Yes, extremely. Comparing the legal and social status of gay people in, say, the 1950s (or even the 1990s) to today, it’s pretty clearly one of the most wildly succesful political movements in American history.
You’ve got it the wrong way around: This is pedos trying to attach themselves to the successful gay movement, which wants nothing to do with them. This image is from four years ago; it didn’t catch on, to put it mildly.
That’s not what the law says. It says the secretary of health & human services, if they deem it appropriate, can set conditions requiring such notification on providers administering a product. That law imposes no requirements on employers.
Hope it goes without saying but: I’m not writing this to discourage anyone from pushing back on mandates at their school or workplace. I just think people ought to understand the state of the law clearly when they do. You don’t want to go into a meeting with your boss thinking the law gives you clear-cut, slam-dunk protection against being fired when that’s not true.
That headlines’s a bit overconfident. I think the most you can say is there’s a potential, untested argument against mandates under federal law. But looking at the statute, I wouldn’t bet on it winning in court.
The law says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish such conditions on an Emergency Use Authorization as the Secretary “finds necessary or appropriate.” And these conditions may include “conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed... of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.“
On face, that’s nowhere close to a ban on schools or employers mandating vaccines. It’s an optional requirement the government can impose regarding what information healthcare providers give patients. It doesn’t say anything about schools or employers. It doesn’t say anything about it being illegal to fire or refuse admission to an unvaccinated person.
Could an attorney try to convince a judge to read all those things into that sentence? That actually it imposes substantial constraints on employers and schools, even though neither is even mentioned? They could try. The right judge might even go for it. But I definitely wouldn’t count on it.
Probably more effort than it’s worth, but you can get a handheld gaussmeter for under $200. If you have any friends who are into electronics, either professionally or as a hobby, they might have one. The advantage, of course, being this lets you directly measure whether there’s a stronger magnetic field, rather than relying on “does it stick?” which could be caused by a magnetic field, but also by other things.
Good luck! This is important to check because you may be observing an effect that really is specific to the vaccine site, but not magnetism. The amount of material in a vaccine dose is so small (0.3ml) that it really shouldn’t be able to create an observable magnetic effect, regardless of what’s in there, so I’d save that as a sort of explanation of last resort. One possibility is that either the healing skin at the injection point or the immediately surrounding skin (because of inflammation or irritation) is holding more moisture and therefore more adhesive than your friend’s normal skin. If it’s something like that you may be able to produce a similar effect with a nonmagnetic object like a coin.
Have you checked whether (1) You can get the magnet to stick on other parts of the skin with repeated tries, or (2) Whether you can get another tiny object (like a dime or a chip of wood) to stick in the same place?
Even if the vaccine dose were 100% metal, that shouldn’t physically be enough to hold a magnet on through skin, so the first step should be to test whether it’s actually magnetism making it stick, and not something else. Sometimes a small smooth object will stick to skin just because of moisture or natural skin oils, so you might want to rule out the possibility that you’re observing that rather than magnetism.
The MSM would adore this story. “Rogue military agents loyal to Trump threaten Supreme Court Justice for failing to vote the right way”? That’s the kind of headline NYT reporters have wet dreams about.
Apply a tiny bit of common sense. If a Supreme Court justice had been placed under house arrest by the military, that would indeed be huge news. It would be impossible to keep secret for any length of time—the Court has regular weekly conferences. Imagine the MSM headlines. “Former president sends armed goons to threaten judge who didn’t vote the way he wanted.” And the only place this monumental event is reported is some random website hawking nutritional supplements, citing one anonymous source? Of course it’s not true.
This is just standard New York Times style. Full title on first reference, and thereafter just “Mr.” They called Trump “Mr. Trump” and Obama “Mr. Obama.” The same article calls him “President Biden” on first reference a few paragraphs earlier.
Fill in some of the details here: 25 YEARS AGO, the judge worked for a firm now known as Perkins Coie—one of the largest law firms in the country, which employs over a thousand lawyers and represents hundrds of clients. Decades later, the firm he worked for was retained by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. If that’s supposed to count as a “conflict of interest,” you’re never going to find a judge to hear a political case. At least not one that’s ever worked for any major law firm.
That’s not what “State” means here. A “state” is any government. It has nothing to do with “the 50 states.”
HIPAA regulates how healthcare providers, insurers, and other covered entities have to safeguard personal medical information. It doesn’t prevent anyone from asking an individual health-related questions.
Assuming your coworkers get their health coverage from your employer, then yeah, it could be a HIPAA violation for them to share information about an employee’s medical history that they might be privy to via that relationship. But it doesn’t mean they can’t ask you questions. (Your doctor presumably asks you about your health at every checkup: HIPAA just says they can’t share that information with other people without your permission in most circumstances.)
If someone had the evidence they claim—especially if they were in fear for their lives—then surely the very LAST thing they would do is write anonymous message board posts previewing their intention to release it in two weeks. (It’s not like one could really remain under the radar while undertaking an investigation on the scale claimed anyway.) They’d just release it.
I would really urge the folks cheering on the military in Myanmar to look into that country's history. Here in the U.S., we know the military is trained to revere freedom and the Constitution, and would only ever get involved in domestic politics as a temporary last resort to PROTECT free and fair elections. That is not at all what the military in Myanmar is like. They ran a brutal, totalitarian communistic dictatorship for 50 years, and have never truly accepted being displaced from power. The fact that they're attacking organizations funded by bad actors doesn't mean they're doing it for good reasons. Myanmar's military is one of the last organizations on earth you should assume is on the side of democracy.
I’m not sure what the mystery here is. A bunch of folks rushed to assume she was trans because she wore short hair and baggy clothes, and then puberty hit and it turned out that, no, she was just having a tomboy phase like a million other young girls. Either way, who cares? She’s a kid, leave her be.
It’s a joke about Republicans being happy to practice “cancel culture” when they get to pick what’s cancelled.
Anyone who's ever been in a classified setting knows there's no way in hell a film crew would allowed in to shoot with anything actually remotely sensitive in view. There are career people in charge of stuff like this; they don't swap out every time there's a change of administration. McKenzie is a 40 year veteran who's been commander of CENTCOM since 2019. We're supposed to think he's suddenly going to be reckless with classified information because... Biden made him?
Notice what's conspicuously missing from this story? Any quotes from people with actual military or intelligence expertise saying any of the information—either on camera or in the interview—is legitimately sensitive. Just Jim Hoft speculating about stuff HE thinks might be sensitive.
You know how you can tell Jim Hoft has no clue what he's talking about? He says that "[f]or no apparent reason, CBS discloses the location [of USCENTCOM] is in Tampa." You know where else you can learn the top secret information that USCENTCOM is headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa? On the official CENTCOM webpage. It's not a secret. It's never been a secret.
If Hoft is so ill-informed he thinks it's some big revelation that CENTCOM is in Tampa, I wouldn't look to him as a guide to what counts as sensitive military information.
It’s a Congressional hearing. I watched it live earlier today; you can find the video here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?509033-1/fbi-director-christopher-wray-testifies-january-6-capitol-attack&live
I hate to be a bummer, but the simplest, perhaps disappointingly boring explanation is that SCOTUS (apparently unanimously this time) agreed with all the lower courts who thought Powell didn’t have standing. The real question was always whether the actual Trump campaign cases would get heard; the only lawyer who thought there was any chance of SCOTUS taking up the Sidney Powell suits was Sidney Powell.
This sounds very weird to me. The Commander in Chief "requested" 10,000 National Guard troops, and the Speaker of the House "refused"? How? Pelosi might well be able to reject having troops inside the Capitol on separation of powers grounds, but 10,000 troops sounds like a citywide deployment, not a number you'd have literally on Capitol grounds. Pelosi wouldn't have any say over that.
Well, the president can order members of the military to do things as CIC, not random civillians.
Anyway, yes: The person who carries out the order, if its obviously wrong, is responsible for their actions, which was the judge’s point. But that doesn’t mean the person who gave the order can’t also be guilty, assuming they intended for the person to really do it and believed that they would (as opposed to a joke about “go rob a bank” that someone bizarrely acted on). It doesn’t necessarily depend on having formal authority to order someone (mob bosses who order hits have no LEGAL authority to do so) but on whether the person intended & expected their directions to be acted on.
This isn’t some totally new situation; courts handle cases all the time where one person actually commits the crime, but did so at the direction of another, whether it’s Tony Soprano asking Paulie to “take care of a witness” or a spouse who encourages her lover to get rid of her husband. Paulie is guilty, but Tony can be charged too, though the prosecution has to convince the jury that when Tony said “take care of” he really did mean “kill” and not “give him a foot massage.” Guilt isn’t like a pie that gets divided up, so that if Paulie is fully responsible for his actions, there’s no guilt left over for Tony.
But the judge DIDN’T make comments suggesting Trump didn’t incite the riot. The judge said it doesn’t matter (to the case) if Trump incited the riot, because if you rioted you’re still responsible for your actions. I promise, if you run through the quotations, you will not find a single sentence where the (Obama appointed) judge denies Trump incited violence.
(1) This is gibberish dressed up in vaguely medical-sounding jargon.
(2) I can't find any reference online to a "Dr. Mylo Canderian" except for this article and a LinkedIn profile with no photo or other information, which seems awfully strange for someone who's supposed to be some sort of prominent medical researcher.
(3) Ditto "L'emince de Veau" (which is a Swiss dish, not a restaurant—it means "minced veal") and "Chef Gaston Sere de Rivieres.
(4) This is full of little winks that it's a prank. He's a "genocidal globalist" but we're friends because we share a taste for "cream of hummingbird soup with elk tongue"? This is what we call "taking the piss."