‘Break The Resistance Down’: Former DOJ Official Supports Vaccine Passports Banning People From ‘Things Their Peers Can Do’

01-04-21 11:57:00,

March 29, 2021
2:29 PM ET

Harry Litman, a former Department of Justice official, tweeted his support Monday for vaccine passports, saying the move would “break the resistance down.”

Litman, a former deputy assistant attorney general, said, “vaccine passports are a good thing.” “It will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do. That should help break the resistance down,” he wrote on Twitter.

Vaccine passports are a good idea. Among other things, it will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do. That should help break the resistance down.

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) March 28, 2021

The Biden administration is currently considering the adoption of a universal vaccine passport. The administration is consulting with several private sector entities looking to create digital documentation of proof of vaccination, according to a report from The Washington Post. (RELATED: REPORT: Biden Admin Working With Private Sector To Develop Universal Vaccine Passport)

Several allies of the United States, such as Canada, Israel and the United Kingdom already launched similar efforts. New York is expected to launch an “Excelsior Pass App” on Friday, which would allow people to pull up a digital QR code on their phone to prove they have been vaccinated or have tested negative for the COVID-19 virus, according to USA Today.

The app will be used in the coming weeks for entertainment events and other large-scale gatherings, the outlet reported.

 » Lees verder

Don’t Stop at Big Tech — We Need to Break Up Big Food Monopolies, Too • Children’s Health Defense

09-02-21 10:09:00,

Some of the largest players in the food and agriculture sectors have been allowed to engage in anticompetitive mergers and practices that are as serious, if not more so, than those of which Big Tech stands accused.

Amid Congressional investigation and federal, state and private antitrust cases, all eyes are on Big Tech. The step up in antitrust enforcement against the digital technology behemoths and their alleged abuses of market power is, by all accounts, good news. Successful cases could restore competition, which would benefit smaller businesses and American consumers alike.

And after decades of under-enforcement of the antitrust laws in the U.S., these cases could deliver some base hits — and even home runs — for a critical area of law enforcement.

But the outsized media, political and social attention paid to the tech industry has diverted focus from other important sectors. There are monopolies and domestic cartels elsewhere — in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, media and communications, as well as food and agriculture. These industries produce goods and services that are essential to the health, safety and well-being of consumers, and even to our national security, which is why antitrust laws must be enforced against violations in these sectors, too.

The food system has been particularly fertile ground for rising concentration, the emergence of dominant firms and formation of domestic cartels. Some of the largest players have been allowed to engage in anticompetitive mergers and practices that are as serious, if not more so, than those of which Big Tech stands accused.

Much like their counterparts in the tech sector, many of the largest food and agriculture corporations have acquired their way to dominance by gobbling up rival businesses. This has occurred across the food system, including digital farming startups, biotechnology firms, food manufacturers, flour millers, farm machinery manufacturers and grocery store chains. But nowhere has it been more pronounced than agricultural inputs.

In acquiring competitors both small and large, the six biggest agricultural biotechnology firms collapsed rapidly into the Big Three — Bayer, DuPont and ChemChina. This wave of consolidation, which was met with little resistance from antitrust authorities, gave these corporations control of proprietary,

 » Lees verder

How To Use the Law to Break the Law. The Political Rhetoric to Curtail Freedoms – Global Research

21-12-20 10:33:00,

“With wrongs yet legal, curse a future age!
Still spread, fair Liberty! thy heav’nly wings,
Breath plenty on the fields, and fragrance on the springs.”

Windsor Forest, Alexander Pope, 1713

The UK government has introduced a parliamentary Bill that seeks to give the police and a host of other organisations a power to authorise informants to participate in criminal conduct. The government claims that the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill [1] will create a legal way to break the law – in other words, to use the law to break the law.

The Bill is the government’s response to the legal challenge from Privacy International, Reprieve, the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Pat Finucan Centre, who challenged the existing policy of authorising criminal conduct by officials and agents of the security services [2].

The government has also published a handy Home Office European Convention on Human Rights Memorandum [3] that explains how and why they believe that such law breaking is compatible with the Human Rights Convention. The memorandum says:

“A criminal conduct authorisation may only be granted where that conduct is believed to be necessary and proportionate in the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or disorder, or in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK for certain statutory purposes and where it is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.”

At first glance it may seem as if there might be some safeguards buried in such an obtuse statement. In fact the Home Office are using the language of war, language that comes from international law, that has come to dominate modern political discourse and is being used to facilitate the introduction of totalitarian measures. It may seem like our system is suddenly falling apart. In fact the building (or rather destruction) blocks were put in place quite some time ago.

To get an understanding of how this situation has come about and of the above quoted memorandum we need to look at the language used in the laws of war and see how it has made its way into the language of freedoms via the bait and switch of the language of “rights”.

 » Lees verder

Comedian Who “Came To Break The System” Wins Ukraine Presidential Election By Landslide

21-04-19 08:10:00,

According to exit polls, millions of  voters – weary of war and economic hardship – have thoroughly rebuked the incumbent elites, overwhelmingly voting for 41-year-old TV comedian Volodymyr Zelenskii in Ukraine’s presidential election today.

“I voted for Zelenskii because everything he said is true,” said Viktoriia Bengalska, a 45-year-old secretary in Kiev.

“It’s impossible to survive on this salary, prices have increased like crazy, and we were promised something totally different.” 

With no political record (aside from playing the president on TV), Zelenskii crushed President Petro Poroshenko, who was running for his second five-year term, with 73% of the vote.

The comedian had been a heavy favorite ahead of today’s election according to polls.

“To all Ukrainians, no matter where you are, I promise that I will never let you down,” Zelensky said after the results came in.

“Though I’m still not president, I can say as a Ukrainian citizen to all the countries of the former Soviet Union: Look at us. Everything is possible.”

As The Washington Post notes, Zelenskii’s apparent victory is the latest in the global trend of political outsiders harnessing TV and social media to out-muscle the unpopular establishment.

“Zelenskii doesn’t have experience, and Putin is a very dangerous adversary,” said Volodymyr Fesenko, a political analyst in Kiev.

“There’s a lot of risk here.” 

What happens next? The Saker explains one of two things is most likely:

Option A: Zelenskii will rapidly and energetically resume all the rabid russophobic policies of his predecessor.  The topics of the Donbass and Crimea will be front and center of Ukie propaganda.  At this point, Russia might as well recognize the outcome of the election (I don’t see a point in pretending that Zelenskii did not “kinda” get a popular mandate) and, in the same breath, recognize the two Novorussian Republics and let them conduct a referendum on their future.

Option B: Zelenskii will rapidly and energetically try to stop (or, at least, “freeze”) the conflict with Russia and with the Donbass.  If he does that, the Kremlin will see that Zelenskii is trying to cut  his losses and gain political credibility by stopping the war in the Donbass and the (utterly stupid and self-defeating) confrontation with Russia. 

 » Lees verder

Beyond NATO: Time to Break the Silence, End NATO’s Militarism. Relevance of MLK’s Speech against the Vietnam War – Global Research

21-01-19 11:44:00,

Fifty-two years ago on April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.,  gave his most important speech ever, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.” King’s conscience drove him to take the unpopular position of publicly criticizing the Vietnam War and putting it in the context of the “giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism.” The message of that speech remains relevant today because its wisdom has not been heeded.

We put this in the context of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) because this year on April 4, the anniversary of that speech and the anniversary of the murder of King by the government, NATO will be holding its 70th anniversary meeting in Washington, DC. Protests and other activities are being planned.

NATO is a front for Western military aggression, which has resulted in destruction around the world, mass deaths and mass migration as people are forced from their NATO-destroyed communities. It’s time to end it.

No to NATO! : Newport, August 30, 2014. From Rtuc’s Blog.

Would Dr. King oppose NATO?

That is the question asked by the Black Alliance for Peace on this birthday weekend of Martin Luther King, Jr. The Alliance explains why Dr. King would speak out against NATO if he were alive today:

Dr. King would be opposed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) because it is an instrument of US and European militarism. He would not be confused—and neither are we—about why the liberal establishment, neocons, military-industrial complex, corporations and the corporate media are opposed to ending an anachronistic structure. NATO’s only reason for being today is to serve as the military wing of the dying U.S.-European colonial project.

Black Alliance for Peace is not alone in seeing the reality of NATO as an aggressive arm of the US military. In the Chicago Tribune, Victor Davis Hanson writes, “In an era when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are now ancient history, everyone praises NATO as ‘indispensable’ and ‘essential’ to Western solidarity and European security. But few feel any need to explain how and why that could still be so.”

The truth is NATO is not only not indispensable or essential — it is counterproductive.

 » Lees verder