You would think the head of Logjam Presents and recipient of over a million dollars in CARES Act funding would be a little more aware of the range of employment setups allowed by state law.
I’m sure a Wisconsin entrepreneur like Nick Checota would love to have the “at will” ability to terminate someone without cause, but that’s not how we roll in Montana.
No one should ever believe the actions of government are carried out for our “safety”. That may be the claim, but it’s never the truth.
The infrastructure to disarm Americans is being put in place by the Biden regime and one of the primary methods will be a Federal red flag law. A case currently before the Supreme Court could have major implications for how BIG BROTHER keeps its human property “safe”.
Here is a detailed description of the case before the court:
In 2015, after an elderly couple had a heated argument, Edward Caniglia placed an unloaded revolver on the table and taunted his wife: “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?” His wife, Kim, was spooked and left to stay overnight in a hotel. When he didn’t answer a phone call the next morning, she called the police and asked them to check on him.
Police arrived and browbeat Edward Caniglia into getting get a psychiatric examination at a hospital. He agreed to do so only after police promised not to seize his handguns. The shrinks certified him as sane (at least by prevailing Rhode Island standards) and he returned home to learn the police had confiscated his guns. Both he and his wife requested the guns be returned. Police refused to do so until Caniglia, who had no history of violence or abusing firearms, filed a lawsuit. Caniglia also sued the city of Cranston and police officers for violating his constitutional rights.
At first glance, his case rested upon solid precedent. The Supreme Court ruled in 1980, “It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” In 1948, the Supreme Court declared that the sanctity of private homes is “too precious to entrust to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals.” But the police and their supporters relied on a vast expansion of a 1973 Supreme Court decision that justified a warrantless “inventory search” of a rent-a-car to seek a police officer’s revolver in the trunk as part of the “community caretaking” exemption to the Fourth Amendment. A federal judge and a federal appeals court, ruling in favor of Rhode Island police, effectively concluded that a private home was “close enough for government work” to a rent-a-car to justify warrantless searches.
But what about that clarion call 1967 Supreme Court decision that declared, “Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Not a problem, according to the first amicus brief that the Biden administration filed with the Supreme Court. According to the Biden administration, the only question in the Rhode Island case was whether the actions of police officers in the case were “objectively reasonable.” Constitutional rights were effectively moot because the Cranston cops were simply dealing with “an impending safety threat through a warrantless seizure of a potentially mentally unstable person and an entry into his residence for the limited purpose of removing firearms.” For the Biden legal team, “confiscating” became “removing” as smoothly as one of Falstaff’s minions turned “stealing” into “conveying.”
On the same side of the fight, Marc DeSisto, the lawyer representing the Cranston police officers, declared, “The Fourth Amendment has only one test and that is that searches and seizures shall not be unreasonable.” DeSisto was not required to take a literacy test and perhaps was unaware of the Fourth Amendment passage about Americans’ rights to “be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” DeSisto and the Biden administration presume that warrants are unnecessary, if not irrelevant, any time government officials assert that it is “reasonable” to enter someone’s house without a warrant “to ensure public health and safety.” And who defines “reasonableness”? The same government officials who violate the Constitution. As Justice Stephen Breyer commented, “If you take a caretaker exception and read that into the word ‘reasonable,’ there’s no stopping. We don’t know how far we’ll go.”
Health and safety will be the buzzwords used by technocratic sociopaths to justify Federal gun grabs. And brainwashed Democrats will go along with it because they’ve been primed by mass shooting fear and a blind belief in the virtue of government power.
Justice Neil Gorsuch makes a good point about this concerning development:
As Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, “What does the government do that doesn’t involve health or safety?” Institute for Justice attorney Joshua Windham wrote, “A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as ‘community caretakers’ is a threat to everyone’s security.”
Another thing advocates of this insanity should consider is how red flags will be abused. Donald Trump gave us a great example of this potential in 2019 when he tweeted the following about Chris Cuomo:
Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 13, 2019
If Democrats valued responsible gun ownership they wouldn’t be allowing their cognitively impaired puppet President to weaponize mental health.
I’ll definitely be writing about this more in the months to come. Maybe I’ll even reach out to Gary Marbut for a podcast interview.
I am starting to appreciate the desperation in the narrative-coercion being used to convince people to take one of the emergency authorized “vaccines”.
Some of the best/worst attempts at this can be found in local media, like this Missoulian article, which we shall digest in small doses, starting with this:
A new Missoula health department campaign seeks to push back against COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and help educate the public on how to get a shot.
Called “Come Together: Vaccine for every Montana,” the campaign is a partnership between the county, local organizations and businesses. It will provide branding opportunities for businesses and seeks to push out as much up-to-date and correct information as possible.
My first thought is I hope the “Montana” is a typo. It should be a vaccine for every Montanan, since the jab is for people, not states. An unfortunate start for an effort to get Montanans accurate information. Let’s continue:
Recent vaccinations clinics have been slow to fill up, even though they are available to all Missoula County residents 16 and older.
“It seems like we went from not having enough vaccines to vaccinate the number of people wanting it to, now we’ve got more vaccine than we can give away,” said Cindy Farr, local COVID-19 incident commander, to the Missoulian on Friday. “We’ve been really trying to look into some different ways, like number one, identify why people are not wanting to get the vaccines.
So, the clinics aren’t filling up, our County health officials are puzzled, and the number one priority is figuring out why this is the case. Are people uncomfortable with the fact Big Pharma can’t be directly sued for vaccine injuries? Stuff like that?
No, nothing like that is referenced. Instead, we get explanations like this:
“If we look at that, then there’s a lot of different reasons.”
For some, it is the result of misinformation regarding how long protection against COVID-19 will last. Originally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the vaccine will only offer protection for three months — this has since been expanded to six months.
Huh? Ok, what else Cindy Farr?
In other cases it is a matter of convenience, Farr said. Many of the clinics have taken place during work hours. The health department is looking into evening vaccinations as well as an expansion of weekend hours. They’ve scheduled their first walk-up hours starting Sunday and into next week at the former Lucky’s Market.
The next reason referenced is another scheduling issue, saying the challenge for some is getting that second jab scheduled.
For all the focus on stuff like convenience and schedules, watch how the next chunk develops:
There is also the issue of side effects. Farr said there was the potential that some University of Montana students might be wary of getting their first dose now, knowing their second dose would likely be administered during finals week.
For those who have not contracted COVID-19, the second dose can bring on side effects such as arm pain, fatigue, fever and headaches. The first dose often produces more side effects for those who have contracted COVID-19 prior to vaccination.
The VERY IMPORTANT issue of “side effects” gets all garbled up here with some bullshit rationale about college students worried about finals week. Jamming younger people into this is a convenient way to soften the fact those “side effects” can include things worse than fevers and headaches.
I’m going to skip over a bunch of this “content”, like stuff about Russian bots (I alway encourage readers to read the full pieces for context) and get to the following assurances:
These swirling ideas have helped provide a base for those who do not believe the COVID-19 vaccine will work or that it is dangerous.
“What we do know is that (COVID-19 vaccinations) are safe,” Newcomer said. “We know this from clinical trials. And we know this from studies that areongoing.”
To push back against claims the COVID-19 vaccine is actively harmful requires transparency, and is one of the reasons why the local health department has launched its new campaign.
If transparency is so important, maybe reference SPECIFIC clinical trials that prove the vaccines are safe. Another fantastic idea would be to include hyper links to more information on those clinical trials.
Another problem I have in the above excerpt is the idea that anything can be known from an ONGOING study. Maybe I’m reading too much into that and it’s just a reference to the fact more studies will be done.
Like on lethal blood clotting, for example.
Anyway, let’s get back to how assholes like me won’t be shamed for being ignorant jab-cowards mind-controlled by Russian bots:
Their goal is to help educate the public, not shame individuals who are nervous or fearful about getting the COVID-19 vaccine.
“If someone is really worried about the vaccine, it’s really important that they get their information from reliable sources and not from social media,” Farr said. “We just want to encourage people that, you know, if you are hesitant and you’re kind of holding off, or you’re just not sure, then it is really important to get the best information coming from reliable sources, such as our website, or the CDC, or the FDA.
I agree, go to the FDA and read up on the difference between a vaccine getting APPROVED and a vaccine getting EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION.
And if you’re still feeling stressed, I suggest doing an activity, like working on an adult-themed coloring book.
I don’t have time for a proper post this morning because I’ll be participating in a homeless camp cleanup effort.
Instead I wanted to provide this link to my interview with Alison McDowell because the question of whether or not to use blockchain technology she has brought to the forefront is heating up.
Here is a portion of a comment from the post where I discuss this rift:
“One of the best critics of where technology is taking us, Alison McDowell, has been very vocal against using blockchain technology for any reason, but even a critic like McDowell doesn’t always understand her own use of technology.” … I think that sums up why this has gotten so incredibly obnoxious for Alison and others who recognize the concerns she speaks to. That statement is degrading. And to support this sentiment by pointing out “inconsistencies” in her message vs. her actions of using Odyssee as being evidence of this?
I think a person can only take so much of this belittling and lack of attention to the underlying concern posited before they turn away. She and, even more so, her friend Bantam Joe understand blockchain technology quite well and posit very valid concerns that get marginalized on these freedom cell and other decentralization platforms.
One of Bantam’s latest, long and detailed posts on Facebook lays out his concerns. Here is a snippet of that post; “…yes, the entire blockchain space is a trojan horse.” And, if you are a buyer of crypto, you are FEEDING the MACHINE! Yes, ALL cryptos are transacting and participating with each other in one way or another.”
Yes, let’s discuss the dangers of this technology on the wonderful platform called Facebook because providing your data to be mined by Zuck is NOT FEEDING THE MACINE. Right?
Despite McDowell’s comment on my post essentially writing me off because I “piled on” in support of seeing blockchain as a tool, I will continue promoting her research because the information she is bringing attention to is more important than high school antics.
