Donald Trump should be thrilled the Pfizer violated its contract

Trump Should Be Happy That Pfizer Violated Its Contract

Trump should be happy that Pfizer violated its contract by fraud.

For some, that sounds ridiculous. For many of us, it's pretty obvious that Pfizer violated its contract by committing fraud in trying to pass these vaccines off to the department of defense.

Naomi Wolf uncovered this truth recently. Pfizer was supposed to deliver its results to the department of defense by a supposed "drop dead date" but purposely held off for 3 weeks, in an apparent attempt to delay a "solution" for the Covid crisis, and thereby throwing the 2020 election to Biden.

Ben Armstrong makes some good points about this on his show

Ben Armstrong nailed it. First time I've heard him but he's pretty good with this one, for sure.

He hits on some good points. Trump is arrogant. So arrogant, in fact, he might not be able to admit this to himself or not. But his best bet and his best chance of winning in 2024 might be for him to recognize and admit he was duped in the run-up to the 2020 election.

If he can admit to his followers that he got sucked in to lies from the likes of Fauci and that the vaccine turned out to be a disaster, it would certainly a lot further ahead.

Pfizer violated its contract with the DOD to throw the election.

Naomi Wolf uncovered this stuff and he talks about it in the video.

Take a look.

Pray for Trump. If he can ever see this and admit it, it will get him a "world apart" ahead in the 2024 election race.

Do you want to see how bad Pfizer has done against the american people?

Study shows 74% of deaths are due to the covid vaccines

Read More
The founding fathers paid an incredibly high price to sign the declaration of independence

Declaration Of Independence: A Valuable Lesson In The High Price Of Bravery, And Why We Should Care

There was a high cost in signing the declaration of independence. Very high, indeed.

At first, that probably sounds a little overblown. Maybe a lot overblown.

But the problem is that there are some things that we take for granted. Or worse yet, we might totally miss them, because of the context in which we learn them.

Seeing this event from a fresh perspective helps to see these men as brave for their time. In the historical context, signing that declaration was actually a potential death sentence.

Dr. Peter McCollough, on his blog, "Courageous Discourse," pointed this out. I actually hadn't thought about it until I read what he had written about it.

Consider what Dr. MrCollough says,

We now look back on the Declaration of Independence with the benefit of knowing that the bold enterprise actually worked out—that is, that the American colonists prevailed in the war against Britain and achieved their independence from the British Crown.

However, at the time the 56 signers actually signed the document (on August 2, 1776), it was FAR from clear that their endeavor would work. In signing their names to the document, they knew they were committing High Treason and were therefore subjecting themselves to being put to death and their property confiscated. The latter penalty was almost as terrible, because most of them (in their thirties and forties) had wives and children who were dependent on them.

Did you ever think of it that way? Or have you always seen a neat and sanitized version of what that event looked like?

I think we miss much of what that was like for them because, like church history, we hear of the polished, "end of the story" version of what happened in that moment.

I think it is difficult for us to grasp what was going on in that room at the time.

And I draw the analogy to how we (many of us, anyway) grow up hearing bible stories as kids, so that, by the time we understand what happened to Jesus on the cross, we've been preconditioned to see it through the lens of it being "temporary," because we already know he rose from the dead.

And, as such, we don't get the full impact.

When Jesus was being crucified, the disciples weren't grasping in that moment that it was temporary. 

Try to grasp the mindset in the room in that moment the framers were signing the declaration.

In 1811, reflecting back on the occasion in a letter to John Adams, the Pennsylvania representative, Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote:

The pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants. The silence and gloom of the morning was interrupted,

I well recollect, only for a moment by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, who said to Elbridge Gerry at the table, "I shall have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing."

"From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead."

This speech procured a transient smile, but it was soon succeeded by the solemnity with which the whole business was conducted.

Brave men. Truly brave men.

Were they flawed men? Of course. We should not pretend they were not flawed.

The founding fathers had slaves.

This doesn't whitewash that. I'm not saying we should overlook the issue of slavery, or the blight it was on our history that it took so long to rid the culture of it.

It seems that many (if not most) of the founding fathers had slaves. But it also seems like they were generally kinder to them than their contemporaries. 

I'm sure there are many things in today's society that will be looked back on (if we are here that long) that will be seen through the lens of history as less than ideal; perhaps even reprehensible.

But that is not what this article is about.

This is about present realities that we often overlook in history, when looking at events in the rear view mirror.

These men were signing a document that effectively put them in direct opposition to Britain - in rebellion, actually - and if history had ended up working out differently, they might have instead been painted as traitors to the government.

The article continues:

As things turned out, none of them were actually put to death for treason, though some were imprisoned and lost their property.

A particularly poignant case was Francis Lewis (1713-1802) of New York. His wife died as an indirect result of being imprisoned by the British, and he lost all of his property on Long Island during the war. When his wife died, Lewis left Congress and completely abandoned politics.

As things have worked out, in today's light, they are seen by most of us as heroes. The history is written by the winning side.

 Whether they were heroes or just men with some blind spots, they were brave men, and were willing to pay a great price for what they believed.

As the article says,

Nowadays, safely ensconced on America’s college campuses, it has become fashionable for professors and students to criticize the signers—and especially the author, Thomas Jefferson—as privileged white men, many of whom owned African slaves.

(And yet, in the end, slavery was abolished, again at a great cost.)

The declaration of independence was signed in 1776. The civil war was fought almost 100 years later. Times were different and circumstances were different.

In 1776, the country was united against a foreign enemy. Almost 100 years later, "the enemy was us." That is, the country was divided and it became a horrible price that would be paid to bring an end to slavery.

Within that 100 year window, there was a lot of bravery, a lot of injustice.

Some of the people who gained their freedom from the tyranny of England were the ones who kept others in tyrannies of their own by owning slaves.

But somehow, I don't think the signers of the declaration would have been the ones opposing freedom for the slaves.

It's just that you can only fight so many wars at a time, or deal with so many blind spots all at once.

And I bring this up today because today is the day this article came across my news feed - coinciding with the 4th of July holiday where Americans celebrate their independence from what was a tyrannical government.

But we have blind spots too.

This weekend is also the weekend that marks the date of the release of a movie about a very different and very horrible kind of slavery: that of the slavery of children in the crime of human trafficking.

It might not be a surprise to my readers that there is this huge, ugly blight on humanity that persists these days.

But for the majority of Americans, they celebrate the Independence Day weekend without much thought to what it cost the founders to establish the United States as a country.

Many also fail to recognize the horrible tyranny that is going on all around them - tyrants who live in the same country, enjoying the same freedom, and yet abusing, enslaving and torturing children.

"Sound Of Freedom" is a movie that was created to draw attention to this horrible, pervasive and almost unspeakable evil going on all around us in this world.

But no matter how horrible, it needs to be spoken about, even at a potential cost.

"Sound of Freedom" is a movie about child trafficking, child sex slavery and the sale of human body parts for profit.

Hopefully (and for many, prayerfully) history will come out quickly on the right side of the children who are being treated as cattle and sex toys and little factories for body parts and adrenochrome suppliers. 

Right now, all the big money is on the side of pretending this isn't really a problem. But in the end, history will be written by those who will have won this battle.

Does our culture have its blind spots? Of course, it does. History repeats itself from time to time.

Ironically, it's hard to identify blind spots because, well..... they're blind spots.

But this is one that some of us can see.

We need to see it, to look it square in the face, to be brave enough to speak out and draw attention to the stunningly large and cancerously horrible problem.

If you don't believe this is a problem, think about this: the movie has been sitting, completely finished and ready to go for three years.

But it has taken this long for the producers of it to be able to bring it to the theaters.

Hollywood and its dark money and power have been fighting the release of this film with everything they've got.

Jim Caviezel and Mel Gibson have been pushing this issue into the media, always as an uphill battle. There are some really evil, rich people who don't want this stuff ever to be known.

Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel both talk about their reputations, even their lives - being threatened for daring to speak out against this multi-BILLION-dollar child sex trafficking industry.

Do these men have blind spots? Perhaps.

Mel Gibson does, anyway. He's made some disparaging remarks about Jewish people, gotten arrested for drunk driving.

And we can choose to look at his failures, or we can look past that, seeing that in spite of the fact that he is, like many, a flawed man, he is a brave man.

And what about Donald Trump?

Talk about a flawed man. Proud? Brash? Coarse? Yes.

But whether you realize it or not, Donald Trump, since he was running for office, spoke about the swamp and the need to drain it.

Many people (particularly many of the ones who voted for him and pushed so hard to want him re-elected) are well aware that he is well aware of these issues. They are also well aware of what he was doing to try to save these children.

So are they flawed men? Some of them sure are. But they are brave men.

These are all brave men for pushing so very hard against a very rich and powerful entrenchment of evil and abuse of the little ones among us.

Hopefully, now that it's hit the theatres, this movie will be the beginning of a turning point: a point in time where history will be able to look back and say, "that was a horrible, ugly thing that made us all less than fully human."

If you can take the time, please watch this video clip of Jim Caviezel discussing the depth of the problem of this issue that most of us would probably find quite easy to assume "just cannot be."

This video may load slowly. Please give it some time. The servers are often overloaded as people are waking up to this reality, almost all at once, because it has hit a movie screen, and suddenly is becoming "real." Be patient, and please watch this.

What is your life worth? What is the life of those children worth?

Perhaps you're one of many who didn't know this was going on. Now you do. Now, if you say nothing, you are without excuse.

Maybe worse yet, you're among those who have been aware but have been afraid to speak out for fear of backlash, or worse yet, you fear for your safety if you are among the first to speak out.

But if you don't, who will?

Hopefully, someday soon, we will see a world, in unison, saying, "how could that have POSSIBLY gone on for so long? Thank God that is all now behind us."

And maybe someday, Caviezel, Gibson and Trump will be remembered, not merely for their failures, but for the fact that in this, they are true heroes.

See also....
Canada Is Getting Downright Gruesome Regarding Organ Donation
Read More
Sound Of Freedom Under Attack By Leftist Mob
Analysis, Current Events

The Reasons For The War Against The Movie, “The Sound Of Freedom”

We should have expected a movie piercing the darkness of the evil that is child abuse would get backlash.

Though the speed and fury of this backlash is disappointing, it should have been predictable. Unfortunately, I don't think most Christians expected it. 

We should have expected it. But I think many were like me.

We saw the movie hit the theatre and thought, "this will be it, now." Now the truth will come out. 

But the problem is that Christians are, by and large a trusting lot, some of us always hoping for the best without a struggle or a cost to us and our comforts. At least, we want to trust that truth will arrive, in blazing glory, and people will just see it.

But the problem is, the darkness is still dark. And people who have come to love the darkness have become blinded to just how much darkness really is out there.

Don't know if you know it or not, but this movie was purchased when it was completed, in 2018, for the purpose of making sure it never saw the light of day.

“Sound of Freedom” started life as a major studio project that was originally produced by 20th Century Fox and finished back in 2018. Despite being completed and ready for distribution, the film was shelved after Fox was acquired by the Walt Disney Company in 2019, with the new owners refusing to release the movie.

Aurin MacIntyre, in an article at "The Blaze," seems to say this movie was purchased by Disney specifically to be able to control the narrative by owning it to keep it out of circulation. There's a technique for ya.

Why would they do that? Because if you've got something as lucrative as the child sex industry, you want to make sure it lasts.

We often underestimate the enemy and his allies, even though this movie represents a $160 billion per industry.

How naive we are.

By enemy, I mean, as a Christian, the devil. But in a larger framework, that means the devil and anyone who is aligned with him in this. In this case, anyone from consumers of child porn all the way up to those who make it, those who sell it and/or those who sell and/or use the children to make it are "aligned" with it.

Jesus said, "he who is not for me is against me." Anyone who tolerates it is at least partly aligned with it.

But why the need for so many on the left (and, unfortunately, even some on the right) to malign this movie as some crazy conspiracy?

I wish it was a joke, or else just some fringe theory held by a few. But it's not.

This idea that the movie is "the fringe" has a lot of people behind it.

Aurin MacIntyre, in his article, says,

This is the kind of story journalists should be lining up to write glowing celebratory pieces about. Instead, as if some form of order had been issued to all, the most vile leftist outlets simultaneously, a flurry of hit pieces suddenly appeared to denounce the movie as red meat for QAnon conspiracy theorists.

Outlets like Rolling Stone, Jezebel, the Washington Post, and the Guardian fell into immediate lockstep, framing the box office upset not as a David and Goliath story for the ages, but as evidence that dangerous right-wing conspiracy theories have seized the minds of the movie-going public.

Each article made sure to use phrases like “QAnon-tinged” despite never linking any content from the movie itself to the fringe movement. Rolling Stone described the film as “A superhero movie for dads with brain worms,” while the Guardian accused the movie of “seducing America.”

Rolling Stone famously defended the French movie “Cuties” against charges of child sexualization in 2020, praising the movie as “a sensitive portrayal of growing pains.” The writers who attended a showing of “Sound of Freedom” for their article treated the experience like a trip to the zoo, taking every opportunity to mock the backward yet dangerous nature of the GOP-voting plebians were absorbing conspiracy-theory-laced marching orders from their Klan-hooded overlords.

The breathless journalists were desperate to frame the film as “Birth of a Nation” for the disgruntled Trump voter, a cartoonish depiction of hate designed to whip up the latent violent tendency of a conspiracy-addled public.

We shouldn't be surprised. They also framed "The Passion Of the Christ" as "Pornographic Violence."

Seems to me that the whole purpose of pornography is to unleash a constant storm of endorphins to link the porn to the feeling the endorphins give ya.

As such, you'd think that "pornographic violence" would appeal to an audience that gets its kicks from blood and gore.

The passion was anything but, and did anything but. And yet,

The left tends to smear anything they don't understand with a derogatory label so they don't have to deal with the reality that is otherwise in their face.

Aurin MacIntyre has his ideas as to why they are doing this.

Journalists hate the movie for a simple and very telling reason: They have managed to code opposition to child sex trafficking as a radical right-wing position.

But the question still remains: WHY would they "code the opposition" to a "radical, right-wing position?"

What is to be gained by doing so? Do they resent giving credit to the right for having the corner on something they do not? Perhaps. But perhaps it's worse than that.

Might I suggest that the theory that this movie is a "right wing conspiracy" has a lot of power, money and entrenched evil behind it?

Maybe that's too simple. But I don't think it's at all inaccurate. Not a bit.

If you look at the downward spiral that is described in Romans 1, you see that people saw truth, held it up to inspection, found that the God who is revealed in nature and conscience is found "a little bit lacking," and so people give up the real God they see there, and chase after other gods, instead, because they like them better.

And as a result, God gives them over to a "reprobate mind" - a mind incapable of discerning truth from error.

Get a load of how twisted the logic is in the brain of Myles Klee at "the Rolling Stone."

....In short, I was at the movies with people who were there to see their worst fears confirmed.

Sound of Freedom lives up to that anticipation. It’s a stomach-turning experience, fetishizing the torture of its child victims and lingering over lush preludes to their sexual abuse. At times I had the uncomfortable sense that I might be arrested myself just for sitting through it.

Nonetheless, the mostly white-haired audience around me could be relied on to gasp, moan in pity, mutter condemnations, applaud, and bellow “Amen!” at moments of righteous fury, as when Ballard declares that “God’s children are not for sale.”

They were entranced by what they clearly took for a searing exposé. Not even the occasional nasty coughing fit — and we had no shortage of those — could break the spell.

He speaks as if rejoicing in the exposure of this evil as evil is somehow titillating. 

I'm not sure how sick and twisted you have to be in your soul to get to the place where you can't separate the difference between the evil of using children as sex toys and the appreciation for the fact that this reprehensible evil is exposed.

But that's what it seems you just read in that quote from The Rolling Stone.

Perhaps they misunderstand the definition of fetishism.

Rolling Stone, in typical Rolling Stone fashion has turned the definition of fetishism on its head to justify hating "The Sound Of Freedom"

Unfortunately, I think at best it's more that they don't want to have to come to terms with how evil their hollywood heroes are. So they paint these hollywood people as villains to be able to distract from the real issue.

And at worst? The people who write this verbal excrement are part of the consumer base in that $160 billion economy.

I don't know. I'm just saying. Not startin' nothin.'

But here is the grim reality here.

The real issue is that most people have a love-hate relationship with darkness. And having to come to terms with this insensate evil requires you to have to recognize that the line between good and evil runs right through the middle of the human heart.

That includes your own heart. Right there in with the rest of 'em.

IF you're going to acknowledge what is true, that acknowledgement requires you to decide what you're going to do about what you now see as truth: repent or rebel. There are only these two choices.

The problem with porn is that it takes constantly greater and greater amounts of deviance to deliver the same endorphin high.

You can draw life from your sexuality by enjoying it in the confines for which God designed it, or you can try to get "life" out of it by pulling it out of any (and ultimately, every) kind of perversion of what God's design is.

The end result is "smoking it more and enjoying it less," to where you end up chronically frustrated and wanting, or actually acting on greater and greater perversion to get the endorphin high that a sexual addiction is.

And regarding the Rolling Stone article (and its author) it seems that unless you're willing to acknowledge that the end of porn is a greater and greater thrill at the expense of exploiting a greater and greater abuse of the power dynamic; then perhaps your desire to want to believe that man is "basically good" leaves you with nowhere to go except to project on people who appreciate this movie a personna.

And that personna has to be that "they" are the ones with the problem and not you.

Believing that the people who "enjoy" this movie are part of the problem requires you to ignore the realities of this sexploitation industry.

And the guy who is baffled and pissed about this left-handed reaction from the left (as much as anyone rightfully can be) is Tim Ballard

Ballard is the real-life agent portrayed in the movie. His thoughts about this nutbar attack from the left:

Ballard asked, “where is the QAnon doctrine being spewed in the film and the script?”, and argued that he would know best because he was there for these events that can be confirmed by others.

“This is just some other agenda … who would want to get the backs or run interference for pedophiles and human traffickers? That’s the more important question in all this. Why would you want to lie to push an agenda whose goal is to have children be in captivity? It’s kind of sick,” he said.

“But I think of the children that are really depicted in that film. I know what happened to them. Those children were the subjects of child rape videos. Those children were being sold for sex.”

Ballard, who noted that more than 100 individuals wound up being rescued, added that it is “embarrassing and frankly, grotesque for this guy who knows nothing to start throwing out terms like QAnon and connecting it to a real story.”

Is there hope? I certainly think so.

It's hard to remove this from the public discourse, now that it's out there. Ironically, the fact that the media keeps trying to frame the narrative is annoying. But in some ways, it's probably better than the alternative, which is to simply hope this movie just fades in the rearview mirror.

This is a war between good and evil, between light and darkness. But light and darkness are not opposites.

Light is light. Darkness is the absence of light. Now that the light is shining, darkness is put on notice.

But we need to arm ourselves with truth. As it says in 1st Peter (3:15), "Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope and confident assurance that is within you, yet do it with gentleness and respect."

The "endarkened" people in the media, in lockstep with the industry they are directly or indirectly trying to prop up, for whatever reason, cannot overcome the spirit of God and the light of truth for all that God is using this movie to awaken.

Pray up, get familiar with the problem, and the size and scope of it. The stakes have been established.

But the movie, although delayed, could not be silenced. Now that it's out there, we have to take a stand with those on the right side of this issue.

God is wanting to move and expose the darkness. Be sure you are prepared and of the right spirit to be a part of the solution as this scab gets peeled off of our sleeping society.

Read More
Are the WEF and the UN transforming our cities from within city leadership
Analysis, Current Events, NEWS CURRENT EVENTS

Is The UN Subverting Municipalities

UN Takeover Of Municipalities

I get a lot of feeds from all kinds of sources. Sometimes, too much. This post comes out of Canada, on Facebook, and it is discussing the UN takeover of our cities.

The US has been going down this rabbit hole for a while. But unlike the US, part of the problem for Canada is the same problem that plagues much of the rest of the world.

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right in the US. Take that and they take your ability to keep them in check.

Take note of the coverage here of a meeting with concerned citizens speaking up at a city council meeting in a city called Peterborough, Ontario (a few hours east of Toronto).

These people can only do what they do if we don't move to expose them for what they really want.

In the end, they want us to own nothing, eat bugs and be happy.

I'm not up for that. I think we need to make our voices be heard loud and strong.

I'm posting (for now) the Facebook post, as it was given. I will follow up with revisements and edits as I have opportunity to do so.


Follow Up After June 26th, Meeting

A restructuring of Canadian "mayors" by the United Nations started in 1992. This is a fraud of public/private partnerships.

A summary: CANADA was signed on to U.N. Agenda 21 in 1992 by Brian Mulroney. A total of 178 countries agreed because this international agreement promised them "big money" to go "green."

Once signed, CANADA became a U.N. Member State (Nation State) & no longer a "sovereign country" under the rule of law & the supremacy of God. Any country signed on to U.N. Agenda 21 ceased to be a "nation," and all their governments restructured as the U.N. MEMBER STATES. All towns were to be abandoned or merged to form UN CITY STATES.

By 2000, we saw countries being "governed" by directions of the United Nations, G7, G20, Council of Foreign Relations, World Bank, World Economic Forum (WEF), World Health Organization, International Council on Local and Environmental Issues (ICLEI) etc...

Instead of following parliamentary procedures for law changes, the Municipal Primer was sent to all of our local towns in 1994 & it outlined how they were to restructure their governments.

-Our public officials/office - which is our elected mayor and councillors - were "partnered" with a private corporation (CITY OF PETERBOROUGH) that would "help" the local agenda implement these global goals HERE in Peterborough.

-Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) were brought into every town to "work" with the mayor to implement the global agenda instead of a local one and to commit local public funds to private sustainable development goals & foreign investors. Under the guise of "saving the planet." (CAO tells the mayor what to do.) They also brought ICLEI into our town. ICLEI is the United Nations.

Government restructuring included rewriting our local laws & this became the Municipal Act, 2001.

This initiated amalgamation, regionalization & incorporation of independent, autonomous local towns into a private 'governing' environment.

The Municipal Act converted the public mayor (head of local government) to a private Head of Council (for the CITY), making him answer to a BOARD & controllable.

The BOARD determines their own "Code of Conduct,".... which means ZERO liability for ALL of this, while the United Nations/ICLEI steals everything.... right in your town. This is a "corporatocracy" - where the corporations/partnerships (The CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PETERBOROUGH)/ International Council on Local and Environmental Issues-ICLEI) CONTROL EVERYTHING, and we no longer have a say.... and we no longer have a local government protecting us.

Now let's look at your reports,

Firstly, Report, PEAC 23–010

Here, a linked plan identifies the actions required to achieve NetZero by 2050.

-Measures include a vague reference to "targeting mobility."

-This report is to nominate one of you to sit in on an upcoming advisory working group hosted by an unnamed "project consultant" to launch this July.

-This project consultant is no doubt connected to ICLEL.

The PEAC 23–002 report states

-Peterborough declared a Climate Emergency in 2019. There was no local event that triggered this declaration. This declaration came into effect through the U.N.'s global agenda and not the local agenda of the residents of Peterborough.

-This report states that the city participated in ICLEL Canadas, Advancing Adaptation Project and received a grant of $15,000. "Big money for going green."This is a small fraction of the money Peterborough has received from ICLEL since 1994.

-Most disturbingly, the report you accepted states that the recent reductions in GHG emissions were PRIMARILY the result of the COVID-19 pandemic "modifying our travel patterns," and is repeated in report PEAC 23–009

When you put this together with the previous statement on "targeting mobility," the question of whether the SACRED mobility rights of residents of Peterborough are at stake and if your participation in the furthering of this agenda is not in violation of your oath to uphold the constitution of Canada along with the Bill of Rights.

I, Maggie Braun, gave a verbal notice that if you accepted these reports, a Notice of Liability would be issued to each of you individually.

Before I proceed with such actions, I will remind you that every man and woman is responsible and can be held personally liable for their actions. Positions of authority, such as a seat on the town council, do not protect you from liability.


As promised, the founding and local document references are listed below.


A global agenda

United Nations: Sustainable Development Goals-

Canada is implementing Agenda2030-

World Economic Forum (link 404)

U.N. Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 -

A Guide to Agenda 21 for Canada -

U.N. General Assembly: Transforming Our World -

Implemented Locally

A Municipal Primer on the U.N. Conference -

Summarization of Shelagh McFarlane Mayoral Candidate in Guelph ON -

…implemented locally…

CITY OF GUELPH is implementing Agenda2030 -

ICLEI Local Sustainability 2012 review -

ICLEI Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide -

Guelph Cease & Desist + Trucker Convoy Summary -

Guelph Flyer 2022 -

A Municipal Primer on the U.N. Conference -

Guelph Mayor Served -



This can be imitated across the country...

- Go to your municipal website.

- Review their Environmental Committee Agenda/Reports and the Town Hall Agendas.

- Look for ICLEL and anything climate-related.

- Call the Town Clerks' office and get on the agenda to speak as a delegate when they are passing any “environmental” reports or motions.

- Take the information below and localize the content for your 5-minute speech.

- Afterwards, send this information to your Mayor and Councillors

- Utilize Stand4Thees Notices of Liability to serve the Mayor and Council.

Video and link for NOL -

Read More

Canadian federal court rules Trudeau COVID hotels violate the Canadian Charter of Rights

Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau seems to be a one-man wrecking ball.

He seems to be waging a systematic war on “disagreeable” Canadians and their rights under their Charter Of Rights And Freedoms.

Consider the following headline that was found on Rebel News:

Patient returning to Canada has $3,750 Quarantine Act ticket in limbo

Now, that may or may not sound scary. But consider the reality in Canada right now when you return to the country after travelling internationally.

According to the Canadian government, there is a “mandatory 3 day stopover.” Aren’t sure what that means? Check it out.

But all is not (yet) lost. According to a recent article in The Post Millenial,

An interim injunction which would have required nine Canadians to isolate in government-controlled hotels was denied by a federal court on Monday.

The nine people in question, despite having tested negative for COVID, would have had to stay in a hotel as directed by government officials. They would have had to remain locked in their hotel rooms for a total of at least three days, and would have been sent a bill for at least $2,000 for expenses.

According to a statement released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, the court involved in striking the injunction down is not the same court that issued it in the first place.

Thank God for some sanity in Canada (so far).

In the statement by the court, it was obvious they thought it was an overreach:

The Court went on to say: “History demonstrates why the bulwark of the robust protection of Charter rights by an independent judiciary is so important in times of crisis.”

“The forced isolation of returning Canadian air travellers is arbitrary, unnecessary, and totalitarian”, states Justice Centre Litigation Director, Jay Cameron.  “These quarantine hotels and restrictive measures are more consistent with a dictatorship than a free society.  We look forward to the full hearing of these issues in early June.”

You can read the statement by the Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms here. Please visit the JCCF website to see what they do and why Canadians need to speak up before it is too late.

The hearing where the constitutionality of quarantine hotels and quarantine will be determined will be held on Jun. 1-3, 2021.

The Prime Minister of Canada, his Liberal Party and the NDP (who seem to have decided the best they can do is ally with the Liberals to prevent a Conservative Party influence) are long overdue to be voted out of office.

In the meantime, consider supporting Rebel News and their efforts to push back against these draconian measures.

These are the kinds of ridiculous overreaches of authority being perpetrated on the Canadian population by a government and a police force out of control. Get a look:

Canada is on the edge of a strong tyranny against their rights to do anything except what the Prime Minister tells them. He needs to be stopped.

Read More

How Communist China Has Infiltrated The World Health Organization

If you've been a fan of the site for any length of time, you're probably up on a lot of the stuff going on these days with the whole Covid-19 mess. But the reasons why the world has gotten into this whole global financial meltdown over something that really shouldn't have gone this way are hard to see when the #MSM refuses to talk about it.

One alarming issue is how Communist China has infiltrated the World Health Organization.

I've been aware of this for a while now. I originally smelled a rat when I was made aware of it by way of an article by John Leonard of Southern Prose. He's a pretty sharp guy and he does some writing for some pretty prominent sites like American Thinker. His (very well written) article is here, if you want some good opinion on the whole situation.

Glenn Beck has a monologue that will show you how the World Health Organization has a communist problem and why they need to clean house.

The only problem is that I can't show it to you directly. You see, it keeps getting pulled from YouTube and stuff. Funny how that happens, huh?

Anyway, if you're logged into the big blue Comrade Zuckerberg FaceThing, then if you click on this link below, you probably should be able to watch it. Try this link or click on the image to watch.

Glenn Beck on the ties between WHO and communist China

I know, I know. Glenn Beck is a conspiracy nut, right?

First of all, there are conspiracies out there. All the time. Second, even a broken clock is right twice a day, right? Third, this guy does his homework. And if you don't like what he says, it doesn't give you license to ignore it simply because it pisses you off.

He tells you in the video it's all documented. But you might not be able to get to HIS documentation. Let's see if I can supply some here for you.

Let's look at some links here that support EXACTLY what he is saying.

After Trump cut funding of the WHO, the WHO accused Trump of politicizing the Corona virus. Yup, yup and yup. Check those links if you wish.

Tedros is the head of WHO but doesn't have a medical degree. True dat. Check it out. He's a politician. He was Ethiopia's minister of foreign affairs - the "Mike Pompeo" of Ethiopia.

"He was chairman of the African Union. " I don't know. But they sure love the guy.....

"The African Union has ties to communist China." True dat, too. China even seems to brag about it.

"Ethiopia sponsored the 'belt and road' summit. The "belt and road" summit is China's effort to dominate world trade. Yup. True dat, too. Is that problematic for these poor countries that get all this help from China and have no money to pay it back? You betcha.

"The Chinese presence in Ethiopia is staggering."  Yup. That too. Not only is their presence staggering, China is REALLY PROUD OF IT. They even say so themselves.

China is pouring billions into Ethiopian railroads, and Ethiopia is over it's head in debt to the chinese.

Like Glenn said, it's all documented. You can find all this stuff even on the left-leaning and selectively screened Google search engine.

Glenn says...

 ...their goal is to "Reshape the international system to accommodate its political and economic interests. In service of this strategy, China has consistently sought to trade financial incentives for votes, offering bribes and cancelling debts for countries that support them."

Is that true? Really? REALLY!?!?? Well, yes. Washington post reports that China wrote off Cameroon's debt just before they withdrew their candidate to head the UN's "food and agriculture" organization. Vote buying? Influence peddling? Say it ain't so!!!

Do you smell dead rats yet?

China has threatened other countries too. And who sits at the head of the food and agriculture organization at the UN? QU Dongyu from China, of course.

So let's sum this up. A communist from a country beholding to China is heading up the WHO and saying the Covid-19 problem isn't such a bad thing, really. Where's the problem with that?

Seeing all of this, and knowing that China has an interest in world domination, is it so far fetched to think China might try to buy into a depressed market to gain control and power?

Well, CNN even thinks so.

Communists lie like cheap chinese rugs. They've done it before. Melamine in baby food, but of course they denied it. Prosecuting, torturing Christians and Uighur Muslims by the BOATLOAD and always denying it.

The pieces all fit together. Everything supports the theory that the leader of the WHO is beholden to China.

It's in the playbook, over and over. So why should we believe the stats from WHO about why we should continue to isolate for another few months when it seems obvious it will destroy our economy but it seems ever more doubtful that we should believe Fauci or the WHO about how dangerous this thing really is?

Write to your senators, your congressmen, your MPs and MPPs and tell them this is long overdue to stop.

They will not be able to push this forever in free societies unless the population lets them by simply doing nothing but waiting for "somebody" to do something.

Be the somebody. Do something. And not just by passing clips around Facebot. Start writing letters and raising your voice. Please. There are LIVES at stake.

Read More
Islam and Special Interest Groups

Islam, Special Interests, And The End-Run Around The Church

I wouldn’t say that it’s a partnership, to be sure. At their core beliefs, if these groups (the groups like gay rights groups, black lives matter, etc. and hardline believers Islam) were to compare notes, the former groups would be killed by the latter group if the tables were turned and the same players were suddenly transported to pretty much any middle-eastern culture – Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, etc., etc..


But for some reason, in the modern West, gay rights groups often seem to be willing to form emotional ties to those in the Muslim community, standing up for them as “oppressed minorities,” and seemingly simply because they seem to feel oppressed themselves; and in that frame of mind, perhaps they find a sensitivity and/or feel a need to identify with other groups who are “oppressed.” And it seems there is no end in some places (for some of the Muslim belief) of complaints about being spoken badly of and not able to practice their religion as freely as they would like, or to not be spoken badly about.

It seems to be an odd phenomenon that also occurs between blacks in the “black lives matter” groups and the black panthers. When the protests were going on in Baltimore, there were some strange alliances between the “black lives matter” protesters and black panther/Muslim groups.

There doesn’t seem to be any kinship between these different groups except that you have groups (blacks, gays) who feel oppressed and other groups (Muslims – not all of them, for sure, but some) who will will capitalize on that feeling, giving a false sense of “we identify with your struggle” in order to gain their trust and draw them in to strategic alliances of sorts – in protests, demanding of the silencing of the Judeo-Christian voice which still remains in the culture.

Special Interests, Gay Rights Groups And Islam

The frightening thing that most in the “black lives matter” and gay rights groups don’t see is how this is the type is that some (SOME – NOT all) in the Muslim way of thinking may well have intentions of allowing these gay rights groups and “black lives matter” types do their dirty work for them – by allowing these special-interest groups to do the marching, the protesting and the heavy lifting of getting laws entrenched to silence the Judeo-Christian conscience that remains in our society, so that once this is done, the laws can be changed to make speaking out against their beliefs “hate speech” and therefore doing so will be a hate crime. There is a house resolution before congress about this:

Muslims are 1% of the population and sharia is already being enforced on the American people. Speak out now and prepare to take action or, as history has proven, your children and theirs will be the victims of Islamic supremacy and they will have to fight the physical war to defeat Islam. It’s clear which side the current U.S. government is on, and it’s not yours. via The Rule of Reason ::  Weblog of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

Stephen Coughlin alerted me to a House Resolution introduced on December 17th,H.Res.569, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.114th Congress (2015-2016).” As of this writing, the country remains clueless about this development.

Brigette Gabriel, a Lebanese-born Christian speaks openly about this type of thing happening historically in her native Lebanon, though it was much more violent and insidious. She speaks of how Lebanon was a peaceful country and culture where the government was a secular one; and yet, certain radical-leaning Muslims worked their way into places of influence in civil and federal government until they hit a critical mass; and then, within weeks,  they were coming down, hard and heavy on the general population – killing people in the streets, demanding they convert to Islam or die, slicing pregnant women’s bellies open in the streets and killing their babies in front of them, all supposedly “in the name of spreading Islam.”

In her book, “Because They Hate,” she discusses some brutal methods used by the PLO to terrify and intimidate Christians to bring Islamic conversions:

They started massacring the Christians in city after city. The Western media seldom reported these horrific events. Most of the press was located in West Beirut, controlled by the PLO and Muslims. One of the most ghastly acts was the massacre in the Christian city of Damour, where thousands of Christians were slaughtered like sheep. The combined forces of the PLO and the Muslims would enter a bomb shelter and see a mother and a father hiding with a little baby. They would tie one leg of the baby to the mother and one leg to the father and pull the parents apart, splitting the child in half.

A close friend of mine became mentally disturbed after they made her slaughter her own son in a chair. They tied her to a chair, tied a knife to her hand, and, holding her hand, forced her to cut her own sixteen-year old son’s throat. After killing him they raped her two daughters in front of her. They would urinate and defecate on the altars of churches using the pages of the Bible as toilet paper before shooting and destroying the church. Americans just don’t realize the viciousness of the militant Islamic fundamentalist. They refuse to see it even when they look today at video footage of churches being burned in Iraq or different parts of the world or synagogues being destroyed in Gaza.


I do not hate Muslims. And for the record, I will be among the first to say that I perceive the great majority of Muslims (I do believe, even in the Middle East) believe it is wrong to kill people simply because we have a different ideology. I think many people who embrace Islam do so with an ache in their hearts for how badly they believe that people with an ISIS mentality misunderstand and misapply the Quran to support what these more moderate Muslims believe to be pure evil. (And if you’re a moderate Muslim in a country that is infiltrated by a critical mass of people in ISIS, you’re going to keep your mouth shut just to survive. Who could blame any of them for that?)

Here in the west, especially, there seem to be a number – a large, significant number – of Muslims who see the need to not entrench sharia law in our legal repertoire. They are what I (and many who are students of Islam) believe to be what would be called the more “moderate” flavor of Islam. I believe these people are kind, compassionate, hospitable and are as interested as we are – we, meaning Evangelical Christians – in allowing people to live freely according to their own beliefs, without compulsion.

But if you look at Germany in the 1930’s, and what Hitler did there, you’ll see that it didn’t take much of a percentage of the population who was radical, combined with a critical mass of the population who stayed silent for mere self-preservation for that evil to thrive and flourish to the point where they were able to kill over 6 million Jews – not to mention all the persecution of gypsies, some Christian/Catholic people and others in the mix.


For the record, I want to be clear that if Jesus commands us to love even our enemies, then how much more should we strive to love those who might oppose Him if it is only out of ignorance and because of what they have been wrongly taught.

There are two different incidents in the scriptures where Jesus spoke about a similar topic, and if you aren’t careful to understand the context, then from an outsider’s point of view, you might be inclined to see them almost as contradictory statements.

There was the time Jesus said, “he who is not for me is against me.” (Matt. 12:30)

There was also the time Jesus said, “he who is not against me is for me.” (Mark 9:40)

Perhaps some of the processing we need to do as the body of Christ regarding how we interact with our Muslim neighbors is in discerning the difference between “he who is not for me” and “he who is not against me.” Rick Warren has tried to bridge this gap in working toward common goals with Muslims who are trying to bring peace to rule, and he has been hammered mercilessly by some in the evangelical church. This is embarrassing. I’ve written about this elsewhere, and you need to be aware of what he did and didn’t say, in light of all his false accusers who make him out to be “the antichrist.”

We need to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matt. 10:16). We also need to shine like lights in the midst of a wicked and perverse generation. And there may come a time where we shine the brightest even as we lay down our lives for the sake of the gospel.

If we do, we should always remember that Jesus, who died for us and rose again, who is seated at the right hand of the father, stood up in tribute to Stephen as he entered into glory to be with Jesus (Acts 7:56).

But our hearts should be right as we witness, whether in life or in death, always aware that even Saul killed some in ignorance, thinking he was serving God in the process. But eventually, after sewing the blood of the martyrs, which is the seed of the church, God converted him. He went on to plant churches, write two thirds of the new testament and eventually lay his own life down for the sake of the gospel.

Never forget that these people, who may well persecute you someday, might well be the very ones that God will want to use you to draw to the saviour.

Jesus loves these dear people – all of them – the gays, the “black lives matter” folks, the Muslims. We cannot afford to despise any of them, though we disagree with them about who our saviour is and about how they must live to please him.

So be sure always to be “on your knees in your heart,” knowing that it is being in that posture before God where you become the most effective in showing anyone who Jesus truly is.

Read More

Dr. Shiva, MIT Biologist, On Covid-19

Dr. Shiva is a scientist in the field of biological sciences at MIT and is also a hopeful for a seat in the 2020 Massachusetts senate race on the republican side.

Give a listen to what this guy has to say about the Corona virus and about the “powers that be,” how they’re handling this, and what things look like when you follow the power and the money.

He gives an excellent rundown on the closest thing to a good “conspiracy theory” without theorizing. He just gives the facts. Plain and simple facts.

Read More

Is Trudeau Selling Canada Out To One World Government?

A year ago I would have said this was beyond unbelievable. But now, I really have to wonder.

Prime Minister Trudeau is either loved or hated in Canada, depending on your political predisposition. He seems to be applauded by many for his progressive views on the government taking care of everyone and his desire to accommodate the whims of many special interest groups.

He is greatly disliked by others for similar reasons. And those who don’t like him also often distrust him for what appears to be a lust for power.

And troubling to many, he seems to be fond of communist dictatorships.

Now, I saw a Facebook post recently that I found troubling, partly because it sounded creepy and partly because of friends that were writing to me on Messenger to get my thoughts about it – friends that I find to be rather “low-key” on these types of things, tending to not jump too quickly to conclusions.

Read it for yourself. I wasn’t sure what to do with it by itself. But when I put it together with some other things, it leaves me really wondering what he is up to.

Here is a letter as published in a Facebook post. You be the judge.

This needs to go VIRAL!!!!! Only each person can decide if this is real or not. It matches exactly what we have all read and researched will happen IF we don’t stop this. This is ALREADY happening in other countries…This is a leaker from the liberal party of canada. Please contact all levels of authorities and gov that we know the plan. The isolation centers we already know are bring built as shown on the gov website RFP program.

Fw: LPC Strategic Committee Leak


LPC leaker <>

1:47 PM (7 hours ago)

‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Saturday, October 10, 2020 1:38 PM, REMOVED <REMOVED> wrote:


I want to provide you some very important information. I’m a committee member within the Liberal Party of Canada. I sit within several committee groups but the information I am providing is originating from the Strategic Planning committee (which is steered by the PMO).

I need to start off by saying that I’m not happy doing this but I have to. As a Canadian and more importantly as a parent who wants a better future not only for my children but for other children as well. The other reason I am doing this is because roughly 30% of the committee members are not pleased with the direction this will take Canada, but our opinions have been ignored and they plan on moving forward toward their goals. They have also made it very clear that nothing will stop the planned outcomes.

 The road map and aim was set out by the PMO and is as follows:

– Phase in secondary lock down restrictions on a rolling basis, starting with major metropolitan areas first and expanding outward. Expected by November 2020.

– Rush the acquisition of (or construction of) isolation facilities across every province and territory. Expected by December 2020.

– Daily new cases of COVID-19 will surge beyond capacity of testing, including increases in COVID related deaths following the same growth curves. Expected by end of November 2020.

– Complete and total secondary lock down (much stricter than the first and second rolling phase restrictions). Expected by end of December 2020 – early January 2021

– Reform and expansion of the unemployment program to be transitioned into the universal basic income program. Expected by Q1 2021.

– Projected COVID-19 mutation and/or co-infection with secondary virus (referred to as COVID-21) leading to a third wave with much higher mortality rate and higher rate of infection. Expected by February 2021.

– Daily new cases of COVID-21 hospitalizations and COVID-19 and COVID-21 related deaths will exceed medical care facilities capacity. Expected Q1 – Q2 2021.

– Enhanced lock down restrictions (referred to as Third Lock Down) will be implemented. Full travel restrictions will be imposed (including inter-province and inter-city). Expected Q2 2021.

– Transitioning of individuals into the universal basic income program. Expected mid Q2 2021.

– Projected supply chain break downs, inventory shortages, large economic instability. Expected late Q2 2021.

– Deployment of military personnel into major metropolitan areas as well as all major roadways to establish travel checkpoints. Restrict travel and movement. Provide logistical support to the area. Expected by Q3 2021.

 Along with that provided road map the Strategic Planning committee was asked to design an effective way of transitioning Canadians to meet a unprecedented economic endeavor. One that would change the face of Canada and forever alter the lives of Canadians. What we were told was that in order to offset what was essentially an economic collapse on a international scale, that the federal government was going to offer Canadians a total debt relief. This is how it works: the federal government will offer to eliminate all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc) which all funding will be provided to Canada by the IMF under what will become known as the World Debt Reset program. In exchange for acceptance of this total debt forgiveness the individual would forfeit ownership of any and all property and assets forever. The individual would also have to agree to partake in the COVID-19 and COVID-21 vaccination schedule, which would provide the individual with unrestricted travel and unrestricted living even under a full lock down (through the use of photo identification referred to as Canada’s HealthPass) .

Committee members asked who would become the owner of the forfeited property and assets in that scenario and what would happen to lenders or financial institutions, we were simply told “the World Debt Reset program will handle all of the details”. Several committee members also questioned what would happen to individuals if they refused to participate in the World Debt Reset program, or the HealthPass, or the vaccination schedule, and the answer we got was very troubling. Essentially we were told it was our duty to make sure we came up with a plan to ensure that would never happen. We were told it was in the individuals best interest to participate. When several committee members pushed relentlessly to get an answer we were told that those who refused would first live under the lock down restrictions indefinitely. And that over a short period of time as more Canadians transitioned into the debt forgiveness program, the ones who refused to participate would be deemed a public safety risk and would be relocated into isolation facilities. Once in those facilities they would be given two options, participate in the debt forgiveness program and be released, or stay indefinitely in the isolation facility under the classification of a serious public health risk and have all their assets seized.

So as you can imagine after hearing all of this it turned into quite the heated discussion and escalated beyond anything I’ve ever witnessed before. In the end it was implied by the PMO that the whole agenda will move forward no matter who agrees with it or not. That it wont just be Canada but in fact all nations will have similar roadmaps and agendas. That we need to take advantage of the situations before us to promote change on a grander scale for the betterment of everyone. The members who were opposed and ones who brought up key issues that would arise from such a thing were completely ignored. Our opinions and concerns were ignored. We were simply told to just do it.

All I know is that I don’t like it and I think its going to place Canadians into a dark future.

Now, if this letter existed in isolation, it might not bother me so much. But there are other things that link with it to give you chills.

Take this exchange with a member of the Ontario parliament with a speaker of the house, asking about internment camps and the Canadian government’s looking for contractors with interest in building them:

It’s very interesting that this above video used to be available on youtube. Now it’s been removed. You have to go to a “right-wing” site like Rumble or Bitchute to find it anymore. Wonder why?

It seems they’re not hiding the idea that they want to be able to detain people at will. The question has to be, “why?”

One has to wonder if part of this is jockeying for standing with Biden in case Trump loses the soon-coming election. (He won’t lose. But they seem to think he will, it seems.)

But there is a worldwide push from some elite to want to do a “global financial reset.” I’m not sure yet what that means.

But right now, it is scary to think about what it means.

Read More

Did The World Health Organization Change The Definition Of Herd Immunity?

If you’ve read my posts here much before, you’ll know that I’ve documented elsewhere on this site their ties at the top with Communist ideology. And it is frightening where that could go. But I’ve seen many posts lately on some of my more favoured sites out there, asking the question, “did WHO change the definition of herd immunity,” and “did WHO change the definition of pandemic?”

Although I’m not a fan of the World Health Organization, I think this one isn’t as clear-cut as the conspiracy theorists believe it is.

First, the takeaway:

  • I think the World Health Organization is headed up by a communist sympathizer (which I’ve written about elsewhere).
  • I’m not surprised that “the powers that be” at the WHO are on the same track to get everyone in the world vaccinated as are Bill Gates, Fauci and all the newly-minted billionaires out of this crisis and the Covid vaccine as the only way out.
  • I don’t see that in this case, the WHO has done anything underhanded to “change the definition of herd immunity” in some clandestine way, hoping people won’t notice.
  • I think they are misguided at best and possibly somewhat malevolent in their approach to the best ways to deal with the covid issue (although I can’t prove this, though it sure seems like it).
  • As Christians we need to be very careful about saying “that is what they are doing” as opposed to what we maybe more often should be saying, such as “I believe that is what they are probably doing,” or, “I have to be open to the possibility that is what they are doing”
  • When we say “that’s it” as opposed to “that sure looks like it” we damage our credibility and our witness.
  • Real, careful thinking (the “cognitive man” approach) requires careful thought, the need to not jump to conclusions without knowing instead of suspecting and also, sometimes, having to say I don’t know.

Now, for “the rest of the story….”

Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

I see a lot of articles documenting (very well) the constantly changing landscape of recommendations from the WHO, the CDC, the AMA and various other governing bodies in different countries. Quite honestly, it seems there is a lot of story-changing and backtracking going on.

For instance, at the “The Liberty Daily” website, author J D Rucker writes about the shifting sands of recommendations from the WHO on whether or not children should be vaccinated.

Many of us, especially on “the right” see some rather sinister looking things happening with changing recommendations and silencing of competing views on the rightness or wrongness of pushing the vaccines as the only answer.

I think there are competing worldviews at work here in the different articles I read regarding this subject. For instance, from “my side” of the conspiratorial fence, I see a lot of mentions of a “change in definition of herd immunity” that supposedly happened on the World Health Organization website.

As an example, I’m going to take a “deep dive” into one article I came across over at Medium. It’s written by Tara, self-described as a “Resolute over-thinker, introvert, eternal optimist, recovering procrastinator, unashamed nerd.” (You can follow her at “All’s Write With The World.”)

Tara makes some interesting points. And I think her concerns that she raises resonate with me. I believe, as it seems she believes, that the Covid vaccines are now more dangerous than the virus. It seems that there is probably not much left anymore of the original Covid strain and all that are left are the many variants that have sprung up.

And I also believe that, as most of these things go, this would be better treated these days by an emphasis on vitamins C, D and zinc with the ability for doctors to freely prescribe ivermectin and hydroxichloroquine as needed. I’m not a doctor but I see many (and ever more recently) advocating for this choice in treating patients, yet often denied the right to do so by bureaucracies of all sorts.

But the specific question is, “did the WHO change their definition of herd immunity to push their agenda of global vaccination?”

Tara notes the following from the WHO website:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the methods to obtain herd immunity used to be found on this web page. The page, titled Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19): Serology and dated 9 June, 2020, can be found on the Web Archive (Wayback Machine):

Now compare this with the explanation currently on the same page as of 13 November, 2020. (

And Tara asks, “What happened to that other part? You know, the part about herd immunity being developed through previous infection?” Furthermore, they state that “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.”

Ok. I see the change. It is fair to question this.

Again, where’s the acknowledgement that herd immunity can be, and has been, established through previous infection? The WHO not only chooses to ignore one of the main methods of achieving herd immunity, it also asserts some deceitful claims, if not flat out lies. For example: “Vaccines train our immune systems to develop antibodies, just as might happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick.”

She has several good points. The vaccines are apparently making A LOT of people sick. And according to some immunologists looking at the numbers, the risk of injury or death from the vaccine is now worse than the risks from getting covid.

Now here’s the jump….

In conclusion, the author asks, “Why would the WHO change the definition of herd immunity to completely ignore the other major half of it? Well, other than pushing the narrative that the experimental Covid-19 vaccine is the only way to save humankind from the Corona virus.”

I get the complaint. But here’s the problem. They didn’t actually “change” the definition of herd immunity.

As a matter of fact, I’m just going to copy a screenshot, right here, from the WHO website, right now, at June 24th, 2021. It is still there…..

Read it for yourself. “‘Herd Immunity,’ also known as ‘population immunity.’ is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infections.”

Their point, though (although I’m skeptical they have it right, for reasons that others note) is, “WHO supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.”

Questioning the wisdom of these vaccines is a fair thing to do, with all the injuries reported. But saying they are “changing the definition” to hit an agenda isn’t dealing fair with the facts.

They’re not changing the definition of herd immunity. They’re explaining why they think people are better off with the vaccine rather than the disease.

An ever-increasing number of immunologists think they are wrong. I get that, too, and from my limited perspective, I’d rather take my chances with Covid and zinc, D and ivermectin than I would ever want to have to take my chances with the vaccine.

But saying they are changing their definitions when they’re not is intellectually dishonest.

Look, I get the frustration. The American Institute for Economic Research posted an article expressing the frustrations we’ve all been dealing with on this issue.

Coronavirus lived on surfaces until it didn’t. Masks didn’t work until they did, then they did not. There is asymptomatic transmission, except there isn’t. Lockdowns work to control the virus except they do not. All these people are sick without symptoms until, whoops, PCR tests are wildly inaccurate because they were never intended to be diagnostic tools. Everyone is in danger of the virus except they aren’t. It spreads in schools except it doesn’t. 

On it goes. Daily. It’s no wonder that so many people have stopped believing anything that “public health authorities” say. In combination with governors and other autocrats doing their bidding, they set out to take away freedom and human rights and expected us to thank them for saving our lives. At some point this year (for me it was March 12) life began feeling like a dystopian novel of your choice. 

True. And so far, so good. But they, too, say this definition was removed from the WHO website, with conclusions as to why they did it….

But it wasn’t removed. And they even explain why they are making the change in emphasis – which is because, in the WHO’s mind, you’re better off with the vaccine than the disease.

So they’re not saying herd immunity doesn’t happen with people getting exposed to the disease, but only from the vaccine. They’ve not “changed the definition.” They’re only wanting people to see why they think the vaccine is wise.

And if we aren’t careful to see what is actually being said and instead jump on the memes that support our preconceptions, without proper homework, we just exchange one problem for another.

I fell for this, too. I saw this meme on facebook, and thought it sure fit the bill.

It is two different links, from two different pages, both still up there. And it’s an inaccurate meme to reinforce a presupposition that these people can’t be trusted.

But it’s based in disinformation. And the ends don’t justify the memes.

This particular attack on what they are doing doesn’t help our credibility in the end.

Can they be trusted? I’m not convinced. But does this way of glossing over the fact that these are two entries, still both on their website, on different pages, help us to get people to see it?

It only helps the preaching to the choir. But it isn’t going to do anything but destroy our credibility with the very people we still need to reach.

Pick your battles, do your homework, be humble and say “maybe” instead of jumping to conclusions all the time. We will all be better off for it.

Read More