-owned properties such as beaches and parks — among many other prohibitions.
No. 2: A mass media supportive of the state’s messaging and deprivation of rights.
The New York Times, CNN and every other mainstream mass medium — except Fox News, The Wall Street Journal (editorial and opinion pages only) and talk radio — have served the cause of state control over individual Americans’ lives just as Pravda served the Soviet government. In fact, there is almost no more dissent in The New York Times than there was in Pravda. And the Big Tech platforms are removing posts about the virus and potential treatments they deem “misinformation.”
No. 3: Use of police.
Police departments throughout America have agreed to enforce these laws and edicts with what can only be described as frightening alacrity. After hearing me describe police giving summonses to, or even arresting, people for playing baseball with their children on a beach, jogging alone without a mask, or worshipping on Easter while sitting isolated in their cars in a church parking lot, a police officer called my show. He explained that the police have no choice. They must respond to every dispatch they receive.
“And why are they dispatched to a person jogging on a beach or sitting alone in a park?” I asked.
Because the department was informed about these lawbreakers.
“And who told the police about these lawbreakers?” I asked.
His answer brings us to the fourth characteristic of a police state:
No. 4: Snitches.
How do the police dispatchers learn of lawbreakers such as families playing softball in a public park, lone joggers without face masks, etc.? From their fellow citizens snitching on them.
The mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, set up a “snitch line,” whereby New Yorkers were told to send authorities photos of fellow New Yorkers violating any of the quarantine laws. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti similarly encouraged snitching, unabashedly using the term.
It is said that about 1 in every 100 East German citizens were informers for the Stasi, the East German secret police, as superbly portrayed in the film “The Lives of Others.” It would be interesting, and, I think, important, to know what percentage of New Yorkers informed on their fellow citizens. Now, again, you may think such a comparison is not morally valid, that de Blasio’s call to New Yorkers to serve a Stasi-like role was morally justified given the coronavirus pandemic. But you cannot deny it is Stasi-like or that, other than identifying spies during World War II, this is unprecedented in American history at anywhere near this level.
This past Friday night, I gathered with six others for a Shabbat dinner with friends in Santa Monica, California. On my Friday radio show, I announced I would be doing that, and if I was arrested, it would be worth it. In my most pessimistic dreams, I never imagined that in America, having dinner at a friend’s house would be an act of civil disobedience, perhaps even a criminal act. But that is precisely what happens in a police state.
The reason I believe this is a dress rehearsal is that too many Americans appear untroubled by it; the dominant force in America, the left, supports it, and one of the two major political parties has been taken over by the left. Democrats and their supporters have, in effect, announced they will use state power to enforce any law they can to combat the even greater “existential” crisis of global warming.
On the CNN website this weekend, in one of the most frightening and fanatical articles in an era of fanaticism, Bill Weir, CNN chief climate correspondent, wrote an open letter to his newborn son. In it, he wrote of his idealized future for America: “completely new forms of power, food, construction, transportation, economics and politics.”
You cannot get there without a police state.
If you love liberty, you must see that it is jeopardized more than at any time since America’s founding. And that means, among other things, that at this time, a vote for any Democrat is a vote to end liberty.


Pope Francis accelerates Catholicism’s descent into humanist utopianism
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
As Christians worldwide celebrated their most significant holiday, their most recognizable figure delivered a distinctly secular message.
On Easter Sunday, the Vatican released a letter Pope Francis wrote to Catholic organizations in South America. Francis wrote that the coronavirus pandemic “might be a good time to consider a universal basic wage” that would enable the poor to enjoy “the benefits of globalism.”
Such a measure, Francis wrote, “would ensure and concretely achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian, of no worker without rights.”
Toward the end of his letter, Francis hoped the pandemic would generate “a humanist and ecological conversion that puts an end to the idolatry of money, and places human life and dignity at the center.”
Nowhere in his letter did Francis mention Jesus Christ.
The letter conclusively proves that Francis is transforming the Catholic Church into another non-governmental organization. In the process, he is destroying the church’s identity and credibility.
Francis’ activism reflects and culminates the Vatican’s embrace of humanist utopianism, which Front Page Magazine briefly addressed last year in “They Died For ‘Dialogue’?” That article traced the Holy See’s policy of appeasing Islam and China to the radical globalism adopted at the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965.
A pastoral document written on politics and economics during the council stated that “there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter. … Hence, the social order and its development must invariably work to the benefit of the human person.”
In 1967, Pope Paul VI called for international agencies to create “a full-bodied humanism,” he wrote, by managing the world’s economic and political development:
Such international collaboration among the nations of the world certainly calls for institutions that will promote, coordinate and direct it, until a new juridical order is firmly established and fully ratified. We give willing and wholehearted support to those public organizations that have already joined in promoting the development of nations, and We ardently hope that they will enjoy ever growing authority.
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI took that concept to its logical conclusion ​by advocating that the United Nations direct both international and domestic​ economic policies:
In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need…
for a reform of the United Nations…and, likewise, of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth….
To manage the global economy…to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority…
This authority, Benedict wrote, must “seek to establish the common good” and “have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums.”
The ultimate purpose, Benedict wrote, would be to design a “directed” global economy that would “open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale” – – including “a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them.”
In promoting such an authority, Benedict subtly redefined the Catholic Church’s primary role from proclaiming the Gospel to ensuring economic benefits for all — or, at least, redefining the Gospel in materialist terms. Benedict even presumed that global economic management through a “true world political authority” can achieve spiritual harmony.
When animated by charity, commitment to the common good … has a place within the testimony of divine charity that paves the way for eternity through temporal action. Man’s earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family.
Like his predecessors, Francis believes globalism is pivotal. In an August interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa​​, Francis criticized nationalist movements threatening the European Union:
Europe cannot and must not break apart. It is a historical, cultural, as well as geographical, unity. Never forget that ‘the whole is greater than the parts.’ Globalization, unity, should not be conceived as a sphere but as a polyhedron. Each people retains its identity in unity with others.
Francis’ bishops promote the new prime directive. “They Died For ‘Dialogue’?” mentions the praise Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the chancellor of the Pontifical Council for Sciences and Social Sciences, gave China in February 2018:
Right now, those who are implementing the Church’s social doctrine the best are the Chinese.
They search for the common good and subordinate everything to the general welfare.
Sorondo particularly praised China’s implementation of “Laudato Si,” Francis’ environmental encyclical, for “defending the dignity of the person” and “assuming a moral leadership that others have left,” a criticism of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on carbon-dioxide emissions.
Sorondo issued his praise despite the fact that China ranks among the world’s worst air polluters, performs between 10 million and 23 million abortions a year — many of them forced by the government — and persecutes Christians who worship outside of state-approved churches.
In June 2018, Cardinal Pietro Parolin became the first official from the Holy See to attend the Bilderberg Meetings, where international figures from business, finance, government, communications and academia gathered to discuss such topics as political populism, free trade and economic inequality. Eighteen months earlier, Parolin had addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Parolin — the Vatican’s second-most powerful figure as its secretary of state — received an invitation from the Bilderberg organizers, who insisted upon his presence.
Nearly three months later, Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich vividly illustrated the papacy’s priorities. Immediately after Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano alleged that Francis protected and promoted sexual predators among the bishops, Cupich performed his best imitation of Marie Antoinette.
“The Pope has a bigger agenda,” Cupich told Chicago’s WMAQ-TV. “He’s got to get on with other things: talking about the environment, protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”
Cupich repeated that theme the next day at Mundelein Seminary in suburban Chicago: “We have a bigger agenda than to be distracted by all of this,” Cupich told the seminarians, one of whom spoke anonymously to the Chicago Sun-Times about the archbishop’s address. The Sun-Times published the story after receiving confirmation from other sources, including several seminarians.
If Catholic prelates are willing to disregard the victimization of the innocent, nobody should expect them to uphold the church’s historic opposition to abortion and contraception.
In February, one month before California‘s primary, San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy issued voting guidelines for Catholics in his diocese. But McElroy did more than reiterate support for Francis’ positions on environmentalism and immigration. He essentially stated that those positions held greater significance than the church’s stance against abortion and contraception.
While conceding that abortion was “intrinsically evil,” McElroy criticized the idea that “candidates who seek laws opposing intrinsically evil actions automatically have a​ primary claim to political support in the Catholic conscience.”
“The problem with this approach is that while the criterion of intrinsic evil identifies specific human acts that can never be justified, this criterion is not a measure of the relative gravity of the evil in particular human or political actions,” McElroy wrote. “Telling a lie is intrinsically evil, while escalating a nuclear arms race is not. But it is wrongheaded to propose that telling a lie to constituents should count more in the calculus of faithful voting than a candidate’s plans to initiate a destabilizing nuclear weapons program.”
Similarly, contraception is intrinsically evil in Catholic moral theology, while actions which destroy the environment generally are not. But it is a far greater moral evil for our​ country to abandon the Paris Climate Accord than to provide contraceptives in federal health centers.​ (emphasis added)
Perhaps no better example of the Vatican’s embrace of humanist globalism exists than the presence of economist Jeffrey Sachs as a papal advisor. Sachs, who drafted the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, supports abortion as an integral part of population control. Nevertheless, he participates frequently in Vatican conferences on sustainability.
So why would Francis have Sachs as an advisor? Consider these comments the economist made to the National Catholic Register ​​after one such conference in February:
Asked whether by the Church’s teaching on human dignity he meant respect for life from conception to natural death, Sachs replied: ‘I mean everybody’s economic needs should be met, that people should have the dignity of work, that the poor should be helped, that this is about the core ideas of human well-being.’
Asked if by helping the poor he meant wealth creation, he said: ‘Jesus said, “He who feeds the least among me, feeds me.” He was talking about helping the poor. When Aristotle talks about politics or the common good, he’s talking about a society in which people afforded dignity.’
‘We know why our current system leads to massive inequalities, leaving billions of people behind,’ he said, ‘and so this is about public policy, about individual ethics, social organization. It’s about our attitudes towards others.’
When questioned by Pontius Pilate, Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. Yet as Sachs demonstrates, Catholicism is trying to gain the whole world by being like the world. By doing so, the church is losing its own soul.


The religious as opposed to nationalistic aspects of the Armenian Genocide
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Last Friday, April 24, marked the “Great Crime,” that is, the genocide of Christians—primarily Armenians Assyrians and Greeks—that took place under the Islamic Ottoman Empire, throughout World War I.  Then, in an attempt to wipe out as many Christians as possible, the Turks massacred approximately 1.5 million Armenians, 300,000 Assyrians, and 750,000 Greeks.
Most objective American historians who have studied the question unequivocally agree that it was a deliberate, calculated genocide:
More than one million Armenians perished as the result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment, and physical abuse.  A people who lived in eastern Turkey for nearly 3,000 years [more than double the amount of time the invading Islamic Turks had occupied Anatolia, now known as “Turkey”] lost its homeland and was profoundly decimated in the first large-scale genocide of the twentieth century.  At the beginning of 1915 there were some two million Armenians within Turkey; today there are fewer than 60,000….  Despite the vast amount of evidence that points to the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide, eyewitness accounts, official archives, photographic evidence, the reports of diplomats, and the testimony of survivors, denial of the Armenian Genocide by successive regimes in Turkey has gone on from 1915 to the present.
Similarly, in 1920, U.S. Senate Resolution 359 heard testimony that included evidence of “[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death [which] have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages.”
In her memoir, Ravished ArmeniaAurora Mardiganian described being raped and thrown into a harem (consistent with Islam’s rules of war).  Unlike thousands of other Armenian girls who were discarded after being defiled, she managed to escape. In the city of Malatia, she saw 16 Christian girls crucified: “Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross,” she wrote, “spikes through her feet and hands, only their hair blown by the wind, covered their bodies.” Such scenes were portrayed in the 1919 documentary film Auction of Souls, some of which is based on Mardiganian’s memoirs.
Whereas the genocide is largely acknowledged in the West, one of its primary if not fundamental causes is habitually overlooked: religion.  The genocide is usually articulated through a singularly secular paradigm, one that factors only things that are intelligible from a secular, Western point of view—such as identity and gender politics, nationalism, and territorial disputes. Such an approach does little more than project modern Western perspectives onto vastly different civilizations and eras.
War, of course, is another factor that clouds the true face of the genocide.  Because these atrocities mostly occurred during World War I, so the argument goes, they are ultimately a reflection of just that—war, in all its chaos and destruction, and nothing more.  But as Winston Churchill, who described the massacres as an “administrative holocaust,” correctly observed, “The opportunity [WWI] presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a Christian race.”  Even Adolf Hitler, ominously presaging his own plans, had pointed out that “Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate its internal foes, i.e., the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention.”
It’s worth noting that little has changed; in the context of war in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, the first to be targeted for genocide have been Christians and other minorities.
But even the most cited factor of the Armenian Genocide, “ethnic identity conflict,” while legitimate, must be understood in light of the fact that, historically, religion accounted more for a person’s identity than language or heritage.   This is daily demonstrated throughout the Islamic world today, where Muslim governments and Muslim mobs persecute Christian minorities who share the same race, ethnicity, language, and culture; minorities who are indistinguishable from the majority—except, of course, for being non-Muslims, or “infidels.”
As one Armenian studies professor asks, “If it [the Armenian Genocide] was a feud between Turks and Armenians, what explains the genocide carried out by Turkey against the Christian Assyrians at the same time?” The same can be said about the Greeks. From a Turkish perspective, the primary thing Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks had in common was that they were all Christian “infidels.”
According to a 2017 book, Year of the Sword: The Assyrian Christian Genocide, the “policy of ethnic cleansing was stirred up by pan-Islamism and religious fanaticism.  Christians were considered infidels (kafir).  The call to Jihad, decreed on 29 November 1914 and instigated and orchestrated for political ends, was part of the plan” to “combine and sweep over the lands of Christians and to exterminate them.”   As with Armenians and Greeks, eyewitness accounts tell of the sadistic eye-gouging of Assyrians and the gang rape of their children on church altars. According to key documents, all this was part of “an Ottoman plan to exterminate Turkey’s Christians.”
Today, from Indonesia in the east to Morocco in the west, from Central Asia in the north, to sub-Sahara Africa—that is, throughout the entire Islamic world—Muslims are, to varying degrees, persecuting, killing, raping, enslaving, torturing and dislocating Christians; where formal Islamic groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS), Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc., hold sway, Christians and other “infidels” are literally experiencing a genocide.  (See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians — or my monthly “Muslim Persecution of Christians” report — for a comprehensive and ongoing account of the “great crime” of our times.)
To understand how the historic genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks is representative of the modern day plight of Christians under Islam, one need only read the following words written in 1918 by President Theodore Roosevelt; however, read “Armenian” as “Christian” and “Turkish” as  “Islamic,” as supplied in brackets:
the Armenian [Christian] massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the failure to act against Turkey [the Islamic world] is to condone it… the failure to deal radically with the Turkish [Islamic] horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense.
Similarly, if we “fail to deal radically” with the “horror” currently being visited upon millions of Christians around the Islamic world, we “condone it” and had better cease talking “mischievous nonsense” of a utopian world of peace and tolerance.
Put differently, silence is always the ally of those who would liquidate the “other.”  In 1915, Adolf Hitler rationalized his genocidal plans, which he implemented some three decades later, when he rhetorically asked: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
And who among today’s Western politicians speaks—let alone does anything—about the ongoing annihilation of Christians by Muslims?



US Universities Creating Social Credit Coronavirus Surveillance System

Dems try to sneak nationalized healthcare into coronavirus response

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
The Clinton Foundation is working with leftist governors to create a “National Contact Tracing Corps.”

Beware the Contact Tracers

The Public Health mafia (including the Clintons) are speaking in military language about an “army” of “front line” “agents” to question the associations & whereabouts of anyone who tested positive for the stupid v-i-r-u-s. I have lots to say.