May 20, 2020

USA: Flashback to November 2016, Atlanta CDC Employees Express Anxiety Over Trump’s Win. CDC Recommends Mail-In Voting Due To Coronavirus Despite Trump's Concerns About Voter Fraud.
written by Tasmin Shamma
Wednesday November 9, 2016 👈

Employees at the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say the mood in their office is somber.

The employees of one of the largest federal agencies in Atlanta said they’re concerned about job safety, funding and new public health policies under Donald Trump’s presidency.

At the General Muir deli across the street from the CDC, a few employees talked to WABE, asking that their names not be used. One microbiologist said her colleagues were crying in the hallways.

“It’s really sad,” she said. “It’s depressing. I’m eating a bagel to try and be happy.”

She said she’s worried Trump might appoint public health leaders who may not be in total support of mandatory vaccinations, pointing to Dr. Ben Carson or Florida Governor Rick Scott.

Another CDC worker said her job collecting data is partially funded through the Affordable Care Act.

“I’m pretty worried about work that I’ve put in for the last year and a half if it gets repealed wholesale, and if that goes away, we regress like scientifically 20 years back,” she said.

President-Elect Trump has promised to abolish the Affordable Care Act.

But, she said, they are looking for a silver lining, specifically reaching out to low-income, rural communities.

“My team is trying to identify how to reach out to this electorate that has clearly expressed that they’re hurting,” she said. “We’re thinking, you know, how can we reach out to these people so they don’t feel the need to feel disenfranchised, I guess.”

Another employee, who has worked for the CDC for nearly 40 years, said it shouldn’t really matter who the new boss is.

“We’ve ran this place underfunded and we’ve done a great job,” he said. “With Zika, don’t forget, we were at the brink of running out of money, but we prevailed. We’ve got a mission, we’re dedicated to it and we’re going to continue it.”

In an emailed statement, the CDC wrote: “As always in political transitions, CDC stands ready to work with the new administration to protect and advance America’s health security.”
Just The News
written by Carrie Sheffield
Wednesday May 6, 2020

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends "mail-in methods of voting" due to coronavirus, despite President Trump's concerns about voter fraud being associated with mail-in ballots.

On its coronavirus guidelines website, the CDC advises election officials to "encourage mail-in methods of voting if allowed in the jurisdiction" as part of a larger effort to "encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations."

The CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project recommended that states abolish voting by mail because of the “significant cost to the real and perceived integrity of the voting process.”

Trump has been critical of mail-in voting due to concerns about voter fraud.

“Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to state wide mail-in voting,” Mr. Trump tweeted on April 8. "Democrats are clamoring for it. Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesn’t work out well for Republicans.”

The CDC referred questions on the issue to the White House, and the CDC did not respond to a request for comment, including a question about whether the agency has received any feedback from election officials or voters who are concerned this recommendation might lead to voter fraud.

Nearly two-thirds of American voters say the country moving entirely to mail-in voting would likely increase voter fraud, according to a recent Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen.

Just the News has also reported about the practice of “granny farming,” in which political operatives seek out large groups of senior citizens to help them request mail-in ballots and then assist them in filling out their ballots when they arrive. In his book “Fraud: How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Election,” author and researcher Eric Eggers gives examples of how granny farming can lead to election fraud.
written by Dan Diamond
Tuesday March 3, 2020

In a sign of growing tension among the Trump administration's health agencies, officials are expressing frustration that a top scientist was initially rebuffed when attempting to visit the CDC in Atlanta last month to help coordinate the government's stalled coronavirus testing, two individuals with knowledge of the episode told POLITICO.

Timothy Stenzel, who is the director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, was made to wait overnight on the weekend of Feb. 22 — as senior health department officials negotiated his access in a series of calls — before Centers for Disease Control granted him permission to be on campus. Stenzel's visit had been expected, the individuals said.

The FDA had dispatched Stenzel to the CDC in an effort to expedite the development of lab tests for the novel coronavirus outbreak. Problems with the CDC-developed test delayed the Trump administration's plan to expand screening for weeks, POLITICO first reported on Feb. 20. A senior HHS official confirmed the episode.

A CDC spokesperson said that the delay was because of a scheduling misunderstanding.

"On Saturday, February 22, at about 7 p.m., an FDA employee arrived at CDC Roybal campus in Atlanta, a day before what CDC understood to be his scheduled arrival time. Due to CDC security requirements, he was not allowed on campus that night," the spokesperson said. "On Sunday morning, February 23, as scheduled, CDC staff met the FDA employee and escorted him on campus, in full compliance with standard security processes required for all individuals whether they are federal employees or other visitors."

Stenzel later found evidence of lab contamination, which he reported to HHS officials and may have contributed to the coronavirus lab-test delays and other problems.

The CDC had spent days reassuring HHS leaders that the lab tests were imminent, even as delays prevented their delivery. The delays prevented many Americans, who didn't fit the CDC's strict criteria, from being tested for coronavirus. CDC initially limited testing to people who had recently traveled to China or had close contact with a confirmed case and were also symptomatic.

Health officials have reported more than 100 cases of coronavirus across the United States, with increasing evidence that the virus has been spreading undetected for weeks.

CDC officials have acknowledged that the agency's lab tests were suffering flaws that prevented the health department from executing its plan to expand testing across the nation.

"Contamination is one possible explanation but there are others, and I can’t comment on what is an ongoing investigation," Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters on a Tuesday conference call.

HHS has begun an investigation into the possible contamination of coronavirus tests and is asking a team of non-CDC scientists to probe the lab-test defect.
The Washington Times
written by Cheryl K. Chumley
Thursday April 2, 2020

Bill Gates, the billionaire who founded Microsoft and, along with his wife, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, just called for a complete and utter shutdown and quarantining of the entire American nation, saying the spottiness of some states doing it and some states not has put all in coronavirus jeopardy.

This — from the guy who’s poised to make some cool millions in the market chaos of recent weeks.

This — from the guy who practically controls policy at the World Health Organization.

“Despite urging from public health experts,” Gates wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece, “some states and counties haven’t shut down completely. In some states, beaches are still open; in others, restaurants still serve sit-down meals. This is a recipe for disaster. Because people can travel freely across state lines, so can the virus. The country’s leaders need to be clear: Shutdown anywhere means shutdown everywhere. Until the case numbers start to go down across America — which could take 10 weeks or more — no one can continue business as usual or relax the shutdown.”

He then added that the impacts of the new coronavirus could linger another 18 months or so, until a vaccine was developed. Question: So, too, his proposed shutdown?

How nice for the nice billionaire with the multimillion-dollar mansion. Or two.

But for the peons of America, work isn’t an option. It’s food. It’s survival. And getting a handout from the government, while necessary in times of crises, doesn’t make up for a bankrupted business.

The fate of a hard-earned dream shouldn’t rest with a globalist billionaire who’s warning of dire coronavirus consequences to come — all the while making hands-over-fist coronavirus money, all the while holding top dog status in one of the very agencies tasked with sounding alarms on global health crises.

It’s a conflict of interest. At the least, it perceives that way.

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust disclosed a large investment in The Mexico Fund, a closed-end fund that focuses investments in that country,” Barron’s just reported. “The fund has withered in the face of the market disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic.”

The Mexico Fund’s New York Stock Exchange shares fell by 42% in recent weeks; Gates’ trust just bought a 5% stake, to become the fourth-largest investor in the fund. What a buy. Some might say, what a steal.

That’s fine; that’s the capitalistic way: Buy low, sell high, profit, profit, profit in the meanwhile.

Even philanthropists can be market-savvy.

At the same time, though, Gates is one of the largest funders of the World Health Organization, one of the forefront agencies to warn, advise and counsel governments of the globe on matters pertinent to epidemics and pandemics. On matters pertinent to the WHO-declared pandemic.

But WHO didn’t always see the coronavirus as a pandemic.

As a matter of fact, WHO didn’t announce the coronavirus as a pandemic until the very day after Gates — who had wished for some time that WHO would declare the coronavirus a pandemic — well, until the very day after Gates made a very large donation to a cause that benefits WHO.

Take a look at this timeline.

On March 10, Business Insider wrote: “Bill Gates has been sounding the alarm on the COVID-19 coronavirus, calling it a ‘pandemic,’ though the World Health Organization has yet to give it that distinction.”

That was simply an aside to the larger Business Insider article point — which was to announce that “The Gates Foundation, Wellcome and Mastercard are committing $125 million in funding to companies developing treatments for the novel coronavirus” and that “the funding would be used for a COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator” to help speed along coronavirus treatments to the infected.

The Gates Foundation, meanwhile, specified in its own online post that Gates‘ donated portion of the $125 million would be $50 million.

The Gates Foundation also posted this: “The COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator will work with the World Health Organization, government and private sector funders and organizations, as well as the global regulatory and policy-setting institutions.”

The same WHO and global regulatory and policy-setting institutes that Gates himself heavily, heftily funds.

In a 2017 piece titled, “Meet the world’s most powerful doctor: Bill Gates,” Politico wrote: “Some billionaires are satisfied with buying themselves an island. Bill Gates got a United Nations health agency in Geneva. Over the past decade, the world’s richest man has become the World Health Organization’s second-biggest donor, second only to the United States. … This largesse gives him outsized influence over its agenda. … The result, say his critics, is that Gates‘ priorities have become the WHO‘s.”

Have they? Well, let’s see.

Back to the timeline.

🚨 On March 11, one day after Business Insider reported how Gates had been pushing for a WHO declaration of pandemic on the coronavirus — one day after Gates announced the infusion of millions of dollars into a WHO-partnered venture called COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, that dangled the prospect of putting more regulatory powers into the hands of the global elitists — one day after that, WHO’s director-general made an interesting announcement. 🚨

On March 11, at a press conference on the coronavirus, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said this: “We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.”



But there’s a lot of money and power and influence to be made with this coincidence. And as Gates‘ quick jump to buy up the bottom-dollar Mexico Trust shows, he’s a guy who’s not at all averse to taking coronavirus lemons and making coronavirus lemonade for himself and his partners. But if perception counts, Gates should pick a side in this coronavirus crisis: Either heal or profit.

Don’t do both.
👇 FLASHBACK to 2012 👇
American Thinker
written by Andresen Blom and James Bell
June 6, 2012

This July, we will be celebrating the centennial anniversary of London's First International Eugenics Conference of 1912. One century later, on July 11, 2012, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (the largest private foundation in the world) and the British government will co-host a new London conference on eugenics with global coalition partners such as American abortion chain Planned Parenthood, British abortion chain Marie Stopes International, and the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA). The only difference is that the July 2012 London conference will never acknowledge that eugenics is its driving idea. Melinda Gates has claimed that the conference, which is officially dedicated to "deliver[ing] more modern family planning tools to more women in the world's poorest countries," should involve "no controversy."

But what is eugenics and what has forced it to go incognito over the last century?

Eugenics is the infamous idea that governments should decide which kinds of citizens ought to be considered desirable (the 1912 consensus was that these tended to be white, athletic, intelligent, and wealthy) and which kinds of citizens ought to be considered undesirable (these tended to be black, Jewish, disabled, or poor) and employ the power of the state to encourage increases of desirable citizens (positive eugenics) and encourage decreases of undesirable citizens (negative eugenics). The founder of eugenics, Sir Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Charles Darwin, formulated the idea that the protection afforded by civil society had prevented the kind of natural selection occurring in Darwin's Origin of Species from happening in humans, thus perpetuating the existence of weak and feeble-minded people who would have been unable to survive in the state of nature.

Eugenicists differed on whether eugenics should be practiced in a soft manner, with taxpayer-underwritten incentives, or in a hard manner, using coercive and often deadly force. The movement claimed many adherents. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her British counterpart Marie Stopes were both involved in their national eugenic societies. Margaret Sanger viewed her activism as a way to "assist the race towards the elimination of the unfit." Marie Stopes lobbied for "the sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood [to be] made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory."

The public appetite for open eugenics greatly waned after the fall of Nazi Germany and the Nazis' attempt to use eugenic justifications for the Holocaust at the Nuremberg Trials.

Unfortunately, the idea lives on. Melinda Gates, wife of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said recently, "Government leaders ... are now beginning to understand that providing access to contraceptives is a cost-effective way to foster economic growth ... Governments should provide all women with access to family planning tools that are safe and effective and meet the needs of all women." This is a succinct summary of soft negative eugenics: for economic reasons governments should use taxpayer dollars to underwrite the decisions of citizens to pursue recreational sexual activity. The underlying economic assumption is that the prospective children of the poor citizens likely to utilize such government-funded programs would be likely to hamper economic growth if they are born.

However, the "no controversy" mantra on the soft eugenics push has been complicated by the fact that hard eugenics has recently been making resurgent splashes in the news. China's One Child Forced Abortion Policy has been highlighted by the heroic escape of Chen Guangcheng, a blind dissident sentenced to four years in prison by the Communist government for exposing the brutality of its forced-abortion policy, to the US embassy. Governor Romney has made the One-Child Policy an issue on the campaign trail by vowing to discontinue funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which the Obama Administration has helped finance in spite of its support of the One-Child Policy. The Guardian Newspaper has exposed the fact that the British government has spent millions of pounds funding a policy of forced sterilization of the poor in India as part of an effort to reduce human population to help combat climate change.

The governments of China and India -- underwritten by American and British tax dollars -- practice hard eugenics, coercive measures undertaken by governments to decrease citizen population. The exposure of support for hard eugenics causes denial and backtracking. UNFPA claims to support "voluntary family planning" in China. They assume that women who know that conceiving a second child will result in a forced abortion have the liberty to be "voluntary." The British government claims its support of forcible sterilization is "about to change."

Hard eugenics is the ideology that dare not speak its name. But soft eugenics is based on the same disturbing belief -- that government should spend its resources to prevent the propagation of those whom the government believes to be detrimental to society and economic growth.

No comments: