Peace and Prosperity Ron Paul Institute's flagship blog Copyright Ron Paul Institute Wed, 01 Dec 2021 23:25:04 GMT Wed, 01 Dec 2021 23:25:04 GMT Injunction on President Biden’s Vaccine Mandate for Medical Workers Goes Countrywide Adam Dick

Writing Monday regarding a United States district court that day ordering, in the case of Missouri v. Biden, an injunction on the implementation and enforcement of President Joe Biden’s mandate that millions of health care workers take experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots, I suggested that that order that applies in ten states may be a step toward a countrywide suspension of the mandate.

Here is an update. The following day — Tuesday, a countrywide suspension of the mandate came into being.

On Tuesday, a judge of the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana followed through with establishing a countrywide suspension of the mandate. The judge’s order arose in a case in which fourteen US states have together challenged the mandate.

Judge Terry A. Doughty, in issuing the Tuesday preliminary injunction order for the case of Louisiana v. Becerra, made the order apply in the rest of the US outside the states where the mandate was enjoined the previous day. He explained that he made this decision because of the need of uniformity in response to the mandate of “nationwide scope.”

Terry also indicated in the new preliminary injunction order that it appears the constitutional failing of the enjoined vaccine mandate for health care workers may persist even if the mandate were enacted by Congress instead of, as it has been, just unilaterally decreed by the executive branch. Terry wrote, “It is not clear that even an Act of Congress mandating a vaccine would be constitutional.”

Megan Redshaw discussed this new order and some other recent court decisions related to Biden’s various vaccine mandates in an informative Children’s Health Defense article you can read here.

Read the new preliminary injunction order here.]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2021 23:25:04 GMT
Another Court Knocks Down a President Biden Vaccine Mandate, Enjoining the Mandate on Employees of US Government Contractors Adam Dick

Earlier this month, in response to a United States appellate court’s preliminary injunction order, the US government suspended implementing and enforcing President Joe Biden’s mandate regarding employees of companies with 100 or more employees taking experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots. Then, yesterday, a US district court issued a preliminary injunction order against the implementation and enforcement of Biden’s mandate that millions of workers in the health care field take the shots.

Today, another of Biden’s major vaccine mandates was enjoined by a district court in Kentucky. The injunction, which applies in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, bars the implementation and enforcement of Biden’s vaccine mandate for employees of contractors of the US government.

In the preliminary injunction order, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky made the following conclusion regarding the dispute before him in the case of Kentucky v. Biden:
The question presented here is narrow. Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no. So, for the reasons that follow, the pending request for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED.
Read here Kaitlin Schroeder’s Dayton Daily News article concerning today’s preliminary injunction order. Read the preliminary injunction order here.]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:43:59 GMT
Good News For Christmas: Biden's Mandate Keeps Losing In Court
]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2021 17:43:29 GMT
Court Enjoins Enforcement of President Biden’s Medical Workers Vaccine Mandate in Ten States Adam Dick

On Monday, Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued an order of preliminary injunction barring the United States government from implementing and enforcing President Joe Biden’s mandate, enacted via Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulations, that millions of workers at facilities that participate in Medicare or Medicaid take experimental coronavirus “vaccines.”

The injunction applies in the ten states that challenged the mandate in the case before the judge — Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

The decision in this case — Missouri v. Biden — could lead to the US government’s suspension of this mandate countrywide. Such was the outcome earlier this month in regard to Biden’s vaccine mandate for employees of companies with 100 or more employees after consideration of the BST Holdings v. OSHA case in the US Fifth Circuit Court.

Read more about the new district court preliminary injunction order regarding vaccine mandates for health care workers in a Kansas City Star article by Jeanne Kuang here. Read the preliminary injunction order here.]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2021 03:40:00 GMT
World Health Organization Opposes Travel Bans Purportedly Imposed to Protect Against ‘Omicron’ Adam Dick

Omicron is the newly named type of coronavirus that governments are using to spread fear and to impose new restrictions on people’s activities in the name of protecting “public health.” Among those new restrictions, national governments are banning the entry of people who have been in certain countries. For, example, United States President Joe Biden unilaterally declared on Friday (no congressional approval sought or obtained) that most people, with exceptions for US citizens and some others, who have been in any of eight listed countries in Africa over the previous 14 days may not enter America.

Biden says the new restriction is “to protect the public health from travelers entering the United States.” Of course, many Americans and people around the world are fed up with the myriad of government mandates that have been imposed over the last year and a half plus, supposedly to protect them. Enough already. But, for power hungry politicians like Biden it seems there is never enough exercise of power at the expense of liberty.

While Biden cites the World Health Organization (WHO) for details regarding the omicron coronavirus variant, the WHO on Sunday made its own
announcement in which it detailed the organization’s opposition to the travel bans Biden and leaders in other governments have imposed in purported reaction to the variant. Rejecting the tunnel vision approach to countering coronavirus that has assisted governments across the world in trampling on liberty and trashing economies in the name of countering coronavirus, the WHO noted the following fact that is obvious to many ordinary people and quickly rejected by many politicians: “Travel restrictions may play a role in slightly reducing the spread of COVID-19 but place a heavy burden on lives and livelihoods.”

Notably, while the WHO is opposing travel bans in response to omicron, it continues to advocate for other restrictions. The WHO has not become a liberty advocate.

At other points in the ongoing coronavirus panic, the WHO has cautioned against some of the extreme approaches governments have pursued in the name of countering coronavirus and questioned the lack of scientific basis for those approaches as well. For example, in the summer, the WHO
opposed giving experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots to children. But, then, the WHO backtracked on that advice. Similarly, a year earlier, the WHO turned on a dime from saying most people should not wear masks while going about their daily activities to being gung ho for everyone doing so. This reversal by the WHO followed a similar out of the blue reversal by high level US government officials including National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and then-Surgeon General Jerome Adams.

Will the WHO stick to its opposition to travel bans, or will it shift to a position in favor of expanded government power as it did in regarding to masks and the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots for children?

]]> Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:39:45 GMT
Mexico’s Different Take on Giving Experimental Coronavirus Vaccine Shots to Children Adam Dick

United States President Joe Biden, a coronavirus crackdown enthusiast, appears to have no qualms about promoting that every American take experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots and even threatening millions of people with loss of their jobs if they refuse the shots. In contrast, south of the border, Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has distinguished himself by speaking out against an array of violations of liberty governments have undertaken in the name of countering coronavirus. Refreshingly, López Obrador has also taken a more reasoned approach to whether people should take the experimental shots.

More refreshing news came from Mexico in October in reporting at Mexico News Daily that Mexico Secretary of Health Jorge Alcocer Varela not buying into the so-called science backing the effort being undertaken by the US government and many state and local governments north of the border to ensure as many children as possible are given the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots that have recently been made available to them. This effort is being vigorously pursued in America despite children having a very low risk of serious injury and virtually no risk of death from coronavirus. Alcocer, instead, is arguing that the shots pose health risks for children. He has also stated that he does not want the shots for his grandchildren.

Alcorer’s view is consistent with the Mexico government’s disinclination to push giving the shots to children.

It would be nice if some state and local government officials north of the border would learn from the different approach in Mexico and challenge the “everyone should take the shots” propaganda. They could also refuse to participate in the providing of experimental coronavirus vaccine shots to children.]]> Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:06:04 GMT
Democratic Governors Can Oppose Vaccine Mandates Too Adam Dick

Some Republican governors, such as the governors of Texas and Florida, have acted in opposition to government mandates that people take experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots. Democratic governors, in contrast, have tended to support such mandates or stand aside as they are imposed.

In Kansas, however, the Democratic governor has been challenging the vaccine mandates. Rebekah Chung and Mark Feuerborn
reported Monday at Fox 4 News of Kansas City that Kansas’s Democratic Governor Laura Kelly has said she will sign into law a bill making it through the state legislature that is intended to place a check on mandates that people take the shots.

Kelly’s position now is consistent with the position Kelly expressed in a
November 5 written statement in response to the US government the day before imposing experimental coronavirus vaccine shots mandates on employees who work either at companies with 100 or more employees or in the health care field at facilities that participate in Medicare or Medicaid.

While Kelly was delicate in her criticism of the US government action in her November 5 written statement, she did clearly state her opposition, declaring that she did not believe that “the new vaccine mandate from the Biden Administration” was “the correct, or the most effective, solution for Kansas.” Instead of going along with that mandate, Kelly stated that she would “seek a resolution that continues to recognize the uniqueness or our state and builds on our on-going efforts to combat a once-in-century crisis.”

Alright, Democratic governors, who’s next?

]]> Wed, 24 Nov 2021 01:16:47 GMT
Hybrid War RT
]]> Fri, 19 Nov 2021 17:34:29 GMT
OSHA Stops Implementation and Enforcement of Coronavirus ‘Vaccine’ Mandate for Companies with 100 or More Employees Adam Dick

Here is some good news for many Americans being threatened with the loss of their jobs if they do not take experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots: The United States government’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced on Wednesday that it has “suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement” of OSHA’s vaccine mandate applicable to employees at companies with 100 or more employees.

OSHA states the suspension is “pending future developments” in litigation in which a panel of three US Fifth Circuit Court judges on Friday unanimously ruled, as noted in the OSHA announcement, that OSHA must desist from implementing and enforcing the mandate “until further court order.”

Notably, US government mandates that employees of the US government and of US government contractors take the shots remain in effect.

Jacob Sullum provided in a Reason article on Sunday a very informative overview of the court decision in BST Holdings v. OSHA that prompted OSHA’s announcement. As Sullum noted in the introductory paragraph of his article, it appears that the Fifth Circuit judges are likely to make permanent their ruling against this OSHA vaccine mandate:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has extended its stay on the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private employers, which the unanimous three-judge panel called 'fatally flawed' and 'staggeringly broad.' The stay, which the court issued on Friday evening, says OSHA shall 'take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.' It is officially a preliminary pause 'pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners' underlying motions for a permanent injunction.' But the court left little doubt that it would grant those motions, saying 'petitioners' challenges to the Mandate show a great likelihood of success on the merits.'
Read Sullum’s article here.]]> Wed, 17 Nov 2021 21:57:04 GMT
‘Show Me Your Papers’: Austria Locks Down the ‘Unvaccinated’ Adam Dick

From the beginning, it was clear that the vaccine passports were about creating a caste system in which people who refuse to take experimental coronavirus “vaccines” are subjected to special restrictions on their ability to undertake ordinary activities. In Austria this week, we are witnessing the imposing of an extreme version of such a vaccine passports-based caste system that imposes broad restrictions on the activities of “unvaccinated” individuals.

Enforcement of the new caste system in Austria also impinges on the freedom of people who have taken the shots and carry with them proof that they have taken the shots — effectively vaccine passports. Cops being directed to routinely stop and question people because of the mere fact that the people are out and about is a component of a police state, not a free society.

Philip Oltermann wrote Monday at the Guardian about Austria’s new “lockdown of the unvaccinated.” Oltermann’s article begins with the following:
Police in Austria have begun carrying out routine checks on commuters to ensure compliance with a nationwide ‘lockdown of the unvaccinated’, as the Alpine country tries to get on top of one of the most rapidly rising infection rates in Europe.

The restrictions, which came into effect on Monday morning, will affect almost 2 million Austrian citizens aged 12 and older who have so far not been fully vaccinated against Covid-19. Of those, the 356,000 people who have been vaccinated only once can be released from lockdown if they show a negative PCR test.

Those who are found to be in breach of the rules face fines between €500 and €3,600.

‘It can happen any time and anywhere,’ the interior minister, Karl Nehammer of the Austrian People’s party, said of the police checks. ‘Every citizen has to expect to be checked.’
Read Oltermann’s complete article here.

Oltermann reports that the Austria government has declared it is imposing the extreme restrictions for ten days. We’ll see if it sticks to that time limit. Remember 15 days to flatten the curve? Sufficient public resistance will probably be needed to pressure the government to rescind the restrictions.

The Austrian government is not the first to enforce draconian vaccine passport policies, and it seems unlikely to be the last. Coronavirus remains the excuse du jour for tyranny.]]> Mon, 15 Nov 2021 20:58:46 GMT
Turning Doctors’ Offices into Political Indoctrination Centers Adam Dick

Visiting doctors’ offices has long been something most people have not enjoyed and something some people have dreaded. With mask wearing demands and coronavirus fearmongering to push experimental “vaccine” shots lately becoming part of the doctor’s office experience for many people, more informed clients are now also increasingly questioning the competence and rationality of their doctors.

Still, visiting many doctors’ offices may become a significantly worse experience soon because of advice the American Medical Association is giving doctors in a newly published guide. The guide, titled “Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts,” calls for doctor to change the way they speak to clients so doctors’ statements to clients regarding medical matters are heavily infused with political commentary.

Here are two examples from the guide of the cringe-inducing things you could hear a doctor say at your next doctor’s office visit. The guide provides as an example of how doctors should change their communication that they can replace the term “low-income people” with “people underpaid and forced into poverty as a result of banking policies, real estate developers gentrifying neighborhoods, and corporations weakening the power of labor unions.” Doctors are also advised not to say this: “For too many, prospects for good health are limited by where people live, how much money they make, or discrimination they face.” That statement is rather politically charged, but it does not go far enough for the American Medical Association whose guide suggests doctors instead tell their patients this: “Decisions by landowners and large corporations, increasingly centralizing political and financial power wielded by a few, limit prospects for good health and well-being for many groups.”

Tyler Olson wrote more about the guide at Fox News here.

Read the complete guide here.]]> Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:35:33 GMT
Ron Paul on Liberty, Property, Equality, and Safety Adam Dick
Then, in Paul’s question and answer period with FFF President Jacob Hornberger that followed Paul’s presentation, Paul discussed issues including vaccine mandates and conscription.

Watch Paul’s presentation and Q&A here:

.]]> Sat, 13 Nov 2021 20:54:37 GMT
No Peace Dividend Again Adam Dick

Back when the Soviet Union fell apart, there was much talk of a peace dividend — a big reduction in the United States government’s spending on militarism. The peace dividend did not arrive. Instead, the US government proceeded to spend big on the military and engage in a series of military actions across the world, including, as the dissolution of the Soviet Union proceeded, the US military’s first of two invasions of Iraq.

Now, about 30 years after the Soviet Union went away, US military members are still stationed across Europe, as well as aboard ships near Russia, ready to counter the ghost of red spread.

Special interests behind the scenes worked overtime in the 1990s to ensure that the money kept flowing to the military-industrial complex. Containment of the Soviet menace evaporated as an excuse, but people came up with new excuses.

Ron Paul explained the transition in his April of 2013 comments upon the founding of his Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Paul stated:
The Cold War, as we now know, was itself largely hyped up by beneficiaries of the military build-up, but at the very least we should have expected at the end of the thousands of missiles pointed at us some sort of peace dividend. Instead, thanks to those whose careers and fortunes depended in some manner on the military industrial complex, we stumbled from the end of the war on communism to the war to control the world. This war has failed.
One big part of the US government’s “war to control the world” that has failed is the Afghanistan War. After a 20-years war with an estimated over two trillion dollars cost that wrought destruction to Afghan infrastructure and lives on a grand scale, the US military left Afghanistan. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan had failed to achieve promoted “nation building” objectives such as the women’s liberation objective then-First Lady Laura Bush promoted for Afghanistan in November of 2001 as a substitute for her husband in his weekly presidential radio address and the combatting corruption objective President Barak Obama promoted in a December of 2009 speech. As the US troops left, Afghanistan returned for the most part to its status from before the war began, only worsened by the devastation of war.

But, at least we can obtain some sort of peace dividend due to the ending of the US government’s longest war? Nope. It looks like President Joe Biden and the US Congress are intent on ensuring that the militarism spending continues to increase nonetheless. With the Afghanistan War in the rearview mirror, the Washington, DC politicians and the special interests who gain from foreign interventions, including war, are now focused on new “monsters to destroy,” just as the people running the show in DC were focused when the Cold War wound down.

In a Sunday The Intercept article, Peter Maass provided details regarding how politicians in Washington, DC appear to be ensuring there again will be no peace dividend, with legislation making its way through Congress that directs military spending to increase next year despite the ending of the Afghanistan War. You can read Maass’s article here.]]> Wed, 10 Nov 2021 15:06:02 GMT
New York City’s New ‘Public Health’ Plan: Let Garbage Pile Up on the Sidewalks

In the name of “public health,” the New York City government this week has been telling city employees to take the experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots by Friday at 5 p.m. or be fired, or as the city government terms it, “placed on leave without pay.” Plenty of city workers of all types upset by this attack on their freedom have been taking to the streets in large numbers to protest, often admirably joined by leaders of their unions.

Apparently, New York City garbagemen upset with their mistreatment have chosen to skip days of work as well. The result, detailed in a Thursday article by Jean Lee at NBC News is trash piling up in parts of the city as regularly scheduled trash collection fails to occur.

What to expect after the Friday deadline? Continued piling up of trash on New York City sidewalks, right next to where millions of people in the densely populated city live, work, shop, and play each day is a good bet. Lee quotes the president of the Sanitation Officers Association:
Joseph Mannion, president of the Sanitation Officers Association, fears the trash pileups might foreshadow a possible worker shortage on Monday if vaccination rates among sanitation workers don’t increase by Friday. He said that the sanitation department has been moving to snow season shifts — 12 hours instead of eight — in anticipation of a possible worker shortage.

'Prepare for the worst and hope for the best,' Mannion said.

But Mannion is skeptical and said that he knows many sanitation workers are "hardened in their beliefs" and will refuse vaccination, even if it means being put on unpaid leave.

'I know more people are getting vaccinated, but is it going to change around 60 percent to 80 percent?' asked Mannion. 'I don't know. I don't think so.'
More and more people in New York City must be asking themselves which is a healthier, and more pleasant, option: (A) letting trash continue to pile up on sidewalks while 100 percent of garbagemen are confirmed to have taken the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots, or (B) having trash regularly cleared from sidewalks while letting garbagemen choose whether they take the shots? My guess is that most people will choose option B, especially if the trash keeps piling up for weeks or even months on end.]]> Fri, 29 Oct 2021 20:03:15 GMT
Joe Biden, a President Hiding from Reporters Adam Dick

If you have been thinking President Joe Biden has been skimping on having press conferences and interviews, and otherwise answering questions from reporters, you are correct.

Largely absent from Biden’s presidential campaign were ordinary campaign activities, including fielding questions from reporters or even giving speeches before audiences of any kind. Now, nine months into this presidency, Biden continues not to make himself available to answer reporters’ questions.

Steven Nelson examined the situation in a Thursday New York Post article. Nelson started off his article with the following numerical contrast of Biden’s interactions with reporters to those interactions by some of Biden’s recent predecessors. Nelson writes:
President Biden has granted one-fifth as many interviews as Donald Trump, one-eighth as many as Barack Obama and half as many as a nearly assassinated Ronald Reagan did at this point in their presidencies, data shared with The Post reveal as reporters fume about limited access.

Biden’s Thursday night CNN town hall will bring him to 16 interviews total — versus 82 by Trump, 131 by Obama and 32 by Reagan, according to data compiled by presidential historian Martha Kumar.
Nelson relates later in the article that the father and son Bush presidents also had many more interviews than has Biden over the same time period. The Bushes took part in, respectively, 38 and 42 interviews.

Bill Clinton, Nelson notes, had 51 interviews by the same time in his presidency.

What is behind Biden’s reluctance to field reporters’ questions? One potential reason offered in Nelson’s article seems just about sure to describe at least some of the reasoning behind Biden’s comparatively limited answering of reporters’ question. Nelson writes:
Sean Spicer, Trump’s first press secretary, said that Biden’s staff 'want a scripted presidency' to minimize the chances of gaffes or other distracting commentary.

'They want to minimize the opportunities for him to go off script. And they want as little pushback as possible,' said Spicer, now a TV host for Newsmax.
Read Nelson’s article here.]]> Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:51:34 GMT
In-N-Out Burger’s Great Freedom-centered Explanation for Its Refusal to Enforce Vaccine Passports Adam Dick

When government mandates related to experimental coronavirus “vaccines” are thrust on businesses, it is heartening to see businesses refusing to comply. It is especially great to see a business back up its noncompliance with a well-stated, freedom-centered explanation.

Check out below the explanation In-N-Out Burger provided this week for the company’s restaurant in San Francisco refusing to comply with the San Francisco government’s demand that the restaurant enforce the city’s vaccine passport mandate:
As a Company, In-N-Out Burger strongly believes in the highest form of customer service and to us that means serving all Customers who visit us and making all Customers feel welcome. We refuse to become the vaccination police for any government. It is unreasonable, invasive, and unsafe to force our restaurant Associates to segregate Customers into those who may be served and those who may not, whether based on the documentation they carry, or any other reason.

We fiercely disagree with any government dictate that forces a private company to discriminate against customers who choose to patronize their business. This is clear governmental overreach and is intrusive, improper, and offensive.
Hopefully, In-N-Out Burger’s example of bold freedom-centered action against vaccine mandates will inspire many more businesses to take similar action.

Over the past year and a half, governments at all levels in America have taken huge steps in the exercise of tyrannical powers in the name of countering coronavirus. Power gained is often only grudgingly given up. It will take many individuals and businesses boldly declaring “no more” and “never again” to ensure limitations on government power are respected.]]> Fri, 22 Oct 2021 16:00:58 GMT
Travis Tritt’s Emphatic ‘No’ to Performing at ‘New Normal’ Venues Adam Dick

Since early on in the coronavirus scare there has been a strong effort to condition people to accept that things will never return to normal and that people will need to adjust to a “new normal” in which life is hemmed in by new pervasive limitations on freedom in the name public safety. This “new normal” has expanded to even include a caste system condemning people wo refuse new experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots to exclusion from, or subjection to greater restrictions in undertaking, many activities. Fortunately, many brave individuals are standing up against this “new normal,” declaring that they refuse to accept it.

Long-popular country music singer Travis Tritt is one of these brave individuals. He made the news this week with his bold cancelation of four shows he had scheduled in venues that have gone “new normal.” Beyond just canceling the shows, Tritt also provided a strong and inspirational written explanation for his decision. Included in the Monday announcement at his website of the shows’ cancelation is this quote from Tritt explaining his stand against the “new normal” being foisted on people:
In a statement released today, Tritt comments, 'I’m putting my money where my mouth is and announcing that any venue or promoter mandating masks, requiring vaccinations, or pushing COVID testing protocols on my fans will not be tolerated. Any show I have booked that discriminates against concert-goers by requiring proof of vaccination, a COVID test, or a mask is being canceled immediately. Many people are taking a firm stand against these mandates around the country, and I wholeheartedly support that cause. I have been extremely vocal against mandates since the beginning. This is a sacrifice that I’m willing to make to stand up for the freedoms that generations of Americans have enjoyed for their entire lifetimes. There are plenty of promoters and venues around the country that appreciate fans and the freedom of choice in this great country, and those are the promoters and venues that I will be supporting.'

Tritt continues, 'I’m sorry for any inconvenience this situation creates for anyone who had purchased tickets to these shows. We will try to reschedule unrestricted shows in these areas as soon as we can.'
Bravo, Travis Tritt.]]> Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:28:59 GMT
As Fear Recedes, Americans’ Opposition to Expanding Government Rises Adam Dick

Twice this century, a greater number of Americans, when asked a yearly Gallup survey question, said their opinion aligns more with the view that government “should do more to solve problems” than with the view that government is “trying to do too many things.” The first time was in 2001, shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The second time was in 2020, in the midst of the coronavirus scare. Fear, pumped up incessantly by people in government, media, and beyond, at these two time periods helped lead to a big shift in the poll answers. Every other year, polled people’s opinions came out with a plurality or majority aligned with the view that the government does too much.

It is good to see the poll’s indication that people have regained their inclination in favor of restraining government instead or expanding it. Overall, 52 percent of people polled in September said the government does too much compared with 43 percent who said it should do more. Last year those numbers were just about reversed: Only 41 percent said the government should do less, while 54 percent said it should do more.

It is also good to see that among Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike there was over the last year a gain in the percent of people who said government should do less and a decrease in the percent of people who said government should do more. These changes were much larger among people who identified as independents than among people who claimed a party affiliation. Indeed, independents are the one group for whom the majority view flipped from 2020 to 2021, with the expanding government view winning out 56 to 38 percent last year and the restricting government view winning out 57 percent to 38 percent this year. It is likely more than coincidence that that huge shift in opinion has coincided with the termination of major coronavirus crackdown mandates over the last year in some parts of America.

Gallup’s September poll results also suggest there is reason for hope that many people who have recently seen the light about the danger of accepting government power grabs will oppose efforts to expand government’s coercive reach in the name of countering future drummed up crises.

Looking at the partisan breakdown of answers to the question, though, suggests that people in parts of America where many more people see themselves as Democrats may be in for much yet expansion of government power. Among Republicans answering the poll question in September, the government should do less answer was chosen by 80 percent, while just 15 percent chose the alternative. Among independents, the reducing government view was chosen by a narrower, though still large, margin of 57 percent to 38 percent. In contrast, among Democrats the government should do more answer was the runaway winner at 78 percent to 18 percent.

People in more heavily Democratic areas have tended to be subjected to, and tend to continue to endure, more government mandates in the name of countering coronavirus than people elsewhere in America. The good news for people in these areas is that even among Democrats the support for expanding government’s reach has waned. The bad news is that, as indicated in the September Gallup poll, supporting government doing more remains the opinion of most Democrats.

Also, with Democrats in control of the United States Congress and presidency, expect the march of coronavirus tyranny to continue at the national level. A big question is how strongly and effectively politicians from areas with greater concentration of Republican and independent voters will act to counter this threat from DC.]]> Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:27:42 GMT
A Desperate Biden Administration Turns to Terrorism Daniel McAdams

For Americans watching the shocking re-Nazification of Germany - where once again the ability to even buy food depends on a person's physiological/medical status - it may be tempting to downplay the re-emergence of a nasty German political virus and scoff that, "it can't happen here!" But it is happening here. 

The Biden Administration is sinking under the weight of its feeble figurehead, who is clearly living in a world of his own creation rather than living on planet reality. As Biden's approval ratings plummet to near-historic depths, the people who run his administration - some say it's really led by demon Susan Rice - are not backing off their hyper-authoritarian approach to...well, everything.

In fact they're doubling down. 

Nurse shortage? Tough - get your shot. Billions of containers waiting to be unloaded and trucked to fill empty shelves? Tough - get your shot. Murder alley Chicago facing 50 percent less cops because those who don't want the vax are being fired? Tough - get your shot. No one to fly the plane? Tough - get your shot. No teachers? Tough - get your shot!

Into this explosion of malevolent incompetence staggers US Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Department Wally Adeyemo - second-highest ranker in the entire Department. The Nigerian-born Adeyemo, who previously served as director of African American outreach for the inspiring John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign and as a senior advisor to corrupt "woke" multi-gazillionaire Larry Fink, should be given credit for at least being honest about the intentions of his bosses in the Biden Administration.

Sometimes they tell the truth by accident.

Interviewed on ABC News on Thursday, Adeyemo was asked about the thousands of container ships anchored offshore in California and elsewhere as US store shelves begin to look like Bulgaria circa 1975 - and even Santa Claus is sweating "supply chain" strangulation as Christmas quickly approaches. 

It's not because Newsom's California is a Marxist hellhole, where the religious fundamentalism of the Green New Deal fanatics has taken massive numbers of truckers off the road. Nope.

It's not Biden's vax mandate which has unleashed a massive outflux of workers from their jobs - quitting or fired - at a time of severe labor shortages. Nope.

The problem is you. You unwashed vermin who refuse to have a cocktail of experimental goop jabbed into your arm. 

In the ABC interview Adeyemo admitted what we all know: inflation is beating the hell out of middle America (though Biden's multi-millionaire chief-of-staff laughed it off as "high class problems"). 

We are seeing high prices for some of the things that people have to buy,” Adeyemo told ABC's Stephanie Ramos. But it's not the Administration's fault. Shelves bare? Treasury's Number Two tells America it's all the fault of those who have not yet succumbed to his boss's demand that you take the jab:
The reality is that the only way we’re going to get to a place where we work through this transition is if everyone in America and everyone around the world gets vaccinated.

There is a word for this and it's not actually blackmail. It's terrorism. Until that part of America which has to this point decided that it does not want to take an unproven medical treatment is browbeaten - or worse - into submission to Fauci's needle, the rest of the country will continue to suffer through empty shelves and a crappy Christmas.

Too strong a word? Here's how the dictionary defines terrorism:


Threat: You will eat nothing and you will be happy.
Political objective: Get the shot!

It's terrorism plain and simple and the Biden Administration's "War on Us" is taking a dangerous turn. The millions who have taken the shot are being baited to attack those who have for whatever reason - including the medically sound acquisition of natural immunity through contracting and defeating the virus - declined to take the medical procedure. In reality both groups should unite against the past two Administrations which have lied and intimidated Americans over the virus from nearly day one. But that would threaten the elites, who rule by divide-and-conquer tactics.

It's not hyperbole to - after having closely watched the dark cloud of propaganda-induced hysteria descend on what many of us retrospectively incorrectly believed was a more-or-less a freedom-loving American spirit - start worrying about them mobilizing the boxcars and heating up the ovens...

]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 21:14:22 GMT
Faulty Drug Field Tests Can Both Lead to Incarceration and Make Incarceration Worse Adam Dick

In January of 2019, I wrote about how drug field tests that produce many false positive results are used as a basis for arresting and jailing people for drug crimes and have even been used as leverage to induce many people to plead guilty. But, that is not the entire problem with the tests. In addition to leading to people ending up in jails and prisons, false positive results of the faulty drug field tests are used in jails and prisons as a justification for enhancing restrictions on inmates.

Keri Blakinger provides in a Thursday article at NBC News details about how drug field tests with a proclivity for producing false positive results are used to make worse the lives of inmates who the tests wrongly indicate have violated drug prohibitions. For example, Blakinger writes about a lawsuit challenging the use in Massachusetts of drug field test results, including results from testing items sent to prisoners by their lawyers, to justify imposing restrictions on prisoners. Blakinger relates:
When the tests show false positives, Massachusetts prisoners get sent to solitary confinement for weeks or months, the lawsuit says. They lose their prison jobs, get kicked out of classes, and forfeit phone and visiting privileges until outside lab tests confirm the obvious: Dozens of defense lawyers have not suddenly begun sending their clients drugs.
Read Blakinger’s article here.]]> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 21:54:04 GMT