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/

They Are Stalinists

 It has always been the habit of rulers to disappear their enemies. There is a story of a pharaoh  who removed the name of a then unfavored "god". Stalin had people removed from pictures. Mao wanted to remove the "4 olds". In other times there were book burnings and the like. Whenever you see history being destroyed or changed, know that you are not dealing with "good" people.  A while back I came out against the removal of confederate statues and other historical items that had been deemed (and may have actually been) racist. I saw the danger in such a movement because I knew that the circle always grows and things that are safe at one time will soon become "unsafe".

During the COVID lockdowns, I made many posts where I later discovered the linked text had been changed or the entire article removed because it contradicted the "authorities". I took to making screenshots so that I would have the evidence. This behavior is growing and if "regular people" don't start speaking up about it, it will get worse. Latest example is wikipedia (again actually).

Wikipedia has changed the definition of recession.

Wayback's last capture was July 11, 2022.

Based on Wiki's changelog, the line: "There is no global consensus on the definition of a recession" was added on July 27.

The page is now locked. pic.twitter.com/6tx1vPHEPM

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) July 28, 2022

Wikipedia is not the only outlet acting as the propaganda arm of the Biden regime. And yes, I'm going to be using the term regime (as used in reference to other authoritarians) because it is clear to anyone with clear eyes what's going on.

 They "redefined vaccine from something that prevents a target disease to something that mitigates symptoms and you all let them get away with it.

They have been "redefining" Woman and y'all have been letting them get away with it.

They are allowing adults to groom children in schools YOU PAY FOR, and y'all haven't made a single one of them reside in a jail cell (at a minimum).

Now they are redefining "recession" simply to avoid having Biden look bad. 

This is why I do not watch any mainstream news media. None of them.

Clifton Duncan

 

Clifton gave an outstanding talk at @mises tonight. @cliftonaduncan is an actor who sacrificed his whole career for freedom.
He dared to say no to the vaccine mandate.
We need more people who stand on principles, not less.
CC: @RobSchneider, @ginacarano, @matthewdmarsden pic.twitter.com/8wjKfQKcxd

— Natalie F Danelishen (@Chesschick01) July 25, 2022

 

Watch. I am quite angry (to put it mildly) about how my 20+ years at my former job ended over me asserting my right to decide what medical treatment I will and will not take. But I'm not waiting tables and I have marketable skills...and I could play blackjack for high stakes if I got really desperate 

:-D

I recall back in the day watching an interview with Kwame Ture's mother and how she had wished the worst cancer on the people who went after her son only for Kwame to pass from prostate cancer. I have long lived by the idea that I would never wish bad [medical] things on people who did me wrong. I'll be honest though, these past two years has really put that to the test. It is not how well you stick to your beliefs when things are good, but how you stick to them when EVERY damn thing is on the line. When it's the food on your table; the roof over your head; having to  say "no" to daughters and sons.

There's a comedy sketch by Eddie Murphy (I believe, I heard it on a mix tape so I cannot confirm) where he talks about African slaves getting off the ship and being told to pick cotton ( work with him here). He jokes about how at first the African slaves were like, "I'm not picking shit!"  and then the whips came out and they all changed their minds "We'll pick the cotton! just back off with that whip!" Joke got a lot of laughs, but the underlying truth is there. Most of us, unfortunately including a lot of black folks, including the ones who put me out, decided to "pick the cotton" and willingly sacrificed the "rebellious negro"

So it's nice to see another rebel.

Note How They Roll

 So back in the day KRS-ONE had a track that featured the line: "

 But when they come to arrest a black man, they need forty cops or more...

That is, they come with overwhelming force. The only reason for me referencing that line is because I am of the belief that the state abuses on black citizens would eventually be applied to the wider population. Below is an example:

Here's a screengrab I want to highlight:

First thing is that the individual being questioned here is not a suspect in any crime whatsoever. The government has absolutely *ZERO* reasons to be at his home. What he should have said is that they need to come back with a warrant (which I  know would be a sham but you put them through the process anyway). That said, that this homeowner (and gun owner) was not a suspect in any crime whatsoever, look how "heavy" these three individuals are.

First, if you're just asking questions, then why are there three armed persons?  All at various points to make sure they have clear line of fire (which changes in the video). The message is clear. If these agents don't like what they see or hear, they will kill the home owner, who, I'll repeat how. not committed a crime nor is a suspect in any crime.

Recognize this for what it is.

Neil Oliver on Agenda 2030

 

I was discussing this issue with a friend of mine. I recognize the climate change agenda for what it is but I AM and environmentalist. I have written here about my concern with the the removal of trees and other greenery which, if you don't know, converts CO2 to energy and gives off O2 (the thing we need to live) as a byproduct.

Similarly during the ongoing "mask madness" I have expressed concern about the mass amount of waste that these masks represent in addition to the fact that they do not do anything to stop transmission.

There is one point that Neil makes about the wish to make "the west" live "colder and hungrier"  lives. I think that, if true, it is really a "revenge of the colonized" scenario at play. That is, these leaders either mad due to "white supremacy" or deep in guilty feelings for being white, want to make "the west" pay by bringing down the lifestyles. It's the "as long as it hurts whitey it's OK" mentality that is present in black communities in America.

Anyway, Neil lays out things that CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NPR will not bring to your attention. I'll also remind the reader that none other than Michael Moore made a video covering the same issue which was promptly memory holed.

NPR Being NPR

 NPR is a propaganda organization that is funded (at least in part) by the US government.  Of course this means they are trash when it comes to covering politics that isn't left. Witness some of the new nonsense.

Through a wave of pandemic-related litigation, a trio of small but mighty conservative legal blocs has rolled back public health authority at the local, state and federal levels, recasting America's future battles against infectious diseases.

Say, where did the "public health" get their "authority? Given this piece came out after the SCOTUS ruling in regards to the EPA you'd think NPR would ask this basic question,.

"Galvanized by what they've characterized as an overreach of COVID-related health orders issued amid the pandemic, lawyers from the three overlapping spheres — conservative and libertarian think tanks, Republican state attorneys general, and religious liberty groups — are aggressively taking on public health mandates and the government agencies charged with protecting community health."

"What they've characterized as an overreach."

SCOTUS said so too. Not only in regards to the EPA but also the CDC. 

""That's the arena where these decisions are being made, but it's the fundamental constitutional principles that underlie it that are an issue.""

Yeah, I've been saying the same thing.  I have two extensive videos where I discuss the form of the US government and the limited powers and separation of powers. NPR seems to find this a strange thing.

"In Wisconsin, a conservative legal center won a case before the state Supreme Court stripping local health departments of the power to close schools to stem the spread of disease."

The power wasn't stripped. It didn't belong to the health departments in the first place.  Most states and state agencies have the power to detain individuals and quarantine spaces for specific causes until the situation is remedied or some limited amount of time (usually no longer than 30 days). What these health departments decided was that they could be THE GOVT and rule by edict for an indefinite period of time. 

"In Missouri, the Republican state attorney general waged a campaign against school mask mandates. Most of the dozens of cases he filed were dismissed but nonetheless had a chilling effect on school policies."

We already know masks do not work. The only people wearing the things are those who have been forced to or are virtue signalling. 

"n California, a lawsuit brought by religious groups challenging a health order that limited the size of both secular and nonsecular in-home gatherings as COVID-19 surged made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, the conservative majority, bolstered by three staunchly conservative justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, issued an emergency injunction finding the order violated the freedom to worship."

Those durn enumerated rights. Meanwhile these "leaders" were having their own parties.

"Other cases have chipped away at the power of federal and state authorities to mandate COVID vaccines for certain categories of employees, or thwarted a governor's ability to declare emergencies."

Where NPR comes out against bodily autonomy and the idea that individuals should make their own medical decisions without the interference of government OR employers.

And folks wonder why I have no sympathy for those affected by the recent SCOTUS decision. "Pro-Choice" people (particularly women) have been at the forefront of the vaccine mandate push. So they can bite me in regards to Roe.

"Public health experts say it has endangered the fundamental tools that public health workers have utilized for decades to protect community health: mandatory vaccinations for public school children against devastating diseases "

Nope. You all did this to yourselves by lying to the public. Resorting to censorship of those with contradictory (or actual) evidence. Resorting to blackmail and outright threats to peoples lives and livelihoods. With all the lying about these mRNA products, what sane person would NOT be asking questions about all the other "mandatory" biological products?

Furthermore, many state laws that govern "public health" agencies specifically bar forcing vaccinations (or medical intervention) on any person. Yet even where these specific limits are on the books, they have still done this mandating. Why? Because the courts themselves are in on it and will not rule against themselves.

"and the use of quarantines to stem that spread."

State governments (at least the ones I've looked at) already have the power to quarantine an infected person. Nobody is challenging that. The problem is that these officials created the "asymptomatic spreader" in order to label millions of people as presumed infected (never mind the survival rates) and then imposed draconian lockdowns that did far more harm than more targeted interventions would have.

"Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, decried the wave of litigation in what he called a "right-wing laboratory." He said he has not lost a single case where he was tasked with defending public health powers, which he believes are entirely legal and necessary to keep people alive. "

"Connecticut"

Well sure you haven't lost. And that underscores another issue which I think is growing larger and larger with each passing year: The breaking up of America.

 

Hero and Zero

 Hero: Djokovic who stood firm on bodily autonomy.

A legend. pic.twitter.com/mLpULdBsGo

— Tim Dykstra (@TimDykstra71) July 12, 2022

 

Absolute Zero: Berkeley Law Professor Khiara Bridges talking utter nonsense.

Berkeley Law Professor Khiara Bridges: "Do you believe that men can get pregnant?"

Sen. Josh Hawley: "No, I don't think men can get pregnant."

Bridges: "So, you're denying that trans people exist." pic.twitter.com/WIFEqfMeaH

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 12, 2022

You know I'm growing reaaly weary of black folks who should know better and who know they were raised better, spouting off this nonsense. 

Men cannot get pregnant. A man is an adult human male. No amount of hormones, surgeries or strong wishes will change that.

Another "About Them Roads" Episode.

 During the "stay at home" phase of the pandemic back in 2020 I posted a few videos from various African countries showing the state of roads as well as working conditions that upend the whole black American "I am oppressed" narrative. Today we visit another episode. This one is from Sierra Leone:

I'm going to post a few screen grabs.,

Broken windshield and look at that road.  So much for vehicle inspection.

"The people can hire their own contractors to build the roads..."

Say how long has this road been in this condition?

This will not be the last "below ground level" road we will be posting.

 Tow truck? What tow truck? Anyone have AAA?

Imagine you have to travel with a "bush mechanic"...

Yes, rocks to get traction in another "below ground level" road that no one has seen fit to "hire a contractor" to fix. Oh there will be bald tires. Many bald tires. Tread? Who needs tread.

Taking a break from the roads for a minute. Who knows about Charcoal stoves? I do. You still complaining about your out of date kitchen?

She lives in a 10'x10' room with 3 children. Nets for mosquitoes. Gotta avoid that malaria.

What does she and her *children* do to earn a living? Break rocks. This is a common theme all over Africa. Y'all over here bending knees over some crack head while you beat the odds of this being you and your children.

This is supposedly a "main trade route between Sierra Leone and neighboring Liberia. There's a lot being said here. Mind you I have seen other trade routes in far better condition. 

Another "below ground level" road. As usual truck is stuck. No contractors working.

The guy in the purple is NOT helping the stuck truck get out. He's clearing a path for *his* vehicle to get around the truck. Ujima anyone?

Maximum load rating? Pssshaawwww.

Gas Pump Prices For Dummies

 I used to be a dummy when it came to gas prices at the pump.  I never could figure out why the price shot up quickly but was slow to come down. I'm not a dummy about it any more though. Apparently Joe Biden is a dummy and thinks you are too. So this post is about how and why gasoline prices are quick to rise and slow to fall.

Lets take a scenario where a gallon of gas costs $1.00 for easy math.  Lets say the gas station has a 10k gallon tank to hold the gasoline. Say it is full. That's $10,000 of gasoline sales. Say they have a profit margin of 10c ($.10). So when they sell all that gasoline they have made  $1,000 (10% of the sale price)

They buy the next 10k gallons of gas for $9000 and repeat the process. Each time they sell 10k gallons of gas they make $1,000.

Now along comes a world event and it now costs them $11,000 to buy that same 10k gallons of gasoline.  Well there went their entire profit from the previous sales. Not only that, they have to dip into their cash reserves to fill that 10k gallon tank.Price is going up. Now they have to sell that gas for at least 1.20 to make up what they lost AND get a profit.

Ouch.

But wait. Imagine that while they are between purchases, more world events are happening and the expected price has risen to $12,000! Then $13,000. Well if you know you have to spend $13,000 in the near future to fill that 10k gallon tank. You have to raise prices at the pump right now. So now we're talking $1.40 to $1.50 a gallon charged due to expected costs.

So now you gotta re-up that 10k gallon tank and the bill is $20,000. If you don't have reserves you're out of business. If you have reserves you pay that price and guess what. Price at the pump is now $3.00-$4.00/gallon.

That's effectively what happened recently. Any price dips you've seen is due to gas taxes, which is usually larger than the gas station profits being reduced or suspended.

Say that the cost to fill that 10k gallon tank drops from $20,000 to $15,000. That's nice but since the gas station had to hit it's reserves to pay for that last delivery the price at the pump is not going down until that delivery is used up.  Otherwise the gas station is literally paying the customer to put gas into their tanks.

That's not how businesses survive.

Not A Serious Country

 In the least bit.

Oh wow. Well what citizens are having their rights trampled by Arizona? 

WUT?

The Justice Department sued Arizona on Tuesday over a new state law requiring proof of citizenship to vote in a presidential election, saying the Republican-imposed restrictions are a “textbook violation” of federal law.

So the federal government is suing Arizona because it passed a law stating that one has to be a citizen to vote in presidential elections.

Seriously.

But wait:

 

 "Arizona’s law, which Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed in March, requires voters to prove their citizenship to vote in a presidential election, like showing a birth certificate or passport. It also mandates that newly registered voters provide a proof of address, which could disproportionately affect people with limited access to government-issued identification cards. Those include immigrants, students, older people, low-income voters and Native Americans."

Oh it's the old Leftist bullshit about how "minorities" apparently cannot get or produce proof of citizenship and address. Never mind that everywhere where these laws have been passed, record turnout of blacks (in particular) have occurred. 

This is total bullshit and I'm tired of "minorities" grasping onto racist tropes about themselves in order to score political points. Get some self-respect.

Garvey's Ghost TV 7-4-2022: Return Of The Constitution

Rumble:

Bitchute:

 

Commentary on recent SCOTUS rulings

A Proposal For NY's New Gun Law

So NY State passed legislation that designated just about the entire city as a "special zone" in line with the recent ruling by SCOTUS. I have little argument with NY because it was and is SCOTUS's fault for not understanding the meaning of the term "shall not be infringed". Had they understood that then they would understand that they needed to say that an amendment to the US Constitution would be necessary for any infringement. Instead they recognize this "state interest" and "special conditions" that Scalia wrongfully wrote about.

That said, I have a proposal that could bridge the gap between the continued infringement of The Second and those who wish to exercise their right. I take this from the recent suit against gun manufacturer over the use of an AR in Sandy Hook as well as a proposal in California that gun owners purchase insurance.

Quite simply, a federal law should be passed that allows anyone who is a victim of a crime in any location with a gun ban of any kind that the victim had to comply with in order to go about their legal business, to sue said municipality. So, looking at NYS. If you are walking in a park where your firearm (or other non-firearm weapon) is prohibited by law and you are accosted and robbed, assaulted or survive an attempted murder, the state of NY is legally on the hook since it abridged your right to bear arms and rendered you defenseless. 

Now they cannot be held criminally liable as that falls on the assailant. However; since they abridged your right to bear arms, your civil rights have been violated and resulted in damages and thus the state should be liable.  Furthermore if the city has laws that are more restrictive than the state ones then they would also be liable.

Of course given the high levels of crime in NYC (and other NYS cities) the legal costs would make the legislatures reconsider their laws.

It's not like Hochul and the rest don't know that criminals won't pay a second of attention to these laws. They are not meant to curb crime. It is meant to make sure the only people with guns are state agents. 

Why?

You figure it out.

Garveys Ghost TV 6-6-2022: Government Over The People

In this episode we discuss various ways the government is acting in it's own interests.

2:45: Negative Vaccine Effectiveness
8:41: The Big Business of Zero COVID.
13:45: Sussman Trial. We can Do Jury Nullification Too.
34:06: NYC speed cameras go 24/7. For your safety of course.
43:15 : Net Zero: Build Back Greener. Example of WEF rule.

Read the Garvey's Ghost Blog at:
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/

 

Rumble:

Bitchute:

The "Trans" Facts

I just can't believe we live in this nightmare world. pic.twitter.com/qnTMP4BLf3

— Ptolemy (@pharaoh29082386) June 5, 2022

There is no end to these stories. pic.twitter.com/YIkAjwULtS

— Ptolemy (@pharaoh29082386) June 5, 2022

This woman was sterilised and did not know what she was doing. pic.twitter.com/eGVPU13ZFc

— Ptolemy (@pharaoh29082386) June 5, 2022

There are a lot more stories out there like this. Reject the tranny nonsense and don't let them "phobe" attack you.

It's All A Signal

 Posting for posterity:

If they actually believed in it (and didn't fear "repercussions") they wouldn't be doing stuff elsewhere "differently".

They do it here (in the US for example) because there is no downside to it.