We are the drain the swamp people

• Radical farm state idea — cropland for food, gasoline for cars

Related reading: https://news.algaeworld.org/2016/08/blunder-biofuel-mandate/

Big Ethanol has wrapped itself in a cloak of environmentalism for decades, winning government mandates for the marketing and use of its product — they are finally being defrocked, certainly their cover is in taters, and objective environmentalists are now joining the fraying.  

Bought and paid for, and sheepish politicians have sustained Big Ethanol using the same cloak.  Too many Republican voters in farm states operate on a presumption that ethanol is a political or economic necessity. Farm state media pretty much either can’t see beyond its advertisers, or as hidebound liberal as they are, are still devoted to the propaganda they bought into and in general can’t let go of the falsities or environmental boondoggles they helped foster.

Green studies warning about corn for ethanol were published six years ago. (or longer) 

And so we ask

Will there be objective coverage of this article from the Proceedings of  the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)?   (excerpts)

Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard.

Significance

Biofuels are included in many proposed strategies to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and limit the magnitude of global warming. The US Renewable Fuel Standard is the world’s largest existing biofuel program, yet despite its prominence, there has been limited empirical assessment of the program’s environmental outcomes. Even without considering likely international land use effects, we find that the production of corn-based ethanol in the United States has failed to meet the policy’s own greenhouse gas emissions targets and negatively affected water quality, the area of land used for conservation, and other ecosystem processes. Our findings suggest that profound advances in technology and policy are still needed to achieve the intended environmental benefits of biofuel production and use.

Abstract

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) specifies the use of biofuels in the United States and thereby guides nearly half of all global biofuel production, yet outcomes of this keystone climate and environmental regulation remain unclear. Here we combine econometric analyses, land use observations, and biophysical models to estimate the realized effects of the RFS in aggregate and down to the scale of individual agricultural fields across the United States. We find that the RFS increased corn prices by 30% and the prices of other crops by 20%, which, in turn, expanded US corn cultivation by 2.8 Mha (8.7%) and total cropland by 2.1 Mha (2.4%) in the years following policy enactment (2008 to 2016). These changes increased annual nationwide fertilizer use by 3 to 8%, increased water quality degradants by 3 to 5%, and caused enough domestic land use change emissions such that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher. These tradeoffs must be weighed alongside the benefits of biofuels as decision-makers consider the future of renewable energy policies and the potential for fuels like corn ethanol to meet climate mitigation goals.

(first paragraph)

Bioenergy is an essential component of most proposed pathways to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 °C by middle to late century (1⇓⇓⇓⇓–6). Liquid biofuels may contribute to bioenergy’s share of climate mitigation by displacing petroleum-based fuels with those generated from modern-day plants (7, 8). The GHG benefits of such substitution, however, are dependent on several factors including whether biofuel production invokes additional plant growth (9⇓⇓–12), the extent to which combusted plants (typically crops) are replaced in the food system (13⇓–15), and the degree to which biofuel production directly and indirectly alters patterns of land use and management (2, 16⇓⇓⇓–20). Because land use changes (LUCs) and other consequences induced by biofuels have the potential to cause significant novel GHG emissions and modify other ecosystem services and disservices (21⇓⇓⇓⇓–26), accurately estimating and accounting these outcomes is critical for the formation of effective climate and environmental policy (27⇓–29).

To be sure the article is no condemnation of the concept of liquid biofuels, more the sequelae of the policy drivers decided by politicians.  Politicians   (and much of the so-called green movement) have failed to foresee consequences, or disregard them in doctrinaire manner  or  they foster the law of concentrated gain (for biofuel interests and political coffers) and defuse pain (taxpayers).

Big Ethanol will probably just tut tut about the article disregarding the prestigious source and say more incentives (tax money) and regulations they write will solve any problems BUT FOR GOD SAKES THE SKY WILL FALL IF 40+% OF THE CORN CROP IS NOT CREATED FOR AND INEFFICIENTLY STUFFED IN GAS TANKS.  They will never honestly pursue an end to the mandates or the use of grade A farmland to create ethanol.  But honest environmentalists are beginning to recognize that Big Ethanol does not really care as much as they do about the environment (never did) it was always mostly opportunism.

But individual farmers ought to care about food prices (they see them and pay them as well and realize that the prices are not necessarily reflective of their income, more their costs, and that those are artificially high. We want them to prosper for their investments and toils but isn’t there a better use for their land than ethanol?

As human beings proud that what they produce is feeding the nation they at least ought not to favor ethanol production over other uses for their cropland.  Ethanol producers can pound sand if farmers have full production alternatives to them. Accordingly what if a better regime of agriculture policy (hopefully more market based as that is the great adaptor to needs) is developed — something else to help insure their wholeness at least as well, and for better purpose than ethanol for cars?

We accept that agriculture is a special case in that human needs including national security cannot be left to farmers sinking or swimming — to broad natural events or world markets. The efficiency and abundance we have grown use to requires substantial timely investment by farmers which has to be covered in prices.  World markets have too many variables impacting national security to be relied on for food security at affordable prices.

While world markets are a not to be abandoned price leveler we do not advocate total reliance on other countries for cheaper essential food stuffs risking our farmers solvency, over specialization or driving the consolidation of farms into mega-operations in order to achieve competitive super efficiency of a sort that reduces the number of farms and farmers.   We respect that other countries will (ought) to feel the same way.  National defense requires a vibrant home grown approach to agriculture and one not in the hands of mega-corporations, our government or other governments.

So we appreciate farmers and want them independent as possible.  We do not want them dependent on big government or huge corporate interests in bed with big government. But something has to move corn growers to get off the ethanol is our savior fixation.  Feeding more people at lower prices while maintaining farmer profitability ought to be the policy goal, not inefficiently powering cars through a largely artificial (in size) industry.

We do not have the definitive answers for farmers but surely the artificial, inefficient, environmentally questionable (at least) use of 40+% of the corn crop, enhanced in size to accommodate a mandate not a market, using such hugely productive Iowa land is not one of them.

The main goal of agriculture policy should be – secure, affordable food in abundant variety that does not impinge on the independence of farmers or producers (or any other industry) nor that makes food supplies vulnerable to mega entities — not the creation of artificial non-food markets that compete with food.

Energy costs is perhaps the main driver right now to all that affects food prices —fertilizer costs, planting and  harvesting, finish production, transportation, everything. That is the first place to make changes. Other ideas in line with these goals are welcome and we would be happy to post essays or recommendations to that effect

0

0

DLH sends this link to a Brietbart article

‘Red-Handed’: 20 Republicans Who Sold Out to China

0

0

• They are not girls, they need treatment, and they should not be allowed on girl’s teams

Iowa State Representative Sharon Steckman (D – Cerro Gordo) made a statement to the Iowa Standard yesterday referring to a bill (HF 2309) introduced in order to protect public school girl’s sports for what it was intended to be, for biological female students. You can read her comments here.

Rep. Steckman makes the statement referring to HF 2309 that it “discriminates against and prevents transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports in middle and high school.”  Of course she tries to paint the issue as discrimination involving students of the same sex. One type of girl or another. But the generic students she refers to are not of the same sex. There are biologic female students with certain definitive genetic attributes and male students who have certain definitive genetic attributes including attributes that give them advantages over females in sports who think they want to be girls but are psychologically screwed up. Bifurcating and restricting competition based on sex has never been treated as unreasonable discrimination indeed it is appropriate for a host of practical, cultural and fairness reasons all of which serve to protect actual girls and girl sports. 

By legislator Sharon Steckman’s standards if the male students she refers to are “girls” then allowing them to compete for records or to augment female student team sports discriminates against  females students who cannot afford the cost or have the warped desire to endure the physical and mental health risk of augmentation to compete with those so called girls who come with musculature and lung capacity and bone density not natural to their sex.  And if one student gets to use drugs or hormonal “therapies” to satisfy a desire to compete in girls athletics (which do not eliminate basic sex linked advantages), why cannot a girl use drugs or hormonal  therapies to enhance their attributes in order to compete in girls athletics and even the playing field with the biological male they will compete against?  

Sharon Steckman says she “did not come to the Statehouse to pass discriminatory laws against Iowa children.” Then is she there to sustain them? Has she introduced a bill to ban discrimination based on age within school athletics, or is a presumption about physicality linked to age appropriate?  Most reasonable people would think such is appropriate.  That is why a presumption regarding sex linked characteristics indeed DNA is appropriate. The bigger question is why does Sharon Steckman want to discriminate against indeed punish unmodified girls in the realm of scholarships and other awards associated with school athletics?   

Related reading: Transgender swimmer destroys competition at Ivy League Championships, winning 500 free by more than 7 seconds

0

0

• Are you listening whoever is pulling Bidens strings, and all you Trudeaupnics?
• I’d like to nail this one to their doors . . ., ‘cept I am not permitted in gated communities.

One manifesto stands above all others and forever — the Ten Commandments (OK it is not really a manifesto because it was not written by man but for man )– But this one is so timely, so culturally important, so in your face to the destroyers of freedom that it may rate as the top culturally affirming statements of this decade. Well done Mr. Jenkins

Set forth here to add some emphasis here and there.  Available in pristine condition at Townhall, always a great source of information and commentary for conservatives

Dear Global “Elites”: A Manifesto

https://townhall.com/columnists/robjenkins/2022/02/02/dear-global-elites-a-manifesto-n2602702

Rob Jenkins

Recently, one of your number, an economics professor at Oxford, had this to say: “At Davos a few years ago, the Edelman survey showed us the good news is that the elites across the world trust each other more and more. So we can come together and design and do beautiful things together. The bad news is that, in every single country they were polling, the majority of people trusted their elite less. So we can lead, but if people aren’t following, we’re not going to get to where we want to go.”

Where to begin unpacking this stunning example of tone-deaf arrogance, which I imagine is fairly representative of the way most “elites” feel these days?

Let’s start with this: No. We are not following. You’re right about that. And we have no intention of following you, for a number of reasons.

First, anyone who describes themselves as an “elite” betrays a breathtaking egotism. They are openly acknowledging that they think themselves better than the rest of us—smarter, more knowledgeable, morally superior, better equipped to lead. So we should all just shut up and do as we’re told.

No. We’re not going to do as we’re told. Not by you. We don’t accept that you know more than we do about anything important, and certainly not on the topic of how to run our lives. If we ever had any doubts about that—if we ever wondered if, after all, maybe your way was best—the last two years have proven unequivocally otherwise.

Calling your pandemic response “botched” would be the greatest understatement in history. Everything you told us to do—lockdown, mask up, offer ourselves as human guinea pigs—not only didn’t stop the virus but made things exponentially worse. A health crisis morphed quickly into an economic, social, and political one, as well.

And it wasn’t covid that did that. It was you, our self-styled “global elites.”

Indeed, we are beginning to suspect—and many of us suspected all along—that the severity of the disease was oversold from the beginning. Sure, it was bad, worse than the seasonal flu, but not that much worse. It was nowhere near the mass extinction event you made it out to be. It affected almost exclusively the elderly, the infirm, and the morbidly obese. Schools, churches, and businesses could have stayed open all along and it would have made little or no difference in the course of the pandemic, as places like Sweden and Florida have shown.

Yet you insisted on keeping us locked in our homes. On keeping our kids out of school. On covering our faces and shuttering our churches and bankrupting our businesses. All while holding out hope of a magical “vaccine.” And when your jabs turned out not to work so well—when it was obvious they didn’t stop infection or slow spread—instead of acknowledging you were wrong, you simply doubled down on your failed pre-jab strategies.

Perhaps, in the beginning, it was just ignorance. You didn’t know what was going on any more than the rest of us did. Maybe you were just doing your best to “save mankind.”

Somehow, I doubt it. Evidence that this entire crisis might well be attributable to your own malfeasance argues against that interpretation. So does the fact that you steadfastly refuse to admit your now obvious mistakes and instead persist in your folly. At the very least, it is clear that you have exploited this situation for all it’s worth, in an attempt to remake the world in your elitist, globalist image—to initiate, as you call it, “The Great Reset.”

Unfortunately for you, the professor was right: We will not follow. We reject your Great Reset. We reject your vision of the world. We reject globalism. We have nothing against other countries, but we prefer our own, warts and all, and we have no intention of surrendering our national sovereignty to any form of world government.

We reject your multiculturalism. Again, we have nothing against other cultures, many of which offer much to admire and emulate. But we have our own culture, thank you, and it suits us just fine.

We reject your vision of a controlled economy and central planning. We prefer free markets, messy as they are, as the engine for producing the greatest possible individual liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.

We reject your nouveau fascism, in which world governments collude with global corporations, especially Big Tech, to surveille, harass, and ultimately control the rest of us. We don’t care if it’s “for our own good” (although we suspect it isn’t). We’d much rather have self-governance, the freedom to decide for ourselves what is best for us and our families.

In short, we reject you, the self-styled elites, the smug sanctimonious Davos crowd. We don’t think you’re in any way smarter or better than us. Indeed, you have proved to our satisfaction that you are not. We do not trust you. We do not want you leading us and have no intention of following. We suspect, based on hard experience, that the “beautiful things” you intend to “design and do” are not beautiful at all but rather loathsome and hideous—for us, at least. They may be beautiful for you as they increase your power, wealth, and influence. But we care about the magnificent edifice you are constructing for yourselves only to the extent that we wish to tear it down.

If the past two years have taught us anything, it is that you “elites” are awful people. Your ideas are awful. Your vision for the future is awful. The society you wish to create, with yourselves in charge, would be unspeakably awful. We reject it, and we reject you. So go away and leave us alone—or else suffer the consequences.

0

0

Here is the jaw-dropping QC Times Barb Ickes story (thanks to TN for the forward).

LeClaire’s two speed cameras have issued $6,310,150 in fines in 10 months. Police can’t say if the cameras reduced crashes

This Wikipedia picture below is from about the middle of the LeClaire, Iowa business district / HWY 67 viewing downriver. It is the street referenced in the story with the speed cameras at either end of the extended city proper.  Readers can try google maps for the few minutes tour of this, the main drag in question. The town has about 4700 residents and is growing with some industry, tourism in the Galena-like downtown but mostly as a bedroom community for the Quad Cities and its job offerings.  At one time the city had local notoriety as a sort of rundown biker-bar burg sustained by that and being a speed trap.  The main drag including the bars has been gentrified but apparently not the reliance on traffic fines.   I am trying to think if there are any stop lights on this main drag other than at the extreme end of the city limits near the I-80 interchange.

LeClaire’s two speed cameras have issued $6,310,150 in fines in 10 months. Police can’t say if the cameras reduced crashes

Read the story and then we will have a challenge directed at the particular LeClaire matter, but first consider this commentary about how more of this might be coming to some other similarly situated burgs in this and other states.  Forgive us if we suspect safety is really not the overriding issue as there are other means to that end. Revenue is with the added ‘benefit’ of the surveillance state.

Nanny Grassley ‘works’ not necessarily for you. Gov. Ron DeSantis takes issue with such crap

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis –“They’re spending $15 billion on speed cameras to be able to catch people speeding. I mean, I’m sorry. I don’t want that. That’s bringing us even more surveillance,” the Republican said. “Like we need more surveillance in our society right now.

Chuck Grassley voted for the massive infrastructure bill that will foster more of what is called  Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE). Under the guise of traffic safety there is no principled limit to a camera on every corner. Grassley voted for the Democrat-Biden  infrastructure bill against the better judgement of the great majority of his Republican colleagues.  The not as good senator went along with the Democrat and bureaucrat managed society dream bill as a matter of “regular order”.  New world order would be a more apt description of the policies intertwined that Grassley was oblivious to, if not in support of — certainly not concerned enough to join his betters in insisting on a better bargain.

By the way, the bill includes provisions for requiring alcohol monitors/interlocks in every new car. Grassley ‘signed the check’ to promote that sort of big-government surveillance state crap.

Grassley defends his big-government spendthrift votes basically with press announcements of bacon brought home and the idea of “regular order”(greased by bacon fat).  It is inescapable that Grassley’s defense is to imply that conservative senators who opposed the bill were uninterested in bringing home some bacon.  But then those senators knew that regular order with Democrats in charge is the road to hell and that the real infrastructure for their states would come with a better bill soon enough without the assaults on civil liberties and green boondoggles.

Grassley wasn’t interested in holding back and being part of the majority of Republicans effort to cut the crap.   Grassley wanted to announce the silver for Iowa and he did not want that impeded even by a few weeks by his betters in the process. The senators who opposed the bill Grassley supported were very concerned about the parliamentary process telegraphed by the Democrats, which Grassley helped the Democrats to do, which was to set up the  hazarding of the republic with the intended follow-on bill — the so-called gargantuan human infrastructure bill.  That monstrosity under the machinations of the Democrat leadership could then (again thanks in part to good ol’ collegiate Chuck), be passed with a mere majority vote, avoiding any filibuster.

The cash cow

Now back to the specifics related to the QC Times story about the LeClaire, Iowa ‘outperforming’ speed cameras/ ticket turnstiles.

The figures given in the article indicate a near 50/50 split of revenue between the city and the technology/fulfillment company a Swedish company probably fronting the effort which is generically referred to as ATE — automatic traffic enforcement. The article says the contract provides only 35% to the company when there is prompt pay — but they get an extra 25% when payments are late due to collection costs. So that might explain the near 50%.

The company’s name is Sensys Gatspo. which sounds very much like Sensitive Gestapo. Their slogan might be “All the cudgel without the blood”

The LeClaire PD give some figures for prior accidents deaths in the corporate limits but have no figures as to reduction. I do not see how the figures are not available as that should be easy to count for a police department. Do they not have a file for christ sakes!

It is not my only complaint but my biggest one of late about these cameras is the promotion of the surveillance state.  For the record I have not had a camera ticket from LeClaire but did have one many years ago from a deputy sheriff covering for the town constable.

In my opinion the pretend focus of the program is accident reduction. In order to find out one might challenge the city to use their portion received to date (about $2.2 million)  to instead fund two squad cars (current models painted but stripped and movable) just parked at roughly the same two locations but occasionally repositioned — total cost for both maybe $80k. It would probably be more effectives as to accident and speed reduction. Nothing says hit the brakes like an obvious squad car. Ask yourself, why would the fake squad cars not be as effective at accident and speed reduction as the tiny cameras? Throw in an existing real manned one periodically during the day (normal current levels) to keep the locals guessing.

Now each bogus squad car would last several years, let’s say five. The city’s ten-month revenue collected to date of $2.2 million could fund that program indefinitely and never loose their corpus– $2.2mil invested at 5% yield is $110k A YEAR.  The city could fund that and still make $400K over the life of the fakes. And think of the sensitivity training they could fund for cops with that extra money to please the growing soccer mom population!!

Would they do that? — no because the main goal is revenue not safety. And our buddy Grassley voted to give more dollars to foster/fund electronic ATE.

I know, invite the city to call the fake squad program ATE (it is of a sort) and everyone is happy — except city councils that lust after the revenue.

0

0

How dumb are AOC’s voters in the 14th District of New York?

I would not admit to being either a graduate of Boston University or a resident of New York’s 14 th congressional district. Happily I am neither but those who are either must be incredibly embarrassed…or should be.

What kind of education did the once reputable Boston University provide to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (aka ‘AOC’)? (She claims she still owes student debt of $70,000; if her words and positions reflect her education BU should probably be charged with grand larceny))

And the “voters” who sent this ‘child’ to represent them in congress? What’s the matter with them? Every time AOC opens her mouth she says something so incredibly childish and/or stupid, anyone with an IQ above 100 and a pulse, must be moved to say, “don’t look at me! I didn’t vote for her”…except we know that a majority of voters in their neighborhood did And, if you live there there’s more than an even chance that you were one who helped elect her.

I wouldn’t want to admit it either!       dlh

• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was speaking during a virtual town hall last Thursday 
• Commenting on the recent crime spike across NYC AOC said: ‘Do we think this has to do with the fact that there’s record unemployment in the US right now?’
• Police data shows shootings in the city last month were up 130% year on year 
• Mayor Bill de Blasio said in June he was slashing $1 billion from the NYPD budget }

0

0

The following was passed along from contacts at Scott County Republicans. To perhaps add some compelling information to the communication, the links immediately below will be helpful.   Read them first and your ardor to follow through on contacting these Iowa legislators will be enhanced.  They are compelling because they contain authoritative links supporting their message and corroborating the need for the legislation.

Will the ‘Unvaxxed’ Have the Last Laugh?   https://townhall.com/columnists/robjenkins/2022/02/13/will-the-unvaxxed-have-the-last-laugh-n2603212

‘Health nightmare’: Dr. Robert Malone spotlights study on mRNA spike protein. https://www.wnd.com/2022/02/health-nightmare-dr-robert-malone-spotlights-study-mrna-spike-protein/

We have appended a sample message that references the links without making them active which due to firewalls in the legislative website can prevent your message from getting through.

Call to contact legislators to sponsor Medical Privacy and Freedom Act HSB 647

This is an urgent call to action for Iowans this weekend and early Monday/Tuesday. Please contact these Republicans and ask them to co-sponsor the Medical Privacy and Freedom Act HSB 647 and to vote for it in Committee and on the floor vote!  Please call the governor’s office and urge her to meet with Republicans to discuss it.*Sponsored by the House State Government Committee- Chairman Bobby Kaufmann

*Chaired by: Reps. Jon Jacobsen and Mark Cisneros – Please send them a thank you!!  Link to the bill:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/publications/search/document?fq=id:1286533&q=medical. 

This bill, the Medical  Privacy and Freedom Act would ban businesses, educational institutes, government agencies, and employers from inquiring of medical status, or for denying access to goods and services, privileges, licensing, healthcare, or transportation based on medical status or lack of a medical  passport.

       Although vaccine passports are not allowed in Iowa for the general public to shop and travel, a vaccine mandate was still implemented by many employers voluntarily.  Segregation and discrimination is rampant.  Yesterday,  a subcommittee of the State Government Committee  heard testimony at the Capital in Des Moines for the proposed legislation The Medical Privacy and Freedom Act.  Iowa residents and doctors testified for hours about the discrimination they are facing in the work place and other facilities related to vaccination status or mask wearing status.  The situation is dire for many.  Some  companies are segregating patients, segregating employees, making exemptions extremely hard to get, or are getting ready to fire people for not getting the Covid Vaccine.  Vaccine status is  being used by human resources departments for new hires as a condition of employment. One person testified that she was denied work at 11 places because of her vaccine status.

This bill will be considered in the State Government Committee the week of Feb. 14^th.  In order for it to pass out to the floor for a full house vote, we need all freedom lovers who believe that medical care should be a personal choice and not a mandate, to please email all of the Republicans listed below. Some may not be interested in passing this bill, so we need to make sure that our voices are heard clearly that this is what we want.  There is already lobbying  opposition from big businesses (some from other states), and also from big medical associations, whose parent companies are national or they may receive funding from the federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services branch.  We cannot let outside interests drown out our voice. We are The People of Iowa, and it’s supposed to be our voice that is heeded. Not big business or big associations. We need 12 out of 14 of these to vote yes.

Bobby Kaufmann (R, District 73), Chair             bobby.kaufmann@legis.iowa.gov

Jon Jacobsen (R, District 22)                               Jon.Jacobsen@legis.iowa.gov

Brooke Boden (R, District 26), Vice Chair          Brooke.Boden@legis.iowa.gov

Robert P. Bacon (R, District 48)                           rob.bacon@legis.iowa.gov

Jane Bloomingdale (R, District 51)                      Jane.Bloomingdale@legis.iowa.gov

Jacob Bossman (R, District 6)                               Jacob.Bossman@legis.iowa.gov

Megan Jones (R, District 2)                                    megan.jones@legis.iowa.gov

Ann Meyer (R, District 9)                                      Ann.Meyer@legis.iowa.gov

Shannon Lundgren (R, District 57)                       Shannon.Lundgren@legis.iowa.gov

Joe Mitchell (R, District 84)                                   Joe.Mitchell@legis.iowa.gov

Thomas Jay Moore (R, District 21)                      Tom.Moore@legis.iowa.gov

Carter F. Nordman (R, District 19)                      Carter.Nordman@legis.iowa.gov

Mike Sexton (R, District 10)                                  Mike.Sexton@legis.iowa.gov

Brent Siegrist (R, District 16)                                Brent.Siegrist@legis.iowa.gov

**********************************************************************************

Suggested message:

Dear _______

This message is to ask your cosponsorship of Medical Privacy and Freedom Act HSB 647 sponsored by Representatives Jon Jacobsen and Mark Cisneros. Ability to work or receive services should not be predicated on giving up medical autonomy. Below are two articles complete with references to the statements therein that will lend credence to the importance of this legislation. Because of anticipated firewalls affecting the delivery of this message to you,  please visit the home page of the publication and search for the articles name:

‘Health nightmare’: Dr. Robert Malone spotlights study on mRNA spike protein.  – at World Net Daily

Will the ‘Unvaxxed’ Have the Last Laugh?    — at Townhall

Sincerely

************************************************************************************

For our readers through the good folks at Liberty Nation

0

0

Thanks to the folks at Liberty Nation

0

0

WASHINGTON — “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell disagreed Tuesday with the Republican National Committee’s recent censure of two GOP lawmakers, as well as its characterization of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

“We all were here. We saw what happened. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next. That’s what it was,” McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters at his weekly news conference.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mcconnell-calls-jan-6-violent-insurrection-breaking-rnc-rcna15404

0

0

DLH sends this link and comment

Capitol Police Dept. Rules Brutal Beating of Trump Supporter Rosanne Boyland on Steps of Capitol, While Unconscious, Who Then Died Was “Objectionably Reasonable”

0

0