lewrockwell--2020-12-09--Emergency Covid-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects

With COVID-19 vaccines on the precipice of mass distribution , news media are on fire as they talk about who will get the vaccine first and how it will be distributed .
The one thing they aren ’ t discussing , however , is the definition of “ effective ” when it comes to these vaccines .
Early November 2020 , Pfizer sent the stock market soaring1 when it announced its vaccine is more than 90 % effective.2 One week later , Moderna — which designed its vaccine candidate in just two days3 — boasted a 94.5 % effectiveness rating.4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s and Moderna ’ s press releases and other clinical trial information , you ’ ll see that they have left out some really crucial information .
For example:5 • They don ’ t say how many cycles they used for the PCR tests they gave to count COVID-19 cases , which is crucial for determining the accuracy of those tests • They don ’ t say whether the “ cases ” had symptoms or not • They don ’ t mention anything about hospitalizations or deaths , meaning there is no indication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indication about how long the vaccine lasts if it truly is effective and protective .
Some indications suggest you might need to take this vaccine every three to six months in order for it to be effective In an article published by the Mises Institute , Dr. Gilbert Berdine , associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center , writes:6 In a letter to the editor , Dr. Allan Cunningham , a retired pediatrician in New York , also points out that Pfizer ’ s 90 % effectiveness rating fails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that people can understand , and goes on to estimate the number needed to vaccinate for Pfizer ’ s vaccine .
He writes:7 Indeed , when it comes to safety , it ’ s important to realize that since only a few thousand verified healthy volunteers have been exposed to the actual vaccine , the real beta testers will be the masses of people who line up first to take the vaccines when they come to market .
YEEBAY Interactive Wha ... Best Price : $ 26.95 Buy New $ 29.99 In his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find a medical colleague who is willing to be among the first to take the experimental vaccine .
Most say they want to review the safety data after a year or so of use before they ’ ll consider getting it .
“ These colleagues are concerned about possible autoimmune side effects that may not appear for months after vaccination , ” Berdine writes .
It ’ s worth noting that none of the trials currently underway include immunocompromised volunteers , so the effects of these vaccines on people with suppressed immune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant problem , seeing how an estimated 14.7 million to 23.5 million Americans suffer from some form of autoimmune disease,8 and these people are also at increased risk for COVID-19 complications and death .
If the vaccine exacerbates autoimmune problems , the outcome could be devastating for an extraordinary number of people .
The volunteers currently enrolled in trials are all healthier than the average American , yet side effects appear commonplace even among this “ elite ” group .
What You Can Expect From the COVID-19 Vaccine An October 20 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the known side effects that have emerged in the various trials .
Chills , fever , body aches and headache are the most commonplace , but at least two cases of transverse myelitis — inflammation of the spinal cord — have also occurred .
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the vaccine ’ s side effects are “ no walk in the park , ” 10 and Saad Omer , director of the Yale Institute for Global Health , has stressed the need for a broad-based outreach campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as patients might not come back for the required second dose if the side effects take them by surprise.11 Dr. Eli Perencevich , a professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa Health Care , has suggested essential workers should be granted three days of paid leave after they ’ re vaccinated , as many will feel too sick to work.12 A December 1 , 2020 , CNBC article,13 which looked at the frequency of adverse reactions , noted that 10 % to 15 % of participants in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticeable ” side effects .
Buried way down at the bottom of the article is a suggestion from a past advisory committee member , who proposes the nomenclature of “ serious adverse reaction ” be changed to “ immune response , ” so they can reprogram how people think about these side effects , even if they end up having to stay home from work because of them .
The article also admits they have no idea what , if any , long-term reactions there might be , which means ( as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great big public health experiment and , of course , anything that happens post-marketing will be labeled a “ coincidence.
” Fun New Cool Toys for ... Buy New $ 23.99 In related news , a participant in India ’ s AstraZeneca trial is now suing the company claiming the vaccine caused “ serious neurological damage , ” 14 and a group of researchers warn the COVID-19 vaccines could potentially increase your risk of HIV infection.15 Then there are the concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine permanently altering your DNA , effectively turning you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s a lot to consider before taking this vaccine .
Do We Really Need a COVID-19 Vaccine ?
Berdine also points out that most of his colleagues believe “ the uncertainties about safety exceed what they perceive to be a small benefit.
” 17 Indeed , at this point , a range of data suggest the COVID-19 vaccine may be completely unnecessary .
For example : •COVID-19 mortality is extremely low outside of nursing homes — 99.7 % of people recover from COVID-19.18 If you ’ re under 60 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from seasonal influenza is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.19 •Data clearly show that COVID-19 has not resulted in excess mortality , meaning the same number of people who die in any given year , on average , have died in this year of the pandemic.20,21 This is true even among the elderly , as evidenced in a Johns Hopkins University article published just before Thanksgiving .
According to the article:22 As soon as the article started trending on Twitter , Johns Hopkins deleted it saying it “ was being used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impact of the pandemic.
” 23 •Studies24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 suggest immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is more widespread than suspected , thanks to cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses that cause the common cold .
•Asymptomatic people are highly unlikely to spread SARS-CoV-2 — A study32 looking at PCR test data from nearly 10 million residents in Wuhan city found that not a single one of those who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ( someone who tested positive but had no symptoms ) had been infected with the virus .
In all instances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive but had no symptoms also came up negative for live virus .
Water Doodle Mat - Kid ... Buy New $ 21.97 Peter Doshi , associate editor of The BMJ , also questions the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines , pointing out that current trials are not designed to tell us whether the vaccines will actually save lives .
And , if they don ’ t , are they really worth the risks involved ?
Doshi writes:33 Doshi points out that when Dr. Paul Offit was asked in an interview whether a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant moderate to severe illness , he replied yes , “ that ’ s right.
” But that ’ s not , in fact , correct .
All Phase 3 trials count mild symptoms , such as a cough , as a “ COVID-19 event , ” and all will finalize their analyses after a mere 150 or 160 of the volunteers develop symptomatic COVID-19 — regardless of severity .
These trials also do not tell us anything about the vaccine ’ s ability to prevent transmission , as this would require testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time — a strategy that is “ operationally untenable , ” according to Tal Zaks , chief medical officer at Moderna.35 Questions have also been raised about the potential for the COVID-19 vaccines to “ go bad ” due to improper storage .
Pfizer ’ s COVID-19 vaccine has to be stored at an unheard of cold temperature even for Antarctica — minus 70 degrees Celsius , or 94 degrees below zero , Fahrenheit .
Moderna ’ s can be kept a bit warmer , at “ just ” minus 20 degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both pose a problem for providers who will be administering the shots .
To get an idea of why the vaccines have to be frozen , NPR compares them to chocolates that melt easily.36 The reason the vaccines are so fragile is because they ’ re made with messenger RNA ( mRNA ) , which turn your own cells into little factories that produce SARS-CoV-2 protein that in turn trigger antibody production .
The problem is that mRNA is easily broken down , so it needs the freezing temperatures to keep stable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines frozen with the help of dry ice .
Even so , providers will still have to abide by strict guidelines , one of which says the freezer compartment storing the vaccines can not be opened more than twice a day , and when opened , must be closed within one minute .
Once thawed , the vaccine can be kept refrigerated for five days .
The whole situation makes distribution a challenge , too since the smallest amount you can order is 975 doses .
That means the vaccines most likely will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administering large numbers of vaccines in a short period of time to avoid spoilage .
What happens if the vaccine is mishandled and spoils ?
No one knows .
At best , it may be ineffective .
At worst , it may cause completely unexpected side effects .
The Gold Rush of Vaccines and Indemnity The risk of side effects is particularly troubling in light of the fact that vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against any harm that occurs from the use of their vaccines .
In the video above , Children ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , highlights the gold rush that occurred for pharmaceutical companies when the World Health Organization declared swine flu a pandemic in 2009 .
Several experimental vaccines were hastily rushed to market following the WHO ’ s pandemic declaration , one of which resulted in thousands of European children and teens developing chronic narcolepsy and cataplexy ( the sudden collapse due to loss of voluntary muscle control triggered by strong emotions or laughter ) .
In 2011 , the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix ( used in Europe but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was causally linked37 to childhood narcolepsy , which had abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.38,39 Children and teens in Finland,40 the U.K.41 and Sweden42 were among the hardest hit .
Further analyses also discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine , although the link wasn ’ t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.43 A 2019 study44 reported finding a “ novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1 ” — a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in neuronal survival .
They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype , suggesting “ variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.
” Now , in the midst of another controversial pandemic , we ’ re facing an eerily similar playbook — with pharmaceutical companies eager to cash in on the first COVID-19 vaccine , which begs the question , “ Are we are being played — again ?
” Not the First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come and gone around the globe for centuries , but in recent history they ’ ve been used as points of manipulation that have profited corporations , particularly pharmaceutical companies .
The 2005 bird flu epidemic , for example , was predicted to kill from 2 million to 150 million people .
It killed just 98 people , globally , in 2005 , 115 in 2006 and 86 in 2007.45 No one in the U.S. died from this infection .
The brazenness of the hoax prompted me to write my New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flu Hoax.
” In 2006 , 2007 and again in 2008 , hyped warnings over the bird flu were repeatedly exposed as little more than a cruel hoax , designed to instill fear and line the pocketbooks of industry and various vested individuals .
In 2009 , there was the swine flu hoax , the vaccination campaign for which , as mentioned , turned into a disaster .
The summer of 2012 was again filled with dire predictions of bird flu sufficiently mutating to cause a human pandemic , immediately followed by urgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these pandemics ever turned into global killers , and COVID-19 is no different .
As mentioned earlier , there ’ s no evidence of excess deaths due to this novel virus .
The COVID-19 pandemic differs from previous ones , however , in that it ’ s being used not just to enrich drug companies and justify the existence of gain-of-function research , but also to usher in a “ reset ” of the entire global economy by the technocrats .
While failing economies around the world are blamed on the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some time and is now on its last leg .
The global debt load is now so high , countries can not even pay off the interest , and thus the system no longer works .
It needs to be “ reset , ” but rather than ditching the central bank system and resetting it to something stable ( such as returning to a gold-backed system ) , the technocrats in charge are ushering in an all-digital centralized currency that will give them total control over the finances of every human on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic reset is only one part of this all-encompassing totalitarian takeover .
The COVID-19 vaccine fits into the scheme by providing an excuse to track and trace everyone ’ s whereabouts , and connect this medical surveillance together with the digital economy .
You can learn more about this in “ What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.
” As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher , co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center ( NVIC ) , based on the historical failures of past coronavirus vaccines , a fast-tracked COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health disasters in history .
And , no one involved will be held accountable or face any repercussions , just as GlaxoSmithKline was not held accountable for the narcolepsy cases caused by Pandemrix .
Instead , they will all continue to profit while an unsuspecting public will beta test yet another potentially dangerous vaccine .
Even if severe side effects are rare , when you ’ re talking about vaccinating some 7 billion people , even a tiny percentage will translate into millions of people affected .
The Best of Joseph Mercola

With COVID-19 vaccines on the precipice of mass distribution, news media are on fire as they talk about who will get the vaccine first and how it will be distributed. The one thing they aren’t discussing, however, is the definition of “effective” when it comes to these vaccines.
Early November 2020, Pfizer sent the stock market soaring1 when it announced its vaccine is more than 90% effective.2 One week later, Moderna — which designed its vaccine candidate in just two days3 — boasted a 94.5% effectiveness rating.4
However, if you read Pfizer’s and Moderna’s press releases and other clinical trial information, you’ll see that they have left out some really crucial information. For example:5
They don’t say how many cycles they used for the PCR tests they gave to count COVID-19 cases, which is crucial for determining the accuracy of those tests
They don’t say whether the “cases” had symptoms or not
They don’t mention anything about hospitalizations or deaths, meaning there is no indication it prevents either
There is no indication about how long the vaccine lasts if it truly is effective and protective. Some indications suggest you might need to take this vaccine every three to six months in order for it to be effective If Animals Kissed Good... Paul, Ann Whitford Best Price: $1.85 Buy New $4.79 (as of 05:27 UTC - Details )
Odds Ratios Can Be Misleading
In an article published by the Mises Institute, Dr. Gilbert Berdine, associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, writes:6
“The Pfizer study had 43,538 participants and was analyzed after 164 cases. So, roughly 150 out 21,750 participants (less than 0.7%) became PCR positive in the control group and about one-tenth that number in the vaccine group became PCR positive.
The Moderna trial had 30,000 participants. There were 95 ‘cases’ in the 15,000 control participants (about 0.6%) and five ‘cases’ in the 15,000 vaccine participants (about one-twentieth of 0.6%). The ‘efficacy’ figures quoted in these announcements are odds ratios …
When the risks of an event are small, odds ratios can be misleading about absolute risk. A more meaningful measure of efficacy would be the number [needed] to vaccinate to prevent one hospitalization or one death. Those numbers are not available.
An estimate of the number [needed] to treat from the Moderna trial to prevent a single ‘case’ would be 15,000 vaccinations to prevent 90 ‘cases’ or 167 vaccinations per ‘case’ prevented, which does not sound nearly as good as 94.5% effective.”
Pfizer’s Number Needed to Vaccinate = 256
In a letter to the editor, Dr. Allan Cunningham, a retired pediatrician in New York, also points out that Pfizer’s 90% effectiveness rating fails to tell the story in a way that people can understand, and goes on to estimate the number needed to vaccinate for Pfizer’s vaccine. He writes:7
“Specific data are not given but it is easy enough to approximate the numbers involved, based on the 94 cases in a trial that has enrolled about 40,000 subjects: 8 cases in a vaccine group of 20,000 and 86 cases in a placebo group of 20,000.
This yields a COVID-19 attack rate of 0.0004 in the vaccine group and 0.0043 in the placebo group. Relative risk (RR) for vaccination = 0.093, which translates into a ‘vaccine effectiveness’ of 90.7% [100(1-0.093)]. This sounds impressive, but the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004=0.0039).
The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just one COVID-19 case 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them.”
Major Safety Questions Still Remain
Indeed, when it comes to safety, it’s important to realize that since only a few thousand verified healthy volunteers have been exposed to the actual vaccine, the real beta testers will be the masses of people who line up first to take the vaccines when they come to market. YEEBAY Interactive Wha... Best Price: $26.95 Buy New $29.99 (as of 05:27 UTC - Details)
In his article, Berdine stresses he has yet to find a medical colleague who is willing to be among the first to take the experimental vaccine. Most say they want to review the safety data after a year or so of use before they’ll consider getting it.
“These colleagues are concerned about possible autoimmune side effects that may not appear for months after vaccination,” Berdine writes. It’s worth noting that none of the trials currently underway include immunocompromised volunteers, so the effects of these vaccines on people with suppressed immune function is wholly unknown.
This is a significant problem, seeing how an estimated 14.7 million to 23.5 million Americans suffer from some form of autoimmune disease,8 and these people are also at increased risk for COVID-19 complications and death.
If the vaccine exacerbates autoimmune problems, the outcome could be devastating for an extraordinary number of people. The volunteers currently enrolled in trials are all healthier than the average American, yet side effects appear commonplace even among this “elite” group.
What You Can Expect From the COVID-19 Vaccine
An October 20, 2020, article9 in the Observer lists the known side effects that have emerged in the various trials. Chills, fever, body aches and headache are the most commonplace, but at least two cases of transverse myelitis — inflammation of the spinal cord — have also occurred.
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the vaccine’s side effects are “no walk in the park,”10 and Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, has stressed the need for a broad-based outreach campaign to discuss the reality of side effects, as patients might not come back for the required second dose if the side effects take them by surprise.11
Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa Health Care, has suggested essential workers should be granted three days of paid leave after they’re vaccinated, as many will feel too sick to work.12
A December 1, 2020, CNBC article,13 which looked at the frequency of adverse reactions, noted that 10% to 15% of participants in the Pfizer and Moderna trials reported “significantly noticeable” side effects.
Buried way down at the bottom of the article is a suggestion from a past advisory committee member, who proposes the nomenclature of “serious adverse reaction” be changed to “immune response,” so they can reprogram how people think about these side effects, even if they end up having to stay home from work because of them.
The article also admits they have no idea what, if any, long-term reactions there might be, which means (as we already knew) that this is a great big public health experiment and, of course, anything that happens post-marketing will be labeled a “coincidence.” Fun New Cool Toys for ... Buy New $23.99 (as of 05:27 UTC - Details)
In related news, a participant in India’s AstraZeneca trial is now suing the company claiming the vaccine caused “serious neurological damage,”14 and a group of researchers warn the COVID-19 vaccines could potentially increase your risk of HIV infection.15 Then there are the concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine permanently altering your DNA, effectively turning you into a transhuman.16 As you can see, there’s a lot to consider before taking this vaccine.
Do We Really Need a COVID-19 Vaccine?
Berdine also points out that most of his colleagues believe “the uncertainties about safety exceed what they perceive to be a small benefit.”17 Indeed, at this point, a range of data suggest the COVID-19 vaccine may be completely unnecessary. For example:
•COVID-19 mortality is extremely low outside of nursing homes — 99.7% of people recover from COVID-19.18 If you’re under 60 years of age, your chance of dying from seasonal influenza is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.19
•Data clearly show that COVID-19 has not resulted in excess mortality, meaning the same number of people who die in any given year, on average, have died in this year of the pandemic.20,21 This is true even among the elderly, as evidenced in a Johns Hopkins University article published just before Thanksgiving. According to the article:22
“The deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.”
As soon as the article started trending on Twitter, Johns Hopkins deleted it saying it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”23
•Studies24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 suggest immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is more widespread than suspected, thanks to cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses that cause the common cold.
•Asymptomatic people are highly unlikely to spread SARS-CoV-2 — A study32 looking at PCR test data from nearly 10 million residents in Wuhan city found that not a single one of those who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual (someone who tested positive but had no symptoms) had been infected with the virus. In all instances, virus cultures from people who tested positive but had no symptoms also came up negative for live virus. Water Doodle Mat - Kid... Buy New $21.97 (as of 06:02 UTC - Details)
Will COVID-19 Vaccine Save Lives?
Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, also questions the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, pointing out that current trials are not designed to tell us whether the vaccines will actually save lives. And, if they don’t, are they really worth the risks involved? Doshi writes:33
“What will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared ‘effective’? To the public this seems fairly obvious. ‘The primary goal of a COVID-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,’ a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly …
Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
Doshi points out that when Dr. Paul Offit was asked in an interview whether a recorded “event” in these trials meant moderate to severe illness, he replied yes, “that’s right.” But that’s not, in fact, correct. All Phase 3 trials count mild symptoms, such as a cough, as a “COVID-19 event,” and all will finalize their analyses after a mere 150 or 160 of the volunteers develop symptomatic COVID-19 — regardless of severity.
“Part of the reason may be numbers. Severe illness requiring hospital admission, which happens in only a small fraction of symptomatic COVID-19 cases, would be unlikely to occur in significant numbers in trials.
Data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in late April reported a symptomatic case hospitalization ratio of 3.4% overall, varying from 1.7% in 0-49 year olds and 4.5% in 50-64 year olds to 7.4% in those 65 and over.
Because most people with symptomatic COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms even trials involving 30,000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease,” Doshi writes.34
“Hospital admissions and deaths from COVID-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people.”
These trials also do not tell us anything about the vaccine’s ability to prevent transmission, as this would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy that is “operationally untenable,” according to Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna.35
COVID-19 Vaccine Poses Rare Distribution Challenges
Questions have also been raised about the potential for the COVID-19 vaccines to “go bad” due to improper storage. Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has to be stored at an unheard of cold temperature even for Antarctica — minus 70 degrees Celsius, or 94 degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. Moderna’s can be kept a bit warmer, at “just” minus 20 degrees C, or 4 below zero F. Both pose a problem for providers who will be administering the shots.
To get an idea of why the vaccines have to be frozen, NPR compares them to chocolates that melt easily.36 The reason the vaccines are so fragile is because they’re made with messenger RNA (mRNA), which turn your own cells into little factories that produce SARS-CoV-2 protein that in turn trigger antibody production.
The problem is that mRNA is easily broken down, so it needs the freezing temperatures to keep stable. Pfizer said its special packaging keeps the vaccines frozen with the help of dry ice. Even so, providers will still have to abide by strict guidelines, one of which says the freezer compartment storing the vaccines cannot be opened more than twice a day, and when opened, must be closed within one minute. Once thawed, the vaccine can be kept refrigerated for five days.
The whole situation makes distribution a challenge, too since the smallest amount you can order is 975 doses. That means the vaccines most likely will have to go to places capable of administering large numbers of vaccines in a short period of time to avoid spoilage. What happens if the vaccine is mishandled and spoils? No one knows. At best, it may be ineffective. At worst, it may cause completely unexpected side effects.
The Gold Rush of Vaccines and Indemnity
The risk of side effects is particularly troubling in light of the fact that vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against any harm that occurs from the use of their vaccines. In the video above, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., highlights the gold rush that occurred for pharmaceutical companies when the World Health Organization declared swine flu a pandemic in 2009.
In 2011, the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked to childhood narcolepsy.
Several experimental vaccines were hastily rushed to market following the WHO’s pandemic declaration, one of which resulted in thousands of European children and teens developing chronic narcolepsy and cataplexy (the sudden collapse due to loss of voluntary muscle control triggered by strong emotions or laughter).
In 2011, the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked37 to childhood narcolepsy, which had abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.38,39 Children and teens in Finland,40 the U.K.41 and Sweden42 were among the hardest hit.
Further analyses also discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine, although the link wasn’t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.43
A 2019 study44 reported finding a “novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1” — a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF, a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival.
They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype, suggesting “variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.”
Now, in the midst of another controversial pandemic, we’re facing an eerily similar playbook — with pharmaceutical companies eager to cash in on the first COVID-19 vaccine, which begs the question, “Are we are being played — again?”
Not the First Hoax — Practice Makes Perfect
Pandemics have come and gone around the globe for centuries, but in recent history they’ve been used as points of manipulation that have profited corporations, particularly pharmaceutical companies.
The 2005 bird flu epidemic, for example, was predicted to kill from 2 million to 150 million people. It killed just 98 people, globally, in 2005, 115 in 2006 and 86 in 2007.45 No one in the U.S. died from this infection. The brazenness of the hoax prompted me to write my New York Times best seller book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax.”
In 2006, 2007 and again in 2008, hyped warnings over the bird flu were repeatedly exposed as little more than a cruel hoax, designed to instill fear and line the pocketbooks of industry and various vested individuals. In 2009, there was the swine flu hoax, the vaccination campaign for which, as mentioned, turned into a disaster.
The summer of 2012 was again filled with dire predictions of bird flu sufficiently mutating to cause a human pandemic, immediately followed by urgent calls for fast-tracked vaccines. None of these pandemics ever turned into global killers, and COVID-19 is no different. As mentioned earlier, there’s no evidence of excess deaths due to this novel virus.
The COVID-19 pandemic differs from previous ones, however, in that it’s being used not just to enrich drug companies and justify the existence of gain-of-function research, but also to usher in a “reset” of the entire global economy by the technocrats. While failing economies around the world are blamed on the pandemic, the central bank system has been faltering for some time and is now on its last leg.
The global debt load is now so high, countries cannot even pay off the interest, and thus the system no longer works. It needs to be “reset,” but rather than ditching the central bank system and resetting it to something stable (such as returning to a gold-backed system), the technocrats in charge are ushering in an all-digital centralized currency that will give them total control over the finances of every human on earth.
What’s more, the economic reset is only one part of this all-encompassing totalitarian takeover. The COVID-19 vaccine fits into the scheme by providing an excuse to track and trace everyone’s whereabouts, and connect this medical surveillance together with the digital economy. You can learn more about this in “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.”
No Accountability for Vaccine Harms
As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), based on the historical failures of past coronavirus vaccines, a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine could become one of the biggest public health disasters in history.
And, no one involved will be held accountable or face any repercussions, just as GlaxoSmithKline was not held accountable for the narcolepsy cases caused by Pandemrix. Instead, they will all continue to profit while an unsuspecting public will beta test yet another potentially dangerous vaccine.
Even if severe side effects are rare, when you’re talking about vaccinating some 7 billion people, even a tiny percentage will translate into millions of people affected.
Sources and References
The Best of Dr. Joseph Mercola


lewrockwell--2020-12-10--Proven Drug That Is Now Saving Thousands of Lives Should Be Approved To Prevent/Cure Covid-19 Instea

Proven Drug That Is Now Saving Thousands of Lives Should Be Approved To Prevent/Cure Covid-19 Instead of Unproven Vaccines

Chest Doctor Lambasts Health Agencies For Ignoring Re-Purposed Drug That Provides Almost Complete Protection Against COVID-19 And Would Replace Need For All Vaccines Speaking on the cusp of FDA licensure of COVID-19 vaccines and coerced immunization of the entire U.S. population , chest doctor Dr. Pierre Kory MD , speaking before the US Congress , passionately begs the National Institutes of Health to cease touting expensive drugs and vaccines and analyze compelling data produced by ivermectin , a long-standing , safe , Nobel-prize winning anti-parasitic drug , that is convincingly saving lives and completely preventing healthcare workers from coming down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data tabulated by the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance , use of Ivermectin would eliminate the need for immunizing 325 million Americans with unproven vaccines that are only being tested to see if they allay symptoms , not save lives .
TRIDENT Soft and Plush ... Buy New $ 34.99 With less than 1 in 10,000 Americans without co-morbid conditions coming down with COVID-19 associated symptoms and dying , a completely safe and effective vaccine would have to be administered to 9,999 people to spare 1 life .
A 100 % effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective .
Effectively treating ~9000 ICU COVID-19 patients , the current ICU census , with a highly effective drug would be more targeted , economical and practical .
Took Kory took umbrage over criticism he is touting ivermectin for political reasons .
Dr. Kory said “ he is severely troubled by the FDA , CDC and NIH is touting novel and/or expensive pharmaceutically-engineered drugs.
” Genteele Memory Foam B ... Buy New $ 12.99 Kory said there is a “ a drug of miraculous impact .
It basically obliterates the transmission of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you will not get sick .
Ivermectin not only is a prophylactic – it was used among 800 healthcare workers , not one got sick ; in the 400 who did not get Ivermectin , 237 ( 58 % ) got sick.
” Dr. Kory went on to say Ivermectin has immense antiviral activity .
“ If you take Ivermectin in the hospital , you will not die or almost eliminate your risk of dying .
It is critical for use in this disease.
” “ Any further deaths are going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a landmark paper , the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance has published evidence of Ivermectin ’ s efficacy .
Other evidence is also available for analysis .
A statement issued by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance is also available for review .
Or hear Dr. Kory plead with Congress for NIH review .

Chest Doctor Lambasts Health Agencies For Ignoring Re-Purposed Drug That Provides Almost Complete Protection Against COVID-19 And Would Replace Need For All Vaccines
Speaking on the cusp of FDA licensure of COVID-19 vaccines and coerced immunization of the entire U.S. population, chest doctor Dr. Pierre Kory MD, speaking before the US Congress, passionately begs the National Institutes of Health to cease touting expensive drugs and vaccines and analyze compelling data produced by ivermectin, a long-standing, safe, Nobel-prize winning anti-parasitic drug, that is convincingly saving lives and completely preventing healthcare workers from coming down with symptoms of COVID-19.
According to data tabulated by the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, use of Ivermectin would eliminate the need for immunizing 325 million Americans with unproven vaccines that are only being tested to see if they allay symptoms, not save lives. TRIDENT Soft and Plush... Buy New $34.99 (as of 05:25 UTC - Details)
With less than 1 in 10,000 Americans without co-morbid conditions coming down with COVID-19 associated symptoms and dying, a completely safe and effective vaccine would have to be administered to 9,999 people to spare 1 life. A 100% effective vaccine would be less than 1% effective.
Effectively treating ~9000 ICU COVID-19 patients, the current ICU census, with a highly effective drug would be more targeted, economical and practical.
Took Kory took umbrage over criticism he is touting ivermectin for political reasons.
Dr. Kory said “he is severely troubled by the FDA, CDC and NIH is touting novel and/or expensive pharmaceutically-engineered drugs.”
Genteele Memory Foam B... Buy New $12.99 (as of 05:25 UTC - Details) Kory said there is a “a drug of miraculous impact. It basically obliterates the transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick. Ivermectin not only is a prophylactic – it was used among 800 healthcare workers, not one got sick; in the 400 who did not get Ivermectin, 237 (58%) got sick.”
Dr. Kory went on to say Ivermectin has immense antiviral activity. “If you take Ivermectin in the hospital, you will not die or almost eliminate your risk of dying. It is critical for use in this disease.”
“Any further deaths are going to be needless deaths!” he told Congress.
In a landmark paper, the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance has published evidence of Ivermectin’s efficacy. Other evidence is also available for analysis.
A statement issued by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance is also available for review. Or hear Dr. Kory plead with Congress for NIH review.


lewrockwell--2020-12-10--RIP Walter E. Williams, a Great Economist and Friend

George Mason Economics Professor Walter E. Williams passed away on December 1 , 2020 ; he was 84 years old .
On his last day on this planet he did what he had done for a career of some 60 plus years : taught his graduate course in microeconomics , published another one of his splendid op-eds , and undoubtedly , thought about his next book .
A Black libertarian second only to the sainted Thomas Sowell in terms of accomplishment within this movement , Walter published ten books , over 150 articles in refereed journals and law reviews , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I doubt he could keep track of them all .
But that was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of his contribution .
An excellent , witty and informative public speaker , and a hilarious one too , he graced “ Nightline , ” “ Firing Line , ” “ Face the Nation , ” Milton Friedman ’ s “ Free To Choose , ” “ Crossfire , ” “ MacNeil/Lehrer , ” “ Wall Street Week ” and was a regular commentator for “ Nightly Business .
Not too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh , as he was .
White Classic Luxury G ... Buy New $ 29.99 He was perhaps most well-known to the general public , however , not through his scholarly work , nor , yet , his public appearances .
They only impacted thousands , maybe tens of thousands of people .
It was in his regular op-eds that he reached literally tens of millions if not hundreds of millions .
One of his regular publishers was the Orange County Register .
I think I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this newspaper , even those who rejected his philosophy , that he will be sorely missed .
For even opponents of libertarianism and the free enterprise philosophy want to know how the other side things , and Walter was if anything funny , inspiring and informative .
Walter made a career out of being out of step with mainstream received opinion .
My friend and co-author was adamant that the minimum wage law was deleterious to the employment prospects for young Black males ; their unemployment rate was quadruple that of middle-aged white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the advent of this pernicious legislation .
He moved heaven and earth to demonstrate that Black – white and male – female pay gaps could not be accounted for on the basis of discriminatory practices ; instead they were based on different productivity levels .
He never tired of demonstrating , again and again , that laissez faire capitalism was the last best hope not only for curing poverty , but also for attaining a civilized order .
Dr. Williams was particularly perturbed at the short-changing of the educational experiences of Black students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teachers unions which would brook no alternatives to traditional public schools .
As a Black man , he was vilified for expounding these philosophies .
But he shook off all of the vile denunciations thrown his way like water off a duck ’ s back , and stuck to his principles .
There are very few Black scholars who articulated these viewpoints ; he is thus even more precious than would otherwise be the case .
900 GSM Machine Washab ... Best Price : $ 19.91 Buy New $ 21.99 Walter Williams was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his mouth .
With good reason , he entitled his autobiography “ Up from the Projects.
” A cousin of former NBA player Julius Erving , he earned his Ph.D. degree in economics , studying under Armen Alchian , and revered such economists as Milton Friedman , George Stigler , Gary Becker , and , especially , Thomas Sowell .
Walter is now up there , somewhere , looking down at the rest of us , still teaching us with this publications and recorded lectures , encouraging us to promote liberty and good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life .
Treat yourself to an inspiring experience : Google him , and watch one of his magnificent talks .
He will have you rolling on the floor while learning valuable economic insights .
The Best of Walter E. Block

George Mason Economics Professor Walter E. Williams passed away on December 1, 2020; he was 84 years old. On his last day on this planet he did what he had done for a career of some 60 plus years: taught his graduate course in microeconomics, published another one of his splendid op-eds, and undoubtedly, thought about his next book.
A Black libertarian second only to the sainted Thomas Sowell in terms of accomplishment within this movement, Walter published ten books, over 150 articles in refereed journals and law reviews, and so many short essays in newspapers that I doubt he could keep track of them all.
But that was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of his contribution. An excellent, witty and informative public speaker, and a hilarious one too, he graced “Nightline,” “Firing Line,” “Face the Nation,” Milton Friedman’s “Free To Choose,” “Crossfire,” “MacNeil/Lehrer,” “Wall Street Week” and was a regular commentator for “Nightly Business. Not too many people were ever selected to substitute for conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh, as he was. White Classic Luxury G... Buy New $29.99 (as of 05:26 UTC - Details)
He was perhaps most well-known to the general public, however, not through his scholarly work, nor, yet, his public appearances. They only impacted thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people. It was in his regular op-eds that he reached literally tens of millions if not hundreds of millions. One of his regular publishers was the Orange County Register. I think I can speak for every open minded reader of this newspaper, even those who rejected his philosophy, that he will be sorely missed. For even opponents of libertarianism and the free enterprise philosophy want to know how the other side things, and Walter was if anything funny, inspiring and informative.
Walter made a career out of being out of step with mainstream received opinion. My friend and co-author was adamant that the minimum wage law was deleterious to the employment prospects for young Black males; their unemployment rate was quadruple that of middle-aged white, something that had never occurred before the advent of this pernicious legislation. He moved heaven and earth to demonstrate that Black – white and male – female pay gaps could not be accounted for on the basis of discriminatory practices; instead they were based on different productivity levels.
He never tired of demonstrating, again and again, that laissez faire capitalism was the last best hope not only for curing poverty, but also for attaining a civilized order. Dr. Williams was particularly perturbed at the short-changing of the educational experiences of Black students in the inner city; and blamed teachers unions which would brook no alternatives to traditional public schools.
As a Black man, he was vilified for expounding these philosophies. But he shook off all of the vile denunciations thrown his way like water off a duck’s back, and stuck to his principles. There are very few Black scholars who articulated these viewpoints; he is thus even more precious than would otherwise be the case. 900 GSM Machine Washab... Best Price: $19.91 Buy New $21.99 (as of 05:26 UTC - Details)
Walter Williams was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. With good reason, he entitled his autobiography “Up from the Projects.” A cousin of former NBA player Julius Erving, he earned his Ph.D. degree in economics, studying under Armen Alchian, and revered such economists as Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Gary Becker, and, especially, Thomas Sowell.
Walter is now up there, somewhere, looking down at the rest of us, still teaching us with this publications and recorded lectures, encouraging us to promote liberty and good economics as he did all his professional life. Treat yourself to an inspiring experience:
Google him, and watch one of his magnificent talks. He will have you rolling on the floor while learning valuable economic insights.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
The Best of Walter E. Block


lewrockwell--2020-12-10--Can the President Pardon Himself?

Can the President Pardon Himself?

Most presidential pardons — indeed all pardons that President Donald Trump has issued — have been for specific crimes of which the subject of the pardon has already been charged and convicted .
Yet , Trump , never one to be restrained by precedent , has let it be hinted that he might issue prophylactic pardons to relatives and colleagues who have neither been convicted nor charged with any crimes .
And he might pardon himself .
Can he do that ?
The short answer is yes .
Here is the backstory .
The pardoning power is expressly and exclusively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Article Two , Section 2 , Clause 1 , states that the president “ shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States , except in cases of impeachment.
” When unpacked , that broad language reveals that the president can only pardon for federal crimes , not for anyone ’ s impeachment , and he does not need the approval of anyone else in the government .
AmazonBasics Ultra-Sof ... Best Price : $ 36.11 Buy New $ 44.99 Trump is the subject of a criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or potential violations of state laws .
But the existence of a state criminal probe of the president does not impair his ability to insulate himself from the legal consequences of a federal criminal probe , since it is clear that the president can not pardon anyone — including himself — for state offenses .
As there has been little modern litigation over the validity and scope of individual pardons for federal offenses , there is little case law .
What case law does exist broadly favors an expansive view of presidential pardon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parte Garland from 1866 .
There , the Supreme Court upheld a pardon issued to Augustus Hill Garland , a former Arkansas senator in the Confederate States of America .
Garland , who supported his native Arkansas during the Civil War , was pardoned after the war of all offenses against the United States by President Andrew Johnson , even though the former senator had not been charged with any crimes .
When federal officials , pursuant to a statute , refused to allow him to practice law in federal courts due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to renounce that support , he sued them .
The Supreme Court ruled in Garland ’ s favor and held that the presidential pardon power “ extends to every ( federal ) offense known to the law , and may be exercised at any time after its commission , either before legal proceedings are taken , or during their pendency , or after conviction and judgment.
” The language in the Garland case should put an end to speculation about the legal validity of prophylactic pardons , as should our collective memories .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 , a pardon Nixon accepted even though he had not been charged with committing any federal crime .
And in 1977 , on his first day in office , President Jimmy Carter pardoned hundreds of thousands of young men who declined to be drafted into the military during the Vietnam War era , many of whom had fled to Canada , and nearly all of whom had not been charged with draft evasion .
AmazonBasics Down Alte ... Best Price : $ 23.97 Buy New $ 31.99 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reagan-era officials in the Iran-Contra affair in 1992 , including former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger — whose trial was about to commence at the time of the pardon and at which the pre-presidential behavior of Bush was to have been laid before the jury .
In 2001 , President Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother , Roger , over an old cocaine possession conviction and his former business partner Susan McDougal over a land deal in which President Clinton and his wife , Hillary , had arguably been involved .
Clinton also infamously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income tax evasion , and then accepted a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation from Mrs. Rich .
All of these pardons were and remain legally valid .
It was well-known to the framers that British monarchs only pardoned for specific , already-charged offenses .
Professor Aaron Rappaport of Hastings College of the Law at the University of California , Berkeley , has argued that the original understanding of the pardon power was that it would be used only for crimes that had already been charged .
And others have argued that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animated James Madison when he drafted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment — mandates that no person shall be a judge in his own case .
Beckham Hotel Collecti ... Buy New $ 39.99 Both of these points are well-taken and historically correct .
If the president pardons for crimes not yet charged , is he exercising powers that the framers never understood that they were giving him ?
If the president pardons himself , is he acting as a judge in his own case ?
The answer to both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court and history teach that while such pardons may be eviscerated politically , they will be upheld legally .
Before the president pardons his children , his colleagues and himself , he should pardon all those convicted under federal drug laws for use and possession .
They harmed no one .
He should also pardon Julian Assange , who revealed the slaughter of innocent civilians and the cover-up by the U.S. military in Afghanistan , and Edward Snowden , who revealed that the feds have engaged in secret , unlawful and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innocent Americans .
Assange and Snowden have been bitterly targeted and verbally savaged by the Deep State , but these heroes risked their lives and liberties so we might know the truth about government law breaking .
Should pardons produce justice ?
Sometimes they do — as would be the case for Assange and Snowden .
But the essence of a pardon is mercy , not justice — and they are often opposites .
The Best of Andrew P. Napolitano

Shop all books by Judge Napolitano
Most presidential pardons — indeed all pardons that President Donald Trump has issued — have been for specific crimes of which the subject of the pardon has already been charged and convicted. Yet, Trump, never one to be restrained by precedent, has let it be hinted that he might issue prophylactic pardons to relatives and colleagues who have neither been convicted nor charged with any crimes. And he might pardon himself. Can he do that?
The short answer is yes. Here is the backstory.
The pardoning power is expressly and exclusively granted to the president in the Constitution. Article Two, Section 2, Clause 1, states that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” When unpacked, that broad language reveals that the president can only pardon for federal crimes, not for anyone’s impeachment, and he does not need the approval of anyone else in the government. AmazonBasics Ultra-Sof... Best Price: $36.11 Buy New $44.99 (as of 05:27 UTC - Details)
Trump is the subject of a criminal investigation in New York City for alleged or potential violations of state laws. But the existence of a state criminal probe of the president does not impair his ability to insulate himself from the legal consequences of a federal criminal probe, since it is clear that the president cannot pardon anyone — including himself — for state offenses.
As there has been little modern litigation over the validity and scope of individual pardons for federal offenses, there is little case law. What case law does exist broadly favors an expansive view of presidential pardon power. The leading case is Ex parte Garland from 1866. There, the Supreme Court upheld a pardon issued to Augustus Hill Garland, a former Arkansas senator in the Confederate States of America.
Garland, who supported his native Arkansas during the Civil War, was pardoned after the war of all offenses against the United States by President Andrew Johnson, even though the former senator had not been charged with any crimes. When federal officials, pursuant to a statute, refused to allow him to practice law in federal courts due to his support of the Confederacy and failure to renounce that support, he sued them.
The Supreme Court ruled in Garland’s favor and held that the presidential pardon power “extends to every (federal) offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”
The language in the Garland case should put an end to speculation about the legal validity of prophylactic pardons, as should our collective memories. President Gerald R. Ford famously pardoned former President Richard M. Nixon in 1974, a pardon Nixon accepted even though he had not been charged with committing any federal crime.
And in 1977, on his first day in office, President Jimmy Carter pardoned hundreds of thousands of young men who declined to be drafted into the military during the Vietnam War era, many of whom had fled to Canada, and nearly all of whom had not been charged with draft evasion. AmazonBasics Down Alte... Best Price: $23.97 Buy New $31.99 (as of 05:27 UTC - Details)
President George H.W. Bush pardoned six Reagan-era officials in the Iran-Contra affair in 1992, including former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger — whose trial was about to commence at the time of the pardon and at which the pre-presidential behavior of Bush was to have been laid before the jury.
In 2001, President Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, Roger, over an old cocaine possession conviction and his former business partner Susan McDougal over a land deal in which President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, had arguably been involved.
Clinton also infamously pardoned Marc Rich for a conviction of income tax evasion, and then accepted a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation from Mrs. Rich.
All of these pardons were and remain legally valid.
It was well-known to the framers that British monarchs only pardoned for specific, already-charged offenses. Professor Aaron Rappaport of Hastings College of the Law at the University of California, Berkeley, has argued that the original understanding of the pardon power was that it would be used only for crimes that had already been charged. And others have argued that the concept of bilateral fairness — which certainly animated James Madison when he drafted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment — mandates that no person shall be a judge in his own case.
Beckham Hotel Collecti... Buy New $39.99 (as of 05:27 UTC - Details) Both of these points are well-taken and historically correct. If the president pardons for crimes not yet charged, is he exercising powers that the framers never understood that they were giving him? If the president pardons himself, is he acting as a judge in his own case? The answer to both of these questions is yes. Yet, the Supreme Court and history teach that while such pardons may be eviscerated politically, they will be upheld legally.
Before the president pardons his children, his colleagues and himself, he should pardon all those convicted under federal drug laws for use and possession. They harmed no one. He should also pardon Julian Assange, who revealed the slaughter of innocent civilians and the cover-up by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and Edward Snowden, who revealed that the feds have engaged in secret, unlawful and warrantless spying on hundreds of millions of innocent Americans.
Assange and Snowden have been bitterly targeted and verbally savaged by the Deep State, but these heroes risked their lives and liberties so we might know the truth about government law breaking.
Should pardons produce justice? Sometimes they do — as would be the case for Assange and Snowden. But the essence of a pardon is mercy, not justice — and they are often opposites.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
The Best of Andrew P. Napolitano


lewrockwell--2020-12-10--No Privacy, No Property: The World in 2030 According to the WEF

The World Economic Forum ( WEF ) was founded fifty years ago .
It has gained more and more prominence over the decades and has become one of the leading platforms of futuristic thinking and planning .
As a meeting place of the global elite , the WEF brings together the leaders in business and politics along with a few selected intellectuals .
The main thrust of the forum is global control .
Free markets and individual choice do not stand as the top values , but state interventionism and collectivism .
Individual liberty and private property are to disappear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the projections and scenarios coming from the World Economic Forum .
Individual liberty is at risk again .
What may lie ahead was projected in November 2016 when the WEF published “ 8 Predictions for the World in 2030.
” According to the WEF ’ s scenario , the world will become quite a different place from now because how people work and live will undergo a profound change .
The scenario for the world in 2030 is more than just a forecast .
It is a plan whose implementation has accelerated drastically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the consequent lockdowns .
Gibson Soho Lounge 16- ... Best Price : $ 38.21 Buy New $ 46.37 According to the projections of the WEF ’ s “ Global Future Councils , ” private property and privacy will be abolished during the next decade .
The coming expropriation would go further than even the communist demand to abolish the property of production goods but leave space for private possessions .
The WEF projection says that consumer goods , too , would be no longer private property .
If the WEF projection should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rent and borrow their necessities from the state , which would be the sole proprietor of all goods .
The supply of goods would be rationed in line with a social credit points system .
Shopping in the traditional sense would disappear along with the private purchases of goods .
Every personal move would be tracked electronically , and all production would be subject to the requirements of clean energy and a sustainable environment .
In order to attain “ sustainable agriculture , ” the food supply will be mainly vegetarian .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government will provide basic accommodation , food , and transport , while the rest must be lent from the state .
The use of natural resources will be brought down to its minimum .
In cooperation with the few key countries , a global agency would set the price of CO emissions at an extremely high level to disincentivize its use .
In a promotional video , the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements : • People will own nothing .
Goods are either free of charge or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • The United States will no longer be the leading superpower , but a handful of countries will dominate .
• Organs will not be transplanted but printed .
• Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees .
• To limit the emission of carbon dioxide , a global price will be set at an exorbitant level .
• People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life .
• Western values will be tested to the breaking point.. 18 Piece Nonstick Pots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publication for the World Economic Forum , the Danish ecoactivist Ida Auken , who had served as her country ’ s minister of the environment from 2011 to 2014 and still is a member of the Danish Parliament ( the Folketing ) , has elaborated a scenario of a world without privacy or property .
In “ Welcome to 2030 , ” she envisions a world where “ I own nothing , have no privacy , and life has never been better.
” By 2030 , so says her scenario , shopping and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that once was a product is now a service .
In this idyllic new world of hers , people have free access to transportation , accommodation , food , “ and all the things we need in our daily lives.
” As these things will become free of charge , “ it ended up not making sense for us to own much.
” There would be no private ownership in houses nor would anyone pay rent , “ because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , will be used for business meetings when one is absent .
Concerns like “ lifestyle diseases , climate change , the refugee crisis , environmental degradation , completely congested cities , water pollution , air pollution , social unrest and unemployment ” are things of the past .
The author predicts that people will be happy to enjoy such a good life that is so much better “ than the path we were on , where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils of the World Economic Forum , Ida Auken foretells how the world may look in the future “ if we win the war on climate change.
” By 2030 , when CO emissions will be greatly reduced , people will live in a world where meat on the dinner plate “ will be a rare sight ” while water and the air will be much cleaner than today .
Because of the shift from buying goods to using services , the need to have money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less and less on goods .
Work time will shrink and leisure time will grow .
For the future , Auken envisions a city where electric cars have substituted conventional combustion vehicles .
Most of the roads and parking spaces will have become green parks and walking zones for pedestrians .
By 2030 , agriculture will offer mainly plant-based alternatives to the food supply instead of meat and dairy products .
The use of land to produce animal feed will greatly diminish and nature will be spreading across the globe again .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a system ?
The bait to entice the masses is the assurances of comprehensive healthcare and a guaranteed basic income .
The promoters of the Great Reset promise a world without diseases .
Due to biotechnologically produced organs and individualized genetics-based medical treatments , a drastically increased life expectancy and even immortality are said to be possible .
Artificial intelligence will eradicate death and eliminate disease and mortality .
The race is on among biotechnological companies to find the key to eternal life .
Along with the promise of turning any ordinary person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a “ universal basic income ” is highly attractive , particularly to those who will no longer find a job in the new digital economy .
Obtaining a basic income without having to go through the treadmill and disgrace of applying for social assistance is used as a bait to get the support of the poor .
Farberware 22-Piece Ne ... Best Price : $ 18.39 Buy New $ 17.99 To make it economically viable , the guarantee of a basic income would require the leveling of wage differences .
The technical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state will be used to promote the cashless society .
With the digitization of all monetary transactions , each individual purchase will be registered .
As a consequence , the governmental authorities would have unrestricted access to supervise in detail how individual persons spend their money .
A universal basic income in a cashless society would provide the conditions to impose a social credit system and deliver the mechanism to sanction undesirable behavior and identify the superfluous and unwanted .
Who Will Be the Rulers ?
The World Economic Forum is silent about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this new world .
There is no reason to expect that the new power holders would be benevolent .
Yet even if the top decision-makers of the new world government were not mean but just technocrats , what reason would an administrative technocracy have to go on with the undesirables ?
What sense does it make for a technocratic elite to turn the common man into a superman ?
Why share the benefits of artificial intelligence with the masses and not keep the wealth for the chosen few ?
Not being swayed away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessment of the plans must come to the conclusion that in this new world , there would be no place for the average person and that they would be put away along with the “ unemployable , ” “ feeble minded , ” and “ ill bred.
” Behind the preaching of the progressive gospel of social justice by the promoters of the Great Reset and the establishment of a new world order lurks the sinister project of eugenics , which as a technique is now called “ genetic engineering ” and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a term coined by Julian Huxley , the first director of the UNESCO .
The promoters of the project keep silent about who will be the rulers in this new world .
The dystopian and collectivist nature of these projections and plans is the result of the rejection of free capitalism .
Establishing a better world through a dictatorship is a contradiction in terms .
Not less but more economic prosperity is the answer to the current problems .
Therefore , we need more free markets and less state planning .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the growth rate of the world population is already underway .
These trends are the natural consequence of wealth creation through free markets .
Kitchen Utensil Set 24 ... Best Price : $ 19.59 Buy New $ 21.99 The World Economic Forum and its related institutions in combination with a handful of governments and a few high-tech companies want to lead the world into a new era without property or privacy .
Values like individualism , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness are at stake , to be repudiated in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ common good ” that is defined by the self-proclaimed elite of technocrats .
What is sold to the public as the promise of equality and ecological sustainability is in fact a brutal assault on human dignity and liberty .
Instead of using the new technologies as an instrument of betterment , the Great Reset seeks to use the technological possibilities as a tool of enslavement .
In this new world order , the state is the single owner of everything .
It is left to our imagination to figure out who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the goods and services .
Note : The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute .
The Best of Antony P. Mueller

The World Economic Forum (WEF) was founded fifty years ago. It has gained more and more prominence over the decades and has become one of the leading platforms of futuristic thinking and planning. As a meeting place of the global elite, the WEF brings together the leaders in business and politics along with a few selected intellectuals. The main thrust of the forum is global control. Free markets and individual choice do not stand as the top values, but state interventionism and collectivism. Individual liberty and private property are to disappear from this planet by 2030 according to the projections and scenarios coming from the World Economic Forum.
Eight Predictions
Individual liberty is at risk again. What may lie ahead was projected in November 2016 when the WEF published “8 Predictions for the World in 2030.” According to the WEF’s scenario, the world will become quite a different place from now because how people work and live will undergo a profound change. The scenario for the world in 2030 is more than just a forecast. It is a plan whose implementation has accelerated drastically since with the announcement of a pandemic and the consequent lockdowns. Gibson Soho Lounge 16-... Best Price: $38.21 Buy New $46.37 (as of 05:29 UTC - Details)
According to the projections of the WEF’s “Global Future Councils,” private property and privacy will be abolished during the next decade. The coming expropriation would go further than even the communist demand to abolish the property of production goods but leave space for private possessions. The WEF projection says that consumer goods, too, would be no longer private property.
If the WEF projection should come true, people would have to rent and borrow their necessities from the state, which would be the sole proprietor of all goods. The supply of goods would be rationed in line with a social credit points system. Shopping in the traditional sense would disappear along with the private purchases of goods. Every personal move would be tracked electronically, and all production would be subject to the requirements of clean energy and a sustainable environment.
In order to attain “sustainable agriculture,” the food supply will be mainly vegetarian. In the new totalitarian service economy, the government will provide basic accommodation, food, and transport, while the rest must be lent from the state. The use of natural resources will be brought down to its minimum. In cooperation with the few key countries, a global agency would set the price of CO 2 emissions at an extremely high level to disincentivize its use.
In a promotional video, the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:
People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state. The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate. Organs will not be transplanted but printed. Meat consumption will be minimized. Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees. To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level. People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life. Western values will be tested to the breaking point..
Beyond Privacy and Property
18 Piece Nonstick Pots... Buy New $38.00 (as of 05:29 UTC - Details) In a publication for the World Economic Forum, the Danish ecoactivist Ida Auken, who had served as her country’s minister of the environment from 2011 to 2014 and still is a member of the Danish Parliament (the Folketing), has elaborated a scenario of a world without privacy or property. In “Welcome to 2030,” she envisions a world where “I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” By 2030, so says her scenario, shopping and owning have become obsolete, because everything that once was a product is now a service.
In this idyllic new world of hers, people have free access to transportation, accommodation, food, “and all the things we need in our daily lives.” As these things will become free of charge, “it ended up not making sense for us to own much.” There would be no private ownership in houses nor would anyone pay rent, “because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it.” A person’s living room, for example, will be used for business meetings when one is absent. Concerns like “lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment” are things of the past. The author predicts that people will be happy to enjoy such a good life that is so much better “than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth.”
Ecological Paradise
In her 2019 contribution to the Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils of the World Economic Forum, Ida Auken foretells how the world may look in the future “if we win the war on climate change.” By 2030, when CO 2 emissions will be greatly reduced, people will live in a world where meat on the dinner plate “will be a rare sight” while water and the air will be much cleaner than today. Because of the shift from buying goods to using services, the need to have money will vanish, because people will spend less and less on goods. Work time will shrink and leisure time will grow.
For the future, Auken envisions a city where electric cars have substituted conventional combustion vehicles. Most of the roads and parking spaces will have become green parks and walking zones for pedestrians. By 2030, agriculture will offer mainly plant-based alternatives to the food supply instead of meat and dairy products. The use of land to produce animal feed will greatly diminish and nature will be spreading across the globe again.
Fabricating Social Consent
How can people be brought to accept such a system? The bait to entice the masses is the assurances of comprehensive healthcare and a guaranteed basic income. The promoters of the Great Reset promise a world without diseases. Due to biotechnologically produced organs and individualized genetics-based medical treatments, a drastically increased life expectancy and even immortality are said to be possible. Artificial intelligence will eradicate death and eliminate disease and mortality. The race is on among biotechnological companies to find the key to eternal life.
Along with the promise of turning any ordinary person into a godlike superman, the promise of a “universal basic income” is highly attractive, particularly to those who will no longer find a job in the new digital economy. Obtaining a basic income without having to go through the treadmill and disgrace of applying for social assistance is used as a bait to get the support of the poor.
Farberware 22-Piece Ne... Best Price: $18.39 Buy New $17.99 (as of 05:29 UTC - Details) To make it economically viable, the guarantee of a basic income would require the leveling of wage differences. The technical procedures of the money transfer from the state will be used to promote the cashless society. With the digitization of all monetary transactions, each individual purchase will be registered. As a consequence, the governmental authorities would have unrestricted access to supervise in detail how individual persons spend their money. A universal basic income in a cashless society would provide the conditions to impose a social credit system and deliver the mechanism to sanction undesirable behavior and identify the superfluous and unwanted.
Who Will Be the Rulers?
The World Economic Forum is silent about the question of who will rule in this new world.
There is no reason to expect that the new power holders would be benevolent. Yet even if the top decision-makers of the new world government were not mean but just technocrats, what reason would an administrative technocracy have to go on with the undesirables? What sense does it make for a technocratic elite to turn the common man into a superman? Why share the benefits of artificial intelligence with the masses and not keep the wealth for the chosen few?
Not being swayed away by the utopian promises, a sober assessment of the plans must come to the conclusion that in this new world, there would be no place for the average person and that they would be put away along with the “unemployable,” “feeble minded,” and “ill bred.” Behind the preaching of the progressive gospel of social justice by the promoters of the Great Reset and the establishment of a new world order lurks the sinister project of eugenics, which as a technique is now called “genetic engineering” and as a movement is named “transhumanism,” a term coined by Julian Huxley, the first director of the UNESCO.
The promoters of the project keep silent about who will be the rulers in this new world. The dystopian and collectivist nature of these projections and plans is the result of the rejection of free capitalism. Establishing a better world through a dictatorship is a contradiction in terms. Not less but more economic prosperity is the answer to the current problems. Therefore, we need more free markets and less state planning. The world is getting greener and a fall in the growth rate of the world population is already underway. These trends are the natural consequence of wealth creation through free markets. Kitchen Utensil Set 24... Best Price: $19.59 Buy New $21.99 (as of 05:29 UTC - Details)
Conclusion
The World Economic Forum and its related institutions in combination with a handful of governments and a few high-tech companies want to lead the world into a new era without property or privacy. Values like individualism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are at stake, to be repudiated in favor of collectivism and the imposition of a “common good” that is defined by the self-proclaimed elite of technocrats. What is sold to the public as the promise of equality and ecological sustainability is in fact a brutal assault on human dignity and liberty. Instead of using the new technologies as an instrument of betterment, the Great Reset seeks to use the technological possibilities as a tool of enslavement. In this new world order, the state is the single owner of everything. It is left to our imagination to figure out who will program the algorithms that manage the distribution of the goods and services.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Best of Antony P. Mueller


lewrockwell--2020-12-10--Trump Glorifies New Covid Vaccine: What Else Did You Expect?

Note : In this climate , many people assume that if you say ANYTHING favorable about Trump , you support him all the way .
If you say anything negative about him , you hate everything about him .
I ’ ve never been in either camp .
Read on .
As the vaccine rolls out in record time , Trump stands there selling it like a new golf course , the greatest gold course ever designed .
Not long ago , in the headline of an article , I called Trump and Biden frauds .
I ’ ve also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for America than Biden .
With Trump , we get glints of freedom ; with Biden we get the long dark night .
Pre-Seasoned Cast Iron ... Buy New $ 45.90 Biden ’ s people are already forging close relationships with the fascist governors .
These connections include : how to push the vaccine .
It ’ s going to go this way , if Biden is installed in the Oval Office .
Governors will say , “ Well , people , we need every community to achieve 70 % compliance with vaccination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen , it looks like…we ’ ll have to declare new lockdowns , in order to protect all of us… ” That ’ s the carrot and the stick .
Under Trump as president , a similar scenario would play out , but he would be trying to open up the economy at the same time , through encouragement , through disparaging the governors who are taking the hardest line on lockdowns .
That may seem like a distinction without a difference , but it isn ’ t .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : go back to work , open up the economy , find a way , defy restrictions .
If you ’ re laboring under the delusion that ANY president is going to unilaterally solve COVID fascism , and you don ’ t have to do anything yourself , you ’ re on the wrong track .
We have a giant snake encircling and winding through the population , and we have to cut off pieces of it wherever and however we can .
It would be pretty to think a politician is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of the snake in one mighty blow , but I don ’ t advise waiting for it to happen .
This is why I ’ ve said I don ’ t have faith in Trump , I have faith in the people who want freedom .
Many of those people support Trump .
Nostalgia Indoor Elect ... Buy New $ 56.14 To be sure , Biden ’ s people would like to declare a federal mandate forcing every American to take the COVID vaccine , but at least for now , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controllers are going to move .
They realize a federal mandate would not only face stiff legal challenges , it would create a high level of resistance—higher than presently exists—in the public .
They could try to pass a law stating that , in any designated area or zone , failure to achieve a 70 % vaccination rate would , “ during this state of emergency , ” trigger a vaccine mandate ; but I don ’ t think they ’ ll even go that far .
Biden ’ s controllers are focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors , and with big corporations .
Those corporations , some of them , will demand vaccination for their employees , at the same time saying these employees have the right to refuse , in which case they ’ ll either have to work from home , or find a job elsewhere .
Biden forces will also push companies to opt for “ immunity passports , ” making it more difficult for people to travel , shop , gather in large numbers , unless they take the COVID shot .
If all this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s what it is .
The vaccine is a new front , a new phase in the war .
We would all like to find an easy way out , but that ’ s a pipe dream .
As far as Trump is concerned , he bought the big COVID con right at the beginning .
He showed no real understanding of the situation , and he stood aside and allowed the destruction of the economy .
He has never admitted just how widespread that destruction is , or his role in it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times . )
So it should come as no surprise that he is now working the crowd like a carnival barker , hyping the vaccine .
Nostalgia RHDT800RETRO ... Buy New $ 50.64 Over the past months , some of Trump ’ s followers have assumed his glorification of the coming vaxx was a brilliant strategy on his part .
He had a secret “ rescue ” from the vaccine planned .
Well , here we are .
I don ’ t see rescue .
I see Trump selling the vaxx .
Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also pushing climate change , open borders , defunding the police , and other disastrous policies that make him a worse option than Trump .
But this article is about COVID .
And in that sphere , Trump is better than Biden in the way I ’ ve described above .
What we actually needed , back in January , was a truly courageous president who stood up and refused to allow lockdowns , on Constitutional grounds—boldly , without compromise , giving away NO freedoms .
We didn ’ t have that kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experimental , the people are guinea pigs , and the RNA technology embedded in the vaccine has been shown , in the past , to cause autoimmune reactions—meaning the body attacks itself .
Trump pushing it as the messianic solution is madness .
The Best of Jon Rappoport

Note: In this climate, many people assume that if you say ANYTHING favorable about Trump, you support him all the way. If you say anything negative about him, you hate everything about him. I’ve never been in either camp. Read on.
As the vaccine rolls out in record time, Trump stands there selling it like a new golf course, the greatest gold course ever designed.
Not long ago, in the headline of an article, I called Trump and Biden frauds.
I’ve also explained why Trump is a better fraud for America than Biden.
With Trump, we get glints of freedom; with Biden we get the long dark night. Pre-Seasoned Cast Iron... Buy New $45.90 (as of 05:30 UTC - Details)
Biden’s people are already forging close relationships with the fascist governors. These connections include: how to push the vaccine.
It’s going to go this way, if Biden is installed in the Oval Office. Governors will say, “Well, people, we need every community to achieve 70% compliance with vaccination. And where that doesn’t happen, it looks like…we’ll have to declare new lockdowns, in order to protect all of us…”
That’s the carrot and the stick.
Under Trump as president, a similar scenario would play out, but he would be trying to open up the economy at the same time, through encouragement, through disparaging the governors who are taking the hardest line on lockdowns.
That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it isn’t. It’s a signal to his millions of passionate followers: go back to work, open up the economy, find a way, defy restrictions.
If you’re laboring under the delusion that ANY president is going to unilaterally solve COVID fascism, and you don’t have to do anything yourself, you’re on the wrong track.
We have a giant snake encircling and winding through the population, and we have to cut off pieces of it wherever and however we can.
It would be pretty to think a politician is going to wade in and cut off the head of the snake in one mighty blow, but I don’t advise waiting for it to happen.
This is why I’ve said I don’t have faith in Trump, I have faith in the people who want freedom. Many of those people support Trump. Nostalgia Indoor Elect... Buy New $56.14 (as of 05:30 UTC - Details)
To be sure, Biden’s people would like to declare a federal mandate forcing every American to take the COVID vaccine, but at least for now, that’s not how I think his controllers are going to move.
They realize a federal mandate would not only face stiff legal challenges, it would create a high level of resistance—higher than presently exists—in the public.
They could try to pass a law stating that, in any designated area or zone, failure to achieve a 70% vaccination rate would, “during this state of emergency,” trigger a vaccine mandate; but I don’t think they’ll even go that far.
Biden’s controllers are focused on forging VERY tight relationships with the governors, and with big corporations. Those corporations, some of them, will demand vaccination for their employees, at the same time saying these employees have the right to refuse, in which case they’ll either have to work from home, or find a job elsewhere.
Biden forces will also push companies to opt for “immunity passports,” making it more difficult for people to travel, shop, gather in large numbers, unless they take the COVID shot.
If all this sounds like all-out war, that’s what it is.
The vaccine is a new front, a new phase in the war.
We would all like to find an easy way out, but that’s a pipe dream.
As far as Trump is concerned, he bought the big COVID con right at the beginning. He showed no real understanding of the situation, and he stood aside and allowed the destruction of the economy. He has never admitted just how widespread that destruction is, or his role in it. (I have stated this several times.)
So it should come as no surprise that he is now working the crowd like a carnival barker, hyping the vaccine. Nostalgia RHDT800RETRO... Buy New $50.64 (as of 05:30 UTC - Details)
Over the past months, some of Trump’s followers have assumed his glorification of the coming vaxx was a brilliant strategy on his part. He had a secret “rescue” from the vaccine planned.
Well, here we are. I don’t see rescue. I see Trump selling the vaxx. Nothing new.
Biden’s forces are also pushing climate change, open borders, defunding the police, and other disastrous policies that make him a worse option than Trump. But this article is about COVID. And in that sphere, Trump is better than Biden in the way I’ve described above.
What we actually needed, back in January, was a truly courageous president who stood up and refused to allow lockdowns, on Constitutional grounds—boldly, without compromise, giving away NO freedoms. We didn’t have that kind of leader.
This COVID vaccine is experimental, the people are guinea pigs, and the RNA technology embedded in the vaccine has been shown, in the past, to cause autoimmune reactions—meaning the body attacks itself.
Trump pushing it as the messianic solution is madness.
SOURCES:
(forthcoming)
The Best of Jon Rappoport


lewrockwell--2020-12-10--Sippin’ Starbucks No More

Sippin’ Starbucks No More

The fate of Betsy Fresse , an evangelical Christian who refused to don a gay pride shirt in accordance with instructions from her manager in a Starbucks store in New Jersey is explained with remarkable concision in a recent Reuters article : A former Starbucks Corp barista in New Jersey sued the coffee chain on Thursday , claiming she was fired illegally because she did not want to wear a ‘ PRIDE ’ T-shirt , which she said conflicted with her religious beliefs .
Betsy Fresse said her August 2019 dismissal from a Glen Ridge , New Jersey store , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violating Starbucks ’ ‘ core values ’ amounted to illegal religious discrimination under federal civil rights law .
Keurig K-Classic Coffe ... Best Price : $ 72.68 Buy New $ 102.38 This obstinate employee was apparently given an opportunity to reconsider , as NBC points out in Starbuck ’ s defense .
Fresse received a call from Starbuck ’ s Ethics and Compliance Helpline after she initially eschewed the caring-sharing shirt .
Since she failed to give the proper diversitarian response over the phone and in conversation with the manager , she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sued , claiming her religious rights had been violated .
To my knowledge the plaintiff was not rehired ; nor was the manager who fired her disciplined ; and finally Starbucks denied Fresse ’ s charges , insisting that it stands for “ diversity , ” and therefore could not conceivably have discriminated against a Christian former employee .
The fault , we are left to believe , was Fresse ’ s appalling contempt for Starbucks ’ perfectly reasonable “ core values.
” Mr. Coffee 12-Cup Coff ... Best Price : $ 19.21 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ express my profound skepticism about Starbucks ’ open-mindedness .
Having frequented that company in the past , I could not help but notice the obtrusive reminders about the management ’ s politics , including cups and sugar packets adorned with leftist political platitudes .
Starbucks ’ CEO and founder Howard Schultz would hardly qualify as a politically detached individual .
He is a socially over-the-top liberal Democrat , who according to a description in National Review is “ suspicious of socialism , but woke — some might say performatively so — on immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and abortion.
” Starbucks spokespersons indicated that Fresse had been fired not because of her refusal to wear a gay pride shirt but because of her “ comportment.
” It seems this lady brazenly told her fellow-employees that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman .
This message , which presumably came in the wake of being urged to wear the LGBT-propaganda shirt , constituted behavior that Starbucks refused to tolerate .
Let ’ s imagine that the dissenter was a homosexual activist being forced to wear a shirt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman .
This assertion would not have caused the slightest scandal up until about 25 years ago , because it would have expressed what everyone across the political spectrum had always believed—or was expected to believe .
The Best of Paul Gottfried

The fate of Betsy Fresse, an evangelical Christian who refused to don a gay pride shirt in accordance with instructions from her manager in a Starbucks store in New Jersey is explained with remarkable concision in a recent Reuters article:
A former Starbucks Corp barista in New Jersey sued the coffee chain on Thursday, claiming she was fired illegally because she did not want to wear a ‘PRIDE’ T-shirt, which she said conflicted with her religious beliefs. Betsy Fresse said her August 2019 dismissal from a Glen Ridge, New Jersey store, near her Newark home, for allegedly violating Starbucks’ ‘core values’ amounted to illegal religious discrimination under federal civil rights law. Keurig K-Classic Coffe... Best Price: $72.68 Buy New $102.38 (as of 04:40 UTC - Details)
This obstinate employee was apparently given an opportunity to reconsider, as NBC points out in Starbuck’s defense. Fresse received a call from Starbuck’s Ethics and Compliance Helpline after she initially eschewed the caring-sharing shirt. Since she failed to give the proper diversitarian response over the phone and in conversation with the manager, she was summarily terminated.
The fired employee thereupon sued, claiming her religious rights had been violated. To my knowledge the plaintiff was not rehired; nor was the manager who fired her disciplined; and finally Starbucks denied Fresse’s charges, insisting that it stands for “diversity,” and therefore could not conceivably have discriminated against a Christian former employee. The fault, we are left to believe, was Fresse’s appalling contempt for Starbucks’ perfectly reasonable “core values.”
Mr. Coffee 12-Cup Coff... Best Price: $19.21 Buy New $28.09 (as of 05:31 UTC - Details) Allow me to express my profound skepticism about Starbucks’ open-mindedness. Having frequented that company in the past, I could not help but notice the obtrusive reminders about the management’s politics, including cups and sugar packets adorned with leftist political platitudes. Starbucks’ CEO and founder Howard Schultz would hardly qualify as a politically detached individual. He is a socially over-the-top liberal Democrat, who according to a description in National Review is “suspicious of socialism, but woke — some might say performatively so — on immigration, LGBT issues, racial justice, and abortion.”
Starbucks spokespersons indicated that Fresse had been fired not because of her refusal to wear a gay pride shirt but because of her “comportment.” It seems this lady brazenly told her fellow-employees that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. This message, which presumably came in the wake of being urged to wear the LGBT-propaganda shirt, constituted behavior that Starbucks refused to tolerate.
Let’s imagine that the dissenter was a homosexual activist being forced to wear a shirt stating marriage is between a man and a woman. This assertion would not have caused the slightest scandal up until about 25 years ago, because it would have expressed what everyone across the political spectrum had always believed—or was expected to believe.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Paul Gottfried