Dreams of “Vaccine Hub Germany”
Was all of Germany turned into a stage for Covid theatre, with 80 million Germans forced into the role of extras, all in order to help realise the “dream” (as Jürgen Kirchner has put it) of “vaccine hub Germany”?
Government and the WHO Quietly Shake Hands
It would be unforgivable for the public not to be given more clarity on this important issue. We must see the full detail of what we are being signed up to. The time to speak up about it is now, rather than after the event. If there is nothing for the government and the WHO to hide, they should disclose this information. The British public has a right to know and we should be given an opportunity to either accept or reject what is being proposed behind closed doors.
Exactly What Are WHO Member States Voting for?
Continuously conflating the concept of pandemic preparedness and PHEIC only creates confusion while obscuring the obvious political processes involved. If the WHO wants to convince the world to prepare for pandemics, and calm down fears of potential misuse of the pandemic label via a new governance process, then they need to provide clarity on what they are actually talking about.
The WHO Proposals: An Open Letter
The drafting of the Open Letter below, addressing these issues, was led by three lawyers with experience with the WHO, within the UN and in international treaty law, Silvia Behrendt, Assoc. Prof Amrei Muller, and Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh. It simply calls upon the WHO and Member States to extend the deadline for the adoption of the amendments to the International Health Regulations and a new Pandemic Agreement at the 77th WHA to safeguard the rule of law and equity. To proceed with the current deadline, against their own legal requirements, would not just be legally wrong but demonstrate unequivocally that equity and respect for States rights have nothing to do with the WHO’s pandemic agenda.
Elites at War with the People
How long until centre-right political leaders across the Western democracies grasp the truth that the cultural hegemony is not as crushingly successful as believed by the elites? Without embracing populism, they can still address the practical concerns, interests, and aspirations that animate working and middle class people worried by cost of living pressures, breakdowns of family and social cohesion, and retreat from pride in flag, country, and religion. These majority voting cohorts are worried about mass immigration, the erosion of women’s rights under the relentless assault from trans activists, and the absolutist agenda of Net Zero and damn the costs.
Chevron, Murthy, and ‘Supreme’ Hypocrisy
The majority of the court appeared to favor eliminating Chevron. It would be the height of hypocrisy – and one the most culturally devastating decisions since Dred Scott – to not see the parallels and to rule any other way than against the government in Murthy. With that ruling, we can begin to gather in the tentacles of the censorship monster.
Justices’ Grave Error in Murthy v. Missouri
If the justices want to distinguish between persuasion and coercion in the injunction, they need to appreciate that social media companies operate in a very different relationship with government than traditional print media. These asymmetrical power dynamics create a relationship ripe for unconstitutional government coercion.
Fiscal Collapse Accelerates
Every fiscal trend is in the wrong direction. We’re already at $2 trillion deficit, it will soar by trillions when recession hits. And it will keep churning with social security, Medicare, and spending on everything from illegal immigrants to fresh wars. At this point there is nothing standing between us and fiscal collapse. The only question is when.
Ivermectin’s Victory Over the FDA
On March 21, a settlement was reached, leading to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreeing to remove social media posts and webpages discouraging the use of ivermectin for treating Covid-19.
Supreme Court Divided on Censorship
If I’m a betting man, I’ll place my money (though not much money) that we’ll get a 5-4 or 6-3 decision upholding some kind of injunction. And while I hate to admit it, things could also go the other way. I think it will be close. Supreme Court decisions are notoriously difficult to predict, and it appears there are enemies of free speech on the bench even in the highest Court in the land.
Pandemics: A Business Opportunity
For most of the rest of humanity – those not heavily invested in Pharma or software and those concerned about human rights – the future does not look so rosy. We are supposed to provide the money that ends up in the hands of the people running it all. That is how profiteering works. So we will have to put things right, because they obviously won’t. Now that it is all written out for us in the WHO documents and we are aware of the money transfers of the past few years, we no longer have any excuse to ignore it.
Two Weeks to Flatten Became Eight Months to Change the Election
This is all theater. From the outset of the pandemic response, the liberalization of voting rules was integral, all justified based on nonscientific grounds while invoking the cover of science. It wasn’t stopping disease spread that drove the dramatic upheaval in the American system of voting that has caused such widespread distrust. It was the drive for a result different from one that swept the country four years earlier.
Two Weeks to Flatten Became Eight Months to Change the Election Read More