(17 years of informed commentary)
Rumble
BitChute
8;00: Project Veritas exposes a groomer in a private school.
16:37: Christian teacher fired for refusing to play the pronoun game.
26:00: I'm your mommy now.
28: You have no right that the groomers and pedophiles are bound to respect.
32: Europeans shocked Africans aren't onboard the LGBT train.
36:00: And now COVID...
39:00: Boosters not working...Surprise.
47:00 The consequences of the "vaccine" rollout.
50:00 A word about Ivermectin.
Rumble
BitChute
4:45: Anti-Semitism?
21:40: Nazis at NASA
32:00: More Black Cry Babies
44:25: Running While Black. They Didn't Know.
How long did The Ghost post on vitamin D during the pandemic? Sample:
https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/05/vitamin-d-info.html
https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/10/more-info-on-vit-d.html
https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/09/vitamin-d-deficiency-raises-covid-19.html
https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/11/50-v-2.html
https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/12/vitamin-d-deficiency-and-covid-deaths.html
That's just 2020.
If you include videos I've done. I've posted on vitamin D for a long while now. YouTube deleted one of them claiming medical misinformation. Now:
And what did they find?
"Veterans with Vitamin D blood levels between 0 and 19 ng/ml exhibited the largest decrease in COVID-19 infection following supplementation. Black veterans received greater associated COVID-19 risk reductions with supplementation than White veterans. As a safe, widely available, and affordable treatment, Vitamin D may help to reduce the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic."
You don't say. It's all of two years late.
Vitamin D3 supplementation was associated with a 33% lower risk of COVID-19 infection ending in mortality within 30 days.
Really?
We found a greater associated reduction in COVID-19 infection rates for Black patients than white supplemented patients relative to controls (Black HR = 0.71, [95% CI 0.65, 0.77]; white HR = 0.82, [95% CI 0.79, 0.86]); see Table 3. The race by treatment interaction was significant (HR = 0.86, [95% CI 0.78, 0.94]).I see.
So to recap:
Since 2020 I've been writing on the benefits of vit D in general and per COVID in particular. I had videos deleted for "medical misinformation" for discussing that which is above in a "reputable journal."
Say, how many people died due to the suppression of this information?
"When we extrapolate our results for vitamin D3 supplementation to the entire US population in 2020, there would have been approximately 4 million fewer COVID-19 cases and 116,000 deaths avoided. We calculated these values by applying our estimated 20% average reduction in infection and 33% reduction in mortality after infection for vitamin D3 to a total of 19,860,000 cases and 351,999 deaths through 202029. I"
So had people like myself been listened to we would have had an estimated 4 million less cases and 116k less deaths? If that's the case, YouTube and other outlets that suppressed information such as that which I provided *in 2020* may, maaaay, have gotten 116k people killed.
"These back-of-the-envelope calculations may be conservative given possible reductions in COVID-19 transmission due to the general population risk reduction from broader supplementation."
That's a conservative estimate.
Now consider that Ivermectin is effective. Consider that Zinx IS effective, consider that getting people into shape (particularly aerobically) is effective. All the advice that could have literally saved at least, by their caluclations hundreds of thousands of lives.
Hundreds of thousands dead due to collusion between the govt and big tech and MSM to suppress information.
I have nothing else to say.
Those that follow me know that I have discussed at length the directive by NJ governor Murphy in regards to the vaccine mandate. I pointed out that the language used by the governor was very specific and was a means for him to deflect liability away from him should SHTF. in particular, he made reference to his order being within the bounds of the ADA. He also never stated that the state (or its agencies) could actually grab health records of employees. That would be a HIPPA violation. He also stated that his
"vaccine or test" policy was the "floor" and municipalities could go "above and beyond". And boy did they. Mind you I'm not saying the policy itself was lawful as I believe that per SCOTUS rulings the testing qualifies as medical battery upon those who neither with to be injected with an experimental product NOR wish to be tested for a disease they may or may not have and in the process disclose personal medical information. But that's for another day. Today is an example of how the feds have shielded themselves via language and private (and public) entities will find out that though the "vaccine" makers are not liable and the feds may not be liable, THEY will be.
"“The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin,” Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers, told the court during the Nov. 1 hearing in federal court in Texas."
And you know what? They are absolutely correct. Mind you they made some ridiculous statements but entities were free to put the FDA on ignore. But they did not.
Plaintiffs in the case include Dr. Paul Marik, who began utilizing ivermectin in his COVID-19 treatment protocol in 2020 while he was chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School and director of the intensive care unit at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.
After the FDA’s statements, Marik was told to remove the protocol from the school’s servers while Sentara issued a memorandum to hospitals telling them to stop using ivermectin against COVID-19, with a citation to the FDA.[My underline]
Now this appeal to authority is morally at the root of the problem. A lot of nasty stuff has been done with the "per CDC" and the like. But as I pointed out to many people these were never laws duly passed by any legislature and if you looked at the signage they clearly stated "mandate" or something of the sort which is not "law". When police came to arrest people who weren't wearing masks, etc. they arrested the person for things like "trespassing" and "public disturbance" not some CDC or FDA proclamation.
So the offending party here is the school. Let the school point at the FDA.
"The government has moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting plaintiffs lack standing because the injuries cannot be traced back to the FDA."
And I think they are correct. Strictly speaking. Drugs are regularly used for things not approved of by the FDA. These institutions usually don't even bat an eye. But suddenly they wanted to signal compliance and went about firing people who were looking out for their patients. Let 'em hang. Well, let THEM sue the FDA and perhaps claim that they were mislead.
"Belfer noted that the FDA’s pages say people can use ivermectin if their health care provider prescribes it, argued the statements “did not bind the public or FDA, did not interpret any substantive rules, and did not set agency policy,” and said the FDA’s position could change in the future if new data become available."
Exactly, And we saw this in another case, I believe in England where the NHS said that it was the doctor's decision to not treat with x. And notice the "if new data become available" part. Again, this is the CYA that all these agencies are going to use as the lawsuits pile up. However; private actors who took it upon themselves to directly harm people via extortion (do this or lose your job) Are going to be left holding the bag.
And we warned them about it.
Saw this in the NY Times and could not resist. It shows the depths of the morass the US is now in. I want to remind the reader that not too long ago "Progressives" were against things like FGM and "Conversion therapy". Let us begin:
"Is there a cost?" You'd think such questions would be asked prior to the "pausing". But of course we saw during COVID that such things as extensive research is no longer how "The Science" is done.
"The medical guidance was direct.
Eleven-year-old Emma Basques had identified as a girl since toddlerhood. Now, as she worried about male puberty starting, a Phoenix pediatrician advised: Take a drug to stop it."
In a sane country this would be a clear case of medical malpractice. This 11 year old did not identify as a girl "since toddlerhood". The kid was imitating the adults around him and following that which he found interesting and amusing. It's possible that he was the extremely curious type.
"At 13, Jacy Chavira felt increasingly uncomfortable with her maturing body and was beginning to believe she was a boy. Use the drug, her endocrinologist in Southern California recommended, and puberty would be suspended."
Rather than deal with the discomfort of the pubescent body, she succumbed to peer pressure and the adults including the criminal endocrinologist (that's what I said), incentivized that nonsense. You know what? I really hated the spontaneous erections I would get in school. Particularly when they happened while I was in front of class.
"“‘Puberty blockers really help kids like this,’” the child’s mother recalled the therapist saying. “It was presented as a tourniquet that would stop the hemorrhaging.”"
Puberty, a natural process that leads to biological adulthood is not a "hemorrhage". That there are licensed medical "professionals" with this attitude who are still allowed to practice "medicine" while doctors who correctly warned about these mRNA "vaccines" are harassed and lose their livelihoods tells you all you need to know about this industry.
"During puberty, bone mass typically surges, determining a lifetime of bone health. When adolescents are using blockers, bone density growth flatlines, on average, according to an analysis commissioned by The Times of observational studies examining the effects."
Where the "professionals" just now figure out that puberty involves more than breast formation and the like.
"Many doctors treating trans patients believe they will recover that loss when they go off blockers. But two studies from the analysis that tracked trans patients’ bone strength while using blockers and through the first years of sex hormone treatment found that many do not fully rebound and lag behind their peers."
I will go out on a limb and say that these doctors believed no such thing. They had no clue and saw that they could make a few bucks and gain social credit among their peers for supporting the current thing. A real doctor would have refused to proscribe any of these things without knowing the long term data.
It has been known that for women who have gone through menopause, that the loss of bone density is a direct result of the loss of estrogen. Strange how these professionals suddenly have no clue about this known phenomenon.
"And the New York adolescent had such a significant loss in bone density after more than two years on blockers that the parents halted use of the drugs.
“We went into this because we wanted to help,” the mother said. “Now I worry that we got into a situation with a very powerful drug and don’t understand what the long-term effects will be.”"
Like typical Americans, these people believe in the "magic pill" solutions to their problems. Not surprised in the least bit. Of course the "medical professionals" took advantage of these desperate parents (and charged them or their insurance companies a nice mint) and rather than say "No" they apparently condemned this person to a life of weak bones. Oh yeah, no liability either.
"It didn’t take long for Cherise and Arick Basques to realize that their toddler was different. The child rejected pants, toy trucks and sports in favor of dresses, Barbie dolls and ballet. When Ms. Basques ran into a friend at a restaurant in their Phoenix suburb and introduced her then-4-year-old as her son, the child shouted: “No! I’m your daughter!”"
First thing. I don't care what the kid wants to wear in the house. Don't care what doll teddy bear, whatever they want to play with. Heck if they like ballet, don't care. Not poisoning them for it.
Secondly, I will lay the smack of a lifetime on any child of mine who thinks they can yell at me in private or public. But this accommodating rude behaviour by children is a common theme I see with parents with kids who are "confused".
"The next year, they allowed the child, then 5, to begin using the name Emma, grow longer hair and take other steps to socially transition. I"
Fuck that entirely. Not in my house.
" In 2019, when Emma turned 11, a physician at a local gender clinic advised starting blockers."
Criminal prosecutions for all involved.
"The first two years were promising, with the patient, by then a teen, taking Prozac in addition to the blockers. But at the start of the third year, a bone scan was alarming. During treatment, the teen’s bone density plummeted — as much as 15 percent in some bones — from average levels to the range of osteoporosis, a condition of weakened bones more common in older adults."
Whoops.
"The doctor recommended starting testosterone, explaining that it would help the teen regain bone strength. But the parents had lost faith in the medical counsel."
That testosterone wasn't gonna free was it?
"But it’s increasingly clear that the drugs are associated with deficits in bone development. During the teen years, bone density typically surges by about 8 to 12 percent a year. The analysis commissioned by The Times examined seven studies from the Netherlands, Canada and England involving about 500 transgender teens from 1998 through 2021. Researchers observed that while on blockers, the teens did not gain any bone density, on average — and lost significant ground compared to their peers, according to the analysis by Farid Foroutan, an expert on health research methods at McMaster University in Canada."
"Increasingly clear" that what we knew before pushing this on children, is actually happening to the children.
Oh and whoops.
" In most cases, their bone strength fully recovers after they stop the drugs at about age 11 and resume full puberty, which can last up to five years."
I'm still processing "stop the drugs at about age 11". Just thinking that in the US it is now acceptable to do this to those under age 11 possibly down to 8-9 for those early starters like I was.
"The participants, followed in one study through age 18, and in the other through age 22, saw their bones strengthen, on average, once on hormones. Still, most patients continued to lag behind their peers; trans men neared average levels, but trans women fell far below."
It's almost like there is some kind of biological determinism....
"If any harm resulted from the use of blockers, it likely would not be evident until decades later, with fractures. However, for children who already have weak bones as they start treatment, the dangers could be more immediate. While there is no systematic record-keeping of such cases, some anecdotal evidence is available."
Future civil cases will be lit.
"After more than a year on blockers, a 15-year-old in Texas, who had not had a baseline scan, showed spinal bone density so low that it was below the first percentile for the teen’s age and weight, indicating osteoporosis, according to medical records from earlier this year."
Whoops.
"Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups wrote to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, urging the Justice Department to investigate growing threats of violence against physicians and hospitals that provide transgender medical treatment to adolescents. As more Republicans frame the treatment as child abuse, some doctors have become wary of discussing their work for fear of becoming targets."
Absolutely is child abuse and they should be afraid. They should have their licenses revoked, prosecuted criminally and bankrupted.
Two weeks ago , i believe, Justice Sotomayor was confusing De-jure and De-facto during oral arguments in regards to Affirmative Action. Her colleague had to correct her. Just last week Sotomayor made another mistake that I found far more troubling. Her mistake, I feel, represents the fundamental cancer that is eating away at America and came into full view during the 2020 COVID response. First though we look at the constitution:
The US constitution opens as follows:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note how it's we the people and not we the government agents. Notice that "we the people" establish, not "we the agents"
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.Note the language. "We the people"..."herein grant...". We the people grant the congress certain powers. Congress doesn't grant power to the people.
Then we have the amendments. In particular:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"Rights... retained by the people". Not granted to the people. Not given to the people. Not bestowed upon the people. RETAINED by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.And because I suppose the founders figured future generations would be hard headed, they said it again with different language.
"Reserved...to the people."
In short. The people created the constitution that created the government. The people granted power to the government and whatever powers were not granted to the government is RETAINED and RESERVED by the people.
Now the reason I went through this is because this fundamental concept in American law should be well known by all SCOTUS judges. Hence this statement by Sotomayor, is in my opinion is grounds for removal.
"Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out the repercussions of doing so. “Neither the federal government nor the states can possibly investigate and remedy every violation of these rights that are given to people,”"
'Rights that are given to people"?
No. rights are not given to people. People may be given privileges but they are not given rights.
Even if one agrees with the overall case, you have to be extremely wary of language creep. Governments and their agents who believe that your rights are things they granted, will inevitably believe they can revoke said rights at will. So whenever you hear someone say the constitution gives them the right to speech or whatever, stop them and correct them.
I hope Kyrie (and Kanye) have invested their pay wisely with longevity in mind so that they do not have to depend upon outside parties in order to live out the rest of their lives. That said, I want to point out what [at least the] black players in the NBA should do if they were really woke and appalled at this clear "do what I say slave" message coming from the NBA and the ADL:
First they would give the NBA 24 hours to rescind the punishment of Kyrie. If they fail to do so the consequences would be as follows:
Second: Quit on the spot. You see how the NBA apparently has these clauses in their contracts which allows them to breech said contract based on whatever behavior they decide is verboten? Do the players have that? Well regardless. All contracts ended as of the 24 hour deadline. Any pay advances that would be covered after that 24 hour period would be returned to the respective teams.
Third: Bring back the Negro League. For basketball. The Negro League was ended by integration as ball club owners realized they didn't have access to some of the best players as well as revenue from those fans. These players from respective teams would make their own teams (formal or informal) and play each other.
The internet has created the ability to stream games to TVs a-la, Chromecast and Airplay. The New Negro Leagues would stream their games live (and store it on friendly sites like Rumble, BitChute, Gab TV, etc.). These streams would be monetized just like Disney Plus and others. These players could play in parks for all we care.
These players have millions of fans who would gladly watch them. No it wouldn't be as glamorous as what they are used to but it's the principle. The NBA would have an immediate revenue problem and possibly a long term one as new talent may be hard to come by with the competition from a free speech supporting Negro League.
Understand that nothing I'm proposing here is remotely difficult to do. All it takes is the will to do. The technology exists. The players exist and the customers exist. Heck the merchandising potential exists. All right now.
As we watch Certain People come for Kanye and Kyrie, to the silence of all those wealthy black activists who only recently had their fists in the air talking about "black lives matter" and how much black people are oppressed. Those who got streets painted with Black Lives Matter and had people kneeling in front of them are deadly silent when Certain People come calling and giving orders. As these events happen even people who were not disposed to believing "conspiracy theories" about those Certain People will not and cannot ignore the pattern that is clear as clean water.
In our latest example of the power held by Certain People we also have the phenomenon of definition creep. This time with "terrorism". Up until recently terrorism was something that involved either killing (or trying to kill) people and or the destruction of property for political ends. You then got the definition creep by adding "terroristic threats" in which one speaks of doing such things (whether one intended to carry out said threat or not). The latter used to be protected speech, at least in the US. Now we have "level three terrorist"
So this fellow has been banned from the entire EU block. Why?
"Icke had been set to feature at an event called Together for the Netherlands, but far-left activist groups complained to the government and demanded he be barred from entering the country.
The municipality of Amsterdam also asked the Dutch IND (Immigration and Naturalisation Service) “to investigate whether Icke can be refused entry to the country,” an appeal that was apparently successful.
The municipality complained that Icke had made “anti-Semitic statements in the past that are unacceptable and deeply hurtful,” although it didn’t cite any specific examples."
So. Because he allegedly made statements about or in reference to Certain People, and those People were "deeply hurt." this guy is a "terrorist."
If I were a member of this Certain People, I would be very concerned about such actions being taken "on my behalf". The reason is that generally speaking my group is outnumbered everywhere except for Certain People country. Vastly outnumbered. And one day the people whom are being dispossessed "for my wellbeing" may just decide to exact...ummm...retribution on a mass scale and in a manner that the police cannot help.
Not that I'm advocating for such activities. I'm just pointing out that there are historical precedents for such things that could perhaps be learned from.
But back to the point of the post. It is rather interesting to see how the terrorist label has moved from actual criminal and destructive behavior to just another means to smear dissidents.
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.
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." 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
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".
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,5080 what?
non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality51
rate of 80%.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rumble;
Bitchute:
5:24: Cayler Ellingson: A Political Lynching?
17:00: Trump Should Face Charges for Jan 6? What Charges?
24:32: COVID "vaccine" mRNA found in Breast Milk.
39:00: Will Medical Agencies Throw Doctors Under The Bus?
Rumble:
Bitchute:
3:30: Danes halt mass vaccination.
15:19: NYC fires more teachers over Covid jab
22:40: Harvard requires untested booster.
29:10 Killer Ventilators
33:00: Novavax.
40:00: Mucosal Immunity
43:36: Martha's Vineyard, Revealed Preferences and Immigration Law.
100% what this guy said
"I could run into a burning building for this city but I couldn't eat in a restaurant"
— Adam B. Coleman, President of Aintblackistan (@wrong_speak) September 11, 2022
Damn.pic.twitter.com/kpA1enyiUu
I have been calling the current mayor of NYC "Bull Connor" because he is no better than and in many cases WORSE than Bull Connor at the height of segregation. When Bill Di Blasio implemented the NYC segregation, his wife should have walked out on him in disgust. One of the first things Eric "Bull Connor" Adams should have done was ended the vax mandate as well as restaurant BS. As a BLACK MAN he should have known better. Black so called leadership should have been front and center to oppose the second class citizenship being imposed on people across the country. To their forever shame, they did not and I have ZERO respect for any of them.
You hear the rage in that guy's voice? THAT is what the so called "Black leadership" should have been like the minute they caught wind of that second class citizenship.
In times past when certain superstitions ruled, speech that offended the ruling class and was contrary to the religious mores of the day was punished. Supposedly in The West, such a thing was tossed onto the scrapheap of history and people were free to speak as they felt (with very, very few exceptions) so long as no one was physically harmed.
Alas, now under the new Left Crow, we have the reappearance of blasphemy and the use of the state apparatus to enforce it (again).
Jail.
Now there are those out there who are going to say that he has been jailed for "trespassing" as he was ordered to not to be present at the school. You know and I know that such a technicality is merely the pretext. The source of the jail time is The Blasphemy.
"A teacher who refused to use gender-neutral pronouns for a transgender student has been sent to Mountjoy prison for contempt of court.
Enoch Burke was arrested yesterday morning for breaching a court order not to teach at his Westmeath school, or be physically present there.
After Judge Michael Quinn made his ruling, Mr Burke said: 'It is insanity that I will be led from this courtroom to a place of incarceration, but I will not give up my Christian beliefs.'"
I will say again that such positions ought not have to be raised in a Christian or any other religious light. Refusing to state a non-fact is fundamental to a free society and a free human. If by speaking a truth I am to be barred from my job then I do not live in a free society.
Period.
"The dispute began over his refusal to address a transitioning student as 'they' rather than 'he', as requested by the student and their parents in May, and agreed to by the Church of Ireland school. "
Agreed to by who?
Ahh, this would be a great time to reference yesterday's post. Why is a "church' agreeing to this nonsense?
"This escalated to his suspension on the day before the start of the autumn term, pending the outcome of a disciplinary process. "
Ahh the "disciplinary process". I am familiar with this term as it was repeatedly used against me when I refused to go along with the COVID bullshit at my place of employment for 20 years. Children are "disciplined". Criminals are disciplined. This kind of language is the language of dominance.Burke did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. Those in the wrong are those who imposed upon Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke understands this:
"My religious beliefs are not misconduct. They are not gross misconduct. They never will be. They are dear to me. I will never deny them and never betray them, and I will never bow to an order that would require me to do so. It is just not possible for me to do that.'"
You would think a "church" would have had Mr. Burke's back. But as I pointed out yesterday the church is not what it seems to be.
While there was a teacher in the US who won her court case against a school that tried something similar (currently in the US you cannot be jailed for such speech but rest assured that they are, as we live and breath, looking for a way to get around that), The fact that she had to go to court in the first place, with the attendant expenses is a sign of how bad the situation is becoming.
Do not forget that a large percentage of Democrats believe in jailing people for COVID misinformation. Don't think for a minute that they would not put you in jail for the Left Crown Blasphemy laws they are laying out across the country.
For those paying attention, ever since the Dobbs decision dropped, the predicted Red Wave has faltered. The extent of which is still unknown but be sure that this decision is a big part of it. We have seen a large surge in women registrations as well as places that are considered "conservative" vote for some form of "abortion rights".
As has been pointed out by not a few online commentators there are a rather large percentage of "Christian" women who have abortions and the fact of the matter is that they will vote for their own interests and what they believe to be the interests of their daughters (that their sons will have their offspring killed before they even know about it, is not important. I've had these discussions).
This brings me to a report I read that underscores why Dobbs, rather than rallying so called conservatives (who have conserved nothing), may turn out to be their undoing, if not blunt their results in 2022.
The Christian Post has reported the following:
" one-third or more of senior pastors surveyed also believe the Holy Spirit is not a person but rather “a symbol of God’s power." Others said that moral truth is subjective; sexual relations between two unmarried people who love each other is “morally acceptable" and biblical teaching on abortion is “ambiguous.”"
I suppose the whole Jeremiah 1:5 and that commandment about killing is 'ambiguous". I'm not a Christian and even I know better than that. And mind you these are *leaders*
"After data reported earlier this year found just 37% of Christian pastors have a biblical worldview, the latest CRC report analyzed that research across all major U.S. denominations, and found that a “loss of biblical belief is prevalent among pastors in all denominational groupings.”"
I don't quite understand how only 37% of pastors have a biblical world view.
"The current report focuses on roughly half of those beliefs, revealing that a shockingly large percentage reject biblical teaching on some of the most basic Christian beliefs."
Not surprised in the least bit.
"Roughly the same percentage (38%) didn't answer in the affirmative when asked if "human life is sacred,""And this is the point of this post. These represent leadership. I do know that membership can hold views that differ from leadership. However; in my experience those with fundamentally different views tend to leave with most going to a church (usually in the same denom) that shares their views.
Dobbs may have played well to the extremes of both sides. Thing is that most people fall in the middle and they *will* compromise and these kinds of personal "health" decisions will weigh heavily in the voting booth. How much I cannot say for certain but do not be surprised if in November that the Red Wave isn't as large as predicted (absent some other event of course).