Oklahoma state senator Nathan Dahm discusses the amount of the time that legislators are given to read bills before a vote is cast on them. Dahm explains that legislators were given the agenda for 85 bills on Tuesday night at 10pm, with voting commencing the next morning at 9am. Follow the below link if it allows you to:

It is outrageous that this state of affairs is allowed in our government. Before anything else needs to happen, something needs to be done about this reckless speed-voting on a pile of bills all at once. The process must be slowed down, the bills must be read in their entirety, there must be a limit to how much extra crap that can be stuffed into a single bill, and the lobbyist who writes the bill must be made known. It would slow the process tremendously, which would be a good thing. That bills must not be voted on before they are read seems like common sense, and to vote on a bill you haven’t read sounds like the height on idiocy. Yet this is standard operating procedure for every level of government in the Unites States.

A war against “vaccine misinformation” is currently underway by the largest tech corporations, with a heavy nudge from Democratic rep. Adam Schiff, backed by the full faith and force of the federal government. A hearing was held on March 5th by the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, and Labor to address ‘vaccine misinformation’, and repeatedly state that vaccines are safe while pushing for social media censorship of this ‘misinformation’. A panel of scientists spoke briefly, followed by a testimony from 18-year old Ethan Lindenberger, on the subject of vaccine safety, but none of the arguments against vaccine safety were directly addressed, nor was anyone from the shadowy “anti-vaccine lobby” allowed to address the hearing. Why is that? I sense that, in much the same way that government sells war, they do not want anyone to hear the opposing arguments. If Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Del Bigtree, or Suzanne Humphries had spoken for just 10 minutes it would probably have taken all the wind out of the sails of the censorship campaign. Instead, we get no real debate, just an insistence that those who oppose mandatory vaccination must be silenced, in the same manner that Peter Hotez recently did on the Joe Rogan Experience, where, rather than debate anyone, he called for the “anti-vaccine lobby” to be dismantled, free speech and the Constitution be damned. Do they really have so little faith in their argument? Who do they think this lobby is, anyway? That “lobby” consists primarily of the crowd of mothers of vaccine-injured children sitting at the back of the hearing. How about letting them speak? Of course, it would be too heart-wrenching for the taste of the assembled manufacturers of consent, and would pull the rug out.

This post isn’t pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, it’s the question of why can’t the other side be heard? Before any frenzy of lawmaking commences, the accused should have a right to defend themselves, the public should hear it all out. This is how all bad wars and bad laws begin, and nothing good will come from muzzling the other side.