Better in their words…

Louisiana Says ‘No Way’ to the Great Reset’s Latest Power Grab, and the Next One That’s Coming

Guest Editorial by Jason Jones

In a first, the Louisiana Senate has passed a bill that would block international political organizations and the Federal government from imposing tyrannical policies upon the people. In our resistance struggle against the globalists and their “Great Reset,” Louisiana’s bold move is historic. It will either inspire or shame legislators in other states to do the same, in defense of their voters’ rights.

The Global Power Grab

Remember the COVID panic? How “saving lives” was used as a club to knock out and render useless key Constitutional protections, from freedom of religion and speech to freedom of assembly and our right to choose our own medical treatments? The globalists haven’t forgotten. That panic was meant to serve as a test run and a precedent for dismantling every barrier to the direct rule over Americans by unelected foreign bureaucrats. Just wait for the next “accidental,” purely “natural” pandemic to suddenly strike us, just before some crucial election.

We won’t be silenced again, the way Woke corporations working with the Biden regime strangled honest debate over COVID, the vaccine, and potential methods of treatment — giving WHO appointees the power to censor prominent epidemiologists and ordinary citizens on social media. No, now we’re speaking up, and fighting back, writing into law renewed protections against the next global power grab, whatever pretext its architects use.

The next pretext is already here, and doesn’t require bioengineering in China. It’s the Climate Cult. Elites in Europe and America are using the very same strategies and rhetoric that were test-driven during the COVID panic to argue that “climate change” is a “public health emergency” which equally trumps our basic rights and freedoms. They’re using every lever and gear of state coercion to force citizens to abandon cheap, clean, reliable fossil fuels in favor of costly, polluting, or intermittent technologies such as wind, solar, and electric vehicles.

Elites are seizing farmers’ land, ordering cuts to food production, and nudging us to look at ground-up insects as our protein of the future. In collusion with capture media, they’re stoking panic based on speculative models which claim to predict the weather in future decades — and justify tyrannical policies now.

Louisiana Leads the Way

While we’ve seen considerable grass roots resentment and inchoate pushback against these power-grabs, what we’ve needed has been a robust legal framework — solid lines in black letter law that protect us now and in the future. Louisiana now leads the way in providing exactly that.

On March 26, 2024, the Louisiana senate passed a bill (37-0) that would curtail the unrestricted authority that international authoritarian organizations like World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), and the World Economic Forum (WEF) would have within the jurisdiction of the state. Senate Bill 133 (SB133) is the first of its kind, addressing the unique challenge posed by a global political apparatus that has grossly undermined U.S. constitution and the power of the states.

The bill boldly declares:

Speaking to Blaze News, State Sen. Hodges, explained why the bill was needed:

We have watched a horror story unfold in front of us as time has shown that the ‘recommendations’ and coercive regulations from outside organizations such as the WHO have harmed hundreds of thousands of Americans who took a vaccine that they were told was safe and effective … . These organizations coerced and strong-armed Americans into medical decisions without clinical trials or long-term studies.

One of the main drivers of this bill is the callous attitude of the federal government in blindly accepting the recommendations of the UN and the WHO.

Immunity Against Federal Enforcement

This palpable tension between federal government and the states is not new. In America (unlike most European countries) our federalist framework apportions authority between the national government and state entities. States have real sovereignty. Our elites and the left resent this, and use every opportunity to strip away power from governments that are closer to the people, and surrender it to unelected, unaccountable administrators. This is an ongoing threat to our very system of government — and as the COVID panic proved, to our liberty and our safety.

It is imperative, now more than ever, to reaffirm the rights of states and resist against the overweening ambitions of the permanent government and the Deep State. And that is where SB133 really comes into play. States can interpose themselves between their citizens and the federal government to block or resist unconstitutional actions. This can take various forms, including legal challenges, executive orders, and legislative measures aimed at nullifying federal laws or regulations. By standing up to federal overreach, states can send a powerful message that they will not shred their sovereignty, nor leave their citizens’ rights undefended.

The Supreme Court consistently maintains that it is not mandatory for states to engage in the implementation or execution of federal statutes or regulatory schemes. This is generally known by a term called “anti-commandeering.” The high court court’s commitment to this principle was affirmed in multiple precedents, such as Murphy v. NCCA (2018), Printz v. United States (1997), New York v. United States (1992), and Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842).

In the Printz v. United States case for example, the majority ruled that the federal government violated the Tenth Amendment when Congress required state and local officials to perform background checks on people buying guns.

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. … [S]uch commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

In view of this long history of the highest court favoring state autonomy, it is likely that the SB133 will prevail when it comes into effect later this year, and with it, start a prairie fire in other red states where citizens still love liberty.