News

Joe Biden is merely a pitiful decoy

America is being led by an incompetent and corrupt reanimated corpse who is the laughingstock of the entire globe.

Also:

---

Three years ago, Klaus Schwab bragged that the World Economic Forum and their globalist stakeholders had seized total control over global politics and entertainment and were set to achieve total dominance over the human race […]

The post Ashley Biden ‘Singing Like a Canary’ in Elite Pedophile Investigation appeared first on The People’s Voice.

Art installation meant to unite Irish and American citizens instead hijacked by inappropriate behavior.

An art installation that livestreamed videos between Dublin, Ireland, and New York City was shut down following several taboo incidents, including an influencer flashing her bare breasts to Irish citizens.

“The Portal,” a large circular screen with a camera attached, opened last week on May 8 and was intended to unite people across the pond by allowing US and UK citizens to interact with each other.

However, things quickly started getting out of hand as passers-by began behaving inappropriately.

“Videos circulating on social media have shown people flashing their naked body parts, showing pornographic videos, and mocking 9/11,” reports Business Insider.

Insider notes some drunk Dublin residents pretended to snort cocaine, while others held images of pornography and the smoldering Twin Towers up to the camera.

However, influencer and OnlyFans creator Ava Louise’s tawdry stunt was the final straw after she flopped out her bare breasts and bounced them vigorously for people watching in Dublin.

“So I just got the Portal from New York City to Dublin shut down,” Louise said in a TikTok video, adding, “I thought the people of Dublin deserved to see my two New York homegrown potatoes.”

The art installation’s shut down over indecency even prompted a comment from billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who commented, “Inevitable” to a compilation showing various Portal misdeeds.

The Dublin City Council released a statement condemning the inappropriate behavior, noting that the majority of interactions were positive, and announced plans to implement guidelines to prevent future misuse of the streaming technology, aiming to bring the project back online by the end of the week.

“The overwhelming majority of interactions are positive,” the city council wrote in a statement this week.

“The Portal offers a window to other cities and is connecting people and cultures in a unique manner – what we are seeing between Dublin and NY is reflective of a wider narrative of cultural behavior. Unfortunately, we have also been witnessing a very small minority of people engaged in inappropriate behavior, which has been amplified through social media.

“While we cannot control all of these actions, we are implementing some technical solutions to address this and these will go live in the next 24 hours.

“We will continue to monitor the situation over the coming days with our partners in New York to ensure that [the Portals Organization] continue to deliver a positive experience for both cities and the world.”

---

---

Adams also wants illegals with nursing backgrounds to get expedited jobs

Speaking at the New York City Hall on Tuesday, the Big Apple’s Democrat Mayor Eric Adams suggested illegal aliens be given jobs as lifeguards since they’re allegedly great swimmers.

“How do we have a large body of people that are in our city and country that are excellent swimmers and at the same time we need lifeguards? And, the only obstacle is that we won’t give them the right to work to become a lifeguard,” he told the press.

The mayor also suggested illegal aliens who simply claim to have nursing experience should be expedited into hospital positions in order to solve the city’s ongoing nursing shortage.

“If we had a plan that said, ‘If there was a shortage of food service workers and those who fit that criteria, we’re going to expedite you,’ if you have experience that you are a nurse and we have nursing shortage, we would expedite you,” he said.

This is only one of the ramifications of the United Nations Great Replacement initiative that is flooding Western nations in Europe and North America with Third World citizens ahead of a planned societal collapse.

U.S. citizens of every race, religion and political affiliation are at risk of being conquered by the millions of foreign invaders being intentionally brought into the country.

---

---

Biden’s press secretary says the quiet part out loud — the NYC trial against former President Trump is election interference.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said she can’t comment on the NYC trial against former President Donald Trump because it’s “related to the 2024 elections.”

Did Biden’s press secretary just admit to election interference?

“So look, I can’t speak to, uh…um…don’t wanna comment, obviously, as this is related to 2024 elections and I can’t speak to the Speaker’s schedule. That is something for him to decide on,” she told reporters when asked to comment on House Speaker Mike Johnson’s attendance at Trump’s trial in Manhattan Tuesday.

QUIET PART OUT LOUD: Karine Jean-Pierre says she can’t comment on the Biden-led witch hunt against President Trump because it’s “related to 2024 elections” pic.twitter.com/N9bzK72Xrm

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 14, 2024

At face value, the NYC trial against Trump centers on “hush money” payments Trump allegedly made to porn star Stormy Daniels preceding the 2016 election.

But as Jean-Pierre suggested, the timing and merits of the case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg reveal the trial is an extension of the Democrats’ lawfare campaign against Trump to weaken his 2024 election chances.

“This is what they call a confession,” former Trump adviser Stephen Miller posted on X in response to her remarks.

This is what they call a confession. https://t.co/ggcGiXOsnK

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) May 14, 2024

ELECTION INTERFERENCE! https://t.co/BxcMQMFHr8

— GOP (@GOP) May 14, 2024

---

Follow Jamie White on X | Truth | Gab | Gettr | Minds

Irrespective of growing evidence that Covid-19 was not a natural phenomenon, modelling that the World Bank quotes as suggesting a 3x increase in outbreaks over the next decade actually predicts that a Covid-like event will recur less than once per century.

Much has been written on the current proposals putting the World Health Organization (WHO) front and center of future pandemic responses. With billions of dollars in careers, salaries, and research funding on the table, it is difficult for many to be objective. However, there are fundamentals here that everyone with public health training should agree upon. Most others, if they take time to consider, would also agree. Including, when divorced from party politicking and soundbites, most politicians. 

So here, from an orthodox public health standpoint, are some problems with the proposals on pandemics to be voted on at the World Health Assembly at the end of this month.

Unfounded Messaging on Urgency

The Pandemic Agreement (treaty) and IHR amendments have been promoted based on claims of a rapidly increasing risk of pandemics. In fact, they pose an ‘existential threat’ (i.e. one that may end our existence) according to the G20’s High Level Independent Panel in 2022. However, the increase in reported natural outbreaks on which the WHO, the World Bank, G20, and others based these claims is shown to be unfounded in a recent analysis from the UK’s University of Leeds. The main database on which most outbreak analyses rely, the GIDEON database, shows a reduction in natural outbreaks and resultant mortality over the past 10 to 15 years, with the prior increase between 1960 and 2000 fully consistent with the development of the technologies necessary to detect and record such outbreaks; PCR, antigen and serology tests, and genetic sequencing.

The WHO does not refute this but simply ignores it. Nipah viruses, for example, only ‘emerged’ in the late 1990s when we found ways to actually detect them. Now we can readily distinguish new variants of coronavirus to promote uptake of pharmaceuticals. The risk does not change by detecting them; we just change the ability to notice them. We also have the ability to modify viruses to make them worse – this is a relatively new problem. But do we really want an organization influenced by China, with North Korea on its executive board (insert your favorite geopolitical rivals), to manage a future bioweapons emergency?

Irrespective of growing evidence that Covid-19 was not a natural phenomenon, modelling that the World Bank quotes as suggesting a 3x increase in outbreaks over the next decade actually predicts that a Covid-like event will recur less than once per century. Diseases that the WHO uses to suggest an increase in outbreaks over the past 20 years, including cholera, plague, yellow fever, and influenza variants were orders of magnitude worse in past centuries.

This all makes it doubly confusing that the WHO is breaking its own legal requirements in order to push through a vote without Member States having time to properly review implications of the proposals. The urgency must be for reasons other than public health need. Others can speculate why, but we are all human and all have egos to protect, even when preparing legally binding international agreements.

Low Relative Burden

The burden (e.g. death rate or life years lost) of acute outbreaks is a fraction of the overall disease burden, far lower than many endemic infectious diseases such as malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis, and a rising burden of non-communicable disease. Few natural outbreaks over the past 20 years have resulted in more than 1,000 deaths – or 8 hours of tuberculosis mortality. Higher-burden diseases should dominate public health priorities, however dull or unprofitable they may seem. 

With the development of modern antibiotics, major outbreaks from the big scourges of the past like Plague and typhus ceased to occur. Though influenza is caused by a virus, most deaths are also due to secondary bacterial infections. Hence, we have not seen a repeat of the Spanish flu in over a century. We are better at healthcare than we used to be and have improved nutrition (generally) and sanitation. Widespread travel has eliminated the risks of large immunologically naive populations, making our species more immunologically resilient. Cancer and heart disease may be increasing, but infectious diseases overall are declining. So where should we focus?

Lack of Evidence Base

Investment in public health requires both evidence (or high likelihood) that the investment will improve outcomes and an absence of significant harm. The WHO has demonstrated neither with their proposed interventions. Neither has anyone else. The lockdown and mass vaccination strategy promoted for Covid-19 resulted in a disease that predominantly affects elderly sick people leading to 15 million excess deaths, even increasing mortality in young adults. In past acute respiratory outbreaks, things got better after one or perhaps two seasons, but with Covid-19 excess mortality persisted. 

Within public health, this would normally mean we check whether the response caused the problem. Especially if it’s a new type of response, and if past understanding of disease management predicted that it would. This is more reliable than pretending that past knowledge did not exist. So again, the WHO (and other public-private partnerships) are not following orthodox public health, but something quite different.

Centralization for a Highly Heterogeneous Problem

Twenty-five years ago, before private investors became so interested in public health, it was accepted that decentralization was sensible. Providing local control to communities that could then prioritize and tailor health interventions themselves can provide better outcomes. Covid-19 underlined the importance of this, showing how uneven the impact of an outbreak is, determined by population age, density, health status, and many other factors. To paraphrase the WHO, ‘Most people are safe, even when some are not.’ 

However, for reasons that remain unclear to many, the WHO decided that the response for a Toronto aged care resident and a young mother in a Malawian village should be essentially the same – stop them from meeting family and working, then inject them with the same patented chemicals. The WHO’s private sponsors, and even the two largest donor countries with their strong pharmaceutical sectors, agreed with this approach. So too did the people paid to implement it. It was really only history, common sense, and public health ethics that stood in the way, and they proved much more malleable.

Absence of Prevention Strategies Through Host Resilience

The WHO IHR amendments and Pandemic Agreement are all about detection, lockdowns, and mass vaccination. This would be good if we had nothing else. Fortunately, we do. Sanitation, better nutrition, antibiotics, and better housing halted the great scourges of the past. An article in the journal Nature in 2023 suggested that just getting vitamin D at the right level may have cut Covid-19 mortality by a third. We already knew this and can speculate on why it became controversial. It’s really basic immunology. 

Nonetheless, nowhere within the proposed US$30+ billion annual budget is any genuine community and individual resilience supported. Imagine putting a few billion more into nutrition and sanitation. Not only would you dramatically reduce mortality from occasional outbreaks, but more common infectious diseases, and metabolic diseases such as diabetes and obesity, would also go down. This would actually reduce the need for pharmaceuticals. Imagine a pharmaceutical company, or investor, promoting that. It would be great for public health, but a suicidal business approach.

Conflicts of Interest

All of which brings us, obviously, to conflicts of interest. The WHO, when formed, was essentially funded by countries through a core budget, to address high-burden diseases on country request. Now, with 80% of its use of funds specified directly by the funder, its approach is different. If that Malawian village could stump up tens of millions for a program, they would get what they ask for. But they don’t have that money; Western countries, Pharma, and software moguls do. 

Most people on earth would grasp that concept far better than a public health workforce heavily incentivized to think otherwise. This is why the World Health Assembly exists and has the ability to steer the WHO in directions that don’t harm their populations. In its former incarnation, the WHO considered conflict of interest to be a bad thing. Now, it works with its private and corporate sponsors, within the limits set by its Member States, to mold the world to their liking.

The Question Before Member States

To summarize, while it’s sensible to prepare for outbreaks and pandemics, it’s even more sensible to improve health. This involves directing resources to where the problems are and using them in a way that does more good than harm. When people’s salaries and careers become dependent on changing reality, reality gets warped. The new pandemic proposals are very warped. They are a business strategy, not a public health strategy. It is the business of wealth concentration and colonialism – as old as humanity itself. 

The only real question is whether the majority of the Member States of the World Health Assembly, in their voting later this month, wish to promote a lucrative but rather amoral business strategy, or the interests of their people.

---

Economist Peter Schiff Predicts A Financial Crisis That Will Make The Great Depression Look Tame

---