Climate is an absurd and irrelevant pseudo-issue. The mainstream media wildly exaggerates it, while not even mentioning vaccine harm. It’s utterly shameless and disgraceful! ⚠️ Fake media not only mislead the audience but also indirectly poison them! Reject trash media!
In a Minnesota courtroom, an attorney asked the judge directly:
"Could the state BAN all BEEF production to fight climate change?"
The judge's clear answer: YES—legally possible, if there's any "rational basis."
That should stop you in your tracks.
This isn't just about cattle or farming regulations.
It's revealing how far government power could reach: wiping out entire industries, rural livelihoods &long-standing American traditions simply by linking them to a broad policy goal like "climate."
Family farmers have no ironclad protection.
Our reliable access to domestically raised food isn't sacred.
Generations of ranching knowledge & community food production could be dismissed as expendable.
If beef can be targeted today, tomorrow it could be poultry, dairy, pork—or any agriculture deemed inconvenient.
This isn't speculation. It's the quiet legal groundwork unfolding in cases like this, far from most headlines.
We need to wake up & push back before control over what we grow & eat becomes revocable permission. 在明尼苏达州的法庭上，律师直接问法官：
Climate is an absurd and irrelevant pseudo-issue. The mainstream media wildly exaggerates it, while not even mentioning vaccine harm. It’s utterly shameless and disgraceful! ⚠️ Fake media not only mislead the audience but also indirectly poison them! Reject trash media!
In a Minnesota courtroom, an attorney asked the judge directly:
"Could the state BAN all BEEF production to fight climate change?"
The judge's clear answer: YES—legally possible, if there's any "rational basis."
That should stop you in your tracks.
This isn't just about cattle or farming regulations.
It's revealing how far government power could reach: wiping out entire industries, rural livelihoods &long-standing American traditions simply by linking them to a broad policy goal like "climate."
Family farmers have no ironclad protection.
Our reliable access to domestically raised food isn't sacred.
Generations of ranching knowledge & community food production could be dismissed as expendable.
If beef can be targeted today, tomorrow it could be poultry, dairy, pork—or any agriculture deemed inconvenient.
This isn't speculation. It's the quiet legal groundwork unfolding in cases like this, far from most headlines.
We need to wake up & push back before control over what we grow & eat becomes revocable permission. 在明尼苏达州的法庭上，律师直接问法官：
“国家可以禁止所有牛肉生产来应对气候变化吗？”
法官的明确答案是：是的——如果有任何“合理依据”，在法律上是可能的。
这应该会让你停下来。
这不仅仅是关于牛或农业法规。
它揭示了政府权力的影响力有多大：仅仅通过将其与“气候”等广泛的政策目标联系起来，就可以消灭整个工业、农村生计和长期的美国传统。
家庭农民没有铁定的保护。
我们可靠地获得国内种植的食物并不神圣。
几代人的牧场知识和社区粮食生产可能会被视为可消耗的。
如果今天可以瞄准牛肉，那么明天就可能瞄准家禽、乳制品、猪肉——或任何被认为不方便的农业。
这不是猜测。 这是此类案件中悄然展开的法律基础，远离大多数头条新闻。
在对我们种植和饮食的控制成为可撤销的许可之前，我们需要醒来并进行反击。 https://substack.com/@stopthoseshots/note/c-200074698