en 
The majority of the court appeared to favor eliminating Chevron. It would be the height of hypocrisy – and one the most culturally devastating decisions since Dred Scott – to not see the parallels and to rule any other way than against the government in Murthy. With that ruling, we can begin to gather in the tentacles of the censorship monster.
Chevron, Murthy, and ‘Supreme’ Hypocrisy Read Journal Article
If the justices want to distinguish between persuasion and coercion in the injunction, they need to appreciate that social media companies operate in a very different relationship with government than traditional print media. These asymmetrical power dynamics create a relationship ripe for unconstitutional government coercion.
Justices’ Grave Error in Murthy v. Missouri Read Journal Article
Every fiscal trend is in the wrong direction. We’re already at $2 trillion deficit, it will soar by trillions when recession hits. And it will keep churning with social security, Medicare, and spending on everything from illegal immigrants to fresh wars. At this point there is nothing standing between us and fiscal collapse. The only question is when.
On March 21, a settlement was reached, leading to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreeing to remove social media posts and webpages discouraging the use of ivermectin for treating Covid-19.
If I’m a betting man, I’ll place my money (though not much money) that we’ll get a 5-4 or 6-3 decision upholding some kind of injunction. And while I hate to admit it, things could also go the other way. I think it will be close. Supreme Court decisions are notoriously difficult to predict, and it appears there are enemies of free speech on the bench even in the highest Court in the land.
For most of the rest of humanity – those not heavily invested in Pharma or software and those concerned about human rights – the future does not look so rosy. We are supposed to provide the money that ends up in the hands of the people running it all. That is how profiteering works. So we will have to put things right, because they obviously won’t. Now that it is all written out for us in the WHO documents and we are aware of the money transfers of the past few years, we no longer have any excuse to ignore it.
This is all theater. From the outset of the pandemic response, the liberalization of voting rules was integral, all justified based on nonscientific grounds while invoking the cover of science. It wasn’t stopping disease spread that drove the dramatic upheaval in the American system of voting that has caused such widespread distrust. It was the drive for a result different from one that swept the country four years earlier.
Two Weeks to Flatten Became Eight Months to Change the Election Read Journal Article
Does this imply that the goal of the whole wild episode was to unseat Trump from power? This would not explain why many of these same protocols were followed all over the world. Was Trump’s loss, real or manufactured, a benefit for those who ran the pandemic response? Most certainly. And the unearthing of this little change from the CDC – which found itself in the middle of the most contentious political struggle of modern times – certainly underscores the point.
Thorsteinn Siglaugsson was wickedly accurate in sketching the typology of fact-checking techniques. Create a straw-man argument that can be easily knocked down. Assert that a claim is not supported by evidence, is questioned by other experts, lacks context, is misleading, or is only partly true, etc. Engage in ad hominem attacks against the person rather than with their evidence and argument.
Matthew Tye, an independent documentarian with a chronicled decade of living in (and motorcycling throughout) China, developed a profound understanding of its culture and language. In March 2020, Tye emerged as a singular figure in the scrutiny of the origins of the Covid-19 virus, using primary sources such as job postings and communications between Chinese researchers – putting to shame a New York Times reporter’s top-down approach of channeling Dr. Fauci.
Over 50 prominent UK academics have signed an open letter to Baroness Heather Hallett, chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, calling for urgent action to address the shortcomings of the probe so far. The signatories of the letter say the Hallett Inquiry suffers from bias, false assumptions, and a lack of impartiality.
Academics Raise Concerns About UK Covid-19 Inquiry Read Journal Article
Everything I have warned about for years—government overreach, invasive surveillance, martial law, abuse of powers, militarized police, weaponized technology used to track and control the citizenry, and so on—has become part of the government’s arsenal of terrifying lockdown powers should the need arise. What we should be bracing for is: what comes next?
Deutsch
Français
Italiano
Español
Português
Català
Nederlands
Dansk
Norsk bokmål
Svenska
Suomi
Eesti
Latviešu valoda
Lietuvių kalba
Polski
Čeština
Magyar
Հայերեն
ქართული
Русский
Română
Українська
Hrvatski
Slovenščina
Ελληνικά
Türkçe
日本語
한국어
简体中文
हिन्दी
Harshen Hausa
Kiswahili
አማርኛ
Yorùbá
