“Plandemic” Producer Mikki Willis Speaks at DTLA in Los Angeles, Announces Release of Free Audiobook Version
by Joe Mcdermott on 04/29/2022 3:54 pm
Independent investigative filmmaker Mikki
Willis
LOS ANGELES, CA – Mikki Willis, the producer of the controversial documentaries Plandemic: The Hidden Agenda Behind COVID-19 and Plandemic: Indoctornation – who recently spoke at a “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Los Angeles – has announced he is releasing a free version of his book Plandemic: Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure, which contains a look at the makings of his two films he describes as “an exposé of the truth behind the origins of COVID-19.”
The Plandemic series is touted as being the “most seen and censored documentary in history,” and makes numerous controversial claims, such as vaccines being “a money-making enterprise that causes medical harm,” in addition to exploring themes of loss of free speech and free choice.
The Amazon page for Willis’ Plandemic: Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure describes the book as “A fascinating behind-the-scenes account about the making of Plandemic and Plandemic: Indoctornation; an exposé of the truth behind the origins of COVID-19; an alarming examination of individuals, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates, and organizations like the CDC, NIH, WHO, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, among others, driving the global vaccination agenda; and a look at the tech giant and mainstream media forces doing their utmost to silence and suppress the veracity of these findings.”
In an email newsletter, Willis claimed his book was already a “5 star best seller,” but despite its early success, he said he would be releasing an audiobook version of it for free… something that was always his intention to do.
“Thanks to you, Plandemic: Fear is the Virus. Truth is the Cure, is a 5 star best seller! But all that has come to an end. For the same reason I gave my Plandemic movie series away for free, I have decided to give away my audiobook,” he said. “The reason is simple. The information revealed in my movies and in my book does not belong to me. It belongs YOU, the PEOPLE. I recorded the Plandemic audiobook with the intention of giving it away!”
Willis explained his reasoning behind the giveaway of his explosive book, saying that it was never his intention to profit off of his documentary films and books.
“I’ve had numerous industry professionals try hard to convince me to monetize the Plandemic brand,” he said. “Here’s what I tell them: ‘If your home was robbed and I caught the thieves, how would you feel if I tried to sell your personal belongs back to you?’”
When the hardcover version of the book was released last year, Willis announced 100 percent of the profits would go to the development of a new youth mentoring program, known as The Pride. In the newsletter, Willis noted The Pride is already in its first quarter and the kids under its care are “thriving.”
Willis concluded by announcing that a third entry in the Plandemic series would be premiering in July 2022. Currently, he said that the film is in its final phase, with the final interviews being conducted before the editing process begins.
“This third installment of the series will rise above the cacophony of the COVID debate to focus on – the big picture, how we got here, how we get out, and the most viable solutions to protecting our children and rebuilding our lives, our communities and our nations,” Willis said.
The Pandemic series of books and films by Willis has been touted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Founder of Children’s Health Defense, award winning investigative journalists Ben Swann, Lara Logan, and many others.
🔺Plandemic Creator Mikki Willis on The Great Awakening Happening Around the World “It Has to Get a Lot Worse Before It Gets a Lot Better” pic.twitter.com/iOV71D59wM
Economist Bjorn Lomborg, PhD provides useful information and links in his article (below). For that we can be grateful. However, his article contains a point of misinformation that is very important. He writes in Wall Street Journal, “Climate change is real and man-made; have no doubt about that.” While it is true that climate change is real. It is not true that climate change is man-made, and certainly not by man-made CO2.
Humans cannot change net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration. We can not increase CO2 concentration and we cannot decrease CO2 concentration at the global level. Therefore, the contribution of CO2 by humans has no effect on global temperature or climate change. CO2 from burning fossil fuels does not increase net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration nor change the rate of growth of CO2 concentration, nor increase earth’s temperature. CO2 concentration in air and CO2 concentration in water are determined primarily by Henry’s Law, the Law of Mass Action and Le Chatelier’s principle.
Physicists Roger Cohen, PhD and Professor William Happer, PhD explain carbonate chemistry in sea water in their September 18, 2015 paper titled, “Fundamentals of Ocean pH.” They point out, “This brief note is a quantitative review of the physical chemistry of ocean pH. High school chemistry and algebra should provide enough background to follow the discussion. An excellent introduction to the chemistry of the oceans can be found in the book: Seawater: Its Composition, Properties and Behavior, by Wright and Colling.” The following figure 6 is from the Cohen and Happer paper.
Figure 6: Nat, the number of moles of CO2 in the atmosphere, and Noc, number of moles of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, versus the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean alkalinity is [A] = 2.3 × 10−3 M and the temperature is T = 25 C. (Cohen & Happer, 2015)
We can see from this graph that the amount of CO2 (moles) in the oceans is much larger than the amount of CO2 (moles) in the atmosphere. (One mole is 6.023 X 1023 molecules.) Like soda pop or beer, if you heat or agitate water or seawater then CO2 gas is emitted into the air. Henry’s Law defines the ratio of the CO2 gas in the air above a liquid versus CO2 gas in the liquid for any given temperature.
Henry’s Law coefficient Kh is different for each gas and liquid combination. It can be calculated, but it is conveniently found in tables for various gas-liquid combinations and temperatures. 𝐾h (𝑇) = [CO2 (g)]/ [CO2 (aq)] The Henry’s coefficient times temperature in Kelvin equals stoichiometrically the moles of atmospheric CO2 gas divided by moles of aqueous CO2 gas. This is known as the Henry’s Law partition ratio, which is also known as the solubility of CO2 gas in seawater. Henry’s coefficient and partition ratio are dimensionless values which are independent of the source of the CO2 and independent of the amount of CO2.
Concentration is an extensive property of matter when there is only one phase of matter present, for example one gas phase or one liquid phase; the ratio of two concentrations is an intensive, dimensionless property of matter. The concentration of CO2 gas in air versus the concentration of CO2 gas in sea water is an intensive property of matter. When the two phases are in contact with each other, then the concentration within each phase adjusts to the Henry’s partition ratio. An example of an intensive property of matter is molecule weight. Increasing the amount of material does not change its molecular weight. Adding more CO2 to the air does not change the partition ratio of CO2 gas between the air and water. Adding more CO2 to air forces more CO2 to be absorbed into water so that the air/water ratio is maintained for a given temperature. And this is true whether the CO2 is in atmosphere, in rain, in water in soil, in lung and gill tissue, etc. Adding more CO2 to the air forces the phase-state equilibrium equation CO2(g) ↔ aqueous CO2(g) to the right, to the product side of the reaction. As more CO2 gas dissolves in seawater, in turn, that higher concentration of aqueous CO2(g) forces the CO2 hydration equilibrium equation to the right, so more CO2 gas ionizes and reacts with seawater to form either bicarbonate ions or carbonic acid.
The reactants in the CO2 hydration equilibrium equation are simply aqueous CO2 gas + H20 liquid. And liquid H20 exists as 2 hydrogen ions H– (known as hydronium ions) and 1 hydroxide ion OH+. Depending on instantaneous conditions in the water, the reaction products are either the ions H+ + HCO– or H2CO3, that is, either bicarbonate ion or carbonic acid respectively. H2CO3 i.e. carbonic acid, exists in water as the ionic forms 2H– and CO32- that is 2 hydrogen ions and one carbonate ion. Only about 1% of the CO2 gas which is absorbed in seawater remains as non-ionic uncharged aqueous CO2 gas. Aqueous CO2 gas and carbonic acid and bicarbonate ion convert reversibly so fast and with so little energy change that they are often considered as one entity, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC.)
The carbonate chemistry described is not part of Henry’s Law. However, the carbonate chemistry and the CO2 hydration reaction are reversible reactions, rapidly reversible by warming the water surface for example, but also by agitating the seawater. Average sea surface temperature (SST) has been increasing slowly since the early 20th century. The causes of this sea surface warming are beyond the scope of this paper except to say that increasing human CO2 emissions are not one of the causes. Higher temperature at the gas-liquid interface surface between air and ocean causes rapid CO2 gas emission from the surface. The bicarbonate ions and carbonic acid products formed when CO2 reacts with water are rapidly (in seconds) reversible to aqueous CO2 gas in ocean surface.
At the global level, the ratio of CO2 gas concentration in air versus CO2 gas concentration in water surface, that is the Henry’s Law partition ratio, is a function of temperature, and to less extent in local conditions alkalinity, salinity (considering all dissolved element not only sodium chloride) and winds, storms, ocean currents and other disturbances such as biological additions and subtractions of CO2. Perturbations to the trend of the Henry’s law partition ratio (e.g. additions or subtractions of human CO2) are rapidly returned to trend. Residence time of CO2 in air does not change the CO2 concentration in air.
A container of seawater at equilibrium in calm, open air in the shade also contains carbon dioxide gas (CO2 gas) and also the reaction products of CO2 gas which reacted with the seawater. No human action or existence was needed to dissolve CO2 gas in seawater nor to cause the reactions. CO2 gas was absorbed from the air. CO2 gas is highly soluble in pure water and more soluble in seawater. If the container of seawater is outside at 10 degrees C, it contains more CO2 gas than in summer at 25 degrees C. The difference in CO2 concentration in the water samples at the two temperatures can be measured.
We see by comparing the graph above with the graph immediately below, both at 25 degrees C, CO2 gas is about 37.5 times more soluble in water than O2 and that both gases are more soluble in cold water than warm water. Generally, we know oxygen is plentiful in ocean because fish and other sea life live there and absorb oxygen gas through their gills for their respiration. Henry’s Law also applies to the solubility of oxygen and other gases in water and in seawater, and oxygen and carbon dioxide in blood, etc.
The graph immediately above is by retired professor of chemistry and materials science Daniele Mazza who has software code available for this purpose. He explains in his easy-to-read online website and textbook, “Compared to the atmosphere, which contains around 850 Gt (gigatons) of carbon (in the form of CO2), the oceans hold 38,000 Gt of carbon. That’s nearly 45 times more. Despite quite frequent discussion and examination in scientific papers and the press of the relationship between ocean chemistry and environmental issues (such as CO2 uptake, ocean acidification and carbonate sediment), the basic underlying chemistry is poorly understood… In particular heterogeneous reactions (like calcite/aragonite formation from dissolved Ca++ and CO3— ions) may require long times, like years or decades, to be completed. On the contrary CO2 dissolution in surface seawater requires shorter time intervals to reach equilibrium with all dissolved species (H2CO, HCO3– , CO3—) deriving from its dissolution… One topic frequently debated today is the potential hazard for coralline reefs of the rising concentrations of CO2, through the reduction of ocean pH and carbonate ion concentration. The effect of this, is however compensated for by an increase in oversaturation in warmer areas of oceans, where calcifying organisms and coral reefs prosper. Global warming, estimated at about 1°C from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present day, also favours oversaturation and thereby counteracts the effects of increasing CO2 content by anthropogenic emissions.” https://danielemazza.academia.edu/ and Mazza, Daniele. 2020, page 42-43.
Figure 7 below is from the previously referenced paper by Cohen and Happer. The Cohen and Happer report and the Mazza report confirm each other, though illustrating the point in a different way.
“Figure 7: The equilibrium rate, dNoc/dNat, of increase of CO2 in the oceans with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean alkalinity is [A] = 2.3 × 10-3 M and the temperature is T = 25 C… The rate of increase, dNoc/dNat, of CO2 in the ocean with CO2 in the atmosphere is shown in Fig. 7. Because of the long time (centuries) needed for additional CO2 molecules dissolved in the ocean surface to reach the deeper ocean, the currently observed rate, dNoc/dNat ≈ 1, is about three times smaller than the predicted equilibrium rate.” (Cohen & Happer, 2015)
Cohen and Happer summarized the point, “This minimalist discussion already shows how hard it is to scare informed people with ocean acidification, but, alas, many people are not informed. For example: The oceans would be highly alkaline with a pH of about 11.4, similar to that of household ammonia, if there were no weak acids to buffer the alkalinity. Almost all of the buffering is provided by dissolved CO2, with very minor additional buffering from boric acid, silicic acid and other even less important species… doubling atmospheric CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to 800 ppm only decreases the pH of ocean water from about 8.2 to 7.9. This is well within the day-night fluctuations that already occur because of photosynthesis by plankton…So scare stories about dissolving carbonate shells are nonsense.”
As has been shown, CO2 gas is highly soluble in seawater, for example about 30 times more soluble than oxygen. Solubility of CO2 and O2 are inversely proportional with temperature, solubility increases as water surface temperature decreases following Henry’s Law. Bicarbonate and carbonic acid concentration also increases as seawater temperature decreases. On the other hand, when water surface temperature increases above about 25.6 C, then CO2 becomes oversaturated in ocean surface (with respect to the Henry’s partition ratio for that temperature) and thus CO2 gas is then emitted from the warm ocean surface. When sea surface temperature decreases, for example as happened around earth’s equatorial tropical oceans following the volcanic eruption of Mt Pinatubo in June 1991, then the rate of growth of net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration decreases temporarily, then returns to trend, as observed and shown in the following graph.
The following graphic, Figure 3 in Kauppinen and Malmi 2019, clearly shows the cooling that occurred following the Mt Pinatubo eruption.
When we finally correct the misinformation that human use of fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and making oceans acidic, then we finally remove the fear and guilt element that human-CO2-caused climate change proponents have been using for 4 decades to misinform and convince children, students, politicians, world bankers, etc. Eventually we can rid the world of this trillion dollar per year waste of money on a non-problem.
Be Afraid of Nuclear War, Not Climate Change: Russia’s war in Ukraine shows that global warming has distracted us from more important threats. (Please read the article at the link below)
By Bjorn Lomborg
March 29, 2022 6:18 pm ET
Weeks before thermobaric rockets rained down on Ukraine, the chattering classes at the World Economic Forum declared “climate action failure” the biggest global risk for the coming decade. On the eve of war, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry fretted about the “massive emissions consequences” of Russian invasion and worried that the world might forget about the risks of climate change if fighting broke out. Amid the conflict and the many other challenges facing the globe right now, like inflation and food price hikes, the global elite has an unhealthy obsession with climate change.
This fixation has had three important consequences. First, it has distracted the Western world from real geopolitical threats. Russia’s invasion should be a wake-up call that war is still a serious danger that requires democratic nations’ attention. But a month into the war in Ukraine, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres—whose organization’s main purpose is ensuring world peace—was focused instead on “climate catastrophe,” warning that fossil-fuel addiction will bring “mutually assured destruction.” His comments come at a time when nuclear weapons are posing the biggest risk of literal mutually assured destruction in half a century.
Second, the narrow focus on immediate climate objectives undermines future prosperity. The world currently shells out more than half a trillion dollars annually in private and public funds on climate policies, while spending from the governments of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on innovation that underpins growth in areas such as healthcare, space, defense, agriculture and science has been declining as a percentage of gross domestic product over recent decades.
Education performance in developed nations is stagnant or declining, and real income growth among OECD countries has almost stalled this century. By contrast, in China, where innovation-related spending is up 50% from where it was in 2000 and education is rapidly improving, average incomes have increased fivefold since the start of the 21st century.
Third, in the world’s poorest countries, the international community’s focus on putting up solar panels coexists with a woeful underinvestment in solutions to massive existing problems. Infectious diseases like tuberculosis and malaria kill millions; malnutrition afflicts almost a billion people; more than three billion lack access to reliable energy.
These and other issues plaguing the developing world are solvable, but get far less funding from wealthy countries than climate change. Giving the developing world affordable access to consistently available energy—which often requires fossil fuels—is the key to lifting most of the world out of poverty. Yet before the invasion of Ukraine, the developed world was racing to make fossil fuel energy more expensive and less accessible for the world’s poorest.
What underpins this climate fixation? The false and irresponsible idea that global warming poses an immediate existential risk for the world. Climate change is real and man-made; have no doubt about that. But the best economic estimates used by the Obama and Biden administrations, as well as those created by the only climate economist to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics, all show that the total impact of unmitigated climate change—not just on the economy but overall—would be equivalent to less than a 4% hit to global GDP annually by the end of the century.
The U.N. estimates that the average person in 2100 will be 450% as rich as today. If climate change continues unabated, the average person will be “only” 434% as rich—a far from catastrophic outcome.
A world scared witless doesn’t make smart decisions—so it should be no surprise it hasn’t managed to make a dent in climate change. Globally, last year saw the most CO2 emissions ever, despite $5 trillion spent over the past decade on climate policies. The U.N. admitted in 2019 that there has been “no real change in the global emissions pathway in the last decade” despite the global Paris agreement.
The European Union has tried to shift to renewables but still gets more than 70% of its energy from fossil fuels. Much of the rest is generated by burning wood chips from trees chopped down in America and transported on diesel ships. Solar and wind produce only 3% of the European Union’s energy, and the technology is unreliable, often requiring backup from gas when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. Europe’s refusal to embrace shale gas—which can be found throughout the Continent but remains untapped—has left it at the mercy of Russian gas. The past two months show how dangerous this is.
Well-meaning politicians across the world have been proposing policies to reach net-zero emissions in coming decades. According to McKinsey, the policies will cost $9.2 trillion every year until net zero is supposed to be achieved in 2050. This is equivalent to half the global tax take. Such extremely costly policies are unlikely to be enacted by emerging economies such as India or Africa, whose emissions will skyrocket as their populations and economies grow. Net zero is also likely to fail in the developed world, where its high costs will erode prosperity and thus political support. Achieving net zero would cost every American family $19,300 a year, according to the McKinsey study.
To respond to climate change effectively, the world needs to spend more on green-energy innovation and develop renewables that are reliable and cost-effective. To address their immediate energy problems, Europe and America need to embrace fracking—despite Russian-funded propaganda discrediting it—and help the rest of the world access the oil and gas it needs. There are many serious threats in the world today, but most won’t get the attention they deserve until the political classes drop their hyperbole about climate change and treat it like what it actually is—only one of the many problems to be solved in the 21st century.
Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His latest book is “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”
Proponents of human-CO2-caused global warming (AGW) stir up fear and guilt with their CO2 lies and omissions, as they did with ozone years ago. Fear and guilt is their purpose. “YOU are making the planet dangerously warm, our generation will not raise families and grow old, HOW DARE YOU!, or some similar infantile rant. Proponents control the media and the population and the vote with fear. Their indoctrination by fear has apparently worked on millions of people, especially 40 years of children around the world. Obviously it has worked on the world’s politicians, mainstream media, educators and entertainers. But, you need not be one of their useful idiots and eventual slaves.
Pay attention now children, teachers and politicians:
The following 2 graphs are really what the temperature trend is doing, contrary to most people’s education and daily and continuous news, and contrary to the politicians in something like 160 countries, the UN, the EU, Great Resetters and global bankers:
GISS is NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
And the following graph is really how carbon dioxide is trending:
By the way, the green line in the graph immediately above is net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration from all sources. Human-produced CO2 is a small fraction of that net CO2.
But the great resetters, government agencies, teachers, mainstream media, and politicians around the world scare you with graphs of CO2 data like the following:
And statements like “97% consensus of scientists agree on climate change!”made by the presidents and prime ministers of nations, multinational organizations and charlatan so-called “environmentalists.”
And…
Yes, the same people producing the global warming fraud are also pushing major reduction of earth’s population of humans. Some of them believe, say out loud and write that humans are a plaque on the earth, for example the late consort to the Queen of England, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, infamously said he wanted to come back as a virus plaque to reduce earth’s population.
In fact, world population growth has been declining for decades, is expected to continue declining, and is now below replacement levels in multiple countries.But you may not perceive that decline yet because the same AGW proponents producing the global warming fraud are inducing people to move to the big cities and out of rural areas. It is no mystery that some of those same AGW proponents are buying up huge amounts of rural land, farms and ranches.
The already powerful and wealthy ideologues who want to control the world first gained control of academia and media. Then they prepared the narrative which was presented to politicians and citizens, beginning when those politicians and citizens were in kindergarten. The narrative is that human-produced CO2 from fossil fuels is pollution and dangerous to humans and the planet. This narrative is then expanded into all fields of endeavor in all countries and repeated endlessly. This has already happened 4 decades ago. The people you believed were teaching you were in fact indoctrinating you so that you would willingly become feudal slaves, willingly give up your freedoms, own no private property or money, take the drugs they hand out and be happy.
The truth is more CO2 would be good for the planet. You may be familiar with the Jurassic period of earth’s history, a jungle-covered earth with dinosaurs and abundant life, and imagined in the famous Jurassic Park movie. Millions of years of abundant and growing life happened when CO2 atmospheric concentration was ten times today’s concentration. As of today, UN, EU, Joe, Boris, Klaus, Jacinda, actors, “journalists” and journals, bankers and many oil companies claim doubling of CO2 is dangerous, and some claim or imply it is already too late, beyond the point of return.
The truth is humans cannot change net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration by using fossil fuels and making cement. We can not increase it nor can we reduce it. It is not in our hands. It is above our pay grade.Net global average atmospheric CO2 concentrationis controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics, the laws of nature created by God. Every breath you take is dependent on those same laws. Net global average CO2 concentration in the air today is the same as it would be if humans never existed.
Humans can neither increase nor decrease net global average CO2 concentration, that is, unless we allow crazy billionaire ideologues, politicians and governments to attempt to re-engineer the climate by insane, and if successful then genocidal, projects such as creating artificial clouds to block the sun. That insane idea could create a new ice age and wipe out life. The same people pushing such insane geo-engineering concepts are also pushing the overpopulaton lie, vaccines, tests for viruses, and of course the human-CO2-caused global warming fraud.
The truth presented in this post normally is not presented online in wiki pages, nor by NGOs, nor in most schools, universities, worldwide, definitely not in mainstream media and governments. For example, Al Gore’s propaganda movie “An Inconvenient Truth” was presented to the student body at my son’s high school 12 years ago. I personally visited the headmaster before the movie was shown and requested to present a rebuttal to the movie. My request was denied. This was a headmaster to whom I had donated thousands of dollars for his private school in excess of the expensive tuition. Already by that date, a high court in London, England had decided that the movie contained major misstatements and ordered English schools to present a rebuttal whenever Gore’s movie was shown. Probably very few educators know that, or if they do they ignore it. Even the UN IPCC removed the scary graphs from its reports.
The late philosopher at University of Chicago, Allan Bloom, called out this mis-education phenomenon and titled his 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. This phenomenon is a nefarious human invention not limited to America, nor even primarily created in America, nor is it limited to the AGW fraud. Bloom was not part of the so-called “vast right-wing conspiracy.” He was a self-claimed lifetime liberal, gay, professor at Cornell and University of Chicago. There are other intellectuals of Bloom’s status carrying that message in philosophy, psychology, social studies, for example Jordan Peterson and Václav Klaus, Czech economist and politician who served as the second president of the Czech Republic from 2003 to 2013.
There are also tens of thousands of scientists in many countries who put their careers on the line to speak out publicly against the global warming fraud and the viral/vaccine fraud. But they are ignored, banned, cancelled and scorned. Lists of these honorable and brave scientists, doctors, engineers, etc and be found on my blog, for example:
Trump supporter jumped up and down, waved hands in frustration at motionless officers: “Call…help!”
By Joseph M. Hanneman at EPOCH TIMES. Read full article at link below.
January 18, 2022 Updated: January 19, 2022
Just moments before she was shot and killed, Ashli Babbitt confronted the police officers guarding the doors to the Speaker’s Lobby at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, blasting them for allowing rioters to smash the windows and not calling for backup, an analysis of a journalist’s video shows.
The analysis comes on the heels of recent disclosures that Babbitt tried at least four other times to stop the assault on the Speaker’s Lobby. It shows her desperation when the rioters were left unchecked, even smashing a window just inches from a police officer’s head.
In the video—shot by independent journalist Tayler Hansen—Babbitt, 35, is seen trailing rioter Zachary Alam, attempting to get between him and one of three police officers at the Speaker’s Lobby double doors.
Alam, who was arrested by the FBI on Jan. 30, 2021, bashes the window in the double doors twice.
The first time, he grabs one police officer’s shoulder with his left hand, then punches between him and another officer, striking the window, the video shows.
“These guys work for us!” someone in the crowd interjects.
“You gonna shoot him?” another person asks.
A bearded man in a red Trump cap complains that they are not being allowed into the Speaker’s Lobby. “Mother [expletive]! We don’t want to hurt nobody. We just want to go in the House.”
Tried to Dissuade Rioter
Babbitt tries to get in between Alam and one of the officers. She says something to Alam, but he brushes her off. Alam then cranks up his right arm and punches the window next to the officer. Within a few seconds, Babbitt blows up at the officers for allowing the violence and vandalism.
“Call [expletive] help!” Babbitt shouts, jumping up and down in front of the officers. “We’re allowed to be here!”
Babbitt takes a couple steps back. There was no visible reaction from the officers, sparking her anger. “You’re a fraud!” she shouts. “You’re a [expletive] fraud! You’re wrong!”
After walking away, Babbitt can be heard screaming just off camera: “Take it down!” Hansen said he believes she meant for the crowd to calm down.
“You could tell that she was definitely getting upset,” Hansen said while reviewing the video with The Epoch Times. “She was calm when she first got there. Then as the destruction continued and as more people started to fill in and it got more dangerous, that’s when you can tell she was getting really upset.”
Babbitt served as a police officer in the U.S. Air Force during her 14 years of military service. Her husband, Aaron, said her law enforcement experience likely told her something was wrong.
“I believe she saw their inaction as odd or off, and was ultimately confused as to what was happening,” Aaron Babbitt told The Epoch Times. “She was a take-charge kind of person. Her frustrations show that the cops who should’ve been taking charge—weren’t.”
“I’d only seen bits and pieces and never fully put together,” Aaron Babbitt said of the video. “I can hear the confused panic in her voice.”
He said the video makes him sad, since his role as a husband is to protect his wife. He stayed in San Diego to run the couple’s small business while Ashli attended the Trump rally in Washington. She was trapped in the hallway, and claustrophobic.
“She had no friends in that room,” Babbitt said. “I always go back to no one would’ve ever watched out for (her) like I always did. Very helpless.”
Babbitt said he hopes the video analysis gives the public a better understanding of the chaos in the hallway.
“I’ve known something was off with the whole situation from day one,” Babbitt said. “Hopefully this gives other people a different perspective—or at a minimum makes someone take a second look with a different mindset.”
“What I think it was from reviewing the footage and just from knowing what I know about Ashli from the family, is she probably got claustrophobic,” Hansen said, “because more people and more people kept pouring in and she realized she was in a bad situation. So then she pushed her way over to the window area.
“Once that window broke, I think she realized this was going to be bad for the people inside if they were actually able to breach these doors entirely,” Hansen said. “I think she wanted to be the first one through that window so she could kind of safeguard it, honestly. If she can get to the other side of the window where officers are, in her mind she would be safe.”
Hansen said he just discovered an Instagram live-stream video he shot on Jan. 6 that shows Babbitt as she first turned the corner into the Speaker’s Lobby hallway. He said it confirms what he told The Epoch Times on Jan. 17, that Babbitt was friendly with the police officers when she first approached the doors.
“Ashli just walks right up to them and just seems super happy; doesn’t know what she’s about to walk into. She was joking with the cops right before Byrd put a bullet into her.”
Hansen said he first encountered Ashli in the Capitol Rotunda as she entered the building by herself. He next saw her as he emerged from a room with George Washington’s portrait on the wall, then followed her to the Speaker’s Lobby hallway. They were the first two to reach the double doors.
Encounter Started with Calm
“It shows her and me just walking right up to the door with Officer Yetter and all the other cops and she starts talking to them.”
Hansen also captured the moment Lt. Michael Byrd shot Babbitt as she stepped up into the open window frame to the right of the double doors. The bedlam in the hallway quickly turned to panic—and anger.
“There’s an active shooter here! Get her down!” Hansen shouts.
“She needs help! She needs [expletive] help!” someone screams.
A man off camera reaches in at the 38-second mark of the video and check’s Babbitt’s neck for a pulse. “She’s gone, guys.”
“We can’t [inaudible] if you’re here!” a police officer shouts at the crowd. “We’ve got to get EMS here!”
“Back up guys, back up!”
An officer leaning over the stairway railing, shouts, “She’s going to [expletive] die! You want to be next?” he says
M. Hanneman is a reporter for The Epoch Times with a focus on the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol incursion and its aftermath; and general news in the State of Wisconsin. His work over a nearly 40-year career has appeared in Catholic World Report, the Racine Journal Times, the Wisconsin State Journal and the Chicago Tribune. Reach him at: joseph.hanneman@epochtimes.us
Described in the short video above, in some countries, for example China, people are already graded in a social credit system based on the government’s opinion of what is and what is not acceptable behavior. This has always been the end goal of political correctness. This is not science fiction or conspiracy theory. It already exists and soon it will be worldwide.
Here for example is a short article about how it is being implemented. This entire blog post is a global situation which is not and will not be unique to the United States. And this invasion of privacy and blocking of liberties like free speech will not be limited to cell phones. As Edward Snowden warned, it is all electronic communications, and soon all of our transactions will be electronic because non-electronic currencies are being eliminated. Whom we choose to do business with will also be graded and our ability to continue that business will be blocked if it does not suite big brother. In effect, this has been tested and implemented for years as your credit score, which controls our ability to borrow money. Although the history of our ability to pay back money we have borrowed is presumably objective and fair, this objectivity is missing in social credit systems which are subjective by definition.
Wouldn’t it be great if your internet browsing history was part of your credit score? That’s what a team of researchers at the International Monetary Fund have proposed. In the future, reading How-To Geek might help (or perhaps hurt) your credit score!
What’s Actually Being Proposed?
Typical credit score systems in the USA rely on hard data like the amount of credit you have, your usage of the credit, your number of accounts, and how many times you’ve been late on payments.
Researchers for the IMF are talking about going beyond that. After all, typical credit scoring methods make it hard for people with no credit history to get credit, and more people may become credit risks in a worse economy even if their histories look good.
The researchers describe their proposed solution on the IMF blog:
Fintech resolves the dilemma by tapping various nonfinancial data: the type of browser and hardware used to access the internet, the history of online searches and purchases. Recent research documents that, once powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, these alternative data sources are often superior than traditional credit assessment methods, and can advance financial inclusion, by, for example, enabling more credit to informal workers and households and firms in rural areas.
So, in the future, your online searches, purchase history, and even the browser and device you use to access the internet may be fed to a machine-learning algorithm (what we call “AI”) and used to determine your credit score.
Yes, if you’re using an inexpensive Android phone rather than an iPhone, or if you use Firefox rather than Google Chrome, that might negatively impact your credit score under this proposal.
It’s worth noting that, as of 2021, this is just a proposal. You can still go view your credit report and you won’t see any browsing history in there. However…
Credit Decisions Are More Than a Single Score
Credit scoring systems are more complicated than many people understand. In the USA, you have three big credit report companies: Experian, Equifax, and Transunion. These reports contain hard data on your credit usage.
There are different ways of “scoring” that data, including different generations of FICO scores. Depending on the type of credit you’re applying for, these models will give different credit score numbers based on the same data. For example, there are different models for mortgages and car loans. Someone might be considered more at risk of defaulting on a car loan than a mortgage, for example.
A bank or company extending credit may run its own credit-scoring model on the data and take into account various factors. Other factors may also be included. For example, LexisNexis offers “Alternative Data” to companies who might want to use that for credit decisions. This includes information like a person’s professional licenses, assets (like owning a home), and “public source data.” It’s pitched as a way for companies to identify credit-worthy people who have thin traditional credit files.
In the USA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act defines a number of factors that cannot be used for credit decisions:
The [ECOA]… prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
Credit Scores Used to Include Personal Details, Too
It’s worth noting that credit scores historically included other types of personal information—not just the current “hard” financial details they’re supposed to include—until the system was reformed with laws like 1970’s Fair Credit Reporting Act and 1974’s Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
A Time Magazine article from 1936 describes how the credit reporting system of the day worked. The bolding is ours:
Every bank, every company that extends credit is constantly prying into the private affairs of its customers. They study balance sheets, earnings statements, profit & loss accounts, weigh character, reputation, personal habits.
It describes what might happen to a woman who moves across the country:
Thus if Mrs. John Jones moved from Chicago to Los Angeles, any good Los Angeles store could quickly learn how promptly she paid her bills in Chicago. It might learn that she was a widow of 40 with no children, enjoyed no visible means of support, lived in swank apartments, entertained unsavory characters, was late with her rent, lived in Chicago for only two years and left with $500 of unpaid bills. In that case, Mrs. Jones would have a hard time opening a charge account in Los Angeles.
As you can see, the system included various details about people’s personal lives, which were used in credit decisions.
Of course, the IMF researchers aren’t proposing anything quite like that! They’re just proposing taking into account your online search history and the web browser you use to access the internet. And it will be machine learning algorithms (“AI”) making the decisions.
However, while the system may not have a human banker judging your “personal habits,” AI can still be biased—and is it really right to reject someone’s credit application because they’re using the wrong web browser? (Hey, the researchers are the people who brought up using web browser choice as a metric, not us!)
The above article is one example, happening before our eyes. Here is another.
Did you notice that Joe Biden’s nominee to head the U.S. federal government bureaucracy known as Comptroller of the Currency advocated elimination of the currency? She is also a Marxist educated in Moscow, Russia during the Soviet Union, and today is a U.S. college professor. Biden Supports U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency, that is, elimination of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Imagine the convenience of rapidly purchasing goods and services with no bank fees. Imagine having all the benefits of a bank while not having to deal with the inconvenience of opening a bank account, let alone the nickel-and-dime charges that tend to go with it. The compromise, however, is the privacy of your funds. Your funds can technically be monitored or tracked at any time. If the government wants you to spend, they can apply negative interest rates to your deposit. When the government needs more money, they can print at will (a hidden tax on your money). Money will no longer be a tangible object but a virtual asset; one that’s also vulnerable to electronic glitches, downed servers, and cyberattacks. President Biden’s latest executive order aims to accelerate this state of financial and monetary condition. He is looking to usher in the first U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (aka CBDC). The cost of financial convenience will not only weigh heavily as a risk or burden but may end up a potential disaster for depositors. If there is any reason to own physical gold and silver, it’s this. Physical non-CUSIP gold and silver cannot be hacked, monitored, or inflated. They will be the last tangible monetary assets standing once cash is abolished. They will also be the only assets holding value once Americans finally realize the disadvantages that the government has duped them into accepting in exchange for convenience. Last Updated: March 14, 2022/John Galt
Mainstream media, governments and banks are working overtime to normalize in the worldwide public mindshare the concept that currencies are no longer needed and digital currency will be better.
Remember the Great Resetters promised that you and I will own nothing.
The followingwas originally published on NBC News, full url link below. NBC News is definitely not a right wing, conspiracy-minded organization.
The Biden administration is throwing its support behind further study and development of what would be known as a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency.
The Biden administration is putting its support behind the research and development of a “U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency,” or CBDC.
The move is part of a sweeping executive order President Joe Biden signed Wednesday instructing the federal government to explore possible uses of and regulations for digital assets like cryptocurrencies.
“My Administration places the highest urgency on research and development efforts into the potential design and deployment options of a United States CBDC,” the executive order reads.
The order asks for a wide variety of agencies to begin research and submit reports on a variety of issues surrounding digital currencies, from design and security to financial and societal impacts.
“We know the implications of potentially issuing a digital dollar are profound. They’re extraordinarily wide-ranging,” a senior administration official told reporters on a call Tuesday.
Although a U.S. digital currency would not necessarily change much in terms of everyday experiences like buying goods and services, economists say it could transform central and commercial banking, as well as government sanctions, banking accessibility and taxes.
“The potential here is enormous, and it’s very interesting,” said David Yermack, a professor and the chair of the finance department at New York University.
The executive order will call on the government to investigate the technical needs for a digital currency and advocate for the Federal Reserve to continue its research and development, according to a fact sheet released by the White House.
The Fed published a white paper in January about potentially creating a CBDC that would complement existing payment systems. It found that a CBDC could make payments cheaper and easier for consumers but might also pose a risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system.
In its fact sheet, the administration said it also would take steps to “mitigate the illicit finance and national security risks posed by the illicit use of digital assets by directing an unprecedented focus of coordinated action across all relevant U.S. Government agencies to mitigate these risks.”
The U.S. would not be the first country with a digital currency. China has introduced its own CBDC, with more than 140 million people having opened digital “wallets,” and many other countries have either rolled out or are developing digital currencies. The Bahamas’ Sand Dollar is considered among the world’s most successful digital currencies.
Yermack said the move by the Biden administration pointed to what he believes is a certain inevitability of the broader move toward digital currencies.
“It’s not a question of if but when,” he said. “Once the central banks start co-opting the technology, it’s pretty much game over.”
While the administration fact sheet did not provide any details about how a U.S. digital currency might work, Yermack suggested that the functionality could be reasonably simple, with transactions flowing directly to and from the Fed, sidestepping banks and payment systems and creating near-seamless flows of cash.
It is a simple concept with the potential for widespread ramifications. Yermack said a broadly embraced digital currency would pose existential questions for banks and many other financial services focused on facilitating payments.
“Bill Gates famously said there will always be banking but there will not always be banks,” Yermack said.
Digital currencies also open up new possibilities for how the government exercises policy, said Michael Bordo, a professor of economics and the director of the Center for Monetary and Financial History at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
A digital currency could make the kind of stimulus payments of the coronavirus pandemic nearly instantaneous and far more efficient, he said, possibly even reaching people who have previously been shut out of banking services.
“They found that it really worked, and they came up with ways to make it real simple, because there’s a lot of very low-income people who don’t have bank accounts,” Bordo said.
In addition to the consumer benefits, a U.S. digital currency would offer the Fed a new tool that economists have previously only theorized about: negative interest rates.
Controlling interest rates is the Fed’s primary way to stimulate or cool the economy — but it comes with limits. Banks can drop interest rates on regular money only so low, known as the zero bound, leaving central banks with few options when interest rates are already low and the economy needs a boost.
With a digital currency, the zero bound does not exist, allowing for aggressive action when needed.
“If the cash is electronic, the government can just erase 2 percent of your money every year,” Yermack said. “I think this is going to become a necessity just because of the demographic changes in the world.”
Bordo also pointed to negative rates as an important feature of digital currencies.
“I think it’s something that could be a game changer for the Fed,” he said.
For all the theoretical possibilities, a U.S. digital currency faces plenty of real hurdles. Bordo noted that commercial banks have a vested interest in opposing the technology.
“Getting this thing through is going to be a big project,” he said.
Still, broader momentum for government-backed digital currencies is growing. Yermack said that he has advised major governments looking to start their own currencies and that as more countries adopt their own, “the others are probably going to fall into line pretty quickly.”
“Two years ago everyone was ridiculing this,” Yermack said. “Now it’s the hot thing to do.”
“Print, print, print. That was Lenin’s answer. Or at least what John Maynard Keynes thought was Lenin’s answer. In his post-Versailles treatise, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Keynes famously quoted the Bolshevik leader saying, perhaps apocryphally, that “the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.” In other words, incompetent central bankers are a communist’s best friend. The idea is hyperinflation breaks down markets and breaks down classes. Business can’t plan beyond today if they don’t know what money will be worth tomorrow. And a collapsing currency turns the bourgeoisie into the proletariat overnight. That sound you hear is the revolution coming.”
“But it’s a bit more complicated than that. Michael White and Kurt Schuler unearthed the original Lenin quote — yes, he really did say it — in a 2009 paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. And let’s just say he wasn’t so sanguine about capitalism withering away. See, Lenin thought hyperinflation was the best way to destroy capitalism after the revolution, because the revolution wouldn’t be enough itself. The profit-motive would survive even if the bourgeois state did not — and even if the socialist state tried to outlaw it. The only way to kill the profit-motive was to kill profits. And that meant killing the very concept of money itself.” More here: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/unveiled-lenins-brilliant-plot-to-destroy-capitalism/280006/
The Great Reset is explained in the following video by Douglas Kruger:
In the following video, Catherine Austin Fitts explains “ending currency as we know it.” Catherine Austin Fitts (born December 24, 1950) is an American investment banker and former public official who served as managing director of Dillon, Read & Co. and, during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, as United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing. Wikipedia
And finally, below is a short video that is my conclusion to the long post above.
Thanks for reading and watching. Please do leave comments and questions.
System Failure: Commodities markets, banks, currencies and contracts begin breaking down
The pillars of western civilization are breaking down right in front of our eyes. If “reserves” don’t mean reserves, and if “money” doesn’t mean money, and if home “ownership” doesn’t mean ownership, and if the “rule of law” doesn’t mean the rule of law, then we have lost the very principles upon which western civilization exists.
Combined with the fact that nearly everything has become FAKE now — fake news, fake money, fake history, fake education, fake science, fake medicine, fake elections, fake pandemics, fake shootings, fake hate crimes, etc. — we find ourselves living in a world with no civil compass.
Western civilization, simply put, has committed suicide. There is no longer any glue holding it together. The elections are rigged, the money is counterfeit, the news is deliberately fabricated and the propaganda is absurd. We are living in a nation where a candidate for the US Supreme Court (Jackson) just publicly stated that she has no idea what the definition of a woman might be.
Brighteon.com
If that is not enough to thoroughly disgust you, then add the facts that the touchy-feely man with a nose for the hair of girls, the occupant of the
U.S. White House, has nominated for Comptroller of the Currency a woman educated in Moscow, Russia during the Soviet Union who is a Marxist and has professed her desire to eliminate U.S currency. The same pretender to the U.S. Presidency nominated another woman to the U.S. Supreme Court who has been reducing penalties for pedophiles.
When President Biden says that the U.S. will become energy independent by way of programs like the Green New Deal, perhaps the first question to ask is, “Does that make sense?” For any thinking person cognizant of even the basic energy facts, the answer should come back, “No.”
The bulk of U.S. energy consumption in 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), broke down as follows: 79 percent from petroleum, natural gas and coal and nine percent from nuclear-generated electricity. Solar and wind — the darlings of Green New Dealers — provided less than five percent.
So, are so-called green sources going to replace hydrocarbons anytime soon? Common sense suggests not. But if that isn’t good enough, there are plenty of data supporting a negative answer.
“Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.”
Mr. Mills says there is a fundamental misunderstanding about technological development that contributes to fanciful notions — like the president’s — that solar, wind and batteries can become dominant sources with a mere declaration from the White House or lobbying Congress.
“This ‘new energy economy’ rests on the belief—a centerpiece of the Green New Deal and other similar proposals both here and in Europe—that the technologies of wind and solar power and battery storage are undergoing the kind of disruption experienced in computing and communications, dramatically lowering costs and increasing efficiency,” he says.
“But this core analogy glosses over profound differences, grounded in physics, between systems that produce energy and those that produce information. In the world of people, cars, planes, and factories, increases in consumption, speed, or carrying capacity cause hardware to expand, not shrink. The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries are set by laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics—not clever software.”
In other words, there is a major difference between the possibilities for technological progress in the things that use energy — smart phones and computers, for example — and in the ways to make energy.
“(S)ometimes, the old or established technology is the optimal solution and nearly immune to disruption,” says Mr. Mills. “We still use stone, bricks, and concrete, all of which date to antiquity. We do so because they’re optimal, not ‘old.’ So are the wheel, water pipes, electric wires … the list is long. Hydrocarbons are, so far, optimal ways to power most of what society needs and wants.”
This is partly why 70 percent of likely U.S. voters recently told Rasmussen that they favor the government’s encouraging increased oil and gas production to reduce dependence on foreign sources. Most people want reliable, affordable energy, and hydrocarbons give it to them.
In addition to fossil fuels being exceptional sources of energy, some of the alternatives are turning out to be more of a public nuisance than an environmental benefit.
“Of the many whoppers that renewable-energy promoters use while advocating for huge increases in the use of wind and solar, the most absurd claim is that building massive amounts of new renewable energy capacity won’t require very much land,” says Robert Bryce in a Forbes article.
Concerns that include land use, noise and aesthetics have led to more than 300 U.S. wind projects being rejected or restricted since 2015 and 13 large solar projects being turned down in 2021 alone, according to Mr. Bryce’s count.
The backlash, he says, “is raging from the fishing docks in Montauk and Rhode Island, to … Vermont (where, by the way, you can’t build wind turbines), out west to Shasta County and Oahu, as well as in Canada, Germany, France, Australia and other countries around the world.”
In Britain, a political movement against Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Net Zero policy to “decarbonise” the economy by 2050 is being launched by Nigel Farage, the former Brexit Party leader.
“If we are not careful, the only zero will be the amount in people’s bank accounts as we send our jobs and money overseas,” says Mr. Farage.
So, whether it’s laws of physics or forces of economics and politics, there is plenty to keep the green energy dream just that — a fevered vision of a climate cult.
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.