Showed up organically on my Twitter
What we need to see going forward is laws, constitutional amendments, legal cases, etc. establishing that EVEN in case of a medical "emergency," govmts. can't lock down, can't demand vax, etc. Otherwise govmts. and "experts" keep finding new "emergencies."
If argument against lockdowns, medical apartheid is "there's not really a bad pandemic" and "these vaccines are no good," that subtly implies if there WERE a bad pandemic, or if we HAD good vaccines, lockdowns and mandates could be justified (incorrect).
You may have parsed my reply incorrectly. I wasn't asking for more info about whether or not the pandemic is bad or whether or not the vaccines work. My point is, politicians shouldn't have the right to control people this way regardless.
Huh, I'm not requesting information.
Political and "thought" leaders:
Interesting, but wish I heard more emphasis on: whether or not there's a bad pandemic, whether or not vaccines are safe and effective, govmts simply shouldn't have right to lock people down or de facto mandate health interventions, regardless.
As a health minimalist, I'm skeptical of new vaccines. At same time, I'm surprised how many vax skeptics are enthusiastic about ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, iodine, zinc, etc. Antiparasitics, antibx, big dose minerals can unbalance too.
Funko pops are for p-zombies.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
I'm not from CA and would never live there as it is now (beautiful place to visit), but if Larry Elder has a serious shot of becoming governor (and polls say he does?), that could be a really big deal. He's as good on issues as Ron Paul or Peter Schiff.
If you have trouble understanding why world government would be hell, just think about how much power Hong Kong can exercise vis-a-vis China (that is, none--half the population out in the street for months; no change) and multiply problem by 10.
