NYT: Covid Vaccine Makers and Bill Gates’ GAVI Screwed Everyone

This New York Times story (no paywall link) from today is very illustrative of the current times.

It turns out that makers of Covid vaccines expertly screwed their customers, keeping a large part of the prepayment money advanced to them without shipping vaccine doses that no longer find any demand.

As global demand for Covid-19 vaccines dries up, the program responsible for vaccinating the world’s poor has been urgently negotiating to try to get out of its deals with pharmaceutical companies for shots it no longer needs.

Drug companies have so far declined to refund $1.4 billion in advance payments for now-canceled doses, according to confidential documents obtained by The New York Times.

The worst example is J&J, manufacturer of the Janssen vaccine, which was pulled from use worldwide due to blood clots. Despite that, J&J demands that more money be given to it “because of existing contracts.”

If it cannot strike a more favorable agreement with another company, Johnson & Johnson, it could have to pay still more.

Gavi and Johnson & Johnson are locked in a bitter dispute over payment for shots that Gavi told the company months ago it would not need, but which the company produced anyway. Johnson & Johnson is now demanding that Gavi pay an additional, undisclosed amount for them.

New York Times is lamenting this situation and highlights appeals to the conscience of vaccine makers:

Covid vaccine manufacturers “have a special responsibility” because their products are a societal good and most were developed with public funding, said Thomas Frieden, the chief executive of the global health nonprofit Resolve to Save Lives and a former director of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Who is Thomas Frieden? He is a former director of the CDC and also a convicted sex offender, in my opinion.

Vaccine makers resist Frieden’s appeals to their conscience because they do not have any.

Bill Gates’ GAVI is not asking Pfizer for refunds: Pfizer was paid directly by the US government. Did Bill Gates pull strings to have the US government hold the financial bag in the case of Pfizer?

If so, Bill certainly had personal financial reasons for this!

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested 55 million into Pfizer’s vaccine maker BioNTech in Sep 2019.

This investment was made when BioNTech was an obscure company with no vaccines in the pipeline. That “unexpectedly” changed mere months later when BioNTech was selected to become the largest producer of Covid vaccines. Such lucky timing for Bill!

So, Bill Gates, having a financial interest in BioNTech, did not want his own GAVI to pay for BioNTech vaccines that eventually found no buyer; instead, the US government paid Pfizer directly. Pfizer will keep the funds, giving the US government an “option” to buy vaccines that nobody wants anymore.

Under the revised deal, a total of 600 million Pfizer doses will be made available to the US by the end of the year, giving the administration more time to find countries who want them. Pfizer had originally agreed to sell a billion shots at cost by this month. 

Bill Gates-funded GAVI seems to have screwed its donors innovatively: the donors gave money towards Covid vaccinations, which fizzled. Hence, GAVI received back 1.6 billion out of 2.3 donated billions it gave Covid vaccine makers. Gavi, however, will not refund 1.6 billion to the donors and will use the money it recovered for other purposes, inflating its budget:

Had some vaccine manufacturers not been willing to renegotiate their contracts with Gavi, the costs to the organization could have been much higher. Gavi would have been on the hook for $2.3 billion for the doses it wanted to cancel, the documents show, but it saved $1.6 billion by exiting those contracts.

Donations for Covid shots substantially inflated Gavi’s budget, and the lost prepayments for canceled Covid vaccines do not threaten its regular childhood-vaccination work.

Such is the current state of the pandemic. The money is gone; vaccines do not work; people are dying suddenly; the government and Big Pharma do not want the public to pay attention.

If you, my reader, are in the United States, remember that the US government’s money is your money. Say bye-bye to it.

Will there be any real investigations?


British Army is in a “dire state” and may not be able to defend the UK and its allies, experts warn

Image: British Army is in a “dire state” and may not be able to defend the UK and its allies, experts warn

(Natural News) Concerns are growing about the current state of the British Army following a warning by the chairman of the UK Defense Select Committee Tobias Ellwood.

Ellwood, who is a former soldier, called on the UK government to reverse what he described as “swathing cuts” because “we are now at war in Europe.” He added that the army is in a “dire state.”

His comments come after defense sources claimed that a senior American general told British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace that their army is no longer considered a “top-level fighting force”.

The country’s army currently numbers 76,000 troops, but this will drop to 73,000 should planned downsizing proceed. The army is already sitting at half its 1990 size and is the smallest it has been since the times of Napoleon. The number of British Army tanks, meanwhile, is poised to drop from 800 in the Cold War to just 148.

Speaking to Sky News, the senior Conservative MP said: “The army is in a dire state. Our army is simply too small, we have cut down by 10,000 troops.

“I do hope the defence review will look at these issues and reverse some of the swathing cuts that were made a couple of years ago.

“It is up to the Treasury and Number 10 to recognise the world is changing — we are now at war in Europe, we need to move to a war footing.”

He also drew attention to the state of the military’s equipment, which has been described as “obsolete.” A subcommittee has been set up by the Commons Defense Select Committee to explore the problems they have been encountering when it comes to modernizing their heavy armored vehicles. Many of the upgrades and new equipment that are already in the works will not be ready until a decade from now. Some of the vehicles that the army is currently using are around 50 years old.


At a hearing, former Armed Forces Minister Mark Francois asked senior generals: “How can you possibly say we have a credible deterrent effect when our warfighting division is so old and so full of obsolete vehicles that you have had 20 years to replace and you have replaced none of it that we can credibly contribute to deterrence with an army which is clapped out.”

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is under pressure to provide funding to the UK military following years of cost-cutting measures that have damaged its power considerably.

A senior US military general reportedly told several high-ranking UK officials that their army is losing its prestige, saying: “You haven’t got a tier one. It’s barely tier two.”

Right now, China, Russia, France and the U.S. are considered to be Tier 1 military powers, while the UK is now joining lower-ranking nations that fall into Tier 2 like Germany and Italy.

Underfunded and understaffed military is saddled with obsolete equipment

Some insiders have said that if the UK’s armed forces were called on to fight, they’d run out of ammunition within a matter of days and would not be able to defend themselves against the types of drone and missile strikes being experienced by Ukraine at the moment.

Moreover, almost a third of the country’s forces on high readiness are reservists who would not be able to mobilize within NATO timelines. Meanwhile, most of the army’s tanks and other armored vehicles are between 30 and 60 years old.

Many insiders are warning that the military needs to make improvements quickly in the wake of the Ukraine situation, which they say should serve as a “wakeup call.” Sunak is being encouraged to boost the country’s defense budget by at least £3 billion a year while ending cuts to the size of the army and taking steps to improve the country’s weapons and ammunition supplies.

Sources for this article include:



How The Corporate Media Lied About The Jerusalem Settlement Shooting

Last Friday night a Palestinian man in his twenties entered an illegal Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem, opening fire on Israeli settlers after they exited a synagogue and were walking on a nearby road, managing to kill at least 7 and injuring another 10. After ignoring the murder of 11 Palestinians the day before, Western media went into a frenzy to cover what they called a “synagogue shooting”, a disingenuous framing of what truly transpired, in addition to missing all key context while building a completely fabricated narrative around the event.

In order to understand any story of this nature, we first must receive context, learn where the story took place, what actually happened, and ultimately who was involved. This is an extremely basic breakdown of some key components that go into reporting on any story and although some details may not be available as a story breaks, a journalist has to do their due diligence. So what happened in Jerusalem?

To begin with, we’ll start with ‘the where’. According to the BBC’s account, the incident took place “in a synagogue in the city’s [Jerusalem’s] Neve Yaakov neighbourhood and [Israeli’s] were leaving when the gunmen opened fire”, which, unless the BBC used a journalist who lacked the critical ability to read a wikipedia page summary of the area where the attack happened, is an outright lie. Neve Yaakov is an illegal settlement, located in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is an occupied territory; according to International Law and the opinion of nearly every single country on earth, other than Israel itself. The construction of that illegal settlement was a war crime according to the fourth Geneva convention, as was the act of the Israeli government transferring Israeli citizens to live in the settlement, which is built on Palestinian land and is where Palestinians are now prohibited from living.

The headlines in Western media all state that the attack was a “synagogue shooting”, which is also a distortion of the facts. The reason the coverage is specifically attempting to frame this as a “synagogue shooting” is to make this seem as if a Palestinian had attacked a place of worship and connect the incident to horrific “white-supremacist mass shootings” in the United States and elsewhere that have no relevance as a comparison in this instance. This was a calculated propaganda move to garner public support for Israel and to demonize Palestinians, hence why rocket fire the night prior is mentioned in almost all reports on the issue, whilst the massacre of 10 Palestinians, followed by the murder of an unarmed Palestinian protester, who were all shot the day before by Israeli forces, is never brought up. Even if the gruesome massacre of Palestinians in Jenin is brought up (including an old woman who was shot twice in the throat and once in the chest) the Western media frame it as simply part of the ongoing “escalation”, when the massacre in Jenin was “the escalation”. In a CNN live report, the event in Jenin is glossed over as a “raid” that was carried out to target armed militants and not factored into the event, which the reporter claimed took place in “North Jerusalem“.

The Associated Press (AP), ostensibly one of the most trusted news sources in the world, never once described Neve Yaakov as an ‘illegal settlement’ and in its article on the attack used the rocket fire from Gaza — which triggered a disproportionate Israeli response in the form of large airstrikes that damaged homes in the Al-Maghazi refugee camp, otherwise known as the war crime of collective punishment — as appropriate framing for the attack in the illegal settlement. Later in the article the AP does note the murder of 9 Palestinians [now 10 as another died of their wounds], yet do not connect this at all to the rocket fire from Gaza — which caused no damage or injuries — that was a response to the massacre in Jenin. 33 Palestinians have now been killed this year, amongst them 8 children [5 from West Bank, 2 from East Jerusalem and 1 from Gaza], yet the much higher Palestinian death toll is never mentioned. It is very clear that the 21-year-old Palestinian who carried out the attack was acting alone and it was interpreted widely as a response to the horrific massacre of Palestinians in Jenin and the killing of a Palestinian teen in Shuafat refugee camp earlier in the week.

Many Western media outlets noted that Palestinians in Jenin, and elsewhere, celebrated the attack in Jerusalem. In fact, the AP article mentioned above does just that and mentions the celebrations much earlier in the article, before later adding a small segment which talks about the much higher Palestinian death toll. This is again very calculated and is written in such a way as to paint Israel as a victim and the Palestinians as rabid beasts. US President Joe Biden commented on the attack, condemning it and casually using the racist terminology of calling it “an attack against the civilized world”, which is actually quoted in the AP article right before mention is given to Palestinians rejoicing at the news of the attack. Why did Palestinians actually celebrate? Is it because they are bloodthirsty un-civilised terrorists? Or is it because illegal settlers living on stolen land were killed as revenge for the Jenin massacre and because they are subjected to Apartheid conditions and have not seen such a revenge attack against Israelis since the early 2000’s? Since the second Intifada around 10,000 Palestinians have been killed and Israel has not payed a significant price for any of its various massacres against Palestinians. So, when this happened, Palestinians felt as if they finally got some revenge. You may not agree with this way of thinking, but this is the real framing of the issue. On the other hand, Western media refuse to show frequent examples of Israelis celebrating the deaths of Palestinians, including in some cases the celebration of the murder of children.

The only outlet that got the issue correct in a short news piece that was released, was Reuters, to their credit, who described the Neve Yaakov by stating that it is “considered by Israelis as a neighbourhood within Jerusalem, while Palestinians and most of the international community consider it occupied land illegally annexed after a 1967 Middle East war.” Despite this, the Reuters article does not seem to challenge the claim that the shooting happened “in a synagogue”, which they do rightfully say was claimed by the Israeli police. The shooting did not take place in or on the grounds of the synagogue, it happened on a nearby road. The connection to the synagogue is that the settlers were walking on the street after exiting a synagogue. Many corporate Western broadcast media outlets reported at the time that it happened in the synagogue, without checking to see whether this was accurate.

Next we have the question of who was involved. On the one hand we have illegal Israeli settlers, living in an illegal settlement, participating in a war crime. These individual settlers had nothing directly to do with the Israeli military’s massacre in Jenin or killings during the days before, but were targeted as revenge. Then we have the shooter, Khairi Alkam, a 21-year-old Palestinian from the Shuafat refugee camp in East Jerusalem. Khairi was named after his grandfather, who was stabbed to death in 1998 by an illegal Israeli settler. The extremist Israeli settler was named Haim Pearlman, who killed 2 Palestinians and attempted to kill three others, Pearlman was released after being arrested in 2010 and now walks free. At the time of the attack he belonged to the terrorist Kach movement, which Israel’s security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was also once a part of.

According to Khairi Alkam’s uncle, Sharhabil, the 21-year-old was motivated to avenge the death of 16-year-old Mohammed Ali, who was killed earlier that week by Israeli forces inside Shuafat refugee camp. The teenage Palestinian was shot in the back whilst running away from Israeli occupation forces that had stormed the refugee camp. Israeli forces stated that they had shot him because he had appeared to have been holding a gun, it was later found out to be a toy gun. Despite this, Israel’s national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, handed a medal of appreciation to the soldier that killed the Palestinian teen, calling the soldier a “hero” for killing a “terrorist”. Others have stated that Khairi was motivated by the killings in Jenin and that this drove him to want to respond, however, we have no official statement which shares any of this in his own words. None of what you are reading here appeared anywhere in Western corporate news when the topic was covered, instead they decided to talk about Holocaust remembrance day and manage to note this in most articles on the issue, despite this having no relevance other than added emotional impact for Israelis.

Then we have a second attack, carried out a day later against illegal settlers in the Silwan area of East Jerusalem, which resulted in the death of the Palestinian teen responsible and seriously injured two settlers. Again, this was described as a “terrorist attack” in Western media, despite the fact that the 13-year-old Palestinian who carried out the attack was shooting at a group of settlers who were armed with automatic weapons, one of the settlers he injured was a high ranking officer in the Israeli military’s para-troopers division. This was in no way described in the biased Western media coverage. This was an act of resistance against armed illegal settlers, some still serving in the Israeli military, who are participating in stealing the homes and lands of Palestinians in the area, where hundreds face being forced out of their homes.

Then we have the Israeli reaction to this all. Something that is also missed by Western media. Israel concluded a cabinet meeting on Saturday, during which they discussed the steps that had to be taken to “respond” to the attacks. Keep in mind that both of the lone shooters were killed and there is no indication that anyone else was involved. Firstly we had the immediate reaction, which was a large-scale arrest campaign, targeted at collectively punishing Palestinians for the actions of the attackers. Then we have the coming demolition of the family homes of the attackers (these homes have already been welded shut) meaning that the families have already been made homeless. These acts are clearly violations of international law. Furthermore, given the fact that Israel clearly targets and punishes Palestinians collectively for the actions of individuals, who did not carry out action against Israeli settlers or soldiers, is it not understandable why Palestinians who routinely suffer in this way might also see Israeli settlers and soldiers as fair game for retaliation? Israel has used collective punishment in the occupied territories since 1967, which is why many Palestinians might feel justified to respond in kind. This is key context that is almost always omitted by corporate media.

Now, we have the Israeli push to use bills currently being adopted in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) to strip the citizenship from Palestinian citizens of Israel, as well as Jerusalem ID holders, if they harm any Israeli soldier or settler, regardless of context. On Monday, the Israeli Knesset voted through a bill that would strip the residency and then deport any Palestinian involved in a “violent” act against an Israeli. The bill would include deporting Palestinians to the West Bank and Gaza, on which Likud party MK, Ofir Katz, commented the following:

“Damn terrorists will not be here, their place is in Gaza.”

Denial of residency and deportation must be approved by the Israeli ministry of interior within two weeks, or alternatively the ministry of justice within seven days. This is a bill that will perform the act of ethnic cleansing, it is clear racial discrimination. Where is the so-called “civilized world” when dealing with this? Imagine during the civil rights struggle in the US, that only black people — and not the other way round — who acted in violence against any white person, civilian or not, regardless of context, were stripped of their citizenships and deported, would the world have any problem identifying what that is? Absolutely not. So why then do we see complete silence from the international media and Western governments on the introduction of supremacist laws like these?

Another potential bill that may be introduced and passed by the Israeli Knesset would fulfill the agenda of the Religious Zionism party, which vowed to pursue laws whereby Palestinians would be given a death sentence for attacking Israelis. Then we have the possible military escalation that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated may be in the works and the massive death and destruction such an action could bring. These are just some of the responses of the Israeli government to the attacks, not including punitive measures carried out in response on the ground. On top of this, Israeli settlers have been carrying out attacks against Palestinians and their properties in the West Bank; which has included burning down countless vehicles, destroying farm land and olive trees, the slaughter of animals, arson attacks against family homes, and shooting attacks which have injured a number of civilians. No Israelis have been charged or arrested by the Israeli occupation forces for such acts and provocative “death to Arabs” marches were launched all over the West Bank, guarded by Israeli occupation forces. The other “solution” proposed by the Israeli government has been the relaxation of already lax gun laws so that every settler can be armed. The Israeli regime has urged all its settlers to carry a gun. Keep in mind that a large percentage of these settlers are either actively part of the Israeli military or used to be, meaning that if there is a future attack on armed settlers, according to international law, they are armed combatants. However, Western media won’t describe them as such.

All of this context to the attacks, in addition to the racist responses of the Israeli regime and their illegal settlers, has been actively ignored. A mythological narrative has been constructed to distort the reality on the ground, in order to make Israel look like a victim and to justify its war crimes. This is why it is so important to address the propaganda surrounding the two attacks, because those who are reporting it in a way that leaves out all the key facts are actively participating in covering up for crimes against humanity. They are not journalists, they are paid propagandists and this is yet again another example of gutter journalism at play.


Source: https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com

Growing number of physicians now refusing to get COVID-19 booster shots

Image: Growing number of physicians now refusing to get COVID-19 booster shots

(Natural News) A growing number of doctors have voiced out their refusal to get injected with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) booster shots, citing a lack of clinical trial evidence.

Dr. Todd Lee of McGill University in Canada is one such doctor who rejected the boosters. Lee contracted the B11529 omicron strain despite being triple-vaccinated.

“I have taken my last COVID-19 vaccine with RCT (randomized clinical trial) level evidence it will reduce my risk of severe disease,” he tweeted. Lee alluded to the lack of results for the updated boosters, which were cleared for use in both the U.S. and Canada in the fall of last year based on data from mice experiments.

“Pay close attention to note that this isn’t anti-vaccine sentiment. This is ‘provide evidence of benefit to justify ongoing use,’ which is very different. It is only fair for a $30 billion-a-year product given to hundreds of millions,” he added.

Dr. Vinay Prasad of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) also remarked that he will not take any additional boosters unless clinical trial data becomes available. “I took at least one dose against my will,” he recounted. “It was unethical and scientifically bankrupt.”

Epidemiologist Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, also from UCSF, joined Lee and Prasad in opposing the boosters. She recounted how she experienced an adverse reaction to her first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and that she took the second dose “against [her] will.”

“If I could do it again, I would not have had any COVID-19 vaccines,” Hoeg tweeted.


“I was glad my parents in their 70s could get COVID vaccinated, but have yet to see non-confounded data to advise them about the bivalent booster. I would have liked to see an RCT for the bivalent for people their age and for adults with health conditions that put them at risk.”

Other experts call for a stop to mRNA COVID shots

Other experts, meanwhile, urged a halt in the use of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines – particularly those from Pfizer and Moderna.

“At this point in time, all COVID mRNA vaccination [programs] should stop immediately,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Retsef Levi said in a video statement.

“They should stop because they completely failed to fulfill any of their advertised [promises] regarding efficacy. More importantly, they should stop because of the mounting and indispuGtable evidence that they cause unprecedented level of harm – including the death of young people and children.” (Related: Top 5 reasons NOT to get a Covid booster vaccine, ever.)

Levi pertained to myocarditis or inflammation of the heart muscle following vaccination, which authorities have acknowledged as linked to the COVID-19 shots. He cited two studies to back up his call.

The first study Levi cited found that nearly three in 10 children injected with Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine suffered from cardiac issues. Meanwhile, the second study detected the presence of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antigens in the blood of vaccinated youth.

Louisiana-based physician and researcher Dr. Joseph Fraiman commented that “people should not be given the [vaccines] outside of a clinical trial.”

“I see the likelihood that the harm could outweigh the benefit in the group who stood to benefit the most from the vaccine,” he said. “I don’t see how anyone couldn’t be certain that the benefits are outweighing the harms on a population level, or even in the high-risk groups. I don’t see the evidence to support that claim.”

“Given alternative causes are unlikely to cause myocarditis within one week of vaccination, this is essentially conclusive evidence that we’re seeing sudden cardiac deaths from the vaccines.”

Fraiman and his colleagues re-analyzed the original Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine trials that led to their approval. They concluded in a peer-reviewed study that vaccinated individuals were at higher risk of serious adverse events.

Visit DangerousMedicine.com for more stories about COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.

Watch oncology professor Dr. Angus Dalgleish call for an urgent end to COVID-19 boosters due to an explosion in cancers post-vaccination below.

This video is from the ?????? ?????????? channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Belgian immunologist Dr. Michel Goldman exposes how COVID booster accelerated his cancer on The HighWire.

The HighWire: COVID booster drives in other countries contributed to HIGHER MORTALITY rates.

Excess deaths in the UK increased 5 months after mass COVID booster campaign.

Covid “booster” shots are bunk, say former FDA senior officials.

EU, WHO both warn that covid “booster” shots are dangerous.

Sources include:




Too Wet? Too Dry? Just Blame It On Climate Change


Climate change, as defined by the United Nations, “Refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle.” That’s actually a good definition.

But not willing to leave well enough alone, the UN goes further, spoiling a simple and straightforward definition with, “But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.” [emphasis, links added]

It is amazing that before humans burned fossil fuels two centuries ago, it was only natural cycles that changed the climate, not backyard barbecues, gas stoves, and SUVs.

Yet the UN does not explain how previous ice ages developed due to global cooling, followed by melting of mile-thick ice over the upper Midwest due to global warming, multiple times over the Earth’s history, long before there was any significant human activity.

It seems that a changing climate was a thing long before Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, and the UN thought they figured it all out.

Not only does climate change, based on both short- and long-term cycles, but much of it is also unpredictable.

According to the Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Climate change had other names over the years. In the 1970s, it was “global cooling” with predictions of a coming ice age. NPR, the guardians of all proper knowledge and thought, first used the term “global warming” in 1989.

It doesn’t make sense, at least to most logical people, that the planet can be both warming and cooling on a global scale, outside of normal seasonal variations, so the term “climate change” was popularized to encompass all weather events.

“Climate change” was first mentioned in 1975, but this was a time when climate scientists could not decide if temperatures were rising or falling, attributing sinister causes rather than natural and cyclic warming and cooling trends that have long preceded humans and their activities.

Since then, climate change has engulfed more than temperature, adding weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, droughts, and flooding.

It seems that any deviation from a sunny day with temperatures in the mid-70s with a light breeze is evidence of climate change and Republicans scheming to destroy the planet.

Democrats, the left, and the media have an uncanny ability to balance two contradictory propositions in their minds, believing both can occur simultaneously due to the same cause.

It would be like Goldilocks finding all three beds or bowls of porridge just perfect, regardless of whether they were too hot or too cold, too hard or too soft.

The New York Times ran an opinion piece in 2014 titled, “The end of snow?” predicting the demise of winter sports and the Winter Olympics due to global warming.

Eight years later in 2022, the New York Times told us, “How climate change can supercharge snowstorms.”

Or also in 2022 how, “The deadly freeze that swept the United States was extraordinary, but while scientists know that global warming can intensify extreme weather, the effects on winter storms are tricky to untangle.”

Tricky indeed. Climate change causes both not enough and too much snow. How does that work?  But it’s not only snow but water, both not enough and too much, all due to omnipotent climate change.

Let’s look at droughts in California.

According to the California Department of Water Resources,

California is no stranger to drought; it is a recurring feature of our climate. We recently experienced the 5-year event of 2012-2016, and other notable historical droughts included 2007-09, 1987-92, 1976-77, and off-and-on dry conditions spanning more than a decade in the 1920s and 1930s.

Paleoclimate records going back more than 1,000 years show many more significant dry periods. The dry conditions of the 1920s-30s, however, were on a par with the largest 10-year droughts in the much longer paleoclimate record.

Unfortunately, the scientific skill to predict when droughts will occur – which involves being able to forecast precipitation weeks to months ahead – is currently lacking. Improving long-range weather modeling capabilities is an area of much-needed research.

In a nutshell, droughts are nothing new in California, have been far worse in the past, before anyone talked about global warming or climate change, and they are impossible to predict, as the IPCC noted above.

Floods are much the same. The same California agency notes,

California is prone to potentially devastating impacts of periodic floods. All 58 counties have experienced at least 1 significant flood event in the past 25 years, resulting in loss of life and billions of dollars in damages.

Floods are naturally occurring phenomena in California.

Again, floods are normal and expected. They are nothing new. Here are some photos of floods going back 150 years. [Example photo below]

The Great California Flood of 1861-1862 was a series of four floods from December 9, 1861, Dec. 23-28, January 9-12, 1862, and January 15-17. The winter rains started early in November and continued nearly interrupted for four months. Marysville and Sacramento suffered the worst damage in the Northern California valley. This scene shows the floodwaters along K Street looking west from 4th Street in Sacramento, Calif. Photo was taken January 1862.
Courtesy photo California State Library

But look at media headlines claiming droughts and floods are new and due to climate change rather than a natural phenomenon.

From National Geographic last month, “Climate change and California’s drought.” A local ABC News affiliate explained, “California Drought: New research ties specific extreme weather events to climate change.” They went further, “California Drought: How will climate change affect California’s ski industry?”

Drought is due to climate change. Yet at the same time so is flooding.

Last week Vox claimed, “California’s floods reveal a likely climate change symptom: Quick shifts between opposing weather conditions.”

Climate pseudo-scientist Ellen DeGeneres unsuccessfully weighed in, “Ellen DeGeneres mocked for video blaming California flooding on climate change.” USA Today at least asked a question, “Are California’s storms normal, or is climate change making them worse?”

It seems all manner of weather is due to climate change, ignoring past and far more extreme weather when the world’s population and activity were much less than today.

Perhaps a historical perspective is necessary. After all, history didn’t begin when Greta Thunberg or writers at Vox or the New York Times came of age.

The climate has been changing for millennia, since the Earth was formed, and will continue to do so in the future. Most change is due to earth and solar cycles some of which we understand, none of which we can alter or control.

Market Watch reports: “Climate change has cost the government $350 billion” as of 2018 and that number is rising. Yet it’s still snowing in Colorado and both dry and wet in California.

We are pissing away money we don’t have, ignoring far more important and fixable problems at home, and attempting to fix the unfixable. Government at its finest.

Is this really about “saving the planet” or is the climate movement about money and control, similar to the COVID pandemic, the new homes of communism and tyranny?

Source: American Thinker

Connecticut police arrest parents for letting their kids walk freely

Image: Connecticut police arrest parents for letting their kids walk freely

(Natural News) Law enforcement in Connecticut arrested the parents of two children for simply allowing them to walk unaccompanied to a doughnut shop.

Lenore Skenazy, president of the childhood independence advocacy group Let Grow, elaborated on the circumstances of the arrest in a Jan. 23 article for Reason magazine. The incident happened back in February 2019, when Killingly, Connecticut resident Cynthia Rivers (a pseudonym for the children’s mother) and her husband decided to reward their two children. Their children aged seven and nine were entitled to walk to a nearby Dunkin’ Donuts after cleaning their room, which they did.

Minutes after their children left, however, the Rivers parents heard a knock at their front door.

They answered the door and were greeted by officers from the Killingly Police Department (KPD). One of the cops sent Cynthia’s husband to retrieve the children, who had only made it about two blocks. When the children were recovered, the rest of the officers peppered the family with a barrage of questions.

The KPD officers warned that “it was a different world now,” given the presence of sex offenders and drug dealers that made the streets unsafe. While Cynthia tried to dispute the claims, law enforcement were adamant in insisting on the children’s “safety” – even pressuring her and her husband to search the sex offender registry. (Related: Helicopter parenting hurts children’s mental health, study finds.)

Moreover, the KPD officers also claimed that they had received a dozen 911 calls about the children’s unaccompanied foray toward the doughnut shop. Cynthia thought this was unlikely given that her two children had only made it past four other homes.


Both the Rivers were charged with risk of injury to a minor, and Cynthia’s husband was arrested. He was quickly freed from custody, and both parents sought a lawyer to defend themselves. But days later, a KPD police sergeant visited the home and informed the Rivers that the charges would be dropped – leading to the couple informing the lawyer that representation would no longer be needed.

Cynthia: Caseworker assigned to them was “looking for problems”

While Cynthia and her husband were in the clear with the KPD, the state government was only beginning to up the ante on them. The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) pursued its own investigation on the matter, sending a caseworker to the Rivers’ residence two times.

During the DCF caseworker’s visit, they interviewed all the family members about their complete history. “She was looking for problems,” Cynthia remarked.

While the mother tried to explain that KPD officers had overreacted, the caseworker insisted that she and her husband had somehow jeopardized their children’s safety. The caseworker used Cynthia’s revelation of having received therapy for depression against her and recommended that she return to therapy.

The DCF eventually closed the case, but not without a lasting negative impact. Cynthia waited three years until her nine-year-old daughter turned 12 before letting her walk outside without supervision.

Skenazy pointed out on her group’s website that the Constitution State takes a punitive approach toward children’s independence. Connecticut law defines inadequate supervision as “being left alone for an excessive amount of time given the child’s age and maturity.”

“Unfortunately, this vague law specifically identifies unsupervised children as neglected simply for being left alone, without requiring any showing of harm and without giving guidance for parents to know what an excessive time,” the website noted.

“I’ve lived in this area most of my life,” says Rivers. “I’ve gone walking and jogging all around this town, by myself, at all hours of the day and night, and met and talked to many local people. I have never felt threatened by a single person in this town until meeting those officers and the social worker.”

Listen to this interview with Lenore Skenazy, the author of the Reason magazine piece, as she talks about raising children in modern society.

This video is from the True North channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Why you should let your children make up their own games.

CPS takes baby from mother to ‘protect against’ parents seeking a second opinion.

Virginia Democrat wants state to KIDNAP children who belong to “transphobic” parents.

Sources include: