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.

Garvey's Ghost TV 9-28-2022: A Political Lynching

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?

Garvey's Ghost TV 9-19-2022: Revelations

 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. 

I could run into a burning building.....

 100% what this guy said

"I could run into a burning building for this city but I couldn't eat in a restaurant"

Damn.pic.twitter.com/kpA1enyiUu

— Adam B. Coleman, President of Aintblackistan (@wrong_speak) September 11, 2022

 

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.

The New Blasphemy

 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.

Breaking The 2022 "Red Wave"?

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).

Sotomayor For Bodily Autonomy?

 When the Dobbs decision came down, Sonia Sotomayor was among the dissenters. She co-signed a dissent that said in part :

"“Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions,”

First, let me say that I have been saying for some time now, that this whole argument about abortion being based on 'autonomy" that is the sole realm of women should be challenged. Either ALL of us, male and female have bodily autonomy or none of us have bodily autonomy.

Second, please note that they discuss autonomy and substantial choice in "most personal and consequential of all life decisions."

 It would follow that not only do women have the this so called "equal right" but so do men. Not only that, but that people have the right to choose and make decisions that are "personal" and highly "consequential".

I would agree with that statement 100%.

“Today, the Court discards that balance,” the dissent continued. “It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.”

So the dissenting justices, including Sotomayor OBJECT to the idea that THE STATE can force a woman to do something to her body that she doesn't consent to 'at the steepest personal and familial costs".

Sounds to me like Sotomayor agrees that the state has no business coercing citizens to do things and threatening "steep personal and familial" costs.

 I would agree 100%.

 "A State can of course impose criminal penalties on abortion providers, including lengthy prison sentences. But some States will not stop there. Perhaps, in the wake of today’s decision, a state law will criminalize the woman’s conduct too, incarcerating or fining her for daring to seek or obtain an abortion. And as Texas has recently shown, a State can turn neighbor against neighbor, enlisting fellow citizens in the effort to root out anyone who tries to get an abortion, or to assist another in doing so."

 Again, these justices are against the state penalizing citizens who make medical decisions the state doesn't agree with. 

I agree 100%.

Therefore you would think that when Sotomayor is presented with a case in which the bodily autonomy argument could easily be supported and she could prevent the state from forcing people to make medical decisions under threat of "steep personal and familial cost" she would would take it.

Alas, no.

"Sotomayor denied the emergency application for a writ of injunction, filed on Friday, meaning the court will not reevaluate the city’s worker vaccine rule."

Oh.

So all that about the dangers of the state forcing citizens into medical situations they don't consent to and the whole "autonomy" thing was just....what?

This is why, as of now, I don't want to hear anything about pro-choice. You cannot be pro-vax mandate and then talk about bodily autonomy and how the state needs to have their "hands off your body". If the state can force me to take a shot (that doesn't even prevent the disease it's supposed to prevent), then it can decide whether you can't have an abortion.

Garvey's Ghost TV 8-27-2022: The Redacted

Rumble:

Bitchute:

4:00: Public Servants boldly speaking ill of citizens.
23:50: Black mis-leadership sacrificing black children.
33:00: NJ Taxpayers on the hook for Murphy's COVID negligence.
41:38: Google Employees begging for COVID rule changes.
49:15: Monkeypox spreads by sex.
53:10: The RAID: Mar-a-lago.

Sam Harris Says The Quiet Part Out Loud

 I saw the commentary online about a clip of Sam Harris on Triggernometry discussing how he thought it was a good thing that the Hunter Biden laptop story got squashed. Up until yesterday I had not heard more than that particular part of his  commentary. Yesterday while listening to Radio Derb, I had the chance to listen to more of the commentary and was struck by two items that both Derb and I thought was far more important than the obvious media collusion.

Harris said that any person off the street would have been better than a second Trump presidency because that person, so petrified by the responsibility of the office, would defer (he said default) to the "experts".

Also that the "rando off the street" would acquiesce to the "political norms".

That, my friends is an admission not only to the existence of a deep state. If you are still in denial about the existence of such a thing then I can't help you. 

What Harris has admitted to is that it is *expected* that the president (and other "leadership" I suppose) are there to do what the experts tell them to do. The government is not to be run by the people's representatives who are aided and advised by the best and brightest in their fields but rather the  best and brightest in their fields run the country and the "people's representatives" are merely the mechanisms by which they get what they want.

This is and was Trump's crime. At least for them since up to now he couldn't credibly be convicted of any. The recent raid is on another level in which Trump may have been set up by a person or persons in his circle. That's all I can say about that.

I saw a lot of bright people on line during the pandemic argue that the government should be run by a panel of experts. At least in times of emergency (and you know what that means). What these "bright" people fail to understand is that many bright people make awful leaders and are often very poor decision makers. This is particularly true of those with highly specialized knowledge.

This is one of the things that gave Trump the potential to be a great president: He is and was willing to delegate and keep a circle of "experts" around him and then make a decision based on that input. Trump's great fault was that he was bad at understanding that the motivation of political advisers as opposed to employees are very different. Trump got rolled by snakes who Trump allowed into his circle (Ahem..Barr..Ahem) and Jarvanka. This is why I prefer Desantis over Trump (by a long shot) because DeSantis has a crew ready to go who are vetted. But that's another issue.

Harris said the quiet part out loud and I'm thinking too many people were distracted by the "dead children" comment to not hear the REAL problem.

In Light Of The Trump Raid

 Watch this:

Read this:

https://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-uncovers-the-inside-story-of-the-fbis-plans-to-take-security-deposit-boxes-without-charging-owners-with-crimes/ 

 "As part of that shift in focus, in summer 2020 the government started planning to apply for search and seizure warrants against US Private Vaults and its owners. One of those warrants was to seize US Private Vaults’ business property, including the “nest,” a relatively worthless superstructure that held renters’ safe-deposit boxes. When the FBI applied for that seizure warrant in March 2021, its affidavit did not allege that the customers had done anything wrong, and both the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office swore that agents would merely “inventory” box renters’ property. They promised the warrant would “authorize the seizure of the nests of the boxes themselves, not their contents,” and that agents would pry “no further than necessary to determine ownership.”

But the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office failed to tell the judge that, months before, they and other government agencies had already formulated plans to use civil forfeiture against customers’ property. In fact, before the federal magistrate had even seen the warrant application, FBI officials had concluded they would use civil forfeiture against every asset in every customer’s box that was worth over $5,000. "

You see, people have been saying "if they can do that to a former president, then they can do it to you". But the real deal is that *because* they have been doing it to you (in the general sense) and gotten away with it, of course they can do it to a former president.

It all comes down to the fact that these people do not suffer personal consequences for these actions. Until that happens it will continue.

CDC Erases History

 You're not supposed to notice this but the internet is forever.

Old CDC per archive link here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20220721092000/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

"new" guidance per this link:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

Totally removed the "the mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body.

We, as in The Ghost and others like MarketTicker, told you that the above statement was untrue. 

People got fired over this. People lost their livelihoods over this.

When do these people go to jail or get executed? 

It's not that they were wrong. People get things wrong all the time. It is that they actively used private companies and the power of the government (with a monopoly on legal violence) to force you to do something that had you been informed you *may* not have done or did not do.

This is their crime.

There need to be swift and public PERSONAL accountability for these crimes. It is not enough to hold the agency responsible. The people in it did it and THEY must be held to account or they will continue to abuse the power they should never have had.

I'm going to make another prediction as well. Based on information I've seen the line about "does not affect or interact with our DNA" is the next line to get nixed.

I and Others Were Right

 On this blog, I made the argument, multiple times that COVID risk was dependent upon age and metabolic factors. I said multiple times that there were things you could eat and/or drink to help you if (and when) you got infected. I posted papers from long before COVID that showed how these items were effective against previous SARS as well as other viral diseases.

At my previous place of employment I posted this info for any and all my co-workers to read for themselves. I followed my own advice and refused to take the experimental mRNA product not only because I felt it wasn't effective but because given my particular life activities, I wasn't going to risk the known myocarditis, not to mention clots. I gave the people who would eventually fire me the CDC's own data on deaths and serious injury associated with the mRNA products and I was still fired because they were following the CDC and the governor of NJ.

And now here's the CDC:

What is added by this report?

To prevent medically significant COVID-19 illness and death, persons must understand their risk, take steps to protect themselves and others with vaccines, therapeutics, and nonpharmaceutical interventions when needed, receive testing and wear masks when exposed, receive testing if symptomatic, and isolate for ≥5 days if infected.

People need to understand "their risk" and "protect themselves"?

Exactly what I said should have been the case since 2020.

"COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against severe outcomes is lower in persons who are immunocompromised than in those who are not,"

Remember when they said that this shot was 100% effective? Remember when it was deemed "misinformation" to declare that these shots were not as effective as these people made it out to be?

" persons who are immunocompromised and have COVID-19 are at increased risk for intensive care unit admission and death while hospitalized, irrespective of their vaccination status"

Irrespective of what?

And the kicker:

"CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur, though they are generally mild (16), and persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection (17)."

You read that right. The CDC no longer differentiates based on a person's vaccination status.

I got fired from my job of 22 years and lost 6 figures in earned time for asserting this information over  a year ago.  I was right then, I'm right now and I'll never be compensated for the incredible  wrong done to me.

 

Not OK, Necessary

If there is one one guy who is the cheerleader of men it's this guy. pic.twitter.com/yCTctKNUVT

— Kgoshi Ya Lebowa (@Mothematiks) August 10, 2022

 

 

They Think They Own Your Children

 In one of my videos last year that was censored by YouTube (before my great departure) I had discussed the grooming going on in schools. One point I made was that these teachers (and admins) think they own your children. I also noted that in some states (if not the entire country) it is law that when you drop your child off to a school you relinquish custody to the child (as if you abandoned them) and the school and its agents have the right over the child until you pick them up.

While I understand the need to legally define the rules of custody in schools, I completely disagree with the law as I understood it and saw that it was ripe for abuse. Once the state can claim ownership of your child during the times they are in the school custody, then the state makes the rules for that child, not the parent. 

Lo and behold they bear their teeth:

"On April 25, 2022, the Linn-Mar School Board voted through policy 504.13 against the protestations of dozens of community members, while telling parents that such a change merely codified district practices that had been ongoing for the past five years. LMCSD’s “parental exclusion policy” asserts that the district will not disclose a student’s “transgender status” to parents unless that student specifically authorizes it, and that “any student in seventh grade or older will have priority of their support plan over their parent/guardian” – which means that in practice, these gender-identity decisions will be made solely by the student and school administrators."

Note that they had been doing this for the past five years.

Note that in an inversion of law, the minor gets to make the decision and the school administration usurps the rights of parents over their children.

The full press release can be seen here:

https://defendinged.org/lawsuits/parents-defending-education-files-federal-lawsuit-challenging-linn-mar-community-school-districts-parental-exclusion-and-compelled-speech-policies/ 

A part of interest is this:

In addition, the policy asserts that “intentional and/or persistent refusal by staff or students to respect a student’s gender identity” – i.e. not using a student’s self-proclaimed pronouns or new name – can be punishable up to and including suspension and expulsion as violations of the district’s anti-bullying & anti-harassment policy, equal educational opportunity policy, and Title IX policy.

Note the use of Title IX and "policies" against bullying and harassment, being used to force speech (unconstitutional) upon students and staff. I've seen this in 'higher ed" and it is absolutely 100% prohibited compelled speech. Also, if you look at what SCOTUS recently ruled about agencies, it is likely theses "policies" have no actual legal effect and would fall to the wayside if seriously challenged.

 

I knew This Was Coming

 When EZ Pass came into being I predicted that the state would look at the time it took to go from entering a highway to whatever toll and calculate the average speed. If that speed exceeded the maximum speed limit on the road then the driver (or owner of the vehicle) would get a ticket in the mail. The logic behind it is clear:

If speeding in and of itself is a danger then everyone who is speeding ought to be "brought to justice" in order to make roads "safe". Previously with only human patrols available, you could only catch so many speeders. However, now with technology (including cameras) you can catch *every* speeder and collect on them. Hence making the roads "safer".

Who doesn't want "safer roads"?

 Think of the NJ Turnpike. The *average* speed is near 80mph. Which means *everybody* is speeding. How many millions of cars travel that highway (at least the portions in which you can do that speed)? How much is the fine?

 Do the math.

You don't think the states haven't been looking at that potential windfall?

Well here we go:

"Effective August 1, 2022, the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge carrying I-10 is now a “highway safety corridor,” per a recently signed law. As a “highway safety corridor,” the standard fine for speeding of $175 would double to $350 following a one-time warning. Subsequent speeding violations would result in $1000 fines.

Anyone who makes it across the 18 mile long bridge in under 18 minutes would been in violation of the 60 m.p.h. speed limit for passenger vehicles and the 55 m.p.h. speed limit for trucks."

Like I said.

Just like I told you about the NYC speed cameras that were original placed in school zones in order to "protect the children". Especially those children out at 10PM. Now they get to stay on 24/7/365 and revenue has nothing at all to do with it. Nothing. 

 I will say this though, their comment about trucks in the right lane is dead on. The solution is to fine trucks who are clearly in the right lane (when not passing) rather than speed. Same for passenger vehicles. If a passenger vehicle is caught blocking traffic in the right lane, fine them. It is these obstructions that are the causes of problems, not the speed at which the traffic is moving.

Garvey's Ghost TV 8-1-2022: Mind Jah Lick Dem

 Rumble:

 Bitchute:

 Today we discuss the recent "religious exemption" win in Illinois as well as a BMJ paper on MonkeyPox.

Read the Garvey's Ghost blog at:

http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/