문재앙의 큰그림 (feat 백신패스 재판) 바크로스 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11388293842 문재앙 측이 "99%가 접종해도 의료붕괴가 일어난다" 는 말에서 문재인의 숨은 의도룰 볼수 있다 1.백신패스를 강화 하고 QR통제를 지속하여 공산 인민통제 사회를 완성할것이임 2.의료체제 붕괴를 치밀하게 계획 실행하고 있으며, , 이후 현재 으료 체계 붕괴이후 공공의대를 설립하고 모든 의료체제를 국가 시스템에 귀속 시키겠다 (공산국가 밑거름 ) 3.모든 불만과 저항은 미접종자탓으로 몰아 문재앙 손에 피안묻히고 린민재판 하겠다 https://n.news.naver.com/article/277/0005027559 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ‘멸공’ 논란 정용진 “검찰에 두차례 통신조회 당했다” 정 부회장 “진행 중인 재판, 수사 없는데…” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 거대한 유라시아의 체스판 카자흐스탄/러시아, 미국, 중공의 병가필쟁지지 박상후의 문명개화 중앙아시아의 카자흐스탄에서 발생한 대규모 폭동이 전세계를 뒤흔들고 있습니다. LNG가격 폭등에 불만을 품은 시민들의 항의로 촉발된 것처럼 보이지만 내막이 심상치 않습니다. 카자흐스탄에서는 자동차의 90%가 LNG를 연료로 사용합니다. 정부가 시위에 위협을 느껴 LNG가격을 통제하겠다고 약속했지만 그 기세는 오히려 더 강렬해졌습니다. 수도 누르 술탄의 대통령궁이 불타고 알마띄의 정부청사, 방송국 건물도 불탔습니다. 공항 역시 철저하게 부서지고 불탔습니다. 카자흐 정부는 경찰도 투입하고 군병력까지 투입했지만 군중들의 시위를 진압하지 못했습니다. 오히려 폭동진압에 투입된 군의 장갑차까지 시위대의 포위공세에 도망칠 정도입니다. 알마띄에서는 시위대가 시청사를 습격해 초토화시켰습니다. 시위대는 곤봉과 방패로 무장하는 등 꽤 조직적입니다. 방폭경찰이 시위대에 잡혀 들려나올 정도입니다. 경찰차도 불타고 시위대는 도심 빌딩의 ATM기도 털고 있습니다. 혼란이 극에 달했습니다. 오랫동안의 권위주의 체제에 따른 불만으로 과거에도 시위는 종종 발생했지만 이번에는 그 규모가 상상을 초월합니다. 전국이 통제불능 상태입니다. 이미 10여명이 숨지고 300여명이 다쳤습니다. 색깔혁명이 발발해 정권을 뒤흔들고 중앙아시아 지정학, 지경학까지 뿌리채 흔들고 있습니다. 시위대는 페이스북과 트위터 같은 소셜미디어로 조직돼 움직이고 있습니다. 따라서 미국의 CIA가 배후에서 조종하고 있다는 말도 나오고 있습니다. 대통령궁과 정부청사, 방송국, 공항같은 국가 주요 시설물들이 줄줄이 점령당하고 불에 탄 이번 사태는 철저히 준비된 시위대의 매뉴얼에 따라 이뤄지고 있습니다. 카자흐스탄은 전체주의 독재국가입니다. 자발적으로 일어난 시민들이 이렇게 순식간에 국가 주요 시설들을 마비시킨다는 것은 상식적으로 이해하기 힘듭니다. 카자흐인들은 돌궐족과 몽고족의 후예로 그 기질이 용맹하기는 합니다. 돌궐제국의 영광을 재현하면서 터키와 중앙아시아 국가들이 주창한 투르크연합도 터키가 주도하는 것으로 비처지지만 이를 처음 제안한 나라는 카자흐스탄입니다. 카자흐스탄에는 미국, 러시아, 중공의 그림자가 짙게 드리워진 곳입니다. 강대국들의 양보할 수 없는 이익이 달린 곳입니다. 카자흐스탄은 천연가스, 철광, 망간, 금, 희토류, 우라늄, 다이아몬드의 보고입니다. 특히 우라늄은 전세계 매장량의 40%, 원유는 11%를 차지합니다. 카자흐스탄은 중앙아시아에서 면적이 가장 큰, 러시아의 영향권하에 있는 나라입니다. 푸틴으로서는 반드시 지켜야 하는 곳입니다. 그레이트게임이 카자흐스탄에서 벌어지고 있습니다. 카자흐스탄은 위치상 유라시아의 중심입니다. 러시아로서는 남쪽으로 세력을 투사하기 위해 필요한 지역입니다. 중공의 시진핑으로서도 병가필쟁지지입니다. 카자흐스탄에 일대일로를 위해 300억 달러를 투자했습니다. 일대일로의 주력 인프라인 중공-유럽간 철도 노선이 통과하는 가장 넓은 단일국가가 카자흐스탄입니다. 중공-유럽간 철도는 충칭에서 출발해 카자흐스탄을 거쳐, 벨라루스, 우크라이나를 통해 독일의 두이스버그까지 연결됩니다. 천연가스, 희토류, 우라늄 같은 자원들이 모두 중공도 원하는 것들입니다. 중공은 핵발전용량을 키우고 있어 카자흐스탄의 우라늄이 필요한데다 천연가스도 카자흐스탄이 가장 편리한 도입처입니다. 특히 천연가스는 해상으로 운반해 중공에 들여오는데 40일이상이 걸리는 반면 육상으로 카자흐스탄에서 들여오면 그 기간이 20일로 단축됩니다. 석유자원 채굴에도 중공이 상당히 간여하고 있습니다. 주유소도 중국석유의 투자비중이 5분의 1에 달합니다. 이 밖에 중공의 카자흐스탄 투자는 상당합니다. 토마토 케첩 공장도 지었고 토지도 많이 매입했습니다. 카자흐경제를 중공이 잠식하자 반중정서도 높습니다. 정부 상층부는 친중인데 반해 국민들은 반중입니다. 국민들은 중공의 돈 때문에 지도층이 극도로 부패하게 됐다고 생각하고 있습니다. 카자흐인들의 반중정서는 역사적인 연원도 있습니다. 카자흐인들은 자기네들을 돌궐족의 후예라고 여기고 있습니다. 그런데 돌궐을 약화시켜 중앙아시아로 쫓아낸게 거란의 요왕조입니다. 러시아어로 중국을 키타이라고 하는데 그 유래는 중국어로 거란을 의미하는 키탄입니다. 캐세이 퍼시픽항공의 캐세이가 바로 슬라브어 키타이와 같은 어원입니다. 물론 거란은 역사의 뒤안길로 사라졌지만 키타이란 단어가 주는 상징성 때문에 카자흐민족은 중국을 역사의 철천지 원수로 보고 있습니다. 카자흐여성들이 카자흐스탄 알마띄의 중공총영사관에서 시위를 벌이는 장면입니다. 신쟝위구르에서 가족들이 강제수용소에 끌려가거나 실종됐다면서 중공당국에 항의를 하는 겁니다. 이런 점 때문에라도 카자흐스탄인들 기층에서는 중공은 양립할 수 없는 나라로 보는 정서가 강합니다. 미국도 카자흐스탄에 눈독을 들이고 있습니다. 카자흐스탄은 하루 60만 배럴의 원유를 생산하는데 여기에 미국의 제네럴 일릭트릭, 엑슨 모빌이 진출해 있습니다. 러시아의 석유공사도 카자흐스탄기업과 합작하고 있습니다. 카자흐스탄 토카예프 대통령은 전국이 통제불능 상태에 빠지자 러시아에 도움을 요청했습니다. 카자흐스탄은 아르메니아, 벨라루시, 키르기즈스탄, 타지키스탄, 러시아등과 함께 조직한 CSTO 집단안보기구의 회원국입니다. 모두 구소련 멤버로 지역의 안전보장을 위해 이 조직을 구성했습니다. CSTO는 구성된지 20여년이 지났지만 이번 같은 사태는 처음입니다. 카자흐스탄의 토카예프 대통령은 푸틴과, CSTO순번 의장국인 아르메니아 대통령에게도 전화를 걸어 병력투입을 요청했습니다. 이에 따라 러시아군 공수부대가 항공기편으로 긴급투입되고 있습니다. 또 다른 CSTO회원국 군대도 카자흐스탄으로 출발한 것으로 전해지고 있습니다. CSTO의 의장국 아르메니아는 물론이고 러시아도 카자흐스탄 사태를 외부세력이 개입한 조직적인 테러로 간주하고 있습니다. 러시아, 나토, 미국이 우크라이나 위기를 심각하게 논하고 있는 시점에 불거져 나온 사태이기 때문입니다. 카자흐스탄 사태로 가장 골치가 아프게 된 나라는 러시아, 그 다음이 중공입니다. 미국으로서는 불구경하면 되는 모양새입니다. 카자흐스탄 사태는 에너지 전쟁과도 연관돼 있습니다. 러시아가 에너지패권을 장악하자 미국은 사우디아라비아에 대해 산유량을 늘릴 것을 요청했고 OPEC는 하루에 40만배럴을 생산하고 있습니다. OPEC생산을 늘리면 미국으로서는 우크라이나 담판에 유리하기 때문입니다. 동유럽과 중동, 중앙아시아 전체가 거대한 체스판입니다. 이게 다 직간접적으로 연관돼 있습니다. 카자흐스탄 사태를 이해하는 도식은 간단합니다. 색깔혁명과 다름없는 이번 사태에서 누가 가장 이익을 보고 손해를 보는지를 생각하면 바로 이해 할수 있습니다 https://youtu.be/GWi_E1VFMVo ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 매일신문 [사설] 정권 말기 칠곡보 수문 개방 중단해야 정부는 4대강의 자연성을 회복한다며 보 개방 및 해체를 주장하지만 실제 보의 효과는 정부 주장과 달리 나타나고 있다. 청와대는 보 개방을 앞두고 4대강 보가 수질 악화의 원인이라고 했다. 하지만 정부가 금강·영산강 지역 5개 보를 대상으로 2018년부터 3년간 수문을 개방해 모니터링한 결과 보 건설 후 물이 담겼던 2012~2016년 수질이 대체적으로 더 좋았던 것으로 나타났다 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [서울경제] 북한이 극초음속 미사일 발사 도발을 한 날 중국에 베이징 동계 올림픽 불참을 공식 통보했다. 북한이 극초음속 미사일 발사를 과시하며 중국에는 올림픽 불참을 통보하고 우리 정부에는 종전 선언을 그만두겠다는 의사를 표명한 셈이다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 평등 법안은 자산의 소유자를 제외한 모든 사람들에게 평등과 공정을 약속하는 법안이다. Equality and Fairness for All but Property Owners Laurence M. Vance The grossly misnamed Equality Act is a government attack on the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract. According to the official summary of bill (H.R.5): This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation. The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services. The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity. Not surprisingly, the Equality Act is supported by the usual left-wing suspects like the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, the AARP, and the National Organization for Women, the American Federation of Teachers, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the American Psychological Association, and LGBTQ rights groups. But it is also supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many of America’s largest companies, including Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, eBay, Starbucks, Kellogg’s, and Johnson & Johnson. It even has the support of some religious denominations and groups, including the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, and the Interfaith Alliance. The Equality Act has been languishing in the U.S. Senate since March 1 of this year. It was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on February 18 and passed just a week later by a vote of 224–206. Every Democrat in the House voted in favor of the bill, but only three Republicans did. Although as of this writing, the Senate has not yet acted on it, the bill has a good chance of passing in the second session of the 117th Congress when Democrats see the handwriting on the wall that spells out “Republican landslide” in the 2022 midterm elections. The Republican alternative to the Equality Act, the equally misnamed Fairness for All Act, is no alternative at all if property rights mean anything. Background To understand the Equality Act, we must begin with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It claimed to be: An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes. The Civil Rights Act was divided into 11 titles. Relevant to the subject of discrimination are Titles II, “Injunctive relief against discrimination in places of public accommodation,” and VII, “Equal employment opportunity.” Title II of the Civil Rights Act addresses state and local government overreach: All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof. This is all well and good. Every citizen should be treated equally under the law by government of any type and at any level. But, unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act did not stop there. It further mandated regarding private businesses: All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. “Public accommodations” was then defined as basically any establishment that served the public: hotels, motels, restaurants, gas stations, cafeterias, soda fountains, theaters, concert halls, arenas, stadiums, or other places of exhibition or entertainment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer — (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII also established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce anti-discrimination laws relating to employment. The Civil Rights Act has been supplemented over the years by various laws designed to prohibit even more forms of discrimination in employment like age, pregnancy, and disability. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 instituted the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to prohibit discriminatory acts regarding the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, and national origin. It was later amended to include discrimination based on sex (1974) and disability or familial status (1988). In 2013, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA (S.815), passed the Senate with the help of 10 Republicans. It differed from all earlier anti-discrimination legislation in that it was designed “to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” The bill was never voted on in the House. After several years of failure to pass the Equality Act in the House when it was controlled by Republicans, Democrats, who regained control of the House in the 2018 election, passed the legislation (H.R.5) by a vote of 236–173 on May 17, 2019. Only eight Republicans voted in favor of it. A similar bill (S.788) that was earlier introduced in the Republican-controlled Senate was never voted on. Like the current version of the Equality Act, it was designed “to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes” by amending the Civil Rights Act to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation and expand the Civil Rights Act’s categories of public accommodations. The purpose of the Equality Act is “to expand as well as clarify, confirm and create greater consistency in the protections and remedies against discrimination on the basis of all covered characteristics and to provide guidance and notice to individuals, organizations, corporations, and agencies regarding their obligations under the law.” This is because for several years now, federal agencies and courts have been split on the issue of whether “sex” in the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Most recently, the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 6–3 in the case of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity (together with two other like cases) that discrimination in employment on the basis of sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court concluded: “In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.” But at most, this decision protects LGBTQ “rights” in employment matters only. Fairness for All Act The Republican alternative to the Equality Act is the Fairness for All Act. It was introduced in the 116th Congress (H.R.5331) on December 6, 2019, and referred to various committees, but was never voted on. It was then reintroduced in the 117th Congress (H.R.1440) on February 26, 2021, referred to various committees, and is currently languishing in the House. Like the Equality Act, it would prohibit “discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity,” but at the same time protect “the free exercise of religion” by providing “certain benefits and exemptions to religious providers.” The bill would likewise expand “the definition of public accommodation to which sex discrimination laws apply.” However, exempted are any building or collection of buildings that is used primarily as a denominational headquarters, church administrative office, or church conference center; a place of worship, such as a church, synagogue, mosque, chapel, and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes; a religious educational institution and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes; in connection with a religious celebration or exercise: a facility that is supervised by a priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, or minister of any faith, or religious certifying body, and that is principally engaged in providing food and beverages in compliance with religious dietary requirements; or any online operations or activities of an organization exempt under this section. The legislation also “exempts a church or religious organization from claims of employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity under specified circumstances.” The Fairness for All Act is supported by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the Mormon Church. Its sponsor, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), patterned the legislation after similar legislation enacted in his home state that bans discrimination against LGBTQ individuals—except when it is done by “qualified” religious organizations. Supporters of the Fairness for All Act, like Mormon Church official Jack Gerard, argue that “the time has come for people of faith to acknowledge reality and seek a resolution that protects both LGBT civil rights and religious liberty.” The Fairness for All Act “is a serious effort to reach a sustainable and balanced resolution while there’s still time.” Naturally, activist organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign, oppose the Fairness for All Act because it provides “substandard protections for LGBTQ people” and has “massive loopholes” that upend “critical federal programs.” But they are not alone. Conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and Focus on the Family also oppose the legislation. According to the Family Research Council, the Fairness for All Act “is an ill-advised and poorly drafted bill that does not achieve its goal.” Rather, “it further complicates the issue,” “invites litigation,” and “does not adequately protect religious liberty or, for that matter, women’s rights, women’s privacy, women’s safety, children, parental rights, the medical profession, or even the LGBT community.” According to the Heritage Foundation, the Fairness for All Act “would force individuals and institutions to bow to transgender ideology, threatening privacy, safety, and fairness for women and girls.” In a letter to members of Congress, a group of conservative leaders expressed strong opposition to the Fairness for All Act “because it shares many of the dangerous characteristics of the Equality Act.” Because it elevates “sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to the level of protected classes in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA), this bill would codify a radical gender ideology and empower the federal government to punish citizens who believe sex is rooted in biology and that marriage is between a man and a woman.” The Fatal Flaw The Equality Act and the Fairness for All Act both suffer from the same fatal flaw: the attempt to provide equality and fairness for all but property owners. Supporters and opponents of both Acts all agree on one central idea: The federal government should seek to prohibit discrimination in “public accommodations” based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, or national origin. They only differ regarding whether sex should include sexual orientation and gender identity. Both groups believe that the Civil Rights Act in its entirety was good and necessary legislation. Both groups believe that “public accommodations” law trumps property rights. Both groups believe that government should punish acts of discrimination in the interest of equality and fairness. Both groups consider discrimination to be morally wrong (although in the case of the Fairness for All Act, if discrimination is immoral, then it doesn’t suddenly become moral just because it is based on some religious conviction). Both groups believe that government should decide whether acts of discrimination are reasonable, logical, rational, necessary, justified, or permitted (the government forces most employers to use E-Verify to confirm the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States and discriminate against “illegals” or “undocumented”). Both groups believe that government should limit freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract in the name of fighting discrimination. Property ownership is defined primarily by control. Ownership is the right to the exclusive use of property. Government anti-discrimination laws directly violate property rights by reducing the control a business owner has over the operation of his business. These laws, as other government regulations on businesses, are a form of theft because of how they dilute owners’ property rights. They are akin to someone stealing a percentage of the profits of a business. Refusing to sell a product, provide a service, or rent a dwelling has everything to do with property rights. Since no potential customer has a claim on the property of any business owner, he has no legal recourse if the owner of the property refuses to do business with him. “Public accommodations” are still private businesses. Just because they serve the public by offering to sell them goods or services doesn’t mean that they should be regarded the same as government agencies that have to service all members of the public. If a property owner cannot restrict whom he employs, whom he engages in commerce with, whom he rents or sells to, whom he admits or excludes, and whom he associates or contracts with, then he has no property rights. Why is it that customers can legally discriminate against businesses but businesses cannot legally discriminate against customers? Why is it that workers can legally discriminate against employers but employers cannot legally discriminate against workers? Why is it that tenants can legally discriminate against landlords but landlords cannot legally discriminate against tenants? Why is it that borrowers can legally discriminate against lenders but lenders cannot legally discriminate against borrowers? Although acts of discrimination may be arbitrary or unjustified, this doesn’t change the fact that no one has the right to any particular job, membership, residence, good, or service. In a free society, the practice of discrimination must be an option for buyers and sellers as well as property owners and patrons. In a free society, the right to discriminate is essential and absolute. A free society must include the freedom to discriminate against any individual or group for any reason and on any basis. A free society may or may not be free of discrimination, but it must be free of discrimination laws. By their very nature, the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract include the right to discriminate. But not only are anti-discrimination laws an attack on these things, they are also an attack on freedom of thought. In a free society, everyone has the natural right to think whatever he wants—good or ill—about any individual or group and to choose to associate or not associate, in a personal or business capacity, with any individual or group on the basis of those thoughts. His thoughts may be erroneous, irrational, or illogical, and his opinions may be based on stereotypes, prejudice, or bigotry—but in a free society everyone is entitled to his own thoughts and opinions. Since discrimination in any form is not aggression, force, coercion, violence, or threat, insofar as the law is concerned, it should never be considered a crime. And neither should it matter, insofar as the law is concerned, on what basis the discrimination takes place, the reason why the discrimination occurs, or what any individual or group thinks about it. Therefore, insofar as the law is concerned, the government should not proscribe it, seek to prevent it, or punish those who do it. This article was originally published in the December 2021 edition of Future of Freedom. Author: Contact Laurence M. Vance Laurence M. Vance is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute, columnist and policy adviser for the Future of Freedom Foundation, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------