Rand Paul leading the way to freedom

To the editor:

It’s alarming to see what countries are doing under the umbrella of Covid. It’s the new legal standard that imposes behavior control and even jail terms if mandates are violated. Austria, Great Britain, Australia, Germany are just a few of the countries besides the United States exercising that new power. Some countries are even restricting behavior…..requiring residents to stay home, policing residents by police if outdoors to show vaccination cards or be fined. Australia even has “concentration” camps where a few escaped last week and a district manhunt was called to recapture the violators.

People are protesting to no avail. Few politicians world-wide are willing to take a stand for individual rights. In the United States the ruling class controls….and few Republicans consistently challenge what is happening…exception is Rand Paul. There’s a terrible pattern emerging even before covid with our constitutional rights slowly eroding. Republicans have been complicit by supporting such measures as the Patriots Act and their silence at the DOJ’s intrusion in our lives. People are now fed up with mandates, government intrusion and slowly the grass-roots is gaining momentum via parents challenging school boards over masks and workers/parents objecting to compulsory vaccines. Now we need political leadership to continue. This is a real winning issue.

Recent data from Great Britain shows that there is 2x more deaths ages 60 and under from vaccinated adults than unvaccinated. Perhaps that’s why many health workers refuse to take the vaccine. There’s also unconfirmed reports that vaccine producing executives remain unvaccinated and recently the Pfizer CEO stated the other manufacturers are experiencing many death from the shot. Is this something we should be alarmed about. I bet it won’t be reported in the press?

Rand Paul is trying to stir the debate for treatment options rather than developing more ineffective vaccines but the ruling class controls the “best practice” protocols most likely driven by money….not our best interest. The more Americans are made aware of what’s happening the ruling class policy direction will change. Already Fauci’s influence is diminished and Biden’s threats are being challenged in the courts and overruled.

We get what we accept!

Frank Mazur

South Burlington

The author is a former representative for South Burlington in the Vermont Legislature.

Categories: Commentary

Tagged as:

13 replies »

  1. I disagree. He certainly has done some grandstanding, while asking for money.
    But he is pro vaccination. He makes fun of masking and some of Fauci lies, but that’s it.
    He’s a fraud. He has enough goods on Fauci to have him arrested. Instead he just rolls his eyes.

      • Christian, From what I’ve seen of people trying to explain things to you is a worthless endeavor. You obviously seem to admire Fauci who is nothing more than a government tool. If you do not read the news, why do you comment here? He lied to congress about gain of function, he lied about using taxpayer money to fund gain of function studies in China which was illegal, he has funded brutal experiments on Monkeys, Beagles and orphaned children for HIV (Aids) vaccines. Many people believe he is a monster, capable of anything to gain money, power and celebrity. If you don’t believe me, find it yourself. I will not research for you because everything I stated here can be easily found!

      • Dano,

        Not sure which conversations you refer to as I seem to have many on here. If it can be found so easily can you please share your sources? I prefer to read what people on here are getting their facts from. Makes it easier for me to understand.

      • Question for you: Do you agree that the reference to a ‘research method’ and a reference to a ‘research finding’ is an example of the use of inconsistent terms that say the same thing in a different way?

      • H. Jay,

        I haven’t heard about anyone referring to these terms. I’ll give you my personal opinion: “research method” would describe the methods used to test a hypothesis that lead to a result. A “research finding” would describe that result.

        What do you think?

      • Christian, I agree. And, speaking of the ‘goods’, this explains how Dr. Fauci perjured himself when he testified to congress.

        On May 11, 2021, Dr Fauci testified that “the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wu Han Institute of Virology”.

        Since that testimony, an October 20, 2021, letter from Lawrence A. Tabak, Principal Deputy Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Representative James Comer, Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Reform, clearly demonstrates that the NIH did fund the “bat coronavirus” research with grants to EcoHealth Alliance Inc. – grants that were then ‘subawarded’ to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct the research.

        Were the grants for ‘gain of function’ research?

        According to the Tabak letter, the “bat coronavirus” research plan (as it is referred to) was reviewed and approved by the NIH in advance of the funding being provided. According to the letter, NIH grant terms included the specific caveat that, “out of an abundance of caution… a requirement that the grantee report immediately a one log increase in growth”. A “one log (one logarithmic) increase in growth” is considered to be a ‘gain of function’ according to generally accepted definitions.

        In the final analysis, it’s irrelevant what the findings of this research were. The fact that these “SARS-CoV-2” findings exist (again, as the findings are referred to in the letter), proves the existence of the research that created the findings. And the NIH admits to providing the funding grants.

        Was Dr. Fauci qualified to provide his May 11 testimony? Was he under oath at the time? Was he in a position of authority to know in this regard? Did he have the technical expertise to understand the topic and questions put to him? Is it reasonable then to conclude that Dr. Fauci, of all people, would know if “the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wu Han Institute of Virology”?

        If the answer to these questions is yes (and it is), Dr. Fauci committed perjury when he testified to congress and he should be indicted.

      • H. Jay,

        Thank you for the summary, I wasn’t really following this so this is some good information to have. I found this article on the Intercept which seems to have additional information –

        Is this coming down to the definition of “gain of function”? It seems like some people define it as if the virus is enhanced to make it more harmful/infectious to humans, while others don’t see it as only needing to impact humans?

      • This is the point, Christian. It all boils down to ‘equal protection’. I’ve read the subsequent July 20, 2021 transcript of the testimony several times. Here is the first smoking gun.

        Dr. Fauci: (55:27)
        “Let me just finish. I want everyone to understand that if you look at those viruses, and that’s judged by qualified virologists and evolutionary biologists, those viruses are molecularly impossible to result – [in a gain of function].“

        I repeat – to “look at those viruses” and determine they are “molecularly impossible to result – “ … in a gain of function, describes ‘gain of function research’. As everyone has testified, even Fauci, the research occurred. What the findings of that research is, wasn’t the question Fauci was asked in May 2020 or in this transcript.

        The second smoking gun is the Tabak letter describing the terms of the funded research in which there was a specific “.. requirement that the grantee report immediately a one log increase in growth”. Again, that the growth may or may not have occurred is not the allegation. The allegation is that the research occurred, that it occurred in the Wuhan Lab, and that it was funded by the NIH.

        Fauci testified that “the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wu Han Institute of Virology”.

        You and I and everyone else can debate the relevance of these statements. But what should happen is that a grand jury should look at the evidence (and it is evidence) and decide whether or not an indictment is in order. If this due process is not followed, it’s simply further proof that our judicial system is corrupt. After all, consider the minimal evidence used to indict General Mike Flynn back in 2017 and the evidence fabricated by the FBI to initiate the Russia Collusion hoax.

        This is important because there are standards governing evidence admissibility, especially with regard to ‘the use of inconsistent terms that say the same thing in different ways’ (Federal Rules of Evidence #101).

        If it walks like a duck…..

    • Dr David Martin mentioned Rand Paul could have slam-dunked Fauci, but he didn’t…
      seems more concerned with his own election-related/fund-raising.

  2. Rand Paul is the voice crying out in the desert. The system is so vastly controlled by the left he has no power other than his voice of reason. He may have evidence to convict, but if you have a judiciary not willing to convict all you have left is a public willing to stand and say no. When are we going to make that stand?

Leave a Reply