John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© July 31, 2022
Oft times when joining a Social Media Platform Group I am
asked to provide an introduction of myself. I have short sentence memorized for
this purpose: “I’m a Christian, Conservative-Patriot and Counterjihad Blogger.”
I mention this because the “Counterjihad” portion has taken
a very backseat in these days of Globalist/Dem-Marxist tyranny against
traditional American values and Biblical Christianity. If you would ever look
at my earliest days as a Blogger on my two blog (SlantRight 2.0 [And
archival SlantRight]
and NCCR) it seems
to me that nearly 90% of the posts were related to Counterjihad. This was
largely due to a huge sense of outrage into a group of Wahhabist-Islamic
Terrorists calling themselves Al Qaeda hijacked jetliners and used them as
missiles on American soil. I was further angered by the more I read through Islam’s
revered writings (not just the Quran) the more I understood that religion
specifically aimed violence toward Christians and Jews by attacking their
central tenets of faith. If a Muslim tells you otherwise, they are either lying
or being lied to themselves.
HOWEVER, with the emergence of Barry Soetoro (aka Barack
Hussein Obama – Some embedded source links in this 2013 post have stopped
working, interestingly some still function: “Presidential
Liar and Abuse of Power”) hoodwinking then brainwashing
Americans, my focus began to slowly leave Islam as a central threat to a very
evident trojan threat of Dem-Marxist transformation to a Cultural Marxist
society.
Barry Soetoro Columbia
University Student ID
AND that brings me to a post I just read at the Gatestone Institute
(GI). I originally subscribed at GI to keep up with Counterjihad information. A
July 31 post focuses on countering today’s tyranny: “The
Antidote to Tyranny is Liberty, Not Democracy or International Government.”
It looks like GI is recognizing also American Liberty faces a huge threat and
the Dem-Marxists and Globalists brainwashing use of the concept of “Democracy”
is addressed a part of that tyranny. I’ll cross post it or you can click the GI
link.
Also a post at the Activist Post by Derrick Broze addresses
an issue I’ve been running into on various Social Media about those numerous
DNA private companies touting a path to trace your family tree or as a side gig
provide COVID testing kits might for the idiocy of profits be selling or
providing your DNA profile to the CCP (that would be the Chinese Communist
Party) for nefarious bioweapon implementation. Hmm… The irony that Gain of
Function research related to SARS disease (choke COVID) was booted from
U.S. labs to the Wuhan lab controlled by the CCP that brought COVID to the
world should raise some eyebrows with this DNA to the CCP scenario.
A recent study is back to the claim of the Wuhan Wet Market origin. That seems
off to me because a majority of studies show the current version of COVID
emerged from a Chinese bat located quite some distance from the Wuhan Market,
while the recent
study cites COVID in Wet Market creatures, none are a bat. The
title: “How
Your DNA Tests Could Make You a Target for Bioweapons.”
[As a Blogger I share information that I read from
others. Statistically I do not produce the big-dog readership that those who do
this for a living. I do have about a 100 to 150 readers a day. The economic
situation I am running into post-COVID fearmongering is a lack of support. My
situation is funding to pay for subscriptions utilized for research. Without
support, my paradigm will have to change. With just days left in the month, I
pray your support is forthcoming. SUPPORT CAN BE RECEIVED VIA MY
PAYPAL ACCOUNT (Check Card, Credit Card or PayPal).]
JRH 7/31/22
READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 -
$10 - $25 - $50 - $100. PLEASE I need your generosity. PLEASE
GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:
Please
Support SlantRight 2.0
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on
all social media platforms!
*****************************
The Antidote to Tyranny is Liberty, Not Democracy or
International Government
By J.B. Shurk
July 31, 2022 5:00 am
Gatestone
Institute
§
When presidents and prime ministers make and
enforce their own laws under the pretext of "emergency powers," then
citizens should not be surprised when their leaders discover an endless supply
of "emergencies" requiring urgent action.
§
The opposite of tyranny is not democracy, but
rather liberty and individual rights. Is it not startling, then, that Western
leaders extol democracy, yet pay such little homage to personal freedoms?
§
Yet freedom, liberty, and individual rights are
rarely mentioned. In their stead, political leaders cherish the
"virtues" of democracy and little else. It is as if a linguistic
sleight of hand has robbed Western citizens of their most valuable heritage.
§
Is it not strange that Western leaders laud democracy
over authoritarianism while simultaneously diminishing the power of their
voters and strengthening the authority of foreign institutions [such as the EU,
the UN, and the WHO]? Shouldn't "democratic" nations decide their own
fates?
§
Why should bigger, broader forms of
international government, however, be seen as more virtuous and less corrupt
than their national forms?.... For that matter, had Hitler's Nazi Party
succeeded in conquering all of Europe, would his "European Union"
have deserved greater legitimacy than the national governments of Poland,
Belgium, or France?
§
When national populations are denied
self-determination and personal liberties are treated as privileges, not
rights, then tyranny is never far from taking hold.
Constitution – WE THE
PEOPLE (Image
source: iStock)
Political language manipulates political debate. Abortion
opponents who define themselves as "pro-life" semantically render
abortion proponents as "pro-death." Abortion supporters who define
themselves as "pro-choice" semantically render any opposition as
"anti-choice." Who wants to be "pro-death" or
"anti-choice," after all? Such is the nature of politics. Words are
weapons: when wielded deftly, they shape the battlespace for our minds.
So what does it mean when Western leaders these days speak
so much of democracy but so little of individual rights? Or that they preach
the virtues of international institutions, while demonizing nationalism as
xenophobic and dangerous? It means that national sovereignty and natural,
inviolable rights are under direct attack throughout the West.
It has become rather common for European and American
politicians to divide the world between "democratic" and
"authoritarian" nations, the former described as possessing inherent
goodness and the latter declaimed as threatening the planet's very existence.
Of course, after two-plus years of COVID-19-related mask, vaccine and travel
mandates, often imposed in the West through unilateral executive or
administrative action — and not through legislative will or public referendum —
it is somewhat difficult to assert that democratic nations are free from
authoritarian impulse.
When presidents and prime ministers make and enforce their
own laws under the pretext of "emergency powers," then citizens
should not be surprised when their leaders discover an endless supply of
"emergencies" requiring urgent action. Should that truth be in any
doubt, one need only look to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's iron-fisted decision to quell truckers'
peaceful Freedom Convoy protests against experimental vaccine mandates earlier
this year by confiscating bank accounts and effecting forceful arrests with
little regard for due process or respect for Canadians' free speech. Trudeau's
declared "emergency" trumped Canadian citizens' personal rights.
It is also true that democracy in and of itself is no
guarantee for a noble and just society. In a properly functioning democracy of
one hundred citizens, fifty-one can vote to deny the other forty-nine property,
liberty, and even life. Should a member of the minority find himself enslaved
to the state or slated for execution simply because the majority wish it so, he
will not be singing the praises of democracy while his neck is squeezed within
the noose.
Principles of federalism (where sovereign government
jurisdiction is divided between a central authority and its local, constituent
parts) and separation of powers (where the judicial, legislative, and executive
functions of government are divided among distinct and independent branches)
provide strong checks against the concentration and abuse of too much power.
However, it is the West's traditional embrace of natural
rights that exist apart from and superior to constitutional authority that create
the greatest protection against unjust government power (democratic or not).
When natural rights are viewed as inviolable, as they are in the U.S.
Declaration of Independence, free speech cannot be censored simply because it
is speech with which the government disagrees. When private property ownership
is understood as an inherent right possessed by individuals, Trudeau could not
so easily go after private bank accounts whenever he might choose to declare an
"emergency." When individual natural rights are seen as mere
"gifts" from the government, though, they quickly disappear whenever
government actors find it expedient.
It is increasingly common to see individual rights attacked
as "selfish" and contrary to the "common good." Should
government leaders convince citizens that personal rights do not exist, or that
they should not exist, then authoritarian governments embracing
various shades of communism or fascism will come knocking on the door.
The rule of law does not excuse tyranny simply because what
is unjust was democratically enacted. If any voting minority is vulnerable to
the whims of the majority, then to that minority a democratic government feels
exceedingly authoritarian, too. And should your life, liberty, or property be
on the line, you might very well prefer the judgment of a benevolent dictator
to the demands of a vengeful, yet "democratic," mob.
The opposite of tyranny is not democracy, but rather liberty
and individual rights. Is it not startling, then, that Western leaders extol
democracy, yet pay such little homage to personal freedoms? Surely Western
Civilization should honor hard-fought victories for freedom of speech, freedom
of religion, and free will. Surely the advancement of human liberty should be
celebrated as a triumph of reason and rationality over feudal systems of power
and their imperious forms of control. Surely any "free" society
distinguishes itself from authoritarian regimes through its steadfast
protection of inviolable human rights that exist irrespective of statutory law.
Yet freedom, liberty, and individual rights are rarely mentioned. In their
stead, political leaders cherish the "virtues" of democracy and
little else. It is as if a linguistic sleight of hand has robbed Western
citizens of their most valuable heritage.
If Western political leaders have used rhetorical voodoo to
replace "individual liberty" with vague notions of
"democracy," they have relied upon a similar witchcraft to replace
national sovereignty with international forms of government. What are the European
Union, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization if not
institutional structures for weakening the individual voting power of a
nation's citizens by handing once sovereign national powers to non-citizens?
Is it not strange that Western leaders laud democracy over
authoritarianism while simultaneously diminishing the power of their voters and
strengthening the authority of foreign institutions? Shouldn't
"democratic" nations decide their own fates? If not, if they must
yield to the authority of the EU, UN or WHO, can individual nations still claim
to be governed democratically?
"Nationalism" these days has been reduced to a
disparaging word, as if anything done in the interests of one particular nation
is inherently suspect. Citizens who express patriotic pride in their culture
and national history are often rebuked as parochial or downright bigoted.
Political movements that champion national self-determination (such as
President Trump's MAGA coalition in the U.S. and Brexit in the U.K.) are routinely ridiculed as
"fascist" or "neo-Nazi." Even when they achieve victory in
democratic elections, they are nonetheless labeled "threats" to democracy.
Why should bigger, broader forms of international
government, however, be seen as more virtuous and less corrupt than their
national forms? When the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire, did its international
institutions become inherently more trustworthy? When the Holy Roman Empire
united much of Europe, did its emperors seem less authoritarian? For that
matter, had Hitler's Nazi Party succeeded in conquering all of Europe, would
his "European Union" have deserved greater legitimacy than the
national governments of Poland, Belgium, or France?
Surely it is just as absurd to praise international
institutions over national governments without regard to the forms they take,
as it is to praise democracy without regard for personal freedoms and
individual rights. Surely it is easier to keep an eye on the actions of a local
politician than it is to hold accountable a government official far away in
Washington, D.C., New York City, Brussels, or Geneva. Yet international bodies
are accorded tremendous respect today, while national bodies are frequently
treated with disdain. It is as if national sovereignty has been demolished
because the votes of democratic nations cannot be trusted to serve
international interests. When Western leaders are all parroting the language of the World Economic Forum, it does
not seem as if they are taking their marching orders from their own voters.
Deferring to unelected, untransparent, unaccountable organizations seems a
rather odd way to fight authoritarianism.
When national populations are denied self-determination and
personal liberties are treated as privileges, not rights, then tyranny is never
far from taking hold. Hiding that reality behind manipulations of language does
not change its potent truth. It just forestalls contentious political battles
for a later, more explosive day.
JB Shurk writes about politics
and society.
© 2022 Gatestone Institute. All
rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the
Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified,
without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor:
Permission was not obtained ergo if asked, the cross post will be truncated]
++++++++++++++++++++++++
How Your DNA Tests Could Make You a Target for Bioweapons
Bio-Target
By Derrick
Broze
JULY 30, 2022
Activist
Post
In the latest warning regarding DNA testing, two US
Representatives have warned that DNA testing could lead to gene-specific
bioweapons.
On July 22, U.S. Representative Jason Crow and Senator Joni
Ernst spoke of the dangers posed by “bioweapons” targeting specific populations
based on their DNA. The statements from Crow and Ernst happened at the Aspen
Security Forum during a panel titled “National Security
Today: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities”.
Crow, a Democrat from Colorado and member of the House
Intelligence Committee, chastised younger Americans for being too eager to give
up their genetic code to private companies who offer DNA testing services.
“People will very rapidly spit
into a cup and send it to 23andMe and get really interesting data about their
background,” Crow stated. “And guess what? Their DNA is now
owned by a private company. It can be sold off with very little intellectual
property protection or privacy protection and we don’t have legal and
regulatory regimes to deal with that.”
Crow went on to say that a conversation around privacy must
acknowledge that “expectations of privacy have degraded over the last
20 years”, and “young folks actually have very little expectation
of privacy, that’s what the polling and the data show.”
Beyond concerns of privacy and who owns your DNA, Crow also
warned that the DNA data is “going to be procured and collected by our
adversaries for the development” of weapons systems that target a
specific DNA trait or category.
“You can actually take someone’s DNA, take, you know,
their medical profile and you can target a biological weapon that will kill
that person or take them off the battlefield or make them inoperable,” Crow
warned at the Aspen Security Forum.
During the panel Senator Ernst, a Republican from Iowa,
focused her comments on concerns that enemies of the United States might use
similar technology to target animal agriculture and crops.
“If we look at food security, and what can our
adversaries do with biological weapons that are directed at our animal
agriculture, at our agricultural sector?” Ernst asked.
The senator went on to warn about weaponized versions of the
flu.
“Highly pathogenic avian
influenza, African swine fever, all of these things have circulated around the
globe, but if targeted by an adversary, we know that it brings about food
insecurity. Food insecurity drives a lot of other insecurities around the
globe.”
The warnings regarding DNA testing are not the first to make
the news. In July 2019, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson
also warned
against using the home testing kits. “Be careful who you
send your DNA to,” Richardson said at an event hosted by the Mitchell
Institute for Aerospace Studies, “There’s a number of those companies
where you can go and find out what your makeup is. That’s a lot of
information.”
“You learn a lot about yourself, and so does the company
who’s doing it,” Richardson added.
By December 2019, Yahoo
News reported on a memo sent to members of the
military stating that information collected by private companies could pose a
security risk.
“Exposing sensitive genetic information to outside
parties poses personal and operational risks to Service members,” says
the memo signed by Joseph D. Kernan, the undersecretary of defense for
intelligence, and James N. Stewart, the assistant secretary of defense for
manpower.
“These [direct-to-consumer] genetic
tests are largely unregulated and could expose personal and genetic
information, and potentially create unintended security consequences and
increased risk to the joint force and mission.”
COVID19 and DNA Testing
In April 2021, I reported on another
claim regarding DNA testing, this time from U.S. intelligence officials,
warning against providing health data to Chinese company BGI
Group, the largest biotech firm in the world. CBS 60 Minutes reported
that shortly after the COVID-19 panic began, BGI had discussed building
COVID-19 test labs in at least six states, including New York and California.
The fear is that BGI or a similar company with ties to
Chinese intelligence might gather DNA via COVID-19 tests to use for their
ongoing genome research. US intelligence officials also said a foreign entity
could learn about a person’s current or future medical conditions by studying
their DNA and using this information to gain a monopoly over necessary drugs
and treatments.
Concerns around BGI also arose in late January 2021
when Reuters reported that
more than 40 publicly available documents and research papers show BGI’s links
to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Reuters said the
research dealt with topics as varied as mass testing for respiratory pathogens
to brain science.
Journalist Natalie Winter of National Pulse also uncovered
documentation of a relationship between the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation and BGI going back nearly a decade. Winter found a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between the Gates Foundation and BGI
to “form a collaboration on global health and agricultural development
with the goal of achieving common objectives in health and agricultural
development.”
Specifically, this collaboration deals with developments in
human, plant, and animal genomics, the study of DNA. In the press release for
the MOU, the co-founder of BGI directly mentions the partnership as focused on
genomics.
“BGI looks forward to partnering with the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation in this significant collaboration to apply genomics
research to benefit global human health,” said Dr. Huanming Yang,
Chairman and Co-Founder of BGI.
Bill Gates also visited BGI headquarters in 2010, according
to a report from the Financial
Times. The Times stated that BGI “is working towards a
goal of building a huge library based on the DNA of many millions of
people.” BGI’s goal is to use this information for new drugs, genetic
research, and “transforming public health policy”.
The danger of COVID-19 tests being used as a method for
gathering genomic data on the unsuspecting public is part of a larger
conversation about the dangers posed by genealogy companies generally.
Millions of people around the world have voluntarily
submitted their DNA in exchange for information about their ancestry. The vast
majority of the users of these companies, such as Ancestry and 23andMe, do not
read the Terms of Service which outline how the genealogy firms can use the
data.
While there are clearly reasons to be concerned about the
influence of the Chinese government and what they might do with your DNA, the
reality is most governments with the resources will likely seek to mine DNA as
well. This absolutely includes the United States government, military, and
private companies.
This includes 23andMe, the company explicitly mentioned by
Representative Jason Crow.
In the January 2021 60 Minutes report, Anne
Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, answered questions regarding her company’s use of the
data they are collecting. While Wojcicki says that her company has “empowered
individuals with this opportunity to come together, to crowd source research”,
she doesn’t shy away from acknowledging that her company plans to use the
information to develop drugs.
“And I absolutely stand behind:
we are going to develop drugs. So that everyone is actually benefiting from the
human genome. So absolutely the data is valuable,” Wojcicki told 60
Minutes.
While she says she agrees that Americans should be concerned
about China’s investments in genomic research, she believes the answer is for
the United States to invest in genetic programs.
Wojcicki and 23andMe have faced their own criticisms
regarding how they use the data and whether the public can truly expect records
of their DNA to be safe. In February 2021 it was announced 23andMe would become
a publicly traded company with help from billionaire Richard Branson. The
Guardian noted that Branson’s Virgin Acquisition
Group said 23andMe and their “vast proprietary dataset” of DNA would allow
Virgin to “unlock revenue streams across digital health, therapeutics,
and more”.
As I previously reported, Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, is
the sister of Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube. Additionally, Anne Wojcicki’s
husband until 2015 was Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google and president
of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc, until December 2019. Google also owns
YouTube.
There appears to be a web of connections between the DNA
collection and testing companies, Chinese intelligence, foundations such as the
Gates Foundation, Big Tech, and, of course, the U.S. government. The reality is
that the U.S. military is just
as passionate about developing DNA specific weapons.
For example, the infamous DARPA has been working on various genomic
research projects, including attempting
to “hack” the DNA of insects for warfare.
Most recently, DARPA awarded
$5 million to DNA Script to work with Moderna on the
development of a prototype system for mobile therapeutic and vaccine
manufacture.
For the millions of Americans, and potentially billions
around the world, who have volunteered their DNA, the reality is that potential
bad actors may already be developing drugs and weapons based on their most
personal data of all — their genetic code.
Source: The
Last American Vagabond
Derrick Broze, a staff writer
for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and
activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as
the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.
https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/category/derrick-broze/
ACTIVIST POST -
ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS - CREATIVE COMMONS 2019
.jpg)
