Peace and Prosperity Ron Paul Institute's flagship blog Copyright Ron Paul Institute Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:31:30 GMT Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:31:30 GMT Courts Diverge on California Law to Silence Doctors Regarding Coronavirus Adam Dick

In the fall, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law legislation giving medical boards in the state the power to punish — including via revoking state medical licenses — doctors for challenging the orthodoxy regarding coronavirus.

This new law was quickly responded to with lawsuits challenging it.

Judges considering two of those lawsuits, in two different federal district courts in California, have decided whether to grant temporary injunctions against enforcement of the law while the challenges in the courts proceed. And the two judges decided differently on the matter. On December 28, the judge in a Central District of California case rejected ordering a preliminary injunction. Then, this week, the judge in an Eastern District of California case granted a preliminary injunction.

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley provides an informative discussion of the two judges’ opinions in a Thursday article at his website. You can read his article
here. The opinions of the district court judges, Turley writes, “now present an excellent foundation for a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court.”]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:31:30 GMT
Shut Down the CDC Already Adam Dick

What is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supposed to do?

Here is the answer from the CDC website’s “about” page:
Saving Lives, Protecting People TM

CDC is the nation’s leading science-based, data-driven, service organization that protects the public’s health. For more than 70 years, we’ve put science into action to help children stay healthy so they can grow and learn; to help families, businesses, and communities fight disease and stay strong; and to protect the public’s health.
Joseph Mercola, a doctor who has written many informative and insightful articles regarding coronavirus and government actions taken in the name of countering it, has presented a new article relating devastating new documentation of the apparent abject failure of the CDC to meet its own defined health-promoting mission relative to the experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots. The documentation indicates the CDC has been covering over, instead of fully investigating and warning the public regarding, numerous major health problems that information in the CDC’s possession suggests are caused by coronavirus shots taken by tens of millions of Americans. You can read Mercola’s article here.

Such behavior by the CDC is particularly disturbing because many people assume the CDC is doing its self-proclaimed job, vigilantly acting based on science and data to protect them from health dangers — including any health dangers from the coronavirus shots. Instead, the CDC has set aside science and data to push the line that everyone — including younger and healthier people who are at very low risk of serious sickness or death from the prior and current circulating variations of coronavirus — should take the purportedly “safe and effective shots” despite the shots having proven to be both dangerous and ineffective at preventing sickness and transmission.

Even today, three years into the coronavirus scare, the CDC is featuring coronavirus up top at its website home page as its “FEATURED TOPIC.” Click through from the home page and you find the CDC advising that everyone six months old and older routinely receive new injections of the experimental shots with nary a warning of potential dangers from doing so.

Early in the coronavirus scare, the CDC was in the forefront promoting coronavirus fearmongering, along with a crackdown on Americans’ liberty in the name of countering coronavirus. That was reason enough to shut down the CDC. Since, the CDC has compounded its harmfulness through its actions related to the coronavirus shots. The CDC has not only repeatedly failed to warn of the multiplicity of indicators of danger from the shots. The CDC has even encouraged everyone to take the shots, asserting that doing so is the clear path to advancing health.

What is the CDC doing? As far as coronavirus is concerned, the CDC is doing pretty much the opposite of its stated mission. Instead of acting based on science and data, the CDC is burying and ignoring science and data. Instead of protecting the public’s health, the CDC is endangering the public’s health. Plus, the CDC has proven itself an enemy of liberty. Shut down the CDC already.
]]> Wed, 25 Jan 2023 23:13:20 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn: Free Julian Assange and End the Ukraine War Adam Dick

Julian Assange should be freed, and the Ukraine War should be ended right away. These are two views expressed by Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour Party leader of Great Britain. These views are in sharp contrast with views typically expressed by prominent politicians of Corbyn’s nation that has imprisoned Assange for extradition to the United States as well as funded and armed Ukraine’s war against Russia.

And Corbyn, who has stayed a member of Parliament after serving as Labour Party and opposition leader from 2015 to 2020, has not just expressed these views quietly to friends or reluctantly when pressed in questioning. He has instead gone out of his way to proclaim prominently these views in an effort to influence a large audience.

Imagine a current or former top Republican or Democrat from the United States Senate or House of Representatives doing that.

Good for Corbyn. He has neither been a poodle of an American president, as was claimedregarding British Prime Minister Tony Blair, nor an enemy of free speech and peace.

This week, Corbyn is in Washington, DC where his agenda includes promoting the goals of gaining freedom for Assange and ending the Ukraine War. Hopefully, he will be able to make headway with both efforts.

On Friday, Democracy Now host Amy Goodman interviewed Corbyn regarding these and other issues. Here, from the interview transcript, is Goodman and Corbyn’s exchange regarding ending the Ukraine War:
AMY GOODMAN: And, Jeremy Corbyn, what about the war in Ukraine? What about those pushing for negotiation, for diplomacy, often criticized for being Russian puppets, yet deeply concerned about this, what could be a global conflagration, or even what’s happening just alone to the Ukrainians? You have a thousand religious leaders in the United States calling for a ceasefire. Bishop Barber, we played a portion of his speech where he said the war is immoral, it is illegal. He fiercely criticized Putin, but said negotiation has to be the way. Your response?

JEREMY CORBYN: I welcome the call by a thousand religious leaders and many, many other people. And I’ve had a number of very interesting discussions all around Washington yesterday on the possibilities of promoting the idea of an internationally organized ceasefire and negotiations.

I absolutely and totally condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the brutality that goes with it. And the destruction of life in Ukraine, the loss of lives of conscripted Russian soldiers is awful and appalling. This war could drag on and on and on. More and more arms could be thrown into the conflict. More and more people would die, and you would end up with destruction all around.

Surely to goodness, here we are in the 21st century watching in real time a conflict going on. Can we not do better than that, call a halt to the conflict, have negotiations and agree on a viable future? If Russia and the Ukraine can negotiate, albeit under the auspices in that occasion of Turkey, to ensure that grain supplies flowed out of Russia and the Ukraine through the Black Sea, which are very important to feed people in the Middle East and North Africa, then they can come together on lots of other issues itself. And so, can we stop having armchair generals in all of our studios discussing how this could happen, that could happen, this could go on and that could go on, and this could be destroyed? Instead, raise the voice for peace, and raise the voice for hopes and justice.

I support the Russian peace campaigners. I support the religious leaders that are calling for a more rational process. And I call upon the leaders of the countries that are closely involved in this to heed those calls and find a way out of it. All wars end with some kind of peace conference. Let’s jump to that stage.
Regarding Assange, Corbyn strongly advocated in the interview for freeing Assange, who Corbyn described as having “spent his life as a journalist investigating uncomfortable truths and ensuring that they are published.” Indeed, these journalistic efforts are the reason Assange is in the US government’s cross hairs. Corbyn also promoted in the interview the Belmarsh Tribunal, a Friday event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC regarding Julian Assange at which Corbyn is one of several speakers. Corbyn stated:
We are standing up for the right to know. We’re standing up for journalism. And the Belmarsh Tribunal today here in Washington is a plea to people, particularly in the United States, who believe in free speech, who believe in the right to know, who believe that journalists should be protected in going about their work, and to drop the appeal against the decision made by a British court that he was not fit to travel and, therefore, should not be allowed to go to the United States. And we are making that plea. We ask thinking people in the United States, thinking people who value the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to speak out now in support of Julian Assange. And that’s what we’ll be doing this afternoon here in Washington.
You can find out more about the Belmarsh Tribunal here. You can watch the Belmarsh Tribunal here.]]> Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:59:30 GMT
Dollar Hegemony, Saudi Arabia, Oil, and Ron Paul Adam Dick

Interviewed Tuesday at Bloomberg, Saudi Arabia Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan indicated that Saudi Arabia would be open to conducting trade, including involving oil, in various currencies — mentioning in particular the euro and the Saudi riyal — instead of the United States dollar. This is the latest in a series of developments suggesting the Middle East nation and large oil producer is shifting away from supporting US dollar hegemony through trade.

In February of 2006, then US House of Representatives member Ron Paul (R-TX) discussed the history of US dollar hegemony and its looming doom in a House floor speech titled “The End of Dollar Hegemony.” Paul began his speech with his assessment that the dollar dominance, called dollar hegemony more recently and dollar diplomacy in earlier decades of the prior hundred years, “is coming to an end.”

The full history and analysis Paul related in the speech is fascinating. But, there is a particular portion of Paul’s speech that relates to the Saudi finance minister’s comment. This is when Paul focused on the key role the trade of oil has played in supporting dollar hegemony and the related position of the US dollar as the world reserve currency.

Paul explained that after President Richard Nixon removed the final link between gold and the US dollar in 1971, backing of the dollar with oil became key to maintaining dollar dominance. Paul stated:
It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it — not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo—gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.
Come the 1980s, Paul proceeded to state in the speech, additional support was provided to help maintain dollar dominance. Nonetheless, the “petrodollar” system remained a critical support for dollar dominance. Indeed, Paul commented: “If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world’s reserve currency.”

That removal of the dollar’s dominant role in oil markets is just what the Saudi finance minister is suggesting.

And the dollar has already been pushed aside significantly in the oil trade over the last year in reaction to US and several other nations’ sanctions on Russia, including on the large Russian oil and gas industry.

Paul, in his speech, describes the US as having been willing to pursue a series of foreign interventions in its decades-long effort to maintain the petrodollar system. It leads one to wonder what is in store as the petrodollar system’s crumbling seems to have much accelerated.

Turbulence is ahead. But, ultimately, Paul proposed in his speech, the end of dollar hegemony could make way for what he describes as a better system. Paul concluded his speech by stating:
Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.
]]> Wed, 18 Jan 2023 15:19:16 GMT
New York May Be the First to Ban Gas Stoves Adam Dick

On Tuesday, I wrote about the latest step being considered in the United States government’s ongoing effort to make homes more dreary. The US government has already pursued over the last few decades regulations to eliminate the sale of popular types of light bulbs, furnaces, toilets, and other items that help make a home homey. Now the Consumer Product Safety Commission is targeting gas stoves for elimination as well.

While the US government can be a big downer when it comes to restricting freedom, you can be sure that in regard to many matters there are some state governments even more eager in their quest for suppression. Seemingly attempting to demonstrate such in this instance is New York Governor Kathy Hochul. If she has her way, the New York state government may beat the US government to the punch by being the first to ban the popular stoves in America.

Hochul “quietly snuck a proposal to outlaw new gas stoves into the ‘New York Housing Compact’ she unveiled during her State of the State speech Tuesday,” reported the New York Post in a Wednesday article. But the ban does not just apply to gas stoves. The Post article further notes that “Hochul’s plan would ban gas stoves, hot water heaters and oil furnaces in both new home and commercial construction by the end of the decade.”

Argh. Hochul sounds like the Grinch who stole every day.

Over on the editorial page, the Post’s editorial board provided a good, short rebuff of the new threatened bans from the US and New York governments, including the shady proffered justifications of protecting children and the environment. Read the editorial here.
]]> Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:55:40 GMT
The US Government Versus Home Sweet Home Adam Dick

Over the last few decades the United States government has been working on degrading Americans’ homes one piece at a time. A new proposal the US government is considering would add gas stoves commonly used in the kitchens of homes across the country to its list of forbidden yet highly valued home items.

Home sweet home keeps becoming more bitter as the US government mandates the elimination of home features that have contributed greatly to Americans’ comfort in their abodes. We know US government crackdowns on home comfort include the mandating in 1994 that new
toilets use less than half the water to flush than most toilets used before. Also, the war against light bulbs choice is set to culminate this summer when the US government totally bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs that were long commonly used in American homes.

In the sights of President Joe Biden’s administration are additional home comforts. The Department of Energy is seeking to ban the majority of
natural gas furnaces currently being purchased. In addition, Candace Hathaway reported Monday at The Blaze that the Biden administration’s Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering banning gas-burning stoves — the type of stove that Hathaway notes is used in approximately 35 percent of American homes.

With the US government micromanaging home lights, toilets, furnaces, and stoves to the liking of the government instead of each home’s residents —and probably increasing costs in the process, many Americans will experience four good reasons to decry the US government within an hour of waking up each day.
]]> Tue, 10 Jan 2023 20:59:16 GMT
Killer Shots and Justice Adam Dick

A Rasmussen Reports survey of American adults conducted last week found that 28 percent of the polled individuals “personally know” someone whose death “may have been caused by side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.” These same experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots were relentlessly proclaimed by government officials and media commentators throughout the coronavirus scare as “safe and effective” for everyone.

Even a greater percentage of individuals queried by Rasmussen Reports — 49 percent — said it is either somewhat likely (21 percent) or very likely (28 percent) that “side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths.”

With the suspicion that the coronavirus shots are killers this widespread in America, and likely to continue to become more prevalent as both more information comes out about the shots and the coronavirus scare recedes into history, it seems like governments, corporations, and individuals behind the fast-track creation and approval, the promotion, the widespread distribution, and the mandated injection of the shots will likely increasingly find themselves in legal jeopardy.

People apparently responsible for deaths, and injuries as well, from the shots can point to legal protections against liability built into the law. But, it may be that the perception of wrongful killing, whether due to intentional or reckless actions, has reached or will soon reach a level that will cause the dam holding back liability to crumble. People disgusted by the deaths and by the responsible parties evading justice will demand that the liability protection be torn down or worked around.

Key to overcoming or bypassing liability protections would, at least in some situations, likely be showing responsible parties were more than just negligent about the harm from the shots — proving reckless or intentional disregard of expectable harms their actions would produce. Allegations of fraudulent representations may also be an important component of successful lawsuits and prosecutions.

We are already seeing cracks in the liability protection dam. This month, a United States court judge in Illinois approved a class actions lawsuit settlement under which NorthShore University HealthSystem agreed to pay 10.3 million dollars to about 500 employees. NorthShore had rejected the employees’ religious objections to the coronavirus shots that NorthShore had mandated employees take as a condition for keeping their jobs. Some of the employees receiving compensation were fired or reassigned after they refused to take the shots. Others submitted to taking the shots after denial of their exemption requests.

Another lawsuit has even resulted in Anthony Fauci, the most famous American coronavirus fearmonger of all, being deposed regarding some of his behind the scenes actions related to coronavirus. And, over in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis is moving forward this month with impaneling a grand jury to look into potential crimes related to the shots.
]]> Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:46:17 GMT
Ron Paul, ‘Heroic Voice of Reason’ and ‘the Deep State’s Principal Enemy’ Adam Dick

In a Sunday post titled “The Voice of Reason” at the blog, Charles Burris provides eloquent praise for libertarian communicator Ron Paul’s past and present efforts to promote liberty and nonintervention.

Starting off, Burris writes:
The true heroic voice of reason concerning the past and present disastrous adventurism such as the Afghanistan quagmire is certainly not war criminals George W. Bush, Dick and Liz Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. It is 2012 presidential candidate Ron Paul. He remains the voice of clarity directing his Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity in speaking truth to power against the Ukraine/Russia conflict.

The principled constitutionalist and noninterventionist Ron Paul was right from the start about our disastrous preemptive imperial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, right from the start about the destructive ‘blowback’ fomenting more hatred directed towards America, right from the start about the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies creating the housing bubble which led to the 2008 financial meltdown, right from the start about the War on Drugs, the USA Patriot Act, the invasive NSA surveillance, and the TSA imposing a police state upon the American people.
Burris’s praise of Paul continues strong and thought-provoking through the final sentence of the post, in which Burris declares that Paul “remains the deep state’s principal enemy, and the sterling champion and exemplar of the principles, rights and liberties of the American people.”

Read Burris’s complete post here.]]> Mon, 02 Jan 2023 19:56:25 GMT
Big Brother in the Big Apple Adam Dick

Big Brother is protecting you.” That is a quote from New York City Mayor Eric Adams in a Saturday article at Politico. Adams made the comment in defense of the extensive web of high-tech surveillance his city government deploys against people in America’s most populous city, as well as the mayor’s desire to expand the surveilling.

Such a comment is very disturbing for any liberty loving individual who has a basic understanding of George Orwell’s novel from which the “Big Brother” mention is derived as well as the amazing capability of the surveillance technology available to governments nowadays.

Over at Reason, J.D. Tuccille provides an insightful analysis of why people should respond to Adams’s “Big Brother” comment by telling Adams to “get lost.” Read
here Tuccille’s Friday article “New York City Mayor Eric Adams Wants You to Love Big Brother.”]]> Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:36:35 GMT
Dennis Kucinich Discusses the Pressure on Congress Members to Support War Adam Dick
Monetary contributions to the Democratic Party, Kucinich suggests in the interview, are a key reason why antiwar voices are now absent among Democrats in the House who he notes have, in contrast with Republican members, voted unanimously for funding the Ukraine War. Kucinich states that he thinks the Democratic Party’s determination 35 or 40 years ago to take corporate donations contributed much to quashing antiwar action by Democratic members because, “in Washington, he or she who pays the piper, you know, plays the tune, and that’s what’s happened.”

A ”new benchmark” in “slavish obedience to the status quo within the party” in support of war was reached in October, Kucinich asserts, when a group of Democratic House members, after encountering some pushback, quickly retracted their letter to President Joe Biden in which they had requested that Biden consider seeking a diplomatic resolution of the Ukraine War.

Kucinich also notes in the interview the funding of congressional campaigns by the “arms industry” that is “making money hand over fist with the expansion of war” contributes to the limiting of antiwar advocacy in Congress. But, Kucinich adds that such funding is “not all it’s about.” Also important is the influence on Congress members’ constituents of a “heavily mediated environment which supports war.” Kucinich explains:
The request to fund a war goes into the larger, heavily mediated environment which supports a war, and, if you stand against the funding, then your constituents who may be great Americans look at that and they say, “Well, why aren’t you supporting America?”. And I think that members of Congress are always concerned about being caught betwixt and between on what their constituents think as opposed to the doubts that they have.
Another factor Kucinich explains puts pressure on Congress members to support war fueling spending is advocacy from businesses in their districts that profit from such. States Kucinich: “So, what happens is, when the Pentagon budget comes up, there are a parade of various businesses — small and large — who will make appointments with the congressperson or staff and lay out how many jobs are in the district and how important it is to a district business to have this budget passed.”

Further, notes Kucinich in the interview, “peer pressure” and “herd instinct” affect Congress members looking up at the vote board and seeing all the pro military spending and prowar votes coming in from fellow members. This encourages wavering members to fall in line and vote the same way.

Summing up the situation Congress members are in, Kucinich states that “it’s a rare individual” who will risk his political career by acting counter to the “enormous pressure.”

Watch Kucinich’s interview here:

Kucinich is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.]]> Thu, 22 Dec 2022 02:54:34 GMT
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Andrew Napolitano, a 2024 Third-Party Presidential Ticket? Adam Dick The 2024 United States presidential race would become much more interesting if Children’s Health Defense Founder and Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has tenaciously challenged the tyranny and propaganda pursued in the name of countering coronavirus, runs for president with legal scholar and former New Jersey Judge Andrew Napolitano as his running mate on a third-party ticket. That is the presidential ticket possibility suggested by political commentator and trends forecaster Gerald Celente in a Friday interview with host David Knight at the David Knight Show.

Twenty-five minutes into the interview, Celente broached the idea of a Kennedy-Napolitano ticket. Many Americans’ reaction to such a ticket may be similar to Knight’s initial response upon hearing its suggestion. Knight stated, “I would support something like that, even if I didn’t agree with them on all the issues, because I think they tell people what they really believe.” You can watch the interview here.

Celente further suggested that Kennedy and Napolitano could seek the Libertarian Party nomination.

Celente mentioned in the interview his having spoken along with Kennedy and Napolitano at the September 4, 2021 Ron Paul Institute (RPI) conference in Virginia near Washington, DC. Regarding what a Kennedy-Napolitano campaign would look like, Kennedy and Napolitano’s speeches at that RPI event provide a promising preview.

Watch Kennedy’s speech here:

Watch the speech by Napolitano, who is an RPI Advisory Board member, here:

]]> Sun, 18 Dec 2022 01:13:00 GMT
Chaining Down the Tyrant in the Texas Governor’s Mansion Adam Dick

Texas Governor Greg Abbott went into tyrant mode in 2020 on the excuse of a coronavirus “emergency.” He unilaterally imposed a plethora of mandates and new government programs. Included among Abbott’s actions that year were statewide forced closures of businesses, schools, and other places beginning in March, as well as mandated mask wearing beginning in July.

Abbott’s coronavirus crackdown measures were met with sharp criticism from many Texans. Included among them were some Republican members of the state legislature. Notably, in September of 2020, state Republican Party executive committee members, having had enough of the governor’s power overreach, took the heroic and unusual action in September of 2020 of publicly rebuking Abbott, a fellow Republican, in a resolution approved by a 54 to 4 vote. That resolution called on Abbott “to immediately rescind all COVID-related mandates, closures, and restrictions and to open Texas NOW.” Nonetheless, Abbott continued his coronavirus crackdown.

Abbott has since rescinded much of the unilaterally ordered mandates and programs of his coronavirus crackdown. Abbott even feigned heroism for freedom in March of 2021 when repealing draconian mandates he himself had imposed for many months on people in the state. But, Abbott never apologized for any of these measures or the freedom and prosperity that they trampled; instead he suggests his actions had all been appropriate given the circumstances.

What to do with the unrepentant Abbott who seems just a new crisis of the day away from unilaterally springing on Texans another slew of mandates and programs at the cost of violating their freedom, health, and wealth? To deal with Abbott, as well as any successor in the Texas Governor’s Mansion who may have similar tyrannical proclivities, legal chains must be placed on executive power to protect against that power again being similarly abused.

Last week, Republican Texas state Representative Brian Harrison introduced legislation that promises to restrain Abbott and future Texas governors from unilaterally and tyrannically exercising expansive power during a future “emergency” situation as Abbott did during the coronavirus scare. Whether or not the bill is the perfect solution, it does suggest the sort of steps that must be taken to address the problem. In a Texas Scorecard article last week, Brandon Waltens briefly described key provisions of Harrison’s Liberty Protections in Emergencies Act (HB 911) as follows:
The bill would require emergency orders to be narrowly tailored and subject to expedited judicial review. It would also sunset orders after 30 days if the Legislature does not give their approval, and prevent the governor from reissuing expired or rejected orders.
Waltens also noted in his article an additional fact that suggests chains should be put on Abbott. Waltens wrote that Texas is one of just 11 states still in a “COVID state of emergency” due to Abbott having just last month renewed that order for the state.

Of course, the coronavirus scare revealed tyrants in government across America, not just Abbott in the Texas Governor’s Mansion. It is thus important that every state legislature, local elected body, and the United States Congress consider and, as needed, approve legislation to protect against the next crisis of the day being used by tyrants at any level of government to exercises destructive, expansive, unchecked powers.]]> Wed, 14 Dec 2022 23:09:29 GMT
After Backlash, San Francisco Government Quickly Moves from Authorizing to Banning Police Using Robots to Kill Adam Dick

Public backlash can lead government to reverse power overreaches, and to do so quickly.

On Tuesday of last week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to authorize police to use drones or robots to kill via remote control in the California city. Then, a week later — on Tuesday of this week, the board reversed course, voting to prohibit this siccing of killer robots or drones on people. The board voted 8-3 for the reversal — the same vote total by which the board the week before had approved the police using robots or drones to kill.

J.D. Morris reported at the San Francisco Chronicle that the reversal by the Board of Supervisors followed a “wave of public outcry from community members” and outvoted board members threatening they would push for the matter to be decided by a public vote if the board did not reverse its decision.

The remote killing authorization, though, is still not itself fully killed. Morris notes in his article:
After approving a new version of the police policy that bans officers from using robots to kill dangerous suspects such as mass shooters and suicide bombers, supervisors separately sent the original deadly robot provision of the policy back for further review.

The board's Rules Committee may now choose to refine that provision — placing tighter limits on when police can use bomb-bearing robots with deadly force — or abandon it entirely, leaving in place the prohibition passed Tuesday.

Supervisors are expected to take a final vote on the new version of the policy that bans deadly robots — for now, at least — next week.
Concerned individuals in San Francisco will need to remain vigilant in their effort to ensure that a remote-control killing authorization does not creep back into the city’s police policy over the next week or in the longer term. And concerned individuals across America would do well to keep close watch over the police policies of their local, state, and national governments.]]> Thu, 08 Dec 2022 20:52:38 GMT
McAdams on Biden Family & Global Interests Tied to Ukraine One America News Network
]]> Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:14:06 GMT
REAL ID Requirement for Travelers Delayed Until May 2025 Adam Dick

The United States government’s Department of Homeland Security announced Monday it is delaying until May of 2025 requiring people to present REAL ID compliant identification to make it through security checkpoints at American airports. This delay extends a previous delay in implementation of the requirement that was set to expire in May of 2023.

In 2005, when the US House of Representatives considered the REAL ID Act, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) presented a brief speech on the House floor in which he layed out a strong pro-liberty case against REAL ID. You can watch Paul’s speech here.

The new delay is good news for liberty. But, it is not as good of news as many people may expect given that all state governments are now producing identification that is compliant with REAL ID. Likely included is the driver license in your wallet or purse. State governments have fallen in line on Real ID through successive earlier delays in roll out of the REAL ID requirement for air travelers, originally scheduled for implementation in 2008.]]> Mon, 05 Dec 2022 19:46:10 GMT
The Recurring Threat to Reimpose a Broad Mask Mandate in Los Angeles County Adam Dick

Barbara Ferrer, the director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, is once again threatening to reimpose a broad mask wearing mandate on people in the county, purportedly to counter coronavirus.

Of course, masks have never been shown to provide net protection against coronavirus and even most people who succumbed to the coronavirus fearmongering early on have happily turned their backs on masks, “social distancing,” isolation at home, and the rest of the pseudoscientific protocols that were thrust upon them before. Nonetheless, some bureaucrats can’t help but keep grasping to reclaim the power that has slipped through their fingers.

Back in July, Ferrer threatened that a broad mask mandate would likely soon automatically swing back in force in the county because of increases in coronavirus “community transmission” numbers in the county — numbers the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had singled out as important. She is back now with a similar threat. As reported by ABC News out of Los Angeles, on Thursday “Ferrer said the mandate would be issued if two hospital metrics reach [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] thresholds -- a daily average admission rate of more than 10 per 100,000 residents and a greater than 10% rate of staffed inpatient beds being occupied by COVID patients.”

Maybe people in Los Angeles County will luck out and not be subjected to the reimposition of the broad mask mandate because what ended up happening over the summer happens again: In July, the coronavirus numbers ultimately just missed tripping a CDC-inspired threshold, denying Ferrer her anticipated mandate. But, it is a sad situation that people must continue to live under the shadow of threats to reimpose the buffoonish and authoritarian mandate.

Some tyrants will not give up on the new power they grabbed up in coronavirus crackdowns until they are forced to do so.
]]> Fri, 02 Dec 2022 22:33:14 GMT
Ye’s Suspension from Twitter Suggests Elon Musk’s Free Speech Commitment is a Sham Adam Dick

Twitter, with its CEO Elon Musk’s approval, suspended Ye (the rapper formerly known as Kanye West) on Thursday night from posting at Twitter after Ye tweeted what could be taken as either the symbol of the Raelian Movement or just a swastika inside a star of David, along with he message “YE24 LOVE EVERYONE #LOVESPEECH.” This action appears to fly in the face of Musk’s assurances that he is turning Twitter, long notorious for censorship, into a sanctuary for free speech.

The rationale for the suspension remains rather opaque, but it seems to be that Musk and Twitter viewed this post as inciting violence, which is prohibited under Twitter’s rules. If the basis is something else, hopefully Musk or Twitter management will soon provide an explanation.

“YE24” in the tweet, which is no longer viewable at Twitter, appears to be a reference to Ye running in the 2024 United States presidential contest. Suppose the image in the tweet is intended to represent, sans Raelianistic meaning, just the Hebrew Star of David and German National Socialist swastika mashed up. Then, the image, combined with the text accompanying it, seems likely to indicate that Ye extends love to people of all viewpoints — along the lines of “coexist” bumper stickers — and is flexing his love for speech by posting something that will jar people. (It is also possible that Ye jumbled his attempted communication.)

In contrast, the assertion that Ye was inciting violence through this tweet is preposterous. Yet, that is what Musk appears to have claimed Ye had done.

Musk defended Twitter’s suspension of Ye by posting at Twitter that Ye was suspended for “incitement to violence.” Really? While people have pointed to Ye lately accusing him of crazy talk, this comment by Musk really takes the cake. Musk, like his predecessors in charge of Twitter, would be flagrantly mischaracterizing what Ye did in the Twitter post by calling it incitement to violence. Why do that? Is the reason that Musk and the new Twitter management want to continue suspending and banning accounts based on their own biases, preferences, and whims while parading around as defenders of free speech?

It looks like the facade of the new Twitter as a defender of free speech is crumbling.
]]> Fri, 02 Dec 2022 17:36:12 GMT
San Francisco Cops Authorized to Kill by Remote Control Adam Dick

It has become common practice for United States military members to use drones to kill people abroad via remote control. On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to OK cops doing the same in the California city.

A San Francisco cop, though, will not be the first cop in America to kill via the use of a drone of robot. A cop in Dallas, Texas already did it six years ago. I talked about that killing in a March of 2018 episode of Five Minutes Five Issues:
Jason Ditz wrote Monday at regarding video apparently showing Israel police using drones to drop tear gas canisters onto crowds of demonstrators in Gaza.

It can’t happen here, you may think. But, think again. In July of 2016, Dallas, Texas police cornered for hours a person they thought had shot several cops. The police then killed him by detonating explosives on a robot that had been remotely driven up to him under the pretense that the robot was bringing him a phone.
Of course, San Francisco Board of Supervisors members who voted for the remote control killing option say it will be a rare last resort measure. We heard that before when police SWAT teams were first introduced. Then, SWAT team use vastly expanded. Eastern Kentucky University Professor Peter B. Kraska provided details of this rise of SWAT in informative written testimony for a United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in September of 2014. In the testimony, Kraska used the term police paramilitary unit (PPU) interchangeably with the term SWAT team. Kraska wrote:
I most importantly learned that my micro-level experience might have been indicative of a much larger phenomenon. I decided to test empirically my ground-level observations by conducting two independently funded national-level surveys. These surveys of both large and small police agencies yielded definitive data documenting the militarization of a significant component of the U.S. police (Kraska and Kappeler 1997; Kraska and Cubellis 1997). This militarization was evidenced by a precipitous rise and mainstreaming of police paramilitary units. As of the late 1990s, 89 percent of American police departments serving populations of fifty thousand people or more had a PPU, almost double of what existed in the mid-1980s. Their growth in smaller jurisdictions (agencies serving between 25 and 50,000 people) was even more pronounced. Currently, about 80 percent of small town agencies have a PPU; in the mid-1980s only 20 percent had them.

While formation of teams is an important indicator of growth, these trends would mean little if these teams were relatively inactive. This was not the case. There had been more than a 1,300 percent increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or call-outs, between 1980 and the year 2000. Taking into consideration follow up research in 2007, and extrapolating from the original research, there are an estimated 60,000 SWAT team deployments a year conducted among those departments surveyed; in the early 1980s there was an average of about 3,000 (Kraska 2001). The trend-line demonstrated that this growth began during the drug war of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

These figures would mean little if this increase in teams and deployments was due to an increase in PPU’s traditional and essential function – a reactive deployment of high-risk specialists for particularly dangerous events already in progress, such as hostage, sniper, or terrorist situations. Instead, more than 85 percent of these deployments were for proactive deployments, specifically random patrol work, and no-knock and quick-knock dynamic entries into private residences, searching for contraband (drugs, guns, and money). This pattern of SWAT teams primarily engaged in surprise contraband raids held true for the largest as well as the smallest communities. PPUs had changed from being a periphery and strictly reactive component of police departments to a proactive force actively engaged in fighting the drug war.

As further evidence, a surprisingly high percentage of police agencies also deployed their teams to do routine patrol work in crime “hot spots”; a strong indicator of PPU normalization. In fact, a number of U.S. police departments are currently purchasing, through homeland security funding, military armored personnel carriers (APC’s), some of which are being used for aggressive, proactive patrol work. The Pittsburg police department, for example, purchased a $250,000 APC using homeland security grant money (Deitch 2007). It is being used to conduct “street sweeps” in high crime neighborhoods. The personnel involved are SWAT officers outfitted with full police paramilitary garb and weaponry.
Will someone decades from now be presenting similar testimony regarding the vastly expanded practice of cops using drones and robots to kill?]]> Wed, 30 Nov 2022 22:46:17 GMT
Joseph Ladapo, the Florida Surgeon General Who Challenges Coronavirus Fearmongering and ‘Unsafe’ Coronavirus Shots Adam Dick

I first wrote about Joseph Ladapo in September of 2021, soon after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appointed Ladapo to be the state’s surgeon general and run the state’s health department. “The new state surgeon general, in his comments at the Tuesday appointment announcement event,” I wrote in a Ron Paul Institute article, “spoke boldly in favor of freedom and against using health fearmongering, including the overstating of dangers from coronavirus, as an excuse to violate individual rights.”

Since then, Ladapo has acted on a number of occasions to advance liberty and health in the face of coronavirus fearmongering, including instances I have related in further articles. Ladapo refused US government shipment to the Florida government of coronavirus “vaccine” shots for babies and children ages four and younger, advised that men ages 19 to 39 not take the shots, and advised parents “Keep sticking with your intuition and keep those COVID jabs away from your kids” when yearly coronavirus shots were added to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s childhood vaccine schedule.

While other states’ top health officials were dutifully repeating the fallacious mantra about the shots being “safe and effective” for everyone, Ladapo exercised the courage to stand up against this propaganda and speak out loudly for rationality, liberty, and health promotion.

Ladapo, who is both a medical doctor and the holder of a Ph.D. in health policy, was recently interviewed by host Cheryl Chumley at her Bold and Blunt Podcast. In the interview, Ladapo, as the show’s title suggests speaks both boldly and bluntly about government building up the coronavirus scare and using it as an excuse to exercise greater power at the expense of both liberty and the health government officials claimed they were seeking to advance. Starting the interview with discussion of the public face of US coronavirus policy — Anthony Fauci, Ladapo observes that Fauci “was always very busy shaping information to fit his view of what Americans should do,” providing the example of Fauci taking “a long time to make it very clear, and even now he’s not perfect, about the difference in risk between older people and younger people” from coronavirus. That, Ladapo explains, helped advance implementing policies such as school restrictions and closures to supposedly protect children who in reality were at very little risk from coronavirus.

With the coronavirus scare moving into history, Ladapo makes the important observation in the interview that individuals coming to terms with their having been “absolutely misled by people like Dr. Fauci is a critical step to help all of us avoid ever getting to that point again where we become so easy prey to manipulation by fear, which is exactly what happened.”

The coronavirus shots are also a focus of the interview, with Ladapo describing the mRNA coronavirus shots as “just inherently less safe” than other vaccines while “sadly, ironically they have been pushed harder than any so it’s a terrible combination.” Ladapo also suggests that he will be recommending that additional groups of people not take the mRNA shots, stating, “I actually anticipate that there will be more groups that are identified with data who have a signal for increased risks for whom these covid mRNA vaccines will not be recommended.”

Even if the coronavirus shots had turned out to be safe and effective for everyone as promoted relentlessly in the pro-shots propaganda, Ladapo would have opposed them being forced on people via mandates. As he states in the interview, “when it comes to your body, that’s given to you by God, and no one has any right, authority to put anything in your body without your consent, without your agreement.” But, the reality with the coronavirus shots, explains Ladapo, is that the injury from the vaccine mandate “was quadrupled by the fact that these mRNA covid-19 vaccines are just much, much less safe.” Ladapo elaborates:
They are essentially unsafe products. Their safety profile is just so poor that it’s something that should be used with much more caution than they’ve pushed.
Listen to Ladapo’s interview here:

]]> Tue, 29 Nov 2022 20:03:19 GMT
Vitamin D: A Cheap, Effective, and Ignored Coronavirus Countermeasure Adam Dick

In February, I wrote about doctor and libertarian communicator Ron Paul’s advice from early on in the coronavirus panic that people be outside and active in the fresh air and sunlight — exposing themselves to protective vitamin D, and about this advice having been backed by a new study out of Israel.

Dr. Paul had it right all along. In contrast, I wrote that government “public health experts” were using their large platforms throughout the coronavirus panic to tell people to “just lock themselves away in their homes” while “providing just about no advice on anything people could do ahead of time to prepare their bodies to fend off coronavirus.” These so-called experts would not even mention vitamin D or any other supplements, medicines, or activities that could aid people in fending off coronavirus. Such self-help measures were an off-limits topic.

Just stay at home doing nothing to help yourself until you are so sick you have to seek admission to a hospital was the advice of the so-called experts. This advice was particularly troublesome because, by the time people’s medical problems were so bad they went to a hospital, it would be much more difficult to reverse these medical problems even if the right measures were undertaken. Also, hospital protocols, especially early on, often amounted to conveyor belts to death for coronavirus patients. Prevention and early treatment were the best course. But, such was largely unmentioned.

Only when the falsely-claimed “safe and effective” coronavirus “vaccine” shots became available did the “public health experts” finally recommend any purported preventative measure beyond stay at home, mask, and “social distancing” quackery. Their message changed some, but remained horrendous for people’s health.

Writing Tuesday at The Blaze, Daniel Horowitz provides details of a new study published at Nature adding to the evidence that boosting people’s vitamin D levels was an effective, though often ignored, means to prevent people from becoming sick and dying from coronavirus.

Even as the coronavirus panic fades into history, Horowitz notes in his article that the importance of vitamin D in fending off illness persists. He writes:
Just consider how safe, cheap, and broadly beneficial vitamin D is for so many other health concerns. This benefit was known from day one, yet it is still being kept quiet, even as concerns grow about a virulent flu and RSV season, and we know vitamin D is an immunomodulator against all respiratory viruses. We know almost half the U.S. population is deficient in D (82% of black people), and many more could probably use a boost. Where are the health department bulletins warning about this, as they do for getting boosters of mRNA gene juice? Where is the obsession to test people’s D levels to ensure they are above 40-50 ngs/mL, just like the obsession about COVID testing? Every pediatrician is being incentivized to shove one vaccine after another on children, but how many even know their patients’ D levels?
Hopefully, more and more people will learn the good news about vitamin D and refuse to take on faith the advice of government “public health experts” — two significant steps toward better health.]]> Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:35:33 GMT