Friday, April 16, 2021

The Mindless Mask Regime Might Be Here to Stay, Unless YOU resist It; What ever happened to the right to breathe freely? and other C-Virus Updates

STR/AFP via Getty Images
The mindless mask regime might be here to stay, unless YOU resist it:
The masks might be forever. We have to come to terms with the fact that a large chunk of the US population will be wearing masks in public for years, maybe even decades to come.
Even if we unquestionably achieve herd immunity, even if 100 percent of the population is vaccinated, even if COVID cases nationwide drop to zero and even if the coronavirus by some miracle learns to communicate in a human language and tells us, forthrightly, “Well, you beat me,” some Americans, especially those in blue metropolises, will continue to cover their faces — and shame you for not going along.
It’s a massively depressing thought.
For more than a year, public-health authorities have urged us to put up with temporary inconveniences, always with the soothing promise that it will be only a little while longer. But recently, NPR cheerfully reported about the growing number of people who see masks as a source of Permanent and Absolute Safety. --->READ MORE HERE
SDI Productions/Getty Images 
Horowitz: What ever happened to the right to breathe freely?
For how long can American governments continue denying the basic human right to breathe freely without showing a modicum of evidence that masking is effective, necessary in all circumstances, and outweighs the cost to liberty and human health?
Some rights are so natural that they need not be enumerated in the Constitution
We know there is a right to freely exercise religion or bear arms, but how do we know there is a right to breathe without the cruel and draconian covering of our mouths? Sadly, our court system seems to believe that no such right exists, even as judges concoct novel rights to numerous privileges and enshrine them in the Constitution nearly every day through ordinary litigation. However, some rights are so natural and inalienable that they need not be written. Breathing without a dangerous bacteria and carbon dioxide trap over our mouths is a pretty obvious one.
In fact, in many ways, this is why Madison initially opposed the concept of a written Bill of Rights – because it would imply that only those rights listed are inalienable and that rights only come from government and are not indeed self-evident truths of nature. Even as he was pragmatically introducing the Bill of Rights on the House floor on June 8, 1789, Madison noted that some objected to it on the grounds that "by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure."
While introducing his first draft, Madison even conceded that he found this argument to be "one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system." The only reason he felt he "guarded against" this concern was because of the language he originally proposed in "the last clause of the 4th resolution." That original draft language was very strong and categorical: --->READ MORE HERE
Follow links below to related stories and resources:

Coronavirus: 112-year-old mother, 92-year-old son vaccinated together

Florida sues feds to allow cruise ships to sail

USA TODAY: Coronavirus Updates

WSJ: Coronavirus Live Updates

YAHOO NEWS: Coronavirus Live Updates

NEW YORK POST: Coronavirus The Latest

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.


No comments: