Greenwald Warns: A New Domestic War On Terror Is Coming

The focus on the 9/11 war on terror was radical Islamic militants. The 1/6 war on terror pivots internally to declare conservative Americans as domestic terrorists. Will the current Administration refocus the Intelligence and military communities against American citizens? There are already a chorus of calls to do just that. ⁃ TN Editor

The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting “terrorism” that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. This trend shows no sign of receding as we move farther from the January 6 Capitol riot. The opposite is true: it is intensifying.

We have witnessed an orgy of censorship from Silicon Valley monopolies with calls for far more aggressive speech policing, a visibly militarized Washington, D.C. featuring a non-ironically named “Green Zone,” vows from the incoming president and his key allies for a new anti-domestic terrorism bill, and frequent accusations of “sedition,” “treason,” and “terrorism” against members of Congress and citizens. This is all driven by a radical expansion of the meaning of “incitement to violence.” It is accompanied by viral-on-social-media pleas that one work with the FBI to turn in one’s fellow citizens (See Something, Say Something!) and demands for a new system of domestic surveillance.

Underlying all of this are immediate insinuations that anyone questioning any of this must, by virtue of these doubts, harbor sympathy for the Terrorists and their neo-Nazi, white supremacist ideology. Liberals have spent so many years now in a tight alliance with neocons and the CIA that they are making the 2002 version of John Ashcroft look like the President of the (old-school) ACLU.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security website, touting a trademarked phrase licensed to it in 2010 by the City of New York, urging citizens to report “suspicious activity” to the FBI and other security state agencies

The more honest proponents of this new domestic War on Terror are explicitly admitting that they want to model it on the first one. A New York Times reporter noted on Monday that a “former intelligence official on PBS NewsHour” said “that the US should think about a ‘9/11 Commission’ for domestic extremism and consider applying some of the lessons from the fight against Al Qaeda here at home.” More amazingly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal — for years head of Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and the commander of the war in Afghanistan — explicitly compared that war to this new one, speaking to Yahoo News:

I did see a similar dynamic in the evolution of al-Qaida in Iraq, where a whole generation of angry Arab youth with very poor prospects followed a powerful leader who promised to take them back in time to a better place, and he led them to embrace an ideology that justified their violence. This is now happening in America….I think we’re much further along in this radicalization process, and facing a much deeper problem as a country, than most Americans realize.”

Anyone who, despite all this, still harbors lingering doubts that the Capitol riot is and will be the neoliberal 9/11, and that a new War on Terror is being implemented in its name, need only watch the two short video clips below, which will clear their doubts for good. It is like being catapulted by an unholy time machine back to Paul Wolfowitz’s 2002 messaging lab.

The first video, flagged by Tom Elliott, is from Monday morning’s Morning Joe program on MSNBC (the show that arguably did more to help Donald Trump become the GOP nominee than any other). It features Jeremy Bash — one of the seemingly countless employees of TV news networks who previously worked in Obama’s CIA and Pentagon — demanding that, in response to the Capitol riot, “we reset our entire intelligence approach,” including “look[ing] at greater surveillance of them,” adding: “the FBI is going to have to run confidential sources.” See if you detect any differences between what CIA operatives and neocons were saying in 2002 when demanding the Patriot Act and greater FBI and NSA surveillance and what this CIA-official-turned-NBC-News-analyst is saying here:

The second video features the amazing declaration from former Facebook security official Alex Stamos, talking to the very concerned CNN host Brian Stelter, about the need for social media companies to use the same tactics against U.S. citizens that they used to remove ISIS from the internet — “in collaboration with law enforcement” — and that those tactics should be directly aimed at what he calls extremist “conservative influencers.”

“Press freedoms are being abused by these actors,” the former Facebook executive proclaimed. Stamos noted how generous he and his comrades have been up until now: “We have given a lot of leeway — both in the traditional media and in social media — to people with a very broad range of views.” But no more. Now is the time to “get us all back in the same consensual reality.”

In a moment of unintended candor, Stamos noted the real problem: “there are people on YouTube, for example, that have a larger audience than people on daytime CNN” — and it’s time for CNN and other mainstream outlets to seize the monopoly on information dissemination to which they are divinely entitled by taking away the platforms of those whom people actually want to watch and listen to:

(If still not convinced, and if you can endure it, you can also watch MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski literally screaming that one needed remedy to the Capitol riot is that the Biden administration must “shutdown” Facebook. Shutdown Facebook).

Calls for a War on Terror sequel — a domestic version complete with surveillance and censorship — are not confined to ratings-deprived cable hosts and ghouls from the security state. The Wall Street Journal reports that “Mr. Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them.”

Meanwhile, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) — not just one of the most dishonest members of Congress but also one of the most militaristic and authoritarian — has had a bill proposed since 2019 to simply amend the existing foreign anti-terrorism bill to allow the U.S. Government to invoke exactly the same powers at home against “domestic terrorists.”

Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new “domestic terrorism” laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because — just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws — their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.

Read full story here…




Germany Sets Up “Refugee Camps” To Hold COVID Rule Breakers

When power turns to madness, governments have no restraint in creating isolation camps for detractors, as in Germany. The Technocrat destruction of liberty, freedom and the world’s economic system is tumbling to conclusion, but will the citizens of the world mount an effective resistance? ⁃ TN Editor

Germany’s worst Covid rule breakers will be held in detention centres under new proposals being drawn up by a number of state governments.

The move forms part of the country’s efforts to stop the spread of the more contagious mutant strain of the virus detected in the UK last month.

In the eastern state of Saxony, people who ignore lockdown measures will be held in a cordoned-off part of a refugee camp being built next week.

State authorities have said the centre will only be used for those who repeatedly breach self-isolation requirements.

A similar scheme will be used in neighbouring Brandenburg, while in northerly Schleswig-Holstein rule breakers will be held in a part of a juvenile detention centre.

The southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg will reportedly use rooms in hospitals.

The country’s regional governments have powers to hold people who flout lockdown requirements under the Disease Protection Act, first passed by the federal parliament in March, Die Welt repots.

Germany won praise for its early handling of the pandemic, though has seen cases rise in recent months.

It is now seeing around 18,000 people test positive a day, and has so far recorded 47,440 deaths.

The government is also keen to avoid the spread of a mutant strain of the virus first detected in Britain in December.

The strain is thought to be up to 70 per cent more contagious than the original, and to be a contributing factor to a recent surge in cases in the UK.

Read full story here…




UK Police Commissioner Calls For Warrantless Home Invasions To Catch Lockdown Offenders

The mere talk of forcibly entering a citizen’s home without warrant or cause, is the hatch door to an outright tyrannical police state and England is leading the way. Technocrats demand obedience to the “science” that they and they alone claim to understand. Citizens are deemed ignorant and thus, must be forcibly corralled.  ⁃ TN Editor

A top police commissioner in England has called for the power for police to enter private homes without a warrant for suspected of breaches of the country’s coronavirus lockdown restrictions.

David Jamieson, the Labour Party police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands Police — the second-largest police force in the country behind London — said that officers should have the right to forcibly enter the homes of private citizens.

“For the small minority of people who refuse entry to police officers and obstruct their work, the power of entry would seem to be a useful tool,” Jamieson told The Guardian.

“I have raised this issue with the policing minister previously and clarity on the power of entry would help police officers enforce the new Covid regulations more easily,” he added.

While PCC Jamieson has come out in favour of a vast expansion of police powers to enter people’s homes for holding so-called illegal gatherings, the former Labour Party MP has opposed greater stop and search powers for police to combat the scourge of knife crime.

Presently, the police do not have the right to enter into people’s homes without a warrant or the occupant’s permission, except for emergency circumstances, such as situations in which police hear cries for help or to investigate a disturbance.

Police have been calling on the government to increase their ability to carry out invasive searches since the start of the lockdown regime, with the Police Federation of England and Wales first calling for the ability to enter homes without warrants in April.

Responding to the call from the police commissioner, Brexit leader Nigel Farage said: “Before Covid, an Englishman’s home was his castle. Not any longer! Our liberties are being destroyed.”

As England officially enters another national lockdown on Wednesday, police in London have also warned that people in the British capital are more likely to face fines for breaching the lockdown restrictions.

In a statement, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) said that officers have been told to “issue fines more quickly to anyone committing obvious, willful and serious breaches”.

The police force said that anyone who attends “parties, unlicensed music events or large illegal gatherings” will be subject to fines from the police, rather than just those who organise the events, as was previously the case.

“Similarly, those not wearing masks where they should be and without good reason can expect to be fined — not reasoned with,” the statement added.

The MPS continued to warn that with the reduction of “reasonable excuses” for people to leave their homes, Londoners should expect officers to “be more inquisitive as to why they see them out and about”.

Read full story here…




Is ‘The Storming Of The Capitol’ America’s Reichstag Fire?

History buffs will find many similarities between Germany’s famous Reichstag Fire and the so-called “storming of the Capitol” in Washington, DC. When viewed in light of Technocracy’s coup d’etat, it might help clarify what’s ahead in 2021. ⁃ TN Editor

The media are already spinning a narrative around the events in Washington DC. One that bears no resemblance to reality, does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny and will have massive, far-reaching consequences for all of us.

They’re calling it “one of the darkest days in our nations history”, a day that will “live in infamy”. It will likely be memed into a shorthand date – 1/6/21, like 9/11 and 7/7. It will be the day “American democracy was attacked and prevailed”, the day the nation nearly fell to “fascists”.

It will become just one more grand sweeping illusion upon which the teetering structures of US Imperial power are built.

The story we are being told goes as follows:

Yesterday, as congress was preparing to pass the vote endorsing Joe Biden’s election victory, thousands of violent right-wing thugs stormed the Capitol building.

Acting according to Trump’s wishes, and with his endorsement, these domestic terrorists overran the police barricades in an attempt to overthrow the senate and preserve Trump’s presidency.

Fortunately the police were able to secure the situation, drive the violent rioters out and the democratic process was able to continue.

Not one single part of this story is true:

  • There was no “storming”
  • There was no “incitement”
  • There was no “violence”
  • And the riot effectively ended Trump’s presidency.

Let’s tackle them one at a time.

* * *

1. There was no “storming”. Rather videos show police opening barriers to let the “rioters” in.

In the entrance hall, the “violent thugs” respected the velvet ropes and kept in orderly lines, took a few selfies with the copsposed for the press and – when the main events were over – they were quietly allowed to leave.

Compare and contrast the police’s treatment of those people inside the capitol, with their later treatment of protesters breaking curfew on the streets.

2. There was no “incitement”. All of Trump’s social media posts on the subject instructed people to “go home” “with peace and love”.

Is that inciting violence?

Twitter and facebook took the totally unprecedented step of completely removing those posts, and blocked him posting any further. They claimed to be preventing further violence, but it looks more like they concealed Trump’s denunciations of violence.

3. There was no violence. Indeed whether or not Trump “incited” anything is moot, because there was no violence. Disregard the reports of chemical weapons, pipe bombs or IEDs – none of which ever appeared. None of the “rioters” are as yet shown to have hurt anyone.

The only person reportedly killed or injured was a protester allegedly shot by the police. Compare and contrast the attitude of the media to this “violence”, vs the “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests all last summer.

4. The riot ended Trump’s presidency. Although the Congressional session was widely described in the press as the “confirmation vote” for Joe Biden’s election victory, it was actually rather more than that.

VP Mike Pence was chairing a joint-session which intended to allow full speeches from those opposing the election and maintaining there had been fraud.

The violence brought this session to an end prematurely, totally undermined Trump’s legal and procedural challenges and killed any chance he had of overturning the electrical college vote. No sooner was the “attack” over, than many of the Republicans in both houses who were planning to oppose Biden’s election backed-down

More than that, it seems Trump’s “incitement” of the rioters means he may well be removed from office by enforcement of the 25th amendment, which would end not just this term, but make it illegal for him to run again in the future.

Facebook and Twitter have outright banned him from posting. The press and television pundits are openly accusing him of treason and sedition.

So, who has really benefitted from the “chaos at the Capitol”? Because it surely isn’t Donald Trump.

One should always be wary of any event which “accidentally” achieves the exact opposite of its stated or apparent intent.

* * *

In the title, I refer to this as America’s Reichstag fire, and that’s not just emotive language, the parallels are pretty clear: A staged attack on a political building, deliberately misattributed to political enemies and used to consolidate the power of a freshly installed leader.

Even the media coverage is similar, the Nazi government and their tools in the press talked about it in the same exact terms as the US establishment is describing this farcical “coup attempt”. Aiming to terrify people into thinking they were on the verge of an all-out civil war.

Read this quote, and ask yourself if it couldn’t be lifted almost completely from the front page of the Washington Post or New York Times today:

The burning of the Reichstag was intended to be the signal for a bloody uprising and civil war. Large-scale pillaging in Berlin was planned for as early as four o’clock in the morning on Tuesday. It has been determined that starting today throughout Germany acts of terrorism were to begin against prominent individuals, against private property, against the lives and safety of the peaceful population, and general civil war was to be unleashed…

Within 24 hours of the Reichstag burning, the German President had passed the Reichstag Fire Decree, which declared a state of emergency that totally reversed every civil right the Weimar Republic had guaranteed its citizens:

Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications.

While these freedoms have already been severely undermined in the US by the Patriot Act and its successors, those few rights left to American citizens will definitely be under threat once Trump is finally removed and Biden (or Harris) is put in his place.

Although there is not yet any talk of legislation, it’s certainly true there are whispers of purges and other measures to “protect the constitution”.

Some prominent voices are calling for all lawmakers backing Trump to be expelled from office. The Washington Post claimed “seditious Republicans must be held accountable”.

The anti-social media campaign has begun again in earnest too, with Parler and GAB already being blamed for allowing “violent language” on their platforms.

As Twitter and Facebook limit discussion, alternative platforms will be shutdown. Enforcing a corporate monopoly that cooperates with the state…the very definition of fascism.

All this in the name of protecting the nation from “neo-nazi thugs” or “white supremacists” or other phantom threats. In the name of “protecting the constitution”, they are tearing it to pieces. In the name of “preventing a coup”, they are carrying one out in front of our eyes.

It puts in mind Huey Long’s famous quote when asked if fascism would ever come to America:

Sure, we’ll have Fascism in this country and we’ll call it anti-Fascism.”

Read full story here…




U.S. Airlines: No Test, No Fly

Every major airline on earth is now on board with some type of certification that flyers are not infected with the coronavirus. By the end of 2021, “your papers please” will be the most commonly heard phrase before you board your flight. ⁃ TN Editor

A group representing major U.S. airlines on Monday backed a proposal by public health officials to implement a global testing program requiring negative tests before most international air passengers return to the United States, according to a letter seen by Reuters.

Airlines for America, which represents American Airlines , United Airlines, Delta Air Lines and other major carriers, also urged the Trump administration in a letter to Vice President Mike Pence “to move ahead with recommendations to rescind current entry restrictions on travelers from Europe, the United Kingdom and Brazil as soon as possible … concurrently with the testing program.”

In November, Reuters reported that the White House was considering rescinding restrictions that ban most non U.S. citizens from traveling to the United States from the 26 members of the Schengen area that allow travel across open borders in Europe, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Brazil.

“We believe a well-planned program focused on increasing testing of travelers to the United States will further these objectives in a much more effective way than the blanket travel restrictions currently in place,” the airlines’ letter said.

Airlines support a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) proposal to implement “a global program to require testing for travelers to the United States,” the letter added.

A senior administration official said the CDC proposal to expand international testing requirements faces significant opposition at top levels of the administration, including in Pence’s office. The White House coronavirus task force is expected to meet Tuesday and the issue is scheduled to be discussed, officials said.

Read full story here…




NY State Proposes Detention Centers For Citizens Who Are ‘Potentially Dangerous To The Public Health’

This 2021 bill in New York State has just been filed and has not yet passed but it appears to have support. If legislated, it will be the first instance of state-authorized detention centers for anyone who is deemed to be “potentially dangerous to the public health.”

This means that the state can forcibly remove you from society if it believes you are a risk to public health. It would be an open-ended invitation to full-blown Technocrat tyranny. ⁃ TN Editor

S T A T E  O F  N E W  Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

416

2021-2022 Regular Sessions

I N A S S E M B L Y

(PREFILED)

January 6, 2021
___________

Introduced by M. of A. PERRY — read once and referred to the Committee  on Health

AN ACT to amend the public health law, in relation to the removal of cases, contacts and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public health

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

§ 2120-A. REMOVAL AND DETENTION OF CASES, CONTACTS AND CARRIERS WHO ARE OR MAY BE A DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH; OTHER ORDERS. 1. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE UTILIZED IN THE EVENT THAT THE GOVERNOR DECLARES A STATE OF HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO AN EPIDEMIC OF ANY COMMUNICABLE DISEASE.

2. UPON DETERMINING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE HEALTH OF OTHERS IS OR MAY BE ENDANGERED BY A CASE, CONTACT OR CARRIER, OR SUSPECTED CASE, CONTACT OR CARRIER OF A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE THAT, IN THE OPINION OF THE GOVERNOR, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER, MAY POSE AN IMMINENT AND SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESULTING IN SEVERE MORBIDITY OR HIGH MORTALITY, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE COMMISSIONER OR THE HEADS OF LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, MAY ORDER THE REMOVAL AND/OR DETENTION OF SUCH A PERSON OR OF A GROUP OF SUCH PERSONS BY ISSUING A SINGLE ORDER, IDENTIFYING SUCH PERSONS EITHER BY NAME OR BY A REASONABLY SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUP BEING DETAINED. SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HERDELEGEE AND COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION.

3. A PERSON OR GROUP REMOVED OR DETAINED BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE DETAINED FOR SUCH PERIOD AND IN SUCH MANNER AS THE DEPARTMENT MAY DIRECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION.

4. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY INCONSISTENT PROVISION OF THIS SECTION:

A) A CONFIRMED CASE OR A CARRIER WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT SUCH PERSON IS NO LONGER CONTAGIOUS.

(B) A SUSPECTED CASE OR SUSPECTED CARRIER WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES, WITH THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE, THAT SUCH PERSON IS NOT INFECTED WITH OR HAS NOT BEEN EXPOSED TO SUCH A DISEASE, OR IF INFECTED WITH OR EXPOSED TO SUCH A DISEASE, NO LONGER IS OR WILL BECOME CONTAGIOUS.

(C) A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION AS A CONTACT OF A CONFIRMED CASE OR A CARRIER SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS NOT INFECTED WITH THE DISEASE OR THAT SUCH CONTACT NO LONGER PRESENTS A POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE HEALTH OF OTHERS.

(D) A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION AS A CONTACT OF A SUSPECTED CASE SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED:

(I) AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES, WITH THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE, THAT THE SUSPECTED CASE WAS NOT INFECTED WITH SUCH A DISEASE, OR WAS NOT CONTAGIOUS AT THE TIME THE CONTACT WAS EXPOSED TO SUCH INDIVIDUAL; OR

(II) AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE CONTACT NO LONGER PRESENTS A POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE HEALTH OF OTHERS.

5. A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL, AS IS APPROPRIATE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES:

(A) HAVE HIS OR HER MEDICAL CONDITION AND NEEDS ASSESSED AND ADDRESSED ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND

(B) BE DETAINED IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH RECOGNIZED ISOLATION AND INFECTION CONTROL PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE LIKELIHOOD OF TRANSMISSION OF INFECTION TO SUCH PERSON AND TO OTHERS.

6. WHEN A PERSON OR GROUP IS ORDERED TO BE DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING THREE BUSINESS DAYS, SUCH PERSON OR MEMBER OF SUCH GROUP SHALL, UPON REQUEST, BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. IF A PERSON OR GROUP DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION NEEDS TO BE DETAINED BEYOND THREE BUSINESS DAYS, THEY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN  ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER’S ORDER PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISIONS TWO AND EIGHT OF THIS SECTION.

7. WHEN A PERSON OR GROUP IS ORDERED TO BE DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING THREE BUSINESS DAYS, AND SUCH PERSON OR MEMBER OF SUCH GROUP REQUESTS RELEASE, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE SHALL MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR A COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING SUCH DETENTION WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SUCH REQUEST BY THE END OF THE FIRST BUSINESS DAY FOLLOWING SUCH SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY, WHICH APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING. AFTER ANY SUCH REQUEST FOR RELEASE, DETENTION SHALL NOT CONTINUE FOR MORE THAN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS IN THE ABSENCE OF A COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING DETENTION. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS, IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY PERSON BE DETAINED FOR MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS WITHOUT A COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING SUCH DETENTION. THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE SHALL SEEK FURTHER COURT REVIEW OF SUCH DETENTION WITHIN NINETY DAYS FOLLOWING THE INITIAL COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING DETENTION AND THERE AFTER WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF EACH SUBSEQUENT COURT REVIEW. IN ANY COURT PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE FOR THE REMOVAL OR DETENTION OF A PERSON OR GROUP ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION OR FOR REVIEW OF THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF A PERSON OR GROUP, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE SHALL PROVE THE PARTICULARIZED CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTING THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH DETENTION BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

8. (A) A COPY OF ANY DETENTION ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE ISSUED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO EACH DETAINED INDIVIDUAL; HOWEVER, IF THE ORDER APPLIES TO A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS AND IT IS IMPRACTICAL TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL COPIES, IT MAY BE POSTED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE IN THE DETENTION PREMISES. ANY DETENTION ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER ISSUED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL SET FORTH:

(I) THE PURPOSE OF THE DETENTION AND THE LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THE ORDER IS ISSUED, INCLUDING THE PARTICULAR SECTIONS OF THIS ARTICLE OR OTHER LAW OR REGULATION;

(II) A DESCRIPTION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND/OR BEHAVIOR OF THE DETAINED PERSON OR GROUP CONSTITUTING THE BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER;

(III) THE LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE ATTEMPTED AND WERE UNSUCCESSFUL AND/OR THE LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE CONSIDERED AND REJECTED, AND THE REASONS SUCH ALTERNATIVES WERE REJECTED;

(IV) A NOTICE ADVISING THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO REQUEST RELEASE FROM DETENTION, AND INCLUDING INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW SUCH REQUEST SHALL BE MADE;

(V) A NOTICE ADVISING THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL AND THAT UPON REQUEST OF SUCH PERSON OR GROUP ACCESS TO COUNSEL WILL BE FACILITATED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; AND

(VI) A NOTICE ADVISING THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THEY MAY SUPPLY THE ADDRESSES AND/OR TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF FRIENDS AND/OR RELATIVES TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF THE PERSON’S DETENTION, AND THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL, AT THE DETAINED PERSON’S REQUEST AND TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, PROVIDE NOTICE TO A REASONABLE NUMBER OF SUCH PEOPLE THAT THE PERSON IS BEING DETAINED.

(B) IN ADDITION, AN ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISIONS TWO AND SEVEN OF THIS SECTION, REQUIRING THE DETENTION OF A PERSON OR GROUP FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING THREE BUSINESS DAYS, SHALL:

(I) ADVISE THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THE DETENTION SHALL NOT CONTINUE FOR MORE THAN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER A REQUEST FOR RELEASE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF A COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING SUCH DETENTION;

(II) ADVISE THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY REQUEST RELEASE FROM DETENTION, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE MUST OBTAIN A COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING DETENTION WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FOLLOWING THE COMMENCEMENT OF DETENTION AND THEREAFTER MUST FURTHER SEEK COURT REVIEW OF THE DETENTION WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF SUCH COURT ORDER AND WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF EACH SUBSEQUENT COURT REVIEW; AND (III) ADVISE THE PERSON OR GROUP BEING DETAINED THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT LEGAL COUNSEL BE PROVIDED, THAT UPON SUCH REQUEST COUNSEL SHALL BE PROVIDED IF AND TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THAT IF COUNSEL IS SO PROVIDED, THAT SUCH COUNSEL WILL BE NOTIFIED THAT THE PERSON OR GROUP HAS REQUESTED LEGAL REPRESENTATION.

9. A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES, SHALL NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A DISORDERLY MANNER, AND SHALL NOT LEAVE OR ATTEMPT TO LEAVE SUCH FACILITY OR PREMISES UNTIL HE OR SHE IS DISCHARGED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.

10. WHERE NECESSARY AND FEASIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND PERSONS SKILLED IN COMMUNICATING WITH VISION AND HEARING IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS SHALL BE PROVIDED.

11. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS PURSUANT TO § 11.21 OF THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH CODE.

12. IN ADDITION TO THE REMOVAL OR DETENTION ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION, AND WITHOUT AFFECTING OR LIMITING ANY OTHER AUTHORITY THAT THE COMMISSIONER MAY OTHERWISE HAVE, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE MAY, IN HIS OR HER DISCRETION, ISSUE AND SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER ORDERS THAT HE OR SHE DETERMINES ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO PREVENT DISSEMINATION OR TRANSMISSION OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR OTHER ILLNESSES THAT MAY POSE A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ORDERS REQUIRING ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHO ARE NOT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO BE EXCLUDED; TO REMAIN ISOLATED OR QUARANTINED AT HOME OR AT A PREMISES OF SUCH PERSON’S CHOICE THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AND FOR SUCH PERIOD AS WILL PREVENT TRANSMISSION OF THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASE OR OTHER ILLNESS; TO REQUIRE THE TESTING OR MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO OR INFECTED BY A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE OR WHO MAY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO OR CONTAMINATED WITH DANGEROUS AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS OR TOXIC CHEMICALS; TO REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO OR INFECTED BY A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE TO COMPLETE AN APPROPRIATE, PRESCRIBED COURSE OF TREATMENT, PREVENTIVE MEDICATION OR VACCINATION, INCLUDING DIRECTLY OBSERVED THERAPY TO TREAT THE DISEASE AND FOLLOW INFECTION CONTROL PROVISIONS FOR THE DISEASE; OR TO REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED WITH DANGEROUS AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS OR TOXIC CHEMICALS SUCH THAT SAID INDIVIDUAL MAY PRESENT A DANGER TO OTHERS, TO UNDERGO DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE DEPARTMENT. SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS SHALL, UPON REQUEST, BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, BUT THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISIONS TWO THROUGH ELEVEN OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT OTHERWISE APPLY.

13. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT OR REQUIRE THE FORCIBLE ADMINISTRATION OF ANY MEDICATION WITHOUT A PRIOR COURT ORDER.

§ 2. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law. Effective immediately the addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized to be made and complete on or before such date.

Read original bill here…




Brain Mapping: Technocrats Are Learning How To Decode Your Thoughts

It was former President Barack Obama who supplied hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds to kickstart the Mapping the Brain initiative by stating that it was as important as mapping the human genome. Since then, Technocrats have taken over to find dystopian ways to turn this newly discovered knowledge into a dystopian human management system. ⁃ TN Editor

Davos is a city in Switzerland, known as much for its excellent skiing as it is for hosting the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting. The meeting is formally described as “the most creative force for engaging the world’s top leaders in collaborative activities to shape the global, regional and industry agendas at the beginning of each year.”

This elite oligarchy, however, is behind a technocratic plan to govern society through technology, programmed by scientists and technicians and automated through the use of artificial intelligence, rather than through democratically elected politicians and government leaders. The video above shows snippets of the World Economic Forum’s 2016 meeting, with narrative by Truthstream Media.

It’s compared to the meetings of the secretive Bilderberg Group, created by Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands in 1954 to “foster dialogue between Europe and North America,” but unlike Bilderberg meetings — the details of which are not made public, but which have reportedly referred to protestors as “cockroaches” — WEF is an open forum that may be filmed and released to the public.

This particular discussion, therefore, is eerily polite, but that doesn’t make its content any less chilling.

Scientists scheming how to use your own thoughts against you

What if, one day in the next decade, it becomes possible to read your thoughts? The WEF panelists suggest that different ways of scanning the brain and brain mapping could be incorporated into the legal system, used by lawyers as part of trials, including against you.

Apparently, according to one of the panelists, Jack Gallant, head of The Gallant Lab at UC Berkeley, “Anything that’s in current conscious awareness can be decoded, it’s just a matter of [finding the] technologies” to do so.

If brain mapping became mainstream, it could have major applications applicable to the law, such that even if a person chooses not to confess, their brain could be tapped to do it for them. This has already occurred in India, when brain scan technology was used to criminally convict someone based on the data received from their brain, not via their spoken words.

It’s possible, for instance, to decode signals in the brain in such detail that you could reconstruct a movie a person has seen, including not only the objects and actions in the movie, but also how that person felt about the movie — whether it made them feel happy, sad or otherwise.

Already, in 2017, researchers with Japan’s ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories and Kyoto University created a program to reconstruct images from brain activity. In one example, a person saw or imagined an image of a cheetah, which led the program to reconstruct an image of a cheetah, albeit one with a dreamlike, somewhat abstract aura.

Further, every emotion you feel leaves a signature in your brain that can be “read.” Mind-reading, then, is no longer a work of science fiction. WEF cited a study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers who are using mind-reading technology to decode complex thoughts. According to WEF:

“The technology, the researchers say, is able to understand complex events, expressed as sentences, and semantic features, such as people, places and actions, to predict what types of thoughts are being contemplated. After accessing the mental triggers for 239 sentences, the program was able to predict a 240th phrase with 87% accuracy …

“Marcel Just, who is leading the research, said … ‘This advance makes it possible for the first time to decode thoughts containing several concepts. That’s what most human thoughts are composed of.’”

‘The worst possible brain decoding device’

There is currently no such thing as protection of “freedom of thought” the way there is protection for freedom of speech, and the notion of “mental privacy” isn’t even on the radar. Yet, this brain decoding technology is being slated for use against the public.

Gallant stated, “There’s a huge government program now to increase measurement technology for neuroscience … as it helps basic research so we can measure the brain better, that will have applications in brain decoding and interpretational brain function that will be applicable to the law.”

Another panelist, Brian Knutson, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Stanford, describes thoughts and feelings that you may not be able to verbalize, or may not want to verbalize, that still leave a signature in your brain. “And we might be able to decode that,” he said.

One goal, it appears, may be to decode a person’s brain even without their consent. Rana Foroohar, Time magazine’s assistant managing editor in charge of economics and business, also a panelist, said:

“If we could get to the point, where either you can have an unwilling suspect or an unwilling individual having their brain decoded in some sense … legal systems don’t bake in any presumption that we can do that and so there’s no legal protections that can be afforded to you.

“So if you look nationally, internationally at whether or not there are any human rights … if there are constitutional protections for something like freedom of thought or mental privacy or cognitive liberty, nothing like that exists yet.”

Scientists have already decoded various aspects of language, such as phonetics, syntax and semantics. From there, it’s just a matter of time before internal speech — your very thoughts and mind — can also be decoded.

“Once you have those models,” Gallant said, “you can actually decode language. Now, of course, the obvious application of that is decoding internal speech. And once you decode internal speech, then you essentially have the sort of worst possible brain decoding device, or best possible, depending on your view. Certainly, the most controversial brain decoding device.” Then the panelists laugh.

Are portable brain decoding devices a few years away?

Gallant said he believes it’s just a matter of time before there will be portable brain decoding technology that decodes language as fast as you can text on your cell phone, “Everyone will wear them, because people have shown that they’re quite willing to give up privacy for convenience.” A prototype could be here in the next decade.

While they bring up the “scary” ethical and privacy questions this raises, there’s no question of whether or not they should move forward. This is already occurring.

“Technology is about to openly bring us an era where government authorities can read people’s minds without their permission and use it against them including in court, pre-crime, thought police/thought crime and labeling people including children as potential criminals based on their brainwaves and all of this was discussed casually at Davos,” Truthstream Media noted.

In fact, Kent Kiehl, of the University of New Mexico and the MIND Research Network, has used brain scans to uncover what he believes is a specific brain signature for psychopathy. He’s also noted, “A great deal of research suggests that the core, precipitating features of psychopathy are developmental in nature, with relatively persistent traits becoming apparent before the age of 10.”

If it turns out you can decipher who may become a psychopath via brain decoding, and identify them by the age of 10 — then what?

Scientists are also trying to use brain decoding to figure out how likely it is that someone may commit a crime again, in order to influence criminal sentencing.

The WEF panel even put out a public poll to find out who people would trust with access to their thoughts and memories — government, police, your doctor, your employer, your spouse or none of them? Three percent said they would give over access to the government, compared to 25% to their spouse.

False memories can be implanted

Part of what makes brain decoding, and the use of mindreading, so terrifying is that memories can be manipulated. Elizabeth Loftus, a professor of psychology at UC Irvine, has done extensive research showing that memory is not only not reliable, but easily manipulated.

“We can easily distort memories for the details of an event that you did experience,” she told The Guardian in 2003. “And we can also go so far as to plant entirely false memories — we call them rich false memories because they are so detailed and so big.” What her decades of research have shown is that memory doesn’t always work like a recording device that simply plays back scenarios as they occurred.

“Memory works a little bit more like a Wikipedia page,” she told NPR. “You can go in there and change it, but so can other people.” False memories, then, can be implanted in people’s minds, and that’s not all.

Another area of research is pain detection — understanding the circuitries that cause pain. If that can be manipulated, it’s possible that instilling pain could also be used as a coercive measure in the legal system, the WEF panelists noted. “That’s amazing,” one of them responded.

U.S. government has history of mind control experiments

If this sounds too conspiratorial, too outlandish to be real life, consider the CIA’s top-secret MK-Ultra project, which engaged in mind control experiments, human torture and other medical studies, including how much LSD it would take to “shatter the mind and blast away consciousness.”

In decades past, the technocrats — the global, mostly unelected, elite that steer the management of nations worldwide — called for a “new world order.” Currently, terms like “the Great Reset,” “the Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “Build Back Better” are being thrown around, as fear and social control, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, grow.

All of these terms refer to the same long-term globalist agenda to dismantle democracy and national borders in favor of a global governance by unelected leaders, and the reliance on technological surveillance, i.e., brain decoding, digital “health passports” and more, rather than the rule of law to maintain public order.

The warning signs are all around us, if we’re willing to see them for what they actually are. The only question now is whether enough people are willing to resist it to make a difference.

Read full story here…




Oh Canada: No Vaccine? You’re Grounded!

The iron teeth of Technocracy are razor sharp and fully barred in Canada and beyond as extortion is revealed based on taking away basic privileges if citizens refuse to be vaccinated for COVID-19. No vaccine? You’re grounded and must continue to wear a mask. ⁃ TN Editor

Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer says that those who refuse to take the COVID vaccine won’t have “freedom to move around” and will have to continue to wear masks.

Dr. David Williams was asked if he “would make some sort of mandatory vaccination recommendation.”

Williams acknowledged that “we can’t force someone to take a vaccine,” but when on to explain how people who didn’t take it would have their freedom of mobility severely restricted.

“What we can do is to say sometimes for access or ease of getting into certain settings, if you don’t have vaccination then you’re not allowed into that setting without other protection materials,” said Williams.

“What may be mandatory is proof of…vaccination in order to have latitude and freedom to move around…without wearing other types of personal protective equipment,” he added.

Williams also suggested that people would be prevented from entering certain settings without having been vaccinated if there was a “risk.”

As we previously highlighted, governments do not have to make the vaccine mandatory, they can simply make life unlivable for people who refuse to take the vaccine.

If bars, restaurants, cinemas, sports venues, airlines, employers and others all make the vaccination a mandatory condition of service, anyone who refuses to take it will be reduced to a personal form of de facto lockdown with their social lives and mobility completely stunted.

Read full story here…




Landmark Study Finds Masks Are Ineffective

Lockdowns and mask mandates are social engineering tactics to prepare citizens for the Great Reset. In the eyes of Technocrats, you must obey their pseudo-science. The spread of COVID-19 is blamed on humans who refuse to obey, and therefore all must be further punished. ⁃ TN Editor

The first randomized controlled trial1,2 to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection specifically — which journals initially refused to publish — is finally seeing the light of day.

The so-called “Danmask-19 Trial,” published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine,3 included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study.

To qualify, participants had to spend at least three hours per day outside the home and not be required to wear a mask during their daily work. At the end of the study, participants reported having spent a median of 4.5 hours per day outside the home.

For one month, participants in the mask group were instructed to wear a mask whenever they were outside their home. Surgical face masks with a filtration rate of 98% were supplied. In accordance with recommendations from the World Health Organization, participants were instructed to change their mask after eight hours.

Antibody testing was performed before the outset and at the end of the study period. At the end of the month, they also submitted a nasal swab sample for PCR testing.

What the Danmask-19 Trial Found

The primary outcome was a positive PCR test, a positive antibody test result (IgM or IgG) during the study period, or a hospital-based diagnosis of COVID-19. Secondary end points included PCR evidence of infection with other respiratory viruses.

Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations. So, what did they find? As you might expect, there’s a reason why the researchers had such a hard time getting this study published:

  • Among mask wearers, 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.
  • 1.4% (33 participants) tested positive for antibodies compared to 1.8% (44) of controls.
  • Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% (22 participants) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% (53) of the controls.
  • 52 participants in the mask group and 39 in the control group reported COVID-19 in their household. Of these, two participants in the mask group and one in the control group developed SARS-CoV-2 infection — a finding that suggests “the source of most observed infections was outside the home.”
  • 0.5% (nine participants) in the mask group and 0.6% (11 individuals) tested positive for one or more respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 (secondary outcome).

Masks May Lower, or Raise, Infection Risk

All in all, this landmark COVID-19-specific study failed to deliver good news to those who insist face masks are a crucial component of the pandemic response. Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase your risk by 23%. In other words, the preponderance of evidence still shows that masks have virtually no impact on viral transmission.

Another take-home point that you get from this study, which Del Bigtree points out in The Highwire video report above, is that the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.

So, we are destroying economies and lives around the world, for what, exactly? To protect a small minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing. As reported by the authors:4

“Although no statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 incidence was observed, the 95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46% reduction to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers.

These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect …

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 may take place through multiple routes. It has been argued that for the primary route of SARS-CoV-2 spread — that is, via droplets — face masks would be considered effective, whereas masks would not be effective against spread via aerosols, which might penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask. Thus, spread of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols would at least partially explain the present findings …

The present findings are compatible with the findings of a review of randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of face masks for prevention (as personal protective equipment) against influenza virus …

Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon.”

Government Tyrants Double Down on Mask Mandates

The researchers point out that results could potentially turn out differently if everyone were wearing a mask. At the time of the study, Danish authorities did not recommend universal mask use and most Danes did not wear them. Hence “participants’ exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.”

That possibility, however, is a big “if,” and not sufficient to mandate universal mask wearing. Any claim to such effect is nothing but a wholly unscientific guess. Despite that, many local leaders are now doubling down on mask mandates, some even requiring them to be worn inside your own home when anyone outside the family is present and even if physical distancing can be maintained.5

As an example of extremes, a June 2020 Harvard University paper6,7 even suggested couples should wear face masks during sex. Others are tripling down on masks, recommending you wear two or even three at the same time.8 Former Food and Drug Administration commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb is urging Americans to wear N95 surgical masks whenever possible.9

Epidemic of Spineless Leadership

Missing entirely from most recommendations is common-sense health guidance known to improve your immune function and lower your infection risk naturally, such as supplementing with vitamin DNACmelatoninquercetin and zinc.

As noted by Angela Rasmussen, a virologist and affiliate of the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security, in a November 15, 2020, op-ed in The Guardian,10 our immune systems know how to handle the virus; it’s our politicians who have failed to cope with it. She writes:11

“Most of the evidence in both COVID-19 patients and animal models shows that the immune response to this is quite typical for an acute viral infection. Initially, the body ramps up high levels of IgG antibodies, but after the infection is cleared, those antibodies drop to a baseline level, which may be below the limit of detection of some serological tests.

Antibodies are produced by B-cells, a specialized type of immune cell that recognizes a specific antigen, or viral target. When an infection is cleared, B-cells producing antibodies convert from being plasma cells, which are specialized to pump out massive quantities of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, to being memory B-cells.

These cells produce lower levels of IgG antibody; but, importantly they persist in the body for years. If they are re-exposed to SARS-CoV-2, they rapidly convert to plasma cells and begin producing high levels of antibody again.

There is no indication that most COVID-19 patients are not developing immune memory, and animals experimentally infected with SARS-CoV-2 are protected against rechallenge with high doses of virus …

Furthermore, antibodies are not the only important part of the immune system. T-cells are also a key component to the immune response. They come in two flavors: helper T-cells, which coordinate immune responses and facilitate immunological memory, and killer T-cells, which kill infected cells. Previous studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust T-cell responses.”

As noted by Rasmussen, the data collected on the responses of T-cells to SARS-CoV-2 infection “underscore that SARS-CoV-2 is not an anomalous virus capable of miraculous feats of immune evasion.”

Read full story here…




America’s COVID-19 Restrictions Go Full Authoritarian

Americans who refused to say “No!” in the first place now find themselves in a quagmire of incremental authoritarianism that risks becoming a full-on police state in 2021. Now that Thanksgiving has been desecrated for millions, what will Technocrats do to destroy Christmas? ⁃ TN Editor

For folks in the Sunbelt and other places that still feel like America, the COVID-19 holiday restrictions seem more than a little over the top. In Los Angeles, restaurants are shuttering at 10 p.m. on Thanksgiving Eve and may only provide take-out. This was announced after proprietors had ordered all of the necessary inventory for their Thanksgiving reservations and spent thousands to modify their facilities.

This is despite the fact the L.A. Department of Health has no data on the transmission of COVID-19 in outdoor dining facilities. The Board of Supervisors admitted as much during a call on Tuesday. Supervisor Janice Hahn noted the severe community pushback that the board has been getting. She voiced concerns that the public was losing confidence and trust in the Board’s decisions. Gee, you think?

However, if you live in New York City, what is going on in Los Angeles seems low-key. America’s worst mayor, Bill de Blasio, has decided he will be placing checkpoints at the entrances to the city. These will be operated by law enforcement to strictly enforce the travel quarantine:

The city’s regulations mandate that travelers either quarantine for 14 days or take a COVID-19 test to prove they don’t have the virus. Violations of self-quarantine will be enforced, and may carry fines of $1,000 to $2,000, according to the mayor’s office.

And there are forms! Like the forms you fill out when you go through customs when returning from a foreign country, you will be required to produce your papers when you enter New York City:

New York City Sheriff Joseph Fucito said the sheriff’s office will be conducting spot checks when out-of-state buses drop riders off. In addition, deputies will check cars with out-of-state – and even New York – licenses plates. Test-and-trace teams will also be on the ground to help direct people to testing sites while providing “education” about quarantine, MSN.com reported.

“The city will enforce the completion of traveler forms at airports, Penn Station and the Port Authority Bus Terminal. There will be self-test site teams on site,” the news site said.

It won’t be long before there are checkpoints that prevent residents from leaving New York City. Mayor de Blasio might want to note that his tax base is fleeing, and they are not coming back:

According to statistics obtained by the New York Post, there have been about 300,000 requests from the USPS for a change of address since March. It appears that most of the requests are from people planning to move out of the city — many, out of the state.

Earlier this summer, Governor Andrew Cuomo was pleading with wealthy residents to return. He even offered to cook them dinner. But even that is verboten now as there are guidelines about gathering indoors with people from other households. Even the governor had to go a bit sheepish when his plans to spend Thanksgiving with his elderly mother and other family members were discovered.

Perhaps the most disturbing plan has been hatched in Vermont. I guess the state that has elected socialist Bernie Sanders to the Senate for decades has decided to go full Stalin. Children will be questioned about their Thanksgiving holiday activities, and families may be required to quarantine if they dare to dine with people from another household.

As of November 14, “Republican” Governor Phil Scott has banned gatherings between households:

This includes both inside and outside social gatherings, in public and private spaces. This means that visitors to Vermont can only socialize with the people they are traveling with. They cannot gather with Vermonters or with people from another traveling group.

Read full story here…