March 4, 2021

This is It!!! The End of the Internet

I think many people now call the American society the “Cancel Culture.” This is where I insert, “I told you so.” The Internet was once a place where anyone could go for just about any reason at all. In particular tens of thousands of people found it a place to go and share their thoughts, ideas, research, etc. I am one of them.

I one day decided that what I was studying and learning was information I thought some people might find valuable. As a matter of fact, I believe that much of my work (on the Internet) laid the ground work for a relatively large group of activists who wanted to protect the American Heritage of hunting, fishing, land access, etc. In particular, I spent a great deal of time studying, researching and communicating with so many experts about the grey wolf.

Enough of a lousy attempt to toot my own horn. The truth is, the ability for anybody to do this same thing today is over. We are all witness to the efforts of most, so-called, social media platforms, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube/Google and others I don’t even know exist, that have censored comments and full channels and accounts, banning users and those who once had the freedom to exercise their First Amendment privileges.

Because the efforts of these major social media owner’s to ban and censor anyone they don’t like have gone unchallenged, balls have gotten bigger and now the talk is to not only allow such censoring, but to expand it into areas once thought would never happen in a country such as the United States.

The talk involves controlling/banning anyone on social and media platforms (in other words EVERYWHERE Online) who dares to challenge the official narratives of such things as Climate Change, COVID, ruling political parties, elections, and whatever the Above Ground Serpent Race deems is a challenge in any way to their dominance of all things.

And while some of us are aghast at this direct gagging (putting the boot to the neck, as Barack (Insane) Obama once told his True Believer followers), more indirect and yet equally effective tools are being discussed as ways of preventing anyone from having a platform to challenge the Global Power Structure. These tools will include the requirement of anybody who wants to have any kind of channel, i.e. Youtube, Facebook, as well as bloggers and all other “alternative” news/media, to purchase licensing agreements from musicians, actors, journalists, news outlets, etc….and don’t think this will not include anything and everything that people like myself and millions of others use and/or reference in our work to provide others with alternative information/data, links to other, mostly major, news sources.

The ability of people to exercise their privilege to speak up is now gone. Notice I have called free speech a privilege and not a right. It hasn’t been a right in many, many years. This cancel culture (part of the efforts of the Above Ground Serpent Race) deems this kind of censorship and control necessary in order that they are the only ones pulling all the mind manipulation and propagandizing strings. Once it was considered important and part of an intelligent and open society to allow opposing thoughts, ideas, ideology, as a way of providing information so that intelligent people could make informed decisions. That is no longer permissible. Whoever or whatever is in charge puts their boot to the necks of anyone who dare speak out against them. Unfortunately these boots are now coming in the form of broad censorship with controlled media.

Haven’t we seen this kind of censorship and media control in other societies that ended in disaster? Evidently, that part of history has been torn down along with the statues, flags, and history books.

So, it’s over. I have no idea how much longer I and thousands of others who dare speak outside of the official talking points will be allowed to continue. If you have a favorite alternative news and information site, you might want to save those tender morsels you find of value because soon they will no longer be available…only government controlled information will be meted out on a need-to-know basis. I assume “THEY” will start with the bigger sites eventually whittling their way down to little ole me.

Progress????? Hmmm!

Share

Global Warming

Share

The Dragon, Satan King of the Locusts in PLAIN Sight!

Share

Kleck Break down of TV Commercial starring Satan

Share

“Us” – “Them” Blue Blood {Serpent Race} Red Blood Abel Race – Predator Prey Relationship

Share

And STILL You Think the CONstitution is for YOU

The below information was sent to me in an email. Most of it is true (but much of it is not true in the way you have been trained to believe). What props up the claim that the world has gone insane is that perhaps millions of Americans will read this, see it as true, and then everything remains exactly the same as it was before it was read. Why? Because the CONstitution is was perpetuates a Rigged System. How many times must it be said that you cannot change a rigged system by operating with a Rigged System. Yes, that’s insanity!

Of the perhaps millions of people who would read this (it’s more than 141 characters so the overwhelming majority of people won’t take the time to read it, say nothing about comprehending the bigger meaning and learning anything from it.) and agree with it, or find truth in it, will then turn around and continue to repeat the lies they have been programmed to rinse and repeat…that the United States Constitution was and is written for them. They actually think “We the People” is referring to themselves and yet if they agree with what is written below, how can it be?

How many Americans died because they believed they were defending the United States Constitution as though it was a document intended to keep them free? And yet, read on and nod your head. Agree to all the disgusting atrocities these 545 assholes have foisted onto innocent people, people that the same assholes have for over a century brainwashed into believing this crap sandwich that they are looking our for you because you are part of “We the People.”

We are incapable of learning anymore. We are clinically insane…made that way on purpose. And you prove your own insanity because you will think I’m nuts.

545 vs. 300,000,000 People  -By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes. Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now ?  She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan … If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees… We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!  
What you do with this article now that you have read it… is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren’t so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end: Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he’s fed. Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule. Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway! Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat. Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt. Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think. Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears. Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass. Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won’t be done
Till he has no dough. When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He’s good and sore. Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid… Put these words
Upon his tomb,
‘Taxes drove me
to my doom…’ When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax. Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax 
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom
, if agreed, stayed home to raise the kids.What in the heck happened? Can you spell ‘politicians?’

Share

Global Warming: Having it Both Ways

Here we go again. Another “report” that places value (perceived) on “nature” and wants the world to set aside a minimum of 30% of its lands and waters for “conservation” to protect nature…because it is economically profitable. Really? Oh, I see. Let’s try that con job for awhile.

Oddly, and to anyone with half a brain, the idiotic double standards and hypocrisy take front and center. These mental midgets, heavily deceived, want to cut carbon dioxide because they believe it causes global warming. If these morons had their way, they would rid the world of carbon dioxide.

History and actual science proves that in times of increased carbon dioxide (a guess) that caused global warming, everything grew very well creating massive agricultural benefits, forest growth (habitat), food growth, for both man and animal, and poverty eased a bit. This was and is the best “protection” of nature.

Morons, claiming that protecting land and waters will accomplish more than global warming, are seeking to reduce global warming, thus removing the carbon dioxide levels necessary to actually protect and prosper our forests and fields. This is akin to urinating into a stiff breeze, I’d say.

The end result might just be the protection of more areas of wasteland incapable of growing even weeds.

What’s this locking up the land really all about? It that where they grow coronaviruses?

Share

Sometimes Silence is a Good Thing

Perhaps readers have been wondering what happened to me that I am not posting much of anything. Well, the short explanation is that I really don’t have a lot to say…or the Holy Spirit is having me keep my mouth shut.

What is going on presently with these protests and violent uprisings (seemingly putting the kibosh to COVID-19), I know little about, and where I care about the lives of people, especially those who end up in Hell, I have little interest in all the insanity. Insanity! That’s what it is. I’ve been saying for a few years now that the world has gone mad. Can you see it? I pray that you can. I also pray you are doing something about it. I know some of you are.

At this point, nothing I can say can add anything worthwhile and so I will remain relatively quiet.

I have realized that unless the LORD GOD shows me something different, I am not sure how long true converted, born agains will have to endure the Great Tribulation. With that in mind, I am spending most of my time readying where I am living in preparation for tough times ahead. They are coming.

God bless you and if you are looking for my advice, I suggest you get away from social media as much as possible and instead of reading the words of Facebook, Twitter, and all the rest, open up your Bibles and read the Word of God. It’s the ONLY truth and you can find all THE answers there. Nothing else will do. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. You’ll never regret it.

Under guidance of the Holy Spirit, I will post again.

Share

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

SMOKE AND MIRRORS – Q Followers Think This is a Big Deal

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China, according to some lawyers for wrongful death in Miami.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B)  taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  CfPruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Share

Operation COVID-19: Guidelines Through Stupidity? Or All Part of Planned Event?

Because there are still a handful of people who can actually do a bit of thinking on their own, what is pissing the public off more than the fact that they can’t see a need to lock up the whole country because of some virus, is what some people think are “laws” that are inconsistent, arbitrary, contrary, foolishness, and just plain don’t make any sense at all. Can we blame people for getting pissed off? How are THEY going to stop the violence?

I’ve heard on more than one occasion in discussions about COVID-19 is that people are saying they feel like they are being screwed over. Perhaps not the most eloquent of verbal frustrations, but an expression of frustration to say the least.

Evidently it’s not just the servitude, the slave nation, that is experiencing frustrations because of this foolishness. According to an Online publication, an Illinois judge, ruling on a lawsuit against someone who just wants to open their business and eat and pay their bills, basically said in regards to these so-called “laws” governing who can go where, when, and how, these, “… rules, regulations and consequences that are arbitrary, capricious, and completely devoid of anything even remotely approaching common sense.”

It appears at least some, perhaps all, of what is found in the link provided is true. I didn’t spend hours of time vetting this but did find many examples and smaller quotes from the mainstream presses. But it really doesn’t matter if this judge said this in regards to this one case before his court. The fact is, all of his examples cited, are true in many places all over this country, and that is what is frustrating thinking people and those who place value on rule of law and the consistency in interpreting laws and passing judgements on cases.

We can argue until we are blue in the face as to whether or not any government within this nation has the legal authority, granted to them by declarations of national emergencies, etc., but it doesn’t really matter. Governors, mayors, business owners, right on up to the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States, are handing down, what they call “laws” essentially treading all over any leftover “rights” in this land turned totalitarian and socialistic.

While many are arguing this point, absolute insanity is running the shows. The examples cited by Judge McHaney are classic examples that reveal the insanity behind stupid and unreasonable, tyrannical “bulls” that ignorant people are accepting as the new laws of the land.

McHaney cites absurdities like, you can’t get COVID from an abortion but you can from a colonoscopy; Selling pot is an “essential” business; you can cram six people in your car and go for a ride, but the same people can’t get in a boat. There are many more examples given.

And it’s true no matter where you go. We have turned to quarantining healthy people and letting prisoners out of jail while locking up people who don’t comply and assimilate into the new normal of arbitrary and capricious rulings.

Even the government’s idiots advising the president, as well as the CDC and WHO, have been all over the board, appearing to make shit up as they go along. Truth is, they haven’t figure out yet how the virus is spread or what the symptoms of having this disease are. All the while demanding stupid stuff that they have convinced the automatons are necessary to do if they want to live.

The longer this lockdown continues, and the longer mask wearing, and self-quarantining goes on, with all the evidence of completely asinine “guidelines” that, as Judge McHaney says doesn’t even “remotely approach common sense,” the angrier the natives are going to get.

This has gotten so bad and on the verge of something that will have nothing but a very bad outcome, with an incompetent, criminal government (at all levels) offering no help, one has to wonder if this is all part of the plan by these evil bastards that began with the release of a flu virus?

Share