DISASTER X

The owner of the Whistle Stop Cafe is suing the Alberta government for imposing mandates on businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A class-action lawsuit on behalf of the business was certified by the Alberta Court of King's Bench on Wednesday.

The lawsuit is open to all businesses in Alberta that were impacted by pandemic closures.

"All individuals who owned, in whole or in part, a business or businesses in Alberta that was subject to full or partial closure, or operational restrictions, mandated by the CMOH (chief medical officer of health) orders between March 17, 2020, and the date of certification," court documents read.

The province had argued against the certification of the lawsuit, asserting that "Alberta enjoys immunity for various reasons including that the CMOH orders were policy decisions."

Additionally it said business owners had the right to pursue independent legal action, noting some businesses have already done just that.

The Whistle Stop Cafe in Mirror, Alta., made national news in 2021 when it opened for dine-in service despite orders from Alberta's chief medical officer of health that prevented it from doing so.

The cafe's owner, Christopher Scott, was charged with breaching the Public Health Act.

Scott faced a total of 11 charges, nine of which fall under the Public Health Act.

He was acquitted on all charges in 2023.

...in keeping with the Biden administration’s “whole-of-government equity agenda,” the NIH has shifted its priorities away from science and toward “the science of scientific workforce diversity,” subordinating medicine to the latest ideological fad: diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI....

The agency, which is supposed to prioritize hard science, has made DEI a top priority, shelling out millions on “diversity” initiatives that do nothing to advance medical research.

At the beginning of his term, President Biden signed an executive order implementing DEI throughout the federal bureaucracy and Congress directed the NIH to develop “a strategic plan with long-term and short-term goals to address the racial, ethnic, and gender disparities at NIH.” In short: less focus on curing cancer, and more attention to making sure no one cures cancer without acknowledging his “responsibility to correct systemic racism and inequities.”

The NIH immediately got to work implementing the executive order across the mammoth agency. The plan, which applied to fiscal years 2023 through 2027, required “the participation of all 27 Institutes and Centers (ICs); Offices within the Office of the Director (OD); and working groups, staff committees, advisory groups, and employee groups across NIH.” Altogether, the agency reported, it had “identified a community of almost 100 offices, committees, and groups working within the NIH-wide DEIA ecosystem.”

Overseeing this bureaucracy is the NIH’s Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which has more than 50 employees. The office’s mission: to “identify and eliminate discrimination from the agency’s personnel policies, practices, and working conditions.” As part of its efforts, it has created digital information hubs on “Understanding Systemic Racism” and “Racism in Health,” and planned an “Anti-Bullying Training” session for employees—all methods to advance racialist ideology, rather than the department’s scientific mission.

The leader of NIH’s DEI apparatus is Marie Bernard, the agency’s chief officer for scientific workforce diversity. Bernard, to whom ten NIH employees report, has been thoroughly involved in the organization’s diversity efforts, co-leading the development of its DEI plan and co-chairing multiple diversity projects. One of these projects, NIH UNITE, which was established in 2021, “acts as a think tank to promote equity” and “identifies and addresses any structural racism that may exist within the NIH and throughout the biomedical and behavioral workforce.” In other words, the agency has 11 full-time employees focused on combatting “structural racism.” By their own account, they’re making progress....

A new report from the House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans details the federal government’s massive attempt to gaslight the American public over their COVID response and the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines.

You probably remember Joe Biden saying, “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” the endless CDC ads scolding you into isolating and wearing ineffective masks, the misinformation and untruths constantly emanating out of former chief medical advisor to the president, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s mouth....

The report blasts the administration’s—I'll say it, fascist—response.

“While the Biden-Harris administration’s public health guidance led to prolonged closures of schools and businesses, the NIH was spending nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money trying to manipulate Americans with advertisements—sometimes containing erroneous or unproven information. By overpromising what the COVID-19 vaccines could do—in direct contradiction of the FDA’s authorizations—and over emphasizing the virus’s risk to children and young adults, the Biden-Harris administration caused Americans to lose trust in the public health system,” said Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA). “Our investigation also uncovered the extent to which public funding went to Big Tech companies to track and monitor Americans, underscoring the need for stronger online data privacy protections.”

Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration and self-described COVID lockdown skeptic who experienced extreme censorship and cancellation for expressing his opinion during the pandemic, delivered a long but excellent thread on X Friday calling the report “devastating.”...

Meanwhile, Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) said in a press release:

“American trust in the CDC is at an all time low because the Biden-Harris administration’s flawed pandemic messaging, and this report is the first step in holding CDC and other agencies to account for the harms caused throughout the pandemic and ensure these institutions are operating openly and transparently with the American public during future pandemics.”...

A report such as this could get lost in the news cycle, as the nation is transfixed over a hugely consequential election, but I hope it’s not. It once again proves that—despite Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris et al.'s constant braying about Trump’s being “Hitler” and a wannabe tyrant – it's Democrats themselves who routinely reveal their fascistic tendencies....

We are in the home stretch now, folks, and everyone’s wondering who the next President of the United States will be. However, it appears there is something else on the American people’s minds: What happens after the outcome is decided.

A new Scripps/Ipsos poll shows that the majority of Americans are concerned about political violence after the election.

Most Americans expect violence following Election Day but remain confident their vote will be counted accurately and are willing to accept the results of the presidential race, a new Scripps News/Ipsos poll found.

The survey of 1,000 Americans finds bipartisan concerns over unrest after Nov. 5. Overall, 62% of respondents – including 70% of Democrats and 59% of Republicans – say violence related to the election is “somewhat“ or “very likely.”

And among respondents in the key battleground state of Wisconsin, which was also measured as part of the survey, concerns over violence are higher, at 72%.

And many, 51%, say they would support using the U.S. military to prevent potential threats around Election Day.

But a large majority, 77%, also says they are willing to accept the election results if their preferred candidate loses.

Many Americans, regardless of party, would support using the military to prevent unrest on or after Election Day. This includes 61 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of Democrats. Additionally, about 56 percent believe the state of U.S. democracy is “weak.”

When asked how they felt about the election, 37 percent reported feeling “anxious.” About 32 percent said they felt “hopeful,” while 21 percent said they felt “ready.”

Most Americans indicated they are willing to accept the outcome of the election even if their preferred candidate does not win. Three-fourths of respondents indicated this, including 85 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans.

A small percentage indicated they would support the use of violence to ensure their candidate wins. About eight percent said they believe the use of violent force to ensure that Trump does not win is justified while six percent indicated violence to ensure Trump wins is acceptable.

The Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California Davis published a report indicating that 14 percent of Americans firmly believe a civil war could erupt within the next few years.

Given the effect political division has had on American society over the past decade, it is no surprise that most expect some form of violence related to the election – regardless of the outcome. America is a divided nation at the moment, and it does not appear that the rifts will heal anytime soon.

Further compounding the issue is the fact that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are in a statistical dead heat at the moment, meaning that it is anyone’s race. Regardless of who wins, this will likely be a close election and the outcome will almost certainly be disputed by the losing party. It might be quite a while before the public even knows which candidate will be the next president. In light of this, the likelihood of violence remains high. The only question is: How violent would it get?