Amnesty? No. Not One Bit

 The nerve:

Forgive each other?

That statement implies that all parties involved did something wrong. That could not be further from the truth.

"These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know."

 The FUCK we didn't know. YOU didn't know. I knew. I was looked at sideways and accosted by employees at stores I had been a customer of for decades for not wearing a mask because I knew physics. I knew fluid dynamics and that viruses were way smaller than the pores of the masks. I knew that unless properly fitted, even the "good" n95 ones weren't worth a damn. I knew that people constantly touching them was a recipe for disaster.

Know what else I knew? That the constant "sanitizing" would (and still could) lead to super bugs and destruction of the natural bio-fauna that all of us have on our bodies. 

I knew better and I did nothing wrong. I owe not a damn body an apology.

"But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information."

No, By the summer of 2020 I had figured out that this was an illness that got people who had underlying conditions (and had covered it up with various medications). I figured out that if you were healthy, not vit D deficient and took a few supplements, you were unlikely to have much more than a cough and a runny nose. Perhaps a loss of taste and smell when your turn came. I knew that the lockdown was an economic time bomb. As a matter of fact I pointed that out in April. I knew the whole giving people money to stay home was a VERY bad idea. Those chickens have come home to roost and the rooster is making a racket.

There was plenty of information out there for people who were paying attention, didn't rabidly hate Trump and were actually interested in facts and data.

"Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims. Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad. Misinformation was, and remains, a huge problem. But most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society."

The only wildly irresponsible claims made were by Fauci, Birx and just about every liberal talking head. Birx has finally admitted that she knew at the time of release that the mRNA vaccines would not stop transmission and yet this claim, which was the basis for firing people was kept in play until just recently when the evidence could no longer be ignored.  Secondly Trump never told anyone to inject themselves with bleach. He said it would be great if there was a disinfectant for the body. Do you know what chemotherapy is? You know what every medication you take is? A disinfectant you twit.

And the claim about "bringing light into the body"? Yeah, I posted on that and how a company was actually working on using UV radiation therapy INSIDE the body. 

But the partisan murderers, that's what they are, who hated Trump to the nth degree took "disinfectant" to mean "bleach" so that they could get at him

And no, these people were not and are not working for the "good of society". They are killers and totalitarians and I have no love for them. They should be shot or hanged.  Shot AND hanged.

"In some instances, the right people were right for the wrong reasons. In other instances, they had a prescient understanding of the available information."

What is this nonsense? "Right for the wrong reason"? Either you're right or your wrong. Period. Ain't no "reason" about it.

"The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat."

We're not gloating. We are mad as hell and want the vicious people who imposed themselves upon us to be held to personal account.

"But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward."

This wasn't a mistake. These people were and are purposely malicious. As far as I'm concerned they are no better than the thug who pushes a person in front of a moving train: Not worth the dirt under their shoes. The way you prevent this history from repeating is to make examples out of each and every one of them.

Gallows.

Firing squads.

Total bankruptcy. 

The thug who pushes the innocent person in front of the train doesn't get to say "sorry my bad" and get to move on. They get put on trial and put in jail. These criminals in various government agencies and private companies deserve no less.

No Amnesty.

The Unions Revealed

DSNY workers hailed their lawyer @ChadLaveglia, slammed their union, and spoke up for workers who were coerced to get the shot after the NYC worker mandate was struck down in court today. pic.twitter.com/q6lYffzdkD

— NYCforYourself (@nycforyourself) October 24, 2022

 

Same situation for me with the AFT. Paid in for 23 years and that union sat with the employer and conspired to fuck over members who they didn't agree with rather than represent the workers. Far as I'm concerned the AFT is lower than dirt.

"They Destroyed My Life"

"They destroyed my life." As MSM picks up on the Garvey v NYC story about DSNY workers suing the city for firing them over the mandate, I'm not hearing from the most important people in the story in their coverage. Here's one. @ChadLaveglia pic.twitter.com/k3bdf31eGP

— NYCforYourself (@nycforyourself) October 26, 2022

Garvey's Ghost TV 10-24-2022: Total Clowns

Bitchute:

Rumble:

 

4:15- Arizona Trespassing on Federal Land?

12:25- Eric "Bull Connor" Adams: Crime? What Crime?

28:30- Biden's Quid-Pro-Quo. Where's the impeachment?

35:06- COVID IFR: no justification for CDC decision.

44:36 - Why Fordham University Booster Mandate.

50:17 - COVID Scotland: "Experts Decide. You Obey".

We Generated

 There is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to SARS-Covid-2 to be a lab creation that, at best, leaked. Given the absolute society destroying reaction that came from this disease you would think that scientists would have second and third thoughts about "gain of function" research. Alas no.

 "The recently identified, globally predominant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1) is41
highly transmissible, even in fully vaccinated individuals, and causes attenuated disease42
compared with other major viral variants recognized to date1-7. The Omicron spike (S)43
protein, with an unusually large number of mutations, is considered the major driver of44
these phenotypes3,8. We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S45
gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate and compared this46
virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant."

We did what?

 

 

"We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S45
gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate and compared thisvirus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant."

Why?

Because there's nobody stopping us from doing so. That's why.

Continuing:

n K18-hACE2 mice, while Omicron causes mild,50
non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality51
rate of 80%.

80 what?

So lets get this straight. Having most likely gone through a lab leaked "gain of function" product, these scientists went and created another version of this thing that, in mice, has an 80% kill rate?

Just so we know who did it should we find this thing in the wild:

 How about we stop putting artificial selection pressure on this virus?

PayPal: Say, It Would Be A Shame If Your Money Disappeared

 To the possible annoyance of a few, I have been on a streak showing you how bad The Left Crow has gotten (and is going to get). Trannies who believe they have the right to make medical decisions for your children to HR departments who compel speech. But in the background has been the movement by numerous financial businesses to deny services to people they deem "untouchable" due to their public statements on topics such as race and gender. Most of those statements wouldn't have elicited so much as a blink prior to say 2016 but now will get your bank account closed. Your business bank account closed and possibly your family's bank account(s) closed.

There are those who would make the "private company" argument in defense of these banks. They are free to associate (or not associate) with whomever they please. I'd agree with that except the Civil Rights Act put an end to "free association" by businesses a long time ago. Of course the CRA does NOT have a "viewpoint discrimination" portion and so these companies are technically within the law. Legislators need to get on the ball and end this. As more and more financial transactions are done electronically, it is vitally important that a citizen's right to access their money and send and receive money electronically is not subject to the whims of third parties who are supposed to only be the *means of transfer* rather than the *gatekeepers* of transfers. In short, the money held in those accounts or transferred between accounts does NOT belong to companies like PayPal, they remain the property of the sender or receiver depending on what point the transfer is in. The only time that a company like PayPal ought to be able to hold money or block transfers is if there is [reasonable] suspicion or evidence of fraud or other criminal activity. 

But PayPal took it an extra step,presumably on behlaf of the LGBTQRSTUVWQYZ mafia and came up with a policy that would *allow* them to seize $2500 from an account, per incident, if that account was in violation of "acceptable use" policies:

 Note the portion about "promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory." 

Since such things are not only subjective but in some cases contradict social norms of many communities, this would allow PayPal to target those who express views it doesn't like, anywhere. 

And the fine:

So PayPal can at it's own discretion look at your social media or other commentary and decide that it violates it's "rules" and then fine you (like it's a government and there is some duly enacted law somewhere).

This it The Left Crow I've been warning about for years. They are the shadow government that is coming into view.

Mind you PayPal has currently backtracked this, but be sure, the people who wrote this up are still working for PayPal. The lawyers that wrote it up are still employed or under contract. The people that OK'd this have not been shown the door. The only reason this is being backtracked for now is because people reacted to this by closing their accounts.

Understand that once this dies down they will move to make this policy again. They are not the only ones with such policies either. Rumble, whom I use for videos has a similar policy minus the theft.

And yes, it is theft. As I said earlier, the money does not belong to PayPal. That they would threaten to take it "at their sole discretion" is no different than the hoodlum on the street who relieves you of your wallet "at his sole discretion". 

I'm going to close by saying that if you are a sane person who is against this Left Crow, you need to use alternatives. Yes those alternatives will be associated with people and organizations you may not care for and who, gasp, may actually hate you. However; that is the *cost* of a free society. I would suggest you look at Gab Pay and Parallel Economy. For fundraising I suggest GiveSendGo (I have had personal contact with them and they are *VERY* responsive and appear to be principled). One of the reasons PayPal and others act in the way they do is because they believe you gave no alternatives. If you do not support alternatives then these companies will continue to amp up the nonsense.

Nature Ruins It's Reputation

 After March 2020, I came to regard "scientists" as far less worthy of deference than I had previously. "Doctors" and other "scientists" made total asses of themselves and when called on it moved to not only censor their critics but to go as far as remove their ability to make a living. Journals, like Nature, which I recall using quite frequently in my college days, ran articles that made claims that were either wholly unsupported by the data IN the article, or there was no data in the article that supported the claims. In essence, these supposedly "scientific" journals became government and leftist propaganda organs.

Below is the Dark Horse podcast discussing the most recent display of nonsense by a "science" journal.

It is long past time that these trannies are put [back] in their places. They need to be purged from every institution they inhabit. Do not play the pronoun game. Do not play any of it. All you do is give them space to fester and infect society.

They Won't Leave You Alone

 As the leftists feel more and more emboldened due to their grasp on power structure they continue to harass people, their targets, in order to force their way onto them. The latest example is the Colorado baker who had won a SCOTUS ruling. Undeterred, because there are no consequences for "losing", they continue to mess with the baker.

By now, people know, particularly in that state and that town, that the person running the shop is a Christian, and not the "just raised as" kind. This one practices. Due to that knowledge, anyone looking for a tranny cake should know better than to even ask. Of course they DO know. They ask because they KNOW he will turn them down and they will use that as a means to sic the state on him.

 

Scardina, an attorney, attempted to order her cake on the same day in 2017 that the Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ appeal in the wedding cake case. Scardina testified she wanted to “challenge the veracity” of Phillips statements that he would serve LGBT customers.

Before filing suit, Scardina first filed a complaint against Phillips with the state and the civil rights commission, which found probable cause that Phillips had discriminated against her. Phillips then filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado, accusing it of a “crusade to crush” him by pursuing the complaint.

 

Back in 2019 I made the argument that the harassment he is facing is a violation of the 13th Amendment:

You'll note that the 13th not only abolishes slavery but it also abolishes involuntary servitude. That is in recognition that one can be forced to do labour while not being the property/Chattel (slave) of a person (or legal entity).

So the question here is, if a shop owner declines to "bake that cake" for the homosexual wedding, isn't the customer who demands that he does it, attempting to extract involuntary servitude? And, when the state steps in with its monopoly on legal deadly force on the side of the "customer" to force the baker to "bake that cake", isn't the state attempting to enforce involuntary servitude on the baker?

Can the state pass legislation that effectively stipulates involuntary servitude as a condition of being able to operate a public business?

And no, just because one is being paid doesn't make it any less involuntary. If the customer pulled a gun and put it to the baker's head to demand the cake (yes a total exaggeration, but take the walk with me), and after the cake is made, pays the baker would we consider that "voluntary"?

Indeed we'll note that Scardina first went to the state, in order to get it to force this baker into involuntary servitude. 

Lest you think this is reserved just to bakers, Witness the nurse fired from her job for not going along with the tranny nonsense.

In a July meeting with the representatives of Human Resources and the Department of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Kloosterman was asked if she would use “gender identity-based pronouns and be willing to refer patients for gender reassignment surgery,” the letter said. Kloosterman replied that she “could not do so because of her religious beliefs and because of her independent medical judgment,” but that “she would use patients’ names in place of pronouns to respect their wishes,” the letter said.

I've said before that it should not be necessary to make a religious argument to affirm one's right to speak. Also notice that she offered a compromise. Look. you're going to have to realize that there is no compromise with these folks. They "compromised" in order to get power. Now that they have it, they are taking no prisoners.

“[He] grew hostile, visibly angry with tight fists and a flushed demeanor, and attacked her religious beliefs,” the letter said. “... [He] told Ms. Kloosterman that she could not take the Bible or her religious beliefs to work with her, either literally or figuratively; that given her religious beliefs against gender identity-based pronouns and ‘gender reassignment surgery,’ she was to blame for transgender suicides; and that she was ‘evil’ and abusing her power as a health care provider.”

In a sane country, this hospital would be held liable for creating a hostile work environment. 

Also, know that many of her colegues, who may believe as she does, whether for religious reasons or not, are too cowardly to stand up with her and say no to the tranny nonsense. And know that I'm not just talking, I walked MY talk when it came to COVID and I will walk my talk if it comes to tranny nonsense.  Time to recognize that they will not leave you alone and eventually they WILL come for you.

SCOTUS to Hear NYC Vaccine Case?

 A while back I posted on Sonia Sotomayor rejecting a plea for SCOTUS to block the NYC vaccine mandate. Now the court has a second bite at this apple with a submission made to Justice Thomas

"Last month, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected a request by Det. Anthony Marciano to look further at his legal challenge — the outcome of which could have significant implications for Mayor Eric Adams’ administration. But Marciano resubmitted the exact same request to conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, and the high court’s press office confirmed Tuesday the case will be deliberated at a conference Oct. 7."

That's this Friday.

First thing I'll point out is that it shouldn't be necessary to "resubmit" such a claim. If you have bodily autonomy then it should have been upheld immediately.

"Marciano sued the city last year challenging a policy requiring municipal workers be inoculated against Covid-19. He did not qualify for religious or medical exemptions, but instead argued he’d acquired immunity through his front-line service and should be free to make his own decision about getting the jab."

His situation parallels mine in that I did not make a religious or medical exemption request. I stood on law. First the ADA strictly forbids employers, public or private from inquiring about the actual or perceived medical conditions of employees or potential employees unless they can demonstrate that such a condition prevents the person from carrying out their duties. The latter exception did not apply in my case and I suppose it didn't in Marciano's.

Secondly, the ADA specifically covers bodily functions including the functions of the immune system. 

Hence any employer, including the state cannot ask about or otherwise discriminate against employees in regards to "vaccines". Had we had an actually functioning "justice" system, this issue would have been resolved the first time any mention of "mandate" popped up.

"The case, Finn said, is simple: State and federal laws prohibit vaccine mandates without the recipient’s informed consent. And because Marciano did not give his consent, the suit alleges, his due process rights are being violated."

I would add that it was 100% impossible for Marciano or anyone else to give informed consent because the vaccines were experimental and nobody knew the health effects either short or long.  The only consent that a person in 2021 could give was consent to be experimented on. The Nuremberg code, to which the US is a signatory explicitly bans medical experimentation on unwilling persons. The EUA under which these "vaccines" were approved also explicitly prohibits the coercion of persons to take such emergency use products.

Again, if we had a functioning justice system this wouldn't even be controversial.

"Thus far, lawsuits against the city’s mandate for city workers have failed, as state and federal courts have affirmed the city’s broad power to enact vaccine requirements.

Assuming this to actually be the case rather than the fever dream of elderly judges scared of the air, then it is high time to revisit this "broad power".

“The Supreme Court has rejected numerous attempts to have it take up lawsuits on the vaccine mandate and a number of other courts have upheld the mandate, recognizing that it saves lives and is a condition of employment,” mayoral spokesperson Fabien Levy said in a statement."

"recognizing that it saves lives" That is a statement of fact with no underlying proof.  That is the entire problem here. These courts have been presupposing that what the CDC has said is "fact" when there is and was no way to make such a claim.  The fact of myocarditis, blood clots,  and deaths that are directly attributable to these shots is indisputable.  Remember (or learn) that in the past just a handful of deaths associated with a medical product was enough to get a product pulled, yet there are thousands of deaths from this shot and it is*still* being offered and "mandated."

Again, a sane justice system would immediately strike down such mandates. We shall see what comes up on Friday.

Did You Not See The Disclaimer?

 So long ago I had a business. An LLC. It was set up as an LLC because I was dealing with intellectual property and didn't want to be personally liable if I did anything...wrong. My business and its assets may be at risk but so long as the "corporate veil" was in tact my personal assets were safe. For the most part. I'm not making a value judgment on this arrangement. I understood the game and played it. Along with this business came contracts for work. In any contract there is an indemnity clause. Basically you make the person you are contracting with to indemnify you of any consequences from the use of the product or service you provide. So for example, I set up a e-commerce site and for some reason the prices on there are wrong. Yes,  I'll fix it, but I don't owe you anything. You may not like it, but if you own a business you know full well, or will learn, that in the end, customers will look out for themselves (as they should) so you better do the same. It's not personal, it's business.

I say all of that because when I heard that NYC and NYS were investigating Trump I thought that not only was it unconstitutional in that, in America we are not supposed to investigate people in search of crimes but rather investigate crimes and uncover people. I also thought that given the number of people, including state agencies that were involved a LOT of other heads would eventually be put on the chopping block. We're talking accountants, lawyers, Officials that approved of permits etc. If Trump was so corrupt and making such obviously false claims, all those people who signed on and agreed to do business with him were *equally* corrupt then.

So then we had the state case against Trump alleging fraud. For example he somehow said his Trump Tower home was larger than it could possibly be. Now that's pretty bold. It's also something that could have been verified by checking the records. But here's the thing. If he lied to a bank to get a loan. The bank lends him the money and he pays it back, was the bank defrauded? Sure they may not have given him the money had he been honest (which I doubt) but the fact is, they loaned it and he repaid the loan. Contract fulfilled. How can the state come in after the fact and cape for the bank who has not been materially harmed?

And now we see this:

"

"We have a disclaimer," Trump told the Fox News host.

"Right on the front. And it basically says, you know, get your own people. You're at your own risk ... It may be way off."

Trump was describing the disclaimer that fills the second and third pages of his annual proclamations of net-worth — the 20-page "Statements of Financial Condition" at the center of AG Letitia James' massive lawsuit against the former president, his three oldest kids, and his real estate and golf resort empire.

 

 and

 

Sure, the annual Statements of Financial Condition may be filled with real whoppers, including all those years — from 2012 through 2016 — when they tripled the actual square footage of Trump's triplex atop Manhattan's Trump Tower, adding as much as $200 million a year to the former president's net worth.

But each year, the disclaimers put banks on notice to double check the numbers before relying on them in deciding how much to lend and at what rate of interest, Morian said.

Banks should have done their own research? Who'd a thunk it? I suppose these same banks that were doing mortgage swaps on people who took out mortgages without any kind of income or asset verification were just used to doing  business that way. Again, that's for THEM to take to court if they don't like it. It's not the place of NYS to cape for them.

The AG is alleging that ten years of Trump's Statements of Financial Condition contain a total of some 200 false and misleading valuations involving 23 properties.

Deutsche Bank can't be expected "to literally chase down everything in the statement and verify it," Florence said

 Say what?  Wikipedia (which I normally avoid) has the following on Deutsche Bank:

Total assets of 1.38  trillion Euros. They can hire lawyers and accontants who make more in one hour than I do in a day and they cannot be expected to verify info? 

Really? You're going to a jury with that?

Personally, based on what I currently know, if I were the judge in this case I would throw it out for lack of standing. If Deutsche Bank feels it has been defrauded by Trump let THEM file a claim. Secondly, I would point out what i mentioned earlier, If a crime has not been reported to the state then it has no business investigating a citizen. By James' own admission she has been investigating Trump with the sole purpose of finding something to charge him with. No judge should allow their courtroom to be party to that.

No Forgetting No Forgiving

 These are the same type that would have cheered as the Jews were rounded up to be put into gas chambers.