Sandra Finley

2024-01-03 “Autism Tsunami” republished in the journal Science, Public Health Policy, & the Law. By Toby Rogers.

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Jan 042024
 

(Sandra speaking:)  “Autism”  is about vaccinations.

IMPORTANT ARTICLE.  Toby Rogers does good work.

= = = = = = = = =

The truth routes around censorship

Toby Rogers
  1. The backstory

As many of you know, from 2019 to 2021, Mark Blaxill, Cynthia Nevison, and I built the best societal cost of autism model ever developed. Previous societal cost of autism models assumed constant prevalence. But the one thing we know about autism is that the rates are increasing over time. So with Mark’s best-in-class prevalence history and Cynthia’s computer programming genius we built a model showing how much autism will likely cost the United States over the next 40 years. Titled, “Autism Tsunami: The Impact of Rising Prevalence on the Societal Cost of Autism in the United States” our manuscript sailed through peer review. It quickly became one of the most downloaded articles on the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (JADD) website.

Then (apparently) the Simons Foundation freaked out. Since 2003, the Simons Foundation has spent hundreds of millions of dollars searching for “the gene for autism.” They are the second largest funder of autism research in the U.S. (after the NIH) and they have almost nothing to show for their efforts because there is no “gene for autism” — autism is caused by environmental factors (mostly vaccines).

The sharply rising autism prevalence that we documented in our study suggests that:

1.) the search for “the gene for autism” was a total boondoggle; and

2.) the soaring cost of autism will cause the political and economic collapse of the United States in our lifetime (so we should probably do something to stop children from being poisoned in the first place).

Apparently this was embarrassing to the Simons Foundation because it falsified their approach to autism. The Simons Foundation has largely captured the field of autism research and they have hundreds of academics who are dependent on their largesse. Rather than change direction based on new information the Simons Foundation doubled down on their wrongheaded strategy and they put the word out that ‘this article needs to get got.’ Some well-placed hit pieces soon followed from defenders of the status quo.

The Editor-in-Chief of JADD, Fred Volkmar, dutifully organized a witch trial. We brought on the best lawyers in the country, Siri Glimstad LLP, to defend us. Late one night in preparing a letter to send to JADD, I discovered that Fred Volkmar took millions of dollars from the Simons Foundation over the years. At a minimum I thought he would have to recuse himself. It underscored the whole point we were making — JADD’s attack on us was in service of a wealthy benefactor and contrary to scientific best practices.

But the facts did not matter at all to JADD, their attorneys at Springer/Nature, nor the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) that we later appealed to. JADD and COPE were riddled with financial conflicts of interest (see explanation here) but the conflicted parties carried on regardless. There were never any independent findings of fact — JADD just made up accusations whole cloth, ignored our responses, and that was that. JADD had some witches that needed burning (us!) on behalf of the people who have been wrong for decades (the Simons Foundation and really the entire academic autism industry) and they were not going to let the facts get in their way.

We battled them for two years but the fix was in from the beginning. So over the summer they disappeared our article and attached a digital scarlet letter for eternity, “RETRACTED!” The next day the Simons Foundation put out a hit piece on us just for good measure with an image of a trash can and the caption, “Case closed.” It was all so cartoonish and over the top — these are not serious scholars.
  1. A new day

Thankfully, that’s not the end of the story. The truth always routes around censorship. Last week our article was republished in Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law. It went through independent peer review once again and we added two new paragraphs so this version is even better than what was published in JADD.

Founded in 2019, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law has quickly become one of the best journals in the country because they publish without fear or favor and follow the data wherever it leads. It’s one of the last scientific journals that still does actual science. It’s the journal we should have published with in the first place.

You can download “Autism Tsunami” (here).

The facts remain: autism prevalence has been increasing for fifty years, the costs of autism are astronomical and growing (soon to hit a trillion dollars a year in the U.S.), and the U.S. will collapse in our lifetime if we don’t stop the mass poisoning of our children.

III. The Simons Foundation’s strange retreat from the autism conversation

In writing this article I went over to Spectrum News (the wholly-owned blog of the Simons Foundation that put out the hit pieces on us) and discovered this notice:

Wait, what!? Spectrum News is no more and now it’s just a column within the Transmitter, a generic neuroscience blog.

Then I went over the website of the Simons Foundation. And they are in the midst of a massive rebranding.

The President is an astrophysicist — so clearly, autism is not their top priority.

Okay but what about the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative (SFARI)?

Well, it’s still funded (to the tune of millions of dollars) but they are in the midst of a six-month “strategic planning process.” They no longer announce that they are searching for ‘the gene(s) for autism.’ Instead their mission consists of generalities:

SFARI’s mission is to improve the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders by funding innovative research of the highest quality and relevance.

I imagine some of this is a function of having more money than they know what to do with. Of course rebranding and periodic reassessment of mission are essential in any large organization. But it’s still wild to watch the largest private funder of autism research flounder like this after twenty years of futility.

I cannot help but reflect on the tragedy of it all. Just imagine how different the world would be today if Bernard Rimland, Sallie Bernard, Mark Blaxill, or Lyn Redwood had been invited to those initial planning meetings for the Simons Foundation in 2003. Putting $200 million into political efforts to stop regulatory capture would have stopped the autism epidemic whereas the search for the “autism gene” allowed the epidemic to continue to surge.

It’s beyond infuriating that even as the Simons Foundation retreats from the front lines of the autism conversation they also went to great lengths to try to prevent anyone else (us!) from explaining how to stop the autism epidemic.

  1. Lessons learned

I want to take a moment to share my “lessons learned” from this process. It’s obviously painful to be publicly lynched by a bunch of grifter clowns for two years. But I think we learned some really important things about the current state of the autism epidemic as a result of this long ordeal:

  1. Retraction has been weaponized. It’s now just a tool for powerful interests to censor evidence they don’t like. During my Ph.D. I read and liked, Ending Medical Reversal: Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives by Vinayak Prasad and Adam Cifu. They make the case that not nearly enough papers are retracted. I imagine that’s true. But it is also true that retraction has been weaponized to serve powerful interests and far too many good papers that challenge the status quo are retracted to serve the interests of powerful corporations and benefactors.
  2. Censorship is a confession of guilt. There was a time, not too long ago, when the mainstream crowd was certain that they could win a debate about vaccines and autism. But that’s over now. They don’t have any RCTs. They refuse to have any discussion about the evidence. All they have left is censorship. Their position is untenable.
  3. The other side is unable to have a conversation about the cost of autism. This is stunning. There are eight good societal cost of autism studies that built the foundation for our study. But once we accurately modeled the rising wave of costs (as the prevalence continues to increase) the causes and the urgent need to stop the poisoning of our kids becomes crystal clear. So the gatekeepers threw the chessboard across the room and announced that we cannot have a conversation about the costs of autism ever again. Thankfully Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law rectified this unjust situation.
  4. Ignoring, suppressing, and denying evidence about rising autism prevalence and cost consigns the growing autism population to a life of misery and early death. If we cannot have a conversation about the cost of autism then government will never provide the necessary revenue and facilities to make sure that adults with autism have a place to live after their parents die. That’s what’s at stake. That’s why we wrote the article (to get government to step up now to provide more support for the growing wave of adults on the spectrum). If our society refuses to plan for what’s ahead, hospitals, homeless shelters, and the streets will be where millions of autistic adults live and die. Increasingly this will be the story in every town across America:

This is what 50 years of academics lying about autism in order to enrich themselves has done to this country.

Our study is an important first step in finally telling the truth about the full scope of the autism epidemic. Congress should immediately convene hearings on the rising prevalence and cost of autism in the U.S.

  1. It’s not just Pharma that wants to cover up the autism epidemic — the trillion dollar a year Autism Industry wants to cover up what is happening as well. In my Ph.D. (2014-2019) I showed that the autism epidemic stems from the political economy problem of regulatory capture (that’s Pharma). But what I learned from fighting to get the truth out about the cost of the autism epidemic is that the trillion dollar a year AUTISM INDUSTRY does not want anyone to know why autism rates keep increasing either (they want to keep that gravy train rolling). It was the geneticists (the Simons Foundation) who called for our heads and Fred Volkmar then enlisted the help of handpicked Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) supporters to attack our paper.
  2. It seems clear to me that Fred Volkmar and many of the so-called academic autism experts are committing research fraud. The federal government funds genetics research as a make-work program to keep scientists from studying the harms of toxicants. Jim Simons funds genetics research to cover up the guilt that he may have harmed his own child with vaccines. In the 1970s, perhaps it was reasonable to think that autism might be genetic — yet even then, people who actually worked with children on the spectrum, including Bernard Rimland, knew autism was caused by environmental factors.

By 2003, it was already clear that autism is NOT primarily a genetic condition (see my earlier discussion in Section IV: here). With the publication of Hallmayer et al. (2011), the genetic theory of autism causation was largely over (see my discussion of that study in my thesis). So anyone who has taken money from the NIH and the Simons Foundation over the last decade to search for something they will never find is arguably committing research fraud; these academics are defrauding the taxpayers, defrauding the universities where they work, and defrauding people on the spectrum who are hurt by this spectacular waste of valuable resources.

Here’s a photo of Fred Volkmar giving a presentation to the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Autism Meeting in 2019:

Zoom in on the slide. He wrote:

First twin study (1978) suggested strong genetics.

Subsequent studies have confirmed

Autism is a complex genetic disorder…

The first sentence is true and the next two sentences are lies. Fred Volkmar is lying to everyone in this room because it is profitable to do so. That’s the definition of fraud.

All of the evidence suggests that autism is caused by toxicants and those who deny this are engaged in a criminal cover up.

  1. Because they have committed crimes against humanity, the current gatekeepers will never change their ways. So it’s on us to replace the current system with something better. Mainstream allopathic medicine; the NIH, FDA, and CDC; and the Autism Industry can only produce poison, disability, death, and ruin. There is no point in engaging with them anymore. We have to build our own, better, knowledge production system, medical system, political system, and economic system. Above all else we must keep toxic chemicals out of people’s bodies. Lots of these efforts have begun already. If we can elect Robert Kennedy, Jr. or Ron DeSantis as President, this process will accelerate. But as our systems thrive while the current system collapses, the mainstream will launch wave after wave of attacks on us, so we have to be ready to prevail in those confrontations as well.

*The views in this article are my own and do not represent the opinions of my co-authors.

Blessings to the warriors. 🙌

Prayers for everyone fighting to stop the iatrogenocide. 🙏

Huzzah for everyone building the parallel economy our hearts know is possible. ✊

In the comments, please let me know what’s on your mind.

As always, I welcome any corrections.

Please share “Autism Tsunami” with your family, friends, and legislative representatives.

Toby Rogers

2024-01-04 “The Conservative Mastermind Behind Claudine Gay’s Ouster” (now former President of Harvard University)

 Take back the University  No Responses »
Jan 042024
 

Between this and the next article (“Autism Tsunami” by Toby Rogers) it seems that many young people are demanding integrity.

Good on them.  Reference my category, under “Knowledge Base”,  sub-category “Take Back the University”.   Which is nigh on impossible because so many of them are riddled with corruption.  They’ve sold out to the Corporates’ Big Money.   Sold their souls to the devil.

Karlstack cross-posted a post from Christopher F. Rufo
Christopher BrunetJan 4 · Karlstack

“The Conservative Mastermind Behind Claudine Gay’s Ouster”

I tell Politico how we ran the campaign to unseat Harvard’s president.

Christopher F. Rufo
Jan 4

 

The resignation of Harvard president Claudine Gay has sent shockwaves through America’s elite institutions. Commentators across the political spectrum, habituated to years of submission to DEI orthodoxy, have been asking: How did it happen?

Yesterday, reporter Ian Ward of Politico reached out to ask me precisely this question. As one of the journalists and activists who worked on this campaign and watched it develop from the inside, I was happy to oblige.

The following is a reprint of our interview, first published at Politico under the headline, “We Sat Down With the Conservative Mastermind Behind Claudine Gay’s Ouster.”

Christopher F. Rufo is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Politico: How much credit do you think you deserve for Gay’s resignation?

Christopher Rufo: I’ve learned that it never hurts to take the credit because sometimes people don’t give it to you. But this really was a team effort that involved three primary points of leverage. First was the narrative leverage, and this was done primarily by me, Christopher Brunet and Aaron Sibarium. Second was the financial leverage, which was led by Bill Ackman and other Harvard donors. And finally, there was the political leverage which was really led by Congresswoman Elise Stefanik’s masterful performance with Claudine Gay at her hearings.

When you put those three elements together—narrative, financial and political pressure—and you squeeze hard enough, you see the results that we got today, which was the resignation of America’s most powerful academic leader. I think that this result speaks for itself.

Politico: How closely have you been coordinating with the other people in those three camps?

Rufo: I know all the players, I have varying degrees of coordination and communication, but —

Politico: What does that mean, “various degrees of communication and coordination”? Have you been actively working together?

Rufo: Some people I speak to a little more frequently, some people a little less frequently. But my job as a journalist and even more so as an activist is to know the political conditions, to understand and develop relationships with all of the political actors, and then to work as hard as I can so that they’re successful in achieving their individual goals—but also to accomplish the shared goal, which was to topple the president of Harvard University.

Politico: On December 19, you tweeted that it was your plan to “smuggle [the plagiarism story] into the media apparatus from the left, which legitimizes the narrative to center-left actors who have the power to topple [Gay].” Can you explain that strategy in more detail?

Rufo: It’s really a textbook example of successful conservative activism, and the strategy is quite simple. Christopher Brunet and I broke the story of Claudine’s plagiarism on December 10. It drove more than 100 million impressions on Twitter, and then it was the top story for a number of weeks in conservative media and right-wing media. But I knew that in order to achieve my objective, we had to get the narrative into the left-wing media. But the left-wing uniformly ignored the story for 10 days and tried to bury it, so I engaged in a kind of a thoughtful and substantive campaign of shaming and bullying my colleagues on the left to take seriously the story of the most significant academic corruption scandal in Harvard’s history.

Finally, the narrative broke through within 24 hours of my announcement about smuggling the narrative into the left-wing media. You see this domino effect: CNN, BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other publications started to do the actual work of exposing Gay’s plagiarism, and then you see this beautiful kind of flowering of op-eds from all of those publications calling on Gay to resign. Once my position—which began on the right—became the dominant position across the center-left, I knew that it was just a matter of time before we were going to be successful.

Politico: Why is it so important to get the story into the center-left media?

Rufo: It gives permission for center-left political figures and intellectual figures to comment on the story and then to editorialize on it. Once we crossed that threshold, we saw this cascade of publications calling on her to resign.

Politico: Do you think that playbook works on any issue, or do you think that the Israel–Palestine issue is unique, insofar as it’s already dividing elite liberal organizations?

Rufo: I’ve run the same playbook on critical race theory, on gender ideology, on DEI bureaucracy. For the time being, given the structure of our institutions, this is a universal strategy that can be applied by the right to most issues. I think that we’ve demonstrated that it can be successful.

Politico: Why do you think you can be so open about your strategy and still have it work? Why don’t you feel like you need to be covert about it?

Rufo: First, and most simply, because I’m telling the truth—and the truth has an inherent and innate power. I believe that if it’s propagated correctly, it has the power to defeat lies.

The reason that I announced my strategy in advance is both to demoralize my opponents—and it certainly does a good job at that—but also to teach my potential friends and allies how the game works. Machiavelli wrote The Prince not to teach people who already knew the principles of how power works, but to teach people who need to know—and in reality, the people who need to know about how politics works are American conservatives. So I tried to publicly narrate what I’m doing in order to teach my friends how to do it themselves. I think that this is a big service—with the added benefit that it demoralizes and deranges my enemies.

Politico: Do you think you understand how the left-wing influence ecosystem works better than the people inside it do?

Rufo: Well, I spent 10 years directing documentaries for PBS, lived in large, left-wing American cities, and I’ve studied how the media, NGOs and universities circulate and legitimize information regimes. I’ve just applied that knowledge—and in some senses, I’ve stolen some of the earlier tactics from previous generations of the American left and weaponize them against the current regime.

What I’m doing is teaching conservatives how to hack that system and to use our asymmetrical disadvantages to our strategic advantage. We need to be very lightweight and very aggressive, and we need to be faster and smarter and rhetorically more sophisticated than our opponents—who, unfortunately for them, have grown complacent, lazy, entitled and ripe for disruption.

Politico: What is your broader objective here, beyond forcing the president of Harvard to resign?

Rufo: My primary objective is to eliminate the DEI bureaucracy in every institution in America and to restore truth rather than racialist ideology as the guiding principle of America.

Politico: In her letter of resignation, Gay said that she was troubled by “threats fueled by racial animus.” How do you respond to that?

Rufo: It was absolutely not fueled by racial animus. It was fueled by Claudine Gay’s minimization of antisemitism, her serial plagiarism, her intimidation of the free press and her botched attempts to cover it all up. It had nothing to do with her race or sex and everything to do with her merit, her competence and her failure to lead.

Politico: How significant of a victory do you consider this campaign for the conservative movement?

Rufo: I worked on critical race theory for a very long time before it yielded fruit, but this Claudine Gay story has shown that we can drive major, paradigm-shifting victories over a compressed timeframe. I’d like to engage in more experimentation on how we can cycle up some of these campaigns very quickly.

Christopher F. Rufo is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber

 

Originally posted on
Christopher F. RufoChristopher F. Rufo
Subscribe
Leading the fight against the left-wing ideological regime.

© 2024 Chris
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

2023-12-21 Meet the woman behind the petition calling for the end of the Trudeau government. 386,698 signees in 30 days.

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Dec 232023
 

As at January 04, 2024:

 

By Adam Soos,  and with thanks to Rebel News.

The petition, which is set to close for signatures on December 24, just one day before Christmas and Justin Trudeau’s birthday, has shattered the record for signatures on a thirty-day House of Commons e-petition, reaching over 360,000 signees to date.

 

https://www.rebelnews.com/meet_the_woman_behind_the_petition_calling_for_the_end_of_the_trudeau_government?utm_campaign=as_petitiontrudeau_122223&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel

 

Michelle Ferreri is the member of Parliament (MP) for Peterborough—Kawartha and Shadow Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

She has signed her name to an official House of Commons e-petition, titled e-4701, which calls for a vote of non-confidence in the Liberal/NDP coalition government and for an election to be called within 45 days should the petition vote of no confidence pass.

She sent us an official statement, which she also posted on social media, giving the following reasons for supporting the petition:

“A relationship is built on trust. Trust is built on actions not words.

Each time someone, especially a leader doesn’t do what they say or even worse, gaslights his followers he destroys the trust.

Canadians have waited 8 years for action and what they’ve been handed is suffering.

The facts speak for themselves: Justin Trudeau has delivered record high food bank usage, homelessness, skyrocketing housing prices, an opioid and mental health crisis, a violent rise in crime and multiple ethics violations.

Misery is a powerful motivator and clearly this petition is elevating the voices of Canadians who are sick of the Trudeau imposed misery and want a leader and a government they can trust.”

The petition, which is set to close for signatures on December 24, just one day before Christmas and Justin Trudeau’s birthday, has shattered the record for signatures on a thirty-day House of Commons e-petition, reaching over 360,000 signees to date.

While MP Michelle Ferreri was unable to join us for an interview, I did speak with her and she was, despite her involvement in the petition, adamant that credit go to the person who conceived of it in the first place. The woman responsible for the record breaking petition is Melissa Outwater, a constituent of Michelle Ferreri’s who had seen enough of Trudeau’s destructive governance and wanted to do something about it.

We were fortunate to be joined by Melissa who shared about the specific concerns that prompted her to start the petition, including the housing and affordability crises caused by the Liberal/NDP coalition, and how meaningful it was to have an elected representative who was responsive and supportive of her democratic efforts. She also shared about the timing of the e-petition and how it was indeed intended as an early and certainly unwelcome gift for Trudeau’s birthday.

Outwater shared that the petition is not binding, but with enough signatures she hopes the pressure results in enough NDP and Liberal representatives coming to their senses and realizing that a vote of no confidence is needed. With the house set to resume business in late January, we won’t know what impact the petition will have until then, but clearly the more signatures, the greater the onus on Ottawa to do the right thing. If you want to sign the e-petition you can do so by clicking here.

For more stories on Trudeau’s destructive governance and to sign our petition which also calls for the end of the Liberal/NDP coalition, please visit TrudeauMustResign.com.

2023-12-15 Quotes from David Korten’s “When Corporations Rule the World” added to Could Tamara Lich & Chris Barber have organized millions of people internationally. Or was it an “emergent, radically self-organizing social movement?”

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Dec 182023
 

Tamara Lich was jailed and denied bail because she was identified as THE LEADER of the Freedom Convoy that rocked Canada and many other countries.  Tamara is awesome and thank Goodness it was HER and not someone else who played her role.

But in an extremely short period of time — 2 or 3 weeks – –   COULD she have mobilized the millions of people around the globe who continue to demand justice for what happened during the covid years? COULD it have been something else?  like. . .

Self-organizing. Successful social movements . . . emergent, evolving, radically self-organizing (as described by David Korten in his book When Corporations Rule the World).

The systemic forces nurturing the growth and dominance of global corporations are at the heart of the current human dilemma … to avoid collective catastrophe we must radically transform the underlying system of business to restore power to the small and local.

Quotations  by David Korten   from his book   When Corporations Rule the World

The systemic forces nurturing the growth and dominance of global corporations are at the heart of the current human dilemma … to avoid collective catastrophe we must radically transform the underlying system of business to restore power to the small and local.

*****    As we continued our discussion over the next few days, the pieces began to fall into place. The Western scientific vision of a mechanical universe has created a philosophical or conceptual alienation from our own inherent spiritual nature. This has been reinforced in our daily lives by the increasing alignment of our institutions with the monetary values of the marketplace. The more dominant money has become in our lives, the less place there has been for any sense of the spiritual bond that is the foundation of community and a balanced relationship with nature. The pursuit of spiritual fulfillment has been increasingly displaced by an all-consuming and increasingly self-destructive obsession with the pursuit of money-a useful but wholly substanceless and intrinsically valueless human artifact.

It seemed evident from our analysis that to reestablish a sustainable relationship to the living earth, we must break free of the illusions of the world of money, rediscover spiritual meaning in our lives, and root our economic institutions in place and community so that they are integrally connected to people and life. Consequently, we concluded that the task of people-centered development in its fullest sense must be the creation of life-centered societies in which the economy is but one of the instruments of good living-not the purpose of human existence. Because our leaders are entrapped in the myths and the reward systems of the institutions they head, the leadership in this creative process of institutional and value re-creation must come from within civil society.

*****From our vantage point in Asia we have watched in horror as the same policies the United States has been advocating for the world have created a Third World within its own borders as revealed in its growing gap between rich and poor, dependence on foreign debt, deteriorating educational systems, rising infant mortality, economic dependence on the export of primary commodities-including its last remaining primary forests-indiscriminate dumping of toxic wastes, and the breakdown of families and communities.

*****   I share the liberal’s compassion for the disenfranchised, commitment to equity, and concern for the environment and believe that there are essential roles for government and limits to the rights of private property. I believe, however, that big government can be as unaccountable and destructive of societal values as can big business. Indeed, I have a distrust of any organization that accumulates and concentrates massive power beyond the bounds of accountability. In short, I align with those who are defining a new path that is more pragmatic than ideological and who cannot be easily pigeonholed within the conventional conservative-liberal spectrum of political choice.

***** … the systemic forces nurturing the growth and dominance of global corporations are at the heart of the current human dilemma. I now believe that to avoid collective catastrophe we must radically transform the underlying system of business to restore power to the small and local. I further believe that accomplishing the needed transformation will require the cooperative efforts of those within the system-including those who head our major corporations and financial institutions-in addition to the efforts of citizen movements working from outside it.

With regard to spiritual values, I was raised in the Protestant Christian faith but find wisdom in the teachings of all the great religions. I believe that we have access to an inner spiritual wisdom and that our collective salvation as a species depends, in part, on tapping into this wisdom from which the institutions of modern science, the market, and even religion have deeply alienated us. Through this rediscovery we may achieve the creative balance between market and community, science and religion, and money and spirit that is essential to the creation and maintenance of healthy human societies.

*****

… we are experiencing accelerating social and environmental disintegration in nearly every country of the world-as revealed by a rise in poverty, unemployment, inequality, violent crime, failing families, and environmental de~dation. These problems stem in part from a fivefold increase in economic output since 1950 that has gushed human demands on the ecosystem beyond what the planet is capahle of sustaining. The continued quest for economic growth as the organizing principle of public policy is acceleratin.g the breakdown of the ecosystem s regenerative capacities and the social fabric that sustains human community; at the same time, it is intensifying the competition for resources between rich and poor-a competition that the poor invariably lose.

Governments seem wholly incapable of responding, and public frustration is turning to rage. It is more than a failure of government bureaucracies, however. It is a crisis of governance born of a convergence of ideological, political, and technological forces behind a process of economic globalization that is shifting power away from governments responsible for the public good and toward a handful of corporations and financial institutions driven by a single imperative-the quest for short-term financial gain. This has concentrated massive economic and political power in the hands of an elite few whose absolute share of the products of a declining pool of natural wealth continues to increase at a substantial rate-thus reassuring them that the system is working perfectly well.

Those who bear the costs of the system’s dysfunctions have been stripped of decision-making power and are held in a state of confusion regarding the cause of their distress by corporate-dominated media that incessantly bombard them with interpretations of the resulting crisis based on the perceptions of the power holders An active propaganda machinery controlled bv the world’s largest corporations constantly reassures us that consumerism is the path to happiness, governmental restraint of market excess is the cause our distress, and economic globalization is both a historical inevitability and a boon to the human species. In fact, these are all myths propagated to justify profligate greed and mask the extent to which the global transformation of human institutions is a consequence of the sophisticated, wellfunded, and intentional interventions of a small elite whose money enables them to live in a world of illusion apart from the rest of humanity.

These forces have transformed once beneficial corporations and financial institutions into instruments of a market tyranny that is extending its reach across the planet like a cancer, colonizing ever more of the planet’s living spaces, destroying livelihoods, displacing people, rendering democratic institutions impotent, and feedin on life in an insatiable quest for money. As our economic system has detached from place and gained greater dominance over our democratic institutions, even the world’s most powerful corporations have become captives of the forces of a globalized financial system that has delinked the creation of money from the creation of real wealth and rewards extractive over productive investment. The big winners are the corporate raiders who strip sound companies of their assets for short-term gain and the speculators who capitalize on market volatility to extract a private tax from those who are engaged in productive work and investment.

Faced with pressures to produce greater short-term returns, the world’s largest corporations are downsizing to shed people and functions. They are not, however, becoming less powerful. While tightening their control over markets and technology through mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances, they are forcing both subcontractors and local communities into a standards-lowering competition with one another to obtain the market access and jobs that global corporations control. The related market forces are deepenmg our dependence on socially and environmentally destructive technologies that sacrifice our physical, social, environmental, and mental health to corporate profits.

The problem is not business or the market per se but a badly corrupted global economic system that is gyrating far beyond human control. The dynamics of this system have become so powerful and perverse that it is becoming increasingly difficult for corporate managers to manage in the public interest, no matter how strong their moral values and commitment.

Driven by the imperative to replicate money, the system treats people as a source of inefficiency and is rapidly shedding them at all system levels. As the first industrial revolution reduced dependence on human muscle, the information revolution is reducing dependence on our eyes, ears, and brains. The first industrial revolution dealt with the resulting unemployment by colonizing weaker peoples and sending surplus populations off as migrants to less populated lands. People in colonized countries fell back on traditional social structures to sustain themselves. With the world’s physical frontiers largely exhausted and social economies greatly weakened by market intrusion, few such safety valves remain. Consequently, the redundant now end up as victims of starvation and violence, homeless beggars, welfare recipients, or residents of refugee camps. Continuing on our present course will almost certainly lead to accelerating social and environmental disintegration.

*****

 

2023-10-20   Did Tamara Lich and Chris Barber REALLY organize the hundreds of thousands of Canadians and international supporters? Self-organizing . . . Successful social movements . . . emergent, evolving, radically self-organizing (David Korten, When Corporations Rule the World). UPDATE Tamara Lich, Chris Barber trials.

The Tamara Lich and Chris Barber trials continue in Ottawa.  Leonard Greenspon, a prominent Canadian lawyer, is representing Tamara Lich;  Diane Magas represents Chris Barber.

The two co-defendants are accused of committing mischief, intimidation, obstruction of police, and counseling others to commit mischief, intimidation, and obstruction of police.

DAY 20 (Oct 19)  of the proceedings:

The second Ottawa police officer in a row – – these are witnesses selected by the Prosecution (“the crown”) to help make the case against the Defendants – –  the testimony of both officers – –

NEITHER officer has records for a period of time – – more than a week – – during which important events were happening (The Trucker (Freedom) Convoy in Ottawa).  The end of January, the beginning of February, 2022.  Critical negotiations between the Truckers and the Police Liaison Teams (PLTs) were taking place.   The phones of the two officers were updated.  The data (e.g. text messages) was all lost.

https://www.rebelnews.com/second_ottawa_cop_at_tamara_lich_trial_testifies_work_phone_was_wiped_of_freedom_convoy_records?utm_campaign=rb_20_10_2023&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel

DAY 21  (Oct 20) 

As I understand:  the defence received heavily-redacted “more” disclosure regarding the data from the phones of the two officers. The redactions cover the time period of the missing data.   . . .  uh oh.

= = = = =

In my view,  The System, the way it works,  HAS TO HAVE someone to prosecute.   You can’t have a court case that doesn’t have a Defendant.  In this case Tamara Lich and Chris Barber.

Did Tamara Lich and Chris Barber REALLY organize the hundreds of thousands of Canadians and international supporters? 

The question ignores the fact that there have been additions to our knowledge base.  “Self-organizing” is a recognized and studied phenomenon.

Self-organization

Self-organization, also called spontaneous order in the social sciences, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent.    (Thank-you Wikipedia!)

In my view, a difficulty for authorities is that their modus operandi conventionally requires the designation of “leaders” to whom “fault” can be assigned and prosecuted.   They HAVE TO punish to set an example to others, to discourage others from standing up for the Rule of Law, for example.

I attended the Sentencing of Artur Pawlowski, September, Lethbridge, AB.   I don’t doubt that the Judge believed himself – – his personal righteousness, when justifying the “guilty” verdict as necessary for deterrence.

At the Enquiry (into the Invocation of the Emergency Act) I heard prosecutors and others asking  “Who told you . . .”, or “Who led . . .”, or “Do you know (one of the people jailed for being seen to be a leader)? . . .  Did you have conversations with…?  When did you first meet . . .?   Who introduced you . .  .?  Who are the leaders?   (We have to put “the leaders”  in jail, fine them, castrate them.  Give us the evidence we need!)

ALTERNATELY,  the process becomes the punishment. . . .  Yeah,  we’ll isolate you in a Remand Centre, bail denied, no trial, for well over a year, well beyond what is allowed by law.  No problem!  And comrades beware!  We freeze bank accounts and credit cards of those who rise in support of  justice.  No trial yet? – – – toooo bad!  The precedent is set: Julian Assange!  HA ha! )

Make sure there is a long memory of what happens to anyone who is involved in protest, no matter how legal it is.  And no matter the depth and length of the grievance and consequently the public support.

“Successful social movements are

emergent, evolving, radically self-organizing,
and involve the dedicated efforts of many people,
each finding the role that best uses his or her gifts and passions.”  

(sounds to me like the Freedom Convoy.  It is similar to what I wrote in 2004.  About the Network   (top of my blog).

David Korten, author of “When Corporations Rule the World“.

QUESTION:  Does or can  David Korten’s prescription  (emergent, evolving, radically self-organizing, many working together, individuals finding the role that suits their passions)  help to address the problem with getting people to take the advice offered by Donella Meadows?  . . .   Are monumental meeting and organizing challenges addressed?

Personally,  I think the changes we need are, and will continue to happen, if we are willing to give up control.   Where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”  we may do well to recognize that things are rapidly evolving  and  “radically self-organizing” (we aren’t standing still).

History tells us this is the way it sometimes happens.   The world did not foresee the Berlin Wall coming down,  the fall of the Communists in East Germany (1989).   It was accomplished without major bloodshed and seemingly, out of the blue.  . . . But not.

The petry dish was the Gdansk Shipyards, Lech Walesa, and the Solidarity Movement in Poland 10 years earlier.  It was growing and spreading, a pattern not recognized while it was happening – – or maybe NOT REPORTED?  – –  or maybe individual events reported, but devoid of CONTEXT?  How were we to discern a pattern, to know it was coming?

I am a fan of Canadian suffragette, Nellie McClung – – “Just do it” (what needs to be done).  Empowered and distributed leaders emerge.  I think that is what I am observing today, and thankfully, many of those leaders are young and talented.  They abound among the musicians, in theatre, in the arts – –  in addition to the usual places you might expect.  Even retirees are taking on the challenges in various ways – –  in line with their passions.  It all matters and it all helps.

The actions of the Corporatocracy have been bold and extreme.   They are digging us deeper and deeper into violence.   This is no time for timidity, in my humble opinion.

2011-01-03 “All our Cowardice and Servility” from the Museum of Non-violent Resistance at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin

In July I suggested:  If you have time for only one posting, make it the Artur Pawlowski update.

I went to Lethbridge, Alberta for the sentencing of Pawlowski scheduled for  August 9th.   

The use of the Justice system to silence citizens has to be stopped.   You get a fair trial.   It’s not fair if you have to pay literally a million dollars in lawyer bills to get to an Appeal Court to establish your innocence (which Pawlowski did (July 2022), which Pawlowski COULD do, but only because of crowd-funding).

And then have to start over again in a Provincial Court with charges of mischief (criminal), looking at potentially 10 years in jail. ~~~

On August 9th I showed up at the Court House early, to ensure a seat in the Court Room.   I went through Security inside the front door of the Court House 3 times, trying to find in which Court Room the sentencing of Pawlowski would take place.   FINALLY,  one of the fellows working the Security line said aloud (not looking me in the face),  the Sentencing has been postponed to September 18th.  Bless him!   (The person at the desk inside the Court House, sitting at a computer, would not give me that info.)

I am returning to Lethbridge for Sept 18th   – –  which I did.  It was a wonderful time with wonderful people.

Pawlowski was found guilty;  and sentenced to jail.  HOWEVER,  he had already served time in jail (some of it in solitary confinement).  So Pawlowski did not go to jail;  he was sentenced to time already served.

AND  the verdict is already under appeal.

2023-12-15 Lawmakers Dodge U.S. Sovereignty Question During House Hearing on WHO Reform. (connection to Bill 36 in Canada)

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Dec 162023
 

This one (Lawmakers Dodge U.S. Sovereignty Question During House Hearing on WHO Reform) may light a fire under your bum.

The Canadian version of the “Sovereignty Question” from Friday’s report below, being “dodged” by U.S. lawmakers is in Bill 36 (Canada – B.C).

    1. The Cabinet and the Minister of Health can adopt as law in BC any regulations, codes, standards or rules enacted in foreign jurisdictions or international bodies.8

See    2023-12-06 Bill 36 is the Health Professions & Occupations Act. First class tyranny. But we can stop it, by pitching in to help the Canadian Society for Science & Ethics in Medicine. Just spread the word.

= = = = = = = = = = =

Lawmakers Dodge U.S. Sovereignty Question During House Hearing on WHO Reform,  with thanks to the CHD.

By  Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.     EXCERPT:

.  .  .  “One wonders if turning over your country’s sovereignty to an unaccountable agency run by globalist pawns for its funders is an act of treason, and if so, whether U.S. government employees could be called to account in future,” Nass added.

who reform house hearing pace feature

Miss a day, miss a lot.Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.

Lawmakers Dodge U.S. Sovereignty Question During House Hearing on WHO Reform,  with thanks to the CHD.

A hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Wednesday focused on the World Health Organization (WHO): Should it be reformed and, if so, how?

INSERT:  As per the Constitution, the U.S. House of Representatives makes and passes federal laws. The House is one of Congress’s two chambers (the other is the U.S. Senate), and part of the federal government’s legislative branch. The number of voting representatives in the House is fixed by law at no more than 435, proportionally representing the population of the 50 states.

However, experts who spoke with The Defender said the hearing, originally scheduled for October but postponed until this week, lacked substance and sidestepped important issues.

Three witnesses testified: Loyce Pace, MPH, assistant secretary for global affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), John Nkengasong, Ph.D., ambassador-at-large, U.S. global AIDS coordinator and senior bureau official for global health security and diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State and Atul Gawande, MD, MPH, assistant administrator for global health at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Statements by lawmakers and witnesses centered around China’s level of cooperation with the WHO, the importance of asserting U.S. leadership over the WHO and U.S. interests related to the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) and the “WHO Pandemic Agreement,” both currently under negotiation.

Lawmakers also discussed the importance of the WHO in helping nations prepare for the “next pandemic,” and the broader role of the U.S. in the global public health infrastructure.

While there was some discussion of preserving U.S. sovereignty if the IHR amendments and/or Pandemic Agreement are approved by the WHO’s member states, there was little mention of controversies related to COVID-19 restrictions and vaccines, the COVID-19 lab-leak theory or controversial gain-of-function research.

Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist, biological warfare epidemiologist and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, live-blogged the hearing for CHD.TV. She also shared critical remarks about the proceedings with The Defender.

“The witnesses, all government officials working and negotiating with the WHO, were selected to toe the party line,” she said. “Nothing new was allowed out of their mouths.”

Valerie Borek, associate director and lead policy analyst for Stand for Health Freedom, said she “was not impressed by the hearing.”  “The issue of whether the treaty and IHR amendments would threaten American sovereignty was brought up, but dismissive answers denying it did not get follow-up,” she said. “The hearing was titled ‘Reforming the WHO,’ but there was very little talk of what that meant.”

Nass said there was “much dissembling about the issue of whether U.S. agreement [to the IHR amendments and/or Pandemic Agreement] would transfer sovereignty, but the witnesses lied and said it would do no such thing,” Nass said. “The answers were a mishmash of talking points and meaningless blather — running out the clock.”

“The witnesses brazenly lied under oath,” Nass added. “Brazenness seems to be a feature of the pandemic age.”

Witnesses sidestepped lab leak questions

Much of the testimony — and a substantial portion of the opening remarks of Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chair of the subcommittee — centered around China’s level of cooperation with the WHO and its role in a “cover-up” of the early danger and spread of COVID-19.

“When the WHO should have been conducting independent investigations into the origins of COVID-19 and presenting the global community with verified information to help keep them safe, we instead saw that they ignored some facts and parroted back statements that came from the Chinese Communist Party,” Wenstrup said.

“The WHO’s lack of independent investigation potentially allowed the beginning of the pandemic to be worse and spread further. … All in all, we saw the WHO more influenced by politics than public health.”

Some of the witnesses and several of the lawmakers on the subcommittee credited the WHO’s role in protecting global public health.

“There is no international organization as central to this work as the World Health Organization, which has contributed to monumental advancements in healthcare access, improvements in population health outcomes, and the defeat of deadly diseases,” said Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), ranking member of the subcommittee.

The witnesses conceded difficulties cooperating with the Chinese government during the COVID-19 pandemic. “China has not been forthcoming the way it should be in working with WHO,” Nkengasong said.

Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) said WHO officials should be questioned about the difficulties working with the Chinese government.

However, when Wenstrup asked the three witnesses to respond to a question about Dr. Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance and his role in research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — the source of the alleged lab leak— they sidestepped the question.

“The WHO whitewashed the origin question,” Nass said. “This panel has shone a light on absolutely nothing so far, as anticipated.”

 

Lawmakers, witnesses claim ‘next pandemic’ coming

Lawmakers and witnesses appeared to agree on the need to be prepared for a future pandemic.

“We must be better prepared when the next pandemic surfaces and a scientifically focused WHO is paramount to that,” Wenstrup said. “Nothing is more important than global public health and properly reforming the WHO is the first step to that protection.”

Along similar lines, Ruiz said, “I want to take the time to emphasize now that our work to prevent and prepare for future pandemics is not in conflict with enhancing international cooperation. Instead, our efforts are strengthened and fortified by it.”

“In order for us to ensure our nation is truly prepared for the next pandemic, we must continue to engage with the international community on work that prevents future threats from reaching our nation,” he added.

Suggesting there’s “no ocean large enough to protect Americans from a virus that can spread rapidly across the globe,” Pace claimed, “It’s only a matter of time before the world faces another serious public health threat.”

WHO only interested in ‘power grab’

Lawmakers and witnesses also didn’t question the need for amendments to the IHR (2005) or for a Pandemic Agreement, but instead focused their attention on the issue of protecting U.S. sovereignty and American interests in the event WHO’s member states approve either or both of these instruments.

Wenstrup said the Pandemic Agreement and IHR amendments “must ensure American interests are protected. They must not violate international sovereignty and they must hold China and others accountable. Further, any accord or treaty must be presented to Congress for approval,” he said.

Ruiz chimed in with,“The United States has served as the preeminent leader in global health for decades and now is not the time to cede that role to another country angling for global influence. Now is the time to reinforce the United States’ global health leadership with meaningful reforms to the WHO that promote transparency and strengthen international cooperation in the event of future pandemics.”

Pace highlighted the role the U.S. played in proposing some of the IHR amendments.

“It’s quite important for us to ensure that in these deliberations … evolve in a way that serves all countries and … ensures our highest and best level of prevention, preparedness and response,” Pace said. “It’s one of the reasons that the U.S. actually took a leadership role in calling for the revisions of the International Health Regulations and introduced the original 13 or handful of amendments.”

According to Gawande, “The additional reforms the U.S. is advocating for under reforming the international health regulations make a clearer tiered response.” At present, the USAID official said, the WHO can declare only a “public health emergency of international concern” as it did in the case of COVID-19.

“We’re looking for a three-level set of tiers, so that there is an earlier indication that countries have a health issue developing of concern,” Gawande said.

In her live blog, Nass remarked that this proposal is not evident in copies of the proposed amendments that have been made public.

“Gawande misrepresents the IHR amendments and says they seek a tiered response,” Nass wrote. “It seems he has seen a later version than was made public.”

Pace said her agency “work[s] closely with our colleagues at the Department of State and USAID, as well as other federal agencies, to build pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacities worldwide.”

“HHS is leading efforts to update the International Health Regulations to make them clearer, more precise and better fit for purpose,” Pace said. “We’re advocating for amendments that would ensure rapid and transparent information sharing, enhance WHO’s ability to assess health threats and improve global implementation and compliance,” she said.

Pace “asserts that reform is the reason the U.S. led the way in proposing changes to the IHR,” Borek said. “That assertion conflates expansion of scope and authority with reform. It’s like saying, ‘you messed up, here’s more responsibility,’” she added. “The only ‘reform’ [the WHO is] interested in is the type Pace is spearheading — a power grab.”

Pace argued that medical innovations did not reach the U.S. in a timely manner during the pandemic and that the IHR amendments would alleviate this issue.

“One of the shortcomings unfortunately of the COVID-19 pandemic is it did not allow for a high degree of accountability when it came to accessing innovations in particular,” she said. “One of the things we are trying to negotiate as part of this agreement is to ensure that those innovations reach everyone, including Americans, on time.”

Yet, on her blog, Nass said Pace’s agency “suppressed existing drugs to make way for innovative vaccines that turned out to harm Americans. Innovation during a pandemic is not necessarily a good thing.”

Regarding ongoing negotiations for the Pandemic Agreement, Nkengasong said the State Department is working with HHS “to support our negotiating team in Geneva,” adding that “it’s very clear … that we need this instrument … that would protect us,” as the world finds itself “in an era of pandemics.”

“It is an accord that will do the things that we have been discussing here, which is allow us to dictate early, respond early, [to] a threat that will emerge and invariably will emerge because we all know that we live in an era of pandemics,” he said.

“Ultimately, we’re focused on finding sustainable solutions that break the cycle of pandemic crisis and complacency,” Pace said.

Many analysts have argued that the proposed IHR amendments and Pandemic Agreement also pose a threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. and other countries. These claims were addressed during the hearing by lawmakers and witnesses alike.

“We don’t want respect for our sovereignty. We demand to be respected,” said Rep. Marianette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa). “We demand it especially from members who are not acting in good faith. And if we cannot be assured of our sovereignty, it is up to members of Congress to … have congressional approval so that our sovereignty is respected.”

Borek said the IHR amendments need to be treated as a treaty. “There are over 300 amendments proposed that affect more than 50% of the [IHR (2005)] document. Further, the whole point of the process right now is to turn ‘non-binding’ options into obligations.”

She added:

“The amendments could change the fundamental nature of the document, the relationship of the U.S. to other nations, dictate domestic spending and policy making, and potentially conflict with state police powers. These amendments must be seen by Congress before the U.S. goes anywhere near adopting them.”

Addressing calls for the U.S. to exit the WHO, Meeks said U.S. sovereignty is better protected by remaining in the organization.

“As the WHO seeks to alter international health regulations, it’s vital the United States and other member countries not let bad actors hijack the review process,” she said.

“We want respect for our sovereignty, and so we also limit how much WHO can control or demand things of us, and that is one of the challenges here, that we are protective of our own sovereignty and therefore do not want to have those tools challenge potentially challenge us or other member states,” Gawande said about the proposed instruments.

Nkengasong said the issue of sovereignty “has not at all been a subject of discussion during the [negotiations for] the Pandemic Agreement … We will not allow such, if ever such a discussion was to occur during the negotiation.”

“It takes an effective WHO to adequately guard global health and well-being supporting the safety and sovereignty of America,” said Pace. “Frankly, if [the] WHO didn’t exist, we would have to create it.”

Nass, in her live blog, disputed these claims, writing that those claiming U.S. sovereignty is not threatened “either [have] not read the documents” or are “lying.”

In her live blog, Nass noted that Wenstrup briefly addressed the difference between an “accord” or a “treaty” but “did not say how, nor insist on the need to review the treaty. This seems like an attempt to give up Congressional review of the amendments.”

For Ruiz though, the proposed “reforms” take “a lessons-learned approach from the early days of the pandemic,” which would “enhance oversight of member states’ compliance” with the IHR, “develop an early warning system for public health threats,” and “strengthen investigative capabilities “ for public health emergencies.

According to several of the lawmakers and witnesses, this is to best prepare the U.S. for a future pandemic, with Nkengasong saying, “It is not a question of if a new health threat will emerge. It’s a matter of when. The world needs greater cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and communication.”

This could be achieved, witnesses said, by the U.S. remaining a member of the WHO.

“One of the reasons we want to remain at the table [is] to be a voice in that room and ensure that that voice is rooted in science and in the important work of WHO, really serving not only America but the world in ways that we want to see,” Pace said.

“We know that when we are not at the table, others will take our seat at the table,” Nkengasong said. “Now the burden is on all of us, the burden of leadership to continue to put pressure on WHO to reform so that it can be more agile, it can be more forceful and it can be more accountable in responding to or putting pressure where it’s needed.”

‘There is no way the WHO can be reformed’

According to Nkengasong, if the U.S. remains in the WHO, it can “help elevate global health security as part of our foreign policy.”

Gawande added, “In a crisis, U.S. leadership is indispensable. A case in point is the U.S. providing more COVID vaccines without charge than any country in the world … We also supported COVAX as a mechanism that then got other countries to do their share,” Gawande said, adding that the U.S. and COVAX “donated close to 7 million safe and effective vaccines to over 117 countries.”

“He claims the vaccines provided by COVAX were safe and effective for COVID,” Nass wrote, referring to Gawande’s statement. “Please remind him he is under oath.”

Nass told The Defender her impression was that the hearing “was conducted in order to say an oversight hearing was conducted on the WHO, when there was no oversight happening, just a lot of grandstanding. “Both members and witnesses should be ashamed of their performance, and I invite their constituents to challenge them on it,” she said.

“One wonders if turning over your country’s sovereignty to an unaccountable agency run by globalist pawns for its funders is an act of treason, and if so, whether U.S. government employees could be called to account in future,” Nass added.       Watch the hearing here:

2023-12-05 No Apologies. Tucker Carlson. Ep. 45. Explains Why … You’ll Never Get an Apology for What Happened During COVID – “If I admitted it, I’d have to suffer the consequences.”

 Uncategorized  No Responses »
Dec 152023
 
Tucker Carlson Explains Why 
… You’ll Never Get an Apology for What Happened During COVID – “If I admitted it, I’d have to suffer the consequences.” (19:25)

2023-12-12 Trudeau’s $1B green slush fund whistleblower exposes corruption and high-level cover-ups

 Corruption  No Responses »
Dec 152023
 

A whistleblower has recently come forward in Parliament with scathing allegations involving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s $1 billion green slush fund, including a nexus of corruption and coordinated efforts to cover it up.

The cover-up indicated high-level conflicts of interest, taxpayer money squandering, gross mismanagement and evidence of a highly toxic work environment.

“Nearly 200 companies have received over $80 million, improperly funded by taxpayer dollars,” the whistleblower shares, citing claims backed by documents, transcripts and recordings.

 

 

One of those recordings is of the Chief Financial Officer of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Doug McConnachie.

“There’s a lot of sloppiness and laziness,” he can be heard saying. “There is some outright incompetence and, you know, the situation is just kind of untenable at this point. I think the minister is going to flip out when he hears this stuff.”

 

 

The allegations involve Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC).

The executive team and board of directors had to be strategically addressed, according to the recording of McConnachie.

“The discussion will be the mechanisms for getting them out,” he said.

There were two members of the SDTC tasked with operating independently of the board, who were explicitly put in place to protect shareholders. That is, the Canadian public.

Kathleen Sendall and Ed Vandenberg failed in this duty.

All of this has caused conservative MP Michael Barrett to ask, “Who got rich?”

 

 

Will the Liberals finally be held accountable for their continued corruption and flagrant disregard for ethics? And where is the RCMP? Perhaps too preoccupied with diversity, tolerance and inclusivity training.

This is only the tip of yet another conflict of interest-riddled iceberg says MP Barrett, so stay tuned.

2023-12-12 $290 million lawsuit against Freedom Convoy participants designed to silence expression. From JCCF

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Dec 122023
 

Lawyers on behalf of Chris Barber, Tamara Lich, and other Freedom Convoy participants argue that the $290 million class action against them is designed to silence their expression–expression the public had an interest in hearing [Image by Dave Chan/AFP via Getty Images]

OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre announces that lawyers representing Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and other defendants against a class-action lawsuit brought by Zexi Li and other Ottawa residents will be in court this Thursday, December 14, 2023. Tamara Lich and the other defendants have filed an application to dismiss Zexi Li’s $290 million class action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)–a lawsuit designed to silence the expression of peaceful protesters.

In February 2022, Ottawa residents Zexi Li and Geoffrey Delaney, Happy Goat Coffee Company, and a local union commenced a $290 million class-action lawsuit against Chris Barber, Tamara Lich, and other Freedom Convoy participants, seeking damages against peaceful protesters for allegedly causing a nuisance. This lawsuit also seeks damages from citizens who donated to the peaceful protest.

Anti-SLAPP legislation serves to protect defendants against “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (SLAPP)–lawsuits designed to silence a defendant’s freedom of expression through threats of damages or costs. Anti-SLAPP motions are designed to end such lawsuits and are available to a defendant in any proceeding against them. Once an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed, the defendant must demonstrate that the proceeding against them arises from their expression that “relates to a matter of public interest.” If the defendant can demonstrate that their expression does relate to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that their lawsuit has “substantial merit” and that the defendant has no valid defence. A judge must then weigh the importance of the expression at stake against the importance of the plaintiff’s allegations of harm.

Lawyers in the Justice Centre network argue that the proceedings against Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and others do, in fact, arise from their expression. Donating to and participating in the Freedom Convoy amounted to an expression of support for the protest, and of disagreement with the Government of Canada’s response to Covid–matters of public interest. Further, lawyers argue that Zexi Li’s class-action lawsuit contains factual and legal weaknesses; it is not obvious that the proceeding against the defendants has “substantial merit.” Finally, lawyers argue that the defendants do have valid defences and that the value of the expression at issue outweighs the allegations of nuisance against them.

On Thursday, December 14, 2023, the parties will proceed to oral argument at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the plaintiffs’ entire class-action lawsuit is, in fact, a SLAPP action disguised as a nuisance claim and that the lawsuit is merely intended to punish the defendants for participating in the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest. If successful, all or part of the class-action lawsuit will be dismissed.

Lawyer James Manson stated, “Zexi Li’s lawsuit engages the very purpose that ‘anti-SLAPP’ legislation was designed to address: an attempt to silence peaceful expression, and the right of defendants to participate in public debate.”

John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre, stated “The fundamental Charter freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly must be vigorously protected and defended, whether they are attacked directly by government or indirectly through a misguided civil action.”

 Older Entries  Newer Entries