Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 21stDecember 20, 2021 | Sundance | 158 Comments

Division has been used as a tool by some of the most dangerous leaders throughout history.   One of the more famous examples was “the clean versus unclean” agenda of Germany.

The White House has a message in advance of, and in preparation for, a national address on a new set of federal rules and regulations that will be carried out unilaterally by the Biden administration:

(LINK)

(VIA NBC NEWS) – President Joe Biden will deliver a speech Tuesday to address the omicron variant and unveil new steps the administration is taking to help communities in need of assistance, a White House official told NBC News on Saturday.

Biden is expected to go beyond his already unveiled “winter plan” with additional measures while “issuing a stark warning of what the winter will look like for Americans that choose to remain unvaccinated,” the official said.

The news comes amid a rise in Covid-19 cases and pleas from federal health officials for people to get vaccinated.  Aides said the Biden administration is “prepared for the rising case levels” and that Biden intends to explain how his team “will respond to this challenge,” the official said. (read more)

Perhaps there will be new domestic travel restrictions for the unclean (unvaccinated) class of citizens.   Perhaps there will be new mandates, or future punishments announced for the employers of those who continue to support the unclean.  Perhaps the White House is preparing to announce new cleansing measures to target the unclean.

Regardless of the potential new rules and regulations the U.S. government is prepared to unleash, it is worthwhile to consider now exactly where your line in the sand might be located.  Where exactly will you and your family draw the line?

Ten years ago, CTH warned people to think very carefully about their family and specifically think about their physical location.  It wasn’t some arbitrary intellectual exercise, moving takes time.  Uprooting your entire family away from the comfortable social network and community is no small undertaking.   People scoffed when we warned of an open intent to fundamentally change the structure of our united states assembly.

What I am suggesting now, for those who previously might have not been willing to become uncomfortable in the details of those answers, is to get very serious in thinking and talking about exactly what level of intrusion is too much.  Only you and your family can make that decision.  Where is your line, beyond which you simply will not permit government to cross?

There are no wrong answers, and you do not need to feel pressured to answer that question for anyone except yourself.  However, I strongly encourage you to do the thinking, and to do it post haste.

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 19, 2021 | Sundance | 191 Comments

The apoplectic response to Joe Manchin’s rebuke of Biden’s Build Back Better deal in general, and specifically, their reaction to losing the climate change agenda within it, points toward the original intent of COVID-19 in the first place.

In this tweet, communist stenographer and narrative engineer Sam Stein (Politico/MSNBC) says the quiet part out loud:

Point One – The “Build Back Better” agenda was never about anything except radical climate change legislation.  Once you accept that, now admitted, baseline, things start to become much clearer.

Point Two – The “Build Back Better” phrase came from the World Economic Forum and was promoted by a multitude of international leaders and left-wing organizations.   That reality then brings up the most important point.  To get to “building back better”, you first need to destroy something.  That thing they needed to destroy was how the global economic dependency on carbon-based fuel supplies (oil, gas, coal, etc.).

Point Three – In order to destroy the ‘something of that scale’, the energy program for the entire world, something massive is needed to fundamentally change the entire world approach toward energy production.  Something is needed to create the crisis that provides the origin for the process to initiate.

Point Four – That triggering mechanism was/is SARS-CoV-2, or what we now call COVID-19 and all variants therein.

There you have it.  That’s the summary soup to nuts explanation of why a virus was created, and the subsequent panic pushing to create social structures that would facilitate the global acceptance of an entire new economic system that would be designed around saving the planet.

Through the prism of that motive, all irreconcilable panic-selling from government entities starts to make sense.

You don’t have to be a true believer at the top of the climate change pyramid to see the massive financial opportunities created by an agenda to structurally change the entire foundation of energy use on a global scale.

Factually, I would be surprised if the biggest people within Klaus Schwab’s WEF believed in anything even resembling climate change.  However, they would see the opportunity for a massive shift in global wealth, and with that comes a myriad of mechanisms and more opportunities to control it.

As I have repeated on these pages for a decade, everything is downstream from the economics of everything.  The love of money and power is at the root of all evil.

Fascism was traditionally defined as an authoritarian government working hand-in-glove with corporations to achieve objectives. A centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, using severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

That system of government didn’t work in the long-term, because the underlying principles of free people reject government authoritarianism.  Fascist governments collapsed, and the corporate beneficiaries were nulled and scorned for participating.  Then, along came a new approach to achieve the same objective.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) was created to use the same fundamental associations of government and corporations.  Only this time it was the multinational corporations who organized to tell the government(s) what to do.  The WEF was organized for multinational corporations to assemble and tell the various governments how to cooperate with them, in order to be rewarded by them.   Corporatism was/is the outcome.  The government now doing what the multinationals tell them to do, and in return the multinationals install the compliant politicians

Fascism, the cooperation between government and corporations, is still the underlying premise; the World Economic Forum simply flipped the internal dynamic putting the corporations in charge of handing out the instructions.

What results is a slightly modified definition of fascism:

…A massive multinational corporate conglomerate; telling a centralized autocratic government leader what to do; and using severe economic and social regimentation as a control mechanism; combined with forcible suppression of opposition by both the corporations and government.

Doesn’t that define our current reality, especially in the era of COVID?

The instructions from the multinationals to government would be called “Build Back Better”.

The triggering mechanism to create the crisis (BBB is designed to solve), is called SARS-CoV-2.

The program to control backlash and ensure sheeple compliance from various populations would be called “a vaccine.”

Driving fear of the Rona would be needed and disproportionate to the risk itself.   This keeps backlash in line (lockdowns, regulations etc).  If any opposition to the agenda begins to mount, the same people pushing the originating narrative then create and push a variant.  The variant, real or imagined, is then pushed forward in order to get compliance (acceptance of the BBB objective) back on track.

In my opinion, structurally changing the global economy around the threat of climate change is what this entire Coronavirus mess is all about.  They needed the virus to trigger the crisis.  The crisis then creates the roadmap to rebuilding all society -on a global level- away from fossil fuels.

Put another way: the motive behind the origin of the Coronavirus is climate change.

.

.

“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,
For the want of a horse the rider was lost,
For the want of a rider the battle was lost,
For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.”

~ Benjamin Franklin

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 19, 2021 | Sundance | 119 Comments

It’s easy to forget the previous position of nationally recognized and prominent Democrats regarding vaccine safety and efficacy. However, this short video summary provides examples of where they stood only a few months ago.

Not only did the top national Democrats question the safety of the COVID vaccine, but some also wanted to see the FDA and CDC taken apart so they could not push the vaccine upon American citizens.  WATCH:

In order for Democrats to advance their ideological agenda, they will ALWAYS pretend not to know things.

Posted originally on the conservative tree house December 19, 2021 | Sundance | 184 Comments

Within the U.K., Neil Oliver has surfaced as a reasonable and articulate voice for the average person, amid a nation of political leaders that seemingly have lost their ability to think rationally about COVID-19.  Indeed, we have watched Oliver speak eloquently to a rapidly growing audience thirsting for truth, amid a storm of widespread overreaction to COVID from U.K. government officials.

However, in the U.K. overall, there are few outlets for people to hear from any voice that runs counter to the government narrative.

Like Australia, the controls by British government over approved speech and appropriate discussion create heavy pressure upon media outlets who must obey rules and regulations that do not permit dissent on issues deemed ‘in the public health.’

As a result, this interview between Neil Oliver and Dr. Robert Malone is somewhat groundbreaking in how the GB News outlet is willing to broadcast a discussion that is generally forbidden by those who retain their tenuous grip on power through fear and intimidation.   Hopefully, this interview represents the first crack in the darkness for the British people, as they are exposed to professional medical opinion that runs counter to the government narrative for the first time.

Doctor Malone specifically states, in this interview, that children should not be vaccinated based on the risk/benefit analysis.  Additionally, Malone now states he is coming to the conclusion that COVID vaccines are no good for anybody any longer. For a U.K. broadcast this is a very controversial statement.

The segment begins at 32:50 (prompted):

Posted originally on TrialSite News by PaulAlexander on December 18, 20214 Comments

The views expressed here are my own and not of any institution or this publishing organization. 

COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children, our young children who bring statistical zero risk to the table, is all risk & no benefit, no opportunity for benefit and only opportunity for harms, thousands can die needlessly. In my opinion, the heads of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Anthony and Dr. Francis Collins as well as the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Rochelle Walensky not to mention other key players such as Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla as well as other decision makers in public health risk catastrophe with this all-encompassing, mass vaccination program without considering the true risks involved.  Already mounting data suggests children face greater risks at least with myocarditis.  That is why countries in Scandinavia have stopped, at least temporarily, the use of the Moderna vaccine among young people under 30. In my personal opinion the aggressive rush for such a mass vaccination of children without understanding the true risks borderlines on criminality. Why isn’t there more discussion about the risk-benefit analysis of children associated with these new vaccines?  Why are health leaders so aggressively pushing this without more data?  While the aggressive push to “take the jab” continues there is no underlying analysis made available to the public clearly delineating the benefits significantly outweigh the risks to young people.

Under one year of data for adults in the development of vaccines is not a lot of time meaning there is little data, and hence understanding as to true long term impacts of mass vaccination with these novel products.  What if we end up harming many children—or worse, increasing mortality? 

I believe this mass vaccination program now targeting children at this stage is both reckless and carries with it a significant probability for danger. Healthy children and young persons come prepared with a pre-activated potent innate immunity (innate antibodies and innate cellular immunity as well as other components of the innate) that is their first line of defense and which has protected them against a broad range of pathogen including COVID virus. Subscribe to the Trialsitenews “Vaccine” ChannelNo spam – we promise

It always has and this is why the morbidity and mortality burden on them has been so low, so vanishingly low. While it is true a higher number children’s cases arrived with the more transmissible delta variant, the overall numbers based on what we know still lead to a different risk-benefit analysis for children versus adults.   The recent German study and Swedish study I cited in a prior Brownstone op-ed shows that when we look at healthy children, children with no medical conditions etc. and children really in general, that we find zero deaths. Put another way, the only children’s deaths associated from COVID-19 from this point of view associate with co-morbidity situations.  Martin Makary at Johns Hopkins University alluded to the same in the US when he examined the situation whereby any child who has had problems with COVID is a child typically with underlying illness including obesity that emerged as a super-loaded risk factor especially in the minority community and poorer communities. No one wants to lose a child and it is the greatest disaster and very painful and one will never recover, but we must be honest as we discuss this issue for serious implicating policy is made with little democratic input– we must separate emotions and hysteria and rhetoric from the table and talk pure science and evidence and sound risk-benefit strategies for vaccination 

While driving mass vaccination of children based on faulty assumptions is problem enough, if done so under false pretense or what I term “lies” then this crisis must be identified and called out. 

Now is the time to demand a proper risk-benefit analysis prior to any COVID inoculation programs targeting children and young people. A cross-representation of society, including parents, must wake up and understand the tremendous risks involved while action must be taken to ensure rational and safe approaches in response to the pandemic.  Our children are the most vulnerable in society to new vaccinations while they face the least risk with severe illness and mortality associated with COVID-19.  Also, it’s well acknowledged now that the current vaccines after just a few months do not universally stop transmission. 

Over the past 22 months during this pandemic data indicates children revealed a very low risk of acquiring infection in the first place, of spreading to other children, of spreading to adults and teachers, of taking it home, of getting seriously ill, or of dying from COVID. Based on my research I can find no evidence countering this evidence, with any variant! COVID has spared our children, other than a statistically small group experiencing certain comorbidities, and overall, the youth’s innate immune system affords great protection against severe disease.   Why breach this first-line, beautiful ‘gifted’ innate immunity by the hand of life—supporting natural acquired immunity to back up. 

Children can handle COVID exceptionally well so leave them alone! We are liable to hurt children in the short, medium, and long term with mass COVID vaccination. We may end up killing many with these safety untested vaccines. The proper follow-up was not done! 

We may witness our typically healthy children, who had no illness before the vaccine, become ill, some  I am troubled, seriously so. I plead with parents to step back and think carefully about this for these vaccines were accelerated and lack the type of safety testing data needed for us to ‘exclude harms’ as part of informed evidence-based decision-making. We cannot even access key underlying safety reports from the regulatory bodies or companies—FOIAs trigger heavily redacted documents and fully transparency is proposed in decades. PREP Act shields all organizations (pharma, hospitals, etc.) involved from any liability except for a small government fund capped at $50,000 per person.  (https://trialsitenews.com/fda-approval-of-pfizer-puts-consumers-in-ultimate-squeeze-prep-act-liability-shields-ongoing-while-fed-state-local-authorities-now-force-vaccinations/ ). A number of actions need to happen, and now. We must develop a transparent framework to understand the true risks and benefits of vaccination with children—and this can empower parents to make the most beneficial and rational of decisions on their children’s behalf.  Parents must demand that liability protection be removed so that if a child is harmed or dies, that they can take these decision-makers into a legal forum for redress. No liability = no trust. 

I warn.

Call to Action: See Dr. Alexander’s website here.

Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted Dec 19, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Stephane Bancel, the man speaking in this video, is the CEO of Moderna.