That's a bit of a detour on the original point, but yah, the devil is in the details Say I'm a young American male, patriotic, ready to serve, I get trained, I'm ready to fight anyone and anything for my country and my cause. I drank the kool-aid, I follow my orders and programming, and I love to kick ass and I'm good at it. I'm sent to another country, I go on an op, I enter a house, another young male is in a room sleeping with his family, he reaches for his gun--boom, headshot, he's dead, his wife is a widow, kids don't have their father. This was a guy who was probably as patriotic and a believer in his cause as I am in mine. If I met him at a bar in Paris, perhaps we would have shared a drink, had a few laughs, and argued a bit about government, religion, philosophy, etc, and became friends. Instead, because some aging old narcissists in charge of our countries programmed us to believe that we needed to kill and hate each other so I had to kill him and destroy his family. Often it seems these conflicts are started for personal/group gain, not some patriotic war against a real threat (Haliburton conspiracy?). I'm ignorant on this topic, but it seems in recent years the only real threat that needed a bitchslap was North Korea, which is most likely just a proxy for China to test US resolve. But, WTF do I know. All these other conflicts seem to just be about profit, or some other selfish political reason. Trump comes in, starts going to task to end these conflicts quickly. Why? Perhaps because he doesn't profit from war. He quickly noticed how US generals seemed to be purposely dragging out the conflicts, he makes some changes, and starts having success. The end of these conflicts is in sight. What happens to him? In his 2020 election, we see PSYOPS tactics on US soil that are exactly the tactics the US agencies/military (CIA) have used in other countries to invoke regime change. Coincidence?
Eisenhower warned about this, but hey, we are young, dumb, and programmed to not ask questions. Our orders are to just go kill these "foreign enemies". People we'd actually have more in common with than the sheep we are protecting and the narcissists we are serving. I'm all for killing enemies and threats, hell, it's pleasurable and honorable to kill bad guys, but not made-up enemies that only serve selfish interests of tyrants in power.
They could have at least had the decency to tell us the color they chose for our color revolution! My guess is purple, based on Hillary's concession speech and all the purple at Biden's inauguration. Like I've said several times before, these are very theatrical people, and they love their symbolism.
Infant Denied Life-Saving Transplant Over Vaccines
That doctor has a name and an address.But when they referred the baby to the hospital’s transplant team, its head, David Bearl, told August’s parents Hannah and Clint Stoll that he would refuse to perform the transplant until their son received several childhood vaccines.
“It’s so illogical,” Hannah Stoll told The Epoch Times on June 24. “He’s an immunocompromised baby in critical condition and this doctor wants to pump him up with vaccines… We know it will kill him.”
The Tennessee couple, homeschoolers with four other children, asked Bearl yesterday to reconsider his position, but Hannah said he refused. Stoll said her son is so fragile they can’t even consider moving him to another facility.
I wonder how wal would have defended this one.
Merrick Garland launches legal insurrection against the United States - revolver news
The article mentions a tweet https://archive.ph/e85MR from Mike Cernovich worth highlighting:
DOJ does not issue statements like these disagreeing with Supreme Court rulings. It doesn’t happen. It has no lawful basis.
This can only be seen as a direct threat against the judiciary by Stasi agents.
This is amazing:
This is a fundamental change in the relationships between the 3 branches of government. They are trying everything they can to start a hot civil war.Justice Department Statement on Supreme Court Ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:
“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”
Then, today, Old Man Merrick took things one step further. The DOJ issued yet another statement “disagreeing” with the Supreme Court, this time on their ruling against a Constitutional “right” to abortion. But this time, Merrick Garland personally issued the statement himself, which makes this escalation that much more dangerous to our Republic.
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:
“Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution.
“The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.
“The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.
Oops. Looked at the wrong numbers. Sorry.
Well, shit, if that's how we operate in the Biden era, it's time to cancel out Brown v. Board of Education, go back to the original Plessy vs Ferguson, and bring back separate but equal. After all, precedent is all that matters.And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.
I had read that the original draft opinion that got leaked was 5-4. The one today was 6-3 with Roberts with the majority. A lot of people are speculating the leak spurred him to join in.
According to the article, they are going after Gates based on existing North Dakota law. Specifically I believe they just forbid LLCs and corporations from buying up farmland there. It's a bit more complicated than that, but I'm not a lawyer. It looks like this law is designed to prevent the same sort of fuckery Gates is attempting. Since Gates is doing it via "Red River Trust" and not personally with his own money, it's subject to these laws.