Connecticut Thinks It's Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Other States

For those who don't know, the US system of governance has three parts: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.  On the federal level, certain courts have jurisdiction over various states. Federal laws are usually supreme over state law so long as they don't conflict with separation of powers and powers delegated to the federal govt. vs. state governments.

States, are like France and England. Separate and without jurisdiction over each other's citizens. So for example, if you kill a person in NY State, courts in Connecticut have no jurisdiction over the matter. The event did not happen in Connecticut. And while killing may be illegal in Connecticut as well, that doesn't give Connecticut courts juridiction nor does the AG of Connecticut have any standing to bring a case against a NY state person who committed a crime in NY State.

As a matter of fact, if that NY state person crossed into Connecticut to hide out from NY state authorities, the CT police would only have the right to detain that person and extradite him TO NY state to answer for that crime.

So just to show you how liberals give no shits about statecraft or rule of law, the state of Connecticut is entertaining a bill that would give their court jurisdiction over other state's citizens. 

"The Connecticut House of Representatives passed a pro-abortion bill on Tuesday with bipartisan support that pushes back against pro-life laws passed in several states to protect the unborn. The bill allows individuals who face legal liabilities for violating abortion statutes in other states to sue for damages in court in Connecticut."

Uh...what? Do they not understand the total can of worms that opens up?

""The bill also establishes a cause of action that allows persons who were sued in another state for allegedly providing, or receiving support for, reproductive health services that are legal in Connecticut to recover certain costs they incurred defending the original action and bringing an action under the bill," the legislation, H.B. 5414, states."

You can read the bill here: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/FC/PDF/2022HB-05414-R000509-FC.PDF 

In essence they are trying to bind citizens of other states to CT law and jurisdiction. These imbeciles don't seem to realize that if passed and upheld, every state could create laws where it's citizens can sue citizens of other states for violating that states laws.  It simply creates conflict.

This bill is clearly unconstitutional. These people don't care because it's about virtue signalling.  But it shows the extent to which they will go to control other people. They're not satisfied with making abortion legal in THEIR state, nope they gotta go mess with others.

No Compelled Speech

 Sometimes I have to discuss the amendments to the US constitution and remind people that those rights discussed are not "given" by the document. Instead those amendments are explicit restraints on the government, at every level, on infringing on those rights.  So in the case of the first amendment, it doesn't *give* you the right to free speech, it protects that right from the government. Further it must be understood that the freedom of speech includes not only the restraint on the government to compel speech (also codified in the 5th amendment) but also prohibits the government from what is called "prior-restraint" of speech.

Webster's dictionary currently defines prior restraint as follows:

governmental prohibition imposed on expression before the expression actually takes place

Of late with the tranny nonsense, many state agencies have attempted to impose both compelled speech as well as prior restraint upon those in its employment. Recently a court punished a university for it.

Shawnee State University in Ohio has reached a settlement with a professor whom it punished for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns, according to a new report. 

The university will pay philosophy professor Nick Meriwether $400,000 in damages and attorney fees and will rescind a written warning it issued to Meriwether in June 2018 in response to a biological male student’s complaint that the professor refused to use female pronouns for the student, Fox News reported.

Hint, If your university has the word "state" in it,  you should know better than compelled speech.

The controversy began in January 18 when Meriwether responded to the student’s question during a political philosophy class by saying, “Yes, sir.” After class, the student told the professor that the student is transgender and asked to be referred to as a woman going forward, including with “feminine titles and pronouns,” according to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Meriwether in court. 

The professor argued that obliging the student’s requests would violate his own convictions as a Christian. When the professor declined to use female pronouns, the student became belligerent and told Meriwether he would be fired, according to court documents cited by Fox News.

 

Now my problem here is the religious assertion. I have discussed elsewhere that non-theistic ideologies are equally protected by the first amendment.  But worse here is that here you had a state agency attempting to punish a citizen for stating actual facts and refusing to engage in the delusions of another person. 

The student then filed a complaint with Shawnee State, which opened an investigation into the incident. The university found that the professor “effectively created a hostile environment” for the student by not using the preferred pronouns. Meriwether offered to call the student by any name requested, however. The student did not accept the professor’s offer, according to the report.

Here's the thing though. It was the student who created the hostile environment. Up until he started demanding to put words into the professor's mouth there was no "hostilities". It was the demand to force the professor to say something [that was completely untrue] that was an act of hostility. 

This is how they do. They put the world upside down and then try to say that YOU have a problem for noticing that things are wrong.

“Dr. Meriwether rightly defended his freedom to speak and stay silent, and not conform to the university’s demand for uniformity of thought. We commend the university for ultimately agreeing to do the right thing, in keeping with its reason for existence as a marketplace of ideas.”

Personally, I think $400k is too little. A couple hundred million will get the word out quickly to all state colleges and other government agencies that they cannot engage in either prior restraint or compelled speech.

The Temptation

 

Use of face masks did not impact COVID-19 incidence

 

 

Really?

Who knew?

Oh right. I did.  And I explained the physics. As for the paper:

 Our aim was to compare COVID-19 incidence among 10–12-year-olds between cities with different recommendations on the use of face masks in schools...

"We compared the differences in trends of 14-day incidences between Helsinki and Turku among 10–12-year-olds, and for comparison, also among ages 7–9 and 30–49 by using joinpoint regression. According to our analysis, no additional effect seemed to be gained from this, based on comparisons between the cities and between the age groups of the unvaccinated children (10–12 years versus 7–9 years)."

"no additional effect seemed to be gained."

 

 

In Case Y'all Thought I Misrepresented Disney

 Following up on the  post about being unable to monetize being anti-pedo. Here's Eric July showing the CEO of Disney saying he's all in on being "an ally" and "supporting the LMNOPQRSTUV123+-= community"

 

The battle lines are being drawn. Either you are pro-groomers and pedos which is what these folks are about or you are against the grooming of children and pedos. Ain't no middle ground. 

Either you're willing to say "no" and mean it or you are compromising the child abusers. Period.

Can't Monetize Being Anti-Pedo

 Some time back YouTube removed one of my videos for the second time. Since then I stopped posting videos to YouTube. Not that I had much traffic but it was the principle. So my videos have strictly been on Rumble, BitChute and Odysee, the latter being a place where nobody goes to watch. One of the reasons I used those platforms is that they don't censor. Again, I don't make anything from the videos but I appreciate the fact that I won't wake up one morning and find that my hard work has been permanently deleted and a notice telling people, wrongly, that I engaged in "medical misinformation".

So with that, I was surprised to notice that my latest video on the LGBTQRSTUVLMNOP+= trying to groom children, mutilate children and enable pedophiles with support from none other than the Walt Disney corp was marked "ad free". Now again, I don't make diddly squat on any of my videos so it's not a big deal.  So I was curious as to what "ad free" meant so I looked it up: 

Ads Free means your content will be hosted in our platform but it can't be monetized.

Here at Rumble We're happy to host your content, but at this time we cannot place ads on it.

In return, we offer you free hosting and as always, no restrictions. 

Videos are approved "ads free" mostly because they have not been accepted by any advertisers.

​We find that not every video has the ability to reach large audiences and be considered viral, but we encourage you to keep posting and making videos that appeal to watchers. We always recommend our users that they film in high quality video, with very clear audio and engaging background music. But it's very important that your content is engaging as well.  [My underlines]

  Now look, I don't have massive traffic. Really I don't. But even my videos with double digit views have been "monetized". So something about that "official" explanation seems odd. Let's take Rumble's word for it, that the material was "shopped" to advertisers and none of them wanted to touch it.

What does that say about the companies? You don't want your brand associated with someone or something that is against child abuse, pedophelia and child grooming?  Think how low US (and presumably Canadian) companies have fallen that they don't want to be associated with such a video.

On the other hand, lets say that Rumble is just covering it's butt and doesn't WANT such material on their site but because they have a "we don't censor" reputation to  uphold, they decided that they would demonetize, like YouTube does material someone (or some people) at Rumble think is too controversial.

Still, again, why would Rumble not want to monetize or support (beyond just being accessible) a video that is anti-pedo, anti-child abuse, anti-child mutilation and anti-child grooming?

This brings me to an article I read in Taki's Magazine.

Exacerbating the problem is the fact that left and right monetize in very different ways. Leftists have a knack when it comes to expanding their cult of fanatics by making it profitable to those who might not have otherwise joined. Leftists have made an industry out of “diversity consultants” and “diversity offices” throughout corporate America, government, entertainment, and academia. Mediocre intellects incapable of learning math and science thrive on college campuses in “diversity departments”; mediocre artists incapable of making films are hired by studios and networks to oversee “diversity quotas.” People without the intelligence to understand how to run a business are hired by corporate giants to monitor “diversity.” And your taxpayer bucks go to thousands of “diversity” bureaucrats in your state, county, and city governments.

See the dynamic here? The cult expands by getting non-cult institutions to fund the cult. To give jobs to members. To make the cult not just a belief system, but a lucrative profession...

Leftists strong-arm and extort to get money from outside their circle. Rightists keep scamming the same gullible saps within their circle. Leftists profit from their own, rightists deplete their own.

Faced with the grim reality that leftists are conducting daily hands-on conditioning in schools, and even those who aren’t conditioned are finding it profitable to parrot the cult doctrine in their professional or academic lives, it’s understandable that rightists are drawn to quick fixes. Real fixes seem an impossible task.

Apologies to TakiMag for the long block quote but it encapsulates the problem here. If I was pro-pedo and pro-child grooming and pro-child mutiliation, YouTube and the general left would "make it rain" on a video I produced. The right? Not so much. Being anti-grooming is too "risky". 

 

Eric "Bull Connor" Adams

 If you've watched any of my GGTV videos, you know I call the current NYC mayor "Bull Connor" because he has continued the shameful medical segregation. Adams has no shame and so he continues to be the bully that he is. Witness the latest:

Unfortunately there are a [large] number of you who will say "she should have kept her mouth shut". Well Bull Connor thought the Negroes should just be happy with segregation.  Never mind the fact that government agencies are beholden to high first amendment burdens and among them are protections for people engaging in whistleblowing and making statements in the public interest (which protects government workers).  But given the amount of law breaking by government in the last two plus years, backed by judges acting to protect their own human rights violations, it is no wonder that Eric "Bull Connor" Adams feels comfortable with his totalitarian behavior.

A New York City mother who worked for the city was fired after she protested the mask mandate for toddlers at mayor Eric Adams' Monday press conference.

Daniela Jampel, an assistant corporation attorney for the city, was terminated from her job shortly after she criticized Adams for not removing the school masking requirement for children under 5-years-old.

and

"Three weeks ago, you told parents to trust you that you would unmask our toddlers," Jampel told Adams. "You stood right here, and you said that the masks would come off April 4. That has not happened."

Well you SHOULD have asked him AND the other candidates about the medical segregation and voted only for those who were against it. But then they might have had to vote Republican. Can't do that now.

"As Jampel tried to get an answer, Adams became frustrated but allowed her to continue but urged her to "come to a conclusion." City Hall staffers had attempted to cut her off upon the realization that she was not a member of the media."

You know that whole "petition government to redress grievances" thing does apply you know...

""Today's events, however, which include her decision to lie to City Hall staff and state she was a journalist at a press conference, demonstrate a disturbing lack of judgment and integrity,""

So the person trying to hold Bull Connor Adams to his supposed word lacks "judgment and integrity".

I see.

Upholding medical segregation, while carving out exceptions for celebrities and the like shows good judgement and integrity.

I see.

"City sources told the Post that the decision to fire Jampel was made Friday after she wrote a tweet blasting Adams for continuing to force toddlers to wear masks and said her city job consisted of defending "cops who lie in court, teachers who molest children, prison guards who beat inmates.""

 So which part of the tweet was a lie? 

Not to worry though, the Negroes of NYC will join with the libs on the upper west side to vote for Adams in the next election though.  Even when he treats 'em like blacks in the segregated south.

Garvey's Ghost TV 4-4-2022: The Pedos Are Out

 In this episode we examine:

 *The Walt Disney Corp's support for pedophiles and child groomers in schools (often one and the same).

*CT School Nurse outs CT school groomers.

*Biden admin goes in on child abuse and mutilation

*Florida teachers quit over new law. 

*Ohio substitute teacher seeking new victims.

Bitchute:

Rumble:

The Djokovic Curse

 So recall that Novak Djokovic declined the COVID shots and was detained in and deported from Australia when he tried to enter the country in order to participate in the Open. Many of his peers scolded him for "not doing his part" to "keep people safe" and for not acquiescing to the totalitarian COVID rules enacted by the state of Australia. Although I agree that countries have an absolute right to determine the conditions of entry, we know full well that these COVID rules have nothing to do with health. In fact they said so. Their decision was based on the fact that such "open rebellion" could cause general social unrest as people saw that others were not cooperating.  Well now that the weather is improving in the northern hemisphere, sports are starting up and the vaccine victims continue to pile up. Now we have a report from the tennis world:

Tennis fans are upset and the sporting world is reeling after an unprecedented number of players either withdrew or retired from the Miami Open this week. A total of 15 players were unable to finish, including the male and female favorites to win.

Folks, this is not normal in the least bit. The original report from Free West Media:

In the men’s tournament, the Italian phenomenon Jannik Sinner was forced to withdraw. He gave up after 22 minutes in the game against Francisco Cerundolo, the number 103 in the world ranking. “When I served at 3-1 and 30-0, I saw him bend over. It was very strange,” Cerundolo said during an interview. “I hope he’s okay, he’s a great player.”

This stuff was posted April 2 so it's not a April Fool's day joke.

Not saying that players don't drop out or have illnesses mid tournament.

I'm not even discussing the cyclists who have had heart issues, which is contrary to what you'd think given the stresses of bike racing, is VERY rare.

I wish these athletes well but if it goes badly for them: 1) They agreed to it and those that spoke ill of Djokovic will owe him an apology.

Black On Black Crime: The Slap Heard 'Round The World

I woke up this morning to the sight of none other than Will Smith slapping Chris Rock at the recent Oscars award show. I saw the unmuted version from a Japanese source which aired the "colorful" commentary that followed the slap.

I wasn't sure if this had been staged. It sure sounded like Chris got hit. His recovery attitude signaled to me that may have been a setup. Also seeing that Will had been laughing at the joke in question prior to "defending his wife" made me think it was a set up.

 Q: Why was he so far from his wife anyway?

But all that aside, I'm going to assume it wasn't a set up and that it was what it looked like it was. And that fact underscores an issue I alluded to in my last GGTV and have written about in this blog: Black crime and criminal behavior, particularly those of assault and homicide are higher, across the socio-economic board than whites of the same SES. Rich or relatively wealthy black people may engage in less violence than "hood negroes" but the data shows that they commit far more crimes than their White and Asian counterparts. As a matter of fact, wealthy blacks as a group have violence levels higher than working class whites. An assist for those who won't follow the link:

Black residents of block groups with incomes greater than $60 000 per year had firearm assault rates similar to those of White residents of areas with incomes between $20 001 and $30 000.

So Will Smith and Chris Rock gave us a good example of why we see so much violence in black communities. It's not because they are hungry. The white man didn't make them do it. It wasn't systemic racism. No it was piss poor impulse control and lack of control of our [collective] emotions. So if you were cool with Smith "Defending his wife" with violence on national tv, don't even move your mouth to condemn the guy who shoot up the club when his ego gets checked.  

Same shit, different venue.

Garvey's Ghost TV 3-26-2022: Biology For Dummies

BitChute:

 

Topics:
1) Eric "Bull Connor" Adams continues his two tier society.
2) PCR Tests flawed
3) Pfizer: 4th shot "Necessary"
4) Old Wives Tale For The Win: Curcumin and COVID
5) Fire Fauci
6) COVID Circulating in 2019. We Told You This.
7) San Francisco Black 11th Graders FAIL at math.
8) Biology For Dummies
9) Hunter Biden's Laptop and the Ukraine War.

Rumble: 

Especially If it Means Losing Your Job

 

Link to Daily Wire:

"During a private October 26 event at the University of Chicago, the physician wandered far afield of medical opinion, offering legal arguments for federal vaccine mandates and maintaining that the threat of job loss should be used to pressure citizens into getting the shots..."

As evidence, he described how successful the threat of unemployment was at persuading vaccine-hesitant NIH employees and contractors to get vaccinated. When Collins made it clear to the 2,000 out of 46,000 workers who had still declined to take the jabs that they were “in serious danger of being fired in the next month if they [didn’t] do something about it,” Collins said he got a “big response.”

“Reality [was] sinking in,” he explained, so that even the “pretty darn resistant” elected to get vaccinated. He then chuckled,"

"He then chuckled."

Not a damn thing funny. If I put my true feelings about this fellow (and those like him) on this blog post, there would be police at my door in short order. So I won't

"he speculated that deep down, many unvaccinated people may actually want to get the vaccine but resist doing so out of peer pressure."

I can't speak for other people. My case is quite clear. I looked at the data and figured out early on that:

1) The hysteria was just that and unless I had particular co-morbidities I was unlikely to have a death threatening case. 

2) There were things I could do to prevent myself, even without risk factors from having. severe case.

3) All previous attempts at creating a coronavirus vaccine had failed miserably. Not only in not preventing infection but in killing the host. No. Thank. You.

4) That it is best to wait for long term data before putting a gene therapy into my body which would be irreversible and present an unknown risk above, beyond and in addition to,  that of COVID.

5) Eventually that the "vaccines" did not prevent infection OR transmission which was known within 6 months of their release and possibly earlier if the redacted papers from Pfizer are to be believed.

So this Collins fellow is really revealing that he didn't think anyone could come to a rational evidence based decision to say "no". That or he just didn't care.

" “They’re sort of thinking to themselves, you know, maybe I really should do it, but if I do, I lose my credibility with my peeps,” Collins said."

"My peeps" 

Do I even need to comment on what that reference means?

I've been saying that these people are malicious. COVID exposed a lot of people for who and what they are. This will not be forgotten. Or forgiven.

Garvey's Ghost TV 3-7-2022: Politics Not Health

Rumble

BitChute

In this episode:

1) Democratic pollsters recommend ending the COVID pandemic so they can win in November.

2) National Vaccine Pass spreading across America.

3) Pfizer vaccine protection "wanes quickly"! 

4) Black NYers Hospitalized because RACISM....not vitamin D deficiency.

5) Russian Banks switching to Chinese card system.

How Would You Feel?

 

Imagine you went along with "the experts" even though you saw people who were warning of cardiac issues with the "vaccines".

Imagine you complied because you were afraid of losing your job.

Imagine you complied because you "just wanted things to go back to normal."

Imagine you absolutely believed Twitter, Facebook, etc. that the "crazy people" who are conspiracy theorists with no regard for the health of others.

Imagine being in one of those categories and then taking your kid to go get cleared for sports and seeing this sign.

Imagine the feeling that "they were right". How many people did you cut off? How many friendships did you destroy? And now to find out they were right.

Imagine that on top of that, you find out that indeed your kid now has heart problems. 

How would you feel?

That's A Whole Lot Of Nerve

Let’s stop looking at COVID as a partisan dividing line and see it for what it is: a God-awful disease.

Let’s stop seeing each other as enemies — and start seeing each other for who we really are: fellow Americans.

— President Biden (@POTUS) March 2, 2022

 

Same president had this to say previously.

Between that time I not only lost $10k gross income in "disciplinary action" due to refusing to take any of these shots but I lost my job of 20+ years. Oh and I lost about $90k in unused sick days.

So you can excuse me if I have sub zero levels of acceptance of this president's current statement. I have sub-zero levels of acceptance or support of any and all politicians of any stripe who supported these actions or failed to intervene when they had the opportunity to (Romney et. al.).

I have sub zero support for any and all so called "unions" who supported this nonsense.

This is not to mention the inflation (started by Trump) that is eating at my savings and investments (at the worst possible time),

No, this became political as soon as all existing laws against forced medical procedures (at both the state and federal level) became null and void because courts refused to and still refuse to uphold the fundamental right of a person to decide their own medical care without outside coercion. And yes, threatening their livelihood is coercion.

This became political when existing laws against asking about medical conditions (perceived or real) which includes as black letter of law (functions of the immune system) went out the window largely because courts refused to uphold them.

This became political when companies partnered with government to censor evidence that contradicted the edicts coming from un-elected officials who have revolving door relationships with the very companies they censor for.

So no, not interested in this "we must get along" bullshit. I want heads to roll and assets stripped.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-28-2022: Ukraine Special

 

Bitchute

Rumble

About Those 'Internet Enabled" Vehicles

 One of the scenes that stood out to me in Minority Report was when the "powers that be" decided to take over Anderton's vehicle and reroute it to what I presume was the nearest police station.  In the current non-fiction world the vast majority of new and new-ish cars are accessible remotely and can be rendered in-operable by the company, a hacker or law enforcement. Of course this has been sold to the public under the guise of "safety", "convenience" and "reducing crime". However; those of us who understand what is going on, knows that it is only a small step to "suppressing political actions we don't approve of".

Now recently in Canada we got a good view of where the state would go when it deemed it a "national emergency" but the example I'm posting here is what's in store for us in the future:

US Freedom Convoy Trucker Left Stranded After Penske Corporation Turns Off Power Remotely to His Rental Truck

"Sandberg was heading to Washington DC with the Freedom Convoy truckers.
Penske shut down his vehicle on the road and later released a statement on how the company does not support the freedom protests."

While it is certainly Penske's right to express a disagreement with the Freedom Convoy, but what business was it of theirs if Sandberg did? He rented a truck from them. As far as I know renting a vehicle doesn't mean the rental agency is endorsing (or not endorsing) said function. it is literally none of their business so long as no laws are being broken.

See, this nonsense started with financial institutions but it will inevitably branch out to everything. This is why there is a push for digital identities and digital cash. Once you are tied into the system with no means of transacting, interested parties will simply cut you off (and literally immobilize you) if you are non-compliant. Monday's GGTV episode will discuss this in more detail. 

But how long till that vehicle you leased, that appears to be traveling to some protest the lienholder doesn't agree with is immobilized? How about they decide to immobilize the vehicle prior to the event. You know, just in case. Or maybe, since you wrote something online, your vehicle is immobilized and repossessed?

If this action by Penske can stand, then all of those scenarios can stand. After all, if you don't own it, it's not yours.

mRNA Vaccine In The Liver?

There appears to be a study out of Sweden that shows that the mRNA from the Pfizer vaccine can get into liver cells, be converted to DNA. and those liver cells will express the spike protein and that could result in auto-immune disease, among other problems. Below is a video from Dr. Been on the matter:

Now onto my commentary:

1) Remember back in the day early in the vaccine release a lot of people were talking about how this could/would alter your DNA?

Well here we appear to be.

2) Remember when the CDC and the "vaccine" creators said that no way no how would the mRNA go anywhere other than where it was injected?

Well here we are. 

Recall that I posted on the matter a while back. There I pointed out that mRNA could in fact leave a cell and travel to other cells:

"So yes, mRNA can be in exosomes, be transferred to other cells and be translated there. Yes, mRNA can exist in outside the cell and "do things" without the encapsulation. How many people have had their Shot move from the deltoid to [enter body part]? "

Well now we see that one such "body part" is the liver.  Also:

"This study demonstrates for the first time that mRNA is itself utilized as an intercellular messenger molecule with nuclear functions."

"Nuclear functions" you say?

Well...surprise...

So to summarize. Here at The Ghost we discussed that mRNA can leave the injection site and end up in other organs. We showed that the mRNA could then do "nuclear" things at those locations and that the consequences of that are thus far unknown. Now we have more research that confirms the Ghost Hypothesis (based on previous mRNA studies) and adds that the mRNA is converted to DNA hence (permanently? ) changing the genome of the host or at least the genome of affected organs  with still unknown long term consequences.

And we still have government agencies and private companies mandating these shots? 

How long until the "if you took..." commercials start and multi-trillion dollar settlements start rolling in?

Oh yeah, did I mention the Furin cleavage site that has appeared in a Moderna patent?

Tax Payer Funded Drug Paraphernalia

This guy said a Catholic church is giving this stuff out. What is a church doing giving out crack pipes and heroin needles?

I thought the free crack pipe story was debunked. pic.twitter.com/gJRy6ENlcr

— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) February 23, 2022

 

Joe Biden's America.

Actually, They Did

There is an an article out there about Professor Mark Woolhouse, a  "prominent lockdown advocate" who apparently now regrets backing lockdowns (prepare for a lot of this). In the piece he says the following:

"“We knew from February [2020], never mind March, that the lockdown would not solve the problem. It would simply delay it,” said Woolhouse, adding that no one in government appeared to recognize the failing of that strategy..."

"No one in government" eh?

 As we have seen on the internet, WEF (World Economic Forum) members have agents in all levels of "western" governments as well as corporate and religious entities. It has, thus far captured Canada via Trudeau

 These people did in fact recognize the fallout. They wanted the fallout. I gave up on the "know not what they do" angle a while back. It is clear to me that these are malicious actors.

"As early as April 2020, SAGE was sent information confirming that lockdowns would “cost three times more years than the disease itself,” but there was virtually no consideration of the fact that “those over 70 had at least 10,000 times the risk of dying as those under 15 years old.”"
 

I dare say that the mortality on the elderly is/was seen as a good thing. Older people tend to be far less liberal than younger people. In addition, older people tend to have resources that younger people do not have and that means that older people are more independent. If you eliminate this voting block you can increase the levels of dependency in your population and decrease the number of "conservatives" and those who remember the "good old days" when you had expectations of privacy and bodily autonomy.

This is why, IMO, Cuomo got away with killing all those nursing home residents. Did I mention that killing the older people has a financial upside for the government?

Sure there are politicians who were and are motivated by fear and a desire to "do the right thing". However; it is abundantly clear that there are agents of third parties directing policies. It's high time to stop giving these people a pass.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-21-2022: Reality Sets In

Bitchute

Rumble

 In this episode:

*Bill Gates is sad.

*Canada's protests get real

* A viewer's comment

*Corona rules meet reality

*Smash the patriarchy, eliminate women's sports.

Did Trudeau Collapse Canada's Banks?

 I started seeing rumblings of Canadian banks going offline late yesterday. This morning I saw a report from Wayne Dupree on the matter which included the following:

“Something is happening with Canada’s banks. The website problems are only a symptom of something much larger. Today a friend reported that about noon he tried to withdraw $4000 cash from his Etobicoke (Toronto) CIBC branch – to be told there is a $1000 daily limit per customer.”

and:

“Bank teller at @TD_Canada told me they ran out of cash yesterday from everyone leaving. I was one of them.”

I cannot overstate the problem this causes.

Let's say that only 1 million Canadians support the truckers and ONLY those persons are withdrawing money. Say they all take out 10 dollars. Banks would have to cough up $10 milllion. Many branches simply do not have that amount of money on hand. Particularly when you consider that money is spread out around branches.

Consider then if each person wants $100. Well that's $100 million the banks have to part with. You do realize that just because your account says you have say 10,000 in the bank, it does not mean they HAVE 10,000 at the particular branch (ask me how I know).

So $1,000 per customer and again only assuming 1 million customers, you have $1 billlion being removed from banks. 

The more zeros the bigger the problem.

Trudeau being the WEF agent communist that he is, can't see past his own biases and narrative and see that his emergency power and declaring lawful financial transactions as terrorism could cripple his country. After all you cannot compel anyone to put money in a bank. People put money in the bank because they expect it to be safe (relative to in your home which may be burglarized or burn to the ground). When the government announces that it can and will seize the financial assets of individuals, without any due process, simply because they financially supported a movement the government up and declared to be "unlawful" (again without any sort of due process), banks look worse than mattresses.

I wrote a post on "due process"  back in 2019, which seems to have been prescient, that I'll quote below:

"Another way "due process" becomes an "illusions" is by creeping criminalization. The entire concept of "hate speech" runs against the 1st amendment. Yet we have the department of homeland security calling the owner of a private business in for questioning because the El Paso shooter allegedly posted his manifesto to a site hosted by or that does business with Cloudflare.

How did this even get past the agency lawyers? Whether the shooter's manifesto was posted to the site or not, it is still protected speech. The government has absolutely no business in calling in citizens to question them about their or other's speech.

So perhaps I'm late to the party but it seems that the idea of "due process" isn't really what we think it is. After all, if courts can rule that "shall not be infringed" or "shall not be abridged" means they can infringe and abridge, then there really is no "due process" worth believing in."

It seems to be the case now that all across the so called "democratic West" the idea of due process is whatever the officials say it is. Americans and Canadians are getting a good dose of Communism right now: 

High inflation
Insecure "rights"
State seizure of assets

There may still be time to vote and protest yourselves out of this but that window is closing fast.

FDA Officer Reveals The Long Term Plans

FDA employee spills the beans:

Garvey's Ghost TV: The Ghost Unshackled

Topics:

1) No More Live On YouTube

2) COVID Vaccines don't give mucosal immunity

3) Vaccine {IN] effectiveness against infection

4) Pfizer CEO admits the jabbed are the long term tests.

5) Open Everything: Liberal \bout face on lockdowns.

6) Liberals believe they own your kids and the public property is their property.

7) New documents reveal spying on Trump while in white house.

More OSHA Decision Fallout

 As predicted, the language used in the OSHA decision has freed NYC to move forward with its own mandate.

The Supreme Court on Friday denied a request from a group of New York City public school teachers seeking to block a vaccine mandate for employees who were not given a religious exemption.

Their appeal was directed to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles cases from that region. She rejected an earlier challenge, filed in October, to the city’s vaccine mandate. She rejected the teachers' latest appeal with no explanation, which is the court’s usual procedure.

Sotomayor didn't have to give an explanation. The words were in the OSHA decision. Seconsly, I already said that Sotomayor should never have been allowed to be involved in such decisions given her personal conflict of interest. For those who don't recall, Sotomayor, though "vaccinated" is still deathly afraid of getting COVID. This makes it clear that she doesn't believe that said "vaccines" work. If she doesn't believe such vaccines work, she has no business mandating them on other people.

Requests for exemption have also been denied to employees if the leader of their religious organization has spoken publicly in favor of getting the vaccine. That means objections are not honored for many Catholics, the appeal said, given the pope’s endorsement of vaccinations.

Very odd to see this since prior rulings make it clear that one's objection is not subject to such scrutiny or dependency on the agreement or approval by a "religious leader".

Not surprised Sotomayor would miss that.

I'll repeat once again that this doesn't stop until a court rules on the basis of the bodily autonomy of individuals being inviolable. Upholding the text of laws such as the ADA the explicitly denies the ability of both public and private entities from inquiring about the "functions of the immune system" of any potential or current employee unless it has a direct bearing on business.

Said ruling also needs to address the known risks and lack of efficacy in terms of transmission and infection, which is The Point of vaccination. Until these things are done these mostly blue areas will take the language of the OSHA ruling and impose what they want.

California's Proposed COVID Jab Law

For those of you who watched my video on the SCOTUS OSHA decision, you'll know that I was more pessimistic than others because a part of the decision was that the states had a right to make such a mandate rather than the federal government. 

I warned that it would result in certain states, mostly blue coastal, would take the liberty to create their own mandates on their residents while most red states would not.  Lo and behold California is first up to bat.

"Assembly Bill 1993, introduced by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, would require employees and independent contractors to show proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 unless the employee obtains an exemption for a medical reason, disability or “sincerely held religious belief.” Those who received an exemption would be required to be regularly tested."

Since SCOTUS has already said that they consider such a move lawful, if this is passed via the legislative process it is unlikely that any legal challenge would win.

This is why I insisted that any true "win" in this matter would be on the grounds of the individual autonomy enjoyed by each citizen. Thus far, though I have read many suits that bring up this point, none of the decisions I have seen have made so much as a peep in this regard.

"The bill comes as the latest effort by legislators to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace and increase vaccination rates among eligible populations. During a news conference Friday, Wicks said that while combatting the pandemic has posed a challenge over the last two years, one thing has become clear – “vaccines keep us safe.”"

This brings us to the second point I have made about these laws. The claim of the "slow the spread" needs to be gutted as an acceptable legal argument. 

"The vaccine mandate for workplaces would remain in place until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “determines that COVID-19 vaccinations are no longer necessary for the health and safety of individuals,” according to the bill’s text."

And this goes to my third argument in regards to subjecting the governor and state legislature to the whims of a un-elected bureaucrat  in DC. And let's be clear the CDC will not make any claim that "vaccination" are "no longer necessary". In fact they are currently trying to get these shots to be considered childhood immunizations which would provide total immunity to every and any "vaccine" producer.

"Senator Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, co-authored the legislation alongside Wicks and said the bill would help protect vulnerable populations against disease, particularly those who are immunocompromised and “depend on the rest of us” to get vaccinated."

Because these shots prevent transmission and infection.

Oh right. They don't.

"Thus far, the bill has won support from the Small Business Majority, who found in a recent poll that 47% of small businesses in the state already require employees to be vaccinated, and another 24% are considering instating a requirement. On Friday, the organization’s President and CEO John Arensmeyer said the bill would provide clarity for California businesses and “help them get back to normal.”"

 I don't know how representative this Small Business Majority is but that polling reflects a couple of things:

1) They think they own you.

2) They will do anything, including f***ing over their employees in order get that paper.

I doubt this will fail, given the demographics of California. And I expect some other states to follow. After all  SCOTUS gave them the green light.

Don't Say You Weren't Warned

It's CNN so you know it has a lot of Dem and Independent voters. Here at The Ghost we warned the public about what was at stake.

The Real Misinformation

 So I awoke this morning to an e-mail from YouTube that they had removed my last stream due to medical misinformation:

How your content violated the policy

YouTube doesn’t allow claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO). Learn more here.

What was the basis of that claim? Well as usual they didn't point to any time stamp. 

Of course not. 

I can surmise that the segment in question (which is now linked to the BitChute version) was about the child who received a shot and got myocarditis and at the time of the article could not swallow.  In that segment I pointed out that the doctor who prescribed the shot told the parent that the shot was "safe". I pointed out that it was known and admitted to that these shots have an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in males and that such information should have been disclosed to the parent.

Furthermore since the child already had respiratory issues, it was a bad idea to give that child a medical product that has a known respiratory side affect.

That's not medical misinformation nor does it contradict "expert consensus" (whatever that is), local health authorities or the WHO.  This is known published and public information. Also  there is no denying that the case being presented is evidence of an adverse event among many thousands of known adverse events of the same type. Indeed "local health authorities" in numerous countries have specifically barred the use of said biological products in children and adults under certain ages for the precise reasons discussed.

So this strike is unwarranted. But as I've written here before, I'm not going to complain about it. The above is only a demonstration of what's going down. For those who are still in a slumber, this should be a wake up call. Stating facts about The Precious is deemed "misinformation" by the powers that be. Clearly you are being propagandized.

Anyway, to that end, future videos will be here:

Odysee: https://odysee.com/@sondjata:f
BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/U5RNSbA3nCa3/
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-1309762

I actually get more views on BitChute than YouTube and since I get 0 revenue (from either place) I have no financial incentive to play the strike game. There may be clips posted there but that's about it. I strongly encourage readers and viewers to look at these alternate platforms. Yes there are some nutters on them but that is worth the absolute wealth of actual info that is available to you should you seek it out.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-9-2022: Mash Up

 Live 8PM EST

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-5-2022: So I Was Right

 Live 8PM EST

https://youtu.be/G9JhoABjccg

Democrats: The Ends Justify Any Means

 We can go back to Obama's executive order that was DACA and DAPA to see when Democrats crossed a clear line into the realm of "laws don't matter" land. Obama had previously and correctly noted that he had no power to essentially amnesty a whole group of people. Then, with Dems having realized they control enough of the institutions designed to check such power, Obama reversed course and broke the law. 

That could have a should have been an impeachable offense (not faithfully executing the laws passed by congress) but it's not like Republicans are opposed to cheap labour.   Fast forward to Trump being elected and his belated attempt to end DACA. What happened? A judge decided that no, Trump couldn't do that. 

Never mind that executive orders aren't laws and thus can be reversed at any time by any subsequent administration as easily as any administration makes one. Never mind that Obama's order was itself unlawful and should have been null and void. No, instead it was a clear example of ends justifying the means. The institutions collaborated to get an end: Cheap migrant labour who would have children who, being citizens, in their estimation would lean Democratic when they reach voting age.

So the plot is clear, Democrats would push to expand the power of the presidency while they have power and retard the power of the presidency when they don't. Having captured enough institutions, in this case the judiciary, they had the ability to get what they want regardless of whether they have the office. This is effective because not only do decisions that don't go their way only temporary in nature (they'll wait it out or take another chance) they also suffer no personal consequences.

This brings us to the latest example in Virginia. Democrats in that location are losing their minds that a Republican won the governorship there. And now we have blue counties who are essentially going all out insurrection where they have simply decided that the governor's orders mean nothing, the laws be damned because they don't like the "new" rules.

"Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin has broad power to issue executive orders overturning mask mandates in schools, lawyers from the state Attorney General’s Office argued Wednesday, while lawyers for local school boards argued that the governor’s action usurps their authority."

No such argument was in the offing when Northam was governor. Why?

"In the meantime, schools and parents are left with uncertainty. School boards across the state have refused to implement an executive order from the new Republican governor that not only overturns a statewide mask mandate, but also bars local jurisdictions from imposing a mandate on students."

There is no "uncertaintly". You cannot force people to put a thing on their body nor can you force someone to put a thing IN their body. YOU can choose to put a thing on your body and YOU can choose to put a thing IN your body. You have always had that choice. It was Northam's order that was illegal. Youngkin's order restores the proper role of the state by returning the state to it's proper posture.

Again, this reveals that Democrats want power to IMPOSE. The party that crows about "right to choose" doesn't really mean it.

"At Wednesday’s hearing, Deputy Attorney General Steven Popps argued that Youngkin is entitled to issue executive orders responding to the coronavirus pandemic just as his predecessor, Democrat Ralph Northam, did when he imposed a statewide school mask mandate."

Exactly. The same power to impose is the same power to lift. This is not even a close question. I'd only add that the governor did NOT have the power to impose.

But John Cafferky, a lawyer for Alexandria Public Schools — one of seven school boards that jointly filed the lawsuit opposing Youngkin’s order — said Northam’s actions were justified because he was acting to preserve public health." [My underlines]

And here is the money shot. The "pandemic" overrules rule of law. Hence the ends justify the means. I will point the viewer to my video on how the majority of Democrats are essentially Nazis as they would gladly imprison anyone who doesn't toe the government line on The Wuhan.

Given the known demographics of Alexandria and the fact that they are currently discriminating against students and handing out suspensions I have no doubt that they would be crying "public health" for the next 3 years.

So this is just another example of "executive power good" when that executive does something Democrats like and "executive power bad" when the executive does something Democrats don't like. It also underscores just how authoritarian these people are and that they like it that way. Free people cannot live with such persons in power.

I don't know the mindset of the new Va. AG but if I were in his shoes, I would lever any civil and criminal law against the school boards AND the individuals and put any RICO statute that could apply on them as well. We can start with a count of battery for every student made to put a mask on under threat of suspension or in school discrimination. And that battery charge would go down to the individual and up to those creating the "policy". Until these people feel personal consequences for their actions they will not stop. Right now the only people feeling personal consequences are those who are acting lawfully. This needs to stop.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-2-2022: The Black Cry Babies

 Live 8PM EST.