Category: Free Speech/Constitution

GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: BELLMAWR GYM CLOSED ON THURSDAY, OPENED AGAIN ON FRIDAY~DEFIES GOVERNOR MURPHY’S ILLEGAL DICTATES

VIDEOS:

NOTICES POSTED AT NIGHT; NO WARRANT

HUNDREDS CHEERED 


GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: 

BELLMAWR GYM CLOSED ON THURSDAY, OPENED AGAIN ON FRIDAY 
BY BOB ADELMANN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:

 

When paper towels were stuffed into toilets at the Atilis Gym on Wednesday, the owners were forced to close. It remained closed on Thursday. On Thursday night health officials attached a closure notice to the front door. On Friday the gym opened again.

 

A week ago the owners of Atilis Gym in Bellmawr, New Jersey, wrote a letter to Governor Phil Murphy telling him that they were going to open their gym in defiance of his edict. They also announced their plans to open publicly, and when Monday morning came, members entered while supporters outside the gym waved American flags and cheered.
Governor Murphy was asked about the gym’s defiance of his orders on Monday afternoon and he warned the owners and their patrons, “If you show up at that gym tomorrow [Tuesday the 19th], there will be a different reality.”
The gym opened on Tuesday, following strict safety measures implemented by the two owners, Ian Smith and Frank Trumbetti. There was no “different reality.”
The gym opened again on Wednesday, following the safe measures. There was no “different reality” until Wednesday afternoon.
On Wednesday afternoon the gym’s toilets were sabotaged. Someone had stuffed paper towels into the toilets, causing them to overflow. Trumbetti told the press: “Just so you know, we do not even have paper towels in our bathrooms.”
Mediation teams worked on clearing the obstructions on Thursday. The gym remained closed for the day while the owners suggested members work out in the parking lot.
Late Thursday night, after the gym was closed, officials from the state health department taped a four-page notice to the front door. The notice said, in part, that although the gym “is purporting to take its own measures to address COVID-19 tranmission,” New Jersey cannot “simply allow business owners to set their own divergent health measures, done without the approval of the state and it’s [sic] health officials.”
The order went on to say that indoor gyms pose a “particularly high risk setting” because the members exercise there which “can increase the amount of respiratory droplets or aerosols in a confined setting.”
Trumbetti said the health officials attached the order “overnight, like cowards” and vowed to reopen on Friday: “We’re opening up tomorrow [Friday] morning, no matter what.”
Trumbetti asked rhetorically: “How is it possible that they can actually shut [us] down? If there is a problem based on the coronavirus, how can they shut us down but no other businesses in the same building [as our gym]?”
In explaining why they are defying Governor Murphy’s edict and the state’s order, Trumbetti said:
According to our beliefs, we have been allowing our members in because of the wording of Governor Murphy’s executive order stating the gym had to remain closed to the public.
We have stood firm. As long as we let members in, we are not doing anything that’s against the law and criminal.
The paperwork that’s on the window, we don’t know if it’s actually deemed legal or not because they put it on in the middle of the night. We were not served with those papers.
An Internet search just before publication of this article at 2 p.m. EST revealed nothing untoward. The gym appears to be open to its members, who are following the owners’ strict safety and health protocols.
Just in case the state ramps up legal action against the owners, a GoFundMe page has been created, which, when last checked, had raised nearly $70,000 to cover their legal costs.
Related article:

“ISOLATION CAMPS-VOLUNTARY UNTIL THEY ARE NOT!”

“ISOLATION CAMPS-
VOLUNTARY UNTIL THEY ARE NOT!”
According to eyewitnesses around the state of Washington, isolation camps are being established as part of a mandatory requirement to move to “Phase 2.” “Isolation Camps. Voluntary until they are not. In America.” Says WA Rep. Matt Shea. 📄 Documents from the Washington State Department of Health: https://www.doh.wa.gov/ForPublicHealt…  ▶️ More Videos: Bill Gates: Globalist Technocrat to “Save” You With Mandatory Vaccines? https://youtu.be/2YB1eAJtDEw Fighting Coronavirus With Tyranny & Globalism https://youtu.be/yU_vKl5LnU8 Dr. Graves Slams Dr. Fauci & Attack on Liberty Amid COVID19 https://youtu.be/DpGluOIrFAc Dr. Zelenko: Making a Difference with Hydroxychloroquine & Zinc https://youtu.be/zKfozcmnefc 🇺🇸 The New American: http://www.thenewamerican.com/ 📲 Let’s Connect! http://www.facebook.com/TheNewAmerican https://twitter.com/NewAmericanMag https://www.instagram.com/newamerican… #DrDukePesta #MattShea

_____________________________________________________
Taking the Moral High Ground in the Internment of 2020
Who is it that really cares about lives?
BY JACK KERWICK
SEE: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/taking-moral-high-ground-age-great-unreason-jack-kerwick; 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Life in the Age of the Great UnReason can be difficult for some of us.
Conservatives and others who now take exception to the Internment of 2020—the reduction of citizens’ homes, towns, and states to what amounts to internment camps from which they are forbidden to leave via “Shelter-in-Place” orders—typically frame their position in terms of “reopening the economy.”   
In doing so, they stack the deck against themselves.
Putting the matter this way cedes the moral high ground to those who want to prolong the Internment, for it invites the latter to depict the conflict as one between those, like themselves, who care about life, versus those conservatives who only care about “money.”
Indeed, this is exactly what has happened.
Those of us who have recognized the Great Unreason for what it is from the outset and who demand a restoration of America would be well-served to take a different tack. It is we, and not those who insist upon suppressing the country, who have the moral capital:
Tens of millions of people forced out of work;
Over 100,000 businesses forced to close forever, and thousands upon thousands more that have been made to lose millions;
The inevitable increase of instances of suicide and domestic abuse (here and here);
The exacerbation of such mental health phenomena as despondency, depression, and anxiety;
The higher incidences of alcohol and drug abuse (here and here) that invariably correlate with unemployment and alienation;
The loneliness and accompanying depression of untold numbers of elderly and sick people whose families have been forbidden by state governors from visiting them in hospitals and nursing facilities;
The loneliness and accompanying depression of untold numbers of people from all backgrounds who have been alienated from their friends, families, faith communities, and the myriad of other associations to which they’ve belonged and that define their identities as the specific, unique individuals that they are;
The people who have grown sicker, and who have outright died, because they have been denied medical attention that has been reserved for COVID-19 patients (here, here, and here);
The exponential exacerbation of tensions between the citizenry, particularly those citizens who otherwise have been their biggest defenders, and police officers who attempt to enforce the oppressive decrees of governors;
The de facto indefinite revocation of the United States Constitution (as New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy now infamously, and ominously, told Tucker Carlson when the latter challenged his authority to, in effect, intern the residents of his state: “The Bill of Rights is above my paygrade.”);
The promotion—via those “Social Distancing” protocols proscribing human contact and requiring the wearing of those stupid, hideous masks—of something bordering on a paralyzing fear of others;
The unprecedented closing of churches and other houses of worship;
The starving of hundreds of millions and potentially billions (see here)of otherwise impoverished peoples from around the planet whose lives will be made that much more wretched by the disruption of the global food supply chains within which America is the most indispensable of links;
And, let us not forget—what the media seems all too ready to forget—the tens of thousands of elderly, immunocompromised nursing facility patients to die from The Virus because governors like Andrew Cuomo in New York and Phil Murphy in New Jersey forced these facilities to accept COVID patients.
These are the consequences that have ensued from the “mitigation” policies—based as they are on the wildly inaccurate models designed by the now disgraced, epically and perpetually wrong Neil Ferguson—prescribed by such bureaucrats as Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, enthusiastically promoted by partisan hacks in Big Media, and imposed upon the citizenry by power-hungry politicians.
This is the incalculable human suffering and death brought about by those who coerced the country into “Social Distancing.”
Physically; emotionally; psychologically; spiritually; socially—the real crisis, the real existential crisis, confronting all of us is not some virus from which 99.6%-99.9% of those who contract it recover, but the reduction of America to a giant internment camp and its citizens to its prisoners.
It is the mandatory “quarantining,” or “lockdown,” of America that comprises the greatest of all “public health” crises.
Governors, like (#not) my governor, Phil Murphy of New Jersey, style themselves war-time executives.  They incessantly appropriate the rhetoric of war to justify their draconian decrees.  Yet wars have and can only ever be waged against people, not viruses.  It is the residents of their states upon whom they are waging “war”—even if many of the residents are ignorant of the fact that they are the targets of a (sweeping, remarkably successful) psychological operation and the governors justify their actions in the name of “keeping people safe.”
Given the foregoing facts, it is high-time for the opponents of the Internment to take the moral high ground that is rightfully theirs.  I recommend (for now) taking at least the following two steps going forward:
(1) First, while “lockdown” is certainly a term loaded with negative connotations, we may be better advised to select the term used here, for “internment” dredges up in the collective consciousness the memory of a darker time in our history when Americans of certain backgrounds were confined to geographical regions of the country that were made into “camps.”  This is a set of circumstances that most Americans have been determined to never again replicate.  In referring to our present situation as an “internment,” perhaps more people will catch onto its ominous character.
(2) Those in conservative media, especially those on television, like, say, Fox News, should stop with the running numbers of (alleged) COVID-19 infections and deaths and, instead, focus exclusively upon the immeasurable suffering and death brought about by the Internment of 2020.  They could spend countless hours reporting on personal stories from around the country of people who have been adversely impacted by it.
Those of us who detest the Internment have all of the moral capital.
Our oppressors who have interned the country, imperiling not just hundreds of millions of Americans, but potentially billions of human beings around the planet, have none of it. 
Let’s start acting like the moral superiors on this issue that we are.
Let’s put the Great UnReason behind us once and for all.

NORTH CAROLINA: JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF CHURCHES SEEKING TO HOLD INDOOR SERVICES~”THERE IS NO PANDEMIC EXCEPTION TO CONSTITUTION”

NORTH CAROLINA: 
JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF CHURCHES SEEKING TO HOLD INDOOR SERVICES~
“THERE IS NO PANDEMIC EXCEPTION TO CONSTITUTION” 
BY HEATHER CLARK
RALEIGH, N.C. — A U.S. district judge in North Carolina has ruled in favor of two churches and a ministry that want to hold indoor services but feel prevented from doing so as executive orders from Gov. Roy Cooper have limited “mass gatherings” to 10 people and a later directive said that larger meetings should “take place outdoors unless impossible.” The judge stated that there is no good reason why churches can’t have indoor services — with social distancing and other protective measures in place — when funeral homes and other locations are allowed to accommodate dozens of people.
“There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution of the United States or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” wrote Judge James Dever III, nominated to the bench by then-President George W. Bush.
“Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise claim concerning the assembly for religious worship provisions in Executive Order 138, that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order, that the equities tip in their favor, and that a temporary restraining order is in the public interest.”
In March, Gov. Cooper issued Executive Order 116, declaring a state emergency, followed by a series of executive orders, such as order 121, which defined “mass gatherings” as “any event or convening that brings together more than ten (10) persons in a single room or single space at the same time.” Religious services were specifically held to this 10-person limit, while funeral services were limited to 50 people.
Earlier this month, Cooper issued a new order, Executive Order 138, which allowed religious gatherings of more than 10 people, but with the notation that such gatherings should “take place outdoors unless impossible.”
Guidance issued by the director of Legislative Affairs outlined in further detail on the “impossible” factor, “For example, there may be situations in which particular religious beliefs dictate that some or all of a religious service must be held indoors and that more than ten persons must be in attendance.”
Two churches, Berean Baptist Church and People’s Baptist Church, along with the organization Return America, sued Cooper on Thursday, asserting that the “outdoors unless impossible” requirement violates their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause.
A rally with approximately 500 people was also held next to the state legislative building that same day, according to the Greensboro News & Record. 
While Judge Dever noted on Saturday that “[n]o constitutional right — including the right of free exercise of religion — is absolute,” he expressed concern that law enforcement would be the final arbiter of whether it is deemed “impossible” for any particular church to meet outside.
He also pointed out that legal representation for Cooper “could not explain why the governor trusts those who run funerals to have 50 people inside to attend the funeral, but only trusts religious entities and individuals to have 10 people inside to worship.”
“Eleven men and women can stand side by side working indoors Monday through Friday at a hospital, at a plant, or at a package distribution center and be trusted to follow social distancing and hygiene guidance, but those same eleven men and women cannot be trusted to do the same when they worship inside together on Saturday or Sunday. ‘The distinction defies explanation, or at least the governor has not provided one,’” Dever wrote.
He outlined that the churches plan to exercise safety guidelines to protect its members and that those who worship are the same people who go to the stores to shop, and they would not behave any differently based on location.
“[C]ommon sense suggests that religious leaders and worshipers (whether inside or outside North Carolina) have every incentive to behave safely and responsibly whether working indoors, shopping indoors, or worshiping indoors,” Dever said. “The governor cannot treat religious worship as a world apart from non-religious activities with no good, or more importantly, constitutional, explanation.”
“Plaintiffs have pledged to adhere to ‘all recommended COVID-19 social distancing and personal hygiene safety guidelines’ in exercising their free exercise rights,” he noted. “They simply want the governor to afford them the same treatment as they and their fellow non-religious citizens receive when they work at a plant, clean an office, ride a bus, shop at a store, or mourn someone they love at a funeral.”
Ultimately, Dever found that the order does not meet the “narrowly tailored” and “least restrictive means” prongs of the strict scrutiny standard in legal precedent.
“The court trusts worshipers and their leaders to look after one another and society while exercising their free exercise rights just as they and their fellow citizens (whether religious or not) do when engaged in non-religious activities,” he wrote. “Plaintiffs have pledged to practice social distancing and other public health guidelines, just like others under EO 138. Accordingly, the equities tip in favor of granting a temporary restraining order.”
Cooper’s office says it disagrees with the ruling but does not plan to appeal.
“We don’t want indoor meetings to become hotspots for the virus, and our health experts continue to warn that large groups sitting together inside for long periods of time are much more likely to cause the spread of COVID-19,” a statement, as reported by local television station WRAL, reads.
“We urge houses of worship and leaders to voluntarily follow public health guidance to keep their members safe.”

GOOGLE ERASES THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE WHO SPEAK UNWELCOME TRUTHS

GOOGLE ERASES THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE WHO SPEAK UNWELCOME TRUTHS 
For the tech giants, 1984 is an instruction manual
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE:https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/google-erases-existence-those-who-speak-unwelcome-robert-spencer;republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, the peerless Shillman Fellow and FrontPage writer, tweeted the news on May 7: “Google just erased my Sultan Knish blog and Front Page Mag articles from the first pages of results for my name doubt very much this is accidental.” I did too, so I checked for myself, and sure enough: a Google search for “Robert Spencer” now does not bring up Jihad Watch, where most of my writing outside of books has been published for the last seventeen years, but it does give you defamatory and distorted attack pieces from the far-Left Southern Poverty Law Center and the Saudi-funded Bridge Initiative, and nothing that doesn’t portray me and my work in the most unfavorable possible light. This latest example of the tech giants’ determination to silence all dissenting voices reveals one often overlooked fact: they are desperately afraid.
Google is so afraid of Jihad Watch, in fact, that it is going to great lengths to make you think that the site (which you can find here) doesn’t exist at all. Several years ago, under pressure from the Texas-based imam Omar Suleiman, Google changed the algorithm for its search results so as to bury anything critical of Islamic jihad violence or Sharia oppression of women. Jihad Watch, which for years had been the first result in a Google search for “jihad” (back when Google searches were based solely on relevance and the popularity of the site), fell off the front page of “jihad” searches.
Now Google has gone even farther to make sure you don’t see Jihad Watch. Just this morning, I was looking for an old Jihad Watch article from a few years ago that I needed for a citation, and I entered an exact phrase from that article into the Google search bar. What came back were two sites where the article had been republished, but no indication that it had ever been at Jihad Watch at all.
In George Orwell’s dystopian novel of a totalitarian society, 1984, to which far more people refer than have actually read the book, the dissenter Winston Smith’s job in the Ministry of Truth involves erasing from all historical records any mention of people who have been declared “nonpersons.” Foes of the regime aren’t just vilified. Their very existence is erased. Dissent is easy to control if all record of it ever having been enunciated is eradicated, and Google has apparently taken a page from Orwell’s book.
Of course, Jihad Watch is one of the least of the concerns of Big Tech. They’re erasing all manner of people who dissent from the Leftist agenda. Greenfield notes that “Google controls 80% of search. That means it controls what the internet looks like. And it’s continuing to erase conservatives from the internet. I’m just the latest victim. Its censorship and creepy surveillance have reached new heights during the pandemic.”
And help may be on the way: according to the Wall Street Journal, “Both the Justice Department and a group of state attorneys general are likely to file antitrust lawsuits against Alphabet Inc.’s Google—and are well into planning for litigation, according to people familiar with the matter. The Justice Department is moving toward bringing a case as soon as this summer, some of the people said. At least some state attorneys general—led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican—are likely to file a case, probably in the fall, people familiar with the matter said.”
Another illustration of how brazen the tech giants have become with their censorship came on early Saturday morning, when President Trump retweeted a Michelle Malkin video about tech censorship, with the comment: “The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle!” In a clumsy but sinister confirmation of the urgency of this problem, Twitter then deleted the Malkin video.
Daniel Greenfield is right: “the future of free speech is at stake.” I’m honored that the multimillionaire millennials at Google are so afraid of me and my little website that they have erased all trace of me except for Emmanuel Goldstein-like denunciations, but ultimately the First Amendment will become a dead letter if the tech giants are allowed to get away with sending dissenters down the memory hole in this way. And that will mean a nightmare of authoritarianism descending upon the country. The Administration needs to act on this, and fast. If Biden or Hillary or Bernie or whichever septuagenarian totalitarian wins in November, there won’t be another chance to save America as a free society.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 19 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
______________________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/youtube-removes-glazov-gangs-katie-hopkins-video-frontpagemagcom

FORCED VACCINES & DIGITAL IDs~CONDITIONING, THEN CONTROL, POPULATION CONTROL

FORCED VACCINES & DIGITAL IDs
With the high proclivity for government to operate outside of its constitutional limitations, the very real scenario of setting up a police state to ensure compliance with COVID-19 took a step forward with a new resolution introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. We’ll look at the TRACE Act 6666 and help you extend the lines to what may happen to your freedom if it passes in this episode of Analysis Behind the News, where we provide the perspective that you can use to restore American liberty and independence. Action Items: 1. Tell Congress to stop H.R. 6666: https://www.jbs.org/alert/stop-contac… 2. Visit our Countering COVID-19 action project page: https://www.jbs.org/covid19/ 3. Help to protect and restore American liberty and independence by joining The John Birch Society: https://www.jbs.org/join 4. Subscribe to our JBS news alerts: https://www.jbs.org/e-newsletter

 

If we agree that all of this lockdown fervor can be used as a means of conditioning the American people to willingly give up some of their liberties and rights, then the discussion naturally goes to the question, “What are we being conditioned for?” We’ll answer that question in this episode of Activate America, patriotically staying active during COVID-19 lockdown. With that question in mind, let us introduce the May 18, 2020 issue of The New American magazine, titled “Forced Vaccines and Digital IDs.” Action Items: 1. Distribute copies of the “Forced Vaccines and Digital IDs” issue: https://www.jbs.org/store/shoptna/tna… 2. Visit our COVID-19 Action Page for the latest legislative alerts, articles, and videos: https://www.jbs.org/covid19/ 3. Download and share the Freedom is the Cure issue of our news magazine: http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/T… ▶️ More Related Videos – America Pushes Back. ttps://youtu.be/rkq1TQhpQxg – The Importance of a Republic, Not a Democracy! https://youtu.be/AuTf1l2OVYo – Patriots Make Nullification Work. https://youtu.be/3pOSNa-fF5k LIKE THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY AND WANT TO GET INVOLVED? HERE ARE SOME NEXT STEPS! 🇺🇸 Become a Member https://www.jbs.org/join 📧 Free E-Newsletter https://www.jbs.org/e-newsletter 💰 Donate to Help Keep our Videos Free https://www.jbs.org/store/shopjbs/qui… 📺 Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://bit.ly/2BJiEpx 📲 Let’s Connect! – https://www.facebook.com/JohnBirchSoc… – https://twitter.com/the_jbs – https://www.instagram.com/johnbirchso… 📺 The New American YouTube https://bit.ly/2S8EBE1 #NoForcedVaccines #NoDigitalID #DeepState

______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Over the last decade, major component agencies of the international Deep State have been working to design an all-encompassing digital ID system that would allow the tracking and control of the population of the entire world.
Here’s what they are planning: a national health ID. This has been under development by international agencies along with the Gates Foundation for several years. Planning for this is being done by ID2020, an organization supported by Accenture, the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft Corp., the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others. Of note, among the others is an entity named “Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance,” whose support of ID2020 demonstrates the interest of would-be globalist regulators in tying vaccination to identification. This is all being built as part of an ongoing effort to force all of the world’s peoples, Americans not excluded, into a thoroughgoing digital ID scheme.
Of course, this sounds crazy. First, vaccines are always good, aren’t they? Second, there has to be some means of tracking who has and has not been vaccinated, right? Third, naturally, there needs to be some means of proving who you are. Finally, there can’t be some worldwide coordination on all of this, centralizing it and imposing it on everyone without Americans having come to know about it. That would be impossible, right?
Wrong. Far removed from the day-to-day concerns of average Americans, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national and international government agencies work together to craft policies without notice being given to citizens, without mainstream media reporting, and without legislative oversight. In this case, for more than a decade these groups have collaborated on two tracks of tracking and control: a general-purpose digital ID to track each of the world’s inhabitants, and vaccination-based health IDs to allow governments and NGOs to track the health of citizens. In the age of COVID-19, the world’s would-be technocrat controllers and oligarchs are working to merge this pair of efforts into a single, foundational ID that would be used to constrain and control human activity.
Conditioning, Then Control
A first step toward implementing a vaccine-based ID scheme is conditioning people to accept the idea that they will need to prove their vaccination and health status before being allowed by government to engage in any activities that, heretofore, were exercised without restriction by a free people. This is perfect for the age of COVID-19, when mainstream media organs and government “experts” have worked overtime to instill extreme levels of fear into the American people, forcing them into what amounts to house arrest to fight the “war” on the virus. Now, to regain freedom, it has been suggested that people will need to prove that they have gained immunity to the virus. To this end, Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a key member of the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force, admitted that the federal government is considering forcing citizens to use coronavirus immunity cards.
“You know, that’s possible,” Fauci told CNN. “I mean, it’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and [are] not,” he continued. “This is something that’s being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit, under certain circumstances.”
Importantly, the idea was also floated by Bill Gates, former head of Microsoft and current international supporter of digital ID schemes tied to vaccination. During an “Ask Me Anything” session on the social-media site Reddit, Gates said he supported using immunity IDs. “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it,” Gates remarked. This is significant, as Gates and his foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have been among the key players in the decade-old effort to develop both general-purpose digital IDs and vaccine/immunity tracking.
The constellation of efforts Gates has been making around digital identity and vaccination includes funding research at MIT on encoding health and identity data into a quantum-dot based system that can be embedded in the skin. Described by researchers in the journal Science Translational Medicine, the researchers said they had developed an “approach to encode medical history on a patient using the spatial distribution of biocompatible, near-infrared quantum dots (NIR QDs) in the dermis. QDs are invisible to the naked eye yet detectable when exposed to NIR light.”
The journal translated this into less technical terminology: “McHugh et al. developed dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin. Particle patterns are invisible to the eye but can be imaged using modified smartphones. By codelivering a vaccine, the pattern of particles in the skin could serve as an on-person vaccination record.… These results demonstrate proof of concept for intradermal on-person vaccination recordkeeping.”
Records in scientific journal research databases reveal sources of funding for studies such as this one. In this case, funding was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institutes of Health here in the United States. Funding sources also included the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the China Scholarship Council, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
WHO Is the Vaccine ID Granddaddy
Fauci and the NIAID have a history of working with the Gates Foundation on worldwide vaccination programs. In 2010, the World Health Organization launched the “Global Vaccine Action Plan to guide discovery, development and delivery of lifesaving vaccines.”
“The World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced a collaboration to increase coordination across the international vaccine community and create a Global Vaccine Action Plan,” said the WHO press release announcing the plan.
It continued: “The collaboration follows the January 2010 call by Bill and Melinda Gates for the next ten years to be the Decade of Vaccines. The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups — national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.”
The leadership council for this initiative included:
• Margaret Chan, director general of WHO;
• Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, part of the National Institutes of Health;
• Anthony Lake, executive director of UNICEF;
• Joy Phumaphi, chair of the International Advisory Committee and executive secretary of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance; and
• Tachi Yamada, president of global health at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Among these names, readers of The New American may be familiar with Anthony Lake, who previously served as national security advisor to President Bill Clinton. Lake, who had been nominated by Clinton to head the Central Intelligence Agency, infamously wasn’t sure if notorious Soviet spy Alger Hiss was actually a spy.
Also noteworthy is Margaret Chan, former longtime leader of the World Health Organization. Before taking the reins of WHO, Chan served as director of public health for Hong Kong. There, in 2004, she came under criticism from the city’s Legislative Council for her handling of the original SARS outbreak that led to 299 deaths and considerable economic turmoil for the city. Reporting in 2004, the Hong Kong Standard noted that Chan was “unanimously condemned” by the council for what was described as “dereliction of duty before and during the early stage of the Sars outbreak,” said Tim Pang from the group Society for Community Organisation, a group representing the interests of SARS victims in the city. Chan’s inaction “had a serious impact on public health and global health, which should disqualify her from working for the WHO,” Pang concluded, according the Standard.
Her record at WHO, where she gained the top job after being boosted by Communist China, as reported by Politico, was also not without controversy. In 2009, under her leadership, WHO promoted the idea that the H1N1 swine flu pandemic would be a worldwide catastrophe. In fact, it proved to be much milder than the WHO health bureaucrats promised, prompting noted German physician and one-time member of the German Parliament Wolfgang Wodarg to note in response, “WHO in cooperation with some big pharmaceutical companies and their re-defined pandemics … lowered the alarm threshold.” The organization pushed a mass vaccination program for the swine flu, and these vaccines proved dangerous in some cases, causing narcolepsy in some, according to Politico. Though judged safe by the likes of the CDC, the swine flu vaccine was viewed with increasing suspicion.
Chan was also known for her deferential treatment of communism. She appeared particularly fond of North Korea, where she noted, according to Reuters, that there were no signs of obesity and that “nutrition is an area that the government has to pay attention [to] and especially for pregnant women and for young children.” This in a country where at least 40 percent of the population teeters on the verge of starvation. She also praised the communist dictatorship’s vaccination programs, Reuters reported. “They have something which most other developing countries would envy,” she said of North Korean healthcare.
Most recently, Chan has worked with Mike Bloomberg’s Task Force on Fiscal Policy for Health. That effort resulted in an April 2019 “study” calling for all nations to raise taxes by 50 percent on sugary soft drinks, alcohol, and tobacco. She is now part of the Council of Advisors for the China-based globalist organization the Boao Forum for Asia, run by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Zhou Xiaochuan, former governor of the People’s Bank of China, the communist nation’s answer to the Federal Reserve. At the Boao Forum, she is president of the organization’s Global Health Forum (GHF). The GHF’s first annual conference was held in June 2019, and among the organization’s stated goals was to “advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Among a broad menu of other things, that UN program promises by 2030 to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.” This UN program is the framework on which all other world government organizations and NGOs are basing their efforts to build health, vaccination, and digital ID plans and programs.
In its documentation, the World Health Organization’s Global Vaccine Action Plan, led by Chan and Fauci, called for numerous steps, including the use of ID technologies to track those vaccinated. According to the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 summary available as a PDF from WHO: “Reaching every community will call for an understanding of the barriers to access and use of immunization; it will also require the underserved to be identified, and micro-plans at the district and community levels to be reviewed and revised in order to ensure that these barriers can be overcome. The rapid expansion of information technology should be leveraged to establish immunization registries and electronic databases that will allow each individual’s immunization status to be tracked, timely reminders to be sent when immunization is due and data to be accessed easily to inform actions. The introduction of unique identification numbers could be a catalyst for the establishment of such systems.”
Schemes for Global ID Control
Tying vaccine and health data to identification documentation is a twist on an already elaborate, emerging constellation of efforts to subjugate the population of the entire world using a universal digital ID.
In a 2019 paper, the McKinsey Global Institute (McKinsey) described how a digital ID would take the place of traditional paper IDs. The organization worked with all of the leading players in the development of these ID schemes. “Our understanding of good ID was informed by extensive consultations with our research collaboration partners Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations, and the Rockefeller Foundation,” said the McKinsey report. “We also conducted in-depth discussions on the opportunities and challenges associated with digital ID with experts from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Global Development, iSPIRT, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank Group’s ID4D initiative, and the World Economic Forum.”
This is a rogues’ gallery of NGOs if there ever was one. The Omidyar Network, for instance, thinks capitalism should be “reimagined,” which is code for being “managed” by planners to “rebalance power,” shifting it from markets to the state and from businesses to workers’ groups in such a way as to explicitly undermine free market economics, which the organization identifies with its bogeyman, the “Milton Friedman-Friedrich Hayek paradigm.”
In addition to the Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations from internationalist mastermind George Soros is the chief NGO involved in the disruption of national sovereignty worldwide, while the Rockefeller Foundation has a deep history of dangerous subversion of individual dignity and rights. The latter organization, to point to just one disturbing example, played a key role in the perpetuation of the eugenics scheme worldwide, including in Nazi Germany. This, of course, sounds preposterous to those unfamiliar with this bit of hidden history. But as pioneering journalist Edwin Black, author of several books on the eugenics movement and Nazi Germany, points out, “The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”
These are some of the key organizations that now want to be trusted to guide the creation of a world scheme of digital identification.
Based on their discussions with these and other organizations behind the scheme, McKinsey reported that a “good ID” (a euphemism preferred by the Omidyar Network) would be authenticated digitally, and could be issued by “a national or local government, by a consortium of private or nonprofit organizations, or by an individual entity.” Technologies used for authentication, McKinsey wrote, could include everything from “biometric data to passwords, PINs, or smart devices and security tokens.”
Building a digital ID platform, McKinsey notes, is needed in order to reach the goals outlined by the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the same program guiding the efforts of Margaret Chan’s Global Health Forum.
Describing digital ID as an opportunity — the main theme of the report — Mc-Kinsey pointed directly to the UN program, arguing that the world body’s “Sustainable Development Goals promote legal identity for all, especially birth registration, by 2030. Furthermore, digital ID is increasingly seen as a prerequisite to participate in the digital economy, for example in digital finance. Digital inclusion is considered so important to promote economic development that the United Nations has highlighted digital inclusion as a key enabler for 13 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.”
That last bit is promoted by those behind the digital ID schemes as a benefit. People provided with these new digital talismans will be able to get financing, secure jobs, purchase products, participate in democracy, and so forth, according to the prevailing propaganda.
But the reverse is also true. Without the digital ID, freedom will be revoked. There will be no freedom to work for a living, to purchase property, to move about freely, or to trade for goods or services. The digital ID is, in fact, a scheme to restrict or eliminate individual freedom outright and to provide it only on the authority of some NGO or government agency.
Turn over enough rocks and you’ll find some of those behind the push for a digital ID admitting that the scheme is actually about controlling people and behavior. While pushing for adoption of digital IDs, McKinsey admits: “Without proper controls, digital ID system administrators with nefarious aims, whether they work for private-sector firms or governments, would gain access to and control over data. History provides ugly examples of misuse of traditional identification programs, including tracking or persecuting ethnic and religious groups. Digital ID, if improperly designed, could be used in yet more targeted ways against the interests of individuals or groups by government or the private sector. Potential motivations could include financial profit from the collection and storage of personal data, political manipulation of an electorate, and social control of particular groups through surveillance and restriction of access to uses such as payments, travel, and social media.”
One of the companies building the technological infrastructure for digital ID schemes is arms manufacturer and security firm Thales Group. Partially owned by the French government, the key division of Thales working on Digital ID is Gemalto, a formerly independent company that Thales acquired in 2017 for $5.4 billion.
As with every other participant in the digital ID scheme, Gemalto points to its alignment with the UN’s goals in its literature on building a digital ID. And it admits that a future digital identity will be necessary for individuals to engage in activities that, today, don’t require an ID. “Without a robust means of proving one’s identity, exercising one’s basic rights, claiming entitlements, accessing a range of governmental services, and conducting many daily activities could be hampered,” Gemalto warns.
It should be noted that this is not something coming in the distant, far-off future. Digital IDs are already being implemented. For just one example, in July 2019, Thales launched the Gemalto Digital ID Wallet. In a press release the company described the function of this technology:
With Thales’s new Gemalto Digital ID Wallet, governments will issue a secure digital version of official documents including identity cards, health cards and drivers licenses, available to all citizens on their smartphones. Citizens will therefore be able to prove who they are, both online and in the “real world,” and access their rights and services at the touch of a button. The solution uses multi-layered security techniques and sophisticated encryption to achieve robust protection of personal data, whilst offering users complete control over what information they choose to share, with whom, and when.
Solutions such as this would invariably be tied to various databases housing information about each person. It is a trivial matter to include in such databases information about credit scores, consumer behavior, and more. In China, the population is increasingly controlled by the communist regime’s “social credit score.” Writing for Digital Trends in 2018, Luke Dormehl pointed out that the West is closer to China’s system than many think. Of China’s Orwellian plan, he wrote: “In addition to more mundane areas like whether you pay your community charge on time, the system’s reputational algorithm will also factor in your choice of online friends. That person who complains about how the government is doing its job could suddenly cost you some serious social cred. Befriend too many wrongthinkers and you could quickly find yourself classed as a wrongthinker too.”
It’s disturbing, and it’s not going to be confined to China. “It’s an idea straight out of the oft-invoked George Orwell dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Dormehl continued. “But it’s also not wholly unique to China. True, the U.S. government isn’t publicly instituting a Social Credit System, but the idea that digital reputation analysis isn’t something that affects us all in 2018 is patently untrue.”
While somewhat informal and dispersed today in America, a worldwide digital ID would offer the planet’s would-be ruling class — the international “Deep State” if you will — the opportunity to roll out a communist China-like system for everyone, offering a level of control over people never before possible, or even dreamed of by tyrants of the past.
The Health ID Scheme
One of the key international organizations working to integrate digital ID and health ID is the World Bank, through its Identification for Development (ID4D) scheme. In 2018, the world financial body revealed in a report on its ID4D initiatives that it was receiving key support from certain governments and from a pair of the internationalist and subversive NGOs that are prominent throughout the movement to shackle the world’s people to an ID control scheme. “The work of ID4D is made possible through support from the World Bank Group, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Government, the Australian Government and the Omidyar Network,” the World Bank report notes.
The World Bank calls for the linking of a health ID with existing national IDs into a resulting, all-encompassing digital ID called a “foundational identification.”
“Integration between foundational identification and healthcare systems has the potential to not only improve the delivery of health services and public health management, but also to strengthen identification systems themselves,” the World Bank report notes. “This is particularly the case where there are strong linkages between identification and civil registration systems, the latter of which already relies on the health sector for birth and death registration. Incorporating foundational systems into healthcare can strengthen and streamline these processes and create further demand for identity documents and civil registration.”
On the latter point, generating citizen demand for more ID documents, the World Bank report is slyly admitting that demand for IDs will be driven by restricting services to only those who already have the ID required. “Where a unique foundational identifier is required to enroll in or access health services, it may increase incentives to obtain the ID, as in Estonia and India,” the report notes. Again, that’s because without the new ID, citizens would be prevented from accessing services.
Of course, the World Bank’s 2018 report also pointed out that a “foundational identification” scheme that incorporates health ID would be “useful” during health emergencies. “Stronger vital statistics generated by CR [civil registration] systems also benefit public health by improving the accuracy and timeliness of important indicators — e.g., mortality, morbidity, maternal and child health, etc. — used in health policy and planning and emergency response to disease outbreaks,” the organization says.
Population Control
As if tracking and controlling people isn’t bad enough, there may be a more sinister population-control plan afoot. Speaking at a TED conference in 2010 on the subject of cutting carbon emissions to prevent global warming, Bill Gates pointed to population control as one area where an impact could be made. Among other things, he singled out vaccination as having a role in population control.
“First we’ve got population,” Gates began. “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Now, most people make the reasonable conclusion that vaccines, making people less prone to disease and, therefore, healthier, promote population stability, if not outright growth. But Gates, quite curiously, tied vaccines to population control in this talk.
Subsequently, Melinda Gates attempted to explain his counterintuitive philosophy on vaccines for population control. In the couple’s 2017 Annual Letter, she wrote: “Saving children’s lives is the goal that launched our global work. It’s an end in itself. But then we learned it has all these other benefits as well. If parents believe their children will survive — and if they have the power to time and space their pregnancies — they choose to have fewer children.”
Credible but also creditably disputed claims, especially in Kenya, that some Gates-related vaccines intervened in human reproduction aside, Gates and his organization are interested in population control. Their work for a decade or more on tying vaccination to identification is clearly part of this agenda. Even taking the generous position of assigning to Gates the possibility that he is attempting to simply improve childhood health and reduce poverty does not remove or make illegitimate concerns about using vaccination and health IDs to track the world’s population, as such a scheme creates a system of control for population technocrats to direct the lives of billions of people in a power grab of unimaginable proportions — and consequences.
At least not everyone in the Trump administration is simply going along with the internationalist plan for the implementation of health IDs.
Speaking to Laura Ingraham on Fox News, Attorney General Bill Barr said he didn’t like the idea of vaccine IDs and certificates to prove immunity to COVID-19.
“I’m very concerned about the slippery slope in terms of continuing encroachments on personal liberty. I do think during the emergency, appropriate, reasonable steps are fine,” Barr said when asked about vaccine certificates. Asked for more specifics, he continued: “I’d be a little concerned about that, the tracking of people and so forth, generally, especially going forward over a long period of time.”
Opposition aside, if technocrats such as Gates achieve their aims, Americans will not be able to shop, work, travel, or do anything else without their vaccine/health ID, which will almost certainly end up in some sort of technological and possibly injectable form. This likely would then be combined in the future with your credit score and other social scores, becoming an all-encompassing tracking and management technology for the world’s population.
Keep in mind, too, the very important point that plans for a digital ID imposed worldwide are not schemes for the far-distant future. The UN development goals motivating the construction of the ID scheme call for implementation by 2030, just a decade away. But already, much of the infrastructure is in place. From Thales and Gemalto already launching digital ID wallets, to pilot projects in places such as Bangladesh and early digital ID operations in Estonia and India, to name just two of many, the electronic control trap is ready to spring.
“The technology sector is on a mission to equip everyone on the planet with a digital and online presence,” wrote Gavi Vaccine Alliance CEO Seth Berkely in Nature in 2017. “One of the biggest needs is for affordable, secure digital identification systems that can store a child’s medical history, and that can be accessed even in places without reliable electricity. That might seem a tall order, but it is both achievable and necessary,” he concluded.
Again, Berkely was writing in 2017. The scheme has made great strides since then, and a pandemic is just what is needed to scare a fearful populace into submission.
Contrary to what the Deep State schemers and planners claim, people receive neither legitimacy nor identity from an NGO- or government-administered database or tracking system. Each person’s natural rights are inherent in their humanity and cannot be subjected in any legitimate way to control, management, and regulation by some oligarchic international bureaucracy.
A digital ID scheme is nothing more than a means of tracking personal activity and limiting and regulating access and behavior. It is antithetical to a free people. That the plans for this have been and continue to be made at international conferences and behind the closed doors of international agencies and NGOs, unreported by the media and without citizen knowledge or assent, tells you much about their essential nature.
Technocrat oligarchs and planners are not looking to emancipate the peoples of the world, but to enslave  and control them. Don’t let them.
Live free — oppose the ID!

DRUNK WITH POWER! MICHIGAN’S GOVERNOR WHITMER AT IT AGAIN

DRUNK WITH POWER! 
MICHIGAN’S GOVERNOR WHITMER 
AT IT AGAIN 
MI Governor Says 1st Amendment “Not Appropriate in a Global Pandemic” “Racist,” “Misogynistic”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Obey me or pay me! That pretty much sums up the rhetoric coming from Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer who continues to defy the Constitution and chide anyone who might dare to imply that her authoritarian power is limited by that archaic document.
Of course, if you didn’t catch the sarcasm in that, let me help. She’s a tyrant who has no regard for the law and limits on government overreach. None.
Recently, Whitmer apprised her peasants that she alone had the power to determine when, what, and where the economy can reopen amid the coronavirus pandemic asserting that her executive shutdown orders are “not suggestions,” “not optional,” and “not helpful hints.” Nevermind that pesky outdated First Amendment thing:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That, according to Whitmer, is “not appropriate in a global pandemic.” She continued, “This is calls to violence. This is racist and misogynistic,” comparing protests in the Michigan Capitol to Naziism.
“I do think that the fact of the matter is these protests, in a perverse way, make it likelier that we’re going to have to stay in a stay-at-home posture.”
So let’s get this straight — Whitmer believes she has the sole authority to lockdown an entire state, prevent people from practicing their Constitutionally-protected right to protest the lockdown, slander people by calling them names for doing so, and punish them with an extended lockdown if they refuse to grovel at her divine feet.
By the way, this peaceful protest you see below is what Whitmer says is so
racist, misogynistic, and Nazi-like.

Right. In the words of the great pastor and teacher John MacArthur,
Miss Whitmer needs to “go home”.
Michigan Gov. @gretchenwhitmer calls some protests in her state “racist and misogynistic” and urges others “to stop encouraging this behavior because it only makes it that much more precarious for us to try to reengage our economy.” http://abcn.ws/2RiH3wd 

Embedded video

276

11:49 AM – May 13, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
266 people are talking about this

GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: ELIZABETH, N.J. LANDLORD, ACQUITTED LAST YEAR OF ANTI-MUSLIM BIAS, MUST STAND TRIAL AGAIN

The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from prosecuting individuals more than once for a single offense and from imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. It provides that “No person shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
VIDEO:
 
GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: ELIZABETH, N.J. LANDLORD, ACQUITTED LAST YEAR OF ANTI-MUSLIM BIAS, MUST STAND TRIAL AGAIN
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
“A jury sided with Greda, saying the plaintiffs failed to prove he discriminated against Farghaly based on her religion.”
But that doesn’t matter. He has offended the new protected class. Our moral superiors will keep putting William Greda, and others like him, on trial until they get the verdict they want.
“NJ landlord must stand trial again over accusations of anti-Muslim bias, judges rule,” by Terrence T. McDonald, NorthJersey.com, May 15, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
An Elizabeth landlord cleared by a jury last year of charges that he refused to rent an apartment to a Muslim woman must stand trial again, an appellate panel ruled on Wednesday.
The three-court panel ordered a new trial because, the judges say in their 36-page ruling, the landlord’s defense attorney improperly questioned the Muslim woman about her religious beliefs during the initial trial.
By asking her about references to “infidels” in the Quran and Islamic politics, the landlord’s lawyer elicited “highly prejudicial” testimony that had no value and impaired the woman’s credibility in front of the jury, the ruling says.
The judges also said the trial judge improperly declared a televised news interview with the landlord, William Greda, inadmissible as evidence.
“The only victim here is Mr. Greda, who was forced to undergo this malicious prosecution by New Jersey,” said Greda’s attorney, Vincent Sanzone. “The people will speak again in a retrial.”
The dispute at the center of the case dates to February 2016 and it is detailed in the appellate judges’ decision.
Fatma Farghaly alleges she visited Greda’s 17-unit apartment building in Elizabeth wearing a khimar, or head covering. Farghaly alleges Greda asked her if she is Muslim and then told her, “I don’t rent to Muslims” before asking her to leave. Farghaly captured a subsequent conversation with Greda on her phone.
Farghaly reported the incident to Elizabeth police, then to the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division followed up with two undercover visits. During the first, a division employee wearing a headscarf asked to see an apartment in Greda’s building and says he told her the apartment was “not good” for her. A second division employee not wearing a headscarf visited later and says Greda did not tell her the apartment was unsuitable.
The Civil Rights Division and the state Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint in October 2016 charging Greda with violating Farghaly’s civil rights. Then-Attorney General Christopher Porrino called Greda’s conduct “blatantly bias-driven.”
During the five-day trial, Greda denied Farghaly’s description of events and testified he believed she may have planned the encounter so they could “extort from him to support ISIS.”
A jury sided with Greda, saying the plaintiffs failed to prove he discriminated against Farghaly based on her religion.
The appellate judges took issue with several moments during the trial involving Sanzone. Sanzone repeatedly violated rules of evidence by asking Farghaly about Islam and at one point “gratuitously” suggested her accountant and doctor are Muslim, the judges say.
“Defense counsel’s questioning about Farghaly’s religious beliefs and the principles in the Quran constituted a clear and direct attack on her credibility,” the ruling says. “Indeed, the questioning sought information that had no substantive, probative value to any factual issue presented in the matter.”…
__________________________________________________________________
 Attorney General, Division on Civil Rights Announce Superior Court Complaint Against Landlord for Rejecting Muslim Apartment Seeker
 Landlord Accused of Telling Woman Wearing Khimar: ‘I Don’t Rent to Muslims’
SEE: https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/pr20161019a.html
ALSO: 
https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/Maple Garden_Complaint.pdf
AND:
https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/opinions/appellate/
published/a0604-18.pdf?c=J3C

NEARLY 200 PASTORS, MINISTRY LEADERS CALL ON NEVADA GOVERNOR STEVE SISOLAK TO LIFT 10 PERSON LIMIT ON CHURCH SERVICES

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2020/05/15/nearly-200-pastors-ministry-leaders-call-on-nev-gov-steve-sisolak-to-lift-10-person-limit-on-church-services/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia

CARSON CITY, Nev. (Christian News Network) — Nearly 200 pastors and other ministry leaders have signed on to a letter to Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak to ask that he lift his current 10-person limit on in-person church services — “so long as each church develops, implements, and maintains a safety plan that adheres to applicable social distancing and hygiene guidelines.”

“Just like you, we deeply care for the people of the state of Nevada. During this time of crisis, our houses of worship and the people we serve have adapted to the pandemic and [have] taken safety precautions related thereto,” reads the letter sent to the governor on Thursday. “We have restricted our in-person services and [have] done our best to utilize virtual platforms to serve our congregations and our communities.”

“That being said, we have been gravely concerned that the actions you have taken appear to have targeted religious gatherings,” it outlines, noting that religious gatherings have been excluded from the first phase of the state’s gradual reopening plan.

The pastors point to Sisolak’s April 8 stay-at-home order, Emergency Directive 013, which states in one section, “Places of worship shall not hold in-person worship services where 10 or more persons may gather, including without limitation, drive-in and popup services, for the remainder of the Declaration of Emergency.”

“Places of worship may, however, hold worship services via alternative means, including but not limited to, video, streaming or broadcast, provided that any personnel needed to perform tasks related to such do so in a manner that is consistent with social distancing guidelines … ”

The order also advised that the government may use civil or criminal statutes to enforce the regulations.

The pastors state that while Sisolak likely had good intentions in issuing the order, it goes too far as there are less restrictive ways to protect people of faith from contagious diseases.

“We respectfully submit that the restrictions on in-person church services are more burdensome than they need to be in order to accomplish our shared goal of preventing the spread of COVID-19,” the letter reads. “Emergency Directive 013 restricts religious gatherings in a way that is overbroad and not narrowly tailored to accomplish our shared goal of preventing the spread of disease and death.”

The correspondence further argues that it is not fair for restaurants to be allowed to reopen in phase one at 50 percent capacity — with other safety measures in place — while churches are not permitted to do the same.

The pastors contend that as churches in Nevada have created detailed safety plans to keep their members safe, prohibiting in-person services nearly altogether is excessive.

“We believe we are not called to be isolated individuals expressing Christ in the privacy of our homes but a collective city on the hill where Christ is expressed together to one another,” they outline. “[I]t is our sincerely-held religious belief that online and drive-in services do not meet the Lord’s requirement that the Church meet together in person for corporate worship.”

“For this reason, your order violates our First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of assembly.”

Pointing to Church history and current events, the pastors note that the Body of Christ has been active to help others in need, from caring for the elderly, to assisting the poor, to raising money for personal protective equipment (PPE) and other needed supplies in the medical community, to ministering to the mental, emotional and spiritual needs of health care workers.

“We don’t assume you have approved such restrictive orders regarding church gatherings with a specific animus toward our churches and our vital role in society, but your orders have sent an unfortunate message to us and the people of the state of Nevada that churches and church leaders can’t be trusted to take the steps necessary to protect our congregations and the communities we serve when we are engaged in the work of ministry in our communities,” the letter states.

“Although we acknowledge that there have been bad actors in the community of faith who have not taken their duty to prevent the spread of disease and death, the response of these bad actors should not be to shut down all communities of faith and the essential work we do,” it contends.

The pastors note that the Church has “faithfully shepherded communities through countless plagues” for the past 2,000 years, and therefore, “[t]here is no reason to believe our collective wisdom and experience does not have relevance during this pandemic.”

Signees include Sam Crouch of Calvary Baptist Church in Elko, John Gee of Faith Life Family Church in Las Vegas, Nickolas Emery of Hope Crossing Community Church in Carson City, Ric Fehr of Living Waters Christian Felllowship in Reno, Byron Gomez of Sheep of Christ in Sparks, Larry Webb of Shadow Mountain Church in Gardnerville, James Arthur Moore of Stagecoach Church of God, Jeffrey Ogden of The Village Church in Incline Village, D. Wayne Evans of New Hope Christian Center Assembly of God in Overton, and Duke Taber of Mesquite Worship Center.

View the letter in full here.


			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
OPPOSE H.R. 6666, THE COVID–19 TESTING, REACHING & CONTACTING EVERYONE (TRACE) ACT
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						
OPPOSE H.R. 6666, THE COVID–19 TESTING, REACHING & CONTACTING EVERYONE 


(TRACE) ACT 


Contact your U.S. Congressional Representative and ask them to vote NO on H.R. 6666


THE NVIC ADVOCACY PORTAL


THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:






Dear NVIC Advocacy Team Members,


H.R. 6666, otherwise known as the COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on 5/1/2020.  This bill is sponsored by Representative Bobby Rush (D) of Illinois District 1.  The bill has 59 cosponsors, 58 Democrats and 1 Republican.  We need your help to stop this terrible bill.


Summary


H.R. 6666 provides 100 billion dollars this year and unlimited federal funding in future years to create and operate a massive and likely unconstitutional surveillance, testing, and tracing enforcement system under the guise of “protecting” Americans against coronavirus.


H.R. 6666 is a federal funding bill. It proposes to create a surveillance infrastructure that can be used by the federal government, as well as local and state governments and private businesses, to require medical testing and tracking of all citizens in violation of fundamental civil liberties as set forth in the Bill of Rights, which include the first 10 amendments to the  U.S. Constitution designed to protect individual rights and limit the power of the government.


H.R. 6666 lacks safeguards and conditions related to funding of the proposed surveillance operation to prevent it from being applied to intrusive programs mandating testing and surveillance without an individual’s voluntary consent. If this legislation is passed by Congress and enacted into law, it could lead to denial of an individual’s right to appear in public spaces and travel; the right to employment and education or participation in government-funded services, and the right to receive care in a government funded hospital or other any other medical facility.


H.R. 6666 specifically allows for funded entities to home quarantine a person against their will, even while they are healthy. Once a vaccine is available, the testing and tracing results potentially could be used to force individuals to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccine against their will.


According to a Press Release from the sponsor Congressman Bobby L. Rush, “Reopening our economy and getting back to normal will be all but impossible if we do not step up our testing efforts and implement robust and widespread contact tracing,” said Rep. Rush.  “Until we have a vaccine to defeat this dreaded disease, contact tracing in order to understand the full breadth and depth of the spread of this virus is the only way we will be able to get out from under this.”


The Devil is in the Details


H.R. 6666 would allow The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to award federal grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals, and to support the quarantine of such contacts. Through the use of mobile health units, as necessary, individuals would be tested and provided with services related to testing and quarantine at their residences.


The amount of money appropriated for fiscal year 2020 would be $100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion dollars) and more money may be appropriated by Congress as necessary for any subsequent fiscal year during which the emergency period continues.


A grant recipient may use the federal grant funds, in support of the above referenced activities to hire, train, compensate, and pay the expenses of individuals; and to purchase personal protective equipment and other supplies.


Priority will be given to applicants in “hot spots” and medically underserved communities and to entities that hire residents of the community where the activity will occur.  Hot spots are defined as a geographic area where the rate of infection with the virus that causes COVID–19 exceeds the national average. Medically underserved communities are communities given that term in section 799B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p).


Entities eligible for the grant money are defined as a federally qualified health center, school-based clinic, disproportionate share hospital, academic medical center, nonprofit organization, institute of higher education, high school, and any other type of entity as determined by the Secretary of HHS.


H.R. 6666 Does Not Guarantee Privacy


Section 2 (e) of H.R. 6666 is entitled “Federal Privacy Requirements”, but it does little to protect privacy. It states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality requirement, including the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–191; 110 Stat. 2033) and section 543 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290dd–2).


In actuality, H.R. 6666 offers few privacy protections for Americans who will be surveilled and tested without their consent under programs funded with this grant. In fact, Americans can expect their privacy to be violated under TRACE funded programs. That is because the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(i) has always allowed disclosure of private health information to government officials and other government approved entities including foreign governments without the knowledge or consent of the individual for the purpose of conducting public health surveillance, investigations or interventions.


Bill of Rights Cannot Be Suspended During A “Public Health Crisis”


The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution cannot be set aside by the federal government or state governments during pandemics or other public health emergencies. In The United States Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs, filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a case last month in which church goers attending a drive-in sermon were issued citations for violating an executive order in Mississippi, the DOJ stated;


“There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, — F.3d —, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.”


H.R. 6666 sets the stage for multiple violations of our constitutional rights.


The 4th Amendment right of American citizens is to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed law would provide government funding of entities that create and implement programs to trace and monitor healthy people potentially exposed to the coronavirus. However, the bill does not allow individuals to exercise their Constitutional right to be safe in their homes free from warrantless government intrusion, and does not provide for voluntary refusal of testing and monitoring by a government funded entity. The bill also does not set forth how the contacts of persons with COVID-19 will be traced and whether the Constitutional rights of those infected with COVID-19, as well as their contacts, will be upheld.


The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This legislation provides government funding of entities that will enforce testing and potentially enforce vaccination of healthy individuals, who are suspected of having come into contact with COVID-19 positive persons whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms, without requiring the voluntary consent of the individual.


The  8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of citizens.  The proposed law provides government funding to entities that will create and implement programs that trace, monitor and support the enforced quarantine of healthy individuals, who are suspected of coming into contact with COVID-19 persons, whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms and whether or not they may already be immune.


The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bestows upon the people rights not specifically set forth in the Constitution. H.R. 6666 provides funding for entities to create and implement undefined “related activities” to COVID-19 testing and unnamed “other purposes.”


H.R. 6666 should be opposed because it provides federal funding to entities to create and enforce unrestricted surveillance, testing, tracing and quarantine mechanisms and has no set end date. There is simply no way to know how many inalienable rights protected under the U.S. Constitution could be infringed upon or taken away from citizens if this bill becomes law. 


Text, Status and History for H.R. 6666 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6666?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+6666%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1


Action Needed


1) Call and Email your own U.S. Congressional Representative and ask them to vote against H.R. 6666, the “COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.” Pick a few points in the discussion about that resonate with you to personalize your message.  You may need to leave a phone message as many staff members are working remotely.


If you do not know who your U.S. House Representative is or their contact information, you can login to the NVIC Advocacy Portal, http://NVICAdvocacy.org, click on the “NATIONAL” tab, and your elected Congressional Legislators are automatically posted on the right hand side of the page.  Click on their name to display links to all of their contact information.  If a district office is close to your home, you may also consider trying to set up a longer phone call, video chat or meeting with your Representative or staff to discuss your concerns.


2) Login to the NVIC Advocacy Portal, http://NVICAdvocacy.org, OFTEN to check for state and U.S. updates and action items.  We review bills and make updates daily. Bills can change many times over the legislative process and your timely visits, calls, and emails directed at the correct legislators are critical to this process.


3) Please forward this email to family and friends and ask them to register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org and share their concerns with their Representative as well. 


Sincerely,


NVIC Advocacy Team National Vaccine Information Centerhttp://NVIC.org and http://NVICAdvocacy.org https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Members/ContactUs.aspx


The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) works diligently to prepare and disseminate our legislative advocacy action alerts and supporting materials.  We request that organizations and members of the public forward our alerts in their original form to assure consistent and accurate messaging and effective action. Please acknowledge NVIC as originators of this work when forwarding to members of the public and like-minded organizations. To receive alerts immediately, register  at http://NVICAdvocacy.org, a website dedicated to this sole purpose and provided as a free public service by NVIC. 






			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MOBILIZE MILITARY TO GIVE COVID-19 VACCINE; THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER~ WTF IS THE PRESIDENT THINKING?
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MOBILIZE MILITARY


TO GIVE COVID-19 VACCINE;


THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER


WTF is the president thinking?


SEE: https://www.infowars.com/president-trump-to-mobilize-military-to-give-covid-19-vaccine-this-is-the-worst-idea-ever/; republished 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?









			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
DELAWARE GOVERNOR CARNEY ANNOUNCES STATEWIDE CONTACT TRACING PLAN FOR COVID-19~100 NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS TO EMBED AMONG 200 HIRED FOR “CHECKING UP” ON THOSE ALLEGEDLY “EXPOSED”
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						
LIBERAL GOVERNOR CARNEY DOESN’T CARE ABOUT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 


WHAT PRIVACY? WHAT SPYING? 


BUT WHY THE NATIONAL GUARD TOO?


WVNG sanitizes daycare


BUT IT’S ALL FOR THE GREATER GOOD?


IT’S JUST “REACHING OUT”!




 














Governor Carney toured the contact tracing staff room at the Delaware Emergency Response Center in March:




DELAWARE GOVERNOR CARNEY ANNOUNCES STATEWIDE CONTACT TRACING PLAN FOR COVID-19~100 NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS TO EMBED AMONG 200 HIRED FOR “CHECKING UP” ON THOSE ALLEGEDLY “EXPOSED”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


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 de.gov/coronavirus 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 DPHCall@delaware.gov


DPH will continue to update the public as more information becomes available. For the latest on Delaware’s response, go to de.gov/coronavirus.


_____________________________________________________________


SEE ALSO:



___________________________________________________________




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




BY ROB MORSE




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- 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
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						




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




CONTACT TRACING GROUP FUNDED BY SOROS AND GATES, HAS CHELSEA CLINTON ON BOARD


What do these investigators really want?


BY PATRICK HOWLEY



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


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 achievement.org 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


Meanwhile…


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.


A 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).


















Del Bigtree@delbigtree















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





















18.5K




4:05 PM – May 6, 2020


Twitter Ads info and privacy















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:


















Patrick Howley@HowleyReporter















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 Newsomhttps://youtu.be/-Ug9XHT9JQQ 
















89




5:39 PM – May 9, 2020


Twitter Ads info and privacy















96 people are talking about this







































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

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
HEALTH OFFICIALS LAUNCH MOBILE APP TO PRE-REGISTER CHICAGOANS FOR MASS COVID-19 VACCINES~IMPLEMENTING “CONTACT TRACING, MAPPING, MONITORING”~WHY “OPERATION WARP SPEED” COULD BE DEADLY; FORCING VACCINES ON YOU WITH IMMUNITY FOR THE PHARMACEUTICALS
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						
HEALTH OFFICIALS LAUNCH MOBILE APP 


TO PRE-REGISTER CHICAGOANS 


FOR COVID-19 VACCINE 


BY RISHMA PARPIA



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


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




References:





____________________________________________________________


WHY “OPERATION WARP SPEED” COULD BE DEADLY


BY  BARRY BROWNSTEIN, PhD



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


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. 

  2. “Why were the drug companies released from liability if the ‘risks’ were so small?”
    3. 

  3. “Why was disengagement so difficult when the program’s consequences began to materialize?”
    4. 

  4.  “Who ought to have been liable for this policy?”
    5. 



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. 

  2. “Conclusions were reached ‘fueled by conjunctions’ with pre-existing ‘personal agendas.’”
    3. 

  3. “There often was ‘premature commitment’—deciding more than had to be decided.”
    4. 

  4. There often was “insufficient questioning of scientific logic and implementation prospects.”
    5. 



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.





			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
FACEBOOK PUTS SOROS, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, ACTIVISTS IN CHARGE OF CENSORSHIP
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						
FACEBOOK PUTS SOROS, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, ACTIVISTS IN CHARGE OF CENSORSHIP 


The Leftist-Islam Supreme Court of Social Media Censorship is here


BY DANIEL GREENFIELD



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


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.


______________________________________________________________


SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:


			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
SEVERAL CHURCHES FILE JOINT LAWSUIT AGAINST MICHIGAN GOVERNOR WHITMER OVER UNCONSTITUTIONAL STAY AT HOME ORDER
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						
SEVERAL CHURCHES FILE JOINT LAWSUIT AGAINST MICHIGAN GOVERNOR WHITMER OVER UNCONSTITUTIONAL 


STAY AT HOME ORDER 



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


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.

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
U.S. UNIVERSITIES CREATING CHINESE STYLE SOCIAL CREDIT CORONAVIRUS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						
US Universities Creating Social Credit Coronavirus Surveillance System


U.S. UNIVERSITIES CREATING CHINESE STYLE SOCIAL CREDIT CORONAVIRUS 


SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM


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


BY STEVE WATSON



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


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



✔@globaltimesnews

















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



















134




12:00 AM – Aug 16, 2019


Twitter Ads info and privacy















159 people are talking about this
































Is this our collective future?
















James O’Malley



✔@Psythor

















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





















30.8K




3:34 AM – Oct 29, 2018


Twitter Ads info and privacy















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.





			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
OUR DRESS REHEARSAL FOR A POLICE STATE~THE GREATEST THREAT TO LIBERTY SINCE AMERICA’S FOUNDING
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						


OUR DRESS REHEARSAL FOR A POLICE STATE~THE GREATEST THREAT TO LIBERTY SINCE AMERICA’S FOUNDING 


BY DENNIS PRAGER



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


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.

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	
		
	

		
		
OUR DRESS REHEARSAL FOR A POLICE STATE~THE GREATEST THREAT TO LIBERTY SINCE AMERICA’S FOUNDING
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						


OUR DRESS REHEARSAL FOR A POLICE STATE~THE GREATEST THREAT TO LIBERTY SINCE AMERICA’S FOUNDING 


BY DENNIS PRAGER



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research


purposes:


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.

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
CHICAGO: ROMANIAN PASTORS PUT ILLINOIS GOVERNOR ON NOTICE WITH FIERY DECLARATION: “WE’RE OPENING MAY 10 NO MATTER WHAT”
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						














Elim Church


2.8K subscribers










Official Statement – Pastor Cristian Ionescu




















ABOVE VIDEO IS IN ENGLISH


CHICAGO: ROMANIAN PASTORS PUT 


ILLINOIS GOVERNOR ON NOTICE 


WITH FIERY DECLARATION: 


“WE’RE OPENING MAY 10 NO MATTER WHAT”


BY DUSTIN GERMAIN



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:


A group of pastors have announced their intent to openly defy Illinois Governor J.B Pritzker’s stay-at-home orders by issuing a declaration that they are opening their churches for in-person services on May 10, no matter the consequences.


The move comes several days after The Beloved Church, a small congregation in Lena, Illinois, held their own in-person services shortly after they filed a federal lawsuit protesting what they view as their state’s severe and oppressive COVID-19 containment policies.  The state had been restricting churches from gathering at all, deeming them to not be “essential actively.”


On the day The Beloved Church filed the suite, the Governor office released a modified executive order that unambiguously allowed Illinois residents to leave their homes “to engage in the free exercise of religion.”


The updated order deems attending church and engaging in religious practices to now be considered a permitted essential activity “provided that such exercise must comply with Social Distancing Requirements and the limit on gatherings of more than ten people in keeping with CDC guidelines for the protection of public health.”


The small acquiescence from the state was too little, too late, and too bad.


Despite the overture from the government to partially relax their fingers wrapped around the churches throat, the Romanian pastors are insistent that they will not relent or change course based on their deeply-held convictions, and are ready to die on this hill. They say they have lived under Romanian communism and are painfully familiar with living under the heavy hand of a totalitarian regime, and will tolerate it no more.


Here is the letter issued to the Governor. It’s a bit of a barn-burner. Bold emphasis added by the signers. Highlighter added by us for clarity and emphasis as well.
































We also have an official statement from Pastor Cristian Ionescu, one of the pastors who signed the letter, in which he delves more into his motivation and thinking and theological implications of the letter and his actions: (SEE ABOVE)

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
PA REP. STEPHANIE BOROWICZ: COVID-19 UPDATE-GOVERNOR WOLF’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL DICTATES WARRANT FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						


PA REP. STEPHANIE BOROWICZ:

COVID-19 UPDATE-GOVERNOR WOLF’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL DICTATES WARRANT FEDERAL INVESTIGATION

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research

purposes:


I am so proud to stand alongside so many in the House and the Senate in protecting our liberties.


On behalf of the Independence State of Pennsylvania, we are calling on United States Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice to investigate the heavy-handed dictates of the Wolf Administration during the COVID-19 emergency.


“The Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis,” or in the words of Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

______________________________________________________________

We Hear You: House Actions Help Guide State Toward Safe Reopening




With Pennsylvania employers, workers and families continuing to struggle in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the House was back in session this week continuing our work to reopen businesses safely so people can return to work and support their families.


From the moment the governor abruptly announced his unconstitutional statewide business closure order in mid-March, the House has been fighting to bring openness, transparency and logic to the process.


We have taken action on bills to reopen construction (which is slated to open today), golf courses (also slated to reopen today, along with privately owned campgrounds, marinas and guided fishing trips), as well as automobile dealers, smaller retail stores, real estate, garden centers, pet groomers and more.


In fact, while we were debating legislation in the House to safely reopen the real estate industry, the Wolf administration issued new guidance to allow certain transactions to proceed.


Thank you for sharing your questions and concerns with us; we hear you, and it is making a difference.


Other bills advanced by the House this week:

• To help our communities and first responders, House Bill 2413 would invest up to $40 million in grants for fire and emergency medical services companies.

• To help save taxpayer dollars, House Bill 2418 would require a comprehensive review of all Commonwealth debt to identify opportunities to take advantage of refinancing at lower interest rates.

• House Bill 2392 would require the Independent Fiscal Office to include critical risk factors in its assessment of the Commonwealth’s fiscal condition to help lawmakers better plan and budget within our means.

• To address regulations, House Bill 2415 would require the Office of the Governor to notify legislative leaders in writing by electronic means when a specific statute or regulation is suspended, modified or waived under the authority of the emergency order.

• To ensure intergovernmental cooperation throughout the disaster and recovery period, House Bill 2419 would establish the COVID-19 inter-branch Cost and Recovery Task Force.


None of this could have been achieved without the people making their voices heard.


While this is great news, there are more sectors of PA’s economy that are ready to open safely and follow CDC guidelines. It is a matter of survival for more businesses to reopen now!


Elective Surgeries Restored


 Read more

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	


			  

					
1
…
98
99
100