Tag: police state

9-Year-Old Boy Refused Life-Saving Kidney Transplant Because His Father is Unvaccinated

One would think that since the mandates and lockdowns have come collapsing down in recent months after their tyrannical and ineffective nature has been exposed, that the trend of refusing life saving treatment to folks over their vaccination status would have come to a halt as well. Unfortunately, however, one would be wrong. And as the following example illustrates, it’s not just those who refuse to take the experimental jab who suffer — it’s also their children.

Tanner Donaldson, a 9-year-old from Cleveland was born with a rare birth defect that caused irreversible kidney damage in utero and has resulted in stage 4 chronic kidney disease as well as bladder and urinary dysfunctions as he grew older.

A kidney transplant from the proper donor could reverse his disease and put Tanner back on track to have a normal life for at least 20 more years. Before the pandemic began to unfold in 2018, Tanner had found that donor — his dad, Dane Donaldson.

Because a kidney from a live donor only lasts about 20 years, the family decided to wait a couple of years before carrying out the transplant to extend Tanner’s life as long as possible. Then covid happened.

Prior to the Emergency Use Authorization of the covid vaccine, Dane and Tanner could’ve undergone the surgery and be in recovery right now. But covid changed all that and the hospital is now refusing to conduct the surgery because Dane is not vaccinated against covid-19. Seriously.

A reporter with the Epoch Times reached out to Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital to inquire about the refusal to conduct the surgery and they explained that in 2021, the hospital adopted a policy requiring all organ donors to be fully vaccinated against covid-19.

“Individuals who are actively infected with COVID-19 have a much higher rate of complications during and after surgery, even if the infection is asymptomatic,” the hospital stated.

Dane quickly called out the hypocrisy of this requirement by accurately pointing out that dead organ donors aren’t required to be vaccinated.

“I asked them in that car accident victim, would you vaccinate him on the way to the hospital to rip his kidney out and they said ‘no’,”  Donaldson told The Epoch Times.

“A live donor is the best donor for kidneys,” said Donaldson, “but they’ll take a kidney from a deceased person not vaccinated, it makes no sense.”

Indeed, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Keep reading

Twitter IS “State-Affiliated Media”

British politician and broadcaster George Galloway has made headlines in the UK with his threat to press legal action against Twitter for designating his account “Russia state-affiliated media”, a label which will now show up under his name every time he posts anything on the platform.

“Dear @TwitterSupport I am not ‘Russian State Affiliated media’,” reads a viral tweet by Galloway. “I work for NO Russian media. I have 400,000 followers. I’m the leader of a British political party and spent nearly 30 years in the British parliament. If you do not remove this designation I will take legal action.”

Galloway argues that while his broadcasts have previously been aired by Russian state media outlets RT and Sputnik, because those outlets have been shut down in the UK by Ofcom and by European Union sanctions he can no longer be platformed by them even if he wants to. If you accept this argument, then it looks like Twitter is essentially using the “state-affiliated media” designation as a marker of who Galloway is as a person, rather than as a marker of what he actually does.

Regardless of whether you agree with Galloway’s argument or not, this all overlooks the innate absurdity of a government-tied social media corporation like Twitter labeling other people “state-affiliated media”. Twitter is state-affiliated media. It has been working in steadily increasing intimacy with the United States government since the US empire began pressuring Silicon Valley platforms to regulate content in support of establishment power structures following the 2016 election.

In 2020 Twitter was one of the many Silicon Valley corporations who coordinated directly with US government agencies to determine what content should be censored in order to “secure” the presidential election. In 2021 Twitter announced that it was orchestrating mass purges of foreign accounts on the advice of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), which receives funding from many government institutions including the US State Department.

“ASPI is the propaganda arm of the CIA and the U.S. government,” veteran Australian diplomat Bruce Haigh told Mintpress News earlier this year. “It is a mouthpiece for the Americans. It is funded by the American government and American arms manufacturers. Why it is allowed to sit at the center of the Australian government when it has so much foreign funding, I don’t know. If it were funded by anybody else, it would not be where it is at.”

Twitter has also coordinated its mass purges of accounts with a cybersecurity firm called FireEye, which this 2019 Sputnik article by journalist Morgan Artyukhina explains was “founded in 2004 with money from the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel.”

Keep reading

The Online Safety Bill gives the UK government unprecedented power to determine “harmful” content

The UK’s latest attempt to clamp down on free speech online, the 225 page Online Safety Bill, will give sweeping new censorship powers to the UK’s Secretary of State and its communications regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), if passed.

It gives the UK Culture Secretary the power to decide on and designate “priority content that is harmful.”

Once the Secretary of State has designated this content, social media platforms and search engines that fall under the scope of the bill’s regulations have to “use proportionate systems and processes” to prevent children from encountering this priority content.

These platforms are also required to specify in their terms of service how they’ll tackle priority content that’s deemed to be “harmful to adults” and apply these measures consistently.

Additionally, the Culture Secretary gets the power to decide the user number and feature thresholds that determine whether a company falls under the scope of these requirements to remove and tackle priority content.

Collectively, these provisions give the Culture Secretary unprecedentedly broad powers to not only choose the types of speech that is allowed but to also set the rules around which platforms have to censor content.

Under the bill, Ofcom will be granted the power to issue harsh punishments to platforms that fail to meet the Secretary’s censorship demands.

These punishments include applying for court orders that restrict access to platforms in the UK and fining platforms up to £18 million ($23.78 million) or 10% of their revenue (whichever is higher).

In another authoritarian turn, if Ofcom decides that a platform is failing to comply with any aspect of the Online Safety Bill, it can also demand information from the platform via an “information notice” and require the platform to name a senior manager who can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years if they’re found guilty of failing to comply with the requirements.

Keep reading

Barack Obama Backs Internet Controls to Grapple with the ‘Demand for Crazy’

Government regulation and control over the internet can defeat a “demand for crazy” through the spread of incorrect messages, former President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

Obama, 60, spoke with Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg at an event hosted by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics and the magazine.

“I do think that there is a demand for crazy on the internet that we have to grapple with,” Obama said, before adding a mix of regulation and industry standards are needed to address the issue.

Obama lamented how misinformation plays out across the U.S., accusing those who say President Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election as guilty of falling for conspiracy theories.

He called out “a systematic effort to either promote false information, to suppress true information, for the purpose of political gain, financial gain, enhancing power, suppressing others, targeting those you don’t like.”

The former president blamed smartphones for accelerating “an erosion of accountability norms and standards in political life” from 2010 onwards.

Keep reading

American Stasi: ‘Citizen Sleuths’ Are Ratting Out Jan. 6 Protestors Who Haven’t Been Arrested

The Left’s phony Jan. 6 “insurrection” witch hunt isn’t going to die down anytime soon. The Democrats still hope to use it to stigmatize and marginalize virtually all of their opposition as “insurrectionists” that all decent lovers of “our democracy” (that is, the Left’s hegemony) should shun. And although it is now almost a year and a half since the Terrible Event That Was Worse Than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, there are more Jan. 6 prosecutions all the time, thanks to “citizen sleuths” who are ratting out protestors who were at the Capitol on the fateful day.

There are so many snitches that the system is being overwhelmed. NBC News reported Wednesday that “aided by citizen sleuths who keep identifying Jan. 6 rioters, the Justice Department is finding that it has more cases than lawyers to prosecute them.” Accordingly, “the Justice Department is asking Congress for additional funds to prosecute those cases — a list that keeps growing.” It’s growing because “multiple online sleuths in a network of ‘Sedition Hunters’ working’ to find Jan. 6 participants have told NBC News that they’ve successfully identified to the FBI hundreds of additional Jan. 6 rioters — including dozens who are pictured on the FBI’s Capitol Violence website.” And the feds, of course, are only too eager to act upon the information these rats feed them.

One snitch said nobly that he had plenty more work to do: “There are hundreds still to go,” he said, “speaking anonymously to avoid retaliation from supporters of the rioters.” Yeah, you know, he doesn’t want trouble from those dangerous traitors who were going to overthrow the government led by a few grandmothers and a guy with Viking horns. But however ridiculous it is, the narrative must be perpetuated, and so the “sleuth” remains anonymous.

NBC notes that “by pouring [sic; they mean poring] over terabytes of photos and video footage from Jan. 6, citizen investigators have been able to identify hundreds of participants in the Capitol attack. More than 2,500 people made their way inside the Capitol, officials have estimated, and there are more than 350 individuals still listed on the FBI’s Capitol Violence website who have not yet been arrested.” The anonymous rat said proudly: “We’re maybe 30 percent into arrests, with more to come. And still not all crimes discovered.” Another rat was tempted to lose hope that the evildoers would ever get what was coming to them, given the fact that the FBI was “backlogged so far” with cases the feds hadn’t moved on. He said nobly that his hope would falter, and then be renewed: “Sometimes I kind of lose faith, and then they keep plugging away.” How inspiring.

Another rat was ready to be patient: “The scope of the investigation is so large that even 15 months in, to expect the government to scale in such a way that all cases have already been brought forward, is just unrealistic. As long as justice continues to be served, even if it’s slower than I would like, I’m OK with it. As long as I see them arresting people, and finalizing the cases, and pushing the plea deals through where it makes sense, I’m Ok with that.” As long as I see them destroying lives in a hyper-politicized witch hunt over nothing, I’m OK with that.

Keep reading

New ‘Antilynching’ Federal Law Could Let Prosecutors Imprison You For A Crime You Never Committed

Touted as an overdue (if duplicative) law that no one could disagree with, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act signed by President Biden last week includes a subtle provision that could boost the Biden administration’s war on wrongthink.

The bill sailed through the U.S. Senate and the House with ease. The tactful naming made the bill radioactive to oppose, which is why 422 congressmen voted in favor while only three opposed.

Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the three who voted against the bill, expressed a handful of concerns, including that there are a limited number of constitutionally specified federal crimes, that lynching is already criminalized, and that “Adding enhanced penalties for ‘hate’ [on top of existing criminal punishments] tends to endanger other liberties such as freedom of speech.”

He also highlighted another potential pitfall of the legislation: “The bill creates another federal crime of ‘conspiracy,’ which I’m concerned could be enforced overbroadly on people who are not perpetrators of a crime.” Here’s the section Massie is referring to:

Whoever conspires to commit any offense under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall, if death or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 2246 of this title) results from the offense, or if the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, be imprisoned for not more than 30 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.

The bill amends the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed in 2009, which defines and criminalizes hate crimes. The minimum qualification is an attempt “to cause bodily injury” due to the victim’s race, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, religion, or disability. 

Bodily injury can be defined as “physical pain” or “any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.” Sensibly, the 2009 law requires an attempt at violence to be made, which is a crime itself regardless of prejudiced motives. The new “antilynching” law takes this a step further by criminalizing “conspiracy” to commit certain hate crimes.

I’m sure someone will retort: conspiracy to commit a federal crime is already a federal crime. This is not a universally accepted interpretation of conspiracy law, nor does the law’s language or historical precedent justify such a broad interpretation — hence the ostensible necessity for the new antilynching law. Criminalized conspiracies are those plotting “against the United States” – like the Volkswagen executives who attempted to defraud the Environmental Protection Agency by faking emission results and, more recently, the leader of the Oath Keepers who plead guilty to seditious conspiracy for his part in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot. 

So as of last Tuesday, it is illegal to simply “agree” to participate in an act if it falls under the categories highlighted above. One can imagine dark political humor venturing into these categories (a comment such as “I hate so-and-so so much I could kill him,” for example) being interpreted as “conspiring to lynch.”

The key issue here is that intent should not be the sole subject of a court case. The purpose of courts is for a neutral arbiter to determine whether someone’s rights were violated during an encounter between two parties. Conspiracy, if no action is taken in pursuit of it, involves only one party: the conspirators. Therefore, it alone constitutes no crime as it couldn’t have possibly violated someone else’s rights. 

With this new law, the U.S. government has further expanded into the realm of policing thought crimes. Ominously, this law comes on the heels of the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to broaden the “domestic terrorism” category and expand methods for identifying “threats.”

Keep reading