Sunday, August 29, 2021

They Are About To Make It ILLEGAL To Protest Against Vaccinations!

We live in a world that is totally upside down and it is terrifying to be a part of it. We were once a country that applauded individualism and being our own person, but now that is shunned for the good of the collective. We once were a country that protected peaceful protests and speaking out against tyranny, but now that is called insurrection and must be punished.

So much for the land of the free.

Now, in one state they are going one step further to ensure that there is any dissent as they push the new world order upon us all.

In fact, in this state, they are proposing a bill that would make it a jailable crime to protest a vaccine site and you know that once this passes in one state, it will sweep across our nation popping up in more.

It should not be a huge surprise to know that the state that is proposing this particular draconian bill is in California.

Senate Bill 742 threatens to jail anti-vaccine protesters for up to six months, as well as stick them with fines, for making their voices heard about the dangers and ineffectiveness of Big Pharma injections, including those for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

Here is more from Natural News:

Freedom protesters have been seen as of late gathering outside of clinics and other facilities where the jabs are being administered. These gatherings are peaceful, but they are apparently “triggering” pro-vaccine fanatics who believe that all vaccines are “safe and effective.”

On August 19, SB 742 was placed in the California legislature’s “Suspense File,” meaning it will be considered at a later date “in a rapid-fire process” alongside other bills that have also been lumped into this category.

The purpose of the Suspense File, it would seem is to hide controversial legislation under the radar until it can be sprung up and resurrected suddenly in order to be quickly passed without too many people knowing what happened.

Included in the bill: “(a) It is unlawful to knowingly approach within 30 feet of any person while a person is making the approach within 100 feet of the entrance of a vaccination site and is seeking to enter or exit a vaccination site, or any occupied motor vehicle seeking entry or exit, for the purpose of obstructing, injuring, harassing, intimidating, or interfering with that person or vehicle occupant in connection with any vaccination services,” Section 594.39 of Section 1 of the bill would add to California’s Penal Code.

“(b) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.”

“Intimidation,” as defined by the bill, includes making “a true threat” towards a person or group of people that put that person or group “in fear of bodily harm or death.”

Since some deranged vaccine lovers actually believe that not getting vaccinated, or not allowing a child to get vaccinated, is a form of “violence,” this section of the bill could be applied in such a way as to criminalize merely publicly voicing opposition to vaccines.

The bill goes on to define a “true threat” as “a statement where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular person or group of persons regardless of whether the person actually intends to act on the threat.”

This, too, could easily be redefined to include free speech that calls into question the safety and efficacy of an injection. As you may recall, this has long been the excuse as to why vaccine studies never include a true control group: because to deprive one group of the experimental injection would be “inhumane,” we are told.

The real kicker in the bill is the “obstructing” section, which is defined as “rendering ingress to or egress from a vaccination site, or rendering passage to or from a vaccination site, unreasonably difficult or hazardous.”

So much for free speech my friends.

The country that we once were so blessed to live in is spiraling out of control and I am not entirely sure it will ever be back.


Too many Americans are dependent on government

In 2012, then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was pilloried by the press for his comment that 47 percent of Americans pay no income taxes.

That was then. This is now.

According to a new report from the Urban Institute & Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, “The COVID-19 pandemic and the policy response to it led to an extraordinary increase in the number of American households that owed no federal individual income tax in 2020.”

Specifically, in 2020, “nearly 107 million households, or about 61 percent, owed no income tax or even received tax credits from the government,” the report states.

What’s more, the percentage of Americans who did not pay a single penny in federal income taxes “increased by roughly 40 percent from the pre-pandemic year of 2019, due to a combination of a poor economy and multiple rounds of tax-based assistance to hard-pressed households,” the authors note.

To date, the federal government has allocated $4.6 trillion in COVID-19 relief funds.

This gargantuan amount of spending includes multiple rounds of stimulus checks, generous unemployment compensation, increased food stamp benefits, child tax credits and many more assistance programs.

Since 2020, the federal government has also suspended student loan repayments and instituted an eviction moratorium.

In other words, since 2020, the federal government has made it easier than ever for Americans to not have to work, let alone pay their debt and rent.

No wonder so many Americans didn’t owe a dime in federal income taxes last year. They were paid not to work.

But, back to Romney.

When he correctly observed that 47 percent of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, he also correctly noted that many are “dependent upon government,” “believe that they are victims,” “believe the government has a responsibility to care for them” and “believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

Romney’s observation was prescient in light of the surge in government dependence since the pandemic.

Interestingly, the surge in Americans’ not paying federal income taxes and taking more benefits coincides with a surge in support for socialism throughout the country.

Just a few weeks ago, Fox News released a poll showing that 59 percent of Democratic voters favor socialism over capitalism.

Yet, much more telling, one year ago – before the COVID-19 pandemic and the federal government’s $4.6 trillion COVID-19 relief spending spree – only 40 percent of Democratic voters said they had a favorable opinion of socialism.

Obviously, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. But it stands to reason that as the federal government (and many state governments) has expanded the welfare state in response to the pandemic, more Americans are growing comfortable with a political philosophy based on government control of the economy.

History shows that once entitlement programs are in place, it is almost impossible to curtail, let alone eliminate, them. History also shows that entitlement programs typically beget more entitlement programs.

We cannot afford this, especially when fewer Americans than ever are paying federal income taxes.


Big Tech Censorship Is an Assault on Individual Liberty

Most state legislatures are actively considering laws to protect their constituents’ online free speech from Big Tech censorship. In response, Big Tech increasingly advances an argument designed to appeal to libertarians and other supporters of limited government. Big Tech claims state policymakers should not safeguard their constituents’ free-speech rights because doing so would be an assault on free markets and Big Tech’s property rights. Big Tech’s reasoning is seriously flawed and undermines, rather than promotes, individual liberty.

Big Tech’s Ideological Hypocrisy

Before addressing the serious flaws in Big Tech’s arguments, it is worth noting the hypocrisy of Big Tech’s decision to assert libertarian, free-market principles in defense of censoring Americans’ speech. Big Tech often claims it has property rights and free-market rights that should be immune from government intervention. In particular, these businesses claim the government has no right to meddle in the choices private companies make regarding their businesses, including decisions about the kinds of material permitted on social media platforms.

Less than a decade ago, however, Big Tech threw a major public relations temper tantrum when state legislators refused to force other businesses to do what Big Tech wanted. Specifically, Google, Facebook, and other tech companies publicly berated the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and pulled their funding from ALEC after the group passed model legislation opposing renewable power mandates on electricity providers and consumers. (See, for example, “Google cites climate change as tech titans quit ALEC.”)

Big Tech had no qualms then about using government to force other businesses to engage in specific practices that it found politically favorable and other companies opposed or found cumbersome. Yet Big Tech is now claiming that it has inviolable “free-market property rights” to avoid government safeguarding free speech on its platforms. This is the very definition of hypocrisy, and it serves as proof that Big Tech does not truly care about free-market principles—except, of course, when those principles may be twisted in ways that benefit large technology companies

The Primary Purpose of Limited Government

To assess whether state governments may rightfully protect online free speech from tech censorship, it is imperative to look at first principles. The founders mapped out the central purpose and role of government in a free society: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . ”

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that we have unalienable rights preceding the existence of government, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech is certainly among those rights. The founders emphasized that no entity may justly take away those rights, as they have been provided by God or nature.

To be sure, the founders were deeply concerned about unchecked government, which often poses significant threats to people’s rights. That is why the founders created the First Amendment, which explicitly safeguards free speech from government suppression.

But the Declaration also acknowledges and clearly implies that non-government entities may threaten the rights of the people as well. To secure our unalienable rights from private-actor threats is the primary reason why governments are instituted among men. That is why the founders insisted “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . .”

Government exists to protect the people’s rights from all abuses, not just those posed by authoritarian governments and threats from foreign countries.

Big Tech Embodies the Threat the Founders Feared

Big Tech censorship is precisely the kind of infringement on our unalienable rights that the founders feared and desired to prevent.

Free speech is one of Americans’ most vital and sacred rights. Social media is the primary means by which Americans today engage in free speech and share political, cultural, and religious views with one another. Social media has replaced the physical town square, neighborhood pubs, and even the telephone for this purpose.

Over the past decade, a few large entities have gained monopoly control over social media platforms. As of July 2021, Facebook and its popular subsidiary Instagram control 80 percent of social media traffic in the United States. The top three social media companies control 97 percent of social media traffic in the United States.

Being a large and market-dominant entity does not necessarily equate to being a bad actor, of course. Indeed, a primary reason companies become large and market-dominant is because they are better than their competitors at providing a product or service that consumers value. Companies marked by this kind of success typically offer a net societal benefit, not a net societal harm. A very serious problem emerges, however, when a market-dominant company, or cartel of companies, wields its power in a manner and with the purpose and impact of suppressing Americans’ unalienable rights.

It is incontrovertible that Big Tech is wielding its power with the purpose of suppressing open sharing of political, cultural, and religious views of citizens with whom it does not agree. Nor is it possible to question whether Big Tech companies have been successful in that endeavor. Big Tech has censored and blocked scientists from presenting evidence that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory, medical doctors from discussing the medical benefits of hydroxychloroquine, pastors from presenting online church services, climate scientists from making the scientific case against an asserted climate crisis, media outlets from sharing their reporting about well-documented scandals involving Hunter and Joe Biden, and everyday Americans from sharing their own views or forwarding the views of others to their friends, family, and acquaintances.

The Enforcement Arm of Government Narratives

Big Tech has become the enforcement arm of government-sanctioned and government-disfavored speech. Big Tech eagerly restricts free speech on behalf of the government, often following calls by politicians to engage in such activities.

Big Tech suppression of speech questioning government policy is no accident. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted in a July 15 press briefing that the Biden Administration “is in regular touch with the social media platforms” and is “flagging posts for Facebook.” Psaki added that Big Tech should coordinate censorship efforts so that when a person is censored and banned by one social media platform, all social media platforms censor and ban that person.

Similarly, when Big Tech censors online speech and bans a person from posting speech in the future, it often justifies this censorship and banishment based on the user posting material questioning or contradicting a government narrative. Big Tech has explicitly justified censorship decisions based on the speech in question contradicting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc. Facebook, for example, acknowledges removing more than 18 million posts that contradict government narratives regarding COVID-19.


U.S. Supreme Court Puts An End to Biden's Unconstitutional Eviction Moratorium

It's been a particularly bad day for President Joe Biden. On Thursday night, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Biden's unconstitutional eviction moratorium. Justice Stephen Breyer was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in his dissent.

The challenge was led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, which had also won a victory from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ruling noted that the District Court stayed its judgment, which the Supreme Court on Thursday vacated, making the judgment enforceable. "The District Court produced a comprehensive opinion concluding that the statute on which the CDC relies does not grant it the authority it claims," the ruling wrote. "The applicants not only have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits—it is difficult to imagine them losing," it later noted.

The ruling went on to critique the authority the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) claimed to have:

The case has been thoroughly briefed before us— twice. And careful review of that record makes clear that the applicants are virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument that the CDC has exceeded its authority. It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken. But that has not happened. Instead, the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.

There were also words about the harm faced by landlord:
The equities do not justify depriving the applicants of the District Court’s judgment in their favor. The moratorium has put the applicants, along with millions of landlords across the country, at risk of irreparable harm by depriving them of rent payments with no guarantee of eventual recov- ery. Despite the CDC’s determination that landlords should bear a significant financial cost of the pandemic, many landlords have modest means. And preventing them from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property owner- ship—the right to exclude.

The ruling also emphasized that it is the role of Congress to act, pointing out that "Congress was on notice that a further extension would almost surely require new legislation, yet it failed to act in the several weeks leading up to the moratorium’s expiration."

"It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends," the ruling reminded in closing. "It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here."




No comments: