This is a great clip with Candice Owens. She's telling exactly what's going on, and why.

She makes a really good point. The Republicans are not trying to fight this at all. Which is my point. But it's more than just that. Why have Republicans not been in this battle all along, before the narrative was completely controlled by the left? Now, if they do try to fight back they will be labeled as racists. But then, isn't that what they claim to have been worried about all along?

There are more Republicans involved with this whole thing than most realize. You can't use an excuse like, "I don't want to be labeled as racist" when the leftists are going to do that regardless of what you do! And if you haven't done anything racist, they'll find someone throughout history that you, your family, someone that can be tied to you, did --in the past that might be construed as racist.

Right now the deck is stacked against regular American citizens, regardless of race.

Ron DeSantis is one of the only governors that has been outspoken about the whole Critical Race Theory indoctrination curriculum. Why are so few states NOT blocking this Critical Race Theory garbage?

Now do you see the big picture? The Republicans are largely in on this whole globalists takeover as well. Republicans have taken two of the hundreds of steps that could have stopped all this. There's no way that the republicans are not in on the downfall of America.

Candice is 100% correct in what she's saying, but she's wrong in assuming that the Republicans are weak. Republicans are not weak, they are compromised. They agree with what's going on, that's why so few Republican governors have pushed back against poisoning the minds of children!

Why haven't all Republican governors pushed back against Critical Race Theory? Ask yourself that question.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

If anyone was questioning whether the mask mandates had anything to do with science, this should answer your question.

Oregon seeks to keep COVID mask mandate ‘indefinitely’

While some states are reopening businesses or dropping mask mandates altogether, Oregon is bucking the trend — floating an idea to require masks and social distancing indefinitely.

But not everyone is happy about the possible extension of the mask rules, which under state law expire on May 4. The agency has gotten a record number of public comments and nearly 60,000 people have signed a petition rejecting the proposal.

“When will masks be unnecessary? What scientific studies do these mandates rely on, particularly now that the vaccine is days away from being available to everyone?” said state Sen. Kim Thatcher, a Republican from Keizer, near the state’s capital.

Wood said he is reviewing the feedback and will make a final decision by May 4.

Michael Wood is administrator for the Oregon department of Occupational Safety and Health department. Wood said that he "will make a final decision by May 4." Because he gets to dictate what he wants, not based on science, but based on his decision making process. The fact that he's not saying that he'll let it expire means that he's going to extend it. There would be no reason NOT to come out now and tell people that you're going to let it expire.

This comes right after a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis hearing on Thursday 04-15-21.

During a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis hearing on Thursday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the top U.S. health officials on the COVID-19 pandemic, drew a road map for the country’s return to relative normality.

“What determines when?” Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, challenged Fauci. The congressman said restrictions on movements and closures of businesses had impinged upon people’s rights to go to church and even leave their homes. He called it a year-plus-long loss of liberty.

Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, replied, “You’re indicating liberty and freedom. I look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying and going to the hospital.”

“My message, Congressman Jordan, is to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as we possibly can to get the level of infection in this country low, [such] that it is no longer a threat. That is when, and I believe when that happens, you will see,” he said.

Also Thursday, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told CNBC that people will likely require a third vaccine dose after 12 months, and potentially annual vaccinations thereafter. When asked about the prospects for a next-generation vaccine that can fend off emerging variants of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, Fauci told the hearing that the endgame was a universal vaccine, the business-news channel reported.

Dr. Fauci says, "you will see." He gives absolutely no metric by which things can return to normal. Fauci DID NOT answer Jim Jordan's question. He refused to answer for a reason.

Consider, if you follow the logic, the reasoning for the "vaccines" is the cause for the lockdowns, as long as there is a need for these "vaccines" there's also a need for the lockdowns. If there is a need for continuous "vaccines" then there is no "return to normal" the lockdown shenanigans will be the "new normal." This has been the dirty little secret all along, the part that the legacy media refuses to talk about.

So get the "vaccine" and mask up people! Or don't and you'll be in the same boat, just without the experimental "vaccine(s)" coursing through your veins.

What were those survival statistics again?

People are being scared to death over these numbers! Just remember, they don't release the survival statistics on the CDC website, hell that would be useful. They list these "fatality ratios" because they know most people don't know how to convert them to percentages. Just more honesty from the people you can trust.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Photos, Memes, and Images

There is a judge in Florida that denied custody rights to a mother, because she didn't wear a face mask. Not to mention that at the beginning of the "Pandemic" Dr. Fauci said that we didn't need to be running around with face masks on. We need them for the healthcare workers. That was right before he said that we do all need to be wearing masks.

Melanie Joseph wants to see her son, but a judge won’t let her — for no reason except that she won’t wear a mask.

Joseph’s 14-year-old son has asthma, a condition that could put him at risk of contracting COVID-19 during this pandemic, court filings show.

Broward Circuit Judge Dale Cohen called the mother an “anti-mask person” who had the “audacity” to brag about it on Facebook.

Conservatives take issue with the decision, but it illustrates how judges in family court now must consider the health risks of COVID-19 on top of juggling the interests of feuding ex-spouses, single parents and reluctant child-support payers.

An appeals court quickly overturned the decision, and the child’s estranged parents eventually resolved their custody disagreement.

The survival rate amongst children is so high, there's no need for any concern --asthma or not. I wrote about this in September of last year, the survival rate was known before this judge made his decision.

There were two more court cases, also in Florida that went the same way, then another in New York!

Last week, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Bernard Shapiro suspended Dr. Theresa Greene’s custody rights to her four-year-old daughter. The judge agreed with her ex-husband’s contention that Greene’s work as an emergency room physician in Plantation posed a risk that she might infect the child with COVID-19. Judge Shapiro decided the husband would have full custody rights for the duration of the pandemic.

“It's cruel to ask me to choose between my child and the oath I took as a physician," Dr. Greene told CNN.

On Tuesday, the Third District Court of Appeals issued a stay, allowing Dr. Greene to retain custody until the matter can be thrashed out in court. A similar custody claim involving an emergency medical technician has been filed in Orlando. The New York Times reported last week that a New Jersey doctor was only allowed to retain custody of her children after she promised not to treat coronavirus patients.

The pandemic, apparently, has added an asterisk to the Hippocratic Oath.

Of course, such decisions aren’t without a perverse kind of logic. Call it plague logic. We can add warped ethics to the list of coronavirus symptoms. Fevers, dry coughs, a willingness to sacrifice grandma.

Remember "follow the science?" In court, the science doesn't get you very far.

This is a case where judges are ruling based on false data trumpeted by the news media. Hysterical reporting and Fake News narratives do have consequences. The only question is, will you be impacted by those consequences?

You thought you had rights, well we'll see about that! The state can use any "crisis" to limit those rights, even if the crisis is perpetuated by hysteria, not facts.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

For any of those out there that don't believe that there are people trying to reshape society on a global scale, here's your wakeup call!

I took snippets from this article but you should read the whole thing! This is the most important article I've seen on the issue of mass migration.

Everything you've been watching in the legacy media has been to keep you from looking at the following:

The United Nations’ role in immigration policy is growing worldwide with the establishment of a UN “Network for Migration” in dozens of countries to facilitate large migratory flows, sparking alarm among American border-security advocates already concerned about mass migration and the escalating crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The UN networks, which are led by a coalition of UN agencies, exist to support the implementation of the controversial “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” (GCM) adopted by the UN and over 150 of its member states in December of 2018.

Under the new administration [Biden], “the U.S. government has attended several GCM regional reviews, reviewing progress on implementation of the compact in all the regions of the world,” UN Network on Migration Communications Coordinator Florence Kim told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.

The UN’s refugee agency already “works closely with U.S. government agencies and [Non-Governmental Organizations] responsible for resettling refugees in the U.S.,” the international organization says, adding that the U.S. program is the largest in the world.

In 2018, citing concerns over sovereignty and the interests of the American people, the administration of President Donald Trump rejected U.S. involvement in the UN’s signature immigration effort to date, the GCM. Numerous other governments in Europe and beyond followed suit.

The growing UN push on global migration, combined with ongoing changes in immigration policy between the Trump and Biden administrations, has numerous U.S. organizations dedicated to border security very concerned.

In interviews with The Epoch Times, several leading figures in the immigration debate spoke out against the UN migration networks and the UN effort to get the U.S. government officially involved.

“The International Organization for Migration (IOM) applauds President Joe Biden’s plans to address the drivers of migration and advance safe, orderly and regular migration in the region,” the UN organization said in a statement released in early February using the precise language of the global migration pact.

The Biden administration’s executive actions on immigration “will provide a framework to expand refugee resettlement,” the UN IOM added in reference to Biden’s orders increasing the cap on refugees from less than 20,000 per year to over 120,000.

As soon as Biden took office, the UN suggested that the U.S. government should re-engage in the UN’s international efforts on global migration.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, for instance, issued a statement on Biden’s first day expressing hope that the new administration would join the GCM.

“This partnership is needed now more than ever as we seek to provide assistance, protection and sustainable solutions to the displacement of record numbers of people who have been forced to flee their homes as a result of conflict, violence or disaster, or are migrating in the hopes of finding a better life for themselves and their families,” said the statement issued by Guterres’s office.

“You don’t need to adopt the GCM to actually implement it,” she said. “They will implement it at their own rhythm.”

“Sometimes it can be politically sensitive, so countries [governments] did not adopt it,” added Kim, who works at the UN’s offices in Geneva. “But a majority of those countries are implementing at least some parts of it.”

The United States is actually surrounded by nations where governments are enthusiastic supporters of the UN effort. In fact, the governments of both Mexico and Canada are considered “champions” of the GCM, Kim said.

“Mexico has agreed and requested to pilot some tools developed by the UN agencies through the Network for Migration,” Kim said, adding that the Mexican government served as “co-facilitator of the negotiations.”

“The fact that Mexico can be supported by the UN in protecting migrants leaving or crossing can have an impact on the United States,” continued Kim. “We are talking about international migration here, so anything implemented by one country has an impact on neighboring countries.”

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also referred to as UN Agenda 2030, represent a comprehensive global effort to reform governance and the economy to be more in line with what the UN considers to be sustainable.

The Chinese Communist Party boasted that it played a “crucial role” in the SDG plan, which UN leaders said represents a “master plan for humanity” that will “transform our world.”

Leading the Networks for Migration are a number of key UN agencies, including several that are run by Chinese officials loyal to Beijing.

She also argued that attempting to stop mass migration was futile.

“You can build all the walls in the world that you want, but when people have to leave, they will,” she said.

“These are domestic policy issues,” he said. “Each nation should make these decisions based on their own criteria.”

“What happens when these kinds of international organizations get involved, you basically have other countries telling the United States and Germany what they should do,” added Mehlman. “Once you throw this into the international arena it becomes very easy for other countries to sit back and tell ours what we should be doing when it’s not really their business.”

“The American public should resist these United Nations programs because they are designed to facilitate and increase harmful third world legal and illegal immigration into America and Europe as part of a wider plan to overwhelm our nations and force Americans into a global form of government which will be dominated by China,” he argued.

National identity, borders, and the independence and freedom enjoyed by Americans are a major obstacle to “socialists, communists, global corporations, and robber baron billionaires who feel they should be able to rule and dictate by fiat,” he said.

“The problems in another country is where the problem needs to be solved, not in ours,” said Gibboney, whose family fled the communist regime in Hungary via Brazil before eventually finding their way to the United States legally.

The US is surrounded by countries that are already taking part in these plans to move massive amounts of people from one country to another.

The UN is involved in this effort as part of "The International Organization for Migration (IOM)" and the "Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM)." How many of you have heard of these organizations, or these initiatives?

The Chinese Communist Party boasted that it played a “crucial role” in the SDG plan, which UN leaders said represents a “master plan for humanity” that will “transform our world.”

Now you know why they don’t teach history anymore! There’s no other reason to do this other than control!

I have a question. Why the hell isn't the UN involved in solving problems in the countries that people are fleeing from? Wouldn't it make more sense to help the people where they are rather than move them to a foreign land? It's sort of the opposite of colonialism, instead of going over there and changing things for the better, we're going to move the majority of a population to a place that is already doing better. But, there's one really big problem with it. THIS IS WHAT THE ROMANS DID! It serves two main purposes. First, it moves one group of people away from their homeland, making them less likely to push back and easier to control. Second, the place where they migrate to is destabilized due to the large influx of people and is also much less likely to push back (dealing with internal problems) making them easier to control as well.

This is some dark evil stuff here! For all of those people who called anyone paying attention a "conspiracy theorist," your time's up. There is a huge conspiracy to push the world toward a one world governing body. The people involved are coming out about it now, because they don't think that anything can be done to stop it.

Make no mistake, the people involved in this effort are moving the pieces into position right now. This article details what they are trying to do. I hope that we aren't too late to at least save the US. But I can't tell at this point.

From what I see, the globalists are looking to drive the US into another civil war. Every time the US government threatens to take guns away, what happens? People go out and guy more guns.

We have a public that is armed to the teeth, and we have an education system that is teaching young children and adults to hate each other because of their race and past grievances (Critical Race Theory). There's nothing "critical" about it, other than it's needed to divide the country.

Critical Race Theory is an ideological, non-solvable narrative that doesn't allow for logic and reason. The outcome of this, one could only assume, would eventually be a war. Once enough people are tired of being pushed and blamed for things they don't believe and crimes they didn't commit, there will be a breaking point.

Some states like Florida have taken steps to slow, or stop some of this nonsense. But many states have not.

The US is being hammered on many fronts, in a coordinated effort. Biden (friendly to China) in the White House, mass migration, Critical Race Theory. These facts are not debatable. The people behind this push for one world government are coming out and admitting it, and China is at the forefront of it. Even more insulting, the United States provides the majority of the funding for the UN.

I think the American people have been played by both sides. Many Republican state legislatures are passing laws to deal with mail-in voting, and other measures that will secure the vote. If they can pass these measures now, when the media has said repeatedly that there was no fraud in the 2020 election; in other words they don't have any media backing --why couldn't they have passed these measures before the 2020 election? I don't have the answer to that question. I can only assume it's because the Republicans were in on the fraud from the beginning. There's no way that these Republican state legislatures didn't know what was happening in their states. Now the Republicans are playing theater and passing laws that they know will be overridden when the filibuster is removed, and H.R.1 is signed into law.

If they can’t get (H.R. 1 / S. 1) passed outright, they will create a new czar to oversee elections, that czar will have the authority (granted by congress) to make it happen. This is how it’s done in Washington. Obamacare was the same way. They created a position called the “Health Choices Commissioner” (in the original ACA bill) later renamed. They didn’t pass Obamacare in one swoop. They created the framework by which they could mandate all the necessary parts of Obamacare through intermediaries --effectively side-stepping congress..

I think that we've been under the rule of a single party system for much longer than many people are willing to admit.

Only time will tell if we can pull out of this as a nation.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"