-
<div>Senator Bennett,
</div><div>
</div><div>What are you doing about Ninth Amendment responsibilities you are assigned to uphold and protect?
</div><div>
</div><div>It is proper and dutiful for the Senate and the House of Representatives to warn Jen Psaki.
</div><div>
</div><div>https://duckduckgo.com/i/6667e6f8.jpg
</div><div>
</div><div>Please inform the Congress of this presumtuous assertion of unconstitutional view of Jen Psaki and tell her that she does not understand the power of the Ninth Amendment has not become hers to abolish.
</div><div>
</div><div>Senator Bennett, Colorado State is depending on you, as the Tenth Amendment is also being “denied and disparaged” by Jen Psaki. The federal government has stood down on marijuana use punitive measures in Colorado and other States. The State of Colorado can nullify the attempt to suppress discussions of Covid-19.
</div><div>
</div><div>Science is not consensus, for the reason that a group of lawmakers agreeing to be a consensus does not have anything to do with real world evidence proving them incorrect on one or more points.
</div><div>
</div><div>Why is the U.S. Government even involving the Senate in the mission creep to censor and remove information on Covid-19? Science goes on to find facts, even if the government employees see that a “consensus” could make governing a breeze.
</div><div>
</div><div>Scientific American article excerpt:
</div><div>
</div><div>What It Means When Scientists Disagree
</div><div>
</div><div>Often, there’s an underlying divergence about what aspect of a theory matters most
</div><div>
</div><div>”Whether it’s the right amount of vitamin D or the fundamental causes of poverty, bewildering scientific disagreement surrounds us. There’s an old joke: ask 10 doctors a question, you’ll get 11 answers. Beyond sowing confusion, perpetual disagreement can undermine faith in science. You can almost hear a politician say, “If scientists can’t make up their minds, why should I believe anything they say?”
</div><div>
</div><div>Disagreement is at odds with how we think science works. Evidence “proves” a theory, it “shows” us how the world is. Science is supposed to be objective, and scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads. If scientists can disagree for years on end, what does this mean for the objectivity of science?
</div><div>
</div><div>But while it might feel like a modern phenomenon, scientific disagreement is nothing new. At the beginning of the 19th century, the English chemist, John Dalton, proposed that all matter was made up of tiny atoms. Like so many advances, this idea is much older. Around the 4th century B.C., Democritus—the “laughing philosopher” —proposed the same. Unlike Democritus, however, Dalton brought to bear a substantial body of evidence for his theory…”
</div><div>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-it-means-when-scientists-disagree/
</div><div>
</div><div>We are not all going to get vaccinated. We are not all going to spread Covid-19 variants if unvaccinated. Those are facts. Door-to-door pressure will not work. Tempting people in Colorado to win a million dollars for a vaccination actually did not show an increase in vaccination rates but a drop. President Biden needs to stop pushing for 100% vaccination rate, that is not in the President’s delegated duties and powers.
</div><div>
</div><div>Colorado Governor Polis ordered the end of emergency in Colorado. Washington must recognize our State is not subject to ITS emergency. We are a free State, because we are acting responsibly, for one thing.
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Quit treating citizens like moronic, brain-damaged subjects of a conservatorship.
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Can Congress Amend the Constitution? | Tenth Amendment Center
</div><div>[Search domain tenthamendmentcenter.com]
</div><div>https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/03/14/can-congress-amend-the-constitution/
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>”Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency…”
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Ms. Psaki should be reprimanded by Congress and asked to step down voluntarily if she is defiant, and if she won’ t allow herself to be corrected on the Bill of Rights,cshe must be removed. It is Congress’ duty to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One is not without the other, the Constitution was originally passed only because the Bill of Rights was included on equal footing – to remind the Federal Government branches of their boundaries while being delegated by a People of consent.
</div><div>
</div><div>Patrick Henry in The Federalist Papers 10 and 51
</div><div>[Search domain shmoop.com]
</div><div>https://www.shmoop.com/historical-texts/federalist-papers-10-and-51/patrick-henry.html
</div><div>
</div><div>”Fast-forward to the days of the Constitutional Convention, and Patrick Henry found himself leading the opposition towards the document. He was even invited, but he turned down the invitation. To him, a strong federal government would undo everything that they had fought and died for to ensure the United States’ freedom from oppressive rule…”
</div><div>
</div><div>We do not consent to Jen Psaki asserting the government has a duty to use S. 913 to usurp OUR Ninth Amendment, no, we do not consent that Federal legislator body CONGRESS, which was elected, not self-appointed, will censor whomever it will – over COVID-19.
</div><div>
</div><div>Do not pass S. 913, introduced by the Senator from Hawaii.
</div><div>
</div><div>[Search domain quizlet.com]
</div><div>https://quizlet.com/303743561/206-module-2-dbaexam-foundation-review-flash-cards/
</div><div>
</div><div>Richard henry lee and Patrick Henry. anti Federalists favored New Jersey plan … securing States from power. amendment. A change in, or addition to, a constitution or law. reserved powers. powers that the Constitution does not give to the national government that are kept by the states. … a reserve army created and maintained by the states …
</div><div>
</div><div>Did the nullification crisis promote democracy …
</div><div>[Search domain mvorganizing.org]
</div><div>https://www.mvorganizing.org/did-the-nullification-crisis-promote-democracy/
</div><div>
</div><div>What does the Constitution say about nullification? Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which that state has deemed unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the state’s own constitution).
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The Constitutionality of National Emergencies - The …
</div><div>[Search domain constitutionstudy.com]
</div><div>https://constitutionstudy.com/2019/02/19/the-constitutionality-of-national-emergencies/
</div><div>
</div><div>First of all, the word “emergency” does not exist in the Constitution. The Constitution does, however, recognize situations where the normal rules may have to be suspended. [Not a pandemic]
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>excerpts
</div><div>
</div><div>“When the fascists at YouTube censor the Noble Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Omura, a man whose discoveries have saved a hundred million + from blindness, the world has entered a very, very dark place,” Australian Member of Parliament Craig Kelly tweeted. “I cannot express in words how angry & sad this makes me & fearful for the future.”
</div><div>
</div><div>Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care, an alliance of physicians and scholars that has committed to “research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness,” also spoke out against the censorship and warned that “brilliant scientists and lifesaving science are systematically being gagged.”
</div><div>
</div><div>Ōmura joins the ranks of many other senators, lawmakers, medical journals, biologists, and YouTubers who have been censored by Big Tech for discussing ivermectin.
</div><div>
</div><div>https://reclaimthenet.org/white-house-misinformation-ban-all-platforms/
</div><div>
</div><div>We know the pandemic is a really big challenge to this Administration, but Spokesperson Psaki is unconstitutional in her speech…if she is representing President Joe Biden’s policies. If she is not, if she is speaking on her own behalf, she has that right to speech, but she has no authority delegated to her under the Law of the Land to suppress research and discussions outside of government’s research.
</div><div>
</div><div>Science research and discussion is not under federal punitive announcements.
</div><div>
</div><div>Check the Ninth Amendment.
</div><div>
</div><div>Jen Psaki is saying that media platforms have their right and privilege to remove citizen’s discussions and videos.
</div><div>
</div><div>They do not have any corporate person right greater than that of a single citizen.
</div><div>
</div><div>We have the public spaces to use our Ninth Amendment.
</div><div>
</div><div>And our private spaces are to be left alone.
</div><div>
</div><div>As historically, and as precedent, the Fifth Amendment has been pleaded for various ends, I plead the Ninth Amendment for myself, that Jen Psaki cannot represent S. 913 or this Administration to extend punitive measures towards me for discussing the following, ot anything else that I might discuss.
</div><div>
</div><div>https://odysee.com/@SILVIEW.media:e/india-who:1
</div><div>
</div><div> WHO chiefs face DEATH SENTENCE in India for medical misinformation on Ivermectin & HCQ
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Best Regards,
</div><div>
</div><div>Dennis Smits
</div><div>Restore!, Inc.</div>
