The court struck down the OSHA mandate, but upheld the mandate for employers that accept Medicare or Medicaid cash.

There is a good side to this and a bad side.

The good side is that large amounts of people will be able to keep their jobs without having to forgo vaccination.

The bad side is that the court basically said that congress abdicated their authority on the issue, as it relates to employees at health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The government basically OWNS those employees at that point.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to lift lower court stays that had halted enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) emergency regulation, finding the government’s challenge to it would probably be successful. The rule, now in effect, requires more than 10 million employees at health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

In this case, all three liberal justices–Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor—sided with the government in the court’s opinion in Biden v. Missouri. Two conservatives, Roberts and Kavanaugh, also sided with the government.

The majority opinion states: “Congress did grant authority to the health secretary to promulgate” regulations he considers necessary to protect health and safety. Although a vaccination mandate is unprecedented, “we agree with the government that the Secretary’s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him,” they added.

Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.

The case is “only about whether [HHS] has the statutory authority to force health care workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave [HHS] that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal,” the dissent states.

This is Obamacare coming back to haunt everyone. I covered this years ago, long before Obamacare was passed.

The word Commissioner [Think HHS Secretary] is referenced in the bill 203 times. Nearly every time the word Commissioner is used, there is a variable to be determined, or a definition to be defined by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has broad sweeping power to shape nearly the entire health care industry. This is crucial to understanding how this legislation works. There are only a few exclusions by which State Law can override the decisions of the Commissioner. Also the Commissioner, "shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The democrats have unchecked power with control of both the House and the Senate. There will be no way to stop the appointee for the position of Health Choices Commissioner. I guess we had better hope they pick someone who doesn't want to destroy the current system.

This is what happens when congress gives unchecked power to some czar-type official.

This will ultimately be how they get their "Voter Rights Act" originally (H.R. 1 / S. 1) enacted.

If they can’t get (H.R. 1 / S. 1) passed outright, they will create a new czar to oversee elections, that czar will have the authority (granted by congress) to make it happen. This is how it’s done in Washington. Obamacare was the same way. They created a position called the “Health Choices Commissioner” (in the original ACA bill) later renamed. They didn’t pass Obamacare in one swoop. They created the framework by which they could mandate all the necessary parts of Obamacare through intermediaries --effectively side-stepping congress..

I think that we've been under the rule of a single party system for much longer than many people are willing to admit.

Only time will tell if we can pull out of this as a nation.

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

We have been told all along that COVID is killing record numbers of people. But there's one problem with that. The fatality rate is not that high. So What is killing so many people?

Dr. Robert Malone sources an insurance company to show how none of these numbers add up.

“The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.

Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.

“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.””

To simplify, you have an illness with at the lowest a 99.5% survivability rate, roughly that of the Flu (for the age group in question). If you remember, the Flu took off for entire year of 2021. That being the case, how can you have an illness with such a high survivability rate, result in a 40% increase in deaths for people ages 18 to 64? Even if you factor in that they banned many early treatments and therapeutics, you still couldn't get to that number.

The short answer is -- you can't explain a 40% increase in deaths from a virus on par with the Flu. You definitely can't explain the majority of those deaths occurring outside the age range where people are most likely to die from COVID-19.

The answer as to why so many people died can be found in the public health response to the illness.

Let's look at one thing that pretty much all "working age" people have in common -- besides being minimally effected by COVID-19. There was/is a vaccine mandate, and if you don't comply, you will most likely be fired.

There were many contributing factors. Lockdowns, people having their movement restricted, substance abuse, suicides, a complete lack of outpatient treatment options.

However, vaccines have to be the largest contributor to these deaths, because vaccines are the only thing in common amongst this group of people with an abnormally high death rate -- while simultaneously having the least risk of death from the virus.

Something to keep in mind, the CDC is not considering someone vaccinated until 14 days after the shot is administered. That means that anyone who died from an allergic reaction would not be counted in vaccine injury numbers, as most allergic reactions take place within hours. Similarly the majority of people with myocarditis and other inflammatory, or cardiovascular issues also would have reactions within a short period of time after the shot was administered -- much less than 14 days.

The CDC purposely pushed out the time required to consider someone "vaccinated" to avoid capturing data proving that the vaccines are harmful.

The only thing you hear from public health officials is, "The best protection against COVID-19 is vaccination. And the vaccines are safe and effective." But you never hear anything about outpatient treatments, why is that?

What do you think?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There was a food shortage war game that took place on November 2014 in Washington DC. There have always been these kinds of events that assume a huge tragedy will happen, but lately I'm a little more worried when I see these kinds of things.

Remember the SPARS Pandemic Scenario? After reading through that document, you could just about forecast what was going to happen next with the COVID-19 Pandemic to date -- even down to the high level people within the FDA and NIH resigning. And it speaks to the vaccine injuries as well.

Lately the LAM (Legacy American Media) have been changing their tune as it relates to COVID-19. Now there is the Omicron variant, which is more mild. People are starting to find out that the vaccine related injuries are MUCH higher than were being reported. Australia is starting up a system to pay people compensation for vaccine related injuries.

Consider the numbers. 79,000 who were injured by the vaccines in Australia, that doesn’t account for those who died.

Now look at the population of Australia, somewhere around 25 million. Even if you said that only 50% were vaccinated, that’s 12.5 million. Let's adapt those numbers to work for the U.S. with a population of 350 million people? Let’s say half of the U.S. population were vaccinated, that’s 175 million.

Simply using a linear ratio, you’re looking at 1,106,000 people severely injured by COVID vaccines in the U.S.

How many people have they claimed COVID has killed in the U.S.? 814,638 is what USA Facts lists (at the time of writing).

It’s reasonable to assume that many more people were injured by vaccines, than were injured or died from COVID. And this is no small amount either, we’re talking about a difference of 291,362. Also keep in mind that that number 814,638 includes all of the people who died "WITH COVID, not FROM COVID. The actual number of people who died from COVID should be closer to 200,000 somewhere in line with the Flu, because COVID has about the same survivability rate as the Flu. In other words, COVID can't have the same survivability rate as the Flu, but kill (5) times more people.

Even Fauci is admitting that the COVID hospitalization numbers, as it relates to children, are completely misleading. He is echoing the exact same thing that many of us have been saying since the beginning. There were a lot of people that died WITH COVID, not FROM COVID.

The question is, why are they winding all of this down right now? Right at the start of 2022. None of this information is new. We have gone from 14 days of self isolation all the way down to 5. But nothing has changed, this means that the 14 day period was entirely unnecessary. And all of the most locked down countries are having the most new cases. The lockdowns were never necessary either.

Combine this information with the fact that the vaccine injuries were kept secret by the media but are now becoming increasingly harder to hide. I don't think they can keep this up much longer. The whole COVID Crisis narrative is starting to fall apart, so what's the next big thing to push the world closer to a global totalitarian state?

Climate Change!

Let's take a peek at the Food Chain Reaction Crisis Simulation Kicks off in Washington DC.

This morning, at the outset of the game, players were shown the video you can see for yourself on this page. The simulated newscast describes the world as it is projected in 2020, the starting point of the game. In the scenario, food prices are rising sharply, putting millions of people on the brink of hunger and poverty. Climate change’s impact are deepening, making monsoons in Asia less reliable and affecting traditional bread baskets such as the U.S., Canada and Brazil.

“We do this so we can learn,” said Stone. “The things we’ll see here, we could easily see in the real world. It makes sense to game things out and practice, so we can be better prepared when we encounter scenarios like these down the road.”

The game was designed by the Washington-based Center for Naval Analyses, which also designs war games for the Pentagon. Food Chain Reaction was built with the same degree of realism the U.S. military requires.

“People tend to sensationalize these things,” said Cargill economist Tim Bodin, who assisted in the game design. “We didn’t want to do that. Rather, we used realistic assumptions, based on the impacts we expect climate change to have over the next 10 to 15 years and how we’ve seen markets actually react to disruption in the recent past, like the 2008-09 food crisis.”

This in and of itself doesn't seem like a smoking gun, but combine the climate change narrative with what the United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury said.

"...We face an economy that's in transition. And as far as that transition we are seeing high prices for some of the things that people have to buy. But, the reality is that the only way we're going to get to this place where we work through this transition is when everyone in America, and everyone around the world gets vaccinated. That's why the president continues to be focused on the idea that we get everyone we can vaccinated in this country."

How does everyone in the world being vaccinated coincide with a "shortage of truckers?" Once everyone on the planet is vaccinated, are the truckers going to come back? At which point will they know that everyone in the world that can be vaccinated -- is vaccinated. That's a ridiculous notion.

What this really means is that the supply chain issues have nothing to do with "trucker shortages" or any of the other excuses they are giving, they are manmade and designed to cause economic distress. This is made evident by the fact that there were no supply chain shortages, other than toilet paper, for the entire first wave of COVID-19. There were no food shortages like there are now, and the price of meat wasn't inflated.

This whole supply chain fiasco is 100% manufactured. They are trying to put the squeeze on the remaining people who won't get vaccinated. Not only is food about to become much more expensive, this will be happening at the same time that many people will be loosing their jobs because of the vaccine mandate. It all lines up just right.

Now we have the Climate Change Crisis, which will be the next big excuse to keep meddling with the economy. The Food Chain Reaction Crisis Simulation begins in the year 2020. That's when the price of food is supposed to start rising drastically because of Climate Change. But we know Climate Change is not why this is happening.

Pay close attention to where the LAM (Legacy America Media) directs the narrative. I guarantee that they will start backing off of COVID and vaccines, and start preaching Climate Change, and begin trying to make Climate Change the reason for all of the world's ills.

What do you think?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I've been telling people this for a long time. The 2022 election cycle will result in a landslide win for Republicans nationwide -- if current laws stay in place. The Democrats know this and are bound and determined to make sure it doesn't happen. (H.R. 1 / S. 1) will die hard, if the Republicans are not completely sold out. At this point, Republicans not being sold out, well, I'm not holding by breath.

Bad policies have been the cause of so much strife in the country, and it's becoming increasingly hard for Democrats, and the LAM (Legacy American Media) to hide it.

The reason I say "bad" policies is that they were never expected to be beneficial for the American people. Democrats sold people on the idea that their policies would benefit them (the American People) -- but they didn't mean it. Honestly, did anyone really believe that defunding the police would result in a reduction of crime?

The Democrats know their certain defeat is coming.

The party is under pressure, from both outside groups and lawmakers, to pass federal election legislation as GOP-run state legislatures debate new voting rules and as the start of the 2022 midterm election is fast-approaching.

After watching Senate Republicans block election and voting bills via the filibuster, which requires 60 votes for most legislation to advance, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is vowing to bring the fight to a head in January.

"The Senate will consider voting rights legislation, as early as the first week back. ... If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster and prevent the body from considering this bill, the Senate will then consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation," Schumer wrote in a letter to the caucus.

If Democrats thought they could win, or would win because of their policies, they wouldn't be trying to change voting laws. They wouldn't need to, because their popularity would carry them through.

Democrats haven't settled on a plan, but instead are discussing a range of options aimed at winning over the 50 votes needed to invoke the "nuclear option" and change the Senate's rules with a simple majority.

Though the Senate is evenly split, Democrats would be able to change the rules on their own because Vice President Harris can break a tie.

It's obvious that Democrat policies are NOT popular, and the Democrats are aware of it.

Failing to change the Senate's rules and pass voting rights legislation would be a significant blow to both the White House - which has signaled its a top priority - and outside civil rights and progressive groups, which see passing legislation as fundamental to protecting democracy.

Schumer, during an interview with the "Joe Madison Show," urged advocates to keep up the pressure heading toward the Senate action-including on his own members.

"Keep up the drumbeat," Schumer said. "We need all the anger and the protests, etc., that have occurred here."

"So now we're in the final stages," he added, "and we're asking people to keep up the pressure."

Anger and protests? Is that how things are done in America? "Outside civil rights and progressive groups?" Why would you need "outside, and progressive groups" to get things done. Wouldn't voting be enough? After all, if the Democrats believe that they really won the 2020 presidential election -- why would they be worried about 2022? Biden broke all the records right? 81 million votes.

Here's what (H.R. 1 / S. 1) would do to voting laws, should it become law.

Winners don't think or act this way.

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The COVID-19 vaccine legal definitions are a Schrödinger's Cat-style menagerie of nonsense -- by design.

There hasn't been much discussion on the topic of the "FDA approved" Pfizer vaccine. There were quite a few articles that tried to explain why the Comirnaty trademarked vaccine was "chemically" the same as the vaccines used under the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). But something didn't sit right with me.

Now the issue over Comirnaty has gone to court. The judge seems to question the validity of this claim as well. Look at the Pfizer explanation.

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”

It's a difference without a distinction. The EUA vaccine and Comirnaty are different enough for legal separation, and identification, but somehow interchangeable? This is something that can have a lasting effect on someone's wellbeing, it's not New Coca-Cola, the "New Coke" we're talking about!

There are key differences between fully licensed vaccines and those authorized under EUA. EUA products are considered experimental under U.S. law. This means they cannot be mandated, and everyone has the right to refuse such vaccines without consequences.

There is another aspect to this. The judge pointed out the most important aspect of this as it relates to pharma and regulations. The location of manufacture. The facility that produced the EUA vaccines was not validated to produce FDA approved vaccines. While this might not seem important to some people, it is a huge deal in the pharma world.

It's not just the product's approval that is required. Information throughout the manufacturing process must be stored for a number of years through a validated system. Data on manufacturing will include, the raw materials used (their lot numbers and identifying information) the equipment used, all the way down to the conditions in the facility. Even how frequently the equipment requires calibration, and records of that as well. Pretty much every aspect of the manufacturing process is tracked.

This data is not tracked in a R&D (Research and Development) environment. And the facility that produced the EUA vaccines couldn't have been properly validated, because the product wasn't approved yet. Meaning that the specific information needed to track the production of the EUA vaccines was not in place. Pfizer can't provide all of the supporting documentation required for any FDA approved product. Therefore, there is no way to validate that the two products are the same.

As recognized by the judge, “[u]nder the EUA statute, recipients of EUA drugs must be ‘informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

The judge further noted that with regard to the administration of an EUA product to members of the armed forces, such a right of refusal may be waived only by the president.

As noted, “[t]he DOD acknowledges that the president has not executed a [waiver], so as things now stand, the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA.”

Judge Winsor also pointed out that “DOD’s guidance documents explicitly say only FDA-licensed COVID-19 vaccines are mandated.”

While this would be applicable to the Comirnaty vaccine, the judge noted “the plaintiffs have shown that the DOD is requiring injections from vials not labeled ‘Comirnaty.’ Indeed, defense counsel could not even say whether vaccines labeled ‘Comirnaty’ exist at all.”

The judge also noted that the DOD “later clarified that it was mandating vaccines from EUA-labeled vials,” adding that “[i]n the DOD’s view, this is fine because the contents of EUA-labeled vials are chemically identical to the contents of vials labeled ‘Comirnaty’ (if there are any such vials).”

The judge found this argument “unconvincing,” stating that “FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before BLA approval.”

He further noted that EUA provisions suggest “drugs mandated for military personnel be actually BLA-approved, not merely chemically similar to a BLA-approved drug,” not just in terms of labeling, but also in terms of being produced at BLA-compliant facilities.

As the judge stated, “there is no indication that all EUA-labeled vials are from BLA-approved facilities,” adding that “the DOD cannot rely on the FDA to find that the two drugs are legally identical.”

The FDA is not following their own guidelines as it pertains to the Pfizer vaccines. The approval for these vaccines would equate to an R&D biologic being sold to the public because it had not yet expired --even though it was not produced in an FDA regulated environment. That's what they are tying to do here. That's why the judge said, “FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before BLA approval.”

It's plainly spelled out in the specification.

The Biologics License Application (BLA) is a request for permission to introduce, or deliver for introduction, a biologic product into interstate commerce (21 CFR 601.2). The BLA is regulated under 21 CFR 600 – 680. A BLA is submitted by any legal person or entity who is engaged in manufacture or an applicant for a license who takes responsibility for compliance with product and establishment standards. Form 356h specifies the requirements for a BLA. This includes:

* Applicant information
* Product/Manufacturing information
* Pre-clinical studies
* Clinical studies
* Labeling

The lawyers for the government do not have proof that the vaccines are the same, why not? That is the entire basis of their claim to mandate them. Wouldn't their defense be so much easier if they could prove in court that the two vaccines are indeed the same? But then, they didn't do that. And they won't be able to either. The FDA says that Comirnaty and the EUA vaccines are "legally different."

UPDATE 06/03/22

Brook Jackson filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against Pfizer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. The following was revealed during the court case against Pfizer.

Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a whistleblower’s lawsuit on the basis that the company can’t be guilty of fraud, abuse, and protocol violations in its COVID Vaccine clinical trials because its contract with the U.S. government allowed them to skirt regulations and federal laws that typically apply to government contracts.

In other words, Pfizer was allegedly able to make false statements to the government, and lie about the safety and efficacy of its product, “because the government was in on it with them!” according to Robert Barnes, the lead lawyer in the case.

007 has a license to kill — Pfizer has a license to kill and lie.

What do you think?

Note: Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"