yahoo | Luigi
Mangione, the 26-year-old accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian
Thompson in New York City on Dec. 4, waived his right to extradition at
the Blair County courthouse in Pennsylvania on Thursday morning.
New York City police officers escorted Mangione out of the courthouse and flew him to New York, where he was indicted earlier this week. He is expected to appear in a state court for arraignment in New York either later Thursday or on Friday.
Federal authorities have now filed murder, stalking and weapons charges against Mangione, according to a complaint that was unsealed Thursday. It is unclear when he would appear in court for the federal charges.
By
waiving his extradition hearing, Mangione has voluntarily agreed to put
his Pennsylvania criminal case on hold and return to New York for
prosecution there. Among the charges he will face in New York include
murder as an act of terrorism, which carries a life sentence in prison
without the possibility of parole.
Although neither Mangione nor his New York attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo,
have commented on the situation, David Sarni, a former NYPD detective
and current adjunct professor at the John Jay College of Criminal
Justice, told Yahoo News it’s not unusual that Mangione and Agnifilo
filed to waive extradition in this case.
“Extradition
takes place usually when the case is stronger in the other state and if
the prosecution is willing to do the extradition hearing,” Sarni said.
The Federal charge of Murder Through The Use Of A Firearm makes Mangione eligible for the Federal death penalty....,
Newsweek | Wanted posters for healthcare executives have started appearing across New York City following the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last week.
Thompson, 50, was en route to speak at UnitedHealth Group's investor conference at the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan last Wednesday when he was fatally shot. Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch stated that Thompson was struck at least once in the back and once in the right calf.
Police arrested a suspect, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione, on Monday in connection with the shooting, charging him with second-degree murder. No motive for the shooting has been established, but a handwritten manifesto purportedly found with Mangione at the time of his arrest indicates that Thompson's killing may have been motivated by anger about the health insurance industry, with the suspect allegedly justifying the homicide by writing: "The parasites had it coming."
Following the shooting, videos shared on social media showed "wanted" signs featuring Thompson and other healthcare corporate leaders plastered across traffic control boxes in Canal Street in Manhattan.
One video showed a poster with a red X over Thompson's image. Other posters featured images of Heather Cianfrocco, Optum Health's CEO, and and UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty.
UnitedHealth Group is the parent company of UnitedHealthcare and Optum.
Videos showed the posters featured the words: "Wanted. Denying medical care for corporate profit.
Health care CEOs should not feel safe."
"UnitedHealthcare killed everyday people for the sake of profit. As a result Brian Thompson was denied his claim to life. Who will be denied next?" they continue.
timesofindia | Mangione’s actions, punctuated by symbolic gestures like inscribed bullet casings and a manifesto railing against corporate greed, were designed to convey a broader message.
While Mangione’s methods were criminal, the public response has included elements of celebration. Social media platforms have amplified anti-corporate sentiment, with many framing the act as retribution against a predatory system. Tweets like, “When you deny care, karma doesn’t require pre-authorization,” illustrate how personal grievances with healthcare have transformed Mangione into a symbolic figure of resistance.
Following his arrest, an unexpected wave of support for Mangione surfaced online. Merchandise celebrating him appeared on various platforms, and social media users began crafting narratives that portrayed him as a modern-day Robin Hood figure—someone who stood up against powerful corporate entities.
According to a report in Politico, This celebratory reaction, rooted in collective frustration with the US healthcare system, aligns remarkably with Eric Hobsbawm's theory of "social banditry." Thompson’s death is not merely viewed as a crime but as a symbolic strike against a system perceived as exploitative and oppressive.
Message over murder: Reports indicate that bullet casings at the scene were inscribed with words like “deny,” “defend,” and “depose,” echoing criticisms of the insurance industry’s claim practices. This performative element suggests an intent to convey a broader critique of systemic injustices rather than personal grievance alone.
Resonance with public sentiment: Social media erupted with posts framing Mangione as a vigilante hero. Tweets like, “Finally, someone stood up to the corporate thieves!” and memes mocking the healthcare system’s shortcomings went viral, illustrating how his actions tapped into collective anger.
A Manifesto of frustration: The discovery of a manifesto carried by Mangione seems to support the idea that his actions were driven by frustration with the complex, costly, and often dysfunctional US health care system. "I had an opportunity to read the manifesto," said Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny of the New York Police Department on Good Morning America. "It's handwritten. He does make some indication that he's frustrated with the health care system in the United States."
Social media as modern balladry
In traditional contexts, tales of social bandits were spread through songs, stories, and legends that framed them as defenders of the downtrodden. In today’s digital era, social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok serve as the new ballads, amplifying narratives and shaping public perceptions.
Memes and merchandise: Posts satirizing the healthcare industry, such as “karma doesn’t require pre-authorization,” gained widespread traction. These digital artifacts serve to humanize Mangione while vilifying the healthcare system.
Merchandise featuring slogans like "FREE LUIGI" and "CEO Hunter" exemplifies this shift in perception. Supporters view him not just as an individual who committed a violent act but as a symbol of resistance against what they perceive as systemic failures within the healthcare industr
Echo chambers of support: Platforms foster communities where anti-corporate sentiments are amplified, reinforcing the narrative of Mangione as a folk hero. This environment has not only mythologized Mangione but also deepened the public’s antagonism toward corporate America.
Normalization of violence: The celebration of Mangione raises ethical concerns about the normalization of violence as a tool for addressing systemic grievances. While his supporters argue that his actions highlight legitimate frustrations, endorsing murder as a form of protest risks legitimizing further radical acts.
Risk of copycat behavior: The glorification of Mangione could inspire others to engage in similar acts of defiance. The New York Police Department has already issued warnings about heightened threats against corporate executives, and online forums have discussed creating “hit lists” of other high-profile figures in the healthcare industry.
airplanesandrockets | By far the most potent source of energy is gravity. Using it as power future
aircraft will attain the speed of light.
Nuclear-powered aircraft are yet to be built,
but there are research projects already under way that will make the super-planes
obsolete before they are test-flown. For in the United States and Canada research
centers, scientists, designers and engineers are perfecting a way to control gravity
- a force infinitely more powerful than the mighty atom. The result of their labors
will be anti-gravity engines working without fuel - weightless airliners and space
ships able to travel at 170,000 miles per second.
If this seems too fantastic to be true, here is something to consider - the gravity
research has been supported by Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Co., Convair, Bell Aircraft,
Lear Inc., Sperry Gyroscope and several other American aircraft manufacturers who
would not spend milli0ns of dollars on science fiction. Lawrence D. Bell, the famous
builder of the rocket research planes, says, "We're already working with nuclear
fuels and equipment to cancel out gravity." And William Lear, the autopilot wizard,
is already figuring out "gravity control" for the weightless craft to come.
Gravitation - the mutual attraction of all matter, be it grains of sand or planets
- has been the most mysterious phenomenon of nature. Isaac Newton and other great
physicists discovered and described the gravitational law from which there has been
no escape. "What goes up must come down," they said. The bigger the body the stronger
the gravity attraction it has for other objects ... the larger the distance between
the objects, the lesser the gravity pull. Defining those rigid rules was as far
as science could go, but what caused gravity nobody knew, until Albert Einstein
published his Theory of Relativity.
In formulating universal laws that would explain everything from molecules to
stars, Einstein discovered a strong similarity between gravitation and magnetism.
Magnets attract magnetic metals, of course, but they also attract and bend beams
of electronic rays. For instance, in your television picture tube or electronic
microscope, magnetic fields sway the electrons from their straight path. It was
the common belief that gravitation of bodies attracted material objects only - then
came Einstein's dramatic proof to the contrary.
The G-plane licks "heat barrier" problem of high speed by creating
its own gravity field. Gravity generator attracts surrounding air to form a thick
boundary layer which travels with craft and dissipates heat. Electronic rockets
provide forward and reverse thrust. Crew and passenger cabins are also within ship's
own gravity field, thus making fast acceleration and deceleration safe for occupants.
Pre-Einstein physicists were convinced that light traveled along absolutely straight
lines. But on May 29, 1919, during a full eclipse of the sun, Einstein proved that
the light rays of distant stars were attracted and bent by the sun's gravitation.
With the sun eclipsed, it was possible to observe the stars and measure the exact
"bend" of their days as they passed close to the sun on their way to earth.
This discovery gave modem scientists a new hope. We already knew how to make
magnets by coiling a wire around an iron core. Electric current running through
the coiled wire created a magnetic field and it could be switched on and off at
will. Perhaps we could do the same with the gravitation.
Einstein's famous formula E = mc2 - the secret of nuclear energy -
opened the door to further research in gravitation. Prying into the atom's inner
structure, nuclear scientists traced the gravity attraction to the atom's core -
the nucleus. First they separated electrons by bombarding the atom with powerful
electromagnetic "guns." Then, with even more powerful electromagnetic bombardment,
the scientists were able to blast the nucleus. The "split" nucleus yielded a variety
of heretofore unknown particles.
In the course of such experiments,
Dr. Stanley Deser and
Dr. Richard Arnowitt
of Princeton Institute of Advanced Study found the gravity culprit - tiny particles
responsible for gravitation. Without those G-(gravity) particles, an atom of, say,
iron still behaved as any other iron atom except for one thing - it was weightless.
With the secret of gravitation exposed, the scientists now concentrate their
efforts on harnessing the G-particles and their gravity pull. They are devising
ways of controlling the gravity force just as the vast energy of a nuclear explosion
has been put to work in a docile nuclear reactor for motive power and peaceful use.
And once we have the control of those G-particles, the rest will be a matter of
engineering.
According to the gravity research engineers, the G-engine will replace all other
motors. Aircraft, automobiles, submarines, stationary powerplants - all will use
the anti-gravity engines that will require little or no fuel and will be a mechanic's
dream. A G-engine will have only one moving part - a rotor or a flywheel. One half
of the rotor will be subjected to a de-gravitating apparatus, while the other will
still be under the earth's gravity pull. With the G-particles neutralized, one half
of the rotor will no longer be attracted by the earth's gravitation and will therefore
go up as the other half is being pulled down, thus creating a powerful rotary movement.
Another, simpler idea comes from the Gravity. Research Foundation of New Boston,
N. H. Instead of de-gravitating one half of the rotor, we would merely shield half
of it with a gravity "absorber." The other half would still be pulled down and rotation
would result (see sketch).
The anti-gravity engine rotor is partially shielded by the gravity
absorber. The gravity force acting only on the exposed half of the rotor which creates
a powerful rotary motion. This particular device is suitable for powering ground
vehicles.
For an explanation of how the gravity "absorber" would work, lets turn to gravity's
twin brother - magnetism. If you own an ordinary watch, you must be forever careful
not to get it magnetized. Even holding a telephone receiver can magnetize the delicate
balance wheel and throw the watch out of time. Therefore, an anti-magnetic watch
is the thing to have. Inner works of such a watch are shielded by a soft iron casing
which absorb the magnetic lines of force. Even in the strongest magnetic field,
the shielded balance wheel is completely unaffected by the outside magnetic pull.
In a similar manner, a gravity "absorber" would prevent the earth's gravity from
acting upon the shielded portion of our G-engine.
Applied to engines, a gravity absorber would be a boon, but its true value would
be in aircraft construction where the weight control engineers get ulcers trying
to save an ounce here, a pound there. Of course, an indiscriminate shielding of
an aircraft and the resulting total weightlessness is not what we would want. A
de-gravitated aircraft would still be subject to the centrifugal force of our rotating
globe. Freed from the gravity pull, a totally weightless aircraft would shoot off
into space like sparks flying off a faster spinning, abrasive grinding wheel. So,
the weight, or gravity, would have to be reduced gradually for take-off and climb.
For level flight and for hovering, the weight would be maintained at some low level
while landing would be accomplished by slowly restoring the craft's full weight.
The gravity-defying engineers claim that the problem of this lift control is
a cinch. The shield would have an arrangement similar in principle to the venetian
blind - open for no lift and closed for decreased weight and increased lift.
No longer dependent on wings or rotors, the G-craft would most likely be an ideal
aerodynamic shape - a sort of slimmed-down version of the old-fashioned dirigible
balloon. Since weight has a lot to do in limiting the size of today's aircraft,
a perfect weight control of the G-craft would remove that barrier and would make
possible airliners as big as the great ocean liner the S.S. United States.
A G-airliner would be a real speed demon. The coast-to-coast flight time would
be cut to minutes even with the orthodox rocket propulsion. You may wonder about
the air friction "heat barrier" of high-speed aircraft, but the gravity experts
have an answer for that, too. Canadian scientists headed by Wilbur B. Smith - the
director of the "Project
Magnet" - visualize an apparatus producing a gravitational field in the G-ship.
This gravity field would attract the surrounding air to form a thick "boundary layer"
which would move with the ship. Thus, air friction would take place at a distance
from the ship's structure and the friction heat would be dissipated before it could
warm up the ship's skin (large diagram).
When electric current from battery is switched on the coil will
create a magnetic field which repels the aluminum disk and makes it shoot upward.
Future sips may be built of diamagnetic metals with specially rearranged atomic
structure.
The G-ships own gravity field would perform another useful function. William
P. Lear, the chairman of Lear, Inc., makers of autopilots and other electronic controls,
points out, "All matter within the ship would be influenced by the ship's gravitation
only. This way, no matter how fast you accelerated or changed course, your body
would not feel it any more than it now feels the tremendous speed and acceleration
of the earth." In other words, no more pilot blackouts or any such acceleration
headaches. The G-ship could take off like a cannon shell, come to a stop with equal
abruptness and the passengers wouldn't even need seat belts.
This ability to accelerate rapidly would be ideal for a space vehicle. Eugene
M. Gluhareff, President of Gluhareff Helicopter and Airplane Corporation of Manhattan
Beach, California, has already designed several space ships capable of travel at
almost the speed of light, or about 600,000,000 miles per hour. At that speed. the
round trip to Venus would take just over 30 minutes. Of course, ordinary chemical
rockets would be inadequate for such speeds, but Gluhareff already figures on using
"atomic rockets."
At least one such "atomic rocket" design has been worked out by Dr. Ernest Stuhlinger,
a physicist of the U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Stuhlinger's
rocket would use ions - atoms with a positive electric charge. To produce those
ions, Dr. Stuhlinger takes cesium, a rare metal that liquefies at 71° F. Blown
across a platinum coil heated to 1000° F., liquid cesium is ionized, the ions
are accelerated by a 10,000 volt electromagnetic "gun" and shot out of a tail pipe
at a velocity of 186,324 miles per second.
The power for Dr. Stuhlinger's "ion rocket" would be supplied by an atomic reactor
or by solar energy. The weight of the reactor and its size would no longer be a
design problem, since the entire apparatus could be de-gravitated - made weightless.
Revolutionary as Dr. Stuhlinger's idea may seem, it is already superseded by the
Canadian physicists of the "Project Magnet." The Canadians propose to do away with
the bulk of the nuclear reactor and use the existing magnetic fields of the earth
and other planets for propulsion.
As we well know, two like magnetic poles repel each other, just as under certain
conditions, an electromagnet repel the so-called diamagnetic metal, such as aluminum.
Take a flat, aluminum ring, slip it over a strong electromagnet and switch on the
current. Repelled by the magnetic field, the disk will fly off with quite a speed.
(see sketch). Of course, the earth's magnetism is too weak to repel a huge G-ship
made of a diamagnetic metal. However, the recent studies of the atomic nucleus and
the discovery of G-particles make it possible to rearrange the atomic structure
so as to greatly increase the diamagnetic properties of metals. Thus, a G-ship with
a magnetic control could be repelled by the earth's magnetic field and it would
travel along the magnetic lines of force like the aluminum ring shooting off the
electromagnet.
The entire universe is covered by magnetic fields of stars and planets. Those
fields intertwine in a complex pattern, but they are always there. By proper selection
of those fields, we could navigate our G-ship in space as well as within the earth's
magnetic field. And the use of the magnetic repulsion would eliminate the radiation
danger of the nuclear reactor and the problem of atomic fuel.
How long will it take to build the weightless craft and G-engines, the gravity
experts don't know. George S. Trimble, Vice-President in charge of the G-project
at Martin Aircraft Corporation thinks the job "could be done in about the time it
took to build the first atom bomb." And another anti-gravity pioneer, Dudley Clarke,
President of Clarke Electronics Laboratories of Palm Springs, California, believes
it will be a matter of a few yeas to manufacture anti-gravity "power packages."
But no matter how many years we have to wait, the amazing anti-gravity research
is a reality. And the best guarantee of its early success is the backing of the
U.S. aircraft industry - the engineers and technicians who have always given us
tomorrow's craft today.
NTD | Taylor Swift has yet to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential
race. But questions continue to swirl about the potential impact the pop
sensation may have on the upcoming November election.
Ms. Swift has remained largely apolitical throughout her career, but
chronicled her newfound interest in politics in her 2020 Netflix
documentary “Miss Americana.”
In the film, she attributes her former political apathy to her
beginnings in country music. “Part of the fabric of being a country
artist is don’t force your politics on people,” she says. “Let people
live their lives. That is grilled into us.”
However, the singer’s connection to George Soros has been a point of
concern for many supporters of former President Donald Trump. In 2019,
Ms. Swift, 34, gave a speech at the Billboard Women in Music event,
claiming the billionaire Democrat donor helped fund the purchase of her
music catalog.
“This just happened to me without my approval, consultation, or
consent,” she said. “After I was denied the chance to purchase my music
outright, my entire catalog was sold to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings
in a deal that I’m told was funded by the Soros family, 23 Capital, and
that Carlyle Group.”
The singer became an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump
during his term and publicly endorsed the Biden–Harris ticket in 2020.
“After stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism your entire
presidency, you have the nerve to feign moral superiority before
threatening violence?” she wrote about President Trump on Twitter, now X, in May 2020. “‘When the looting starts the shooting starts’??? We will vote you out in November.”
She later wrote:
“Donald Trump’s ineffective leadership gravely worsened the crisis that
we are in and he is now taking advantage of it to subvert and destroy
our right to vote and vote safely.”
Many conservatives have speculated about the timing of her interest in politics.
“Thinking about when Taylor Swift called out the Soros family in 2019
for buying the rights to her music and then how she came out a super
liberal in 2020,” conservative political activist Jack Posobiec wrote on X on Jan. 28.
The following day, former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy responded
to Mr. Posobiec’s tweet. “I wonder who’s going to win the Super Bowl
next month,” Mr. Ramaswamy said, alluding to Ms. Swift’s relationship
with boyfriend Travis Kelce, a tight end for the NFL’s Kansas City
Chiefs.
“And I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from
an artificially culturally propped-up couple this fall,” he continued.
“Just some wild speculation over here, let’s see how it ages over the
next 8 months.”
kunstler | And just like that — snap ! — the news
about the Colorado Supreme Court’s droll action against candidate DJ
Trump vanished from the front page (or top screens) of The New York Times.
Do you know why? I’ll tell you: Because the political Left has finally
managed to embarrass itself with a “lawfare” gambit so nakedly fatuous
that it exposes the faction’s drive to destroy the election process, and
with it our country.
This is what you get from a regime
that faked its way to power and now must strain to cover up its long
train of crimes, abuses, and effronteries to common sense, while running
out of tricks to keep fooling even its own deranged followers. Somehow,
the act of kicking a leading candidate off the ballot has finally
registered as inconsistent with “defending our democracy.”
Of course, the reckless abuse of law —
“lawfare” — proceeds from the Left’s disrespect for boundaries and
limits, which is exactly what law in principle concerns itself with. And
from there it’s a quick leap into totalizing bad faith, the operating
system for government under an imposter president, “Joe Biden.”
Suddenly, mere days before Christmas, when the people want to be
preoccupied with things other than politics, events merge explosively to
shape the fate of the nation.
In a sane world, the US Supreme Court
would not just summarily strike down the Colorado ruling, but would
issue a career-ending rebuke to the brain-damaged state justices who
managed to not learn a basic principle of due process: innocent until proven guilty
— that to brand someone a criminal, there must be a record of
indictment and conviction for a particular crime, and that, in the case
of Mr. Trump, a politically-motived fairy tale about an “insurrection”
doesn’t cut it.
Also, in a sane world interested in
truth and justice, the Republican-majority Congress would have months
ago convened new hearings about the Jan 6/21 Capitol riot to undo the
manifold perfidious frauds instigated by the previous Democrat-majority
committee under Chairman Bennie Thompson. By now, testimony should have
been compelled from Nancy Pelosi, the then Capitol Police Chief Steven
Sund, and former Defense Secretary Chris Miller about Ms. Pelosi’s
refusal to call in national guard troops to reinforce security around
the building, and to answer for the odd behavior of the Capitol Police,
such as opening doors for the mob and then serving as ushers to show off
the place. It seems obvious that many elected Republicans also have an
interest in supporting the Jan 6/21 “insurrection” fairy tale. Do you
still wonder why the evil entity infesting Washington is called “the
blob”?
The Substack blogger who styles himself as El Gato Malo offers the alluring theory that a SCOTUS ruling on whether the 14th
Amendment clauses that were applied to the presidency in the Colorado
case, could enable Special Counsel Jack Smith to slip-in a superseding
indictment (replacing the original indictment) in his DC Jan 6 case
against Mr. Trump with new insurrection / rebellion charges, thus
setting-up a fortified argument for states to chuck Mr. Trump off any
ballot. More “lawfare,” you see. Whatever it takes. . .!
More curiously even, we learn today, that an amicus brief
has been filed in the SCOTUS by former Attorney General Ed Meese (under
Ronald Reagan), and two constitutional law professors, Steven Calabresi
and Gary S. Lawson, challenging the legality altogether of Jack Smith’s
appointment as special counsel for prosecuting Mr. Trump. The amicus is
filed in the matter of Jack Smith’s certiorari petition to the court to
schedule Mr. Trump’s DC trial the same day as the Super Tuesday primary
—against the defendant’s objections. The amicus presents compelling
arguments that Attorney General Merrick Garland acted illegally in
appointing Mr. Smith, and if SCOTUS chucks him out of the special
counsel job, the whole mendaciously constructed scaffold of the Jan 6
prosecution goes out the window, along with the Mar-a-Lago documents
case.
Those of you with a deep interest in
blob lawfare treachery may also be interested in the courtroom win, this
week, by Brandon Straka, who launched the 2018 “Walk Away” movement to
persuade gays to leave the Democratic Party. He was present on the US
Capitol grounds the day of the Jan 6/21 riot, and was later sued by
eight “black and brown” Capitol Police officers, with the help of a
Soros-funded nonprofit law firm, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Straka was accused of causing the officers’ injuries (pepper spray and
“exhaustion”) and of conspiring to deprive them of their civil rights
(under the KKK Act of 1871). It came out in the course of testimony that
seven of the officers were on the other side of the enormous Capitol
building from Mr. Straka’s position the entire time alleged, and that
one of the officers was not even present at the Capitol or even in the
District of Columbia at the time. Such are the sordid dreams of lawfare
warriors and their useful idiots. . . .
Next up, as we turn the corner into a
fateful 2024 — and lately eclipsed by all these lawfare election
interference shenanigans — will be the perhaps even more consequential
hearings on the Biden family’s extensive international bribery
operations, which may shed some light on how come we suffer a president
and a party bent on destroying our country.
twitter |This is what an *actual* attack on democracy looks like: in an un-American, unconstitutional, and *unprecedented* decision, a cabal of Democrat judges are barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado. Having tried every trick in the book to eliminate President Trump from running in this election, the bipartisan Establishment is now deploying a new tactic to bar him from ever holding office again: the 14th Amendment. I pledge to *withdraw* from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.
Today’s decision is the latest election interference tactic to silence political opponents and swing the election for whatever puppet the Democrats put up this time by depriving Americans of the right to vote for their candidate of choice.
The 14th Amendment was part of the “Reconstruction Amendments” that were ratified following the Civil War. It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office. These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War. That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th President on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States.
And there’s another legal problem: Trump is not a former “officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply. As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), an “officer of the United States” is someone appointed by the President to aid him in his duties under Article II, Section 2. The term does not apply to elected officials, and certainly not to the President himself.
The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision—intended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office—being weaponized by a sitting President and his political allies to prevent a former President from seeking reelection. Our country is becoming unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers.
thehill | New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) went after former President Trump on Friday, arguing that a second Trump term would be hampered by “chaos and distraction.”
“The guy just has chaos and distraction that follows him,” he said in an MSNBC interview Friday. “He’s not going to be able to get the stuff that we need done to fix this country.”
“Republicans want to go forward with the next generation of conservative
leadership,” he continued, downplaying the former president. “We always
want to be looking forward to the next opportunity to actually get
stuff done. Not just looking in the rearview mirror, worrying about
Trump litigating things.”
Sununu endorsed former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley for
the GOP nomination on Tuesday. He used Friday’s interview to
springboard more reasons why he believes Haley is better suited for the
White House.
“Her numbers were surging long before I even got on board because she’s connecting with folks,” he said.
“By doing that, by spending time on the ground with our voters, she’s
earning their trust, and trust is a very rare thing in Washington
nowadays. People are liking it,” he continued. “She’s got that charisma,
more than any other candidate out there. And that connection is why
you’re seeing her numbers jump up.”
Despite the endorsement, Sununu complimented her GOP primary rivals Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie,
calling them “great friends of mine” and “good candidates.” He offered
no compliment for Trump or biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
Haley has been gaining momentum in the polls, notably in New Hampshire, and often coming in second place. But, Trump still remains the clear GOP front-runner.
TCH | Corporations, mostly modern multinationals (special interest group), write the legislation. The corporations then contract the lobbyists. Lobbyists then take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.
The last item of legislation written by congress was sometime around the mid 1990’s. Modern legislation is sub-contracted to a segment of DC operations known as K-Street. That’s where the lobbyists reside. Lobbyists write the laws; congress sells the laws; lobbyists then pay congress lucrative commissions for passing their laws. That’s the modern legislative business in DC.
When we talk about paying-off politicians in third-world countries we call it bribery. However, when we undertake the same process in the U.S. we call it “lobbying”. Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past. There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws. In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.
Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body. Here’s how it works right now. Outside groups, often called “special interest groups”, are entities that represent their interests in legislative constructs. These groups are often representing foreign governments, Wall Street multinational corporations, banks, financial groups or businesses; or smaller groups of people with a similar connection who come together and form a larger group under an umbrella of interest specific to their affiliation.
The for-profit groups (mostly business) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests. These groups are filled with highly-paid lawyers who represent the interests of the entity and actually write laws and legislation briefs.
In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made.
Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.
Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to. The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in the corporate media. Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it. Once the corporation or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.
The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves. The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it. “Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage. The lobbyist does this by visiting the politician in their office, or, most currently familiar, by inviting the politician to an event they are hosting. The event is called a junket when it involves travel.
Often the lobbying “event” might be a weekend trip to a ski resort, or a “conference” that takes place at a resort. The actual sales pitch for the bill is usually not too long and the majority of the time is just like a mini vacation etc. The size of the indulgence within the event, the amount of money the lobbyist is spending, is customarily related to the scale of benefit within the bill the sponsoring business entity is pushing. If the sponsoring business or interest group can gain a lot of financial benefit from the legislation they spend a lot on the indulgences.
Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.
The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.
Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group. When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.
While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.
This is the way legislation is created.
If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism.
The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.
Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.
When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.
The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees. The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate. Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists. Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.
Now, think about this reality against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential Election. Legislation is passed based on ideology. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the system within DC was not structurally set-up to receive a Donald Trump presidency.
If Hillary Clinton had won the election, her Oval Office desk would be filled with legislation passed by congress which she would have been signing. Heck, she’d have writer’s cramp from all of the special interest legislation, driven by special interest groups that supported her campaign, that would be flowing to her desk.
Why?
Simply because the authors of the legislation, the originating special interest and lobbying groups, were spending millions to fund her campaign. Hillary Clinton would be signing K-Street constructed special interest legislation to repay all of those donors/investors.
Congress would be fast-tracking the passage because the same interest groups also fund the members of congress.
President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. In early 2017 the modern legislative machine was frozen in place.
The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump were not within the legislative constructs coming from the K-Street authors of the legislation. There were no MAGA lobbyists waiting on Trump ideology to advance legislation based on America First objectives.
As a result of an empty feeder system, in early 2017 congress had no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written were not in line with President Trump policy. There was simply no entity within DC writing legislation that was in-line with President Trump’s America-First’ economic and foreign policy agenda.
Exactly the opposite was true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs were/are antithetical to Trump policy. There were hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.
Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence were just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices. Legislation needed to be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there was no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.
Think about the larger ramifications within that truism. That is also why there was/is so much opposition.
No legislation provided by outside interests means no work for lobbyists who sell it. No work means no money. No money means no expense accounts. No expenses means politicians paying for their own indulgences etc.
Politicians were not happy without their indulgences, but the issue was actually bigger. No K-Street expenditures also means no personal benefit; and no opportunity to advance financial benefit from the insider trading system. Republicans and democrats hate the presidency of Donald Trump because it is hurting them financially.
President Trump is not figuratively hurting the financial livelihoods of DC politicians; he’s literally doing it. President Trump is not an esoteric problem for them; his impact is very real, very direct, and hits almost every politician in the most painful place imaginable, the bank account.
In the pre-Trump process there were millions upon millions, even billions that could be made by DC politicians and their families. Thousands of very indulgent and exclusive livelihoods attached to the DC business model. At the center of this operation is the lobbying and legislative purchase network. The Big Club.
Without the ability to position personal wealth and benefit from the system, why would a politician stay in office? It is a fact the income of many long-term politicians on both wings of the uniparty bird were completely disrupted by Trump winning the 2016 election. That is one of the key reasons why so many politicians retired in 2018.
When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.
When we understand the business of DC we understand why the entire network hates President Donald Trump.
This is a slim, wickedly funny satire of 126 pages organised into ten
chapters of rollicking hilarity. It’s a hugely enjoyable book for all
those who were critical of lockdowns, masks, and vaccines. As the Brits
say, it takes the piss out of all the self-proclaimed Covid experts, the
public health clerisy, the media, and people with blind faith in the
experts.
Thus the fictitious professor Oisín MacAmadáin informs us of “a good
friend in Dublin whose fully vaccinated father died from Covid. He also
told me how much worse he knew it could have been.” And all the grannies
going merrily about their way in Stockholm “must be brainwashed. A
perfect example of state propaganda.” The true believers are likely to
be offended.
The book is successful in skewering the many Covidian dogmas because
MacAmadáin closely tracks the many gaslighting tropes used by the
experts and the authorities to attack critics, dissenters, Florida, and
Sweden. The last, for example, is dismissed as irrelevant because its
vast empty spaces make it very difficult to encounter the virus and
anyway, we all know the Swedes are so reserved they rarely hug.
It’s been many a long year since I laughed so much while reading a
seriously serious book. The greater your familiarity with the lies,
obfuscations, and gaslighting by health experts and governments in the
last three years, and with the range of scientific literature and
controversies, including the leading names, the more you will be
entertained by this book.
American readers will especially enjoy the chapter on Florida and the
attempted puncturing of Robert Malone and Peter McCullough as
anti-vaxxer ringleaders. That they were removed from Twitter is proof
they were spouting anti-scientific drivel. Their knowledge is so shallow
that they can be shown up even by the likes of Neil Young and Meghan
Markle.
MacAmadáin is inventive with names in the mould of JK Rowling,
referencing the CDLWQ (CatDogLynxWolfQuestioning) + community for those
who self-ID as catgender etc. The encomia on the back cover are from
eminent world experts like President Macaroni who adores the book
because it will “really ‘piss off’ the anti-vaxxers;” Santa Klaus who is
incredulous that the author “was never a WEF young leader;” the CEO of
Pfizzle; and Gubnet O’Foole, the correspondent in residence of the Oirish Times. The final encomium is signed off “The author.”
We meet Prof. Nadir Jibjab and Dr. Smärtz Aleks. Austria has a Mr.
Hündbisket and a Prof. Ann Schlüss who has written a treatise on The Jab as Moral Good.
She holds firmly to the view that the government decisions tick all
ethical boxes, “even those of Kant whose ethical boxes are notoriously
hard to tick.” A German schoolteacher named Gretel Voopingkoff praises
Oisín’s “awesome work in exterminating anti-vaxxer propaganda.” She
informs him that her multi-jabbed kids “play the geese marching game”
from which the unvaxxed are, of course, excluded.
censorednews |The COVID-19 lie that started it all—before lockdowns and mandates—was the lie that the virus was more deadly than it actually
was. On March 3, 2020, the media cited the World Health Organization to
spread the misinformation that the global death rate of COVID-19 was
3.4%. Years later, the WHO’s much-expanded dataset now shows the real
global case fatality rate is less than 1%. However, at the time, when
the President of the United States correctly pointed out the figure was
inflated, he was viciously attacked for “downplaying” the virus, as the
WHO’s misleading statistic was regurgitated in the press.
“WHO says the death rate is 3.4% globally, higher than previously thought” - CNBC
“The death rate now estimated at 3.4% for anyone afflicted with this virus” - FOX News
“3.4% of people who get coronavirus die from it.” - USA TODAY
The WHO’s death rate was severely inflated because most COVID-19 cases are mild with no symptoms
and are therefore never reported. In fact, Dr. Fauci and the Director
of the CDC, Dr. Redfield predicted as much just three days prior to the
WHO’s misleading 3.4% death rate. In the New England Journal of
Medicine, Fauci and Redfield concluded the number could be “considerably less than 1%”.
This contradiction between US public health officials and the WHO went
mostly ignored. The media was only triggered into a response when Donald
Trump used the same scientific reasoning on FOX News with Sean Hannity.
PRESIDENT
TRUMP: Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number. Now, this is
just my hunch, but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people
that do this, because a lot of people will have this, and it's very
mild. They will get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor.
They don't even call a doctor. You never hear about those people.
Trump
repeated his reasoning for clarity, although his full explanation was
later deleted from nearly all mainstream news segments which criticized
him for sharing thoughts “based on nothing” (John Berman, “CNN New Day”,
CNN, 3/5/20).
PRESIDENT TRUMP: When you do have a
death…all of a sudden, it seems like three or four percent, which is a
very high number, as opposed to a fraction of one percent. But, again,
they don't know about the easy cases, because the easy cases don't go to
the hospital. They don't report to doctors or the hospital in many
cases. So I think that that number is very high. I think the
number—personally, I would say the number is way under 1 percent.
MEDIA MISINFORMATION / DISINFORMATION
Former Vox reporter and special guest to the Biden White House, Aaron Rupar, reflexively attacked Trump’s rational, and ultimately correct, take on the WHO death rate, as “astoundingly irresponsible”.
Over
the following days, Trump was mocked on nearly every major television
channel (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, & Comedy Central), where he was
accused of lying.
MSNBC hosts and experts labeled Trump’s correct
take on the death rate as “not correct”, “not true”, “dishonest”, and
“disinformation” (Andrea Mitchell, Ben Rhodes, and Geoff Bennett on
“Andrea Mitchell Reports”); “false information”, (Chris Jansing on “Live
with Hallie Jackson”); and “misinformation” (“Live with Velshi and
Ruhle”).
CNN’s reporters and pundits did the same, calling
Trump’s informed skepticism “disinformation” (Brian Stelter, “CNN
Newsroom”); “misinformation” (Anderson Cooper, “Anderson Cooper 360”);
and “sketchy information” (Jim Acosta, “The Situation Room with Wolf
Blitzer”).
(NOTE: This is only a small sample of the false accusations.)
After
the news set the narrative, late-night hosts took their cues and
obediently forwarded the message that WHO’s word reigns supreme and
therefore Trump is crazy to question it.
The Hill hosted an event Thursday, The Truth Is Out There: UFOs & National Security,
which was moderated by congressional reporter Mychael Schnell and
featured three of the four members of Congress who have pushed for UAP
transparency.
“I hear from people more on this subject than anything else,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.)
said. “Not the Trump indictments, not Hunter Biden. They are talking
about the UAP hearing because there’s great interest in this government
transparency issue.”
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn)
said the group — comprising Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Anna Paulina
Luna (R-Fla), Moskowitz and himself — will likely not get another
opportunity for a hearing unless Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) designates a select committee on UAPs as they have requested.
That select committee would give subpoena powers to force leaders in
the Department of Defense and others to testify and push past the
“roadblocks” the group has faced so far in seeing classified material
and getting timely responses, Burchett said.
“We’re running into a lot of roadblocks there, and that’s the problem
with this whole thing. It just creates more and more conspiracy
theories because our federal government is so arrogant and so bloated,
and they’ll just run out the clock,” Burchett said. “I’m guilty of this
as well, but Americans want their pizzas in 30 minutes or less, and
that’s about our dadgum attention span.”
Burchett and Luna haven’t heard back from the Speaker since they made
the request, they said. The Hill has reached out to McCarthy’s office
for comment.
The hearing last month featured three witnesses who have firsthand
knowledge of UAP sightings. Former intelligence officer whistleblower
David Grusch claimed the government has recovered “non-human biological
pilots” from downed UAPs, which the Pentagon has denied.
In the hearing last month, Grusch said he couldn’t speak on much of
his knowledge because it is classified. But the investigating members
told The Hill they are being slowed by the Pentagon on getting a
classified hearing with Grusch started.
“The excuse that the Department of Defense is using for us not being
able to get a SCIF is that Grusch doesn’t have an active [security]
clearance. So unless he has active clearance, they’re saying that he
can’t divulge that information to us, which, one, I believe is false,”
Luna said at The Hill event. “The Department of Defense is literally
trying to stonewall us.”
Luna also threatened to use congressional power to lower the salary
of specific officials who were getting in the way of the investigation,
saying “there’s a select group of people who have become megalomaniacs
with information.”
childrenshealthdefense |Dr. Meryl Nass
today filed suit against the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine and
its individual members, alleging the board violated her First Amendment
rights and her rights under the Maine Constitution.
The complaint alleges the board engaged in retaliatory conduct against Nass, a practicing internal medicine physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) scientific advisory board, when the board suspended her medical license for publicly expressing her dissenting views on official COVID-19 policies, the COVID-19 vaccine and alternative treatments.
“Because she was outspoken, the board targeted Dr. Nass as someone to silence,” her attorney, Gene Libby told The Defender.
In fall 2021, the board issued a position statement, quoted in the complaint, stating that licensees could face disciplinary action if they “generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.”
In October 2021, soon after the statement was issued, the board
received a complaint alleging Nass was spreading misinformation online
and soon after launched an investigation.
The board suspended Nass’ medical license
on Jan. 12, 2022, without a hearing, accusing her of engaging in
“unprofessional conduct” by spreading “misinformation about COVID-19.”
It also accused her of improperly prescribing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for three patients for off-label uses of those drugs.
The board suspended Nass’ license and ordered a neuropsychological evaluation, implying she was mentally impaired or a substance abuser and incompetent to practice medicine.
“There were no grounds to order a mental health examination,” Libby
said. “That was simply a means to communicate to the public that there
was something wrong with Dr. Nass, to discredit her and tarnish her
reputation.”
After Nass moved to have the board dismiss its complaint against her,
alleging First Amendment violations, the board on Sept. 26, 2022,
withdrew its accusations of “misinformation”, just prior to her first hearing date, Oct. 11, 2022.
The board’s case now rests on Nass’ alleged non-adherence to the
medical “standard of care” as it pertained to ivermectin and
hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19 and on the alleged
“record-keeping” issues.
“The two primary complaints against me
were that my statements were misleading and that I was prescribing drugs
off-label. My speech — which I should note, was not simply opinion, it
was an educated opinion developed after consulting the medical
literature — is protected by the First Amendment.
“And prescribing drugs off-label
is a perfectly legal thing to do, as explicitly stated on the FDA [U.S.
Food and Drug Administration] website. Somewhere between 20-50% of
drugs are prescribed off-label. The lawyers on the board staff know all
of this. It’s their job to know the law with respect to medicine.
“They didn’t do this because they thought
I had committed some kind of violation. They did it because they
thought I’m older and I wouldn’t have the money to challenge them and so
they could get away with it — they thought they could turn me into a
poster child to scare all the doctors in the country.
“It is part of this broader attempt by
the U.S. government and governments across the world to criminalize
dissent by criminalizing so-called ‘misinformation.’”
Libby said the remaining allegations against Dr. Nass “are simply a
pretext to discipline her. Because now, from an institutional
standpoint, the board has to do something. She’s been under suspension
for 19 months, which is the longest suspension that I’m aware of for any
physician in the state.”
The board refused to schedule hearings on Nass’ suspension on
consecutive days. Instead, it has held one day of hearings every other
month. There have been six days of hearings so far over 10 months — and
Nass’ license has been suspended the entire time.
“This is fundamentally unfair to Dr. Nass, but she’s within the grip
of an institution that doesn’t want her speaking out,” Libby said.
In her lawsuit, Nass alleges the board and its members used their power to “crush dissenting views and chill disfavored speech.”
Nass is asking the court for declaratory relief, for an injunction to
stop the board from continuing to retaliate against her and for
monetary damages and legal fees.
CHD is providing financial and legal resources to Nass’ Maine-based legal team.
CHD President Mary Holland told The Defender:
“CHD is proud to support Dr. Nass’ lawsuit against the Maine medical board and its individual members.
“The board and its members have deprived
Dr. Nass of her license and livelihood for over a year with no basis
whatsoever. This kind of censorship, intimidation and punishment of
doctors of conscience must stop.
“People need independent, thoughtful, caring physicians like Dr. Nass to be honored, not hounded as the board has done.
“I am pleased to see this case move
forward in the courts in the interests of justice, for Dr. Nass, her
patients and the broader society.”
Board provided resources to ‘combat spread of vaccine misinformation’
The Maine board’s Fall 2021 position statement expressed its support
for a statement by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) — a
private organization with no regulatory authority — which threatened physicians “who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation” with suspension or revocation of their medical license.
According to the statement, physicians have a high degree of public
trust and therefore a responsibility to “share information that is
factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment
of public health.”
The Maine board’s statement endorsed the FSMB statement, encouraged
physicians to address misinformation when encountered, directed
physicians to use circulated materials from the American Medical Association (AMA) and said that questioning the COVID-19 vaccine qualifies as “misinformation,” according to the complaint.
The AMA materials provide scripts, talking points and strategies for “combating the spread of vaccine misinformation.”
The Maine board’s chair, Dr. Maroulla Gleaton, is also an FSMB director.
Nass is a widely recognized expert on the anthrax vaccine
and biological warfare. She testified before Congress six times and was
quoted in major media outlets including The New York Times, The
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune.
alt-market | When I think back to the first days of the covid pandemic lockdowns, I
suspect the majority of people, even many conservatives and liberty
movement types, had a healthy concern about the effects of the virus and
the potential for structural upheaval if it turned out to be as deadly
as the World Health Organization initially claimed. If covid had an
Infection Fatality Rate of 3% or more as global health officials warned,
then the damage would be substantial enough to change our world for
many years to come.
Anyone who was not at least partially
concerned about a biological disaster (or biological warfare) was
probably an idiot. Anyone who was smart was prepared. However, after a
few months of the spread of the virus and after the first flurry of
scientific data, several facts became evident:
2) The masks were useless and did nothing to prevent transmission of the virus.
3) The IFR of covid was a tiny 0.23%, and that’s not accounting for all the co-morbidity deaths that were falsely labeled as covid deaths.
4) The vaccines did not prevent transmission for millions of people. They did not prevent infection in many cases and numerous vaccinated people have died from the virus. Not only that, but unvaccinated people with natural immunity were better protected than those that took the vaccine and boosters.
5) Studies show that the vaccines cause dangerous side effects at a much greater rate than the CDC admitted.
Everything
government officials told us during the pandemic was a lie. It was not a
mistake, it was not bureaucratic confusion, it was a lie. Even after
this information became available, they KEPT GOING – They kept people
locked down, kept them masked and they even tried to force-vaccinate the
population. There were some Republican politicians that also went along
with the panic, many of them Neocons (fake conservatives). However,
the majority of red states quickly ended the restrictions once the
contradictory data was made public. In the meantime, the blue states
looked ridiculous and paranoid as they desperately clung to the
mandates.
I believe the only reason Biden, the Democrats and
globalist institutions eventually stopped was not because they realized
their science was incorrect; it was because they realized millions of
conservatives and independents were ready start a shooting war over the
mandates and they knew they would lose.
Even today, months after
Biden was forced to finally end the national emergency status on covid,
there are still a lot of people out there running around with masks,
still isolating in their homes and still complaining all over social
media that the public has moved on from the pandemic hysteria. Where
does this behavior originate? And why did so many Americans (mainly
leftists) jump on the authoritarian bandwagon when it comes to lockdowns
and forced vaccination?
I want to explore the psychology of such
people here, because I think it’s the natural inclination of the public
today to move on quickly from the discomfort of terrible events and
ignore the deeper implications. We cannot move on from this, because the
ultimate problem was never solved. These same leftists and globalists
were never admonished for their behavior, they never had to admit they
were wrong and they WILL attempt the same draconian measures again in
the future if left unchecked.
Here is what I think happened during the covid cult frenzy…
A Useful Weapon Against The Constitution
Leftists
are quick these days to change the subject or outright deny their
authoritarian activities during covid. It makes sense, they view the
next election as a defining election and they want people to forget that
we almost lost what remains of our constitutional rights because of
their policies. But again, we can’t allow these things to fade into the
ether. Here’s a list of the worst trespasses on the part of leftists and
globalists during the pandemic:
They lied about the effectiveness of the lockdowns.
They lied about the effectiveness of the masks.
They lied about the effectiveness of the vaccines.
They lied about how extensive the testing was for the covid vaccines.
They lied about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
They enforced lockdowns OUTSIDE where it is nearly impossible to contract a virus.
They tried to put the population under house arrest.
They put legislation in motion in some states to build “covid camps” in the US.
In some countries, they did build covid camps, not just for travelers, but for everyone.
They conspired to suppress ample evidence linking the Wuhan Lab in China with the outbreak.
They (Government and Big Tech) conspired to use social media as a tool for mass censorship of conflicting data.
They exploited algorithms through search engines to bury any and all contrary information.
As
many leftists openly admitted, the goal was to make life so difficult
for the unvaccinated that they would eventually comply in order to
survive. In this way, establishment elites and leftists could claim that
people “volunteered” for the vaccines and no one was forced. What they
really meant was, no one was forced at gunpoint, but we all knew that
threat was coming next. In fact, polling showed that a large percentage of Democrats were willing to scrap the Bill of Rights altogether and declare war on the unvaccinated…
Algorithms
-
Most people look at the Egyptian pyramids and see massive stone monuments,
ancient wonders of the world.
I see an algorithm. An algorithm run on the platfo...
Wokeness in November
-
Regardless of one’s personal feelings about wokeness and the culture wars
(I think such things are important for many reasons, but have also spilt
plenty o...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...
Silver
-
Noticed this.
Today is the 11th and Silver is from the 11th Group.
Silver is atomic number 47
"The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom, which de...
-
(Damn, has it been THAT long? I don't even know which prompts to use to
post this)
SeeNew
Can't get on your site because you've gone 'invite only'?
Man, ...
First Member of Chumph Cartel Goes to Jail
-
With the profligate racism of the Chumph Cartel, I don’t imagine any of
them convicted and jailed is going to do too much better than your run of
the mill ...
