We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
Recounts Attorney Robert Barnes,
"Before her nomination, I suggested that Amy Coney Barrett would not defend Trump or populist causes on a range of important topics. She would not help out in the election. She would not be a reliable vote on vaccines and related issues. She would not be a reliable voice on populist issues in general. I was accused of being a traitor. I was accused of having secret agendas. All that nonsense. Guess who the fourth vote was that was not there to take up the election cases--even the ones after the J6 issues to at least correct the next election? Amy Coney Barrett! Who is it that has refused to rule positively on any major vaccine issue for the most part? Amy Coney Barrett. Who is the one who did not join the majority on the election decision? Amy Coney Barrett."
Barnes further describes her decision to not adjudicate the Government/Big Tech censorship issue.
"She played Pontius Pilate. Washed her hands of the responsibility to adjudicate by citing "standing," telling the plaintiffs whose First Amendment rights were violated, that they had no standing to bring a suit."
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
US Marine General Smedley Butler, reflecting on his 35-year career as a soldier
“Fact check; not locking down at all (like Sweden) would have saved lives in UK. Hard to believe how much money the UK spent on its sham covid inquiry.”
--Jay Bhattacharya
The UK Covid-19 Inquiry cost millions. It finally released the core political chapters of its long-awaited report. After nearly three years of hearings, millions of documents, and tens of millions of pounds spent on legal fees, the conclusion is now unmistakably clear.
They’ve learned nothing, even while watching millions suffer from lockdowns and vaccination.
Worse, they may not want to learn. The Inquiry’s structure, its analytical frame, even its carefully curated narrative all point in the same direction: away from the possibility that Britain’s pandemic response was fundamentally misguided.
Bill Madden writes, "Refusing illegal orders in the military is difficult to do because they normally are generated high in the chain of command and very few officers in the chain really know what is or is not a legal order. Immediate superiors can be very demanding and the orders are usually given in high pressure environments. Refusing an illegal military order is tantamount to whistleblowing and, as much good as it does for the concept of truth, the whistleblower’s life is made miserable as a punishment for his honesty and a warning to others."
I watched this happen with Army Spec Michael New during the Clinton years. He disobeyed an illegal Clinton order, was arrested on base in Germany, was then given an unjust, unconstitutional trial, and then a Bad Conduct Discharge. But he stood his ground the whole time and has been proven right since.
