"Misinformation" You Say?

 Flipboard digest landed in my inbox. Top headline:

Well this should be interesting. Click the link:

Oh. I think I know where this is going. Let's read.

"Many Republican lawmakers have criticized governors’ emergency restrictions since the start of the coronavirus outbreak. Now that most legislatures are back in session, a new type of pushback is taking root: misinformation."

 

Well the issue of the legality of various "emergency restrictions" has actually gone up to the Supreme Court and been won so this isn't misinformation. It's not even unreasonable. Why even include it in the piece?

GOP that's why.

 "The steps needed to limit its spread and the vaccines that will pull the nation out of the pandemic."

So the AP gets to decide what "steps are needed"? Who agreed to that?

Last week, YouTube pulled down a video of committee testimony in the Ohio House after a witness inaccurately claimed COVID-19 wasn’t killing children. The platform said the video violated its community standards against the spread of misinformation.

Community standards like the Fake Dossier story that it allowed to run rampant on it's platform. 

Sure.

But regards to the claim at hand, I doubt anybody actually believes OR has claimed that not a single person under the age of 18 (the definition of a child in the US) has died of COVID. What the data does show is that the mortality for children approaches zero. 

Below is a chart of COVID deaths as of Feb 13 2021:

 

 

 

So if we add up the deaths of 14 and below (since I don't want to add in over 24YO), it comes out to 140. Divide that by 460,234 and multiply by 100 you get .03% of deaths are "children".  So when someone claims COVID is not killing children is making a statistical claim which is supported by the data. That is NOT misinformation. The AP article is misinformation. They do know we can look these numbers up right?

In Michigan, for example, the House Oversight Committee didn’t include state health officials or other virus experts in a discussion about an extended pause on youth contact sports ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

To be frank, given the level of foul up by "state officials" including epic unconstitutional power grabs, I don't want to hear from any of them. Also, that's not misinformation.

 It did feature Jayme McElvany, a virus skeptic who also has posted about the QAnon conspiracy and former President Donald Trump’s unfounded claims of election fraud. 

Dear AP: This is what is called a straw man argument. Whether the witness believes there is election fraud doesn't make the testimony any more or less correct.

In Tennessee, a Republican lawmaker is pushing legislation that would ban most government agencies from requiring anyone to get COVID-19 vaccines, which isn’t a mandate anywhere. Rep. Bud Hulsey has tried to drum up support downplaying the seriousness of the disease.

While testifying, he ticked off selective statistics that COVID-19 has a lower death rate among children and falsely alleged that the vaccines could cause genetic modifications.

 Here the AP is playing the same game that SCOTUS did. Since there is no mandate now, we cannot rule against making them. Then once they are in place, there will be a "well you must follow the law". 

We see this bullshit for what it is.

Secondly, we already debunked the AP's claim with the official numbers so the AP is the one dealing in misinformation here.

Thirdly the mRNA "vaccine" does in fact cause genetic modifications in that it causes your body to produce the COVID-19 spike protien. It normally does NOT do that. Hence that is, by definition, a genetic modification. So again the AP is the one who is in fact dealing in misinformation. They assume, correctly, that the vast majority of their readership is ignorant of the relevant science and statistics.

Kumar pointed out that vaccines have saved countless lives throughout the centuries and repeatedly fact-checked Hulsey by emphasizing that the vaccines don’t change a person’s DNA.

Hulsey wasn’t convinced.

Certainly many tested and long proven vaccines have saved lives. The mRNA (RNA is a part of genetics thank you very much) "vaccine" as already stated does make your body do things it would not have done otherwise. Also, the other "vaccines" for COVID have not been tested to the extent that others we are familiar with do. Everyone taking one is currently a test subject. Hopefully it turns out fine. There have been times in history when it has not.

Reinbold has been a vocal critic of Dunleavy issuing disaster declarations while the Legislature wasn’t in session. She has used her committee to amplify voices of those who question the effectiveness of masks and the effects of the government’s emergency response.

All the science on masks were tossed out for political expediency.  What passes for mask science may as well be a doll and pins.  I've already posted on it a number of times. Not doing it again.

In Virginia, Republican Del. Dave LaRock, who attended the Trump rally in Washington, D.C., that preceded the attack on the U.S. Capitol, warned a state House Health committee in late January that COVID-19 vaccines couldn’t be trusted. He said they were especially risky for several communities, including the elderly and people of color.

So finally a piece of actual misinformation. I have seen no particular data that says that "people of color" have more adverse reactions to the various "vaccines" than any  "non People of Color" population.  Nor have I seen such data for the elderly, though I would suspect that elderly people, particularly those with certain morbidities may not fare as well.

I for one applaud those lawmakers pre-emptively going after mandatory vaccines  so that these things can get to court sooner rather than later. They need to include prohibitions on "vaccine passports" and the like, particularly for domestic use. I can understand a country demanding such a thing to enter it's sovereign land like they do for other diseases but domestically? Absolutely not.

Vaccines, if proven long term effectiveness and is one and done (as the J&J one claims to be) should be available to those who want it, no strings attached. For those who do not want it, Ivermectin should be made readily available, even OTC without prescription with clear usage instructions should they so desire.  This isn't hard and should be done immediately (the latter part) and all restrictions lifted entirely.

Forget Those Ho Arse Roads

 I'm trying to keep the title family friendly. :-D

Anyway. There is a rather popular libertarian who when discussing his principles inevitably gets people asking about who will build the roads. His response:

"F** those ho **s roads"

His position being that the market, that is people will come together and create roads where and when they are needed and there is no need for a state to do these things.  I always find it amusing because there are a lot of assumptions that go into that. But I'm going to post two videos here of situations where libertarian principles could be used and aren't.

and

The state clearly isn't building or maintaining the roads. The drivers who depend upon these roads to make their living haven't banded together to pay someone to build and maintain the roads. The villages that depend upon the goods these drivers deliver on these "roads" haven't built or maintained the roads. 

So then why, where there is "market force" reasons to build and maintain these roads haven't the civilians gone and done it?

A More Compromised SCOTUS

 First: I think we are all owed an explanation as to who the "J Roberts" is who appears in the Epstein flight logs.

Second, I wrote back in 2015:

"It's pretty clear here that the SCOTUS is a corrupted institution that can't keep it's thinking straight and is hell bent on ruling on emotion rather than the law. Peeking at Alito's dissent I saw many references to other countries and the past, but not ONE mention of English common law that is the basis of common law in the US. At this point we can stop saying the US is a country based on the rule of law and say that it is ruled by popular opinion."

This was in reference to the decisions regarding the ACA as well as gay marriage ruling. 

Our most recent example comes in response to challenges to the 2020 election. We mentioned that it is unlikely for SCOTUS to get involved, not because it cannot and should not, but because they do not have the stomach to do it. So here is Thomas on the matter of the changes to election law (at the prompting of the "Shadow Organization" spoken of in Time Magazine's recent article.

The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.

"inexpilicable"? I beg to differ.

You'll note that Thomas is outlining the very points I made months ago about Pennsylvania's changes to election practices. The MSM and social media say that such discussion is "white supremacy" and "incitement to violence" and perhaps "insurrection". Thomas shows it to be what it is: 

Statement of fact.

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

Personally, I'm way past "respectful" given how blatant this lawlessness is. 

And Alito:

 They present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2, are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.

So since those of us asking the same question based on the constitution in regards to elections on what basis are those opposed to these questions operating from? The answer to that is the 'explicable" that perhaps evades Thomas but not me. 

The Tranny Nonsense Comes To The Senate

 This is a man.

This man believes himself to be a woman. If that was it, I wouldn't be posting any of this but it's not. This man believes himself to be a woman and insists that you play along with his delusion.  Not long ago, nobody would even entertain this nonsense but now we live in clown upside-down world where this man's claim of being a woman is taken SERIOUSLY. If that was all then I wouldn't be posting this. 

N,o this man,who thinks he is a woman somehow became the top HEALTH official in Pennsylvania. Many of us didn't know this until the recent COVID outbreak. That a man with a clearly observable mental illness (gender dysphoria) became the top health official of a state is an indictment of those running the state. But there's more.

This man, who thinks he's a woman had his mother removed from a nursing home because he knew that she was in danger of contracting COVID. All while allowing COVID patients into nursing homes.  

This in a state that actually argued in court that its citizens did not have the right to make a living.

Multiple fails.

In a sane country not only would this person have never been given a high post in state government but they certainly would not be put up for a high post in the NATIONAL government.  But here we are. 

To show you how far the US has fallen, behold:

From a report on the matter:

"CV NEWS FEED // Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, confronted Dr. Rachel Levine over his support for inflicting puberty-blocking drugs and genital surgeries on minor children.

During Levine’s Thursday hearing for the position of assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Paul pointedly asked him several times whether he endorsed such invasive medical interventions.

Again, in a sane country such a question would <b>need not be asked</b> because such things would be universally understood to be wrong. But this is not a sane country.

Levine, who is transgendered, would only respond that the field of transgender medicine is “nuanced” and backed by “robust” research, which he said he would be happy to discuss further after being confirmed as assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services. 

There is nothing "nuanced" about it. 

He also asked Levine directly whether he would push for children to be transitioned against the wishes of their parents, in violation of parental rights. Levine declined to answer, only repeating that the field of transgender medicine is nuanced. 

There is nothing nuanced about it. We do not allow children (anyone below the age of consent which is generally 18 years old) to consent to sex. Even if they know exactly what it is they are consenting to, society has deemed that they do not have a judgment to fully understand the consequences of such decisions. Hence, if an adult has sex with a legal minor he or she is automatically guilty of a crime. No amount of "consent" given by the minor changes this.

But now these people are saying that these same minors can make decisions that will affect their entire lives when they are not even pubescent. 

This person, as of this writing has a serious shot at becoming the nation's head of Health and Human Services agency. 

Dear democrat reading this, particularly you black ones: When you voted for Biden, you agreed with this? Your distaste (probably an understatement) for Trump made you align with this? 

To the rest of you: It's high time to stop playing along with the game. Do not even participate. Too many of you are on the "it's only a name change" Well it was only "two weeks to flatten the curve". It was only "I want the government out of my bedroom".   It was "just leave us alone".  Every single inch you give enables the next step.

Coronavirus Infection Leads to COVID Immunity? You Don't Say.

Back in July of 2020 I wrote:

So two points here:

1) This is the third time I've read about how having been infected by a Coronavirus in the past, may confer immunity (for however long) against Wuhan.

2) The discussion of T-cells. You hear a lot about anti-bodies and how people who don't have serious symptoms tend to not produce any or a lot of anti-bodies. However; if T-cells can recognize and deal with the virus, then anti-body tests tell a very distorted picture. It also means that herd immunity may be far closer than we think.

Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford, argues that natural immunity to covid-19 is conferred by infections with seasonal coronaviruses. If correct, this has implications for the level of vaccination needed to reach herd immunity. It is widely assumed that over 50% of people need to be vaccinated to prevent a resurgence of SARS-CoV-2. In a preprint released on July 15th Dr Gupta says this figure could be much lower if a significant part of the population is already resistant to infection.

Of course such writing was considered "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" and the like. Now here goes the LA Times:

Oh.

"One of the enduring questions of the COVID-19 pandemic is how much immunity people are left with after recovering from a coronavirus infection. New research suggests the level of protection is comparable to getting a vaccine — at least for a few months."

Oh.

“I think we knew this, that immunity [after natural infection] lasts a long time,” said Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious-disease specialist at UC San Francisco who was not involved in the new research. “But it’s still very exciting.” 

Oh. "We knew this"? Strange how this wasn't being told to the public via MSM. I wonder why that was.

"Contrast that to the people who originally tested positive for coronavirus antibodies. Their genetic test results were positive at very high rates in the first 30 days (11.3%), which the researchers said was probably a sign that leftover viral particles were still being flushed from their systems.

However, the positivity rate for the genetic test plunged to 2.7% in the second month after infection, then fell to 1.1% in the third month. And after those 90 days, only 0.3% of people with a past coronavirus infection had another infection that was detected with a genetic test."

It's almost like the immune system can handle stuff it recognizes.  It's like perhaps instead of hiding out and trying NOT to expose yourself to the environment, you should expose your system to other (less lethal) viruses so that your body isn't shocked [to death] by a new more potent strain. You know, like how humanity has been doing it since we've been here.

"That coronavirus infection rate was 10 times lower than for the people who presumably had not been previously infected." 

Oh.

"“Of course, protection induced by a safe vaccine is clearly preferable,” they were quick to add, “as the population-wide risk of a serious outcome from an authorized or approved vaccine is expected to be orders of magnitude lower than that from natural infection.”"

Absolute assumption posing as fact.

"These findings “could have been used two months ago,” she added."

I figured this out over the summer. That was like 6 months ago

"The findings may help explain why new infections have been falling in Los Angeles County in the wake of a devastating holiday surge."

Those of us who actually followed the science called this. We called the the Casedemic. We said that it is likely that cases would rise but deaths would not (to any appreciable degree relative to cases). We said this in late spring into summer. We were called "conspiracy theorists" and "dangerous" who were going to "get people killed". We were right all along.

And Now The Firings

 Back in April of 2020 I discussed The Exit Strategy:

"While implementing The Wuhan Packs, research into a vaccine should be given high priority. Personally I don't consider anything you need to get a shot for every year a vaccine. Vaccine to me implies a one and done for years thing. Unless the developed vaccine is a one and done thing, I would not make it mandatory for anyone. That's what The Wuhan Pack is for. Americans have a right to decide what risks they are willing to take. And if you are the type that wants the government to impose what it thinks is "safety" there are flights leaving multiple airports to places that do that. Find yourself on one of those flights."

You'll note that I was in support of vaccine development at that time, with the requirement that they actually be "one and done". That was before we knew about Ivermectin and the real reasons for serious COVID complications.  Still though, you'll note that I was entirely for the individual making a risk assessment for themeselves.   Later I discussed the "excess deaths" that was regularly discussed in the media (pre-Biden) in an epic run on sentence:

"... Certain corporations that are making a LOT of money due to the sidelining of their competition and pharmaceutical companies who stand to make large sums off a "vaccine" that no doubt government agents will do everything they can to make mandatory, including extortion (no stick, no pay, no travel)."

And so on cue we have the beginnings of firings.  In the past there have been healthcare businesses that had been forcing staff to get flu shots as a condition of [continued] employment. I pointed out that such policies were dangerous. As a side note, these individuals had offered to wear masks during contact with patients. This was denied because they knew then (pre-2020) that masks DID NOT WORK to stop the transmission of viruses. But anyway onto the point:

A New York City waitress says she was fired from a popular Brooklyn restaurant after choosing not to get the COVID-19 vaccine for fear it might hurt her chances of getting pregnant.

Bonnie Jacobson, 34, told The Post that the management at Red Hook Tavern canned her on Monday because she balked at getting the shot immediately.

See the government has orchestrated so much fear in the population that this kind of thing is likely to become common. Mind you this is for a virus with a 99.5% survival rate for the general population and is asymptomatic in more than 50% of those who get infected.

Israel is racketing up their fascism by going full steam ahead on its "passport" for domestic use. Nothing more than supermarket and pharmacies if you don't have one. 

You know what the real disease is? The cancerous infection of CCP (Chinese Communist Party) government practices in previously "free" countries.

I fully expect this to become more widespread. I already get lots of mail from my employer about vaccine availability and the union to which I belong is all in on that so expect absolutely no support from them should such policies find themselves in force where I work.

And let me be clear: I have no intention of getting pregnant (I'm male) and I have no intention of making up a religious excuse. I don't owe anyone an explanation as to why I reject a currently experimental "vaccine" for a disease I am unlikely to die from. Nor does it make sense that if those so afeared of COVID who do, of their own free will, take the jab, need for ME to do so in order to feel "safe".

Honestly, the [currently] free state of Florida is looking better and better with each passing day. My concern is that governors come and go. Florida is forever one election away from becoming like NY.

Another note about Florida is that though there is no mask mandate, a LOT of the video I see coming out of that state have people in masks. Are they doing so because they feel a sense of safety or are they doing so because individual businesses have made such rules on their property?

Anyway, to close, Income independent of employment is something the free-minded need to look into.  This level of control over the population is only possible with a population dependent upon large institutions in order to live.

India Vs. The USA

 One of these countries uses Ivermectin. One of these countries doesn't. Guess which is which.

Why IsTexas Running Out Of Power?

 So Texans should be asking themselves why they are being subject to rolling blackouts and are in their homes (or cars) cold. Texas is known for, among other things, OIL. Why is a state with abundant and available energy out of power? Well below explains:

Look, these so-called environmentalists are con-people. The Green New Deal is a socialist scam meant to tax YOU (see your power bills) and enrich certain elites who exempt themselves from the rules they want to impose on you. The Paris Accords are a scam. These "green" policies have messed up California and now they have taken down Texas. Don't wait until they take down your state (or country) before you wise up to the game.

"We Have A New President."

 As I've often said. When the elites get comfortable they tend to get "Diarrhea of the mouth" and let slip the real things going on. As many of us pointed out, the COVID pandemic was weaponized in order to remove Trump from office. Of course the Official Organs(tm) will say that's a conspiracy theory but it is what it is.

Time Inc. told us that major business leaders got together with left wing activists in order to "fortify the election". I wonder if Catsmitidis was one of them? 

Catsimitidis went on to say that he doesn’t “understand what’s going on” in New York and other states that are still closed because “we have a new president.” 

"We have a new president."

What does that have to do with "still being closed"? I mean, if the closures were about "public health" then having a "new president" has no bearing on the subject. The closures, if "science based" wouldn't be affected one way or the other by a presidential election. You'd think he would have said something like:

"We have vaccines now." (The Ghost does not endorse these "vaccines".)

or

"Cases are dropping."

But nope. he said "We have a new president". Clearly then, this fellow, and I refuse to try to write out his name again, is or was under the impression that the change of presidents was supposed to change things. What would give him THAT particular idea?

Y'all Ain't Prepared

 So I saw this video on YouTube of a dude currently living in his car due to the frost issues going on in Texas. I'm sympathetic but really doe. Reaaally doe...y'all need to be prepared for this stuff.

I learned kinda the hard way when Sandy hit. Now power for a few days. Gas lines out the butt. Gas prices through the roof. At that point I realized that it was a bad idea for me to think that a few candles was going to do it. So I want to pass along some hints as to what you should and can do.

1) Clean and fill your bathtub with clean water. Yes, when the power goes out, so do the pumps that keep your water pressure. You might think that water is a "human right" but unless you're going to a stream or dug your own well, that wet stuff coming out your pipes are the result of engineering and mostly men out there laying pipes (ha ha) so that you have water. It needs electricity to run so when the power goes, so does your water. So if you are given a warning that freaky weather is going to come your way. Fill the bathtub. That's a decent amount of water that can do things like wash yourself and some utensils. Now should it drop below freezing in your bathroom, that's going to be a problem but it's something to do if temps are not going that low.

2) If you own a home you have no excuse to not have a generator. Seriously. No excuse. Get a generator. 

3) You live in an apartment then a gasoline generator is not feasible.  If you have a patio maybe but there is a storage issue. So in this case I suggest a battery backup. The largest you can afford. Along with this you should get the largest Solar panel you can afford. This allows you to do two things: 

    a) Charge the battery backup during the day.

    b) Charge accessories directly.

You should keep these backups charged when there is no emergency,  just in case. If you're not in the habit of doing so then as soon as news of a storm appears, plug 'em up. It would also be a good idea to  buy smaller phone chargers, preferably with built in solar panels. The idea is that, during the day you charge for use during the night. 

4) Portable propane heater. Yes, these can be used indoors. Make sure to buy one with a low oxygen sensor. This will allow you to keep a room above freezing temps (remember the water in the bathtub?). You'll probably want to be safe and keep a window cracked. Remember, you're not going to keep the entire place warm just the most important area: Where you are.

5) Back on the subject of batteries, you should get a hand held, hand crank emergency light or lantern. The LED ones available today are far better than the ones I purchased after Sandy (hmmm....). These will provide you light(s) when everybody else is in total darkness at night. I have had people wonder why I have light and they don't. Yup. Prepared.

6) Lastly food. Ensure is food. Ensure Plus is better food. Ensure doesn't expire or need refrigeration. Neither do canned goods. You should have at least one week of non-perishable "food" in your possession. I remember when Sandy hit how people were buying actual perishable items. Seriously. Ensures were in stock. Two 6-packs will give you enough calories to live on for a week, if that's ALL you eat.

This isn't going to help people who are currently living out of their cars but hopefully they heed this post and get prepared for next time. It could be a hurricane or tornado. 

Joe Biden Hitting Up The Wallet

 So for those who don't know, the price you pay for gas at the pump does not reflect what the station paid for the gas delivered by the truck before you got there. No. The price you pay for gas is based on what gas is expected to go for. That is, how much they will have to pay to purchase the gas. This is why after a disruption in the market, prices go up almost immediately and then go back down slowly. That's how it generally works. Generally.

So when Joe Biden took the hammer to the pipeline project, well there was only one way this was going to go:

Yeah see, usually in February you don't see price jumps like this. This kind of price jump usually happens near to Memorial Day. That's in May. If things go on like this, there is $4 -$5 premium (what I gotta use) by May. If some kind of conflict occurs in the Middle East....

So yeah, when you voted for Biden, you voted for this. Enjoy. Don't say you weren't warned...Or maybe that secret group of organizations convinced you such warnings were "miss-information".

Impeachment Trial Endangers All Of Us

 Article 2 Section 4 of the US Constitution states:

"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 relevant part here is:

"Shall be removed from Office..."

Trump is not "in office" therefore he cannot be "removed from office".

Either we live in a country where we follow the laws or we live under mob rule. 

Period. 

If we live under mob rule, then ANY of us can be detained, arrested, tried for any reason and punished up to and including execution by the state.

This trial should not even be happening. Even IF the alleged crime, incitement to violence, had occurred, since Trump is no longer president there are absolutely no legal grounds, no Constitutional grounds to have an impeachment trial.

If anyone thinks Trump committed the crime of incitement, then they should report it to the proper authorities to prosecute him as the private citizen that he currently is.

Where are the people who talk all day, every day about criminal justice reform? How do you advocate for a "fair" justice system when your so-called elected representatives are illegally conducting a trial of a private citizen? 

I'm not even going to argue whether the charges are valid because it does not matter. The trial itself is illegal under Article 2 section 4. 

Period.

This is a lynch mob. And yes, I understand the emotional weight such a term engenders but it is what it is: A lynch mob. They want Trump's head and will do anything to get it. The Supreme Law of the Land be damned.

If they will do that to Trump then what happens when the mob comes for you? You think you're safe? In the space of 4 years, we went from "it's OK to punch a Nazi" to " The GOP is a terrorist organization deserving of military actions used against Al-Qaeda."

If you cannot call out this highly illegal action by the national "representatives" then I don't want to hear anything when a local PD puts his knee on you or your kid's neck or a bullet in your or your people's back. Because you didn't care about "procedure' and "legal restraint" when it affected someone YOU didn't like.

Time Inc. Lays Out The Plot

 Time magazine, this week, dropped a whopper on the public. I saved it as a PDF in case they wise up and realize just what they did and either nuke the piece or edit it. We are living in times where such things happen with increasing frequency. As we take a dive into the piece we need to look at something:

That is Hillary Clinton stating flat out that Biden should not concede the 2020 election under any circumstances. By the time we are finished going through the Time piece we should be asking: What did Clinton know and when did she know it?

Here's the thing, back in the day when a was developing in my awareness, I learned that people in power, when comfortable allow the masks to fall and they reveal themselves. It happens on all levels of human and organizational behavior.  And so I learned to watch for these admissions. Time Magazine told on the Great Reset over the summer.

Mainstream media wanted to tell us that the Great Reset was some conspiracy theory. Time said "Nope. It's real." Now the public can find all manner of video evidence of the World Economic Forum calling for the Great Reset. And believe me, a LOT of international organizations are in on it. And a great deal of the "elite" in America are in on it too.  See, if you're powerful enough you get to live how you want. The  Reset is meant to fuck with the rest of us. 

In a lot of countries it is easier to implement these plans because the people are "subjects" of their government. That is the government "gives' people rights, which it can also take away. In America, the government is [supposedly] subject to the people. The people give it rights which the people can take away. Hence the elites need to change how American government works in order to implement their plans. So you have the attacks on speech, assembly, defense (guns), etc.  This is being done by exercising power accumulated over a long time in government, education (same) and private industries. 

Remember that not long ago it was reported that China had agents "all up in" the US.

I usually blockquote these items but I want to make sure you know I'm not making anything up. I told you during my writeup on the Trump presidency that Trump represented a major block to China's plans and it was actually in the interest of China to get Trump out of office. 

I know this seems to be not about the Time Magazine piece but you need to keep these things in mind when you read it. So let's get to it.

So straight away we see the problem. US elections are supposed to be transparent. If there is a "shadow campaign" then the election isn't being "saved" it is being manipulated. This is classic contradictory speech. You cannot "save" an election with "shadow campaigns".

"A second odd thing happened amid Trump’s attempts to reverse the result: corporate America turned on him. Hundreds of major business leaders, many of whom had backed Trump’s candidacy and supported his policies, called on him to concede. To the President, something felt amiss. “It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”

In a way, Trump was right."

Why would "major business leaders" many of whom "supported his policies" and "backed Trump" turn on him? Why would they do so when key states hadn't even announced? The same companies that Trump gifted with tax cuts.  Even if you didn't like the man, if as a business you supported his policies (because they made doing business easier for you) why would you turn on him?

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.

Well I'm glad THEY said "conspiracy".

 The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.

The AFL-CIO? Unions? If I'm a Union member who just got whacked by Biden's pipeline EO, I'd be looking at my union card and all the dues I paid REALLY CLOSELY right now.

Build Back Better -->> Great Reset. Remember the Chinese have agents and influence all over. Your labour Union probably sold you out for the reset. 

But the important part of the statement is the reference to the summer of rioting. I wrote last month:

This "proposition", which was actually a great blackmailing of the citizenry" was also trotted out for the rioting. The rioting is a response to Trump and his policies and racism. If you want the rioting to stop you need to get Trump out of office.

 And thus the final media message was that the mounting cases and deaths were Trump's fault and if you wanted to change this horrible situation you need to get Biden into office, Biden has a plan. There are riots in the streets because Trump is a racist. You want the riots to stop? Get Trump out. Remember that the summer of rioting was approved of from the top to the bottom of the Democratic Party. It was given positive coverage by the MSM.

And there it is in print. The "conspiracy", their words not mine, was inspired by the "massive racial -justice [sic] protests[sic]."

 "The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted."

I'll say it again: you cannot have a "free", "fair", "credible" and "uncorrupted" election with a "shadow effort". it is entirely contradictory.

"For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President."

More than a year? So prior to COVID? What did they know and when did they know it?

"Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors." 

*wink wink*

*Nod nod*

"Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding."

They "got states to change voting systems and laws"?

Say, did YOU the voter know that a "shadow group" of "businesses and activists" convinced your representative to vote for changes in YOUR state election laws? 

Say, did YOU the voter know that voting systems were changed over the year to NEW systems at the behest, and payments, of a "shadow organization" of activists? 

The Chinese have influence at all levels of US government. Say, how many Chinese agents were involved in the "shadow organization" to change voting laws and voting systems in YOUR state?

"They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears."

So a "Shadow Organization" of "activists" pressured social media companies to take a hard line against mis-information like Hunter Biden's laptop and the corraborated evidence that he took money from the Chinese government who may have compromising information on the now president of the Unites States?

Say, do you like the fact that a "shadow organization" essentially decided what was and was not "disinformation"?

"The President spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.”"

 But you just wrote that a "shadow group" of "activists", "Unions" and "Major business people" spent the year changing voting laws and voting systems. That IS "rigging". 

"Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count."

Trump "plotted" to have the laws the he *thought* were on the books enforced. IE: signature verification, Address verification, Ballots postmarked by day off election, etc. But the "shadow group" had spent it's time over the year(s?) changing the laws.

"It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,”"

Proper outcome.

*wink*

*nod*

"even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures."[my underlines]

 Double speak. They only changed laws and processes to favor the outcome they wanted. That's fortification, like vitamins!

"Voting-rights and civil rights organizations were raising alarms. A group of former elected officials was researching emergency powers they feared Trump might exploit. Protect Democracy was assembling a bipartisan election-crisis task force. “It turned out that once you said it out loud, people agreed,” Podhorzer says, “and it started building momentum.”"

The key statement here is "researching emergency powers." Recall again that I noted:

"Once the country was shook about being in public or enclosed space because they believed "infection= dead" and 'You want to kill granny?" part two was put into place. These emergencies "allowed" state governments to change the voting process without the usual legislative procedures *required* by the constitution. This gave cover to the DNC to finish its decapitation of Bernie Sanders who was unable to campaign." 

 

Yes, I believe that there came an understanding on how "emergencies" could be exploited to fast track certain changes these people wanted. 

" The chief difference between the U.S. and countries that lost their grip on democracy, he concluded, was that America’s decentralized election system couldn’t be rigged in one fell swoop. That presented an opportunity to shore it up." 

 

No, that wasn't an opportunity to "shore it up" it was an understanding that it couldn't be done in one fell swoop, hence the long march and changes to laws while the public was distracted. 

"Then COVID-19 erupted at the height of the primary-election season. Normal methods of voting were no longer safe for voters or the mostly elderly volunteers who normally staff polling places. But political disagreements, intensified by Trump’s crusade against mail voting, prevented some states from making it easier to vote absentee and for jurisdictions to count those votes in a timely manner."

Watch the hands. Remember they had "researched" the use of emergency powers.

"the institutional left, like Planned Parenthood and Greenpeace; resistance groups like Indivisible and MoveOn; progressive data geeks and strategists, representatives of donors and foundations, state-level grassroots organizers, racial-justice activists and others."

Just so we know who the "activists" in the "Shadow organizations" were. I'm on MoveOn's mailing list, they never told me they were involved in changing voting laws and processes. 

Also, this guy held in meetings on Zoom. Zoom is known to have been accessible by the Chinese government. 

Aside from the encryption standards, the researchers also found that Zoom sends traffic to China - even when all the people in a Zoom meeting are outside of China.

"During multiple test calls in North America, we observed keys for encrypting and decrypting meetings transmitted to servers in Beijing, China," the report said.

So here we have a group of leftwing activists acting as a "shadow organization" to affect the outcome of the US 2020 election using a product that sends it's traffic to China. 

"It warned that Zoom "may not be suitable" for:

• Governments and businesses worried about espionage
• Healthcare providers handling sensitive patient information
• Activists, lawyers and journalists working on sensitive topics"

Nothing to see here folks. Move on.

The rest of the article talks about what I consider surface stuff. Voter canvassing and the like. There is absolutely no discussion of the changes to voter laws mentioned at the head of the article. I don't think that's an accident. 

"The statement was released on Election Day, under the names of Chamber CEO Thomas Donohue, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, and the heads of the National Association of Evangelicals and the National African American Clergy Network. “It is imperative that election officials be given the space and time to count every vote in accordance with applicable laws,”"[my underlines]

The "applicable laws",  not described in the article, had already been set. yeah, we can count non-postmarked ballots. Yeah we can not verify signatures. etc. And how can a conservative be against "accordance with applicable laws"? You conservatives do believe in "rule of law" right?

Which brings us to this:

"We had rabid Trump supporters who agreed to serve on the council based on the idea that this is honest,” Wamp says. This is going to be just as important, he told them, to convince the liberals when Trump wins. “Whichever way it cuts, we’re going to stick together.”"

See, I could see Never Trumpers on board with this. I could even see "normie" Republicans being in on this because they still think this is about "fair". But a so-called "rabid Trump supporter"? Say did Time interview any of these "Rabid Trump Supporters"? Did they agree to things like this:

Fifth, there was no state law violation when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court temporarily modifiedthe deadline for the receipt of mail-in and absentee ballots, because state constitutional law required it. SeePa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345, 369-72 (Pa. 2020). Under this Court’s jurisprudence, nothing in the Elections Clause of Article I “instructs, nor has this Court ever held, that a state legislature may pre-scribe regulations on the time, place, and manner of holding federal elections in defiance of provisions of the State’s constitution.” Arizona State Legislature v. Ari-zona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 817-18 (2015)(AIRC).The same is true for the Elector Clause in Article II. [ my underlines]

This is in reference to the Texas suit. Note my underlined portion. This was a result of a lawsuit filed in 2020 that allowed the PA Supreme court to modify the deadline for receipt of mail-in and absentee ballots. What "Rabid Trump Supporter" was OK with that and why? 

Note that the Time article doesn't go into these changes in law. I think it's because if they did, people would see that it was "rigged". piece by piece and not in "one fell swoop".

Tranny Propaganda Full Steam Ahead

 This one is especially made for those of you who know you're not with the tranny bullshit but vote Democrat anyway. This is what's going to be forced on you and most importantly your kids and grandkids. 

I hope you're satisfied.

 

Bank Of America: Arm Of Government?

 So this morning I was treated to a Tucker Carlson clip that discussed Bank of America sifting through it's customers transactions for persons who used their bank cards in DC around the time of Jan 6 up through the Jan 21. They then passed this information onto the Feds. At least one person was then interviewed by the Feds on the basis of this information. That person was "cleared". There are a number of things about this I want to discuss. 

Firstly is that anyone who understands what actual Fascism is, understands that the US is fast becoming, if not already a Fascist state. Fascism is where the government and business cooperate for national ends. Business becomes the private enforcers of the state. We have that in the US now. That we have the capital surrounded and inhabited by the military though there is no specific military threat should burn off the scales on people's eyes so they can see clearly.  Yes, the Fascism that various lefties told the populance was what Trump was doing is now in effect and  they got YOU, the Biden voters, to vote it in.

Congrats.

The second thing is the bank reporting. As someone who frequents casinos I am familiar with the paperwork casinos are required to have you fill out when large sums of money are transacted. In particular is the suspicious activity report. If you transact something over $10k they need to fill out this form. This is supposed to be a means of thwarting things like money laundering. So that customer transactions are recorded and reported is not new to me or surprising. These are required by law.

The third thing is who owns the data.  One of the controversies of this new digital age is where ownership lies. For example, is this blog mine or the property of Google? Yes, I wrote the posts. Yes, the posts represent the work of my intellect, but they are ON Google's servers. Google owns the servers and presumably everything on them unless they state otherwise.

Another example: I had a dispute regarding someone who lived with me. I had access to their e-mail which was stored on my property. That person attempted to get me fired by saying that I hacked the e-mail. I informed the inquisitors that the e-mail in question was stored on MY property and had traversed MY network which was also MY property. Hence since I did not connect to or otherwise access any of the institutions servers or network there was no way I could have broken any laws or policies. Hence they had no case. 

Pro-tip. Never use someone else's property to store or access YOUR data. Once it hits their machine they are free to access it unless you have a written contract stating otherwise.

So. in terms of the actions of Bank Of America, Are they YOUR records or are they BOA's records. If they are BOA's records then you have no say in what they do with it. They can choose to volunteer to provide that information to the feds or they can demand a warrant. You'd think that a company. with the name "Bank Of America", emphasis on America (as in the US, not the geographic location), would demand a warrant in keeping with the 4th Amendment but we, well I, do not know whether they got a warrant. Which brings us to point four.

Was BOA served with a warrant or did they do this on their own. If they did the latter, I think BOA customers should seriously consider other banking services. The rub here is that we do not know how many other banks have engaged in the same behavior. It may be the case that BOA simply got "caught".

In terms of warrants, they have to be about a specific person and a specific crime you think that person committed and what specifically you're looking for. Since going to DC on any day of the week is not a crime, that could not be the basis of a warrant. That would be like the police coming to your door because you were on the same street that someone got murdered on. That's not how the system is supposed to work.

Similarly, purchasing a firearm is a legal activity. So that could not be the basis of a warrant as there is no crime.

In essence, unless the police had a picture of someone IN the capitol building they had no reasonable suspicion to get a warrant or "interview" anyone since unless you trespassed the capitol, there was no crime committed.

So I don't think any warrant was issued. I could be wrong but I don't see the reasonable suspicion requirement being met. So with that assumption, I think the feds approached BOA on some "there was an insurrection, be a patriot..." type shit and BOA not understanding that the patriotic thing to do would be to ask for a warrant, went "Sir! Yes sir!" They did their but of fascism willingly and I don't think Chase, Capital One, M&T or any other bank has or would do any different.

DeSantis Does What Trump Should Have Done in 2017

 My second installment on Trump's presidency highlighted Trumps absolute failure to deliver on a number of key items. In addition his habit of tweeting about how he was going to deal with online censorship but never quite got around to putting together an actual piece of legislation. Republicans and sane Democrats failed on that front as well.

There was a lot of talk about repealing 230. I thought that was a bad idea and a lot of smart people did as well. It wasn't that 230 was a bad piece of legislation it was that it was not enforced. The exceptions carved out by 230 were only for platforms. Platforms are in the clear so long as they don't publish. Once a platform starts removing content for reasons other than legality it veers into publication territory. When it editorializes a post, it is publishing. When it adds disclaimers to videos, it is publishing.  When it "de-v erifies" a person because it doesn't like what they say under the guise of "hate speech" which legally doesn't exist, then it is publishing. And the deverification process really exposes the so-called platform because by enabling the power to "de-verify" and remove "objectionable" people, it is ALSO saying that those left on the so-called platform meet with their approval. By "approving" of speech, it is no longer a platform anymore than the NYT is. After all, the NYT publishes speech which approves of publishing.

So the issue is that Twitter, FaceBook and Google (by way of YouTube) became publishers and then in the run up to the 2020 election, used it's platforms to favour voices from a particular political background. That's election interference at worst and perhaps an in-kind contribution at best.

I believe that when Facebook and Twitter removed accounts for "inciting or organizing violence"  but left up Antifa and BLM pages and tweets they should have been sued by anyone and any business that was damaged.  Only by consistently removing so called incitement regardless of who posted it would these entities be in the clear.  So this bring us to DeSantis

.

In a 45-minute speech, the governor identified Big Tech companies as the leading threat to American democracy and freedom of expression today, and pledged that Florida Republicans would take action.

I think DeSantis is learning from California (and perhaps Poland). You make a law there that trans-state businesses must observe and it becomes a hassle for them to enforce it in one location (set of IPs) and not in others. Thus the business is forced to enforce it everywhere. And if the companies want to sue? Fine. You got deep pockets, and we have deep pockets. Let's go.

Other states should follow suit (looking at you Texas).

The substance of this proposal:

The new regulations announced by DeSantis include:

• Mandatory opt-outs from big tech’s content filters, a solution to tech censorship first proposed by Breitbart News in 2018.
• A private right of action for Floridian citizens against tech companies that violate this condition.
• Fines of $100,000 per day levied on tech companies that suspend candidates for elected office in Florida from their platforms.
• Daily fines for any tech company “that uses their content and user-related algorithms to suppress or prioritize the access of any content related to a political candidate or cause on the ballot.”
• Greater transparency requirements.
• Disclosure requirements enforced by Florida’s election authorities for tech companies that favor one candidate over another.
• Power for the Florida attorney general to bring cases against tech companies that violate these conditions under the state’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act.

Most of this covers political candidates. Laura Loomer of Florida was deplatformed by just about every, if not every mainstream platform while she was running for office. Maybe even before. That made fund raising and e-mailing people extremely difficult. The FEC should have dropped a huge sledgehammer on every institution that blocked her ability to run a campaign on equal footing to her opponents.

This is what should have come out of the Trump admin a long time ago. 

Big dog. Loud bark. No teeth.

On a side note, DeSantis, Noem and Gabbard are looking like very good candidates for president in 2024. Gabbard would be blocked by Harris-Biden  but she's young enough to get to 2028.