As a long-standing free speech advocate, the last few years have been alarming and, frankly, depressing. The censorship efforts of the government are, unfortunately, not new. However, what is new is the support of the media and the Democratic Party in such censorship. That was on display on various channels after the recent opinion finding that the Biden Administration had violated the First Amendment in “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” However, the New York Times immediately warned that the outbreak of free speech could “curtail efforts to combat disinformation.” Yet, no one expressed more simply and chillingly than CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly who stated that it “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.
Mattingly admitted that social media platforms “more often than not” gave in to the censorship demands by the Biden administration. However, he insisted that it “makes sense,” and is “probably what we should do on public health grounds.”
“[T]he Biden administration would regularly reach out to Twitter and Facebook and other companies in kind of the early stages of their COVID response and say, this person is spreading lies about vaccines, this account is spreading misinformation that is inhibiting — not just our efforts, the administration’s efforts to address COVID — but also public health, do something about it. And often, I think more often than not, the companies would respond and say, okay. And there are emails that came out during the course of this case that that was something that I think — when it was explained to me at the time, I thought, alright, that makes sense, that’s probably what we should do on public health grounds.”
What is striking is not just the blind acceptance that the government should be protecting us from harmful thoughts. It is also the failure to recognize that the government was wrong on many of these points while experts were being banned and blacklisted.
Many people were routinely censored on Twitter and other platforms for daring to challenge the official position on masks.
The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially rejected the use of a mask mandate. However, the issue became a political weapon as politicians and the press claimed that questioning masks was anti-science and even unhinged. In April 2020, the CDC reversed its position and called for the masking of the entire population, including children as young as 2 years old. The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children.
The closing of schools and businesses was also challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.
Masks became a major social and political dividing line in politics and the media. Maskless people were chased from stores and denounced in Congress. Then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said during a Senate hearing that “face masks are the most important powerful health tool we have.”
However, there are now ample studies stating that “a new scientific review suggests that widespread masking may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID.” It added that “wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (nine studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (six studies; 13,919 people).”
It also found little evidence of a difference from wearing better masks and that “wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (five studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (five studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (three studies; 7799 people).”
Again, I expect that these studies will be debated for years. That is a good thing. There are questions raised over the types of studies used and whether randomized studies are sufficient. The point is only that there were countervailing indicators on mask efficacy and a basis to question the mandates. Yet, there was no real debate because of the censorship supported by many Democratic leaders in social media. To question such mandates was declared a public health threat.
The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”
Scientists previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.
The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 (a theory now treated as plausible) was denounced as a conspiracy theory. The science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, even denounced the theory as “racist.”
Yet, Mattingly and others are defending censorship by repeating a tautology: the government must seek the censorship of ideas because some ideas must be censored. Governments have always claimed that censorship of critics and dissenters is for the public’s best interest. They have always defined certain views as harmful or false.
Now, however, major media figures are shrugging off free speech concerns and supporting censorship as what former CNN media host CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter called a “harm reduction model.” While once fiercely opposed to censorship and government-supported blacklists, many in the media are echoing Mattingly’s view that the natural default should be to obey the government and its directions on permitted speech. After all, this is all for our own protection. Censorship just “makes sense.”
Ok, Mattingly, to further government “protection” let’s nationalize ALL TV and radio media into something like the BBC which would make cooperation so much easier. See how simple?
The NY Times IS disinformation. Has been for a century, as documented in “The Gray Lady Winked” systematically banned from mention on MSM and C-Span BookTV as well. A landmark book–why are the LGBTetcs shrieking about THIS ban? BTW the Times got Pulitzers in the 30s for writing suck-up pieces about BOTH Hitler and Stalin.
The Times certainly facilitated law-breaking by the FBI in facilitating what looks an awful lot like a coup attempt from inside the government (“Crossfire Hurricane”). And they got another Pulitzer for it!!
(off topic a bit the Nobels are getting politicized too, see the excellent “Betraying the Nobel” which at least they DID let on C-Span).
The socialists are the fascists.
IFIFY
“The [communists] are fascists.”
– Mary
_____
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
“When we get ready to take the United States we will not take you under the label of Communism, we will not take you under the label of Socialism. . .We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under Liberalism, under Progressivism, under Democracy. But take it we will.” Alexander Trachtenberg, National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944
“There is not communism or Marxism in our ideas. Our political philosophy is representative democracy and social justice in a well planned economy.” – Fidel Castro
The whole purpose of adding “social” to “justice” is to DISTINGUISH it from justice as an alternative, contradictory, & competing value system antithetical to justice.
Frog Meet Slowly Boiling Water
Professor David Halpern, a “leading [British] behavioural scientist even suggested that the nation’s prior experience [with lockdowns] made it ‘much easier to now imagine’ the population would accept future local restrictions.”
As some noted at the time, the Covid lockdowns were tyrannical. And that the mini-tyrants were hoping that the public would passively accept them. The public did. And the tyrants are emboldened.
“Prof Halpern explained that his [Covid] unit’s campaigns were devised to help reinforce new behaviours.
He said their posters acted as visual prompts so that ‘when you go into a shop or somewhere else, it re-reminds you, it cues, it acts as a trigger for the behaviour.'”
That is called state propaganda. It is a skill well honed by the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao.
(https://republicbroadcasting.org/news/britain-drilled-to-accept-lockdown-in-future-pandemics-says-nudge-unit-chief/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral)
Now you fully appreciate the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including all of the rights and freedoms of Americans, have been progressively and ploddingly modified or nullified.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
I just heard Steve Doocy on “Fox and Friends” asserting that the government only used social media censorship to suppress “wild conspiracy theories”. He is an exemplar of the useful idiot. BTW, Kayleigh McEnany just nodded her head in agreement, as though secret censorship is the proper exercise of governmental authority.
Sweet Tom, you were more impressive before you commented.
Either that response to Tom was just too deep for me or you are an idiot.
Who won the election?
Tell that to DeSantis!
We report. You decide.
CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly claims that government censorship “makes sense” and is “probably what we should do on public health grounds.”
I guess some don’t know that the bloody French Revolution conducted its terror under a “Committee of Public Safety.” Every act of barbarism, from censorship to arresting political “criminals” to beheadings, was rationalized as necessary to protect “public safety.” Robespierre and Danton are not supposed to be role models.
Tragically, the Fourth Estate has become the fourth branch.
The mainstream media ignores the fact that the whole point of America is not what decisions we make as a society but how we go about making those decisions. In everything the government does, it is required to protect the God-given rights of its citizens, which include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free and fair elections, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and equality under the law.
*Like
No god gave me my rights, they were earned.
Your rights were “earned”? Ok, I’ll bite…are you saying you didn’t start life with any Rights at all? If so, how and when did you earn your right to Life and the Liberty to defend your Life? Who granted you your Rights by recognizing your efforts to earn them? Please be specific.
OMG, loosen up. I was referring to my fellow war veterans who went through stuff you probably did not.
Are you saying war veterans have rights others lack?
I am saying they (we), earned the rights for all of us, even you.
Well, when this vet raised his right hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that very Constitution gave me those rights.
I have them as an American by birth.
Marine by choice.
I knew I liked you for a reason. A few years ago before you joined this forum, I described my training as a US Naval Officer at Aviation Officer Candidate School in NAS Pensacola under USMC Drill Instructors. They were true bad asses
Estovir,
Thank you!
This picture reflects what newbies like me faced upon arriving at AOCS.
I went through it in late 1980s, was the only Hispanic at AOCS, and the USMC DIs salivated when they saw me approach the building. Good times!!!
https://www.facebook.com/NASPCOLA/photos/did-you-know-that-aviation-officer-candidate-school-used-to-be-aboard-nas-pensac/2845319755559180/
Of curse, . . except for the Marine part.
Hoorah!
I appreciate all that’s in. Salute them, what do you mean by even you? My life has been a positive for the nation, and I am not even including any possible military service.
George, did you have those rights before you served in the military?
Yes. Earned by others.
Instead of wasting your time and mine, I’ll ask this: When were these rights first earned by man? And who or what did they earn them from?
Sorry, I missed the part where “Veterans” blessed onto you your Right to Life and Liberty. Either way, that’s very interesting. So, how exactly, did veterans do that? Did you not already have those Rights before you met them? Can just anyone get their Rights to Life and Liberty from them or do they have to be in a war – with them, of course – before their Right to Life and Liberty are awarded? Remember, you said your Rights don’t come from God; that you *earned* them. I’m just curious how your Rights came into existence compared to those who Believe. Again, if you would please, be specific.
I am not going to play semantic games with you.
Sorry.
What semantics? You, like many-many-many people, say your Rights don’t come from God. You were *very* clear and quite confident about that. So I asked (and would like to understand) how exactly, as you plainly stated…how you *earned*, your individual Rights to Life and Liberty through serving with your fellow veterans a during war. The implication being no one has those Rights without you and your fellow veterans having served or until they serve, themselves.
JAFO,
I am not speaking for George, but my take on this line of conversation is a long time ago, a bunch of rich white guys got fed up with tyranny. They wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
They fought a war against tyranny. And won.
Those rights apply to all American citizens from birth and those who go through the proper procedures for citizenship.
Those rich white guys backgrounds were based on the predominate religions at the time. Some of them, IIRC, left Europe/UK under religious persecution. So that was not lost on them.
While I have mentioned in the past I am not particularly religions, I can see where some are of the belief these rights are bestowed upon us by God.
If that floats your boat, by all means.
The Constitution may not be perfect, it is a heck of a lot better then some, more so than others.
As for this idea of earning our Constitutional rights, yeah, I got nothing.
Agreed UpstateFarmer, with one caveat: Everyone, not just Americans, have Rights to Life, Liberty, 🎵 “…and the rest” 🎵, by simply *being*, if you will. Rights, in the context we’re referring, are not given or granted by government, laws or through service to any nation. The US Constitution commands, make that DEMANDS, that government “defend and protect” those Rights on behalf of her citizens, especially for those who can not defend them. Those lucky enough to be born here or naturalized after lawful immigration is just frosting on the cake. Sadly, these beliefs are unique to the United States’ Founders, you, I, and many others in history, but not (yet) everyone else, everywhere else on the planet today.
I will never call ‘semantics’ on those who don’t believe their inalienable Rights come from a Supreme Being, religious or not. But for people who throw shade onto others Beliefs by saying their Rights don’t come from God, it seems reasonable to ask them where they think their Rights come from. George can speak for himself, of course, as I’m sure he’s capable. At the same time, his affirmed oath to the Constitution, the same one that demands *his* Rights be ‘defended and protected’, and service to his country, should absolutely be commended and we thank him and all others who serve(d) honorably. They deserve respect for that service. But George’s being an American and serving his country doesn’t really answer the the question on the table…where does he and others believe their Rights come from if they’re not Endowed by a Creator?
Yes, we (Olly, you and I, Estovir and others who’ve discussed the question at length) know, but is it wrong to expect ‘non-believers’ to articulate their perspective when they declaratively disagree and imply Believers are wrong? 🤷♂️
JAFO,
Very well said.
Your last is an interesting question. One I do not think we shall see even an attempt at an answer from them.
Fascinating conversation.
I thank the good professor and Darren for allowing us to OT into such interesting topics.
Thanks, UpstateFarmer. You might be right…’they’ may never respond to the question perhaps because they’re concerned there’s some absolute religious connotation in the question itself and that doesn’t doesn’t sit well with them. To me personally, it matters not if they ‘disbelieve’ since I’m rather agnostic on any presumed religious aspect. Nor does any answer depend on someone’s Faith or lack thereof. I’m just interested in other’s coherent thoughts on the matter and perhaps have an insightful back and forth.
Have an ordinary weekend! 😊
JAFO, that is a beautiful explanation. I’ve been following the thread to see where George was coming from. That shade he was throwing when he said No god gave me my rights, they were earned. is similar to what Sam espouses.
When I first began studying this issue I knew immediately the existence of unalienable rights would be attacked by non-believers. They would use that to assert that we have no rights that don’t come from government. What I’ve never understood is why anyone, regardless of their beliefs, would not defend the idea that we have rights that didn’t come from government. Unless they have designs to be a member of an all powerful government, where’s the upside?
“What I’ve never understood is why anyone, regardless of their beliefs, would not defend the idea that we have rights that didn’t come from government.”
That is the issue. George said he earned his rights. He earned them from who?
The believers and probably the agnostics know where their rights come from. Do the atheists?
(Responding to Olly here…there was no ‘reply’ to click.)
“What I’ve never understood is why anyone, regardless of their beliefs, would not defend the idea that we have rights that didn’t come from government. Unless they have designs to be a member of an all powerful government, where’s the upside?”
That’s also a reasonable question to ask of them, Olly. Perhaps there’s a belief on their part that government will have their backs if/when the shineola hits the fan so it’s better to schmooze government-types now? After all, they seem far too willing to be obedient to who *they* believe are their betters in government, already.
Seems they’ve forgotten the story about red ants vs black ants and who’s shaking the jar.
Thanks for the kind words, Olly, and have a weekend. 😊
Perhaps there’s a belief on their part that government will have their backs if/when the shineola hits the fan so it’s better to schmooze government-types now?
Sounds like a learned behavior having been mercilessly bullied as a child.
Have a great weekend!
Ala Stockholm Syndrome. Could be, Olly. It really could be that simple. -J
“Do the atheists?”
This one does.
From the nature of man as a rational animal. From the fact that man must reason to survive. And that reason requires freedom, i.e., individual rights.
And I repeat the question, which religion has not, and cannot, answer:
How do you derive rights from a premise that is mystical and unprovable? Such a premise is not an intellectual foundation. It is quicksand.
“How do you derive rights from a premise that is mystical and unprovable? Such a premise is not an intellectual foundation. It is quicksand.”
For untold billions of people mystical and unprovable, along with the intellectual, is the basis for Faith itself, Sam. For many, Faith is what grounds them to a certain reality when they see nothing but disorder and chaos surrounding them. Faith itself is simply believing in *something* bigger than humanity can intellectually comprehend as beings trapped in three-dimensional bodies traveling through a fourth, time. It fills in the gaps for part of the unprovable. One isn’t required to drop their level of intellect or replace part of it with fantasy. Faith doesn’t require empirical evidence to prove a higher power exists because Faith itself IS the proof and that’s enough for them.
Kirsten Powers, CNN political analyst, and one who’s never been accused as being a bible-thumper, was once asked by an evangelical man she’d be dating for some time who wanted to marry her, (paraphrasing), “What would it take for you to believe in God?”. She stated ‘He’d have to say to me, face to face, “Here I am”‘. She tells her own intriguing story about rediscovering, quite reluctantly she adds, that God does indeed exist, here:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/november/fox-news-highly-reluctant-jesus-follower-kirsten-powers.html?paging=off
Of course, stories like Kirsten’s will not be an atheist’s clear and convincing evidence of the existence of God, nor should it for one reason: Faith, like Life, is the Journey of the soul of the individual. Each “sees” for himself along the way.
“The believers and probably the agnostics know where their rights come from. Do the atheists?”
You respond.
“This one does. From the nature of man as a rational animal. ”
That is not an answer. Reason is what differentiates us from a cockroach. Congratulations, you are not a cockroach and have Reason, but how did that happen?
I can’t prove God exists, and you can’t prove he doesn’t. However, in the end, ultimately, do you prefer your rights given to you by man or God?
No man can take away the rights provided by God. However, those rights given by man, man can take away.
I much prefer to believe that man is not the center of the world. When man thinks he is, the world becomes a horrible place to live.
Your god has no power over me.
Rights are not earned. If you don’t like the term “God-given rights,” think of them as “natural rights.” They exist from birth, and from birth onward, the rest of the world tries to take them away.
They are the “natural and God-given rights” that the Constitution and Bill of Rights present and enumerate for American citizens.
Nature and God created them, the Constitution enumerates and provides them, the military occasionally fights for them, and all Americans enjoy them.
Further, since nature and God are universal, all citizens of the world, nay, the universe, must retain them.
The NY T is STILL censoring anything Covid that doesn’t toe the CDC line. Here’s an example of a short comment I posted to an article about Shirley Jackson’s famous short story “The Lottery”. The comment was initially approved but was subsequently removed.
————–
The New York Times
June 26, 2023
Your comment has been approved!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with The New York Times community.
XXXXX
This story may be an allegory to the mob rule that was so evident during the Covid pandemic. <===== This is the comment
View your comment
If you're having trouble viewing your comment, please copy and paste this link in your browser:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/opinion/the-lottery-fiction.html#commentsContainer&permid=125953111:125953111
———
July 4, 2023
The comment you are looking for is currently unavailable.
The United States Public Health Service has a commissioned officer corps. I can recall when they quarantined a household, keeping the children inside. Three of the kids came to the front picture window to wave when I went by.
The Constitution enumerates no “emergency power,” the closest thing is the suspension of habeas corpus during a rebellion or invasion. Please provide a citation for the authority to deny constitutional rights to citizens for the purposes of “health.”
This is Exactly Correct! The Constitution is the Supreme LAW of the Land and ANY laws that are “passed” which breach it are NULL and VOID per the Supreme court and can be ignored as though the “law” never existed!
The purpose of Government is to SECURE YOUR RIGHTS, NOT find new ways to violate them!!
The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. (Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p.3270, sec. 1.)
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
” An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton Vs. Shelby County 118 US 42 “5 p. 442
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
— 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
CONSTITUTION CAN NOT BE SUSPENDED
This is NOT an opinion.
This was the ruling of The United States Supreme Court shortly after the “civil war” in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which yet stands to this day: ” Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the constitution in case of emergency….
“Section 98 therefore, ANYONE who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights (to freely travel, peacefully assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) and or attempts to enforce such suspension within 50 independent, sovereign, continental United States of America is making war against our constitution(s) and, therefore, we the people. They violate their constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity and that means ANYONE, even the governor and President.
This is EXACTLY Correct. They can NEVER suspend our rights. The Second they do.. they’re TRAITORS and their AUTHORITY give to them by WE THE PEOPLE instantly CEASES!
The purpose of Government is to SECURE YOUR RIGHTS, NOT find new ways to violate them!!
The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. (Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p.3270, sec. 1.)
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
” An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton Vs. Shelby County 118 US 42 “5 p. 442
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
— 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
CONSTITUTION CAN NOT BE SUSPENDED
This is NOT an opinion.
This was the ruling of The United States Supreme Court shortly after the “civil war” in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which yet stands to this day: ” Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the constitution in case of emergency….
“Section 98 therefore, ANYONE who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights (to freely travel, peacefully assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) and or attempts to enforce such suspension within 50 independent, sovereign, continental United States of America is making war against our constitution(s) and, therefore, we the people. They violate their constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity and that means ANYONE, even the governor and President.
Being inside rebreathing the contained possibly viral doused air is the worst.
I don’t understand when people became stupid idiots.
If someone is coughing and sniffling, what is the first thing anyone does, shack up with them inside a small room ? With the governments boobery about symptomless infection and transmission… their recommendation was criminal.
Sunlight kills virusus. Fresh air and sun is healthy and reduces transmission greatly.
People should have been outside more, not less.
This is so basic, so fundamental, so well known for so many years publicly, it is inexplicable how shelter in place was implemented.
“I can recall when they quarantined a household, keeping the children inside.”
That seems like an attempt to justify the Covid lockdowns.
If so, it’s an utter failure. Just as an individual is innocent until the government proves him guilty, so too is an individual healthy until the government proves that he has a deadly, communicable disease.
Jonathan: Anyone remember the “Manchurian Candidate”? It was a 1962 movie starring Frank Sinatra and Lawrence Harvey. It’s about a Korean War vet who is brainwashed to become an assassin in a communist conspiracy. We have our own version of “The Manchurian Candidate”. His name is Taylor Taranto (TT).
TT is a 37 yr. old US Navy veteran and former eastern Washington state GOP official. He took part in the Jan. 6 insurrection along with Ashli Babbit who was shot and killed trying to break into the Capitol building. TT helped to attack MPD officer Jeffrey Smith, beating him on the head with a cane. Smith later committed suicide and his widow sued TT for damages for wrongful death. Since Jan. 6 TT has been on the run, traveling back and forth to WDC in a van. There has been an open warrant for his arrest but until last week he eluded police. TT took part in a number of right-wing and GOP events while in DC.
Last Thursday, TT was finally arrested near the home of president Obama in DC. Police found hundreds of rounds of ammunition, along with 2 rifles and bomb making equipment inside TT’s van. What was TT doing in the Obama neighborhood guarded by the Secret Service? He was live streaming discussing finding an entrance to Obama’s home through sewers. He said in his live-stream post that he was looking to get a “good angle on a shot”. In the days prior to his arrest TT broadcast various threats against government buildings and entered an elementary school near the Maryland home of Rep. Jamie Raskin–threatening the Congressman.
According to the complaint filed after TT was arrested he got Obama’s address from a Truth Social posting by DJT on or about June. 29. Then TT used his own Truth Social account to re-post Obama’s address. Also according to the complaint TT is a “cult” follower– someone who believes the government is a threat to his “free” status–that the Constitution doesn’t apply to him or those that think like him. Sound familiar? TT had obviously been spending way too much time on Truth Social.
So TT was the perfect “Manchurian Candidate”. A guy deranged by conspiracy theories and willing to act out on his fantasies. All he needed was a trip wire–a suggestion from his “cult” leader. Now DJT will deny he had anything to do with TT’s actions. But the question you have to ask yourself is this. If Joe Biden engaged in this kind of threatening activity would we treat him as a serious candidate for President next year? In almost daily posts DJT calls Jack Smith and his family all sorts of vile names–“deranged” and “Trump hater”. Is this the kind of behavior we would expect from someone who wants to have his hands again on the nuclear football? A rational person doesn’t act this way. But then maybe we are not dealing with a rational person–maybe a cunning criminal mind but not a rational person who actually believes in the rule of law.
Ashli Babbit did no such thing. Talk about spreading misinformation! Why don’t you do some reading on the subject from neutral observers and stop with the democrat talking points?
simon77047 — Attempting entry through a window isn’t ‘breaking in’?
Breaking and entering draws the death penalty for an unarmed, female perp?
He should have apprehended and cuffed her, or made a disabling lower torso or appendage wound.
He was an esteemed professional, right?
“He should have … made a disabling lower torso or appendage wound.”
You sound like Joe Biden saying cops should shoot miscreants in the leg. But it’s well established that a cop can’t even take a firearm out of its holster unless there’s a potentially deadly threat. And if the threat becomes real, they’re supposed to aim for the center to eliminate it. So let’s just say, “He should have apprehended and cuffed her.”
https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/articles/a-letter-to-the-american-public-why-shoot-them-in-the-leg-is-not-an-effective-strategy-UOXIOH6n4pwJFmyf/
OK. He’s not an esteemed professional. Got it.
Obama WAS the Manchurian candidate.
Dennis, You failed to get a quote from James Hodgkinson
I find it more than a little ironic that you describe a Republican nutjob as “The Manchurian Candidate” when its Biden who we now know has taken millions in payments from the real manchurians, not to mention the fact that in the movie, the assassin was a patriot who overcame his brainwashing and murdered his own mother who was the Chinese Communist mole. Maybe just maybe the Jan 6 regime narrative is not as advertised by an incurious, credulous, commie sympathizing press.
Want proof that the US is a Banana Republic?
Dr. Gal Luft is the smoking gun proof:
Heard this on Dan Bongino’s sub’s show this AM. Won’t be anywhere else, question is what will Fox do with it? I’m guessing MAYBE a mention on one of the hosted shows which has Miranda Devine on sometimes. Miranda should have gotten a Pulitzer instead they gave it to the NY Times. They should just call it the “Pulitzer Lies”.
There is a ton of Euro-Asian-Middle Eastern material that never gets on US TV. Al-Jazeera is worth surfing to every so often France24 too. There are few sites you might find shoved down in the later pages from search that are independent of the major media corporations which are ominously starting to look like a Channel One Media controlled by the freaks at the WEF. Zuckerberg, Gates, and Bezos are “all in” as they control the sock puppet “fact check” things and I already verified the “AI” thing is just a a distilled rendition of the Fake Fact Checkers. Try it and see, historical material about the scandals of LBJ (like Bobby Baker) and the Clintons (like the Factor 8 blood scandal, Mena, and the Vince Foster case demonstrate this quite well.
The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children
… who were, statistically, at ZERO RISK from COVID. But instead of telling those who, it quickly became clear, were vulnerable to serious disease – the old, the sick in particular ways – to protect THEMSELVES by quarantining, Our Betters locked kindergartners in their houses with their harried parents, made them wear masks so that they couldn’t keep developing that critical human skill of being able to read facial expressions (pity the blind, who have to rely on other and less comprehensive cues), and subjected them to “online school,” as if getting kindergartners to STOP watching screens hadn’t been the goal of every good parent since smartphones came out.
I haven’t read the comment thread yet. I’m looking forward to hearing how our resident leftists defend what they screamed for.
The geriatric congressional and states fascist money payout corporate global control tyrannies.
I knew the very moment I saw the fraudulent chinese drop dead blurry videos offered everywhere is was a total scam.
That was very close to day one, brought to you by pfizer.
Years ago I read about the island off the NY coast where the government was experimenting with ticks and their new lyme disease got loose. I saw the map of the initial spread, and a lot of other evidence that convinced me.
Wuhan Institute of Viriolgy was shown to have been locked down and the entire HVAC system replaced, whistle blowers disappeared, the Ralph Baric leaks and videos, Chapel Hill NC same research and move to Wuhan Fauci funded, the writer of the international act on bioweapons, also a virology scientist and aged man, Dr Francis Boyle, declaring it a covid leak on a very not famous video blog in an hour long in depth, Ron Johnson’s congressional hearings with 14+ high end doctors all agreeing, the creator of the PCR (turned into a test)\,Carey Mullis, declaring it should never be used to try to detect a virus the results will be fraud, it was designed to multiply an agent,, I could go on and no and on.
The evidence is beyond overwhelming. The patents on the mRNA were ready to go before the emergency. Fauci’s totalitarian remdesivir and intubation after hospitalization murdered people, something like 56% of former remdesivir trials patients had fatal organ shutdown, Fauci knew it and linked it on his government website and I checked it personally. After the organ hits (liver kidneys, etc) the body would retain water the lungs would fill with fluid and the intubation would kill. Ivermectin and HCQ banned so “emergency” bioweapon jabs could go forward “legally”. The furin cleavage site if you haven’t got a clue, look it up.
That’s just a tiny scrape from the top of my head.
I never got their jab neither did my family, totally forbidden, period. We were and all are fine.
Turns out some of the batches were safe, some not, and some extremely deadly, and that pattern was spread around the world. Tell me I’m full of it, you will be wrong. https://www.howbadismybatch.com/pfizer.html
Embalmers are pulling long (inches and feet) fibrous rubbery growths out of the jabbed dead because they can’t push the embalming fluid into the arteries. I have seen half a dozen testimonies and videos and vials of the gross, never before the jabs seen.
Myocarditis , pericarditis, blood clots, rabid cancers, bells palsey, and dozens and dozens of other illnesses have resulted, including immune system degradation widespread.
The VAERS data death and severe reactions from the covid jabs far outweighs all other combined immunization and vaccination data since it’s inception. Formerly, vaxxes were pulled with just 8 deaths or 25 deaths. It’s way past that in the many, many thousands for covid jabs.
Go watch Dr Peter McCullough videos. He has been superb in outlining what has gone on, and his credentials are far more impressive than everyone here. Everyone. His intellect also wins. Stellar recall. So does his delivery.
Darkhorse podcast has many clips on the related matters and various guests.
You can go watch the inventor of mRNA technology, Dr Robert Malone, he will warn you.
There is so much more information than I list here, so stunning and so shocking it is amazing it went down as it did.
The explanation is “captured institutions.” Government agencies and employees, who make money off the patents and the pharmaceuticals they are supposed to be policing. Same for the MSM brought to you by pharma ads. Same for the medical associations, the AMA, etc, same for the journals like the famous Lancet (with it’s embarrassing covid fraud retractions), same for hospitals with the government payout incentives, and on and on.
Good luck, they are going to pull it again soon enough with whatever bat crazy soup they dream up, they just won’t be able to resist.
I hope your life situations and happenstance make it very ineffective against all of you.
The combined impact of the rulings handed down by Trump’s court appointees, the actions of Twitter under Elon Musk, and public opinion across the country will be the end of the left’s bad habit of shutting down speech it doesn’t like. Mainstream news outlets not on board with free speech and open debate—which is way more interesting than what we have now—are going to be left in the dust.
There was a time scores of years ago when the joke below accurately described the differences between the US and Russia (Soviet Union). But in today’s Banana Republic (US), there is only the illusion of free speech.
The Framers anticipated “overreach” by the legislative and executive branches.
The judicial branch was created to assure that actions comport with fundamental and statutory law.
The singular American failure has been and remains the judicial branch with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Clearly, the Supreme Court has failed to wield the tools at its disposal and to exhort the exploitation of others.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Judicial Review
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.
– United States Courts
___________________
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors
The Leftist dogma is strong in today’s Democratic Party. It’s wise to give the crazies running the country, that includes the tools in the Democrat-aligned-corporate media, no quarter as the vapid feckless drooling dandruff shedding usurper Biden takes the country over a cliff.
Did our human instinct to defend our natural right to life, liberty and property reach it’s peak in the late 18th century? How have people become so stupid to think government can be trusted? We literally gave them the power to destroy our lives and these imbeciles “think” it’s a good idea give them weapons to do just that.
The words is, according to the movers and shakers, “mass formation psychosis”.
I don’t like the explanation, the excuse it gives for people. I believe it was Dr Robert Malone the co-inventor of mRNA technology that developed the saying and pushed it.
People went along to get along, and were under pressure and still are to a very great degree.
Coercion and losing your job, losing your friends, losing your patreon and paypal and youtube and twitter account and instragram and facebook and your champaign and caviar parties and your standing amongst your working peers, your wife or family, your children, etc etc…
The pressure was and is enormous, and for the most part the more you have the greater the danger.
So people will take the low road, as they deem is safer. Not that it is.
Thank you for the reminder Shakdi. Dr. Robert Malone did an interview, I believe it was on the Joe Rogan podcast, describing the work of Mattias Desmet on Mass Formation. Desmet has an hour long interview (link below) where he details this hypnosis-like phenomenon. Yuri Bezmenov described in a 1984 interview those same people as demoralized using the KGB tactic of active measures. I believe you accurately captured what drives people into mass formation, but the end state is the point of no return and they are not even aware they are in it.
In an alternative reality, imagine this tweet from a sycophant like Mattingly in 1972:
[T]he Nixon administration would regularly reach out to Twitter and Facebook and other companies in kind of the early stages of their Watergate response and say, this person is spreading lies about alleged break-ins and the president’s involvement, this account is spreading misinformation that is inhibiting — not just our efforts, the administration’s efforts to win the war in Vietnam and reach a lasting peace—but also efforts to improve the state of the economy, do something about it. And often, I think more often than not, the companies would respond and say, okay. And there are emails that came out during the course of this case that that was something that I think — when it was explained to me at the time, I thought, alright, that makes sense, that’s probably what we should do for the good of the country.”
Nearly a half-century ago, the movie Network proposed that there are no nations, only large corporations (a little exaggeration to make the point), and they control the “news.” This is the classic scene:
This scene never gets old. Amazing screenplay by Paddy Chayevsky and unforgetable performances by Ned Beatty and Peter Finch.
Biden’s Handlers likely are thinking along the same lines. Rots of ruck.
Britain drilled to accept lockdown in future pandemics, says ‘nudge unit’ chief
Britain has been drilled to comply with lockdown under a future pandemic, the chief executive of the ‘nudge unit’ has said. Professor David Halpern told The Telegraph that the country had “practised the drill” of wearing face masks and working from home and “could redo it” in a future crisis……Speaking on the Lockdown Files podcast, the government adviser Prof Halpern predicted that the country would comply with another ‘stay at home’ order because they “kind of know what the drill is”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/06/britain-drilled-to-accept-lockdown-in-future-pandemics/
Happily Americans kind of know what the middle finger is
🖕🏾
Estovir,
That is when I think things could get real interesting.
Just after the mask mandate was lifted in our state, wife and I went to the grocery store.
Still saw people wearing masks.
One older gentleman, masked, glared at me as I walked past. I ignored him.
What if we have another pandemic? The mass hysteria of masking! Social distancing!
And what if half of the country gives the middle finger?
I could easily see that older gentleman getting in my face and screaming about how irresponsible I was for not wearing a mask. If things got really dumb and he touched me, I would drop him.
Can you imagine that kind of thing taking place all over America?
Medicine is not the same since both Trump and Biden administrations adopted the many disastrous and damaging COVID mitigating strategies none of which were supported by evidenced based data. Physicians are exhausted of the politicization of medicine, and none of it is healthy for patients. I can not imagine a repeat of these failed govt dictums. Look for Democrats to push them anyways. Recall that it was Alabama Democrat George Wallace who ordered the use of water cannons on those who protested his government administration policies.
You are confusing political party with character. Back then conservatives were in the Democratic Party, a residue of Reconstruction, and were the racists until the liberals came down from the North to desegregate the South. So the bigots and racists went to the Republican Party, were they fit in..
“I could easily see that older gentleman getting in my face and screaming about how irresponsible I was for not wearing a mask. If things got really dumb and he touched me, I would drop him.”
So who has the problem?