As headlines describe increasing “cases” of a new virus variant, exacerbating fear yet again about COVID, it is time for President Trump to calm the public. First, the president’s public health leadership should remind the public that SARS-CoV-2 is now an endemic virus. Like all other endemic viruses, including the four other coronaviruses in circulation, it will never disappear. It will also have relatively low lethality and be seasonal, with mild symptoms for all but the highest risk populations. (RELATED: The Wages of COVID — Part One) The FAA’s Overreaction to COVID Fears But the president himself can act to instill the public’s confidence in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by removing key employees who demonstrate they lack the requisite judgment and mental fitness to act rationally in emergencies. (RELATED: Bhattacharya Did Not Follow the COVID Herd) One way to accomplish both is for President Trump to issue an executive order prohibiting mask use by FAA personnel and related aviation employees, as authorized by the Constitution and law, including the Federal Aviation Act of 1965, as amended in 49 U.S.C. § 40101 et seq. The rationale and policy outline of the executive order are straightforward. The safety of America’s aviation system depends on the mental sharpness and reliability of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) personnel, including pilots, air traffic controllers, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers, and airline staff like flight attendants. After all, the FAA consistently stresses safety as its top concern, from its mission statement to numerous press releases. As its Aviation Safety (AVS) organization states, “Safety is our primary mission. Everything we do is focused on ensuring the highest level of safety in the aviation system.” That would certainly encompass eliminating key personnel in air transportation who exhibit irrational behavior that would alarm the public, including actions implying they are not fit for critical positions of responsibility for safety in emergencies. Mask use by these personnel undermines public confidence by suggesting irrational fear in those entrusted to act in the most extreme emergency settings. First, commercial aircraft are extremely low risk for airborne infections like COVID. Aircraft employ unique ventilation systems coupling High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters with frequent air exchanges. International Air Transport Association (IATA) and Harvard’s Chan School of Public Health report aircraft cabin air is renewed every 90 seconds to 3 minutes, with a 50 percent mix of fresh outside air and 50 percent HEPA-filtered recirculated air that removes 99.9 percent of viruses and bacteria, including for COVID. Data from 2020-2021 support the efficacy of those systems. In fact, no documented large-scale COVID outbreaks have been linked to commercial air travel, aside from reports of scattered cases. A study of 1,100 passengers with confirmed COVID who had recently flown found that among 125,000 passengers on those flights, only one additional passenger and two crew members were suspected of in-flight transmission.  Another review of 50 flights from January 2020 to April 2021 found evidence of limited in-flight transmission, but no large-scale outbreaks. Second, it is contrary to a multitude of scientific studies and therefore irrational to maintain the false contention that surgical or other masks prevent the spread of COVID. Reviews of all randomized trials and other studies, including those published by the CDC, prove that masks, including surgical and N95 types, do not stop SARS-CoV-2 or other viral respiratory infections. This virus (0.06–0.14 micrometers) is smaller than surgical mask pores (0.3–10 micrometers), rendering them ineffective — indeed, the FDA notes that surgical masks do not protect against airborne infections. Particle reduction claims are irrelevant, as only infection prevention matters, and masks fail this test. Global data show case surges even in high-mask-compliance countries like Japan and South Korea. While this new executive order prohibits mask-wearing in aviation personnel while performing duties, including air traffic control, aircraft operation, passenger screening, and in-flight safety tasks, air carriers should also train personnel on mental resilience and public trust. The FAA and air carriers should offer psychiatric counseling and leaves of absence to aviation personnel who might feel masks are needed for protection against COVID or other viruses, to address potential fear or anxiety affecting their duties.  Educational materials should be distributed to inform personnel of data proving mask inefficacy, low aviation transmission risk, and the irrationality of masking for low-risk viruses like the common cold and the flu. It should be a priority policy of the United States to ensure that aviation personnel demonstrate confidence and rational decision-making. Masking for a low-risk endemic virus is as absurd as masking for the common cold and the flu, signaling poor judgment. Masks should be prohibited in order to maintain trust and ensure personnel who lack the logic, appropriate sense of reality, and temperament for operational readiness in the most stressful emergencies are not present in FAA operations. Scott W. Atlas, MD, is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and was Special Advisor to the President during fall 2020. READ MORE: The Wages of COVID — Part Two Dr. Anthony Fauci: What Exactly Did Biden Pardon? Dr. Fauci Doubles Down The post Allay the Fear and Restore Sanity in the FAA by Executive Order appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from The People’s Voice: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Michael Snyder, End Of The American Dream: If you think that it is just a coincidence that highly volatile protests have suddenly been organized all over the nation, you are being quite naive.  As I pointed out the other day, large organizations with plenty of money are involved in this effort.  President Trump was able […]

DIRT, POWER & HARLEYS! ??

In October 2024, economist Professor Gigi Foster delivered a TEDx talk at the University of New South Wales titled The Manipulator’s Playbook — a searing indictment of how fear and conformity are weaponized by those in power to silence dissent. Her message was clear: defend independent thought, challenge authority, and reject the manufactured narratives used to control populations. Yet, despite meeting TEDx’s editorial standards, her talk was abruptly censored by TED’s U.S. headquarters, and it was deemed too dangerous for public consumption. This suppression isn’t just hypocrisy — it’s proof that even platforms claiming to champion “radical ideas” now serve as gatekeepers for the elite. Article by Lance D. Johnson, republished with permission from Naturalnews.com Key points: TED rejected Professor Gigi Foster’s talk on pandemic-era censorship and government overreach, despite her evidence-backed arguments. The talk exposed how fear and love are exploited to manipulate public behavior, drawing parallels to historical tragedies like the Cultural Revolution and Nazi Germany. TED’s censorship reveals a broader trend: Institutions once praised for free speech now enforce ideological conformity under the guise of “community guidelines.” Foster’s case highlights the urgent need for independent platforms that allow dissenting voices to challenge mainstream narratives. When ideas become too dangerous to platform Foster’s talk (hosted on Rumble) confronted the systemic marginalization of dissent during crises, exemplified by the Covid-19 scandal. Her framing aligns with historical precedents — like the Cultural Revolution and Nazi Germany — where dissenters were recast as existential threats to justify authoritarian measures. The so-called pandemic saw critics of lockdowns and vaccines branded as “granny killers” or “far-right extremists,” a tactic designed to sideline debate through moral panic rather than through facts and evidence. TED’s rejection of Foster’s talk underscores a paradox: Institutions ostensibly dedicated to “ideas worth spreading” now police ideological boundaries under the guise of “community guidelines.” The justification — claims of “polarizing language” or “attacking public health leaders” — reveals a deeper intolerance for challenges to institutional orthodoxy. This mirrors the speaker’s observation that crises (terrorism, climate change, pandemics) are leveraged to expand control, with dissent pathologized as dangerous. Foster’s case exemplifies how platforms, once gateways for radical thought, now act as enforcers of a narrowing Overton Window. The suppression of Foster’s talk reflects a broader trend where institutions prioritize narrative control over intellectual rigor, betraying their original missions under pressure to conform to centralized power structures. A bureaucracy that cannot handle dissent TED’s bureaucratic rejection process — which demands “additional evidence” for Foster’s claims, only to dismiss peer-reviewed studies included in her speech — exposes the hollow performative aspects of institutional “fact-checking.” The organization acknowledged her arguments were “compelling” yet still deemed them inadmissible, illustrating how systems theory’s “tipping point” manifests: Institutions double down on control when their legitimacy is questioned, even as their contradictions become untenable. Foster’s speech highlights this well: “Expert virologists, akin to Orwell’s pigs, replaced unreliable politicians… [but] displayed human flaws: mistakes ordinary individuals would avoid.” Foster’s critique of pandemic policies — backed by data on lockdown harms and censorship — threatened the facade of technocratic infallibility. TED’s response mirrors the pandemic-era shift where “the narrative blurred into facts,” as dissent was erased not through refutation but exclusion. In this truth, bureaucracies increasingly function as ideological filters, weaponizing proceduralism to silence dissent while maintaining a veneer of neutrality. This aligns with Foster’s concerns that “coercive measures breed more fear, perpetuating the cycle until totalitarianism emerges.” The antidote: Defending diversity of thought Foster’s call to “celebrate forums where people are allowed to think critically” urges local, human-scale solutions that bypass corporatized control. Her advocacy for grassroots dialogues and alternative institutions (e.g., Academia Libera Mentis) mirrors examples like community-supported agriculture (CSA) or local currencies — systems that reclaim agency from centralized power. Similarly, Foster urges epistemic humility — rejecting top-down “truths” in favor of open debate. Her historical analogies reveal a pattern: elites exploit fear and love to demand sacrifices (lockdowns, dehumanization), but dissent disrupts this manipulation. Key Insight: Resilience lies in decentralized networks (local currencies, CSAs, independent academia) that prioritize human connection over institutional dogma. Foster’s censorship by TED epitomizes the thesis of her own speech: “The coronavirus crisis did not arise out of thin air but fit into a series of escalating responses to societal fears.” Institutions, fearing loss of control, now conflate dissent with danger. Yet history shows this always backfires — whether in Nazi Germany’s collapse or the post-Covid reckoning unraveling with populations becoming aware of lockdown harms, vaccine passports and digital control, and vaccine damage. TED’s cowardice reveals a truth Foster articulated well: “The most dangerous ideas are those that expose how power really works.” The antidote is building systems where power cannot silence them. TED’s censorship proves one thing: the most dangerous ideas are those that expose how power really works. In the end, Foster’s call to action was simple: protect forums where dissent is encouraged, not punished. Grassroots movements, independent media, and open dialogues are vital to resisting elite manipulation. “What will always win in the end,” she said, “is love, joy, confidence, tolerance, and an unshakeable belief in the infinite potential of every unique individual.” But these values only prevail if we refuse to let fear divide us. Sources include: Brownstone.org Brownstone.org Rumble.com

Def Leppard guitarist Vivian Campbell's cancer is in remission for first time since 2013 diagnosis

Did he lie about the protest? #california #losangeles #theunitedspot #comedy #memes

Chaos at the Capitol as anti-ICE protesters breach security barricades and storm past Capitol Police

The Justice Department secured four guilty pleas from a USAID employee and corporate executives who conspired to bribe him. They stole $550 million from the US taxpayer, but it wasn’t enough to stir the smallest bit of curiosity in the legacy media. A USAID official and 3 company executives plead guilty in fraud and bribery […] The post Four Plead Guilty to Stealing $550M Tax $$$ at USAID appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.