“However, if it used to be geopolitical confrontation, in which there would be no final victory [like the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Russia’s War in Afghanistan, US War in Afghanistan, etc which is how Brzezinski saw them], then in the 21st century – it is all about “the last battle”, which will be fought not for life, but for death and it will end history for one of the giants – either the West or Russia. The interests of America in the near future: to preserve it’s [sic] key world supremacy and in the distant future – to transform it into a more legal, global partnership. Using the more severe terminology of the old empires, the responsibility of a great empire is to prevent collusion between vassals, keeping them dependent on the public security, keeping the subservient loyal and too, keeping them secure and not letting the barbarians unite.”
Brzezinski advised the John F. Kennedy campaign and Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey campaigns. Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to President Carter. He served on Reagan’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and co-chaired G.H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisory Task Force. He endorsed G.H.W. Bush for president, and later Obama for president. Brzezinski co-founded The Trilateral Commission with banker David Rockefeller and served as its director. He also was a member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Bilderberg Group. Since it was formed, The Trilateral Commission has influenced every American presidential election and then had input on their cabinets, even though many or most members were hand-picked by Rockefeller or Brzezinski and were not American citizens. Brzezinski, and presumably Rockefeller and the CFR, viewed “The War on Terror” and the several color revolutions including Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Ukraine, etc. as modern imperialism on a global chessboard, similar to the British Empire where the sun never sets, proxy wars and destabilization to maintain U.S. hegemony…our never ending military engagements and international bases. Bodies, bombs and bases. In the mid-1850s the British Empire had a series of ongoing operations around the world, including the Crimean War of 1853, which was the UK, France and Turkey against Russia, and the Opium Wars in China. Sound familiar? For Brzezinski the prize was Eurasia, and the extension of the arc of crisis into Central Asia. Piotr Pietrzak suggested“Although Zbigniew Brzezinski is dead, his work is very much alive; the Biden administration follows Brzezinski’s geostrategic blueprint, which supports Ukraine militarily, logistically, diplomatically, and politically.”
“This is a repeat of the Great Game,” said Brzezinski. He was the foremost advocate for expansion of NATO to surround Russia, the NATO intervention in Libya (which was a disaster), and other hawkish interferences. Unfortunately, the Machiavellian Brzezinski influenced every U.S. president in our lifetimes as well as their foreign policy and intelligence agencies, that is, every president except Donald Trump. Brzezinski was a harsh critique of President Trump. Trump kept the U.S. out of new wars, arguably prevented wars, and greatly reduced bodies, bombings and wants to reduce bases and bring the boys, girls and weapons home.
IMHO, Brzezinski’s grand strategy got us into these never ending wars and entanglements and we are still there today. We and the world need a hard break from this Machiavellian madness.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world, “so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidelity to existing engagements.”GEORGE WASHINGTON, FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES | MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1796
“Even if I was fully vaccinated, I would admire the unvaccinated for resisting the greatest pressure I have ever seen, including pressure from spouse, parents, children, friends, colleagues and doctors. People who have been able to characterize such personality, courage and such critical abilities certainly embody the best characteristics of humanity. They are everywhere, of all ages, education levels, countries and views. They are a special kind; these are the warriors that any army of Light would like to have in their ranks. These are the parents that every child wishes to have and the children that every parent dreams of having. You are made of the greatest people to ever live, those heroes born among ordinary people and glow in the dark. They are beings beyond the average of their societies; They are the essence of nations that created all cultures and conquered horizons. They did what others couldn’t, they were the tree that withstood the storm of abuse, discrimination and social separation. They did it because they thought they were lonely and believed they were the only ones. They were banned from sitting at their family tables at Christmas, but they had never seen anything so cruel. They lost their jobs, lost their careers, they were out of money… but they didn’t care. They have experienced unmeasurable discrimination, condemnation, betrayal and humiliation… but they did not stop. There has never been such a selection in Humanity – now we know who is the best on Planet Earth. Women, men, old, young, rich, poor, people of various races and religions, the unvaccinated, the chosen ones of the invisible ark, the only ones who managed to stand when it all fell apart. It is YOU, You passed an unimaginable test that many of the toughest Marines, commanders, green berets, astronauts and geniuses could not. You are made of heroes who ever lived, heroes born among ordinary people and shine in the dark.”
Despite years of pressure campaigns, discriminatory policies, social separation, loss of income, threats and death accusations, French General Christian Blanchon thanked the “unvaccinated” for their strength, courage and leadership.
Early in 2023, genomics scientist Kevin McKernan made an accidental discovery. While running an experiment in his Boston lab, McKernan used some vials of mRNA Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines as controls. He was ‘shocked’ to find that they were allegedly contaminated with tiny fragments of plasmid DNA.
McKernan, who has 25 years’ experience in his field, ran the experiment again, confirming that the vials contained up to, in his opinion, 18-70 times more DNA contamination than the legal limits allowed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In particular, McKernan was alarmed to find the presence of an SV40 promoter in the Pfizer vaccine vials. This is a sequence that is, ‘…used to drive DNA into the nucleus, especially in gene therapies,’ McKernan explains. This is something that regulatory agencies around the world have specifically said is not possible with the mRNA vaccines.
Knowing that the contamination had not been disclosed by the manufacturers during the regulatory process, McKernan raised the alarm, posting his findings to Twitter (now X) and Substack with a call-out to other scientists to see if they could replicate his findings.
Other scientists soon confirmed McKernan’s findings, though the amount of DNA contamination was variable, suggesting inconsistency of vial contents depending on batch lots. One of these scientists was cancer genomics expert Dr Phillip Buckhaults, who is a proponent of the mRNA platform and has received the Pfizer Covid vaccine himself.
In September of this year, Dr Buckhaults shared his findings in South Carolina Senate hearing. ‘I’m kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine – it’s different from RNA, because it can be permanent,’ he told those present.
‘There is a very real hazard,’ he said, that the contaminant DNA fragments will integrate with a person’s genome and become a ‘permanent fixture of the cell’ leading to autoimmune problems and cancers in some people who have had the vaccinations. He also noted that these genome changes can ‘last for generations’.
Dr Buckhaults alleges that the presence of high levels of contaminant DNA in the mRNA vaccines ‘may be causing some of the rare but serious side effects, like death from cardiac arrest’. He added, ‘I think this is a real serious regulatory oversight that happened at the federal level.’
Dr Buckhaults’ concerns are shared by McKernan, who presented his findings to the FDA in June. At the time of writing, McKernan had not received any response from the FDA on the matter. Dr Buckhaults said in the Senate hearing that he had emailed his findings to the FDA, but he had not received a response either.
In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) maintains that Covid vaccines cannot alter a person’s DNA. A spokesperson for the TGA stated, ‘The mRNA in the vaccines does not enter the nucleus of cells and is not integrated into the human genome. Thus, the mRNA does not cause genetic damage or affect the offspring of vaccinated individuals.’
They also said, ‘All batches of Covid vaccines distributed to Australians have been tested for the presence of contaminants including residual DNA template levels.’
However, a legal case filed in the Australian Federal Court in July of this year alleges that the TGA is not the appropriate regulator of COVID mRNA vaccines because, under the Gene Technology Act (2000) definition, DNA contamination is a genetically modified organism (GMO).
The plaintiff, Victorian doctor and pharmacist Dr Julian Fidge, is seeking an injunction to stop Pfizer and Moderna from distributing their mRNA Covid vaccines because they never obtained a license from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), which is the agency that oversees all GMO related products.
The TGA did not require tests for genotoxicity or carcinogenicity before providing provisional approval and, eventually, full registration of both the Moderna and Pfizer Covid vaccines. OGTR guidance strongly suggests such tests should be undertaken where there exists a risk of harm to human health.
McKernan, who provided expert advice on the case, agrees that the DNA contamination in the mRNA vaccines fits the Australian legal definition of a GMO. But there is also a second component of the mRNA vaccines that fits the definition.
That’s the mRNA itself, which is actually modified RNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). The case argues that this ‘LNP-mod-RNA complex’ falls under the legal definition of a GMO and that, like the DNA contamination, it has the capacity to enter the cell nucleus and integrate into the human genome.
There is already at least one peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating that the Pfizer Covid vaccine mRNA can enter the human liver cell line and reverse transcribe into DNA in vitro (meaning in a lab dish).
Other studies cited in the case materials show the presence of spike protein mRNA in the nucleus of human cells, and evidence that acquired immune traits pass down to the offspring of mice pre-exposed to the Covid vaccine mRNA-LNP platform. This is suggestive that, once in the nucleus, the vaccine mRNA can be transferred and integrated with chromosomal DNA.
Taking both the LNP-mod-RNA complexes and the recently discovered DNA contamination present in the mRNA Covid vaccines, acting solicitor Katie Ashby Koppens says, ‘Every single person who has been injected with these products has received a GMO that has not been through the expert regulatory process in this country.’ She adds, ‘The human genome could be changed permanently, and no one was informed.’
Now, McKernan, Dr Buckhaults and other scientists are calling for urgent research to test whether the DNA contamination is lingering in the cells of mRNA vaccinated people, and whether the human genome has in fact been altered by mRNA Covid vaccines.
The same judge putting nonviolent J6 defendants in gulags while hissing her displeasure that Donald Trump “remains free to this day,” decided Monday that she can shut him up while on the 2024 campaign trail. Gag orders are sometimes placed on cases, but this has never happened to a presidential candidate in the annals of the criminal justice.
Trump reacted on his Truth Social account by putting up economic tables comparing his presidency to Joe Biden’s policies.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/111245799427436844/embed The hearing in Judge Tanya S. Chutkan’s D.C. U.S. District Courtroom over whether to at least partially gag Donald Trump was at times contentious and at other times surreal and Kafkaesque. Chutkan ruled that Trump could not post or repost “attacks against Special Counsel, staff, court staff or personnel” as well as prohibited statements about witnesses or expert witnesses.
The hearing was part of one of two cases Special Counsel Jack Smith brought against Trump for calling the 2020 election “stolen” and for somehow instigating the January 6 incursion into the Capitol Building, despite evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. And now Judge Chutkan, an Obama appointee who has dripping antipathy for Donald Trump, will decide if the former president and current presidential candidate can speak at will about the gang-up on him by the intelligence community, the Department of Justice, the Biden Administration, and the Biden campaign to knock him out of contention for the White House.
Trump lawyer Liz Harrington wondered, “Let’s see what happens on Monday in Judge Chutkan’s courtroom. Will America survive, or not?”
Ruling? Not.
The Trump spokeswoman amplified a Truth Social post of Trump’s characterizing Special Counsel Jack Smith as “crooked and deranged.” Trump again called for the judge to recuse herself because she’s so demonstrably biased against the former president.
“Let’s see what happens on Monday in Judge Chutkan’s courtroom. Will America survive, or not?” pic.twitter.com/izOrznixSi
“Today’s decision is an absolute abomination and another partisan knife stuck in the heart of our Democracy by Crooked Joe Biden, who was granted the right to muzzle his political opponent, the leading candidate for the Presidency in 2024… pic.twitter.com/vAYBT3Eqcw
The gang-up on Trump appears to be a continuation of the Democrats’ ongoing lawfare against the Republican, which has reached Kafkaesque proportions, to the point that the Chutkan took specific Trump quotes about Jack Smith and other political figures, including William Barr, the former president’s attorney general, asking a hypothetical question, if Trump should be able to post, “Bill Barr is a slimy lawyer.”
Lauro injected a little legal humor into the colloquy, saying he’s “‘not going to say truth is a defense’ but adds he is [a] public fig[ure] and won’t be intimidated.”
Judge Chutkan now grilling Trump lawyer John Lauro on hypothetical statements she’s drawn up. Q4 was if “Bill Barr is a slimy liar” — should Trump be permitted to post that? Lauro says “not going to say truth is a defense” but adds he is public fig and won’t be intimidated
Lauro asked the judge to obviate the problem and hold off on the trial until after the election. Reporter Hugo Lowell of The Guardian summed it up, “Trump lawyer John Lauro tells Judge Chutkan that public officials like AG Barr should be allowed [to] be criticized, but ‘let’s have this trial after the election to avoid this problem.’”
Judge Chutkan asked “Lauro why Trump has to call [the] prosecutor a ‘thug’ to advance [the] point that this [is] politically motivated? Lauro says what are you supposed to do in [the] face of oppression? Chutkan: ‘let’s tone this down.’” Lauro bristled, “If your honor wants to censor my speech…”
Judge Chutkan asks Trump lawyer John Lauro why Trump has to call prosecutor a “thug” to advance point that this politically motivated? Lauro says what are you supposed to do in face of oppression? Chutkan: “let’s tone this down” Lauro: “If your honor wants to censor my speech”
Indeed, she wants to silence Trump’s and his lawyers’ speech because she, like her fellow Democrats, thinks he’s the human version of an atom bomb to their progressive policies.
Chutkan asked Trump’s lawyer Lauro if she thought it was appropriate that the presidential candidate called D.C. “filthy” and “crime-ridden.” He defended Trump by saying that it was a political statement against his opponent, Joe Biden.
She’s upbraided Lauro before for saying “political” things in her courtroom, but, of course, this case is an entirely political exercise, brought to take Trump out of the 2020 presidential campaign, whether overtly or in the court of public opinion.
At one point, Chutkan told Lauro that his client doesn’t have unfettered First Amendment rights after he kept deriding Smith’s efforts to gag Trump as “censorship.” The judge shot back, “There is no question that a court is entitled to draw restrictions on a def[endant]’s behavior and a def[endant]’s speech pending trial.” The judge continued, ” You [Lauro] keep talking about censorship like the def[endant] has unfettered First Amendment rights. He doesn’t,” she lectured.
Lauro keeps calling this “censorship,” and Chutkan stops him: There is no question that a court is entitled to draw restrictions on a def’s behavior and a def’s speech pending trial. You keep taking about censorship like the def has unfettered First Amendment rights. He doesn’t.
Trump also wants to have jurors fill out a questionnaire in an attempt to discover their biases — which shouldn’t be hard since 97% of D.C. voters cast votes for Biden.
Special Counsel Smith previously put up a fight over the possibility of the questionnaire, suggesting that D.C. is so small that potential jurors could be discovered without their names being revealed. Of course, Trump wants the questionnaire to show an appeals judge at a later time how incredibly biased the jury pool is in the nation’s capital. The special prosecutor argued, according to reporter Lowell, “Special Counsel prosecutor Molly Gaston tells Judge Chutkan: Trump isn’t campaigning, he’s using his campaign to intimidate witnesses and pollute the jury pool.”
And this is where the surreal aspect comes in. The Special Counsel chose the D.C. jurisdiction in which to bring this case because that’s where the Capitol Building breach was, but he didn’t have to. He’s hoping the decidedly anti-Trump jury pool will do anything he wants. But he doesn’t want Trump to question the jurors to find out just how biased they are. Indeed, they claim that Trump speaking would taint the jury pool in an area that is already decidedly against Trump.
NEW: Jack Smith desperate to prevent the public from learning about the deep bias of DC jury pool. He already asked Judge Chutkan for restrictions on defense jury survey to gauge prejudice of jury pool now wants more rules related to picking, vetting jurors: pic.twitter.com/thiGOdzvxG
Trump wasn’t part of the breach; he was arguing around the entire country that the 2020 election was stolen. Smith charged Trump with defrauding the United States because he said it out loud, with obstructing an official proceeding, even though he wasn’t there and didn’t call for people to break into the Capitol Building, and with conspiring against the voters because his opinion might not match voters who didn’t cast their ballots for him.
Trump wrote Sunday that “Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before.” And that’s right. Democrats are using every tool in their unlimited warfare bag to do to the 2024 campaign what they did to the 2020 campaign.
On Monday, the judge decided that she could shut down Donald Trump from telling the American people what he believes is the truth about his case.
Victoria Taft is an award-winning journalist, writer and terrestrial radio talk host, heard in Seattle and on the rest of the Left Coast. Listen to her twice weekly “Adult in the Room Podcast.” Find her at VictoriaTaft.com Parler, MeWe, Minds,Locals, Twitter & Facebook. Her book mocking antifa will be out this year. For media inquiries write: Victoria@VictoriaTaft.com
Bud’s question: What can citizens do when unelected judges and unelected prosecutors are corrupt and politically biased?
In the meta analysis described in the two graphics above, the studies showed positive results with Ivermectin, reported here in detail: https://c19ivm.org/
About halfway down the FDA page at the link above: “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.”
Contrary to the FDA’s statement above, on this FDA list below of ivermectin clinical trials, most of the 36 completed studies found ivermectin was effective against corona virus.
For example, in this randomized, controlled study below looking through and comparing the tabular results, the patients in the trial did better (for example, high lymphocyte counts, higher oxygenation) with fewer side effects and adverse events than the control patients who received no ivermectin. This report does not include its own conclusions.
Published in June, 2020 in the journal Anti-viral Research, the laboratory (i.e., non-clinical, invitro) study at the link showed a 5000 fold reduction in viral mRNA only 48 hours after a single dose of ivermectin.
“We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity in vitro, is an inhibitor of the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2), with a single addition to Vero-hSLAM cells 2 h post infection with SARS-CoV-2 able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 h. Ivermectin therefore warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251768/
In Australia…ivermectin prescriptions are no longer limited.
“From 1 June 2023, prescribing of oral ivermectin for ‘off-label’ uses will no longer be limited to specialists such as dermatologists, gastroenterologists and infectious diseases specialists.”
In its final decision published today, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has removed the restriction through its scheduling in the Poisons Standard because there is sufficient evidence that the safety risks to individuals and public health is low when prescribed by a general practitioner in the current health climate.”
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.