News and posts from the Web Saturday, 09.18.21


This is a compilation of articles on the Internet, that may be useful in the upcoming festivities.

***************************************

https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html

Ivermectin obliterates 97 percent of Delhi cases

Ivermectin obliterates 97 percent of Delhi cases

A 97% decline in Delhi cases with Ivermectin is decisive – period. It represents the last word in an epic struggle to save lives and preserve human rights. This graph symbolizes the victory of reason over corruption, good over evil, and right over wrong. It is as significant as David’s victory over Goliath. It is an absolute vindication of Ivermectin and early outpatient treatment. It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC’s policies of “wait at home until you turn blue” before you get treatment.

Dr. Pierre Kory told the world on December 8, 2020, that Ivermectin “obliterates” this virus. Obliterate means to decimate, demolish, or annihilate. It means to eliminate or destroy all trace, indication, or significance.

***********************************

The New York Times Corrects Claim About Ivermectin

Alexa N.September 18, 2021

The New York Times Corrects Claim About Ivermectin

After The New York Times published an article about the use of ivermectin to combat COVID-19, claiming that 70% of recent calls to the Mississippi poison control center were related to ivermectin, they were corrected by an investigative journalist who pointed out that the real figure was 2%, not 70%.

.The journalist, Mary Beth Pfeiffer, tweeted, “I contacted @nytimes & they corrected 8/25 Ivermectin article. ‘This article misstated the percentage of recent calls to the Mississippi poison control center related to Ivermectin. It was 2 percent, not 70 percent,’ says appended note. Sentence removed. Poof. But damage done…

********************************

The Burning Platform

FBI Rally In D.C. Ends Without Incident

Via The Babylon Bee

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Federal Bureau of Investigation is disappointed by the low attendance at the D.C. rally they organized for Trump supporters today.

In spite of the FBI’s best efforts to lure a bunch of angry MAGA insurrectionists to the Capitol this weekend, only a few hundred FBI agents dressed as MAGA insurrectionists showed up.

“Ivermectin! Get your hot, fresh Ivermectin HEEEERRRRE!” cried one agent selling bootleg Ivermectin tablets from Tractor Supply Company. Unfortunately, he only made a couple of sales to a few other FBI agents from other field offices he didn’t recognize.

“Greetings, fellow Trump supporters,” said another agent. “Let’s go insurrect the government, shall we, fellas? Maybe kidnap Gretchen Whitmer? Whadaya say boys? Say—I sure do love racism!” He was then immediately tackled by three other FBI agents who dragged him to an unmarked van.

Another field agent passed out flyers for a “Super Secret Satanic Pedophile Meeting”, but was sad to find there were no takers, except one lady named Hillaria Clintonania.

“Man, to put so much work into something, only to have it flop like this, it kind of hurts, you know?” said Agent Arlo Chitbag, who had organized the event. “No one even seemed interested in my ‘Make Your Own Pipe Bomb’ booth!”

The discouraged FBI agents will reportedly unwind this evening by spying on people through their webcams before attending their monthly Satanic pedophile meeting.—————————————————–
The corrupt establishment will do anything to suppress sites like the Burning Platform from revealing the truth. The corporate media does this by demonetizing sites like mine by blackballing the site from advertising revenue. If you get value from this site, please keep it running with a donation. [Burning Platform LLC – PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

***************************

American Partisan

****************************

***************************************

***************************************

********************************

************************************

*********************************

********************************************

The Burning Platform

Establishment Of Religion

http://www.theburningplatform(.)com

Our esteemed colleague “A Fool and His Party” posted this link yesterday.  His comment was;

“So in the grand tradition of American ingenuity in the face of adversity, here comes someone down in Austin who has reverse engineered a religion which is based on resisting coercion. Looks like a fully developed religion to me…and they are offering exemption letters based on non coercion being a requirement of the religion.”

I don’t know if it’s legit  (but, I hope it is!).  Many moons ago some good Patriots formed the Church Of Monday Night Football (CMNF). A fine institution!  But, I don’t believe the IRS recognized the cost of football tickets as a “charitable deduction“.  By the way, CMNF still exists!  You can read about their history (a short yet quite humorous read)  HERE.

“Establishment Of Religion”  is a religion light on “doctrine”.  It kind of boils down to;  1) Thou shalt not threaten anyone, especially with your religion, and 2) Thou shalt not coerce.  Wow! What a great religion!  Where do I sign up??

WELL, HERE —->  Establishment Of Religion Homepage

At least click on the link to check out their Covid Exemption Letter.  Could it work? What do you think?

========

And here is their fantastic article concerning “coercion”.

SOURCE:  ON COERCION

De Coercitione: On Coercion


Coercion: Legal Definition & Example - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Just as fish swim in a vast ocean unaware of a completely different world outside their environment, we, too, swim in a vast ocean. Unaware of the nature of our environment due to long immersion in it, we assume this is the way things ought to be, rather than just the way we’ve come to accept them.

The ocean we swim in is the ocean of coercion. Coercion of others, coercion of ourselves. Coercion by government, by industry, by social institutions and by other individuals. Gross coercion inflicted through brute violence, suppression, strong-arming, and physical intimidation. Subtler forms of coercion of shaming, guilting, and the ostracizing of others simply by reason of their holding a different opinion.

Coercion has become just about the only tool in the toolbox for getting things done these days. Threaten incarceration; threaten a lawsuit; threaten to take children from parents; threaten to deplatform you; threaten to force you to choose between your job and accepting the injection of a substance you believe will be harmful to you; threaten to withhold the rewards of family harmony or friendship’s quiet enjoyment.

How have we arrived at this state? While the individual always remains responsible for his or her own actions, there is no doubt a large measure of responsibility falls squarely on those in our social institutions: government,  industry, entertainment and yes, even religion. Those who should be providing an example of reasonable and cooperative action based on honesty, true care for others and effective persuasion have plunged headlong into the trap of coercion to achieve their goals. They have been seduced by the  lure of fast, tangible results they desire while ignoring the corrosive long-term effects such behavior from our cultural leaders will encourage among the general population.

They have failed. And I say again, they have failed. They have resorted to the most egregious forms of coercion of other societies while conditioning us to accept rank authoritarianism here at home in America. They are the antithesis of what we need today: a new model for the organization of society based on non-coercion, informed by transparent and full disclosure of all relevant facts, and animated by the voluntary association of like-minded people, while assuring those who peacefully disagree the same level of autonomy and freedom we demand.

The Comity has revealed through Prophet Charles King Jr. this new truth, which is really a very old truth we simply have forgotten for a time. We offer non-coercion of others, and will accept nothing less than the same for ourselves. We demand full disclosure of all facts relevant to our decision-making in every area of our life. Our beliefs require us to extend to others that same right, so that they may be fully informed and base their voluntary association, whether personal, commercial or other, within a context truthfully arrived at.

Establishment of Religion℠ is an underlying truth familiar to all of the great world religions. It says we cannot be fully human, and participate in healthy societies, until we have purged coercion of others from our character and resisted every effort to coerce us or others. As the servant of We the People, we do not ask government to grant the cessation of coercion; we confidently say we will not participate in the coercion they wish to promote. We do not petition industry, or entertainment, to do better in promoting the principle of peaceful cooperation. We simply will not support businesses that promote or glorify coercion or violence as legitimate behavior in anything other than appropriate self-defense.

When carefully examined, it can be shown everything from simple moral precepts such as, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” to the prohibitions of criminal law may usefully employ the principle of non-coercion. It is the Universal Solvent of human conflict and the sure path to a society that values productive cooperation, inclusiveness of alternate viewpoints, and the ratcheting down of violence of all types in our relationships with others.

*****************************

How Politicians Make Millions Off Our Corrupt Political System

Via Children’s Health Defense

Big Tech and Big Pharma give campaign money to politicians who in turn receive non-public information about the corporations which they use to enrich their personal stock portfolios. The lawmakers then have influence over legislation that affects the companies in which they’re personally invested.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s wealth has increased from $41 million to nearly $115 million since 2004.

Story at-a-glance:

  • Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s wealth has increased from $41 million to nearly $115 million since 2004.
  • At issue isn’t the fact that politicians are multimillionaires — rather, as noted on a recent Twitter thread by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, it’s how they made their millions.
  • In the last two years, nearly 75% of Pelosi’s stock trades have involved Big Tech stocks, totaling over $33 million in trading.
  • The trading has occurred as major legislation was proposed, controlled by the Committees Pelosi oversees, that could reshape the future of the industry.
  • Pelosi’s five most-traded stocks in the last two years — Apple, Microsoft, FacebookAmazon and Google — were those that stood to be most affected by pending legislation.
  • The system is corrupt, with most politicians not fighting for the public but, rather, looking out for their own self-interest and wealth accumulation.

Politicians receive very comfortable salaries. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for instance, earns $223,500 a year, making her the third-highest-paid elected official in the U.S. Yet, since 2004, her wealth has increased from $41 million to nearly $115 million, according to OpenSecrets, which began tracking lawmakers’ personal finances that year.

She’s not alone in her wealth. Personal financial disclosures reveal that more than half of Congress members are millionaires, with a median net worth of just over $1 million. As is often the case, however, the top 10% of the lawmakers in terms of wealth are three times richer than the bottom 90%. Pelosi comes in as number 6 on a list of the wealthiest members of the 116th Congress.

At issue isn’t the fact that politicians are multimillionaires — rather, as noted on a recent Twitter thread by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, it’s how they made their millions:

“If you think it’s fine and normal that the Speaker of the House’s personal wealth tripled to $115 million ever since financial disclosures were required (2004), that’s fine, but the issue is how that money was made. It was from companies directly affected by her actions.”

Politicians get rich from ‘lucky’ stock trading

In the last two years, nearly 75% of Pelosi’s stock trades have involved Big Tech stocks, totaling over $33 million in trading. “That has happened as major legislation is pending before the House, controlled by the committees Pelosi oversees, which could radically reshape the industry and laws that govern the very companies in which she and her husband most aggressively trade,” Greenwald wrote in a blog.

Pelosi’s most traded company was Apple, accounting for 17.7% of her trades. But unlike most people buying and selling Apple stock, Pelosi had the privilege of speaking privately with Apple CEO Tim Cook on at least one occasion to discuss the company’s standing and how it could be affected by pending bills relating to Silicon Valley reforms.

The call in question occurred just days after antitrust reform legislation was introduced. Big Tech pushed back, and Cook called Pelosi directly to voice his concerns. Pelosi, according to The New York Times, then asked him which measures he specifically objected to. Greenwald reported on the blatant conflict of interest:

“Sources who refused to be identified tried to convince the Times’ reporters that ‘Ms. Pelosi pushed back on Mr. Cook’s concerns about the bills.’ But in doing so, they confirmed the rather crucial fact that Pelosi was having personal, private conversations with the CEO of a company in which she and her husband were heavily invested and off of which they were making millions of dollars in personal wealth.

“And Pelosi, according to the report, asked Cook what changes were needed to avoid harming Apple and other Silicon Valley giants.”

Trading stocks in companies affected by pending legislation

Greenwald also revealed that Pelosi’s five most-traded stocks in the last two years — Apple, Microsoft, FacebookAmazon and Google — were those that stood to be most affected by pending legislation, and not just any legislation, but legislation that she was working to negotiate and work through Congress.

Four of the companies — Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google — were directly identified by the House Antitrust Subcommittee as being monopolies, making their futures heavily dependent on the pending legislation. According to Greenwald:

“Beyond that, Google — one of the companies in which the Pelosis’ stock trades have made millions — is one of the top five donors to the House Speaker. The wealthy couple buys and sells in Google stock, making millions. She works on bills that directly affect the future trajectory of Google. And they lavish her campaign coffers with cash, a key source of her entrenched power.”

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s husband, Paul, purchased risky options in Alphabet, the parent company of Google, in February 2020, which he sold in June, netting more than $5 million in profits. The purchase was made, Greenwald wrote:

“… right before the market began plunging due to the COVID epidemic and right before the House, led by his wife, was set to introduce new legislation to regulate those same tech companies. Yet even as the prices in several of those companies plummeted, Paul Pelosi held onto them, only to sell them last June at a massive profit.”

He also cited two other “disturbing incidents” in which Paul Pelosi had impeccable timing with his investment decisions, including exercising nearly $2 million worth of Microsoft call options within two weeks of a Microsoft contract to supply the U.S. Army with augmented reality headsets. The other incident involved the purchase of about $1 million in Tesla stock after calls made prior to the government announcing incentives it would offer to promote the shift toward electric vehicles.

“In response to media inquiries,” Greenwald reported, “Pelosi denied that she is involved in or even has knowledge of her husband’s stock trading. There is, of course, no way to confirm or disprove that, but what is clear is that the vast wealth generated by those stock trades in companies Pelosi greatly affects — and about which she clearly has non-public information — directly enriches Pelosi herself.”

Suspicious COVID-related trading

Not every lawmaker had filed annual financial disclosures at the time of OpenSecrets’ latest report, including Sen. Kelly Loeffler, (R-Ga.), who has an estimated worth of over $500 million.

She and her husband, New York Stock Exchange chief executive Jeff Sprecher, came under fire for suspicious stock trades worth between $1.2 million and $3.1 million that occurred immediately after a “closed-door coronavirus briefing in late January” 2020. Among them:

  • Buying stock in an online travel booking site in February 2020, then selling it four days later, just before a ban on flights from Europe was publicly announced.
  • Purchasing stock in Citrix, which sells GoToMeeting teleworking software.

Loeffler denied using confidential information from her Senate duties to make a private profit but announced in April 2020 that she and her husband were liquidating their stock holdings and “moving into exchange-traded funds and mutual funds.” In other suspicious instances:

  • Sen. Richard Burr, (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who receives frequent briefings about potential U.S. threats, also dumped stock, including in hotel companies, worth up to $1.7 million in late January 2020.
  • “As Intel chairman,” Burr “got private briefings about coronavirus weeks ago,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-N.Y.), tweeted at the time. “Burr knew how bad it would be. He told the truth to his wealthy donors while assuring the public that we were fine.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.), and Sen. James Inhofe, (R-Okla.), also sold stock after Intelligence Committee briefings.

How is this legal?

Corruption runs deep in politics, with Big Tech and Big Pharma giving campaign money to politicians who in turn receive non-public information about the corporations that can be used to enrich their personal stock portfolios. The lawmakers then have influence over legislation that affects the companies in which they’re personally invested.

Politicians are supposed to be performing a public service, but once they’re out of the public eye, many go on to serve as lobbyists or work in the corporate world. This means that during their tenure, they don’t want to close doors that may help them once they’re no longer in politics.

The system is such that most politicians aren’t fighting for the public but, rather, are looking out for their own self-interest and wealth accumulation. Case in point: There were 1,502 pharmaceutical lobbyists in 2020, 63.91% of whom were former government employees.

A revolving door, in which government employees and former members of Congress take jobs with lobbying firms, is common among lobbyists, and the reverse also occurs, in which people from the private sector end up in government positions. How is this legal? As Greenwald explained, unless insider trading can be proven, this type of “lucky” trading that is building the wealth of numerous politicians will continue:

“While the trades cannot be declared illegal unless it can be proven that either Pelosi acted on non-public information — in which case it would be the felony of insider trading — the ethical stench is obvious.

“Just as was true when numerous Senators from both parties sold stocks in COVID-related industries before the pandemic began — raising questions about whether they had advance knowledge of what was coming through classified briefings — watching Nancy Pelosi’s wealth skyrocket by millions of dollars from trades in the very companies she is directly overseeing creates a sleazy appearance, to put that mildly.”

Politicians are in good company, as top health officials also cash in on stock options tied to the companies they oversee. For instance, Dr. Julie Gerberding — director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2002 until 2009, who after leaving the CDC became president of Merck’s vaccine division in January 2010 — sold half her Merck stock options for $9.11 million in January 2020.

In March 2020, a group of legislators introduced the Ban Conflicted Trading Act to “prohibit members of Congress and senior congressional staff from abusing their positions for personal financial gain through trading individual stocks and investments while in office or serving on corporate boards.”

“Members of Congress should not be allowed to buy and sell individual stock,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “We are here to serve the public, not to profiteer.” Senator Jeff Merkley, who introduced the Act to the Senate, added:

“Buying and selling stocks while making decisions that affect the stock’s value is inherently a conflict of interest. At best, it can seriously degrade public trust — as we are seeing today. At worst, it’s a blatant abuse of power.”

Originally published by Mercola.—————————————————–
The corrupt establishment will do anything to suppress sites like the Burning Platform from revealing the truth. The corporate media does this by demonetizing sites like mine by blackballing the site from advertising revenue. If you get value from this site, please keep it running with a donation. [Burning Platform LLC – PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

********************************

Have Central Banks Crossed the Line into Tyranny?

Guest Post by Martin Armstrong

With all the conspiracy theories that somehow the bankers are the real culprits in creating excess money supply, there has been an evolution in central banks that has finally crossed the line since 2019. The Federal Reserve was, once upon a time, responsible. The Fed was originally designed as an authority to create money, which was an elastic money supply. That made perfect sense when the Fed was designed in 1913.

Yes, the bankers owned the shares BECAUSE the Fed was actually designed to do what JP Morgan did in herding the bankers together to save the day during the Panic of 1907. Morgan convinced the bankers that if they did not chip in money to bail out the troubled banks, panic would unfold, and ALL the banks would be hit as a contagion. They listened and joined his effort to stem the Panic of 1907. The design of the Fed was to recreate what JP Morgan put together. The shareholders were the bankers because it was a bail-out fund for the bankers, and TAXPAYER money should not be used to bail out the bankers.

Democrat President Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Act, creating the Federal Reserve as well as the income tax. Wilson signed the Revenue Act of 1913, which lowered average tariff rates from 40 percent to 26 percent. It also established a one percent tax on income above $3,000 per year; the tax affected approximately three percent of the population. The Federal Reserve, as designed, was independent, and thus there was the Fed policy v fiscal policy set by Congress.

The elastic money was a brilliant idea where the Fed would buy-in corporate paper to provide lending of the last resort when the bankers could not lend due to the hoarding of cash in a crisis. The corporate paper was typically 90 days. When World War I came, Congress ordered the Fed to buy its paper because they would need to issue a lot of debt. They never returned the Fed to its original design to “stimulate” the economy by directly purchasing corporate paper to prevent companies from laying off employees. Therefore, the structural alteration of the Federal Reserve for World War I transformed the theory of Quantitative Easing into an INDIRECT stimulus rather than DIRECT. When the Fed bought only corporate paper, it directly stimulated the economy. When it was instructed only to buy only government paper, which the government NEVER pays off, any idea of the stimulus was wiped out, for at best, it became INDIRECT.

Then Roosevelt came, and he wanted to control everything. He seized the Federal Reserve and took the power of all the branches, and consolidated it into Washington. Section 203 of the Banking Act of 1935 changed the name of the “Federal Reserve Board” to the “Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.” Roosevelt’s Banking Act of 1935 also made major structural changes increasing the number of members of the Board appointed by the president from six to seven to ensure he now controlled the Fed. He created for himself the authority to designate one of the persons appointed as “chairman” of the Board and one as “vice-chairman” of the Board, each to serve in such role for a term of four years.

As I have explained in “Manipulating the World Economy,” there was a huge confrontation between the Federal Reserve and the White House. The Fed was directed during World War II to maintain par on US government bonds to fund the war. The Fed was ordered to engaging in what we call Quantitative Easing. Then the Korean War came, and the Fed rebelled. They refused to continue to engage in Quantitative Easing.

The Federal Reserve then stepped in to bail out Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, a failed hedge fund, because if it did not, it would have taken down Goldman Sachs. So instead of allowing that, they bailed out the hedge funds when they really had no authority to do so. That abuse of power led the Fed to then support the bankers who were engaged in manipulating markets to create guaranteed trades.

Then the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 took place when the bankers got AIG to guarantee their dodgy mortgage bank securities. When that all collapsed, the Federal Reserve again bailed out AIG, an insurance company that was operating from London, instead of the US banks. They claimed they did not have the authority to bail out Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, which were competitors of Goldman Sachs and investment banks. But they apparently had the authority to bail out an insurance company in London, which again saved Goldman Sachs.

The automated clearinghouse (ACH) system is changing to allow direct deposits from non-banks. On December 23, 2019, the Board approved modifications to the Federal Reserve Banks’ National Settlement Service and Fedwire Funds Service to support enhancements to the same-day ACH service. On September 25, 2020, the Board amended the implementation date for certain modifications. They are preparing for a digital currency, but this means two things. By this expansion, they are planning for the long-term for the elimination of public debt, in which case there will no longer be primary dealer banks, and hence no need to bail out the banks when they blow up on trading, assuming they will still be allowed to trade in the future.

Once the Fed moves to create its own digital currency, it is no longer the independent entity it was once supposed to be.

**********************************

Wilder, Wealthy, and Wise

Wilder, Wealthy, and Wise

Getting Fit, Finding Wealth, Being Happy, Creating Significance: Now Available on Stick (@wilderbyfar on Twitter) movingnorth@gmail.com

******************************

*******************************

Author: Alfred E. Neuman

EDITOR ONLY, 74 year old geek, ultra-conservative patriot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.