No Matter What Costume NYPD Wear They Still Have SuperPowers to Initiate Unprovoked Acts of Violence. If People Dont Have a Right to Initiate Unprovoked Acts of Violence How Did Cops Get their Powers?

DEFINITELY FEEL MUCH SAFER WITHOUT CARRYING A GUN ON THE NYC SUBWAY. TWO NYPD COPS PICTURED ABOVE SURVEILLING LAW ABIDING PEOPLE ON THE SUBWAY UNDER THE GUISE OF CATCHING A FEW CRIMINALS. UNDER NY’s REVISED GUN LAW, POSSESSION OF A GUN oN ANY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS A CRIME. IN OTHER WORDS, CRIMINALS KNOW THAT IF THEY ROB SOMEONE ON THE SUBWAY or coming from the subway MOST LIKELY THE VICTIM WILL BE UNARMED. CONTRARY TO PROPAGHANDI CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY GUN LAWS, ONLY LAW ABIDING PEOPLE DO. IT ALSO MEANS CITIZENS HAVE NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CARRY A WEAPON TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN CASE OF CONFRONTATION IF THEY USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN NYC (about 54% of the population). [MORE]

From [HERE] and [HERE] The New York City Police Department has undercover officers posing as Amazon and FedEx delivery workers in the subway system, citing “the unique environment and challenges presented in the New York City Transit system” as justification for the subterfuge. 

Photos surfaced online this week of two officers—identified by the badge necklaces they eventually revealed—at the Myrtle-Broadway subway station in Brooklyn. 

When asked about the photos, a spokesperson for NYPD told Motherboard via email, “Transit Officers conduct plainclothes patrols due to the unique environment and challenges presented in the New York City Transit system. These plain clothes officers concentrate their efforts on deterring criminal activity such as pick pockets and sexual offenders. The NYPD continues to conduct enhanced patrol deployments in the subway system and remains highly focused on the relatively small number of people responsible for much of New York City’s crime and disorder.”

Loyda Colon, a spokesperson for Communities United for Police Reform and Executive Director of the Justice Committee, told Motherboard via email, “These photos indicate a stunning abuse of public trust and a misuse of city money, and raises serious concerns about corporate-NYPD collaboration. Mayor Adams continues to pay lip service to community investments and police accountability, while pumping money into ineffective and abusive policing tactics that criminalize Black, Latinx and other New Yorkers of color. We need innovative approaches to public safety that are rooted in equity and prioritize ensuring all New Yorkers have what they need to thrive, not NYPD officers lurking in the subways disguised in Amazon, FedEx or other corporate uniforms to trick and arrest New Yorkers.”[MORE]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COPS AND PEOPLE. No matter what costume these government employees put on they still retain their superhuman powers as representatives of authority. Unlike people, police officers have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on people. Cops can put their hands on you, not just in self-defense of themselves or self-defense of others, but they may do so offensively, initiate force against citizens to make stops, searches, arrests and deadly force whenever they deem it necessary. Individuals have no such rights and may only act in self-defense or in self-defense of others. Also, individuals are morally and legally required to comply with police orders and commands and have no right to even resist an unlawful arrest in most states. But, if citizens don’t have an individual right to initiate acts of violence then where did the police acquire their powers? All governmental power comes from the people right? We delegate our power as individuals to government representatives and employees to act on our behalf. And it goes without saying that people cannot delegate powers or rights that they don’t possess. We see then that the power to initiate acts of violence, the right to rule, is a superhuman power - not coming from individuals or a human source. The answer of course is that there is no such source of police power or the right to rule! There is no valid legal answer or lawful accounting for the basis of authority. The source of police and all government power is simply the belief people have in their minds. Authority is a belief, nothing more. Put on a costume and poof you’re in charge, take it off and you’re not in charge. The undeceiver Larken Rose observes,

“Despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern belief in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses.‘

Unfortunately, unprovoked violence against others or the use of “force” is the basis of all social evils and can only be used in the sense of attack not defense. Rose explains, “The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self- contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.”

Government “authority” can be summed up as the right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral obligation to obey.’ [MORE] FUNKTIONARY defines authority as ‘a cartoon, an alleged image of the Law or the notion of an implied right and application of that "right" of individuals or groups of same to control or exercise external power over others, which has no meaning in reality.’ FUNKTIONARY further states, authority is rule through coercion. The real threat to "authority" is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.”

Authority is a “cartoon” or an “image of law” because “people cannot delegate rights they do not have, which makes it impossible for anyone to acquire the right to rule (”authority”). People cannot alter morality, which makes the “laws” of “government” devoid of any inherent “authority.” Ergo, “authority”-the right to rule-cannot logically exist. The concept itself is self-contradictory, like the concept of a “militant pacifist.” A human being cannot have superhuman rights, and therefore no one can have the inherent right to rule.’ [MORE]

The Charleena Lyles Niggarmarole: White Media/Prosecutors Knew "an Inquest" Wouldn’t Result in Charges for Killing Pregnant Black Woman. Under Wash Law Cops Can Only be Charged If they Acted w/Malice

The Associated Press reported, “An inquest jury found Wednesday that two Seattle police officers were justified in fatally shooting a mentally unstable, pregnant, Black mother of four children inside her apartment when she menaced them with knives in 2017.

The six King County coroner’s inquest jurors unanimously determined that officers Jason Anderson and Steven McNew, who are white, had no reasonable alternative to using deadly force. The findings drew an angry outburst from Charleena Lyles’ father, who shouted profanities and yelled, “You killed my daughter!” [MORE]

What massa media is not explaining is that an inquest is simply an administrative, fact-finding inquiry into the circumstances of a death. It is conducted by a County Coroner - not a court. No one can be found guilty or liable. [MORE] The inquest takes place before a panel (or jury) of 4 to 6 people and evidence is presented. At the end of the process the prosecutor still has discretion to file charges or not.

King County, Washington (which includes “progressive” Seattle) opted to make inquests mandatory in all deaths involving law enforcement - but it was really a way to pass the buck because prosecutions of police for killings in Washington never, ever occur. None are ever charged in Washington because in 1986, the state passed legislation saying officers cannot face prosecution for killing someone in the line of duty unless they acted with “malice” and “evil intent”. Wash. Rev. Code 9A.16.040 states:

(3) A public officer covered by subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) A peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force in good faith, where "good faith" is an objective standard which shall consider all the facts, circumstances, and information known to the officer at the time to determine whether a similarly situated reasonable officer would have believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious physical harm to the officer or another individual.

Wash. Rev. Code 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding-Good faith standard (Revised Code of Washington (2022 Edition))

Wash. Rev. Code 9A.04.110 defines “malice” as

"Malice" and "maliciously" shall import an evil intent, wish, or design to vex, annoy, or injure another person. Malice may be inferred from an act done in willful disregard of the rights of another, or an act wrongfully done without just cause or excuse, or an act or omission of duty betraying a willful disregard of social duty;...

Wash. Rev. Code 9A.04.110 Definitions (Revised Code of Washington (2022 Edition))

Again, in Washington, police are never charged or convicted. Out of 213 police killings in a 10-year-period, only one officer was even charged, according to a Seattle Times investigation. “It’s the worst law in the nation,” said André Taylor, a police reform activist whose brother was killed by police last year. “It can embolden officers. They feel they have this special immunity. They don’t want to be responsible or accountable to nobody.” Taylor explained, the easiest way to get away with murder in Washington state is to put on a police uniform. [MORE]

And the white cops, prosecutors, coroners and media all knew the 2 white cops who murdered Charleena Lyles would never be charged. Nevertheless said white liberals went on and on about the above the meaningless bullshit inquest process. FUNKTIONARY describes such fuckery as hoaxing or The Niggarmarole, “an experience that you allow others to put you through when you think you’ve been left with nothing else to do. The only performance happening in a niggamarole is purely theatrical—all for show.”

Such is nature of the criminal justice in the lex-icon. That is, the legal system produces nothing but the appearance of justice. The [white] 'powers that be' go through great effort to produce this show of something called “fairness” and the court's emphasis on “procedural due process.” At the end of this Niggarmarole process people are exhausted or feel like they have had a substantive experience, like a dog chasing its tail or a heavy load of clothing run thru the laundry without soap. Said exhaustion makes you feel like you participated in democracy where none exists.

Pregnant Black mother of four children, Charleena Lyles, was shot and killed in her home by white police officers in 2017. In December 2021 the city of Seattle reached a settlement in the amount of $3.5 million in the late mother’s wrongful-death lawsuit.

According to the Seattle Times, the settlement was reached Monday (Nov. 30), voiding the need for a trial in February 2022.

After investigating itself, the Force Review Board, a panel of Seattle Police Department personnel, determined in a unanimous vote that the controversial shooting was consistent with police training. The analysis, released on December 8, 2017 details the factors considered for the vote, though it does not provide any recommendations to chance policy or training to prevent future incidents. [MORE]

Officers Jason Anderson and Steven McNew fired at Lyles, a 30-year-old mother of four, when she allegedly lunged at them with knives she had been concealing in her coat pockets. The pair had been responding to her 911 call about a burglary in her apartment. 

The interaction began calmly, as Lyles informed police of an open door and allegedly stolen Xbox.  Audio of the incident then turned to a child crying and Lyles cursing at the officers. Police reported that there were three children in the apartment.

After surveying Lyles’s home, Anderson and McNew were jotting down their report when she allegedly pulled out two knives and started to come at Anderson, who yelled for her to get back and pulled out his gun. The woman, who was 5-foot-3 and 100 pounds, then turned toward McNew. The officers told authorities McNew was trapped in a dead-end kitchen galley as she brandished the pair of knives in her hands. The white cops apparently are more than two times her size.

McNew told investigators he instructed Anderson to pull out a Taser, but he didn’t have it on him because its battery had died, the report said. As Lyles moved toward McNew, both officers independently decided to fire their guns—McNew fired three rounds and Anderson fired four.

Lyles fell to the ground and her infant child, who had been crawling around in the living room, climbed onto her back, while her toddler sat in the living room. She was later found to be 14 to 15 weeks pregnant.

McNew—who had a baton—told investigators he “didn’t feel there was any other reasonable alternative” to shooting Lyles and didn’t use his baton because there wasn’t enough space to properly use it.

Anderson said he wouldn’t have used his Taser even if he had it because he was trained to use lethal force when faced with a knife attack. He also had pepper spray on him, but said he didn’t employ it because it would be “tactically counterproductive” and could get in the officers’ eyes, opening them up to attack, the board found.

Lyles was documented for mental health issues that the officers were aware of before they shot her in the confines of her apartment kitchen. Seattle Times reports she had called Seattle police 23 times in the past 18 months before her death. [MORE]

TPD Releases Murder Video, Tries to Justify Shooting James Lowery in the back of the head as He Fled. He Didn’t Commit a Crime but He Met the Description: "Black Male, Jacket" [b/c any NGHR will do]

From [HERE] The Titusville Police Department (TPD) has released bodycam footage showing a foot pursuit that ended with the officer-involved shooting of James Lowery (video below).

Now-former Titusville Police Officer Joshua Payne, 29, is facing a manslaughter charge in connection with Lowery’s death.

The incident occurred as Officer Payne was responding to a report of a woman being violently assaulted on South Deleon Avenue on Dec. 26, 2021, WESHreported.

Officer Payne arrived at the scene and spotted a man who matched the suspect’s description fleeing the area on foot, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FLDE) said in a press release on June 1.

The man was later identified as 40-year-old Lowery, Spectrum News 13reported.

Officer Payne chased after him, firing his Taser multiple times to no avail, according to police.

Bodycam footage showed Officer Payne as he ordered Lowery to stop running and to stop reaching in his pockets. However, on video it doesn’t look like he is doing that.

“Drop it! Drop it! Drop it!” the officer ordered, just before Lowery appeared to try to climb over a fence, the video showed. Here, apparently he was referring to an imaginary gun - that he never saw.

Investigators later claimed the suspect tossed bags of illegal drugs away as he was fleeing.

Officer Payne told the seemingly-cornered suspect to “get down” and fired his Taser at him again, but Lowery was unaffected by the jolt.

Lowery kept attempting to flee and then turned away from the officer and hoisted himself over the fence, ignoring Officer Payne’s repeated commands to stop, the video showed.

The FLDE said Officer Payne, who was holding both his Taser and his duty weapon, then fired both weapons simultaneously, striking the suspect in the back of his head, Spectrum News 13 reported.

Lowery died at the scene.

Police claim Lowery threw an object and say that it turned out to be a “small bag of drugs,” WFTV reported. But people who commit murders, also might lie.

The FDLE handled the investigation into the fatal officer-involved shooting and submitted its findings to prosecutors on May 6.

Officer Payne was charged with manslaughter in connection with Lowery’s death.He turned himself in at the Brevard County Jail on June 1 and was later released on $15,000 bond.

Officer Payne was placed on unpaid leave from the TPD pending the outcome of an internal investigation, but he resigned from the force after he was criminally charged, WESH reported.

The TPD completed its internal investigation and released the bodycam footage on June 23.

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Lowery’s mother, Linda Johnson, said that Lowery had nothing to do with the domestic violence incident that led Officer Payne to respond to the area in the first place, WESH reported.

Investigators have confirmed that Lowery was not involved in the original call for service, WFTV reported.

“James Lowery wasn’t even the person 911 was called on,” Crump told reporters. “They shot the wrong black man.”

“A shot to the back of the head – nothing else needs to be said. That is unjustified,” Crump said. “You can’t justify shooting a man in the back of the head as he is running away from you.”

Titusville Police Chief John Lau said Officer Payne’s use of deadly force was not justified and that investigators believe the firearm discharge was accidental, WESH reported.

Chief Lau further noted that the officer violated multiple policies during the incident, to include having his firearm and his Taser out of their holsters at the same time.

“This was not a justified shooting. It was an accidental shooting with tragic results,” the chief said.

LOOKING FOR ALL BLACK MALES IN THE SYSTEM OF RACISM WHITE SUPREMACY, A MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON IN THE FREE RANGE PRISON SYSTEM

Chief Lau said that Lowery’s “decision to run away from Officer Payne and physically resist his lawful orders to stop also contributed to this incident,” Florida Today reported. Spoken like a true authoritarian, spouting ignorance to justify killing a Black man.

The Supreme Court has explained the use of deadly force to prevent escape is unconstitutional, at least in regard to white citizens that is. The Court has explained,

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. 

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead… Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. 

Tennessee v. Garner - 471 U.S. 1 at page 11 (1985).

Oklahoma Authoritarians are Scheduled to Commit 25 Murders between August 2022 and December 2024. Death Row (50% non-white) includes people w/mental illness, brain damage and innocence claims

From [DPIC] The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has set execution dates for 25 of the state’s 43 death-row prisoners, scheduling nearly an execution a month from August 2022 through December 2024. If carried out, the execution schedule, unprecedented in the state’s history, would put to death 58% of the state’s death row, including multiple prisoners with severe mental illness, brain damage, and claims of innocence. 

The court issued its execution schedule in two orders on July 1, 2022, in response to an application filed on June 10 by Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor. O’Connor sought the execution dates four days after Federal District Judge Stephen Friot denied a challenge to the constitutionality of the state’s lethal-injection protocol brought by 28 of the state’s death-row prisoners. Oklahoma uses a three-drug execution process that includes the controversial drug midazolam, which has been implicated in multiple botched executions. 

The state court’s execution orders came two weeks after the prisoners filed notice in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that they intended to appeal Judge Friot’s ruling. Under the schedule, Oklahoma would begin to execute prisoners before the circuit court can rule on the prisoners’ appeal. The state previously executed four prisoners while the federal trial on the drug protocol was pending. 

The executions are set to take place in four phases of six executions each, plus an additional 25th execution. Within each phase, the executions are scheduled at four-week intervals, followed by an execution-free month before the start of the next phase. James Coddington is scheduled to be the first prisoner put to death, with an execution date of August 25, 2022. All prisoners facing execution in Oklahoma are afforded a clemency hearing within three weeks of their execution date. The Pardon and Parole Board, which has the responsibility to conduct those hearings, meets in public session only once each month and requested that it conduct no more than one clemency hearing per meeting.

Documentary, "The Viral Delusion." The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV-2 & The Madness of Modern Virology (1-5)

From [HERE] The Untold Story Behind The Pandemic

The doctors, scientists and journalists featured in THE VIRAL DELUSION examine in detail the scientific papers that were used to justify the pandemic, and what they find is shattering. In this shocking, five-part, seven-hour documentary series, they explore every single major claim, from the “isolation” of the virus to its so-called genetic sequencing, from the discovery of how to “test” for SARS-CoV2 to the emergence of “variants” that in reality, they explain, exist only on a computer. Their point: is that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus exists only as a mental construct whose existence in the real world has been disproven by the science itself.

They then go back through history to reveal how the birth and growth of virology has led to massive misunderstanding and misdiagnosis of disease: from Smallpox to the Spanish Flu, Polio to AIDS, to COVID itself – putting the pandemic in a whole new context better understood not as settled science, but the tragic culmination of misunderstood biology by the growing cult of virology, built on pseudo-science, to which much of the rest of the medical profession defers without understanding or examination, and the tragic consequences that have been wrought in its name.

In 2019, the virologists took centre stage, and for the first time on film, their methods, miscues and tragedy they have wrought are put under the spotlight, revealing the extraordinary leaps of fantasy buried in their methodology, the contradictions quietly acknowledged in their papers, their desperate effort to change the language to justify their findings, the obvious incongruence of their conclusions and the extraordinary stakes for our entire society in whether we continue to blindly follow their lead into a full-scale war against nature itself.

Featuring: Andrew Kaufman, MD; Tom Cowan, MD; Stefan Lanka, Virologist; Torsten Engelbrecht, journalist; Claus Kohnlein, MD; Kevin Corbett, PhD RN; David Rasnick, Biochemist PhD; Mark Bailey, MD; Dawn Lester and David Parker, Authors; Stefano Scoglio, Biochemist PhD; Saeed Qureeshi, Chemist PhD; Celia Farber, Journalist; Harold Wallach, PhD; Pam Popper, PhD, ND; Charles Geshekter, PhD; Amandha Vollmer ND, Jim West, Author; Larry Palevsky MD; and more.

The opening episode, which is two hours and twenty minutes, will be available for free from March 21st until May 21st.

Government of Alberta Says the Leading Cause of Death in 2021 was ‘Unknown Causes’ and Reported a Surge in Deaths. Nearly All the Top Causes of Death Also are the Top Adverse Reactions to COVID Shots

From [HERE] Recent data on the leading causes of death in Alberta show a spike in the 2021 mortality rate due to “ill-defined and unknown causes.”

The data, published on June 30 by Service Alberta, ranks the 30 most common causes of death in the province last year.

For the first time in the past twenty years, the category of “ill-defined and unknown causes of mortality” was the number one cause of death in 2021, resulting in a total 3,362 deaths, up from 1,464 in 2020, and 522 the year before that.

The unknown cause of death category emerged on the list in 2019, previously it had not been included in the ranking list dating back to 2001.

Dr. Daniel Gregson, an associate professor specializing in infectious diseases and microbiology at the University of Calgary, told CTV News that the reasons behind the emergence of the unknown causes of death category last year are “probably multifactorial.”

He said those factors may include a lack of medical resources to determine the cause of death, delayed access to healthcare services, and post-COVID complications.

Identified cases of COVID-19 are ranked as the third leading cause of death in Alberta in 2021 with 1,950 deaths—a jump from 1,084 in 2020 when the pandemic began.

From 2015 to 2020, organic dementia was listed as the leading cause of death in Alberta with chronic ischemic heart disease the dominant cause from 2001 to 2014.

In 2021, organic dementia came in second, contributing to 2,135 deaths, while chronic ischemic heart disease ranked fourth with 1,939.

Among the other top causes of death listed were: malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus and lung (1,552), acute myocardial infarction (1,075), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1,028), diabetes mellitus (728), stroke (612), and accidental poisoning by and exposure to drugs and other substances (604). [MORE]

2022 Genesis Prize was Awarded to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla for His Effort to Create Human Dependency on Deadly "Vaccines" which cause the Undetected, Slow Motion Extermination of Undesired Populations

From [HERE] The Genesis Foundation announced in January that the winner of its annual prize for 2022 was Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, which produced a COVID-19 vaccine that has been used by Israel and other countries around the world to inoculate their populations against the coronavirus.

The Genesis Prize honors individuals who serve as an inspiration to the next generation of Jews through their outstanding professional achievement and commitment to Jewish values and the Jewish people.

Bourla received the highest number of votes in a recent global vote in which more than 200,000 people from 71 countries participated. His nomination as prize laureate was then unanimously approved by the Genesis Foundation selection committee, the foundation said in a statement.

The committee commended Bourla “for his leadership, determination, and especially for his willingness to assume great risks.”

“Unlike CEOs of most other major companies working on developing COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Bourla declined billions of dollars in US federal subsidies in order to avoid government bureaucracy and expedite development and production of the vaccine,” the statement said. “As a result, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine was ready in record time: months instead of years.”

The foundation also noted “Dr. Bourla’s pride in his Jewish identity and heritage, his commitment to Jewish values and his support for the State of Israel.”

President Isaac Herzog will present Bourla with the $1 million prize at a ceremony in Israel to be held on June 29.

An Israeli health worker administers a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to a child at the Clalit Health Services in the central Israeli city of Modiin on January 2, 2022. (Photo by GIL COHEN-MAGEN / AFP)

Winners customarily donate the prize to a philanthropic cause and Bourla has asked that the money go toward preserving the memory of the victims of the Holocaust, “with a particular emphasis on the tragedy suffered by the Greek Jewish community,” the statement said.

Born in Thessaloniki, Greece, Bourla grew up as the child of Holocaust survivors.

“I did not set out to live a public life, and I never could have imagined that I might one day receive the profound honor of the Genesis Prize and stand alongside my extraordinary fellow nominees,” Bourla was quoted as saying in the statement. “I accept it humbly and on behalf of all my Pfizer colleagues who answered the urgent call of history these past two years and together bent the arc of our common destiny.”

“I was brought up in a Jewish family who believed that each of us is only as strong as the bonds of our community; and that we are all called upon by God to repair the world,” Bourla said, referring to a central tenet in Judaism of perfecting the world. “I look forward to being in Jerusalem to accept this honor in person, which symbolizes the triumph of science and a great hope for our future.”

The prize is usually awarded in Jerusalem each June at a dinner attended by the prime minister. But the ceremony has been called off the past two years due to the pandemic.

Genesis Foundation CEO Stan Polovets praised Bourla, saying he “personifies two of the most fundamental Jewish values: the commitment to the sanctity of life and to repairing the world.”

“Millions of people are alive and healthy because of what Dr. Bourla and his team at Pfizer have accomplished,” Polovets said, adding that it was a “proud moment not just for the winner but for the entire Jewish community.

“A people so small in number are having such an outsized impact on this global effort to save lives,” Polovets said.

Other candidates on a short list to win the prize, often referred to as the “Jewish Noble,” were actor, producer, director and activist Sacha Baron Cohen; fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg; philosopher and author Yuval Noah Harari; actress and activist Scarlett Johansson; and human rights activist and Nazi-hunter Serge Klarsfeld.

Previous winners of the Genesis Prize include artist Anish Kapoor, violinist Itzhak Perlman, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and actor-director Michael Douglas. In 2018, US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg received a lifetime achievement award from the foundation. [MORE]

Massive 2022 Drop In Births: Germany -14%, Greece -12%, Hungary & Finland -11%, UK -9% & Much More

Official Government Reports, Confidential Pfizer Documents & the Cost of Living Crisis Prove Your Government is Trying to Kill you and Depopulate the Planet

From [EXPOSE] In 1993 a book was published by a former spy of the MI6 named Dr John Coleman. In that book, Dr Coleman wrote the following – 

“At least 4 billion “useless eaters” shall be eliminated by the year 2050 by means of limited wars, organized epidemics of fatal rapid-acting diseases and starvation. Energy, food and water shall be kept at subsistence levels for the non-elite, starting with the White populations of Western Europe and North America and then spreading to other races. 

The population of Canada, Western Europe and the United States will be decimated more rapidly than on other continents, until the world’s population reaches a manageable level of 1 billion, of which 500 million will consist of Chinese and Japanese races, selected because they are people who have been regimented for centuries and who are accustomed to obeying authority without question.”

Many people would most likely disregard the above claims as “tinfoil hat nonsense”. 

But unfortunately, official Government data, confidential Pfizer documents, and real-world events such as the current cost of living crisis, the alleged impending climate change disaster, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the ongoing development of Artificial Intelligence, strongly suggest that there exists an agenda to depopulate the world, and your Government is, in essence, attempting to kill you.

We are now living in a world where Governments and Institiutions are telling us we are in a race to to prevent a “disastrous” increase in global temperatures due to greenhouse gas emissions. 

The vast majority of those greenhouse gas emissions are Carbon dioxide (CO2). A gas that every single human being on the planet produces every single time they exhale. 

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass. 

This doesn’t sound much until you take into account the fact that the world’s population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year – which is around 7% of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world.

Therefore, if we’re to believe the tightly controlled and censored narrative around climate change, human beings are one of the biggest contributors to it by simply just being alive. 

So, therefore, if the “elite” wanted to save the planet, a good start would be to reduce the world’s population which would, in turn, reduce the carbon dioxide produced naturally by humans breathing, and reduce the amount of fossil fuels required to sustain a person’s quality of life. 

But what if we’re being lied to about the impending climate change doom that now litters every News channel? Why would the so-called “elite” be so eager to reduce the world’s population then?

Well, we only need to look to the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence to realise that humans aren’t really needed as much as they used to be in order to keep the rich, rich. And pretty soon they may no longer be needed at all. 

If you can’t see that you pretty much living in a slave system designed to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor, then you’ve been living your life with your head in the sand. 

Nobody ever gets rich working 9 to 5, but millions are trained to believe that this is what you should aim to do when you grow up. Granted, you can start your own business and have others slave away for you, but even then the “taxman” comes to make sure you have to keep up the endless routine of sleep, work, repeat for another year. Or if you’re extremely successful one of the large corporations will come knocking to buy you out. 

The system is rigged.

Another example is how no matter how much your earnings increase throughout the years, your outgoings will remain relative to or surpass that increase. 

Take the cost of a house for example. For most people, the mortgage or rent alone will take a huge chunk of their wages, and it’s a cost that rises by the year. Is it because houses actually cost that much? Or is it because the system’s designed to ensure that most will never be able to break free from the life of slavery they have been indoctrinated to accept?

For centuries the “elite” have needed you to accept and remain trapped in the system to essentially make them rich. But now they don’t need you, because they have developed technology, robotics and Artificial Intelligence that can do the job for them, and this technology is now more advanced than most people realise. 

One day soon there will be no jobs for millions of people. In effect rendering millions to be known as “useless eaters”. 

This means the world is at a crossroads, and the elite has two choices. They sustain millions or even billions of people with financial support and help to ensure they survive and live quality lives. Or, they set about to depopulate the world.

Unfortunately, evidence suggests they chose the depopulation route a while ago, and their plan to do so is already in motion. 

Here are just a few of the things the “elite” have done and are doing in order to depopulate the world. 

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Killing the Elderly & Vulnerable

In March 2020 the British people were told that they must “stay at home” in order to “protect the NHS” and “save lives”. They were also told that the authorities needed just “three weeks to flatten the curve”. This was allegedly because of the threat of a new and emerging virus which we’re told originated in the city of Wuhan, China.

But evidence suggests the Covid-19 pandemic was in fact an exaggerated lie. A lie that involved prematurely ending the lives of thousands upon thousands of people, who you were told died of Covid-19. A lie that has involved committing one of the greatest crimes against humanity in living memory. A lie that has required three things – fear, your compliance, and a drug known as Midazolam.

Serious illness in Covid-19 allegedly presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency. Therefore typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever. We’re also told that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.

While midazolam (think diazepam on steroids) can cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing that may lead to permanent brain injury or death.

UK regulators state that you should only receive midazolam in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the equipment that is needed to monitor your heart and lungs and to provide life-saving medical treatment quickly if your breathing slows or stops.

Knowing that would you use midazolam to treat people who were suffering pneumonia and respiratory insufficiency allegedly due to Covid-19?

Because that’s precisely what they did in the UK, and they administered it by the truckload in care homes. 

In March 2020, the UK Department of Health & Social Care purchased a two-year supply of midazolam and was looking to purchase more (source). And they certainly made use of it.

According to official data in April 2019 up to 21,977 prescriptions for Midazolam were issued, containing 171,952 items, the vast majority being Midazolam Hydrochloride. However in April 2020 45,033 prescriptions for Midazolam were issued, containing 333,229 items, the vast majority being Midazolam Hydrochloride. 

That is a 104.91% increase in the number of prescriptions issued for Midazolam and a 93.85% increase in the number of items they contained. 

But these weren’t issued in hospitals, they were issued by GP practices. This means they were administered to the elderly and vulnerable who had been released from hospital under the instruction of then Health Secretary Matt Hancock and into understaffed and overwhelmed care homes. 

According to the UK’s Office for National Statistics, three in every five Covid-19 deaths occurred in those who suffered learning difficulties and disabilities (see here).

Do you really believe there’s a virus so clever that it knows to only kill people who are disabled or have learning difficulties?

In relation to deaths of people with learning difficulties the ONS said – ‘the largest effect was associated with living in a care home or other communal establishment.‘

Having a learning difficulty and being in care doesn’t mean you are more likely to die of Covid-19. What it means is that you are much more likely to have a DNR order placed on you without informing yourself or your family, which Carers / NHS staff then use as permission to put you on end-of-life care, which involves the administration of Midazolam.

The evidence for this is vast, and you can read a full investigation exposing the Midazolam scandal in the UK here. 

Covid-19 Vaccination: Infertility & Genocide

Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead mass depopulation on top of the thousands it has already killed. 

The latest reports released by medicine regulators around the world reveal that there have been at least 7.3 million injuries reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections up to late May and early June 2022, including 77,068 deaths (source).

However, these horrific figures do not illustrate the true nature of the consequences of Covid-19 vaccination because it is estimated by medicine regulators that just 1 to 10% of adverse events are actually reported.

But something much more sinister is occurring with these experimental injections, and the evidence can all be found in both official Government data and the confidential documents the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay publishing by 75 years but has been forced to publish by court order. 

In early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on 1stJune 2022.

One of the documents contained in the data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Page 12 of the confidential document contains data on the use of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection in pregnancy and lactation.

Confidential Pfizer Documents reveal 90% of Covid Vaccinated Pregnant Women lost their Baby

Pfizer state in the document that by 28th February 2021 there were 270 known cases of exposure to the mRNA injection during pregnancy.

Forty-six percent of the mothers (124) exposed to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection suffered an adverse reaction.

Of those 124 mothers suffering an adverse reaction, 49 were considered non-serious adverse reactions, whereas 75 were considered serious. This means 58% of the mothers who reported suffering adverse reactions suffered a serious adverse event ranging from uterine contraction to foetal death.

There were 34 outcomes altogether at the time of the report, but 5 of them were still pending. Pfizer note that only 1 of the 29 known outcomes were normal, whilst 28 of the 29 outcomes resulted in the loss/death of the baby. This equates to 97% of all known outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child.

When we include the 5 cases where the outcome was still pending it equates to 82% of all outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child. This equates to an average of around 90% between the 82% and 97% figure.[MORE]

Puppetician Biden Pledges $9B More to Pfizer for COVID Shots. All Doses Continue to be Distributed as Emergency Use (Not FDA Approved) Enabling Legal Immunity for Any Injury Caused by the Injections

The federal government has given complete immunity to Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J for any injury caused by their Covid-19 vaccines.  That’s right: you cannot sue them if you are injured by their Covid-19 vaccine.  (See Note 1 to read the law yourself.)  So, while their product may not give you immunity, Pfizer and Moderna are guaranteed immunity.  Said immunity also shields doctors, hospitals and any other persons who administer or coerce people to take deadly COVID injections.

And it gets even worse.  These companies are even immune for – hold your breath – willful misconduct.  That may sound crazy, but it is shockingly true.  You can only sue them for willful misconduct if the federal government first sues them for such conduct.  (See Note 2 below to read the law yourself.)  And what are the odds the federal government will do so after wildly promoting the vaccine?  About as likely as the FDA ever admitting they promoted a vaccine that caused widespread harm. [MORE]

From [HERE] Is there any more doubt that the COVID-19 plandemic, which was used to transfer America’s wealth to Big Pharma with literally TRILLIONS of taxpayer funds transferred into their accounts, has now allowed Pfizer to have complete control of the country by buying the White House and President of the United States?

It began with fellow billionaire Donald Trump, of course, in 2020 who strong-armed the FDA into giving fast-track emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Then Biden was installed as President and kept the coffers full, and now that 80% of Americans have already received a COVID-19 vaccine and demand is waning, with 98 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine currently sitting unused due to lack of demand, the call was put in to Joe this week to keep the faucet running, and the White House obliged and pledged another $9 BILLION for 300 million more doses of the deadly COVID-19 shots.

Trump and Biden might disagree on a lot of things, but Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines ain’t one of them. (Bitchute channel.)

The top three firms who hold the most stock in Pfizer are Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street (source), and there probably are very few investment firms who do NOT own some Pfizer stock, so when you see officials with the FDA, CDC, and others promoting Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, they are probably all shareholders and cashing in, as are most members of Congress (unfortunately, these records at opensecrets.org only go through 2018; it would be interesting to see from 2020 and later.)

Pfizer is already swimming in record profits, but that hasn’t stopped the drug company from gouging the American taxpayer for every last dollar.

On Wednesday, the Biden Administration signed off on a new vaccine supply deal with Pfizer for $3.2 billion for 105 million COVID injections, but that’s only for the first batch of mRNA shots. The contract will generate well over $9 billion for Pfizer, as this latest purchase agreement tops off at 300 million doses. Compared to previous settlements with Pfizer, this public-private no-bid arrangement will come at a much higher cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The Biden Administration has justified the deal by claiming that it needs to restock supply to prepare for seasonal spikes. The data does not support such a claim. According to the CDC, almost 100 million taxpayer-funded Pfizer shots (and 169 million total shots) have gone unused, resulting in billions of dollars in waste.

The new arrangement allows for the Biden Administration to buy Pfizer’s authorization-pending COVID injections, which the company claims is reformulated for newer variants.

However, even the new formulation is already outdated. It was designed and trialed for an Omicron subvariant (BA.1) that was popular last Winter, but no longer exists in circulation, potentially rendering it just as useless as the Wuhan strain shot. The deal includes the infant and toddler formulations, which are based on the non-existent Wuhan strain.

None of the shots for this deal will be supplied under an FDA approved label. Instead, they will be distributed under emergency use authorization (EUA). Pfizer has never deployed its FDA-approved vaccine in the United States. The company recently acknowledged that it never intends on producing its original FDA approved vaccines.

The original deal with Pfizer was negotiated by the Trump Administration during the days of Operation Warpspeed. It paid the pharma giant $19.50 a dose. The new pact gives Pfizer $30.48 per dose, resulting in an astronomical 56% hike from the deal negotiated by the last administration.

The price hike conflicts with the probability that Pfizer’s costs are likely much lower than they were with the original purchase order. The infant and child shots have a fraction of the active agreement as the adult supply, and each vial stores more doses . Moreover, Pfizer has added an ingredient to the formula that allows for a significant shelf life extension, making the logistics much more cost effective.

Pfizer’s margins were already through the roof prior to the Wednesday announcement.

Pfizer’s May earnings report showed that the company logged a record breaking $26 billion in Q1 sales, marking a quarterly profit of $7.86 billion. Revenue was up 77% from 2021, while profit was up 61%. Now absorb these 2022 numbers in the context of Pfizer’s 2021 revenue outperforming its 2020 revenue by 95%.

Before the new vaccine purchase order, Pfizer was already on track to bring in over $100 billion in revenue and $32 billion in net income this year. In financial statements, the company has acknowledged that it has transformed itself into a COVID-19-driven business. All of its new income is coming from the American taxpayer and other government “customers” via their taxpayers, who have virtually no say in the matter. [MORE]

As Gas Prices Soar Biden Sent 5M Barrels of Oil from US Strategic Petroleum Reserves to China (other places) at No Cost. Dems Use the Jan 6th Unarmed, HonkeyKong Misdemeanor Insurrection to Distract

OVER PLAYING THEIR HAND. How many neuropeons were armed?? Nearly all charged with misdemeanors, such as trespass or disorderly. [MORE] One person died inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt. Despite being unarmed and presenting no physical threat to anyone, she was shot dead by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd. Fake news reports claimed that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by rioters wielding a fire extinguisher. However, as George Parry reported at TheAmerican Spectator, Sicknick died on Jan. 7 of a stroke. The medical examiner found no evidence of physical trauma. Kevin Greeson, Benjamin Phillips, and Roseanne Boyland were all protesters who died outside of the Capitol building pursuant to ongoing health issues. [MORE]

From [HERE] More than 5 million barrels of oil that were part of a historic U.S. emergency reserves release to lower domestic fuel prices were exported to Europe and Asia last month, according to data and sources, even as U.S. gasoline and diesel prices hit record highs.

The export of crude and fuel is blunting the impact of the moves by U.S. President Joe Biden to lower record pump prices. Biden on Saturday renewed a call for gasoline suppliers to cut their prices, drawing criticism from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

About 1 million barrels per day is being released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) through October. The flow is draining the SPR, which last month fell to the lowest since 1986. U.S. crude futures are above $100 per barrel and gasoline and diesel prices above $5 a gallon in one-fifth of the nation. U.S. officials have said oil prices could be higher if the SPR had not been tapped.

"The SPR remains a critical energy security tool to address global crude oil supply disruptions," a Department of Energy spokesperson said, adding that the emergency releases helped ensure stable supply of crude oil.

The fourth-largest U.S. oil refiner, Phillips 66 (PSX.N), shipped about 470,000 barrels of sour crude from the Big Hill SPR storage site in Texas to Trieste, Italy, according to U.S. Customs data. Trieste is home to a pipeline that sends oil to refineries in central Europe.

Atlantic Trading & Marketing (ATMI), an arm of French oil major TotalEnergies (TTEF.PA), exported 2 cargoes of 560,000 barrels each, the data showed.

Phillips 66 declined to comment on trading activity. ATMI did not respond to a request for comment.

Cargoes of SPR crude were also headed to the Netherlands and to a Reliance (RELI.NS) refinery in India, an industry source said. A third cargo headed to China, another source said.

At least one cargo of crude from the West Hackberry SPR site in Louisiana was set to be exported in July, a shipping source added.

"Crude and fuel prices would likely be higher if (the SPR releases) hadn't happened, but at the same time, it isn't really having the effect that was assumed," said Matt Smith, lead oil analyst at Kpler.

The latest exports follow three vessels that carried SPR crude to Europe in April helping replace Russian crude supplies. read more

U.S. crude inventories are the lowest since 2004 as refineries run near peak levels. Refineries in the U.S. Gulf coast were at 97.9% utilization, the most in three and a half years.

The Second Scramble for Africa Under the Guise of “Conservation”

How the International Union for Conservation of Nature Congress continues be a farce, and perpetuates a fake conservation in Africa: basically the interests are just commerce. From [HERE] The International Union for Conservation of Nature Congress in September 2021 was a key platform for the elaboration of the European Union’s NaturAfrica plan, which aims to build on the contentious conservancy model of conservation in 31 African states. Mordecai Ogada reflects on his experiences at the congress, and whether Africa’s “… heritage salesmen and saleswomen are facilitating the second scramble for Africa delivered in the guise of conservation.”

Dear natives, do you know any conservationist who was in Marseille, France, in the last couple of weeks? If you’re a conscious African citizen, you need to ask them exactly what they were doing there and what they discussed at the IUCN World Conservation Congress. Personally, I was there as part of a group organizing resistance against the relentless advance of colonialism throughout the global South under the guise of conservation. Like most conservation conferences today, this meeting was full of backslapping and self-congratulatory nonsense exchanged between celebrities, politicians and business people. This is the ultimate irony because this is the group of people most responsible for the consumption patterns that have landed the world in the climate predicament we’re in today.

They created the most effective filter to keep out people from the global South (where most biodiversity exists), the students who may be learning new scientific lessons on conservation, and the independent-minded practitioners who would be there to share their views, rather than show their faces, flaunt their status and prostitute their credentials for the benefit of their benefactors. This filter was the registration fee. The cheapest rate was the “special members fee” which was 780 Euros.

While most of the Kenyan conservationists are now back from Marseille gushing about the beauty of the South of France (which is true), I come back home a worried man, even more perturbed than I was before about the march of colonialism under the guise of conservation. For any African proud of their heritage, this worry is heightened by the unending queue of Home Guards and Uncle Toms lining up to sing for the crumbs and leftovers from Massa’s table: the small jobs, big cars and trips to conferences where the only thing prominent about them is their dark complexion and not the intellectual content of their contributions. These heritage salesmen and saleswomen give themselves all sorts of fancy titles, but their brains are of no consequence to the European colonizers. They are as much props as the obviously (physically, mentally, both?) uncomfortable woman unfortunate (or foolish?) enough to have her ridiculous image carrying a pangolin used on the blueprint for the new Scramble for Africa.

The biggest thing out of Marseille was the European Union’s grand plan to capture Africa’s natural heritage through a program called NaturAfrica. Since they know that they have selected partners in Africa to whom prostitution comes easily, they drowned the announcement in noise about doubling of funding for conservation on Twitter.

In the first photo above, you can see the EU’s Philippe Mayaux presenting the audacious grand plan. He expressly stated that they are going to use the “Northern Rangelands Trust model” which has served them well thus far. I’ve been saying for the last 5 years that NRT is a model for colonialism and some invertebrates here have been breaking wind in consternation at my disrespect for their cult. The financiers have now said that it is a pilot for their planned acquisition of Africa’s natural heritage. What say you now? Who’s in charge of the plantation? Do the naïve majority now understand the violence in northern Kenya? Do the naïve majority now understand why foreign special forces are training armed personnel (outside our state security organs) to guard the so-called conservancies?

Following this extravagant declaration by Mayaux, the CEO of the NRT, Tom Lalampaa, barely containing his joy, took to the podium and gushed that “NaturAfrica will be welcomed by all Africans.” Only the irrational excitement brought on by Massa’s praises can cause a mere NGO director to purport to speak for the 1.3 billion inhabitants of the world’s second largest continent. Kwenda huko! Get out of here! We can see through the scheme!

On the map presented by Mayeux, youcan see the takeover plan (the dark green areas); Tsavo, Amboseli and Mkomazi in northern Tanzania is a colony of the WWF “Unganisha” program. To the west is The Nature Conservancy colony consisting of the Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association in Kenya, and the northern Tanzania Rangelands Initiative. The rest are the NRT colony (including the Rift Valley, which is clearly marked) and the oil fields in northern Kenya. East Africa’s entire Indian Ocean seascape is marked for acquisition; spare a thought for the island nations therein, because they have been swallowed whole. The plan has already been implemented around the Seychelles and documented.

I will repeat this as often as necessary: the biggest threat to the rights and sovereignty of African peoples in the 21st century is not military conflict, terrorism, disease, hunger, etc. It is organizations and governments that seek to dominate us through conservation. They will bring their expatriates, their militaries, and their policies. If you look at the map, the relatively “free” countries—like Nigeria, Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, etc.—are those where international conservation NGOs haven’t been able to get a foothold. Here in Kenya, our state agency, the Kenya Wildlife Services, is busy counting animals, not knowing that it is well on the way to becoming an irrelevant spectator in our conservation arena. If you think this is far-fetched, ask someone there why there are radioactive materials dumped by the Naro Moru gate to Mt. Kenya National Park. Or why the Kenya Forest Service is standing by without any policy position while the Rhino Ark goes on about fencing Mt. Kenya Forest, a UNESCO world heritage site. [MORE]

Western Nonprofits are Trampling Over Africans’ Rights and Land Indigenous People are Being Forced Out from so-called Protected Areas

From [HERE] The accelerating deterioration of the natural environment has manifested in devastating loss of biodiversity and extreme weather events posing existential threats to our world. As a concerted effort to address the twin issues of climate change and biodiversity loss, climate scientists and conservationists are advocating to double the coverage of protected areas by setting aside at least 30 percent of terrestrial cover for conservation by 2030.

The plan, known as Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, was initially proposed by Western non-profit conservation organizations, pushed by corporate donors, and supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Indigenous and human rights activists, however, are sounding the alarm, noting that the plan would further dispossess Indigenous lands for commodification under the guise of conservation. They are comparing the so-called 30×30 plan to the second scramble for Africa and a “colossal land grab as big as Europe’s colonial era” that will “bring as much suffering and death.”

Protected areas are all the national parks, game reserves, forest reserves, and myriad other places and spaces where states evict their original inhabitants to provide special protection from human interference. They already cover 15.73 percent of the world terrestrial surface—and two-thirds of that is within the global south. Within Africa, countries such as the Republic of Congo, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia, and Guinea have each set aside between 36 to 42 percent of their national territories exclusively for wildlife and biodiversity conservation compared to nearly 13 percent in the United States.

Political ecologists Dan Brockington and Rosaleen Duffy point out that the most dramatic growth of protected areas in Africa was between 1985 and 1995, which coincides with the continent’s wave of global neoliberal economic policies. During that period, powerful institutions, notably the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, imposed structural adjustment plans all meant to reduce the power, reach, and interference of government and give industry greater freedom and less red tape surrounding natural resource use. As such, protected areas became a means to deliver, under coercive pressure, economic development through wildlife conservation and tourism that significantly contributed to the national economy.

Rogue Cops: The Supreme Court is Turning America Into a Constitution-Free Zone

Federal Cop Accountability Nearly Impossible after Supreme Ct Border Patrol Case: Constitutional Rights don’t apply fully w/in 100 miles of US borders But 2/3 of the US population lives w/in the Zone

From [DAVIDICKE] The Supreme Court has spoken: there will be no consequences for cops who brutalize the citizenry and no justice for the victims of police brutality.

Although the Court’s 2021-22 rulings on qualified immunity for police who engage in official misconduct were largely overshadowed by its politically polarizing rulings on abortion, gun ownership and religion, they were no less devastating.

The doctrine of qualified immunity was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits, but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to ensure that government officials are not held accountable for official misconduct.

In Egbert v. Boule, the Court gave total immunity to Border Patrol agents who beat up a bed-and-breakfast owner, in the process carving out a massive exception to the Fourth Amendment for border police (and by extension, other federal police) who unconstitutionally use excessive force. As journalist Ian Millhiser concludes, “Egbert v. Boule is a severe blow to the proposition that law enforcement must obey the Constitution.”

In Cope v. Cogdill, the Court let stand a Fifth Circuit ruling that granted qualified immunity to jail officials who watched a suicidal inmate strangle himself without intervening or calling for help. Likewise, in Ramirez v. Guadarrama, the Court let stand a lower court ruling granting qualified immunity to police officers who fired their tasers at a suicidal man who had doused himself in gasoline, causing the man to burst into flames.

Both Cope and Ramirez move the goal posts for the kind of misconduct that merits qualified immunity, suggesting that even sheer incompetence is excusable when it involves a cop.

It’s a chilling reminder that in the American police state, ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect.”

This is how unarmed Americans keep dying at the hands of militarized police.

Under the guise of qualified immunity, there have been no consequences for police who destroyed a private home by bombarding it with tear gas grenades during a SWAT team raid gone awry, or for the cop who mistakenly shot a 10-year-old boy after aiming for and missing the non-threatening family dog, or for the arresting officer who sicced a police dog on a suspect who had already surrendered.

Qualified immunity is how the police state stays in power.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) that suing government officials for monetary damages is “the only realistic avenue” of holding them accountable for abusing their offices and violating the Constitution, it has ostensibly given the police and other government agents a green light to shoot first and ask questions later, as well as to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

Make no mistake about it: this is what constitutes “law and order” in the American police state.

These are the hallmarks of a police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.

A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades, including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order, protecting the ruling class, and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.” Worse, as Reuters concluded, “the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.”

For instance, police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches. In Anderson v. Creighton, the Supreme Court ruled that FBI and state law enforcement agents were entitled to qualified immunity protections after they were sued for raiding a private home without a warrant and holding family members at gunpoint, all in a search for a suspected bank robber who was not in the house.

Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters. In Saucier v. Katz, the Court ruled in favor of federal law enforcement agents who forcefully tackled a protester as he attempted to unfurl a banner at Vice President Gore’s political rally. The Court reasoned that the officers acted reasonably given the urgency of protecting the vice president.

Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. In Brosseau v. Haugen, the Court dismissed a lawsuit against a police officer who shot Kenneth Haugen in the back as he entered his car in order to flee from police. The Court ruled that in light of existing case law, the cop’s conduct fell in the “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force” and so she did not violate clearly established law.

Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person. In City of San Francisco v. Sheehan, the Court ruled in favor of police who repeatedly shot Teresa Sheehan during the course of a mental health welfare check. The Court ruled that it was not unreasonable for police to pepper spray and shoot Sheehan multiple times after entering her room without a warrant and encountering her holding a knife.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave police the go-ahead to embark on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.

Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” can stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. Then in State v. Howard, the Kansas Supreme Court declared that motorists who recline their car seats are guilty of suspicious behavior and can be subject to warrantless searches by police. That ruling, coupled with other court rulings upholding warrantless searches and seizures by police renders one’s car a Constitution-free zone.

Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota). Police can also conduct sobriety and “information-seeking” checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz).

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King, a divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious” offenses. The end result of the ruling paves the way for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident, an Alabama police officer shot a driver exiting his car, mistakenly believing the wallet in his hand to be a gun. A report by the Justice Department found that half of the unarmed people shot by one police department over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” In Florida v. Harris, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state, provided the use of a K-9 unit takes place within a reasonable amount of time (Rodriguez v. United States).

Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing.

Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided U.S. Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington, the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Aggressive “knock and talk” practices have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night. Andrew Scott didn’t even get a chance to say no to such a heavy-handed request before he was gunned down by policewho pounded aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 a.m., failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed the man when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense.

Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous.Police can perform a “no-knock” raid as long as they have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or give occupants a chance to destroy evidence of a crime (Richards v. Wisconsin). Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police (Quinn v. Texas). For instance, a Texas man had his home subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. The homeowner was actually shot by police through his closed bedroom door.

Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “armed.” Philando Castile was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop allegedly over a broken taillight merely for telling police he had a conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times in the presence of his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter. A unanimous Supreme Court declared in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple had been sleeping because the grabbed his BB gun in defense, fearing they were being attacked.

Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid, even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it. In West v. Winfield, the Supreme Court provided cover to police after they smashed the windows of Shaniz West’s home, punched holes in her walls and ceilings, and bombed the house with so much tear gas that it was uninhabitable for two months. All of this despite the fact that the suspect they were pursuing was not in the house and West, the homeowner, agreed to allow police to search the home to confirm that.

Police can suffocate someone, deliberately or inadvertently, in the process of subduing them. “I can’t breathe” has become a rallying cry following the deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd, both of whom died after being placed in a chokehold by police. Dozens more have died in similar circumstances at the hands of police who have faced little repercussions for these deaths.

Clearly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the system is rigged.

Because the system is rigged, because the government is corrupt, and because the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently chosen to protect the police at the expense of the people, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat.

This is how “we the people” keep losing.

Chauvin Gets 21 Years for Violating Floyd’s Civil Rights

A GLOBAL SPELL AGAINST RACISM WHITE SUPREMACY, GENOCIDE, WHITE FRAGILITY, GENTHANASIA AND POLICE BRUTALITY

From [HERE] A federal judge on Thursday sentenced Derek Chauvin to 21 years in prison for violating George Floyd’s civil rights, telling the former Minneapolis police officer that what he did was “simply wrong” and “offensive.”

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson sharply criticized Chauvin for his actions on May 25, 2020, when the white officer pinned Floyd to the pavement outside a Minneapolis corner store for more than nine minutes even as the Black man pleaded, “I can't breathe,” and became unresponsive. Floyd’s killing sparked protests worldwide in a reckoning over police brutality and racism.

It's a Good Thing the Cop who Killed Tamir Rice Quit His Job b/c Police Can't be Fired or Hired by the Public and Their Authority Over People is Uncontrollable While They Provide Compulsory "Services"

FUCK THE GOVERNMENT TOO. From [HERE] The former Cleveland officer who fatally shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice in 2014 resigned Thursday as the lone police officer in a small Pennsylvania town, two days after his swearing-in sparked backlash from residents and the mayor.

Timothy Loehmann withdrew his application to be a Tioga, Pa., officer Thursday morning, according to the town’s website, and the mayor called for three borough council members to resign over their roles in the hiring.

Loehmann was sworn in Tuesday after a unanimous vote by the council, the Williamsport Sun-Gazette reported. The newspaper and other local media were told the town was hiring an officer by the name of Timothy Lochmann.

Council President Steve Hazlett clarified on Facebook on Wednesday that the officer hired to represent the borough of about 700 people was Loehmann, who was fired from the Cleveland Police Department in 2017 for lying on his job application but faced no criminal charges connected to Rice’s death. Rice was carrying a pellet gun at a playground when Loehmann fatally shot him in November 2014, spurring nationwide protests over law enforcement’s use of deadly force against Black people. [MORE]

Judge Orders the Government of Uruguay and Pfizer to Turn Over Documents as Court Considers Request to Halt COVID Injections for Kids

From [CHD] Uruguayan government officials and Pfizer on Wednesday appeared in court after a judge gave them 48 hours to present detailed information on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine while the court considers an injunction request to halt COVID-19 vaccinations for children 5 and older.

Judge Alejandro Recarey of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal used his inquisitorial powers to demand the Uruguayan Ministry of Public Health, State Health Services Administration and the President’s Office submit all information regarding the contracts for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, including contractual information related to any clauses of civil indemnity or criminal impunity of the suppliers in the event of adverse effects.

According to a court order released on Saturday, Judge Recarey ordered Pfizer and government officials to:

• Provide full and unredacted, certified copies of “each and every one of the purchase contracts (as well as any other related negotiation agreement), of the so-called anti-COVID vaccines that you have signed, own or are simply within your reach.”

• Explain whether “these instruments” contain clauses of “civil indemnity and/or criminal impunity of the suppliers regarding the occurrence of possible adverse effects.”

• Provide extensive detail about the biochemical composition of “so-called vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in supply to the national population, especially the one aimed at children.”

• Explain if the “different doses are distributed in batches or differential (different) items,” and if so, “clarify for what reason, and based on what criteria, each would be provided to different population levels, whether the drugs in each batch are diverse by their content and how and for whom they would be distinguishable. If it “turns out to be the real existence of different lots,” doses of each are “requested for judicial expert examination.”

• Specify if the “so-called vaccines” contain messenger RNA by explaining, if necessary, what that means. Explain what “therapeutic or extra therapeutic consequences — adverse or not — [mRNA] can have for the person inoculated with it. It must be specified with regard to the latter, and in a negative hypothesis in terms of alleged damages, if there is indeed — with scientific rigor — the possible safety of the messenger RNA, or if there is simply a lack of information on the point.”

• State “very specifically and beyond what has been inquired, it is requested that it be said if it is known to you that those labeled as vaccines contain or may contain nanotechnological elements. Clarifying, if not, whether such a temperament would arise from an effective verification of its absence, or from mere ignorance of the components of the referred ‘vaccinal’ substances.”

• Certify whether the substances contained in the “so-called vaccines” supplied in Uruguay are experimental or not. That is, “explain in full and detail whether they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or equivalent body, according to the usual protocols, or if they have some other type of emergency permission.” If this is the case, explain “granted by whom and with what guarantees and based on what regulations.”

In short, you “must also respond if you are aware that either the manufacturer and/or supplier, or any academic or governmental body (domestic or foreign), have admitted — in any way that may be — the experimental nature of the aforementioned vaccines.”

• Present complete and up-to-date information in your possession about “what is scientifically known — and what is not known — about the effectiveness of those labeled as vaccines” and their possible short, medium and long-term adverse effects.

• “Provide official figures that demonstrate the negative or positive incidence of so-called vaccination in the number of infections and deaths diagnosed with COVID from the beginning of the campaign to date.”

• State whether “studies have been carried out to explain the noticeable increase in deaths for COVID-19 since March 2021 or if information is in your possession — with sufficient scientific support and evidence — about it.”

• Provide information on the total number of deaths in Uruguay due to COVID-19 since the beginning of the “so-called pandemic,” the global average age and how many were for “COVID-19 in an exclusive causal relationship” and how many were “with COVID-19” — that is, with the presence of the virus, but was not the main cause of death.

• “Demonstrate scientifically — with evidence of national or international studies that have been done — whether the status of non-vaccinated poses a health hazard to the entire population or third parties.“

If it is the case, two other things will be required: the determination and demonstration of the degree of danger, and the reason that explains why, if this were eventually the case,” vaccination would not have been mandated. Prove whether both the vaccinated and unvaccinated infect equally. If they do not, explain what this would be like and in what proportions — and prove what is stated.

• Clarify the reasons for the “lack of preview informed consent, in relation to the act components of what the government itself presents as a vaccination campaign.”

• “Detail, with first and last names, the identity of the professional technicians who have directed and direct the aforementioned campaign, or anyone who has provided advice at any level.”

Also provide relevant data for their location “for their judicial interrogation, adding to the required information, data about whether any of them are part of any foreign governmental or para governmental organization, or they have worked for one of them in any way, or, where appropriate, manage in a multinational company” focused on healthcare. “Detail, if necessary, the personal names and organizations or companies involved.”

• Explain if alternative therapies for COVID-19 have been studied for any variants. If not, clarify why those were not explored. “If positive, give the research results — giving an account of whether those were used in Uruguay or not.”

For the latter option, provide the reasons that would have been taken to discard the use of alternative therapies, adding whether or not “you know that they have been used in other countries successfully, still relative, or not.”

The order also required Pfizer to state within 48 hours whether it has “admitted, in any area, internal or external to it and its partners, the verification of adverse effects” of its COVID-19 vaccines in children.

“I applaud Uruguayan judge Recarey for posing many tough questions to Pfizer over its COVID shots and the contracts it imposed on Uruguay,” Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender in an email.

“From the beginning, Pfizer has hidden its data and liability-free contracts to avoid liability from the shots,” Holland said.

She explained:

“Many countries, including those in Latin America, have relied on U.S. regulatory agencies in the past to guide health policy. But the U.S. regulatory bodies have failed regarding COVID.

“There is no scientific or ethical justification to authorize COVID shots for children, as some countries, including Denmark, now acknowledge. We know that children are at almost zero risk of dying from COVID. The FDA has extended Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while illegitimately ‘approving’ Comirnaty, thus engaging in a fraudulent ‘bait-and-switch’ scheme to avoid all liability while hawking ‘approved’ vaccines.”

Holland said CHD is currently pursuing two lawsuits against the FDA for its arbitrary and capricious decisions on COVID-19 shots, and she is “pleased to see that other countries are stepping into the scientific and legal breach.”

“I hope Pfizer complies with the judge’s order, but given its long criminal rap sheet, it remains to be seen,” Holland added.

Although Judge Racarey took it upon himself to review data presented by Pfizer and government officials on COVID-19 vaccines, Uruguay is one of 47 co-sponsoring countries that agreed to the Biden administration’s amendments to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2005 International Health Agreements that attempted to place member states’ health sovereignty in the hands of WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and its regional directors. [MORE]

76 UK Doctors Sign Open Letter to Government Warning Against COVID Injections

From [HERE] A group of 76 physicians have penned an open letter to Her Majesty’s government warning against following in the footsteps of the United States, whose Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as six months. 

The letter, posted by world-renowned scientist Dr. Robert Malone, began by saying that the “balance of benefit and risk” in administering the vaccine to small children is “totally inappropriate”, citing the very low risk and very high immunity young children have. 

Then the physicians attacked Pfizer’s documentation used to convince the FDA to allow small children to be vaccinated. 

To begin with, “the protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.” 

Second, no statistical significance was found between the placebo groups and vaccinated groups, and the results were based on only three participants in the younger age group, and seven in the 2-4-year-olds. 

Third, the calculated vaccine efficacy is only 15%. 

The letter also added that in the immunogenicity studies against Omicron, only 66 children were tested a full month after the third dose. 

“It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children,” wrote the physicians. They highlighted other gaps in Pfizer’s research, and noted that countries like Sweden, Holland and Norway are not injecting small children who have had COVID-19. 

The meticulously sourced letter cited several studies and data to build a case based on a) the extremely low risk from COVID-19 in young children; b) the vaccine’s low efficacy; c) the potential harms of the vaccines, drawing data from Pfizer’s own study; d) the lack of informed consent which “borders on misinformation”; and e) the effect on public confidence when the government pushes a COVID-19 vaccine instead of those “against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles.” 

“Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine on to young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunization program.” 

Furthermore, the “poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer” risks undermining public confidence in regulators and the pharmaceutical industry. 

The physicians also took a swipe at the vaccine for older children: 

“In older children, for whom the vaccines are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination program.” 

“For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licenses,” the letter concluded. “Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunization program.”