Lock up the Doctors with Dangerous Opinions
I'm not a doctor, but I have expressed serious concerns about any treatments based on the mRNA platform. Better lock me up, to be safe.
France has now criminalized objections to the mRNA platform, exposing those targeted to ruinous fines and imprisonment. It’s obvious lunacy, and that it’s happening in a Western nation should alarm us allThis madness must be defeated, in France, at the WHO, everywhere it arises.
Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying Discuss Collusion, conspiracy, and Occam’s Razor
Excellent points made in the 6-minute video by Bret and Heather:
FIRE Announces Ten Worst Censors of 2023
FIRE has released it's list of the ten worst censors of 2023:
The 10 Worst Censors of 2023, in alphabetical order, are:
Book censors
California Community Colleges
Florida state officials
Hypocritical university admins
The Marion County Police Dept.
The Mayo Clinic College of Medical Science
Muirlands Middle School
New York state officials
San Francisco State University
The Texas A&M University system
From FIRE:
It’s past time for off-campus censors to get the dishonor they're due," said FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr. “Censors on and off college campuses have run roughshod over Americans' rights for years, and we hope that by throwing shade at them, we can prompt other would-be censors to think twice.Here's more information about those who made FIRE's list.
Permission Suddenly Grated to Corporate Media to Discuss Joe Biden’s Lack of Cognitive Ability
Walter Kirn is spot on . . . .
This is not an organic process. Corporate "journalists" refused to talk about this for years, and then, all of a sudden, they can't stop talking about Joe Biden's cognitive decline. I should add my frustration with the many people who want to frame this as a matter of age. Absolutely not. There are many people in their 80s or even 90s who are capable, even brilliant. The pertinent question is about Biden's cognitive decline, not age per se (even though these somewhat correlate).
The big question is who makes these decisions about what corporate journalists can and cannot talk about in lockstep? It's not those who follow the news. It's not voters and it's not anyone we vote for. Who issued that permission slip? I assume the process involves only a few people and that big money empowers them. Real journalists know that their job is to follow stories and report on them. They know that their job is not to campaign for particular candidates.
- Go to the previous page
- 1
- …
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- …
- 1,736
- Go to the next page