Stuck on Stupid – Biden DHS Denies Visa to Tennis Star Novak Djokovic Due to Vaccination Status


Posted originally on the CTH on March 6, 2023 | Sundance 

The COVID-19 stupid continues, as the world’s #1 tennis player is denied entry to the United States over his vaccination status.

(Via Fox News) – Novak Djokovic will not participate in the BNP Paribas Open this month after the Biden administration denied his entry to the United States, due to him being unvaccinated against COVID-19.

Djokovic, 35, requested a vaccine waiver, which would have allowed him to enter the U.S. unvaccinated, but it was rejected by the Homeland Security Department.

The 22-time Grand Slam champion subsequently withdrew from the combined ATP-WTA event, which begins Wednesday at Indian Wells Tennis Garden in Indian Wells, California. (read more)

At this point in the COVID-19 era, the decision is more about politics and maintaining a false premise than any effort to mitigate a risk posed by a virus. Ridiculous doesn’t begin to adequately convey the level of frustration seeing this maintained nonsense.

Support Pfizer Whistleblower


campaign image

I’m facing uncertainty for doing what I believe is the right thing for the country. I’ve lost my job, potentially my career for taking this stand, please consider standing with me however you can. Prayers for my family at this time are definitely appreciated.

This link will take you to James OKeefe’s GiveSendGo Campaign

https://www.givesendgo.com/Pfizer

GiveSendGo, the place where help and hope go hand in hand.

Below is the information that she gave out …..

Can Congress Grant Immunity to Pfizer


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Mar 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Any immunity that Congress has pretended to give Pfizer, is highly questionable if it is not in violation of the Seventh Amendment stopping people from their right to claims against Pfizer et al.  Even looking at the PREP Act Immunity from Liability for COVID-19 Vaccinators, it cannot afford immunity for willful misconduct.  What we are dealing with is a statutory grant of immunity to Pfizer and others to create vaccines with immunity.

42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22,

“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

The 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect the right of every American citizen to a trial by a jury of his peers in a civil court case. The writers’ objective in drafting this amendment as an addition to the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the government would not eliminate the practice of trial by jury. The major concern here was that, if trials were decided solely by judges, the judges would, more often than not, side with the government. This would, in turn, give the government too much power. To explore this concept, consider the following 7th Amendment definition.

There was a federal appeals court that declined to grant an injunction against Indiana University’s vaccine mandate after it was challenged in a lawsuit by students who said it violates their constitutional rights. That was a separate question from what I am raising here.  The Indiana case dealt with only the constitutionality of vaccination mandates. That did not address whether or not the vaccines were ever properly tested and were in fact causing harm.

We must separate the legal argument for the objection to the mandates were all based on individual rights as in the abortion rhetoric, it’s my body, my decision. The government can generally regulate its own employees, or those it even funds with Medicaid/​Medicare. Hence, that raised the issue of people with valid religious or medical objections. All of that still proceeded upon the basic assumption that the vaccines were legal and caused no harm.

The Biden Administration virtually conceded that it did not have the constitutional authority to force every American to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Still, the Biden Administration tried to circumvent that constitutional limitation by having the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which regulates within the U.S. Labor Department workplace safety, rather than public health. OSHA’s emergency order required all employers with 100 or more employees to demand that their employees either be fully vaccinated or get a COVID-19 test at least once a week.

There is another issue that surfaced with COVID and that was that Biden had agencies issuing unconstitutional orders without authority from Congress. The Centers for Disease Control issued a prohibition against tenant evictions. That demonstrated that the Biden Administration was acting in a tyrannical manner circumventing both the Constitution and Congress. The eviction decree made it to the Supreme Court which held such a decree could only be issued with Congressional legislative action. When Congress refused, the Biden administration just ignored the Supreme Court anyhow. Then on Aug. 26, 2001, the Supreme Court in a Per Curiam decision (whole court), the Court struck down the Biden eviction moratorium. This is dealing with Biden’s abuse of executive orders ignoring Congress and the Supreme Court. That was really tyrannical. Hence, his vaccine mandate raises the very same question of Congress’ delegation of authority to administrative agencies that never granted such authority and Biden’s unconstitutional circumventing of Congress.

My question remains different If the 7th Amendment was to prevent judges who would always rule in favor of the government, then can Congress pass any statute that grants immunity to Pfizer when there is an exception even to Qualified Immunity of government agents when they act deliberately? If a Prosecutor can be charged when he DELIBERATELY violates your Constitutional Rights, then so can everyone at Pfizer!

Get at it, Lawyers! Do what you were intended to do when you took your oath.

Biden Administration Controls Britain & the EU


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ukraine re-Posted Mar 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The Biden Administration is control the EU and Britain. They cannot independently expand the supply of arms to Ukraine, since the main decisions in this regard are still being made in Washington, as the former British Foreign Secretary William Hague has admitted. The Biden Administration has been completely usurped by the Neocons. They are writing the cue cards. This came out in discussions in Russia. Hague has been a cheerleader for this war against Russia. He too should be questioned with regard to the behind-the-curtain shenanigans to create World War III.

We Need to Question Who Authorized This Act of War


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re- Posted Mar 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

(Download this in PDF to forward to your Politican Wherever you are: Impach 3-6-23 )

Everyone needs to write to their Congressman and Senator demanding an investigation NOW! The acts of Victoria Nuland, most likely the leader of the pack, Antony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan actually rise to the level of Treason, – engaging in using the Executive Branch to instigate war against Russia when that is ONLY the power Constitutionally held by Congress. Meanwhile, Russian oligarchs who have direct ties to Biden and Hunter, are always exempt from his illegal confiscation of private Russian assets that are a flagrant violation of international law. That, many now question, might be tied to bribes for the “big guy” once again.

We need to call Biden to account. He is too out of it and easily manipulated taking orders from the Neocons (Victoria Nuland), to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline – the Neocon goal since the 1960s. This was an Unconstitutional Act of War, for such authority only resides in Congress under Article One of the US Constitution, the Authority of Congress to make war. This is why the press was immediately told to eat their own, Seymour Hersh, by their puppet masters – the Neocons. The mainstream press has been the cheerleaders to send your children to war to be slaughtered on the 21st killing fields to put a smile on the face of Victoria Nuland and friends.

President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and especially Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland as well as National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, should all be called before Congress and interrogated as to their acts. This is an impeachable offense. Victoria Nuland was in Kiev in 2014 pushing for the revolution telling the protester the US could not get involved unless 100 were killed. Nuland was there handing out sandwiches. She probably wanted to hand out warm milk and cookies to show US support for the revolution. It was the US who installed an unelected interim government that then sent the army to invade the Donbas which began this entire war. Nuland should be interrogated for abusing her position to further war that ONLY Congress can authorize.

Was she also involved in the fake negotiation of the Minsk Agreement to buy time to raise an army to wage war against Russia? Did Nuland tell Zelensky to say Ukraine would rearm with nuclear weapons on February 23rd to force Putin to respond that night in his national speech and then the next day, 24th, move to occupy the Donbas since he also refused to honor the Minsk Agreement? Has Putin really been the aggressor, or has this all been choreographed to support war as was the case with Vietnam and Johnson’s famous line that for all he knew they were shooting at whales that night, and we were never attacked?

Larry Hogan Disappoints Dozens, Deciding Not to Run for President in 2024


Posted originally on the CTH on March 5, 2023 | Sundance

Former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan announced today that he will not seek the Republican nomination for 2024. [Video Here]

[Transcript] – FORMER GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN: I was struggling, because my heart was telling me to run. My head was telling me, no, that just does not make sense for a whole host of reasons. And my gut was flipping back and forth. So it really came down to, if I wasn’t 100 percent convinced, then I shouldn’t do it.

ROBERT COSTA: You were torn?

FORMER GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN: I was torn.

ROBERT COSTA: Toughest decision of your political career?

FORMER GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN: Absolutely, toughest decision I ever made.

ROBERT COSTA: Politically, by staying out of the race, it’s a smaller field, may be tougher for Trump to get the nomination?

FORMER GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN: I didn’t want to have a pileup of a bunch of people fighting.  Right now, you have Trump and DeSantis at the top of the field soaking up all the oxygen, getting all the attention, and then a whole lot of the rest of us in single digits. And the more of them you have, the less chance you have for somebody rising up.

Sunday Talks, Joe Manchin Wants Energy Permitting Reform He Was Promised in Order to Support Debt Ceiling and Budget


Posted originally on the CTH on March 5, 2023 | Sundance

On July 31, 2022, According to Manchin a deal between himself, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden included his support for the green energy spending bill, in exchange for two new items in future legislation: 1) Streamlined energy permitting/regulation; and 2) Increased development of Oil, Coal, Gas.  After getting his vote, Biden, Pelosi and Schumer reneged on the deal.

Today Senator Manchin inferred he wants that promise fulfilled in order to gain his support for a debt ceiling increase and a budget package. [Transcript Below]  Manchin also hedged on his own political aspirations for 2024, saying he will make a decision at the end of this year.   WATCH:

[Transcript] – SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Good morning, Brennan. Thank — Margaret, thanks for having me.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to start on that derailment.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The president last week praised bipartisan railway safety legislation that would have new rules for trains carrying hazardous materials, increased fines for safety violations, phase in newer cars.

Will you vote for it? Is that sufficient?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Yes, I’m going to be supporting that. We need to do it.

Back in 2015, in Mount Carbon in West Virginia, we had a derailment, 27 cars, tanker cars carrying Bakken oil. It went off the tracks and derailed and exploded and caused a tremendous problem there. And it was very, very dangerous. It could have been a little — a lot worse, if it had been a little farther down the tracks, could have torn up a whole town.

But with that we were recommended that the electronic pneumatic brakes should be something — should be considered that might prevent this, routine maintenance checks and auditing and things of this sort. I don’t think any of that has been done.

And it’s time for us to get serious about this. We’re moving many, many products, many more products on the rails and on our roads than we ever did before. And we have a lot of people who don’t want any pipelines. Pipelines would help alleviate a lot of this problem with the oil that we need in our country and we will be using for quite some time to do it safer.

But out of sight, out of mind. They are thinking, if you don’t have a pipeline, you won’t be using the product. Well, that’s far from the truth. And this is the results of people just not making good decisions. And it’s what’s broken in — in — in West Virginia. And — and…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: … broken across the country as far as in Washington, the politics.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want…

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: It’s broken. It needs to be fixed.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want — I want to come back to energy in a moment.

You’re saying it’s broken. You gave a pretty fiery speech a few days ago in the Senate. You’re at odds with the White House and with many in your own party because you are saying that Democrats need to talk about out-of- control spending and are refusing to negotiate.

You did ding Republicans for not offering specific cuts. If you are the dealmaker — you seem to be positioning yourself there — where is it that you see room for negotiation?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Well, Margaret, first of all, I encourage Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

I was hoping that he would, first of all, take things off the table that doesn’t cause a conflict, but most — most importantly, sit down with the president. And reached out to the White House. They did sit down, had a meeting. I’m encouraging much more of that.

But what we can do is, can’t we get together and just talk about how do we have this much debt accumulated this — in this short of a period of time? Within 10 years, Margaret, we have accumulated the greatest amount of debt in the history of our country in the shortest period of time. Can’t we at least find out what we did and how we expanded?

I know that COVID did so much of it. But, you know, we’re past the COVID…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: … problems. And what we need to do is to get back to normal.

But we’ve gone from $3.5 trillion in spending to over $6.2 trillion in spending every year in the last 10 years. That’s just unacceptable. You’ve got to sit down. Anybody that thinks we don’t have a problem in Washington, anybody that thinks that the politics is not broken in Washington is not living in reality, does not want to face the facts and the truth.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.

So — so, what is the truth here? Because Social Security and Medicare make up nearly 40 percent of spending in 2023. If no one is touching those programs, where are you finding the cuts?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Well, first of all, just do our job on time.

We’ve been told that, if we just had a budget done — we don’t even have a budget anymore. The president is — is a month late in putting his budget out, which will come out next week. But I don’t see the House or the Senate bringing a budget forward. And, basically, by a piece of legislation was passed back in 1985, we’re supposed to have our budgets…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: … from the House and the Senate done by April the 1st.

The president basically submits his in February, and, by September the 30th — I’m told there’s billions and billions of dollars of savings just right there if we just do it on time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure. But that’s not…

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: We’re not even doing that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That — right.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: That’s what I say it’s, not working. That’s…

MARGARET BRENNAN: But that — but…

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: But it gets a downward trajection, basically, and capping…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, but more has to be done…

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: How about capping some of the…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … done than that. I mean, you know…

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Yes, capping some of the discretionary spending.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You — OK.

Well, there’s a lot to talk about right there. But I want to ask you, what is Joe…

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Hey, Mar…

MARGARET BRENNAN: What is Joe Manchin looking for in this deal? Are you looking for your permitting reform, for example, that Democrats didn’t deliver on, though they had told you that you would have an agreement on?

Are you looking for that to be tucked into a potential bill in this agreement that you’re saying has to be struck between Republicans and Democrats?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Well, rather — tucking something in, we’re not trying to hide anything, basically.

If we don’t do permitting, and we don’t have permitting reform in America, we’re not going to meet the challenges and be energy-independent energy- secured. If you’re not energy-secured, you’re definitely not going to be a superpower of the world, and depending on other parts of the world to provide what you won’t do for yourself.

That has to be done. I don’t care what side of the arena you’re on, if you want transmission, if you want pipelines, if you realize we’re going to have a balanced energy proposal. That’s what the Inflation Reduction Act was for, energy security. The administration, this administration has touted that as strictly an environmental bill.

It’s good for the environment, but it’s also very, very necessary for us to have the fossil energy…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: … using it better and cleaner than anywhere in the world to have the security we need. That’s what we need to do. And that’s what they’ve been avoiding.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: You have to have permitting. If not, all this is going to be voided.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about what appears to be some separation between you and the president.

You were quoted a few days ago as saying: “We’re just in different ball games. We’re not even in the same ballpark on many things.”

Are you going to endorse Joe Biden if he runs for reelection?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Oh, there’s plenty of time for the election. This is the problem with America right now. We start an election every time there’s a cycle coming up.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, he’s the leader of your party.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: I — I — no, the bottom line is, let’s see who’s involved. Let’s wait until we see who all the players are. Let’s just wait until it all comes out.

My main purpose right now is to work for my country and my — and my state. That’s my responsibility. I’m not going to make my announcement for anything until the end of the year. I’m not going to make a decision what my political position is going to be or where I’m going to do for my political future.

I won’t do it until the end of the year. I got too much work to do now.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Your political future, you mean the question of whether you personally are going to run for reelection in the Senate in West Virginia.

Your Republican governor, Jim Justice, says he’s going to run for your seat, or he thinks he’s got a good shot at it. Why haven’t you made up your mind?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: There’s too — the bottom line, I got plenty of time to make up my mind. The election is not until November 2024. We don’t even file until January of 2024.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: And to be running and basically — not basically looking at the problems you have, we’ve got a runaway debt. We got inflation that’s killing people.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: We’ve got an unsecured energy. We have a border that’s out of control.

You’re telling me we’re in the same ball game or the same ballpark? I don’t think so.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You said let’s see who all the players are when it comes to running for president.

You’ve said you’re not running for president. Is that an open question, though? Who — who do you think…

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: I didn’t say that. I didn’t say anything about that.

I — the bottom line is, I will make my political decision in December, whatever it may be.

MARGARET BRENNAN: To run for president?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: I’m not taking anything off the table, and I’m not put — and I’m not putting anything on the table.

I said I will make a decision in January — at this — at the end of this year.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ll make a decision at the end of this year as to…

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: Simply that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: … as to who you will endorse for president?

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: What my political future will be, what…

MARGARET BRENNAN: No, but for president.

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: What I will be involved with, how I will be involved.

I will be making — any decisions I make politically will not be done until the end of the year. I’m focused on fixing what’s wrong with Washington. And the politics are so toxic, the more you talk about this party, that party, what candidate and this candidate.

Look at what you have facing you right now. You’ve got inflation. You’ve got, basically, energy. You’ve got these unsecured borders. You’ve got geopolitical unrest. And we’re talking about everything but that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We are — we have a lot to talk about.

And, Senator Manchin, you’re welcome back.

(LAUGHTER)

MARGARET BRENNAN: We got to leave it there, because…

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN: I’m happy to come back, Margaret, any time.

[End Transcript]

Neil Oliver Takes on the Media


Posted originally on the CTH on March 5, 2023 | Sundance 

U.K. pundit Neil Oliver has been taking some flack for opposing the dictatorial narratives in Great Britain.  In his monologue this week Mr. Oliver notes the media’s refusal to retract their prior false positions around COVID-19, the “vaccinations” and so much more.  Worse still, many of these same media outlets are continuing to promote the lies.

[Transcript] –  I’m telling you now – if you’re still getting your latest news from the traditional Mainstream media, then it’s not news. It’s not investigation in search of the truth.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a limp attempt by outfits compromised by complicity with years of misuse of the people, desperate to find a quiet off-ramp from the Road to Hell they’ve been enthusiastically barreling along.

Even now, with everyone getting so excited watching rats running for the lifeboats, the MSM is still working within the same old narrative, still talking about masks for school children and testing for Covid-19, still asking the questions we already know the answers to.

How can it be, that after all this time, the MSM is still failing to ask the most important questions about so much that happened? After all this time, how can they still miss the open goal so completely?

A person might say it’s down to more of that good old willful blindness. After all, for the vast majority of the MSM, they’re looking at journalistic credibility as a vanishing dot in the rear-view mirror.

Having spent the past two and more years performing as unquestioning foghorns for the government narrative, the time for them to remember that the job of the Fourth Estate is to challenge authority is long, long past, never to be regained.

Give the devils their due.

All those years … the years of the bungs from the hundreds of millions of pounds spent by the Government and Bill Gates and others to ensure a warm welcome and happy hosting for the official narrative of lockdowns and masks saving lives … of safe and effective medical procedures and all that Jazz …were surely enough to leave many so-called news organizations punch drunk and suffering double or even triple vision when it came to keeping a beady eye on that pesky matter of the truth.

And still… after all the demonstrable catastrophic harms of lockdown… after all those lives and livelihoods ruined… all those dodgy contracts…

The greatest transfer of wealth in history from the poor to the billionaires … the excess deaths mounting and as unexplained as ever… after all that, and in lieu of real investigation, we get speculation about whether Matt Hancock ordered enough tests before sending the elderly into care homes? About who did or didn’t want to close schools?

Is that really the best they can do?

Let’s once again… once more and with feeling … contemplate some of the list of questions so many journalists still won’t ask … the answers we can only assume they simply don’t care to hear:

If the politicians were so scared in the face of the images coming out of China in 2019, then why didn’t they listen objectively and reasonably to ALL OF THE SCIENCE?

What about the Great Barrington Declaration? Instead of ignoring all those experts and dismissing their appeal for another way of handling things, might it not have been appropriate to listen and ask questions?

And what about the doctors all around the world who examined their patients with Covid 19, recognised it as a respiratory virus and quickly identified cheap, readily available and effective ways to treat them?

During the first part of 2020, in the US, in Europe, and in Africa doctors were treating their patients in the way they’re supposed to – which is to say looking at the person in front of them and addressing the symptoms, with on-label and off-label medicines with tried and tested safety records and proof of efficacy.

Those doctors were sharing information with anyone who would listen … trying, mostly in vain, to publish scientific papers detailing their findings in supposedly serious medical journals about how their treatments were saving thousands of lives, without hospitalisation and in advance of any so-called vaccines.

But instead of listening to them, instead of taking them seriously or at least asking questions, governments in those countries and around the world … and the play-along MSM … went out of their way to ridicule and ban those medicines, to strike off those doctors and to shut down and censor any one at all from so much as talking about them.

Where was The Telegraph newspaper and the rest of the MSM when all that was going on? Where were the questions about whether or not Covid-19 was readily treatable with available drugs?

What was on the front pages then? Lockdown and face masks for all, Scotch eggs, one-way paths round supermarkets and the Rule of Six … the nonsense and fear porn that ruined us, that’s what.

If governments, and the MSM, following The Science, as they called it, were so desperate to fight Covid 19, then why did they silence experienced and highly credentialed medical professionals with potentially lifesaving information to offer? Why is it still to this day close to forbidden to talk about drugs like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine?

Why are the vast majority of the world’s populations still kept in the dark about how many doctors saw at once that apart from anything else they were dealing with a respiratory virus and knew, from the medical training all doctors receive, that a respiratory virus like Covid-19 was to be treated with available anti-viral drugs, with anti-inflammatory drugs and, when things got more serious, with anti-thrombotic drugs?

Why was that not a conversation on every front page? On this show I interviewed Dr Shankara Chetty, from South Africa, who personally treated thousands of Covid patients with, among other available on-label medicines, antihistamines … and saved all those lives, without hospitalisation.

Dr Chetty was invited to Malaysia to share his knowledge … and doctors there, following his protocol, saved many thousands more lives. He was the recipient of an award from the Malaysian Government for his efforts. Why didn’t we hear about him here?

Why weren’t the MSM asking about his successful life-saving efforts? I’ve spoken at length with Dr Pierre Kory, an esteemed critical care physician in the US, one of many, who advocated the use of off-label medicines for Covid-19. Why was he bluntly shut down instead of being listened to? Where were the investigative journalists to objectively investigate what he was saying?

Front pages and chatter now about whether or not Matt Hancock bothered to ensure enough testing of the elderly before they entered care homes?

That is not the question. The question is HOW were the elderly with Covid ACTUALLY treated in those care homes? Indeed, how exactly WERE people with Covid treated in hospitals and elsewhere? Was it the right treatment?

That is a crucial question that still goes unasked. And why did so many people die here in this country when patients under the care of doctors like Shankara Chetty and Pierre Kory recovered, without the need of going to hospital? Why don’t we know more about all of this?

Another doctor or scientist might say treatment with those off-label and on-label anti-viral drugs, anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-thrombotic drugs and antihistamines posed risks? Maybe so. But risks were also posed by the so-called vaccines and other new products, like Remdesivir, that were available later in the pandemic.

Research carried out by Pfizer made plain the company was well aware, in advance of the roll out, of the risk of adverse effects related to their so-called vaccines – and yet governments around the world indemnified those makers – which is to say those governments accepted that if any harm was done to people, resulting in the need for compensation, then the taxpayers would foot the bill.

Why so ready to take risks with so-called vaccines – and to wash the hands of the makers, in advance – when it came to experimental gene-therapies labelled as vaccines – but an outright ban on using existing drugs with decades of proven safety and efficacy? Why?

And most importantly right now, in the context of supposed revelations about what went on in care homes, why are so many journalists still not asking those same straightforward questions?

Why were elderly people in care homes … suffering with Covid and having breathing difficulties … given opiates and benzodiazepines. Those patients had a respiratory virus, might they not have got better, if treated with other drugs?

MSM: the so-called vaccines are quietly being withdrawn as well, have you noticed? Why is that, when according to a headline in the Lancet, on 14 January this year, the Covid pandemic is “far from over”?

If the pandemic is far from over, and the so-called vaccines are the best answer, as we are still told over and over, where have those products gone? And why no investigation of that by journalists?

If they were safe and effective for the under 50s a few weeks and months ago, why are they no longer available for that age group now? Surely that’s an interesting development? Why aren’t we hearing more about it?

It seems to me we are being prescribed something else now … a giant dose of amnesia.

After three years of catastrophic harms to ways of life, to economies, to children, apparently, it’s now time to forget so much of what happened – or at least to consign it all to history.

After all, nowadays we’ve got War, climate crisis and 15-minute cities and drag queen storytime to contemplate, on a round-the-clock basis.

There’s to be a Covid enquiry, of course. I wonder which company will get the contract for all the whitewash.

What’s happening now is spectacularly unedifying. All manner of characters suddenly keen to talk about Matt Hancock and tests and facemasks – not to mention millions of words of WhatsApp messages – are the same ones that for months on end bellowed about locking down earlier, harder and for longer.

The same ones that wanted a mask on every face – including those of children and infants. The same that wanted mandated injections with those new medical products. The same ones that celebrated the need to cancel Christmas before jetting off to enjoy their holidays in Antigua, or the Med.

The same ones that took to writing miles of newspaper columns about how those law-abiding, tax-paying fellow citizens preferring, as was their right, not to receive those medical products should face all manner of punishment, consequences and retribution.

Those same characters, in print and on screen, are suddenly positioning themselves to celebrate the downfall of the very people whose Draconian, unlawful, shameful actions they were such hearty cheerleaders for just five minutes ago.

But if THEY’VE got selective memories, then thankfully millions of us do not. We remember every word, Tweet and moment of screen time. Better yet, we kept the receipts.

Every bug-eyed, white-lipped call for lockdown, every feverish demand to see so-called Covidiots, granny-killers, Covid deniers and Anti-vaxxers locked up or worse. It’s all still there, a permanent record of what I would describe as the most shameful dereliction of duty by any generation of so-called journalists.

It’s well known and admitted that the population of this country was subjected to propaganda and psychological manipulation.

Let’s have some questions about why that happened. In my opinion, lockdowns caused untold damage and were a mistake.

We know now that the masks were pointless, even the much-vaunted N95s. Why aren’t we asking questions about that? Who decided the people should be stifled, our questions and dissent silenced … and brainwashed instead? We must remember that that’s what happened, and demand to know why.

And here’s the thing: if we were manipulated … silenced and censored to stop us asking questions about Covid-19 … why should we think for one minute that those same characters are telling us the truth about anything else … about the war in Ukraine … about the climate … about Digital IDs and CBDCs … about the compromised World Health Organization.

Will we go along with plans to let the WHO call the next pandemic and lay down the laws we will all be ordered to obey? Is that another so-called conspiracy theory … you know, the sort of conspiracy that comes true eventually like so many others? Why aren’t they asking questions about all of this, because WE ARE?

As the saying goes after all, fool me once, shame on you … fool me twice, shame on me. (LINK)

Intellectual Froglegs, The Great Reject


Posted originally on the CTH on March 5, 2023 | Sundance

Comrades, the rebellious messenger Joe Dan Gorman has transmitted again in a coded frequency only receivable by patriots with a funny bone. The message uses humor thereby ensuring communists and leftists are incapable of receiving it.

The subversive pre-spring transmission comes from deep in the underground bunker of the Rebel Alliance. Pull out those super-secret decoder rings, and enjoy the broadcast before the deep state satellite interception trucks show up on your driveway…

[Direct Rumble Link Here] – [Website Here]

.

U.S. Coast Guard: Illegal Immigration at Sea is Getting Progressively Worse


Posted originally on Rumble on March 4, 2023 The U.S. Coast Guard says migrant interdiction operations have reached a breaking point. One America’s Taylor Tinsley has the latest.