The Government:

May be an image of 2 people and text that says 'THE GOVERNMENT: IWILL GIVE YOU SECURITY AND ONLY DEMAND THAT YOU KNEEL AND OBEY FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. SEE THAT'S GONNA BEA PROBLEM.'
Advertisement

Senior Army flight surgeon warns pilots could die in mid-flight from vaccine side effects

An Army flight surgeon warns COVID-19 vaccines can cause inflamed heart muscles in male, flight-ready pilots. (U.S. Air National Guard)

Senior Army flight surgeon warns pilots could die in mid-flight from vaccine side effects

By Sean Salai – The Washington Times
Tuesday, September 28, 2021


A senior U.S. Army flight surgeon with specialized training in infectious diseases has filed an affidavit against the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for active-duty military personnel, warning that problematic heart side effects may cause pilots to die in mid-flight.

Lt. Col. Theresa Long, the surgeon responsible for certifying the fitness of 4,000 flight-ready airmen at the 1st Aviation Brigade in Ft. Rucker, Alabama, said that she is concerned that the vaccines can cause inflamed heart muscles in young men in the age range of most flight-ready pilots, and that the Department of Defense has not followed its own protocols by requiring an MRI scan of each airman after vaccination.


“The majority of young new Army aviators are in their early twenties. We know there is a risk of myocarditis with each mRNA vaccination,” Dr. Long states in the affidavit.

Because the “vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna both have been linked to myocarditis, especially in young males between 16-24 years old,” she states “it is reasonable to conclude that these shots pose a serious risk to many humans due to direct adverse effect or allergic reaction.”

As such, she recommends against requiring vaccinations with either Comirnaty or BioNtech.

The colonel filed her affidavit under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act last week as part of a pending federal lawsuit that seeks a preliminary injunction against the shots.

Reached for comment, she referred questions to the two lead attorneys for the suit, David Wilson and Todd Callender.

Mr. Wilson told The Washington Times that the U.S. District Court for Colorado rejected the case, originally brought by two military staff sergeants in August, but invited the plaintiffs to bring additional evidence.

“Last week we filed the amended complaint and that’s when the affidavit came from Col. Long,” Mr. Wilson said.

He said the Biden administration had not responded to the suit.

Mr. Callender said the two attorneys decided to add Lt. Colonel Long, an aviation safety officer, to the case as a function of the preliminary injunction to “demonstrate an irreparable and immediate harm” to the judge.

“She’s under a bit of pressure, as you might expect, because her testimony has caught fire. We’re going to have flight crews die in the air, and that’s the worst thing that could happen in her mind as a flight safety officer,” the attorney said.

Mr. Callender described the colonel’s affidavit as “the equivalent of the FAA’s flight surgeon saying we should get all of our pilots to go through an MRI for their hearts, except in her case the pilots carry around real ammunition.”

“We’re not looking for damages,” he said. “All we’re asking is for the court to stop the shots until we figure out why we’re using investigational new drugs under emergency use.”

A certified copy of Lt. Col. Long’s affidavit is included in the civil lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for Colorado, filed by two enlisted service members on behalf of themselves and other military personnel on active duty.

It seeks “a declaratory judgment that the DoD cannot force them to take a COVID-19 vaccination under existing military regulations, federal regulations, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution.”

The suit by staff sergeants Daniel Robert of the Army and Holli Mulvihill of the Marine Corps names U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock as defendants.

Referring to Mr. Austin’s order that military doctors “should use only as much force as necessary to assist medical personnel with immunizations,” Dr. Long’s affidavit last week also expressed her concern that the mandate is unethical.

“The use of force to administer a medical treatment or therapy against the will of a mentally competent individual constitutes medical battery and universally violates medical ethics,” Dr. Long stated in the affidavit.

Based on her experience treating COVID-19 patients on base, she further asserted that the federal government’s civilian health guidelines should not be used to guide the treatment of healthy aviators in their early 20s tasked with national defense.

“Literature has demonstrated that natural immunity is durable, completed, and superior to vaccination immunity to SARs-CoV-2,” the colonel said.

The affidavit states that the board-certified Dr. Long holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas in Austin, a master’s in public health and a doctorate from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Medical School that she earned in 2008.

She served as a field surgeon for 10 years before completing her residency in aerospace and occupational medicine at the United States Army School of Aviation Medicine in Fort Rucker, where she was trained by the Combat Readiness Center as an aviation safety officer.

The colonel received her specialized military training in infectious diseases from Army, Navy and Air Force specialists.

Dr. Long’s affidavit follows several recent mid-level military officers who have publicly criticized the Biden vaccine mandate, including Navy Cmdr. J.H. Furman and Army Lt. Col. Paul Hague.

On Sept. 9, Lt. Col Hague’s wife posted his resignation letter on Twitter.

In the letter, he describes the vaccine mandate as “an ideologically Marxist takeover of the military and the United States government at their upper echelons.”

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/sep/28/senior-army-flight-surgeon-warns-pilots-could-die-/?fbclid=IwAR3bbtwmAo6ZsVeyT0SoDS74HyxZ04SxCHJb1009Q1J9maI0DEUv2OZltBs

There is no such thing as white privilege

Even swearing is now classified as ‘white privilege’. What a load of bollocks.

BRENDAN O’NEILL
CHIEF POLITICAL WRITER29th September 2021

There is no such thing as white privilege

ShareTopicsPOLITICSUK

So now wearing second-hand clothes is a sign of ‘white privilege’. Just when you thought you’d heard it all from the loopy identity lobby, they come out with the idea that putting on a vintage dress or a musty old man’s shirt you bought from Oxfam is proof that you enjoy racial favouritism. This crackpot claim is made in a course being foisted on students at the University of Kent. If you can wear second-hand clobber without this being held up as yet another example of the ‘bad morals of [your] race’, then you are apparently white and you’re definitely privileged.

I have so many questions. First, who exactly is going around saying to ethnic-minority people who dare to don vintage fashion, ‘Oh God, how typical of your race to wear second-hand clothes?’. I am going to say ‘nobody’. When racist toerags do accost people who look different to them, it is usually not to critique their Seventies florals or dad’s old blazer. Secondly, it will surely be news to all the less well-off white kids who have little choice but to wear second-hand clothes – ‘hand-me-downs’ – that their repurposed trainers and patched-up jumpers are proof of their privilege. Some of us who crazily cling to the belief that class and income remain the key shapers of privilege in our society might even say that the wearing of second-hand clothes in such circumstances is proof of the absence of privilege. Mad, I know.

The Kent course, titled ‘Expect Respect’, is only the latest example of students being inculcated into the ways of moral conformism. It’s a mandatory module, which takes four hours to complete, and is designed to raise students’ awareness about white privilege, microaggressions, pronouns and other riveting topics. The module includes a ‘white privilege quiz’ – such fun! – in which the freshers are grilled over the societal benefits enjoyed by whitey. Apparently if you can swear without being called a disgrace to your race or go shopping without being followed or harassed, then you enjoy white privilege. Students who correctly identify all the indicators of racial privilege get a gold star. Presumably those who don’t get branded with the letter ‘R’ for racist.

The list of things that are apparently signs of white privilege grows longer and more demented by the day. Saying ‘I don’t see colour’ is white privilege. Eating French food is white privilege. Drinking milk is white privilege. Saying ‘I don’t have white privilege’ is white privilege. Of course it is. ‘For white people to dismiss the benefits they’ve reaped because of their whiteness only goes to show how oblivious – and privileged – they really are’, says one writer. This is the Kafkaesque trap of identity politics. There’s no winning in this slippery game. Refuse to acknowledge another person’s race and you’re racist. But obsess over another person’s race and presumably you’re also racist. Saying ‘I don’t see difference’ is racist. But saying ‘Oh you seem different, where are you from?’ is racist too. Confess your white privilege, and clearly you’re privileged. Deny it and you’re really privileged. It’s like being an old lady on a ducking stool in medieval times. Float, you’re a witch. Die, you’re a witch.

The idea of ‘white privilege’ sums up how toxic identity politics has become. The belief that folk with white skin have certain privileges conferred upon them is widely held in millennial circles, in the education system, in much of the political sphere, in popular culture, and in the opinion-shaping – or rather, orthodoxy-enforcing – world of social media. Even the BBC is getting in on the act, no doubt as penance for the sin of being ‘hideously white’ (in the words of its former director-general, Greg Dyke). BBC employees are given diversity training that involves taking a ‘privilege test’. BBC Bitesize, Auntie’s educational wing, last year provided a lecture for schoolkids on white privilege. ‘White privilege’ is not something that was ‘made up to make white people feel bad’, it said. Defensive much?

The truth is, white privilege is a made-up idea. I know swearing is white privilege these days, but seriously – it’s bollocks. I first knew white privilege was a pile of bunkum when Munroe Bergdorf – the trans model and keen spouter of the platitudes of the new oligarchy – said that even homeless people can enjoy white privilege. ‘You need to recognise that there is such a thing as white privilege and you can be homeless and still have white privilege, because you can still have a better chance of getting out of homelessness than a person of colour in the same position’, said Bergdorf a few years ago. Let’s leave aside how outright obnoxious it is for someone from a ‘solidly middle-class’ background to describe the bedraggled meth addict who lives under a bridge as privileged. What this and other flagrant misuses of the term ‘privilege’ really demonstrate is the extent to which identitarianism has usurped class politics and made it harder for us to understand where real power lies today.

White privilege is a myth. In terms of education and heading off to university, white working-class boys in the UK are way lower down the ladder than other social groups. On income – yes, black Brits on average earn less than white Brits, and we should talk about that, but Chinese Brits and Indian Brits on average earn more than whites. Will the identitarian crew launch a campaign against ‘Chinese privilege’? (Don’t encourage them, I know.) Also, to the extent that there are still issues with racism in our society – and there are – to define these as proof of the privileges enjoyed by the majority, rather than of the trials and tribulations experienced by certain minorities, is so wrong. It misunderstands the problem of inequality and it fosters racial tension rather than class solidarity by chopping up the populace into the privileged (bad) and the oppressed (good). That’s hardly going to get the masses to the barricades, is it?

Identity politics is a menace to solidarity. It is an implacable foe of class politics. It insults working-class people with the brand of ‘privileged’ and it grates against the broad social unity we need if we really are going to challenge the powers-that-be for more democratic rights, more freedom and boosted economic conditions. Guilt-tripping the majority about their alleged racial privilege is the means through which minority rule is maintained today. By pacifying the majority community with accusations of ‘privilege’ – making us fearful of saying or doing anything, lest we find ourselves branded racist – the new elites can sustain their stranglehold over public life. Racial politics has always been used to divide the people and hold at bay the alleged menace of popular discontent – and that’s as true of identitarianism as it was of the foul racisms of old.

Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Zero Covid has torn Australia apart

We’re not learning to live with the virus, we’re learning to live with authoritarianism.

JAMES BOLT29th September 2021

Zero Covid has torn Australia apart

ShareTopicsPOLITICSWORLD

Back in the summer, as the rest of the world was opening up, state after state in Australia started to impose new restrictions to deal with a handful of Covid cases. It turned us into a global laughing stock. No one is laughing now.

Time was when, even in Melbourne, we could chuckle at the absurdity of our Covid rules. We were told we could remove our face masks – still mandatory indoors and outdoors – in order to drink a coffee, but not to drink a beer. We were also told that if we lived with five other adults, we were not allowed to all leave the house in one group. Indoors, we were no risk to each other, but outside we were apparently a viral petri dish.

Laughter has since turned into anger. After over 230 days of hard lockdown, whatever was left of Melbourne’s social fabric has gone. And the city has been rocked by weeks of protests and violence.

On 17 September, the Victorian government announced that it would be mandating vaccinations for the construction industry. It gave construction workers six days to get their first jab or be banned from working. Unsurprisingly, not all construction workers were pleased about this. They took their anger out on their union the following Monday by protesting outside its offices. The union bizarrely claimed that the protest was made up of far-right and neo-Nazi agitators. Just as bizarrely, the Victorian government then decided to close the entire construction industry for two weeks. Even the vaccinated were banned from working. The protesters were back in bigger numbers the next day, drawing in people from many other walks of life.

The police took a very hard line. Videos of police brutality have swept the world. An old lady was pushed to the ground and was pepper sprayed in the face. A man peacefully talking to police officers at a train station was tackled from behind by another officer, his head smashing into the hard ground. Police have fired rubber bullets at protesters, too.

The violence hasn’t only come from the police, though. Another video circulating online shows just a single line of police officers standing shoulder to shoulder, attempting to stop an unruly crowd of hundreds. The crowd broke through. Numerous officers were hospitalised following the chaos that day.

This is the price of our ‘victory’ against Covid. Yes, our Covid deaths are low – far lower than the rest of the world. But how much longer can we live like this?

Well, Melbournians have been ordered to live like this until 26 October at the earliest. That’s when Melbourne’s sixth lockdown is scheduled to end – though you would be lucky to find a single person who thinks it will actually end on that day. By then, Melbourne will have been locked down for longer than any other city on the planet.

We got to this point because our leaders have been chasing the goal of Zero Covid. The successes of 2020 went to their heads and they believed they could do what no other country has done: eliminate the virus. This mindset was what drove Melbourne into lockdown on 5 August after recording just eight cases. It has been in lockdown ever since.

There are some signs of hope, however. Victoria’s state premier, Daniel Andrews, has acknowledged that the Delta variant is too virulent to be eliminated. He now says that Victorians will have to learn to live with Covid.

Andrews’ words are promising, but his actions do not match them. Melbourne is not learning to live with the virus – it is learning to live with authoritarianism. Living with the virus means being allowed to gather in groups, to be with other humans, to enjoy all that life has to offer: music, art, film, sport, going out at night. All of these activities are still either heavily restricted or outright banned. On what planet is complying with a 9pm curfew ‘living with Covid’?

Those who support the restrictions always say that we have not given out enough vaccines to be able to live with Covid yet. But Victoria likely won’t meet its vaccination targets until some time in November. Only then will people be able to go to each other’s houses and take off their masks in public.

While the dream of Zero Covid is dead on paper, we are still trying to contain Covid at all costs. People who have already been pushed beyond the brink are still suffering under draconian restrictions on every aspect of life.

As Australians see their fellow countrymen being pepper sprayed, surrounded by shuttered businesses, they despair at the legacy that Zero Covid has left for their once-great nation.

James Bolt is a producer with Sky News Australia.

7 Powerful Verses In The Bible That Support Vaccination

Arwen~ Satire

Christian LivingSeptember 28th, 2021 – BabylonBee.com

6.6kShares1.7kSHARE1.5kSHARESHARE

Are you still hesitant to get the vaccine? Repent, sinner! Everyone knows that getting the vaccine is the best way to show everyone you’re a good Christian. But if you need some extra convincing, check out these incredibly powerful verses from the Bible that show why you should be vaccinated! Prepare to be inspired!










WOW! Well, we can’t argue with those! Now get vaccinated if you haven’t yet, and if you have, get vaccinated again, just like that time you got rebaptized at church camp.

https://babylonbee.com/news/7-powerful-verses-in-the-bible-that-mention-vaccination?fbclid=IwAR0srJQ3JGcpccetJsSOksJdUcK3AMC-2v1Pxd9qbrWO5VZhM4_Z6zN9QyI

Pathologists Provide Autopsy Results of Eight People Who Died from the COVID Vaccine

Daily Veracity Staff September 23, 2021

Military leaders saw pandemic as unique opportunity to test propaganda on Canadians, report says

A plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghan war

Author of the article:David Pugliese  •  Ottawa CitizenPublishing date:Sep 27, 2021  •  7 hours ago  •  5 minute read

Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau
Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau PHOTO BY ADRIAN WYLD /The Canadian Press

Canadian military leaders saw the pandemic as a unique opportunity to test out propaganda techniques on an unsuspecting public, a newly released Canadian Forces report concludes.

The federal government never asked for the so-called information operations campaign, nor did cabinet authorize the initiative developed during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, then headed by Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau.

But military commanders believed they didn’t need to get approval from higher authorities to develop and proceed with their plan, retired Maj.-Gen. Daniel Gosselin, who was brought in to investigate the scheme, concluded in his report.

The propaganda plan was developed and put in place in April 2020 even though the Canadian Forces had already acknowledged that “information operations and targeting policies and doctrines are aimed at adversaries and have a limited application in a domestic concept.”

A copy of the Dec. 2, 2020, Gosselin investigation, as well as other related documents, was obtained by this newspaper using the Access to Information law.

The plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, also known as CJOC, relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war. The campaign called for “shaping” and “exploiting” information. CJOC claimed the information operations scheme was needed to head off civil disobedience by Canadians during the coronavirus pandemic and to bolster government messages about the pandemic.

A separate initiative, not linked to the CJOC plan, but overseen by Canadian Forces intelligence officers, culled information from public social media accounts in Ontario. Data was also compiled on peaceful Black Lives Matter gatherings and BLM leaders. Senior military officers claimed that information was needed to ensure the success of Operation Laser, the Canadian Forces mission to help out in long-term care homes hit by COVID-19 and to aid in the distribution of vaccines in some northern communities.

BLM organizers have questioned why military officials gathered information on their initiative, pointing out they followed pandemic rules and did not hold any gatherings outside LTC homes.

Then chief of the defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance shut down the CJOC propaganda initiative after a number of his advisers questioned the legality and ethics behind the plan. Vance then brought in Gosselin to examine how CJOC was able to develop and launch the propaganda operation without approval.

Gosselin’s investigation discovered the plan wasn’t simply the idea of “passionate” military propaganda specialists, but support for the use of such information operations was “clearly a mindset that permeated the thinking at many levels of CJOC.” Those in the command saw the pandemic as a “unique opportunity” to test out such techniques on Canadians.

The views put forth by Rear Adm. Brian Santarpia, then CJOC’s chief of staff, summed up the command’s attitude, Gosselin noted in his report. “This is really a learning opportunity for all of us and a chance to start getting information operations into our (CAF-DND) routine,” the rear admiral stated.

The command saw the military’s pandemic response “as an opportunity to monitor and collect public information in order to enhance awareness for better command decision making,” Gosselin determined.

Gosselin also pointed out CJOC staff had a “palpable dismissive attitude” toward the advice and concerns raised by other military leaders.

The directive for the propaganda plan was issued by CJOC on April 8, 2020, but it took until May 2 of that year before Vance’s order to shut it down took effect.

Gosselin recommended a comprehensive review of Canadian Forces information operations policies and directives, particularly those that may impact any activities for domestic missions.

There is an ongoing debate inside national defence headquarters in Ottawa about the use of information operations techniques. Some public affairs officers, intelligence specialists and senior planners want to expand the scope of such methods in Canada to allow them to better control and shape government information that the public receives. Others inside headquarters worry that such operations could lead to abuses, including having military staff intentionally mislead the Canadian public or taking measures to target opposition MPs or those who criticize government or military policy.

Military propaganda training and initiatives within Canada over the last year have proved to be controversial.

The Canadian Forces had to launch an investigation after a September 2020 incident when military information operations staff forged a letter from the Nova Scotia government warning about wolves on the loose in a particular region of the province. The letter was inadvertently distributed to residents, prompting panicked calls to Nova Scotia officials who were unaware the military was behind the deception. The investigation determined the reservists conducting the operation lacked formal training and policies governing the use of propaganda techniques were not well understood by the soldiers.

Yet another review centred on the Canadian Forces public affairs branch and its activities. Last year, the branch launched a controversial plan that would have allowed military public affairs officers to use propaganda to change attitudes and behaviours of Canadians as well as to collect and analyze information from public social media accounts.

The plan would have seen staff move from traditional government methods of communicating with the public to a more aggressive strategy of using information warfare and influence tactics on Canadians. Included among those tactics was the use of friendly defence analysts and retired generals to push military PR messages and to criticize on social media those who raised questions about military spending and accountability.

The Canadian Forces also spent more than $1 million to train public affairs officers on behaviour modification techniques of the same sort used by the parent firm of Cambridge Analytica, the company implicated in a 2016 data-mining scandal to help Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential election campaign.

The initiative to change military public affairs strategy was abruptly shut down in November after this newspaper revealed details about the plan. A military investigation determined what the Canadian Forces public affairs leadership was doing was “incompatible with Government of Canada Communications Policy (and the) mission and principles of Public Affairs.” None of the public affairs leadership was disciplined for their actions.

Several months ago, Acting Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre and DND deputy minister Jody Thomas acknowledged in an internal document that the various propaganda initiatives had gotten out of control. “Errors conducted during domestic operations and training, and sometimes insular mindsets at various echelons, have eroded public confidence in the institution,” noted a June 9, 2021, message signed by Eyre and Thomas. “This included the conduct of IO (Information Operations) on a domestic operation without explicit CDS/DM direction or authority to do so, as well as the unsanctioned production of reports that appeared to be aimed at monitoring the activities of Canadians.”

%d bloggers like this: