Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 08, 2021

Credit Report Repair News United States Credit Report Repair News. Top Stories to help consumers fix bad credit, gain higher credit score, remove bankruptcy, free annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. Free Credit Repair Counseling | (888) 502-1260

Table of Contents Halt Covid Vaccines, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC The Big Lie Revealed What To Do The State of Modern Economics The Calm Before the Storm: Use it To Gain Strength To Fight the Coming Tyranny Biden’s Offshore Wind Energy Mirage The Working-Class Revolt Against Labour Automakers Cave to Biden’s Electric Car Baloney, and Ignore Their Own Customers Stupid AF The Truth Is Surely Baseless America: The Mini-Series No Jab for Me – And Here Are 35 Reasons Why

Halt Covid Vaccines, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 In a public comment to the CDC, molecular biologist and toxicologist Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., called to immediately halt Covid vaccine production and distribution. Citing fertility, blood-clotting concerns (coagulopathy), and immune escape, Dr. Lindsay explained to the committee the scientific evidence showing that the coronavirus vaccines are not safe. On April 23, 2021, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices held a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. The focus of this ACIP meeting was blood clotting disorders following Covid vaccines. Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay spoke to the CDC during the time set aside for public comment. The censorship on social media in particular and the internet in general is relentless. Here is a slightly edited, annotated censorship-proof transcript of Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay’s 3-minute comment. You can listen to her testimony on YouTube here (for now, anyway. If this link goes viral, YouTube will likely censor it). Molecular Biologist and Toxicologist Calls to Halt Covid Vaccine Hi, my name is Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay. I hold a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology from the University of Texas, and have over 30 years of scientific experience, primarily in toxicology and mechanistic biology. In the mid-1990s, I aided the development of a temporary human contraceptive vaccine which ended up causing unintended autoimmune ovarian destruction and sterility in animal test models. Despite efforts against this and sequence analyses that did not predict this. I strongly feel that all the gene therapy vaccines must be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts. Janci Chunn Lindsay: Covid vaccines could induce cross-reactive antibodies to syncytin, and impair fertility as well as pregnancy outcomes First, there is a credible reason to believe that the Covid vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova, and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes.  Respected virologist Dr. Bill Gallaher, Ph.D., made excellent arguments as to why you would expect cross reaction. Due to beta sheet conformation similarities between spike proteins and syncytin-1 and syncytin-2. I have yet to see a single immunological study which disproves this. Despite the fact that it would literally take the manufacturers a single day to do these syncytin studies to ascertain this [once they had serum from vaccinated individuals]. It’s been over a year since the assertions were first made that this [the body attacking its own syncytin proteins due to similarity in spike protein structure] could occur. Pregnancy losses reported to VAERS lead to demand to halt Covid vaccine We have seen 100 pregnancy losses reported in VAERS as of April 9th. And there have [also] been reports of impaired spermatogenesis and placental findings from both the natural infection, vaccinated, and syncytin knockout animal models that have similar placental pathology, implicating a syncytin-mediated role in these outcomes. Additionally, we have heard of multiple reports of menses irregularities in those vaccinated. These must be investigated. We simply cannot put these [vaccines] in our children who are at .002% risk for Covid mortality, if infected, or any more of the child-bearing age population without thoroughly investigating this matter. [If we do], we could potentially sterilize an entire generation. Speculation that this will not occur and a few anecdotal reports of pregnancies within the trial are not sufficient proof that this is not impacting on a population-wide scale. Covid vaccine causes blood disorders Secondly, all of the gene therapies [Covid vaccines] are causing coagulopathy. [Coagulopathy when the body’s blood clotting system is impaired.] This is not isolated to one manufacturer. And this is not isolated to one age group.  As we are seeing coagulopathy deaths in healthy young adults with no secondary comorbidities. There have been 795 reports related to blood clotting disorders as of April 9th in the VAERS reporting system, 338 of these being due to thrombocytopenia. There are forward and backward mechanistic principles for why this is happening. The natural infection is known to cause coagulopathy due to the spike protein. All gene therapy vaccines direct the body to make the spike protein. Zhang et al in [a scientific paper published in the Journal of Hematology & Oncology] in September 2020 showed that if you infuse spike protein into mice that have humanized ACE-2 receptors on blood platelets that you also get disseminated thrombosis. Spike protein incubated with human blood in vitro also caused blood clot development which was resistant to fibrinolysis. [Fibrinolysis is the body’s process of breaking down blood clots]. The spike protein is causing thrombocytic events, which cannot be resolved through natural means. And all vaccines must be halted in the hope that they can be reformulated to guard against this adverse effect.  Third, there is strong evidence for immune escape— At this point in her oral testimony, Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay was interrupted by a man’s voice: “Thank you for your comment, your time has expired.” I reached out to Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay to find out what else she had wanted to share with ACIP, in addition to her concerns over fertility and blood-clotting disorders. She sent me back her third point, which she submitted as written testimony. Third, there is strong evidence for immune escape, and that inoculation under pandemic pressure with these leaky vaccines is driving the creation of more lethal mutants that are both newly infecting a younger age demographic, and causing more Covid-related deaths across the population than would have occurred without intervention. That is, there is evidence that the vaccines are making the pandemic worse. It is clear that we are seeing a temporal immune depression immediately following the inoculations [see World Meter Global Covid deaths counts following inoculation dates] and there are immunosuppressive regions on spike proteins, as well as Syn-2, that could be likely causing this, through a T-cell mediated mechanism. If we do not stop this vaccine campaign until these issues can be investigated, we may see a phenomenon such as we see in chickens with Marek’s disease. We have enough evidence now to see a clear correlation with increased Covid deaths and the vaccine campaigns. This is not a coincidence. It is an unfortunate unintended effect of the vaccines. We simply must not turn a blind eye and pretend this is not occurring. We must halt all Covid vaccine administration immediately, before we create a true pandemic that we cannot reign in. MIT scientist also concerned about blood-clotting, fertility issues Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., an expert in protein synthesis, believes that Dr. Lindsay’s hypothesis is correct. “I absolutely share these concerns,” Dr. Seneff, who is a senior research scientist at MIT, wrote to me in a sobering email. “The potential for blood clotting disorders and the potential for sterilization are only part of the story. There are other potential long-term effects of these vaccines as well, such as autoimmune disease and immune escape, whereby the vaccines administered to immune-compromised people accelerate the mutation rate of the virus so as to render both naturally acquired and vaccine-induced antibodies no longer effective.” Like Dr. Lindsay, Dr. Seneff believes we need to immediately halt Covid vaccine campaigns. “This massive clinical trial on the general population could have devastating and irreversible effects on a huge number of people,” Seneff explains. Despite these fertility and blood disorder concerns, the CDC panel voted last Friday to resume the use of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. They did, however, suggest an FDA warning label be added. Their argument against halting Covid vaccination? The CDC believes the benefits outweigh the risks. This originally appeared on JenniferMargulis.net. The post Halt Covid Vaccines, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Big Lie Revealed Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Listen to the Podcast Listening to this audio podcast will forever dash any dreams one may have of the US Military swooping in and rescuing us from the mire of corruption and the Unrestricted Warfare that is strafing us. Douglas Gabriel at AIM4Truth and Michael McKibben at Americans4Innovation drop the bombshell that CENTCOM orchestrated the theft of the 2020 Election. Moreover, CENTCOM founded Scytl USA, LLC in 2009 and in 2010, they transferred 100% of the ownership to the Spanish corporation, Scytl Election Technologies, S.A. That, alone should be enough to overturn the election. Then, on October 30th, 2020, the Spanish Scytl merged into the British Paragon Group Limited, while claiming they had gone bankrupt, which wasn’t really true. Paragon has 118 subsidiaries. The sheer number of subsidiaries of related companies is head-spinning and this is how they feel that they can lie so brazenly. Dominion feels like it can sue for defamation because the crimes of which it is being accused were actually carried out by related subsidiaries. For years, the two have been describing a slow-moving global coup d’état by the British Pilgrims Society that’s being incrementally achieved by manipulating elections via their digital machines. They say the roots of this operation were in the founding of OpTech, which made the voting machines used in Venezuela and elsewhere during the Jimmy Carter administration and in Carter’s founding of the Senior Executive Service, which Doug has described as a cadre of British assets operating at the core of the US Federal bureaucracy. Today, every single voting machine in the US ties into their system and after testing their technology and manipulating elections worldwide for several years, they opened up all the stops in 2020. Mike says, “It’s real clear now from looking at the information, is that was a Central Command operation and that it was specifically regarding election-rigging…what it looks like is that SOE Software [which was later acquired by Scytl] was hired by CENTCOM to build what would become the Scytl system and get it ready for Prime Time, which appears to have occurred in 2010.” Doug reminds us that CENTCOM is an attack group.”There is no doubt they are the Department of Defense component that’s been controlling this all along. “What we’re seeing here is the end of America. If we cannot stop this election for being the most fraudulent in American history – plainly, with 40,000 affadavits, thousands of pictures of people committing fraud. We have videotape of poll workers committing fraud before our very eyes; and if we can’t find a judge, then we need to set up our own courts, we need to have Citizen Grand Juries…and bring the verdict down and bring justice to bear, here. “So I’m hoping that we can still work through the system. I didn’t know that we would have this opportunity this late in the game. But if we can, it will be historic and it will be powerful to be part of the Second American Revolution, that we had to fight the Senior Executive Service establishment bureaucratic system; those un-elected members of our Federal Government who basically are controlling everything.” Mike says, “It’s all been a set-up of our Department of Defense. That is shocking to me. I was always hoping that there were good guys within our Department of Defense, but now that we see CENTCOM is behind this…” Reprinted with the author’s permission. The post The Big Lie Revealed appeared first on LewRockwell.

What To Do Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Writes a lady: So what can the unvaccinated do to protect themselves from the vaccinated? Bill responds: You want to be exposed to the virus so as to develop natural immunity and not have to undergo immunization. Newly mutated strains and the absence of vaccines for these viral mutations demand the human immune system be maximized against this fear-evoking threat. You will not be able to avoid exposure as the virus is highly virulent, so you must employ measures that address all forms of the virus, including more virulent mutant strains.  Face masks, distancing and hand-washing are not fool-proof ways of preventing infection.  These measures may temporarily delay onset of symptoms, that is all. The human body is continually exposed to pathogenic bacteria and viruses and does a good job of warding them off if the immune system is up to par.  Your own immune system facilitates universal immunity while vaccines only address one infectious disease pathogen at a time. Recognize, outside of seniors in nursing homes, the COVID-19 coronavirus only kills one-half of 1% of the adult population.  Over 99% of those infected recover on their own.  However, there is something more sinister that is causing needless death. Most of the symptomatic cases of infection and death being reported are not due to the virus but rather caused by anxiety and sleeplessness that cause people to drink more alcohol, coffee and tea, all which block vitamin B1 that controls the autonomic nervous system.  A B-1 deficiency (aka beriberi) can mimic all of the symptoms of COVID-19 coronavirus (chronic cough, breathlessness, loss of sense of smell, fever, etc., a problem that modern medicine is oblivious to.  Vitamin B1 as benfotiamine is strongly recommended, particularly for coffee, tea and alcohol drinkers.  These vitamin-deficiency forms of disease are mis-categorized as COVID-19.  Don’t take vitamin B1 at same time as alcohol, coffee or tea. Fortunately, the virus cannot replicate without a high-arginine environment (chocolates and nuts are high in arginine).  The antidote is lysine, a counter-balancing amino acid rich in cheese and available as an inexpensive dietary supplement.  Lysine can be consumed preventively and taken in higher doses therapeutically if symptoms arise.  Maybe 500-1000 mg/day. But how to develop long-term immunity without reading for lysine tablets?  Antibodies only last a short while.  For long-term immunity, zinc supplementation would be in order, ~30 mg for adults (not more), and preferably with selenium to release this trace mineral from its binding protein. Adequately-dosed zinc lozenges which are dissolved in the mouth and taken 5-times throughout the day when symptoms arise, will aid in the production of memory T-cells (cells made in the thymus gland) to produce long-term immunity.  Accompaniment by a zinc ionophore like hydroxychloroquine (a drug) or quercetin (a natural dietary supplement naturally found in red onions and red apple peel) is suggested.  A zinc lozenge that meets these requirements has been formulated (Z-19) and is available at www.lifespannutrition.com Vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin, unequivocally activates immune defenses and along with vitamin A normalizes the immune response.   This minimizes the so-called cytokine (sigh-toe-keen) storm.  A recent report calls for 8000 units of vitamin D/day, which represents around 30-60 minutes of direct mid-day full-body sun exposure.  Health authorities made a mistake in their calculations how much vitamin D is needed and only recommend 400-2000 units/day. If breathlessness does occur, you don’t want to run to the hospital if you don’t need to.  You will then find yourself on the hospital conveyor belt where you are exposed to the very viruses you want to avoid and where antibiotic resistance is high and medical errors abound.  It would help every family to have a nebulizer handy.  Nebulizers equate with having a respiratory hospital at home.  This device produces a fine mist that you breathe and releases viral particles from sticking to the wall of your bronchus and lungs.  You can nebulize with hydrogen-peroxide which kills off the virus without harming healthy tissues.  Follow directions provided by Dr. Tom Levy in his free ebook RAPID VIRUS RECOVERY.   In lieu of a nebulizer, jump in a hot shower and breathe in the mist. Hope this helps. The post What To Do appeared first on LewRockwell.

The State of Modern Economics Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Peter G Klein is Carl Menger Research Fellow of the Mises Institute and W.W. Caruth Chair and Professor of Entrepreneurship at Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business. He is also senior research fellow at Baylor’s Baugh Center for Entrepreneurship and Free Enterprise and adjunct professor of strategy and management at the Norwegian School of Economics. His research focuses on the economics of entrepreneurship and business organization, with applications to innovation, regulation, and economic growth. Klein has authored or edited five books and has published over seventy-five academic articles, chapters, and reviews. JEFF DEIST: Let’s start with the general state of the economics profession. What’s changed since you were at Berkeley earning your PhD in the early 1990s? PETER KLEIN: By the time I started my graduate work, the Austrian school was several decades into its comeback, starting in the 1960s and 1970s. But I didn’t have any formal instruction either in my undergraduate or my graduate program in Austrian economics. I was a self-taught Austrian who was trained in the normal mainstream neoclassical approach. In many ways the economics profession, in my judgment, has gotten much, much worse since the 1990s. The Austrian school has continued to thrive, although we’ve remained on the periphery of conversations at universities and in public policy circles. In the last maybe ten to twenty years, there’s been a real shift in mainstream economics—both micro and macro—away from theory and toward what you might call atheoretical inductive empirical work. There are lots of different facets to this movement. Some of it is about statistical inference, but there is also this idea that we shouldn’t impose our preconceived notions about relationships or mechanism on the data. We have to let the data speak for themselves. I’ve written a few pieces about this problem. One of the recent Nobel laureates, Esther Duflo, wrote a famous article a few years ago called “The Economist as Plumber.” Her view was that economists are not tasked with deep thinking. They’re not grand theorists, they’re not supposed to provide a big-picture perspective on how the world works. They’re supposed to solve little minor mundane issues just like a plumber does, to fix plumbing leaks. We’ve got some little problem in the education system, let’s call in an economist to gather the data, pore over the data, and come up with some policy recommendation. But there’s no systematic thinking, there’s nothing tying all these different little plumbing exercises together. The economist is a public policy problem solver using purely inductive data-driven methods. I think this is a big problem for the economics profession. JD: I wrote an article recently criticizing economics journalism for its fixation on “the numbers.” Economists are presumed to reverse engineer theory from the data. Do you think this mania for data is an attempt by the Paul Krugmans of the world to claim a scientific mantle for themselves? PK: Yes and no. I think certainly what we’re seeing now is part of a longer-term trend that, I don’t know, started in the 1930s, 1940s, as economics became transformed into a more quantitative mathematical and statistical kind of profession, you know, favoring those approaches. You had the Econometric Society thriving in the ’20s and ’30s. You had Paul Samuelson’s textbook in the 1940s, this idea that social science, economics in particular, needs to aid the methods of the natural sciences. That has been a long-term trend that we’ve seen since the middle of the twentieth century. I think what we’re seeing now is related to that but is distinct at the same time. There is a political element to it because economic theory, what Austrians would call price theory, a theory of value, price exchange, and so forth, is about studying the workings of the market economy. We also apply those theories to studying socialism and interventionism. There was an interesting tweet by Krugman a few weeks ago: a friend of mine, Alex Salter, who is a professor at Texas Tech, wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal in defense of Chicago-style price theory, which is not exactly the same as price theory the way Austrians understand it, but you might call it a close cousin. And he made the point that price theory is good at illustrating tradeoff s and it gives people who want to intervene in the economy a humility about what is possible because we see, as Henry Hazlitt famously emphasized, the secondary effects, the unintended consequences, the limits to what government officials can do. And Krugman said something like, Well, of course these right-wing fanatics, they like price theory because it’s right-wing. They don’t like the fact that the data, that reality, has a liberal bent. The data shows, the data favors, interventionism. That’s why these crazy right-wing kooks don’t like a data-driven approach. So I think there’s an opportunistic element to this, that you can make the data say lots of different things and you can use the data to justify all kinds of interventions one might choose to pursue, and so the Krugman types are certainly taking advantage of this methodological trend. JD: This blurring of method between the physical and social sciences is not new, as you point out. But nobody has these grand expectations for sociology or political science as predictive or mathematical disciplines. It seems only to apply to economics. PK: Maybe economists have themselves to blame for this after tasting the sweet nectar of political influence and political power. The US government doesn’t have a council of sociology advisors or a council of anthropology advisors; it has a council of economic advisors. This actually causes some tension, I think, among social scientists. Economists are perceived as having an outsized influence, which is probably true. And I think for many economists it’s hard to resist the temptation to say what the powers that be want to hear. JD: I see a lot of derision toward economics on social media from people of all political stripes. People dismiss the notion of economic laws and seem to view the whole discipline like astrology. Economies can be commanded by legislative fiat. All this stuff about markets is really just intellectual cover for business interests. I’m not sure scientism has helped the image of economics. PK: You’re right. It really has not helped. It has given economists a kind of standing, or it formerly gave them a kind of standing, like scientists in a white lab coat in the 1950s, or even today, look at somebody like Dr. Fauci. The fact that he’s Dr. Fauci, he allegedly has the scientific credentials, it gives him a certain kind of authority. Economists have been craving that kind of status and again, compared to some of their fellow academics, they have had it at least to some degree, but you’re right, they may be losing it partly because of the democratization of information that the internet has brought about. People can look things up and study things for themselves. They don’t have to rely on some talking heads speaking what looks like mumbo jumbo, complicated mathematical equations and formulas. Remember our old friend Alan Greenspan, who in many ways was ahead of his time in being a completely atheoretical numbers guy. They used to say, “Oh, Greenspan is such a maestro because he has this intuitive familiarity with the data. He buries himself in reams of numbers and he can somehow intuit how to steer the economy from that.” It was all nonsense, of course, it was all smoke and mirrors. He and his colleagues were making it up as they went along, but what Hayek called the scientism embedded in this mainstream economic approach lends itself to that kind of misinterpretation. You deal with data, you’re quantitative, you must be more rigorous, you must be more scientific, and people hear, they deal you know, merely in words. JD: Do people really understand the degree of mathiness in economics graduate programs today? Statistics and modeling and high-level math make up the majority of training for most PhD students. PK: It’s pretty intense. Interestingly, I think the elites of the profession recognize things have gone too far in that direction. The famous economist Paul Romer wrote a piece a few years ago complaining about what he called mathiness, so your term was in existence before. He either coined or popularized the term mathiness to complain that a lot of these economists were using math not to reach some kind of conclusion or illustrate some kind of point, but really just to demonstrate their own virtuosity, their own skill with the technique. Having a lot of math in the argument became an end in itself rather than a means to come up with ideas and communicate some ideas. So, I think there’s some recognition that economics may have become too mathy. JD: With all this in mind, give us your meta-analysis: Is economics doing any good? Is it helping us understand the world or moving us closer to truth? PK: I certainly think our favorite brand of economics does exactly that, but not everyone listens to us. I have to say, I’m somewhat skeptical on this point. Just to tie it back to one of your earlier questions, when I started my graduate work in the late ’80s, early ’90s, this was during the period following kind of a breakdown of the neo-Keynesian consensus that prevailed from, say, the end of World War II until the 1970s. You know the phrase famously attributed to Richard Nixon, “we’re all Keynesians now.” All mainstream economists, left, right, center, seem to agree on the basic model, the economy is inherently unstable, you need a wise government using fiscal policy and monetary policy to steer the economy, to avoid the twin pitfalls of inflation on the one hand, unemployment on the other hand. But what we saw in the 1970s with the rise of so-called stagflation, like simultaneous inflation and high unemployment, which was not supposed to happen according to the conventional Keynesian model, you had a crisis of confidence among the neo-Keynesians. You had Milton Friedman and his Chicago-school monetarists offering an alternative to the Keynesian explanation. You had the so-called rational expectations revolution of the ’70s and ’80s. So, Jeff, when I was being trained in graduate school, I was told, The naïve undergrad textbook Keynesian model is not really taken seriously anymore. It’s outdated. Of course, there are still Keynesians around, but they rely on newer, more sophisticated techniques, their thinking is more nuanced, they recognize that old-school Keynesianism doesn’t really apply anymore. I remember pretty distinctly being stunned. I shouldn’t have been stunned, maybe I’m naïve, but during the financial crisis in 2007–08, as I was reading the commentary not only of the talking heads in the media, not only the journalists and Fed officials and executives and so forth, but even elite economists, as they were trying to explain what was going on and what should be done, they sounded exactly like the naïve Keynesians of the 1950s. Look at how people today are talking about the $1.9 trillion stimulus—I’ve forgotten the cute acronym that Biden calls it—but when you listen to the discussion, it sounds exactly like a discussion that would have taken place seventy-five years ago. Oh, we need to stimulate the economy, we need a strong fiscal stimulus. Gee guys, are we worried that the economy might be overheating? No, no, unemployment is sufficiently high that we can prime the pump, we can have not only monetary expansion but also fiscal expansion, get that unemployment rate down, but we don’t have to worry about the economy overheating. It’s like the simple Phillips curve tradeoff between inflation and unemployment that I had been told was thrown into the dustbin of intellectual history had returned at full strength. And so I think despite all these decades of increasing sophistication and mathematical modeling and econometrics, at the end of the day, most mainstream economists still have their high school Keynesian model in mind. JD: Let’s go further and discuss the fortunes of the Austrian school. We had the financial crisis of 2007, now we have the covid crisis with all of the attendant economic carnage from lockdowns. Do you think these crises are setbacks or vindication for Austrians? There are pitched conversations about hyperinflation and austerity and stimulus, as you mentioned. Are we making headway with our perspective? PK: That’s a great question. I mean, there’s been a huge resurgence of interest in Austrian monetary economics, the Austrian business cycle theory, particularly since the financial crisis, because the Austrians off er a very different take on what could cause something like the housing crisis, the financial crisis, what is the appropriate response, and such. So, among certain interested laypersons, maybe financial professionals who are not academic economists or policymakers, as they’re doing their Google searches to try to gain insight into what’s going on, they come across a lot of our stuff . Of course, Ron Paul for several years was the only prominent public figure, the only person in politics talking about monetary overexpansion, talking about Austrian business cycle ideas, and so as people try to figure out, Why is this guy talking about the gold standard? What does he mean by the boom-and-bust cycle? You know, that drove a lot of traffic to our site, our resources, it drove a lot of interest in the Austrian school. I don’t think it had much of an effect on mainstream economic thinking, not in economics departments, though I increasingly encounter academics in business schools or in sociology or law or political science who also saw Ron Paul on TV and thought he made a lot of sense and were inspired to study the Austrian school on their own. At the same time, Jeff , there’s a challenge for us. Our theories are not strictly predictive. We don’t offer precise quantitative forecasts. We offer a means of interpreting the data that we see in front of us, the data of the past. We can offer informed conjectures, wise judgments about what we expect to happen in the future. Hayek called it pattern prediction, a loose intuitive sense of which way things are likely to go. It’s not prediction in the strict quantitative sense, but I think many Austrians and Austrian-inspired commentators were perhaps a little bit too quick to predict that the unprecedented-in-human-history monetary stimulus that we’ve seen in recent years would inevitably lead to hyperinflation and some horrific crash. Our theories tell us and we believe that this is true, I believe that this is true, that, as the Austrians explained, a monetary-induced expansion is not indefinitely sustainable. You cannot create real wealth by turning on the money press. However, exactly how long can an unsustainable boom go on, at what point do we expect the bust to occur, when will we start to see the effects play themselves out in terms of increases in prices, and so forth, well, I mean, that’s a judgment call. That’s very difficult for us to say, and a lot of our enemies, the Krugmans of the world, have been kind of beating Austrians over the head by saying, “Oh, you guys have been predicting hyperinflation, but where is the hyperinflation? Obviously your theories are disproven by reality.” That’s not the correct interpretation, certainly, of how theory and history work together, but I think, in the popular mind, our enemies have gotten a little bit of mileage out of this and so, we need to be cautious in predicting particular outcomes. JD: People want timing! [laughing] PK: I hear this attributed to Milton Friedman, but I don’t know if he was the first one to say it. When asked to predict the stock market, the response is, “Well, I can give you a number or a date, but not both.” JD: I recently read an interview with James Grant where he discussed how back in 2007 very few people really understood what the effects of quantitative easing and creating new bank reserves would be. It was unprecedented. It’s easy now to look back and discount the effect of QE, especially on inflation, but it wasn’t so easy then. PK: Absolutely right. And again, the way Austrians view the relationship between theory and data, or theory and history, is that we use theory to interpret, to make sense of the experiences of the past and then we, putting on our entrepreneur hats, use that, we use our theory and our experience, to try to anticipate likely future scenarios. But that’s not the same thing as a quantitative forecast the way that mainstream economists use that language. JD: Now in 2020 and 2021 the Fed’s balance sheet is spiking again. We also have Congress on the fiscal side, as you mentioned, injecting a bunch of money directly into the economy with relief bills. M2 is way up. Combine this with supply chain issues and shortages due to covid, and this feels like a different animal than 2007. PK: I agree. This is really unprecedented territory in terms of the contraction, the shrinkage, of the real economy. I mean, we can print money, we can write checks, we can give them to workers who are staying at home, but that doesn’t get these workers to produce, right? We need to produce goods and services, and to do that, we need people to be out of lockdown, we need people to be able to interact, we need factories and meeting rooms, etc., to be at full capacity. So, you can’t paper over a contraction in real output with monetary and fiscal stimulus. JD: Both Jerome Powell and Janet Yellen, who’s now Treasury secretary, have spoken openly about the limits of monetary policy. From their perspective the burden to fix things is all on the fiscal side now, apparently. Do you think they see some tipping point? PK: I don’t know. I almost wonder, this is pure speculation on my part, if they are a little bit sensitive to the noises they hear on their left flank. So you’ve got the so-called modern monetary theorists, whose arguments, in my mind, are just a slightly exaggerated version of the mainstream ones, so they don’t have a fundamentally different model, the MMT crowd (or the model that’s used by Yellen or by Powell). But they’re taking it up to eleven, as they said in the movie Spinal Tap, and I think that mainstream figures are, they’re a little bit worried that their disciples, their followers, will take their ideas and take them literally and push them as far as they can go. They’re trying to rein in their spiritual descendants a little bit by saying “There are limits to what both monetary policy and fiscal policy can do.” The MMTers say, and ironically they’re not wrong using the conceptual framework that was given to them by their mainstream Keynesian forebears, that well, as long as the economy seems to be producing substantially below its potential, why can’t we just put our foot on the accelerator? Why can’t we just run the money press as fast as it can go? What are you guys worried about when there are so many idle resources in society? I don’t think Yellen and Powell have a really great answer to that. So, it’s almost like they’re being consumed by their own progeny. There’s probably a better metaphor for that, but, you know, they’re being eaten by their own children. JD: Austrians are seen as the anti-Fed voices, while on the other side the MMTers might be seen as the other extreme. What do you think of someone not in either camp, like John Tamny from RealClearMarkets? He thinks Austrians put too much emphasis on central banks, which he says actually have far less impact on the broader economy than imagined. PK: He is certainly right to point out that the way our economy is structured today, with, for example, the shadow banking sector and a whole bunch of complex financial instruments, the simple relationship between Fed policy and particular outcomes is more nuanced, it’s more complicated than it would have been in the past. I take his point that under alternative monetary institutions arrangements, there are other mechanisms at play and that there may be some mechanisms that dampen the impact of traditional fiscal and monetary policy, monetary policy in particular, on outcomes. JD: Tamny argues that the Fed can’t control rates in the long run, but rather the market will. And yet if we go back to the Paul Volcker era, Americans were paying 18 percent mortgage interest rates. So the Fed clearly caused that. PK: Right. To John Tamny’s credit, he’s right to keep exaggerations in check. So, sometimes when we’re speaking loosely, we might make an off hand remark that sounds like we’re making a claim that Jerome Powell just pushes the button, you know, he’s got the interest rate button on his desk, he just turns the dial the way he wants and gets an immediate response. It doesn’t work that way. Of course, there are market forces of supply and demand at play. How should we say, the Fed is certainly one of many big players, the biggest player of all, and it has an outsized impact on what the market does, even if it doesn’t have it under perfect control? JD: Let’s shift gears a bit and talk about your work in entrepreneurship and organizations and firms. You’ve spent a lot of your career writing about this. Today when we think about big corporations and their role in society, the trend is to talk about stakeholder and equity concepts. What do you make of this? PK: Yes. I mean, look, some of this is pure politics. I think the emphasis on stakeholder governance and its cousin, corporate social responsibility, is just part of the overall kind of antimarket, antibusiness zeitgeist that is characteristic of our age. Some of the embrace of these concepts by business leaders themselves, I think, is strategic. You know when the Business Roundtable came out with its statement last year about how shareholder primacy is outdated, firms really need to manage in the interest of all of their stakeholders. I think some of that was public relations, some of it was designed to keep regulators at bay. Executives are worried about a whole new set of rules coming down the pike that will change the relationship between managers and shareholders and they want to slow those down a little bit by taking some preemptive action. But, you do have true believers, certainly outside of companies, but in companies as well, who really believe that greed and selfishness, which they associate with the traditional shareholder model, is detrimental to society, detrimental to communities, and even detrimental to firms and needs to be combatted. But I think we need to be very, very cautious and very skeptical about embracing some of these new narratives because there are many flaws that we need to look at. JD: Conceptually, is this just a new word for externalities? Or is it something more? PK: Well, yes, it’s a specific kind of externality. Obviously, any company that has employees, it provides a variety of different benefits. Let me state that a different way. Any company that has employees is providing some benefit, is giving a share of the value that’s created to those employees in the form of wages and salaries and fringe benefits. Part of the stakeholder concept is the idea that there’s this kind of fixed pie of value and business activities are creating some value. Firms can then capture that value and then we need to argue about how we divide up the pie. So, under the traditional model, it is said, shareholders, owners, get the biggest slice of the pie, the workers just get a little tiny piece of the pie left over and maybe suppliers, of course, get paid for supplying inputs to the firm, but maybe they should get a bit of the surplus as well and what about people who live in the community, where the company operates. They benefit from the fact that the company is there, they get to consume its products and services, they get to work at the company, but gosh, shouldn’t they also get a share of the extra that is going to the capitalists, to the owners? That’s the argument. A lot of interesting ways to parse the argument. One thing I think is often misunderstood is this idea that most for-profit companies are making these huge profits or huge residuals left after all of the employees and suppliers have been paid and these fat cat business owners are sucking that up. In reality, of course, we know that not only is business income highly variable, there’s a high degree of uncertainty. Also, you know, there are just as many losses as there are gains. Most workers, suppliers, community members, partners, are happy to share in the gains. They’re not so enthusiastic about sharing in the losses. Obviously if they wanted to do that, they could operate their own companies rather than being salaried employees or paid suppliers on a contractual basis, where they get a guaranteed payout every month. If they want to be residual claimants, they’re welcome to do so, but many so-called nonowner stakeholders really wouldn’t want to be a core stakeholder if they understood what that entailed. JD: Austrian subjectivist theory applies equally to the role of entrepreneurs. Should subjectivism force us to radically rethink concepts of value and cost and price and utility? PK: Look, entrepreneurship is one of those terms that is used in many different senses, in academia and popular discourse, among practitioners, and so I never want to quibble with people who are using that term to mean something other than what Austrian economists were. The technical notion of the entrepreneur in Mises’s system is the agency or agent that is active and forward looking and purposeful and who exercises initiative at assembling resources, factors of production, combining them to produce goods and services that can be sold later, hopefully at a profit, but without guarantees. So, entrepreneurs are the ones who organize and carry out production under conditions of uncertainty, and when they’re successful, when they have revenues in excess of the outlays that they must spend to get their resources, they have something left over, they earn profits, entrepreneurial profit. If they’re unsuccessful, meaning that they’re not able to sell goods and services at prices high enough to cover what they previously paid for their inputs, they earn losses. There’s also a temporal aspect to this. That was Böhm-Bawerk’s famous critique of the Marxian exploitation theory, that typically, because production takes time, input suppliers who have been workers, they get paid first, before revenues from the sale of goods and services have been realized. The uncertainty is being borne by the capitalist, who advances the funds, and that interest return is built into the business income that the capitalist entrepreneur receives. So to me, an entrepreneur is an owner; an entrepreneur is a decision-maker; an entrepreneur is someone who exercises control over resources, who has responsibility to arrange resources in ways that create value for consumers in the future. JD: You’ve studied the work of Ronald Coase, who offered an explanation of why firms arise between the individual and the broader market. You defend the firm as a naturally occurring phenomenon as well, but you don’t come at it from the same perspective as Coase. Is that accurate? PK: Fairly accurate. To me, a business firm is a team, it’s a collection of resources and persons who work together to produce stuff that you and I can consume. There’s a legal definition of what’s inside the firm and what’s outside the firm. So if I’m an independent contractor, let’s say I’m a skilled electrician or plumber, I have Peter Klein Inc., or maybe I’m an economics professor who earns his income from giving speeches and consulting, I’m Peter Klein Inc., a one-man show. Am I a firm? I think if we want to call me a firm that’s fine. If Peter Klein and Jeff Deist get together and form a partnership, well, we have a legally binding agreement that we will collaborate on some decisions that we make, we’ll have joint ownership of some buildings, resources, machines, etc., we agree to split the gains and losses in a certain way, then Peter and Jeff are a firm. General Motors, IBM, Google, Apple, they’re also firms in this legal sense, that they have individuals and resources that are contractually related, but all dedicated to the point of producing stuff and selling that stuff in the marketplace. Coase focused on one specific aspect of this. The interesting question for Coase was, “What would be the nature of the contract between Peter and Jeff ?” So, will Peter Klein be a firm and Jeff Deist be a firm and they have some kind of a contract that in minute detail specializes what Peter has to do and what Jeff has to do and how the returns from a specific venture will be distributed? He would say, “Well then that’s two firms,” but if Peter and Jeff create a partnership where things are left kind of open ended—the partnership, the agreement that creates the partnership, says we’re going to combine forces, we’re going to work together, we’re going to work as a team, but it doesn’t spell out how every transaction will be realized—then Peter and Jeff are together in the same firm. So, Coase’s interest is what explains those sorts of boundaries, or to put it another way when does the Mises Institute have its own in-house landscaper and accounting service or when does it choose to outsource the landscaping to a company in Auburn or outsource its accounting to Salesforce or to some kind of cloud provider? Coase was interested in explaining the boundaries of the firm in terms of what’s done in house and what’s done outside. I think that’s fine, I have no problem with that theory, but it only addresses one aspect of how we organize production in society. It’s not really about entrepreneurs. It’s not really about uncertainty. It’s not really about the issues that were primarily of interest to Mises and the Austrians. JD: It’s important to note how you have created almost a specialty or subfield through your academic work on entrepreneurial judgment. Marxists, Keynesians, and neoclassicals virtually ignore and dismiss the role of the entrepreneur in an economy. PK: Yes. A lot of my work on entrepreneurship attempts to elaborate on insights that are in Mises’s Human Action. Mises says, “In the world outside of the evenly rotating economy, outside of some artificial equilibrium construct where everybody knows everything about the future, we have uncertainty about what will happen.” So, I, as an entrepreneur, let’s say I want to produce a writing pen, I have a pen here in front of me. I go out and I buy some ink, I buy the metal and plastic that’s required to create a pen. I buy some machinery, I employ some workers, I have a business plan, I have some marketing agreements, and so forth. I have to purchase and assemble and organize all of those factors in anticipation of the money I hope to get from selling pens once I have my pens manufactured and sent to the retailer, but I don’t know exactly what those revenues are going to be. So, what do I do? Do I just take a blind guess? To mainstream economists, there are two ways of thinking about how decision-makers handle the uncertain future. Either they have a precise mathematical model: here are all of the things that could happen, and here are the mathematical probabilities of each event. I can calculate expected values and there’s an obvious course of action that a rational utility-maximizing, a profit-maximizing, actor would undertake. You can either have that, that’s rational behavior, or you can flip a coin, or you could just close your eyes and throw at the dartboard. There’s blind guessing on the one hand and there’s rational decision-making on the other hand. As Mises and other important thinkers like Frank Knight pointed out, the decision-makers under uncertainty, they don’t have a formal mathematical model of the future that they can employ to come up with precise predictions about what will happen, but nor, according to Knight and Mises, did they rely on blind guessing either. Rather, there’s a way of thinking about the future that’s kind of in the middle. So, you could call it intuition, you could call it gut instinct, you could call it judgment, which is the term that both Knight and Mises use. There’s a great line from Mises: he calls judgment “a specific anticipative understanding of the uncertain future.” Specific anticipative understanding—what he means, and of course in German, the word that is rendered into English as understanding is a fancy German word, verstehen, which means a kind of deep knowledge, a deep intuitive understanding of the future. Mises is claiming that’s what the successful entrepreneur has. The successful entrepreneur judges the future in a way that’s different from the way other people judge the future. It’s not a mathematical prediction. It’s not blind guessing either. It’s a reasoned, sensible intuitive anticipation based on tacit knowledge, based on subjective understanding, based on experience, and can’t really be formally articulated necessarily, but it’s a facility and capability that successful entrepreneurs possess. JD: These Austrian insights seem to gain more purchase in business schools and entrepreneurship courses. Do you think this is the way forward? Is teaching entrepreneurship actually the way to overcome the bias against theory? PK: We’re not talking about praxeology here, so I’m just offering my own conjecture that this may, as you say, this may be the path forward or certainly a path forward for Austrian economists. Why? Because most business school academics, and certainly business practitioners, they don’t have all these hang-ups about the intellectual origin of this school or that school or the underlying methodological foundations. There’s no stigma attached to Austrian economics among entrepreneurship scholars or professional entrepreneurs, the way it is for most academic economists and government economists. There’s nothing weird about Austrian thinking, and so I have found a very receptive audience in business schools, among people who specialize in entrepreneurship or human resource management or business strategy. They’re very receptive to Austrian ideas. Practitioners tell me that the Austrian notion of entrepreneurship as I described it squares completely with their professional experience, so I think there is a great future for young Austrian economists to apply their trade in the business school, in the entrepreneurship and management space, rather than purely in the economics space. JD: Let’s finish by discussing academia more generally. Undoubtedly a lot of our readers think universities have lost their way. Are academic economists under pressure to turn the discipline into something woke? To apply critical theory perspectives? PK: Academic economics is no different from any other part of academia in that these external pressures and internal pressures are very strong. I would say it’s not as severe in economics as it is in the humanities, of course, but yes, I think among mainstream academic organizations in economics and, for that matter, in management and entrepreneurship, there certainly is more attention to social justice, so-called social justice issues and gender and underrepresented groups, etc. You know, does that mean that academia … how should I say … I’ve got to put this in a way that won’t get me in too much trouble. Does that mean that there are better opportunities for promoting Austrian insights outside of academia? I’m a let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom kind of a guy, and so there are people in our circles, myself and colleagues, who feel comfortable in and have been reasonably successful in developing and promoting our ideas within a university context. There are plenty of people who have been equally or more successful doing so outside of the university, either in the educational organization world, the world of private educational organizations like the Mises Institute, in the consulting and policy world, in the private education world—these are all great paths, they’re not mutually exclusive. People like myself operate in several of these environments at the same time. I think they’re all prospective paths forward. I would say we Austrians should not put all of our eggs in the university basket. I think we should certainly have a presence there, and I think our master’s program is a great example of how we’re doing something that is playing by the rules of the formal academic sector, but yeah, we should not hold our breath and expect that formal academia will someday embrace all of our ideas. We need to continue to try, but I think we need to have lots of different channels in play at the same time. JD: But even beyond universities, surely there is pressure to create what we might call a “new economics”—focused on equity and inclusion and sustainability and all the jingoist meaningless concepts of our day. Surely economics cannot escape this scrutiny. At some point will this chop away at the actual core substance of the profession? PK: We’re seeing that in just about every field of human endeavor. I don’t have any special insight into what Austrian economists or other economists might do to try to resist pressures that are taking them away from doing what they do best. It is something to be aware of for sure, and maybe having more of our activity in the private institutions of education gives us a little bit more insurance there. JD: Well, with all this in mind, one final question: What is your advice for young people who have a deep interest in economics but are unsure about an academic career? PK: I would refer them to an excellent piece by Joe Salerno on “Economics as a Vocation.” I think that one should not pursue a career as a professional economist, whether in academia or outside, just as a job or just to have status or just to have a steady income or whatever. If one has a passion for the study of economics, the development of economics, the teaching of economics, then one should pursue that wholeheartedly, but it can take place in a variety of forms. A lot of the great contributors to Austrian economics have not been people who had the primary job title of economist. Henry Hazlitt made great contributions to economic theory as well as economic education and he was a journalist. There are plenty of business executives who are great contributors to Austrian economics. So, I would urge young people to pursue this as a passion, but not merely as a profession, not merely as a way to rise through the professional ranks. JD: I suspect those professional ranks will be increasingly tough to navigate. Thanks very much, Dr. Klein. Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute. The post The State of Modern Economics appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Calm Before the Storm: Use it To Gain Strength To Fight the Coming Tyranny Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 “Nobody’s going to save you. No one’s going to cut you down, cut the thorns thick around you. No one’s going to storm the castle walls nor kiss awake your birth, climb down your hair, nor mount you onto the white steed. There is no one who will feed the yearning. Face it. You will have to do, do it yourself.”   ~ Gloria E. Anzaldúa Life is full of ups and downs, of calm and crashing waves, of silence and pandemonium, of joy and heartache, of living and dying. What smoothes these ever-changing and precarious times comes only from within, as individual inner spirit and the strength it brings is the essence of not only survival, but of life itself. In order to defeat the oppression and corruption that exists in this world, in order to be free, one must always depend on self, and never cower in the presence of evil. There is in this moment a brief time of more calm, but hell is coming, and death is coming with it. Prepare to face this challenge instead of fleeing from it. Prepare to fight back! At this point in time, reverse propaganda has begun, and it will become more pronounced in the short term. It is being and will be said more often that the cases and death over the fraudulent ‘pandemic’ are lessening, and permission to move about, albeit with state-supported caution, will be slightly increased, but only temporarily. The ‘vaccines’ will be credited for ‘slowing the spread,’ but of course this is only a lie and a smokescreen. This is the calm before the storm. It is my studied opinion that these poisonous injections falsely called vaccines will cause extreme numbers of deaths in the near future. It may be a few months or later this fall, and certainly sustained over longer periods of time, but the death counts due to the very toxic and deadly nature of all of the Covid-19 shots will weaken the immune systems of tens of millions of people or more, and cause irreparable harm. At that point when deaths greatly increase, it will be blamed on yet another strain of this fake ‘virus.’ When this occurs, new and even more deadly injections will be touted, and the cycle will be never ending. This is the way of achieving total control over the long term of this population. It is based on fear, so new threats will emerge on a regular basis in order to perpetuate a dependence on government as savior. In fact, there will most certainly be additional threats and multi-faceted attacks on the psyche of the American public. Each step of this process will bring more suffering, more misery, and more carnage. This is the nature of the ruling beast, and if their campaign is successful, the people will become easier to control as time passes. In addition to these multiple threats, civil unrest, politically promoted and supported violence, looting, rioting, and allowed assaults will become normal, and this will lead to more lockdowns and extreme police state measures being prevalent across the country, especially in the highly concentrated population areas. The more intense this chaos becomes, the heavier the hand of the state will be. Due to this staged calm, many falsely believe that all will return to what is ludicrously referred to as ‘normal,’ and that the destruction of the economy and financial system is not one of the agendas sought by the ruling class. This is a gross miscalculation, as in order to complete this takeover of society; the current financial and monetary systems must collapse. Controlling property and people, digitizing all money and monetary transaction, and capturing and controlling all life-sustaining necessities such as food and energy, must be accomplished before any finality of control can be assured. This requires starting over and completely restructuring all aspects of existence. This agenda cannot be accomplished by any marginal reform of this social and economic system, hence the term of the oligarchs, “building back better.” The abhorrent CIA manipulated mainstream media, and the governing class will continually foment extreme division among the masses. This has been easy work to date, as the herd has taken the bait of its masters hook, line, and sinker. The left has been castigated more often by the right for this dividing of society, and it does seem obvious that there is some truth to this as post modern Marxists seem to revel in the destruction of morality, history, and tradition. But of course, this works both ways, and since the left and right where politics are concerned, are one and the same, and their agendas are virtually identical, taking sides is just falling into the division trap from another angle, and therefore a losing proposition. It is a better way to throw off all political ideology in favor of individual responsibility and self-awareness, thus setting the stage for the possibility of real independence for all. Some may believe that philosophizing about these issues is not constructive and does not give specific solutions for how to defeat these monsters. That thinking is empty and without merit, and is the coward’s way out. It is merely an excuse for not taking action. In order to defeat evil, one must fully understand the enemy and how he thinks. In the case of the Covid scam, and the claimed ruler’s intent, it is imperative to forget the perceived threat, and concentrate on the end game sought. Total control of the people is the goal, and once this is known by the many, the solution should become obvious. While I tire of saying the same thing over and over again, and of the repetition, the only viable solution to our problems is unity in disobedience, and a refusal to accept any mandate issued by this criminal cartel called the state. This strategy can destroy the perpetrators of this fraud without ever firing a shot or resorting to extreme violence that can only lead to death, destruction and defeat. As simple as this sounds, it is the most powerful response possible, and requires only that one seek independence by taking personal responsibility for himself, his family, and his own freedom. In order to help others, in order to regain sanity, each of us must first help himself, and shun all efforts to seek the rule of others or participate in collective idiocy. Stand and face adversity as an individual, or be swallowed up in a sea of mob ignorance and totalitarian madness. “I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.” ~ Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience Source links:  The coming financial coup and the Covid fraud Depopulation by ‘vaccine’ Premeditated mass murder by vaccine Obedience is weakness The post The Calm Before the Storm: Use it To Gain Strength To Fight the Coming Tyranny appeared first on LewRockwell.

Biden’s Offshore Wind Energy Mirage Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 President Biden recently announced ambitious plans to install huge offshore industrial wind facilities along America’s Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coasts. His goal is to churn out 30 gigawatts (30,000 megawatts) of wind capacity by 2030, ensuring the U.S. “leads by example” in fighting the “climate crisis.” Granted “30 by 2030” is clever PR. But what are the realities? The only existing U.S. offshore wind operation features five 6-MW turbines off Rhode Island. Their combined capacity (what they could generate if they worked full-bore, round the clock 24/7) is 30 MW. Mr. Biden is planning 1,000 times more offshore electricity, perhaps split three ways: 10,000 MW for each coast. While that might sound impressive, it isn’t.  It means total wind capacity for the entire Atlantic coast, under Biden’s plan, would only meet three-fourths of the peak summertime electricity needed to power New York City.  Again, this assumes the blades are fully spinning 24/7. In reality, such turbines would be lucky to be operating a top capacity half the time. Even less as storms and salt spray corrode the turbines, year after year. The reason why is there is often minimal or no wind in the Atlantic – especially on the hottest days. Ditto for the Gulf of Mexico. No wind means no electricity – right when you need it most. Of course, too little wind isn’t the only issue. Other times, there’s too much wind – as when a hurricane roars up the coast. That’s more likely in the Gulf of Mexico. But the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 had Category 4 winds in Virginia, Category 3 intensity off Cape Hatteras (NC), Long Island and Rhode Island, and Category 2 when it reached Maine. It sank four U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships.  When storms or hurricanes hit, turbines can be destroyed. Repairing or replacing hundreds of offshore turbines could take years. If the White House is planning to generate all that power using common 6-MW turbines, our coastlines would need a hefty 5,000 of the 600-foot tall monsters dotting them. The Washington Monument is 655 feet tall. Going instead with 12-MW turbines, like the 850-foot-tall GE Haliade-X turbines Virginia is planning to install off its coast, America would still need 2,500 of the behemoths – just to complete Phase One of Biden’s plan. 30,000 megawatts by 2030.  Even if these were all plopped in the Atlantic, it still would not be enough to meet New York State’s current electricity needs. And what about the environment? How many millions of tons of steel, copper, lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, concrete, petroleum-based composites (for turbine blades) and other raw materials would be required to manufacture and install the turbines and undersea electrical cables, especially where deep-water turbines are involved? How many billions of tons of ore would have to be mined, crushed, processed and refined – considering that it takes 125,000 tons of average ore for every 1,000 tons of pure copper metal? Not only would nearly all of this mining and manufacturing require fossil fuels, but much of it would be done in China, or in other countries by Chinese-owned companies. Haliade-X turbines are also manufactured in China. And much of the mining and processing is done under horrid workplace safety and environmental conditions, often with near-slave and child labor. This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy. The post Biden’s Offshore Wind Energy Mirage appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Working-Class Revolt Against Labour Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 So, the working-class revolt against the Labour Party continues. The ballot-box uprising of December 2019 – when millions of voters across the Red Wall switched from Labour to the Tories – is still in full flow. Hartlepool, Labour since it was founded in 1974, has now fallen to the Tories, with a staggering majority of 7,000. Labour councillors in Derby, Dudley, Sunderland and elsewhere have been unceremoniously turfed out of power and replaced with Tories. The results so far are ‘shattering’, says Labour’s Steve Reed. ‘Shattering’ is the word for it. What is being shattered is politics as we knew it, the alignments that defined political life in this country for generations. The Hartlepool by-election and the English local elections – at least what we know of them so far – confirm that the relentless realignment of British politics will not be halted anytime soon. The mass working-class defection to the Conservative Party; the colonisation of Labour by middle-class graduates; the transformation of Labour from a party of working people into a metropolitan machine more concerned with gender-neutral toilets and taking the knee than with what working-class people want and need – anyone who thought these historic shifts and quakes would be reversed by having sensible, forensic Sir Keir Starmer at the helm of Labour has just received the rudest awakening imaginable. What Labour centrists must now admit is that their party’s travails run far deeper than the Corbyn effect. Another thing that has been shattered is the much gabbed-out idea that once Labour jettisoned Jeremy and the cranky trustafarians and Fisher-Price Marxists who made up his support base, then it would go back back to being a normal party with a shot at power. In truth, while Corbyn’s time at the top was undoubtedly disastrous – the anti-Semitism, the swapping of class politics for identity politics, the Britain-bashing – something far more profound is driving the working-class revolt against Labour. To the fore is the issue of Brexit. These election results look like a continuation of working-class voters’ rejection of the Brexit betrayers – most notably Labour – and their lining up behind the party that at least promised to Get Brexit Done: the Tories. It still blows my mind that the political class thought it could try to stitch up the largest democratic vote in UK history and there wouldn’t be severe, long-lasting consequences. This extraordinary naivety was on full display in Hartlepool, where arch-Remainer Keir Starmer stood arch-Remainer Paul Williams in a seat in which 70 per cent of people voted for Brexit. Do they think working-class voters are stupid? The answer, as we know, is yes, of course they do. Read the Whole Article The post The Working-Class Revolt Against Labour appeared first on LewRockwell.

Automakers Cave to Biden’s Electric Car Baloney, and Ignore Their Own Customers Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 When President Joe Biden declared that he wants all cars sold to be “zero-emission” by 2035, carmakers didn’t raise a peep of protest. Worse, they are starting to fall in line with promises to go all-electric, even though the vast majority of consumers don’t want these cars. General Motors made a big splash earlier this year when it promised to sell only electric cars by 2035. “General Motors is joining governments and companies around the globe working to establish a safer, greener and better world,” CEO Mary Barra said days after Biden was sworn in. “We encourage others to follow suit.” Honda later announced plans to make only battery-powered cars by 2040. Volvo said it will go all-electric by 2030. Ford said in February that it would invest at least $22 billion worldwide in the next few years to build electric vehicles. These announcements were all greeted with Hosannas from the left (even though the overall environmental benefits of “zero-emission” cars is far from clear). But there’s one thing missing from all this cheering. The consumer. These companies are throwing billions of dollars into researching and developing a product that consumers overwhelmingly reject. Despite massive taxpayer rebates to electric car buyers, a multitude of subsidized recharging stations, and the constant talk about how electric automobiles will save the planet, sales of plug-ins accounted for a tiny 2% of all cars sold in the U.S. last year. Domestic sales of Chevy’s gas-guzzling Silverado pickups alone last year doubled the combined sales of electric cars from all makers. We keep being told that what’s holding sales back is the lack of charging stations and insufficient taxpayer incentives. But since when have such inconveniences ever held back a product that is wildly popular with consumers? If consumers actually wanted EVs, there’d instantly be charging stations on every corner as companies looked to cash in. What’s really hindering electric car sales is the inconvenience factor. Even when charging stations are nearby, they simply can’t go as far as gas-powered cars and require far too long to refuel. “EVs can travel average barely half the distance of gas-powered vehicles,” notes Car and Driver. Driving speeds, weather, and other factors can dramatically shorten the range of EVs. When Car and Driver tested a Tesla Model 3 in cold weather, it found that using the heater can “kill 60 miles of range, a significant chunk of the Model 3’s 310-mile EPA rating.” Worse, while it takes minutes to fill up an empty gas tank, it can take hours to fully charge an electric car. Leaving a car plugged into a conventional outlet overnight will give you enough juice to go all of about 30 miles. Even so-called fast-chargers are tedious compared with a simple fill-up at the gas station. (Tesla’s “Superchargers” take a little more than an hour to fully charge its cars, Business Insider reports.) Read the Whole Article The post Automakers Cave to Biden’s Electric Car Baloney, and Ignore Their Own Customers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Stupid AF Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Let’s imagine that someone compiles a list of the most dangerous cities in the world based on murder rates arranged in descending order; the list contains 50 cities, all of them with populations of over 200,000. About a quarter of the way down the list, after the appearance of a number of cities all located in Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil, a US city pops up, giving it the dubious distinction of being the most dangerous city in the US with a population of over 200,000. Now imagine we hear that the mayor of that city is going to defund the city’s police department, and the move is supported by the US Representative in whose district the city lies. Well, we don’t have to imagine it; it’s already happened. According to this article, the city is St. Louis; the mayor is Tishaura Jones; and the US Representative is Cori Bush, the same Cori Bush who tweeted that our country is “racist AF”. Oh, and here’s the actual list of the world’s most dangerous cities; St. Louis comes in at number 13. Mayor Jones is cutting 4 million dollars from the police department’s budget and eliminating 98 currently vacant officer positions. Congresswoman Bush’s take: Previous administrations spent more per capita on policing than all comparable cities, building a police force that is larger than that of any city comparable to St. Louis. But even as more and more money has gone into policing the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department continues to be the deadliest police force in the nation, year after year — all while violence in our communities continues to skyrocket. Bush is confusing correlation with causation; since violence skyrockets as more money goes into policing, putting more money into policing must be what is causing the violence to skyrocket. Ergo, taking money away from policing will reduce the violence! Let’s look at the actual St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department homicide data for 2020 and see if it provides any clues as to why St. Louis is the most murderous city of over 200,000 in the country. There were a total of 262 homicide victims of whom 236 or 90 percent were black. Since most homicides are committed against victims of the same racial classification, this indicates that we would expect the overwhelming majority of the homicide suspects in these cases to be black as well; and that is also confirmed by the available data: Of the 109 known homicide suspects identifiable by race, 100 or 92 percent were black. A comparable percentage probably obtains for the many unsolved homicides whose suspects went unidentified. Now since blacks make up 45 percent of the population of St. Louis while accounting for 92 percent of known homicide suspects, black offenders are committing over twice as many homicides as would be expected. Is the problem too many police, or is the problem too many black people committing murder? It turns out that St. Louis isn’t the only US city on the most dangerous list. Baltimore is number 21; New Orleans is number 41; and Detroit is number 42. Baltimore has a black population of 64 percent; New Orleans has a black population of 60 percent; and Detroit has a black population of 78 percent. Why are these cities on the list? Do they have too many police, or do they have too many black people committing murder? The post Stupid AF appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Truth Is Surely Baseless Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 MADDOW: … I think we should see this as the Justice Department putting these whack jobs in Arizona, forgive me, on notice, that what they`re doing is something they`re not going to be allowed to do for very much longer. O`DONNELL: I think ‘whack jobs’ is now in The New York Times style sheet for describing what`s happening in Arizona. — MSNBC 5/5/21 What you’re seeing now with the DC establishment are desperate moves to keep the suspicious and yet more pissed-off public from understanding the government crime spree of the past five years that started with the Obama gang using the Department of Justice to disable and terminate Donald Trump and the threat he represented to the network of special privilege and money known as the Swamp, which has managed to put a deep-fake president in office as a last resort to protect itself. The urgent problem: how to squash the Arizona vote audit by branding it as an outlaw action, even though it was ordered under law by the Arizona State Senate. Having failed to stop it so far using the Swamp’s Lawfare cadres in the Arizona courts, the DOJ has called in its Civil Rights Division to get’er done, pretending that it will be an offense against people-of-color if auditors seek to know whether write-in votes correspond to actual addresses, and other particulars of election procedure that may have been violated. Of course, the Arizona business is only one leak in a giant dike of official deceit built-up over the years to keep any truth from deluging the DC lowlands. Other leaks are springing in New Hampshire and Michigan, with a wormhole opening up in Georgia. It will be interesting to see if cable TV news can keep painting the truth as something against the public interest. As many times as they style election fraud “a conspiracy theory” and “baseless,” the public relations arm of the Democratic Party still has a hard slog convincing at least 80-million Americans that a detailed review of a contested vote is bad thing. Meanwhile, other breaches in the dike threaten to flood the low-lying Swamp zone with existential threats. The DOJ, the FBI, and other agencies are so saturated in crime that the only feasible damage control they can do is to haplessly commit more crimes against the common decency of the republic to cover up their old crimes. Hence, the seizure of Rudy Giuliani’s phones and computers in a 6 a.m. raid last week, leading to the incriminating disclosure that the FBI secretly accessed Giuliani’s iCloud account to spy on his correspondence with Mr. Trump in the fall of 2019 during the first impeachment preliminaries. Are you kidding me? Who gave the order for that? To violate basic attorney-client privilege during a legal proceeding of the highest order? And what was behind the Giuliani raid? Among other things, the horror show of corruption in Ukraine, starring (but not limited to) Joe and Hunter Biden in their ceaseless quest for grift, but also featuring many of the origins of the RussiaGate hoax and its spin-offs, plus the involvement of State Department personnel such as Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and deputy George Kent, double-plus the shady activities of George Soros and his Atlantic Council in seditious activity working hand-in-hand with the CIA’s “whistleblower” (Eric Ciaramella) to damage Mr. Trump — who was impeached for simply inquiring about what was going on in Ukraine. Mr. Giuliani had to conduct his own investigation into all that for the obvious reason that the usual US agencies who would ordinarily investigate official misconduct were actually perpetrating it: the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and State Department. And who, at the DOJ now, might be behind the current effort to neutralize Mr. Giuliani? Try Lisa Monaco, the new Deputy Attorney General, formerly one of Barack Obama’s chief White House fixers — i.e., an attorney detailed to shutting down investigations and covering the tracks left by questionable operations — and a protégé of former CIA Director John Brennan. Is the weak and pliable AG Merrick Garland fronting for her running the DOJ now? Joe Biden is going to need a whole lot of fixin’. And, is Lisa Monaco actually still reporting to Barack Obama? He can also probably use a fix or two. Who knows what’s coming down pike? Just maybe a loaded semi driven by the nearly forgotten John Durham? MSNBC might have made an unforced error on Wednesday scripting 10 o’clock troll Lawrence O’Donnell to diss former AG William Barr — some jive about Mr. Barr trying to mess with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s efforts back in 2018 to nail Mr. Trump on an obstruction of justice rap. Is this the time to piss-off Mr. Barr? You have to wonder. Is it possible that the FBI concealed its possession of the Hunter Biden laptop from Mr. Barr during those 2019 days of impeachment, when Mr. Trump was attempting to mount a defense for making a phone call to Ukraine? Who might be responsible for hiding that, if it were so? By the way, it was Mr. Barr who, just before resigning in late 2020, made John Durham a Special Counsel, whose work — whatever that might be, maybe nothing at all, maybe something consequential, nobody knows — can’t be blocked by Merrick Garland (or Lisa Monaco). Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com. The post The Truth Is Surely Baseless appeared first on LewRockwell.

America: The Mini-Series Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 One of the stranger things about the political system that has evolved since the end of the Cold War is the declining reality of politicians. No, not their declining grasp on reality, which is a real thing. It is the fact that our politicians are less and less like normal human beings and more like sketches of human beings. As the role of politician has become more of a role, performed by someone good at public performance, their back stories have grown smaller and less important. Go back to the last two Cold War presidents and you see men with long and detailed back stories that were relatable. Reagan was the midwestern guy who went to Hollywood to become a star. He ended up on television as a pitchman but became the head of the actor’s union. Poppy Bush came from an old blue blood family. He was in the war and then had a life in politics. He was even the head spy for turn. We knew a lot about these men before they entered the White House. The first post-Cold War president was a different matter. We know a lot about his time in Arkansas, mostly because of he and his wife’s personal corruption, but none of that was known before he hit the national stage. It was only after he was in the White House that his backstory came into focus. How much of it is true and how much of it is missing is something we will never know. Bill Clinton was the first president who started out as mostly an idea, a sketch of a man, rather than a real person. Bush the Dull was another poorly drawn sketch. His backstory never got much attention at all, other than his wild days. His bio was mostly inherited from his father, other than the hints of his prior drug taking. It is easy to forget, and many would like to forget, but Bush was sold as an updated Reagan. He was the best of the old line Republicans combined with the social conservatism of the new Republicans. Like Clinton, George Bush was fitted to the role, not the other was around. Obama may go down as the quintessential liberal democratic politician, because he was pretty much an actor hired for the role. Central casting sketched out the ideal liberal democratic Progressive. He was one part black leading man, one part urban sophisticate, one part mysterious foreigner and one part post-racial.  This was poured into the mold of the former three letter heroes. Obama was FDR, JFK, MLK and RFK all rolled into one character. He was the first Mary Sue president. Not to put too fine a point on it, but when Reagan entered the White House, the media was full of people who knew Reagan going back to his youth. Like presidents before him, this was part of the getting to know him process. We had a lot of Clinton chums turn up in the media, usually from jail, but at least they were people who knew the man before he was famous. To this day we have precious few people who have come forward to talk about the young Obama. The we got Trump. If Obama is the epitome of liberal democratic politics, Trump is the epitome of modern business ethics. He created a brand first then he used that brand to create business opportunities. He is “fake it until you make it” in the flesh. His life was as the brand manager of Donald Trump the brand. In the whirl of self-promotion, a swarm of ever changing characters would work various deals that always relied on someone in the room being the mark. Read the Whole Article The post America: The Mini-Series appeared first on LewRockwell.

No Jab for Me – And Here Are 35 Reasons Why Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 “Fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccinations are exceedingly rare, but according to the blatantly pro-over-vaccination, Big Pharma-funded CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 vaccine-related deaths, 1,091 permanent vaccine-related disabilities, 4,132 vaccine-related hospitalizations, and10,274 vaccine-related emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? You multiply those numbers by 100.” – William Christenson *** “The FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from the pharmaceutical industry. “The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations. “And the CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget. “The HHS (US Health and Human Services) partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales. “HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000 annually in royalties for products they work on. “For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck’s controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr *** Statements in these sites (this and this) are substantiated with facts that will stand in a court of law. Informed Consent requires a flow of information. Click on the hyperlinked sections to direct you to primary sources such as CDC, WHO, FDA documents. *** Did you know? 1. The FDA did not approve Moderna or Pfizer mRNA gene therapeutics they dubbed “vaccines”. It simply authorized them. Fauci confirms. “In the US, the FDA in its ambiguous statement  provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…” (see here) see below: 19 doctors warned the world of the dangers. AstraZeneca is being dropped by 24 countries. Johnson & Johnson, a Viral Vector(1) ” injection” that was given Emergency Use Authorization on Feb. 27, 2021, was halted by several states due to the formation of blood clots. The CDC had confirmed. But distribution resumed after a 10 day pause. The CDC also confirms(2) the Pfizer & Moderna jabs are the deadliest of all “vaccines”, also in a bar chart. 5 prominent doctors discuss how the Covid jab is a bioweapon. 2. The clinical trials will be completed in 2023, there are 12 vaccine companies ramping up their marketing, and you are the guinea pig. 3. The FDA & CDC have not revealed to the public over 20 adverse effects, including Death, related to Covid19 injections, which were discussed in an October 2020 meeting. 3,544 deaths from Covid19 injections are reported by the National Vaccine Information Center as at 4/23/2021, and one-third of the deaths occurred within 48 hours. For clarification purposes in this article, Covid19, given that the virus has not been isolated, is regarded as an influenza variant, given the symptoms exhibited by patients. And, yes, people can die of influenza or the common cold. In fact, lungs of influenza patients can be more damaged than those of Covid patients. Some will argue that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a Gain-of-Function lab. That is moot. The primary consideration is whether an experimental injection is warranted for a disease with a 99.9% survival rate. I am for tried, true and tested (safe) vaccines. I am NOT for experimental gene therapeutics backed by disastrous animal studies, used on humans for the first time in history.  4. The mRNA jab delivers a synthetic, inorganic molecule (medical device) that programs your cells to synthesize pathogens in the form of the spike protein that your immune system will constantly have to fight off for the rest of your life, according to experts such as Molecular Biologist & Immunologist, Professor Dolores Cahill. She explains. Fauci confirms. Dr. Lee Merritt reconfirms. Others call it Information Therapy that hacks the software of life, according to Moderna’s [Mode RNA] chief scientist. You essentially become a GMO. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny mapped eight mechanisms that can result in death by a Covid jab. 5. The mRNA jab does not prevent you from contracting Covid19 or from transmitting it. Dr. Steve Hotze elaborates. Fauci confirms. The CDC graph underscores that reality, proving these injections are ineffective and injection passports are totally useless. 87 million Americans have been subjected to injections as at 4/20/21, of which 7,157 have contracted Covid after beingvaccinated, resulting in 88 deaths. Also, an imperfect “vaccination” can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens, according to this NCGI article. A study on mice concludes that the spike protein from a “vaccination” can cause lung damage. Did you also know? 6. The CDC inflated the death rate for Covid19 – that was not isolated – by instructing medical practitioners in its March 24, 2020 directive to ascribe the cause of death as Covid19 for all deaths, irrespective if patients were tested positive for Covid19 or if they had other comorbidities, so as to ramp up the fear, and doctors have publicly stated they are being pressured to mark Covid19 on death certificates. Here is a list: Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. Scott Jensen Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann This missstep by the CDC contravenes Federal Regulations, according to IPAK. Each Federal agency is required to submit a formal change proposal to the Federal Register before enacting their proposed changes. A 60-day public comment and peer-review process ensues before the changes can be made. The fact is that 60,000 Americans have been dying weekly, consistently, before and after the covid scare – more data – while deaths by influenza and other diseases have plummeted.  7. The CDC later admitted that 94% of deaths had underlying conditions. That means that of the 527,000 deaths attributed to the influenza variant masked as SARS-CoV-2 only 6% were actually caused directly by Covid19, or 31,620. That brings the true case fatality rate to 0.12% out of the 27 million cases.  8. The survival rate for Covid19 is, therefore, roughly 99.9%. When using the state population as the denominator, the death rate is even lower, ranging from 36 to 247 deaths per 100,000. As at March 19, 2021, even with the doctored numbers and faulty tests, the CDC arrived at the following survival rates: Ages 0-17 99.998% Ages 18-49 99.95% Ages 50-64 99.4% Ages 65+ 91% 9. The CDC lumped pneumonia, influenza, and Covid19 into a new epidemic it called PIC in order to inflate Covid19 deaths. The CDC stats for week of July 3, 2020 confirm that pneumonia and influenza combine with Covid to inflate the death rate. The Feb. 5, 2021 report does the same. The obfuscation is underscored in the search results page, where only “(P&I)” is mentioned, but PIC graphs appear upon clicking the links. Deaths by influenza have dropped from 61,000 in 2018 to 22,000 in 2020, while medical malpractice is the third leading cause of deaths in the US. 10. Hospitals are paid $13,000 for every Covid19 admission, and $39,000 for every patient that is put on a ventilator, on average. More proof doctors and nurses have orders to place on ventilators patients who tested negative, effectively killing them. Are you aware that… 11. The PCR tests do not detect SARS-CoV-2 particles, but particles from any number of viruses you might have contracted in the past, and that a lawsuit for crimes against humanity is being launched by a German attorney for this fraud. Even Fauci admits PCR tests don’t work. The WHO backs him up. Important Statements on Impacts of Vaccination by Prominent Scientists, Scholars and Authors In this CDC document, testing guidelines state that false negatives and positives are possible – page 39. The PCR test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens – page 40. But most importantly, on page 42, SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated in the first instance: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA“. Neither the CDC can provide samples of SARS-CoV-2, nor can Stanford and Cornell labs, and in a CNN interview Fauci said he was not getting tested and there is no need to test asymptomatic people. He reiterates that asymptomatic people have never been the driving force of a pandemic. Again, the WHO backs him up. 12. There are class action lawsuits in the works, naming Anthony Fauci as defendant, amongst others. Here’s a partial list: a lawsuit against the CDC was filed for illegally withholding information under FOIA the WHO has a lawsuit brought against it by German lawyer, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, for crimes against humanity. Here is an update nurses are suing a hospital CEO for Fabricated’ COVID-19 Tests California teachers are suing for being pressured to get an experimental vaccine, the press release the Government of Norway is facing a crimes against humanity lawsuit the UK Government will be facing a lawsuit for crimes against humanity Israelis are launching a crimes against humanity lawsuit against their own Government the Government of British Columbia is being sued by the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy the Canadian Government is facing a legal battle from the best Constitutional attorney, Rocco Galati, who wants to seeBill Gates jailed Florida is suing the Federal Government and the CDC doctors plead guilty to biotest fraud Human Rights attorney, Leigh Dundas, is going after California for trying to vaccinate children without parental consent. And just like that she forced Orange County to back down from vaccine passports a British law firm is fighting against ‘No Jab, No Pay, No Job’ Canadian Police Officers are taking the Ontario Government to Court New Zealand is facing a legal challenge on the admissibility of injections And we’re just getting warmed up. If Israeli citizens have brought their government to the International Criminal Court for Crimes Against Humanity, alleging they are being coerced into taking an inadequately tested, experimental COVID injection by Pfizer, in contravention of the Nuremberg Code, then the citizens of any state (West Virginia comes to mind where young people are bribed with $100 to take the jab) have that same right and obligation. 13. Therapeutics and prophylactics for coronaviruses, like Hydroxychloroquine, have been approved in the WHO, CDC and NIH websites. But, suddenly in 2020 they were banned. Why? Because, according to FDA rules only when there are no alternative therapeutics, can untested vaccines be cleared for Emergency Use Authorization. In 2020, the Canadian company, Apotex, was giving HCQ away. Even after the American Journal of Medicine approved the use of HCQ for Outpatients, HCQ is nowhere to be found in the US. Now, doctors are pleading that Ivermectin be used as a safe therapeutic. Doctors in India and the UK speak out. Costa Rica uses HCQ extensively, while Novartis donates it to Mexico. In India doctors are prescribing Ziverdo kits. 14. Front Line Doctors who try to explain the benefits of proven therapeutics are being silenced, and some have had their license suspended. A concise summary by Dr. Simone Gold, who is also an attorney and founder of America’s Front Line Doctors, is a must watch. As well, the British Medical Journal has broken rank and is citing corruption and suppression of science. The World Doctors Alliance joins the resistance. In Australia, the Covid Medical Network represents senior medical professionals doing battle. 15. Fauci and the CDC have flip-flopped on masks, contaminated surfaces, asymptomatic spread, testing, and have only recently acknowledged that herd immunity is achieved when antibodies are spread by those who beat the disease (the 99.9%), but still recommend social distancing, only now from 6 feet to 3 feet, resulting in this lockdown map. Speaking of herd immunity, the WHO changed its June 7, 2020 definition from: “Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection” to: “Herd immunity, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it” in Nov. 13, 2020. But, it again reversed its position in Dec. 2020, with this inane statement: “Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease, but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission”(4). And they keep moving the goal posts. Pfizer trials warned men to stay away from pregnant women… but now the CDC is pushing pregnant women to take an experimental biological agent without a second thought. The CDC has played dumb about the high 37 to 40 cycle thresholds used for COVID PCR testing yielding 85-90% false positives. But, now, it readily accepts the lower threshold of 28 cycles for post-vaccine testing. … and that 16. Injuries and deaths by mRNA jabs keep rising. VAERS reports 12,619 serious injuries as at 4/23/21. In the first quarter of 2021 there has been a 6000% increase in deaths by injections from the same period a year ago. Graphically, the jab looks more like a stiff upper cut, to quote attorney Rocco Galati. And that’s if, according to a Harvard Study, only 1% of vaccine related deaths are being reported. 17. The CDC at one time recommended DDT for in home use, and used the same fear tactics to sell vaccines for H1N1. 18. Documents prove that the media was to be the key player in creating the hype leading up to the promotion of vaccines, that a VACCINATE WITH CONFIDENCE paper by the CDC exists, along with its British equivalent, and that lifting lockdowns – on condition of vaccination – is used as a carrot to get people to accept the jab. 19. Politicians are caught on camera talking about the theater of wearing masks, and the NCBI, a division of the NIH, published a paper on the complete ineffectiveness of masks. Even the CDC warns of the dangers of masks, as do these studies on Mask Induced Exhaustion Syndrome MIES.  20. The CDC owns the patent for the coronavirus that is transmitted to humans; also, a patent for a System & Method to test for Covid19 filed in 2015, corroborated here, and Covid19 test kits were being shipped around the world in 2018. … or that 21. The Covid19 INJECTION was developed in just a few hours. 22. Vaccine companies cannot be sued for injuries. 23. Bill Gates, who invested $10 Billion into vaccines, boasts of how he injects kids with genetically modified organisms. 24. Bill Gates is on record pushing for vaccine passports. Parenthetically, various domain names for “vaccinepassport” were filed in 2016 by an entity in Milan, Italy, and that there are people who cannot take vaccines because of medical contraindications. A vaccine passport would discriminate against these people as they attempt to go about their lives, in violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12101).. 25. Bill Gates is on record pushing for vaccines to lower the world population by 10% to 15%, and a call has been made for his arrest and trial at the International Criminal Court Finally, did you know? 26. Covid variant injections are to be marketed without safety trials, Fauci confirmed it, and that antibodies/antigens to SARS-CoV-2 are found in saliva, making the use of masks counterproductive in achieving herd immunity. 27. The CDC, that props itself up with statements like: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the agency Americans trust with their lives. As a global leader in public health, CDC is the nation’s premier health promotion, prevention, and preparedness agency. Whether we are protecting the American people from public health threats, researching emerging diseases, or mobilizing public health programs with our domestic and international partners, we rely on our employees to make a real difference in the health and well-being of people here and around the world.” buys and resells injections at a markup, about $4.6 Billion worth every year, and owns over 20 vaccine patents – according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and is listed on Dun & Bradstreet. Fauci personally owns 1000 patents. 28. The consent forms in hospitals disguise vaccines as “biogenics”, and blood brokers have paid up to $1,000 for blood samples of recovered Covid19 people. 29. It’s against the Nuremberg code to force vaccinations on a person, and informed consent overrides public policy. Federal law prohibits employers and others from using vaccines under EUA as a condition of employment. A Nevada attorney is ready to do the battle. Each state has its own unique provisions for refusing a vaccine on medical, religious or philosophical grounds. 30. Donald Trump glories in the fact that he pushed Warp Speed and urges his supporters to take the jab, while Biden gloatsthat he ordered 100 million doses. Same dung – different odor … or that 31. Time, again and again the WHO has discouraged the wearing of masks by healthy individuals, let alone children. 32. Several “simulations” of a pandemic were held in: May 2018 Clade X by Johns Hopkins University September 2019. The WHO’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (in another supposed simulation) included as one of its progress indicators the release of two lethal pathogens by September 2020. See pg 39 2018. Bill Gates’ INSTITUTE FOR DISEASE MODELING released a video modeling a pandemic starting at Wuhan, China October 2019. Bill Gates, sponsored a Global Pandemic Exercise Event 201, video. Fauci, of course, sits in the Leadership Council of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has contributed over $3.5 million to Fauci’s NIH, 33. The Pfizer, Moderna and J&J jabs were developed using fetal cell lines, that is, cells grown in labs originally obtained from aborted fetuses decades ago. The argument used by pro-vaxers is that these are not the original cells, but descendants or duplicates of the originals. The medical term varies depending on the aborted fetus’ number and organ . You have a right to decline any vaccine that was developed with or contains fetal cell lines, based on your religious or philosophical beliefs. 34. Lockdowns have had no effect on the death rate. Here’s another report. And here we can see how Covid won’t breach Michigan’s southern border. 35. On March 2020, the British Government discussed tactics it would use to ensure citizens complied with the loss of their rights and freedoms and these have included – Using media to increase the sense of personal threat Using media to increase the sense of responsibility to others Using and promoting social approval for desired behaviors Using social disapproval for those who do not comply Here is the document, and the woman the NHS hired to fiddle with the death numbers. Not to be outdone, Trudeau boasts how much he pays the media to sell his propaganda that presciently reported in April, 2021 a 4th wave, while the German Minister of Interior pressured epidemologists to create the fear that would necessitate lockdowns. So your employer backs you into a corner. Get the jab or quit. What do you do? Here’s what I would do: 1. Demand that the ‘jab or quit’ proposition be put in writing. 2. Explain that irrespective of whether it’s a government or a corporation, any entity that makes experimental vaccinations a condition of employment – or of doing business – engages in the practice of forced vaccinations, which is in violation of the Nuremberg code, especially experimental vaccinations that are still undergoing clinical trials scheduled to end in 2023. 3. I would pull out my card ask the questions in it, leave the card with instructions to relay answers to me in writing 4. I would inform the employer that lawyers are filing crimes against humanity lawsuits, and that I would be consulting an attorney This is just what I would do. I’m not giving anyone legal advice. Find attorneys in your state: America’s Front Line Doctors Attorney Intake Form Justia Avvo Reprinted with permission from Global Research. The post No Jab for Me – And Here Are 35 Reasons Why appeared first on LewRockwell.

from https://youtu.be/V0EQNQssk6U
May 08, 2021

from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8
May 08, 2021 at 02:29AM