Be seeing you
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Happy Easter
Posted by M. C. on April 4, 2021
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Easter | Leave a Comment »
Russia Warns NATO Against Sending Any Troops To Ukraine As “Frightening” Escalation Looms | ZeroHedge
Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2021
NATO = US
Lavrov further issued an ominous warning: “Russian President Putin said (this) not long ago, but this statement is still relevant today, that those who would try to start a new war in Donbass – will destroy Ukraine.”
by Tyler Durden
The Kremlin’s latest statements out Friday amid the potential new Ukraine crisis which has seen a serious flare-up in fighting in the Donbass region, along with what appears to be far bigger-than-usual troop movements on Russia’s side of the border, has raised the stakes further.
Russia has vowed it will take “extra measures to ensure its own security” should it observe any deployment of NATO troops inside Ukraine, the Kremlin statement said Friday according to Reuters.
It firmly warned against any potential looming NATO troop movements following Brussels voicing concern the day prior over the widespread reports and videos purporting to show a significant Russian build-up of forces along Ukraine’s eastern border.
Reuters reports Russia’s Friday statement and “warning” as follows:
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Friday that the situation at the contact line in eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed separatist forces was quite frightening and that multiple “provocations” were taking place there.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Thursday spoke with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrii Taran, and “condemned recent escalations of Russian aggressive and provocative actions in eastern Ukraine,” the Pentagon said.
“Our rhetoric [over Donbass] is absolutely constructive,” Peskov said in response to journalists’ questions. “We do not indulge in wishful thinking. Regrettably, the realities along the engagement line are rather frightening. Provocations by the Ukrainian armed forces do take place. They are not casual. There have been many of them.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky condemned the Russian troop movements across the border, calling the situation “muscle-flexing” likely to lead to “provocations” for which Ukraine’s army is “ready”…
Muscle-flexing in the form of military exercises on the border with #Ukraine is an attempt to put pressure in the negotiations on ceasefire and peace as our value. We are always ready for provocations. 🇺🇦 army is not only strength and power, but also wisdom and balance. — Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) April 1, 2021
It was exactly a week ago that fighting in Donetsk grabbed international headlines once again when four Ukrainian national troops were killed, which Kiev promptly blamed on Russia-backed separatists. However, the Donetsk People’s Republic claimed it wasn’t the result of a direct exchange of fire, but due to inspecting a minefield.
Ukraine’s parliament followed by announcing a sharp “escalation” in the east – a contested region which has seen 14,000 deaths going back to 2014, and the country’s military leadership put the armed forces on high alert.
Another video suggesting Russian #military buildup next to borders of #Ukraine. This was filmed in #Voronezh region, south #Russia, on 31 March:
pic.twitter.com/67ch728T5O — Alex Kokcharov (@AlexKokcharov) April 1, 2021
This also as Russian troops and armor were spotted headed into the Crimea and Ukraine’s east border region, however, Moscow brushed off the concerns while saying it’s routine to transfer forces within one’s own borders and sovereign territory.
MORE RUSSIAN VEHICLES EN ROUTE TO UKRAINEpic.twitter.com/ivdr910y2v — The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) April 2, 2021
Days later on Wednesday the US European Command (EUCOM) issued a notification of a raised ‘threat level’ in Europe. The designation is currently officially raised to one of “potential imminent crisis” due to concerns over Eastern Ukraine.
Meanwhile intense shelling on the ground in Donetsk has continued this week, with all signs pointing to further escalation and intensity in fighting…
#Ukraine: Russian-backed separatist of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) have announced military conscription for citizens born 1994 – 2003. This comes at a time of drastically increased fighting on the frontlines in the Donbas. Not looking good. pic.twitter.com/pwn03I0Cc6 — Jake Hanrahan (@Jake_Hanrahan) April 2, 2021
And on Thursday an unnamed EU diplomat was cited in Reuters as speculating the perceived build-up in Russian forces is ultimately about Russia’s posturing to gain leverage with the new Biden administration – which so far hasn’t had much of a big geopolitical challenge.
“Partly, it is the usual tactics, turning up and down the conflict to create instability, to show that Russia is a key player,” the EU diplomat said. “We cannot exclude that Biden’s presidency is part of the Russian calculus, that it’s time for Moscow to show a bit of muscle.”
Wow. Military build up ongoing in full force on #Russia – #Ukraine border.
Video of Ukrainian tanks reportedly rolling today into the Luhansk & Donetsk region: pic.twitter.com/Nkh4yZMb3M — Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) April 1, 2021
Day 3: #Russia Military build up continues near Ukraine border.
Video of military vehicles, tanks today reportedly from city of Karsnodar: pic.twitter.com/ItgkKyI1jo — Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) April 2, 2021
But Russia has pointed out that in no way is it in its interest to see a ‘hot conflict’ in Donbass:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that most of Ukraine’s military appeared to understand the danger of a “hot conflict” in Donbass.
“I very much hope that they will not be ‘incited’ by politicians, who in turn will be ‘incited’ by the West, led by the United States,” said Lavrov.
Lavrov further issued an ominous warning: “Russian President Putin said (this) not long ago, but this statement is still relevant today, that those who would try to start a new war in Donbass – will destroy Ukraine.”
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Donbass, Kremlinologist, NATO, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a Comment »
Classic Stossel: Regulation Overload with Peter Thiel
Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2021
Government planners slow innovation with burdensome rules. In 1931, workers built the Empire State building in just over a year. Now it takes 13 years to finish the new World Trade Center. —- Don’t miss the weekly video from Stossel TV. Sign up here: https://johnstossel.activehosted.com/f/1 —- Entrepreneur Peter Thiel America is lucky that today’s FDA wasn’t around when the polio vaccine was invented. A Stossel Classic from 2016
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Empire State building, Government planners, Regulation | Leave a Comment »
WHO Pushes International Pandemic Treaty – Another Stepping Stone to World Government – Activist Post
Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2021
THE STORY: On March 30th 2021, the WHO released a letter, signed by its director-general Tedros Ghebreyesus plus 23 other world leaders, calling for the world to unite behind a new international pandemic treaty.
THE IMPLICATIONS: Is this really about protection or something more sinister? Is this in fact another stepping stone towards the creation of a NWO-style World Government?
The WHO is promoting a new international pandemic treatyto be drawn up and signed by the world’s nations. In their announcement on March 30th 2021 entitled COVID-19 shows why united action is needed for more robust international health architecture, the WHO (World Health Organization) predictably appeals to vague general principles and noble-sounding values in an attempt to entice humanity to support its quest for globalism and more centralization of power. While it doesn’t use the buzzword sustainable this time, it does use another of its favorite buzzwords equitable. The WHO claims that everyone must have “universal and equitable access” to “safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines, medicines and diagnostics” for the current and future pandemics, however it has already gone wrong, since as the facts have shown, COVID is not a pandemic but rather an operation, an agenda, a PCR casedemic and a scamdemic. Those skeptical of authorities asking for more collaboration as a ruse to grab more power should note that the current EU structure came about first via treaties. So let’s take a closer look at the words used to push this new international pandemic treaty.
Right on Cue, 23 World Leaders Plus WHO Boss Read Their Scripts to Promote International Pandemic Treaty
When the NWO (New World Order) wants to push their agenda forward, they roll out their devoted system-servers, bootlickers and gofers to get the public on board. In this case, the NWO controllers have used the 3 most powerful Western European leaders (UK prime minister Boris Johnson, German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Emmanuel Macron), 20 other world leaders and plus WHO boss Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (24 signatories in all), to push the idea of an international pandemic treaty. This NWO move is very predictable since it follows their time-tested formula of creating a crisis then exploiting that crisis to consolidate power, as they always do with false flag operations. Here is the letter reproduced in full:
“The Covid-19 pandemic is the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s. At that time, following the devastation of two world wars, political leaders came together to forge the multilateral system. The aims were clear: to bring countries together, to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation: namely, peace, prosperity, health and security.
‘Today, we hold the same hope that as we fight to overcome the Covid-19 pandemic together, we can build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations. There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies. No single government or multilateral agency can address this threat alone. The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion. The Covid-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.
‘We are, therefore, committed to ensuring universal and equitable access to safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines, medicines and diagnostics for this and future pandemics. Immunisation is a global public good and we will need to be able to develop, manufacture and deploy vaccines as quickly as possible. This is why the Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) was set up in order to promote equal access to tests, treatments and vaccines and support health systems across the globe. ACT-A has delivered on many aspects but equitable access is yet to be achieved. There is more we can do to promote global access.
‘To that end, we believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response. Such a renewed collective commitment would be a milestone in stepping up pandemic preparedness at the highest political level. It would be rooted in the constitution of the World Health Organisation, drawing in other relevant organisations key to this endeavour, in support of the principle of health for all. Existing global health instruments, especially the International Health Regulations, would underpin such a treaty, ensuring a firm and tested foundation on which we can build and improve.
‘The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all-of-government and all-of-society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international cooperation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research, and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health countermeasures, such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.
‘It would also include recognition of a ‘One Health’ approach that connects the health of humans, animals and our planet. And such a treaty should lead to more mutual accountability and shared responsibility, transparency and cooperation within the international system and with its rules and norms.
‘To achieve this, we will work with heads of state and governments globally and all stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector. We are convinced that it is our responsibility, as leaders of nations and international institutions, to ensure that the world learns the lessons of the Covid-19 pandemic.
‘At a time when Covid-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis. Building our capacities and systems to do this will take time and require a sustained political, financial and societal commitment over many years.
‘Our solidarity in ensuring that the world is better prepared will be our legacy that protects our children and grandchildren and minimises the impact of future pandemics on our economies and our societies. Pandemic preparedness needs global leadership for a global health system fit for this millennium. To make this commitment a reality, we must be guided by solidarity, fairness, transparency, inclusiveness and equity.’”
An Analysis of the Call for an International Pandemic Treaty
It is useful to take a closer look at some of the language, themes and modes of persuasion employed in this letter.
Firstly, notice how the writers frame the COVID plandemic as similar to a war. That was always the idea: to orchestrate a disruption with the impact of a world war without having to actually conduct a hot war. Wars have always served the NWO, not only as a tremendous source of hate, murder and mayhem, not only for depopulation, but also as a massive force of chaos that allows for restructuring in the aftermath.
See the rest here
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and LBRY.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: NWO, Pandemic Treaty, Tedros Ghebreyesus, WHO, World Government | Leave a Comment »
Goodbye War on Terror, Hello Permanent Pandemic • Children’s Health Defense
Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2021
What happened to the War on Terror? World leaders have swapped it out for a new narrative: the permanent pandemic, where society will be controlled under the guise of “pathogen vigilance.”
In short, permanent pandemics promise to be good for technocracy and good for Big Business.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/permanent-pandemic-covid-19/
By Children’s Health Defense Team
Those in positions of power have long recognized that conditions of fear and panic furnish exploitable opportunities to restructure society. COVID-19 is certainly a textbook example of this observation, illustrating that well-tuned fear campaigns can persuade many people to abandon essential medical and individual freedoms.
One of the key elements in the propagandist’s toolkit for perpetuating fear is repetition, particularly if the fear messages come from different directions and sources and are cloaked in a veneer of officialdom and respectability.
Thus, in the first few months of 2021, we have seen a proliferation of admonishments telling Americans that pandemics pose an “existential threat” to the United States and are here to stay.
In January, a bipartisan commission released a dramatic 44-page report calling for an “Apollo Program for Biodefense,” explicitly comparing the proposal to the efforts that first landed humans on the moon. The commission laid the groundwork for its report in 2015, when it published a National Blueprint for Biodefense.
Now, seizing the COVID-19 moment, the commission is making the case for a vastly expanded biodefense budget — amounting to billions of biodefense dollars annually — to implement its conveniently ready-to-go blueprint.
Key members of the Biodefense Commission used the “existential threat” language in the aftermath of 9/11 in reference to terrorism — the same language they are using now regarding pandemics. Commission Chair Joseph Lieberman championed the post-9/11 creation of the Department of Homeland Security; Co-chair Thomas Ridge served as the first Homeland Security director.
Around 2014, world leaders began signaling their intent to swap out the War on Terror for a new narrative. That fall, President Obama hosted the first major meeting of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) — which he later elevated to a national priority — and soon thereafter pronounced the terrorist threat “over-inflated.”
Observing the downplaying of terrorism by Obama and senior administration officials, including then-Vice President Biden, journalists at The Guardian chimed in, calling assertions of an “existential [terrorist] threat” hyperbolic, “zany” and “absurd.” The next year, the Biodefense Commission issued its National Blueprint.
Brace yourself
Dovetailing with the Biodefense Commission’s report, the media are telling the public to “start planning for a permanent pandemic.” For example, deploying the loaded language so favored by propagandists, German-American writer Andreas Kluth warned Americans on March 24 (in Bloomberg) of a “global arms race” pitting “coronavirus mutations … against vaccinations,” suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 could “become our permanent enemy, like the flu but worse.”
A former writer for The Economist and a self-styled interpreter of historical successes and failures, Kluth conjures up a foe — a mutating virus too “protean and elusive” to ever be conquered — that undoubtedly hits the biodefense wonks’ sweet spot. Far from rejecting pandemic hyperbole as “zany” or “absurd,” Kluth instead cheerlessly advises Americans to brace for “endless cycles of outbreaks and remissions, social restrictions and relaxations, lockdowns and reopenings.”
Ironically, Kluth argued last July in favor of a revival of “classical liberalism,” clarifying that he meant “not in the American sense of ‘left’ but in the European sense of ‘freedom.’”
Kluth also assures residents of the U.S. and other wealthy nations that vaccination “a couple of times a year” will be part of the “new normal.” Arguing for realism, however, he cautions that vaccination against “the latest variant in circulation” will never occur “fast or comprehensively enough to achieve herd immunity.”
The most positive notes Kluth seems able to strike are his conclusions that this “Brave New World needn’t be dystopian” and that, with each successive lockdown, “we [will] damage the economy less than in the previous one.”
Global control grid
As Children’s Health Defense and others have pointed out, COVID-19 — and the spectre of pandemics more generally — offer a handy pretext for the wider financial and governance overhaul that is unfolding, benefiting the few while building out a global control grid for the many.
In this context, we should not be surprised to see that the Biodefense Commission’s report highlights 15 core technology priorities that would fundamentally restructure society and daily life — in both the physical and digital realms — in the service of pathogen vigilance. These include:
- A National Public Health Data System to “integrate, curate and analyze” granular data at all levels in “real time.”
- Artificial-intelligence-driven “digital pathogen surveillance” involving tracking of data sources like social media, online forums and internet search queries.
- “Pathogen transmission suppression in the built environment,” including “air filtration and sterilization systems” that could involve diffusion of nanoparticles (no consent required) via HVAC systems.
- “Needle-free” methods of drug and vaccine administration to “increase uptake” and work around “the logistical challenges of delivering these pharmaceuticals to potentially billions of people.”
In light of these stated priorities, it is interesting to note that the Biodefense Commission’s Ridge heads up an eponymous Beltway security consulting firm, while Lieberman serves as senior counsel for a New York law firm whose roster of financial services, real estate and (bio)technology clients includes Google and Israel’s Teva Pharmaceuticals.
Teva announced in February that it is in discussion with COVID-19 vaccine makers about possible “co-production” of some of the shots. The same day, Teva’s CEO told CNBC’s Meg Tirrell (who asked about this “very bright spot in Teva’s business”) that the company was “proud to be the partners” for the distribution and logistics of Pfizer’s experimental vaccine in Israel which, as of mid-March, had administered the shots to nearly 60% of the population, “more doses per capita than any other country,” according to Tirrell.
Teva’s CEO said nary a peep about the experts who are warning that Pfizer’s injection of Israelis is producing mortality far in excess of what would be expected from COVID itself.
Like Teva’s CEO, Andreas Kluth has been an enthusiastic booster of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology, happy about synthetic mRNA’s endless permutations and the possibility of telling cells “to make whatever protein we want.”
While acknowledging that experimental mRNA vaccines had problems in the past (such as their tendency to cause “fatal inflammation” in animals), Kluth celebrates the COVID-19 pandemic as the “grand debut of mRNA vaccines and their definitive proof of concept,” stating: “Henceforth, mRNA will have no problems getting money, attention or enthusiasm — from investors, regulators and policymakers.”
In short, permanent pandemics promise to be good for technocracy and good for Big Business.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Biodefense Commission, Existential threats, Permanent Pandemic, War on terror | Leave a Comment »
Number of COVID Vaccine Injuries Reported to VAERS Surpasses 50,000, CDC Data Show • Children’s Health Defense
Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2021
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-injuries-vaers-cdc/
Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines revealed steadily rising numbers, but no new trends. VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received to the system as of Friday of the previous week. Today’s data show that between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 26, a total of 50,861 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 2,249 deaths — an increase of 199 over the previous seven days — and 7,726 serious injuries, up 631 over the same time period.
Of the 2,249 deaths reported as of March 26, 28% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 19% occurred within 24 hours and 43% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 136.7 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of March 26.
This week’s VAERS data show:
- 19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
- 45% of those who died were male, 43% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased.
- The average age of those who died was 77.7 and the youngest death was an 18-year-old.
- As of March 26, 341 pregnant women had reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 104 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
- Of the 578 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 63% of cases were reported after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccinations — almost twice as many as reported (36%) following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine. Seven cases of Bell’s Palsy were reported with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine (1%).
- There were 2,578 reports of anaphylaxis, with 53% of cases attributed to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 44% to Moderna and 3% to J&J vaccine, which was rolled out in the U.S. on March 2.
- Using a broadened search for any reference to anaphylaxis in chart notes resulted in 15,193 reports, with 52% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, 45% to Moderna and 3% to J&J. With each vaccine, nearly 42% of anaphylactic reports occurred in people aged 17-44.
According to the CDC’s website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins – Take Action
To date, the only information the CDC has published related to the investigation of COVID vaccine-related deaths and how those investigations were conducted is a COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Update via the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, published Jan. 27.
An interview in MedPage Today highlighted the shortfalls of the post-marketing surveillance of the COVID vaccine. Aaron Kesselheim, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said we are seeing a lot of spontaneous reporting, a lack of formal post-approval studies because vaccines have only received Emergency Use Authorization and vaccines being given outside the healthcare systems — interfering with the ability to rigorously collect observational data.
Although the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have various systems in place to monitor the safety of vaccines, they are not “up and running” and do not have adequate resources behind them, Kesselheim said.
According to Kesselheim, there’s essentially nobody keeping track of COVID adverse reactions in the U.S. and no long-term safety data, but emphasized that this new mRNA technology is “extremely effective and extremely safe.”
On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We provided a written list of questions about how the CDC conducts investigations into reported deaths, the status of investigations on deaths reported in the media, if autopsies are being done and the standard for determining whether an injury is causally connected to a vaccine.
See the rest here
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: CDC, vaccine injuries, VAERS | 1 Comment »
The Kremlin has allowed the US/Ukraine attack on Donbass to go on far too long. Will war be the result? – PaulCraigRoberts.org
Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2021
Paul Craig Roberts
Kiev now claims a US “guarantee.” This is a situation similar to the “guarantee” the idiot British government gave to Poland, thus encouraging Poland to provoke Germany into war. https://www.rt.com/russia/519983-moscow-measures-troop-deployment/
The worst decision the present-day Kremiln has made is to refuse the request of Donbass to reunite with Russia. This deplorable decision has produced ongoing conflict, ongoing deaths of Russian people in Donbass, a buildup in Ukrainian military forces, and now a Pentagon guarantee against Russian defense of Donbass.
The normally low-key Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that attempts to start a new military conflict in Donbass could end up destroying Ukraine. As the Kremlin has accepted countless insults and provocations, Washington puts zero concern on Lavrov’s warning.
Quite a mess that the Kremlin has made for itself.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Donbass, Kremlin, Sergei Lavrov, Ukraine crisis | Leave a Comment »
Erie Times E-Edition Article-CDC says fully vaccinated can travel
Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2021
“Vaccinated travelers no longer have to follow the CDC’s recommendations to get a COVID-19 test before and after travel unless required by the destination. They still need to wear masks and take other precautions.”
We are allowed to travel. But don’t do it. Isn’t that special.
The bottom line appears to be the gene therapy…err…”vaccine” doesn’t work all that well.
Forever masks, forever vaccines, forever control.
https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=132e36f09
Dawn Gilbertson
USA TODAY
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 can resume travel in the United States at low risk, but the agency is still not recommending travel due to rising case counts.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who earlier this week issued an urgent plea to limit travel due to fears of another COVID surge, said Friday that the new guidance is based on studies showing the “real-world” effectiveness of COVID- 19 vaccines.
Vaccinated travelers no longer have to follow the CDC’s recommendations to get a COVID-19 test before and after travel unless required by the destination. They still need to wear masks and take other precautions.
According to the CDC, nearly 100 million people in the U.S., about 30% of the population, have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. A person is considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the last recommended dose.
The CDC’s announcement does not change one high-profile COVID travel restriction, however.
Vaccinated travelers still must abide by a CDC order, issued in January, requiring a negative COVID test to board international flights to the U.S., and should get another test three to five days after returning.
Despite the new guidance, Walensky said during a White House briefing that the CDC is not reversing its advice to avoid nonessential travel during the pandemic, vaccinated or unvaccinated.
“CDC is not recommending travel at this time due to the number of rising cases,” she said.
Asked how that squares with the announcement that vaccinated Americans can safely travel, Walensky said: “Our guidance is silent on recommending or not recommending fully vaccinated people travel. Our guidance speaks to the safety of doing so. If you are vaccinated, it is lower risk.”
The CDC’s travel recommendations, which have evolved during the pandemic under the general banner of avoiding nonessential travel and still apply to those who aren’t vaccinated, call for getting tested one to three days before a trip and three to five days after a trip and staying home and self-quarantining for seven days after travel, even with a negative test.
If unvaccinated travelers don’t get tested, they should stay home and self-quarantine for 10 days after travel.
Those guidelines were still in place for vaccinated travelers when the CDC issued broad guidance for vaccinated Americans in early March.
They are only guidelines, though, and plenty of travelers have boarded planes or taken road trips without the CDC’s blessing.
In March, passenger counts at U.S. airports topped 1 million a day every day but five, according to the Transportation Security Administration, which hasn’t happened in over a year.
The U.S. began its vaccine rollout in mid-December. The first vaccines, from Pfizer and Moderna, require two doses taken a few weeks apart. A oneshot vaccine by Johnson & Johnson was given the green light by regulators at the end of February.
Contributing: Associated Press
Vaccinated domestic travelers no longer have to heed recommendations to get a COVID-19 test before and after travel.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: CDC, forever control., Gene Therapy, Vaccine | Leave a Comment »
The Success of Socialist Newspeak | Mises Wire
Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2021
Liberty, says the Bolshevist, is a bourgeois prejudice. The common man does not have any ideas of his own, he does not write books, does not hatch heresies, and does not invent new methods of production. He just wants to enjoy life. He has no use for the class interests of the intellectuals who make a living as professional dissenters and innovators.
https://mises.org/wire/success-socialist-newspeak
The socialists have engineered a semantic revolution in converting the meaning of terms into their opposite.
In the vocabulary of their “Newspeak,” as George Orwell called it, there is a term “the one-party principle.” Now etymologically party is derived from the noun part. The brotherless part is no longer different from its antonym, the whole; it is identical with it. A brotherless party is not a party, and the one party principle is in fact a no-party principle. It is a suppression of any kind of opposition. Freedom implies the right to choose between assent and dissent. But in Newspeak it means the duty to assent unconditionally and strict interdiction of dissent. This reversal of the traditional connotation of all words of the political terminology is not merely a peculiarity of the language of the Russian Communists and their Fascist and Nazi disciples. The social order that in abolishing private property deprives the consumers of their autonomy and independence, and thereby subjects every man to the arbitrary discretion of the central planning board, could not win the support of the masses if they were not to camouflage its main character. The socialists would have never duped the voters if they had openly told them that their ultimate end is to cast them into bondage. For exoteric use they were forced to pay lip-service to the traditional appreciation of liberty.
It was different in the esoteric discussions among the inner circles of the great conspiracy. There the initiated did not dissemble their intentions concerning liberty. Liberty was, in their opinion, certainly a good feature in the past in the frame of bourgeois society because it provided them with the opportunity to embark on their schemes. But once socialism has triumphed, there is no longer any need for free thought and autonomous action on the part of individuals. Any further change can only be a deviation from the perfect state that mankind has attained in reaching the bliss of socialism. Under such conditions, it would be simply lunacy to tolerate dissent.
Liberty, says the Bolshevist, is a bourgeois prejudice. The common man does not have any ideas of his own, he does not write books, does not hatch heresies, and does not invent new methods of production. He just wants to enjoy life. He has no use for the class interests of the intellectuals who make a living as professional dissenters and innovators.
This is certainly the most arrogant disdain of the plain citizen ever devised. There is no need to argue this point. For the question is not whether or not the common man can himself take advantage of the liberty to think, to speak, and to write books. The question is whether or not the sluggish routinist profits from the freedom granted to those who eclipse him in intelligence and will power. The common man may look with indifference and even contempt upon the dealings of better people. But he is delighted to enjoy all the benefits which the endeavors of the innovators put at his disposal. He has no comprehension of what in his eyes is merely inane hair-splitting. But as soon as these thoughts and theories are utilized by enterprising businessmen for satisfying some of his latent wishes, he hurries to acquire the new products. The common man is without doubt the main beneficiary of all the accomplishments of modern science and technology.
It is true, a man of average intellectual abilities has no chance to rise to the rank of a captain of industry. But the sovereignty that the market assigns to him in economic affairs stimulates technologists and promoters to convert to his use all the achievements of scientific research. Only people whose intellectual horizon does not extend beyond the internal organization of the factory and who do not realize what makes the businessmen run, fail to notice this fact.
The admirers of the Soviet system tell us again and again that freedom is not the supreme good. It is “not worth having,” if it implies poverty. To sacrifice it in order to attain wealth for the masses, is in their eyes fully justified. But for a few unruly individualists who cannot adjust themselves to the ways of regular fellows, all people in Russia are perfectly happy. We may leave it undecided whether this happiness was also shared by the millions of Ukrainian peasants who died from starvation, by the inmates of the forced labor camps, and by the Marxian leaders who were purged. But we cannot pass over the fact that the standard of living was incomparably higher in the free countries of the West than in the communist East. In giving away liberty as the price to be paid for the acquisition of prosperity, the Russians made a poor bargain. They now have neither the one nor the other.
[Excerpted from Liberty & Property.] Author:
Ludwig von Mises was the acknowledged leader of the Austrian school of economic thought, a prodigious originator in economic theory, and a prolific author. Mises’s writings and lectures encompassed economic theory, history, epistemology, government, and political philosophy. His contributions to economic theory include important clarifications on the quantity theory of money, the theory of the trade cycle, the integration of monetary theory with economic theory in general, and a demonstration that socialism must fail because it cannot solve the problem of economic calculation. Mises was the first scholar to recognize that economics is part of a larger science in human action, a science that he called praxeology.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Bolshevist, George Orwell, Liberty, Newspeaking | Leave a Comment »
Progressivism’s Failures: From Minimum Wages to the Welfare State | Mises Wire
Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2021
In fact, a separate study found that Seattle’s policy reduced low-wage employment by 6–7 percent, and due to the reduction in employment, workers in this category actually saw a net decline in pay.
https://mises.org/wire/progressivisms-failures-minimum-wages-welfare-state
As I write, the Democratic Congress is contemplating various measures designed to alleviate poverty levels in the United States. They include: the doubling of the minimum wage; the expansion of child credits. Let’s review both.
The Minimum Wage Hike
Congress intends to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15. This makes various assumptions: first, that minimum wage workers themselves are indeed poor. This is wrong: they come from families with a median household income of $66,000; for, their median age is twenty-four years old, and 60 percent are still attending school. Secondly, this policy makes the assumption that it will have no statistically significant impact on unemployment. This is also misguided. The City of Seattle enacted a $13 minimum wage in 2016, resulting in a fall of 9 percent in hours worked among these jobs. The job turnover rate declined by 8 percent, and the city’s less experienced minimum wage workers saw no net increase in payment.
In fact, a separate study found that Seattle’s policy reduced low-wage employment by 6–7 percent, and due to the reduction in employment, workers in this category actually saw a net decline in pay. The third assumption made by this minimum wage hike is that workers will indeed see an increase in inflation-adjusted income. A crucial lesson of economics is that living standards are not determined just by nominal wages, but also the amount which such a wage can consume. Literature suggests that raising the minimum will correspond with an increase in cost of living, due to businesses offsetting higher labor costs, and therefore harm precisely those whom the policy intends to help—low-wage workers. For instance, the average childcare worker in the United States earns $11 an hour—below the threshold Congress intends to set. Therefore, higher labor costs will simply mean an increase in the cost of childcare.
One estimate found that this policy would cause, on average, childcare costs to rise by 21 percent in the United States—that’s an increase of $3,700. Some areas would inevitably be hit harder than others: for instance, the state of Mississippi would see a whopping 43 percent increase in costs. Another essential component of the cost of living is food costs. Many grocery workers work below $15 in the United States: and higher labor costs will simply mean higher inflation in the price of food, which will clearly affect low-wage workers more than high-wage ones. In fact, one study conducted by the University of Zurich found that all the income gains made by workers who had enjoyed a minimum wage increase were simply offset by higher grocery prices. There is more general evidence that raising the minimum wage raises the rate of inflation, therefore negatively impacting those very workers. A study from Canada found that minimum wage hikes can boost the CPI by at least 0.1 percent. Whilst this might not seem statistically significant, the study specified that this small increase caused interest rates to rise, thereby having negative effects on employment. Moreover, an American study (pp.19) estimated that a one third decline in the minimum wage between 1979 and 1995 lowered the CPI by 1 percent (which is of statistical significance).
Raising the minimum wage will harm precisely those it intends to help through higher unemployment and cost of living.
Expanding the Welfare State
Some economists have rosy predictions about Congress’s plan to expand child credits on poverty levels. That being said, in the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson hoped to end poverty and racial injustice as he initiated the War on Poverty programs. $20 trillion dollars later, the American poverty rate has bounced between 12 percent and 15 percent since those programs began.
A law of the Welfare state can be said to be this: increases in public income transfers will simply be offset by reductions in private earnings. The famous Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (SIME/DIME) found that a $1,000 increase in welfare payments is offset by a $660 reduction in private earnings. Thus, low-income families experience only a meagre increase in their standard of living, and are subject to dependency on state welfare spending.
On top of that, welfare spending increases levels of single parenthood. This was a concern early on when Johnson’s welfare programs were initiated, and it was confirmed by a 1993 study that the welfare state was indeed responsible for the rise in single parenthood. The study postulated that a 50 percent increase in welfare spending yields a 43 percent increase in the levels of single parenthood.
I’ve argued in the past that single parenthood and a lack of full-time work are fundamental contributing factors to poverty in the United States, both of which the welfare state reinforces (in fact, the economists Isabelle Sawhill and Ron Haskin famously predicted that if single parenthood were eradicated and full-time work were universal, among other factors, poverty in the United States could be reduced by 70 percent).
Furthermore, the welfare state may negatively impact social mobility. According to research conducted by the economist Raj Chetty, there is a powerful negative correlation between the prevalence of single parenthood across the OECD and the actual levels of upward child mobility in each of those countries. In fact, there even seems to be a connection between the prevalence of single parenthood amongst the US states and poverty levels/social mobility.
Evidence strongly suggests that the welfare state does not alleviate poverty in the United States, and therefore that these poverty projections to support Congress’s proposals are overblown. A groundbreaking study postulated a Laffer curve–like relationship between poverty and welfare spending (where spending will alleviate poverty to an extent, but beyond a certain point will in fact increase poverty). The study argued that public overreach was responsible for the poverty rate being 50 percent higher than without that extra assistance (due to the impoverishing effect of dependency, single parenthood and work disincentives). This statistic ought to worry Congress, and make them think twice about these welfare proposals.
Conclusion
The two policies which are on Congress’s books will not, and never have, succeeded in truly benefitting low-income Americans. To accomplish this aim, they should in fact focus on welfare reform, lowering cost of living through deregulating commodities like housing, energy and childcare, removing labor regulations which exclude poor, inexperienced workers from employment, and thinking twice about inflating the money supply during recessions, which erodes the paychecks of low-income earners. Author:
Eben Macdonald is a 15-year-old student, a keen free-marketeer, and he wants a society which is predicated on liberty.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Minimum Wages, Progressivism, welfare state | Leave a Comment »
