News

More Unconstitutional Deportations & The Rapid Decline Of American Liberty

Editor — Sun, 30 Mar 2025 14:00:00 +0100

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (3/26/25).

As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.

The post More Unconstitutional Deportations & The Rapid Decline Of American Liberty appeared first on Activist Post.

Iowa Bill Would Strip Vaccine Makers of Some Liability Protection for Injuries

Editor — Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:18:00 +0100

An Iowa House of Representatives subcommittee advanced a bill to bar the sale and administration of vaccines in the state unless manufacturers waive some of the liability protection granted under federal law for injuries caused by their vaccines.

House File 712, which advanced out of subcommittee would require vaccine manufacturers to waive liability protection for design defect claims.

Design defect claims occur when a problem with the vaccine’s design, rather than a flaw in the manufacturing process, makes it dangerous, even if it was produced properly and administered as intended.

State Rep. Charley Thomson, who introduced the bill, told The Defender that although the bill stalled in the judiciary committee, it isn’t dead. It can either be added to another bill this legislative term, or he can reintroduce it next term.

Thomson said he proposed the law because he didn’t think companies should be able to put products on the market if they don’t take responsibility for their potential to injure people.

Thomson said:

“We don’t allow it for toaster ovens, for paint, for any one of 10 million different items that people buy in the United States, and we shouldn’t allow it for vaccines.

“If anything, we should maybe be a little more strict with things that are very complicated and are being put into people’s bodies and represented as safe and not poisonous.

“If you are doing that, why would you object to being held to account?”

The bill comes amid growing public sentiment that vaccine makers should not have immunity from legal action and the public should be able to sue the manufacturer of a vaccine that caused them harm.

Vaccine makers won freedom from liability from design defects in a 2011 Supreme Court decision, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, when the Court effectively reinterpreted the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to give Big Pharma blanket liability.

Until that point, the act had given Big Pharma partial liability protection for vaccines listed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) childhood immunization schedule but continued to hold them responsible for product design defects.

Thomson said that in the subcommittee discussion, the support and opposition to the proposed bill didn’t simply break down along partisan lines — both Democrats and Republicans supported and opposed the bill.

Lindsay Mahar of Informed Choice Iowa said that people concerned with vaccine safety have been working for years to develop different legal mechanisms to protect the public from vaccine injuries. Part of the thinking behind the bill, she said, is that “if we could just restore accountability, the system would self-correct in a lot of ways.”

She said some people were concerned that passing the law on a state level might result in vaccine makers simply leaving the state. They said they hope the proposed bill will spark a state and national conversation about ending liability for vaccine makers.

Informed Choice Iowa saw a lot of public support for the bill, with opposition coming primarily from the pharmaceutical companies and medical associations, Mahar added.

She said public support for vaccine mandates and liability for Big Pharma has shifted since the COVID-19 pandemic period. Advocacy and education work by organizations like hers, along with “social media and the internet have just really helped educate people, get other sources of information besides just what they’re told in the doctor’s office.”

A 2022 Iowa poll found that only 34% of Iowans supported mandatory school vaccinations.

1986 Act set up ‘no-fault’ system to protect vaccine makers from lawsuits

The 1986 Act established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which adjudicates vaccine injury claims.

The act set up a “no-fault” system. Instead of suing the manufacturers, people injured by vaccines can file a claim against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through the VICP — also known as the “vaccine court” — which adjudicates the claims.

The VICP was meant to insulate vaccine makers from lawsuits that could bankrupt them while ensuring injury victims had a straightforward, non-adversarial and fair path to compensation.

Supporters say the program ensures access to vaccines for the broader public while compensating injury victims. However, critics say the program has devolved to protect government agencies and corporations rather than the health of vaccinated children.

Between 1988-2022, 28,292 petitions were filed with the VICP, according to the Health Resources & Services Administration, which houses the program.

Over that 30-year period, 24,602 petitions have been adjudicated, with 11,671 of those determined to be compensable, and 12,931 dismissed. Total compensation paid was approximately $5.3 billion.

Bruesewitz decision ‘devastating’ for vaccine-injured people and their families

When the 1986 law was first passed, it gave drug companies partial liability protection, but still allowed, in certain circumstances, an injured party who had gone through the vaccine court and wasn’t happy with the outcome to bring a case in court against the manufacturer, Children’s Health Defense General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said.

This possibility was “severely curtailed” by the 2011 Supreme Court decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, she said.

The case began as a Pennsylvania lawsuit brought by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who suffered seizures and developmental issues after taking the DPT vaccine in 1992. The vaccine court didn’t compensate Hannah’s parents, so they sued the vaccine manufacturer, Wyeth (now Pfizer) in state court in Pennsylvania.

In its majority ruling in favor of Wyeth, the court interpreted the 1986 Act to shield Big Pharma with full immunity from liability for vaccine injuries by ruling that people could no longer sue vaccine makers for injuries caused by design defects.

In a scathing dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, accused the court of imposing its own policy preferences, misconstruing the Act, and disturbing “the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market.”

Sotomayer noted that as Bruesewitz was argued, there were 5,000 petitions in the vaccine court alleging a causal link between some vaccines and autism spectrum disorder and that Wyeth/Pfizer argued that if the court did not find in its favor, it “could unleash a ‘crushing wave’ of tort litigation that would bankrupt vaccine manufacturers and deplete vaccine supply.”

Sotomayer wrote:

“This concern underlies many of the policy arguments in respondent’s brief and appears to underlie the majority and concurring opinions in this case. Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins.”

Mack Rosenberg said the decision, “was devastating to those who were injured or killed, and their families. Post-Bruesewitz, parties have very limited judicial remedies against the manufacturers, including manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and fraud-based claims, all of which are challenging claims for a plaintiff to bring.”

She said if the Iowa bill were enacted, she expects it would be subject to challenges due to its conflicts with Breusewitz.

However, Mack Rosenberg added, “This bill is important from an educational perspective as well. At a minimum, this bill focuses attention on the extraordinary liability protection enjoyed by vaccine manufacturers.”

She added:

“More and more people are waking up to the reality of vaccine injury, particularly as a result of COVID-19 vaccine injuries. People also need to know that vaccine manufacturers have no incentive to make safer vaccines due to the liability shield.”

The post Iowa Bill Would Strip Vaccine Makers of Some Liability Protection for Injuries appeared first on Activist Post.

The Dehumanization and Infantilization of Palestinians (w/ Mohammed el-Kurd)

Editor — Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:00:00 +0100

Mohammed el-Kurd analyzes the dehumanization and infantilization of Palestinians by Western activists and media, and the psychological toll it has on its subjects.

The post The Dehumanization and Infantilization of Palestinians (w/ Mohammed el-Kurd) appeared first on Activist Post.

The Deep State Revelations CERCLE

Editor — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:07:00 +0000

People like Dominic Cummings, chief advisor to former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, have a habit of revealing things we’re not supposed to know about how government operates. They often expose the motives and acts of what many these days call the deep state.

One of the most reasonable definitions of the “deep state” was offered by US defence analyst-turned-writer Mike Lofgren in his 2014 essay “Anatomy of the Deep State“:

[T]here is another government concealed behind the one that is visible[.] [It is] a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out.

The oft-inconvenient comments about that deep state, when uttered by the likes of Cummings, either go unreported by the legacy media or the disclosures are spun to misdirect public attention.

That’s because the job of the legacy media and its newer iteration, the Mainstream Alternative Media (MAM), is to maintain the public’s faith in the Establishment and its state—not to prompt us to question it.

Let’s consider the revealing remarks Dominic Cummings made in December 2024 (we’ll insert the names of the current incumbents):

So if you think of two roles, right, the Foreign Secretary [David Lammy] of Great Britain and the private secretary in the PM’s office responsible for foreign affairs [Ailsa Terry], an official whose name has never been in the newspapers, that person [Terry] was, like, ten times more powerful and important than the [foreign] secretary of state [Lammy]. This is something which, I think, people just don’t really realise. [. . .] It’s part of how the whole system has become fake. So, you have fake meritocracy, fake responsibility, and then fake cabinet government. [. . .] [I]t’s all nonsense. The cabinet is just like a staged theatre.

It may come as a relief to many that David Lammy is more window dressing than decision-maker. But that fact does prompt us to ask why, if unelected bureaucrats are running everything behind the scenes, we bother to engage in the political charade at all. Moreover, whom do the bureaucrats serve? And how do we challenge the power of those who really exercise it if they are not the politicians we elect to represent us?

Cummings’ December 2024 comments were not the first politically uncomfortable observations he has voiced in public. I previously reported that during a 2021 Parliamentary Committee hearing Cummings confessed [scroll to 14:02:35]:

In March [2020] I started getting calls from various people saying these new mRNA vaccines could well smash the conventional wisdom. [. . .] What Bill Gates and people like that were saying to me and [to] others in Number 10 was you need to think of this much more like the classic programs of the past [. . .] — the Manhattan Project in WWII, the Apollo program. [. . .] That’s essentially what we did.

On that occasion, Cummings described how “people like Bill Gates and that kind of network” of globalist oligarchs were telling the UK government what its Covid emergency response should be. In other words, Cummings was confessing that the general public’s perception of government is “all nonsense.” Government is just “staged theatre” to keep us believing in the “fake” political system.

The BBC kindly fact-checked Cummings’ 2021 Committee statement to ensure the British people were being properly informed. But, instead of investigating his revelation about an oligarch networks, the BBC desperately tried to convince its audience that politicians alone were the ones making the decisions (even though Cummings had clearly indicated that they are not the decision-makers).

Sky News, for its part, not only failed to report the nature of Cummings’ revelations about the network of “Bill Gates-type people” but squeezed in Cummings’ inference that these oligarchs were some of “the most competent people in the world.” There is, however, no reason to think they are.

Of course, Cummings isn’t the only insider to have blown the whistle on the true nature of the British state. Liz Truss, the shortest-serving prime minister in British history, was similarly shocked. She said:

What I found out when I got into Number 10 [UK prime minister’s residence and government HQ] is that, if I got to the top of the tree, I would be able to implement those Conservative policies. [. . .] What I discovered, is that I was not holding the levers. The levers were held by the Bank of England, the Office of Budget Responsibility [OBS]. [T]hey were not held by the prime minister or the chancellor [UK finance minister].

By virtue of its Royal Charter, the Bank of England is a private enterprise entirely independent of the UK government. The OBR is a public-private partnership that is an independent fiscal policy watchdog. Describing itself that way suggests it simply monitors government fiscal policy—taxation and expenditure. But the OBR also offers forecasts and, by presenting them to the respective parliamentary committees, actually shapes government fiscal policy.

The OBR’s “forecasting methods” are overseen by its advisory panel. This means that representatives from Vanguard, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, EDF Energy, McKinsey, KPMG, Barclays, and a slew of privately funded academic research departments and think tanks, such as Chatham House, are steering UK government fiscal policy—irrespective of which party is elected into office.

Like Cummings’ admissions, Truss’s revelations only confirm something many of us already know: Government policy does not reflect the will of the people. Government is not of, for, and by the people. These are baseless truisms. So, why do we believe them?

Why Do We Believe In Fake Government?

I suggest most people imagine electoral politics is meaningful because the entire legacy media has been perpetuating that illusion for decades, if not centuries. Conditioned as we are, we don’t stop to question the system and its players. Rather, we step back and allow the ones in charge to get on with business as they please.

The same deep state network funds both the corporate wing of the legacy media and the supposedly independent MAM. The corporate branch serves the powerful by directly propagandising for the state and by covering up on behalf of the state. Usually, this is done by calling everything that doesn’t align with a state narrative a conspiracy theory. Thus, the role of the corporate legacy media is to maintain the majority’s faith in government institutions and in the partisan political process.

The MAM’s role, on the other hand, is more subtle, and its objectives are slightly different. The MAM acknowledges concepts such as the uniparty and the deep state. But it then steers the conversation toward advocating some sort of party political solution—usually in the form of one political saviour or another. The MAM’s goal here is to return those who have wandered away from the Overton Window back to a degree of hope that the state can be reformed as long as they continue to engage in the muck of party politics.

The MAM’s other task is to openly discuss suppressed information and thereby gain the trust of those who no longer trustthe corporate legacy media. Once that trust is secured, the MAM then reinterprets the previously suppressed information to suggest solutions or narratives that are amenable to the oligarchs but are actually anathema to their audience. In doing so, the MAM averts the possibility of the disillusioned taking any action against the oligarch’s interests by holding them in a state of confusion and apathy.

Here’s a concrete example. American MAM reporters have openly admitted that global governance overreach is a problem. These kinds of admissions are not within the remit of the corporate legacy media. The MAM then advocated the ideas of billionaires like Peter Thiel—a Bilderberg steering committee oligarch and prominent supporter of the Trump administration—as a hopeful solution to globalist overreach. But Thiel is offering gov-corp Technates as a path forward. These Technates are the most extreme form of Technocracy—which is the social control mechanism favoured by globalist institutions like the World Economic Forum.

Thus, the American MAM has acknowledged Republican voters’ wish to escape globalist control but has steered them to blindly accept gov-corp Technates. Encouraged to vote for Trump, what freedom-minded Republican voters have ended up with is perhaps the most authoritarian form of globalist oligarch control imaginable. At the same time, many ordinary Americans evidently believe they have struck a blow against global governance overreach by electing Trump.

That said, we should also note that election results seem to be so heavily manipulated that the degree to which they actually reflect the “will of the people” is highly dubious. Not that it matters much, because government is “fake” anyway.

The Deep State

The “deep state” enables “Bill Gates-type people” to meet and discuss their objectives with the bureaucrats and occasionally with the politicians who will implement the deep state’s collective agenda as policy. The oligarchs we see, like Gates, are really just the “philanthropist” PR guys for the globalist networks that convene within the deep state milieu.

Some politicians are more closely linked to the oligarchy than others. The newly appointed—not elected—Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, is among the most closely connected. In an interview with Juno News, given shortly before he replaced Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party, Carney argued that his perceived weakness—being part of the globalist inner circle—is actually his “core strength“:

I know how the world works, I know how to get things done, I’m connected. [. . .] People will charge me with being elitist or a globalist, to use that term, which is, well, that’s exactly, it happens to be exactly what we need.

While his surprising confession is yet another deep state revelation, legacy journalists don’t care to comment on it with any degree of seriousness. When they do address the subject, they consider mention of Carney’s ties to the “elite” a slur heaped upon him by opponents. In their view, he’s really a liberal-minded free-market capitalist. There’s nothing worth questioning about his so-called “global elite” status. Just forget the deep state and move on.

In August 2023, political scientist Francis Fukuyama published “In Defense of the Deep State.” In that piece, he acknowledges limited aspects of the history of the deep state, which he describes as “a complex of military and security agencies manipulated the political system and operated in a completely non-transparent way to affect politics.”

I believe Fukuyama is referencing the branch of Operation Gladio without saying so. Operation Gladio—a four decades long false-flag terrorist campaign run across Europe by the intelligence agencies—also operated in Turkey. The Turkish branch was exposed when the Susurluk Scandal broke in the mid-1990s—something else Fukuyama didn’t mention, though he alluded to it.

Fukuyama writes that the deep state has been mischaracterised by US conservatives as a permanent and therefore undemocratic bureaucracy. But by arguing that the deep state is simply “the administrative state,” he embarks on a straw man argument:

The United States does not have a “deep state” in the Middle Eastern [Turkish] sense of the term. It has a large and complex civil service at federal, state, and local levels that is responsible for providing the bulk of the services that citizens expect from their government, what is known as the “administrative state”. [. . .] [T]he US “deep state” needs to be defended and not vilified.

Notably, Fukuyama is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a deep state think tank. In that capacity, he was influential in the 1990s creation of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Among his other deep state roles, he is an advisory board member of one of the CIA-run nongovernmental operations (NGOs)— the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

In such positions of power, Fukuyama and his fellow propagandists are reframing the deep state—characterising it as something it is not and selling the falsehood to the unwitting public.

The New York Times (NYT), agreeing with Fukuyama’s depiction of the deep state, describes it as “awesome.” Based on a six-minute propaganda-packed video, the NYT contends that the deep state was formed by “the workers otherwise known as civil servants, the everyday superheroes that wake up ready to dedicate their careers and their lives to serving us.”

Political science, however, has disproved the NYT’s and Fukuyama’s straw man arguments by empirically demonstrating that the deep state—as it is commonly perceived—does exist. It appears Fukuyama conveniently—if not deliberately—ignored that objective reality in his 2023 essay. Likewise, the NYT has failed to report the evidence of the deep state’s existence.

In political science, there are several related theories that debunk Fukuyama’s premise. One is the Economic-Elite Domination theory, which proposes that government policies are created for the interests of institutions or individuals whose economic and financial resources are significant. In such a system, the politician’s primary objective is to secure the favour of the so-called “economic elite.”

Another is the theory of Biased Pluralism, which suggests that electoral politics is corrupted by the wealth, power, and influence of the said economic “elite” and the corporations they own and/or oversee. Policy is thereby manipulated for the benefit of the “elite,” frequently to the detriment of wider socie

Judge Nap: Perilous Times For Personal Liberty

Editor — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:06:00 +0000

When government becomes the lawbreaker, it becomes a law unto itself — and human freedom is trampled by brute force.

(RPI — Andrew P. Napolitano) “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”
— Rev. Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)

The history of human freedom is long, tortuous, and not gratifying. It consists essentially in governments trampling the laws enacted to restrain them. It is the profound clash of natural personal freedom and the commands of the state backed by force. The constitutions of totalitarian countries are papered over with restraints on the state, but the restraints are toothless. The state does what it wants. It doesn’t take rights seriously.

In liberal democracies — with the separation of powers, and checks and balances — the state is theoretically restrained. Yet often, there, too, the restraints are paper tigers. There, too, HERE, too, the state does not take rights seriously.

Thomas Jefferson argued that in the long march of history, personal liberty shrinks and state power grows. He famously believed that only a revolution can bring about a proper reset.

All of this history and theory came into sharp focus in the past two weeks when the feds arrested a Syrian graduate student in his student housing at Columbia University in New York City and shipped him to an immigration jail in Louisiana. He is married to a native-born American, they are expecting a child in April, and he is a permanent resident alien.

Last week, the federal government arrested a Lebanese physician at Logan Airport in Boston. She is a professor of medicine at Brown University, and she, too, is a permanent resident alien.

The student was charged with immigration violations. The physician was summarily deported to Paris and then to her native Lebanon.

The charging documents filed against the student allege no crime or personal misbehavior, point to no statutory violations, and offer no evidence of the student’s danger to persons or property or the government. The papers claim that Secretary of State Marco Rubio believes that this student’s presence on the Columbia campus — given his outspoken support for a Palestinian state, the existence of which has been the public policy of the U.S. for generations — is a material impediment to the execution of American foreign policy.

There are no charging papers filed against the physician, but the government leaked that when federal agents seized her mobile phone, they determined that she had been at the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah, the recently murdered head of Hezbollah. She was there along with more than one million others. When asked about this, according to the government leakers, she stated that she followed Nasrallah’s religious teachings but not his political ones.

While the physician was confined at Logan, her attorneys obtained an order from a federal judge prohibiting her deportation until a hearing could be held before him. The government ignored the order.

These two arrests implicate numerous constitutionally guaranteed rights, which are generally taken for granted here.

The first is the freedom of speech. We know from the writings of James Madison — who authored the Bill of Rights — that the Founders regarded the freedom of speech as a personal individual natural right. It is also, of course, expressly protected from government interference and reprisal in the First Amendment. The courts have ruled that it protects all persons — no matter their immigration status — who may think as they wish, say what they think, publish what they say, worship or not and associate with whomever they choose.

If the government can punish the speech it or its friends and benefactors hate and fear, then the First Amendment is useless and democracy is a sham.

Also implicated in these arrests is freedom of religion and assembly. Just as the student can make any public political statement he wishes — no matter how offensive or provocative it may be to his immediate or a distant audience — the physician can attend any funeral she wishes, can associate with any mourners of her choosing, can embrace any religion and can follow any preacher.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the business of speech, religion and assembly. Without government fidelity to it, America is no longer a democracy but rather some form of conformist secular theocracy that rejects the basic values protected by the Constitution — and changes with every election.

Also implicated by these arrests is due process, guaranteed to all persons by the Fifth Amendment. At its rudimentary base, due process requires a fair hearing before a neutral arbiter before the government may interfere with life, liberty or property — and at which the government must prove personal fault.

In the case of the physician, the feds shipped her to Paris before the hearing could be held. In the case of the Columbia student, the feds shipped him to Louisiana, in defiance of the constitutional requirement that all persons be tried in the judicial district — in this case, New York City — in which the facts in their case took place.

What’s going on here?

In the government’s zealous enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws, it has become lawless. Every person who works for the government has taken an oath of fidelity to the Constitution. It is obvious that the feds do not take their oaths seriously. It is also obvious that the feds are breaking the laws we have hired them to enforce.

When government becomes the lawbreaker, it becomes a law unto itself — and human freedom is trampled by brute force.

This cannot go on unchecked. For whom will the government come next?

The post Judge Nap: Perilous Times For Personal Liberty appeared first on Activist Post.