Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 7

Is President Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Constitutional?

It is clear that almost everyone views the U.S. Constitution from a different perspective, and despite the words written, supporting documentation, such as the Federalist Papers, years of precedent, and many books pertaining to the topic, Americans cannot agree on what the fundamental principles are and what the role of a republican form of government should entail. The framers set up a system of checks and balances that has sometimes been blurred, and often, those who abused power previously cry that the opposite party is abusing it in the present. The core of the Constitution is to set up a legislature to create the laws, an executive to put the laws into effect, and a judiciary to rule on cases surrounding those laws, and yet, in our bloated government that attempts to control most aspects of our lives, the executive branch, with its plethora of departments and agencies, sometimes views itself as the source of power for creating and implementing policies.

This can be seen with President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that was specifically voted down by Congress but was seen as too important to not make a unilateral policy regarding, or with President Trump’s rearranging of funding to support building a border wall (this also was not passed by Congress). President Biden, knowing that it was unconstitutional and had been previously rejected by the Supreme Court, allowed the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to extend the eviction moratorium on its own authority, thus defying the Court’s order and bypassing Congress (effectively attempting to make the CDC an alternative legislative body). Although the Supreme Court did fight back to check the president’s power, it is dangerous when the executive branch acts superior to the others.

On September 10, 2021, one day before the twentieth anniversary of the event that strengthened the president’s power in terms of war-making and pushed the United States to become a surveillance state, President Biden issued a vaccine mandate that not only applied to federal contractors and employees (no testing option was made available for these categories), but it also required any business with over 100 employees to force their workers to get fully vaccinated (this definition will likely change with the adoption of booster shots) or be tested weekly under the emergency “authority” of the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Many proponents of Biden’s order will argue that since we already have many instances of OSHA creating workplace standards and COVID-19 is a threat to public health, there is no constitutional violation present. However, this is blatantly unconstitutional in that Congress does not have the authority to delegate power to an agency to legislate on its behalf (creating workplace standards that employers are forced to follow or face consequences is, in fact, legislating), whether it is regarding a virus or anything else.

OSHA’s precedent for regulating private businesses is not the only argument that COVID authoritarians prefer to use. Like giddy schoolgirls, these people salivate over the 1905 Supreme Court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts , which permitted that state to continue allowing municipalities to mandate smallpox vaccines on individuals with the threat of fines. The ruling concluded that states have police powers that can indeed force individuals to submit to measures that are deemed essential for the greater good without regard for someone’s religious or political views. Although this legal precedent does exist, there are two points to be made. First, just because the Supreme Court rules on something, does not make it the law of the land (something that will come up again in legal challenges to Texas’ new abortion law that could overturn the Roe v. Wade “law”), and just like the executive branch does not have the authority to legislate, neither does the judicial branch.

Second, just because there is precedent for something, does not mean that it is ethical. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 that unconstitutionally and unethically (not only violating the rights of ethnic minorities, but also the separation of powers concept) forced the internment of Japanese Americans was also upheld by the Supreme Court (and supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans at that time, thus throwing out the concept that democracy should be able to determine if mandates are permitted). Therefore, if we are to use precedent alone to determine vaccine mandates, it should then be argued that during the presidency of the “fascist” Donald Trump, the president should have been able to declare an emergency to intern Mexican American citizens near the border due to suspicion that they might aid illegal immigrants in the pursuit to cross the border. This would be a gross violation of human rights, if done in practice, but this is the same type of flawed logic that proponents of Biden’s vaccine mandate utilize.

It is argued that because COVID-19 is a threat to public health, individuals do not have the constitutional right to infect others. However, according to our “innocent until proven guilty” concept of law, there should be no assumption that anyone has a virus and is a threat to public health just for simply existing. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no life, liberty, or property can be denied without due process of law, and the Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial. The First Amendment’s guarantee of the practice of one’s religion cannot be violated when an individual wishes to refrain from taking a vaccine on those grounds (again, the government cannot prove that a person is a threat to public health unless there is proof), and this amendment also guarantees free association outside of governmental force (like between businesses and their employees). The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to one’s own body, including the ability to refuse a vaccine (pro-abortion people use this argument, but many of these same people have now switched sides on this particular issue in quite the hypocritical fashion). The Ninth Amendment means that there are other rights that exist, even if they are not specifically listed, including privacy and the ability of employers and employees to make their own voluntary agreements outside of the coercion of the government. The Tenth Amendment guarantees that states and the people do not have to bow to the pressure of unconstitutional laws and powers that are not granted to the federal government (the Constitution is pretty specific as to what it allows the government to do). There is no pandemic exception in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, and therefore, individual rights cannot be constitutionally stolen, regardless of the precedents set.

OSHA’s new business regulation will cause many people to quit their jobs and a shortage of workers, thus putting an undue burden on employers and employees alike and making life difficult for those who choose to take control of their own bodies and health outside of government officials’ decrees, media propaganda, and pharmaceutical corporations’ profits. Although proponents of the new “seatbelt law” (seatbelts do not have the potential to cause short-term and long-term side effects and are enacted in all states except New Hampshire, but if we are to be fair on this, seatbelt laws are a violation of rights too) argue that because there is a testing option, it is not a mandate (a watering down of what this entails). However, the reality is that companies will be unlikely to administer weekly testing for the noncompliant Neanderthals that feel entitled to their God-given rights. Therefore, as a result, millions of Americans will lose their “pursuit of happiness” and “my body, my choice” under this mandate, and without massive boycotts and lawsuits (to overturn past unconstitutional precedent), Americans who care about liberty are about to walk down a long, dark road with the president’s attempt to use his powers to “get them [governors who stand up to him] out of the way.”

The truth is that tyranny comes in many forms (through direct democracy’s “majority rules and minorities must submit” concept or through the overt tyranny of oligarchies and dictatorships), and if we do not stand up to this now, the government will use this precedent (among many others) to subjugate its citizens to its will. In the future, a dictator will usurp power and take advantage of our complacency, and the shortsightedness of the COVID sheep to see what this could mean is disturbing (or maybe they really want authoritarianism to reign supreme). Climate change will be the next crisis to further the expansion of constitutional and human rights violations. Many of us knew that face masks and forced lockdowns would be used to condition the population into blindly accepting authoritarian mandates that would lead into forced vaccinations and possible internment of those refusing to comply, which would then bring us into climate change tyranny and an upcoming police state. Unless we stop this now, calling the United States the “land of the free” will be a useless mantra that is reserved for the history books.

Four Presidents and Twenty Years, But the War in Afghanistan Has Finally Ended

The twenty-year war in Afghanistan that spanned four presidencies is over! The latest distraction from the implementation of vaccine passports and the fearmongering over COVID-19 has been a media obsession, with Democrats blaming President Trump (what is new) for his original deadline set and Republicans blaming President Biden for the disaster that ensued (like Trump would have been able to prevent bloodshed). The Taliban did not hesitate to reestablish control of the central Asian nation, and although anyone who was paying attention could have foreseen this event, what was surprising was the speed in which it did so and the fact that it did not wait for the United States’ departure first.

Aside from some obvious points that are being raised (like if Alexander the Great and the Soviet Union could not conquer Afghanistan, why would the American Empire think that it would be able to accomplish this feat?), very few “journalists and media companies are discussing how we got into this mess in the first place and why we stayed there for so long. As we approach the twentieth anniversary of the horrific attacks against the American people, let us reflect on the disaster of our foreign policy and the fact that twenty years of occupation was not enough to replace the regime that had been in place since before the war began, while also remembering the sacrifice of our military members (it was not their fault that they got sent to do the bidding of politicians and the military-industrial complex, after all).

President George W. Bush

After September 11, 2001, emotions and patriotic fervor swept across a country that was in mourning and angry. Osama bin Laden was immediately blamed for the attack involving nineteen hijackers that were somehow able to evade several American intelligence agencies (yet, these incompetent, taxpayer-funded agencies that could or would not prevent the attacks were able to determine who was responsible within a day). Instead of targeting Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the terrorists were from, President Bush decided to invade Afghanistan because the Taliban, which had control of most of that country, allowed bin Laden and al Qaeda (an organization that was supported by the United States in the Cold War) to base their operations there.

Seven days after the attacks, Congress gave the president a blank check to wage war anywhere and against any nation or group that was unilaterally declared to be connected to 9-11. This came in the form of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001, and if the precedent set were not bad enough, the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to a neutral country for trial in October 2001, if the United States could prove that its former ally was behind the attacks and if the bombing campaign was terminated (even before the bombing began, the Taliban was willing to have bin Laden tried in an Islamic court in Afghanistan, as long as evidence of his guilt was provided). President Bush’s “there’s no reason to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty” arrogant mentality led to a twenty-year war that was devastating to both the United States and Afghanistan, and it was very clear that the president always had the intention to topple the Taliban instead of solely targeting al Qaeda and bringing about a swift end to the operation. In April 2002, the president already had plans to occupy and rebuild the country that saw Hamid Karzai as its first leader after the fall of the Taliban, and by 2005, the United States pledged to finance, train, and equip the Afghan security forces and government.

President Barrack Obama

It did not take long for President Obama to get acquainted with his new duties as commander-in-chief, as he deployed an additional 70,000 troops by 2011, and instead of winding down the war effort in Afghanistan as he suggested that he would, the president expanded it further than even President Bush had. However, by 2014, the combat operations were largely ended, and a slow process of troop reductions was started, but not ended, by the time of the presidential transfer of power (he only brought troop levels down to about 10,000 from the one-time high of 100,000, and towards the end of his presidency, his focus was largely on training Afghan forces rather than combat). President Obama did initiate peace talks with the Taliban in 2011 for the eventual end of the war, but this did not ultimately resolve the crisis or halt hostilities.

President Donald Trump

A withdrawal from Afghanistan was advocated for by President Trump, but he almost instantly rescinded his plans in favor of deploying an additional 3,000 troops (increasing the number to 14,000). In 2019, the president went behind the Afghan government’s back (then headed by Ashraf Ghani) to negotiate deals with the Taliban, but those quickly broke down. However, in February 2020, there was some hope of a successful end to the war when the Taliban agreed to reduce terrorist attacks, end support for groups participating in the same, and not commit acts of violence against American and Afghan forces in exchange for a planned withdrawal by May 2021 (after the contentious 2020 election). Just before leaving office, the president sent troops home, reducing the number to just over 4,000 by the end of his presidency. Although President Trump did not actually commit fully to removal (leaving it to his successor to handle), he did set the stage for ending the United States’ longest war to-date and the inevitable rise of Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

President Joseph Biden

The planned date of May 2021 was not honored by President Biden, but he was able to pull out by his new deadline of September 11, 2021. The Taliban began sweeping through Afghanistan to capture provincial capitals, and by August 15, Kabul was under its control (with president Ghani fleeing the country). The Biden administration scrambled to rescue stranded Americans, and to aid with the retreat, it deployed an additional 6,000 troops. To make matters worse, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – Khorasan (ISIS-K), which was also an enemy of the Taliban, utilized two suicide bombs at the Kabul International Airport (the rendezvous location for Americans attempting to flee the country) that killed 150 Afghan civilians and 13 American military members. In typical American fashion, President Biden retaliated against ISIS-K with airstrikes that took at least ten civilian lives along with the intended targets.

Nervous servicemen/women, who did not have a reliable commander-in-chief to rescue them and were not sure if they would escape alive, struggled to leave (there was even an instance where bodies fell from the sky attempting to hold on to the aircraft as it began lifting off). It is likely that there are less than two hundred American citizens still attempting to leave Afghanistan at present, and there are reports that the Taliban has secretly escorted some of the Americans to the airport, allowing them to depart. Uncertainty remains around what will happen in Afghanistan with the United States gone, and just like North Vietnam’s capture of Saigon and the entire southern half of that country, the Taliban has celebrated its capture of Kabul.

The withdrawal, which ultimately finished with the final airplane departing on August 30, 2021, was not done with any type of charm or in any orderly fashion, but the current president will get some credit for having ended the war nonetheless. A war that started with the Taliban in control of the country and ended with the same group in power only took twenty years to complete, and hopefully history will show the absurdity of the conflict and Americans will learn a lesson about how military interventionism is generally an imprudent course of action.

Results of the War

The most obvious price of waging a twenty-year war was the lives lost. This included: 2,448 American military members, 3,846 contractors; 1,144 NATO troops; 66,000 Afghan forces; 51,191 members of the Taliban and its allies; and 47,245 civilians. This war was in vain, and all of the lives lost were a tragedy. We do not know how many more deaths will occur as a result of Taliban rule or if the country will become a playground for terrorist groups and tribal warlords, but the new governing authority did acknowledge that it is now time to treat women better than it had in the past (this may just be an empty publicity stunt to appease the United States for now).

Then, of course, there was the financial cost. The American taxpayers were forced to pay roughly $1 trillion when all of the costs of the war were added up (some of which went to defense contractors and special interests), and it is estimated that interest costs from the war could reach $6.5 trillion by 2050. About $83 billion was spent to train and equip an Afghan military that ultimately fell to its enemy within a matter of days, and the Taliban was able to seize a sizeable amount of American rifles, artillery guns, aircraft, helicopters, trucks, Humvees, and night-vision goggles. All-in-all, Americans wasted much money on the war effort.

The AUMF that allowed Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden to wage war on any corner of the planet that was desired set a terrible precedent for those who do not enjoy an imperial presidency. The War on Terror (it remains to be seen if the Biden administration will continue drone strikes and other tactics) that was not officially declared by Congress threatened and killed civilians in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria under the guise of keeping Americans safe. These actions have consequences, and unfortunately, Americans sometimes get killed as a result. The United States constantly has to be fighting a war somewhere, and the War on Terror has given future leaders the confidence that they need to continue these types of unaccountable operations.

Domestically, the surveillance state that has resulted from the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks has threatened the civil liberties of anyone residing in the United States (and really anywhere on Earth). The Patriot Act was passed in October 2001 with little resistance because the population was afraid of terrorism and politicians needed to pretend that they were being proactive. Measures stemming from the Afghanistan War have violated the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and Americans are constantly being monitored like they are under the thumb of Big Brother. The war may have ended, but the surveillance state and the hunt for terrorists, even among the American population (especially after the January 6, 2021 incident), will live on for the duration of the American Empire.

In the end, Americans have suffered for the actions of their elected officials, and now that Afghanistan has become the next Vietnam, we must ask ourselves if we are ready to accept that rallying around the flag for pointless wars is not something that should be included in our future. Perhaps the withdrawal is being conducted in order to prepare for the next war, and the United States is always one “crisis” away from becoming trigger happy in far away lands. Will the Taliban cozy up to China or Russia, or will the United States re-invade the country in the future? Is the Pentagon preparing for war with Iran or China and needs to refocus its resources from Afghanistan? Will there be a civil war or domestic conflict that requires the full attention of the United States government? It is difficult to tell at this time, but the good news is that the war has ended.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Reasons to be Skeptical About the Jab

COVID-19 vaccinations have become a highly politicized topic that has largely divided the United States into those who believe that public health should be prioritized at the top of societal needs and those who believe that public health is just one issue among many and should not take precedence over every other aspect of life. However, because the pandemic has become so divisive and the official narrative as put forth by the mainstream media and government officials only has one perspective on what is the right course of actions, the sects that have been created in society seem to be those who are sophisticated, follow the science, and obey government mandates like good boys and girls and those who are unscientific hicks who do not care about anyone else and feel “entitled” to freedom. This stigmatization against those who have chosen to take a stand against medical tyranny and take control over their own bodies has mobilized into a campaign of degradation and marginalization that threatens to cause civil unrest or mass civil disobedience across the country.

Whenever a society gets to the point where the narrative leads to scapegoating and the ostracization of certain groups of people, one must start to question the motives of those in charge. Government propaganda will always exist to some degree, but when it attempts to caste out people who do not comply with the agenda, tenants of fascism are present.

Tying patriotic duty and fear of consequences to the narrative creates an ultranationalist environment, and although the United States has not embraced fascism in full or gone to the extremes of Hitler’s National Socialism (Nazism), there are many similarities. For instance, New York State under Governor Cuomo oversaw the consolidation of power under one leader for over a year without the legislature in session or the courts operating as usual. The dear leader had the authority to legislate on his own whim and alter or abolish any previous legislation that he desired. The dividing of businesses into essential and nonessential categories led to forced shutdowns of small businesses and the ability of large corporations to stay in operation. Favorable treatment of certain businesses and the centralization of the economy are elements of corporatism.

Under the governor, collectivism was forced on individuals as people were not permitted to travel, gather, or participate in normal activities that were not deemed essential by the state. Although assembly was not mowed down by the military, arrests, fines, and business shutdowns were imposed on those who desired to participate in voluntary transactions or worship in churches and synagogues (the Jewish community was specifically targeted due to defiance of state mandates). People were not free to practice their religion, assemble in places of their own choosing, utilize their own personal property, or gather with whomever they wished in their own residences. Neighbors began to snitch on those who had parties in their yards and call the police on those not masking or social distancing. We were not free to breathe fresh air, as the choice of what to wear on our faces was made for us. Civil liberties were stripped, while the governor arbitrarily legislated.

Now, with the vaccine being rolled out and the upcoming vaccine mandates and passports, the concept of being required to show one’s papers to travel or participate in society is gradually being introduced. Fascism has taken root in the United States, and it is only a matter of time before this is exploited by a ruthless leader. Because of COVID-19 conditioning and propaganda, Americans would undoubtedly accept full-on fascism, if it were introduced in a manner that causes fear. All that is needed is the correct emergency and it would be all over for individual freedom.

Will the vaccines be the tool to usher in this type of tyranny? Only time will tell, but as we examine the specific elements of the fascist narrative and the properties associated with the administering of the vaccines, be mindful that history will judge us on how well we resist the growing totalitarianism. Those who have been subjugated to the propaganda will vigorously defend what they believe is right and cannot conceive that their ideas could possibly be fascist or incorrect in any way, so with that being said, try to be compassionate towards those who are largely only guilty of the crime of naivety.

Every individual is free to choose whether or not he or she prefers to receive the jab, and nobody (vaccinated or unvaccinated) should be shamed for their decision. Vaccine companies should be free to manufacture products with the easing of regulations as has been done in Operation Warp Speed, however, the government should not be coercing people into receiving the vaccine.

Reasons to be skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine are as follows:

Disregard for Prior Infection

We are being coerced to get the vaccine, but there is no mention of prior infection. I personally know people who have had the virus really bad, but they do not believe that the virus has warranted the extreme mitigation measures taken. Throughout the history of virology, we have relied heavily on natural immunity, and in this pandemic, the measures taken have encouraged the opposite (keeping us apart, trying to eliminate spread completely, and attempting to vaccinate those who have had the virus). Studies may be inconclusive at this time about how long natural antibodies last, but the mainstream media, government, and controlled experts do not care and would prefer everyone to risk side effects regardless. This is suspicious and should make everyone question why they want us all to get vaccinated (including children, teenagers, and young adults). Is there an ulterior motive?

It may also be that the majority of the population has already gotten the virus, being that it likely escaped from the laboratory in Wuhan, China in the Fall of 2019 and spread across the world after the Military World Games that took place in the same city where the virus originated and resulted in many athletes getting sick with coronavirus-like symptoms before traveling back to their home countries. Therefore, there may be more immunity in the populace than was previously thought, and we may be close to herd immunity (many people claim to have been sicker than they had ever been around the end of 2019 and into early 2020). Yet, the powers that be continue to press the vaccine without investigating whether this could be the case (antibody tests should have been conducted all along).

The controlled scientific community has even been toying with the idea to change the definition of herd immunity to include only vaccines and ignore natural immunity to better fit with the push for mass vaccination. Initially, we were told that we only needed to get 60-70% of the population vaccinated to reach herd immunity, and now we are being told that the goalpost has been moved to 80-90%, which begs the question of why is this the case (the weaker Delta variant is not a good excuse)? Is it that the science has changed, or is it that they want a super-majority of people to get vaccinated for some unknown reason? Why was the Great Barrington Declaration’s advocating of sheltering vulnerable individuals and allowing herd immunity to be gained by the younger population ignored? It is like they kept us all sheltered from the virus just so the vaccines could be utilized in the future. It is also clear that COVID-19 will become endemic, and since it cannot be eradicated and will find animal reservoirs to hide in until cold weather weakens the immune systems of its victims, forcing vaccines upon the public may not be the correct process and may even cause the virus to become prolonged and more severe with additional variants (variants may become vaccine-resistant).

Failing Vaccines

We do not have a complete picture on the success of the vaccines or the necessity for them. The news headlines are all over the place, the communication between the government and experts and the average citizens is poor, and surges seem to exist regardless of the mitigation measures or vaccination status. In Provincetown, Massachusetts, 74% of those hospitalized for the virus were vaccinated, and in Israel, which utilizes the Pfizer vaccine and is ahead of the United States in its timeline of the Delta variant, has been seeing an increase in cases, despite being one of the most vaccinated countries on earth.

Many will claim that as the vaccination rate increases, there will be more vaccinated patients hospitalized and that this just shows that the vaccine is working properly. This makes some sense in that the vaccine is not perfect and breakthrough cases will exist, but the media expects us to believe that the numerous breakthrough cases that we are seeing is equivalent to success. I would not consider this a victory or impressive by any standards, as I would expect the vaccines to prevent the overall spread of the disease, if government coercion is to be warranted. In the United Kingdom (UK), a study suggests that vaccinated individuals died at a much higher rate than unvaccinated ones (running contrary to a few other studies), but we still cannot know for sure until future data is released.

Furthermore, contrary to what we were told in the beginning, the vaccines are not doing an overall great job at preventing spread, and if the whole point of getting the vaccine is simply to reduce severe symptoms, what is the point of risking potential side effects for demographics that are not in particular danger under the wild type virus or its variants? The media is crying that the Delta surge is a pandemic of the unvaccinated (fearmongering propaganda) and that 99% of the hospitalizations occur in the unvaccinated; however, if, for example, 3% of COVID-19 cases result in hospitalizations and there are 10,000 cases (5,000 vaccinated and 5,000 unvaccinated, we will say hypothetically), this would result in 300 hospitalizations (297 of which would be unvaccinated). 297 unvaccinated hospitalizations out of 10,000 total cases (or 5,000 unvaccinated cases) is not really a risk that is necessarily worth it for many individuals.

With a less than one percent casualty rate for most people, the virus just is not that deadly, and a vaccine for it is not necessary for everyone. The vaccine might make sense for those over seventy years old, but it does not make sense for young people, especially children. The fact that they are pushing this vaccine to “protect” children not only ignores the scientific data on the subject, but it is suspicious and unethical to do so (we do not know what this will do to children in the future, and they are not really at much of a risk). Children will still be forced to mask up in the fall in many areas, potentially stunting communication skills and causing anxiety.

In addition, the case in Israel might show that the antibodies only last for six months to one year, and therefore, continuous boosters that could do unknown harm may be pushed on the population for years to come. That country has released data suggesting that the Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective against the Delta variant. Boosters are currently being authorized and will likely be needed for everyone due to waning effectiveness. The vaccine seems to be failing in the long-term, but until data can be taken into the future, we cannot know for sure. As the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) would suggest, it may even be that the vaccinated and unvaccinated have the same viral load, thus its decision to recommend masks regardless of vaccination status.

The flip flopping on masks and vaccines is a problem because if people cannot trust their institutions to provide factual and non-politicized information, there will be conflict. All-in-all, it appears from the data that those who are vaccinated are at a reduced risk for being hospitalized, and those who are unvaccinated are at a higher risk of hospitalization. Therefore, it appears that the historical concept of vaccines should be applied in society: if you are vaccinated, you are safe, and if you are not vaccinated, you may be at risk.

Either way, the choice should be the individual’s alone, and those who want to be protected, should be free to get vaccinated. Why should the vaccinated fear the unvaccinated if they are protected? It is suspicious that there is so much emphasis on vaccination alone, and those who do not get vaccinated are getting shamed into it, or worse yet, they are being caste out of society (like with the “key to New York City” vaccine passport concept). It is unethical to force an injection into individuals that does not have long-term scientific studies (not circumstantial evidence or short-term studies that are biased towards the vaccine to begin with) of the side effects and safety of the product, and demonization and the casting out of those who choose to take control over their bodies from society are unacceptable in a free society. If this does cause significant harm in individuals or there are sinister intentions in the distribution (like population control), there will be no recourse or accountability for harm caused.

Short-Term Effects

We do not fully understand the short-term effects and adverse reaction. Many proponents of the vaccines have equated these risks to being struck by lightning or getting attacked by a shark, however, to many people, the very thought that rare reactions may occur are enough to cause fear. Plus, one could mention that for young and middle-aged people, the chance of death from the virus is likely far under one percent, so it becomes a balancing act of risk. I have heard of people that have been hospitalized (and almost died) due to the vaccine. I also know of people who have gotten the disease severely, but even they would suggest that the measures taken during this pandemic are too extreme. Belittling people because of these fears is disrespectful and unhelpful towards the overall goal of vaccination, so the pro-COVID vaccine people are actually hurting their cause.

Known short-term reactions include: blood clots, myocarditis (heart inflammation), Bell’s palsy (facial paralysis), anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions), fainting, and Guillain-Barre Syndrome (neurological disorder). The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under the management of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the CDC keeps track of the side effects, but some claim that the reactions are sharply under-counted. Others claim that because the reports can be made by anyone and are unverified, the reactions are over-counted. Either way, side effects are a concern to many people.

Long-Term Effects

We have not been informed of long-term effects due to lack of data. How do we know that some of the aforementioned side effects will not surface down the road for some individuals or that the vaccine will not trigger some autoimmune response or neurological issue? Despite the constant claims all over the media and throughout most everything in society, we cannot really know if the vaccines are safe. Studies need to be conducted over a period of several years like with other vaccines, and forcing this on society in the now is unethical. Some suggest that the majority of people have or will get potentially deadly blood clots and myocarditis. If the government were planning population control or mass sterilization (because of overpopulation and climate change), causing fear around the virus and then introducing a deadly cure certainly would be the way to do this. Although this is highly speculative, distrust of government is a large reason for vaccine hesitancy.

Deaths

We have observed deaths due to the vaccines, and for every one of the number of sob stories that are blowing up the media headlines about young people regretting not having gotten the jab and succumbing to conspiracy theories, there are similar emotional accounts of young and healthy people dropping dead from the vaccine. VAERS has reports of over 6,000 deaths post-vaccine (some “misinformation” peddlers claim as many as 45,000), but the CDC stresses that these are not necessarily all due to the vaccine. However, logic should tell you that if people who have had no prior health issues or who were doing fine up until the point of the jab ended up getting hospitalized or dying within days or weeks, there is a very good chance that there was causation.

Although causation may be difficult to prove, concerns are being met with accusations of selfishness and science-denial. The fact that the media and government officials are attempting to downplay side effects to the vaccine and claim that these coincidental deaths most likely were not due to the vaccine without doing investigations into the matter is a bit suspicious. These concerns about deaths are real, but they are constantly dismissed in favor of the “get over yourself and just go get vaccinated, already” mentality.

Furthermore, it is possible that the spike protein generated from the mRNA and adenovirus vaccine methods travels from the initial injection site to other parts of the body, potentially causing the binding to blood vessel cells and platelet receptors or accumulation in women’s ovaries (leading to blood clots or miscarriages). Although many will reject these ideas, since this is new technology that has not been able to be studied with the same amount of data as other vaccines, it is difficult to say whether there is any validity to these types of claims.

New Technology

We do not fully understand how the new mRNA technology works, and those blindly receiving the jab often claim that following the science is the highest standard in society and that the scientific and medical communities would not cause harm to the population. Although it is true that most health care providers, doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals would not intentionally harm their patients, ignorance could be a factor. The medical experts are pressured to go along with the narrative and follow certain data that is permitted to be released due to financial backing and the risk of being laughed out of the academic community. Funding has to come from somewhere, and as many are aware, money talks.

The mRNA technology utilized in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines injects a piece of messenger molecule into one’s cells that instructs the body how to create the spike protein that is peculiar to SARS-CoV-2, thus creating an immune response for a future encounter. Similarly, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (as well as the Oxford-AstraZeneca one that is common in Europe) manipulates an adenovirus (unrelated to the coronavirus) with an encoded piece of DNA that instructs the body how to create the spike protein. Traditionally, vaccines have been the injection of a dead or weakened version of the actual virus in question, but all of these COVID-19 vaccines are different. Why is that? Why has no manufacturer attempted to create a conventional vaccine? Could there be a perfectly good explanation for this? Sure, but there could also be a sinister one (perhaps creating a spike protein in the body is being used for alternative purposes)?

Distrust of Government

We have a history of the federal government participating in many unethical practices, from experimentation on Americans to spying on citizens, torturing captured enemies, and bombing weaker nations. Experimentation on the population has ranged from MK Ultra’s drug tests on military subjects to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study’s trials on black Americans (showing complete disregard for the subjects’ lives). Operation Northwoods was a military plan to commit violent terrorist actions against the American people in order to gain support for a war against Cuba, and although this stopped short of occurring due to disapproval by President John F. Kennedy and his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, it does show intent by the government to cause harm for political agendas. Edward Snowden revealed that the government was spying on its citizens, and this was actively covered up from 2001 to 2013.

Then, of course, we had the pandemic exercises of Event 201 and Crimson Contagion that seemed to predict the dilemma that we are now facing. These were brought on by John Hopkins Center for Health Security, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the World Economic Forum (WEF); as well as nineteen federal agencies, twelve state governments (including New York), and several hospitals. When Governor Cuomo, for example, went on television telling the public that we could not know that a pandemic like this would occur with us being so unprepared, he was lying because that is exactly what these exercises showed. Plus, they occurred just months prior to the real-world pandemic, so the timing is suspicious. The WEF and its founder Klaus Schwab desired a “great reset” (by 2030, “you will own nothing and you will be happy”) for the world back in 2014 and 2015 (“We need to press restart on the global economy”), and the pandemic gave them the perfect opportunity to conveniently exploit humanity after practicing exactly what it seems that they knew was coming months later.

The vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability and cannot be sued for harm caused by their products. Meanwhile, these companies receive billions of dollars paid for by the government without the necessity for spending resources or time on marketing or distribution, and in some cases, mandating that the products be consumed by the public is occurring (like with the vaccine passport system in New York City and for colleges and medical personnel, and other localities are now considering it). These companies have no real incentive to make a safe product since it is administered publicly, and with the push for boosters, the manufacturers stand to make significant amounts of additional profit.

Moderna, which was rearing to go when the virus was released, had massive amounts of funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Did the government know that this pandemic was coming and that is why it funded the company? These vaccines developed quickly, and perhaps part of the reason was that the technology was being worked on for years prior to the pandemic. One of the inventors of the mRNA technology has warned about the COVID-19 vaccine (not mRNA technology in general and just these particular vaccines) and how it is being unethically forced upon the population and how drugs that could have saved lives and treated patients inexpensively (like Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine), thus stripping the vaccine manufacturers of their profits, were ignored (this public health-industrial complex is similar to the war-profit mentality of the military-industrial complex).

The government has been so back and forth with its communication with the public (Fauci said that masks were unnecessary, which was backed by many randomized controlled trials, and then he eventually advocated for masks being the most effective mitigation measure; and then the CDC said that masks could be dropped for individuals who were vaccinated, but this later changed to masking for everyone regardless of status).

Prior to the vaccine distribution, essential workers were allowed to be employed without the vaccine, and individuals were permitted to enjoy indoor dining, but after the vaccine rollout began, there was suddenly an effort to prohibit people from entering certain premises. This sounds more like punitive measures than it does about public health and actually following the data. Prohibition against drugs and alcohol created black market environments throughout history, and now if vaccine passports gain momentum, these underground facilities will again begin to pop up everywhere. Society will be segregated into separate facilities: ones for the vaccinated and ones for the unvaccinated.

So, why should the American people trust the government (or billionaires involved) this time around knowing all of these things? It has not proved itself to be worthy of such an honor, and if there is something nefarious planned, the vaccines may be at the center of it.

Censorship

The government has attempted to censor information through social media companies and by only allowing experts who were sympathetic towards the official narrative to have the floor or keep their jobs. Scientists are under pressure by financial obligations to investigate the biases of their funders, and as such, there was no real diversity in thought. The “science is settled” mentality caused pressure to comply with what large corporations, billionaires, bureaucrats, and politicians wanted. Science should never be settled, but yet, during this pandemic, that is the only concept that is allowed.

For months, people suggesting that COVID-19 originated in the lab in Wuhan were branded as conspiracy theorists and the information was censored on social media, but when President Biden ordered an investigation into these claims, the idea of a lab leak was moved from conspiracy theory to just as plausible as the natural-origin theory. Prior to that, Peter Daszak, who was the middleman in the gain-of-function research funded by Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the NIH that likely caused COVID-19, thanked Fauci for covering for him and pushing the natural-origin theory. Mark Zuckerburg of Facebook even asked Fauci how he could prevent “misinformation” on his platform and help get approved information out there. Press Secretary Jen Psaki mentioned the targeting of posts that Facebook needed to take down because they were spreading misinformation, and when these companies are told to obey under potential consequences, why would they not comply?

President Biden and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy have waged a war against misinformation and created a nationalistic narrative that was not allowed to be questioned. It seems clear that the social media companies may have been acting on behalf of the government (as public wings). If the government and social media companies have tried so hard to cover up information pertaining to vaccines (and the pandemic at large), what are they hiding? What do they not want the public to be aware of? Why is there such a mobilization to censor information and prevent certain ideas from being presented? Why can we not have civilized and intellectual conversations and voice our opinions and concerns without being called anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, unscientific hicks, etc.? Why should we not allow the scientific process of asking and testing hypotheses to occur and instead censor whatever goes against the narrative? The government has been wrong all along during the pandemic, and the CDC even said that the Delta variant was as contagious as the chickenpox, but further examination shows that this is not true. Yet, the government is exempt from the war against misinformation and is allowed to spew out any falsehoods it desires, but the average person is not.

Nationalistic Narrative

We are seeing a push towards a single, nationalistic (fascist) narrative, and many will claim that because there is precedence for forced vaccinations and vaccine passports from the early 1900’s, we should just embrace it in the present. However, there is also precedence for forcing Japanese Americans into internment camps, so does this mean that we should go back and try forced detentions of individuals who happen to be of the nationality of a country that we are at war with?

There is also the idea that because the vaccines have not cleared long-term testing and are still experimental in a sense (this is disputed because they have been put through clinical trials) that this violates the Nuremberg Code’s prohibition against forcing experimental drugs on the people. If the government is complicit in a plan to harm the populace, this would indeed violate the code, but this will be considered a stretch to many.

In an effort to curb vaccine hesitancy, states have created special lotteries, given away guns and free college tuition, and put out commercials to claim that it is one’s patriotic duty to get the jab. However, the “carrots” approach is beginning to move to the “hit them with a stick” one. Once the FDA gives full approval to the three vaccine manufacturers, state and local governments and businesses will feel more comfortable forcing the agenda on the public, and Dr. Fauci has expressed this sentiment.

Currently, liberals (Democrats) are behind the push, but conservatives (Republicans) are slowly falling in line. What is ironic is that black Americans are the lowest demographic of vaccinated individuals (far under 50%), and yet, the smear campaigns are targeted at conservatives, especially after the January 6th incident. This could mean that the nationalistic narrative is gearing up to target conservatives in a McCarthy-style witch hunt, and this is some of the fuel used to do so.

In terms of vaccine passports, denying services to many black Americans should be considered systemic racism to progressives (for the sake of consistency) since they often consider requiring identification to vote or putting limitations on mail-in ballots and other processes first implemented during the pandemic racist. Not to mention, if a Republican were advocating for vaccine passports in areas where there were high populations of minorities, you can bet that Democrats would be crying that this was systemic racism. Better yet, if President Trump were still in office, you can bet that Democrats would be the predominantly vaccine-hesitant group (Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Cuomo even suggested this prior to the 2020 election). Yet, progressives seem to embrace their hypocrisy and continue to advocate for forced vaccinations by preaching hate towards those who choose to make a choice over their own body (“my body, my choice” has become “my body, your choice when you are afraid, but when the fear subsides, I can then have my choice back”).

The fact that so much vaccine hesitancy still exists and that people are no longer lining up to get the jab shows that fear of the virus among the population is fading. If the government and the media has to constantly scare people into seeing the virus as fatal or the vaccine as the only cure, not only is the fearmongering unethical, but it is suspicious that there is so much effort to convince people of this. Trying to scare and shame people into receiving an experimental drug is not a tactic that an honest and trustworthy government would utilize, and the media is purposely trying to cause hysteria to step in line with the narrative (fear equals more ratings).

The next step is to punish those who choose to take control over their own bodies and to divide society into two categories: vaccinated and unvaccinated (perhaps clean and unclean would work better to put this into perspective). If the unvaccinated people are caste out of society and prevented from participating in everyday activities (including getting groceries) this seems inhumane and contrary to the supposed compassionate view of progressives. However, progressives are showing their true colors as authoritarians and hypocrites (picking and choosing which classes of people are protected against discrimination and which ones should be discriminated against).

It can no longer be that people leave others alone to make their own decisions, and many want to force their will upon others. This is a minor version of fascism (nationalistic narrative enforced by authoritarian leaders in governors and a police state), and if Americans can accept these first steps towards fascism, in the future, full fascism will not be avoidable. The narrative, aided by the media, suggests that the unvaccinated are selfish, however, forcing someone to adhere to your standards because you are afraid, is actually the selfish position. People are continuously parroting the idea of selfishness on the part of the unvaccinated (is it selfish of me to drive a car knowing that this is the most dangerous thing that I do on a regular basis and could cause harm to others around me?), as well as the charge of anti-science.

When you consider that these same people march around saying, “follow the science” and “trust the experts,” without looking into the data or statistics themselves (like that showing that the virus follows the same pattern regardless of masking and lockdowns), it is pretty safe to say that these people are just following a religion (the experts are like the clergy with Fauci being the pope, missionaries are being sent out door to door to preach the gospel of the vaccines and mitigation measures, the heretics are being caste out of society, governments have lifted up their scientific representatives on earth in a theocracy, and people are not allowed to question authority or the narrative). Everyone chants the same old talking points, and few people want to critically think. It is like the government and media flipped a switch and turned the population into robots who have all been synced together to do the bidding of the state. I once thought it would be impossible for people to be naïve enough to accept the mark of the beast from Revelation (people not being able to participate in society without the mark), but with the gradualism and conditioning created from this pandemic, I now see how it could easily be implemented.

Conclusion

From the beginning, it was clear to me that the mitigation measures during the pandemic were about control and conditioning the population to accept authoritarianism (“two weeks to flatten the curve” was never really going to happen). When the virus is finally reduced to the point where it is just a seasonal nuisance, climate change and other declared emergencies will be used to justify going even further than perhaps most could imagine. The precedent has been set and fascism has taken root in this country. If it is watered periodically and liberties are taken away gradually over time, eventually Americans will wake up wondering why they are no longer free (if they even notice due to the incrementalism of the theft).

COVID-19 is a real virus, but it was likely created in a lab to bring about worldwide agendas (like the WEF’s Great Reset) and has been exaggerated significantly (including casualties, which occur in hardly anyone who does not have multiple comorbidities). The government has surrounded us with constant propaganda and terrified us into compliance. Someday, we will realize this and the fact that the mobilization around vaccination was unethical. Until then, some of us will just be dismissed as conspiracy theorists and selfish, unscientific hicks while being told to shut up and obey.

We need to resist the COVID fascism at every turn and protest (like they are in France, Germany, and Italy; and some vaccinated Italians are even burning their vaccine cards to stand in solidarity with the unvaccinated who are denied basic services without their passports) and become civilly disobedient. This resistance should be kept peaceful, and nobody should be shamed for choosing to take the vaccine (just like those who do not take it should not be shamed). Even if you remain in the “these vaccines are necessary” camp after reading this, you should, at the very least, be skeptical of how they are being administered. And, of course, thank you for reading.

After All These Years, Will the United States Capture Cuba?

The American regime change attempt against the Castro’s in Cuba has been an operation spanning generations, and now that many Cubans have taken to the streets to protest the government currently run by Miguel Diaz-Canel, there have been some calls for the United States to interfere yet again. Mayor Francis Suarez of Miami has even suggested that airstrikes against the island should be considered, and could an operation like this be why the Biden administration is in the process of leaving Afghanistan? It is difficult to know what level of intervention will occur, but the United States has been very aggressive towards the Caribbean nation in the past.

While progressives and conservatives bicker over whether or not the Cubans are protesting the COVID-19 pandemic, communism, economic sanctions, or the dictatorship, the truth is probably that all of these things have contributed in some way to the plight of the Cuban people. The United States began its strangling of the Cuban economy in 1962 under the Kennedy administration, and it conspired with Latin American countries in the Organization of American States (OAS) and allies in NATO to prohibit almost all trade with that country (Americans were also banned from traveling there, which has been relaxed at certain times) in order to make life so miserable there that the people would want to overthrow Fidel Castro. In 1975, OAS lifted sanctions and began trading with Cuba. Eventually, other countries followed suit, and the embargo on Cuba has since been weakened. However, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 signed by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, respectively, prohibited foreign ships from utilizing American ports, blocked foreign subsidiaries owned by American companies from entering the island, limited medical supplies from the United States, and imposed sanctions against foreign companies that engaged with Cuba.

It is a myth that countries like Spain, Canada, China, Mexico, and the Netherlands cannot engage in business or trade with the island, and the reason that progressives like to use this type of misinformation is so that it does not weaken the concept of socialism and how it fails (progressives have given praise to the Castro regime and its state-managed programs that they view as a model for the United States). When BLM and other progressive groups solely blame the United States, they fail to understand the mismanagement of the economy brought on by socialism (again, this tactic is by design). The people of Cuba are also protesting the human rights abuses committed by a police state that has censored information and arrested dissidents, which has also been described as a reason for sanctions. It is absolutely true that the outdated embargo against Cuba should be ended (the UN has been requesting that the United States end it for years) and that the economic terrorism has contributed towards hardship for the people with little effect on the ruling class, but there are multiple factors involved.

After the United States failed at keeping a corrupt dictator, Fulgencio Batista, in power in Cuba in 1959, there were hundreds of assassinations and coup plots against the new leader, Fidel Castro, and the most infamous was the Bay of Pigs Invasion, which involved the CIA training a Cuban army of 1,400 to topple the regime. However, the Cuban military was able to quell the rebellion easily, and the next failed coup attempt, Operation Mongoose, involved sabotage and espionage.

It was so clear the United States wanted to oust Fidel Castro from power that the American military (with the approval going all the way through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara) planned terrorist attacks against American civilians (including hijacking airplanes, destroying a ship, and harming citizens throughout various cities) in order to justify war. Americans would not have accepted war with Castro otherwise, and Operation Northwoods remains another reason why some people do not trust the government.

The United States and the Soviet Union almost went to war over the events surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis, which began when the former decided to place missiles in Turkey (and other countries in Europe) pointing them at the latter. The Soviets responded (why would they not?) with missiles in Cuba to act as a balance and deter another Bay of Pigs incident. The Kennedy administration considered airstrikes and other military actions because of the outrage caused by the missiles on an island roughly 90 miles from Florida, but instead, it decided to form a naval blockade to prevent the Soviets from entering or departing the island. A close call occurred when an American airplane was shot down, and although a military invasion was being prepared, a deal was finally struck that saw the removal of missiles from both Cuba and Turkey and a promise that the United States would not use force to oust the Castro regime.

In more recent years and besides the attempt to harm Cubans through an embargo, the preferred method of undermining the Cuban government has been through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID is supposed to be used to provide foreign aid, but it is often used for other purposes). In 2009, President Obama sent some Latin American operatives under the guidance of USAID to Cuba to identify potential dissidents and spark protests against Raul Castro in the hopes that it would turn into rebellion; and later that year and into 2010, the agency developed an underground social media platform (called ZunZuneo) to mobilize “smart mobs” without the Cuban government being aware. Is it possible that the Biden administration utilized USAID or some other covert group to get the Cubans to rise up like what has been done in the past?

As a side note, it is perhaps ironic and hypocritical that the Biden administration is spewing harsh rhetoric against Cuban immigrants seeking asylum by sea (though most Cubans actually arrive at the Mexican border) when Democrats constantly harassed President Trump for his statements on immigration.

The covert attempts to destabilize Castro ultimately failed like all of the other coup and assassination attempts, but will the Biden administration get lucky and find a method that works with Diaz-Canel? Let us hope that a prolonged military conflict does not ensue in Cuba, but either way, it is clear that the sights are set on ending the dictatorship on the island. It is just a matter of time before an American president of either party finally accomplishes what every other president could not. Long-term socialism held together with an iron fist will not ultimately prevail, and at some point, an opportunity for regime change will present itself. When that day comes, the United States will no longer have to rely on economic and covert terrorism to accomplish what it wants for that nation.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Fact-Checking the Bullies: Vaccine and Election Conspiracy Theories Are Deadly

Claim: "These conspiracy theories aren't anything like believing the moon landing was fake. The conspiracy theories about the vaccine and the election have had deadly consequences this year." - Harry Enten, CNN

My Rating: Mostly False

Here's why:

President Joe Biden and US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy echoed these ideas in their statements in trying to rally the American population around a single nationalistic narrative. Although it could be true, as the narrative would suggest, that movements pushing certain conspiracy theories could unite people to take actions that could put people at risk, ideas, in of themselves, cannot cause deaths. Inquiring about topics and forming hypotheses to learn the truth is part of the scientific process, so when governments, the news media, and social media attempt to censor information and ignore people's concerns, thus interfering with the scientific and journalistic process, conspiracy theories grow stronger as people form underground communities to communicate what they view as true.

Waging a war against "misinformation" causes stronger anti-narrative movements. So, in part, the government and media are partially to blame for what they deem as avoidable deaths. Using Facebook, for example, as an intelligence agency of the government not only potentially violates the First and Fourth Amendments, but it causes further mistrust between the people and government. Widespread campaigns to classify certain conspiracy theories as dangerous and ridiculous are really just pieces of propaganda to dismiss perfectly plausible explanations for the situations in which we find ourselves.

For example, Operation Northwoods was a real planned military operation of the US government to commit acts of terror against the American people and blame it on Cuba to justify war with that country (yes, intentionally murdering Americans to justify war). The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was an operation to test the progression of syphilis by lying to and manipulating black men and letting them die of the disease.

From 2001 to 2013, the government (and particularly the NSA) was spying on Americans without any knowledge of the public (yes, it was covered up by thousands of government employees and contractors for that long through a need-to-know process and threats of consequences). When Edward Snowden revealed the information, it finally moved from the conspiracy theory category to the generally accepted one. Similarly, Dr. Fauci and Facebook tried to cover up or ignore ideas that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab, despite the former's funding of gain-of-function research. Now that the US switched administrations, the lab leak theory is considered a very likely possibility, and Facebook no longer censors that information.

These are real "conspiracy theories" that eventually were proven true, so questioning information or being skeptical about the intentions of Big Pharma and government in distributing vaccines should be taken seriously and not silenced. Considering someone an idiot or evil because they do not comply with the narrative is shortsighted and lacks historical context. The more the government pushes these questions and concerns into the fringes and refuses to answer them, any deaths attributed to conspiracy theories should be partially attributed to the government and media.

Now let us dive into the actual facts surrounding the claims.

The first claim is that vaccine-hesitant people are killing others. This works for good rhetoric to shame people into receiving the jab, but is it really true? If, as the CDC, Governor Cuomo, Dr. Fauci, and the other experts who push the vaccines say, the vaccines are highly effective (up to 100% as is claimed), the people who are vaccinated are safe, and even if they get COVID (this is claimed to be extremely rare), the chance of hospitalization is significantly reduced. Really, the only people that the unvaccinated are threatening are themselves (this just leads some to believe that the government is desperately pushing the experimental vaccines for alternative reasons), and since we cherish (or used to) the idea of "my body, my choice," there really is not a reason to be shaming, bribing, or threatening livelihoods of those who decide not to go along with the crowd. Since the vaccinated are safe from the virus and its variants (again, this is what is claimed, and if the vaccines do not protect against variants, this needs to be communicated better with the lying ceased), the conspiracy theories surrounding the vaccines are not killing anyone.

The second claim is that the "Big Lie" and lack of investigation into fraud led to the January 6th riots that killed several people. Again, ideas do not kill, but mobilization around them can lead to deaths. From November to January, the media constantly parroted the idea that there was absolutely no fraud (something that they could not really know for sure at every locality) and that claims that former President Trump won the election were baseless. Regardless of whether widespread fraud occurred, when the nationalistic narrative unites against an idea that millions of people believe and rejects any attempt to test the hypothesis, people are going to protest with a potential for violence (BLM protests in the summer of 2020 may have been mostly peaceful, but violence, looting, and arson did occur, contrary to the reporting by most of the media). Ignoring people's grievances for periods of time often leads to resentment and thoughts that following established processes does not solve the problem, so again, the blame for the Capitol riots lies partially on the government and media and not just on right-wing groups pushing theories that are assumed to be false.

It is claimed that some people died during the riots, but in reality, only one person died from direct violence that occurred. According to the medical examiner’s report, the others died afterwards or from natural deaths. However, CNN and other networks continue to falsely claim that five people died and conveniently have not updated their reporting for the new information because facts do not matter as much as the agenda.

From the mainstream perspective, it is understandable why many would like to push the narrative that conspiracy theories kill because it furthers their agenda. People are afraid and will buy into any propaganda coming from the government and media because they are considered the authoritative sources of information in unknown times. When trouble strikes, critical thinking is less desirable to faith in institutions, and people turn towards religion or some dogmatic explanation. However, blind faith in institutions does not progress society as a whole, and we have seen nationalistic narratives take hold throughout history that have mobilized governments to take dangerous actions that otherwise would not be acceptable.

One could argue that conspiracy theories have inspired deadly actions or in-actions, but the government and media censoring and ignoring ideas that many Americans believe have been equally responsible, if we are to attribute deaths to ideas. Therefore, I rate this claim as misleading and mostly false.

P.S.
Shaming people into getting vaccinated, masking, or social distancing does not give that person or group the moral high ground. As kids, we learned that bullying classmates was wrong, but in the new normal society, as long as the bullying is against those who adhere to conspiracy theories, refuse to believe the official narrative, and will not dress with a dirty rag on their faces or put an experimental substance into their bodies, it is perfectly acceptable, and maybe even encouraged.

A U.S. Coup in Haiti?

Both the Trump and Biden administrations have likely participated in covert operations in several countries from 2017 to 2021, including in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Belarus, Cuba, and Haiti. Although it is impossible to know with absolute certainty that these coup attempts were similar to the plethora of Cold War-style operations committed by the United States to destabilize parts of the world, it is important to note that the United States does indeed orchestrate these types of coups on a regular basis, so these would, by no means, be unprecedented.

However, the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise has some peculiar features that would suggest some foul play on the part of the United States, and although the Biden administration will likely never admit that it was involved, the ideas of DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) agents and Colombian mercenaries plotting and carrying out the attack should be an indication that foreign meddling was part of the conspiracy. The assassination was allegedly planned by Christian Emmanuel Sanon, an American citizen who was outspoken about the corruption in the leadership of the country, two other Haitian-Americans, twenty-six Colombian mercenaries, and several other suspects that are currently at large, some of which may have been connected to the DEA (at least one of the suspects was an informant for the agency, others were likely connected to law enforcement in the United States, and a cap with “DEA” written on it was seized by the police). Although the DEA claims that it was not involved (this should be of no surprise), one of the suspects was caught calling the agency right after the assassination occurred, and he was told by both the DEA and the State Department to turn himself into police. The Counter Terrorist Unit Federal Academy (CTU) out of Miami is allegedly the security firm that hired the Colombian mercenaries and the same one that Sanon was in communication with, which would suggest a scheme to overthrow the president.

It still remains to be seen exactly how this assassination took place and how involved the United States government was, but this would certainly not be the first time American covert operations were launched in Haiti. In 1991, a coup led by Raoul Cedras ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and the Clinton administration decided to first apply economic pressure to restore the latter back to power. However, in the end, the United States launched a full invasion (Operation Uphold Democracy) in 1994 of 25,000 military members to force Aristide back to his “rightful” place. In 2004, Aristide claimed that the United States participated in another coup (this time against him) to force his resignation, and although the kidnapping claim may be false, it is pretty clear that the United States was involved in the coup. Finally in early 2021, President Moise blamed the United States for a failed overthrow, and the growing dislike of that president among American officials only bolsters the idea that the United States was involved in his assassination.

Though it will be difficult to prove American culpability in Haiti’s current political crisis, precedents set would suggest that this will likely be proven true as the details come to light. It may take several years before the official documents are declassified and confirmation can be made, however, at this time, it seems highly likely that the DEA and Colombian military (considered a key ally in the fight against drugs and terrorism in South America) worked together to oust a leader that was deemed unfit for office by foreign governments. President Biden is playing the part as arbiter of valid leadership in the world, just like his predecessors.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Biden’s Army of Door-to-Door Missionaries Prepare for Spreading the Gospel of Fauci

In Dr. Fauci’s hyperbolic vision of two Americas, people are classified as either the scientific “goody two-shoes” who follow orders and get vaccinated or the selfish Neanderthals who just want grandma dead. It is difficult to have a unified country or intellectual conversations when those are the only two options, and when political dissidents feel silenced in the debate over the pandemic and the vaccine (there is no current campaign to imprison people for speaking out, but to question the narrative gets you nowhere because only one view is taken seriously and the other is mocked, ignored, or removed), it is no wonder why so many refuse to get vaccinated. Marginalizing people who ask questions and challenge the narrative is not a good marketing strategy, and utilizing techniques such as bribery and desperate pleas (like pushing lies that you will die or get hospitalized if you do not receive the jab). Because the Biden administration failed to reach its arbitrary seventy percent goal of all adults receiving at least one shot by the Fourth of July, it has issued a statement suggesting that it will send out government agents (or volunteers, as is claimed) to undervaccinated communities and go door to door at times. This overreach of government should be met with resistance at every turn, and even if it were just an innocent ploy to get people to take a miracle cure, the methods being pressed should concern all Americans.

I have heard very little pushback from people on the possibility of sending agents of the state on private property to persuade individuals to take an experimental drug, and there are only a couple of ways that this could be accomplished, one of which is more concerning. First, government agents could simply go to states, counties, and municipalities with low vaccination rates and start knocking on random doors and hoping that some of the people that answer are not among the majority class. This would still mean government agents patrolling the streets with eyes and ears on the ground, and in addition to potential intimidation, these hired hands could be collecting data on local communities and handing it over to the government for future use. It would be naïve to believe that the missionaries of the Covid religion would knock and then quietly leave the residences of those who turn them away without some sort of verbal effort or alternative mission.

If the thought of having unwanted and persuasive salespeople at one’s door is not enough to make the blood boil, another possibility is more sinister, which would be a targeted approach. This would involve searching through vaccination records to see who is and is not already vaccinated so the agent can show up at the door of the minority class. This would be the least time-consuming option because the government could quickly scan the databases and isolate names and addresses of the targets without spending time worrying about preaching to the choir of the already-vaccinated. Searching records with the intent to single out individuals for the purpose of approaching them would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. The government needs probable cause of a crime in order to search records, regardless of whether the records are publicly available (in today’s world, very few records are actually private) or sealed in a medical office. The last time I checked, not getting vaccinated is not a crime.

Sending government agents to private residences is also a violation of the Third and Ninth Amendments, and it could also violate the First (religious exemptions), Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Third Amendment guarantees everyone privacy in their own homes (stemming from the British quartering of soldiers), and the Ninth Amendment prohibits the government from violating rights that are not expressly written in the Bill of Rights (such as privacy). If the missionaries require one to answer their questions or reveal vaccination status, this could violate one’s right to not self-incriminate (Fifth Amendment), and if the state governments participate or attempt to force vaccinations, the Fourteenth Amendment has been violated. If the government agents refuse to leave and detain the unvaccinated individuals, this would be an unreasonable seizure (Fourth Amendment).

The so-called pro-choice people seem to only care about choice when it is the murder of unborn babies, but when it comes to what they perceive as a necessity for public health, what people put in their bodies is the choice of the collective. I mean, everyone is parroting the “safe and effective” mantra, so what could go wrong? It is not like anyone is dying or suffering from side effects from the vaccines or anything, right? It is not like the government would experiment on the population. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and Project MK Ultra were just misunderstandings, of course, and you can trust a government that bombs children in third-world nations and tortures enemy combatants and puts immigrants in cages.

Even if applying the Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) mentality, no federal law has been created to allow the government to force vaccinations on the populace, like was the case in Cambridge, Massachusetts at one time, nor has a law passed allowing the federal government to carry out the Biden administration’s new orders. Though the Supreme Court precedent set by Jacobson is dangerous and de facto unconstitutional, this is the argument that collectivists have salivated over in order to bypass the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions for limiting the choice over one’s own body. This is why Americans should be concerned. Today, it might be going door to door with the Gospel of Fauci and a holy syringe in hand, but tomorrow, it could be forced needles in arms, if the conversions are unsuccessful.

Another thing to be concerned about is the possibility of placing people who refuse the “hospitality” of Biden’s minions on a watchlist, which would turn average citizens into criminals of sort without due process (terrorist and no-fly watchlists already exist, and many people have been erroneously, or not, placed on them). In conjunction with Facebook ramping up its “fact-checking” and anti-extremist notifications and the FBI and NSA spying on political dissidents, the federal government could keep tabs on the unvaccinated scum of the earth, and in the future, these people could be labelled as domestic terrorists. It already seems highly likely that the federal government (particularly Dr. Fauci’s NIAID) collaborated with Facebook to push “authoritative information” (as shown in the FOIA request for Fauci’s emails), which could explain why information that went against the narrative was silenced in a heartbeat and pushed to the fringes of the Internet in the “conspiracy” realm. The Biden administration already plans to work with Facebook and other social media sites to bypass the First and Fourth Amendments, so the times are getting dark for those people who still value freedom.

With the precedent that will be set for the government going door to door to push an agenda, what will be the next step? Will it be forced vaccinations? Will, as North Carolina Representative Madison Cawthorn says, the government be coming for guns next (starting with a buy-back program, and then it might evolve into confiscation)? I mean, New York’s King Andrew Cuomo issued his own decree turning gun violence into a public health emergency, and even the New York City-dominated legislature (the gun-wielding Upstate New York is at the mercy of a dictator now) did not approve of his declaration of a new war against guns (the war against marijuana is fading, so we need a new war on inanimate objects to lock people up). Sending government agents (or volunteers, as they will call them) is dangerous to our liberties.

Governor Mike Parson of Missouri and Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina have spoken out and plan to prevent the Biden administration’s door-to-door efforts from getting off the ground, and hopefully other officials will join in. As the propaganda ramps up with the delta variant and new warnings are being issued suggesting that mask mandates and other measures will return in the Fall (through executive fiat without the legislatures, of course), Americans need to guard against the encroachment of their rights. The more we downplay these things and allow the gradual degradation of our freedom, the more the government will push.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Is the United States Really a Free Country and How Does It Compare to the Colonies Under British Rule?

Many people have been crying that Americans are selfish and that they have lost faith in humanity because we could not come together in a World War II-style collective effort to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic. Aside from the fact that collectivism brought us such gruesome historical events, such as genocide under Nazism and Communism of the Soviet and Chinese variations, and that governments under the mission of protecting individuals from foreign and domestic threats have committed far worse atrocities than individuals ever have; the British government under King George III expected the selfish colonists to submit to the authority of the empire and live collectively and pay their part under the protection of the Crown. While most Americans echo the same talking points taught to us during elementary school that the American Revolution was fought solely because the British taxed the colonists, in reality, the tyranny of the 21st century United States is far worse than that under the British monarchy.

Most states during the 2020 to 2021 pandemic implemented some sort of restrictions through executive edict, and although the tyranny came in many different forms based on the federalism concept, governors are not permitted to act like kings or steal the rights of the citizenry. The Fourteenth Amendment generally prohibits the states from violating the Bill of Rights, and Article IV Section 4 guarantees a republican form of government to all states. Yet, the legislatures took a backseat to the supremacy of the executive branch, as they took an extended recess. Even the courts shut down, in most cases, and the executive branch (including the bureaucracy) was the only active component of government. One of the major complaints against King George III was that he dissolved the colonies’ legislatures when the citizens got too unruly, especially in the cases of Massachusetts following the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the subsequent Coercive Acts (as well as the 1769 suspension due to Samuel Adams’ “circular letter” against the Townshend Acts) and of New York in 1767 after financial protest against the Quartering Act led to the Suspending Act.

During the height of the “two weeks to flatten the curve” that evolved into over a year of restrictions (it was easy to predict that this would happen), many governors forced restaurants, bars, churches, gyms, theaters, museums, and many other businesses and organizations to close until further notice (again, by executive edict). People were told to stay in their homes unless traveling for essential business, like their jobs (if they were still permitted to work) and the grocery store. Some jobs issued permission slips in case the employees were stopped by law enforcement. Private gatherings in homes were prohibited completely or restricted during gradual easements (even Thanksgiving gatherings in New York were limited to ten people in private residences, though many county governments and sheriffs throughout the state refused to enforce the order). Pastors were arrested for holding church services, and bar and gym owners challenged the restrictions, often leading to fines and arrests. People began to snitch on their neighbors like they were working for the Stasi or the Gestapo, and some citizens were arrested for hosting large parties in their yards.

After the French and Indian War, the British government forced the colonists to trade exclusively with it (enforcement of the mercantilist system) and placed taxes to collect revenue, and then it searched ferociously for smuggled goods. Just like the monarchy created monopolies and disallowed free business practices, the state governments shut down small businesses, which forced citizens to become more impoverished and small business owners to lose their practices that they had worked hard to achieve, while the “essential” corporations remained in place making large profits. Americans had to become dependent on unemployment and other government programs (now progressives get to push for more programs, like universal basic income, as people got a taste of what politicians could not get passed without such an event) in a similar manner to the colonists with the British government. The Walmart/Target/Amazon of the Revolution was the British East India Company, which had a monopoly in the colonies at the expense of potential small business owners that had to become smugglers.

All Boston town meetings were prohibited by the 1774 Intolerable Acts, which parallels the forced closures of restaurants and churches and the prohibition of any public meetings and events by the governors during the pandemic (except for the politically-acceptable protests of Black Lives Matter, which were encouraged by the governors and officials of blue states). The First Amendment (right to free speech, protest, and assemble in a place of one’s own choosing, including small businesses) was obliterated, and state governments did not want Americans to protest their government with grievances against lockdowns and mask mandates, just like the British government wanted to halt the activities of the Bostonian rebels. In many ways, the pandemic restrictions were worse than the restrictions on town meetings in Boston because they applied to most residents throughout the United States, as opposed to just one city or state (plus, population numbers are much higher today, so more people were affected).

It is no secret that the United States government has become the largest empire the planet has ever seen (this was not what the founding fathers envisioned, and in fact, they warned against it). Because of the constant wars (propping up the military-industrial complex) and blowback associated with maintaining an empire, measures have been implemented for years to spy on Americans and restrict their lives. Edward Snowden revealed a laundry list of surveillance measures that were put in effect after the events of 9-11, and in many ways, they compare to the actions of King George III’s soldiers in hunting for goods that were smuggled by those hoping to avoid the taxes and restrictions placed without representation. Because of the 9-11 exemption (sort of like the COVID-19 pandemic exception) in the U.S. Constitution (our founders must have been prophets to have known that these events would occur), the FBI and other agencies have been able to obtain rubber-stamped warrants (judges hardly ever deny such requests) under the FISC (courts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), all under the guise of stopping terrorism. The NSA has collected metadata under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, often in bulk (no specific warrants are necessary), of millions of Americans, and in many cases, it has worked with telecommunication and internet service companies (in the frequently-utilized public-private corporatist partnerships). It has even justified targeting Americans not associated with foreign countries or terrorism through roving wiretaps, lone wolf provisions, and Section 215 (records searched must only be relevant to a terrorist investigation or there must be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, which, in reality, could cover almost anything), and it has sometimes collected the content of individuals’ phone calls, text messages, and Internet searches (with just the low-standard and secret FISC warrant, and even without a warrant, if one person is outside the U.S. or under investigation by the government). And, of course, many of these terrorist searches are done in secret without the target being notified, and companies holding the records have been forced to keep quiet under gag orders. Not to mention, the government can broadly redefine domestic terrorism to include acts or groups that should be protected by free speech and association, and the government has unconstitutionally engaged in indefinite detention and torture of individuals. With the growing narrative against conservative groups as extremists (after the January 6th riots), new domestic terrorism laws could prevent Americans from freely expressing their political views into the future. Knowing that the government is watching an individual or group and having to alter actions because of it constitute as violations of the First Amendment too.

Just like British soldiers were allowed to search the colonists’ homes without actual warrants, the FBI has gotten away with issuing national security letters (under pen register/trap and trace searches), which are essentially blank warrants from the FISC where the government agents have been allowed to fill out the location to be searched, the target of the search, and the items to be seized. Although the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments have not been able to prevent government tyranny, the colonists of the American states did not even have a documented protection from illegal searches and seizures (though the effect is the same in both scenarios), and British soldiers, through “Writs of Assistance,” wrote their own blank warrants to search homes, commercial warehouses, and ships. However, today, unconstitutional searches and seizures are arguable worse because of the technology that is available to the government that was not in the eighteenth century.

If this were not bad enough, the federal government can spy on individuals through their webcams and televisions, essentially having agents stationed in their homes without their permission while an investigation is being conducted. This is a violation of one’s right to privacy and ownership of property (if you do not feel comfortable in your own home and cannot use your property without fear of an investigation or arrest, do you really own your property or have privacy?). A common practice of the British was to station troops in unoccupied buildings and require the colonists to foot the bill (some soldiers were even housed in private residences, thus the Third Amendment). Quartering was another reason for the American revolution, and having a standing army patrolling the streets and entering people’s homes or other buildings was surely an act of tyranny.

Although comparing government agents entering one’s home through the Internet or webcams to the physical quartering of troops may seem like a stretch, remember that law enforcement regularly enters people’s homes and businesses searching for drugs and weapons (again, government intruders invading people’s homes is a violation of privacy and the right to ownership). Many people’s lives have been ruined by the Drug War, and despite the victimless crimes that lock people away, nothing beneficial has come of it. Agents have regularly killed, injured, and intimidated individuals in their own private homes (government agents have even entered the wrong home on several occasions), under the guise of the collective effort to keep people safe from drugs. The federal wars on drugs, guns, and terrorism have trickled down to local police departments, which have become militarized units of savagery across the land (the federal government sells weapons and vehicles to the police). Just like British soldiers patrolled the streets of Boston following the events there, standing armies patrol the modern streets of America in the form of “protect and serve.” It is difficult for many people to get by in their lives without some confrontation with law enforcement, and under this type of arrangement, in conjunction with mass incarceration, Americans being free from tyranny is not really attainable.

Similar to the discussion above pertaining to COVID-19 restrictions and the trade restrictions and taxes on the colonists, in the United States today, people face a plethora of taxes and restrictions on businesses and individuals. For example, the progressive income tax steals people’s money before they even receive their paychecks (plus, if people pay one-quarter of their income in taxes and have the money deducted automatically, they are essentially working for one-quarter of the year for the government without pay, which is a form of slavery). There are many other taxes that individuals and business owners face in the land of the “free,” and in conjunction with thousands of pages of business regulations and the necessity to acquire a license from the state to practice their arts, many Americans feel the similar enforcement of trade restrictions, prohibitions against selling of certain goods (think drugs or food under pandemic restrictions in today’s world), and unprecedented taxation.

Although many will claim that Americans today have representation in Congress and state legislatures unlike the colonists, it is not difficult to imagine what would happen if a politician were to propose an end to taxes for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, the military-industrial complex, and financial aid or gun transfers to foreign militaries. Since these tax expenditures are set in stone and cannot be touched, do Americans have true representation, or are there career politicians who are self-interested and corrupt and continue status quo policies?

Perhaps in many ways, Americans are stuck under virtual representation in a similar manner that the British government argued was afforded to the colonists. Laws without representation can be seen even in the modern day with Upstate New York, for example, being subjected to the laws passed by the New York City-dominated legislature (the majority rules concept should not be used to justify the lack of representation of an entire state being ruled by one city) and, of course, with Puerto Rico (Upstate New York and Puerto Rico becoming the fifty-first and fifty-second states may solve some of these issues) and Washington, D.C. (this requires a constitutional amendment). Many rural citizens in Illinois, California, Oregon, and other states do not feel represented, and perhaps we should look at allowing the admission of several more states, or at least the restructuring of state boundaries to meet the needs of those living in areas where they are not content (let the principles of the Declaration of Independence live on).

We like to act like the United States is a beacon of liberty and justice, but the COVID-19 restrictions revealed that most Americans prefer the collectivism orchestrated under the state. As we celebrate Independence Day this year, let us reflect on what it truly means to live in a free society and rewire our brains to resist the temptations of state control over our lives. Collectivism sounds good on the surface, but, in reality, it often leads to horrible outcomes and deaths and injury to many people, and it is the antithesis of freedom. We as Americans need to choose whether we are sovereign individuals who obtain our rights naturally and from our humanity, or whether we prefer to live in a society where our rights are granted to us and given only when it is convenient to the government (and, of course, taken when there is a declared emergency of any sort). Happy Fourth of July!

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Will the Wuhan Lab Investigation Spark a War with China?

I recently had the chance to travel down to Nashville, Tennessee, and I noticed that the majority of people were not wearing masks (maybe 15% were, if I had to guess). Now, keep in mind that this was on busy streets and in bars and restaurants, and even the crowded Grand Ole Opry theater seated a maskless crowd. People were just going about their pre-pandemic lives without any concern for a virus or the previous tyranny of state restrictions, but when I returned home, it was back to the masked zombie nation of people cowering behind their face diapers (if the unelected bureaucracy of the CDC quickly did a sudden 180-degree turn on its mask guidance and the virus followed a similar data pattern regardless of the measures taken, the obvious question becomes: were the masks ever really necessary?).

Also while I was away, President Biden announced that he would have the intelligence community investigate whether COVID-19 was initiated from a laboratory leak in Wuhan (after Dr. Fauci made remarks that he was not completely confident that the virus did not originate in this manner and intelligence was received that employees in the lab were sick with COVID-like symptoms prior to the virus’ circulation), and I could not help but think: why now? Could it be that the United States is looking to exonerate Dr. Fauci for knowingly funding risky gain-of-function research on the jump of coronaviruses from bats to humans in the same the city where the pandemic started (the “good doctor” lied in front of Congress when asked about the National Institutes of Health’s funding of gain-of-function research when questioned by Senator Rand Paul)? Are they setting the stage for war with China or trying to change the narrative to take blame away from the United States, the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates, the NIH, and other actors that may have been involved? Could the tyranny implemented by most of the world’s governments (including states within the United States) have been avoided?

It is sad to see so many people manipulated by the propaganda, and when I had suggested over a year ago that the virus did not coincidentally originate naturally in Wuhan (if research was being conducted on the same virus with the same transmitters in the same city where the virus began, it is fairly safe to say that it was not natural), I was looked at as a conspiracy theorist who was pushing misinformation, but when Biden or Fauci suddenly changed their tune on it, it somehow became perfectly acceptable. This shows exactly what I have been saying for months on end without success: people just blindly follow the narrative and only make adjustments when approved sources and government officials tell them that it is appropriate to do so. Now that this theory is in the mainstream, it will be seriously considered by the masses, and this shows just how effective the American propaganda really is (regardless of how many different networks and media companies there are).

Also, over a year ago, I had mentioned that perhaps eventually the United States government would try to blame China for the pandemic and use it as justification for going to war. Although an impending investigation into the origins of the virus (and the possibility that maybe it was not an accident) and President Biden’s opinion that China will “own America” by 2035 makes war seem more likely than ever before, this idea is just speculation on my part. I do not have inside information, nor am I a prophet, but there are indications based on patterns and hegemonic history of the world and the United States.

For much of the world’s history of empires, there have been balancing acts between dominating powers or alliances, and every power on earth has fallen at some point from internal and external forces. The American Empire dominates militarily (having bases in most of the world’s countries to surround non-compliant ones, using overt and covert operations to determine the power structure within certain nations, and performing show of force operations globally) and economically (the U.S. dollar is the reserve currency of the world, countries that do not comply are quickly hit with sanctions, and there is disproportionate ownership in global entities, like the World Bank and IMF).

There has never been an empire that has been able to control almost the entire world like the United States (thanks to technology and a powerful military capable of intimidation), but there is bound to be a superpower that eventually rises up to rival the United States and put it in check. Plus, internal issues (like economics, inability to balance a budget, excessive taxation, superficial divisions between Republicans and Democrats, critical race theory, censoring of information through Big Tech, and misleading propaganda in the mainstream media) will put strain on the capability of the United States to lead into the future. China has increased its military might over the past several years and has begun flexing muscles in its sphere of influence, and an American leader may enter the stage during a future war with China and attempt to prove President Xi’s idea that autocracies are capable of making quicker decisions that may lead to the end of the formalities of a republic in the United States (the United States is already an oligarchy anyways without real representation of the people, so it would not be a difficult transition).

Then, of course, the United States has been confrontational when it comes to Taiwan and the South China Sea (plus, China’s authoritarian approach to Hong Kong and the Uyghurs in Xinjian Province, which should be condemned by the whole world, does not help). Several exercises, thought to be mock invasions of Taiwan, and aggressive maneuvers of aircraft near the island have been the subject of complaints by the Biden administration (who has recently guaranteed Taiwan’s safety through military force from a Chinese invasion), and the United States, from the Obama administration onward, has been sending “freedom of navigation operation” patrols throughout the South China Sea as a show of force. The Philippines has conducted its own patrol operations in the sea in order to send a signal to China that the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal are not its exclusive territory (China also patrols nearby shoals that are claimed by the Philippines), and if conflict arises between the two nations, the United States would most certainly join in on the action to protect its former colony. Conflict in the South China Sea could erupt into war, but it is uncertain at this point if it will occur.

The point of this writing is not to make the assertion that war between the two superpowers is inevitable, but rather, it is important to question the timing and reasoning for the inquiry into the Wuhan laboratory leak theory and what it could mean for the United States and the world. It is a bit curious that immediately after assuming the presidency, Biden terminated President Trump’s investigation into the lab theory, but then all of a sudden, he reinitiated it. Could it be that the current president simply made a political move and did not want to pursue it due to it being associated with his predecessor? Was the Biden administration attempting to cover up activity on behalf of the Chinese government or NIH? Could it have just been something that seemed so trivial and unsupported by evidence (though it is difficult to believe that he would not have had access to intelligence reports or classified information regarding the subject, and it is now clear from the pursuance of a new investigation that there was and is indeed some kind of information that would support the theory)?

The future may not be determined, but Americans should be suspicious of the investigation and use this as a lesson to not be so easily manipulated or conditioned into authoritarianism and propaganda. Even if war with China does not occur soon (or ever), we need to come to grips with the fact that the United States will not be the sole global power forever, and antagonizing other countries and forcing enemies to rally against our imperialism is not going to serve this country well.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Another Conflict Between Israel and Palestine Means More U.S. Support for War Crimes

In the United States, you are not allowed to criticize the Israeli government, and doing so will often get charges of anti-Semitism thrown in your direction. The Israeli lobby (such as American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC) has its hands in many things, and American politicians are under constant pressure to act in accordance with that country’s best interests. Despite the annual military aid to the tune of $3.8 billion (the $38 billion deal over ten years was signed by the Obama administration) to the most powerful country in the Middle East that also spies on the United States, the Israeli government has acted poorly in its human rights record. The Palestinians living under the occupied territories of Gaza Strip and West Bank have been subjected to what many would consider martial law and disproportionate responses against the civilian population by the Israeli military, and yet, as Americans, we still have unconditional support for a state that has committed genocide. Although the Palestinians may sometimes support terrorism in the form of the military wing of Hamas, people should consider that there are few alternatives for the people living under this sort of occupation, and desperate Americans would likely take similar actions.

Hamas has recently fired hundreds, or even thousands, of rockets into Israel (many of which have been intercepted by the Israeli Iron Dome missile defense system) in response to Israel’s closure of a holy site during Ramadan and subsequent raid of Al Aqsa Mosque that left hundreds of Palestinians wounded and a “legal” eviction of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem (Israel often uses these types of unethical legal proceedings, which are condemned by most in the international community, to justify evicting Palestinians from their homes). The skirmishes and airstrikes during this conflict have resulted in 192 deaths and over 1,200 injuries of Gazans, 13 casualties in the West Bank, and 10 dead Israeli citizens. The mainstream media’s historical coverage of violence focuses largely on Palestinian rockets that land in rural areas and do not often result in Israeli deaths, instead of the brutal force that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) utilizes in response that leads to several times more Palestinian deaths than Israeli ones. Although Hamas’ shooting of rockets into sovereign territory of Israel should be condemned and is an act of terror, Israel should not resort to further devastating the Palestinian civilians any more than it already does.

Although the thirteen-story residential building and the twelve-story building that housed an office for The Associated Press (perhaps this was destroyed to cover up negative coverage of the atrocities that the Israeli government is committing) that were demolished as a result of intentional Israeli airstrikes (under the guise of attempting to kill terrorists, of course) got some attention and public outcry, it should not take one abhorrent series of events for Americans to realize what is really going on in Palestine. In addition to the disproportionate force, the Israeli government has been expanding settlements in the West Bank (this includes intentionally demolishing Palestinian homes to make room for Israeli settlements to be built in their place), restricting Palestinian movements through curfews and road checkpoints, and blockades against Gaza.

If only Americans put this into perspective and tried to sympathize with the Palestinians, perhaps the attitude towards unconditional assistance towards Israel would change. If China, for example, invaded parts of the United States and destroyed whole neighborhoods to make room for Chinese settlements, which would leave the Americans previously occupying the land homeless, Americans would object to such cruelty; but when Israel commits such atrocities, we turn a blind eye to it and even condemn those who criticize it. The Israeli government not only gets a free pass to treat the Palestinians like the American government of the past treated Native Americans, but it gets rewarded with bags of cash and arms deals through the military-industrial complex that can then be used to kill Palestinians.

It seems as if the United States government will continue its unconditional support of a regime that has been accused of several war crimes, and even President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have expressed that Israel has a right to defend itself, which is really code for the idea that they do not really condemn Israel’s actions or care about the Palestinians (Israel does, in fact, have a right to defend itself, but so too does Palestine). Unwavering support of Israel is bipartisan, and President Trump’s Israeli normalization deal with United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, called the Abraham Accords (which consisted of bullying Sudan into accepting the deal in exchange for funds from IMF and World Bank and ignoring the plight of Western Sahara and Palestine), and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital without regard for the implications showed this. Some progressives in Congress, including Representatives Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib and Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have recently spoken out about Israeli atrocities, but the overall media narrative, though less friendly towards Israel than in the past, has remained largely unchanged.

Will World War III erupt from this conflict? Conditions for it are in place, such as division over support or condemnation of Israel by the world’s nations; entangling alliances, such as the United States and Europe protecting Ukraine, Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel and China and Russia working together with Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela; and changing dynamics around the world economically and politically in the world of COVID-19. There have been potential rocket concerns from neighboring Lebanon and Syria, and the UN has warned that this could escalate to all-out war. Plus, since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing the United States towards war with Iran for years (to eliminate his primary competitor for the supremacy in the region), and the latest fiasco (U.S. ships fired warning shots at Iranian boats that were claimed to have conducted unsafe maneuvers towards the vessels) could erupt into a military engagement.

However, despite Netanyahu’s assurances that the conflict will persevere until Hamas learns its lesson not to fire rockets into Israel, it is likely that this conflict will slow down, as many nations, including Iran, are calling for an end to hostilities without escalation. In the end when this conflict does come to an end, things will likely go back to normal, and the United States will continue to send military aid and weapons to Israel to commit its war against the Palestinian people (whether through acts of aggression or the expansion of settlements into the West Bank, which is something that President Trump changed in U.S. policy to no longer be considered a violation of international law). Maybe one day Americans will wake up to what is really happening there, but by then, there may not be any land left for the Palestinians to live on for their future state under the two-state solution.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.