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.
This graph shows that Ivermectin, used in Delhi beginning April 20, obliterated their COVID crisis. No one should be able to talk you out of this - not a salesman, a drug company, a television celebrity doc, and certainly not the top doctor for the WHO or the NIH who is paid to do that.
The vaccines, though, are making certain connected people huge amounts of money. In addition, the Covid crisis became justification for the wholesale, unconstitutional revision of election laws in many states, allowing for massive corruption and the installation of senile Joe Biden as figurehead president. Thus, effective treatments using existing, approved medicines have been actively discouraged.
Court filings released last month revealed new details about how retired British MI-6 officer Christopher Steele horrifically mismanaged a network of Russian contacts in compiling his infamous anti-Trump “dossier.” The bumbling ex-spy unwisely subcontracted the handling of his network to Russian national research analyst Igor Danchenko. Now, Mr. Danchenko’s “sources” are saying he deceitfully mischaracterized them as having provided the juicy material for Mr. Steele’s dossier.
None of the Russians cited by Mr. Danchenko had access to Kremlin insiders and decision-makers. They provided none of the salacious, unproven allegations against Mr. Trump in the dossier, even as Mr. Steele was claiming Russia was secretly helping Mr. Trump win the 2016 presidential election.
Ivan Vorontsov, an editor of an online banking site, and Sergey Abyshev, who served as deputy director of the Russian energy ministry until 2016, denied they discussed any of the content used in the dossier with Mr. Danchenko. They were falsely accused of being the sources for the first of Mr. Steele’s 17 reports concerning Mr. Trump’s alleged lurid behavior at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow in 2013.
...now that the Senate has agreed to use bitcoin as a taxable piggybank to pay for billions in pork, it means that bitcoin isn't going anywhere, and it certainly won't be regulated out of existence which has long been one of the biggest existential risks facing the space.
“Everyone in America agrees that the messaging out of Washington is extremely confusing and this latest announcement only reinforces that at this time, the best solution to getting out of this pandemic lies with the individual,” Sununu’s office said in a statement to Boston25News, referring to the CDC’s recent masking policy shift, which came several months after the agency announced that fully vaccinated persons didn’t need to wear masks indoors because of the protection provided by the vaccines.
I wonder if the reason so many people don't trust vaccinations is that they are being recommended by four of the least-trusted institutions in America:
1. Government 2. The Fake News Industry 3. Social media companies 4. Scientists
More of those two standards of justice that are becoming the hallmark of DOJ. Merrick Garland-led DOJ moves to protect Biden allies in Democratic states by dropping investigations into governors' policies that led to deaths of thousands of people in long-term care facilities. https://t.co/uhYOq6h5wO
I agree with Lawrence Solomon when he says that systemic racism exists. I'm afraid I have to disagree with his assessment as to who its perpetrators are.
The systemic racists aren’t the non-woke white majority, who typically deny that systemic racism even exists. Today’s systemic racists—successors to proponents in the formal slavery period that ended with the Civil War and its informal continuance under Jim Crow—are America’s woke whites.
These white liberals, though well-intentioned, are so blinded by their racism that they believe blacks can’t feed themselves and their families without food stamps, can’t succeed on their own merits without affirmative action programs, and can’t even manage to get voter ID to cast a ballot for the candidate of their choice.
White liberal prejudices are not necessarily intentional, nor are they systemic in themselves. Though they may be widely and sincerely held, liberal beliefs in the black stereotypes Mr. Solomon describes are the beliefs held by individuals. The deliberate reinforcement of those stereotypes by a Democratic party as a matter of political strategy is systemic racism, and there is nothing well-intentioned about it.
Mr. Solomon buttresses my argument with this:
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty initiatives in the mid-1960s created the sea change that stymied the rapid advancements of blacks in overcoming the shackles of centuries of slavery. The Harvard Business School would describe the 1900–1930 period as “The Golden Age of Black Business” in which enterprising blacks were thriving despite the wholesale bigotry in society at large. Over the entire first half of the 20th century, in fact, blacks were less likely to be unemployed than whites and when they were, they were likelier to be reemployed faster than their white counterparts.
All that would change following Johnson’s sweeping welfare reforms, which had the effect of putting people on the dole, discouraging the work ethic, fast-tracking the decline of the family, and in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an architect of the War on Poverty, of “defining deviancy down,” or normalizing what had previously been considered deviant behavior.
Before the passage of Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty legislation, the worst of white racism was manifested in murderous attacks on black communities when the threat of black prosperity became more than whites could tolerate. The Tulsa Race Massacre was one such incident.
The false belief that a large-scale insurrection among Black Tulsans was underway, including reinforcements from nearby towns and cities with large African American populations, fueled the growing hysteria.
As dawn broke on June 1, thousands of white citizens poured into the Greenwood District, looting and burning homes and businesses over an area of 35 city blocks. Firefighters who arrived to help put out fires later testified that rioters had threatened them with guns and forced them to leave.
According to a later Red Cross estimate, some 1,256 houses were burned; 215 others were looted but not torched. Two newspapers, a school, a library, a hospital, churches, hotels, stores and many other Black-owned businesses were among the buildings destroyed or damaged by fire.
The East St. Louis Massacre, described in this Riverfront Times article published on the 100th anniversary, is another such incident.
This weekend marks the 100th anniversary of one of the most brutal and shameful episodes of mass violence in American history. Dubbed the East St. Louis "race riot," the events of July 2 and 3, 1917, tore East St. Louis apart and shocked the nation. The violence was largely one-sided, with mobs of armed whites burning hundreds of black homes and beating, lynching and shooting black residents. Most historians estimate that more than 100 people died.
[...]
Although President Woodrow Wilson initially opposed launching a federal investigation, Congress felt otherwise, in light of the fact that the massacre had disrupted wartime industry for more than a week and left hundreds of buildings destroyed. The congressional inquiry's final report was delivered July 6, 1918, and it can be read in full here, though you'll have to make sure you're on page 8,826 and scroll to the the middle of the right-hand column.
The report blasted East St. Louis' corrupt civil government, its incompetent police force and complicit militia members. Presenting a broad of range of competing explanations for the causes of the violence, the report concluded that while labor issues played a role, the underlying driver of the massacre was racial[.]
Although Woodrow Wilson is still held in the highest esteem by progressives, he was, in fact, an incorrigible racist, believing that because of their inferiority, blacks would not benefit from college or university education. The Wilson administration segregated the federal civil service under that same rationale, claiming it was necessary to protect blacks from unfair competition with whites and thus relegating black federal workers to lower level jobs. It was not a coincidence that the worst white-on-black race riots began during the Wilson administration and carried over into the next.
Wilson's prejudices are alive and well today, thanks in large part to Lyndon Johnson's legislation. According to Ronald Kessler’s 1995 book Inside the White House, Johnson bluntly assured two southern governors that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have blacks voting Democratic for 200 years. (Johnson's quote was abhorrent in the original.) Having successfully trapped generations of blacks in the endless cycle of inner city poverty, the Great Society serves to instill those prejudices in today's liberals who remain convinced that blacks need their help.
But again, individual prejudices, while racist, are not systemic. The Democratic party's reliance on racism is.
The all-too-common paternalistic liberal belief that blacks aren’t up to the job, and thus need more of a handicap to compensate, is sincerely held and inherently racist. Because bleeding-heart liberalism has permeated government, this racism of low expectations has become systemic in our institutions. In recent years, this racism has also spread to newsrooms where white journalists, who are overwhelmingly liberal in their outlook, have been wokedly acknowledging their own racism and, in the belief that almost everyone holds their same low view of black competence, demanding that others follow suit.
The source of the bleeding-heart liberalism that has permeated our government is the Democratic party. If there was ever a sincere effort to improve the lot of inner city blacks, Democrats might have considered abandoning policies that have failed for the last 50-plus years. Instead, electoral success has encouraged Democrats to double down.
In a sane world, the election of Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency would have been seen as a milestone in race relations. White America embraced a black president. But race relations deteriorated over the course of the Obama presidency. Democrats rely so heavily on accusing their opponents of racist motives that they would not admit that relations had actually improved. They were not about to change a winning formula. It's been a strategy that always got them elected despite substantial opposition to the policies they promote — gun control, open borders, opposition to voter ID verification, to name only a few.
The Democratic party is systemic racism. Until enough Americans see this, race relations will get worse before they get better.
The following article was provided by Larry Reed and MoneyMetals.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nineteenth century gold miners brought democracy and property rights to Australia, as well as riches. But the history was at times bloody.
Historically, the connection between gold and liberty is a potent one. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to assert—if you will pardon the pun—that they are two sides of the same coin. Australia in the 1850s provides a sterling example.
Gold’s allure dates so far back that to say it is “prehistoric” is not inaccurate. Long before any written records, it was widely prized. Though the yellow metal has also been found on every continent, it was not until 1848 in California and 1851 in the Australian states of New South Wales and Victoria that a genuine “rush” to acquire it unfolded on a grand scale.
The Australian Gold Rush that began in 1851 produced remarkable transformations. Australia’s population quadrupled from 437,655 that year to 1.7 million twenty years later.
For centuries before the mid-19th, dictatorial regimes quickly grabbed new gold for themselves or deployed force to stymie the efforts of ordinary people to acquire it. In the 1840s and ‘50s, both California and Australia (despite the latter being founded as a penal colony) were much freer places. Greedy kings and potentates were absent. A private citizen could buy or rent a piece of land, or stake a claim on vacant land, and keep whatever gold he found for himself. Gold fever in both California and in the Land Down Under, half a world apart, prompted large numbers of fortune-seekers to migrate and dig up whatever they could find.
Gold has multiple applications, from metallurgy to jewelry to art, but its most important utility in history has been as a preferred and freely chosen medium of exchange, or money. No other medium—especially government-issued fiat paper—yields the long-term economic stability that monetary gold can boast. Even today, the phrase “as good as gold” is a high compliment. No one ever declares that something is “as good as unbacked government paper” unless he intends it as an insult.
Big, rapacious, liberty-squelching governments typically hate gold, or at least gold in private hands as money. Why? Because they cannot print it. Because it is a reliable competitor for the people’s confidence. And because it exemplifies the very honesty that dishonest politicians despise. If they desire to control you or enrich themselves (or both), they will invariably seek to control money. They seem to know a version of the Golden Rule instinctively: He who owns the gold makes the rules.
In small, easily transportable quantities, gold represents highly concentrated wealth that its owners can take with them while escaping a repressive regime. People have concocted ingenious ways to do so, from putting it in their teeth to painting it and inserting it in wagon wheels. When governments debauch their paper currencies, gold is a primary refuge into which people flee.
During the gold rush, miners (or “diggers” as they are often called in Australia) had to pay British authorities for a gold license. It was essentially a tax.
(As a valuable precious metal with many of the same attributes as gold, silver has performed similar duties in history. It has often served as subsidiary coinage by the free choice of market participants.)
For a quarter century before the California Gold Rush, British colonial authorities tried to keep news of small gold finds in southeast Australia from becoming public. They feared a gold fever-inspired uprising amongst the more unsavory elements of society. But when thousands of Australians left to join the fun in California, the authorities reversed themselves. According to the National Museum of Australia, the governor announced a reward for anyone who could find it in commercially viable quantities. With major discoveries in the states of New South Wales and Victoria in 1851, the rush was on! Even many Australians who went to California returned home and started digging.
One of the titles I proudly hold at FEE is Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, named for an old and generous Australian friend who knows the gold business well. In the 1980s, he founded Croesus Mining and during his tenure with the firm, it produced 1.275 million ounces of gold.
“The influence of prospecting and mining in Australia runs deep,” says Ron. “Even today, it’s the single biggest reason why the country survived the coronavirus crisis and could still pay its bills.”
Expenditures last year for gold mining in Australia hit a new record, helping to make the country the world’s second largest gold exporter, behind Switzerland. Having earned his fortune in the business, Ron founded the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation and supports liberty-minded groups like FEE.
The Australian Gold Rush that began in 1851 produced remarkable transformations. Australia’s population quadrupled from 437,655 that year to 1.7 million twenty years later. Ancillary industries from agriculture to ranching blossomed. Gold financed massive railway and irrigation projects and modernized towns and cities. The National Museum of Australia asserts that because of the riches flowing from the mines, “Australians soon had the highest standard of living on earth.” Moreover, gold’s connection to liberty in Australia is direct and profound, in great measure due to an event called the Eureka Revolt.
It was the gold miners who brought democracy to the colony and protected the concept of property rights for Australians.
During the gold rush, miners (or “diggers” as they are often called in Australia) had to pay British authorities for a gold license. It was essentially a tax, though the miners could not vote. The franchise was the exclusive privilege of what Ron Manners calls “a very, very private club of people.”
Historian Alex McDermott of La Trobe University in Victoria notes that as the gold near the surface ran out, miners had to work harder and dig deeper to find the mineral, which set the stage for confrontation with the governing British authorities:
Not meeting with any luck, many miners avoided paying the license fee, hiding down shafts or running off through the trees when police made periodic sweeps of the goldfields to check for licenses. The police, a pretty rough and raw lot, responded by cracking down. Anyone found without a license on them—even if they’d left it back in their tent while going down the water-soaked shaft, for instance—was arrested and carted off to the lockup. If no lockup was nearby, they could just be chained up to a tree and left there for hours, or overnight.
To say this infuriated the miners is to understate the case significantly. They figured they were British subjects in a British colony—just because they’d sailed halfway round the world to get there didn’t mean they could be deprived of their rights and have punishment such as arbitrary imprisonment inflicted on them.
This amounted to “taxation without representation,” and the miners said so in those very same words, echoing American rebels of the 1770s. Ron Manners is even less charitable toward the authorities and their police in Victoria than McDermott. As he puts it,
The license fee was collected by a bunch of armed thugs who were not paid a wage at all. They were paid out of the license fees that they collected and the process of doing that was to go around to the top of every shaft, shouting down “Produce your license!” The digger had to then climb up the ladder laboriously, produce their license and then go down the ladder again. Then about an hour later another thug would come along requesting, “Produce your license!” The prospector would have to climb up the ladder again. They were not getting any work done. How long can you put up with this nonsense?
The monthly license fee being extracted by force from the diggers was equivalent to a week’s wages. That is a tax of about 25 percent with almost nothing offered in return. They say that a fine is a tax for doing wrong, and that a tax is a fine for doing well. But this tax or fine was being forcibly extracted and it applied whether you found gold or not.
When local magistrates cleared the owner of the Eureka Hotel in Ballarat of murdering a digger, other miners were outraged. They burned the hotel to the ground, then demanded that the Governor release the arsonists, abolish the gold license, and grant men the right to vote. They burned their gold licenses, built a crude fort they called the Eureka Stockade and hoisted for the first time a flag featuring the constellation of the Southern Cross. That flag has ever since symbolized freedom against the tyranny of colonial authorities and the independent spirit of Australians.
As news reached them that British troops were on their way to crush the rebellion, the miners of the Eureka Stockade swore the following oath: “We swear by the Southern Cross to truly stand by each other and defend our rights and liberties!”
The miners fought valiantly but were so vastly outgunned that the battle, which took place on December 3, 1854 near Ballarat in the state of Victoria, lasted a mere 15 minutes. Thirty miners and five soldiers were killed. In one of its videos cited below this article, the National Museum of Australia documents the extraordinary events that followed:
The government may have won the battle but it lost the war as Victorians overwhelmingly supported the defeated miners. The rebels were acquitted of treason and the gold license was replaced by a “miner’s right,” which allowed the diggers to mine, vote, and occupy vacant land for a small annual fee.
Miners were subsequently elected to Victoria’s Legislative Council, including their leader, Peter Lalor. This upswell of activism for democratic values led directly to other reforms important to Australia’s political development as a free society—reforms such as the secret ballot and eventually, women’s right to vote (1908).
Since the Gold Rush of 1851-71, more than 2,500 tons of gold have poured forth from the mines of Victoria’s Golden Triangle. That river of yellow metal produced the two largest chunks of gold ever found in the world—the “Welcome Stranger” nugget (173 pounds) and the “Welcome Nugget” (152 pounds).
In a remarkable way, Ron Manners explains, “It was the gold miners who brought democracy to the colony and protected the concept of property rights for Australians.”
That is quite a feat, wouldn’t you say? In the entire history of paper money, I can recall no instance in which one could make the comparable claim, “It was government with its printing presses that brought democracy and protected property rights.”
So to all the reasons that governments don’t like gold, add one more: Sooner or later, it beats them. Three cheers for Australia’s gold miners, past and present!
