Tag: United States

Kamala Harris to Announce Soviet-Style Price Controls on Food Under Guise of ‘Gouging Ban’

BREITBART

Soviet-style centrally administered price controls on food and grocery prices will form part of the federal economic proposals U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris will unveil Friday when she finally delivers an insight into her 2024 policies.

Her address will mark the first time Harris offers a policy focused speech since she was anointed as the Democratic candidate in July and been roundly accused by critics since as being a policy-free zone, as Breitbart News reported.

The Democratic nominee is promising to institute a first-ever national ban on price gouging and price-fixing within her first 100 days in office in an effort to deflect many voters’ low marks for President Joe Biden’s handling of the economy.

Time magazine reports Harris plans to direct the Federal Trade Commission and other agencies to investigate and penalize “big corporations” that violate government rules in a mirror of Soviet command economy diktats.

Other ways of tackling price fixing and selective anti-competitive practices in the food and grocery industries will also come under scrutiny, her campaign said by way of previewing her full set of economic proposals.

***

(TLB) inserts what X users are saying.

***

Continue orginal article

Header featured image (edited) credit: Harris illustration/ X article content

••••

••••

Stay tuned tuned…

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Russia Ready To Execute Nuclear Attacks On NATO Targets

ReMix News

Western sources have reportedly leaked Russian plans drawn up between 2008 and 2014 for “a series of overwhelming strikes across Western Europe,” the Financial Times reported.

Citing documents from Western security sources, Putin allegedly sought to enable the Russian navy to execute nuclear strikes within NATO territory were a conflict with the alliance to emerge.

Targets would not be solely military. According to William Alberque, a former NATO official:

“There could be hundreds, if not thousands, of targets mapped across Europe, including military and infrastructure targets.”

Russia is also evidently still capable of transporting nuclear weapons on surface ships, which experts say carries a significant risk of escalation or accident. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), signed by the U.S. and Russia in 1991, was supposed to have eliminated this possibility, although many have often questioned Moscow’s adherence to it.

Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP

Possible targets presented by the FT included the west coast of France, military installations in Norway, Germany, and Estonia, as well as the British port town of Barrow-in-Furness, known for its production of nuclear submarines.

“They see (tactical nuclear warheads) as potentially war-winning weapons,” says Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey and an arms control expert.

“They’re going to want to use them, and they’re going to want to use them pretty quickly.”

Anton Bendarzsevszkij, director of the Oeconomus Economic Research Foundation, has said that “there is a global arms race that resembles the Cold War of the 1950s and 60s,” according to Mandiner.

Russia is said to have north of 5,500 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, while the United States has just over 5,000, meaning the two countries control some 90 percent of such weapons today.

Continue reading at ReMix news.

_________

Header featured image (edited) credit: This photo taken from video provided by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on Saturday, Feb. 19, 2022, shows a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile being launched from an air field during military drills. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)

Emphasis added by (TLB)

••••

••••

Stay tuned tuned…

 

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Covid vaccines were mandated during the pandemic as a condition of work, travel, participation in social life, and access to family members in care in every state and territory of Australia.

Though most of the mandates have been retired for the time being, Covid vaccination is still a requirement for some professions and medical procedures, and Australia’s political and bureaucratic leadership has generally indicated that mandates are on the table for future pandemics.

In a statement made on X after the vote, Senator Hanson said,

“This bill would have protected Australians from discrimination based on COVID-19 vaccination status across Australia, including in employment, education, accommodation, and services.

“It would have applied to the Commonwealth, States, Territories, and non-government entities, ensuring individuals are not unfairly treated due to their vaccination status.

“It would have protected free movement within and between States and given parents greater power to protect their children from vaccination coercion.

“This bill would have upheld Australians’ rights and freedoms against government overreach and abuse.”

In a charged speech (above), Senator Hanson railed for 15 minutes about the need to balance human and civil rights and vaccine safety with public health imperatives.

For a moment, it appeared as though the bill had passed, as Labor sided with Aye. However, Senate Whip Anne Urquhart (Labor) quickly communicated that Labor had voted in error, asking for a revote. (ER: Hmmm. Was there some vote-tampering going on here?)

The final vote was 25 Ayes to 32 Noes, with One Nation, Senator Ralph Babet of the United Australia Party, and the Coalition voting Aye, and Labor, the Greens, and independent Senator Fatima Payman voting No.

Independent Senators Jaqui Lambie, Tammy Tyrell, David Pocock, David Van and Lidia Thorpe were absent from the chamber.

During speaking time, Senator Urquhart delivered a monologue best described as a recitation of faith-based Scientism dogmas with a touch of gaslighting.

Senator Urquhart called One Nation’s anti-discrimination bill a “stunt,” declared that Covid vaccination is “voluntary” despite Australia’s world-famous coercive mandates, and characterised Senator Hanson’s stated concerns over civil rights and vaccine safety as “conspiracy theories and fringe agendas.”

In her short speech, Senator Urquhart stated twice that Covid vaccinations are necessary to prevent severe illness and death, adding a third specific claim that, “Vaccination has been critical in reducing hospitalisations and admissions to intensive care units (ICU) and deaths.”

Senator Urquhart lauded Covid vaccines for having been “instrumental in allowing society to reopen both socially and economically,” and said that, “we shouldn’t focus on conspiracy theories and fringe agendas,” but should rather focus on getting everyone vaccinated in line with the experts’ recommendations for their age and health status.

These are oft-repeated dogmas that require unpacking.

“The government’s position on Covid-19 vaccination is that it is voluntary, as are all vaccinations in Australia.”

As previously discussed on this Substack, this doublespeak official position of the Labor Government is simply false. It should concern Australians that our Government feels at liberty to abuse language in this way.

The word “voluntary” means free choice with no external compulsion.

Had Covid vaccine mandates not been in place, those who wished to voluntarily get vaccinated for health reasons could have done so. However, “external compulsion” in the form of vaccine mandates was in place for at least the first two jabs, and in some states three, and they remain in place for some professions.

This is why when you ask average, healthy and not elderly Australians why they got vaccinated against Covid, they typically say it was to protect a family member (based on misinformation about transmission propagated by health bureaucrats and politicians), to keep their job, or to travel.

Survey data supports these anecdotes. An independent survey of over 26,000 Australians found that thousands of Australians felt “extremely pressured” to get vaccinated against Covid, with over half of vaccinated respondents saying they got the jabs mainly to keep their jobs, and not for medical reasons. 11% of respondents said protection from Covid was a main reason for vaccination. (The survey was subject to selection bias and so the results are not representative of the whole Australian population).

In Western Australia, it is legal for the government to forcibly vaccinate you against your will if the Police Commissioner decides that it is necessary under a state of emergency.

Vaccination under these conditions is the opposite of the meaning of “voluntary.”

It’s not just Covid vaccination policy that is coercive, either. The Australian Government withholds tax-payer funded family assistance payments from parents who do not get their kids vaccinated according to the National Immunisation Program schedule on time, and in most states and territories, unvaccinated children cannot attend early education or care services.

These policies obviously exert more coercive pressure on socioeconomically disadvantaged families, although the children of wealthy families able to forgo the family assistance payments will still be socially excluded until they are of school age.

“Covid-19 vaccinations protect people in Australia against serious illness and death,” and, “Vaccination has been critical in reducing hospitalisations and admissions to intensive care units (ICU) and deaths.”

The claim that Covid vaccinations protect people in Australia against serious illness and death remains unsupported by any available Australian dataset or report.

To prove this claim, you would need hospitalisation, ICU and all cause mortality (ACM) data stratified by age, comorbidities and vaccination status. At present, no such data set has been published publicly, and when I have attempted to obtain linked data of this nature under Freedom of Information (FOI) from states and territory governments (including Western Australia, the Northern Territory, New South Wales, and Tasmania) I have been told that no such documents exist. Furthermore, my requests to create such a document have been denied.

The next best available data for measuring Covid vaccine effectiveness are the fortnightly reports that the New South Wales (NSW) Health used to publish showing hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths by vaccination status.

At first, the reports appeared to show a benefit to Covid vaccination, but this trend quickly reversed, with the risk of severe illness positively correlating with each successive booster.

Rates of death between the vaccinated and unvaccinated were not significantly different overall, although those with four or more doses were twice as likely to die with Covid than the less vaccinated or unvaccinated. (Soon after, NSW Health stopped publishing the fortnightly reports.)

However, because NSW Health never published linked data stratifying age x vaccination status, the confounder of age (Simpons’s paradox) could never be ruled out, and so the appearance of negative vaccine effectiveness could not be confirmed.

NSW Health has since gone to excessive lengths to avoid releasing the necessary linked age x vaccination status data that prove vaccine effectiveness in an Australian population, consistently denying FOI requests and even claiming in a tribunal hearing that the data were never saved, but were deleted (an astonishing deviation from standard record keeping practice if true).

Claims that Covid vaccines saved almost 20,000 lives during the early Omicron wave in NSW alone splashed across headlines earlier this year after a modelling study by Victorian researchers from RMIT and Monash universities was published in Plos One, but neither the peer reviewers nor the reporters noticed key problems, including that the data used by the researchers were the incomplete and confounded NSW Health data.

Australia’s peak actuarial body, the Actuaries Institute, uncritically used this modelling study to estimate that Covid vaccination in Australia saved approximately 50,000 lives, in its latest paper on the impacts of Covid on Australian excess mortality.

However, the authors state that “the results obtained in this study may be affected by potentially confounding factors as age and comorbidity,” the two most important predictors of Covid severity. While the study was restricted to the 50⁺ age group, “lack of data availability prevented analysis of finer age groups.”

Furthermore, in this study, anyone within 21 days of their first dose of Covid vaccination was categorised as ‘no effective dose’, meaning deaths occurring within the first 21 days of vaccination would be not be attributed to the vaccinated group.

The study also confused case fatality rate (CFR) for infection fatality rate (IFR), thus overestimating the mortality risk of the virus in the population. More problems with the study are discussed by Alison Bevege in her Substack article, ‘FAKE NEWS: Study does NOT show covid gene-vaccines “saved nearly 20,000 lives in NSW alone”.’

Covid deaths skyrocketed when after our governments coerced everyone into getting the jabs, but we are supposed to take this flawed modelling study as proof that it ‘would have been worse’ without the vaccines.

Another small study of South Australian (SA) Health data by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded research group, the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), claimed to show that the unvaccinated were five times more likely to die of Covid. But the study was based on incomplete data, and did not control for the age-related mortality risk, or comorbidities. The only people under the age of 60 to die were vaccinated, and using hospitalisation as a normalising baseline, people with three doses died at three times the rate of the unvaccinated.

The above discussion only takes into account the supposed benefits of the Covid vaccines. As it stands, the Australian Government has no idea of the true rate of injuries and deaths associated with the vaccines, and so cannot quantify the benefits in relation to the risks in the Australian population.

Covid vaccines “have been instrumental in allowing society to reopen both socially and economically.”

Only because the policies of the state, territory and federal governments made it so.

Australian politicians often speak glowingly of the Covid vaccines’ mythical abilities to grant Australians the freedoms that our own leaders deprived us of. Other countries didn’t require special rituals to restore basic rights. They just didn’t take them away in the first place.

Though they deny it now, our politicians and health bureaucrats outright stated or strongly implied that the whole point of mandates was to prevent, and then to limit, the spread of the virus. You can see below how that worked out.

It was on this point that former NSW Premier Dominique Perrottet admitted that Covid vaccine mandates were a mistake, during his final speech to the NSW Parliament last week.

“If the impact of vaccines on transmission was limited at best, as is now mostly accepted, the law should have left more room for respect of freedom,” said Perrottet.

“Vaccines saved lives, but ultimately, mandates were wrong. People’s personal choices shouldn’t have cost them their jobs.”

Regardless, the issue of transmission is a red herring. Medical ethics require informed consent, and human rights conventions prohibit coercing populations into medical experiments (phase three of most of the Covid vaccine trials only ended in 2023).

Efforts to raise vaccine safety concerns are a “stunt,” and “We shouldn’t focus on conspiracy theories and fringe agendas.”

Is there anything more discrediting to a government than characterising concerns of its constituents as “conspiracy theories” and “fringe agendas?”

Labor politicians often reflexively use the conspiracy theory trope to discredit opposition to its policies rather than engaging in meaningful debate – it’s a juvenile tactic that seems to be a particular problem in the culture of the party.

There was Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responding to questions about the Voice referendum by likening them to Q Anon conspiracy theories or the faking of the moon landing.

There was Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen calling climate policy skeptic and Covid vaccine injured advocate Senator Gerard Rennick’s social media feed “a cacophony of conspiracy theories” at a National Press Club speech in Canberra last month.

When challenged by Senator Rennick, he doubled down, stating that “Government agencies should absolutely be scrutinised. But not by cookers and conspiracy theorists spreading disinformation for their selfish political purposes.”

And there was Communications Minister Michelle Rowland warning that there is a risk that her department’s proposed misinformation bill “could be perceived as a form of censorship,” because of the “rise in conspiracy theories” online (implying the censorship criticism is therefore illegitimate).

Of course, none of the vaccine safety concerns raised in Senator Hanson’s speech in Parliament today are theory to Australia’s Covid vaccine injured and families of the deceased.

It is an indisputable fact that Covid vaccine mandates are a form of civil conscription into a death and injury lottery for the purported collective good.

The only dispute is over the odds of death and injury.

This is one of the strange developments in parties that used to represent working class interests but now represent what are colloquially called ‘woke’ interests, shaped by the luxury beliefs of the middle class and elites – the willingness to gaslight and marginalise certain victim groups in the name of protecting the interests of other, favoured victim groups.

If it makes left-leaning readers feel any better, Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John supported the death lottery mandates but called for the federal Covid vaccine injury compensation scheme to be expanded and extended past its scheduled end date of 30 September 2024.

Senator Pauline Hanson has been in politics for a long time. When I was a middle class public school-going teenager, she was a joke to us. Her ineloquent style, her willingness to voice unfashionable opinions, and her humble fish and chip shop beginnings were perfect fodder for comedy sketches and memetic radio hits.

Yet Senator Hanson is one of very few Australian politicians who have taken a stand on informed consent and medical discrimination, and that is no joke.

To support my work, share, subscribe, and/or make a one-off contribution to DDU via my Kofi account. Thanks!

Follow me on X

Follow me on Instagram

Source

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