These items are not popular in at least 21 states. Rightly so. Remember that Covid-19 shots ARE NOT vaccines. UnAmerican left-wing medical reprobates are a danger to the health of our children. These two items explain.
As if there has not already been enough official fuckery over the lab-birthed Covid-19 virus, the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee voted on Thursday to add Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA shots to its childhood vaccine schedule. The vote was 15 to 0 — a final supreme gesture of contempt for the people of this land.
Had none of the committee members seen reports of mRNA-vaccinated children dropping dead from myocarditis induced by the vaccines? Or read about the effect of the vaxxes on the reproductive organs? Or the enhanced incidence of cancer? Or heard about the damage that the shots instigate in human immune systems? If not, that would be astounding. The news is all over the place (if not in the mainstream news media). Was any of this discussed in their deliberations? I don’t think so, but we may never know.
Adding the mRNA shots to the official vaccine schedule will make permanent the liability shield their makers enjoy under the current emergency use authorization (EUA). Pfizer and Moderna are now off-the-hook for any responsibility, unless fraud over the vaxxes is proven in a court of law. Given the vast evidence of harms done by these products, will that be a difficult thing to do? Consider: cases for fraud can be brought in any jurisdiction of the USA, not just in the notoriously corrupt DC federal district court, which does not recognize crime for what it is (crime).
This is the first time that a pharmaceutical under an EUA has been admitted to the childhood vaccine schedule. The Vaccine Advisory Committee said it was okay because it consulted with the Department of Justice’s Office of General Counsel, and the lawyers there said it was okay. One might ask: is it within the purview of the DOJ’s Office of General Counsel to review the medical criteria for such a decision? The answer must be no. How are they qualified? You may be certain they did not parse the drug trial data on the mRNA products, or study the official reports of deaths and injuries. In short, they know nothing. Their authority in the matter is vacated.
Since many states and localities go by the CDC’s vaccine guidelines, as well as pediatricians, then millions of children will be required to get the shots to attend school. So, the CDC has not only put an as-yet-untold number of kids on the road to disability, infertility, and death, but it may have coincidentally destroyed public schooling in America.
The so-called “uptake” on mRNA shots for children has been paltry. Parents do not want their kids to get the shots. Do you know why? I’ll tell you: Because, unlike the experts who sit on the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee, many parents have actually read about the serious adverse reactions in young people who get the shots. And many more have heard enough horrifying rumors — despite the criminal delinquency of the major news media in ignoring any negative news about the vaxxes — prompting these parents to steer clear of vaxxing their children. Other countries have officially and altogether discontinued mRNA vaxxes for children. Do you think that’s for no reason?
If the schools require mRNA shots, then many parents will not send their kids to these schools. Parents have plenty of other reasons to want to withdraw their kids from public schools, not least the pervasive race-and-gender hustle that is replacing actual pedagogy in this country. The schools are now hostage to Marxist lunatics, launched from colleges and universities that are likewise captured by Marxist lunatics. They seek to overturn Western Civilization and its long train of accomplishments in discovering how the world works. They seek to replace all that with a set of wishful fairy tales that don’t comport with reality. Why would any sane parent subject their child to such a wicked regime? Might this not provoke a rebellion against paying the exorbitant school taxes all across America?
Beneath all of this lies the subterranean flow of enormous sums of money to the Pharma companies that virtually own the US public health bureaucracy. Anthony Fauci’s minions, dispersed among the various agencies under the US Department of Health and Human services, plus those in the ancillary CDC, have been pulling hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in royalties from patents associated with the mRNA products. And they’ve continued to haul in that schwag during the three-year fracas over the bad faith origins of Covid 19 and the deceitful introduction of these so-called “vaccines” — which do not stop the transmission of the disease and present manifold dangers to those who take them.
Everything the authorities tell you about all this is a lie. They are turning desperate because the time is at hand when they will actually have to answer for their crimes against the people of this country. They don’t deserve your respect and they surely can’t command your compliance." The Authorities Are Our Enemies - LewRockwell Thanks to Sigi for sharings these items.
Most if not all readers of these notes know that I am not a fan of the arrogant hollywood and New York City elites whose behavior proves too many of them are in fact not nice people. Such is the case of James Corden. He deserved what happened to him. This item explains.
Quote: "In modern American culture, Hollywood celebrities have been practically deified. So nothing captures the public’s attention more than when one of these snooty jerks falls from grace. But now what just happened to one Hollywood jerk has blue state Dems like Gavin Newsom and Eric Adams shaking in their loafers. Nothing is better than seeing a woke Hollywood celebrity being put in their place. Major changes could be coming to blue states after James Corden got tossed. Change could be coming to blue states after the unthinkable happened to woke Hollywood elitist and late night comedian James Corden.
For most hard-working, patriotic Americans, there is nothing more disgusting than watching woke, often marginally talented Hollywood snobs act as if they are gods. These people more often than not treat people who they see as “beneath them” like total trash, yet act like saints when the camera is on them. But just the other day, one of the entertainment industry’s most prominent stars was caught red-handed being a complete jerk to wait staff. James Corden, who is the flamboyant and obnoxious host of The Late Late Show on CBS, turned heads when the owner of a prestigious New York City restaurant banned him from eating there. According to an Instagram post posted by Keith McNally, the owner of a prestigious restaurant called Balthazar in New York City, Corden berated his staff for allegedly messing up an omelet on his wife’s order. [...] Read the contents of the boxed item just beneath Corden's picture. It provides needed insight.
More specifically, McNally claimed that after Corden identified some egg white in the omelet he sent it back, and according to McNally, “The kitchen remade the dish but unfortunately sent it with home fries instead of salad. That’s when James Corden began yelling like crazy to the server: “You can’t do your job! You can’t do your job! Maybe I should go into the kitchen and cook the omelet myself!”
Corden has a history of abusive behavior toward “the help”. This is not the first time Corden has been abusive towards wait staff at Balthazar. According to the same Instagram post, McNally recalled that after Corden somehow found a hair in his food after eating his entire meal he exclaimed to the waiter “Get us another round of drinks this second. And also take care of all of our drinks so far. This way I write any nasty reviews in yelp or anything like that.”
This verbally abusive behavior prompted McNally to say “James Corden is a Hugely gifted comedian, but a tiny Cretin of a man. And the most abusive customer to my Balthazar servers since the restaurant opened 25 years ago. I don’t often 86 a customer, to today I 86’d Corden. It did not make me laugh.” What he means by 86ing is banning him from coming back to the restaurant. Naturally, Corden pleaded to be reinstated and apologized profusely, which led to McNally unbanning him, People reported.
Either way, McNally’s post shows that Corden is an awful elitist, despite having a charismatic and outgoing television persona. What this episode shows is that big changes may be coming to some blue states like New York and California. People are sick of the so-called “elites” everywhere from Hollywood, to Wall Street to Washington, D.C. treating everyone else like dirt.
If a Hollywood bigwig like Corden can get banned even temporarily from a high-end restaurant which is in the business of dealing with such snobs, then expect many more people to start putting their feet down. And that should make blue state Democrat politicians like Gavin Newsom and Eric Adams extremely worried. It is about time more Americans start reclaiming their dignity and standing up to entitled jerks who think they’re everyone’s overlords." Gavin Newsom and Eric Adams are shaking in their loafers after this Hollywood jerk got put in his place - Blue State Blues News
It seems like everyone in Joe Biden's family is an unsavory reprobate, except the daughter he apparently sexually abused as a child. This item is about Jill. She apparently likes the prestige and perks that come with being the First Lady. Even if he is the worst president in history. She seems to be more interest in staying in the White House than solving all the problems Biden has delivered to American citizens and the harm done to the safety and securityye. Don't believe me? Check out this link that disproves Jill's assessment of his performance. Biden intends to seek reelection at the request of the first lady | Conservative Institute
Quote: "A question that has repeatedly been asked in recent months, but left meaningfully unanswered, is whether President Joe Biden will seek reelection in 2024. According to Fox News, Biden, in a new interview, suggested that, if he does seek reelection, it will be, at least in part, because first lady Jill Biden wants him to. The interview took place Friday on MSNBC’s The ReidOut. At one point, Biden was asked whether the first lady would be in favor of Biden seeking reelection. “My wife thinks that we’re doing something very important and that I shouldn’t walk away from it,” Biden said.
Biden on 2024.
Prior to that question, the interviewer, Jonathan Capehart, once again asked Biden whether he intends to seek reelection in 2024. Biden gave his usual answer. “I have not made that formal decision, but it’s my intention – my intention to run again. And, we have time to make that decision,” Biden said. Biden explained that part of the reason why he has not made a “judgment about formally running or not running [is that] once [he] make[s] that judgment, a whole series of regulations kick in,” which will result in him treating himself “as a candidate.” Biden also suggested that his 2024 decision may depend on who his opponent is. He seemed to imply that if it is former President Donald Trump, he might be more inclined to run. This is in line with previous statements Biden has made claiming that a large part of the reason why he ran in 2020 was to prevent Trump from getting reelected.
Background.
This has been Biden’s standard response to reelection questions for some time now, that it’s his “intention” to run, but that he has yet to formally make that decision. One thing that Biden didn’t talk about in this interview is the fact that there have been multiple reports and numerous polls that indicate that a sizable percentage of Democrats do not want Biden to seek reelection. These Democrats have pointed to such things as Biden’s old age and his ineffectiveness. It’s hard to believe that Biden would still seek reelection over the objections of a significant number of Democrats. But, that’s his “intention.” It appears that Biden’s “formal” 2024 decision will not be made until after the midterm elections." Biden intends to seek reelection at the request of the first lady | Conservative Institute
This Judge rightfully disagrees with Jill's assement of the Job Biden is doing. He tells the truth, unlike members of the Biden crime family and Biden's DOJ, Merrick Garland, and the rest of the Democrat party elites who seemingly cannot see the truth when it hits them square om the face.
Quote: "The revelations come in a commentary in the Daily Signal by Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation. He explained that the DOJ had subpoenaed the Alabama chapter of the conservative group Eagle Forum. He reported the “outrageous” demand, however, was met with immediate pushback from “dozens” of conservative groups supporting the Eagle Forum’s request to throw it out. He reported the “outrageous” demand, however, was met with immediate pushback from “dozens” of conservative groups supporting the Eagle Forum’s request to throw it out.
So the DOJ “caved and narrowed their request – as the judge in the case put it – to ‘1%’ of what they were demanding before,” he explained. It gets better. “At a hearing on Oct. 14 on the motion, according to a transcript we have obtained, federal Judge Liles C. Burke castigated the Justice Department for its ‘vastly overbroad and unduly burdensome’ subpoena and declared that he ‘would have issued an order to quash the subpoena if the Justice Department had not withdrawn almost all of it. And Burke hinted that he would be open to considering sanctions against the Justice Department,” von Spakovsky explained. The background is that all the usual left-wingers sued Alabama over its “Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act” which bans puberty-blocking chemicals and body-mutilating surgery on minors.The Eagle Forum wasn’t even a defendant; it just spoke out in support of the law, he said.
“But because of their advocacy, they were targeted by the Justice Department with a massive, capacious subpoena that sought everything the Eagle Forum and its volunteers have done or said for the last five years on this issue. It was clearly an attempt to intimidate the organization, deter its activism, and perhaps punish them for exercising their First Amendment rights on a policy issue the Biden administration disagreed with,” von Spakovsky said. The DOJ’s requests had no relevance, since the Eagle Forum members are not the lawmakers who adopted the law, and their statements have no influence over its constitutionality. Burke, in fact, openly wondered, “how in the world could what the Department of Justice is asking for possibly be relevant to this case and its outcome.”The explanation turned uplifting for conservatives, with von Spakovksy writing:
The judge asked Justice Department lawyer Jason Cheek why the department had suddenly gone from “asking for [an] ‘everything we can think of subpoena’ down to [a] ‘we just really actually one need one thing’” subpoena just before the hearing. The only answer the lawyer was able to squeak out was the “amicus briefs filed by numerous organizations” and his complaint that the Eagle Forum did not first have a “conversation” with the department to negotiate a narrowing of the scope of the subpoena. He repeatedly complained that “this thing has grown some legs” after so many groups filed briefs opposing his subpoena.
Further, a lawyer for Eagle Forum pointed out that federal case law requires the DOJ to “take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden and expense on the recipient of the subpoena, and authorizes sanctions on a party or attorney who fails to comply.” Burke then warned the DOJ: “Administrations change every four years, or at least every eight. Is the new standard going to be that this kind of subpoena goes out in legislation to any advocacy organization, and they want emails to their members, they want social media posts, they want things that the group just considered in their advocacy? … Is that where you think the Department of Justice thinks we need to go in this country? Because I promise you this, at some point, this will be aimed at the Southern Poverty Law [Center] and the ACLU, and their efforts, as well. Is this where we need to go?”
When the subpoena appeared, WND reported that J. Christian Adams, the chief of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, charged Biden’s DOJ was using the subpoena as “a classic move … to intimidate a conservative group.” He said, “The Department is full of radical bureaucrats and has even been sanctioned by federal courts for colluding with leftist groups. In America, the government cannot target groups who oppose their political beliefs and that is exactly what the DOJ has done here.” Judge Scolds Biden’s DOJ for ‘Burdensome’ Badgering of Conservative Group (patriotnewsalerts.com)
This Federal Court rightfully issues a sharp rebuke for his foolish politically motivated effort to shape the outcome the November elections.
Quote: "Federal Court Hands Biden Bad News Just Weeks Before Midterms. President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, which faces a challenge from six states as being unconstitutional, has been put on hold. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday blocked the Biden administration from canceling any debts until it hears from both the Biden administration and the states on the issue, according to NPR. The plan forgives up to $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 a year, or $250,000 for married couples. Pell Grant recipients would be eligible to have up to $20,000 forgiven, according to Reuters.
Many of my Dem friends who voted for him & paid off their student loans are angry at him for unilaterally forgiving student debt when they had paid off theirs and are now starting from zero. There’s an insane amount of unfairness in what he did with student loans.
— Walter Sobchak (@WalterSobchakSr) October 21, 2022
The crux of the legal case is that the six states involved in the lawsuit — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina – say Biden violated the Constitution by enacting the plan without congressional approval, according to The Washington Post. The Biden administration contends the plan is legal, based on a 2003 law that allows for loan forgiveness in times of national emergencies. The administration claims the COVID-19 pandemic is just such an emergency, a contention the states dispute. The states further contend that loan cancellation will create economic harm by impacting state investment entities and student loan companies that own debt, according to the Post. That contention is an effort to establish standing in the case. The states’ effort to claim standing — which means they are impacted by the policy — was rejected Thursday in a federal court, prompting the appeal.
Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson praised the appellate court’s ruling. “We are pleased the temporary stay has been granted,” Peterson said in a statement, the Post reported. “It’s very important that the legal issues involving presidential power be analyzed by the court before transferring over $400 billion in debt to American taxpayers.” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said although the administration cannot grant debt relief while the stay is in effect, borrowers can still apply and the administration will process those claims.
Although the appellate court called for the Biden administration to submit briefs Monday and the states on Tuesday, it is unclear when a ruling will be issued.
Time matters, because the pause on student loan payments that began during the pandemic is scheduled to end on Jan. 1. Those who have applied for loan forgiveness could have to pay up if the case is not decided before then." Federal Court Hands Biden Bad News Just Weeks Before Midterms - Christian News Alerts
Next month’s midterm elections are also looming. The cancellation had been expected to be a factor in attracting support for Democrats on the ballot. Time was also a factor in the appeal.The states, noting that the time when the administration might approve debt cancellation was fast approaching, argued that once any student loans are canceled, “the states will be unable to remedy the full scope of all the harms they are experiencing,” according to The New York Times. In their appeal, the states said they are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their case and that they “have raised substantial or close questions on whether they have standing to pursue this case,” the Times reported." Federal Court Hands Biden Bad News Just Weeks Before Midterms - Christian News Alerts
George Burns
No comments:
Post a Comment