Tag Archives: Venezuela

Jul 11 2020

Omar’s Hypocrisy


Oh the hypocrisy! Democrats have no shame or morals and the Fake Noose Media will never call them out!

But we will!

Rep. Ilhan Omar called for the dismantling of not just our nation’s economy, but the entire political system. Add to that her support of “defunding the Police” and the “Breathe act” she is sponsoring along with the rest of the radical marxist “Squad” members.

Omar railed against the American economy system as being a “system of oppression” and scolded Americans that we cannot allow people to “prioritize profit without considering who is profiting.”

Yes, let’s consider that Rep. Omar.

Who is profiting?

Let’s ask your husband Tim Mynett. Mymett runs a consulting company that Omar has paid a massive $878,000.00 to for “consulting” and emails and such. You know the drill. The nepotism runs deep in Washington DC and is present in both parties.

What upsets us the most is this is all perfectly legal under the laws designed by politicians for politicians to enrich themselves.

Just ask Nancy Pelosi.

Or Hunter Biden.

Or Jared Kushner.

If you REALLY wanted to stop politicians from “prioritizing profit without considering who is profiting” you may want to look in the mirror Rep. Omar.

Tina

Jul 11 2020

Argentina – Our Model for the What Lies Ahead?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Socialist

Re-Posted Jul 11, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT:

Hi Marty,

Great video. I traveled there back in 2011. Graffiti everywhere condemning the Junta that governed the country in the late 70’s. Beautiful people but totally brainwashed by its politicians…the same now happening here. Very sad. The pace at which things are moving out of control in this country today is simply staggering. Today, the mindset of people, the level of idiocy I see everywhere, the willingness to assign blame without understanding the root causes of our problems illustrates how deeply embedded and effective the “class warfare” propaganda of the left in this country has helped to push us to the brink.
It won’t take much to push us over the cliff now given how easily people have come to accept the lies coming from its political leaders. We deserve our fate.
MS
REPLY: It is really unbelievable how nobody bothers to look at history. Attacking Jefferson who started the anti-slavery was over the top. Will they now attack Italians celebrating Columbus day? I am deeply concerned for the rising civil unrest the computer has been projecting worldwide.
Jul 11 2020

On D Tube Angie Lee – Breakdown a must watch!


https://player.d.tube/btfs/QmQ7qADasqiREaz3DVNszrKB5EsTF75YZEPt7GnPyUiGyi

eyesopen2020

 

Published on Jul 8, 2020 
Nothing disrupts the system like an inquisitive mind. Most people are now so indoctrinated and brainwashed , to the point of complete and utter complete idiocy. I would rather be called a conspiracy theorist than a brainless, subservient sheep. Just think why no politician or billionaire got sick or died from this “ deadly” virus or, why no politician or billionaire lost their income ormhad their businesses looted. Unfortunately, those who really need to watch this clip will bypass…. Blessed are the poor in spirit I guess…  Jeremy Elliot breaks it down perfectly! IG/ @theiconicpodcast

Jul 10 2020

There Is No Expiration Date on God-Given Rights!


Despot-like Government Shutdowns: Only One Threat to Religious Freedom

Dennis Jamison image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—July 9, 2020

There Is No Expiration Date on God-Given Rights!

This year’s Independence Day celebrations were tainted by the poisonous divisiveness of political posturing since it is an election year. But, 2020 is unlike any other election year—it represents a turning point in the history of the United States of America. What exists at the heart of all of the nasty division, which may not be easily seen with all of the anarchists and Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioting across the country, is the core of the battle for the soul of America.

It is likely that America’s legacy further into the 21st century, and possibly its future survival, will be decided from the outcome of this election. That is not an exaggeration. Already anarchists and Marxists are attempting to abort history through tearing down the statues of historical figures. Yet, tearing down the statues represents “symbolic” actions aimed at much bigger targets. Such targeted statues were not only national heroes—heroes of the ending of slavery, heroes who fought to preserve the Union, but also religious symbols—such as tearing down statues of white Jesus, as commentator and BLM advocate Shaun King demanded in June:

Antifa, a totally militant Marxist organization, Black Lives Matter terrorists really have two major targets. Symbols of religion—symbols of faith, religion itself. The other is the Constitution

“All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down,” King wrote in a second tweet. “They are   a gross form of white supremacy.”

“Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down,” King wrote on Twitter. “They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been.” — Shaun King (@shaunking) June 22, 2020

So Antifa, a totally militant Marxist organization as James O’Keefe and Project Veritas have verified, and the Black Lives Matter terrorists really have two major targets. One of the targets is the symbols of religion—symbols of faith, and religion itself. The other is the Constitution as described in another of my recent articles. The root of such poison is in Marxist ideology that declares religion as the opiate of the people. Then, by logical extension, if religion is a false “crutch” for people, it must be removed because it harms a Marxist society. Like Nazis, who convinced the German people through sophisticated propaganda that mentally ill people were a drain upon Germany, communist ideology and committed Marxist leaders view religious people in a similar light.

An essential point for committed Socialist/Marxist/Communist leaders is that the concept of religious freedom is harmful to healthy socialist societies because faith represents a fallacious perception of reality. Marxism is basically a God-denying ideology. Its philosophical worldview is that God does not exist; thus, there is no real purpose for religion. If one denies God, Marxists concur that the concept of God-given rights is ridiculous. While condescension towards people of faith may exist within the secular-humanists, such condescension under Socialist governments, and especially under Communist regimes, morphs into legalized persecution and oppression of people of faith and religious groups. It is “systemic intolerance” of faith.

U.S.A. Hardcore Marxist leaders use anarchists and Brown Shirts and other assorted terrorists to manifest fear in the population and destabilize government

So, for all the people in the United States who think a Marxist revolution could not take place in the U.S., think again. Americans now witness a “sanitized,” made-for-television type of Marxist revolution on American soil. People could think it’s trending toward the 2020 version of “Hunger Games.” Did not the people in the inner cities fear for their lives as the rioters ravaged the streets? Do they not now fear the defunding of the only force that stands between a civil environment and anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness?

Let us ask two simple questions: What is the job of an anarchist? The purpose of most anarchists is to destroy civil stability and government institutions. What do terrorists do? The main purpose of most terrorists is to generate fear and panic within a governmental system in order to generate public confusion, distrust, and division. This is happening right now in the U.S.A. Hardcore Marxist leaders use anarchists and Brown Shirts and other assorted terrorists to manifest fear in the population and destabilize government. Amazingly, some government institutions are already under the influence or control of Socialists and Communists.

This is America 2020. The Brown Shirts have been unleashed upon city streets. A “sanitized” version of a Marxist revolution is under way. It has little to do with an illusion of “systemic racism.” It is about exercising a physical, militant presence to show relative power or political strength. Anarchists and terrorists do what they do according to their purpose unless they are arrested, hindered, or stopped in one way or another. But, what would stop this militant reality show short of physical confrontation or armed combat?

What would stop this “sanitized” Marxist revolution designed to generate widespread public support while destroying the country? Number one: A police presence that is dedicated to protecting all the citizens’ lives is capable of checking unbridled, unlawful activities Americans witness now. And, what are the Antifa and BLM demands? Defund the police? Yes. What are Socialists and Communists embedded in governments calling for? Defund the police? Yes, of course. Defund the police! Does common sense tell intelligent people that this type of solution would ensure the protection of the citizens?

The power of faith is a threat to Marxists; it goes a long way in dismantling the politics of fear

What would stop or hinder actions to promote fear and panic? Number two: A revival   of faith in America would penetrate the efforts at provoking divisiveness and terror in the population. What are secular-humanist government officials continuing to dismantle? In “COVID-plagued” America, they are closing churches, hindering attendance at faith-based worship services. Those intolerant of faith even initiate mandated penalties, fines, even arrests for people who openly profess their faith. Yet, how much genuine effort was made to arrest Antifa and BLM rioters? Or, if such terrorists were arrested, how long did they actually stay in jail? The power of faith is a threat to Marxists; it goes a long way in dismantling the politics of fear.

Let us ask a few more questions: Why have there been so many court cases against religious people in recent years? Why have so many people of faith had to go into the secular court system to fight for their God-given rights? If the U.S. government was established to secure the people’s God-given rights, why is there any fight in the first place? Who are the elected officials that are holding on to the self-evident truths today?

Secular humanists, God-denying atheists, and many lost souls truly cannot believe in the fundamental premises of the Declaration of Independence

Secular humanists, God-denying atheists, and many lost souls truly cannot believe in the fundamental premises of the Declaration of Independence if they do not believe in God. So, for such people who are already in positions of power with state and federal government agencies, where does that leave an adherence to the Declaration? Where does that leave citizens’ God-given rights?—Or the willingness to protect such freedom under the Bill of Rights? It would seem that if the God-given rights of the Founders are no longer tolerated in America, all of the other freedoms that are linked to this self-evident truth, would no longer retain significant authority. All other freedoms   hinge on religious freedom.

Yet, there was no expiration date for those God-given, inalienable rights. Inalienable means inseparable from such rights. America just wItnessed representatives of the taxpayers of Seattle “coming to their senses” and realizing they had allowed a criminal element to jeopardize citizens’ God-given rights. Those public figures reversed their thinking and returned dominion to a free people. This action is even more symbolic than the tearing down of statues. It should be an example for all Americans. Citizens who love America need to reaffirm their hold on self-evident truths. God-given rights still exist; they are still protected; and we all need to proclaim we will not let go of these rights that God gave to His children.

Jul 10 2020

The Nature of Freedom


Ensure that we understand the fundamental difference between the two definitions of freedom

Ron Lipsman image

Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House By  —— Bio and Archives—July 9, 2020

The Nature of Freedom

The title suggests that there might be something ambiguous about the definition of freedom. Well according to our old friends Merriam and Webster, it is “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Sounds about right to me. The freedoms enjoyed by all Americans are – according to our Declaration of Independence – natural rights, inherent to us as human beings, granted to us by Nature or God, and not by the Government, but secured for us by the Government. I’ve emphasized the word to for a reason that will be clear momentarily.

OK what are those rights that I have, my possession of which is characterized by the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint? These are spelled out generally in the Declaration, more specifically in the Constitution – including the Bill of Rights – and in the constitutionally permissible laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. There is no secret here; they include:

Freedom: Absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

  • the right to reside where I choose
  • the right to pursue the vocation I choose
  • the right to marry, and more generally associate with, whomever I choose
  • the right to worship as I wish
  • the right to petition the Government
  • the right to peacefully assemble
  • the right to state my opinion
  • the right to a trial by a jury of my peers if accused of a crime.

There are more of course, but note the common word to. That is not surprising since Webster specifies that a freedom entails a choice or an action – that is, things I choose to do or act upon – which choice or action is free from necessity, coercion or constraint. And so it has been understood – from the time of the American Revolution.

But beginning in the late 1890s, catching fire in the 1910s, and reigniting strongly in the 1930s, 1960s and 2010s, a substantial minority – and increasingly, looking like a majority – of the American people have settled on an alternate definition of the word freedom. If I may be permitted the liberty, I would state the new definition as follows: “the presence of security, comfort or guarantees in state or being.”

Now let us follow on this new definition with an exact parallel to the discussion above following the classic definition. First, the folks who propound the new definition rarely, explicitly discuss the origin or fount for these rights which are to be accorded to all residents of the USA. They – like Mr. Jefferson – hold them to be self-evident; but they scarcely specify their author, originator, source or justification. Self-evidence seems to be enough – although, alas, what is evident to you may be opaque to me.

Presidential founders of progressivism: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Obama

Well, what are these rights that I should have that will guarantee my well-being by rendering my state more comfortable and secure? They have been spelled out by the presidential founders of progressivism: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Obama. They include:

  • freedom from want (i.e., poverty)
  • freedom from fear (i.e., anything that makes me afraid); e.g.
  • freedom from expression of opinions that make me uncomfortable
  • freedom from prejudice
  • freedom from unfair competition (esp. from those more skilled or experienced than me)
  • freedom from violence (e.g., presence of guns)
  • freedom from superstition (i.e., religion)
  • freedom from incarceration
  • freedom from armed government agents (the police, ICE, etc.)
  • freedom from xenophobia (e.g., about undocumented immigrants).

Note now that the common word is from rather than to. That is because these freedoms do not pertain to an action or choice, but to a feeling or emotion or an external force on one’s person. As with ‘freedom to,’ there are more than those delineated above, e.g., freedom from illness or freedom from ignorance. And as with the first set of freedoms, these new freedoms are to be secured or guaranteed by the Government. But unlike the first set of freedoms, these are not granted or accorded to us by Nature or God; they are not natural rights in that sense. They are simply rights that just ought to be accorded to all individuals – or more precisely – to all groups living in an advanced society.

By whose authority? By the people themselves since the rights are self-evidently manifest to any enlightened member of society. Moreover, unlike the natural rights in the Founders’ society, the rights in the modern, enlightened society may evolve and change over time. New rights may be discovered; old rights may be discarded. Finally, the people, via their primary vehicle, the Government, determine what the current set of rights are, and then enforce them also via the Government. Thus, a “Living Constitution!” Which of course implies: Obsolescence of the Declaration and Abrogation of the Constitution.

It’s not my purpose here to compare the relative merits of the two systems. Rather it is to ensure that we understand the fundamental difference between the two definitions of freedom, and to allow the reader to ponder the drastic and overwhelming changes that would ensue if we the people discard the first definition and adopt the second. I will examine some of those changes in a future piece.

Jul 10 2020

The 2020 Election & Supreme Court Ruling


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Jul 10, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: What does the new Supreme Court decision on the electoral college really mean? Does this prevent Hillary from becoming the candidate?

HF

ANSWER: It means that the delegates must vote for the popular vote in their state, based only on the national election. Nevertheless, this does not address what if Joe Biden were to slip and fall or somehow become mentally disabled after the primary elections yet before the Democratic Convention. This is the electoral college that only comes into play with the actual national election and does NOT involve the primaries.

This also does not disturb the fact that, should there be a tie in the Electoral College, this is what is called a “contingent election” where the election of the president then goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner. This took place only twice so far in history during the election of 1800 and 1824.

 

Jul 9 2020

Ghislaine Spins The Wheel of Death


Ghislaine will “never” be allowed to “Tell” us who she and Epstein had as Customers in their pedophile club.

Joe Biden has a problem and it’s not just his dementia. Ghislaine Maxwell could spill the beans on a great many Democrats as well as on a legion of left-leaning celebrities who support Joe. More scuffing added to Joe’s already tarnished image won’t help his presidential chances. Joe has long been seen as a pedophile that likes to grope children in public. One would think Joe would be aware of this negative public perception and refrain from such pawing, but he just can’t help himself and that’s a very bad sign.

Joe may look a little like the retired game show host Bob Barker, but he lacks Bob’s grace, character, and quick wit. Joe Biden is a disaster on wheels and Maxwell’s testimony will only make him look worse. Joe is the pick of the powerful elite, so Ghislaine (pronounced Gee-lane with a hard g) has to be worried. We all know what happened to her best friend Jeffrey Epstein. The elite running the world still don’t want to risk outright exposure. Even though many of us already know they are satanic fiends and pedophiles, they won’t hesitate to snuff people out to keep their kabuki theaters and Potemkin Villages moving along. Remember Epstein’s multi-millionaire pal Steve Bing? Some of Bing’s friends urged him to tell the world what he knew about Epstein and the pedophile ring. He ended up getting tossed from his high-rise luxury apartment. The elite-owned mass media dutifully called it a “suicide.” Yeah. Sure.

As I’ve mentioned before, sociopaths such as Epstein and Maxwell don’t kill themselves because they feel no guilt. In their minds they’ve done nothing wrong and they love themselves too much to commit suicide. However, their powerful overlords are even more sociopathic and won’t hesitate to pull the plug. Again.

Big wheels keep on turning.

—Ben Garrison

Jul 9 2020

Latest Progressive Anti-Israel Campaign in Congress


The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad

Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist image

Re–posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—July 8, 2020

Latest Progressive Anti-Israel Campaign in Congress

With the wind at her back following her recent primary victory, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is taking the lead in challenging Israel’s possible extension of sovereignty over certain areas within the West Bank. She authored a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warning that any move by Israel to extend its sovereignty into such areas would jeopardize continued U.S. military aid to the Jewish state. Senator Bernie Sanders signed AOC’s letter along with 11 other Democrat House members, including AOC’s fellow “Squad” members Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. Anti-Semitic organizations that back the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel are also in AOC’s corner.

AOC’s reckless restrictions

“Should the Israeli government continue down this path,” AOC’s letter warns, “we will work to ensure non-recognition of annexed territories as well as pursue legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way. We will include human rights conditions and the withholding of funds for the offshore procurement of Israeli weapons equal to or exceeding the amount the Israeli government spends annually to fund settlements, as well as the policies and practices that sustain and enable them.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not taken a public position one way or the other on whether she would back legislation advancing AOC’s threat to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel. In any case, if legislation containing AOC’s reckless restrictions were to somehow reach President Trump’s desk, he would surely veto it. However, if Joe Biden is elected this November to replace President Trump and the Democrats end up controlling both the House and Senate, the legislation may well gain momentum and have a much better chance of passage. Biden will then likely sign it.

AOC asserts in her letter that “Israeli annexation of the West Bank is a clear violation of international law.” She added, “Annexation is prohibited by and is a prohibited act of aggression under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a party.”

The United Nations and most of its member states, including Western European countries, agree with AOC’s simplistic assertions. But just declaring that an action violates “international law” does not make it so, no matter how many times the assertion is repeated. Even the word “annexation,” when used to describe what Israel may decide to do after further internal discussions, is misplaced. The outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, has used the more accurate phrase “applying sovereignty” to territory where the Jewish people have historical legal claims of their own that are superior to the Palestinians. The West Bank (or Judea and Samaria as Israelis prefer to refer to this territory) does not belong legally to the Palestinians and never has.

PLO declared that the “avowed aim of the organization was to blot out the State of Israel”

International treaties preceding the formation of the UN are still recognized by the UN Charter. This included the 1920 San Remo Conference, which assigned the Mandate for Palestine to the British following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. This Mandate included what is now known as the West Bank within a future homeland envisioned for the Jewish people. This means, as the outgoing Israeli UN Ambassador Danon observed, “the cause for a Jewish state became part of international law,” which carried over to the United Nations. The Palestinian leadership and their enablers reject these historical underpinnings of Israel’s claims, not to mention the Jewish people’s ancient roots in the holy land of Israel.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to look past all this history, the so-called “Arab Higher Committee” forfeited, on the Palestinians’ behalf, the immediate legal recognition of a new independent Arab state for the Palestinians when the Committee rejected the allocation of partitioned land for such new state under the UN General Assembly’s November 1947 Resolution 181. The Palestinian leadership chose instead to join the armies of their neighboring Arab states in an aggressive war to destroy the newly independent Jewish State of Israel that had been established in compliance with Resolution 181. That war ended in an armistice, with Jordan illegally seizing the West Bank during the 1948-49 war, which it occupied illegally for 19 years.

Between 1948 and 1967, there was no attempt to establish an independent sovereign Palestinian state within the seized Jordanian-controlled territory. In fact, the 1964 National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization stated the opposite: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.” The PLO declared that the “avowed aim of the organization was to blot out the State of Israel.”

During the 1967 Six Day War, Jordan launched an aggressive attack on Israel. Israel defended itself, which it had the legal right to do under international law, including pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter. To help ensure its future defense against further acts of aggression, Israel took over control of Jordan’s illegally seized lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Palestinian terrorism against Israel existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”  (emphasis added) Jordan violated Article 2(4) with its illegal seizure and occupation of the West Bank and its attack, 19 years later, upon pre-June 1967 Israel. The collection of Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza did not constitute a legally recognizable “state” in 1967. Persons of Palestinian origin were granted Jordanian citizenship after 1948, which remained the case until at least 1988. When Israel became the only sovereign UN member state in control of any lands in the West Bank after its victory against Jordanian aggression in 1967, Israel had not taken one iota of land belonging legally to any other independent sovereign state.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967, remains in effect today. Resolution 242 contemplated negotiations amongst the parties to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the assistance of a UN Special Representative, based on the principle of “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

While Resolution 242 called for the withdrawal of “Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” it pointedly did not demand complete withdrawal from all such territories. Israel has demonstrated on repeated occasions its willingness to negotiate a genuine “peace for land” exchange with the Palestinians. However, Palestinian leaders have rejected successive offers of land for peace, including one in 2008 under which Israel would have withdrawn from virtually all of the West Bank and partitioned Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

Palestinian terrorism against Israel existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Since 1967, the Palestinians have continued their acts of terrorism against Israelis living within the lines of pre-June 1967 Israel, aided and abetted by the Iranian regime. The number of cross-border operations reached almost 1,500 in 1968, before there were any extensive Israeli settlements, barriers or checkpoints. After Israel unilaterally withdrew its military personnel and Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005 and gave the Palestinians a chance to create a completely self-governing entity of their own, Hamas ended up taking control. The terrorists used Gaza as their launching pad for rocket attacks and other terrorist assaults against civilians living inside Israel. Palestinian terrorists also snuck into Israeli cities from the West Bank, conducting suicide bombings, vehicular attacks, shootings and knifings.

The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad

Thus, Israel is fully justified in believing that its “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force,” as promised by Resolution 242, would be impossible to realize if it were to revert to the pre-June 1967 lines. The Palestinians’ continued refusal to engage in direct negotiations over the final disposition of border issues leaves Israel no choice but to consider applying formal sovereignty over areas within the West Bank it considers necessary for its defense and to protect Jewish residents living in those areas.

Subsequent UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions purported to impose upon Israel a so-called internationally recognized “border” with an independent Palestinian state based on the pre-June 1967 lines (unless the Palestinians voluntarily agree to make any adjustments). The resolutions also purported to declare East Jerusalem (including Jewish holy sites in the Old City) as the capital of the Palestinian state. The West Bank is not one of the UN-administered trusteeship territories. Nothing in the UN Charter, established international law, or the foundational Security Council Resolution 242 provide any legal authority for such arbitrary drawing of borders by unaccountable UN bodies.

“With history and international law on its side, and given the Palestinians continued unwillingness to negotiate with and recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” outgoing Israeli UN Ambassador Danon declared, “Israel’s government will begin the internal discussion of how to apply sovereignty to our most ancient lands in Judea and Samaria. Those who decry it as ‘annexation’ are doing nothing more than appeasing the Palestinian narrative and making peace ever more elusive. This puts them, to use their words, on the wrong side of history.”

The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad. But Ambassador Danon has indicated that Israel will not yield to outside threats regarding its sovereignty decisions. We can only hope that the traditional bipartisan support for Israel in Congress will not significantly erode, even as friends of Israel such as long-time Congressman Eliot Engel lose to anti-Israel progressives and AOC exerts greater influence as a result.

Jul 9 2020

My investigation: the cult of COVID


They’ll go to war on the basis of a claim. In this instance, it turns out to be an economic war against the people of Earth. A psychological war. A war against freedom

Jon Rappoport image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  — NoMoreFakeNews—— Bio and Archives—July 8, 2020

cult of COVID
After I published several recent articles, an issue was raised.  I’ll use it as an introduction to the cult of COVID.

I stated that a new COVID virus was never properly discovered.  Then I was asked: so are countries all over the world pretending the virus is real?

Answer: No, they’re not pretending.  “Countries” aren’t doing anything.  Government leaders are issuing edicts, on the scientific and medical advice of officials surrounding them.  These officials are true believers.  They have faith that the COVID virus exists.  Why?  They’ve been told it exists by their bosses.  And so it goes, all the way up the line, in the cult.  Bigger and bigger bosses, all of them true believers.

THAT’S why the correct study hasn’t been done

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Yes, a lab here and a lab there claim they have isolated the new COVID virus.  But they have not done a complete STUDY to prove the existence of a new virus.

A complete and coherent study would involve, say, a thousand “epidemic” patients, side by side.

Researchers would make electron microscope photos of tissue samples taken from all the patients—-the photos would be made AFTER these samples have been subjected to proper purification processes, involving a centrifuge and the correct collection of viral material from the centrifuge.

Such a study hasn’t been done, and it won’t be done.

Why?  Because there is a great risk from reading the results of a thousand side by side electron microscope photos.  If the photos don’t match up, if they don’t all show particles of the same virus, and if those particles aren’t unique—-i.e., never before seen—-then two things happen: the claim that one virus is causing a pandemic collapses; and the claim of discovering a new virus collapses.

THAT’S why the correct study hasn’t been done.

Little anecdotal claims from this lab and that lab don’t amount to a hill of beans.  They’re irrelevant.

The scientists who are in the cult believe in their own special procedure of discovering a new virus

So what is left?  A kernel of nothing—-“the virus exists”—-passed from hand to hand, shared by all, signifying Belief.  Reflex Belief.

EVERYTHING that follows, stemming from a false belief in a new virus, is meaningless.

It all goes back to the beginning.  That’s where the fabrication was hatched.

Before you say, BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT, read my many previous articles.  I account for people getting sick and dying and being falsely labeled COVID.  There is no need to invoke a new virus.

A large cult is composed of many layers of foot soldiers, all of whom believe.  But when you get to the top, you see a few people who know the truth.  They lie about the discovery of a new virus, and they spread that lie to further their own agenda—-in this case, destruction of nations and the ushering in of a fascist technocracy for the planet, a Brave New World.

But, as I say, the main body of the cult, the millions of mask wearers and the distancing people and the doctors and the mayors and the governors and the routine public health officials and so on—-they go on faith.  Their god is Fauci, and television, and news.

The scientists who are in the cult believe in their own special procedure of discovering a new virus.  They “sequence its genetic structure.”  This is their scripture and bible.  But the problem is, what kind of sample are they starting with?  They say it is a new virus, but this, too, is faith.  It could be part of an irrelevant virus, it could be a whole but decaying irrelevant virus, it could be a random piece of genetic material, or cellular debris, or exosomes; whatever.  And if this sample is used as the basis of analysis at many labs, they will all come up with the same irrelevant result.  To which they will bow down.

Economic war against the people of Earth.  A psychological war.  A war against freedom

A geneticist tried to sell me the results of a single small study, in which a purported COVID-19 virus was injected into mice and caused them to get sick.  This, to him, was proof that, indeed, a new dangerous virus had been discovered.

I was dumbfounded, but not too dumbfounded to reply.  First of all, the mice had been genetically altered.  Why?  Usually, that means their immune systems were disabled.  In which case, any old germ could make them ill.

Second, the whole purpose of doing animal studies—-as misguided as that practice is—-is to move up the chain of species until you get to animals that most closely resemble humans.  Which are apes.  Definitely not mice.

And third, even if a virus can make ordinary unaltered mice ill, so what?  They still haven’t proved that virus is new—-which is the claim for COVID.

But they try.  They keep trying and failing to prove that a new coronavirus exists which is causing a global pandemic.

Cults don’t care.  They will announce any claim and back it up with any useless piece of evidence.  They’ll go to war on the basis of a claim.  In this instance, it turns out to be an economic war against the people of Earth.  A psychological war.  A war against freedom.

Jul 9 2020

Biden, Browner, And The Green New Deal


Jack Dini image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—July 8, 2020

Biden, Browner, And The Green New Deal

Joe Biden’s campaign is unveiling a ‘Climate Engagement Advisory Council” aimed at mobilizing voters who prioritize climate change and environmental justice. November’s election is a stark contrast between Biden, whose platform goes much further than Obama-era policies,  and President Trump, who largely dismisses the problem, and is rolling back his predecessor’s initiatives. 1

Joe Biden has picked Carol Browner as a climate adviser. Browner was the Clinton EPA chief and Obama energy and environment czar.

President Obama’s climate czar, Browner

As President Obama’s climate czar, Browner told lawmakers to embrace the Green New Deal, and later suggested they start by codifying the Obama regulations that President Trump was trying to undo. 2

Browner’s remarks came a few hours after lawmakers unveiled their resolution for the Green New Deal, which would transition the US economy entirely away from fossil fuels within ten years while simultaneously providing federal jobs and health care guarantees. It would also, according to proponents advance ‘social’ economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative public ownership.

“Let’s just take a moment to, like, say this is a good thing. This is a big challenge, and it deserves a big response. A lot of the details we’ll need to work through and sort out, but today’s a good day. We took a big step forward. And it’s only through aspiration and vision that we make progress, so I’m excited,” she said. 2

Steve Milloy reports, “Carol Browner was a commissioner in Socialist International. This revelation has been ignored by the mainstream media and blithely dismissed by her supporters. Socialist International is precisely what it sounds like—a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause. Founded in 1951, its organizing document rails against capitalism, asserting that it ‘has been incapable of satisfying the elementary needs of the world’s population..unable to function without devastating crises and mass unemployment..produced social insecurity and glaring contrasts between rich and poor..(and) resorted to imperialist expansion and colonial exploitation..” Socialist International also asserts.”  3

According to its own principles, Socialist International favors the nationalization of industry, is skeptical of the benefits of economic growth and wants to establish a more ‘equitable international economic order.’ In true Marxist form, it asserts that, “the concentration of economic power in few private hands must be replaced by a different order in which each person is entitled—as citizen, consumer or wage earner—to influence the direction and distribution of production, the shaping of the means of production, and the conditions of working life.”

“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as how do you change the entire economy thing,’”

Steve Milloy concludes, “You know, one might get the impression that there’s actually something wrong with, and embarrassing about a key White House adviser advocating the undermining of a basic principle of our economic system.” 3

All of this sounds like the words of Green New Deal Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proponent’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, who admitted recently that the true motivation behind the Green New Deal is to overhaul the ‘entire economy.’  “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as how do you change the entire economy thing,’” he said. 4

References

  1. Ben Geman, “Biden rolls out team to boost climate vote,” axios.com, July 3, 2020
  2. Adam Aton, “Copy Obama to kick-start ‘Green New Deal’”, eenews.net, February 8, 2019
  3. Steve Milloy, “Browner: redder than Obama knows,” junkscience.com, January 15, 2009
  4. Jack Crowe, “AOC’s chief of staff admits the green new deal is not about cliamte change,” nationalreview.com, July 12, 2019