Select Page

Author: Cameron Keegan

Who Benefits From The “Sabotage” On Russian Nord Stream Gas Pipelines?

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
Ever wondered where Europe gets a significant amount of its natural gas? Until September 26, Germany still had an arrangement with Russia. Since then, the U.S. has been selling liquified natural gas (LNG) to Europe, albeit at “astronomical” prices, according to Germany’s economy minister.
How so—did the conflict between the Ukraine and Russia mean that all gas supplies to Europe were halted and completely cut off?
No, not exactly. All of this despite the United States and European Union (E.U.) placing economic sanctions on Russia and the latter restricting gas supplies to the E.U.—which is problematic given that many nations, such as Poland, Italy and Germany, have been dependent on Russian gas by 40 or more percent.
So what actually happened?
Here’s what transpired.
The “Nord Stream” is a pair of pipelines carrying natural gas from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. With each pipeline comprising two pipes, the Nord Stream has the capacity to transfer 110 million cubic meters of gas annually.
Nord Stream 2, which runs from northwest Russia near Estonia, experienced a sudden drop in pressure to almost zero on September 26. Nord Stream 1, which runs from northwest Russia near Finland, experienced a similar problem later that day. As a result, three of Nord Stream’s four pipes were rendered inoperable.
Aerial pictures of the three gas leaks taken by Royal Danish Air Force jets show a toxic bubble field on the surface. Scientists estimated that the leaks could release up to 400,000 tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, some in bubbles over half a mile wide. Indeed, methane is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide—a key driver of global warming, as emphasized by the Biden administration.

“*” indicates required fields

While the Nord Stream leaks were being detected, Swedish and Danish investigators registered two undersea blasts: a joint probe concluded these were the result of powerful explosions, equivalent to 500 kilograms of compound trinitrotoluene (TNT) planted deep beneath the ocean floor.
Blame game begins
Since then, the E.U., United Kingdom (U.K.), America and Russia have declared the incident a “sabotage,” with the first three pointing their finger at Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Conversely, during a speech in the fortified complex in the center of Moscow—the Kremlin—Putin essentially singled out America and its ally by stating:

The sanctions were not enough for the Anglo-Saxons: they moved onto sabotage…They began to destroy the pan-European energy infrastructure. It is clear to everyone who benefits from this. Of course, he who benefits did it.
Interestingly, another Baltic Sea pipeline was inaugurated just a day after the suspected sabotage, to mark the opening of transporting natural gas from Norway via Denmark to Poland.
While at the inauguration, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said, “The era of Russian domination in the field of gas is coming to an end, the era that was marked by blackmail, threats and extortion.”

Meanwhile, Norwegian Energy Minister Terje Aasland said it was “an important step on the important road to Europe’s independence from Russian energy.” To this end, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen added, “We must do everything we can to eliminate energy as an instrument of Russian power. Together, we will defeat Putin.”
Well, okay. Let’s firstly explore a few theories aiming to identify the culprit responsible for the Nord Stream “acts of sabotage.”
It was part of a U.S. plot
Jeffrey Sachs is a political economist and a professor at Columbia University. During an interview with Bloomberg, one of the hosts described Sachs as “ten years out front on the collapse of American education in the struggle of two Americas.” However, when questioned about his expert opinion on the recent aggression between the Ukraine and Russia, his take left the host somewhat startled:
The United States insists that it will do anything to support Ukraine’s defeat of Russia…The European economy is getting hammered by this sudden cut off of energy [from Russia]. And now to make it definitive, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which I would bet was a U.S action, perhaps U.S and Poland—
When interrupted by the stunned host for “evidence” backing that claim, Sachs didn’t hesitate:
Well first of all there’s direct radar evidence that U.S helicopters, military helicopters that are normally based in [Baltic coast of northern Poland] Gdansk, were circling over this area. We also had the threats from the United States earlier in this year, that one way or another we are going to end Nord Stream. We also have a remarkable statement by [State] Secretary Blinken…he says this is also a “tremendous opportunity”…It’s a strange way to talk if you’re worried about the piracy on international infrastructure of vital significance. So I know this runs counter to our narrative…you’re not allowed to say these things in the West.
The “threats from the United States” might have referred to President Biden’s comment at a press conference, while he stood next to Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Biden said in early February:
If Russia invades—that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine—then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it…I promise you, we will be able to do it.
Furthermore, in late September, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at a press conference that the Nord Stream incident was, indeed, a “tremendous opportunity to once, and for all, remove the dependence on Russian energy.”
Indeed, Russia’s state-owned energy operator Gazprom confirmed in early October that European states were “indefinitely deprived” of its natural gas—after spending billions of dollars on the pipeline project that commenced in 1997 and became operational in 2011.
Former advisor to U.S. Defense Secretary under Trump

40 percent of Russian gross national product or gross domestic product consists of foreign currency that comes into the country to purchase natural gas, oil, coal and so forth. So the Russians did not do this. The notion that they did I think is absurd.
And then he looked closer to home. “Then you have to look at who are the state actors that have the capability to do this,” Macgregor said. “And that means the [U.K.’s] Royal Navy, the United States Navy Special Operations.”
That capacity corresponds to “thousands of pounds of TNT were used because these pipelines are enormously robust.” Indeed, the former Pentagon advisor added, “So it’s not something that you could simply drop a grenade down at the end of a fish line and disrupt. That means it takes a certain amount of sophistication.”
Macgregor suggested that the attack was to prevent Germany from bailing on the Ukraine war after beginning “to give the impression that they were no longer going to go along with this proxy war in Ukraine.” The former advisor referenced Chancellor Scholz, who refused to authorize the delivery of heavy weaponry to the Ukraine, and later emphasized that the country would not send battle tanks either.
“Now he’s [Scholz] in a bind because the United States has simply robbed him of the option of bailing out.” Macgregor said. “Who’s going to supply him gas and oil, and coal and everything else if he bails out? Where does he turn now?”
U.S. is selling additional LNG to Europe

It was part of a Russian plot
According to former CIA Director John Brennan, Putin has a scheming motive—to “signal to Europe” that if they continue providing military support to the Ukraine, he will target its critical gas supply and infrastructure.
Why would Putin want to sabotage the Nord Stream, which is owned and financed by Russia’s Kremlin? In particular, the Nord Stream 1 pipeline has supplied E.U. states with nearly 35 percent of its natural gas, earning Russia billions in dollars annually.
Putin’s mental state
In late February, it was reported that U.S. intelligence agencies debated whether Putin was becoming increasingly erratic or attempting to intimidate and confuse Western leaders. After all, we are told that the Russian president launched an unprovoked war on his neighboring country that wants to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and build a closer alliance with the West.
Nord Stream’s maintenance

Given the above, according to an opinion piece by Fox News, the Russian leader might have reasoned that the gas cut is permanent, making the pipeline effectively redundant. Thus, taking Nord Stream out of operation would serve Putin’s goal of “freezing the Europeans in winter, a standard Putin move to use energy as a weapon.”
Purchases of Russian energy continues
Business is thriving for Russia—thanks to China and India. In late March, Reutersreported that India had purchased at least 13 million barrels of Russian oil since the conflict began on February 24, compared with 16 million barrels for 2021 alone. Similarly, China ramped up purchases of Russian crude, reportedly peaking at 1.1 million barrels per day in May.
Indeed, Russia remains a crucial exporter of pipeline gas to China, with the cost of its supplies between January and June amounting to $1.65 billion, nearly a three-fold increase compared to the same period in 2021.

Supplies of liquefied natural gas from Russia to China between January and June increased by 28.7 percent to 2.35 million tonnes, according to the General Administration of Customs of China in mid-July.
China’s coal imports from Russia rose in August, reaching the highest in at least five years. Arrivals of Russian coal peaked at 8.54 million tonnes, an increase from 7.42 million tonnes in July and 57 percent higher than in the same period last year.

Even before the conflict escalated, Putin unveiled new oil and gas deals with China worth around $117.5 billion, which, according to Reuters’ calculations, could generate around $37.5 billion over 25 years with gas sales alone. Indeed, Gazprom has agreed to a 30-year contract with China National Petroleum Corporation, with gas set to flow through the new pipeline in two or three years.
It was, really, an accident
According to Poland’s top official in charge of energy infrastructure, a more recent leak in a Druzhba pipeline carrying oil—not gas—from eastern Russia to Europe was probably caused by an accident in mid-October.
Yes, accidents do actually happen.
Given that the Nord Stream operation had to be suspended multiple times, once due to “turbine issues,” is it too far-fetched to suggest that the explosions might have happened by accident? Both pipelines containing high-pressure gas might have become unstable. Nord Stream 1 had been closed since late August, and Germany had halted the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project just days after Russia began annexation of Crimea in the Ukraine.
On this note, let us consider the perspective of Stephen Bryen, a leading security strategy and technology expert with 50 years of experience, having held senior positions in the Department of Defense and served as a senior staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In a detailed opinion piece from early October, Bryen, alongside leading specialist in U.S. defense policy Shoshana Bryen, state that the Baltic seabed is “loaded” with dumped military equipment, such as artillery shells dating back to World War II. The authors reason that “with all of the unexploded munitions” it wouldn’t even be necessary to intentionally damage the Nord Stream to cause the pipelines to explode.
Interesting. Let’s fast forward to mid-October. At a Moscow energy forum, Putin reportedly said that Russia is ready to resume gas supplies through Nord Stream 2, but that “the ball was in the E.U.’s court.” Once again, he reiterated that the sabotage of North Stream was “an international act of terror.”
Amid Putin’s nuclear threats
Given the deepening conflict since Putin announced the annexation of four eastern Ukrainian regions in late September, the Russian president declared that he wouldn’t hesitate to use nuclear weapons to protect the country’s territory. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, has regurgitated that Russia’s nuclear weapon use against the Ukraine could end in “Armageddon.”
On a different note, France’s President Emmanuel Macron said in a mid-October televised interview that he would not respond to a “tactical” nuclear strike by Russia as it is not “our [French] doctrine.”

Macron added that it would place “an historic responsibility on the part of Russia to use nuclear weapons. As a nuclear power, Russia has this responsibility and Vladimir Putin knows this.”
He urged Putin to “come back to the discussion table” and negotiate, while promising to deliver air defence systems to the Ukraine amid new Russian bombings. The French president said he would continue talking to Putin “whenever necessary.”

At this stage—aside from the ongoing conflict and hurling nuclear threats—whether the Nord Stream explosions were intentional or otherwise, Russia is continuing business with non-Western nations and has offered to resume economic activity with the E.U. Meanwhile, the U.S. has grasped the “tremendous opportunity” of selling even more LNG to its ally—consequently increasing the E.U.’s dependency on the United States.

Read More

Get ‘Em Young Using Predictive Programming In Cartoons—And Why Your Awareness Is Power

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
Children are being subjected to psychological techniques to facilitate the indoctrination of LGBTQ agenda and likely resign themselves as state property by being microchipped.
Ask someone about their favorite cartoon, and depending on their generation, they might start reminiscing their cherished comic books or reference a popular animation series that, since the advent of the television, has captured the term cartoon.
Indeed, cartoons are often very entertaining with storylines that pierce the crux of human nature: our desire for a connection with others and our desire for a sense of significance. For instance, wanting to connect with friends and family, reach a particular social status, and the need to feel appreciated and respected drives our day-to-day actions.
Cartoons are a great way of projecting such desires and imparting knowledge to fresh, unblemished minds through humor, and featuring anthropomorphized animals and superheroes.
Since the 1940s, children have been kept amused by the rivalry, antics and friendship between Tom and Jerry, two supposedly natural enemies with the former a cat and the latter a mouse. In the late 1980s, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles burst onto the screen; viewers learned about Splinter, the mutant rat who serves as a mentor and father figure to the turtles living in an abandoned subway station. Finally, children of the 1990s might recall Pinky and the Brain, the latter a genetically modified mouse who wants to “try to take over the world.”
Capturing young minds
Ever wondered why it’s easier to influence children than adults on average? The former is more open to exploring new ideas, quicker at absorbing informationdisguised as ‘facts’ and generally more adapting to changing circumstances—unlike their grandparents, who are inclined to remain rigid in the status quo. Children also have the energy of youth on their side, and a subset will become activists. What better way than to get ’em young.
LGBTQ superhero cartoon “promotes diversity”
In late September, Variety reported on an “anticipated LGBT-inclusive superhero animation project” which describes “a witty, heartwarming superhero romcom in 2D about the troubles of juggling a job as a superhero, a husband, and a cat.” My Superhero Husband targets children over 12 years old and is carefully crafted to pull at their heartstrings and promote the normalization of homosexuality.

“*” indicates required fields

But My Superhero Husband isn’t the first LGBTQ cartoon, nor will it be the last, for as long as the masses continue to accept or passively allow their children to absorb the promotion of sodomy masked as a “loving relationship between two consenting individuals.”
Using predictive programming in cartoons
Children are consistently familiarized with diverse “LGBTQ characters” in cartoons, as highlighted by the Insider in June 2021. They are often portrayed as the “hero,” with whom the viewer emotionally bonds and cheers for them to “win.” As Pride magazine conveys, at least fifteen cartoons have “amazing LGBTQ+ representation in animated children’s shows.” Mind you, some of those cartoons are fairly graphic—with kissing.

Thus, children have learned about the main character’s best friend in The Loud House, who is the adopted child “of an interracial gay couple.” They also watched the “wedding” between popular teacher Mr. Ratburn and his “special someone” in the premiere episode of Arthur’s 22nd season.
Predictive programming influences perceptions on a specific matter of interest through repetitive subliminal messages through mass communication systems—and cartoons are an excellent medium to reach the minds of children.

Let’s consider a different matter: the famous Twin Towers’ tragic attack and collapse on September 11, 2001 or “9/11.” Is it a coincidence that from the late 1980s through early 2001, the Towers were depicted as being targeted by bombs, missiles or airplanes in at least eight cartoons?
For example, a 1994 episode of Iron Man shows a terrorist warplane heading to New York City; eventually, several missiles hit the Towers, and a warplane deliberately crashes into the Pentagon. In a more subtle form, a 1997 episode of The Simpsons shows a magazine with “9” dollars next to the Towers’ shadow, which eerily resembles number “11.”
So were these “inserts” warnings of future events, constantly reminding children they live in a dangerous world, and to justify further reliance and compliance with the government for perceived safety? Or were these added scenes the result of the writers’ imagination, who figured the Towers were the most likely target on American soil?
Indeed, we could go down a rabbit hole with many more scenes that have since come to pass in the real world. But let’s pause and define predictive programming; although it varies in degree of aggressiveness and subtlety, the method and objective remains the same.
What is predictive programming?
A post from The Ohio State University attempts to dissuade the reader from “conspiracy theorists who think there will be a totalitarian government takeover” but provides a solid definition:
Predictive programming is a subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media to acquaint the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by our leaders. If and when these changes are put through, the public will already be familiarized with them and will accept them as natural progressions, thus lessening possible public resistance and commotion… As always there is a reason why movies and television are used as the common vessel. When watching something a person typically perceives it as entertainment and their theoretical guard will be lowered and the subliminal messages will be directly go to the subconscious [mind]. It also is used as a sort of self fulfilling prophecy because once an expectation is created then when these events start to happen the population may seem more likely to accept the fate.
Given the above, it might be worthwhile to differentiate between scenes promoting LGBTQ lifestyles versus the sprinkling of individual events, such as Donald Trump coming down the escalator and becoming U.S. president.
Outbreaks of viral infections and a demand for a cure
The Simpsons have offered no shortage of predictions that have come true, closely come true and some that have yet to pass (or perhaps will never pass.) Whether the series’ writers have a brilliant understanding of the depths of ruthless monopoly capitalism and power dynamics in America, or otherwise, a reported infectious outbreak has been featured—more than once.
A 1993 episode featured a storyline about a virus outbreak in the primary setting, Springfield, after residents ordered juicers from Japan. The episode shows a worker at a factory saying, “Please don’t tell the supervisor I have the flu.” He then coughs into a box containing a juicer for shipping, which sends the virus to the U.S and into Springfield. Most of the residents fall ill, after which an anxious crowd demands the local physician for a cure, but in their panic they shake a truck and release killer bees.
Yet, it’s a 2010 episode that eerily foreshadows the reported outbreak of 2020. The episode begins with a helicopter dropping off a Fox News representative at a secret meeting held inside the crown of the Statue of Liberty; we are exposed to a “secret conclave of American media empires” plotting a virus crisis.
Indeed, the man running the meeting conveys the goal is to “put Americans back where they belong: In dark rooms, glued to their televisions, too terrified to skip the commercials.” This secret cabal agrees they “should go with a good old-fashioned public health scare” with a new disease where “no one’s immune.”
But here’s the fascinating part: we firstly observe a “deadly disease” injected into the character representing NBC for testing purposes.
“So, we’ve got our deadly disease,” says the meeting’s leader. “Now, we just have to blame it on something that’s in every household.” Thus, the residents of Springfield learn about an outbreak of “House cat flu,” in which symptoms include “mild thirst, occasional hunger, tiredness at night.” Indeed, very uncommon symptoms.
Following a scene of paranoia among residents, “free cat flu vaccinations” become available. But there is an apparent scarcity of these injections, which induces further panic. Mr. Burns, the main antagonist of the series, drives past a long queue and slyly demands to obtain a large proportion of the vaccines, justifying that he is “the only taxpayer in this town.” Indeed, we observe the consequence of seething public resentment towards an elite attitude of—for me but not for thee.
Whether The Simpsons contains deliberate predictive programming or mere predictions stemming from the genius of the series’ writers is up for debate. The key is looking for a repetition of comparable subliminal messages across diverse media outlets, including news channels.
Netflix cartoon shows wrist-implanted device

It’s not coming. It’s already here. A previous article highlighted that a company in Wisconsin and Sweden have already inserted microchips underneath the skin of several employees’ hands as a means to enter company systems and buildings, and carry out financial transactions without requiring credit cards or specific passes. The justification is none other than “convenience” and “safety.”
Back to the episode from Stretch Armstrong & The Flex Fighters, and we’re shown a media commentator saying, “The smartmark is more than just a phone. It’s part of you. Use it as cash, book your travel, and even shoot video.”
“I never knew how wonderful technology could make me feel,” says a beaming member of the public, showing her microchipped wrist. “The smartmark brings order to my life.”
It’s not coming. It’s already here. According to a New York Post article in 2019, employees at Amazon’s New York offices tested scanners designed to identify their hand, connect to a system containing their credit card, and potentially accelerate store purchases. Perhaps such a technology, which still heavily relies on personal data access, is less intimidating than being microchipped—that is, until enough predictive programming convinces future generations it’s completely normal.
Yet, the Stretch Armstrong & The Flex Fighters episode shows the ultimate power struggle between an autocratic leader who seeks to put his “new recruits to work, subtlely” and the Flex fighters’ committed resistance toward a totalitarian government.
We observe the masses controlled through the smartmark as they are instructed to track down the fighters. And while the brainwashed search commences, the autocratic leader says that “order has finally been established” in the city and that “no child will have to fear for their safety again.”
Order. Safety. From chaos. That’s a euphemism for complete and utter control of each and every individual.
And yet, perhaps a warning and message to the viewer, the resistance fights back with one fighter saying, “People think smartmarks are brand new tech that will improve their lives. They don’t know they’re being tricked.”
Given the above, was the episode more of a warning than predictive programming, or a combination based on the high likelihood that any attempt to microchip the masses will undoubtedly evoke a degree of militant resistance?
Why we are shown future plans
Often, institutions that aim to influence the public on a global scale openly write about and discuss their plans. For example, the World Economic Forum and The Rockefeller Foundation constantly publish articles and reports about their ambitious goals.
Indeed, a major motivation is to stimulate support from the public, particularly the youth and the activists among them. But, perhaps, they are also testing to see how easily—or otherwise—the American people will accept and comply with their vision?
Before any of these institutions emerged to script their plans, the Founding Fathers had already given we, the people a toolkit of guidelines and principles—that these tools ought to be used to create our vision for a united America, in which an individual has certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Read More

COVID Mandates Are Being Lifted But Still Continue—End The “National Emergency”

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
While many companies, including banks and airlines, are dropping mandates involving COVID inoculations, the fight for bodily autonomy persists elsewhere, including the armed forces.
As an adult, we learn to take full responsibility for our actions and take ownership of our livelihood. As a parent, we take responsibility for raising and providing for our children and protecting them from harm’s way. And that includes whatever substance we allow into our and their God-given bodies. Indeed, bodily autonomy is sacred. It is arguably one of those “certain unalienable Rights” endowed by our Creator.
In the last two years, many states in America experienced highly coercive and authoritarian enforcement of the COVID “vaccine,” “shot” or “jab,” particularly among the federal, military, corporate, medical and academic sectors.
It would be an understatement to suggest that many Americans thought their community had transformed into a police state. But there was pushback by those who championed personal liberty—to assert one’s right as a sovereign human being, as a member of “we, the people,” and not as a property of the state.
And here is an fascinating statistic: while 60 to 70 percent of people in Canada and many European nations have received an additional COVID shot following the two-dose protocol, only 33 percent of the U.S. population have received a booster dose as of September 20.
Many companies are rolling back COVID mandates
Now, a number of large corporations have dropped their mandate.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has reportedly lifted all COVID-related requirements. The global financial institution will no longer require its employees to be jabbed or tested and wear face masks to enter most offices. However, unjabbed workers in New York City (NYC) will still need an approved religious or medical exemption to enter office spaces.
Moreover, JPMorgan Chase & Co. also changed its policy in March, stating they will hire unjabbed individuals again.
According to an announcement on Cisco Systems, Inc.’s website in June, the worldwide leader in IT and networking has ceased to require inoculated employees for “office entry, travel, event attendance, or visiting customers, partners, and other third parties.”

The reasons behind these decisions are arguably multifactorial, perhaps in response to an updated “guidance” from federal health officials or a potential staff shortage.

“*” indicates required fields

Jeff Levin-Scherz, a population health leader & Assistant Professor at Harvard Chan School of Public Health, reasons these companies “decided that the rationale for [mandates] had become weak enough that they don’t want to continue.”
Erin Grau is the co-founder & COO of Charter, a media company focused on transforming every workplace to “catalyze a new era of dynamic organizations where all workers thrive.” According to Axios, she states there is an effort by executives to reduce any barriers to entry for new hires. Furthermore, the COVID-related requirements are reportedly expensive and time-consuming for employers. Frankly, it’s one big unnecessary hassle.

And to this end, here’s a shoutout to the folks in the Big Apple. In late September, it was reported that private businesses in NYC could stop demanding that their employees be jabbed, starting in early November. Instead, the private sector companies will be permitted to establish their own “vaccine” policies. However, this new rule doesn’t apply to city workers, who will still need to show evidence of inoculation to contribute to the economy.
Some clinics and airlines have (sort of) followed suit

Such a policy change occurred as several hospitals dealt with ongoing labor shortages and increased labor costs. For example, a Mercer Healthcare industry leader told CBS12 News, “Even a loss of a few people in healthcare today is much more problematic than it’s ever been. The industry is having a heck of a time dealing with turnover.” Indeed, for some, the COVID shots mandate could be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”

It’s a numbers game. The more people refuse to comply with such invasive rules, the less likely it’s possible for any federal-based or private-based company to enforce these coercive policies. Such institutions can keep terminating employment or push workers aside with unpaid leave—but practically speaking, for how many and for how long?
In mid-March, the Wall Street Journal reported that United Airlines would allow employees who hadn’t received the COVID shots to return to work. This policy change came after roughly 4 percent, or 2,200 workers with an exemption on medical or religious grounds, had been placed on unpaid leave.

A reported drop in new cases, hospitalizations and loosening of masking requirements across the U.S. seemed to “suggest that the pandemic is beginning to meaningfully recede,” according to the airline’s president of human resources.
With all that said, new employees will still be required to show proof of inoculation if they want to work at United Airlines.
Fast forward to early September, and Hawaii Airlines announced it would be lifting its requirement for roughly 200 employees who declined to be jabbed. In addition, unlike United Airlines, workers who resigned or were terminated because they refused the shots—fewer than a hundred—can apply to return to Hawaii Airlines.
Federal contractor COVID mandate dropped
Since mid-August, the federal government has suspended the process of requiring proof of inoculation for federal employees. The “Safer Federal Workforce Task Force” guidance states that it “will take no action to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to Executive Order 14043.”
Such policy changes don’t just happen without a good, legal fight by concerned citizens. According to a statement released by the Liberty Counsel in mid-September:
[T]he Biden administration will no longer implement or enforce Executive Order [EO] 14042, which directed federal agencies to require federal contractors and subcontractors to mandate that their employees receive the COVID-19 shot.
This announcement came after a recent decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Thus, the process of requiring jabbed employees in new federal contracts has been dropped. And for contracts containing clauses through EO 14042, the federal government will take no action to enforce the clauses “absent further written notice from the agency.”
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver was extremely articulate, and said:
Joe Biden and the federal government have clearly overstepped their authority in demanding a COVID shot mandate for federal contractors…it’s time for the Biden administration to respect individual rights to decide what to inject in their bodies and to comply with the law.
Exactly. About time.
But not all companies are giving up on the mandate
Despite the updated “guidance” by the federal government, many companies are holding on to the jab mandate. According to Axios Seattle, multinational companies such as Google, Edelman and Facebook continue to require that employees who enter the office are inoculated.
As much as Americans are often divided along partisan lines, it seems that America is becoming split between businesses that require “Mandatory (With Exemptions)” and “Not Mandatory” COVID shots.
This potential rupture in the United States must be prevented by sustained public noncompliance and grassroots creation of businesses that support like-minded individuals, and pushback through the legal system.
Republicans urge an end to COVID mandate for military
A group of forty-seven members of Congress are insisting the Secretary of the Department of Defense, Lloyd Austin, revoke the COVID shots mandate for all service members, civilian personnel and contractors. Austin is also being urged to reinstate the position of Americans discharged for noncompliance.
A mid-September letter to Austin was co-led by Republican U.S. Reps. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Chip Roy of Texas and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. The letter questions the potential consequences of recruitment shortages by highlighting data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
As a result of your mandate, eight percent of the Army’s approximately 1 million soldiers face expulsion, Army recruiters cannot meet their FY22 [Fiscal Year 2022] target, and the Army has cut its projected FY23 end strength by 12,000 soldiers…At the very end of the fiscal year, the Army has only met 52% of its FY22 recruiting goal. How will it recruit another 75,000 troops beyond its annual target to account for vaccine-related discharges?
Indeed, over forty percent of men aged 18 to 24 years old have refused the COVID shots. In the Southern United States, an area responsible for enlisting half of the U.S. military, that proportion is over fifty percent, automatically disqualifying the majority “in the most fertile recruiting grounds.”
Again, it’s a numbers game. The more people refuse the COVID shots—initially mandated last year under the Emergency Use Authorization law when not Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved—the less likely such rules can endure for practical reasons.
Marine Corps will stop enforcing the mandate on religious grounds
A day before the letter was sent to Austin, the U.S. Marine Corps issued an administrative order stating it “will not enforce any order to accept COVID-19 vaccination, administratively separate, or retaliate against Marines in the class for asserting statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
The order declared that a U.S. Federal District Court in Florida issued a preliminary injunction in mid-August “prohibiting the Marine Corps from taking certain actions” against service members seeking religious exemption.
Moreover, the order states that “no orders will be given to receive the vaccine, no counselings will be issued for refusing the vaccine, no administrative separation boards will be conducted,” and that no discharges will be issued.
Now here comes the Big But. If the Florida court order is revoked for any reason, then Marines can still be subjected to separation for refusing to be jabbed.
According to an article by the Military Times in April, at least 1,968 Marine Corps have been discharged. To put this number into perspective, the Department of Defense has reported that over 1.9 million service members in the military have been “fully vaccinated” since mid-September.
The idea of being a lawful citizen and member of the armed forces who trust their government, while simultaneously resisting a mandate issued by that same government they’ve agreed to serve, can seem contradictory. And it’s right here, where an intrinsic belief in those “certain inalienable rights” can protect our personal freedom—and the freedom of future generations.
Yet Biden says “pandemic is over”
Friday, March 13, 2020. That infamous date when the Trump administration declared a “National Emergency” concerning the reported outbreak of a “Novel Coronavirus Disease.” Little did most people know how the next two years would unravel. Then, in February of this year, the Biden administration issued a “Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency” concerning that very same outbreak.
Fast forward to late September, and appointed President Biden says the “pandemic is over” during an interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes.
Well, isn’t that shocking? Should the reported pandemic be “over,” then Biden must end the national emergencies that have given the federal government additional powers to supposedly fight the “Novel Coronavirus Disease” over the last two years.
But if anything, the Biden administration has extended the public health emergency linked to the initial COVID declaration; this has been used to justify expanding Medicaid and the recent “student debt forgiveness,” arguably a tactic to lure votes in the upcoming midterm elections.
Continuing this alleged emergency has allowed the federal government to bypass Congress and execute the next plan on the Biden administration’s to-do list—a complete rejection of the constitutional separation of powers.
President Biden, if the reported COVID pandemic is over, then it’s time to end the “National Emergency.” Right. Now.

Read More

Pfizer Stock Hits A High After President Biden Screams “We Beat Pharma!”

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
In early September, the sitting president of the United States yelled, “we beat Pharma this year!” during a Labor Day speech in Milwaukee. This announcement comes after the Biden administration enabled the pharmaceutical industry to profit billions in dollars by (until recently) enforcing “vaccine” mandates on federal employees and contractors.
Once again, Joe Biden, the appointed 46th president belted out during a speech in Pittsburgh: “I have been fighting Pharma for my entire career, my entire career, and we finally beat Pharma!”
Biden, who accepted $1 million from pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. for his inauguration, now claims “we finally beat Pharma.” In an attempt to read between the lines, we might want to note that Pfizer reported a record-high sales of $27.7 billion for the second quarter in late July—that’s an increase of 47 percent from the same period last year—by driving the COVID “vaccine” and antiviral drug Paxlovid.
Now let’s not forget that during this year’s State of the Union address, Biden called on Congress to give the federal health insurance program, Medicare, the authority to negotiate lowering drug prescription prices, as mentioned in the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan FACT-SHEET published by the White House in April 2021.
And then there’s the Ensuring Innovation Act, a law passed through the Senate with unanimous, bipartisan support. It was developed to help prevent pharmaceutical manufacturers from making minor adjustments to raise drug prices, and supportgeneric and biosimilar drugs instead of branded drugs.
A bill of higher implication for the pharmaceutical industry might be The Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law in mid-August. It now allows the U.S. government to negotiate prices on prescription drugs and place a cap at $2,000 per year for people on the Medicare program.
But all in all, it’s hard to imagine Big Pharma’s lobbying efforts diminishing. Indeed, according to a STAT analysis, “seventy-two senators and 302 members of the House of Representatives cashed a check from the pharmaceutical industry ahead of the 2020 election.” Such donations were divided between the Democratic and Republican party, with the former receiving $6.6 million and the latter obtaining $7.1 million.

“*” indicates required fields

Here’s what happened after Biden yelled “we beat Pharma”
Less than a day after the 46th president screamed “we beat Pharma” in multiple speeches on Labor Day, Pfizer’s stock price spiked. A leading authoritative source for stock market information, Stocks Register, reported that:
Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE) price is hovering higher on Tuesday, September 06, jumping 0.61% above its previous close…Staying with the analyst view, there is a consensus estimate of $100.41 billion for the company’s annual revenue in 2022. Per this projection, the revenue is forecast to grow 23.50% above that which the company brought in 2022.
Indeed, Biden’s announcement is bewildering, given the current administration’s efforts to inject nearly every American with the COVID “vaccines” developed by pharmaceutical giants Pfizer, Moderna, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

For instance, Moderna reportedly earned $12.2 billion net income in 2021, with the majority of this total driven by the COVID “vaccine” or “shot” production. According to the company’s report released in late February:
Total revenue was $18.5 billion for the full year 2021, compared to $803 million in 2020. Total revenue increased in 2021, primarily due to commercial sales of the Company’s COVID-19 vaccine. Product sales for the full year 2021 were $17.7 billion from sales of 807 million doses of the Company’s COVID-19 vaccine.
A Bloomberg analysis released in April showed that J&J’s Janssen sales for its COVID shots amounted to $23.4 billion, “narrowly missing the average estimate.” It adds that J&J maintained its “operational profit and sales forecast and boosted its quarterly dividend to $1.13 a share from $1.06.”

In fact, J&J’s Chief Financial Officer, Joseph Wolk, said that he hopes that suspending the 2022 “vaccine guidance” for the sales of its COVID shots will convince investors that the company’s COVID-related production isn’t central to the business.
So, business keeps chugging ahead. New infections. New diseases. New needs. New inoculations. How can such a business model fail to reproduce and reinvent itself?
Perhaps Biden can clarify what he meant by “we beat Pharma.”
Pharmaceutical profits and expenditure

On a different note, the United States is also leading in pharmaceutical expenditure compared to other nations that are part of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
According to an article published by Statista, a company specializing in consumer data, Americans spent, on average, up to $1,376 worth of medications in 2019. This cost is still 47 percent higher than its biggest spending competitor, Germany.
On insurance, the article continues to add:
Government and government-mandated insurance covered 55 percent of total pharmaceutical spending across OECD nations, with the share as high as 80 percent in Germany and France. That number was 70 percent in the United States.
If that weren’t enough, U.S. pharmaceutical giants are projected to make the following 2022 sales, starting with Pfizer at a swooping $67.4 billion, followed by blazing AbbVie ($58.4 billion), J&J ($55.2 billion), and of course, more modest earnings by Bristol-Myers Squibb ($49.1 billion) and Merck & Co. ($45.1 billion).
So yes, Biden should really clarify what he meant by “we beat Pharma.”
Sponsored by Big Pharma?
In mid-October 2021, investigative journalist Whitney Webb tweeted a compilation video highlighting several mainstream U.S. news channels such as CNN, CNBC, NBCand ABC as being sponsored by—Pfizer. In addition to Fox News, all these channels have pushed for Americans to receive the COVID shots, and the likes of CNN have even expressed support for mandates.
Just a few examples:

CNBC tweeted a news article praising Pfizer for its technological achievements concerning the COVID mRNA shots. However, at the end of the tweet, the caption reads, “Paid Post for @pfizer.”
A television skit delivered by late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel on the mRNA shots was sponsored by “@Moderna_tx #SponsoredByModerna.”

By funding entertainment and news programs, Big Pharma might have more intentions than simply increasing mass inoculation rates. But while the pharmaceutical industry pays mainstream news networks to receive favorable coverage for its products, it’s a very different case for those who have tried to raise awareness about potential “vaccine” injuries.
Consider the case of teenager Maddie de Garay, who experienced severe symptoms after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot in a trial.
By October 2021, the Vaccine Safety Research Association had prepared an advertisement to raise awareness about de Garay’s injuries. It was initially accepted for broadcast by Comcast telecommunications conglomerate and was scheduled to air during the Saturday Night Live broadcast, and Meet the Press. But the 30-second video featuring de Gray was pulled just a day after its approval.
At this stage, is it surprising to learn that Comcast is the owner of NBCUniversal Media, L.L.C., which just so happens to be the parent company of NBC and CNBC?
Come again, President Biden?

Read More

California Takes the Lead in Electric Car Mandate—How Will the Rest of America Respond?

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
California. “Whether it’s the beautiful sun-kissed beaches and parks, or the long roads and mountains, the Golden State is sure to amaze you.” That’s usually how the state is promoted to the rest of the country for tourism (and the world for that matter.)
California is also home to one of the most strictest laws in the United States—be it the COVID lockdown, driving under the influence, speeding and reckless driving or gun usage.
In late August, California announced it would ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. However, a week later, the state asked its residents to stop charging their electric vehicles (EVs) to conserve energy amid a grueling heatwave. So, given such a scenario more than a decade later, are all Californians meant to pause mass transportation?
This new rule, which Washington and Massachusetts also plan to follow under the guidelines enacted by The California Air Resources Board, might reduce U.S. sovereignty due to increased reliance on China, which has the largest market for the resources necessary to build EVs in the first place.
Impact on lower and middle-income earners

Read More


Search without Big Brother Watching


Subscribe to
Treat yourself to current Conservative News and Commentary conveniently delivered all in one place, right to your computer doorstep.

Pin It on Pinterest