‘Defeat the Mandates’: Thousands Protest in Washington Against Vaccine Requirements

By Jack Phillips January 23, 2022 Updated: January 23, 2022

Crowd gathers at Lincoln Memorial for the Defeat the Mandates rally
Protesters gather at Lincoln Memorial for the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington on Jan. 23, 2022. (Lynn Lin/NTD)

Thousands of people turned out in Washington to march in protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates on Jan. 23—one of the largest U.S. events and protests held against the mandates since the start of the pandemic.

Starting at 12:30 p.m. local time, thousands of people marched around the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial, with many holding signs decrying COVID-19 regulations, vaccine passports, and mandates. Some criticized the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates.

In recent weeks, U.S. COVID-19 cases have skyrocketed in areas that have high vaccination rates, once again casting a shadow on the effectiveness of the shots, and a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study suggested that natural immunity is superior to vaccines against the Delta variant. Federal officials frequently say that vaccines protect against severe disease and hospitalization.

Crowd gathers at Lincoln Memorial for the
Crowd gathers at Lincoln Memorial for the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington on Jan. 23, 2022. (Lynn Lin/NTD)

Former NBA star Kwame Brown, who has frequently criticized vaccine mandates on social media, told The Epoch Times that he attended because “I think we got to get back to compassion for our fellow man and woman.”

“People are being put out of work” over mandates, he said on Jan. 23 in Washington. “People are not being able to go over to their friends and family’s house. … I think everybody should have a right to choose whether they want to do it … and that’s what America is supposed to be about.”

Protesters gather at Lincoln Memorial for the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington on Jan. 23, 2022. (Lynn Lin/NTD)
Protesters gather at Lincoln Memorial for the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington on Jan. 23, 2022. (Lynn Lin/NTD)

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, who was fired three weeks ago by the University of California–Irvine for challenging the school’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy, similarly told The Epoch Times on Jan. 23: “Americans need to recover our right to assembly and our right to public spaces.

“I think the most important thing about this event is that it is a public event. And it’s an opportunity for all of us to be together in solidarity and love for one another, to speak up against coercive mandates, to let doctors be doctors without other entities coming between a doctor’s own medical judgment and caring for his patient.”

Crowd gathers at Lincoln Memorial for the Defeat the Mandates rally
Protesters gather at Lincoln Memorial for the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington on Jan. 23, 2022. (Lynn Lin/NTD)

Kheriaty, who has become a frequent critic of vaccine passports and mandates, said he hopes this event “will catalyze a movement in the United States.” And while some media outlets have described the march as an “anti-vaccine” event, Kheriaty and march organizers said it’s the mandates, not the vaccines, that they oppose.

One of the march’s organizers told Fox News over the weekend that the rally is important to push back against what he described as increasingly coercive measures that are coming from the White House.

“You’re going to hear a lot of [talk on the left that] this is a big, anti-vax rally, [that] it’s people coming in to deny science,” march organizer Will Witt stated. “But this march is about the mandate, and this march is about the Draconian measures that we’re seeing all across this country right now, especially in places like D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco.”

Jan Jekielek contributed to this report.

Jack Phillips

Breaking News Reporter

Follow

Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York.

IMPORTANT DECLARATION: LiesHunting.Com does not necessarily share the political views expressed in articles published from other information media. | Visit the source for more information

Cruise Ship With Hundreds of People on Board Diverts to Bahamas After US Issues Arrest Warrant

By Jack Phillips January 23, 2022 Updated: January 23, 2022

Cruise ship Crystal Symphony departing from the inner harbour of the Port of Fremantle, Western Australia, on a Southern Australia & Tasmania cruise from Fremantle to Sydney Cruise ship Crystal Symphony departing from the inner harbour of the Port of Fremantle, Western Australia, on a Southern Australia & Tasmania cruise from Fremantle to Sydney. Images uploaded by Bahnfrend
Cruise ship Crystal Symphony departing from the inner harbour of the Port of Fremantle, Western Australia, on a Southern Australia & Tasmania cruise from Fremantle to Sydney. Images uploaded by Bahnfrend

A Miami judge issued a warrant that gives officials the ability to seize the Crystal Symphony ship if it enters U.S. waters. Passengers and crew on board told news outlets that the cruise ship diverted to the Bahamas instead of returning to South Florida.

Xivi Medina, a vendor aboard the Crystal Symphony, told NBC Miami that there are no passengers on board now. The only people on board are crew members and vendors.

“The company is going to take care of getting all the crewmembers back home,” said Medina. “Obviously they’re [going to] do it little by little, but the company is buying the tickets to get each of the crewmembers back to their respective countries.”

Elio Pace, a singer performing on the Crystal Symphony, also wrote that the ship was diverted.

“Would you believe me if I told you that yesterday, Friday, (the night of my second show) after all arrangements had been set for flights, car hire, etc by all disembarking passengers and crew, we were notified by the captain that the ship was no longer sailing to Miami and was instead diverting to Bimini in the Bahamas where we would arrive tomorrow, Sunday, and disembark from there?” he wrote on Instagram.

A passenger wrote on Twitter to travel agent Mundy Cruising: “Can you help me change my flight to Heathrow from Miami as we are stuck on Crystal Symphony which has changed route and is now heading for Bahamas instead of Miami.”

In a court complaint, Peninsula Petroleum claimed that Crystal Cruises owes the firm $4.6 million dollars in unpaid fuel bills, including $1 million from the Crystal Symphony alone, according to Local10.

According to court documents, “Peninsula has not been paid for the maritime necessities provided to the vessel, and therefore proceeds to arrest it.” A Miami-based judge issued a warrant saying officials can seize the ship, NBC Miami reported.

J. Stephen Simms, the lead attorney representing Peninsula Petroleum Far East, told Bloomberg that U.S. marshals and a court-appointed custodian are ready to seize the ship if it comes into port in Florida. Crystal Cruises’ parent firm, Genting Hong Kong, filed for provisional liquidation last Wednesday, according to the news outlet.

The Crystal Symphony cruise left Miami on Jan. 8 for a 21-day through the Bahamas. It was supposed to return to Florida on Jan. 29, media reports say.

Crystal Cruises announced earlier this week that it was suspending operations through late April. Besides Crystal Symphony, it has two other ships currently cruising, which end their voyages on Jan. 30 in Aruba and on Feb. 4 in Argentina.

“Suspending operations will provide Crystal’s management team with an opportunity to evaluate the current state of business and examine various options moving forward,” said the company in a statement earlier this week.

The Epoch Times has contacted Crystal Cruises for comment.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Jack Phillips

Breaking News Reporter

Follow

Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York.

IMPORTANT DECLARATION: LiesHunting.Com does not necessarily share the political views expressed in articles published from other information media. | Visit the source for more information

Nearly Half of Democrats Would Back Temporary Detention for Unvaccinated: Poll

Nurse Ellen Quinones prepares a dose of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine at the Bathgate Post Office vaccination facility in the Bronx, N.Y., on Jan. 10, 2021. (Kevin Hagen/Pool via Reuters)
Nurse Ellen Quinones prepares a dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine at the Bathgate Post Office vaccination facility in the Bronx, N.Y., on Jan. 10, 2021. (Kevin Hagen/Pool via Reuters)

Nearly half of Democrat voters would back measures requiring that the unvaccinated live temporarily in “designated facilities or locations” for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, a recent poll has found.

A national telephone and online poll from the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports, which surveyed 1,016 likely U.S. voters, found that 45 percent of likely Democratic voters would support such measures for unvaccinated Americans.

The poll, conducted on Jan. 5 and released on Jan. 13, also found that 59 percent of respondents who said they were Democrats would favor a government policy requiring that citizens “remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies” if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

The margin of error is 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.

Almost half of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications, the survey found.

Meanwhile, 29 percent of likely Democrat voters who participated in the survey said they would favor temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

No such penalties have been rolled out for the unvaccinated in the United States, however, elsewhere, some are set to face fines if they haven’t been vaccinated against COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

Greece has imposed a vaccination mandate for people aged 60 and older. Older people failing to get vaccinated will face penalties, starting at a 50-euro ($57) fine in January and followed by a monthly fine of 100 euros ($114) after that.

Health minister Thanos Plevris said the fines would be collected through the tax office with the money going to help fund state hospitals.

“The age factor is important because of its impact on the public health service,” Plevris told private Open TV on Sunday.

In Austria, the health minister announced last month the government plans to impose fines of up to 3,600 euros (around $4,000) on people who flout a COVID-19 vaccine mandate it aims to introduce in February for all residents aged 14 and over.

In Canada, Quebec province is set to fine unvaccinated residents who do not have a medical exemption from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

The French-speaking province’s Premier Francois Legault announced on Jan. 11 that adult residents who do not qualify for medical exemptions will be charged a financial penalty. He said he believes that refusing to get vaccinated leads to consequences for the health care system.

Last week’s announcement marked the first time a government in Canada has announced a financial penalty for people who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

“Those who refuse to get their first doses in the coming weeks will have to pay a new health contribution,” Legault said. “The majority are asking that there be consequences. … It’s a question of fairness for the 90 percent of the population that have made some sacrifices. We owe them.”

Legault didn’t elaborate on the details of the financial penalty, but said it would be “significant.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

IMPORTANT DECLARATION: Cazamentiras.Com does not necessarily share the political views expressed in articles published from other information media. | Visit the source for more information

The European Union: a fruit of the Marshall Plan distant in History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism suicidal weapon. Author: Osval, Cuban
Socialism suicidal weapon. Author: Osval, Cuban

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative passed in 1948 for foreign aid to Western Europe. The United States transferred over $13 billion (equivalent of about $114 billion in 2020) in economic recovery programs to Western European economies after the end of World War II. Replacing an earlier proposal for a Morgenthau Plan, it operated for four years beginning on April 3, 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-torn regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, improve European prosperity, and prevent the spread of communism. The Marshall Plan required a reduction of interstate barriers, a dropping of many regulations, and encouraged an increase in productivity, as well as the adoption of modern business procedures.

General George C. Marshall, the 50th U.S. Secretary of State
General George C. Marshall, the 50th U.S. Secretary of State (U.S. Department of State)

The Marshall Plan aid was divided among the participant states roughly on a per capita basis. A larger amount was given to the major industrial powers, as the prevailing opinion was that their resuscitation was essential for the general European revival. Somewhat more aid per capita was also directed toward the Allied nations, with less for those that had been part of the Axis or remained neutral. The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total), but the enormous cost that Britain incurred through the “Lend-Lease” scheme was not fully re-paid to the USA until 2006. The next highest contributions went to France (18%) and West Germany (11%). Some eighteen European countries received Plan benefits. Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits, and also blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries, such as Hungary and Poland. The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not part of the Marshall Plan.

Its role in the rapid recovery has been debated. The Marshall Plan’s accounting reflects that aid accounted for about 3% of the combined national income of the recipient countries between 1948 and 1951, which means an increase in GDP growth of less than half a percent.

The labelling used on aid packages created and sent under the Marshall Plan
The labelling used on aid packages created and sent under the Marshall Plan. USAID Graphic Standards Manual

After World War II, in 1947, industrialist Lewis H. Brown wrote (at the request of General Lucius D. Clay) A Report on Germany, which served as a detailed recommendation for the reconstruction of post-war Germany, and served as a basis for the Marshall Plan. The initiative was named after United States Secretary of State George C. Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House with Harry S. Truman as president. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan, with help from the Brookings Institution, as requested by Senator Arthur Vandenberg, chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Marshall spoke of an urgent need to help the European recovery in his address at Harvard University in June 1947.

Great Seal of the United States.
Great Seal of the United States.

The purpose of the Marshall Plan was to aid in the economic recovery of nations after World War II and to reduce the influence of communist parties within them. To combat the effects of the Marshall Plan, the USSR developed its own economic plan, known as the Molotov Plan, in spite of the fact that large amounts of resources from the Eastern Bloc countries to the USSR were paid as reparations, for countries participating in the Axis Power during the war.

The phrase “equivalent of the Marshall Plan” is often used to describe a proposed large-scale economic rescue program.

In 1951 the Marshall Plan was largely replaced by the Mutual Security Act.

Stolen World Heritage Site

Perla Blanca Beach in the Santa María Cays, north of Villa Clara Province, Cuba. Photo: Tee Bee
Perla Blanca Beach in the Santa María Cays, north of Villa Clara Province, Cuba. Photo: Tee Bee

We want to find out that the United Nations has declared the earthly paradise that appears in the photo a “stolen World Heritage Site”. It is an extensive strip of stunning beaches on the North Coast of Cuba (something similar we find on the southern side of the Cuban Archipelago) and that the Cuban Government has granted to particular foreign companies (most of them Spanish) who are responsible for the impressive Cuba’s natural beauties are visited almost exclusively by supporters of the Castroites, excluding the other 7,771 million (World Population Clock, June 22, 2021 – 3:00 pm EST).

The United Nations should be neither socialist nor anti-socialist, but should be the highest banner of Freedom, Justice and Prosperity for all Humanity. It is regrettable and tragic that the UN has become a partial body of a small part of the world’s population.

Queremos enterarnos que la ONU haya declarado “Patrimonio de la Humanidad robado” el paraíso terrenal que aparece en la foto. Se trata de una extensa franja de despampanantes playas sobre la Costa Norte de Cuba (algo parecido encontramos en el lado Sur del Archipiélago Cubano) y que el Gobierno Cubano ha concedido a particulares compañías extranjeras (la mayoría españolas) quienes se encargan de que las impresionantes bellezas naturales de Cuba sean visitadas casi en exclusivo por partidarios de los castristas, excluyendo a los otros 7 mil 771 millones (Reloj Mundial de Población, Junio 22 del 2021 – 3:00 pm EST).

La ONU no debería ser ni socialista ni antisocialista, sino que debería ser la más alta bandera de la Libertad, la Justicia y la Prosperidad de toda la Humanidad. Es lamentable y trágico que la ONU se haya convertido en un organismo parcial de una pequeña parte de la población mundial.

The explosion of La Coubre in the Port of Havana

Second explosion of the ship La Coubre in the Port of Havana on March 4 1960 Photo LinCu Archives
Second explosion of the ship La Coubre in the Port of Havana on March 4 1960 Photo LinCu Archives

Sanity, the sacred responsibility of ruling leaders with their citizens, as well as International Law, advise that weapons and explosives cannot be unloaded or handled in civilian ports in any nation in the world. The Castros knew of such a prohibition, and even so they ordered to dock a ship loaded with weapons and explosives in the very heart of the capital and the main city of Cuba.

The explosion of the La Coubre cargo ship in the Port of Havana actually demonstrated that the Castro Brothers, who had recently taken power in Cuba, were very dangerous characters capable of committing massive assassinations to attract the attention of the World to them and their supposed purposes of justice and freedom, not only in Cuba, but also in increasing number of nations of The Americas and Africa since then.

Información original en Español
El sano juicio, la responsabilidad sagrada de los líderes gobernantes con sus ciudadanos, tanto como la Ley Internacional, aconsejan que no se puede descargar ni manipular armas y explosivos en puertos civiles en cualquier nación del Mundo. Los Castro sabían de tal prohibición, y aun así ordenaron atracar un barco cargado de armas y explosivos en el corazón mismo de la capital y la principal ciudad de Cuba.
La explosion del carguero La Coubre en el Puerto de La Habana en realidad demostró que los Hermanos Castro quienes recientemente se habían hecho del poder en Cuba, eran personajes muy peligrosos, capaces de cometer asesinatos masivos para atraer la atención del Mundo sobre ellos y sus supuestos propósitos de justicia y libertad, no solo en Cuba, sino además en número creciente desde entonces de naciones de Las Américas y Africa.
%d bloggers like this: