90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, October 10, 2022

Blogs With Rule 5 Links

The Other McCain has: Late Night With Rule 5 Sunday: My Favorite Celtic Death Goddess

Proof Positive has: Best Of Web Link Around

The Woodsterman has: Rule 5 Woodsterman Style

EBL has: Rule 5 And FMJRA

The Right Way has: Rule 5 Saturday LinkORama

The Pirate's Cove has: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

A Bad American has: Best I’ve Seen This Week…

Visage à trois #522

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

Three Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #703

With ESG, Everyone's a Climate Activist

In 2019, 266 members of the influential Business Roundtable, including the world’s largest fund managers, bankers, communications carriers, even fossil-fuel companies at the risk of their own survival, signed off on a one-page statement reimagining the American corporation. It described a new paradigm of corporate social responsibility to its stakeholders, a perspective that elevates employees, contractors, and suppliers over the interests of profit-seeking shareholders whose investments underwrite a company’s financial health. It presented a woke capitalist view of the new-age company as beholden to environmental and social whims of the political elite.

The concept of stakeholder capitalism is a half-century old, dating back to the Davos manifesto in 1971. To CEOs of a progressive bent, this better kind of capitalism changes the calculus for business leaders by embracing a corporate conscience that devalues short-term shareholder profits in favor of investments aimed at resolving environmental and social issues.

Under the thumb of the United Nations and World Economic Forum, the Biden administration and corporate boardrooms across America have thrown their lot behind the practice of stakeholder capitalism. In so doing, they have put American economic and energy power in the hands of potentates and dictators and brought a sense of reality to decades-old fears of a New World Order, Bilderberg conspiracies, and global kingmakers steering nation-state economies.

Highlighting the European origins of this crusade is a manipulated Swedish teenager named Greta Thunberg, whose well-coached militancy inclines her to apocalyptic outbursts characteristic of an anxiety disorder. Trafficked as a doomsday climate purveyor to world leaders, Thunberg recently showboated her net-zero emission convictions by boarding a sailboat from France to the United States. Pulling off this transatlantic stunt forced several crewmembers to take mega-carbon airline flights to various ports of call.

The movement to align worldwide production and labor is woven into a vision to eliminate carbon emissions from the planet. It is a Trojan Horse for an economic fascism that benefits few but the international corporate and political elites who toast their influence and fortune at Davos cocktail parties.

There’s a lot of backslapping going on in the corporate world over Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) business strategies. ESG provides the leverage used by governments to force-feed a progressive value system on corporations. It is shareholder extortion, a corporate money pit pushed by the climate commissars at the UN and WEF that assures the erosion of shareholder investments.

Climate activism is a billy club swung wildly by the Biden administration and Beltway Democrats to rule over the domestic means of production by threatening a dystopian view of the future. It pervades every department of the administration, including the military. Social media and the academies have fallen in lockstep, censoring or shouting down any denial of climate change narratives. In Alinsky style, last week Biden preached to a distressed audience in Fort Myers that Hurricane Ian ended the debate about the effects of global warming, sinking to a new low in the presence of human misery and destruction with a callous claim discredited days before by...

Sen. Chuck Grassley said on Thursday that a whistleblower provided internal Justice Department documents, alleging 665 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees, including 45 senior-level workers, retired or resigned between 2004 and 2005 in order to avoid discipline for alleged sexual misconduct.

"Simply put, these two documents show a systemic failure within the Justice Department and FBI to protect female employees from sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the workplace and a failure to sufficiently punish employees for that same misconduct," Grassley wrote in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, and FBI Director Christopher Wray. "FBI employees should not have to suffer under daily abuse and misconduct by their colleagues and supervisors."

"Congress has an obligation to perform an objective and independent review of the Justice Department's and FBI's failures and determine the accuracy of the data contained in the documents so that the American people know and understand what, if any, changes have been made to solve these significant problems."

The first document is titled "Retirements and Resignations During Unwelcome Sexual Conduct Adjudications" and was produced by the Justice Department's Office of Disciplinary Appeals. It shows 665 employees Department Office of Inspector General investigated the alleged misconduct, but before the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) issued a final disciplinary letter.

The second document, titled "Inconsistent Adjudication of Non-Consensual Sexual Misconduct," shows the OPR issued "seemingly random penalties and disparate treatment."

"The only discernible pattern appears to be that higher-graded employees, especially supervisors, are more likely to have their sexual misconduct case adjudicated under Offense Code 5.22, and therefore subjected to lesser penalties; whereas, lower-graded employees are seemingly more likely to be adjudicated under Offense Code 5.20, and have a statistically greater likelihood of being dismissed for their sexual misconduct," the second document states. "This may give the appearance the FBI is not holding its supervisors accountable for unwelcome sexual conduct."

The Associated Press also reported in 2020 that they found "at least six sexual misconduct allegations involving senior FBI officials over the...

Visage à trois #521

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

Three Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #701

Corneal graft rejections after Covid vaccination

The following is an excerpt from The Vaccine Reaction.

In 2022, researchers have published articles in the medical literature reporting organ transplant failures in people who have recently received Covid-19 shots. These reports include corneal graft rejections and solid organ transplant failures involving the kidneys, livers, lungs, hearts and pancreas.

A study by Japanese researchers published in June in the Journal of Clinical Medicine showed that acute corneal allografts may be rejected by those who have recently received Covid shots.

Corneal grafts replace damaged corneas, the outer layer of the eye. Corneal grafts can restore lost vision and, historically, corneal grafts have been one of the most successful organ transplants with a very low rejection rate.

The Japanese study conducted an online search using PubMed and EMBASE, which showed that between April through December 2021, 13 articles were published worldwide showing that 21 patients (23 eyes) experienced corneal graft rejection post Covid vaccinations.

All patients experienced graft rejection between one day to six weeks post vaccination.
All Covid Shots Plus Other Vaccines Associated with Corneal Graft Rejection

The main cause for rejection was corneal edema (20 eyes), then keratic precipitates (14 eyes) and conjunctival or cillary injection (14 eyes).

The cornea transplant recipients were evenly distributed between the sexes, with 10 males and 11 females identified in the study with the median age of 68 years old.

Some 66.7 percent of the affected patients received one dose of a Covid shot and 33.3 percent received two doses.

The shots administered included those developed by Pfizer/BioNTech (eight cases), Moderna/NIAID (eight cases), AstraZeneca/Oxford University (four cases), and Sinovac Biotech (one case).

The study authors concluded: