« First « Previous Comments 79 - 118 of 140 Next » Last » Search these comments
January 11, 2023 11:24am EST
Biden administration extends COVID-19 public health emergency yet again
COVID-19 mRNA "Vaccines" Are The Opti-Grab of Immunological Products.
PREP Act legal immunity for countermeasures creates perverse incentives.
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, Section 2. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act.
In addition to the COVID-19 PREP Act declaration that is currently in effect, nine other disease categories and even certain nerve agents and insecticides are the subject of current PREP Act declarations.
This means that if you are a Covered Person engaged in the business of countermeasures, you are protected from legal liability if your product or service injures someone. ...
In other words, any Public Health Emergency is, as a result of this legislative framework, certain to be a liability-free bonanza for anyone engaged in the business of medical countermeasures. ...
The trouble with this arrangement is that it generates a massive perverse incentive to declare a public health emergency even when there is none, as we saw last summer with the PREP Act declaration for Monkeypox. Still worse is the terrible temptation to CREATE a public health emergency.
A comical depiction of product liability was in the 1979 film, The Jerk, about a moron named Navin Johnson who invents an eyeglasses frame enhancement called the Opti-Grab. Soon after becoming filthy rich from his invention, he is ruined because the Opti-Grab makes its users cross eyed. ...
In their poor and hasty conception, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines will ultimately go down in history as the “Opti-Grab” of immunological products. To be sure, the damages they inflict are infinitely worse, and the creators of these so-called “countermeasures” bear no liability.
The Government of Canada Put Out a Tender Notice for a New Pan-Canadian Digital Health Credential Technology, Including the Proof of Vaccination
The Canadian government is moving in lockstep with the Agenda 2030
Yes, the blueprints are Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm.
ad says
Yes, the blueprints are Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm.
I recommend everybody to either re-read 1984, or consume the audio book version of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBPNrVQwqeo
I have that ripped as an MP3, but I have no idea how I can share it. I guess I could make a torrent of it, if anybody wants it.
Fire At New Zealand's Largest Egg Farm Kills 75,000 Hens Amid National Shortage
https://rumble.com/v1eg8hb-australian-sen.-alex-antic-lays-out-the-cabals-plan-for-absolute-power-.html
Biden is a senile incontinent criminal. The whole Biden family is a crime family, not to mention the Newsom/Pelosi family.
March 10, 2023
Today, the FDA issued a notice addressing the agency’s COVID-19-related guidance documents, including which of those guidance documents will no longer be in effect after the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) declared under the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, and which of those guidance documents the FDA is revising to temporarily continue in effect. ...
Importantly, the ending of the PHE declared under the PHS Act will not impact the FDA’s ability to authorize devices (including tests), treatments or vaccines for emergency use. Existing emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for products will remain in effect and the agency may continue to issue new EUAs going forward when criteria for issuance are met.
In Giorgio Agamben’s book on the concept of a State of Exception, Agamben discusses how the “state of exception” can become extended over long periods of time to control populations. His examples include how the United States detained and treated prisoners captured during the "war on terror", and how Hitler used a state of exemption to maintain control over the German government and it peoples beginning early in the 1930s.
During much of his 81 years of life, Georgio Agamben was considered the darling of the left in Europe. His scholarly works were well received and he was blessed with great accolades.
Then came the year 2020 and COVID-19. This is when Agamben turned his ideas about the state of exemption onto the COVIDcrisis and with that, became the enemy of both academia and the state. He had begun writing a blog, which was “removed” by the heavy hand of authorities, so he then morphed this block of writing into the following book, published in 2021.
Queen Hotchibobo has spoken! The Santa Fe New Mexican ran a story yesterday headlined, “Governor bans carrying guns in Albuquerque after 11-year-old killed.”
https://twitter.com/beauhightowerdn/status/1700288222734020921
Who cares if it’s unconstitutional? If it saves just one life.
On Thursday, New Mexico’s Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declared gun violence to be a public health emergency. The next day, yesterday, on the strength of Thursday’s emergency order she signed another emergency public health order that, effective immediately, prohibits citizens from carrying firearms, either open or concealed, in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County for the next 30 days, regardless of whether they have a permit. ...
Governor Grisham said she “will either amend or remove or adjust” the order after the 30-day ban period, depending on “circumstances.” Circumstances like how her emotions are feeling that day. “I realize, it is a pinch, and then some, on responsible gun owners,” Governor Grisham explained. “It’s a sacrifice that allows everyone else to get their arms around the growing, significant problem.”
Got that? A “sacrifice.” By responsible gun owners. For the greater good.
During the press conference, Governor Grisham explained she doesn’t think that constitutional rights are absolute, especially in emergencies. And she can make an emergency whenever she wants! All social problems are potentially emergencies! It’s great! ...
"If I’ve declared an emergency, I can invoke additional powers. No constitutional right, including my oath, is intended to be absolute…"
New Mexico Republicans were not amused. Many called her a “dictator” and other words that I can’t reproduce in this family blog. Senate Minority Leader Greg Baca (R-Belen) slammed Lujan Grisham’s order as “unconstitutional” in a statement from Senate Republicans, saying her “soft-on-crime approach has failed and put the safety of all New Mexicans in great jeopardy.”
Representative Baca has a point. The Governor just disarmed all the people who follow the law, and as she said, criminals don’t follow laws anyway. Maybe the hoodlums will go along with it since it’s a public health order.
This is just more rotten pandemic fruit. Governors who want to do unconstitutional things now think all they need to do is declare a public health emergency. It worked for covid, after all.
As I’ve said many times before, emergency executive authority is the worst, most anti-democratic idea ever, and we need to drown it in weed-killer everywhere it has sprouted up. The good news is, there are a lot of attorneys who now have plenty of practice challenging insane government overreach like this.
Are Emergency Powers A Test To See What Americans Will Put Up With?
New Mexicans have been told by their governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, that they must suspend their constitutional right to bear arms, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, protecting all freedoms. It’s such an offensive overreach that even leading Democrats who are hostile to gun rights called her out on it. But Gov. Lujan is adamant. She declared an emergency, and by gosh, she can do whatever she believes is right in an emergency that she declared:
Reporter: You took an oath to the Constitution. Isn’t it unconstitutional to say you cannot exercise your carry license?
Grisham: With one exception, and that is if there’s an emergency, and I’ve declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers. No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute. There are restrictions on free speech. There are restrictions on my freedoms in this emergency.
No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute
I used to think we were about here in the Republic-to-Empire pipeline:
Now I realize we are just about here:
"Did the US bullshit "state of emergency" ever end, or is it still going on? How can we know?"
Did the US bullshit "state of emergency" ever end, or is it still going on?
How can we know?
The small minority of Americans that remained committed to human rights and private property soon discovered how powerless they really are. Many dissenters were dismayed by a lack of action from the courts, and how elected officials were apparently unwilling or unable to rein in the vast new powers of "health" officials. Was there nothing that could limit the state's power? This was confusing for many people because many have been (and remain) enamored of the idea that written constitutions limit state power when it matters most.
Many dissenters learned a valuable lesson from the experience, however: during the Covid Panic of 2020 and 2021, it became abundantly clear how little constitutional government and the so-called "rule of law" actually limit a regime's power in times of perceived emergency. It is during emergencies, in fact, when we learn who really holds political power, and how ineffective are constitutional measures designed to limit it.
True Power Is Revealed by Emergencies
As the Covid Panic revealed to us, the real, de facto ruling class is the executive state which effortlessly ruled by decree during the covid crisis. This ruling clique—an oligarchy of governors, academic "experts," media billionaires, and countless nameless and faceless unelected bureaucrats—has illustrated in recent years how irrelevant elected lawmakers can be to the use of political power.
This problem is not new, nor have scholars only recently noticed it. Libertarian political scientists Carlo Lottieri and Marco Bassani have noted that the problem of emergency power has long been a concern for radical free-market liberals, especially those of the Italian school of elitism. These scholars recognized that political power in times of emergencies is exercised by individual persons who are unconcerned with abstract limits on their power. This fact is fundamentally at odds with the abstractions of the constitutionalists who imagine that the state monopoly on coercion can be rendered relatively harmless via written constitutions. That is, the constitutionalists believe the written law will somehow restrain the ruling class, even in emergencies. ...
Resistance came overwhelmingly from non-elites; from ordinary people who were being persecuted by state agents—i.e., law enforcement officers and health officials—for opening businesses and attending church. It was only after non-elite political opposition began to look uncontrollable that some state institutions began to relent.
Yet, even as some pockets of resistance appeared, national elites remained virtually untouched and the federally declared "state of emergency" persisted until May 2023.
Perhaps the most important tool of the elites during all this—the monopoly power over the creation of money—was strengthened to levels never before seen. In a normal world, the power to destroy countless Americans' livelihoods by decree would have faced fierce and immediate—and perhaps violent—opposition. The elite's ability to create money via the central bank, however, essentially provided a means of bribing the public into compliance. It worked, and much of the public still doesn't even make a connection between this ruse and the current impoverishment of the public via price inflation. ...
If we want to know what really limited the regime's power during the Covid Panic, we must look to the "do-not-comply" activists who were willing to lose jobs and social status as a result of their opposition to the regime. It was primarily the people portrayed as crazed malcontents by the regime who stood between the regime and the full use of its power. The US constitution and the Bill of Rights played virtually no role in limiting the state's power during the emergency. The naive view of constitutionalism would have us believe that everything worked as designed as the "balance of powers" maintained a rule of law. That's not what happened. What remains of freedom today was saved by nothing other than the limited amount of public resistance that made the regime think twice about extending indefinitely its experiment in tyranny.
« First « Previous Comments 79 - 118 of 140 Next » Last » Search these comments
original link
https://www.bobmoran.co.uk/other-work/its-tuesday-original-artwork
The rights of the people must never be abrogated in any way, not even for a moment, under any circumstances whatsoever. Any government which attempts abrogation is illegitimate.