patrick.net

As though there was any doubt--kind of upstaged by Syria.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will pelt him with her Depends every time he tries to open his mouth on the bench.

This was a coup by the republicans. They basically undermined the Constitution and the democrats, being pussies, let them.

Let's call this what it really is...The Harry Reid Rule.

P N Dr Lo R says

As though there was any doubt--kind of upstaged by Syria.

45 & his administration will do anything to misdirect the public from intel investigations.
Does he think he will distract the FBI probe?

This is a big fucking deal!!!
Aye Biden Baby?

HEY YOU says

misdirect the public

I was referring to the level of news coverage--yesterday it was all about Gorsuch, but hardly any mention today whereas it would have been the main story.

Fucking White Male says

Let's call this what it really is...The Harry Reid Rule.

Let's call this what it really is... way the fuck worse than the Russians hacking into email servers and publishing copies of emails. This was an assault on our republic.

This is damning evidence...

Fucking White Male says

Let's call this what it really is...The Harry Reid Rule.

It's step 1 of 2 towards repealing roe/wade.
now it's in the hands of viruses and infections to initiate step 2 to seal the majority for the next 30 years.

Fucking White Male says

Let's call this what it really is...The Harry Reid Rule.

Everyone knows what to do: BOYCOTT ALL Republicans.
If one pays attention & says the right/Right thing,when in a business,they can determine if the business supports
Rep/Con/Freedom Caucus.
I found one yesterday,they won't see any more of my dollars.

Dan8267 says

This was an assault on our republic.

Some of us felt the same way when Obama rammed through his "wise Latina."

curious2 says

Why did Democrats choose to keep the filibuster rules at that time?

Because Nuclear option.

Quigley says

Some of us felt the same way when Obama rammed through his "wise Latina."

Then you felt wrong. The president is suppose to nominate justices. If enough of Congress oppose a specific justice, they can block. However, for a political party to block all nominees just to take the power away from the current president hoping their guy will be in next, is to completely rip up the Constitution. If the democrats did this, you'd be calling for them to be arrested and hung for treason.

Dan8267 says

for a political party to block all nominees just to take the power away from the current president hoping their guy will be in next, is to completely rip up the Constitution.

It's precisely what Biden said, they would refuse to consider any supreme court nominee G. W. Bush might have made in the last year of his presidency.

Biden contended this was not an attempt to play politics with the selection.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

Then he was wrong. The criteria should be that the justice upholds Constitutional, civil, and human rights, not which party elects him. However, the conservative judges alone are the ones who have been violating such rights for the past 30 years.

Two words for Democrats on Gorsuch's swearing in: Bernie Sanders.

Sanders supporters, BOYCOTT ALL Democrats.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court sent a procedurally-complicated Title 42 lawsuit back to DC Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as “moot,” mostly because the official covid state of emergency is now over. It was a simple one-line order, and in spite of the related and legitimately-worrisome border issues, was legally uncontroversial.

That’s not the story.

The story is, Justice Neil Gorsuch decided to add some thoughts of his own to the one-sentence order, in an eight-page “statement” starting immediately below the order itself.

Gorsuch’s statement was rhetorical ammonium nitrate. ...

Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent. ...

Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans. They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed. ...

While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. ...

It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level… Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.

They can write off Gorsuch as a conservative. They can try to justify his long laundry list of authoritarian executive-branch excess as “necessary in the emergency.” And even as we keep picking up the pieces of all the lives broken by government’s so-called “mitigation measures,” they can continue pretending like the virus was worse, just like the officials in the old nursery tale who tried to pretend the King was fully clothed until everyone else knew he was naked but them.

Justice Gorsuch stated, “Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat.

Gorsuch goes on to state, “We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes.

We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.”

May 18, 2023: In March of 2020, Americans were called to ‘serve the greater good’ and ‘protect others from a highly-infectious and deadly novel coronavirus that would kill millions if we did not pull our children out schools, shut down small businesses, destroy our economy, and submit ourselves and our families to house arrest.’ Eventually more than 70% of Americans would submit themselves and their children to an experimental mRNA technology injection without receiving informed consent.

Transcriber B
Writes Transcriber B’s Substack
8 min ago
The mandaters of the experimental jabs, may they be held accountable before the law. Here's the package insert:

Video clip:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1600747817697280000?ref_src=patrick.net

Clip shows Dr. Renata Moon, MD, testifying in the roundtable discussion, COVID-19 Vaccines: What they Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries hosted by US Senator Ron Johnson.

Washington DC, December 7, 2022

TRANSCRIPT

DR. RENATA MOON, MD: So a few months ago I looked at the package insert. I pulled it from the box of mRNA product. And you know it was sealed just like showing you here, I unsealed the box that the entire thing came in and then I pulled this out. And this is what it looks like. So I'd like to show this to you. [opens the large piece of paper, about the size of an opened newspaper, in so doing, bumps the microphone] Sorry about that. [holding up the large sheet of paper with both hands] It's um, it's blank.

DR. DAVID GORTLER: Boom. There is is.

DR. RENATA MOON, MD: It says intentionally blank on it.

DR. DAVID GORTLER: That's the data that pharmacists and physicians are basing on giving the injections outside of mainstream media recommendations. There it is right there. Here's a good question. Why didn't they just print that on a piece of paper the size of a postage stamp? Why all the theater of folding it up into a great big piece of paper like that? Why?

DR. RENATA MOON, MD: [inaudible] good question.

SENATOR RON JOHNSON: That's what's passing for informed consent.

DR. RENATA MOON, MD: Right. So how I am to give informed consent to parents when I have, this is what I have. I have a government that's telling me that I have to say safe and effective, and if I don't my license is at threat. How am I to give informed consent to patients? We're seeing an uptick in myocarditis, we're seeing an uptick in adverse reactions. We have trusted these regulatory agencies, I have, for my entire career up until now. Something is extremely wrong.

1:26

# # #

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:

Dr. Renata Moon, MD "Dr. Renata Moon is board certified by the American Board of Pediatrics in both General Pediatrics and Pediatric Hospital Medicine. Dr. Moon has over twenty years of experience as a pediatrician and currently belongs to a Spokane clinic at Kaiser Permanente Washington where she enjoys taking care of children in both inpatient and outpatient settings. She has an extensive past history of involvement with medical education and enjoys working with residents and medical students. Dr. Moon is currently a faculty member for the APM course at the WSU College of Medicine." SOURCE: https://medicine.wsu.edu/overview/faculty-and-staff/renata-moon-m-d/

More information about Senator Ron Johnson's roundtable discussion at:

https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/12/sen-ron-johnson-hears-from-experts-and-medical-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-and-safety

See also:

Highlights from the Ron Johnson COVID Vax Meeting

by Steve Kirsch

December 9, 2022

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-ron-johnson-covid

Informed consent impossible: blank sheet of paper for side effects of covid jab baffles pharmacist

March 22, 2022 [this is a repost so the original video could have been made earlier, possibly in 2021]

https://rumble.com/vy60et-informed-consent-impossible-blank-sheet-of-paper-for-side-effects-of-covid-.html

TRANSCRIPT

[The woman speaking is wearing a body camera and filming inside a CVS pharmacy]

WOMAN:The um, the, ah, the, if you're offering the covid 19 boosters or shots still?

FEMALE PHARMACIST: We are but we're only accepting appointments because it's just been really crazy today.

WOMAN: Oh.

FEMALE PHARMACIST: So you can make an appointment online at cvs.com.

WOMAN: OK. Um, do you have the insert for the, from the manufacturers that shows the safety studies, the effects, and all of those things?

FEMALE PHARMACIST: Honestly I don't know. Um.

WOMAN: Is there a pharmacist here who knows, ah, where to find the insert in the box of vaccines that I could take a look at?

FEMALE PHARMACIST: If you want to step to the side there we'll be with you as soon as we can.

WOMAN: Perfect. Thank you.

SECOND FEMALE PHARMACIST: Hello, hi, did you have a question?

WOMAN: Hi. Yes. I was wondering did you have the insert from the manufacturers for the, um, covid vaccine?

SECOND FEMALE PHARMACIST: [inaudible] I'll be right back.

WOMAN: Comes in the box of vaccines.

[...waiting... background noise of music and other customer / pharmacist interactions]

MALE PHARMACIST: I have someone who wants a package insert. [white-coated man in a blue surgical mask briskly walks up and hands the woman the package insert] That's from the Moderna vaccine.

WOMAN: OK. Moderna. Is it the same for, um, Pfizer, and all of the others?

MALE PHARMACIST: No. Each brand is a little different.

WOMAN: OK. So may I take this with me? For, to look at all of the safety studies, placebo safety studies on this?

MALE PHARMACIST: Yeah, because, yeah because the, yeah the one, because the one that we give, um, yeah because the one that's given to patients doesn't contain that information. So that—

WOMAN: Which ones are they giving if it's not this one?

MALE PHARMACIST: So, no. No, that's the one, that is the one we are giving.

WOMAN: Oh. OK.

MALE PHARMACIST: But yeah, the, the, the package insert given to patients isn't the full information. It's—

WOMAN: It's not from the manufacturers themselves.

MALE PHARMACIST: That is from the manufacturer but it's truncated. That's the full thing.

WOMAN: So why is it intentionally blank if it's all the safety studies and stuff?

MALE PHARMACIST: It's ah, they're inside.

WOMAN: They're inside of it?

MALE PHARMACIST: This folds out. [camera shows his hands unfolding the package insert]

WOMAN: OK.

MALE PHARMACIST: [continuing to unfold the package insert. Once it is unfolded and seen to be blank, pharmacist quickly steps away] It's supposedly [inaudible] I've got, I've got to get online and find it.

WOMAN: No it's OK. It's OK. I already know that it's intentionally blank. My last question is, um, how is it informed consent when all of the safety studies, placebo safety studies are not listed from the manufacturer?

MALE PHARMACIST: That's, that's a great question. I would talk, I would talk to, I would talk to CVS about that because—

WOMAN: OK. Um, so is if we don't know what we're injecting into ourselves, um, I don't understand how that's informed consent.

MALE PHARMACIST: That— you're, you're exactly right. And you are exactly right and you are correct. I should not be giving these vaccines at all.

WOMAN: OK. Why are you giving them?

MALE PHARMACIST: Because, I am, because I am told to and that's how, because I am told to and I am told—

WOMAN: I understand that.

MALE PHARMACIST: And everything I have shown including the patients that I have given it to, it is safe.

WOMAN: It is safe and effective. Of what studies are you going by that states that it's safe and effective? [MALE PHARMACIST starts to back away]. I know these are tough questions but I have to ask.

MALE PHARMACIST: I know. And I, and I'm sorry but—

WOMAN: But you can't answer.

MALE PHARMACIST: I—

WOMAN: So I understand that.

MALE PHARMACIST: I unfortunately cannot answer that.

WOMAN: OK.

MALE PHARMACIST: And I feel, and right, right now I'm, I'm feeling totally inadequate as a pharmacist and ready to turn in my license.

WOMAN: Don't. Don't. Just, just learn more about it. Um, you know about the Nuremberg Trials, right?

MALE PHARMACIST: I, I, I understand about all of that and—

WOMAN: Just curious if, if people here really understand what's happening around them? And that just doing my job is not an excuse for what's really happening.

MALE PHARMACIST: I, no, I, I absolutely understand.

WOMAN: Well I just wanted to thank you for—

MALE PHARMACIST: And. And. And based, and based on what you're saying, I can no longer, I can no longer advocate for these vaccines.

WOMAN: OK. yes, that's absolutely your choice and the people that take it that's their choice to take it, but just looking for informed people, where I can get information. And it seems like I keep hitting this block each time. Every time I go online to talk to doctors they, they block me, you know it's because they can't answer my questions they get uncomfortable. And I get that. But then why even continue this if, if you don't know the information?

MALE PHARMACIST: That is an, that is an absolutely valid question.

WOMAN: OK. Well, thank you for taking your time with me. I really appreciate it and hope you have a wonderful day.

MALE PHARMACIST: You too.

5:16

[END]