humansarefree--2020-10-31--Time Magazine Announces ‘The Great Reset’ to Usher in World Socialism

The subtitle for the Time feature proposes a special occasion of the present moment for such an initiative , asserting ‘ The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want… to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.
’ ( LifeSiteNews ) — Time magazine has devoted an entire issue to promoting an initiative called “ The Great Reset , ” referred to by one commentator as “ the Green New Deal on steroids ” which will seek to “ advance socialist ideals , including the destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the World Economic Forum ( WEF ) , the primary sponsor of the initiative , “ The Great Reset ” seeks to address “ an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis , ” with an expanded goal of improving “ the state of the world.
” The WEF was founded by German Professor Klaus Schwab in 1971 and has been gathering “ heads of state , billionaires , and heads of big business ” yearly to discuss “ economical and governance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sovereign decisions , promoting nondiscrimination , ‘ to transform economies and societies.
’ ” The subtitle for the Time feature proposes a special occasion of the present moment for such an initiative , asserting “ The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want… to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.
” Repeating this theme in the brief video below , Schwab announces : “ The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit anymore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid bare the fundamental lack of social cohesion , fairness , inclusion , and equality .
Now is the historical moment , the time , not only to fight the virus but to shape the system … for the post COVID era… In short , we need a Great Reset !
” In his contribution to this special issue of Time , Prof. Schwab expands upon the meaning of “ The Great Reset ” in an article titled “ A Better Economy Is Possible .
But We Need to Reimagine Capitalism to Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upside ” to the COVID-19 crisis , “ the drop in greenhouse-gas emissions , which brought slight , temporary relief to the planet ’ s atmosphere , ” Schwab went on to announce , “ there are reasons to believe that a better economic system is possible — and that it could be just around the corner.
” Admiring the “ cooperation between governments and business ” in developing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines , the WEF executive chairman hoped that such patterns of collaboration “ can become a feature of our economic systems rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends , particularly with regards to “ social and governance goals , ” Dr. Schwab proposes something called “ Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics ” which are additional non-financial disclosures for companies in their annual reports .
These metrics would include answering questions such as : “ What is the gender pay gap in company X ?
How many people of diverse backgrounds were hired and promoted ?
What progress has the company made toward reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions ?
How much did the company pay in taxes globally and per jurisdiction ?
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schwab affirms that “ The Great Reset , ” will “ require stronger and more effective governments ” and the “ creating … [ of ] incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental , social , and governance ( ESG ) metrics.
” He also asserts that “ the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies , from education to social contracts and working conditions.
” “ Every country , from the United States to China , must participate , and every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tech , must be transformed .
In short , we need a ‘ Great Reset ’ of capitalism , ” Schwab continues .
As further explained , by Sharan Burrow , general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation , the global economy needs “ rebalancing.
” “ We need to design policies to align with investment in people and the environment , ” Burrow said .
“ But above all , the longer-term perspective is about rebalancing economies.
” In an August 6 video presentation on “ The Great Reset , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addressed the connection between the coronavirus crisis and the lockdowns .
“ This is not about COVID anymore .
This is about a reset of everything .
And the United States of America is in the way right now of all of it , so they are destabilizing our entire country , ” Matt said .
“ The name of the game now is to bring the United States economy to its knees , get it out of the way , so that everyone will want ‘ The Great Reset , ’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Great Reset , then , politically , [ and ] economically … wants to implement massive socialist programs , and , of course , global climate change along the lines of the Green New Deal .
The regulation is going to be unbelievable.
” The only person standing in the way of this global effort , Matt asserts , is Donald Trump .
While addressing the WEF annual gathering in Davos , Switzerland last January , the U.S. President stated : “ We are committed to conserving the majesty of God ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our world… But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow , we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse… “ These alarmists always demand the same thing : absolute power to dominate , transform and control every aspect of our lives .
We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy , wreck our country , or eradicate our liberty .
America will always be the proud , strong , and unyielding bastion of freedom.
” While the specifics of the “ Great Reset ” have yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be disclosed at the WEF meeting in January 2021 .
However , given the evidence , Justin Haskins of the Heartland Institute concludes , “ it ’ s clear that the purpose of the plan … is to move the world economy toward socialism , using climate change and COVID-19 as justifications.
” And in order to help defeat the “ Great Reset , ” Michael Matt advises , “ pray that Trump wins in November .
”

The subtitle for the Time feature proposes a special occasion of the present moment for such an initiative, asserting ‘The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want… to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.’
(LifeSiteNews) — Time magazine has devoted an entire issue to promoting an initiative called “The Great Reset,” referred to by one commentator as “the Green New Deal on steroids” which will seek to “advance socialist ideals, including the destruction of capitalism and individual rights.”
According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), the primary sponsor of the initiative, “The Great Reset” seeks to address “an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis,” with an expanded goal of improving “the state of the world.”
The WEF was founded by German Professor Klaus Schwab in 1971 and has been gathering “heads of state, billionaires, and heads of big business” yearly to discuss “economical and governance issues… common world rules to supersede national sovereign decisions, promoting nondiscrimination, ‘to transform economies and societies.’”
The subtitle for the Time feature proposes a special occasion of the present moment for such an initiative, asserting “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want… to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.”
Repeating this theme in the brief video below, Schwab announces:
“The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit anymore for the 21st century. It has laid bare the fundamental lack of social cohesion, fairness, inclusion, and equality. Now is the historical moment, the time, not only to fight the virus but to shape the system … for the post COVID era… In short, we need a Great Reset!”
In his contribution to this special issue of Time, Prof. Schwab expands upon the meaning of “The Great Reset” in an article titled “A Better Economy Is Possible. But We Need to Reimagine Capitalism to Do It.”
Celebrating “the only immediate upside” to the COVID-19 crisis, “the drop in greenhouse-gas emissions, which brought slight, temporary relief to the planet’s atmosphere,” Schwab went on to announce, “there are reasons to believe that a better economic system is possible — and that it could be just around the corner.”
Admiring the “cooperation between governments and business” in developing SARS-CoV-2 jjabs, the WEF executive chairman hoped that such patterns of collaboration “can become a feature of our economic systems rather than a rare exception.”
To accomplish these ends, particularly with regards to “social and governance goals,” Dr. Schwab proposes something called “Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics” which are additional non-financial disclosures for companies in their annual reports.
These metrics would include answering questions such as:
“What is the gender pay gap in company X? How many people of diverse backgrounds were hired and promoted? What progress has the company made toward reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions? How much did the company pay in taxes globally and per jurisdiction?”
In another article on the WEF website, Schwab affirms that “The Great Reset,” will “require stronger and more effective governments” and the “creating … [of] incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.”
He also asserts that “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”
“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism,” Schwab continues.
As further explained, by Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, the global economy needs “rebalancing.”
“We need to design policies to align with investment in people and the environment,” Burrow said. “But above all, the longer-term perspective is about rebalancing economies.”
In an August 6 video presentation on “The Great Reset,” editor of The Remnant, Michael Matt addressed the connection between the coronavirus crisis and the lockdowns.
“This is not about COVID anymore. This is about a reset of everything. And the United States of America is in the way right now of all of it, so they are destabilizing our entire country,” Matt said.
“The name of the game now is to bring the United States economy to its knees, get it out of the way, so that everyone will want ‘The Great Reset,’” Matt stated.
He continued, “The Great Reset, then, politically, [and] economically … wants to implement massive socialist programs, and, of course, global climate change along the lines of the Green New Deal. The regulation is going to be unbelievable.”
The only person standing in the way of this global effort, Matt asserts, is Donald Trump.
While addressing the WEF annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland last January, the U.S. President stated:
“We are committed to conserving the majesty of God’s creation, and the natural beauty of our world… But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse…
“These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives. We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty. America will always be the proud, strong, and unyielding bastion of freedom.”
While the specifics of the “Great Reset” have yet to be revealed, they are expected to be disclosed at the WEF meeting in January 2021.
However, given the evidence, Justin Haskins of the Heartland Institute concludes, “it’s clear that the purpose of the plan … is to move the world economy toward socialism, using climate change and COVID-19 as justifications.”
And in order to help defeat the “Great Reset,” Michael Matt advises, “pray that Trump wins in November.”


humansarefree--2020-10-31--Technocracy vs. the Republic: The Great Reset & The Fight for Our Future

People living in the western world are in the greatest fight for the future of pluralist and republican forms of governance since the rise and fall of fascism 75 years ago .
As then , society had to be built up from a war .
Today ’ s war has been an economic war of the oligarchs against the republic , and it increasingly appears that the coronavirus pandemic is being used , on the political end , as a massive coup against pluralist society .
We are being confronted with this ‘ great reset ’ , alluding to post-war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people have already been living under an ever-increasing austerity regimen .
This is a regimen that can only be explained as some toxic combination of the systemic inevitabilities of a consumer-driven society on the foundation of planned obsolescence , and the never-ending greed and lust for power which defines whole sections of the sociopathic oligarchy .
Recently we saw UK PM Boris Johnson stand in front of a ‘ Build Back Better ’ sign , speaking to the need for a ‘ great reset ’ .
‘ Build Back Better ’ happens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which raises many other questions for another time .
But , to what extent are the handlers who manage ‘ Joe Biden ’ , and those managing ‘ Boris Johnson ’ working the same script ?
The more pertinent question is to ask : in whose interest is this ‘ great reset ’ being carried out ?
Certainly it can not be left to those who have built their careers upon the theory and practice of austerity .
Certainly it can not be left to those who have built their careers as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What Johnson calls the ‘ Great Reset ’ , Biden calls the ‘ Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution & Environmental Justice ’ .
Certainly the coming economy can not be left to Boris Johnson or Joe Biden .
How is it that now Boris Johnson speaks publicly of a ‘ great reset ’ , whereas just months ago when those outside the ruling media paradigm used this phrase , it was censured by corporate Atlanticist media as being conspiratorial in nature ?
This is an excellent question posed by Neil Clark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all read numerous articles in the official press talking about how economic life after coronavirus will never be the same as it was before .
Atlanticist press has even run numerous opinion articles talking about how this may cut against globalization – a fair point , and one which many thinking people by and large agree with .
Yet they have set aside any substantive discussion about what exists in lieu of globalization , and what the economy looks like in various parts of the world if it is not globalized .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term that in decades past was utilized frequently in western vectors , in the sphere of geopolitics and international relations .
Now there is some strange ban on the term , and so we are now bereft of a language with which to have an honest discussion about the post-globalization paradigm .
Next On The Agenda : The Great Reset Fraud Technocracy or Pluralism ?
A Fight Against the Newspeak Until now , we have only been given a steady diet of distancing , of lockdown provisions , quarantining , track and trace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that all of this was only supposed to be a two or three-week long exercise to flatten the curve .
And now the truth is emerging that what is being planned is a new proposal being disguised as a ‘ great reset ’ .
One of the large problems in discussing the ‘ great reset ’ is that a false dichotomy has arisen around it .
Either one wants things to be how they were before and without changes to the status quo , or they promote this ‘ great reset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RT article falls into this false dichotomy , and perhaps only for expedience sake in discussing some other point , he does not challenge the inherent problems in ‘ how things were before ’ .
In truth , we would be surprised if Clark did not appreciate what we are going to propose .
What we propose is that we must oppose their ‘ new normal ’ ‘ great reset ’ , while also understanding the inherent problems of what had been normalized up until Covid .
The way things were before was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now it only seems better in comparison to the police state-like provisions we ’ ve encountered throughout the course of politicizing the spectre of this ‘ pandemic ’ .
Oddly this politicization is based in positive cases ( and not hospitalizations ) ostensibly linked to the novel coronavirus .
Strangely , we are told to ‘ listen to the consensus science ’ even as these very institutions consist of politically arrived at appointments .
Certainly science is not about consensus , but about challenging assumptions , repeatability and a lively debate between disagreeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kuhn explains in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , science is always evolving , and by definition potentially overturns consensus paradigms .
This is a debate we have not seen , and this fact by itself represents an illiberal cancer growing on an already defective pluralist society – ironically , all flying under the banner of liberalism .
Decisions that a society decides to take should be driven by reason , prudence , and justice .
What is or isn ’ t scientific plays a role , but can not be the deciding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may eliminate cross-walk injuries by banning street-crossing or by banning driving , but what policy makers must do is account for the need to have both cars and crossing the street , in deciding how – if it ’ s even possible – to reduce or eliminate such injuries .
Science is only one part of this equation .
Is sociology not a science ?
What about psychology and psychiatry – as in the known effects of social isolation and , say , suicide prevention ?
What about housing and urban planning ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these are sciences – they adopt and apply the scientific method in their work .
Universities have been awarding doctoral degrees in these sciences for a century or more , do these expert opinions not count when managing a public catastrophe ?
It is , and always has been , a political and politicized position to listen to some scientists , and not others .
And so what of our term ‘ reset ’ ?
Indeed , it is itself misleading , and we would propose it is intentionally so if we understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of language – newspeak – in technocratic oligarchies .
A ‘ reset ’ textually refers to going back to something once known , erasing defects or contradictions which arose along the way , which carries with it the familiar , and something we had previously all agreed to .
A ‘ reset ’ by definition means going back to how things were before – not just recently , but before at some point farther back .
Its definition is literally contrary to how Boris Johnson means it in his shocking public statement at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ reset ’ was therefore arrived with extraordinary planning and thoughtfulness , with the intent to persuade [ manipulate ] the public .
It simultaneously straddles two unique concepts , and bundles them together at once into a single term in a manner that reduces nuance and complexity and therefore also reduces thinking .
It does so while appealing to the implicit notion of the term that it relates to a past consensus agreement .
If understood as we are told to understand it , we must hold two mutually contradictory notions at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told that this reset must effectively restore society to how it was at some point before because things can never be how they were at any time before .
Only within the paradigm of this vicious newspeak could anything ever have the public thinking that such a textual construction makes any bit of sense .
What are Our Real Options ?
Whose Reset ?
Those who understand that this ‘ reset ’ is not a reset but rather a whole new proposal on the entire organization of society , but being done through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate required in a society governed by laws and not men , are – as we have said – reluctant to admit that a great change is indeed necessary .
Rather , we must understand that the underlying catastrophic economic mechanisms which are forcing this great change exist independently of the coronavirus , and exist independently of the particular changes which the oligarchs promoting their version of a ‘ reset ’ ( read : new proposals ) would like to see .
You see , the people and the oligarchs are locked into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-term , it seems as if the oligarchs are looking for solutions to change that fact , and effect a final solution that grants them an entirely break-away civilization .
But at this moment , that is not the case .
Yet this system can not carry forward as it has been , and the Coronavirus presents a reason at once both mysterious in its timing and also profound in its implications , to push forward a new proposal .
We believe that technology is quickly arriving at a point where the vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ redundant .
If the technocracy wants to create a walled civilization , and leave the rest of humanity to manage their own lives along some agrarian , mediaeval mode of production , there may indeed be benefits to those who live along agrarian lines .
But based in what we know about psychopathy , and the tendency of that among those who govern , such an amicable solution is likely not in the cards .
That is why the anti-lockdown protests are so critically important to endorse .
This is precisely because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public demonstrations , a critical part of pushing public policy in the direction of the interests of the general public .
A whole part of the left has been compromised , and rolled out to fight imaginary fascists , by which they mean anyone with conventional social views which predate May of 1968 .
All the while the actual plutocrats unleash a new system of oligarchical control which , for most , has not been hitherto contemplated except by relatively obscure political scientists , futurists , and science fiction authors .
Certainly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalism ’ by the left ) , which is based in both globalized supply chains but also planned obsolescence , is no longer feasible .
In truth , this relied upon a third-world to be a source of both raw materials and cheaper labor .
The plus here is that this ‘ developing world ’ has largely now developed .
But that means they will be needing their own raw materials , and their own middle-classes have driven up their own cost of labor .
Globalization was based in some world before development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained as imperialism , and so it makes sense that this system is a relic of the past , and indeed ought to be .
It increasingly appears that the ‘ Coronavirus pandemic ’ , was secondary to the foregone economic crisis which we were told accompanied it .
Rather , it seems that the former came into being to explain-away the latter .
Another world is possible , but it is one which citizens fight for .
In the U.S. , England , Scotland , Ireland , and Germany , there have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These , as we have explained , are not just against lockdown but are positively pushing to assert the right to public and political association , to public and political speech , and the redressing of grievances .
This is a fundamental right for citizens in any republic where there is any sort of check on the oligarchy .
We have written on the kind of world that is possible , in our piece from April 2020 titled : “ Coronavirus Shutdown : The End of Globalization and Planned Obsolescence – Enter Multipolarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible , and what the problems of pre-corona system were , in economic terms more than political .
Here we discuss the problems of globalization-based supply chain security in a multipolar world , and the larger problem of planned obsolescence , especially in light of 3D printing , automation , and the internet of things .
We posed the philosophical question as to whether it is justified to have a goods-production system based upon both the guaranteed re-sale of the same type of goods due to planned obsolescence and the ‘ work guarantees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , do we live to work or to we work to live ?
And with the 4th industrial revolution looming , we posed the question of what will happen after human workers are no longer required .
Pluralist society is the compromise outcome of a ceasefire in the class war between the oligarchy and the various other classes that compromise the people , at large .
Largely idealized and romantic ideas that form the basis of the liberal-democratic ideology ( as well as classical fascism ) are used to explain how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed to that arrangement of pluralism , and that this very arrangement is the product of their benevolence , and not the truth : that it was the fight put up by common people to fight for a more just future .
No doubt there have been benevolent oligarchs who really believed in the liberal ideology , of which fascism is one of its more radical products .
But the view that the class struggle can be acculturated or legislated into non-existence is similar to believing that the law of gravity can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have forgotten what it takes , and perhaps things just have not gotten bad enough .
Decreases in testosterone levels in the population may be leading to a dangerous moment where vigorous defiance to injustice is much less possible .
Critical now is to avoid any artificial means to opiate ourselves into thinking things are better than they are , whether by way of anti-depressants or other self-medication .
Only with a clear assessment of the real situation on the ground can we forge the necessary strategy .
The great political crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to justify an end-run around constitutional rights , an end-run around pluralist society , and so the vehicle – the mechanism – that the general public might use to fight for their version of a ‘ reset ’ is on the verge of disappearing .
In many ways this means that now is the final moment .
We ask – whose great reset , ours or theirs ?

by Joaquin Flores
People living in the western world are in the greatest fight for the future of pluralist and republican forms of governance since the rise and fall of fascism 75 years ago.
As then, society had to be built up from a war.
Today’s war has been an economic war of the oligarchs against the republic, and it increasingly appears that the coronavirus pandemic is being used, on the political end, as a massive coup against pluralist society.
We are being confronted with this ‘great reset’, alluding to post-war construction. But for a whole generation people have already been living under an ever-increasing austerity regimen.
This is a regimen that can only be explained as some toxic combination of the systemic inevitabilities of a consumer-driven society on the foundation of planned obsolescence, and the never-ending greed and lust for power which defines whole sections of the sociopathic oligarchy.
Recently we saw UK PM Boris Johnson stand in front of a ‘Build Back Better’ sign, speaking to the need for a ‘great reset’. ‘Build Back Better’ happens to be Joe Biden’s campaign slogan, which raises many other questions for another time. But, to what extent are the handlers who manage ‘Joe Biden’, and those managing ‘Boris Johnson’ working the same script?
The more pertinent question is to ask: in whose interest is this ‘great reset’ being carried out?
Certainly it cannot be left to those who have built their careers upon the theory and practice of austerity. Certainly it cannot be left to those who have built their careers as puppets of a morally decaying oligarchy.
What Johnson calls the ‘Great Reset’, Biden calls the ‘Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution & Environmental Justice’. Certainly the coming economy cannot be left to Boris Johnson or Joe Biden.
How is it that now Boris Johnson speaks publicly of a ‘great reset’, whereas just months ago when those outside the ruling media paradigm used this phrase, it was censured by corporate Atlanticist media as being conspiratorial in nature? This is an excellent question posed by Neil Clark.
And so we have by now all read numerous articles in the official press talking about how economic life after coronavirus will never be the same as it was before.
Atlanticist press has even run numerous opinion articles talking about how this may cut against globalization – a fair point, and one which many thinking people by and large agree with.
Yet they have set aside any substantive discussion about what exists in lieu of globalization, and what the economy looks like in various parts of the world if it is not globalized.
We have consistently spoken of multipolarity, a term that in decades past was utilized frequently in western vectors, in the sphere of geopolitics and international relations. Now there is some strange ban on the term, and so we are now bereft of a language with which to have an honest discussion about the post-globalization paradigm.
Next On The Agenda: The Great Reset Fraud
Technocracy or Pluralism? A Fight Against the Newspeak
Until now, we have only been given a steady diet of distancing, of lockdown provisions, quarantining, track and trace, and we have forgotten entirely about the fact that all of this was only supposed to be a two or three-week long exercise to flatten the curve.
And now the truth is emerging that what is being planned is a new proposal being disguised as a ‘great reset’.
One of the large problems in discussing the ‘great reset’ is that a false dichotomy has arisen around it. Either one wants things to be how they were before and without changes to the status quo, or they promote this ‘great reset’.
Unfortunately, Clark in his RT article falls into this false dichotomy, and perhaps only for expedience sake in discussing some other point, he does not challenge the inherent problems in ‘how things were before’.
In truth, we would be surprised if Clark did not appreciate what we are going to propose.
What we propose is that we must oppose their ‘new normal’ ‘great reset’, while also understanding the inherent problems of what had been normalized up until Covid.
The way things were before was also a tremendous problem, and yet now it only seems better in comparison to the police state-like provisions we’ve encountered throughout the course of politicizing the spectre of this ‘pandemic’.
Oddly this politicization is based in positive cases (and not hospitalizations) ostensibly linked to the novel coronavirus.
Strangely, we are told to ‘listen to the consensus science’ even as these very institutions consist of politically arrived at appointments. Certainly science is not about consensus, but about challenging assumptions, repeatability and a lively debate between disagreeing scientists with relatively equal qualifications.
As Kuhn explains in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science is always evolving, and by definition potentially overturns consensus paradigms. This is a debate we have not seen, and this fact by itself represents an illiberal cancer growing on an already defective pluralist society – ironically, all flying under the banner of liberalism.
Decisions that a society decides to take should be driven by reason, prudence, and justice. What is or isn’t scientific plays a role, but cannot be the deciding factor.
Science clearly says that we may eliminate cross-walk injuries by banning street-crossing or by banning driving, but what policy makers must do is account for the need to have both cars and crossing the street, in deciding how – if it’s even possible – to reduce or eliminate such injuries. Science is only one part of this equation.
But isn’t economics also a science?
Is sociology not a science? What about psychology and psychiatry – as in the known effects of social isolation and, say, suicide prevention? What about housing and urban planning?
The great sociologist Emile Durkheim explains how these are sciences – they adopt and apply the scientific method in their work. Universities have been awarding doctoral degrees in these sciences for a century or more, do these expert opinions not count when managing a public catastrophe?
It is, and always has been, a political and politicized position to listen to some scientists, and not others.
And so what of our term ‘reset’? Indeed, it is itself misleading, and we would propose it is intentionally so if we understand Orwell’s critique of the use of language – newspeak – in technocratic oligarchies.
A ‘reset’ textually refers to going back to something once known, erasing defects or contradictions which arose along the way, which carries with it the familiar, and something we had previously all agreed to.
A ‘reset’ by definition means going back to how things were before – not just recently, but before at some point farther back. Its definition is literally contrary to how Boris Johnson means it in his shocking public statement at the start of October.
The term ‘reset’ was therefore arrived with extraordinary planning and thoughtfulness, with the intent to persuade [manipulate] the public.
It simultaneously straddles two unique concepts, and bundles them together at once into a single term in a manner that reduces nuance and complexity and therefore also reduces thinking. It does so while appealing to the implicit notion of the term that it relates to a past consensus agreement.
If understood as we are told to understand it, we must hold two mutually contradictory notions at the same time – we are incongruously told that this reset must effectively restore society to how it was at some point before because things can never be how they were at any time before.
Only within the paradigm of this vicious newspeak could anything ever have the public thinking that such a textual construction makes any bit of sense.
What are Our Real Options? Whose Reset?
Those who understand that this ‘reset’ is not a reset but rather a whole new proposal on the entire organization of society, but being done through oligarchical methods and without the sort of mandate required in a society governed by laws and not men, are – as we have said – reluctant to admit that a great change is indeed necessary.
Rather, we must understand that the underlying catastrophic economic mechanisms which are forcing this great change exist independently of the coronavirus, and exist independently of the particular changes which the oligarchs promoting their version of a ‘reset’ (read: new proposals) would like to see.
You see, the people and the oligarchs are locked into a single system together. In the long-term, it seems as if the oligarchs are looking for solutions to change that fact, and effect a final solution that grants them an entirely break-away civilization. But at this moment, that is not the case.
Yet this system cannot carry forward as it has been, and the Coronavirus presents a reason at once both mysterious in its timing and also profound in its implications, to push forward a new proposal.
We believe that technology is quickly arriving at a point where the vast majority of human beings will be considered redundant.
If the technocracy wants to create a walled civilization, and leave the rest of humanity to manage their own lives along some agrarian, mediaeval mode of production, there may indeed be benefits to those who live along agrarian lines.
But based in what we know about psychopathy, and the tendency of that among those who govern, such an amicable solution is likely not in the cards.
That is why the anti-lockdown protests are so critically important to endorse. This is precisely because the lockdown measures are used to ban mass public demonstrations, a critical part of pushing public policy in the direction of the interests of the general public.
A whole part of the left has been compromised, and rolled out to fight imaginary fascists, by which they mean anyone with conventional social views which predate May of 1968.
All the while the actual plutocrats unleash a new system of oligarchical control which, for most, has not been hitherto contemplated except by relatively obscure political scientists, futurists, and science fiction authors.
Certainly the consumerist economic system (sometimes called ‘capitalism’ by the left), which is based in both globalized supply chains but also planned obsolescence, is no longer feasible. In truth, this relied upon a third-world to be a source of both raw materials and cheaper labor.
The plus here is that this ‘developing world’ has largely now developed. But that means they will be needing their own raw materials, and their own middle-classes have driven up their own cost of labor.
Globalization was based in some world before development, where the real dynamic is best explained as imperialism, and so it makes sense that this system is a relic of the past, and indeed ought to be.
It increasingly appears that the ‘Coronavirus pandemic’, was secondary to the foregone economic crisis which we were told accompanied it. Rather, it seems that the former came into being to explain-away the latter.
Another world is possible, but it is one which citizens fight for. In the U.S., England, Scotland, Ireland, and Germany, there have already been rather large anti-lockdown demonstrations.
These, as we have explained, are not just against lockdown but are positively pushing to assert the right to public and political association, to public and political speech, and the redressing of grievances. This is a fundamental right for citizens in any republic where there is any sort of check on the oligarchy.
We have written on the kind of world that is possible, in our piece from April 2020 titled: “Coronavirus Shutdown: The End of Globalization and Planned Obsolescence – Enter Multipolarity”.
That lays out what is possible, and what the problems of pre-corona system were, in economic terms more than political. Here we discuss the problems of globalization-based supply chain security in a multipolar world, and the larger problem of planned obsolescence, especially in light of 3D printing, automation, and the internet of things.
We posed the philosophical question as to whether it is justified to have a goods-production system based upon both the guaranteed re-sale of the same type of goods due to planned obsolescence and the ‘work guarantees’ that came with it.
In short, do we live to work or to we work to live? And with the 4th industrial revolution looming, we posed the question of what will happen after human workers are no longer required.
Pluralist society is the compromise outcome of a ceasefire in the class war between the oligarchy and the various other classes that compromise the people, at large.
Largely idealized and romantic ideas that form the basis of the liberal-democratic ideology (as well as classical fascism) are used to explain how it is the oligarchy that is so very committed to that arrangement of pluralism, and that this very arrangement is the product of their benevolence, and not the truth: that it was the fight put up by common people to fight for a more just future.
No doubt there have been benevolent oligarchs who really believed in the liberal ideology, of which fascism is one of its more radical products. But the view that the class struggle can be acculturated or legislated into non-existence is similar to believing that the law of gravity can be ruled unlawful in a court.
Perhaps we have forgotten what it takes, and perhaps things just have not gotten bad enough. Decreases in testosterone levels in the population may be leading to a dangerous moment where vigorous defiance to injustice is much less possible.
Critical now is to avoid any artificial means to opiate ourselves into thinking things are better than they are, whether by way of anti-depressants or other self-medication. Only with a clear assessment of the real situation on the ground can we forge the necessary strategy.
The great political crisis now is that a pandemic is being used to justify an end-run around constitutional rights, an end-run around pluralist society, and so the vehicle – the mechanism – that the general public might use to fight for their version of a ‘reset’ is on the verge of disappearing.
In many ways this means that now is the final moment. We ask – whose great reset, ours or theirs?


humansarefree--2020-10-31--Netflix Sees Subscriptions Drop by 800% Following ‘Cuties’ Backlash

Elizabeth Johnston Ministries has worked hard over the years to expose the disturbing , pervasive sexualization of children in today ’ s popular culture .
Nonetheless , the blatant , perverse nature of the piece of [ soft ] child pornography that was “ Cuties , ” a French coming-of-age film carried by Netflix that sparked massive backlash for its jaw-dropping content .
The film , if you are yet aware , is the story of an 11-year-old girl who joins a twerking team .
It involves several scenes showing the girls gyrating and imitating highly graphic sexual acts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a reference to the young protagonist ’ s genitalia .
It is absolutely disgusting smut at best , criminal child exploitation in reality .
Well , it is just this degree of godlessness that has always motivated Elizabeth to equip parents with the tools they need to stand up to our desperately wayward culture and in the case of “ Cuties , ” it was grassroots social media activism that targeted and attacked Netflix for carrying this abhorrent film .
And they have sustained some serious battle wounds .
The New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancelations spike by 800 % following the # CancelNetflix boycott sparked by the film ’ s release and a Change.org petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures .
The Post reports that Netflix ’ s chief financial officer Spence Neumann did not mention “ Cuties ” during a third-quarter earnings call this week , focusing instead of the first half of the year during which nationwide lockdowns had driven an increase in subscriptions .
He told the company ’ s investors that they “ came pretty close ” to their worldwide membership goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” boycott began in September , and in the three months that ended on September 30th , the streaming service gained 2.2 million subscribers .
This was , however , down from the first two quarters , which saw membership additions of 16 million and 10 million , respectively .
Also , data analyzed by New York firms Antenna and YipitData , the boycott seems to have done some damage to subscriptions .
According to Antenna , in the first two weeks of September alone , when the boycott was first launched , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they ’ d lost in all of August .
YipitData , meanwhile , calculated September ’ s cancellations at a rate 8 times higher than that in August .
They characterized this drop as “ a multi-year high.
” The numbers don ’ t lie , folks .
You don ’ t have to roll over and play dead while billion-dollar companies exploit and sexualize young children .
In fact , if you don ’ t stand up and push back , who will ?
It ’ s time for the righteous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can make an impact .
But we have to make the right choice .
Stay silent and watch our culture — and our children ’ s virtue — fall away , or take a stand and make a difference .
By Elizabeth Johnston , author of Not on My Watch : How to Win the Fight for Family , Faith and Freedom

Elizabeth Johnston Ministries has worked hard over the years to expose the disturbing, pervasive sexualization of children in today’s popular culture.
Nonetheless, the blatant, perverse nature of the piece of [soft] child pornography that was “Cuties,” a French coming-of-age film carried by Netflix that sparked massive backlash for its jaw-dropping content.
The film, if you are yet aware, is the story of an 11-year-old girl who joins a twerking team. It involves several scenes showing the girls gyrating and imitating highly graphic sexual acts, including one of their bare breasts, and a reference to the young protagonist’s genitalia.
It is absolutely disgusting smut at best, criminal child exploitation in reality.
Well, it is just this degree of godlessness that has always motivated Elizabeth to equip parents with the tools they need to stand up to our desperately wayward culture and in the case of “Cuties,” it was grassroots social media activism that targeted and attacked Netflix for carrying this abhorrent film.
And they have sustained some serious battle wounds.
The New York Post reports that Netflix has seen subscription cancelations spike by 800% following the #CancelNetflix boycott sparked by the film’s release and a Change.org petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures.
The Post reports that Netflix’s chief financial officer Spence Neumann did not mention “Cuties” during a third-quarter earnings call this week, focusing instead of the first half of the year during which nationwide lockdowns had driven an increase in subscriptions.
He told the company’s investors that they “came pretty close” to their worldwide membership goal of 195 million.
The “Cuties” boycott began in September, and in the three months that ended on September 30th, the streaming service gained 2.2 million subscribers.
This was, however, down from the first two quarters, which saw membership additions of 16 million and 10 million, respectively.
Also, data analyzed by New York firms Antenna and YipitData, the boycott seems to have done some damage to subscriptions.
According to Antenna, in the first two weeks of September alone, when the boycott was first launched, Netflix lost five times as many subscribers as they’d lost in all of August.
Yikes.
YipitData, meanwhile, calculated September’s cancellations at a rate 8 times higher than that in August. They characterized this drop as “a multi-year high.”
The numbers don’t lie, folks. You don’t have to roll over and play dead while billion-dollar companies exploit and sexualize young children. In fact, if you don’t stand up and push back, who will?
It’s time for the righteous to make their voices heard. We can make an impact. But we have to make the right choice. Stay silent and watch our culture — and our children’s virtue — fall away, or take a stand and make a difference.
By Elizabeth Johnston, author of Not on My Watch: How to Win the Fight for Family, Faith and Freedom


humansarefree--2020-10-31--Why Won’t Bill Gates Wear a Mask?

Why Won’t Bill Gates Wear a Mask?

Here ’ s a fact worth checking… Has Bill Gates ever worn a mask ?
If so , where ’ s the evidence ?
And if not , why is he telling everyone in the world they should wear one until the vaccine he is heavily invested in becomes available to test on the public ?
“ To learn who rules over you , simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ” ~ Voltaire .
Voltaire ’ s observation concerning the invisible influence of political power in limiting public discourse , is highly relevant to the subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to wear a mask today .
In other words , if you wish to find out who rules over you , simply found out who doesn ’ t have to wear a mask .
After holding off for several months , even president Trump himself finally succumbed to pressure and donned the mask on July 11th , during a visit to the Walter Reed military hospital , no doubt disappointing those who considered him fearless and free of what has become a symbol of submission to an agenda that has very little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ protecting the public from a virus.
” Some celebrity influencers , like Deepak Chopra , are not only proudly wearing masks , but tastelessly implying that not doing so could kill you or someone you love : “ Wear a mask or join the company.
” Given the near universality of mandates around the ritual of mask-wearing within what could rightly be named the Cult of Corona , isn ’ t it strange that there has yet not been seen a picture of Bill Gates anywhere with a mask ?
You know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling the world they should wear one , and prepare for perpetual lockdown until the masses comply with regular COVID testing and receiving an experimental vaccine that will be ready by the end of the year , or early 2021 .
Why should he of all people be exempt from role-modeling to the world what he says is an effective measure against COVID-19 ?
In the interview clip below , Bill and Melinda Gates discuss what they say are effective measures against Covid-19 .
Melinda , speaking on their behalf , says : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model wearing a mask .
Every single person should be wearing a mask without exception.
” [ And why are they always laughing or barely holding a laugh ( which makes them smile awkwardly ) ?
What the heck is so funny about people dying , children being injected with GMO vaccines , or people loosing their minds and their livelihoods due to the draconian lockdowns ? ]
To Melinda ’ s credit , she has posted a picture of herself on Twitter virtue signaling her wearing of a mask , albeit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and never in public ) .
But Bill ’ s mask is nowhere to be found .
You can use an image search engine , and still nothing will appear on the internet .
The boldly conspicuous absence of Bill ’ s mask speaks to the duplicity and intensity of his power , as well as the many contradictions within the official narrative surrounding preventive measures against COVID-19 , some of which can be found on our Facemask database which contains published research on their lack of safety and ineffectiveness that is given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another example of this egregiously hypocritical stance among powerful elite , is the Queen of England ’ s recent maskless jaunt outside her castle walls — a move criticized by the media .
The 94-year old is within the age group with the highest risk category , yet the DailyMail reported , “ The 94-year-old shunned a mask , with Buckingham Palace confirming it was a matter of choice , rather than due to any health reason.
” Given the draconian crackdown of the Queen ’ s government and its lack of honoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not given the choice she exercises , her behavior speaks to the nature of those who “ rule over you , ” namely , do what I say and not what I do , is the rule of thumb .
Wouldn ’ t the Queen and Bill Gates carry more gravitas and credibility with the public if they actually did what they say is the the right and reasonable thing , instead of simply acting the stereotypal part of unelected rulers ?
Disclaimer : This article is not intended to provide medical advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff .
© [ Article Date ] GreenMedInfo LLC .
This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC .
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo ?
Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter .

by Sayer Ji
Here’s a fact worth checking… Has Billy Boy ever worn a mask? If so, where’s the evidence? And if not, why is he telling everyone in the world they should wear one until the jjab he is heavily invested in becomes available to test on the public?
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” ~ Voltaire.
Voltaire’s observation concerning the invisible influence of political power in limiting public discourse, is highly relevant to the subject of who does or doesn’t have to wear a mask today.
In other words, if you wish to find out who rules over you, simply found out who doesn’t have to wear a mask.
After holding off for several months, even president Trump himself finally succumbed to pressure and donned the mask on July 11th, during a visit to the Walter Reed military hospital, no doubt disappointing those who considered him fearless and free of what has become a symbol of submission to an agenda that has very little to nothing at all to do with “protecting the public from a virus.”
Some celebrity influencers, like Deepak Chopra, are not only proudly wearing masks, but tastelessly implying that not doing so could kill you or someone you love: “Wear a mask or join the company.”
Given the near universality of mandates around the ritual of mask-wearing within what could rightly be named the Cult of Corona, isn’t it strange that there has yet not been seen a picture of Billy Boy anywhere with a mask?
You know, the same man who has been telling the world they should wear one, and prepare for perpetual lockdown until the masses comply with regular COVID testing and receiving an experimental jjab that will be ready by the end of the year, or early 2021.
Why should he of all people be exempt from role-modeling to the world what he says is an effective measure against COVID-19?
In the interview clip below, Bill and Melinda Gates discuss what they say are effective measures against Covid-19. Melinda, speaking on their behalf, says: “Wear a mask. And role model wearing a mask. Every single person should be wearing a mask without exception.”
And why are they always laughing or barely holding a laugh (which makes them smile awkwardly)?
What the heck is so funny about people dying, children being injected with GMO jjabs, or people loosing their minds and their livelihoods due to the draconian lockdowns?
To Melinda’s credit, she has posted a picture of herself on Twitter virtue signaling her wearing of a mask, albeit the only picture of her wearing one (and never in public). But Bill’s mask is nowhere to be found. You can use an image search engine, and still nothing will appear on the internet.
The boldly conspicuous absence of Bill’s mask speaks to the duplicity and intensity of his power, as well as the many contradictions within the official narrative surrounding preventive measures against COVID-19, some of which can be found on our Facemask database which contains published research on their lack of safety and ineffectiveness that is given no attention within the mainstream media.
Another example of this egregiously hypocritical stance among powerful elite, is the Queen of England’s recent maskless jaunt outside her castle walls — a move criticized by the media. The 94-year old is within the age group with the highest risk category, yet the DailyMail reported, “The 94-year-old shunned a mask, with Buckingham Palace confirming it was a matter of choice, rather than due to any health reason.”
Given the draconian crackdown of the Queen’s government and its lack of honoring exemptions for the general public who are not given the choice she exercises, her behavior speaks to the nature of those who “rule over you,” namely, do what I say and not what I do, is the rule of thumb.
Wouldn’t the Queen and Billy Boy carry more gravitas and credibility with the public if they actually did what they say is the the right and reasonable thing, instead of simply acting the stereotypal part of unelected rulers?
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
© [Article Date] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.


humansarefree--2020-11-01--Graham Hancock: It Sounds Crazy, But It’s True – The Strangest of All Ancient Mysteries

Researcher and author Graham Hancock explores some of the most incredible ancient mysteries from around the world , that include @ @ @ @ @ the Walls of Jericco , The Earth Crust Displacement Theory , Elongated Skulls , Giant @ @ @ @ @ , Machine Cut Stones and Advanced Technology , Stone Melting/softening Techniques and moulds .
Our @ @ @ @ @ sites that demonstrate incredible tasks that simply defy all logic .
How and who was @ @ @ @ @ ?

Researcher and author Graham Hancock explores some of the most incredible ancient mysteries from around the world, that include:
Tibetan stone levitation, the Walls of Jericco, The Earth Crust Displacement Theory, Elongated Skulls, Giant Spheres, the Great Flood, Machine Cut Stones and Advanced Technology, Stone Melting/softening Techniques and moulds.
Our planet is scattered with ancient sites that demonstrate incredible tasks that simply defy all logic.
How and who was responsible for this incredible knowledge?
Reference: YouTube.com


humansarefree--2020-11-01--New CDC Numbers Show Lockdown’s Deadly Toll On Young People

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) revealed Wednesday that young adults aged 25-44 years saw the largest increase in “ excess ” deaths from previous years , a stunning 26.5 % jump .
The notable increase even surpassed the jump in excess deaths of older Americans , who are at much higher risk of COVID-19 fatality .
Moreover , according to the CDC , 100,947 excess deaths were not linked to COVID-19 at all .
Since such young people are at very low risk for COVID-19 fatality — 20-49-year-olds have a 99.98 % chance of surviving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has been suggested that the shocking increase in deaths is largely attributable to deaths of “ despair , ” or deaths linked to our “ cure ” for the disease : lockdown measures .
Former Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb , one of the most vocal and earliest proponents of lockdown measures , admitted this much during a Wednesday news appearance .
“ I would suspect that a good portion of the deaths in that younger cohort were deaths due to despair , due to other reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below ) .
“ We ’ ve seen a spike in overdoses , and I would suspect that a good portion of those excess deaths in that younger cohort were from drug overdoses and other deaths that were triggered by some of the implications of we ’ ve gone through to try to deal with COVID-19.
” Critics roundly mocked President Donald Trump early in the pandemic for warning about excess deaths of despair under lockdown .
Public health experts and others are now increasingly calling for an end to heavy-handed measures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such policies are having drastic negative impacts on Americans ’ physical and mental health .
Possibly the starkest impact has been the worsening of another U.S. health crisis : the opioid epidemic .
Deaths from opioids were already rising as initial estimates from the CDC show 2019 to be the worst year on record with roughly 71,000 deaths .
The crisis has worsened across more than 40 states during the pandemic , according to an analysis of local news reports by the American Medical Association .
From the start of the year to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of overdose deaths have jumped 28 % in Colorado , 30 % in Kentucky , and 9 % in Washington state over the same time frame last year , according to The Associated Press .
Calls to suicide hotlines spiked amid the pandemic as people , isolated at the direction of public health officials and scared of contracting COVID-19 , suffered anxiety attacks and mental breakdowns .
Calls to the Disaster Distress Helpline , which offers emotional support to people amid a natural disaster , jumped 890 % in April compared to April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies in places such as Fresno , California , and Los Alamos , New Mexico , are reporting significant increases in death by suicide , sometimes as high as 70 % in a month .
Many distressed callers reached out after losing a job or even their house after government-mandated closures plunged the U.S. to its highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression .
Stay-at-home orders devastated small businesses and pushed an estimated 8 million Americans into poverty , according to a recent study from Columbia University .
By the end of August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 97,966 small businesses were forced to close their doors permanently because of lockdown restrictions .

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed Wednesday that young adults aged 25-44 years saw the largest increase in “excess” deaths from previous years, a stunning 26.5% jump.
The notable increase even surpassed the jump in excess deaths of older Americans, who are at much higher risk of COVID-19 fatality.
Moreover, according to the CDC, 100,947 excess deaths were not linked to COVID-19 at all.
Since such young people are at very low risk for COVID-19 fatality — 20-49-year-olds have a 99.98% chance of surviving the virus, per CDC data — it has been suggested that the shocking increase in deaths is largely attributable to deaths of “despair,” or deaths linked to our “cure” for the disease: lockdown measures.
Former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, one of the most vocal and earliest proponents of lockdown measures, admitted this much during a Wednesday news appearance.
“I would suspect that a good portion of the deaths in that younger cohort were deaths due to despair, due to other reasons,” admitted Gottlieb (see video below).
“We’ve seen a spike in overdoses, and I would suspect that a good portion of those excess deaths in that younger cohort were from drug overdoses and other deaths that were triggered by some of the implications of we’ve gone through to try to deal with COVID-19.”
Critics roundly mocked President Donald Trump early in the pandemic for warning about excess deaths of despair under lockdown.
Public health experts and others are now increasingly calling for an end to heavy-handed measures, citing a growing body of evidence that such policies are having drastic negative impacts on Americans’ physical and mental health.
Possibly the starkest impact has been the worsening of another U.S. health crisis: the opioid epidemic. Deaths from opioids were already rising as initial estimates from the CDC show 2019 to be the worst year on record with roughly 71,000 deaths.
The crisis has worsened across more than 40 states during the pandemic, according to an analysis of local news reports by the American Medical Association.
From the start of the year to the end of August, preliminary counts of overdose deaths have jumped 28% in Colorado, 30% in Kentucky, and 9% in Washington state over the same time frame last year, according to The Associated Press.
Calls to suicide hotlines spiked amid the pandemic as people, isolated at the direction of public health officials and scared of contracting COVID-19, suffered anxiety attacks and mental breakdowns.
Calls to the Disaster Distress Helpline, which offers emotional support to people amid a natural disaster, jumped 890% in April compared to April 2019. Local law enforcement and health agencies in places such as Fresno, California, and Los Alamos, New Mexico, are reporting significant increases in death by suicide, sometimes as high as 70% in a month.
Many distressed callers reached out after losing a job or even their house after government-mandated closures plunged the U.S. to its highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression.
Stay-at-home orders devastated small businesses and pushed an estimated 8 million Americans into poverty, according to a recent study from Columbia University.
By the end of August, for example, Yelp found that 97,966 small businesses were forced to close their doors permanently because of lockdown restrictions.
Watch:
"I would suspect that a good portion of the deaths in that younger cohort were due to despair, due to other reasons. We've seen a spike in overdoses," says @ScottGottliebMD on a CDC report finding 25-44 year olds are being hit hard trying to deal with the #COVID19 pandemic. pic.twitter.com/IW9L4YwaTq — Squawk Box (@SquawkCNBC) October 21, 2020
Source: DailyWire.com


humansarefree--2020-11-01--Biden Pledges to Gut Religious Freedom Protections, Saying They Give ‘Hate’ a ‘Safe Harbor’

Joe Biden made no bones about it : If he wins the presidential election , he will gut religious freedom protections that allow faith-based homeless shelters , charities , and small business owners to act according to their consciences .
Specifically , he will shove LGBT ideology down the throats of religious Americans in the name of fighting “ discrimination.
” On Wednesday , the Democratic nominee told Philadelphia Gay News that President Donald Trump has given “ hate ” a “ safe harbor ” by protecting religious freedom and enabling what Biden condemned as “ discrimination.
” “ Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against LGBTQ+ individuals safe harbor and rolled back critical protections for the LGBTQ+ community , ” the Democrat alleged .
“ By blocking the ability of transgender individuals to openly serve their country , denying LGBTQ+ people access to critical health care , proposing policies allowing federally funded homeless shelters to turn away transgender people and federally funded adoption agencies to reject same-sex couples , and failing to address the epidemic of violence against transgender people — particularly transgender women of color — the Trump-Pence Administration has led a systematic effort to undo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bombshell : Obama , Clinton , Podesta , Soros , Epstein , Alefantis — All Connected To Pedophilia Claims By ‘ Podesta Emails ’ Throughout his interview , Biden condemned as “ discrimination ” the idea that faith-based homeless shelters , adoption agencies , and other charities would refuse to endorse same-sex marriage , transgender identity , and experimental cross-sex drugs and surgeries .
He acted as though any desire to follow a traditional Christian , Jewish , or Muslim view of sexuality and gender must be rank “ discrimination.
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Equality Act , which Biden said he would pass in his first 100 days , should Democrats win the Senate and hold onto the House .
“ It ’ s wrong to deny people access to services or housing because of who they are or who they love , ” Biden argued .
Philadelphia Gay News asked the Democrat a question about religious freedom that demonized the very idea .
“ The idea of ‘ religious freedom ’ as a reason to allow discrimination has stoked divisiveness in this country .
What can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that discrimination against LGBTQ people , no matter how it ’ s justified , does not happen ?
” the paper asked .
Biden responded by condemning Trump , accusing the president of having “ deliberately tried to gut protections for the LGBTQ+ community by creating broad religious exemptions to existing nondiscrimination laws and policies that allow businesses , medical providers , and adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.
” “ We need to root out discrimination in our laws , institutions , and public spaces .
Religion should not be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as president I will oppose legislation to deny LGBTQ+ equal treatment in public places .
I will immediately reverse discriminatory practices that Trump put in place and work to advance the rights of LGBTQ+ people widely , ” Biden pledged .
The Democrat ’ s pledges may sound positive and inclusive — he wants “ protections ” for people and he wants to fight “ discrimination , ” right ?
— but this rhetoric is deceptive .
Democrats have twisted the notion of discrimination in order to force Christians to violate their beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding , although he gladly sells all sorts of pre-made cakes to LGBT people in his shop .
Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that he had discriminated against people on the basis of sexual orientation .
He appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court and won — because members of the commission displayed animus against his religious faith , comparing his views to those of the Nazis .
Even after this Supreme Court victory , Phillips again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked him to bake an obscene custom cake celebrating the lawyer ’ s gender transition .
Phillips refused , citing his free speech right not to be forced to endorse a view with which he disagrees .
The commission again found him guilty of discrimination , but it dropped the complaint in March 2019 .
The lawyer promptly sued Phillips .
Christian florists , farmers , and other bakers have faced government sanctions for “ discrimination ” when they refused to celebrate same-sex weddings , exercising their rights to religious freedom , freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This year , Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D-Va. ) signed legislation that will force Christian schools and ministries to hire people who oppose their religious convictions on sexuality and gender .
The laws will also force these ministries — which hold that God created humans male and female — to open women ’ s sports and women ’ s restrooms to biological males , to refer to biological males by female pronouns if they “ identify ” as female , and to pay for transgender surgery in their health care plans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unconstitutional charged that Virginia ’ s LGBT statues force “ people of faith to adopt a particular government ideology under threat of punishment.
” Indeed , it seems Biden aims to force transgender ideology on the American people .
“ I believe every transgender or non-binary person should have the option of selecting ‘ X ’ as their gender marker on government identifications , passports , and other documentation .
I will support state and federal efforts to allow for this accurate representation , ” he said ( emphasis added ) .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity , not biological sex , is an “ accurate ” representation , even though biological males do not become female and vice versa .
In one particularly tragic case , a pregnant mother who identified as transgender arrived at the hospital in labor .
Because her documents falsely listed her as male , the doctors assumed her issue was not pregnancy and her baby died .
Yet the Democrat endorsed transgender identity as “ accurate ” and seems intent on forcing that ideology throughout the federal government .
Biden illustrated just this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s commonsense policies and religious freedom protections .
Trump required the military to admit soldiers according to their biological sex , not their gender identity .
This was not a “ ban ” on transgender people but an acknowledgment of biological sex , which might be extremely important in the military and in health care , since men and women physiologically react to certain medications differently .
Similarly , Trump protected religiously affiliated medical groups from having to pay for transgender surgery — an experimental and divisive medical operation that Obamacare appeared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is what Biden referred to as “ denying LGBTQ+ people access to critical health care.
” Many former transgender people have regretted surgeries that left them permanently scarred .
Finally , many homeless shelters and adoption agencies are run as religious charities .
Mandating that homeless shelters must house biological men who claim to identify as female with vulnerable women is a recipe for disaster — and it violates the religious freedom of faith-based shelters that do not accept transgender ideology .
Similarly , adoption agencies should be able to abide by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do place kids with same-sex couples .
Violating the religious freedom of homeless shelters and adoption agencies will only gut these critical services .
Many adoption agencies have shut their doors rather than violate their consciences , so Biden-style government policies leave needy children in the lurch .
Biden did not just pledge to fight religious freedom at home , however .
In his interview with Philadelphia Gay News , he pledged to “ restore America ’ s global leadership on LGBTQ+ issues and actively combat violence and discrimination that is far too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rights of LBGTQ+ individuals , or allow violence or discrimination , my Administation , working with partners , will use America ’ s full range of diplomatic tools to influence that government ’ s behavior , including private diplomacy , public statements , and multilateral initiatives at United Nations agencies.
” Of course , America should stand up for human rights across the world , and too many countries make homosexual activity a crime punishable by death .
The Trump administration has launched a global effort to end the criminalization of homosexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intent on pushing his radical anti-religious freedom vision of opposing “ discrimination.
” In fact , he argued that “ the Trump-Pence Administration ’ s treatment of LGBTQ+ Americans… signals a tolerance for abuses by other countries.
” Tragically , all of this radicalism is of a piece with Biden ’ s public statements , notorious statements from a staffer , and his party ’ s increasing hostility to religious freedom .
One of Biden ’ s staffers said that a woman like Amy Coney Barrett should be “ disqualified ” from serving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage should be between one man and one woman .
Biden has demonized those who oppose LGBT activism .
His running mate has endorsed the “ anti-LGBT hate group ” smear that the scandal-plagued smear factory the Southern Poverty Law Center levels at conservative Christian groups .
While Joe Biden identifies himself as Roman Catholic and claims to abide by the Greatest Commandment , he would vehemently oppose religious freedom in office .

Joe Biden made no bones about it: If he wins the presidential election, he will gut religious freedom protections that allow faith-based homeless shelters, charities, and small business owners to act according to their consciences.
Specifically, he will shove LGBT ideology down the throats of religious Americans in the name of fighting “discrimination.”
On Wednesday, the Democratic nominee told Philadelphia Gay News that President Donald Trump has given “hate” a “safe harbor” by protecting religious freedom and enabling what Biden condemned as “discrimination.”
“Donald Trump and Mike Pence have given hate against LGBTQ+ individuals safe harbor and rolled back critical protections for the LGBTQ+ community,” the Democrat alleged.
“By blocking the ability of transgender individuals to openly serve their country, denying LGBTQ+ people access to critical health care, proposing policies allowing federally funded homeless shelters to turn away transgender people and federally funded adoption agencies to reject same-sex couples, and failing to address the epidemic of violence against transgender people — particularly transgender women of color — the Trump-Pence Administration has led a systematic effort to undo the progress President Obama and I made.”
Bombshell: Obama, Clinton, Podesta, Soros, Epstein, Alefantis — All Connected To Pedophilia Claims By ‘Podesta Emails’
Throughout his interview, Biden condemned as “discrimination” the idea that faith-based homeless shelters, adoption agencies, and other charities would refuse to endorse same-sex marriage, transgender identity, and experimental cross-sex drugs and surgeries.
He acted as though any desire to follow a traditional Christian, Jewish, or Muslim view of sexuality and gender must be rank “discrimination.”
This falls in line with the radical pro-LGBT Equality Act, which Biden said he would pass in his first 100 days, should Democrats win the Senate and hold onto the House.
“It’s wrong to deny people access to services or housing because of who they are or who they love,” Biden argued.
Philadelphia Gay News asked the Democrat a question about religious freedom that demonized the very idea.
“The idea of ‘religious freedom’ as a reason to allow discrimination has stoked divisiveness in this country. What can we do as a country to ensure that discrimination against LGBTQ people, no matter how it’s justified, does not happen?” the paper asked.
Biden responded by condemning Trump, accusing the president of having “deliberately tried to gut protections for the LGBTQ+ community by creating broad religious exemptions to existing nondiscrimination laws and policies that allow businesses, medical providers, and adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.”
“We need to root out discrimination in our laws, institutions, and public spaces. Religion should not be used as a license to discriminate, and as president I will oppose legislation to deny LGBTQ+ equal treatment in public places. I will immediately reverse discriminatory practices that Trump put in place and work to advance the rights of LGBTQ+ people widely,” Biden pledged.
“Discrimination”
The Democrat’s pledges may sound positive and inclusive — he wants “protections” for people and he wants to fight “discrimination,” right? — but this rhetoric is deceptive.
Democrats have twisted the notion of discrimination in order to force Christians to violate their beliefs.
Christian baker Jack Phillips, for example, refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding, although he gladly sells all sorts of pre-made cakes to LGBT people in his shop. Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that he had discriminated against people on the basis of sexual orientation.
He appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court and won — because members of the commission displayed animus against his religious faith, comparing his views to those of the Nazis.
Even after this Supreme Court victory, Phillips again faced the commission. A transgender lawyer asked him to bake an obscene custom cake celebrating the lawyer’s gender transition. Phillips refused, citing his free speech right not to be forced to endorse a view with which he disagrees.
The commission again found him guilty of discrimination, but it dropped the complaint in March 2019. The lawyer promptly sued Phillips. Christian florists, farmers, and other bakers have faced government sanctions for “discrimination” when they refused to celebrate same-sex weddings, exercising their rights to religious freedom, freedom of association, and free speech.
This year, Gov. Ralph Northam (D-Va.) signed legislation that will force Christian schools and ministries to hire people who oppose their religious convictions on sexuality and gender.
The laws will also force these ministries — which hold that God created humans male and female — to open women’s sports and women’s restrooms to biological males, to refer to biological males by female pronouns if they “identify” as female, and to pay for transgender surgery in their health care plans.
A lawsuit challenging the new laws as unconstitutional charged that Virginia’s LGBT statues force “people of faith to adopt a particular government ideology under threat of punishment.”
Indeed, it seems Biden aims to force transgender ideology on the American people.
“I believe every transgender or non-binary person should have the option of selecting ‘X’ as their gender marker on government identifications, passports, and other documentation. I will support state and federal efforts to allow for this accurate representation,” he said (emphasis added).
In other words, Biden claims that transgender identity, not biological sex, is an “accurate” representation, even though biological males do not become female and vice versa. In one particularly tragic case, a pregnant mother who identified as transgender arrived at the hospital in labor.
Because her documents falsely listed her as male, the doctors assumed her issue was not pregnancy and her baby died.
Yet the Democrat endorsed transgender identity as “accurate” and seems intent on forcing that ideology throughout the federal government.
Biden’s mischaracterization of Trump’s policies
Biden illustrated just this kind of logic by demonizing Trump’s commonsense policies and religious freedom protections.
Trump required the military to admit soldiers according to their biological sex, not their gender identity.
This was not a “ban” on transgender people but an acknowledgment of biological sex, which might be extremely important in the military and in health care, since men and women physiologically react to certain medications differently.
Similarly, Trump protected religiously affiliated medical groups from having to pay for transgender surgery — an experimental and divisive medical operation that Obamacare appeared to mandate businesses must cover in insurance.
This is what Biden referred to as “denying LGBTQ+ people access to critical health care.” Many former transgender people have regretted surgeries that left them permanently scarred.
Finally, many homeless shelters and adoption agencies are run as religious charities. Mandating that homeless shelters must house biological men who claim to identify as female with vulnerable women is a recipe for disaster — and it violates the religious freedom of faith-based shelters that do not accept transgender ideology.
Similarly, adoption agencies should be able to abide by their own standards and many adoption agencies do place kids with same-sex couples.
Violating the religious freedom of homeless shelters and adoption agencies will only gut these critical services. Many adoption agencies have shut their doors rather than violate their consciences, so Biden-style government policies leave needy children in the lurch.
Biden did not just pledge to fight religious freedom at home, however. In his interview with Philadelphia Gay News, he pledged to “restore America’s global leadership on LGBTQ+ issues and actively combat violence and discrimination that is far too rampant. …
“If governments restrict the rights of LBGTQ+ individuals, or allow violence or discrimination, my Administation, working with partners, will use America’s full range of diplomatic tools to influence that government’s behavior, including private diplomacy, public statements, and multilateral initiatives at United Nations agencies.”
Of course, America should stand up for human rights across the world, and too many countries make homosexual activity a crime punishable by death. The Trump administration has launched a global effort to end the criminalization of homosexual activity.
Yet it seems Biden is intent on pushing his radical anti-religious freedom vision of opposing “discrimination.” In fact, he argued that “the Trump-Pence Administration’s treatment of LGBTQ+ Americans… signals a tolerance for abuses by other countries.”
Tragically, all of this radicalism is of a piece with Biden’s public statements, notorious statements from a staffer, and his party’s increasing hostility to religious freedom.
One of Biden’s staffers said that a woman like Amy Coney Barrett should be “disqualified” from serving on the Supreme Court because she believes marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Biden has demonized those who oppose LGBT activism. His running mate has endorsed the “anti-LGBT hate group” smear that the scandal-plagued smear factory the Southern Poverty Law Center levels at conservative Christian groups.
While Joe Biden identifies himself as Roman Catholic and claims to abide by the Greatest Commandment, he would vehemently oppose religious freedom in office.


humansarefree--2020-11-02--North Carolina Citizens Defy Proposed Mandatory Mask Law – City Council, Stunned by Turn Out, Backs

North Carolina Citizens Defy Proposed Mandatory Mask Law – City Council, Stunned by Turn Out, Backs Down

Some good news this week as apparently there is still a pulse among liberty-minded citizens in one small North Carolina town that turned out in mass to defy the City ’ s attempt to mandate mask requirements .
When told they had to wear a mask to participate in the meeting , they refused , and the City Council and local police backed down in front of the angry crowd .
This is the kind of action it is going to take across the country to stop medical tyranny .
Waynesville caught off guard by public outcry over proposed mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed local mask mandate Tuesday night after nearly 100 people packed town hall to voice their opposition .
Tensions rose before the meeting ever began when the assembled crowd — who were being held in the lobby until the doors opened — learned there wasn ’ t going to be enough room for them all in the town board room .
Those wishing to speak were told to fill out forms and wait until their name was called .
This didn ’ t sit well with many in the crowd , who demanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside so that everyone could see and hear it — touching off a loud chant of “ Take it outside.
” Town staff and police officers eventually quelled the crowd and convinced them that waiting for their turn to speak was the only option .
Another uprising ensued after the waiting crowd was told they couldn ’ t come in without a mask when their turn rolled around .
The vast majority weren ’ t wearing a mask , given the whole reason they were there in the first place was to speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed exemptions for religious and health reasons , but others simply said they weren ’ t going to wear one and it would violate their rights to be denied entry to a public hearing on that grounds .
In the end , masks were offered but not compulsory .
The mezzanine outside the town board room , which was packed shoulder to shoulder , well exceeded the fire code capacity .
But attempts to disperse some of the waiting crowd to the main lobby downstairs was likewise abandoned as fruitless .
By now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in to help manage crowd control .
The five town board members had arrived through a back door of town hall and were being held in a private room until the meeting began .
Once the doors opened , the first 20 people in line got inside and claimed the limited seats .
The rest could listen to audio from the meeting streamed over a speaker , but given the large crowd , only those in close proximity could hear what was transpiring .
Several in attendance left after seeing they wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to gain entry past police officers guarding the doorway .
Staff meanwhile attempted to assure everyone they would eventually get a chance to speak — something that ultimately didn ’ t happen , however .
One by one , those who had filled out a slip of paper to speak came in to take their turn at the mic .
Town Attorney Bill Cannon tried to ban the audience outside the doors from clapping and cheering for speakers , threatening on several occasions to cut off the public hearing if it continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting room was simply closed to keep the sounds of clapping out .
To the chagrin of the waiting masses , Cannon cut off the hearing after 32 minutes , saying the allotted time for the hearing was up .
Many still waiting outside to speak , who were previously told by town staff they would get their turn , were upset that the town cut off the public hearing .
Although the public hearing was officially closed , every town board meeting has a designated period of general public comment mandated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address their local elected officials .
So , some who didn ’ t get their turn during the official public hearing instead decided to speak during the generic public comment session .
However , they were cut off if they mentioned the word “ mask.
” They were told they weren ’ t allowed to talk about masks during the public comment period because it had already been covered in the public hearing — despite most not actually getting to speak during the 32-minute hearing .
When a 16-year-old took the podium , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ mask , ” Cannon interjected .
“ Ma ’ am , this is not the public time period for talking about the ordinance and the masks , ” Cannon said .
Several in the audience chimed in calling for the young speaker to be given a break .
Janet Presson was among those who didn ’ t get to speak in the public hearing and was barred from talking about masks during the public comment period , as well .
“ We were told they were done with the mask issue and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m ’ word , ” Presson said .
“ They did everything they could to silence our voices.
” She said the town was clearly unprepared to handle the turnout .
“ I think they were dumbfounded and horrified , ” Presson said .
“ Mask mandates are a major issue that affect every single person .
It is a hot-button issue .
They should have done some better planning.
” The latest indication is the town leaders will not sign the mask proclamation tonight as originally believed .
Ron Paul also covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberty Report .
How To Beat The Lockdowners When city authorities in Waynesville , NC , announced that they were considering a city mask mandate they had no idea what was about to hit them .
At the city council meeting at which the discussion was to take place , a massive show of citizen opposition and participation stole the show from the mandate promoters .
Also today , why is flu disappearing in the US and elsewhere as Covid “ cases ” continue to rise ?

Some good news this week as apparently there is still a pulse among liberty-minded citizens in one small North Carolina town that turned out in mass to defy the City’s attempt to mandate mask requirements.
When told they had to wear a mask to participate in the meeting, they refused, and the City Council and local police backed down in front of the angry crowd.
This is the kind of action it is going to take across the country to stop medical tyranny.
Waynesville caught off guard by public outcry over proposed mask mandate
by Becky Johnson (excerpts)
Waynesville leaders backed down from a proposed local mask mandate Tuesday night after nearly 100 people packed town hall to voice their opposition.
Tensions rose before the meeting ever began when the assembled crowd — who were being held in the lobby until the doors opened — learned there wasn’t going to be enough room for them all in the town board room.
Those wishing to speak were told to fill out forms and wait until their name was called. This didn’t sit well with many in the crowd, who demanded the meeting be moved to the sidewalk outside so that everyone could see and hear it — touching off a loud chant of “Take it outside.”
Town staff and police officers eventually quelled the crowd and convinced them that waiting for their turn to speak was the only option. Another uprising ensued after the waiting crowd was told they couldn’t come in without a mask when their turn rolled around.
The vast majority weren’t wearing a mask, given the whole reason they were there in the first place was to speak against the proposed mask mandate.
Some claimed exemptions for religious and health reasons, but others simply said they weren’t going to wear one and it would violate their rights to be denied entry to a public hearing on that grounds.
In the end, masks were offered but not compulsory.
The mezzanine outside the town board room, which was packed shoulder to shoulder, well exceeded the fire code capacity. But attempts to disperse some of the waiting crowd to the main lobby downstairs was likewise abandoned as fruitless.
By now, more police officers had been called in to help manage crowd control. The five town board members had arrived through a back door of town hall and were being held in a private room until the meeting began.
Once the doors opened, the first 20 people in line got inside and claimed the limited seats. The rest could listen to audio from the meeting streamed over a speaker, but given the large crowd, only those in close proximity could hear what was transpiring.
Several in attendance left after seeing they wouldn’t be admitted. Others continued to try to gain entry past police officers guarding the doorway. Staff meanwhile attempted to assure everyone they would eventually get a chance to speak — something that ultimately didn’t happen, however.
One by one, those who had filled out a slip of paper to speak came in to take their turn at the mic. Town Attorney Bill Cannon tried to ban the audience outside the doors from clapping and cheering for speakers, threatening on several occasions to cut off the public hearing if it continued. Eventually, the door to the meeting room was simply closed to keep the sounds of clapping out.
To the chagrin of the waiting masses, Cannon cut off the hearing after 32 minutes, saying the allotted time for the hearing was up. Many still waiting outside to speak, who were previously told by town staff they would get their turn, were upset that the town cut off the public hearing.
Although the public hearing was officially closed, every town board meeting has a designated period of general public comment mandated by law to give constituents the chance to address their local elected officials.
So, some who didn’t get their turn during the official public hearing instead decided to speak during the generic public comment session. However, they were cut off if they mentioned the word “mask.”
They were told they weren’t allowed to talk about masks during the public comment period because it had already been covered in the public hearing — despite most not actually getting to speak during the 32-minute hearing.
When a 16-year-old took the podium, as soon as she mentioned the word “mask,” Cannon interjected.
“Ma’am, this is not the public time period for talking about the ordinance and the masks,” Cannon said.
Several in the audience chimed in calling for the young speaker to be given a break.
Janet Presson was among those who didn’t get to speak in the public hearing and was barred from talking about masks during the public comment period, as well.
“We were told they were done with the mask issue and you couldn’t say the ‘m’ word,” Presson said. “They did everything they could to silence our voices.”
She said the town was clearly unprepared to handle the turnout.
“I think they were dumbfounded and horrified,” Presson said. “Mask mandates are a major issue that affect every single person. It is a hot-button issue. They should have done some better planning.”
The latest indication is the town leaders will not sign the mask proclamation tonight as originally believed.
Watch the video:
Ron Paul also covered this in his daily broadcast, The Liberty Report.
How To Beat The Lockdowners
When city authorities in Waynesville, NC, announced that they were considering a city mask mandate they had no idea what was about to hit them.
At the city council meeting at which the discussion was to take place, a massive show of citizen opposition and participation stole the show from the mandate promoters.
Also today, why is flu disappearing in the US and elsewhere as Covid “cases” continue to rise?
Source: MedicalKidnap.com; TheMountaineer.com