No, Dear, There is a First Amendment RIght

Court Hands Down A MASSIVE Victory for Freedom on the Fourth of July

Court Hands Down A MASSIVE Victory for Freedom on the Fourth of July
(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
On Independence Day, July 4, 2023, the forces of freedom won a major victory, and the Biden regime suffered a historic defeat. May there be many more days like this.

The Biden regime is authoritarian to the core. Like every hard-Left authority in the history of the world, it is intolerant of dissent and determined to stamp out all opposition, not by defeating it at the ballot box, and certainly not by besting it in the court of public opinion, but by forcibly silencing it. But on Tuesday, Judge Terry Doughty, Chief U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, put a massive roadblock in the way of Biden’s handlers’ ongoing efforts to ensure that only their own perspective can be heard in the American public square.

In a landmark ruling in Missouri v. Biden, Doughty struck back hard against what he called “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Doughty even began his decision by quoting the most famous adage regarding the importance of the freedom of speech: “I may disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it,” a statement that is often attributed to Voltaire but which Doughty credits to the early twentieth-century English writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall (whom he mistakenly calls Hill, but that doesn’t detract from the power of his ruling).

Doughty declares that “in their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” He noted that “Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, through public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of direct communication, regarding what Defendants described as ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ have colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms.”

Specifically, Doughty noted:

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants suppressed conservative-leaning free speech, such as: (1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; (2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; (3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; (4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines; (5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; (6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail; (7) suppressing parody content about Defendants; (8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; and (9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.

All that is abundantly true, and there are plenty of other examples of the regime’s hatred of dissent as well. Regime spokesbeings, however, will tell you that all they really want to do is protect poor, ignorant, distracted, gullible Americans from “disinformation.” It became clear when the Biden regime established its ill-fated and quickly disbanded Disinformation Governance Board that it had decided that labeling reports that departed from the officially approved line as “disinformation” was a likely winning strategy, both to circumvent the First Amendment and to hoodwink Americans into thinking that the crushing of dissent was a valuable service.

Related: Stanford University Launches New Censorship Initiative to Save ‘Our Democracy’ by Destroying It

Doughty, however, pointed out that it was not the government’s role at all to silence opposition voices; rather, he reminds us that “the principal function of free speech under the United States’ system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” This is as far from the Biden regime’s conception of the function of free speech as Los Angeles is from Pluto’s moons, and that’s precisely why this ruling is so urgently needed, and so welcome.

Doughty wrote: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’ The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign.” He added: “It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.” Yes, they do, and in Missouri v. Biden, Doughty has done a great deal to protect that right. This decision prohibits the government from working with social media giants to censor American citizens.

Will the regime fight back? Almost certainly. Will it craft a deceptive, Orwellian, disingenuous, paternalistic argument for censorship based on its claimed responsibility to protect Americans from “disinformation”? That seems likely as well. But the more it fights in cases of this kind, the more its authoritarian nature becomes clear. Will Americans quietly accept the yoke of censorship? We have a history of resisting tyranny. It is no accident, comrade, as Biden’s Marxist friends would say, that Doughty’s ruling came on Independence Day.

from:    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2023/07/04/court-hands-down-a-massive-victory-for-freedom-on-the-fourth-of-july-n1708218

A Movie That Brings Attention to the Horror of Human Trafficking

Sound of Freedom Hero: ‘Media Running Interference For Pedophiles And Human Traffickers Is Sick’

Sound of Freedom is a movie based on a true story about former Homeland Security agent Tim Ballard and his fight against child trafficking and pedophilia. The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Media Matters, Jezebel, the Guardian, and other leftist media outlets, published articles trying to conflate child abuse with QAnon conspiracy theories to discredit the facts about child trafficking and mass immigration.

The real life former government agent who exposed child trafficking rings, inspiring the wildly popular new film ‘Sound of Freedom’, has hit back at a coordinated media effort to categorise the movie as some sort of conspiracy theorist’s wet dream.

In a Fox News interview, Tim Ballard, played by Jim Caviezel in the movie, responded to bizarre efforts to label it a ‘QAnon’ production.

“I can’t explain, and neither can they,” Ballard urged, adding “Every show I’ve seen, they just like to throw the word out, ‘QAnon.’ They make zero connection to the actual story. It’s very difficult to make that connection when it’s actually based on a true story.”

“Where is the QAnon doctrine being spewed in the film and the script?” Ballard demanded to know, adding “This is just some other agenda.”

“Who would want to get the backs or run interference for pedophiles and human traffickers?” Ballard emphasised, adding “That’s the more important question in all this. Why would you want to lie to push an agenda whose goal is to have children be in captivity? It’s kind of sick.”

.

 

Read full article here…

(Note:  Lots of opinions and reviews on the movie in the full article:  https://summit.news/2023/07/11/real-life-sound-of-freedom-hero-media-running-interference-for-pedophiles-and-human-traffickers-is-sick/ )

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2023/07/sound-of-freedom-hero-media-running-interference-for-pedophiles-and-human-traffickers-is-sick/

Taking on Gang Violence in El Salvador

El Salvador President Bukele’s Wildly Popular Gang Crackdown is Reducing Illegal Immigration to US

The Wall Street Journal reported that El Salvador President Nayib Bukele’s successful crackdown on MS-13 gang members has led to a dramatic 44% reduction in the number of Salvadorans illegally crossing the southern border into the US. El Salvador, was once known for having the world’s highest murder rate, now has the world’s highest incarceration rate, 68,000 prisoners, which is about 1% of their population. The strategy has helped lower homicides by 92% compared with 2015, giving Bukele the support of nine of every 10 Salvadorans. Ecuador, Guatemala and Colombia are considering copying Bukele’s policies.The success of Bukele’s heavy-handed crackdown has made fools of our ruling elites who insist restorative justice and throwing open our nation’s prisons is how you create peace.

.

 

.

President Nayib Bukele’s successful crackdown on MS-13 gang members has led to a dramatic reduction in the number of Salvadorans illegally crossing our southern border, the Wall Street Journal reports.

From The Wall Street Journal, “The Country With the Highest Murder Rate Now Has the Highest Incarceration Rate”:

El Salvador, long whipsawed by gang violence that made it one of the world’s most dangerous countries, turned things around by jailing huge swaths of its population. The country once known for having the world’s highest murder rate now has the world’s highest incarceration rate—about double that of the U.S.

Since March 2022, President Nayib Bukele’s government has implemented a campaign to arrest en masse suspected members of the MS-13 and 18th Street gangs that have long terrorized the impoverished Central American nation, blocking economic growth and stoking U.S.-bound migration.

The strategy has helped lower homicides by 92% compared with 2015, giving Bukele the support of nine of every 10 Salvadorans, polls show. The number of Salvadorans illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has dropped by 44%.

These numbers are even more significant considering illegal immigration overall has hit record levels thanks to the Biden regime’s open borders policies.

It also has put some 68,000 people in this Massachusetts-size country of 6.3 million behind bars. That’s more than 1% of the population, according to World Prison Brief, an online database on correctional systems. Rights groups said the campaign has swept up innocent people, especially among the country’s poor and indigenous communities, who are held for long periods in harsh conditions without trial.

Responding to allegations of prisoner mistreatment, Bukele during a cabinet meeting in October said, “Yes, they’ll have human rights. But the human rights of honest people are more important.”

[…] Detentions of Salvadorans, once one of the largest groups trying to cross the southwestern border, illegally crossing have dropped to about 36,500 in the eight months through May of this fiscal year from more than 65,000 in the same period a year earlier, just before the campaign began. 

It was reported in 2010 that around one fifth the entire population of El Salvador was living in the US.

MS-13 gang members make headlines every week for committing heinous murders in cities throughout the US.

We’re supposed to believe these gang members have a “spark of divinity” inside them and the diversity they bring is “our greatest strength.”

The success of Bukele’s heavy-handed crackdown has made fools of our ruling elites who insist “restorative justice” and throwing open our nation’s prisons is how you create peace.

 

According to the WSJ, other Latin American countries “grappl[ing] with their own high murder rates” are considering following in Bukele’s footsteps:

Ecuadoreans, one of the largest nationalities heading to the U.S., have seen the homicide rate in their country quadruple from 2019 through 2022. Some politicians, such as Cynthia Viteria, who until May served as mayor of the violent Ecuadorean city of Guayaquil, encouraged Ecuador’s government to mimic the Salvadoran leader’s policies to bring down crime and stop the killing of police officers.

“It’s simple, just copy him. Do what Bukele’s doing,” she said in September. “The solutions are out there, for those who have the guts to implement them.”

Jan Topic, an independent presidential candidate in Ecuador and a Bukele admirer, said his experience as a French foreign legion sniper serving in Syria and Ukraine would help him bring order to the streets and gang-controlled prisons.

In Guatemala, several presidential candidates adopted a security agenda inspired on Bukele’s policies in this summer’s election.

In Colombia, beset by armed groups in much of the countryside, the opposition Democratic Center party recently invited Bukele to visit the country and showered him with praise after leftist president, Gustavo Petro, compared El Salvador’s overcrowded jails to concentration camps.

“I think I’ll go on vacation to Colombia,” Bukele quipped on Twitter.

The scale of MS-13’s extortion was tremendous:

Former central bank governor Carlos Acevedo said that gangs raked in an estimated $500 million a year from extortion paid by businesses and residents. Multilateral organizations estimated that crime cost El Salvador 15% of its $29 billion economy.

Those losses are now being reversed, business groups said. In a survey earlier this year by the National Association of Private Enterprise, the country’s largest business group, members reported drops of 40% to 70% in extortion since mid-2022.

[…] more than 60% of Salvadorans said they didn’t care if their government was democratic as long as it solved their day-to-day problems, according to a survey by Chile-based regional pollster Latinobarometro in 2021. 

[…] Public-bus operators were robbed of at least $20 million a year through extortion, according to Genaro Ramírez, president of El Salvador’s public transport bus association. Extortion had become so institutionalized that Ramirez said a bank asked him for detailed information on payments to gangs when he once applied for a business loan. Gangs also boarded buses to rob passengers. 

Some 3,000 public transport workers and bus owners were killed in gang crossfire and attacks over the past two decades, Ramírez said. In 2010, after a bus owner refused to pay extortion, at least 17 people were killed when gangsters doused a bus full of passengers with gasoline and set it ablaze, then fired bullets at anyone who tried to run out. The incident transfixed Salvadorans.

Over the past year, extortion has fallen to “negligible sums,” Ramírez said. He credited the anti-gang campaign, calling it harsh but necessary.

“Of course, there is going to be collateral damage, nothing is perfect,” said Ramírez. “But I can’t criticize what’s working.”

The Biden regime has had nothing but criticism for Bukele for undermining what they call “democracy.”

Read full article here

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2023/07/el-salvador-president-bukeles-wildly-popular-gang-crackdown-is-reducing-illegal-immigration-to-us/

Freedom to Choose

It Is Time to Declare Our Independence From the Vaccinators

Analysis by Barbara Loe FisherFact Checked
time to declare independence from vaccinators

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • On July 4, 2023, it will have been 247 years since the Declaration of Independence was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and signed by delegates of 13 American colonies formally declaring independence from political control by the King of England
  • One of the most primal human fears is fear of death, and the science experts calling the shots in government health agencies and at the United Nations, especially the World Health Organization, along with their Big Pharma, Big Tech and other Big Money partners, know that
  • Vaccine products atypically manipulate the immune system by stimulating an acute inflammatory response in the body but, in an unknown number of people, that inflammation does not resolve
  • If the last three years taught us nothing else, we now know it is time to declare our independence from the Vaccinators and take back individual sovereignty, our right to autonomy, before it is too late
  • There is really only one way to free ourselves from the Vaccinators and that is to eliminate one-size-fits-all vaccination laws

On July 4, 2023, it will have been 247 years since the Declaration of Independence was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and signed by delegates of 13 American colonies formally declaring independence from political control by the King of England.1

“Light and liberty go together” said Jefferson2 and, in his final letter to John Adams before he and Adams both died on July 4, 1826, Jefferson predicted that no despot or tyrannical empire in the future would be able to crush the human spirit of resistance that guards liberty.

A fierce proponent of individual rights,3 Jefferson said, “The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776 have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism. On the contrary, they will consume these engines, and all who work them.”4,5

Was Jefferson’s prediction right? Or, as one of the earliest and most influential proponents of smallpox inoculation,6 could he never have imagined that the scientific and medical professions he loved so well7 would one day forge lucrative global business partnerships with industry and government and create a public health empire that has become a much greater threat to liberty than the monarchy he and his fellow revolutionaries rebelled against in 1776?8,9,10

After my son was injured in 1980 by the crude, toxic whole cell pertussis vaccine in DPT shots,11 I joined with other parents of DPT vaccine injured children in 1982 to establish the charity known today as the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) with the mission of preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education.12,13 We have defended the legal right to make voluntary decisions about vaccination for 41 years.14,15

Since then, I have watched the public health empire grow and use “no exceptions” vaccination laws as the tip of the spear in the great culture war gripping this and other nations around the world. It is an ideological and political war that has been going on since the 19th century,16,17 pitting those who believe in the right to autonomy and liberty against those who believe in centralized, authoritarian government control.18,19,20,21

How it ends will define what freedom means for human populations around the world during this and many centuries to come. What is at stake is whether or not our physical BODY, which houses our mind and soul, will continue to be regulated, altered and used without our voluntary consent to achieve goals pursued by national governments or, as some are predicting, a future one-world government.22,23

The New Aristocracy: Privileged ‘Experts’ Call the Shots

The most vocal proponents of forced vaccination have always filled the ranks of professions that require possession of an advanced academic degree — such as an M.D., Ph.D., J.D. — or other honorific title that automatically confers an elevated status in society with all the respect, economic and social class benefits that come along with that privilege.24,25,26,27,28,29,30

Unlike in the 18th century when the American colonies fought for freedom from a king, power in western societies is no longer wielded by kings and queens and other aristocratic members of hereditary monarchies.

Today, power in most societies with representative democratic governments and constitutional republics is wielded by a new aristocracy, a spider web of highly paid science, medical, legal and business “experts” with big titles working for governments31 and pharmaceutical,32 medical trade,33 Big Tech,34,35 military-Industrial,36 corporate media,37,38 banking,39,40 and other institutions.41,42,43,44,45

Politicians often rely upon these titled experts — like Dr. Anthony Fauci — to tell them what to believe and do, especially when they fly under the “science” flag and declare a public health emergency.46 And, having the power to make laws that govern the rest of us, politicians are quick to exercise that power when fear of the unknown interferes with rational thinking.

One of the most primal human fears is fear of death, and the science experts calling the shots in government health agencies and at the United Nations, especially the World Health Organization, along with their Big Pharma, Big Tech and other Big Money partners, know that.47,48,49,50

When they declared a COVID pandemic emergency in the winter of 2020, they used fear of death and their “expert” status as weapons to persuade people to abandon rational thinking, believe the unbelievable, and give up liberty for the illusion of safety.

During partial or complete lockdowns, at least 4.5 billion people in over 100 countries, including 310 million Americans in 43 states, were suddenly ordered to hide in their homes.51,52,53,54 We were told to restrict our breathing with paper and plastic masks — even children as young as 2 — and to stay 6 feet away from others if we entered a public space.55

In a state of shock, we saw police taser the unmasked and dispatch drones to force people indoors.56,57 We watched politicians close restaurants, stores, gyms, parks, theaters, churches and schools, which led to isolation, mental illness and economic ruin.58,59,60

We grieved with the families blocked from holding the hands of their loved ones dying in retirement and nursing homes, and for the elderly who died in hospitals after they were automatically put on ventilators that killed most of them.61,62 We felt powerless when government health officials told doctors they could not repurpose already licensed drugs like ivermectin to prevent COVID complications or help heal the sick.63,64,65

But the biggest weapon used during the height of COVID hysteria was a very old one, one that has been around for more than 200 years. Warning that “nobody is safe until everyone is safe,”66 the experts in charge at the United Nations, World Health Organization and in government health agencies ordered every human in the world to be injected with a pharmaceutical product called a vaccine, a product sold for profit that can injure, kill or fail to work as advertised.

People were tracked, coerced and, ultimately, many were forced to get vaccinated or face severe consequences.67 No shots, no school.68 No shots, no medical care.69 No shots, no job.70,71,72 No shots, no travel.73 No shots, no life. The Vaccinators ruled with an iron fist.

According to The New York Times, more than 72% of the world’s population — some 5.5 billion people, which reportedly included about 80% percent of the U.S. population — got at least one COVID shot,74 a biological product that has racked up more than 1.5 million adverse event reports in the U.S. alone.75,76

The First Vaccinator Infected Children With Cowpox

The Vaccinators — those individuals who make, sell, license, recommend, administer, promote and mandate pharmaceutical products called “vaccines” — have been around for as long as the United States of America. The most famous Vaccinator, who is credited with inventing the concept of vaccination, was an 18th century medical doctor living in England: Edward Jenner.

As urban legend would have it, in 1796, Dr. Jenner took pus from a cowpox lesion on the skin of a milkmaid and scratched it into the arm of a healthy child in hopes that a milder cowpox infection would protect against serious cases of smallpox. It was an experimental practice that several other doctors in England had been doing for years.77,78

By the end of the 18th century, smallpox was already naturally declining in severity in London, but it could still kill between 10 and 30% and leave many scarred with pockmarks.79 Jenner and the other doctors infecting healthy children with an animal disease to prevent a human disease did not know exactly what would happen to the children they experimented on.

They didn’t know anything about what it would do to the body of an individual child at the cellular and molecular level, whether it would cause acute reactions or uncontrolled inflammation in the body80,81 or whether it would alter immune,82 heart83 or brain function,84 or affect chromosomal integrity.85

After all, medical doctors in 1796 were still ritualistically bleeding and purging people sick with smallpox and other diseases, as well as restricting nutrition. They were doing the same thing to many healthy infants and adults before performing arm-to-arm inoculation using smallpox pus, a procedure called variolation.86,87,88

How many died of smallpox back then because doctors insisted on limiting food intake and bleeding and purging them until they had little strength left to heal? There is no question that cowpox inoculation was legendary for its ability to cause severe reactions, disability and death,89 which is also true for smallpox vaccine still given to some soldiers today.90,91

With missionary zeal, Jenner and his medical colleagues ignored the protests and pleas by mothers and fathers, who watched once healthy infants and children get inoculated and be covered with open sores, while their feverish bodies became riddled with inflammation and their hearts and brains were permanently damaged, with an unknown number of them wasting away and dying within a few days or weeks or months of vaccination.92,93,94

Still, Jenner eventually was able to persuade influential doctors, especially those heading up the new profession of “public health” funded by governments, to use arm-to-arm inoculation to infect all healthy children with cowpox.

Somewhere along the way, a new animal-human hybrid vaccinia virus emerged, which scientists today argue could be part cow or part horse — nobody seems to know for sure — but routine inoculation with the live vaccinia virus was described in early medical journals as “humanized vaccination.”95,96

Vaccination Did Not Confer Lifelong Immunity

Even in the 18th century, it was known that recovery from smallpox gave a person what appeared to be lifelong immunity to the dreaded disease.97,98 Jenner considered himself to be a scientist and his unshakable belief that scratching cowpox pus into the arms of children conferred durable immunity to smallpox was eventually shown to be a myth. In fact, by 1880, the evidence confirmed that Jenner was wrong — vaccination did not confer permanent immunity.

Smallpox outbreaks were occurring in England despite compulsory vaccination laws,99 just like pertussis,100 mumps,101 measles,102,103,104 and polio105,106 outbreaks occur today, despite widespread vaccination laws. U.S. industrialist and philanthropist John Pitcairn pointed that out when he testified before the Pennsylvania legislature in 1907 against mandatory smallpox vaccination. He said:107

“Jenner began by claiming that vaccination made a person immune for life, but the facts of observation soon resulted in the term being shortened to 14 years; then it was made seven; then five; then two; and in the Spanish-American War, six months was the limit of immunity.”

Not only did smallpox vaccination not provide lifelong immunity, but live vaccinia virus vaccination could spread vaccine strain infection to other people.108 The myth that vaccination is a sure guarantee of immunity is a persistent bit of disinformation about vaccines that has been used by the Vaccinators for two centuries to justify public health policies enforcing the purchase and use of multiple doses of the same vaccines — including COVID vaccine.109,110

In 2020, that old myth played a key role in billions of people around the world believing the lie that COVID vaccine would guarantee that vaccinated people could not get infected with or transmit SARS-CoV-2.111,112

Poor Children Used in Arm-to-Arm Vaccination Campaigns

After declaring a coronavirus pandemic emergency in 2020, the Vaccinators at the World Health Organization sent out a press release proclaiming that because of smallpox vaccination campaigns, “The world got rid of smallpox thanks to an incredible demonstration of global solidarity, and because it had a safe and effective vaccine.” They said, “Solidarity plus science equaled solution!”113

But the ugly truth about the history of vaccination is that for a century after Jenner’s newfound fame, little children — mostly working class, minority and orphaned children — were used to conduct arm-to-arm anti-smallpox campaigns that had nothing to do with science.

Children were the preferred tools of the new trade because they were thought to be more “pure”: their blood usually was not infected with syphilis, tuberculosis and other diseases more common to adults at the time.

Doctors at the height of the British Empire, scratched cowpox pus into the arms of children living in the slums in England and physically transported them, sometimes in baggage holds, to colonized countries like India and parts of Africa so they could be used to infect indigenous children. Governments, as well as other social institutions, used the arm-to-arm vaccinia virus inoculation campaigns as political and social organizing tools, especially in poor communities.114

In 1870 during the Industrial Revolution, entrepreneurial doctors decided to mass produce the vaccinia virus by growing the virus on the skin of young cows, instead of young humans. They called the new product an “animal vaccine.” Vaccine “animal farms” populated by calves sprouted up all over Europe and America to make the new vaccine trade more profitable for chemical companies and doctors alike.

But there was little safety regulation of the virus being grown in calves that doctors were scratching onto the arms of infants and children, who risked suffering high fevers, encephalitis and brain damage, full body eczema vaccinatum that looks a lot like smallpox, and the lethal progressive vaccinia, which can lead to bacterial superinfection and death within weeks of months of vaccination.115

After nearly two centuries of mass vaccination campaigns, the Vaccinators declared smallpox eradicated in the late 20th century — the first and only infectious microorganism they say vaccination has eliminated from the earth. But it was the more selective approach of quarantining the sick and targeted ring vaccination of close contacts primarily responsible for doing that.116,117,118

The Vaccinators Persecute Anyone Opposing Mandatory Vaccination

The valid safety concerns of 19th and early 20th century anti-mandatory vaccination activists, like Lora Little, a Minnesota mother whose 7-year-old son died after smallpox vaccination,119 and British scientist Alfred Russel Wallace,120 co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, were ridiculed by the Vaccinators aggressively lobbying politicians to pass mandatory smallpox vaccination laws.121

Those pioneering thought leaders opposing forced vaccination developed legitimate scientific and ethical arguments that are still valid today.122,123,124 Yet, they were ridiculed, persecuted and discredited by the Vaccinators protecting the politically powerful, very profitable alliance between medical trade, the chemical industry and governments.

Just like today, the Vaccinators slapped the “anti-science” label on anyone defending medical freedom and opposing mandatory vaccination.125,126,127,128 By 1905, a Lutheran pastor who had suffered a smallpox vaccine reaction challenged mandatory smallpox vaccination.

In a seminal U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the high stakes ideological debate dominated by the Vaccinators based on a utilitarian “greater good” rationale popular in academic circles at the time prevailed.

The Supreme Court majority affirmed the constitutional authority of state legislatures to pass mandatory vaccination laws in the U.S.129 The Vaccinators took that legal victory at the turn of the 20th century and ran with it all the way to the banks funding the global Public Health Empire in the 21st century.130

By 2022, the global market for preventive vaccines was valued at over $200 billion dollars — up from $34 billion in 2017131 — with much of that revenue guaranteed to multinational drug corporations by vaccination laws. And the global pharmaceutical market had become a 1.4 trillion-dollar business, with the U.S. population paying for and using 50% — or 550 billion dollars’ worth — of all drugs and vaccines consumed in the world.132

The Vaccinators Have Waged a Two-Century War on Microorganisms

Crippled by ignorance, blinded by hubris, for more than two centuries the Vaccinators have waged a war on microorganisms, insisting that the only way to win that war is to create more and more vaccines and compel everyone to buy and use them.133,134,135 It started out with one vaccine targeting one organism.

Today the Vaccinators have declared war on 17 more microorganisms, insisting every child be given over 70 doses of vaccines136 to try to prevent infectious diseases like chickenpox137 that do not come close to being in the same category as smallpox.138 And now they want everyone to get an annual COVID shot along with an annual flu shot,139 while creating a long list of new vaccines for all kinds of infectious — as well as chronic diseases — they want everyone to take.140,141

Instead of spending money to tackle historic causes of poor health — like poverty,142 poor sanitation,143 poor nutrition,144,145 and environmental pollution,146 and developing effective ways to help people get through infections without suffering complications, the Vaccinators continue to put all their eggs in one basket.

Abandoning the precautionary principle to “first, do no harm,” with tunnel vision they desperately hold on to the 19th century vaccination paradigm and march forward in the name of consensus science147,148 and “the greater good,” taking down anyone who stands in their way.149,150,151,152,153

What Else Do Vaccines Do?

Vaccine products atypically manipulate the immune system by stimulating an acute inflammatory response in the body154 but, in an unknown number of people, that inflammation does not resolve.155,156,157,158

And nobody knows how many of the hundreds of millions of children and adults — with 1 in 2 in America now suffering with a chronic inflammatory disease159 that damages the heart, brain, lungs, joints, immune system and other parts of the body160,161 — can trace the beginning of their poor health conditions back to vaccinations that begin on the day of birth162 and continue throughout childhood and during pregnancy163 until the last year of life.

We’ve done what the Vaccinators have told us to do for two centuries. The vaccination rate among school aged children in the U.S. has been close to 95% since the 1980s.164,165

And yet, today the United States of America has the worst maternal and infant mortality rate166,167 and the worst life expectancy rate compared to other developed nations,168 while 1 child in 6 is learning disabled;169 1 in 10 has allergies,170 ADHD171,172 or an anxiety disorder;173 1 in 36 develops autism;174 1 in 150 has epilepsy;175,176 1 in 285 is diabetic;177 and millions more are suffering with poor health conditions marked by chronic inflammation in the brain and other parts of the body.178

It is a chronic disease and disability epidemic that accounts for 90 percent of the 4.1 trillion dollars in annual US health care costs.179

Where Is the Real Science?

Where are the large, prospective, long-term scientific studies comparing all morbidity and mortality outcomes in unvaccinated and highly vaccinated humans that parents of vaccine injured children asked for more than 25 years ago?180,181

Where is the big library of biological mechanism science investigating what happens to the cells and mitochondria182,183 and chromosomes?184,185

What happens to the microbiome186 and function of the heart and brain and other organs when a pharmaceutical product containing parts of live or genetically engineered human and animal viruses and bacteria, plus foreign proteins, chemicals, metals, DNA and synthetic mRNA is injected into the human body over and over and over again?187,188,189,190

No two human beings are exactly the same, so where ARE the methodologically sound studies that explain how genetics,191 epigenetics,192,193,194 environmental factors195,196 and other influences raise or lower an individual’s risk for complications from both infectious diseases or vaccination?197,198

Where IS the REAL science that Jenner didn’t know how to do, but could have been done by now, if the Vaccinators really wanted to know the truth about “scientific” assumptions made when doctors were still slicing open veins and purging the life out of both sick and healthy people two centuries ago?

Why have we accepted vaccination as the greatest medical invention in the history of medicine199 instead of holding the Vaccinators accountable for what may be the biggest lie in the history of medicine?

And even if vaccination IS the greatest invention in the history of medicine, anyone with the power to force you to alter and risk damaging your body or the body of your minor child without your voluntary, informed consent has too much power,200 because if the state can tag, track down and force individuals to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.

Taking Back Individual Sovereignty From the Vaccinators

If the last three years taught us nothing else, we now know it is time to declare our independence from the Vaccinators and take back individual sovereignty,201 our right to autonomy,202,203,204 before it is too late. Right now, we have an opportunity to free ourselves from the chemical chains that empower the Vaccinators to change who we are, how we think, what we believe and what we can and cannot do.205,206

But we cannot liberate ourselves from those very expensive chemical chains at the national or global level unless freedom of speech is restored to its rightful place as a non-negotiable fundamental liberty for all. Under the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech means you have the right to speak, write and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government.

Freedom of speech has been muzzled in the U.S. and many other countries since 2020 at the direction of the Vaccinators controlling policymaking in governments and at the United Nations, who have put pressure on private corporations operating the WorldWideWeb and media to end all public debate about mandatory vaccination.207,208,209

If the Vaccinators have to resort to censoring freedom of speech because they are so afraid of what the people really think about vaccination, then they have already lost the debate.

I believe Jefferson was right. The flames of liberty kindled on the 4th of July 1776 have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by petty tyrants in governments and at the United Nations determined to exploit the people for power and profit.

It is time to publicly question why mandatory vaccination has been made the cornerstone of preventive health programs since the 19th century, when highly vaccinated populations are sicker than ever in the 21st century. It’s time to clear the way for more rational, enlightened approaches to maintaining health and wellness that work in harmony with nature instead of branding every infectious disease as an enemy to be eradicated from the earth.210,211,212

What Can Be Done?

There is really only one way to free ourselves from the Vaccinators and that is to eliminate one-size-fits-all vaccination laws.213,214 Like every other pharmaceutical product sold in the marketplace, vaccines should be subject to the law of supply and demand, and no one should be penalized in any way for making an informed choice about use of a product that can injure, kill or fail to work, and is sold by drug companies with no liability when people die or are disabled by the product.215

In the U.S., most vaccine laws are state laws and at NVIC, we have been working with families and state legislatures since 2010 through the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal to stop vaccine mandates and electronic vaccine tracking systems, and to expand medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions.216

We are committed to helping you protect the legal right to get a school education, receive medical care, have health insurance, hold a job and move about freely in society without being coerced or sanctioned for exercising informed consent to vaccination.

The years of hard work we have been doing in the states paid off big time in 2021 when every one of the 50 state legislatures in the U.S. refused to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine. It was a victory that should not be underestimated.

There has never been a better time to take action, so please sign up and take action at NVICAdvocacy.org today and join this historic fight for independence.

What else can you do? You can educate your community and participate in improving government at every level — from getting involved in elections for school boards, city and country councils and sheriffs — to showing up at the polls in state and federal elections. You can run for office yourself or make sure those who do run have integrity and are committed to defending civil liberties, including the right to make voluntary decisions about vaccination.

We need to elect lawmakers who will call a halt to the pay-for-play scheme that Congress gave the pharmaceutical industry decades ago and stop drug companies from paying the FDA217,218 to cut corners and fast-track their experimental drugs and vaccines to market — like the notoriously reactive and ineffective mRNA COVID vaccine that already has netted Pfizer and Moderna a staggering $100 billion.219,220,221

We need a law to stop the revolving door between Big Pharma and government agencies222,223,224,225 so the Vaccinators can’t go to work for drug companies and then work for government, and then go back to working for drug companies, whose products they were regulating and promoting when they worked for government.

We need a law prohibiting research scientists employed by government agencies in public-private business partnerships with Pharma from holding patents on vaccines they create with drug companies,226,227 so they can profit from sales of those vaccines whether they continue working for government or quit and work for drug companies.

The U.S. is only one of two countries that allows direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies,228,229 which is why every other ad on TV is selling prescription drugs and promoting vaccines. We need a law that unhooks mainstream media from their Pharma paymasters, so the media have more incentive to tell the truth instead of spewing out disinformation produced by the Vaccinators.

We need Congress to restore the civil liability provisions that were originally in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act when it was passed in 1986 holding negligent doctors accountable for medical malpractice and holding drug companies liable for defectively designed vaccines.230

It is shameful that the historic law, which acknowledged government licensed and recommended childhood vaccines can cause injury and death, was gutted after it was passed by weakening amendments and rule-making by federal agencies that eliminated many of the vaccine safety, liability and federal compensation provisions that parents had worked so hard to secure in it.231

We need Congress to conduct an investigation into and overhaul operation of the Department of Health and Human Services, including taking away oversight on vaccine safety and public health research priorities and putting it into an independent agency that reports directly to Congress.232,233

We need state legislatures to stop mandating vaccines and stop creating electronic vaccine tracking systems lacking informed consent protections,234 and stop passing laws that allow doctors to pressure young children to get vaccinated without the knowledge or consent of their parents.235

We need elected state representatives to take back their power to make public health law instead of turning over that power to unelected employees working in public health departments.236 And, we need laws prohibiting doctors from denying medical care to children and adults solely based on their vaccination status.237,238,239

There is a lot that can be done to break the chemical chains that tie the people to the Vaccinators from the day of birth to the last year of life — but only if we stop taking our freedom for granted and expecting someone else to do it for us.

You have the God-given right to autonomy, the right to protect the biological integrity of your body and that of your minor child. You have the natural right to exercise freedom of thought and to use your gut instincts, mother’s intuition and common sense when making a benefit-risk decision about taking a medical risk. Don’t be afraid to say “no” to a doctor or anyone pressuring you to take a vaccine or give your child a vaccine you do not consider to be safe or effective.

You have the civil right to exercise freedom of speech. Don’t be afraid to talk to your family, friends and lawmakers about why you think it is important to defend freedom of speech and the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking, which includes vaccine risk taking.

We can all do something every day — no matter how big or small — to protect the beating heart of liberty. Contact NVIC and join the revolution. Make a donation. Take action.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/04/time-to-declare-independence-from-vaccinators.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20230704_HL2&mid=DM1427812&rid=1846486881

When “Green Energy’ = No Energy (Unless You are In the Club)

Sweden Dumps Climate Agenda, Scraps Green Energy Targets

Sweden has just dealt a severe blow to the globalist climate agenda by scraping its green energy targets.

In a statement announcing the new policy in the Swedish Parliament, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson warned that the Scandinavian nation needs “a stable energy system.”

Svantesson asserted that wind and solar power are too “unstable” to meet the nation’s energy requirements.

Instead, the Swedish Government is shifting back to nuclear power and has ditched its targets for a “100% renewable energy” supply.

The move is a major blow to unreliable and inefficient technology.

Countries are being pushed toward “renewable energy” to meet the goals of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) green agenda.

The WEF’s green agenda is being heavily pushed by the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), Paris Climate AgreementWorld Bank, and Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration.

Announcing Sweden’s new policy, Svantesson said: “This creates the conditions for nuclear power.

“We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system.”

Environmental campaign group Net Zero Watch has welcomed the move.

The group argues that the Swedish decision is “an important step in the right direction, implicitly acknowledging the low quality of unstable wind and solar, and is part of a general collapse of confidence in the renewable energy agenda pioneered in the Nordic countries and in Germany.”

Under its new direction, Sweden now views nuclear power as being critical to the nation’s “100% fossil-free” energy future.

Sweden can “afford to reject fossil fuels, relying on nuclear and hydro and biomass,” Net Zero Watch suggests.

Svantesson also sent a warning to other Western nations who are blindly pushing to meet the energy requirements of the WEF’s green agenda.

In “substantial industrialized economies… only a gas to the nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialized and competitive,” Svantesson noted.

Experts have argued that lowering carbon dioxide emissions is not really a worthwhile goal for an individual country or globally.

The potential harms of the gas are uncertain and exaggerated while the benefits are overlooked.

Dr. John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s Energy Director, said that “living close to Russia focuses the mind.”

The Swedish people wish to “ground their economy in an energy source, nuclear, that is physically sound and secure, unlike renewables which are neither,” he explains.

Other world governments are continuing “to live in a fantasy” about meeting the green agenda goals, Constable added.

“But we are coming to the end of the green dream.’

from:    https://slaynews.com/news/sweden-dumps-climate-agenda-scraps-green-energy-targets/

Of Bats, Biolabs, and Fort Collins, CO

Is The Next Wuhan Biolab At Colorado State University In Fort Collins?

When I wrote The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism, some objected that the cover picture was too evil looking. Let me assure you that the evilness of true evil is just getting started, as evidenced by this shocking story about yet another gain-of-function biolab is being constructed in the West. There is much more to this story, to be revealed in coming days and weeks.  ⁃ TN Editor

In December 2022, Larimer County Planning Commission approved a new “bat lab” or bat vivarium at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado after giving one day notice to the public for opposition. In October 2021, NIH recently granted $6.7 million in funding for this facility, but this is negligible compared to the $288 million in NIH funding to CSU since 2014. This article will address the prior NIH bioweapons projects at CSU, the zealousness for profitable pandemic projects in Fort Collins, the grassroots opposition to gain-of-function research at CSU, the stonewalling of public stakeholder feedback, the need for public backlash in Colorado, and most importantly, the evidence that CSU labs are an extension of the CDC working in partnership with the DOD without accountability or transparency.

Prior Bioweapons Projects and Leaks at CSU

Michael Nevradakis with Children’s Health Defense has written a comprehensive 11-page overview of the biological research at CSU. In “Plan to Build NIH-Funded Bat Lab Research Lab in Colorado Sparks Fears of Lab Leak,” Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert shared his concerns with the CSU facility:

“It is well known that Colorado State University has a long and ongoing history of specialization in weaponizing insects with biowarfare agents for delivery to human beings. This new lab will magnitudinally increase CSU’s offensive biowarfare capabilities, in gross violation of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 and my Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that provides for life in prison.”

A biological disaster at CSU occurred at the Prion Research Center, with prion proteins being the causative mechanism in incurable neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and fatal Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. CSU conducted long-term research on Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), similar to scrapie in sheep, mad cow in cattle, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans. CSU’s reported “breakthrough” research in 2019 replaced the gene that encodes the prion protein in mice with genetic code from deer. The collateral damage of this research is decades of leaking CWD in wildlife, which is 100% fatal to deer and elk. According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, “By 2018, CWD rates of infection were estimated to occur in about one-third of Colorado’s elk population and about half of the state’s deer population.” Governmental sources claim the origin of CWD in deer is unknown, while hundreds of non-governmental sources trace CWD to the CSU lab where deer shared pens with sheep from a scrapie project in 1967. In 2021, Issues in Information Systems journal reported that Fort Collins was a primary catalyst in the widespread distribution of the disease:

“Text mining of the internet for the first 40 years of the disease produced evidence supporting a common assertion in the press that all of the early cases can be traced back to Fort Collins. For 1967 into 1998, six clusters were identified that could all be traced back to Fort Collins. Limited information from game farms made tracking difficult for 1998 to 2007 with 10 more clusters traced back to areas linked to Fort Collins or with trace backs to Fort Collins explainable based on the evidence.”

Regarding human risks from lab leaks, The Coloradoan reported “Records reveal ‘biological hazards’ at Fort Collins CDC” in 2017:

“The Fort Collins office of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was home to at least three lab mishaps since 2013 that risked exposing the public to dangerous pathogens, a USA TODAY investigation has found. …

In documents describing some of the Fort Collins mishaps and others, the CDC blacked out key information including the types of viruses and bacteria involved in the mishaps and often the entire descriptions of what happened.

The agency cited a 2002 bioterrorism law to justify its redactions. The law allows the agency to withhold from the public certain records filed with regulators or information containing specific ‘safeguard and security measures.’

Two of the Fort Collins incidents involved ‘select agents,’ pathogens included on a federal list of potential bioterror pathogens. The list includes pathogens such as those that cause anthrax, Ebola, plague or certain avian or reconstructed flu virus strains.”

Fort Collins Is an Eager City for Pandemic Pseudoscience, Experimental Drugs, and Vaccine Passports

Fort Collins was the most zealous city in Colorado during COVID-19 for mitigation strategies: developing new therapeutics, vaccine trials, wastewater testing, mask studies, and a proposed vaccine-verified facility program. Fort Collins was listed as one of the 10 best cities in the world for coronavirus contributions. CSU had over 100 investigators working on more than 25 projects related to COVID-19, including vaccines and therapeutics. But were these projects more profitable than productive?

CSU also had a vocal professor with an engineering background in the area of air pollution (not an infectious disease doctor) promoting the use of mask wearing to prevent coronavirus. John Volckens, Ph.D. has conducted prior research on children in Fort Collins wearing air quality monitoring devices, so he clearly views people as appropriate test subjects for environmental devices. Volckens made the following non-evidence based statements at a viral transmission workshop: “Individual behaviors like wearing masks are one factor in determining a person’s environmental risk” and “Behavior is a social science that needs to be woven into our research as we focus on prevention.” Is it likely that Volckens’ long-time National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grantee and planning committee member status prompted him to make medical device wearing recommendations?

Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce promoted UC Health’s AstraZeneca vaccine clinical trial of 1500 subjects to line up like cattle at the Ranch in Loveland for an experimental drug.

The Larimer County Board of Health was forced to “pause” the Vaccine-Verified Facility program due to overwhelming public backlash about this threat to medical privacy and Constitutional rights regarding commerce and movement.

In September 2020, CDC launched the National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS) and funded two Centers of Excellence in Houston and Colorado, to serve as leaders in wastewater surveillance implementation and coordination. Larimer County accepted grant awards to report data to this CDC program. CSU studied COVID-19 viral levels in wastewater coming from businesses and places of residence, in coordination with CDPHE and LCDHE. The CDC plans to track other emerging health threats and infectious disease threats in wastewater listed as antibiotic resistance and foodborne diseases, which are not communicable diseases. Allegedly this Colorado surveillance program can identify RNA from a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater from a specific residence, however the program paradoxically claims it cannot detect RNA from a person vaccinated by Pfizer of Moderna in wastewater. The value in the wastewater surveillance program as an “early warning system” is yet to be demonstrated.

Is this over-zealous pandemic response due to the vast amounts of money allocated for these projects or the influence of the CDC office in Fort Collins?

The CSU Lab Is an Extension of the CDC Working in Partnership with the DOD

Operation Warp Speed was a Department of Defense campaign “Charged with developing and delivering a vaccine to 300 million Americans, Operation Warp Speed paired military planners with experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to work the details of a monumental plan.” Most people know that DOD partnered with the CDC for COVID-19. With the current widespread criticism of the “woke” military and the demonstrated incompetence at the CDC during the pandemic, Colorado should be concerned with the evidence that, in military terms, this new CSU facility is a forward operating base (FOB) for the main operating base at the CDC. The CDC calls this an Emergency Operating Center and Larimer County opened its EOC in August of 2021. The CDC Foundation also lists CSU as a partner, and the Gates Foundation funded over $1 million in research at CSU for Tuberculous in 2021.

The public will not see tactical military vehicles deployed at the DOD operation at CSU’s lab. Instead, General Perna in Operation Warp Speed utilized civilian companies to manage the logistics of a military campaign:

“It is only through the foundation established by the ‘incredible experts’ of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the capability and capacity of commercial industry — including Pfizer, McKesson [drug distribution services], FedEx, UPS, Walgreens, CVS and … most importantly, the governors’ public health officers and health-care communities — that this plan will be successful,” Perna said. “Because of the sheer energy and the whole-of-America approach, I am absolutely 100% confident that we are going to distribute safely this precious commodity … [which is] needed to defeat the enemy COVID.”

When General Perna praised the public health “officers” (with officers being high-ranking people in the military), he referred to yes-men and yes-women who sit in appointed positions on research boards and public health boards to stonewall the public’s opposition. Fort Collins has so many examples of these public health officials with conflicts of interests that it will require a follow-up article. However in one example, CSU benefitted from funding for millions of dollars for biopharma projects over ten years under the leadership of Linda Birnbaum who retired as Director of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in 2019. Her thesis research focused on enrichment of RNA genes. Her son, Dr. Bernard Birnbaum was appointed by Larimer County Commissioners to the Board of Health in 2016 and is currently serving his second five-year term. Bernard Birnbaum violated the board bylaws to delay the vote on officers, then requested a second term as President of the Board of Health, and the board subsequently amended the bylaws months later to accommodate. These public health boards need to be challenged on every policy and procedural approval. When citizens testify to these public health “officers,” their valid objections are rebuffed for impeding millions of dollars of funding attached to bioresearch and public health projects. These “officers” are not required to provide evidence in support of public health policy, nor acknowledge evidence which shows their public policy is harmful to mental health or the economy.

Plan to Build NIH-Funded Bat Lab Research Lab in Colorado Sparks Fears of Lab Leak” details emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that CSU joined a collaboration in 2017 of DOD, CDC, NIH, with EcoHealth Alliance. EcoHealth Alliance has previously collaborated with Wuhan Institute of Virology in gain-of-function research with cornonaviruses and aims to develop genetically engineered self-spreading vaccines. EcoHealth Alliance also has sustainability goals to “balance and optimize” (or surveil and control) populations of people and animals. Emails from 2020 confirm communications between CSU Professor Tony Schounz, Ph.D. and Jonathan Epstein, Vice President at EcoHealth Alliance, about importing infected bats and rats. Emails from 2018 confirm communication between Schountz with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where Schountz proposed a collaboration on projects involving bat-borne viruses and arboviruses (viruses spread by mosquitos, ticks, fleas). CSU also has a partnership with Zoetis, which was previously under the name Pfizer Animal Health until 2013.

Act Now the Need for Citizen Stakeholder Input and Public Backlash

CSU’s new facility will expand its capabilities to study viruses with high mortality in humans: Ebola virusMarburg virusNipah virus and Hendra virus.” Pharmaceutical companies have expressed interest in developing mRNA vaccines for these viruses. These are highly pathogenic Biosafety Level 4 agents, yet the new facility is designated for only Biosafety Level 2 agents.

Despite CSU’s current plan that it will not conduct controversial gain-of-function research, a written agreement between CSU and the citizens of Colorado does not exist. CSU’s biosafety director Rebecca Moritz stated in The Rocky Mountain Collegian, “…this will be the only facility like it in the United States.” It begs the question of the unique capabilities planned for this lab.

Christine Bowman leads a newly formed local opposition group called Covid Bat Research Moratorium of Colorado (CBRMC). She reports that US Sen. John Hickenlooper, US Sen. Michael Bennet, and Fort Collins mayor Jeni Arndt have not responded to citizen’s concerns about the CSU lab. CSU has failed to schedule the promised process public engagement process in the past six months to address the public’s safety concerns.

Unprecedented backlash is needed to overcome the intent to shut out the public from the research at this lab: public engagement with county commissioners and board of health in Larimer County, citizen demands for reports about transparency and safety reviews from the governing Institutional Research Board (IRB), CORA requests, student walkouts at CSU, and yard signs and billboards. The biolab opposition will need funding, scientific experts, and lawyers. The opposition must obstruct every step of the construction of the next Wuhan biolab in Colorado.

Read full story here…

from:    https://www.technocracy.news/is-the-next-wuhan-biolab-at-colorado-state-university-in-fort-collins/

Food Control

Get Your One Health Token From the World Health Organization

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with health and medical fields
  • The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that dictate what you eat
  • Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, which is being put in place to ultimately screen, track and control people through food, according to investigative journalist Corey Lynn
  • The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative, which includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals
  • Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the “necessity” of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet

The World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with the health insurance and medical fields. The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that both dictate what you eat and have the power to impose penalties if you stray too far off course.

“How do you get people to break? Control their food and money,” investigative journalist Corey Lynn explains. “What is the weapon? Controlling your identity through digital means. The smart phone, QR codes, digital identities, biometrics, AI, and chips are all weapons being used against humanity.”1 You can listen to Corey discuss this on Spotify by going to her channel Dig It! Episode #189.2

Are Food Tokens in Your Future?

It was October 2022 when the WHO announced its One Health Joint Plan of Action, launched by the Quadripartite, which, in addition to WHO, consists of the:3

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
  • World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE)

“The Quadripartite will join forces to leverage the needed resources in support of the common approach to address critical health threats and promote the health of people, animals, plants and the environment,” according to a WHO press release.4

Echoing this statement, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that “a transformation of the world’s food systems is needed urgently, based on a One Health approach that protects and promotes the health of humans, animals and the planet.”

Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, including from the White House,5 which isn’t nearly as holistic as it sounds. Instead, “food is medicine” is the phrase “being used to campaign, launch programs, change policies and financing, aggregate data, tie the health care industry in with the food supply, and ultimately screen, track and control people through food,” Lynn says.6

It’s a smokescreen, under which more people will be ushered into the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), and similar initiatives so digital food tokens can be implemented. This allows for the tracking and control of people’s food purchases.

A number of big names have recently joined in the push to increase SNAP enrollment, including Google, which intends to make it easier to find out eligibility and apply for the program.

Other partners include Instacart, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food Industry Association. Benefits Data Trust is also working to help facilitate the enrollment of college students into SNAP, Medicaid and the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides help to obtain internet access.

Again, these seemingly altruistic plans have an ulterior motive — surveillance and control. “Food, health care and internet may seem like a wonderful free benefit, until a college student tries to get their first cheeseburger, doesn’t get the Covid jab, or puts out ‘misinformation’ on the internet,” Lynn says. “Watch how quickly it’s all taken away. It’s like making a deal with the Devil.”7

It’s All a Trap

Once you’re locked into receiving food tokens, you’ve fallen into their trap. Who’s “their”? Lynn has previously described key organizations pulling strings behind the scenes, allowing them to “operate as ghosts without transparency or accountability.”8 These powerful organizations enjoy unrestricted privileges and layers of immunity, allowing them to exert control over the globe.

“These aren’t just ordinary organizations,” Lynn explains. “They happen to be the prime organizations that run the new world order globalists’ agendas against humanity, and they have hundreds of NGOs working with and through them.”9 The roll-out of “healthy eating tokens” isn’t just a possibility.

They’ve already been woven into key propaganda pieces, like this 2018 image below from the Illinois Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Task Force:10,11 “Whereas this example may be reflective of a welfare applicant,” Lynn says, “make no mistake, this is the goal all states are trying to accomplish for all people, not just those on welfare.”12

social benefits distribution

Pitfalls of White House’s $8 Billion Commitment

In line with WHO’s One Health, the White House laid out a Fact Sheet detailing its “transformational vision for ending hunger and reducing diet-related disease by 2030 – all while closing disparities among the communities that are impacted most.”13

The initiative intends to invest in “new businesses and new ways of screening for and integrating nutrition into health care delivery,” along with devoting at least $2.5 billion to startup companies “pioneering solutions to hunger and food insecurity.” Another $4 billion is earmarked for “philanthropy that improves access to nutritious food, promotes healthy choices and increases physical activity.”

Here again we have the smoke-and-mirrors effect, which masks the integration of food and health as a means to enact broad policies of control. As Lynn reports:14

“A helping hand is always nice, until it has ulterior motives. Sure, physical activity for all and the reduction of sugar in food items are both welcome approaches, but the rest of this agenda is not in the best interest of human beings.

The problem is, when reviewing this Fact Sheet it may seem like a good idea, just as while reviewing a single white paper from the WEF [World Economic Forum] could even sound like it has the potential to be a good thing.

However, when one takes the Fact Sheet with countless white papers, websites, funding, and other internal documents and puts it all together — it paints quite a different story. They know full well that most people won’t gather all of the pieces of the puzzle so they won’t be able to see the reality of the situation and discern the true agenda. That’s why it is so critical to do just that.”

The White House intends to work with a long list of private organizations to reach its goals. The American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Commission, National Grocers Association, Food Industry Association and the Rockefeller Foundation are among them.

Globalists Team Up to Tell You What to Eat

The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative.15 It includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals,16 which sound good in theory. But entities like the Rockefeller Foundation aren’t looking to further the reach of small farmers producing real, healthy food.

Consider the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which was launched in 2006 with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With strategies centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers, AGRA’s influence significantly worsened the situation in the 18 African nations targeted by this “philanthropic” endeavor. Hunger under AGRA’s direction increased by 30% and rural poverty rose dramatically.17

The Green Revolution is another Rockefeller Foundation-funded conversion of natural farming to a system dependent on chemicals, fossil fuels and industry. You can expect that under this Food is Medicine initiative, genetic engineering, lab-grown meat and, eventually, insects will take center stage. Plus, it’s another tool for integrating food under health care, so you can ultimately be tracked with one digital health passport. Lynn says:18

“Of course food is medicine, but that’s not the true intention of this initiative. By integrating food under medicine just imagine how this will change the landscape of the control mechanisms being put in place under the guise of health care.

This isn’t the only avenue the Rockefeller’s are using to orchestrate this shift in food control. They are also one of the major funders of the Center for Good Food Purchasing, along with W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Panta Rhea Foundation, Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, and the 11th Hour Project — the grant-making vehicle of the Schmidt Family Foundation — former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

The stated goal of this “Center” is to manage the Good Food Purchasing Program, which is all about getting institutions to convert over to their “supply chain transparency from farm to fork and shift towards a values-based purchasing model.”

Converting schools, hospitals, and public administrations is a strong goal, for starters. They’ve established standards, certifications, and a point system as the first of its kind and are building local and national partners as quickly as they built the website.”

Meanwhile, they’re rolling out Food is Medicine courses at hospitals and universities in order to indoctrinate health care providers into this plan. Among the training will be “screening for nutrition” and instruction on how to refer patients to their community nutrition resources, likely along with education on the “benefits” of gene-edited foods and fake meat.19

What Happens if You Veer From Their Prescribed Diet?

Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the necessity of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet. It’s important to share knowledge with your circle about the pitfalls of these foods and why traditional whole foods are truly what your body needs.

If the powers-that-be take control of the food supply and dictate what people can and can’t eat, humanity is threatened. Envision a world in which your weekly groceries are only released if you’ve met certain requirements, and even then, those groceries are made up of what they ration for your use.

“Imagine if one refuses to eat bugs — they may not receive proper health care,” Lynn says. “Or what happens if one refuses to go on the food token program and only eat as instructed? Did they just lose their ability to receive health care? … What happens if edible vaccines hit the market and they try to make it mandatory as part of one’s diet?”20

To fight back, continue to source food from small, local sources instead of multinational corporations — and pay for your food with cash. As Lynn reports:21

“Just as with their other agendas that all tie into this one, the narrative control is being piped out by universities, medical associations, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and many others to bring a whole new outlook on what a nutritional diet should look like to prevent disease.

It’s as though a complete overhaul is being done on what’s ‘good’ for human beings to ingest, and gene-edited produce, insects, and cultured cells seem to be the top priority.

This may seem like a slow burn, but they are clicking multiple pieces of the structure into place simultaneously, and when that burn finally reaches inside people’s homes, in their cabinets, fridge, and wallets, it will be too late to rollback all of the policies and regulations that have locked into place.”

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/27/who-one-health-approach.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230627&mid=DM1423741&rid=1840084123

America Needs a Lifeline

RFK Jr. and Elon Musk Discuss ‘Reclaiming Democracy’

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCEfree speech

  • June 5, 2023, Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Elon Musk co-hosted a live Twitter discussion about issues they believe ought to be at the forefront of the political debate going into the 2024 presidential election
  • Topics covered included free speech versus censorship, the destruction of democracy, the Ukraine war, foreign policy, the humanitarian crisis at the border, COVID, the link between mass shootings and antidepressants, the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) and more
  • If elected president, Kennedy will issue an executive order forbidding federal agencies from participating in any efforts to censor speech by the American public
  • Kennedy is adamant about stopping the ever-growing influx of illegal immigrants across the southern border and is currently formulating policies to make the border “impervious,” while simultaneously opening up legal immigration pathways
  • Kennedy also wants to shut down gain-of-function research and bioweapons development

June 5, 2023, Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Elon Musk co-hosted a live Twitter discussion with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, venture capitalist David Sacks, investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger and securities attorney Omeed Malik, about issues they believe ought to be at the forefront of the political debate going into the 2024 presidential election.

Topics covered included free speech versus censorship, the destruction of democracy, the Ukraine war, foreign policy, the humanitarian crisis at the border, COVID, the link between mass shootings and antidepressants, the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) and more.

Also you can mark your calendars as I and Dr. Pierre, Kory, Dr. Patrick Gentempo, Del Bigtree, Mikki Willis and others will be participating in a Health Policy Roundtable, where we will be able to grill Bobby about your concerns. It will be Tuesday, June 27 at 7:00 PM EDT.

Media Bias

Not surprisingly, the liberal media chastised Kennedy for championing “right-wing ideas and misinformation” during the interview. In fact, that was The New York Times’ headline.1

The NYT went on to smear Kennedy as “a leading vaccine skeptic” who promotes “conspiracy theories” and “sounded like a candidate … in the mushrooming Republican presidential contest.” Translation: He’s a rational realist who doesn’t shy away from difficult truths and inconvenient facts.

“He said he planned to travel to the Mexican border this week to ‘try to formulate policies that will seal the border permanently,’ called for the federal government to consider the war in Ukraine from the perspective of Russians and said pharmaceutical drugs were responsible for the rise of mass shootings in America,” The NYT complained, adding:

“He claimed, without evidence, that ‘COVID was clearly a bioweapons problem.’ American intelligence agencies do not believe there is any evidence indicating that is the case.”

Similarly, CNN wrote Kennedy off as a “marginal candidate who espouses debunked medical claims,” complaining he “attacked the closing of churches, social distancing and government track-and-trace surveillance.”2

I suggest listening to the discussion for yourself, as most mainstream media reporting on it didn’t do it justice. Below, I’ll review some of the key issues discussed, with a focus on Kennedy’s stances and election promises, seeing how the establishment is doing everything in their power to prevent people from learning what he stands for.

Kennedy on Social Media Censorship

Proving the ties between the Biden administration and Big Tech are still alive and well in the post-COVID era, Instagram recently suspended Kennedy’s official presidential campaign page, after reinstating his personal page, which had been banned for the last couple of years. Kennedy commented:

“I was evicted from Instagram … in the spring of 2021. The day I was evicted, I had about 770,000 [followers], but I had been up to 900,000. Whenever I hit 900,000, they would cut them back to 800,000 or 700,000, so I was losing followers all the time.

They said it was because I was promoting misinformation. But the term is ‘information,’ and [has] nothing to do with … factual accuracy or inaccuracy. It was simply a euphemism for any statement that departed from the government orthodoxies and government proclamations …

Since I’ve declared the presidency [run], now we have about 50 people working for the campaign, and each of those people has an Instagram handle — for example, my daughter-in-law is Amaryllis@TeamKennedy.com — and when they attempted to register, Instagram would send them a flag saying ‘You’ve been suspended for 180 days.’

So, none of them were allowed on. And, of course, that’s illegal under Section 413 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which regulates speech. It protects speech during presidential and other federal election campaigns …

But I don’t want to be pointing the finger at Meta right now, because I think it’s time for healing in this country. I’m happy that I’ve been reinstated, and they gave me back all my old posts, and all my old followers …“

If elected president, Kennedy vows to call the heads of all social media companies into the Oval Office and “not walk out until we have figured out how to make this work and make it consistent with democracy.”

Like Sachs, Kennedy doesn’t believe that social media companies want to censor any of their users. Rather, they’re pressured to do so by advertisers and the government itself, which is using private companies to circumvent the U.S. Constitution. Were social media companies to continue censoring anyway, then turning them into common carriers could be one solution.

“I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist,” Kennedy said, “and I think the remedy for misinformation is more information, and the remedy for bad speech is more speech. It’s never censorship. Censorship is by far the worst solution. There are forms of speech that are not protected, [such as] inciting violence [and] pedophilia … and you can censor those.

But if it’s protected speech, I don’t think it should be censored. But I think in any case, we should understand the logic, the algorithms and the methodologies, and we should all have access to those. That’s key, because these institutions are now the public square. They are a place where speech takes place … and we have to figure out a way to integrate them into our democratic values system.”

Musk is also adamant about the need for free speech. “I think if we don’t protect free speech at all costs, we don’t have a functioning democracy. If we don’t have a functioning democracy, nothing else matters,” Musk said. Ironically, since his acquisition of Twitter, the Democratic Party and its press allies have routinely portrayed Musk as a “threat to democracy,” primarily based on his support of free speech.

How Do We Combat Government Capture of Corporations?

Malik also brought up an interesting point. Kennedy has frequently discussed the problems we have with regulatory capture — the fact that most of our regulatory agencies, including the FDA, CDC and EPA are controlled by the very industries they’re supposed to regulate.

As a result, there’s no one to make sure the public is not harmed by dangerous drugs, vaccines and chemicals. But a reverse kind of capture has also taken place, as elements within the federal government are pressuring private companies to violate the Bill of Rights on the government’s behalf, while pretending these companies are doing it of their own volition.

“How do we prevent our Bill of Rights from being violated by private actors when the government uses them to do their dirty work?” Malik asked Kennedy. “I’m not just talking about censorship here. I’m actually talking about the deprivation of economic liberty.”

Kennedy replied:

“In terms of the role of these agencies in compelling behavior from U.S. corporations, it is appalling, and as soon as I get into office, I’m going to issue an executive order forbidding the federal agencies — whether it’s NIH, the CIA, the FBI — from participating in any efforts to censor speech by the American public, or to compel other behavior from the American public that is not legally required.

That’s what we saw during the pandemic. We saw it in the vaccine mandates, and we saw it in the censorship of speech. I will forbid that, and make sure that it does not happen [again], at least not during my term in office. Immediately, the first week I’m in office, I will sign that executive order.”

Kennedy on the Border Crisis

Kennedy is also adamant about stopping the steady and ever-growing influx of illegal immigrants across the southern border.

“We need to seal our border,” Kennedy said. “A key existential function for every nation in the world is to be able to control immigration at its borders … Having millions of people … flowing across the border is not something any nation can or should put up with.

Worst of all, it’s created a humanitarian crisis … The notion that we have an open border is now a gospel around the world so that people are flying in from all over the world, from Europe, from China, from Asia … and being assisted by nonprofit groups and by government groups to actually make their way to the United States’ border within buses, and that needs to be shut down.

We have people in this country who are poverty-stricken and who don’t have access, because of the paucity of public assistance … to public assistance.

We need to be protecting the people in this country, in our urban populations, rural populations. Seventy percent of Americans could not put their hand on $1,000 if there’s an emergency. We don’t have the capacity to support …. this huge flood of new immigrants that’s coming into our cities and stressing the school systems, stressing the social service systems for … Americans who are already struggling. It needs to be turned off.

Over the next three days I’ll be meeting with people from the border patrol and elsewhere to try to formulate policies that will seal the border permanently … That’s what I will do as President. I will make that border impervious … I will also open up legal immigration, so that the immigration that we do need, that’s going to be beneficial to our country and economy, will continue.”

Kennedy Wants to Shut Down Gain-of-Function Research

Kennedy is equally adamant about shutting down gain-of-function research, which is nothing more than a convenient cover for bioweapons development. According to Kennedy, the CIA continued developing bioweapons in secret after the Biological Weapons Convention went into force in 1975, and never stopped.

“We should shut the whole thing down,” Kennedy said. “COVID was clearly a bioweapons problem and you saw what that did to us. What if it was a real disease? A disease that had a 50% mortality like dengue fever or Ebola, or … one of these other real deadly viruses?

They got those in the labs too … Let’s shut it down around the world. Let’s have a real shutdown of all bioweapons development … and make sure that one country does not develop a weapon that is going to kill all the rest of us.”

Kennedy also stressed that, as we now face true existential threats such as bioweapons and AI, we must get off our war footing, as the constant threat of war “gives these institutions the excuse to be super secret and nontransparent and put us in a security state where they can develop all these crazy technologies in secret that are going to kill us all.” He believes in negotiation and working with other countries, including China and Russia, to ensure that everyone benefits and prospers.

Elon Musk on Neuralink and AI

Kennedy, in turn, wanted to know how Musk, who years ago warned we should all be terrified of AI because “first, it’s going to take our jobs, and then it’s going to kill us,” justifies being on the leading edge of that risky work.

Musk’s company Neuralink received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval at the end of May 2023 to test its implantable brain chips in human subjects.3 This is the first step in Musk’s stated vision to merge and augment the human mind with AI.

“It seems to me that [Neuralink] is a technology that could potentially be really … denigrating to democracy and human freedoms,” Kennedy said. “What are your thoughts about that?” Musk replied:

“Well, first of all … Neuralink … is about developing brain-to-computer interfaces to allow direct communication with the brain. The neural link will progress very slowly, because anytime you have a device implanted in a human, the FDA requirements are extremely difficult …

The first applications that we’re talking about are simply enabling someone who is a quadriplegic, or paraplegic, someone who has lost the connection from their brain to their body, to be able to communicate …

Long term, I think, it has some chance of mitigating [the] artificial intelligence existential risk by enabling a closer symbiosis of AI and humans. And I certainly agree that this is not without risk. Certainly we need to be very, very careful with how it’s done …

Looking at the advancement of artificial intelligence, I think we will probably have digital super intelligence before a neural link is sufficiently advanced to have high bandwidth communication between your cortex and the AI extension of yourself. But no question, we need to be extremely careful, and we will be extremely careful, and it will move slowly.

So, you’ll definitely see it coming up. People are going to have an opportunity to object and raise concerns and issues. With Neuralink, we’re also trying to be extremely ‘open book,’ so there’s nothing hidden and we are audited extensively by the FDA.

With respect to artificial intelligence or more digital super intelligence, there are levels of artificial intelligence that are not dangerous. Like, I don’t think self-driving cars are really dangerous, or having better autocorrect is dangerous. It’s when you have some deep intelligence that is far smarter than the smartest human — that’s where things could get dangerous.

I don’t want to go too far down a rabbit hole, because that’s a big one, but I think AI digital super intelligence or AGI [artificial general intelligence] is definitely a bad thing … and that there is certainly risk of it … acting in a manner contrary to the interests of humanity. We need to be cognizant of that risk, and we need to be very careful and thorough, and do our best to ensure that it is beneficial rather than harmful.”

Kennedy expressed mild disagreement with Musk on some of these points, noting that even self-driving cars pose a significant threat to society considering some 40% of American jobs involve driving. What kind of productive work can we replace all those lost jobs with?

Kennedy on the Ukraine War

Kennedy also didn’t mince words when asked to comment on the Ukraine war. He pointed out that the people of the West have been massively propagandized with “comic book depictions” of President Putin as the “bad guy” who attacked Ukraine unprovoked.

“The problem is, we’re being victimized by our own agencies, which are leaving out contextual information, leaving out the nuances, leaving out the entire history in this case, of U.S. provocations, which brought us and Ukraine into a war that is not helping Ukraine.

Ukraine has now lost probably 350,000 kids, and they are in much worse position than when they began … There’s credible information that there are seven [Ukrainian] deaths for every one Russian killed. And the Ukrainians are not going to win this war. They cannot afford to win this war. This war is existential for Russia …

We’ve turned this country [Ukraine] into a slaughterhouse of the flower of Ukrainian youth to benefit the geopolitical ambitions of the U.S. neocons who want to exhaust the Russian army and exercise regime change over Vladimir Putin. Ukraine is a victim in this war. It’s a proxy war. It’s a victim of Russia, yes … but they’re almost equally a victim of U.S. policies and ambitions and aspirations of neocons who wanted to get into this war no matter what.”

Sacks agreed, saying:

“I think the war was easily avoidable if you had been willing to use diplomacy and basically give a written guarantee to the Russians that Ukraine would not become part of NATO. That is what they were demanding in December of 2021, in a written ultimatum to the White House.

Those negotiations ended when we said we wouldn’t close NATO’s door. The other thing we didn’t do was give support to the Minsk agreements, which would have provided some limited autonomy to the ethnic Russians in the Donbass … If we had just done those two things, I think there’s a really good chance that this war never would have occurred.”

‘Put Yourself in Your Adversary’s Shoes’

Kennedy continued by elaborating on the importance of the Minsk agreement when it comes to reestablishing and maintaining peace with Russia:

“France agreed, Germany agreed on the Minsk accords, which was a reasonable settlement. Keep NATO out of Ukraine. My uncle, President Kennedy, used to say, ‘The only way to have peace is if you put your yourself into the shoes of your adversary.’

In that speech … he was explaining, for the first time, to the American people the role and the suffering that Russia had endured during World War II. I grew up in a generation where we were told that America had won the war against the Nazis … Without America, the world would have been lost.

My uncle was telling the American people, that’s not true. [We] beat Hitler with the Russians, and they made a sacrifice that is unimaginable to anybody else in the world. Hitler invaded Russia, through Ukraine, and killed one out of every seven Russians and leveled one-third of the nation.

He said, ‘Imagine if all of the American continent, the continental United States, was reduced to rubble between the East Coast and Chicago. That’s what happened to Russia. You’ve got to understand that if we’re going to have peace with [Russia]. And we need to understand that today. We need to put ourselves in their shoes.

Either way, it’s not just Putin. The Russian leadership back in 1992 made an agreement [with us]. They said, ‘We will pull our 400,000 troops out of East Germany, and we will turn East Germany over to a hostile army, the NATO army. The concession that we want from you for that is that you will not move NATO to the east,’ and President Bush famously told them, ‘We will not move NATO one inch to the east.’”

In short, everyone knew that inching NATO eastward would be viewed as a direct confrontation and a formula for war. Yet that’s what NATO and the U.S. did. NATO kept expanding eastward, until only Ukraine was left. And that was Russia’s “red line” that could not be crossed. “It’s just dumbfounding,” Kennedy said. “We’re picking a fight with a country that has 1,000 more nuclear weapons than we do. It’s just insane.”

Kennedy on Gun Violence and the Second Amendment

To learn more about Kennedy’s views and political stances, listen to the 2.5-hour discussion in its entirety. Epoch News’ Roman Balmakov also recently interviewed Kennedy, and that interview is embedded above.

In closing, the foundational principle that guides Kennedy, no matter what the issue, is the U.S. Constitution. He views himself as a “Constitutional absolutist,” so while he has grave concerns about the rise in gun violence, for example, he opposes placing restrictions on the Second Amendment.

“I want to stop the school shootings,” he says, “and it comes down to protecting the schools the way that we protect airlines … I also look very closely at the role of psychiatric drugs in these events. There are no good studies right now. That should have been done years ago on this issue, because there’s tremendous circumstantial evidence that SSRIs, benzos and other drugs are doing this …

You have to look at almost all of these drugs. If you look at our manufacturers’ inserts, they include a side effect of homicidal and suicidal behavior, and prior to the introduction of Prozac, we had almost none of these events in our country … I will do those studies immediately when I get into office …

The only way we’re ultimately going to get gun control in this country is through consensus, and that consensus cannot happen when we’re all at each other’s throats. We need to assure the people who feel insecure about the Constitution that our Constitution is no longer under threat, and nobody wants to come and take away their guns.

That will bring people to the table and say, ‘OK, how do we protect our children?’ And that’s what I’m going to try to do as president.”

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/17/reclaiming-democracy-with-rfk-jr-and-elon-musk.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20230617_HL2&mid=DM1418261&rid=1831260799

Watching what You Say

  • The internet was likely not intended to remain free forever. The intention for it to be used as a totalitarian tool was baked in from the start
  • Google started as a DARPA grant and was part of the CIA’s and NSA’s digital data program, the purpose of which was to conduct “birds of a feather” mapping online so that certain groups could be neutralized
  • All of the early internet freedom technologies of the ‘90s were funded by the Pentagon and the State Department. They were developed by the intelligence community as an insurgency tool — a means to help dissident groups in foreign countries to develop a pro-U.S. stance and evade state-controlled media. Now, these same technologies have been turned against the American public, and are used to control public discourse
  • In the past, censorship was a laborious task that could only be done after the fact. Artificial intelligence has radically altered the censorship industry. AI programs can now censor information en masse, based on the language used, and prevent it from being seen at all
  • One of the most effective strategies that would have immediate effect would be to strip the censorship industry of its government funding. The House controls the purse strings of the federal government, so the House Appropriations Committee has the power to end the funding of government-sponsored censorship

In this video, I interview Mike Benz, executive director for the Foundation for Freedom Online. Benz started off as a corporate lawyer representing tech and media companies before joining the Trump administration, where he worked as a speech writer for Dr. Ben Carson, the former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and President Trump.

He also advised on economic development policy. He then joined the State Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Technology. There, he ran the cyber desks at state, meaning all things having to do with the internet and foreign policy.

“This is toward the end of 2020, which was a really fascinating time to witness the merger, in many respects, of big government and big tech companies themselves,” he says. “I had grown up, I think, like many Americans, with a belief that the First Amendment protected you against government censorship.

The terms of engagement that we had enjoyed from 1991, when the worldwide web rolled out, until 2016, the election in the U.S. and Brexit in the U.K., which is, really, the first political event where the election was determined, in many respects, by momentum on the internet.

There was that 25-year golden period where the idea of being censored by a private sector company, let alone the government, was considered something, to me, very deeply anathema to the American experience.

What I witnessed at the State Department — because I was at the desk, basically, that Google and Facebook would call when they wanted favors abroad, when they wanted American protection or American policies to preserve their dominance in Europe, or in Asia or in Latin America.

And the U.S. government was doing favors for these tech companies while the tech companies were censoring the people who voted for the government. It was a complete betrayal of whatever social contract typically underlies the public-private partnership.”

The Internet Was Founded by the National Security State

Ostensibly, the rapid expansion of censorship started post-2016, but you can make a strong argument that the internet was never intended to remain free forever. Rather, the intention for it to be used as a totalitarian tool was likely baked in from the start when the national security state founded it in 1968.

The worldwide web, which is the user interface, was launched in 1991, and my suspicion is that the public internet was seeded and allowed to grow in order to capture and make the most of the population dependent upon it, knowing that it would be the most effective social engineering tool ever conceived. Benz comments:

“I totally agree … A lot of people, in trying to understand what’s happening with the net censorship, say ‘We had this free internet, and then suddenly there was this age of censorship and the national security state got involved at the censorship side.’

But when you retrace the history, internet freedom itself was actually a national security state imperative. The internet itself is a product of a counterinsurgency necessity by the Pentagon to manage information during the 1960s, particularly to aggregate social science data. And then, it was privatized.

Opening it up to all comers in the private sector, it was handed off from DARPA [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] to the National Science Foundation, and then went through a series of universities on the infrastructure side.

And then, right out of the gate in 1991, you had the Cold War coming to an end, and then simultaneously, you had this profusion of Pentagon-funded internet freedom technologies. You had things like VPNs, encrypted chat, TOR.

All of the early internet freedom technologies of the ‘90s were funded by the Pentagon, the State Department, and developed by the intelligence community, primarily, as a way of using internet freedom as a means to help dissident groups in foreign countries be able to develop a pro-U.S. beachhead, because it was a way to evade state-controlled media.

This was, basically, an insurgency tool for the U.S. government, in the same way that Voice of America and Radio Free Liberty, and Radio Free Europe were tools of the CIA in the Cold War, to beam in, basically, pro-U.S. content to populations in foreign countries in order to sway them towards U.S. interests. It was a way of managing the world empire.

The internet served the same purpose, and it couldn’t be done if it was called a Pentagon operation, a State Department or CIA operation. But all of the tech companies themselves are products of that. Google started as a DARPA grant that was obtained at Stanford by Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

In 1995, they were part of the CIA and NSA’s [National Security Agency’s] massive digital data program. They had their monthly meetings with their CIA and NSA advisers for that program, where the express stated purpose was for the CIA and NSA to be able to map so-called ‘Birds of a feather’ online … so that they could be neutralized.”

How It All Began

As noted by Benz, the idea of having the intelligence community map political “Birds of a Feather” communities in order to either mobilize or neutralize them was (and still is) justified in the name of counterterrorism. Nowadays, as we’ve seen during the pandemic, it’s used to control public discourse, suppress truth, and promote propaganda angles.

The technology used to control public discourse is an artificial intelligence (AI) technique called natural language processing (NLP). It’s a way of aggregating everyone who believes a certain thing online into community databases based on the words they use, the hashtags, the slogans and images.

“Emerging narratives, all manner of metadata affiliations, all that can be aggregated to create a topographical network map of what you believe in and who you’re associated with, so that it can all be turned down in a fast, precise and comprehensive manner by content moderation teams, because they’re all birds of the same feather,” Benz explains.

“The fact that this grew out of the U.S. National Security state, which is running the show, essentially, today, to me says that there’s a continuation between the internet freedom and internet censorship. They simply switched from one side of the chess board to the other.”

What Is the National Security State?

For clarity, when Benz talks about the “National Security State,” what he’s referring to are the institutions that uphold the rules-based international order. Domestically, that includes the Pentagon, State Department, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), certain aspects of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 17 intelligence agencies.

Of those, the Pentagon, State Department and the intelligence community (IC) are the three central ones that have managed the American world empire since the 1940s. None of them are supposed to be able to operate domestically, but in a sense their power has expanded so much that they essentially control domestic affairs.

As explained by Benz, the Pentagon, State Department and IC are not supposed to be able to operate domestically. “But in a sense, they really control domestic affairs, because their power has expanded so much that they’ve developed an extraordinary laundering apparatus to be able to fund international institutions that then boomerang back home and effectively control much of domestic political affairs, including discourse on the internet.”

As for the CIA, it was created in 1947 under the National Security Act. It was created as a cloak-and-dagger mechanism, to do things the State Department wanted done but couldn’t get caught doing due to the diplomatic repercussions — things like election rigging, assassinations, media control, bribery and other subversion tactics.

The Birth of Hybrid Warfare

Benz continues his explanation of how and why internet censorship emerged when it did:

“So, there’s the U.S. National Security State, and then there’s the transatlantic one involving NATO. The story of Western government involvement in internet censorship really started after the 2014 Crimea annexation, which was the biggest foreign policy humiliation of the Obama era.

Atlanta’s School of Foreign Policy was deeply inflamed by this event and blamed the fact that there were these breakaway Russia-supporting entities in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea on a failure to penetrate their media, and this idea that hearts and minds were being swung towards the Russian side because of pro-Russian content online.

NATO then declared this doctrine of so-called hybrid warfare — this idea that Russia had won Crimea not by a military annexation, but by winning, illicitly in a sense, the hearts and minds of Crimeans through the use of their propaganda. And the doctrine of hybrid warfare, born in 2014, was this idea that war was no longer a kinetic thing.

There hadn’t been a kinetic war in Europe since World War II. Instead, it had moved sub-kinetic into the hearts and minds of the people. In fact, NATO announced a doctrine after 2014 called ‘From tanks to tweets,’ where it shifted its focus, explicitly, from kinetic warfare to social media opinions online.

Brexit, which happened in June 2016 … was blamed on Russian influence as well. And so all of these institutions that argued for control over the internet in Eastern Europe said, ‘Well, it needs to come now. Now it’s an all-of-Europe thing.’

When Trump was then elected five months later, explicitly contemplating the breakup of NATO, all hell broke loose. This idea that we need to censor the internet went from being something that was touchy and novel, in the view of Pentagon brass and State Department folks, to something that was totally essential to saving the entire rules-based international order that came out of World War II.

At the time, the reasoning was, Brexit, in the U.K., was going to give rise to Frexit, in France, with Marine Le Pen and her movement there. Matteo Salvini was going to cause Italexit In Italy, there’d be Grexit in Greece, Spexit in Spain, and the entire European Union would come undone, just because these right-wing populist parties would naturally vote their way into political power.

They would vote for working-class, cheap energy policies that would make them more closely aligned with Russia naturally, because of the cheaper oil prices, or cheaper gas prices. Then, suddenly, you’ve got no EU, you’ve got no NATO, and then, you’ve got no Western military alliance.

So, from that moment, after Trump’s election, immediately, there was this diplomatic roadshow by U.S. State Department officials, who all thought they were getting promotions in November 2016. They thought they were going to get promoted from the State Department to the National Security Council. Turns out, they all got fired, because someone with a 5% chance of winning ended up winning that day.

So, they took their international connections, their international networks around the Atlanta Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the entire think tank, quasi-intelligence, quasi-military, government-funded NGO soup, and they did this international roadshow, starting in January 2017, to convince European countries to start censoring their internet …

Out of that came NetzDG [Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, the Network Enforcement Act] in Germany, which introduced a necessity of artificial intelligence-powered social media censorship.

All of that was, essentially, spearheaded by this network of State Department and Pentagon folks who then used their own internal folks in the government to procure government grants and contracts to these same entities. Eventually, they all rotated into those tech companies to set the policies as well.”

Threat From Within

So, to summarize, the infrastructure for worldwide internet censorship was largely established by IC veterans who were forced out by the Trump administration, and that infrastructure was then used to catalyze the international censorship response during COVID in late 2019, early 2020. Benz continues:

“Right. And those veterans were not alone. The full story is not just the shadow security state and exile. The fact is this. The Trump administration never had control of its own defense department, State Department or intelligence community.

It was the intelligence community that, essentially, drove his first impeachment, that drove a two-and-a-half year special prosecutor investigation that rolled up 12 to 20 of Trump’s closest associates. You had a chief of staff there who was hiding the military figures from the government. The careers at state threatened the political appointees from the inside. I experienced that myself.

This permanent aspect of Washington, with unfireable careers in high places, combined with a turf war in the GOP [Republican Party] between the populist right and the neo-conservative right, with the neo-conservative right having many well-placed Republicans in the Defense Department, State Department, in IC, to thwart the previous president’s agenda there, allowed this political network and exile, on the censorship side, to work with their allies within the government to create these censorship beach heads.

So, for example, that’s how they created the Department of Homeland Security’s … first permanent government censorship bureau in the form of this entity called CISA [the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, founded in November 2018], which is supposed to just be a cybersecurity entity.

It was done because of media and intelligence community laundering of a never-substantiated claim that Russia had potentially hacked the 2016 election, hacked the election machines or voting software, or might be able to do so in the future, and so we need a robust armed-to-the-teeth DHS unit to protect our cybersecurity from the Russians.

It’s the mission creep of the century. After the Mueller probe ended in June 2019, this unit, CISA, within DHS [Department of Homeland Security] — which had set up all of this, and which is only supposed to do cybersecurity — said ‘Well, if you squint and look at it, discourse online is a cybersecurity threat because if it undermines public faith or confidence in our elections, and it’s done using a cyber nexus, i.e., social media post, then that’s a form of cybersecurity threat, because democracy is essential to our security.’

And so you went from this cybersecurity mission to a cyber censorship bureau, because if you tweeted something about mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, that was deemed to be a cyber attack on critical infrastructure, i.e., elections.

When they got away with that in 2020, DHS then said, ‘Well, if you squint and look at it, public health is also critical infrastructure.’ So, now, DHS gets to direct social media companies to censor opinions about COVID-19.

Then they worked their way into saying the same thing about financial systems, financial services, about the Ukraine war, about immigration. It got to the point where, by late 2022, the head of CISA declared that cognitive infrastructure is critical infrastructure.”

Cracks only appeared after Republicans got a majority in the House of Representatives in November 2022 and Elon Musk acquired Twitter. Public support for government also dwindled as Musk’s release of the Twitter Files revealed the extent of government’s involvement in the censoring of Americans.

So far, though, public awareness hasn’t changed anything. The very entities that once stood for internet freedom, like the National Science Foundation, are still actively funding and furthering government censorship activities.

AI Gives Censors God-Like Powers

Benz first became “gripped by the stakes of what was happening on the internet” in August 2016, after reading a series of papers discussing the use of NLP to monitor, surveil and regulate the distribution of information on social media based on the words used.

“DARPA provided tens of millions of dollars of funding for this language processing, this language chunking capacity of AI in order, ostensibly, to stop ISIS recruiting on Facebook and Twitter,” Benz says.

“As part of the predicate for putting military boots on the ground in Syria, there was a lot of talk about ISIS coming to the U.S., and they were recruiting on Facebook and Twitter. And so the Pentagon, DARPA and the IC developed this language spyware capacity to map the dialectic of how ISIS sympathizers talk online, the words they use, the images they share, the prefixes, the suffixes, all the different community connections.

And then, I saw that this was being done for purposes of domestic political control instead of foreign counterterrorism, and the power that it has. It is what totally changed the internet forever. Before 2016, there was not the technological capacity to do mass social media censorship. That was the age of what censorship insiders like to call the whack-a-mole era. Censorship was reactive.

It was done by forum, by moderators, essentially. Everything had to be flagged manually before it could be taken down, which meant millions of people had already seen it, or it had already gone viral, it had already done its damage, so to speak, and you were just cutting off the backend with an act of censorship.

You could never have a permanent control apparatus in that setting, because there would always be a first mover advantage to whoever posted it. What AI censorship technology breakthroughs enabled after 2016 was a kind of nuclear weapon, if you will, on the censorship side, to be able to end the war immediately.

You don’t need a standing army of 100,000 people to censor COVID. You need one good developer, working with one manic social scientist who spends her entire life mapping what Dr. Mercola says online, and what he’s talking about this week, what his followers are saying, what they’re saying about this drug, or what they’re saying about this vaccine, or what they’re saying about this institution.

All of that can be cataloged into a lexicon of how you talk. And then, all of that talk can just be turned down to zero. At the same time, they can super amplify the language that they themselves are doing. So it gives a God-like control to a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of people who can then use that to control the discourse of the entire population.

What’s also so terrifying about the National Security State’s involvement in this is, when they discovered the power of this by mid-2018, they began to roll it out to every other country in the world for purposes of political control there — to the Ghana desk, to the Ecuador desk, to Southeast Asia, all over Europe.”

Can We Get Out of the Grip of Censorship?

At the time of this writing, we’re in a lull. The COVID pandemic has been declared over and aside from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, there are no major political crises going on that warrant heavy censorship. The networks and technologies for radical suppression are already in place, however, and can be turned up at a moment’s notice.

We’ve also recently seen just how easy it is for alternative media to be infiltrated and upended, so the fact that there are alternative platforms doesn’t guarantee that future censorship efforts will fail.

“There are so many threat vectors,” Benz says. “There are a lot of questions about what’s going on, for example, at Project Veritas, with how quickly it ousted James O’Keefe after releasing the most viral video ever, on Pfizer. It was about one week later — after their biggest accomplishment, perhaps, ever — that it was totally overthrown.

A similar thing has happened with Fox News with [the firing of] Tucker Carlson, the most popular cable TV host in the country — the guy who gets three times more concurrent viewership than CNN, in the opposing spot. Institutions can absolutely be penetrated and co-opted when enough pressure is applied.”

Transatlantic Flank Attack 2.0 Underway

As mentioned earlier, the U.S. censorship really began with NATO. Benz refers to this as the transatlantic flank attack. Basically, when U.S. intelligence want to impact the internet domestically, they first work with their European partners to enact regulatory changes in Europe first. This then ends up spilling into the U.S. market, and the IC appears to have had nothing to do with it.

The first transatlantic flank attack took place in early 2017 with the NetzDG. We’re now under transatlantic attack again, through the Digital Markets Act. This law, Benz says, will make it very difficult for Rumble and other free speech platforms to maintain that posture during the next pandemic. Once these platforms are forced to comply with the Digital Markets Act on the European side, the changes will be felt everywhere.

Cause for Cautious Optimism

While Benz remains hopeful that solutions to global censorship will present themselves, he still recognizes that the forces at play are enormous and the risks are high.

“It’s one of these things where the more you see what we’re up against, the more sobering it becomes. I think you need to maintain hope in order to maintain energy, to maintain momentum. With momentum, weird things can happen, even if you’re not supposed to win. Strange things break, or take a life of their own, or resurface.

All the little weaknesses of the system get tested, simply by a momentum here and there. For example, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter is probably the reason that the GOP got over the hump in doing all of these congressional investigations into the government’s role in censorship.

They felt like they had an ally at Twitter, that they had billionaire backing. There was a waterfall, cascade impact. So, I am hopeful. DHS is on the run right now. They purged their website of all their domestic censorship operations that they listed and were loud and proud about for two whole years after the catastrophe of the disinformation governance board in April 2022.

They already had a Ministry of Truth at DHS. They just gave one hypothetical board the wrong name. They didn’t call it the CISA. They made the mistake of calling it by the right name, and that’s what ended the entire political support for the underlying apparatus.

So, the importance of an Orwellian name is essential for maintaining the political support. But I guess what I’m trying to say is, I’m hopeful, and I’m honored to be a part of this rebel fleet of folks trying to take on the empire behind the censorship situation.

But having seen, in so many iterations the toolkit they use, it is a medieval torture toolkit that can do strange things. Pressure can do strange things, even to great people. And so I’m cautiously optimistic.”

Essential Internet Backbone Is Not Politically Neutral

In my view, internet decentralization is one key innovation that could break the grip of censorship. That said, other aspects, such as cybersecurity, must also be reinvented.

CloudFlare, for example, a content delivery and cloud cybersecurity service, basically controls the internet because they protect online businesses and platforms from hackers using Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks. Without it, you cannot survive online if you’re a big business. Even with a decentralized internet, CloudFlare might still be able to exert control by leaving sites open to DDoS (distributed denial of service) attacks.

Disturbingly, CloudFlare got political for the first time after 2016, when it decided to remove protection from a site called Kiwi Farms, which expressed anti-transgender views. As a result, the site had to move over to a Russian server to get back online.

Basically, U.S. citizens had to look for internet freedom in Russia because their architecture could not be supported in the U.S. — all because a government-integrated backbone of the internet made a political decision, likely at the behest of the IC.

“If there is another pandemic, for example, and there’s a push for certain medical interventions or countermeasures that certain sites don’t go along with, the CloudFlare, absolutely, could be a weapon in that respect,” Benz says.

“One of the things I found so troubling is that CISA, this DHS censorship agency, after the 2020 election set up a private sector liaison subcommittee for mis- and disinformation policies in the private sector. It was a seven-person subcommittee, with all of the top censorship experts at the University of Washington and Stanford.

Vijaya Gadde, the former head of censorship at Twitter, was a part of this board. I thought it was very troubling that the CEO of CloudFlare was also one of the seven people on the DHS censorship board.”

Major Challenges to a Decentralized Internet

Benz continues:

“To proceed to the various challenges to a decentralized internet, when you move up the stack of censorship … they can move up to cloud servers, to payment processors, and even to things like CloudFlare and your infrastructure protection.

In the early era of censorship, there was a rebuttal by censorship advocates that if you don’t like what private sector companies are doing, start your own social media companies. Build your own Google, build your own YouTube, build your own Facebook, build your own Twitter.

And then, what started to happen as censorship got completely insane, when it went from being troubling to disturbing, to saturating … you started to see these alternative social media platforms like Gab and Parler … that tried to escape the content moderation policies with Big Tech. But what started to happen is, those social media companies, like Parler, were completely destroyed.

Parler was de-platformed from, basically, the entire internet, when the president had just moved there, after being kicked off Twitter. That was a very instructive moment, and one that censorship insiders have reflected on, I should say, many, times as a moment of, ‘Should we have done that? We did it, but it costs us a lot of political capital.’

Parler was kicked off of Amazon Web Services. They were kicked off of all of the banks. They were banned from email providers. They could not hook to the internet, essentially, to even maintain the ability to post anything there. So, it went from build your own social media company to build your own bank.

Now you need to build your own bank and get a banking license for the payment processors. You need to build your own email distribution. You need to build your own cloud servers.

You need to build your own software service providers. And, eventually, are you going to need to lay your own subsea cables across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans? The social media companies didn’t invent the internet. They are superimposed on Pentagon infrastructure.”

The House Needs to Defund the Censorship Industry

Without doubt, there will be another crisis, whether it be another pandemic or war or something else, that will send the censorship machine into full gear yet again. Right now we’re in a lull, so this is the time to think ahead and get prepared. The question is, what can we do? How do we prepare and fight back?

According to Benz, one of the most effective strategies that would have immediate effect, and could be done right now, would be to strip the censorship industry of its government funding. He explains:

“Right now, there’s a Republican controlled House. The advantage of the House is that it controls appropriations, the purse strings of the federal government. If the House Appropriations Committee took seriously the government subsidization of censorship networks in the private sector, you could defund the speech police, even though, on the AI side, it only takes one good coder to be able to take out an entire political philosophy.

The fact is, they can only do that job because of an army of social science folks across 45 different U.S. colleges and universities who get paid. There are tens of thousands of them who are paid through the National Science Foundation, through DARPA grants and State Department grants, to map communities online as a matter of social science, and then provide that to the computer scientist to censor it.

My foundation, the Foundation for Freedom Online, has detailed $100 million, just in the past 18 months, that have gone from the federal government institutions directly into social media censorship insiders. Censorship is not an act anymore, it’s an industry, and you can cripple their capacity building.

When you pump it full of money, you go from having a couple of people do it, to tens of thousands of people doing it. The censorship capacity is built on an infrastructure of an industry that relies on government to pay for it, and it relies on government to spearhead their penetration into the institutions.

Right now, there are about eight different congressional committees trying to solve this problem from different aspects. I’ve personally briefed eight different congressional committees … But only a few of those committees are taking it seriously enough to pursue the issue deeply, and where that will shake out remains uncertain.

CISA worked with dozens of social media companies and private sector cutouts to launder censorship from the government into the private sector, but the institution I worked with more than anyone was the University of Stanford, the Stanford Internet Observatory in particular.

Jim Jordan’s Weaponization Subcommittee just subpoenaed Stanford for what I call the perfectly preserved First Amendment crime scene. Stanford meticulously kept logs of all of its censorship activities with government officials for the COVID-19 pandemic, and for two election cycles.

They detailed 66 narratives that they censored online, having to do with everything about vaccines, efficacy of masks, opposition to lockdown mandates. And then, they had a fourth category for conspiracy theories, basically anything that someone said about the World Economic Forum, or Bill Gates.

They’re now refusing to comply with that subpoena. But the stakes keep getting escalated, because who’s going to enforce that subpoena? Steve Bannon, regardless of your opinion of him, just got indicted for not complying with a subpoena, but is this Justice Department going to pursue criminal penalties against Stanford, for withholding congressional subpoena for their government?

This is for their government, because they were the formal partners. They had a formal partnership with the DHS. That stuff should be FOIA-able, first of all. You shouldn’t even need a subpoena for it. The only reason you can’t FOIA it is because they laundered it through Stanford. Standord holds the records rather than DHS.

I tried to FOIA that from DHS, and DHS says, ‘We don’t have it, even though they were our communications.’ So this is the way the CIA structures in an operation, through a web of cutouts and offshore banks, so you can never really get transparency. They’re now doing that for the censorship industry at home …

Whether they will continue to raise the stakes is now a terrifying open issue. And the fact that it’s the inside guys who are running the censorship situation means there may be other tactics that need to be pursued here, which is why I talked about, simply, going to the appropriations committee and zeroing it out, so you don’t even need to enforce subpoenas, necessarily.”

Building a Whole-of-Society Solution

As explained by Benz, the censorship industry was built as a so-called whole-of-society effort. According to the DHS, misinformation online is a whole-of-society problem that requires a whole-of-society solution. By that, they meant that four types of institutions had to fuse together as a seamless whole. Those four categories and key functions are:

  1. Government institutions, which provide funding and coordination
  2. Private sector institutions that do the censorship and dedicate funds to censorship through corporate-social responsibility programs
  3. Civil society institutions (universities, NGOs, academia, foundations, nonprofits and activists) that do the research, the spying and collecting of data that are then given to the private sector to censor
  4. News media/fact checking institutions, which put pressure on institutions, platforms and businesses to comply with the censorship demands

What the Foundation for Freedom Online is doing is educating people about this structure, and the ways in which legislatures and the government can be restructured, how civil society institutions can be established, and how news media can be created to support and promote freedom rather than censorship.

To learn more, be sure to check out foundationforfreedomonline.com. You can also follow his very active Twitter account Benz on Twitter.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/11/mike-benz-internet-censorship.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230611_HL2&cid=DM1414838&bid=1825712811

Let Them Eat Nothing???

John Kerry, climate crazies are coming for your burgers and Fourth of July

Watching the Biden White House impose climate policy on America I wonder if we will celebrate national holidays the same way in just a few short years

In coming weeks Americans will celebrate Flag Day and the Fourth of July. We will gather with neighbors to grill hot dogs in the backyard, drape our kids’ bikes with red, white and blue bunting, kick back from the workweek and… tip a hat to the founders of our great nation.

I wonder: will we still celebrate our nation’s holidays with these time-honored traditions five years from now? Ten years from now?

Start with the obvious: John Kerry and climate zealots everywhere are adamantly opposed to the kind of food we eat, and how it is produced. He and his Democrat colleagues are equally incensed that we might cook over gas grills; I can’t even imagine their horror at charcoal fires. Surely, carbon-emitting charcoal is on the kill list.

TWO DOZEN REPUBLICANS CALL ON BIDEN TO DISAVOW JOHN KERRY’S REMARKS TARGETING FOOD PRODUCTION

Next is the cost of feeding the neighborhood. It used to be the traditional hamburger barbeque was reasonably inexpensive. But in the past year the price of such fare skyrocketed 9%, on top of a 10% increase in 2022, and while some costs, like those for meat or tomatoes, may fluctuate, there’s little chance that food companies are going to drop the prices of ketchup (up 28% in one year) or hamburger buns (up 7%) anytime soon.

Much more important than all of the above: the actual purpose of Flag Day and the Fourth of July is to honor the birth of our nation. With the left actively rewriting U.S. history and savaging our country’s accomplishments and exceptionalism, these holidays could well be rebranded in the future as National Apology Day or maybe American Reparations Day.

As Joe Biden might say, this is no joke.

The climate zealots running the White House and our country want to change how we live, what we eat, how we heat our homes, what kinds of cars we drive and how we cook. Joe Biden appointed John Kerry our official Climate Czar and loosed him upon our country, armed with a $14 billion budget and staff of 45.

JOHN KERRY TARGETS AGRICULTURE AS PART OF CLIMATE CRUSADE

One of Kerry’s most urgent missions is to overhaul our extremely successful agricultural industry. At a recent meeting of AIM for Climate, co-hosted by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and the UAE Minister of Climate Change and Environment, Kerry thundered that farmers worldwide create fully one-third of global greenhouse gases, an amount that must come down if the world is to reach net zero emissions.

“Food systems themselves contribute a significant amount of emissions just in the way in which we do the things we’ve been doing…” intoned Kerry, having evidently co-opted Vice President Kamala Harris’ speechwriter.

He further warned: “We’re facing record malnutrition at a time when agriculture, more than any other sector, is suffering from the impacts of the climate crisis. And I refuse to call it climate change anymore. It’s not change. It’s a crisis.”

Left out of Kerry’s near-hysterical speech was any indication of how changes sponsored by AIM for Climate might deliver both lower emissions and more nutrition. But a strategy paper published by the Department of Agriculture gives some clues. For example, it proposes “conversion of inedible biomass and waste into new materials, food, and fuels”, which sounds tasty.

The paper also advocates research and education on “diet-related chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain cancers.” Does anyone doubt this agency will soon suggest that for health reasons Americans must stop eating red meat? c

BIDEN’S RADICAL GREEN ENERGY POLICIES STRAIN OUR ELECTRIC GRIDS. HERE’S HOW BAD IT WILL GET IF THEY CONTINUE

Lest you think this concern is overblown, I recommend to you what is transpiring in the Netherlands. That country’s government, attempting to meet unrealistic emissions targets set by the EU, has recently allocated billions of dollars to buy out as many as 3,000 livestock farmers, accusing the industry of producing unacceptable levels of nitrogen.

The land sales are compulsory – in other words, confiscatory. The program may reduce Holland’s herds by one-third, significantly cutting the nation’s exports of food to other countries. Despite a huge political backlash, authorities are proceeding, even as critics allege that replacing Holland’s production with food imports from more polluting countries will render the effort meaningless.

Kerry and his Democrat colleagues are too caught up with cow flatulence to focus on banning charcoal or gas grills; give them time. After all, climate activists report that charcoal fires “typically generate three times as much greenhouse emissions than gas for the same cooking job.”

Also, we learn that a typical grilled meal “emits as much carbon dioxide as driving a car for roughly 26 miles,” according to a New York Times reporter who worried about the “smoke coming from my friend’s charcoal grill.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Concerns about the environmental impact of charcoal grilling led to a proposed ban in 2021 in Brighton, U.K., which is controlled by the Green Party. Local authorities explain that disposable barbecues are partly to blame for the world’s rising CO2 levels.

In the U.S., ordinances against charcoal have focused on the fire hazard, but tying charcoal burning to environmental damage is catching on.  Of course, cooking over a gas grill is just as unpopular with climate warriors. If gas stoves are a problem indoors, surely they pose a threat outdoors too.

Much more concerning than climate nuttiness is the concerted effort to convince Americans that our country is “systemically racist” and that our history is a source of national shame. This appalling and dishonest narrative, which only serves to divide our nation and plump up race-baiters like Al Sharpton, should be denounced and resisted.

The United States is the most prosperous nation in the world because we have encouraged industry and entrepreneurship, welcomed immigrants who arrive legally to access the almost unlimited opportunities available to all, and commemorate success.

from:    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/john-kerry-climate-crazies-coming-burgers-fourth-july