thelibertybeacon--2020-04-24--The New Media War Zone

The New Media War Zone

In the past few weeks , I have posted several Liberty Beacon articles I wrote that have gone unliked , uncommented on and , presumably , unread .
This while my more “ social ” posts get many responses .
So then , I decided to post the text and put the link in the comments .
Voila !
I had response !
Is this due primarily to the accusations many make of Facebook suppressing these more world-conscious , “ conspiracy ” ones ?
Judging from my own stats on which of mine are read and which not , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that truth has become synonymous with being banned on Facebook or YouTube .
Maybe the trend has become – OK , that guy I can trust !
He ’ s been banned !
However , that shouldn ’ t be held up as a standard .
Videos are banned for all kinds of reasons .
But more concretely , there ’ s data about YouTube removing videos for no other reason than to suppress freedom of speech .
Here ’ s someone ’ s personal experience : Here ’ s a quote from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union ’ s caution regarding restricting those seeking to combat the spread of harmful content .
I don ’ t agree with either of these – we don ’ t need to fight climate change , it ’ s a naturally occurring weather process over thousands of years nor do I believe in abortion other than in exceptional cases but viewpoints need not be banned… Facebook wades deeper into censorship debate as it bans ‘ dangerous ’ accounts… I found this pretty alarming – a video by Dr. Buttar where every time he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ve never seen anything like it .
A sign of the fascism we need to expose more and more .
I can understand Youtube blocking out curse words , although anyone , even a child , can figure out what was said .
But this was outright suppression , a fine example of violation of freedom of speech , dressed in fascism .
In a later video , he referred to 5G as “ a number and a letter ” .
I haven ’ t been able to locate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was banned .
He does say here and there some of his videos have been banned .
Could be Youtube felt they were being too benevolent just bleeping the word ?
However , I believe the one below proves it pretty well .
Is this another sign that we are going more underground ?
We should stay above ground , be very visible as we make these globalists visible enough to pack them away to prison .
Woven into this scene is the developing conflicts among Facebook friends ( at least mine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who don ’ t want to know all that “ bad news ” and trust the government who want to keep us closed down until the not foreseeable future when they find a vaccine and those who post alternative news labeled by the first group as “ conspiracy theories ” .
Yesterday , I was attacked to the point of unfriending .
This was not over political views but downright slander of my character .
Some people may excuse this and say that Facebook is not the platform to post world views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guys .
Maybe so but I see that is changing as people wake up to the true scene and threats to our very lives .
This is fantastic .
But I ’ m not doom and gloom , I welcome and promote happy news – except for ridiculous , distracting videos attempting humor by making fun of isolation .
Call me a crab but they annoy me .
They prove to me that too many people are accepting it as “ the new way of life.
” A problem I see is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many over the world into such a state of chronic worry , despair , isolation , loss of livelihood and fear of the future that people are turning against each other .
When people are not happy , they tend to make others unhappy and create conflicts .
And they get ill for the same reason .
Then these illnesses can conveniently be diagnosed as COVID-19 by well-meaning yet cowardly doctors who were bullied into such labeling .
This fear and despair is the true virus , created by those who fear us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affluence and safety , people rally to each other and we create the world as it should be .
And we tend more to tolerate each other ’ s differences .
This is a state of happiness that has existed in pockets in rare times but has never been the norm .
As well , these times have been shot down because , apparently , we could not be “ controlled ” .
This is really the main reason why true freedom has never gone mainstream .
This is a prison planet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison ?
Well , there have been many solutions – from pure anarchy to peaceful marches and signing petitions to our government leaders .
All well and good and I support them all – accept anarchy .
That ’ s just chaos , nothing truly creative about that .
Only war , imprisonment and death .
It ’ s an act of desperation .
No , we need to keep cool heads above the violent tides of destruction .
That ’ s the only way we can see the truth .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on me yesterday , I was tempted to “ back down ” .
My enthusiasm for writing articles here was tainted with a bit of anxiety about being further attacked .
But this is the time to push through and put more coals on the fire , especially when you know your heart is in the right place and you believe certain things you read and see as reputable .
Engage with others of like minds to reinforce the truth without shooting anyone down .
What are those coals made of ?
Exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others have as well .
This is the only effective weapon we have .
Find the right targets and peacefully shed the light .
There are many who are simply waiting for it all to blow over and they can return to their lives as they were before .
I don ’ t believe this is going to occur .
Call it an inner perception ; I have no solid proof , although there are many references to a period of severe unrest and disaster .
I prefer to interpret this as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reverse the famous line ) No , it won ’ t be as it was before .
But do we really want that ?
Under the surface , all that is happening now was brewing , being carefully planned over many years , all with the illusion of freedom – all the while living with violations of our civil rights and oppression from the likes of Big Pharma , Monsanto , vaccines , bullies like the IRS , CIA , etc plus serious threats like a possible Hillary for president .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s events .
We can have a world far better than it ever was .
But we need a lot more than Trump ’ s promises .
We need each other as well as to support that goal by envisioning it .
Whatever religion you believe in , most proclaim us as spiritual beings .
But that doesn ’ t mean we don ’ t kick ass ; please don ’ t get images of praying on mountaintops – that is just a glorified escape from reality .
On the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either , even though the scene is serious .
Attitude is everything .
Treat it as the game it is .
Not a football game or checkers but still a game .
We just need to grow into it .
Even though we may not have created this world-wide oppression , we are still responsible for it .
Sitting at home in tedious isolation or feeling helpless as we view the biggest act of treason we have ever experienced is not the way out .
We are not helpless , only made to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expose .
Read more great articles by Lucille here

The New Media War Zone
Commentary by: TLB Staff Writer Lucille Femine
In the past few weeks, I have posted several Liberty Beacon articles I wrote that have gone unliked, uncommented on and, presumably, unread. This while my more “social” posts get many responses. So then, I decided to post the text and put the link in the comments. Voila! I had response!
Is this due primarily to the accusations many make of Facebook suppressing these more world-conscious, “conspiracy” ones? Judging from my own stats on which of mine are read and which not, it seems so.
It appears to be that truth has become synonymous with being banned on Facebook or YouTube. Maybe the trend has become – OK, that guy I can trust! He’s been banned! However, that shouldn’t be held up as a standard. Videos are banned for all kinds of reasons.
But more concretely, there’s data about YouTube removing videos for no other reason than to suppress freedom of speech. Here’s someone’s personal experience:
Here’s a quote from Politico, citing the American Civil Liberties Union’s caution regarding restricting those seeking to combat the spread of harmful content.
“Every time Facebook makes the choice to remove content, a single company is exercising an unchecked power to silence individuals and remove them from what has become an indispensable platform for the speech of billions,” American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Vera Eidelman told POLITICO in March. “When speech is censored by private parties based on the content of that speech, there’s nothing stopping Facebook — or YouTube or Twitter — from using that same power to censor organizations fighting to protect abortion rights or individuals fighting against climate change tomorrow.”
I don’t agree with either of these – we don’t need to fight climate change, it’s a naturally occurring weather process over thousands of years nor do I believe in abortion other than in exceptional cases but viewpoints need not be banned…
Full article here: facebook bans far right Alex Jones
Facebook wades deeper into censorship debate as it bans ‘dangerous’ accounts…
I found this pretty alarming – a video by Dr. Buttar where every time he said 5G, it was bleeped out. I’ve never seen anything like it. A sign of the fascism we need to expose more and more.
I can understand Youtube blocking out curse words, although anyone, even a child, can figure out what was said. But this was outright suppression, a fine example of violation of freedom of speech, dressed in fascism. In a later video, he referred to 5G as “ a number and a letter”.
I haven’t been able to locate the video where 5G was bleeped. Possibly it was banned. He does say here and there some of his videos have been banned. Could be Youtube felt they were being too benevolent just bleeping the word? However, I believe the one below proves it pretty well.
Watch here:

Is this another sign that we are going more underground? We should stay above ground, be very visible as we make these globalists visible enough to pack them away to prison.
Woven into this scene is the developing conflicts among Facebook friends (at least mine) who fall into two camps: those who don’t want to know all that “bad news” and trust the government who want to keep us closed down until the not foreseeable future when they find a vaccine and those who post alternative news labeled by the first group as “conspiracy theories”.
Yesterday, I was attacked to the point of unfriending. This was not over political views but downright slander of my character. Some people may excuse this and say that Facebook is not the platform to post world views of conflict and exposure of the bad guys. Maybe so but I see that is changing as people wake up to the true scene and threats to our very lives. This is fantastic. But I’m not doom and gloom, I welcome and promote happy news – except for ridiculous, distracting videos attempting humor by making fun of isolation. Call me a crab but they annoy me. They prove to me that too many people are accepting it as “the new way of life.”
A problem I see is that this fake, orchestrated pandemic has driven many over the world into such a state of chronic worry, despair, isolation, loss of livelihood and fear of the future that people are turning against each other. When people are not happy, they tend to make others unhappy and create conflicts. And they get ill for the same reason. Then these illnesses can conveniently be diagnosed as COVID-19 by well-meaning yet cowardly doctors who were bullied into such labeling.
This fear and despair is the true virus, created by those who fear us.
In a state of peace, affluence and safety, people rally to each other and we create the world as it should be. And we tend more to tolerate each other’s differences. This is a state of happiness that has existed in pockets in rare times but has never been the norm. As well, these times have been shot down because, apparently, we could not be “controlled”. This is really the main reason why true freedom has never gone mainstream. This is a prison planet.
So how do we break out of prison?
Well, there have been many solutions – from pure anarchy to peaceful marches and signing petitions to our government leaders. All well and good and I support them all – accept anarchy. That’s just chaos, nothing truly creative about that. Only war, imprisonment and death. It’s an act of desperation. No, we need to keep cool heads above the violent tides of destruction. That’s the only way we can see the truth.
I’ll be honest, after that attack on me yesterday, I was tempted to “back down”. My enthusiasm for writing articles here was tainted with a bit of anxiety about being further attacked. But this is the time to push through and put more coals on the fire, especially when you know your heart is in the right place and you believe certain things you read and see as reputable. Engage with others of like minds to reinforce the truth without shooting anyone down.
What are those coals made of? Exposure. I’ve said this before and others have as well. This is the only effective weapon we have. Find the right targets and peacefully shed the light.
There are many who are simply waiting for it all to blow over and they can return to their lives as they were before. I don’t believe this is going to occur. Call it an inner perception; I have no solid proof, although there are many references to a period of severe unrest and disaster. I prefer to interpret this as the storm before the calm (to reverse the famous line)
No, it won’t be as it was before. But do we really want that? Under the surface, all that is happening now was brewing, being carefully planned over many years, all with the illusion of freedom – all the while living with violations of our civil rights and oppression from the likes of Big Pharma, Monsanto, vaccines, bullies like the IRS, CIA, etc plus serious threats like a possible Hillary for president. It’s merely nostalgic compared to today’s events.
We can have a world far better than it ever was. But we need a lot more than Trump’s promises. We need each other as well as to support that goal by envisioning it.
Whatever religion you believe in, most proclaim us as spiritual beings. But that doesn’t mean we don’t kick ass; please don’t get images of praying on mountaintops – that is just a glorified escape from reality. On the other hand, don’t take it so seriously either, even though the scene is serious. Attitude is everything. Treat it as the game it is. Not a football game or checkers but still a game. We just need to grow into it.
Even though we may not have created this world-wide oppression, we are still responsible for it. Sitting at home in tedious isolation or feeling helpless as we view the biggest act of treason we have ever experienced is not the way out.
We are not helpless, only made to think that way. Stand up and expose.
••••
Read more great articles by Lucille here
••••
The Dark Lane – A Great Novel By Author & Artist: Lucille Femine A fictional story yet one all too true in the world of psychiatric drugs. Two brilliant, young boys forced to take these drugs and the resultant havoc on their physical, emotional and spiritual selves. The fight is on to save them. (click on the image below to find out more about this outstanding book)
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-04-25--A disproportionate interference: the Coronavirus Regulations and the ECHR — Francis Hoar Q.C.

This comes from a blog just brought to our attention that we recommend to other readers , titled UK Human Rights Blog .
The author of this piece ( which was picked up by the Daily Express ) , Francis Hoar , is a relatively young barrister with Field Court Chambers of London .
He wrote an article for The Telegraph ( paywall ) on April 5 , 2020 titled Police across the country are wielding powers they do not have – with vanishingly little public scrutiny .
Legal documents can be rather tough going .
The basic argument set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following elements : • Certain rights and freedoms ( liberty , political assembly , worship , maintaining family relationships , & etc . )
are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights .
• When the health crisis hit , the government didn ’ t apply for exemption from this convention , nor did it use the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004 .
• A government ’ s response should in principle be legal , and have a legitimate objective that is achievable and be strictly necessary for achieving that goal ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental freedoms of achieving it ; be based on scientific evidence ; be temporary and respectful of human dignity .
• Government action must therefore be proportionate .
The model of Sweden offers an alternative methodology that is less restrictive of freedoms , yet it wasn ’ t considered .
• The virus doesn ’ t appear to be serious in terms of mortality rate ; the scientific evidence was limited to one source ( Neil Ferguson ) , acted on hastily , and is of dubious quality in several respects .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of five tests that must all be achieved together in order for the lockdown to be reversed , which presents a roadblock ; and they are only subject to judicial review , not to the considerations of Parliament until they expire in 6 months .
• Thus , the government ’ s new ‘ Regulations ’ do not constitute a proportionate response to the UK ’ s public health crisis ; the government has acted beyond its legal powers .
A disproportionate interference : the Coronavirus Regulations and the ECHR — Francis Hoar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published here and inevitably simplifies the detailed arguments and considerations within it .
The article represents the views of the author alone .
Note : This article involves examination of the legal provisions that accompany the restrictions on movement of individuals announced by the Government .
The current Government guidance setting out these and other restrictions can be found here .
Legal scrutiny is important but should not be taken to question the requirement to follow the Regulations .
The ‘ lockdown ’ imposed by the government to contain the coronavirus and Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been enforced mainly through the Health Protection ( Coronavirus , Restrictions ) ( England ) Regulations 2020 ( ‘ the Regulations ’ ) , imposed under powers delegated by the Public Health ( Control of Disease ) Act 1984 ( ‘ the 1984 Act ’ ) .
Recently Lord Anderson QC , Robert Craig , Tom Hickman QC and others and Benet Brandreth QC and Lord Sandhurst QC have argued that the Regulations were or may have been ultra vires ( ER : ‘ acting beyond one ’ s legal powers or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delegated powers under Pt 2A of the 1984 Act .
In turn , Prof Jeff King has argued that the delegated powers were exercised lawfully .
It is the view of the author that the arguments against the vires of the legislation on that ground are more convincing .
This article argues that the Regulations are also a disproportionate interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights ( ‘ the Convention ’ ) ; and that , were they challenged by judicial review , should be disapplied if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 .
The impact of the Regulations The impact upon rights and freedoms is grave .
In particular : • They may constitute a deprivation of liberty engaging Article 5 ( see R ( Jalloh ) v Home Secretary [ 2020 ] UKSC 4 ) .
• Each cardinal freedom protected by Article 8 , including the maintenance of relationships with parents , children , and siblings , is engaged .
• The restrictions on gatherings prevent the right of worshipers to attend or gather in any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 ) other than for funerals .
• The interference with the political rights of association and assembly ( Article 11 ) – a ‘ precious freedom ’ ( Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council [ 1981 ] QB 202 ) and one of the ‘ paramount values of a democratic society ’ Stankov v Bulgaria [ 2007 ] ECHR 582 ) that has ‘ almost become a constitutional principle ’ ( R ( on the application of Gillan ) v Metropolitan Police Comr [ 2006 ] UKHL 12 ) – are particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Regulations and place an unreasonable impediment upon the mobilisation of opposition to such impositions upon rights and freedoms .
• The isolation required by the Regulations engages Article 14 , being indirectly discriminatory on those with mental illness ( in view of the isolation it imposes ) , on women ( given that they are disproportionately affected by the domestic violence that has more than doubled during the ‘ lockdown ) and on poorer and disabled children ( whose education has suffered much more than others ) .
• The closure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage Article 1 , Protocol 1 to the Convention ( Breyer Group plc v Department for Energy and Climate Change [ 2015 ] EWCA Civ 408 ) .
• Notwithstanding online provision , many children will be denied the ‘ basic minimum of education ’ , thus at least engaging Article 2 of Protocol 1 ( see Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [ 2006 ] UKHL 14 ) .
In respect of Article 2 of the Convention , the Strasbourg jurisprudence only recognises a positive duty to intervene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediate risk to life ’ over which the authorities ‘ retained a certain degree of control ’ ( Finogenov and Others v. Russia [ 2011 ] ECHR 2234 , para 209 ) .
This is very different to the circumstances of a pandemic in which some scientific evidence suggests heavy restrictions on the movement and association of the whole population is necessary to contain its spread .
Proportionality : the test to be applied Preliminary to considering proportionality , the fact that the United Kingdom ( or even France , Italy and Spain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) did not register any derogations from the Convention ( under Article 15 ) might suggest that the public health crisis is not one that threatened the ‘ life of the nation ’ .
It is questionable whether a virus which , while undoubtedly dangerous and life threatening , appears to have a mortality rate of between 0.12 and 1 % , could be considered to threaten the life of the nation .
Likewise , the failure to use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 both : ( a ) puts in question the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Public Health ( Control of Disease ) Act 1984 , given that it is a bespoke basis for regulations in a public emergency imposing strict limitations and Parliamentary scrutiny ; and ( b ) is relevant to determining the proportionality of the Regulations , in view of the above .
A determination of the proportionality of Regulations , imposing a code affecting a number of different freedoms for public health reasons , is best judged through applying the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that purpose by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1984 , and the UN Human Rights Committee .
Strasbourg jurisprudence supports the application of such specialised international instruments enunciating recognised norms of international law ( Demir v Turkey [ 2015 ] ECHR 316 at [ 85 ] – [ 86 ] , ECtHR ) .
They are principles of international law developed and adopted for that purpose during public health crisis , in circumstances where restrictions are likely to impact upon a nexus of different rights and freedoms ; and they incorporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to say that case law on the proportionality of restrictions of individual rights will not also be relevant to the determination of the challenge .
These Principles require that restrictions should , at a minimum , be : • carried out in accordance with the law ; • strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective ; • the least intrusive and restrictive available to reach the objective ; • based on scientiﬁc evidence and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application ; and • of limited duration , respectful of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A restriction impacting upon fundamental freedoms is unlikely to be proportionate if a less restrictive method could have been attained ‘ equally well by measures that were less restrictive of a fundamental freedom ( R ( on the application of Lumsdon and others ) v Legal Services Board [ 2015 ] UKSC 41 , para 66 ; Sejdic v Bosnia and Herzegovina ( 2009 ) 28 BHRC 201 , ECtHR ) and ‘ the fact that a legal dispute… arises from a matter of political controversy , has never been sufficient reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it… ’ ( R ( Miller ) v Prime Minister , [ 2019 ] UKSC 41 , paras 31 and 33 ) .
Balanced against the impact of the restrictions on rights and freedoms must be the scientific evidence relied upon by the government to justify them ; and its evaluation would be unavoidable for any court reviewing the Regulations .
A court would judge proportionality based upon the evidence as it would appear to a rational decision maker on the date of review ( See R ( on the application of UNISON @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] UKSC 51 , in which the Supreme Court , before determining the vires of secondary legislation , evaluated factual evidence of the impact of the tribunal fees on access to justice ) .
This scientific evidence is far more uncertain than is generally accepted , and there is , in particular , considerable uncertainty about the effectiveness of lockdowns in containing spread , the true mortality and infection rates ( see here and here ) and the accuracy of modelling in general , and previous modelling from Imperial College ( key to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presents an example of much less restrictive measures , which evidence suggests may be just as effective ( see here , here , here and up to date statistics ) .
There is a statutory duty to terminate the Regulations if the Secretary of State , on each of the reviews he is obliged to undertake every 21 days , decides they are no longer necessary ‘ to prevent , protect against , control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection in England with the coronavirus ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ / ( 3 ) ) .
Yet the First Secretary of State , Dominic Raab , announcing the continuance of the Regulations on 16th April , announced a further five tests to be applied before they could be removed ( in whole or in part ) , namely : • that the NHS is able to cope ; • a “ sustained and consistent ” fall in the daily death rate ; • reliable data showing the rate of infection was decreasing to ‘ manageable levels ’ ; • that the supply of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) could meet future demand ; and • that the government can be confident that any adjustments would not risk a second peak .
It is suggested that these tests : ( a ) impose an unreasonable fetter on the government ’ s discretion to remove or reduce the restrictions ( a ground for quashing a decision of a public body : British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade [ 1971 ] AC 610 ) ; ( b ) would ( if applied ) retain the restrictions ( if , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consistent ’ fall in the death rate ) even if an objective evaluation showed that less restrictive measures might have the same object ; and ( c ) fail to require the Secretary of State to have any regard to the impact of the Regulations on the rights and freedoms they restrict .
An application of these tests suggests that the Regulations , considered as a whole , are not a proportionate response to this public health crisis .
• Strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reach the objective These are considered together as the question of whether the Regulations are the least intrusive and restrictive measure available is relevant to that of whether they are ‘ strictly necessary ’ in a democratic society .
It is submitted that they are neither .
The Regulations were imposed as part of an express policy that not only fails to consider the potential effectiveness of less restrictive measures , but which ( through the First Secretary ’ s tests ) expressly fails to balance the harms they may redress against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exceptionally grave restrictions on every area of society and on almost all means of human interaction .
And they are likely to devastate the livelihoods of millions and to cause great harm to individuals and to society .
Based on scientiﬁc evidence and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application While the Regulations are based on scientific evidence , that evidence can only be measured insofar as it justifies the effectiveness of these restrictions measured against any that would be less regressive .
The First Secretary ’ s tests would appear to prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless each of the conditions it set are met .
Thus , the government ’ s policy can be imputed to be that they will remain in such circumstances even in the face of evidence of that less restrictive measures would be just as effective .
The scientific evidence of the efficacy and effectiveness of the Regulations as a proportionate means of reducing the spread of the virus is uncertain .
Before such evidence could establish that the Regulations are the ‘ least restrictive ’ means of addressing the objective , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effectiveness of less regressive measures ; and there is no evidence that any such evaluation has been conducted .
Indeed , the speed with which the Prime Minister announced a change in policy on considering the evidence of just one scientific team , led by Prof Ferguson , strongly suggests that it was not .
Of limited duration , respectful of human dignity , and subject to review While the measures are subject to review every 21 days , the decision of the Secretary of State is absolute and subject only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Civil Contingencies Act , Parliament has no right to scrutinise the Regulations until they expire after six months .
Moreover , the Regulations themselves proscribe – for the first time in the history of this country – all political gatherings and public demonstrations without exception .
Even if such an exceptional step was found ( on other grounds ) to be proportionate , the chilling effect it must have on the ability of opposition to the policy to be organised and mobilised and to demonstrate publicly weighs against a determination that restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic scrutiny for up to six months , are justifiable .
Francis Hoar is a barrister at Field Court Chambers .
He tweets @ Francis_Hoar The author would like to express his gratitude to Anna Dannreuther , a pupil at Field Court Chambers , for her excellent and detailed research that was of great assistance in drafting this article ; and thanks Prof Colm O ’ Cinneide , of University College London , Robert Craig , AHRC PhD Candidate and tutor in law , University of Bristol , and others for their comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full article .
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com

Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project
This comes from a blog just brought to our attention that we recommend to other readers, titled UK Human Rights Blog. The author of this piece (which was picked up by the Daily Express), Francis Hoar, is a relatively young barrister with Field Court Chambers of London. He wrote an article for The Telegraph (paywall) on April 5, 2020 titled Police across the country are wielding powers they do not have – with vanishingly little public scrutiny.
Legal documents can be rather tough going. The basic argument set out by Hoar below rests on the following elements:
Certain rights and freedoms (liberty, political assembly, worship, maintaining family relationships, &etc.) are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. When the health crisis hit, the government didn’t apply for exemption from this convention, nor did it use the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004. A government’s response should in principle be legal, and have a legitimate objective that is achievable and be strictly necessary for achieving that goal; be the least intrusive method on those fundamental freedoms of achieving it; be based on scientific evidence; be temporary and respectful of human dignity. Government action must therefore be proportionate. The model of Sweden offers an alternative methodology that is less restrictive of freedoms, yet it wasn’t considered. The virus doesn’t appear to be serious in terms of mortality rate; the scientific evidence was limited to one source (Neil Ferguson), acted on hastily, and is of dubious quality in several respects. The UK Government adopted its own set of five tests that must all be achieved together in order for the lockdown to be reversed, which presents a roadblock; and they are only subject to judicial review, not to the considerations of Parliament until they expire in 6 months. Thus, the government’s new ‘Regulations’ do not constitute a proportionate response to the UK’s public health crisis; the government has acted beyond its legal powers.
********
A disproportionate interference: the Coronavirus Regulations and the ECHR — Francis Hoar
FRANCIS HOAR
The lockdown has been in place since 23 March. Image: The Guardian
This is a summary of an article published here and inevitably simplifies the detailed arguments and considerations within it. The article represents the views of the author alone.
Note: This article involves examination of the legal provisions that accompany the restrictions on movement of individuals announced by the Government. The current Government guidance setting out these and other restrictions can be found here. Legal scrutiny is important but should not be taken to question the requirement to follow the Regulations.
****
The ‘lockdown’ imposed by the government to contain the coronavirus and Covid 19, the disease it causes, has been enforced mainly through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’), imposed under powers delegated by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (‘the 1984 Act’).
Recently Lord Anderson QC, Robert Craig, Tom Hickman QC and others and Benet Brandreth QC and Lord Sandhurst QC have argued that the Regulations were or may have been ultra vires (ER: ‘acting beyond one’s legal powers or authority’) as secondary legislation beyond the delegated powers under Pt 2A of the 1984 Act. In turn, Prof Jeff King has argued that the delegated powers were exercised lawfully. It is the view of the author that the arguments against the vires of the legislation on that ground are more convincing.
This article argues that the Regulations are also a disproportionate interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’); and that, were they challenged by judicial review, should be disapplied if necessary to avoid a breach of s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The impact of the Regulations
The impact upon rights and freedoms is grave. In particular:
They may constitute a deprivation of liberty engaging Article 5 (see R (Jalloh) v Home Secretary [2020] UKSC 4). Each cardinal freedom protected by Article 8, including the maintenance of relationships with parents, children, and siblings, is engaged. The restrictions on gatherings prevent the right of worshipers to attend or gather in any places of worship (protected by Article 9) other than for funerals. The interference with the political rights of association and assembly (Article 11) – a ‘precious freedom’ (Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council [1981] QB 202) and one of the ‘paramount values of a democratic society’ Stankov v Bulgaria [2007] ECHR 582) that has ‘almost become a constitutional principle’ (R (on the application of Gillan) v Metropolitan Police Comr [2006] UKHL 12) – are particularly serious given the limited Parliamentary scrutiny of the Regulations and place an unreasonable impediment upon the mobilisation of opposition to such impositions upon rights and freedoms. The isolation required by the Regulations engages Article 14, being indirectly discriminatory on those with mental illness (in view of the isolation it imposes), on women (given that they are disproportionately affected by the domestic violence that has more than doubled during the ‘lockdown) and on poorer and disabled children (whose education has suffered much more than others). The closure of businesses will decrease their goodwill and will engage Article 1, Protocol 1 to the Convention (Breyer Group plc v Department for Energy and Climate Change [2015] EWCA Civ 408). Notwithstanding online provision, many children will be denied the ‘basic minimum of education’, thus at least engaging Article 2 of Protocol 1 (see Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14).
In respect of Article 2 of the Convention, the Strasbourg jurisprudence only recognises a positive duty to intervene where there is a ‘real or immediate risk to life’ over which the authorities ‘retained a certain degree of control’ (Finogenov and Others v. Russia [2011] ECHR 2234, para 209). This is very different to the circumstances of a pandemic in which some scientific evidence suggests heavy restrictions on the movement and association of the whole population is necessary to contain its spread.
Proportionality: the test to be applied
Preliminary to considering proportionality, the fact that the United Kingdom (or even France, Italy and Spain, despite more stringent ‘lockdowns’) did not register any derogations from the Convention (under Article 15) might suggest that the public health crisis is not one that threatened the ‘life of the nation’. It is questionable whether a virus which, while undoubtedly dangerous and life threatening, appears to have a mortality rate of between 0.12 and 1%, could be considered to threaten the life of the nation. Likewise, the failure to use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 both: (a) puts in question the lawfulness of the use the delegated powers of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, given that it is a bespoke basis for regulations in a public emergency imposing strict limitations and Parliamentary scrutiny; and (b) is relevant to determining the proportionality of the Regulations, in view of the above.
A determination of the proportionality of Regulations, imposing a code affecting a number of different freedoms for public health reasons, is best judged through applying the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted for that purpose by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1984, and the UN Human Rights Committee. Strasbourg jurisprudence supports the application of such specialised international instruments enunciating recognised norms of international law (Demir v Turkey [2015] ECHR 316 at [85]–[86], ECtHR). They are principles of international law developed and adopted for that purpose during public health crisis, in circumstances where restrictions are likely to impact upon a nexus of different rights and freedoms; and they incorporate well established proportionality principles. This is not to say that case law on the proportionality of restrictions of individual rights will not also be relevant to the determination of the challenge.
These Principles require that restrictions should, at a minimum, be:
carried out in accordance with the law ;
; directed towards a legitimate objective ;
; strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective;
to achieve the objective; the least intrusive and restrictive available to reach the objective;
available to reach the objective; based on scientiﬁc evidence and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application; and
and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application; and of limited duration, respectful of human dignity, and subject to review.
A restriction impacting upon fundamental freedoms is unlikely to be proportionate if a less restrictive method could have been attained ‘equally well by measures that were less restrictive of a fundamental freedom (R (on the application of Lumsdon and others) v Legal Services Board [2015] UKSC 41, para 66; Sejdic v Bosnia and Herzegovina (2009) 28 BHRC 201, ECtHR) and ‘the fact that a legal dispute… arises from a matter of political controversy, has never been sufficient reason for the courts to refuse to consider it…’ (R (Miller) v Prime Minister, [2019] UKSC 41, paras 31 and 33).
Balanced against the impact of the restrictions on rights and freedoms must be the scientific evidence relied upon by the government to justify them; and its evaluation would be unavoidable for any court reviewing the Regulations. A court would judge proportionality based upon the evidence as it would appear to a rational decision maker on the date of review (See R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, [2017] UKSC 51, in which the Supreme Court, before determining the vires of secondary legislation, evaluated factual evidence of the impact of the tribunal fees on access to justice). This scientific evidence is far more uncertain than is generally accepted, and there is, in particular, considerable uncertainty about the effectiveness of lockdowns in containing spread, the true mortality and infection rates (see here and here) and the accuracy of modelling in general, and previous modelling from Imperial College (key to government policy) in particular. Sweden presents an example of much less restrictive measures, which evidence suggests may be just as effective (see here, here, here and up to date statistics).
There is a statutory duty to terminate the Regulations if the Secretary of State, on each of the reviews he is obliged to undertake every 21 days, decides they are no longer necessary ‘to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection in England with the coronavirus’ (reg. 3(2)/(3)). Yet the First Secretary of State, Dominic Raab, announcing the continuance of the Regulations on 16th April, announced a further five tests to be applied before they could be removed (in whole or in part), namely:
that the NHS is able to cope;
a “sustained and consistent” fall in the daily death rate;
reliable data showing the rate of infection was decreasing to ‘manageable levels’;
that the supply of tests and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) could meet future demand; and
that the government can be confident that any adjustments would not risk a second peak.
It is suggested that these tests: (a) impose an unreasonable fetter on the government’s discretion to remove or reduce the restrictions (a ground for quashing a decision of a public body: British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610); (b) would (if applied) retain the restrictions (if, for example, there was not a ‘sustained and consistent’ fall in the death rate) even if an objective evaluation showed that less restrictive measures might have the same object; and (c) fail to require the Secretary of State to have any regard to the impact of the Regulations on the rights and freedoms they restrict.
Application of the Siracusa Principles
An application of these tests suggests that the Regulations, considered as a whole, are not a proportionate response to this public health crisis.
Strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective; and the least intrusive and restrictive available to reach the objective
These are considered together as the question of whether the Regulations are the least intrusive and restrictive measure available is relevant to that of whether they are ‘strictly necessary’ in a democratic society. It is submitted that they are neither.
The Regulations were imposed as part of an express policy that not only fails to consider the potential effectiveness of less restrictive measures, but which (through the First Secretary’s tests) expressly fails to balance the harms they may redress against the harms they cause. They impose unprecedented and exceptionally grave restrictions on every area of society and on almost all means of human interaction. And they are likely to devastate the livelihoods of millions and to cause great harm to individuals and to society.
Based on scientiﬁc evidence and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application
While the Regulations are based on scientific evidence, that evidence can only be measured insofar as it justifies the effectiveness of these restrictions measured against any that would be less regressive. The First Secretary’s tests would appear to prevent the termination of any of the restrictions unless each of the conditions it set are met. Thus, the government’s policy can be imputed to be that they will remain in such circumstances even in the face of evidence of that less restrictive measures would be just as effective.
The scientific evidence of the efficacy and effectiveness of the Regulations as a proportionate means of reducing the spread of the virus is uncertain. Before such evidence could establish that the Regulations are the ‘least restrictive’ means of addressing the objective, it would need to be compared to evidence of the effectiveness of less regressive measures; and there is no evidence that any such evaluation has been conducted. Indeed, the speed with which the Prime Minister announced a change in policy on considering the evidence of just one scientific team, led by Prof Ferguson, strongly suggests that it was not.
Of limited duration, respectful of human dignity, and subject to review
While the measures are subject to review every 21 days, the decision of the Secretary of State is absolute and subject only to judicial review. Unlike regulations passed under the Civil Contingencies Act, Parliament has no right to scrutinise the Regulations until they expire after six months.
Moreover, the Regulations themselves proscribe – for the first time in the history of this country – all political gatherings and public demonstrations without exception. Even if such an exceptional step was found (on other grounds) to be proportionate, the chilling effect it must have on the ability of opposition to the policy to be organised and mobilised and to demonstrate publicly weighs against a determination that restrictions of this magnitude, subject to no democratic scrutiny for up to six months, are justifiable.
************
Francis Hoar is a barrister at Field Court Chambers. He tweets @Francis_Hoar
The author would like to express his gratitude to Anna Dannreuther, a pupil at Field Court Chambers, for her excellent and detailed research that was of great assistance in drafting this article; and thanks Prof Colm O’Cinneide, of University College London, Robert Craig, AHRC PhD Candidate and tutor in law, University of Bristol, and others for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the full article.
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-04-25--America Has a Jared Kushner Problem

America Has a Jared Kushner Problem

If President Donald Trump is serious about draining the swamp , he ought to start with his son-in-law , Jared Kushner .
Kushner raised eyebrows when he strutted into the role of pandemic point man for the White House , alongside his former roommate and a handful of McKinsey & Company management consultants .
As Chris Buskirk wrote in these pages , Team McKinsey has “ a history of doing little more than helping failing institutions fail in style while growing rich in the process.
” Project Airbridge , Kushner ’ s plan to take the reins of the Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partner with private companies to fly health care supplies to New York City from China , lived up to the McKinsey style .
Never mind that the Chinese government , through state-run media , threatened to plunge America into “ the mighty sea of coronavirus ” as we grappled with the pandemic .
Kushner ’ s solution for a problem caused by China , and exacerbated by our manufacturing dependency on that country , was to turn to Beijing for “ help.
” Managed decline , brought to you by Kushner and McKinsey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the public and private sector is long and mediocre .
After he took over the New York Observer , the newspaper stopped its weekly print edition that had been in operation since 1987 .
“ Kushner paid $ 1.8 billion , ” Michelle Goldberg reports , “ for a Manhattan skyscraper at the very top of the real estate market in 2007 .
The debt from that project became a crushing burden for the family business.
” His immigration plan , shopped to GOP senators in a PowerPoint presentation , was dismissed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Palestinian economy was lampooned by Michael J. Koplow of the Israel Policy Forum as “ the Monty Python version of Israeli-Palestinian peace , where no contention is too absurd to be floated.
” Nevertheless , the president looks on as Kushner performs the political equivalent of jamming square pegs in round holes , encouraging him to try and try again .
Amid the sound and fury of the pandemic , most people didn ’ t notice that it was a health insurance company closely connected to Kushner , Oscar Health , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in partnership with the government .
Kushner ’ s younger brother Joshua co-founded Oscar and is a major investor in the company , “ and Jared Kushner partially owned or controlled Oscar before he joined the White House , ” according to an exclusive report in the Atlantic .
Though Oscar did the work free of charge before abruptly shutting down , it rightly raised the hackles of ethics lawyers .
Other articles about Kushner from The Liberty Beacon : SEC Probing Kushner Companies Over Use Of Immigrant Visa Program Jared Kushner Advised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Storm ” After Khashoggi Death : Report The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent .
So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB ) Comment Policy : As a privately owned web site , we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam , advertising , vulgarity , threats of violence , racism , or personal/abusive attacks on other users .
This also applies to trolling , the use of more than one alias , or just intentional mischief .
Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators .
Repeat offenders may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning .
Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner .
We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “ fair use ” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political , health , economic and social issues .
The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes .
If you wish to use copyrighted material for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you must request permission from the copyright owner .

America Has a Jared Kushner Problem
President Trump’s greatest weakness now is his inability to recognize that his son-in-law is the leader of a faction within the White House whose interests come at the expense of the very people who voted for him.
American Greatness
If President Donald Trump is serious about draining the swamp, he ought to start with his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Kushner raised eyebrows when he strutted into the role of pandemic point man for the White House, alongside his former roommate and a handful of McKinsey & Company management consultants. As Chris Buskirk wrote in these pages, Team McKinsey has “a history of doing little more than helping failing institutions fail in style while growing rich in the process.”
Project Airbridge, Kushner’s plan to take the reins of the Federal Emergency Management Agency supply-chain task force and partner with private companies to fly health care supplies to New York City from China, lived up to the McKinsey style.
Never mind that the Chinese government, through state-run media, threatened to plunge America into “the mighty sea of coronavirus” as we grappled with the pandemic. Kushner’s solution for a problem caused by China, and exacerbated by our manufacturing dependency on that country, was to turn to Beijing for “help.” Managed decline, brought to you by Kushner and McKinsey & Company.
Square Pegs, Round Holes
Kushner’s record in the public and private sector is long and mediocre. After he took over the New York Observer, the newspaper stopped its weekly print edition that had been in operation since 1987.
“Kushner paid $1.8 billion,” Michelle Goldberg reports, “for a Manhattan skyscraper at the very top of the real estate market in 2007. The debt from that project became a crushing burden for the family business.”
His immigration plan, shopped to GOP senators in a PowerPoint presentation, was dismissed as “laughably simplistic.” His plan for the Palestinian economy was lampooned by Michael J. Koplow of the Israel Policy Forum as “the Monty Python version of Israeli-Palestinian peace, where no contention is too absurd to be floated.”
Nevertheless, the president looks on as Kushner performs the political equivalent of jamming square pegs in round holes, encouraging him to try and try again.
Amid the sound and fury of the pandemic, most people didn’t notice that it was a health insurance company closely connected to Kushner, Oscar Health, that undertook development for a coronavirus website in partnership with the government. Kushner’s younger brother Joshua co-founded Oscar and is a major investor in the company, “and Jared Kushner partially owned or controlled Oscar before he joined the White House,” according to an exclusive report in the Atlantic. Though Oscar did the work free of charge before abruptly shutting down, it rightly raised the hackles of ethics lawyers.
Other articles about Kushner from The Liberty Beacon:
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-04-25--Biden Accuser’s Mother Telling Larry King Of “Problems” With “Prominent Senator” [Video]

1993 CNN Clip Unearthed Of Biden Accuser ’ s Mother Telling Larry King Of “ Problems ” With “ Prominent Senator ” A 1993 clip from CNN ‘ s “ Larry King Live ” has been unearthed , which features the mother of Biden accuser Tara Reade asking for advice on how to address her “ problems ” working with a prominent senator , as nobody in Washington would help her .
( ZeroHedge ) Reade ( pictured above ) has accused Biden of forcibly penetrating her with his fingers nearly 30 years ago when she was a staffer for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intercept broke the news that a transcript existed of the Aug. 11 , 1993 broadcast , while Reade confirmed with Fox News that the woman on the call was in fact her mother , Jeanette Altimus .
“ Yes , hello .
I ’ m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington ?
My daughter has just left there , after working for a prominent senator , and could not get through with her problems at all , and the only thing she could have done was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose not to do it out of respect for him , ” the caller says .
“ In other words , she had a story to tell but , out of respect for the person she worked for , she didn ’ t tell it ?
” King inquires – to which the woman says “ That ’ s true.
” In a graphic March podcast interview with Rolling Stone ‘ s Katie Halper , Reade described the 1993 incident which began when her superior asked her to run a gym bag to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden greeted Reade , and then allegedly forced her up against a wall and shoved his hands up her skirt .
Biden ’ s “ hands were on me and underneath my clothes , ” she said , after he “ had me up against the wall.
” “ I remember him saying first , like as he was doing it , ‘ Do you want to go somewhere else , ' ” she said , adding “ And then him saying to me when I pulled away , he got finished doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of just pulled back and he said , ‘ Come on man , I heard you liked me.
’ And that phrase stayed with me because I kept thinking what I might ’ ve said and I can ’ t remember exactly if he said ‘ i thought ’ or ‘ I heard ’ but he implied that I had done this.
” While Reade ’ s interview with Rolling Stone was the most graphic account of the alleged encounter , she came forward last year when multiple women claimed Biden touched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see if the “ believe all women ” crowd will step forward to defend Reade in light of the resurfaced CNN clip .
Somehow we doubt they will .
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we represent .
So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB ) Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner .
We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “ fair use ” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes .
If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “ fair use ” you must request permission from the copyright owner .

1993 CNN Clip Unearthed Of Biden Accuser’s Mother Telling Larry King Of “Problems” With “Prominent Senator”
A 1993 clip from CNN‘s “Larry King Live” has been unearthed, which features the mother of Biden accuser Tara Reade asking for advice on how to address her “problems” working with a prominent senator, as nobody in Washington would help her.
(ZeroHedge) Reade (pictured above) has accused Biden of forcibly penetrating her with his fingers nearly 30 years ago when she was a staffer for the then-US senator from Delaware.
The Intercept broke the news that a transcript existed of the Aug. 11, 1993 broadcast, while Reade confirmed with Fox News that the woman on the call was in fact her mother, Jeanette Altimus.
This is my mom. I miss her so much and her brave support of me. https://t.co/okU80kqWAI — taratweets ( Alexandra Tara Reade) (@ReadeAlexandra) April 24, 2020
“San Luis Obispo, California, hello,” King begins.
“Yes, hello. I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him,” the caller says.
“In other words, she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it?” King inquires – to which the woman says “That’s true.”
#BREAKING: HERE is the video from August 11,1993’s ‘Larry King Live’ described by @TheIntercept (and Tara Reade) as allegedly featuring her mother calling in and alluding to Reade’s sexual assault claims against @JoeBiden (blog here by @ScottJW) https://t.co/fCgEqBnX7n pic.twitter.com/V5FGHskv56 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 24, 2020
In a graphic March podcast interview with Rolling Stone‘s Katie Halper, Reade described the 1993 incident which began when her superior asked her to run a gym bag to Biden “down towards the capital.” Biden greeted Reade, and then allegedly forced her up against a wall and shoved his hands up her skirt.
Biden’s “hands were on me and underneath my clothes,” she said, after he “had me up against the wall.”
“I remember him saying first, like as he was doing it, ‘Do you want to go somewhere else,'” she said, adding “And then him saying to me when I pulled away, he got finished doing what he was doing, and I kind of just pulled back and he said, ‘Come on man, I heard you liked me.’ And that phrase stayed with me because I kept thinking what I might’ve said and I can’t remember exactly if he said ‘i thought’ or ‘I heard’ but he implied that I had done this.”
While Reade’s interview with Rolling Stone was the most graphic account of the alleged encounter, she came forward last year when multiple women claimed Biden touched them inappropriately.
It will be interesting to see if the “believe all women” crowd will step forward to defend Reade in light of the resurfaced CNN clip. Somehow we doubt they will.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-04-25--The FCC Just Approved 6 GHz Band for Wi-Fi & Why You Shouldn’t Use It

The FCC Just Approved 6 GHz Frequency Band for Wi-Fi and Why You Shouldn ’ t Use It Many readers may not fully appreciate the health risks from Wi-Fi technology .
This article and our work at Children ’ s Health Defense lay them out .
The bad news is that Wi-Fi health risks are going to get worse .
The good news is that you can limit them .
On April 23 , 2020 , the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) opened the 6 GHz band for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed uses .
Adding the 6 GHz electromagnetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more frequencies to broadcast Wi-Fi signals .
The devices are expected to start supporting the 6GHz Wi-Fi by the end of 2020 and will be branded under the name “ Wi-Fi 6E.
” The good news is that you don ’ t have to use it .
Wi-Fi uses the same frequency as the microwave oven , the 2.45 GHz frequency ( which means a frequency of 2,450,000,000 oscillations per second ) .
This frequency was chosen for the microwave oven , and then for WI-Fi , because it was an “ unlicensed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The 5GHz frequency was added to the Wi-Fi routers to provide broader bandwidth for Wi-Fi- based “ smart ” devices and the increased data downloads they carry .
The higher the frequency , the bigger bandwidth it provides to carry more data—like wider roads for more cars .
For that reason , the FCC approved 6GHz .
It will now allow even bigger bandwidth for Wi-Fi .
Furthermore , adding the 6GHz band of frequencies which haven ’ t been used for commercial devices thus far , will also reduce interference with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has continued to allow more radiation and radiation-emitting devices into our environment with complete disregard for the public ’ s health and safety .
Numerous studies have shown profound adverse health effects from Wi-Fi , both from the 2.45 GHz frequency used for Wi-Fi as well as effects from the pulsation and modulation of the Wi-Fi frequency used to carry the data .
Harmful effects include “ oxidative stress , sperm/testicular damage , neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes , apoptosis , cellular DNA damage , endocrine changes , and calcium overload ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the industry ’ s IEEE journal stating : “ For now , wireless technologies must be avoided as much as possible.
” The authors continued , “ People should be made aware that the EMR from using day to day cellular , Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are harmful to human health ” .
In fact , the first study that showed that wireless radiation can break DNA was from 1996 , and it was on the 2.45 GHz frequency .
DNA damage was confirmed by dozens of studies , including the recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 million study by the federal government , which showed CLEAR EVIDENCE that wireless causes cancer and DNA damage .
Despite the evidence , the FCC has continued to promote wireless with complete disregard for our health .
In December 2019 , the FCC announced that it would not review its health guidelines despite clear scientific and human evidence of harm .
In response , Children ’ s Health Defense filed a lawsuit against the FCC , challenging the FCC ’ s refusal to review the guidelines as capricious , arbitrary , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The impacts of electromagnetic frequencies on the body are complex .
While we can test the adverse effects of a specific device or frequency , it is more complex to test the combined impact of numerous frequencies in the environment .
Recently with the assistance of William Holland , an electrician and the owner of My Quiet Home , an EMF mitigation company in Los Angeles , we tested the presence and intensity of Wi-Fi from neighbors with a spectrum analyzer ( RF Explorer ) .
The results show that the 5GHz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intensity than the 2.45GHz frequency .
Image 1 : The radiation from the 5Ghz frequency Image 2 : The radiation detected from the 2.45 GHz .
We always suggest that people turn off the Wi-Fi in their router and use a wired connection to the internet instead .
Based on the results of the testing mentioned above , if they continue to use Wi-Fi , we advise they should at least disable the 5GHz frequency in the router .
To learn how to do this and how to use the internet safely by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CHD ’ s step by step guide .
According to industry sources , internet providers will start offering “ upgraded ” Wi-Fi 6E routers by the end of 2020 .
We advise against getting these routers or allowing companies to switch your router .
Furthermore , we advise that you purchase your own router rather than use the internet provider ’ s router .
Some of the internet providers use your router to provide “ hotspot ” for people on the street .
While you pay for the router , the service provider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your router to passersby .
Besides likely being illegal , this means that when you disable the Wi-Fi in your router , you do not necessarily stop the router from emitting radiation .
From what we have seen , only the provider can disable the “ hotspot ” frequency .
The providers often deny the existence of the hotspot access until they finally admit to it and agree to disable it .
If you have your own router , this is a non-issue .
Children ’ s Health Defense seeks to protect children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chronic health conditions that plague over half of America ’ s children .
Using wired internet connection instead of Wi-Fi in homes is one of the key ways we can keep children healthier .
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of websites and projects we represent .
So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB )

The FCC Just Approved 6 GHz Frequency Band for Wi-Fi and Why You Shouldn’t Use It
By: Dafna Tachover, CHD’s Director of 5G & Wireless Harms Project
Many readers may not fully appreciate the health risks from Wi-Fi technology. This article and our work at Children’s Health Defense lay them out. The bad news is that Wi-Fi health risks are going to get worse. The good news is that you can limit them.
On April 23, 2020, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opened the 6 GHz band for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed uses. Adding the 6 GHz electromagnetic frequencies band will allow routers to use more frequencies to broadcast Wi-Fi signals. The devices are expected to start supporting the 6GHz Wi-Fi by the end of 2020 and will be branded under the name “Wi-Fi 6E.” The good news is that you don’t have to use it.
Wi-Fi uses the same frequency as the microwave oven, the 2.45 GHz frequency (which means a frequency of 2,450,000,000 oscillations per second). This frequency was chosen for the microwave oven, and then for WI-Fi, because it was an “unlicensed frequency” and open for use.
The 5GHz frequency was added to the Wi-Fi routers to provide broader bandwidth for Wi-Fi- based “smart” devices and the increased data downloads they carry. The higher the frequency, the bigger bandwidth it provides to carry more data—like wider roads for more cars. For that reason, the FCC approved 6GHz. It will now allow even bigger bandwidth for Wi-Fi. Furthermore, adding the 6GHz band of frequencies which haven’t been used for commercial devices thus far, will also reduce interference with the Wi-Fi connection.from other devices.
The FCC has continued to allow more radiation and radiation-emitting devices into our environment with complete disregard for the public’s health and safety. Numerous studies have shown profound adverse health effects from Wi-Fi, both from the 2.45 GHz frequency used for Wi-Fi as well as effects from the pulsation and modulation of the Wi-Fi frequency used to carry the data. Harmful effects include “oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload”. Recently, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis was published in the industry’s IEEE journal stating: “For now, wireless technologies must be avoided as much as possible.” The authors continued, “People should be made aware that the EMR from using day to day cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are harmful to human health”.
In fact, the first study that showed that wireless radiation can break DNA was from 1996, and it was on the 2.45 GHz frequency. DNA damage was confirmed by dozens of studies, including the recent National Toxicology Program (NTP) $25 million study by the federal government, which showed CLEAR EVIDENCE that wireless causes cancer and DNA damage. Despite the evidence, the FCC has continued to promote wireless with complete disregard for our health. In December 2019, the FCC announced that it would not review its health guidelines despite clear scientific and human evidence of harm. In response, Children’s Health Defense filed a lawsuit against the FCC, challenging the FCC’s refusal to review the guidelines as capricious, arbitrary, not evidence based and an abuse of discretion.
The impacts of electromagnetic frequencies on the body are complex. While we can test the adverse effects of a specific device or frequency, it is more complex to test the combined impact of numerous frequencies in the environment.
Recently with the assistance of William Holland, an electrician and the owner of My Quiet Home, an EMF mitigation company in Los Angeles, we tested the presence and intensity of Wi-Fi from neighbors with a spectrum analyzer (RF Explorer). The results show that the 5GHz frequency is reaching further and providing higher intensity than the 2.45GHz frequency.
Image 1: The radiation from the 5Ghz frequency
Image 2: The radiation detected from the 2.45 GHz.
In both images, the frequency measured is on the horizontal line and the amplitude of the frequency is on the vertical line. The amplitude represents the intensity of the energy (radiation) carried by the frequency. Looking at both images, it is clear that the intensity of the radiation carried by the 5G band of frequencies emitted by the routers (Image 1) is higher than the intensity of the 2.45 GHz band of frequencies (Image 2).
We always suggest that people turn off the Wi-Fi in their router and use a wired connection to the internet instead. Based on the results of the testing mentioned above, if they continue to use Wi-Fi, we advise they should at least disable the 5GHz frequency in the router. To learn how to do this and how to use the internet safely by using a wired connection, check out CHD’s step by step guide.
According to industry sources, internet providers will start offering “upgraded” Wi-Fi 6E routers by the end of 2020. We advise against getting these routers or allowing companies to switch your router. Furthermore, we advise that you purchase your own router rather than use the internet provider’s router. Some of the internet providers use your router to provide “hotspot” for people on the street. While you pay for the router, the service provider is making money by selling access to your router to passersby. Besides likely being illegal, this means that when you disable the Wi-Fi in your router, you do not necessarily stop the router from emitting radiation. From what we have seen, only the provider can disable the “hotspot” frequency. The providers often deny the existence of the hotspot access until they finally admit to it and agree to disable it. If you have your own router, this is a non-issue.
Children’s Health Defense seeks to protect children from harmful environmental exposures and to prevent the chronic health conditions that plague over half of America’s children. Using wired internet connection instead of Wi-Fi in homes is one of the key ways we can keep children healthier.
••••
Please consider supporting CHD’s landmark FCC case by making a donation at Children’s Health Defense – About Us – Donate (Please select 5G at the drop-down menu).
••••
TLB Editors Note: This is World Mercury Project on steroids! TLB highly recommends you click on the image below, visit this great website, and do whatever you can to help see this vital forum succeed … for the sake of our children !!! Please take the time to Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
••••
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-04-25--Top cyber security team finds no evidence of Trump-Russia chatter

Top cyber security team finds no evidence of Trump-Russia chatter on Alfa Bank server A report released Friday by top cyber-security experts concludes , as did Special Counsel Robert Mueller , that the 2016 Trump presidential campaign did not secretly communicate with the Russian government via a computer server belonging to Russia ’ s Alfa Bank .
In the report by the cyber consulting firm Ankura , cyber experts determined that the communication from Alfa Bank to servers on the U.S. East Coast were going to a company that runs marketing activities for several global hotel chains , including , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump Hotels – not servers owned or operated by the Trump campaign .
Mueller , when asked during a hearing in the summer of 2019 about allegations that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin were exchanging covert communications via the Alfa Bank server , said , “ I believe it ’ s not true.
” The notion that there was secret communication going on between Trump and Russia , that would make it seem like Trump was colluding to win the White House , came from former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI for its Trump-Russia probe , has also been largely discredited .
On October 11 , 2016 , Steele met with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec .
( Pictured ) Following his visit , Kavalec sent information that she received from Steele to the FBI , including details about the suspected communications via the Alfa Bank server .
At the time , investigators were trying to determine unexplained Domain Name System ( DNS ) pings between one of the bank ’ s servers and a server used by the Trump organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coast .
Domain Name Systems are the systems by which internet domain names and addresses are tracked and regulated – in this case , they were used to determine communication patterns between the servers .
After an assessment by Ankura ’ s Cyber Threat Analysis and Pursuit Team ( CTAPT ) of possible DNS activity between the Trump organization , the marketing agency servers , and the Alfa Bank servers , the cyber experts found “ no evidence that mail1.trump-email.com and trump1.contact-client.com were used by Alfa-Bank and the Trump organization for covert communications.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , find evidence that suggests so-called “ threat actors ” conjured the appearance of a connection between the Trump servers and Alfa Bank servers by creating false Domain Name System activity ( DNS ) .
If this is true , it “ would constitute a potential violation of various U.S. laws , ” says the report .
The FBI determined in February of 2017 that there were no links between the Trump organization and Alfa Bank .
However , the narrative persists in some mainstream media reports .
What remains unclear is whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actors who created false DNS activity to continue feeding the Russia collusion narrative — and , if they exist , who are they ?
The exact role Christopher Steele played also remains a mystery .
Did he know to look out for suspicious DNS activity to report to Kavalec ?
Or was the information handed to him by someone else ?
( TLB ) published this article with permission of John Solomon at Just the News Some emphasis and pictorial content added by ( TLB ) About Just the News It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brand statements : Click Here to read about the staff at Just the News The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent .
So we have just installed donation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB ) Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner .
We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “ fair use ” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political , health , economic and social issues .
The material on this site is distributed without profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes .
If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “ fair use ” you must request permission from the copyright owner .

Top cyber security team finds no evidence of Trump-Russia chatter on Alfa Bank server
A cyber security report debunks the accusation that the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin were communicating secretly via Alfa Bank servers
By Sophie Mann | Just the News
A report released Friday by top cyber-security experts concludes, as did Special Counsel Robert Mueller, that the 2016 Trump presidential campaign did not secretly communicate with the Russian government via a computer server belonging to Russia’s Alfa Bank.
In the report by the cyber consulting firm Ankura, cyber experts determined that the communication from Alfa Bank to servers on the U.S. East Coast were going to a company that runs marketing activities for several global hotel chains, including, for a number of years, the Trump Hotels – not servers owned or operated by the Trump campaign.
Mueller, when asked during a hearing in the summer of 2019 about allegations that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin were exchanging covert communications via the Alfa Bank server, said, “I believe it’s not true.”
THE FACTS INSIDE OUR REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK
The notion that there was secret communication going on between Trump and Russia, that would make it seem like Trump was colluding to win the White House, came from former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, whose anti-Trump dossier, used by the FBI for its Trump-Russia probe, has also been largely discredited.
.
On October 11, 2016, Steele met with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec. (Pictured)
Following his visit, Kavalec sent information that she received from Steele to the FBI, including details about the suspected communications via the Alfa Bank server.
At the time, investigators were trying to determine unexplained Domain Name System (DNS) pings between one of the bank’s servers and a server used by the Trump organization’s marketing agency on the East Coast. Domain Name Systems are the systems by which internet domain names and addresses are tracked and regulated – in this case, they were used to determine communication patterns between the servers.
After an assessment by Ankura’s Cyber Threat Analysis and Pursuit Team (CTAPT) of possible DNS activity between the Trump organization, the marketing agency servers, and the Alfa Bank servers, the cyber experts found “no evidence that mail1.trump-email.com and trump1.contact-client.com were used by Alfa-Bank and the Trump organization for covert communications.”
The Ankura team did, however, find evidence that suggests so-called “threat actors” conjured the appearance of a connection between the Trump servers and Alfa Bank servers by creating false Domain Name System activity (DNS). If this is true, it “would constitute a potential violation of various U.S. laws,” says the report.
The FBI determined in February of 2017 that there were no links between the Trump organization and Alfa Bank. However, the narrative persists in some mainstream media reports.
What remains unclear is whether there were, in fact, bad actors who created false DNS activity to continue feeding the Russia collusion narrative — and, if they exist, who are they?
The exact role Christopher Steele played also remains a mystery. Did he know to look out for suspicious DNS activity to report to Kavalec? Or was the information handed to him by someone else?
*********
(TLB) published this article with permission of John Solomon at Just the News
Some emphasis and pictorial content added by (TLB)
About Just the News
It’s mission can be succinctly summarized by three brand statements:
Honest Journalism, Trusted Reporters
Information Without Indoctrination
Rising Above Rhetoric
Click Here to read about the staff at Just the News
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.