Why? That is, what’s the given reason for this censorship? The real reason may pertain to Patrice Khan-Cullors’ actual function as either a state-sponsored “radical,” or a functionary of the World Economic Forum, or both.
Author: MCM
James O’Keefe should sue Twitter—or, better yet, he should start organizing a class action suit by all (of us) who’ve been “suspended” or shadow-banned by Twitter, along with others who feel that they have been deprived of the variety of viewpoints that would all have their say on a proper commons.
In any case, if we don’t get together and do everything we can to smash this propaganda tyranny, it’s going to help smash all of us, and not just metaphorically.
https://thehill.com/media/548530-twitter-suspended-project-veritass-james-okeefe
Joseph Billings wrote this excellent letter to Lisa M. Krieger, the Mercury News reporter who churned out that propaganda puff-piece about Stanford’s experimental mRNA “vaccination” of babies and young children.
There should be many more such letters sent to more such “journalists,” and they too should be widely shared.
Dear Lisa,
I have a few questions concerning your April 15th article describing Stanford University’s recent Pfizer mRNA injection experiments on children.
Isn’t there compelling research demonstrating that children very rarely die from exposure to the virus, which the Pfizer mRNA injection is ostensibly aimed at attacking? And doesn’t some of this research include the very studies which, according to your article, Dr. Maldonado now claims are somehow obsolete or in need of broader understanding? After reading your rather casual report of Dr. Maldonado’s suddenly new opinions, I am inclined to ask, did you submit Dr. Maldonado’s claims to any other experts (including medical ethics experts) before writing your article concerning Stanford’s experiments? I ask because you certainly made no attempt at all in the article itself to explore the details of any study that Dr. Maldonado might be relying upon to justify the Stanford experiments or, worse, to explore the ethics of conducting medical experiments on children for any reason. I would have thought that the obvious moral implications of conducting medical experiments on children would have alone caused you to take a very hard look at Dr. Maldonado’s opinions.
Also, I would be grateful if you would explain how you justify referring so cynically and euphemistically to the most vulnerable and defenseless members of our human community (children) as “the littlest volunteers.” In what sense do you claim, for example, that the apparently frightened, masked young boy in the disturbing photograph linked with your article is a volunteer? For the moment, I am inclined to think that you have actually revealed a case that calls for independent child advocate counsel to be appointed for young Andel Good and any other child who finds himself targeted for medical experimentation. It’s a little chilling to me that you can so thoughtlessly refer to a three-year-old child as a “volunteer” for a medical experiment. Should we hire clowns to recruit such volunteers? Indeed, it appears from the article-related photograph that someone found it helpful for some reason to dance a stuffed animal before the child.
I never would have thought in several lifetimes that I would see the day that we would need to explain the Nuremberg Code to American doctors and journalists –especially in defense of children. Surely you are at least aware that a range of crimes in every state of the union is based upon the principle that children are incapable of consenting to acts (even with parental approval) that we otherwise leave to the discretion of adults in light of the possible serious consequences of the act. And even in the case of adults, an act will not be judged “voluntary” unless consent is based upon accurate and adequate information (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth). Based upon your research into your article, do you think that three-year-old Andel had this truth at his disposal, studied the risks of the mRNA experiment, and then offered his informed “consent”? Do you have solid grounds (evidence) to believe that even his parents had such information?
What exactly was the aim of your April 15th piece? Because it lacks the rudiments of responsible journalism (e.g. juxtaposition of divergent expert opinions), I hardly know how to categorize it. Certainly, consultation with the Children’s Health Defense, for example, would have improved the balance of your article immeasurably. But frankly, I worry that you intended propaganda rather than responsible journalism.
I would be grateful if you would share with me any peer reviewed research that you might have studied before you repeated Dr. Maldonado’s claims in support of Stanford’s child experiments. Did you make any effort at all to critically evaluate those claims? If you consulted other experts concerning Dr. Maldonado’s opinions and justification for conducting mRNA injection experiments on children before you wrote your article (an elementary rule in responsible journalism), would you be good enough to share with me the names of the experts whom you consulted? I would like to know who they were, what you asked them, and what they told you. And I would like to see that as a responsible journalist you obtained and evaluated any evidence in support of what you were told.
I worry that you have written a piece of highly irresponsible journalism (maybe even reckless and shameful propaganda), but I would like to get the facts clear before I reach any conclusions.
Regards,
Joseph Billings
Categories
LA cops forcibly vaccinate the disabled
This is obliquely reminiscent of Hitler’s Aktion T4, extending the Nazis’ euthanasia program to the disabled living in hospitals, mental institutions and nursing homes. The Nazis kept the program out of sight, having hidden the purpose of its preparatory data-gathering by representing it to the officials managing those facilities as routine questionnaires. That operation, and the Nazis’ other euthanasia programs, were “in many ways a rehearsal for Nazi Germany’s subsequent genocidal policies,” to quote the Holocaust Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/euthanasia-program
Some day, it will be widely recognized that Hitler’s secret euthanasia drives were also a “rehearsal” of the democidal policies now being realized worldwide; and here again we see its purpose hidden, in the faux-altruistic guise of a great global effort to protect us—every single one of us—from that demonic “virus,” and its offspring, those killer “variants.” Note that the appalling video of those masked cops restraining, and injecting, that shrieking, terror-stricken woman is captioned, “HELPING PATIENTS RECEIVE THE COVID VACCINE.”
Of course, the cops thus “helping” the disabled get those jabs sincerely think that’s what they’re doing, unlike the SS personnel who carried out Aktion T4— which makes what’s happening now—here, there and everywhere—much worse than what took place in Germany back then, because, this time around, the authors of this catastrophic global “crisis” have millions lining up to get those shots, willingly spending all their waking hours in masks—even after getting “vaccinated”—and voluntarily masking their own children, while staying far away from other people, doing everything online, and hating everyone who isn’t doing the same. Thus this “final solution”—as Bill Gates bluntly called it, on TV, in conversation with Stephen Colbert—is taking place not just on a far larger scale than Hitler’s, but with far more sophisticated mass manipulation (enabled by the universal grip of digital technology), as even— or especially—the most educated millions of its victims are all clamoring to board that train.
https://rumble.com/vfn72l-la-police-forcibly-vaccinate-the-disabled.html
That photo says it all. It’s ruined my day.
Scroll down to see the line I’ve bolded: “We don’t know what the long-term consequences of infection are,” says this Dr. Maldonado, referring, not to the experimental “vaccine” that they’re now busily injecting into babies and small children, but to—what else?—COVID-19, from which those innocents must now be “protected,” by Stanford/Pfizer.
Shame, shame, shame on all of them, including the reporter who wrote this blurp of propaganda, and the newspaper that’s running it.
From David Diamond:
Injecting an a highly bioreactive molecule into infants to preventan illness to which they are not susceptible.
Does Stanford even do ethical reviews anymore?
This would make Dr. Mengele blanch.
From David Penner:
It took many years before I was able to get a critique of identity politics published. For the conservative editors there was too much class consciousness, and for the liberal editors I lacked “respect for cultural differences.” My last two articles also engage this growing problem of identity politics sociopathy:
* https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/10/the-hysteria-of-identity-politics-is-devolving-into-violence/
Thanks for including me in your email blast!
Best,
David