IF THIS DOESN’T GET THE SHEEPLE “THINKING,” nothing will. And no, this is not the Onion:
Apparently, the menageries of medical and news propagandists for the “clot shot” on the teli have not seen or studied the data upon which the government relied to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The plaintiffs pleaded the obvious when their lawyer said,
It is difficult to imagine a greater need for transparency than immediate disclosure of the documents relied upon by the FDA to license a product that is now being mandated to over 100 million Americans under penalty of losing their careers, their income, their military service status, and far worse.
If this doesn’t tell you what the US government and bureaucracies think of The People, their rights and well-being; nothing does.
This is Sir Humphrey Appleby funny. (Every paleolibertarian is obliged to watch and worship the famed British satires about The State: “Yes, Prime Minister” and “Yes, Minister.”
Sir Humphrey Appleby to the PM: “Yes, Prime Minister: 55 years to produce the Pfizer Covid vaccine data is well within the law. No need to rush , if you know what I mean. But I’ll start the paperwork, shall I?” (Me channeling Sir Humphrey)
By making Pfizer’s COVID vaccine data essentially unavailable for scrutiny in their totality for decades to come—the FDA has in effect classified the data upon which it based a decision to license Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines.
Prosecutorial power to bring charges against a person is an awesome power, stress Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Backing him, the prosecutor has the might of the state, and must never “override the rights of the defendant in order to gain a conviction.”
Unlike the defense attorney, whose job it is to defend the accused, regardless of guilt, the prosecutor’s job is to jail only those who are actually guilty. It is not unethical for a defense attorney to get a guilty client off—if the prosecutor can’t meet his burden of proof, it’s not the defense’s fault. But it is unethical for the prosecutor to prosecute someone he does not firmly believe is guilty.
Prosecutorial duties are dual. While acting as the plaintiff, the prosecutor must also take pains to protect the defendant’s rights.
This duty was clearly flouted in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, in which the prosecutor engaged not in a search for truth, but in full-on character assassination of the 18-year-old young man.
The hive media was along for the ride, as is evident from one in many such error-riddled reports in the once-august Newsweek. (They are all like this. Reporter here isn’t even corrected for spelling; she spells Judge Bruce Schroeder’s name two different ways in one sentence!)
Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers on Wednesday asked the judge for the second time in a week to declare a mistrial, this time arguing the defense received an inferior copy of a key video from prosecutors.
Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi told Judge Bruce Schroeder his team would have approached the case differently had it received the higher-quality video earlier. He said his newest motion for a mistrial would be made “without prejudice,” meaning prosecutors could try Rittenhouse again if the judge grants the mistrial.
Whereas Democrats are forever speaking up in defense of the armed militia of the Democratic Party, BLM thugs and rioters; Republican politicians for Kyle Rittenhouse where nowhere to be found. They do not give a dried camel’s hump to meet Dems on their combative terms on every front: cultural, legal, political.
It is clear that the adults had let young Kyle Rittennhouse down. They failed to explain to Kyle that he now lived in a country no longer free, and no longer based in ordered liberty. They forgot to tell Kyle that America was now systemically and institutionally anti-white. “Don’t do it, white boy.”
Young Kyle went to Kenosha, Wisconsin, because he was never confused. He attempted to do the job politicians and police have refused to do. As the city’s mayor and the state’s governor watched Kenosha burn, Kyle confronted the enemies of the commonweal. Unlike the flaccid men of the media and in corridors of power, the 17-year-old rose to the challenge, firing only when he was prone and was being pounded by the feral fiends.
Now, let us all pray.
UPDATE (11/21/021):
* REMEMBER THE RIOTS of The Summer of Love, 2020? It turns out that politicians and the police who either stood down in Kenosha (and beyond) or knelt like ninnies need not have let THE COUNTRY BURN.
REPORTING FROM KENOSHA post verdict, NOV. 19, 2021, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs (I thought double-barreled surnames were a feminist affectation. Oh, I guess he is a feminist)points out that,
Three hours after 12 jurors found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges, the front steps of the courthouse in Kenosha are nearly clear of demonstrators. The scores of Rittenhouse supporters and detractors who were there after the verdict are almost entirely gone.
The crowds were likely cleared by the culprits who, only a year prior, allowed the place to burn down.
For the longest time, the American People—an inchoate, or formless concept, really—have endured great wrongs. Examples of these wrongs are en masse legal and illegal immigration, open-borders, the kind of multilateral trade deals that immiserate and impoverish, and now, vaccine mandates: take the hemlock or lose your job.
Ubiquitous black-on-white crime inflicted by a coddled criminal class, native born and imported energetically, is high on the list of state and corporate crimes against the citizenry.
Whether he postures on TV or on the Hill—the arguments advanced by the typical Republican front man against these defining depredations are, however, empty.
It is essential to alert the voter to this void. The “objections” put forth by Republicans in defense of their constituency are all theater, farce, to be precise.
These empty arguments are mirrored, for example, in my exposing, in a February 2019 column, the fact that, “Every time a manifestly racist, anti-white event goes down, which is frequently, conservative media and politicians can be relied on to call it ‘identity politics.’ ‘The left is playing identity politics,’ they intone. “They are dividing us,” they lament.
However, “Whatever is convulsing the country,” I explained, “it’s not identity politics, but purely anti-white politics.
So, identify the bogus argument—and you will have exposed the frauds who want you to send them to live off the fleshpots in Rome-on-the-Potomac. (Actually, it has been pointed out perspicaciously to me by Tom Piatak that “the comparison to Rome [is unfair].” And that [A]fter all, Rome built two great civilizations and is a site of enormous cultural significance.”)
Although not exclusive to him, my example today comes from Fox News’s Jesse Watters. When speaking loudly OVER his guest, Jesse Watters made the usual Republican straw argument against black crime. You hear it from Hannity and the rest all the time:
Democrats “only care when a white person takes a black life. If a black person takes a black life, they don’t even care at all.”
Likewise, it can be said that Republican don’t much care when a black person takes a white life.
Seldom mentioned in Republican argumentation is the REAL HATE CRIME IN THE ROOM: black-on-white crime which is invariably not reported, underreported, or if reported, masked as something other than what it really is, which is systemic, white hot hatred of whites.
Republicans can’t protect or stick up for besieged whites and are forever searching their pea brains for ways to show off their Abe Lincoln pedigree.
In this way, by showing how black-focused and caring they are—Republicans hang on to respectability and on to the good graces of Democrats by the hairs of their chinny chin-chins. The empty ‘arguments’ of Republican frontmen are a way to stay in the political game.
The latest in this genre comes courtesy of Johnny-Come-Lately conservative J. D. Vance, who had shunned Trump, but found religion on the president’s populism, when it became politically expedient:
“I don’t care if we are talking about a little black girl in 1965, or a little white girl in 2021, telling a little girl that she is evil because of her skin color, is disgusting and vile.”
These words Vance spoke at a conference of self-anointed leaders of national conservatism, many of whom discovered national conservatism belatedly and opportunistically.
And my objection to what Vance said is, you ask? It is very plainly this: It is not 1965. And the victims of white-hot hatred are white, not black.
For Republicans, however, it is impossible to mention white suffering without dragging in the “black experience.”
This is a vintage Republican habit: Using weasel words to preen politically and sound fair and impartial.
UPDATE I (11/15/021): There’s my point again: White child Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t cut it as a cause absent the moral padding of the “black experience”:
Republican Dana Loesch thus proves incapable of defending white Kyle on FoxNews, without inserting mention of the “black businesses” that were being burned in Kenosha in BLM riots on that day. The substance of Ms. Loesch’s tweet is what she echoed on Fox News to Jesse Watters, 11/15/021:
Justice for the black business owners whose businesses were burned to the ground by people like white convicted pedophile and racist Joesph Rosenbaum screaming slurs on camera or white domestic abuser Anthony Huber, or white Antifa member Grosskruetz brandishing a handgun?
UPDATE II (11/16/021): Where are Republican politicians for Kyle Rittenhouse? Democrats speak up all the time for the armed militia of the Democratic Party, BLM. Why are yellow-bellied Republicans silent about a folk hero?
UPDATE III:
And what are Republicans doing about surveillance of parents by Merrick Garland? Fox News’ Jesse Watters asked Senator Josh Hawley. “We’ll question Merrick Garland,” Hawley answers. Stop him, don’t question him. There must be ways to stop an officer of the law from laying the legal infrastructure down (creation of “threat tags”) in order to commit constitutional infractions against citizens, using their taxpayer dollars. Ya think?
BREAKING: House Republicans have obtained whistleblower documents showing that the FBI is using its counterterrorism division to investigate and add "threat tags" to parents—contradicting Attorney General Garland's sworn testimony.
Natural rights antedate the state apparatus. It matters not who restores or upholds authentic negative, individual rights violated—state or federal authority—just so long as someone does.
The entire legal community knows only the positive, state law, and cares nothing for the natural law, meagerly embodied in the Bill of Rights. This is why all “legal experts” are quite pleased to defer to the Supremacy Clause abomination—it allows the State to subordinate your natural rights as an American to the UN—in dismissing Abbot’s move.
Abbott’s move puts him at odds with some large corporations and with the Biden administration, which last month announced plans to require all employers with 100 or more workers to adopt vaccine mandates or testing regimens. A number of large private companies in Texas have issued mandates. (WaPo)
…the supremacy clause to the Constitution says that federal law is the ‘supreme’ law of the land, and state laws give way to it” …. “The state mandate is of no effect in that case.”
“The Constitution is the thin edge of the wedge that has allowed U.S. governments to cede the rights of Americans to the UN. Specifically, the ‘Supremacy Clause’ in Article VI [even] states that all treaties made by government shall be “the supreme Law of the Land,” and shall usurp state law. Article VI has thus further compounded the loss of individual rights in the U.S.
Unless Abbot stands his ground (metaphorically, because the governor is wheelchair-bound).
Too hell with the Constitution; nobody follows it anyway, least of all the lawless, no-borders, White Lives Don’t Matter, licentious Democrats.
