“Respecting those demands may be trying in times of stress. But if this Court were to abide them only in more tranquil conditions, declarations of emergencies would never end and the liberties our Constitution’s separation of powers seeks to preserve would amount to little.”
“When you compare the destructive policies you are pursuing with the sane policies of some other countries — you can clearly see that the destruction you have caused has only added victims beyond the vulnerable to the virus. The economy you ruined, the unemployed you caused, and the children whose education you destroyed — they are the surplus victims as a result of your own actions only.”
This really is stacking up to be a battle between the new and old normal, which is to say the expectation of normal freedoms vs. rule by a bio-security state. The results will fundamentally affect the relationship between business and government and workers and employers. If the majority gets its way here, it’s hard to see how traditional Constitutional restraints on states at any level can be maintained in the face of bureaucratic diktat as ordered by an executive.
History is nothing but what we make of it, and that depends not on mere observation but on what we believe and what we do about what we believe.
Covid has made a mockery of our university system and I am not sure if it will ever recover. My dreams of college and life in California have died a slow, painful death since Covid shut the world down back in March 2020. I am no longer angry. Life is too short and I am going to go start living it.
Shannon Robinson is a lead Plantiff who challenged the state of Missouri over what she sees as illegal and unconstitutional covid-19 policies mandated by the Department of Health and Senior Services. In this interview, she talks about her motivations and the process, and the widespread sufferings experienced by her and millions of others.
On November 6, 2020, the Journal of the American Medical Association sponsored an important debate between Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya and Harvard’s Marc Lisitch over the policy response to the pandemic. They have very different points of view, with Jay favoring “focussed protection” and traditional public health measures, while Marc is on the side of the novel “non-pharmaceutical intervention” side, e.g. lockdowns.
“A health agency director with the authority to shut down a school or assembly wields incredible power to coerce his subjects into submission… This incredible power cannot lawfully be placed in the hands of one bureaucrat.”
The station permitted Walensky to respond to Kulldorff but did not allow Kulldorff to respond back. The tone was obviously hostile toward the Great Barrington Declaration which pushed a program of focused protection over lockdown.
“Today, we face substantial rewards for compliance; if we comply with the government’s pandemic response measures (masking, distancing, lockdowns, and now the ever-increasing and nebulous vaccine rollout), we are granted the conditional privilege of reentrance into society; and the penalties for failing to comply? being bullied, shamed, excluded, cancelled, even fined or arrested.”
Governments can continue to press these lockdowns and mandates against all scientific evidence and good public health or they can listen to the pains and anger of their own people.
On March 16, 2020, President Donald Trump gathered with Deborah Birx, Anthony Fauci, and others, to announce “15 Days to Slow the Spread.” That slogan of course has become the source of ridicule nationally and internationally.
BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE
2028 E BEN WHITE BLVD
#240-3088
AUSTIN TX 78741
