Friday, November 20, 2020, 11:06 am | Randy Thomasson
Do lockdowns and mask mandates prevent transmission of Covid?
In July, the Lancet medical journal, after examining Covid data from fifty countries, concluded, “lockdowns…were not associated with a statistically significant reduction in … overall mortality.” Get it? The novel idea of a “lockdown” doesn’t save lives, despite doing a superb job of destroying people’s livelihoods.
And earlier this month, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found lockdowns and masks do not prevent Covid transmission. Military recruits locking down, wearing masks, and social distancing experienced a 1.9% infection rate, while military recruits not doing any of this had a 1.7% infection rate. Therefore, not locking down, not masking up, and not social distancing is as “safe” (and even safer) than performing these establishment-ordered acts.
And a large study of more than 6,000 adults in the small nation of Denmark found there was no statistically significant infection difference between people who wear masks and those who don’t. After one month, 1.8% of the people wearing masks had been infected and 2.1% in the unmasked group had also tested positive. This hardly-any-difference result explodes the myth of masks protecting you.
Remember, back in February and March, the medical establishment agreed that masks for the general public were ineffective in stopping the flu or Covid. But now, the opinion of these “authorities” has flipped, not based on science, but based on political correctness.
Let these facts stir you to rebel against the destructive, dehumanizing tyranny of lockdowns and mask mandates!
Tuesday, November 3, 2020, 10:50 am | Randy Thomasson
“Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman smiles during an investiture ceremony Monday, December 31, 2012 at the Sutter County Courthouse in Yuba City. At left is her husband Greg Heckman.” (Yuba-Sutter Appeal-Democrat newspaper)
It’s unusually good that a state judge in Sutter County (north of Sacramento) has called Gavin Newsom unconstitutional.
On November 2, Sutter County Judge Sarah Heckman issued a 9-page ruling that a) found Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom violated the California State Constitution when he signed his June 3 “executive order” trying to decrease in-person voting, and b) “prohibited” him from doing anything that “amends, alters, or changes existing statutory law or makes new statutory law or legislative policy.”
This helpful ruling provides a witness that Newsom has been operating as a law unto himself. In her opinion, Judge Heckman noticed the outrageous, unconstitutional deeds and predilections of Newsom:
The Governor takes the position the CESA’s grant of authority to exercise “all police power vested in the state,” allowing him to “promulgate, issue, and enforce such orders and regulations as he deems necessary” authorizes him to legislate by unilaterally amending existing statutory law. Not only is this an active and ongoing controversy between the parties, but it is a critically important one for the Judicial Branch to resolve. The State of Emergency brought about by the COVID-l9 pandemic which was proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020 continues in effect, indefinitely, and the Govemor continues to have authority to act under the CESA. The Governor has issued three executive orders during the current state of emergency specifically regarding the November 3,2020 general election (Def. Exs. 4 and 5; Pl. Ex. D) and has issued more than 50 different executive orders changing numerous California statutes since the state of emergency was declared. (Pl. Ex. F)
The Governor continues to issue executive orders which create legislative policy (Pl. Ex. G.) The evidence persuades the Court it is reasonably probable the Governor will continue issuing executive orders which amend statutory law and create legislative policy under the purported authority of the CESA, violating the California Constitution and the rights of plaintiffs thereunder and giving rise to a multiplicity of judicial proceedings, unless restrained by a permanent injunction.
What’s the practical effect of this good ruling? Unknown at this point. On the one hand, it might not mean much. First, because the June 3 election-related order no longer has any practical purpose; second, because Newsom since late June has been having his Department of Public Health issue most of the Covid-related “orders.” Newsom has been literally hiding behind the state public health officer, who purportedly has unlimited order-making abilities (this is clearly unconstitutional and begs for a lawsuit).
On the other hand, this ruling has the potential to add to the foundations of other lawsuits. Whether currently filed or yet to be filed, liberty-based lawsuits can become “weightier” by quoting the Sutter County ruling. As Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (who, along with Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher, sued Newsom) said, a permanent injunction (which the judge indeed ordered) means “a number of his previous orders would immediately be exposed as unlawful, while others may become newly vulnerable.”
Ultimately, despite Newsom, despite his Department of Public Health, and despite local “public health officers,” elected county supervisors can and should quickly end this destructive, unscientific, anti-people lockdown by terminating their county’s “emergency order” and prohibiting any county monies to enforce any state “epidemic” order (i.e. limits on businesses, face masks, and the like).
It’s all up to county supervisors, as Placer County’s successful reopening has demonstrated. Bottom line, it’s time for county residents get tough. To hold pro-lockdown “Republican” county supervisors to account, pro-liberty county residents must threaten them with defeat at the polls next year unless they fully reopen without any restrictions this month.
Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have fellowship with You? They gather together against the life of the righteous, And condemn innocent blood. But the Lord has been my defense, And my God the rock of my refuge. Psalm 94:20
Sunday, November 1, 2020, 12:25 pm | Randy Thomasson
The big world powers are telling you to wear a face covering. Are they wrong? Let’s follow the evidence where it leads. Here’s what Big Pharma, Big Government, Big Media, and Big Tech aren’t telling you:
12 graphs show mask mandates don’t stop COVID ‘Powerful institutions have too much political capital invested in the mask narrative’ A dozen graphs charting the number of COVID-19 cases in countries and U.S. states confirm the conclusions of recent studies that mask mandates have no effect on the spread of the disease.WND.com, October 29, 2020 wnd.com/2020/10/4865713
E-MASK-ulation: How we have been lied to so dramatically about masks What did the scientific literature say before the issue became political? A dozen graphs charting the number of COVID-19 cases in countries and U.S. states confirm the conclusions of recent studies that mask mandates have no effect on the spread of the disease. TheBlaze.com, October 10, 2020: https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-lied-to-dramatically-about-masks
Danish newspaper reveals largest study on masks has been rejected by 3 medical journals Why not just conduct a randomized controlled trial to test whether masks work against COVID-19? Why assume such a draconian and dehumanizing mandate works as if it’s an article of faith and create such division when we can discover which side is correct? That’s what a group of Danish researchers felt, which is why, over the spring, they conducted such a study. So why have the results not been published, three months later? According to one Danish newspaper, the study has been rejected by three medical journals because the results are too controversial. TheBlaze.com, October 22, 2020
Science says face masks don’t protect you from Covid Ask yourself — are the authorities following the science on face masks?In February and March, the WHO, the CDC, and the U.S. Surgeon General all said face masks won’t protect you from catching Covid – or the flu. And in May, a study of studies on the CDC website found (quote) “improper use [of masks] might increase the risk for transmission” of Covid. It’s logical, right? If you use the same face mask every day, breathing into it, touching it with your hands, then touching doorknobs and other things – you’re spreading your “ick” to others. Think about how people infected with Covid are using masks to spread their “ick.” And this “improper” behavior is happening all over America.Now, more people are learning about a new study, posted on the CDC website, found that 84 percent of people wearing masks all or most of the time still became infected with Covid. SaveCalifornia.com blog, October 14, 2020
On a personal note, I just reclaimed more of my God-given liberty, improved my character, and got new shoes at the same time. You see, I’m very frugal. But I really needed new shoes, since the disappearing cushioning of my old shoes was beginning to hurt my heels (about every five years, I try to buy a new pair of these New Balance training shoes).
But I didn’t realize Big 5 Sporting Goods was unscientifically and tyrannically requiring masks without exception, I walked in their store without my CDPH list of exemptions (which includes when a mask obstructed breathing, which I claim and everybody else can clam too). Walking past the cashier, I announced “I have an exemption,” and proceeded directly to the shoes in the back.
Soon, a tall, heavy-set manager appeared and said I couldn’t shop without a face covering. Using his first name (I look at name tags), I said the state recognizes my exemption, so will Big 5 also recognize my exemption? He said no. I then I asked whether this was a county, state, or store policy. He said he didn’t know. I held out my old shoes to him (I had taken them off), and said I was just there to buy these shoes again and did they have my size. Relenting, he looked at the label on my old shoes, walked over to a shoe cabinet about 15 feet away, and quickly found the right shoes in my size.
He then tried to get me out of the store by suggesting I could buy the shoes, and if they didn’t fit, I could bring them back. I countered by saying I needed to try them at the front door. So I followed him up front and donned the new shoes and walked in them back and forth, inside the store between the casher’s area and the front door. When I had finished my walking and testing, I said I’ll buy them, but the manager was nowhere to be seen (I’m guessing he didn’t like my firm but friendly leadership). So I bought them from the cashier and walked out with my new shoes on.
Five years of heavy use (and rarely unlacing before inserting my feet) makes for some beat-up shoes. I’m glad Big 5 still wanted my money for new shoes!
I believe this worked because I a) claimed my exemption, b) refused to take no for an answer, c) asked the store employee to find me just one item, and d) demanded an optional way to inspect the item. And I kept something in mind – that these stores’ #1 goal is to make money, and that they wanted mine. So if you use these tactics, and be firm, friendly, creative, and stubborn, perhaps you can win too. See my general mask strategies here.
The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him. Proverbs 18:17
RSS 2.0 Feed