- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
March 1, 2021
Crazy Old Biden and the Countdown to Kamala
President Joe Biden is a shadow of his former self. Long gone is the aggressive, pugnacious, and partisan Democrat who mistreated Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas in the latter’s confirmation hearings. Today, Americans see a president who is clearly mentally diminished and is getting worse on a daily basis.
During the campaign, Biden refused to submit to a cognitive test. When asked by CBS News correspondent Errol Barnett if he would take a test, Biden snapped, “No, I haven’t taken a test. Why the hell would I take a test? Come on, man, that’s like saying, before you got in this program, if you take a test where you’re taking cocaine or not. What do you think? Huh? Are you a junkie?”
Biden refused to take a test because it would show he is in mental decline. His last medical report was issued in December of 2019. While his doctor, Kevin O’Connor of George Washington University, labeled Biden “vigorous” and fit to successfully perform as president, other experts did not share that view.
Dr. David Scheiner, the former personal physician for Barack Obama, claimed that Biden is “not a healthy guy.” In fact, U.S. congressman Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), the former White House physician for President Obama and President Donald Trump, said Biden “does not have the mental capacity, the cognitive ability to serve as our commander-in-chief and head of state.” He also reiterated a concern shared by many Americans: “I really think that he needs some type of cognitive testing before he takes over the reins as our commander-in-chief.”
Unfortunately, no such testing has been conducted in recent months. Americans have no idea when Biden took his last cognitive test. Biden is now president, and Americans are being subjected to the uncertainty of a person with serious mental issues serving in the most important position in the world.
Ever since his inauguration, President Biden has been making frequent misstatements and obvious gaffes. The most recent episodes occurred on Friday. Earlier in the day, he forgot to put on a mask after finishing a speech. Then, after a trip to Houston, Texas, Biden made a series of troubling statements. He referred to high-profile U.S. congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) as “Shirley.” Also, he mispronounced the name of Congresswoman Lizzie Pannill Fletcher (D-Texas) twice. After the mistakes, he asked, “What am I doing here?”
Ironically, Biden stumbled upon the ultimate question that needs to be answered. In his first two presidential campaigns, Biden was a stunning failure. In 1988, he was forced out of the race after his repeated plagiarism was discovered. In 2008, he bombed again as a presidential candidate, barely registering 1% support.
Biden was rescued politically when Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama chose him for the vice presidential slot. This selection was made not because of any great chemistry between the two men. Obama chose Biden even though Biden had made a stunningly racist comment. Biden referred to Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Clearly, Biden was chosen because he was born in Pennsylvania and could theoretically appeal to white, working-class voters in the Rust Belt. During eight years on the same ticket, President Obama did not value Biden as a vice president and never invited him to his personal quarters in the White House for a visit. Biden admitted this embarrassing fact in a recent CNN town hall meeting.
Obama held Biden in such low regard that he did not encourage him to run for president in 2016. Instead, he endorsed Hillary Clinton. In the 2020 election, Obama endorsed Biden only when it was apparent to everyone that Biden would be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.
Obama’s reluctance about Biden extended to many leaders in the Democratic Party. It was only after the surge of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the presidential primaries that leading Democrats decided to rally around Biden. Top Democrats knew that a socialist like Sanders could not win the presidency, and they reluctantly backed a mentally compromised Biden as their choice.
In the presidential campaign against Trump, Biden barely left the basement of his home. He held few events and news conferences so he would have few opportunities to stumble. Although he performed adequately during the two presidential debates, he made plenty of other verbal blunders and curious comments during the race.
After the election, his mental decline has become obvious. To cover for his cerebral issues, he has not held a formal press conference and has been interviewed only a few times by friendly reporters. His one town hall meeting was broadcast on CNN, a pro-Biden network that supports his agenda and uses most of its airtime to fume about President Donald Trump and his supporters.
On a typical day, Biden will make a statement or issue an executive order. He will give a speech filled with bumbled or contorted language and then immediately exit the room as reporters are ushered out shouting questions. This is in contrast to President Trump, who gave impromptu press conferences constantly.
Sadly, the liberal mainstream press is covering for Biden. If Trump had acted in such a manner during his first five weeks, there would have been a press uproar. Eventually, these mental problems will be too severe to hide, and even the liberal media will have to report on them.
Biden is mentally deteriorating, as most astute observers knew he would. His condition has become so worrisome that 31 House Democrats are demanding the control of the “nuclear football” be removed from the sole authority of the president.
In the background, smiling and patiently waiting, is Vice President Kamala Harris, a socialist with radical views on a range of issues. To bolster her position, she has the full support of former President Obama and his political entourage.
She knows that her ascendancy will come sooner rather than later.
Harris is biding her time, as the countdown has begun.
On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Ingraham Angle,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) reacted to statements that people who have received the coronavirus vaccine still have to wear masks because they could still spread the virus by stating that no one has actually proven that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, “They just say, unless you can prove the opposite, you can’t be free and you have to be huddled in your basement wearing a mask.”
Paul said, [relevant remarks begin around 6:05] “[T]he thing is, they don’t prove that that happens. They just say, unless you can prove the opposite, you can’t be free and you have to be huddled in your basement wearing a mask. And I’m the opposite, you get your vaccine, you’ve had your second dose, you’re two weeks out, throw away your mask. If you’ve had the disease and you’re a young person, go to restaurants, go out and visit with your friends, do not hunker down in a basement by yourself, go to school, by all means, let’s get back to normal. And let’s treat this with circumspection the idea that the risks should be according to the individual.”
February 27, 2021
How do you know anything about climate change?
Do you ever get the feeling that our elected officials have nothing but disdain for their constituents? Do you feel that Republicans and Democrats are in a war with each other for dominance, while the American people are just onlookers in a spiteful and vindictive political tennis match?
When you look at the two-party system of government, each with opposing views concerning the direction of our country, it’s easy to conclude that we, the people, have very little input into our future. One president gets a tax cut passed, only to be overturned by his successor. Was it because the tax cut hurt the economy, or was it because his successor doesn’t want the opposition party to get credit? The same goes for numerous other policy changes each time the opposition political party gets control.
In other words, it’s not about us; it’s all about their petty grievances as each struggles for individual conquests. We are no longer being governed; we’re being ruled. To be governed is to voluntarily put people in charge of the day-to-day management of services we need to function as an orderly society. Contrarily, to be ruled is to be subjected to the arbitrary power of those who have put themselves in positions of unchallenged authority.
To understand the thinking of a ruling class, one must begin by investigating how they developed such notions of superiority. People are not born with a belief system that steers them toward a given philosophy. Everything they become is based on what they’ve been taught to believe. Very often, that belief benefits them, politically and monetarily.
Let’s take an issue such as climate change. We all know people who are “experts” on the subject. They will tell you that the icebergs are melting into the sea and will eventually cause the oceans to rise, flooding entire cities and states, snuffing out the lives of millions. They’ll view every hurricane, tornado, earthquake, and temperature fluctuation as “proof” that mankind is destroying the planet, primarily because of fossil fuel usage (although cow flatulence is not far behind, if you’ll excuse the pun). I’m always amazed at how intelligent these climate change adherents are. Without an exhaustive study in the field of the related disciplines, these pseudo-scientists, with not a scintilla of personally gained knowledge, will fiercely defend the imminent destruction of the planet against those they deem “deniers.”
How did they get so smart without traveling the world with due diligence, endeavoring to accumulate facts to sustain their theories? That friend of yours who has a career in sales management, or the guy with a degree in journalism, will try to impress you with his vast knowledge in the planetary sciences. Where did he obtain that esoteric awareness? Certainly not in the trenches of Icelandic expeditions and other arctic investigations. Instead, like the guy who plops himself in front of the television screen during a football game and yells plays to the quarterback, he’s become an armchair expert by watching liberal news coverage and reading left-wing publications. In defending his position, he’ll invariably tell you about the number of scientists who agree that the end is near, perhaps as close as 12 years, unless we end oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and any other activity producing carbon content.
Frankly, I don’t know if the climate is changing in ways that will endanger our lives. I do know that those scientists who agree with that hypothesis are recipients of many lucrative government grants to continue their research. Those who disagree, not so much. Inasmuch as such research is driven by money, isn’t it possible that many scientists will ensure that their findings follow the cash flow? The environmental lobby is probably the most active and powerful influence in the federal government, spending countless millions to sway legislators to implement laws against fossil fuel use. Meanwhile, China and other developing nations are contributing huge amounts of pollution into the atmosphere with impunity. China, the world’s largest contributor of CO2 emissions, is now emitting over 10 billion metric tons into the atmosphere (about twice that of the U.S.), mainly from burning coal, needed to supply Chinese electricity.
Has President Biden, John Kerry, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or any other Green New Deal fanatic taken on the Asian giant for its odious contributions to the demise of the planet? Hardly! There’s no political advantage in publicly chastising the country that has so many American politicians and corporations on its payroll. Moreover, it’s a good bet that China isn’t paying any of its scientists to say fossil fuel is hazardous. I guess Xi Jinping has no expectation of living past the next 12 years.
On Friday’s broadcast of ABC’s “The View,” New York State Assemblyman Ron Kim (D) stated that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) “should be asking himself” whether he should resign from office.
Kim said, “My colleagues, this week, from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, have reached out to me. What’s next? How do we make — how do we get the impeachment process started? Taking his powers is not good enough. It’s going to expire anyways. What are the next steps? So, right now, we’re actively talking [about] what that looks like. And people have also asked me, should he resign? And I think Cuomo himself should be asking himself that question at this moment.”
February 20, 2021
Suddenly, It’s All a Conspiracy Theory
Gov. Cuomo continues to insist that nursing home–related charges against him are a “conspiracy theory.” Cuomo is referring to suggestions that thousands of seniors may have died as a result of his actions and that he and others working under him undercounted and covered up those deaths.
Liberals now use the phrase “conspiracy theory” to respond to any sort of criticism. But what exactly does Gov. Cuomo mean by “conspiracy theory”? What is the “theory,” and who are the “conspirators”? Is it a “theory” to say the governor ordered nursing home patients with COVID-19 into nursing homes, where they might infect other patients? Is it mere theory to point out that Cuomo’s administration underreported the number of deaths from COVID-19 among nursing home patients? Is it theory to say Cuomo failed to respond to New York representatives’ request for information concerning nursing home deaths?
And who are the conspirators? According to Cuomo’s aide, Melissa DeRosa, information was withheld because Cuomo and DeRosa feared that “it was going to be used against us,” presumably by Republicans and specifically by the Trump DOJ. Yet now there are several ongoing investigations into Cuomo’s actions by Democrats, including the Biden DOJ. Does the governor consider these investigations by members of his own party a conspiracy?
The governor also blames the ongoing DOJ investigations for his apparent failure to provide nursing home data to members of the New York Assembly and Senate, and he claims he made this reason known to the Assembly and Senate. According to reports, several state senators claim that that was not the case. Is the governor lying, or are New York assemblymen and senators wrong?
Cuomo uses the words “conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory” as if this were a fair rebuttal to every charge brought against him. As the facts become clear, it seems there is not much that is theoretical about this case. According to numerous independent reports, it seems that Cuomo did send infected patients back to New York nursing homes, did undercount the number of deaths, did attempt to cover up his actions, and did fail to properly inform the state Legislature of the true nature and motive of his actions.
The truth is that labelling an attack a “conspiracy theory” is usually just an attempt to deflect criticism. It’s like yelling, “You don’t know what you’re talking about!,” “You’re an idiot,” or “You’re a racist.” None of those responses answers the question posed. Likewise, “conspiracy theory” doesn’t answer the question of why a governor might order infected patients to be sent into nursing homes, why he might slow-walk or underreport data, and why he might fail to respond to requests for information from his own Legislature and then appear to fabricate an excuse.
Did thousands of elderly persons die a terrifying death, alone and separated from their families, and did Cuomo attempt to cover up the extent of it? If these things happened, then charges against Gov. Cuomo are not a conspiracy theory, which by definition is a “false belief in a secret force influencing events.” Nothing “false” about it.
Cuomo’s aide now suggests that they “froze” because President Trump was going after them — so it’s Trump’s fault or the fault of the “toxic situation” created by Trump? What they’ve just admitted to is withholding data on the most important of Cuomo’s mistakes because they were afraid it would be used against them. To me, that sounds like admission of a cover-up. But for a liberal, any charge against them is a conspiracy theory.
A more serious question is whether Gov. Cuomo ordered the return of infected patients to nursing homes rather than sending them to the USNS Comfort so as to deny President Trump a “victory” in dealing with the pandemic. That ship had been refitted and sent to New York in record time — a major accomplishment by the president. Did that fact enter into Cuomo’s calculation to send infected seniors to nursing homes rather than to a specialized onboard treatment center? If so, that would be more serious than anything now alleged against the governor.
Gov. Cuomo, by the way, isn’t the only liberal Democrat who’s been tossing around the “conspiracy theory” argument. At a critical moment in late October, as reports of wrongdoing swirled around Hunter Biden, these reports were labeled right-wing “conspiracy theories” by the mainstream media, and social media were scrubbed of these so-called theories. Little was ever done to rebut the allegations themselves, which appear to center on Hunter Biden’s tax affairs, according to a Dec. 9 report. According to Fox News, Biden is the subject or target of a grand jury investigation. So is this grand jury investigation also a conspiracy theory?
There is no end to what liberals will label a conspiracy theory. Sen. Schumer hasn’t been shy about labeling his opponents “conspiracy theorists.” Back in May, Schumer attacked Republicans for promoting “conspiracy theories” concerning a member of Biden’s “family.” Would that be the same family member who is now the subject and target of a grand jury investigation? Got questions about President Biden’s mental health? It’s all “Russian disinformation.” Questions about corruption on the part of Joe Biden — another conspiracy theory.
Labeling your opponent as a conspiracy theorist is really just a form of stonewalling — something liberals have always been good at. Whether it’s “the science is settled” (when it isn’t) or blaming one’s withholding information on a “toxic political situation,” it comes down to a refusal to engage in rational debate.
Rational debate is not something liberals have been willing to engage in lately — they’d rather engage in name-calling, concealing information, stuffing ballots in the dead of night, and all manner of deceit. When every criticism is labeled a conspiracy theory, it’s obvious there is something to hide. The coming weeks in Albany, and Washington, may reveal exactly what that is.
February 18, 2021
Cuomo gaslights nursing home deaths as public relations management problem
For New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo, all those 15,000 nursing home deaths brought on by COVID patients coming back from hospitals and into nursing homes instead of President Trump’s offshore hospital ships and the cover-up in numbers was a communications problem.
Here’s his Feb. 16 press conference where he refused to apologize for his March 25 memo forcing nursing homes to take in COVID patients returning from hospitals, and then covered up the death toll by splitting death toll numbers between hospitals and nursing homes, to make the numbers look smaller:
From Rev.com, the transcript:
Apologize? Look, I have said repeatedly, we made a mistake in creating the void. We made a mistake in creating the void. When we didn’t provide information, it allowed press, people, cynics, politicians to fill the void. When you don’t correct disinformation, you allow it to continue. And we created the void, not because people weren’t working hard, Mike, because you know how hard people were working and well, you should have prioritized providing more information. Yes, yes. In retrospect, we should have prioritized providing more information. I get the operational demand. I don’t like to second guess my team. They were all working 24 hours a day. Remember where this was? You’re in the middle of hell during this time, but no excuses, no excuses.
Andrew Cuomo: (01:34:35)
We should not have created the void. We should have done a better job in providing information. We should have done a better job of knocking down the disinformation. You’d never knock down all these conspiracy theories, the political conspiracy theories, because they generate 10 a day, but we should have done a better job of providing as much information as we could as quickly as we could and we should have done a better job on that, yes, and no excuses. I accept responsibility for that. I am in charge. I take responsibility. We should have provided more information faster. We were too focused on doing the job and addressing the crisis of the moment and we did not do a good enough job in providing information. I take total responsibility for that. The pain in it is it created confusion and cynicism and pain for the families of the loved ones.
You see, it’s all a problem of communications, and all his bureaucrats were working “so hard” and supposedly under duress. Sorry ’bout that, pudknockers — Cuomo (or rather, now it’s his staff) had bigger things to do than explain to you why your grandmother was dying alone in a nursing home even though you were barred from visiting her in order to keep the place “safe.” But rest assured: he’s taking full responsibility and is in charge.
This loathsome garbage, because the problem wasn’t communications, a public relations management problem as he’d like you to think; it was the policy itself, the March 25 memo commanding nursing homes to take in COVID patients returning from hospital and forbidding them, under penalty of law non-discrimination clauses, from so much as testing them. Splitting the numbers to make them both look smaller was a cover-up move for a very, very, very bad policy, one that’s so bad that it’s now being investigated by the FBI and the Brooklyn district’s U.S. attorney. According to the Times-Union, which makes every effort to make Cuomo look good:
Nearly three weeks after the governor’s task force was announced last year, the state health department issued an order directing nursing homes and other long-term care facilities that they must accept residents who were being discharged from hospitals even if they were still testing positive for the infectious disease, as long as they were able to care for them properly.
That directive, which was rescinded less than two months later, has been the focus of a firestorm of criticism directed at Cuomo’s administration, including allegations that the order — which the governor said was based on federal guidance — had contributed to the high number of fatalities of nursing home residents in New York. That assertion was largely dismissed in a report by the Department of Health that was released in July.
Last month, the office of Attorney General Letitia James issued a scathing report that concluded the practice may have increased the risk of COVID-19 infections at the congregate facilities and that Cuomo’s administration had delayed reporting that thousands of additional nursing home residents died at hospitals after being infected in their residential facilities.
The “as long as they were able to care for” claim is nonsense — nursing homes were threatened with license yankings if they weren’t “able to care for” the patients, and the Times-Union left off that unpleasant little detail about nursing homes being prohibited under penalty of law from testing anyone returning from a hospital COVID unit into a nursing home on discrimination grounds. That effectively forced nursing homes, under protest, to take in the coughing and sneezing COVID patients from hospitals, and every time they tried to call Cuomo’s bureaucrats about it to alert them to the catastrophe, the latter refused to pick up the phone. All of that was reported by the New York Post last spring.
All this, while President Trump’s record-time dispatched military hospital ships, intended for COVID overflow patients in New York, sat empty. Maybe that was to avoid giving President Trump any credit for saving the thousands of people who would have been saved. For Cuomo, they were more politically useful dead, serving as fodder to Blame Trump instead.
Yes, an FBI and U.S. attorney’s investigation is warranted in this case, because far from this being a communications or transparency problem, it might just be a money and greed problem. According to the Times-Union:
Republicans at all levels of New York’s government spectrum, and many Democrats as well, have repeatedly called for independent investigations of the state’s nursing home policies and directives during the ongoing pandemic. Some of those critics also have raised questions about whether there were any ties between policy decisions and hospitals or other special interests that either have business before the state or are subject to its regulating agencies.
So instead of being more transparent now, as Cuomo is apparently claiming to be, he needs to be way more transparent, with the lawmen. Yet the public has a right to know what went into this bad policy.
Was it to Get Trump?
Was it to “cull” the nursing home population, the better to save on Medicaid expenses the state would have to pay? According to ProPublica, about 13% of the New York nursing home population was picked off.
Or was it greed and graft among Cuomo’s staff, which wouldn’t be the first time among that bunch, with special interests offering “incentives” to get the patients into the nursing homes in return for some kind of emolument? Maybe the release of some emails and memos as to their thinking in the crafting of this bad decision might be in order, and hopefully, the FBI will be able to get their hands on it.
For Cuomo, it doesn’t look good. After a big media buildup claiming he was such a competent, extraordinary guy, complete with an Emmy award, he may just be going down, shamelessness and all. He’s certainly acting like it. Over the weekend, he reportedly threatened to “destroy” one Democratic legislator, Assembly member Ron Kim, whose questioning of this Cuomo policy arose after his father died in one of these nursing homes as a result of this policy. According to CNN, Cuomo last week was screaming at Kim over the phone to demand that he stop.
He’s constantly fighting with the left wing of the Democratic Party, which is why he’s billed as Mr. Moderate in much of the press. A lot of them want his job, reportedly including state attorney general, Letitia James, who wrote the report about the cover-up. What’s more, a massive amount of stimulus money, if Joe Biden gets his way, is going to be rolling into New York for either Cuomo or whoever can knock him out — much more money than New York even requested. Cuomo himself has plenty of enemies likely to want that and to want him gone. Cuomo’s mean and Mafia-like to his associates, “born for social distancing,” as the New Yorker quoted a former aide as saying. Without Trump in the picture, the vipers are going after each other and expecting a jackpot.
And with Cuomo acting as menacing as a Mafia don, it looks as though the minions around him are plotting a political rubout.
During a Monday interview on Fox News Channel’s “The Faulkner Focus,” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) slammed “bully” Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) for his mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic in his state. New York Attorney General Letitia James recently released a report that found Cuomo’s administration “undercounted” the number of coronavirus-related deaths in nursing homes in the state by as much as 50 percent.
Although Cuomo was largely applauded by Democratic leadership early in the pandemic, Stefanik railed against Cuomo, describing him as “the worst governor in America” for how he handled the pandemic. She called for an independent investigation into Cuomo’s “obstruction of justice.”
“Just look at Governor Cuomo’s failed record,” Stefanik said. “He is the worst governor in America in terms of how he has handled the COVID crisis, and last week was an absolute bombshell. You had both Democrats and Republicans calling for an independent investigation. I want to see subpoenas both at the state level, the state senate. And state assembly should issue subpoenas immediately, and I want the Department of Justice to launch an independent investigation. We know from the partial transcript that was released by the secretary to the governor that there was obstruction of justice. And this is not about politics. This is about people’s lives. And what was so shameful about the transcript that was released was the secretary to the governor didn’t apologize for the number of deaths, didn’t apologize for the policy, but apologized for the political fallout that faced Democrats. So, it’s a disgrace.”
She continued, “And President Biden needs to keep to his promise — the Department of Justice will be independent from political pressure from Governor Cuomo, who is a Democrat, but the Department of Justice and law enforcement — this prosecution needs to go forward immediately.”
Stefanik added that with both Republicans and Democrats calling for an investigation into Cuomo, “the dam is breaking.”
“Everyone knows Governor Cuomo is a bully; that they bully people within their own party. But this is more important. We are talking about lives that were lost here, so these Democratic state senators and frankly the Democratic congressional delegation needs to grow a spine and grow some political courage and stand up for what’s right — the people of this state who deserve justice. So we will see, but those subpoenas and that investigation should be launched immediately. There is no excuse after last week’s bombshell.”
February 15, 2021
The Pandemic Cure is Far Worse than the Disease
Excessive stress on a bone will often cause it to fracture. Fractures can be the result of acute or chronic stress and can be partial or complete however, once the fracture occurs it’s over in less than a second. Sufficient healing often takes 6-8 weeks.
Similarly, if enough stress is placed on a society, it too can fracture. During the 19th century societal stressors in America built up over years leading to war and the fracturing of society. In that situation secession represented a complete fracture. Though the war formally ended over 150 years ago has there truly been complete healing?
Following the war, societal stress included the Southern reconstruction period policies, and in the 20th century there were the effects of two world wars, FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society programs, the Korean and Vietnam War, the 1965 Immigration Act and affirmative action policies. All changed the nature of society and it can be argued not always or completely for the better or without unintended consequences. Though causing partial fractures society remained sufficiently intact to continue functioning.
Advancing to the present, the Coronavirus of 2019, popularly though erroneously called Covid, first impacted us as an acute societal stress then became chronic in nature. Though not alluded to as such in government-speak, the public was drafted into a “War on Covid”. This war has been carried forth in the form of home lockdowns, business closures, mass home schooling, and economic destruction. Trillions of dollars of excess printed money have been required to keep a large percentage of society from becoming completely destitute, and it can be credibly argued it’s been negligibly due to viral action and nearly solely from government reaction.
This description of the “War on Covid” causing societal stress though is incomplete. What has actually been inflicted on Americans and much of the world has been psychological warfare, using distorted statistics, diagnostic manipulations and medical historical amnesia as cover in pursuit of government’s agenda namely, further societal control.
Psychological warfare on the general public has taken the form of messaging, using the relentless repetition of words, phrases and ideas not only daily but hourly. It is transmitted throughout the day on all TV and radio stations, breaking news reports, print journalism whether medically or non-medically related, signage on roadways, business windows, doorways etc.
Think how many times you’ve heard the following over the past year: Covid, Coronavirus, novel virus, pandemic, “vaccine”, masks, social distancing, cases, ventilators, ICU beds, death count, emergency use, “vaccine” passports, immunization, and mandates. Now if you’re not in a medical occupation try to think how often you’ve heard these used in the media over your lifetime.
The purpose of this psychological warfare is to overwhelm our individual psychological state, normally used to cope with our everyday life, and replace it with obsessive thoughts. In the case of Coronavirus it’s to force you to obsess about what essentially boils down to a 1:1000 chance of death. Of course the obsessive thoughts are in turn paired with compulsive behavior either as an inevitable end result or due to government’s helpful suggestions or mandates. The use of Coronavirus in this way is essentially mental abuse and is considered a crime against humanity.
Crimes against humanity have been described in part as including dehumanization such as viewing people as lacking mental capacity. Think of mask mandates, pubic social distancing, superseding parental judgement, and minimizing human interaction without scientific evidence. Another aspect of the crime is in encouraging acceptance of an unproven “vaccine”, which is consistent with unethical human experimentation. This is borne out through the denying of actual informed consent and promoting widespread use of the “vaccine” in a pseudoscientific framework under the guise of research.
Giving informed consent to receive the current “vaccine” is problematic. First, the CDC defines a “vaccine” as “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” The current product uses messenger RNA to command your cells to manufacturer a protein which the immune system is supposed to recognize and thus be primed to fight when it encounters the real virus. However in this situation, it’s not the product that’s injected that stimulates the immune system but what your body is supposed to produce from what’s injected. Therefore, what’s marketed as a “vaccine” is not a “vaccine” by definition. More accurately it’s a medical devise or gene therapy or something else but regardless it becomes part of you. Were you told this?
Second, the pseudoscientific approach revolves around the administration of a product for which there is evolving information regarding the short term side effects and zero on the long term human side effects. Due to the emergency use authorization it has been deemed necessary to continue follow-up on people in order to accumulate data on long term side effects, that is, once the short term effects are fully elucidated.
Though encountering long term effects is not uncommon when a study population involves several thousand people, does it remain a reasonable undisclosed risk when your study a population involves billions? Remember this “vaccine” was touted as warp speed from viral identification, product development, distribution and administration in order to prevent an overall 1:1000 death rate. But it’s essentially a rushed product that needs to be given to find out what it will do either positively and negatively. Sounds like research under a pseudoscientific guise and therefore a crime against humanity.
In summary, our newest societal stressor seems related less to the effects of an actual virus but more to governmental action for reasons known only to them, while using crimes against humanity to achieve that goal.
Due to this virus war, our society finds itself once again partially fractured. Will it completely fracture? Will it heal either way and when? Who will charge and prosecute those responsible for the crimes against humanity that have been inflicted on us?