During the Covid pandemic, the U.S. government spent billions of dollars on nearly 400 products intended to protect, diagnose, and treat hundreds of millions of people – all with the label “EUA” or “Emergency Use Authorization.” But what does EUA actually mean?
In sum: the conspicuous absence of moral justifiability of the actions by the globalist neo-fascists is a saddening indication that human society has significantly deteriorated in moral terms. Fortunately, that is not true of the human species in its entirety.
The new rule involves a major shift in the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the meat and poultry industry, threatening their livelihoods by forcing them to add water filtration systems to their facilities.
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.
Billed as one of the most consequential lawsuits of the last century, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) is a legal battle that stands at the intersection of free speech protections and social media companies.
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.
It was thus the European Commission which was the driving force behind the wave of censorship which struck Covid-19 dissent from 2020 to 2022, certainly not the Biden administration, whose role was limited to making informal, essentially toothless requests. There was indeed coercion, there was indeed a threat. But it was coming from a different source: it was the looming threat of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA).
This ruling, to be actioned by potentially corrupt scientists, health bureaucrats, and captured health and drug regulators, is another step toward a dystopian future unimaginable just five years ago. No doubt the infrastructure to implement this decree is already being constructed by the same groupthink cultists responsible for the nightmarish pandemic lockdowns, continuing to place the pursuit of profit and the greater good above individual choice, bodily autonomy, and informed consent.
Justice Jackson, the Biden Administration, Katie Starbird, and their allies in the media may believe they have a divine mission to censor alleged misinformation, that the Devil’s reincarnation has taken multiple forms in the bodies of RFK Jr., Alex Berenson, Jay Bhattacharya, and others; under our Constitution, however, the self-professed nobility of their missions does not excuse violations of the First Amendment. Let us hope the Court realizes the graveness of the threat.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications.
The “welfare clause,” referring originally to the loose collective of the states under the Articles of Confederation, and the concocted “rights of the community,” either alone or in combination, do not (maybe, “shouldn’t”) excuse Theft-by-Lockdown. We know the Constitution doesn’t allow exceptions for fear or being afraid. Neither do the Articles of Confederation. That’s fortunate since we also know the Revolution – a cause for fear all on its own – was fought during a smallpox pandemic – a secondary cause for fear.
Last Friday, a large majority of Irish voters (67.7%) rejected their government’s proposal to insert a new definition of the family into the Constitution, in which “durable relationships” and not just a marital bond, could form the legal basis for the family unit. They also rejected – by a historically unprecedented landslide of 73.9% – a proposal to replace a clause expressing support for the care work of mothers in the home with a gender-neutral recognition of care work by “members of a family.”
The Irish Government Failed to Redefine the Family Read More
