Back in the studio after the holidays, we hit the ground running with COVID updates, information about the vaccines, how viruses work over time, and more!
They admit they don’t know what they are doing. WHY is anyone still listening to these harbingers of darkness?
Here is the reality: Nothing any government official mandates changes anything anywhere. The virus curve is the same shape and size across the globe despite different places trying different things, with some variation for the overall age/health of the population–countries with older, fatter, sicker people are hit harder… Maybe a question Americans should be asking ourselves is why do we have so many old, fat, sick people? Hint: it’s SAD… it’s the Standard American Diet!
Here’s another hard truth: The powers that be could have spent the past year trying to help make people healthier. They could have advised you start taking care of yourself. That you start taking Vitamin D and Zinc. That you get outside in the sunlight for some daily exercise in fresh air. That you stop fueling your body with junk and start cooking whole foods from scratch. That you get enough sleep, since sleep deprivation is a recognized form of torture. But see… They like you like this… they like you fat and slow and obedient. They like being able to literally terrify you out of your mind.
For the past year, the people who purport to have your best interests at heart, instead of choosing life and health and vitality and hope, chose darkness, tyranny, control, isolation, snitching, and force. They chose to terrify you into submission without solid justification for their actions.
They have spent the last year changing your brain’s neural pathways, priming you to live permanently in fear and unable to think for yourself, which, in case I have to spell it out for you, is a lot worse for your health and wellbeing than a case of Covid.
Stop listening to these people. They 100% do. not. have. your. best. interests. at. heart. Trust your instincts! Peace and love to y’all!
Can someone help me understand where in the Emergency powers legislation it says Governor Chris Sununu can now simply suspend state laws to suit his desires? This is the Emergency Powers law. This is the Executive Order suspending the opt-out portion of state law regarding vaccine registries.
What exactly is the point of NH laws if a governor can now just override laws passed by our duly elected legislature in order to do the federal government’s bidding? What’s next?
For those of us concerned about the Governor’s executory overreach, thus far, the courts have failed us. Based on the initial volley of cases trying to limit the Governor’s emergency powers, it seems hard to find an honest judge who will defend the NH Constitution.
I’m curious whether someone could bring suit under Article 2B of the NH Constitution, which passed in 2018 with more than 80% support: “[Art.] 2-b. [Right of Privacy.] An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent.”I don’t see how suspending a law that protects this sort of privacy can be viewed as anything other than massive overreach… But, I won’t hold my breath.
This was informative, so I wanted to share. I hope people who follow along with me understand something: we are all learning together, which is why allowing open, uncensored conversations is important, without one side controlling “the narrative.” The minute there’s “a narrative,” there’s less freedom, and more control. When that control involves huge profits (rewards) without any liability (no risk), we should be extra, extra skeptical.
You have to ask yourself… if nothing sinister is going on with the government’s response to COVID-19, WHY are they censoring alternative or questioning voices? How, in a free society, is there now only allowed to be “one narrative”? This obvious “tell” should make you extra skeptical before you decide to take a Corona vaccine.
In order for YOU to make accurate medical decisions for yourself, you need:
1. Informed consent (understand what the repercussions will be);
2. Medical choice (you cannot be forced to take a medical intervention you do not want and must be presented with your options); and
3. Body autonomy (you own yourself, aka “your body, your choice”).
This is being stripped from us as the government colludes with Big Pharma to push insufficiently tested vaccines on us.
You need to ask yourself if you are willing to be a guinea pig in a worldwide experiment of a brand new “RNA technology” that NO ONE is willing to insure or stand behind (vaccine makers are exempt from product liability, meaning is something bad happens to you after you get this vaccine, you will be SOL).
This “RNA tech” will introduce synthetic DNA into the human race for the very first time in human history. Since 2002, when they first started trying to develop a corona-vaccine, experiments on animals, including ferrets who have similar immune responses to humans in clinical trails, have had severe negative effects on the subjects’ immune systems.
On top of that, experts are sounding the alarm that these RNA vaccines may caused mass sterilization. I haven’t looked into this yet to see how credible this is, but I will be on the lookout for more data to gain a better understanding of the risks.
The real epidemic that is being spread is fear and hysteria for a somewhat novel Corona virus, with a death-rate similar to previous seasonal flus. The only thing that has changed is how governments worldwide have responded. The time has come to ask WHY? What is going on, and as always, cui bono? Who benefits?
PS: I grant that a few things mentioned sound a little “whoo!” or downright strange. That’s OK. In a robust, peer reviewed world where debate is allowed, we will be able to sift through these positions to come to the right conclusions. Also, before someone says it, I am not categorically anti-vax, I am pro-informed-choice.
A typical progressive position about masks that I run into when expressing my view that in a free society, each individual gets to decide according to their individual risk and health profiles whether to wear a mask or not:
Totally down with personal freedoms if a choice to wear or not wear a mask only affected the mask (non) wearer. But someone else not wearing a mask *does* impinge on my own personal freedom. They can give me a motherfucking virus that we don’t yet have a widely available vaccine for.
Online progressive
My response:
First, the likelihood that bodily fluid from a known carrier lands on you and infects you without YOU being somewhere and having done something (like touched your mask) is almost impossible. By leaving your house, you have always consented to the possibility of infection… or how did flus spread before?
What changed this season? Politicians and the media overreacted, then colluded to scare you out of your mind for a somewhat novel flu with a 99.6% survival rate.
My not wearing a mask does nothing to impinge your freedom. Wearing a mask may create a placebo affect, sure. It may affect how scared/”safe” you FEEL, but you don’t have a right to freedom from fear. Think of it this way, driving a car can be deadly but we don’t call every driver every day a potential murderer. And if you believe that non-maskers are infringing on your right, what “right” is that?
Look, we live in entirely different places, too, and masks certainly aren’t warranted in NH. If there were dead people in the streets, I’d reevaluate what I need to do for me to stay/feel healthy, but given the reality vs. the “pandemic story arc,” as a healthy, free human, I’m making the best choice for me, and you should do the same for you.
My body, my choice, right? Or, are you actually arguing, my body YOUR choice, ‘cos that’s a bitterly steep and dark path. And THAT’S why I am speaking up.
The following is based on an analogy between infectious particles and pollution. However, I realized that it is a very bad analogy. Infection by virii and bacteria is, and has been forever, an inescapable risk of human interaction. As it has ever been, if we do not accept that risk, we should not interact with other humans. Inventing a new right in order to shirk our responsibility for our own health and actions is impermissible. Even if not so, a new right would require the people asserting that right to make the case for it. People that correctly deny that such a right has ever existed does not have to defend the status quo against an empty claim.
A curious “right” has been discovered by some libertarians: The so-called right to not be infected with viruses. Curious, because this right did not exist before, when spreading infection was just the way things were, and the way to herd immunity. Usually, this right is asserted as “You violate the NAP when you don’t wear a mask!”
Let’s get three obvious things out of the way.
First, some hold the extreme position that people are responsible for infection by proxy: Andy bears responsibility for Chris if Andy infects Betty, who in turn infects Chris. Under a just (i.e. free market, libertarian) legal regime, no-one can be held liable for the actions of others. This makes no more sense than if Betty slapped Chris because Andy angered her.
Second, the NAP can only be violated if actual damage occurs, not if damage is possible. Driving a car is not a violation of the NAP, even if it entails the possibility of an accident. Likewise, not wearing a mask, even if it entails the possibility of spreading an infection, cannot be a violation of the NAP.
Third, edge cases, like deliberate attempts to forcibly infect people directly, by restraining them, injecting them, or spraying fluid into their respiratory canals, is outside the scope of this discussion.
With that out of the way, if we examine the mechanics of infection, and the nature of property rights, the charge of a NAP violation, even when spreading infection, becomes mostly baseless.
An infected person expels infectious particles into the air around him, or, transfers them by touch to surfaces. The airborne particles can settle on surfaces, including the bodies of people. Then, an uninfected person has to transfer the particles into their respiratory system via inhaling them, or, via touch. And then, this person may or may not become infected. (There may be a pathway for infection via the eyes or skin, but that would be an extreme minority of cases.) Thus, in the vast majority of cases, the “victim” is an indispensable agent in his own infection.
There is, furthermore, an absolute requirement that a person, in order to be infected, has to be in a place that contains infectious particles. Visiting such places makes the “victim” an indispensable agent in his own infection too.
In a private property regime, leaving infectious particles in the air or on surfaces is just pollution. A property owner can allow infected people on to his property, just like he can allow people who smoke. People can minimize the possibility of getting infected by not visiting places where infected people are allowed. If a person gets infected when visiting such a property, then clearly it is a case of caveat emptor, not a NAP violation.
“Public” spaces would not exist in a libertarian private property regime, so there would not be places where the admission of infected people would not be governed by private contract. “Public property” under the current regime is at best un-owned, or at worst, stolen. If ownership does not exist, or is illegitimate, then all rules governing use of that property are illegitimate. So people that get infected on public property would also be a case of caveat emptor, not a NAP violation.
In cases where property owners bar infected people, and an infected person knowingly enters, the NAP violation is a violation of an implicit contract with the property owner. Simple trespass, not murder, as the advocates for the NAP violation would have it. Anyone who gets infected as a result of the pollution of that property has a dispute with the property owner, not the trespasser.
Since no property owner can guarantee 100% protection against infection, visitors always agree to the possibility of getting infected. If they do get infected, they are due the compensation offered by the property owner (if any), no more. Since they agreed to being infected, what claim do they have against the polluting trespasser?
Finally, it is worth considering that in previous flu seasons, property owners were not barring entry to infected people, and no-one was accused of “murdering grandma” because they left their house without a mask. A somewhat novel virus with a 99.6% survival rate does not justify the establishment of a new “right” and a new “crime”. Under libertarian property law, there is no NAP violation in choosing not to wear a mask, other than run-of-the-mill trespass, where it applies.
(I update this essay to strengthen the argument, based on feedback and counter-arguments. I’d like to thank Varrin Swearingen and Paul Best for their thoughtful contributions.)
On Monday, I attended a couple of Manchester events regarding COVID. At the first, hosted by Respect NH event, several business leaders lamented the terrible situation they find themselves in: permanently shuttered parts of their businesses, disloyal employees who chose the dole over work, having to act as the “mask police” even when they 100% don’t want to, etc. The second event, hosted by ReBuild NH, was a deep dive into NH’s COVID numbers and some interesting data points from doctors, healthcare professionals, and OSHA certified specialists (who, in case you are wondering, recommend against people being forced to wear masks to prevent the spread of this virus). This led me to today’s mask mandate musings:
1. Are members of Rage Against the Machine wearing masks?
2. How quaint does “Employees must wash hands before returning to work” sound now?
3. Thanks to Governor Chris Sununu’s mask mandate, I’m going to have to close my UPS Store account where I have been a loyal customer for years and years. I asked if they would be willing to bring packages to the car if I called from outside, and they said no, and that they were unwilling to have “philosophical debates about masks. It’s mandated, that’s that!” This is what happens when you force private businesses to become agents of the state, and since they are, I will treat them accordingly.
4. Laundry detergents contain known carcinogens that should not be inhaled. What are you washing your mask with?
5. Wearing masks generate billions of bacteria in and around your mouth and nostrils. Our environments are now being over-sterilized, like hospitals. Know what else hospitals have? Staph-resistant bacteria. Know what that is? Things that don’t respond to antibiotics.
6. 99.6% survival rate for the seasonal flu.
7. Mark my words: The trade-offs aren’t going to be worth it, and we’re going to be paying for this government overreach for generations to come. For shame!
Since the New Hampshire Union Leader is incapable of discerning the difference between being “anti-mask” and anti-MANDATE and pro-freedom, and said this in its editorial today, “But the good news with these anti-maskers is the positive effect they will have on the vaccine supply when it arrives in New Hampshire. Surely none of these flat-earthers will be signing up for a shot,” I will no longer do this “newspaper” the courtesy of linking to its articles. I will copy and paste and post them wholesale on my media channels as I see fit. I encourage others to stop linking to Union Leader articles and also just cut, paste, post, and share.
Here is a very good Letter to the Editor from an intelligent writer who actually understands the issue, being: IF WE LIVE IN A FREE SOCIETY, YOU DO NOT OWN ME AND CANNOT MANDATE DECISIONS AGAINST MY WILL OVER MY BODY (aka “my body, my choice”):
“Emergency shouldn’t trump our freedoms
To the Editor: I am writing on behalf of the many constituents who disagree with Governor Chris Sununu’s new mask mandate. We are not inconsiderate murderers who want people to die. We are reasonable citizens, who want to live in a voluntary state where we are free to make medical decisions for ourselves. We should not be forced to give up that right because an emergency is declared.
I’m not debating the efficacy of such mandates or the severity of coronavirus. I’m also aware of CDC and Health Department guidelines, but do not believe their recommendations should be turned into mandates. These entities were not elected to govern us, no matter how many credentials they may have or how grave a crisis may be.
The precedent for restricting freedom has been set and I fear this will go beyond forcing masks on our faces. I’m urging the governor to return to our voluntary system, where heath status remains private, medical decisions are personal, and we maintain our inherent bodily sovereignty.
Let us wear masks as we individually see fit. Let us be responsible for taking care of ourselves and protecting the vulnerable, like we’ve done in pandemics past. This is fair for everyone and will prevent one group of people from forcing their will upon another. This trend will only get worse if mandates continue.
We don’t look to leaders to save us from viruses, but we expect them to defend our civil liberties, even when it is not politically expedient to do so.
ALEXANDRA MENNELLA
Hooksett”