Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Health

Pending Missouri Bill Protects Doctors From Sanctions for Prescribing Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, May 18, 2022:  

When Missouri Governor Mike Parson signs HB 2149 into law as he is expected to, doctors prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for their patients won’t be subject to sanctions, penalties, or loss of their medical licenses.

Overwhelmingly passed by a 130-4 vote in the House last week, the bill’s language is crystal clear:

The act of lawfully dispensing, prescribing, administering, or otherwise distributing ivermectin tablets or hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets for human use shall not be grounds for denial, suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action by [any state medical] board.

The bill also prohibits pharmacists from questioning or otherwise interfering with the dispensing of these prescriptions to their patients:

A pharmacist shall not contact the prescribing physician or the patient to dispute the efficacy of ivermectin tablets or hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets for human use unless the physician or patient inquires of the pharmacist about [their] efficacy….

It’s about time. As Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson noted when his state passed a similar law late last year:

Ivermectin has been used in humans since the 1980s…. In 2015 its discoverers won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work in uncovering it and bringing it to market…. By 2017, ivermectin had demonstrated antiviral activity against several RNA viruses…. Before the pandemic, scholarly literature had also recognized ivermectin’s anti-inflammatory capacity…. For more than three decades, ivermectin has also shown itself to be very safe….

The same goes for hydroxychloroquine:

In 2004, long before the Covid-19 pandemic began, a lab study revealed that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in vitro and thus that it should be considered for immediate use in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV infections…. It is widely recognized in the medical community that hydroxychloroquine is generally safe, so safe in fact that it may be prescribed to pregnant women and children of all ages.

Peterson’s opinion is backed up by no fewer than 304 footnotes, with more than 275 of them referring to medical studies, articles from medical journals, statements from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other medical authorities.

In many states, however, the potential for sanctions has intimidated physicians into shying away from such remedies, despite such evidence of their effectiveness. Henry F. Smith, Jr., M.D., practices medicine in such a state, and posed the following scenario:

Now let’s imagine [a] patient calls in. This patient … has a dry cough, scratchy throat, muscle aches, and a low-grade fever. This patient had a COVID test kit at home and tested positive.

 

The physician wants to prescribe a medication with no risk of bacterial resistance and a very benign side-effect profile.

 

He’s read lots of literature to suggest it will be helpful. There are a significant number of double-blind studies showing it to be effective in the treatment of SARS Co-V2. It has been used in multiple countries with excellent results.

 

Except, in this case, the physician will find it impossible to prescribe that medication. It will be impossible because that medication is Ivermectin. And somehow it has been removed from the market.

Why? Smith follows the money:

[Pfizer’s Paxlovid and Merck’s Molnupivinir] have exactly one company-sponsored study each to vouch for their efficacy. Merck’s drug, by its own testing, is only 39% effective in reducing severe disease and/or death. There are no long-term safety data for either medication.

 

Yet both have received emergency use authorization and have suddenly popped up on government-approved treatment protocols….

 

As I look towards the end of my career, I’ve seen a lot of profit-oriented behavior by pharmaceutical companies.

 

I think of the me-too drugs, molecules that are only slightly different than their now off-patent predecessors aggressively marketed to physicians.

 

I’ve seen pharmaceutical reps actually reimburse physicians for a certain number of prescriptions written for their medications.

 

I’ve seen manipulation of the rules regarding inhaled medications to maintain their patents long after they would have expired.

But this banning of treatments proven to be efficacious is beyond anything Smith has seen in his decades of medical practice:

But if they actively suppressed the adoption of useful medications during a pandemic, then this is beyond the pale. It would suggest a total collapse of any morality or sense of responsibility within the pharmaceutical industry and their partners in the regulatory agencies.

The money flowing to drug companies is nearly incomprehensibly large. According to Morningstar, Pfizer collected nearly $40 billion in sales of its Covid-19 vaccine in 2021, while Merck reported gross sales in 2021 from all sources of nearly $50 billion, 17% over the year before. Merck’s profit rose from $4.5 billion in 2020 to $12.3 billion in 2021, an astounding 273% jump in just one year.

While Big Pharma was raking in obscene profits, even more obscene were the deaths directly attributable to the lack of the two remedies.

As Smith noted:

Let’s do some mathematics. As of this writing [February], there are roughly 890,000 deaths recorded in the United States related to COVID-19.

 

I think most people understand that a lot of these deaths are not due to the virus but from other comorbid conditions. The CDC has long stated that the number of deaths from COVID where there was no comorbid condition (in other words, healthy people who died from COVID) is roughly 7% of the total (65,000).

 

In several meta-analyses, Ivermectin was shown to be roughly 65% effective at preventing serious disease and/or death. So, in the best-case scenario for them, our public health organizations, by suppressing Ivermectin, may be responsible for roughly 40,000 deaths.

Once Missouri Governor Mike Parson signs HB 2149 into law he puts an end to the holocaust in the Show Me State. Missouri will then join more than two dozen other states in the union allowing medical freedom from sanctions for practicing medicine according to the Hippocratic oath: “Primum non nocere”: First, do no harm.

Poll: 54% Think Abortion Should Be Illegal

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, May 5, 2022:  

The latest Fox News poll reflects a pro-life trend that has been growing for years. In a poll completed just before Politico announced the leak of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Monday, Fox reported that a majority thinks abortion should be illegal “all (11%) or most of the time (43%).” Those who think abortion should be legal “is [at] a record low and it’s also the first time the portion saying ‘illegal’ has been above 50% on a Fox News poll.”

The trend favoring the pro-life position has been apparent for years. Back in 1998, Gallup asked, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” At the time, 15 percent said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Ten years later, that percentage was 18 percent, and since then it has moved higher, to nearly 20 percent.

According to the Pew Research Center’s latest polling results, 39 percent say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Last June, Gallup found that 52 percent of Americans take a pro-life position on abortion, wanting all (19 percent) or almost all (33 percent) abortions made illegal. That same poll found that only 32 percent of those polled think abortions should be legal up to the moment of birth.

A January 2021, a Marist poll found a majority of those polled were pro-life and oppose all or nearly all abortions. A poll conducted later that year by CBS News reported that 55 percent of Americans say abortion should either be more limited or should not be permitted at all.

A Morning Consult poll conducted last year found that a majority of those polled want abortions to be made illegal either in all cases or only legal in very rare cases such as rape or incest, or when the pregnancy directly affects the life of the mother. Those exceptions constitute less than two or three percent of all abortions, which means, as Steven Ertelt of Life News put it, “Most Americans support making virtually all abortions illegal.”

Another measure of growing opposition to abortion comes from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which reported that since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, states have imposed more than 1,300 restrictions on the procedure, including more than 100 last year alone.

At least one of them — Texas SB 8, the “Heartbeat Law” — made headline news, especially as other states such as Oklahoma and Idaho passed nearly identical laws.

In commenting on the Texas law, former Texas congressman Dr. Ron Paul pointed out that

It is no coincidence that Roe v. Wade came at a time when respect for natural rights of life, liberty, and property, was on the decline.

 

Roe contributed to the decline….

The ultimate solution, Dr. Paul wrote, was to reverse the trend by recognizing that abortion is the taking of an innocent life:

The way to reverse these developments is to restore respect for the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, of all human beings, both born and unborn.

 

The cause of life is inseparable from the cause of liberty.

It’s taken 50 years, but the trend, and the momentum, is unmistakable. The Supreme Court “leak” is now propelling forward the conversation that states and their citizens must have on the issue. And they’re increasingly moving back to the Declaration of Independence’s crystal-clear statement:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Federal Judge Ends Challenge to Texas Heartbeat Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, April 27, 2022:  

In a terse statement, a federal appeals court has dismissed all lawsuits pending against Texas state officials and administrators who have challenged the state’s “heartbeat” law:

Having received the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court that named official defendants may not enforce the provisions of the Texas Heartbeat Act … this court REMANDS the case with instructions to dismiss all challenges to the private enforcement provisions of the statute and to consider whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge.

Put another way, the ruling dismisses all attempts by pro-abortion advocates and providers to overturn Texas’ “Heartbeat Act.” And it requires the lower court to consider whether those bringing those challenges even have legal standing to do so.

In short, this ends the matter: Texas’ “heartbeat” law stands, and will continue to save an estimated 100 babies from being murdered in their mothers’ wombs every day.

The Texas law prohibits Texas officials from enforcing the law but allows private citizens to do so. It empowers them to sue anyone suspected of aiding or abetting an abortion after a heartbeat is detected (usually after six weeks of pregnancy). That would include physicians and their assistants, those providing advice and counsel to a woman considering ending her pregnancy, and those providing transportation to and from the abortion clinic.

The penalties against those providers are tough and have, for all intents and purposes, ended the abortion holocaust in the Lone Star State.

More than 20 lawsuits have been filed since the law became effective last September, and 14 of them were filed against Texas Right to Life (TRL). Said TRL President Jonathan Saenz:

This final federal court decision for life leaves no doubt that the Texas Heartbeat Act is the law of the land in the Lone Star State. We are grateful to the federal courts for upholding this groundbreaking law and protecting pre-born babies.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott celebrated the ruling: “Another legal loss for those challenging SB8 — the pro-life law that is saving babies every day.” So did Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, tweeting:

Very proud of my team for bringing win after win for the unborn in Texas! The Texas Heartbeat Act is one of the greatest pro-life laws in the nation, and I’m glad to defend it. Tens of thousands of babies have been saved in Texas because of SB 8 and our victories in court!

One lawsuit — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson — sought to exploit an opening the Supreme Court allowed back in December: that anti-life challengers could bring action against state licensing officials. That opening has now been firmly shut.

All eyes are now on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, heard by the Supreme Court in December with an expected ruling in June. Optimists are hoping the high court will overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue of abortion to the states, where it rightfully belongs.

But they could be disappointed, as the Supreme Court is only considering “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

For now, pro-life supporters are celebrating, as well as thousands of babies who have been saved from the holocaust since the Texas Heartbeat Act became effective last September.

Ousted San Francisco School Board President Blamed Her Loss on “White Supremacists”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 18, 2022:  

In a remarkable fit of outrage, Gabriela Lopez complained on Twitter on Thursday about being unceremoniously ousted as president of San Francisco’s Unified School District board earlier in the week:

So, if you fight for racial justice, this is the consequence. Don’t be mistaken, white supremacists are enjoying this. And the support of the recall is aligned with this.

A twitter follower called her out for her extraordinary lack of awareness as to the real reasons why she and her two compatriots was booted:

Your tweet reflects a major lack of awareness. Over 70% [73.86%] of the [146,432 who voted in the recall election, or 108,148] voters chose “yes” on the recall, in a city already extremely diverse.

 

They can’t have all been mass-duped. Isolating and labeling these people as bigots or enemies of racial justice won’t help you out.

Washington Post journalist David Weigel, who has been following the recall effort closely, agreed: “The ‘yes’ vote for recall was racially diverse … the ‘white supremacist’ charge just didn’t convince anyone.”

Even the editor-in-chief of the far-left Mother Jones chimed in, claiming that her ouster had nothing to do with any “white supremacy” conspiracy funded by Trump supporters or conservative billionaires. It had everything to do with her incompetency. Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffrey reviewed the vast “array of irritants” that led to the ouster not only of Lopez but also board members Alison Collins (78 percent to 22 percent) and Faauuga Moliga (71 percent to 29 percent).

First, San Francisco schools stayed closed due to the pandemic far longer that most other school districts in the country. The board consequently spent little time planning on how to reopen them, dismaying parents with students being required to stay at home.

Second, rather than planning for reopening the schools, the board decided unanimously to rename 44 of them. Their ideological screen excluded any historical figure who had “engaged in the subjugation and enslavement of human beings; or who oppressed women, inhibiting societal progress; or whose actions led to genocide; or who otherwise significantly diminished the opportunities of those amongst us to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Those figures included U.S. Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Also included were two-time Secretary of State Daniel Webster, Paul Revere, and Francis Scott Key, the author of the “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

This move so outraged even the liberal parents living in San Francisco that the board was forced to cancel its plans. Lopez made half an apology, claiming that the board’s plans to rename the schools began in 2018 “with a timeline that didn’t anticipate a pandemic. I acknowledge and take responsibility that mistakes were made in the renaming process.”

And then there was the kerfuffle over painting over a mural done in 1930 in one of the schools depicting snippets of George Washington’s life experiences. The board considered them racist and voted to paint over the mural. This so alienated art historians, the local NAACP, and other liberal elites that the board at first backtracked and then decided that rather than paint over the mural it would order that the mural be covered instead. The cost was $815,000 when the board was running a deficit in excess of $125 million.

The board decided to intervene in the admissions process of Lowell High School, one of the highest-rated public schools in the country. As Jeffery noted: “Admission was determined by ‘merit,’ i.e., GPA. Lowell was also overwhelmingly Asian American (the biggest group) and white.”

This the board couldn’t abide and voted to change Lowell’s admission practice to a public lottery instead, in order to make the student body more “representative” of the community, regardless of ability. What really set off the parents was that the board “rammed through [the] change without allowing for public input, apparently violating state sunshine provisions and triggering … lawsuits,” according to Jeffrey.

Back in April of last year an enterprising individual uncovered some “anti-Asian” tweets issued by one of those ousted on Tuesday, Alison Collins. One of them read, “Where are the vocal Asians speaking up against Trump? Don’t Asian Americans know they are on his list as well?”

The board issued a vote of no confidence as a result, and Collins filed suit claiming that her First Amendment rights had been violated. The suit was for $87 million. Happily, a judge threw out her lawsuit but only after the board had spent $400,000 of taxpayer monies defending themselves against it.

In June 2020, the district’s school superintendent, Vincent Matthews, tried to intervene and asked the board to bring in an outside consultant to help them deal with some of the real issues. But the board declined after learning that the consultant had once worked for a charter school.

As Jeffrey concluded, Tuesday’s vote had nothing to do with “white supremacy” but “a vote against incompetence.” Voters, she wrote, “felt like the board was playing politics, very ineptly.”

Mayor London Breed now has the opportunity to put the board back on track when she installs her own candidates to replace those booted on Tuesday. As for the other four board members? They won’t be eligible for their own recall vote as they haven’t been on the board long enough.

District Judge Stops Air Force’s Persecution of Officer Seeking Religious Exemption From COVID Mandate

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, February 17, 2022: 

In a decision fraught with national implications, a Trump-appointed judge in Georgia ruled on Tuesday that the Air Force cannot continue to pressure a reserve officer into taking the COVID vaccine.

Although technically the ruling affects only the future of a 25-year reservist, the judge’s reasoning lays substantial groundwork for future cases against the religious discrimination currently being applied by all the military services of the United States.

The religious discrimination was blatant, as Tilman Self, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, noted on the first page of his ruling. The plaintiff’s superior officer, in rejecting her final request for a religious exemption to taking the vaccine, wrote: “Your religious beliefs are sincere, [they’re] just not compatible with military service.”

Although that statement was a single individual’s opinion, it reflected the Air Force’s general view of religion. As Judge Self noted: “When considering the Air Force’s abysmal record regarding religious accommodations requests, it turns out that he was dead on target.”

In his 32-page ruling, Judge Self took considerable pains to expose the hypocrisy and disdain for those holding strong religious beliefs.

First, any claim by the Air Force that it has in place a procedure to process religious exemption requests is a sham, a fraud, a ruse, nothing but “theater”:

Although the Air Force claims to provide a religious accommodation process, it proved to be nothing more than a quixotic quest for Plaintiff because it was [quoting from another judge’s ruling on the same issue] “by all accounts,… theater.” …

 

Despite thousands of requests for religious exemption, the Air Force hadn’t granted a single one of them when Plaintiff filed her Complaint.

The issue is about the Constitution’s Bill of Rights: “Even in a pandemic [wrote Self, quoting still another judge’s ruling on the same issue], the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

Judge Self exposed the Air Force’s blatant disdain for those holding sincere religious objections to taking the vaccine:

As of January 31, 2022, the Air Force hadn’t approved a single religious accommodation request, but it had disapproved 2,787 of them and had another 2,443 requests pending.

Not only was the Air Force not granting any religious exemptions, it was punishing those requesting them:

The Air Force … informed Plaintiff that “any refusal to receive [a] COVID-19 vaccine … may be punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice…” and that “continued refusal will result in involuntary reassignment” … without pay, benefits, or regular responsibilities.

The plaintiff was being “forced to choose between her sincerely held religious beliefs, and her livelihood.” She complained that “the Constitution prohibits Defendants [the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Surgeon General of the Air Force] from forcing her” to make such a choice.

The judge exposed the Air Force’s deliberate intention to deny religious exemptions to everyone requesting them:

Like every other religious-based request and appeal filtering its way through the Air Force’s accommodation process, it was … rubber-stamped with disapproval and denial.

He reminded the defendants that “constitutional protections remain commandments, not suggestions,” and that he agreed with the plaintiff that they “have violated the Constitution because they essentially forced her to choose between her sincerely held religious beliefs and her livelihood.”

The plaintiff’s attorneys had no defense:

Defendants don’t say much in response to Plaintiff’s arguments that their COVID-19 vaccination requirement substantially burdens the free exercise of her religion. And how could they? Very few scenarios paint a bleaker picture than giving up your livelihood in order to follow your religious beliefs.…

 

Defendants simply don’t explain why they have a compelling interest in Plaintiff being vaccinated while so many other Air Force service members are not [vaccinated].

Judge Self then touched the third rail of the whole business of vaccinating against the COVID-19 virus:

Plaintiff’s natural immunity coupled with other preventive measures begs the question: Does a COVID-19 vaccine really provide more sufficient protection?

 

This is especially curious given the number of people who have been and continue to be infected after becoming fully vaccinated and receiving a booster — including the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Additionally, he exposed the Air Force’s hypocrisy and its anti-religion stance:

Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccination requirement allows service members to refuse vaccination for secular reasons while disallowing refusal based on religious reasons…. No matter whether one service member is unvaccinated for a medical reason and another unvaccinated for a religious reason, one thing remains the same for both of these service members — they’re both unvaccinated. In other words, both of these service members pose a “similar hazard” to Defendants’ compelling interest in “stemming the spread of COVID-19” within the military.

He then called out the defendants’ personal hypocrisy in allegedly supporting and defending the Constitution while violating it:

Given “the Nation’s essential commitment to religious freedom [,]” Plaintiff’s harm — a constitutional injury involving her right to freely exercise her religion — is not a mere trivial grievance…. And, what real interest can our military leaders have in furthering a requirement that violates the very document they swore to support and defend?

Stephen Crampton, senior counsel with the Thomas More Society, which assisted the reservist with her complaint, said:

This is a great victory for religious freedom.

 

The Air Force had granted over 1,500 medical exemptions by the time we filed this lawsuit, but not a single religious exemption — not one. After we filed, it suddenly decided to start granting or claiming to grant religious exemptions, albeit only a handful.

 

It is disgraceful how the military in general has disrespected fundamental First Amendment rights.

He then added a hopeful footnote:

We are grateful that the court has restored the Free Exercise rights of this courageous officer and are hopeful that her victory will help to protect the rights of conscientious objectors everywhere.

Democrat Governors Rescinding School Mask Mandates

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, February 9, 2022:  

Democrat governors in four deep blue states who are, in the words of former Senator Everett Dirksen, “feeling the heat,” are beginning “to see the light.” Oregon Governor Kate Brown, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, Delaware Governor John Carney, and Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont all announced on Monday that they were rolling back their indoor masking requirements, including for schools.

The heat is coming from several different directions. The November midterm elections are rapidly approaching, Joe Biden’s polling numbers are tanking, the “Freedom Convoy” of truckers protesting the mandates continues unabated, and hospitalizations from the virus are dropping, in some cases precipitously.

The light is being reflected in decisions by these “four horsemen of the Apocalypse” to back off on their mandates. They are still totalitarians, but are willing to shift the masking decisions to local authoritarians — schools boards and teachers’ unions.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called the decisions a result of an “epiphany” experienced by those governors:

The medical science didn’t change, the political science changed.

 

They feel the heat. They know that voters have been tired of perpetual lockdown policies. They know that they have basically offered no offramp, and they know that they’re fixing to get whooped at the polls.

 

And so that’s what’s causing the epiphany.

That “epiphany” has reached the White House. Said White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, “We certainly understand, and have seen in polling that the public is tired of COVID. We understand that. So are we. And there have been good signs recently where there has been a decrease in hospitalizations around the country.”

But that epiphany hasn’t yet reached the U.S. House of Representatives. Every single one of the 221 Democrats in the lower house voted against Representative Ashley Hinson’s (R-Iowa) bill, the Unmask Our Kids Act. If passed into law, her bill would allow parents to opt out of masking for their children.

In her plea on the House floor before the vote, Hinson said:

Across the country, children are struggling. Despite being nearly two full years into the pandemic, tens of thousands of students started off this year still being forced to learn behind a screen, cut off from their peers.

 

And many school districts are mandating masks for children of all ages against their parents’ wishes.

 

Parents should have the option to send their kids to school in person, and to decide whether they want their kids to wear a mask at school….

 

That’s at the heart of this issue — parents should be empowered to make the choices that impact their children’s physical and mental health, their development, and their future.

Following the party-line vote that defeated Hinson’s bill, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called out the Democrats:

House Democrats are playing politics and want you to believe they’re following the science. If they really trusted the science, they would have voted for Ashley Hinson’s Unmask Our Kids Act because the data against school-mask requirements are abundantly clear.

 

Instead, 221 House Democrats voted against it, allowing schools districts to continue to impose mandates on young kids. That’s not only unfair to children, it is harmful for many of them.

Unless those House Democrats see the light, and soon, it will further harm the prospects of their party keeping control of the House in the November midterm elections.

The four Democrat governors are happily awakening, thanks to the heat, and rescinding mask mandates in schools. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy, a dozen states imposed mask mandates in schools. May the decisions announced on Monday by the governors of four of them galvanize the others to take similar action.

Court Rules Against Virginia Governor Youngkin’s Mask Freedom Order

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, February 7, 2022:  

At the same time that Loudoun County parents sued the local school board for ignoring Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s executive order allowing parents the freedom to unmask their children, seven other school boards were suing Youngkin over the same issue.

On Friday, the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia, ruled against Youngkin and his “mask freedom” order.

At issue is the apparent contradiction caused by Virginia’s General Assembly. First, it issued an order to all school boards in the state to “provide such in-person instruction in a manner [designed] to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 that had been provided by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC].”

It also granted governors temporary powers to react to emergencies. Then-Governor Ralph Northam used those powers to issue executive orders mandating all teachers and students to be masked at all times. Under the same powers, current Governor Glenn Youngkin repealed Northam’s order, allowing parents to decide what’s best for their children attending school.

The boards argued that if Youngkin’s order “is enforced, [and] the universal masking policy is undermined … they would be unable to enforce the universal masking policy” required by CDC guidelines.

Youngkin, on the other hand, asserted that those school boards “are not allowing parents to choose whether to send their children to school without a mask.”

Circuit Court Judge Louise DeMatteo put both the General Assembly’s rule and Youngkin’s order “on equal footing” and then decided in favor of the General Assembly, negating (for the moment) Youngkin’s order.

She wrote:

While the General Assembly has granted the Governor significant and sweeping general powers to address an emergency … it does not follow that the Governor, even in an emergency, can direct the School Boards to ignore the General Assembly’s deference to CDC guidance….

 

School Boards will likely succeed on the merits of their claim that [Youngkin’s executive order] is contrary to the clear language of [the General Assembly’s rule]….

 

[Therefore] the Court concludes that the School Boards’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with regard to optional masking of children should be granted.

Youngkin’s office has stated it will appeal her ruling immediately. Her ruling doesn’t impact the parents’ lawsuit in Loudoun County, which is proceeding on its own through the courts.

Other factors are in play as well. Time is running out for those school boards, as more and more evidence is being reported, even by the CDC itself, that masking is ineffective, and that young students are the least likely to catch the virus. As parents learn that the issue is essentially a local one, they are likely to continue to make their complaints against current school-board masking policies heard loud and clear.

Ultimately, school-board elections will resolve the issue, making such rulings as the one issued on Friday irrelevant.

Top Virginia Officials Join Parents in Suing Loudoun School

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 4, 2022:  

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, his Attorney General Jason Mirares, and the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Jilian Balow asked a court on Wednesday to allow them to join the parents suing the Loudoun County School Board.

The parents complain that their students attending Loudoun County public schools are still required to wear masks all day (including during sporting events). This, despite Youngkin’s executive order freeing them to allow their students to go maskless if they so desire.

On his first day as governor, Youngkin signed nine executive orders, one of them directly repealing an order issued by his predecessor, Governor Ralph Northam, commanding all students be masked as part of the protocol adopted by the state to mitigate transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

As Youngkin explained:

Recent government orders requiring virtually every child in Virginia wear masks virtually every moment they are in school have proven ineffective and impractical. They have also failed to keep up with rapidly changing scientific information….

 

[While a] universal masking requirement in schools has provided inconsistent health benefits, the universal requirement has also inflicted notable harm and proven to be impracticable. Masks inhibit the ability of children to communicate, delay language development, and impede the growth of emotional and social skills.

He reminded parents that they have the right, under the Code of Virginia, “to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent’s child,” adding:

Permitting parents to make decisions on where and when to wear masks permits the Commonwealth’s parents to make the best decision for the circumstances confronting each child. Parents can assess the risks and benefits facing their child, consult their medical providers, and make the best decision for their children based on the most up to date health information available.

He then declared that the previous mask mandate was void, and that parents “may [now] elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.”

 

He further declared that school boards may not inflict special demands on parents requiring them to justify their decision not to have their children masked.

 

This so rankled the Loudoun County School Board that they decided, despite the evidence and the new order from Youngkin, to declare that any student violating the district’s commands for all-day, full-time masking would be suspended.

Here is an excerpt from the letter sent to parents from the Loudoun County School District:

Students who willfully continue to refuse to [wear a mask] as required by Loudoun County Public Schools will be suspended from school [and that] a student who is suspended because of non-compliance with [the mask mandate] may return to school only when they agree to [wear a mask] throughout the entire school day and at all indoor school-related events.

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares explained why he supports the lawsuit filed by the parents:

Parents know what is best for their children and should be able to decide if their children wear a mask for eight hours a day. For this reason, the Attorney General, Governor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction are seeking a motion for temporary injunction and a motion for temporary restraining order.

What’s galling most to the tyrants running the public schools in Loudoun County, Virginia, is the whole idea that parents — supposedly uneducated and untrained in how children ought to be taught — now have the power to decide for themselves what’s best for their children.

The Circuit Court for Loudoun County will decide the matter.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem Announces Two More Pro-life Bills

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 24, 2022:  

Coinciding with Friday’s March for Life attended by thousands in Washington, D.C., South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s announcement of two new anti-abortion bills adds to the pro-life momentum continuing to build across the land. From her office she announced:

Today, as tens of thousands of pro-life Americans participate in the annual March for Life in Washington, DC, Governor Kristi Noem announced the text of two pro-life bills to protect unborn lives.

 

The first will ban abortions once a child’s heartbeat can be detected; the second will ban telemedicine abortions in South Dakota.

Noem’s first bill is the third so-called heartbeat law in the country, succeeding those passed by Texas and Mississippi. Texas bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually around the 10th week of pregnancy, while Mississippi’s law bans abortions after 15 weeks. A lawsuit challenging the Mississippi law — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — is currently under review by the Supreme Court.

Noem’s announcement also coincides with the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that “discovered” the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. The court doubled down on that highly controversial decision years later.

Said Governor Noem in announcing the new bills:

Every human life is unique and beautiful from the moment it is conceived. Every life is worthy of our protection, worthy of the right to live. We hope that this year’s March for Life will be the last and that the Supreme Court will finally protect every unborn life. But until that comes to pass, these bills will ensure that both unborn children and their mothers are protected in South Dakota.

The South Dakota law is modeled after the Texas heartbeat law in that only private citizens can bring civil action against abortionists or those aiding them in performing an abortion. This has so far successfully thwarted the abortion industry from obtaining a court’s injunction against enforcement of the law.

South Dakota’s new law has teeth: There is a minimum $10,000 penalty against the abortion provider, along with legal fees and other financial penalties if the lawsuit is successful. This aspect of Texas’ heartbeat law has virtually shut down abortions in that state.

Thanks to South Dakota’s already-strong stand against taking the life of an unborn infant, abortions in that state have been reduced by 80% over the last ten years.

 

Gov. Noem reinforced that South Dakota is a strongly pro-life state:

The Constitution clearly delegates defending the lives and safety of the people to the [state] government as its chief role. That includes defending the rights and the lives of unborn children.…

 

As soon as the High Court overturns Roe v. Wade, our state laws already in place should protect every unborn South Dakota child….

 

Science tells us that an unborn child’s heart starts beating as early as six weeks after conception. Any abortion after that point stops that heartbeat — stops that life — stops that gift from God.

The second bill announced by Noem bans so-called “telemedicine” abortions: abortions facilitated by two drugs, mifepristone (which deprives the fetus of nutrients) and its follow-up drug, misoprostol (which induces labor to expel the remains of the dead infant). These were formerly available online, but this bill would effectively codify Noem’s executive order issued last September banning the purchase of such drugs over the internet.

Under the new bill, those drugs may only be prescribed during an in-person consultation with a physician licensed in the state. The bill also bans the drugs from being delivered by mail, and forbids them from being provided in schools or on state properties.

These two bills follow eight other pro-life bills Governor Noem signed into law last year, including a ban on abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, and a bill protecting the life of an infant born alive, regardless of the circumstances of that child’s birth.

In addition, South Dakota has a “trigger law” enacted in 2005 that would ban all abortions at any time “on a date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy.”

That’s one of the most egregious aspects of Roe v. Wade: The high court overruled every state’s power granted under the Constitution to regulate abortions, thus unleashing a tsunami of abortions — an estimated 65 million lives have been lost in the holocaust that began back in 1973.

Quinnipiac Poll Has Biden’s Approval Rating at Record Low

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, January 13, 2022:  

President Joe Biden’s job approval rating dropped another three points, reported Quinnipiac University on Wednesday. In November, Americans gave him a negative 36-53 percent (approval-disapproval) rating. His current rating stands at 33-53 percent.

His polling numbers have continued to drop at Quinnipiac. The last seven polls have shown his approval rating dropping from 49 percent to 46 percent to 42 percent to 38 percent to 37 percent to 36 percent, and now to a record low of 33 percent.

His approval rating among Democrats is dropping as well. In November, 87 percent of them approved of his performance. Since then, his approval rating has dropped by 12 points, to 75 percent.

Everywhere Quinnipiac looked, those polled gave Biden a failing grade. On the economy, 34-57. On his foreign policy, 35-54. On his response to COVID-19, 39-55.

He promised to unite the country. Forty-nine percent of those polled told Quinnipiac that he’s doing more to divide than to unite.

A majority — 54 percent — told Quinnipiac pollsters that they think the U.S. economy is getting worse, with 70 percent saying the present state of the economy is not very good or just plain poor.

This dismal performance by Biden is flowing over into the midterm elections, according to Quinnipiac. Forty-three percent of those they polled want Republicans to regain control of the House of Representatives while 42 percent prefer Democrats to retain control. In the Senate, 45 percent favor Republicans gaining control in November, with just 41 percent want the Senate to remain in Democrat hands.

The damage being wrought by Biden’s collapsing poll numbers extends to how Americans view the Democratic Party as a whole: More than six out of 10 (62 percent) say the Democratic Party is more committed to individual politicians that to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Biden, whether he knows it or not, is engaging in self-immolation. His speech yesterday in Georgia lit the fires of discontent not only among his Republican targets but among his supporters as well. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Joe Biden he heard yesterday wasn’t the Joe Biden he knew from his days in the Senate, declaring his speech “profoundly unpresidential.”

McConnell added,

[Biden] called millions of Americans his domestic enemies … [shouting] that if you disagree with him, you’re George Wallace [a segregationist].

 

If you don’t pass the laws he wants, you’re Bull Connor [a white supremacist], and if you oppose giving Democrats untrammeled, one-party control of the country, well, you’re Jefferson Davis [president of the Confederate States].

McConnell said, “Look, I’ve known, liked and personally respected Joe Biden for many years. I did not recognize the man at the podium yesterday.”

In researching for this article, this writer found no mention of Biden’s descent into dementia and possibly Alzheimer’s disease. But WebMD had plenty to say about the end stages of that dreadful and debilitating disease:

Sometimes, people with Alzheimer’s disease lash out for no clear reason. They may get upset or angry easily. They may curse, hurl insults, or scream. They might even throw things or resist caregivers by pushing and hitting. This kind of aggression usually starts when people get to the later stages of the disease.

 

No one knows for sure why it happens. Aggression may be a symptom of Alzheimer’s disease itself. It could also be a reaction when a person feels confused or frustrated.

The WebMD website lists possible triggers for behavior exhibited by Biden on Wednesday:

  • The environment around them, including loud noises, too much activity, or clutter;
  • Confusion from being asked too many questions at once, trying to understand complex instructions, or feeling the stress of caregivers;
  • Being criticized or told they were wrong;
  • Feeling rushed; or
  • Confusion about what was happening.

Readers are free to draw their own conclusions. But whether he knows it or not, Biden, and his falling approval numbers, increasingly bode ill for Democrats, and the Democratic Party itself, in the November midterm elections as well as the presidential election in 2024 if Biden decides to run for reelection.

Texas District Court Grants Injunction Against Navy’s COVID-19 Mandate

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, January 4, 2021:  

Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee to the Northern District Court of Texas (Fort Worth), came down hard on the Navy on Monday. The Navy — and by implication all the U.S. military — has used the COVID-19 pandemic as cover for demanding that no service member may use his religion to exempt himself from taking the vaccine:

The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms.

 

There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment.

He said that the Navy has set up a complex application process that virtually guarantees that any request for religious reasons is automatically denied:

The Navy provides a religious accommodation process, but by all accounts, it is theater.

 

The Navy has not granted a religious exemption to any vaccine in recent memory.

 

It merely rubber stamps each denial.

Not only has the Navy created a policy denying any and every religious exemption request, it also has set up a deliberate and intentional system of sanctions against those who even think about making one:

Plaintiffs are already suffering injury while waiting for the Navy to adjudicate their requests. In some cases, Plaintiffs have suffered injury because they seek religious accommodation.

 

Plaintiffs testify that they have been barred from official and unofficial travel, including for training and treatment for traumatic brain injuries; denied access to non-work activities, like family day; assigned unpleasant schedules and low-level work like cleaning; relieved of leadership duties and denied opportunities for advancement; kicked out of their platoons; and threatened with immediate separation.

He granted a temporary injunction against the Navy continuing its blanket denial of requests for religious reasons, and prohibited the service from sanctioning those who are filing those requests.

The history of the Navy discriminating against service members with strongly held religious beliefs goes back years before the pandemic. But it wasn’t until the Biden administration appointed Lloyd Austin as secretary of defense that it was applied unilaterally and completely.

Austin’s reign began on January 22, 2021, and in August he proclaimed “a vaccine mandate directing all DoD servicemembers to be vaccinated against COVID-19,” wrote O’Connor. The Navy set November 28 as the drop-dead date for all servicemembers to submit to the vaccine or face the “full range” — O’Connor’s words — of disciplinary action.

He quoted the Navy’s interpretation of Austin’s mandate:

[Special Operational] personnel refusing to receive recommended vaccines … based solely on personal or religious beliefs are disqualified.

“Disqualified” means, O’Connor noted, “becoming permanently nondeployable.”

Mike Berry, general counsel for First Liberty Institute which is assisting the 35 Navy Special Warfare servicemembers, including 26 Navy SEALS, in their complaint, celebrated O’Connor’s ruling:

Forcing a service member to choose between their faith and serving their country is abhorrent to the Constitution and America’s values.

 

Punishing SEALs for simply asking for a religious accommodation is purely vindictive and punitive. We’re pleased that the court has acted to protect our brave warriors before more damage is done to our national security.

There are other lawsuits pending, but O’Connor’s ruling is the first one shutting down the Navy’s enforcement of Austin’s mandate. Although there are 35 plaintiffs in the present lawsuit, there are more than 35,000 military service members who have refused the vaccine, many of them facing sanctions for doing so.

As Christians they believe 1) that this world is not their home; and 2) in this world they will face trials, tribulations, and suffering. As Jesus Christ Himself said: “I have told you these things, so that in Me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33).

Nearly 200 Members of Congress Join Lawsuit Against Biden’s OSHA Virus Mandates, Declaring Them Unconstitutional

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Saturday, January 1, 2022:  

More than 180 members of Congress filed a friendly brief to the Supreme Court on Thursday as the high court prepares to hear arguments against the Biden administration’s virus mandates issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). What’s reassuring is that so many members not only understand that the Constitution is the final bulwark against tyranny, but that they were willing to say so publicly by signing onto that brief.

At issue is one of the primary guards against tyranny: the separation of powers. The founders determined that powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution should not only be limited, but that those limited powers should be separated into three parts: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. By competing against one another the chances of government overreaching its authority would be greatly reduced.

From the brief:

The separation of powers has long been known to be a defense against tyranny…. And so [quoting a previous Supreme Court ruling] it “remains a basic principle of our constitutional scheme that one branch of the Government may not intrude upon the central prerogatives of another.”

The brief quoted from another Supreme Court ruling from 1983: “The principle of separation of powers was not simply an abstract generalization in the minds of the Framers: it was woven into the documents that they drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.”

From another high court decision, the brief said: “To the Framers, the separation of powers and checks and balances were more than just theories. They were practical and real protections for individual liberty in the new Constitution.”

When Congress passed the legislation creating OSHA, which was signed into law by then-President Richard Nixon in 1970, it violated that doctrine. In 1989 the high court ruled (Mistretta v. United States) that Congress could violate the Constitution as long as it placed restrictions and limitations on those powers it delegated to federal agencies. Justice Anton Scalia dissented, but he was in the minority.

Back to the brief:

When an executive agency overreaches the boundaries of its authority [granted by Congress] … it undermines both the vertical [states versus the federal government] and the horizontal [the three branches of the federal government] separation of powers that protect the people.

Forty-seven senators and 136 members of the House signed onto the brief, including many widely known as supporters of their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution: Marsha Blackburn, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, John Kennedy, Mike less, Rand Paul, Ben Sasse, Tim Scott, Andy Barr, Andy Biggs, Dan Crenshaw, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louis Gohmert, Darrell Issa, Jim Jordan, Thomas Massie, Burgess Owens, and Chip Roy.

Others with less stellar voting records added their names to the brief as well, perhaps for political rather than constitutional reasons: John Cornyn, Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Elise Stefanik, Steve Scalise, Doug Lamborn, and Joe Wilson.

They said they were “concerned with the executive overreach seen in the current administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [We] have an interest in the powers [we] delegate to agencies not being abused…. In this case, the promulgation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of a sweeping, nationwide vaccine mandate on businesses intrudes into an area of legislative concern far beyond the authority [we delegated to] the agency.”

The brief made much of the so-called “workaround” that OSHA officials used in an attempt to avoid drawing attention to its illegal mandate. The New American drew attention to that illegal maneuver back in November:

Judge Engelhardt [a Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals] also blew the cover on just why OSHA was picked to do the dirty work of the Biden mandate:

 

After the President voiced his displeasure with the country’s vaccination rate in September, the Administration pored over the U.S. Code in search of authority, or a “work-around,” for imposing a national vaccine mandate.

 

The vehicle it landed on was an OSHA ETS.

 

The judge footnoted the source backing up his claim:

 

On September 9, 2021, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain retweeted MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle’s tweet that stated, “OSHA doing this vaxx mandate as an emergency workplace safety rule is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations.”

This is why the Founders labored mightily for months in stifling heat in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787: to keep the powers being granted to the federal government from being abused by power-hungry politicians.

The brief made clear that the threat was real. Unless restrained OSHA would continue go rogue:

To allow OSHA the authority to control [individuals’ own health decisions] would remove any semblance of an intelligible principle in the delegated authority that Congress has given the agency….

 

The sudden “discovery” of authority under the OSH Act confirms that it was never intended to displace state authority in this area.

It’s gratifying that so many members of both houses of Congress are willing to support this brief, in many levels. It might help recalcitrant “conservative” justices on the high court grow a backbone and declare the entire OSHA sham a fraud and a deceit upon the American people. It might help those running nervously to retain their seats come November to show their constituents that they really are conservative constitutionalists after all.

But those signing onto the brief for constitutional reasons — to stuff the OSHA genie back into the bottle — should be congratulated for recognizing that the Constitution of the United States is not dead nor even dying. It remains, as it must, the final bulwark against tyranny.

Colorado’s Democratic Governor Declares COVID “Emergency” Is Over

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 13, 2021:  

Colorado Democratic Governor Jared Polis told Colorado Public Radio on Thursday that his state’s citizens no longer need to wear masks. He is lifting the mandate that suffocated freedom in the once-red state, and now is saying that health officials stepped beyond their bounds.

It was a classic political move: When the heat in the kitchen gets too hot, blame one of the other cooks.

He never apologized for violating peoples’ rights or infringing on their freedom of movement or right to make their own decisions. Instead, he “followed the science” and Coloradoans folded like a cheap lawn chair:

Our top goal is always to follow the science, and there was a time when there was no vaccine, and masks were all we had and we needed to wear them and Colorado stepped up, which was great.

And there is little doubt that when the next “emergency” occurs, and “science” says how the people should behave, Polis’ actions have set a precedent.

Said Polis:

[The mask mandate that I ordered is] the kind of thing that I … didn’t hesitate to do in the emergency.

And then he stepped away from taking responsibility:

You know, public health officials don’t get to tell people what to wear. I mean, that’s just not their job.

But when there’s an “emergency,” that IS their job, said Polis:

When you’re in an emergency situation, public health would say to always wear a mask … but you don’t tell people to wear a jacket when they go out in winter and force them to. If they get frostbite, it’s their own darn fault.

Then came the accusation. Those who have chosen not to get vaccinated are to blame:

If you haven’t been vaccinated, that’s your choice. I respect that. But it’s your fault when you’re in the hospital with COVID….

It’s almost like they made a deliberate decision not to get vaccinated.

And the reason? Those who chose to risk their lives and the lives of everyone around them by not getting vaccinated are getting their information from an “alternative misinformation universe”:

There are people that believe you and I are part of some massive conspiracy. Some of them believe there is no COVID; some of them believe the vaccine doesn’t work; some believe the vaccine has serious side effects.

 

The truth is, they’re in their own bubble, and it’s very hard to penetrate.

This is how tyrants such as Polis justify their illegal and unconstitutional actions: Anyone opposed, no matter how sound the reasons, are brushed off as conspiratorialists, or worse. 

Eric Boehm, writing in Reason, wrote about visiting Denver recently, noting the “absurdity” of the mask mandates:

 

In Denver, for example, masks are required indoors, even for vaccinated individuals. That means you have to engage in the nonsensical bit of COVID theater in which you don a mask to walk from the front door of a brewery to the bar, then remove it to eat, drink, and socialize in close proximity with other people.

 

If my experience visiting the city earlier this month was any indication, most people go along with the mandate but roll their eyes at the absurdity of it all, if you ask.

Will they “roll their eyes” the next time the powers-that-be declare that there’s another “emergency,” and just go along with the next illegal and illogical mandate? Or will they see with their own eyes the “absurdity of it all” and disregard it and make their own decisions?

NYU Professor Exonerated After Being Charged With Teaching “Dangerous Misinformation”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 13, 2021:  

Last week, officials at New York University relented and exonerated Professor Mark Crispin Miller over the school’s claims that he was teaching his students “dangerous misinformation” about the efficacy of masks during the COVID-10 pandemic.

The exoneration came with a warning, however: NYU suggested that he might need to “reconsider his teaching style” and perhaps to “even get some coaching.”

This for a man who has been with NYU since 1997 and, consequently, is a fully tenured professor there. He has been teaching a course on propaganda there for 20 years, which is one of the most popular classes on campus.

In September 2020, Professor Miller thought the issue of masking would make a great issue to study as there was so much conflicting information floating around about the efficacy of masks in reining in the spread of the virus. He told his students:

You would want to read all the scientific literature on masking.

 

It may interest you to know that all the randomized controlled trials on masking in hospitals have found that masks are not effective barriers against respiratory viruses. You would want to read all those studies.

 

And you would also then want to read the more recent studies finding otherwise.

He also advised his students to look for financial connections between the authors of those studies and the pharmaceutical industry as well as the Gates Foundation. He even provided Internet links to studies that had been censored for exposing information that didn’t fit the popular narrative.

That’s real teaching, and not indoctrination. He asked his students to do their research on both sides of the issue, to review and analyze what they found, and then to use their critical thinking skills to come to an educated and well-informed opinion on the matter. And then be prepared to defend their conclusions in class. He didn’t interpose his personal opinion, leaving the students to come to their own conclusions. This often led to lively discussions during his classes.

Julia, a student who hadn’t attended his first class, was outraged. She tweeted:

I hope NYUniversity/NYUSteinhardt agrees that this professor should not be trusted with educating and advising students, and I hope they take immediate stops to relieve him of these duties.

In response, Miller’s department head wrote: “Julia, thank you for reporting this issue. We as a department have made this a priority and are discussing next steps.”

The “next steps” included sending an e-mail to his students (while excluding Miller from the e-mail) suggesting that, said Miller, “I had given this class dangerous misinformation, and [then] included a list of links to studies recommended by the CDC, calling them authoritative, and then ending by warning them to wear their masks on campus, as if I had told them not to.”

This was followed by 25 of Miller’s colleagues writing a letter to the dean, who then ordered an investigation before even talking to Miller.

When he learned that the university had relented and concluded that he hadn’t violated any of the university’s rules, Miller said:

Here I was accused of bullying my students into agreeing with my crackpot views.

 

Well, several students who defended me actually said that my classes were unusually tolerant and open and that I do not punish anyone for disagreeing.

 

And I do not hold the party line on any issue, whereas other professors at NYU, specifically in my department, do precisely that.

 

They hold forth with all kinds of social justice pieties, and the students are intimidated, and [consequently] they censor themselves, and they are afraid to disagree.

Professor Miller has taken the next step: He is suing 19 of his “colleagues” who ganged up on him for libel.

Former School-board President Survives First Investigation into His “Dossier”; Two Remain open

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, December 3, 2021: 

The Scottsdale (Arizona) Police Department (SPD) closed its investigation into whether former school-board president Jann-Michael Greenburg broke the law over a Google drive on his computer containing sensitive personal data on 47 parents who have protested the board’s policies on masking and CRT.

The SPD’s release said “It was determined that the drive contained opensource and/or public documents. Therefore, it has been determined that no criminal conduct has been committed at this time that would be under the jurisdiction of the Scottsdale Police Department.”

The carefully worded statement implied that Greenburg could still suffer legal consequences from other quarters. The FBI has been asked to open an investigation into the matter, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has been made aware of the contentious Google drive residing on Greenberg’s computer, and the Arizona Attorney General’s office is looking into it as well.

And the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) claims that it is also conducting its own investigation into the matter.

Greenburg is accused, along with his father, Michael, of creating and maintaining a Google drive on their joint computer containing the names, addresses, phone numbers, pictures, and other sensitive information (such as professional licensing, divorce, and details on mortgages) on 47 parents with children attending schools in the district. Most of them are parents who have at one time or another either spoken at board meetings or otherwise publicly expressed their unhappiness over the board’s policies concerning masking and the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT).

Michael is alleged to have invested heavily into obtaining the information from various information sources, compiling the information under folders titled “Press Conference Psychos,” “Anti-Mask Lunatics,” and “SUSD Wackos.”

When the Google drive was accidentally revealed by Jann-Michael while responding to a parent who apparently had made some derogatory comments about George Soros with which he disagreed, parents whose information had been collected were outraged. One parent, Amanda Wray, when she saw what Jann-Michael and his father had collected on her and her family, went ballistic:

 

What I first saw the contents of the Google Drive and I saw my 8- and 10-year-olds’ photos, that was terrifying. I’m like, what is he doing?

 

He has pictures of my vacation home, property records. I’m not a political opponent [but] I’m an involved parent and that is threatening to me and makes me wonder why and what he was planning to do with those photos.

Another parent, Amy Carney, a mother of six and a candidate for the board, told Fox News that the collection of personal data was retaliation for her objections to the board’s policies: “I’d call this retaliation.… The list of parents targeted in the drive appears to be anyone who has spoken out about anything against our district publicly or otherwise.”

At first Jann-Michael denied knowing anything about the drive on his computer: “I categorically deny having anything to do with any of this,” he told Arizona’s Independent Newsmedia (IN). This brought an immediate reaction from Wray: “Jann sent the screenshot [to me]. He has access to this drive, so I’m really interested to understand how he’s going to say he doesn’t know about it because he had the drive open on his computer.”

Greenburg changed his story once the local police got involved. He told the board, “I am reassured [that] the Scottsdale Police Department is investigating the matter. There appear to be bad actors involved and I am confident our law enforcement will quickly resolve these issues.”

This is the classic deflection device used often by politicians whose shenanigans behind the scenes have been exposed: blame a third party for their crimes.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said in an e-mail to the board:

It has been reported that the … external drive was available or could be accessed by other board members, which may circumvent Arizona open meeting laws. Whether any public monies were improperly used in the creation and/or maintenance of this dossier is also of serious concern.”

He added:

Parents have a First Amendment right to assemble and speak in order to question the decisions public officials are making, especially when it involves the well-being of their children.

Local attorney Alexander Kolodin weighed in on the potential for legal action against Greenburg:

Both Arizona and the federal government have laws prohibiting both intimidation generally and voter intimidation in particular….

 

If these allegations are true Mr. Greenburg and his father might be liable for violating one or more of these laws.

Parents have begun a petition to remove Greenburg from the board after the board replaced him as president. At last count, more than 1,500 signatures have been garnered in their quest.

So far, Greenburg has refused to resign from the board. The New American will continue to follow this case as the other investigations run their course.

Conservative Appeals Court to Hear Vax Mandate Lawsuits

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, November 17, 2021:

Thirty-four lawsuits were brought in all 11 courts of appeal as well as the D.C. court opposing the Biden vaccine mandate for businesses with more than 100 employees. Under law they had to be consolidated into one court, and the court that “won the lottery” yesterday was the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This bodes well for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which placed a temporary “stop” order on the Biden mandate. If the Sixth Court considers all that the Fifth Circuit uncovered, the three judges looking at all 34 lawsuits should have an easy time of it in making that temporary order permanent.

Of course, the Biden administration will demand that the full Sixth Circuit court hear the case if the three-judge panel rules against it. And if the full court affirms the ruling by the three judges, then the Biden attorneys will likely appeal to the Supreme Court. In short, this is the just the beginning of the battle over what the Constitution says, and what the Biden administration thinks and wishes that it says.

Of the 27 judges sitting on the Sixth Circuit (which oversees district courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee), 20 of them were nominated by Republican presidents: six by Trump, eight by Bush II, three by the elder Bush, and three by Reagan. The others were nominated either by Clinton or Obama.

The Fifth Circuit made clear the perfidy the Biden administration engaged in to justify its unconstitutional mandate. Judge Engelhardt wrote:

After the President voiced his displeasure with the country’s vaccination rate in September, the Administration pored over the U.S. Code in search of authority, or a “work-around,” for imposing a national vaccine mandate.

 

The vehicle it landed on was an OSHA ETS [emergency temporary standard].

The judge footnoted the source backing up his claim:

On September 9, 2021, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain retweeted MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle’s tweet that stated, “OSHA doing this vaxx mandate as an emergency workplace safety rule is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations.”

That should suffice for the Sixth Circuit three-judge panel to bring closure to the matter and affirm the Fifth Circuit’s decision. But Judge Englehardt also questioned the timing, and the hypocrisy. First of all, he wrote, OSHA had initially declined to use its ETS powers back in June 2020, declaring that it was “not necessary” to “protect working people from occupational exposure to infectious disease.” But once the Biden attorneys decided to use the agency’s ETS power to inflict its mandate on the people, it changed course.

And what hypocrisy. Wrote the judge:

The Mandate’s stated impetus — a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years, and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to — is unavailing as well.

“Unavailing” is a nice way the judge had of saying “empty,” “trivial,” and “worthless,” as well as completely unpersuasive.

Judge Engelhardt said that OSHA should have used its ETS power “delicately,” because it is an “extraordinary power” that Congress granted (illegally, but that’s another matter) to the agency back in 1971 under President Nixon.

But, no, wrote the judge:

But the Mandate at issue here is anything but a “delicate exercise” of this “extraordinary power.”

 

Quite the opposite, rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly “grave danger” the Mandate purports to address.

Ryan Bangert, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, one of many public-interest law firms bringing those 34 lawsuits, said, “The Biden administration’s decision to mandate vaccines through an OSHA emergency rule is unlawful and compels employers like our clients to intrude on their employees’ personal health decisions.”

Patrick Hughes, president and co-founder of Liberty Justice Center, which also has clients contesting the mandate, said:

This mandate represents the greatest overreach by the federal government in a generation. It is illegal and unconstitutional, and we are committed to ensuring that it never sees the light of day.

May the Sixth Circuit’s three-judge panel, its full court if necessary, and the Supreme Court upon appeal, all see the Biden vaccine mandate the same way.

OSHA to Use “Whistleblowers” to Enforce Biden Vaccine Mandate

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, November 16, 2021: 

The Occupational and Safety Administration (OSHA) has fewer than 2,000 enforcers to cover the estimated seven million businesses employing 84 million workers impacted by Biden’s vaccine mandate. Doing the math, Michael Maharrey, the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, calculated “it would take them 160 years to inspect every business … just one time. That’s why [OSHA] will have to rely on snitches to have any hope of enforcing the vaccine mandate.”

That’s exactly what OSHA plans to do. OSHA’s former chief of staff, Debbie Berkowitz, admits that “there is no army of OSHA inspectors that is going to be knocking on employers’ doors, or even calling them. They’re going to rely on workers … to file complaints.”

They’re also going to be doing “spot checks” of businesses, and when one is found to be in violation, it will be headline news in order to keep other businesses in line.

Call them betrayers, canaries, snitches, squealers, stool pigeons, or whistleblowers, this is the weak link in OSHA’s enforcement chain. As Maharrey noted, “Here’s the dirty little secret they don’t want you to know: partnerships and ‘team efforts’ don’t work when half the team quits.”

For the moment, at least, OSHA has “suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS [emergency temporary standard] pending future developments in the litigation.” The Fifth Circuit issued a temporary injunction against OSHA, and then reaffirmed it on Friday.

Today a lottery will take place to determine where all the challenges that have been brought against OSHA by multiple states in 11 of the 12 circuit courts will be resolved. Federal law requires that when “multiple petitions for review of a single agency’s order are filed in at least two courts of appeal” a lottery must take place to determine which court will adjudicate the matter.

The Federalist, No. 46, written by “Publius” (James Madison), directly addresses the issue: What happens if the court rules that OSHA does in fact have the authority to enforce Biden’s vaccine mandate?

He wrote:

The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone….

 

[When] the members of the federal government will be dependent on the members of the state government [for enforcement] … the state governments must clearly have the advantage….

Twenty-seven state governments have already brought lawsuits against OSHA. As Madison noted:

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in a particular state … the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people, their repugnance and perhaps refusal to co-operate with the officers of the [federal government] … would form … very serious impediments, and where the sentiments of several adjoining states happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

That is how the author of the Constitution, looking ahead 230 years to today, would handle the problem of OSHA: Just say no. Even if the courts say OSHA is legitimate, and its ETS is legal, those 27 states could still just say no.

As Maharrey wrote: “If employees refuse to tell on their coworkers and employers, and if states refuse to help enforce the vaccine mandates, the vaccine mandates won’t be enforced.”

Pressure Building on Arizona School Board President to Resign

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, November 15, 2021: 

Not only have Scottsdale police opened an investigation into Scottsdale Unified School District’s president, Jann-Michael Greenburg, over his “dossier” of parents opposed to the school district’s policies on masking and Critical Race Theory, but more than 1,200 parents have signed a petition demanding his resignation as well.

His resignation is expected shortly.

Since The New American first reported on the incident on Friday, additional damning evidence has surfaced. Aside from the police statement — “[We’re] aware of the allegations against Scottsdale Unified School District President Jann-Michael Greenburg. We are conducting an investigation into the matter and will report our findings once it is complete” — a petition to oust Greenburg is gathering considerable momentum.

From the petition:

On November 9, 2021, The Scottsdale Independent published an article “The Greenburg Files: Is there a file on you?” demonstrating the expansive and disturbing surveillance activities of Scottsdale Unified School District Governing Board President Jann-Michael Greenburg….

The “Greenburg Files” contain many disturbing documents, audio files, and video recordings of several individuals, including photos of SUSD students.

 

There is no legitimate purpose for any of these background checks, deeds, marital records, financial documents, professional certifications and more to be curated, stored, and shared in such a manner by Mr. Greenburg.

 

The files also contain unredacted SUSD emails and screenshots of open district email tabs — bringing even more concern that SUSD resources may have been shared or used outside of their intended or legally allowed purposes.

The Google drive contains 160 pages of information on parents unhappy with the school board’s policies related to COVID-19. The information appears to have been gleaned following extensive investigation by its author, which explains the surprising amount of detail the drive reveals. 

It was not only surprising, but unsettling as well. Targets included parents who were mounting an effort to recall Greenburg. Greenburg is single and lives with his father, Mark, who, it appears, spent the time and the money to build the “Greenburg Files.”

It remains unclear what purpose the Greenburgs had in gathering the information, but parents aren’t waiting: They want the president out, now.

Amy Carney, a mother of six and a candidate for the district’s governing board, told Fox News: “I’d call this retaliation … the list of parents targeted in the drive appears to be anyone who has spoken out about anything against our district publicly or online.”

The petition concludes:

His [Jann-Michael’s] actions have made it unequivocally clear that he is unfit for public office.… We stand together in requesting the immediate termination of Jann-Michael Greenburg as SUSD Governing Board President, and we further demand his resignation as an SUSD Governing Board Member.

SUSD is one of the largest suburban school districts in metro Phoenix, serving most of Scottsdale as well as parts of Phoenix, Paradise Valley, and Tempe. That explains why the national media is now following the case.

Even after he resigns, Greenburg, and his father Mark, are likely to face legal consequences. The New American noted that attorney Alexander Kolodin had grave concerns that the Google drive — the “Greenburg Files” — violated Arizona’s Parents’ Bill of Rights that recognizes a parent’s right to consent before the government makes a video or voice recording of the minor child.

But Mark Greenburg is a private citizen who did the recordings, and so sanctions might come from another source. As Kolodin explained:

Both Arizona and the federal government have laws prohibiting both intimidation generally and voter intimidation in particular….

If these allegations are true, Mr. Greenburg and his father might be liable to violating one or more of these laws.

In any event, Jann-Michael Greenburg’s tenure as president of SUSD is about to come to an end, but the legal consequences over his involvement with the “Greenburg Files” will continue to plague him into the future.

Fifth Circuit Reaffirms Order Halting OSHA From Enforcing Vax Mandate

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Sunday, November 14, 2021: 

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed its “stay” order against OSHA on Friday. Last week, OSHA finally issued its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) ordering businesses with more than 100 employees either to, in Judge Kurt Englehardt’s (a Trump appointee) words: “take their shots, take their tests, or hit the road.”

The day after OSHA issued its ETS, the Fifth Circuit shut it down, finding “cause to believe there were grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate.” On Friday, the court reaffirmed its stay order against OSHA and explained why.

First of all, OSHA declined to issue an ETS back in June 2020, declaring that it was “not necessary” to “protect working people from occupational exposure to infectious disease, including COVID-19.” Now, surprisingly, OSHA has reversed itself.

Second, wrote Englehardt, “in its fifty-year history, OSHA has issued just ten ETSs. Six were challenged in court; only one survived.”

Instead of assuming that OSHA’s creation in 1971 was a legitimate use of legislative power and then moving on to question the validity of its ETS, Englehardt wrote:

The Occupational Safety and Health Act, which created OSHA, was enacted by Congress to assure Americans “safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.”

 

It was not — and likely could not be, under the Commerce Clause and nondelegation doctrine — intended to authorize a workplace safety administration in the deep recesses of the federal bureaucracy to make sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health affecting every member of society in the profoundest of ways.

He notes that the “’nondelegation doctrine’ constrains Congress’s ability to delegate its legislative authority to executive agencies (“The Constitution provides that ‘[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States’ … and we have long insisted that ‘the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordered by the Constitution’ mandate that Congress generally cannot delegate its legislative power to another Branch.”)

The very fact that he brings up the existential question of OSHA’s constitutionality is comforting to those who take the Constitution and its constraints against federal power aggrandizement seriously. 

He goes on to question the constitutionality of the mandate:

 

On the dubious assumption that the Mandate does pass constitutional muster — which we need not decide today — it is nonetheless fatally flawed on its own terms.

 

Indeed, the Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse), and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a “grave danger” in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same  threat).

 

The Mandate’s stated impetus — a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years, and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to — is unavailing as well.

 

And its promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority.

Judge Engelhardt also blew the cover on just why OSHA was picked to do the dirty work of the Biden mandate:

After the President voiced his displeasure with the country’s vaccination rate in September, the Administration pored over the U.S. Code in search of authority, or a “work-around,” for imposing a national vaccine mandate.

 

The vehicle it landed on was an OSHA ETS.

The judge footnoted the source backing up his claim:

On September 9, 2021, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain retweeted MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle’s tweet that stated, “OSHA doing this vaxx mandate as an emergency workplace safety rule is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations.”

The judge went on to explain just how the “workaround” would work:

The statute empowering OSHA allows OSHA to bypass typical notice-and-comment proceedings for six months by providing “for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register” if it “determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to  protect employees from such danger.”

Englehardt saw through the scam:

Courts have uniformly observed that OSHA’s authority to establish emergency temporary standards … “is an ‘extraordinary power’ that is to be ‘delicately exercised’ in only certain ‘limited situations.’”

 

But the Mandate at issue here is anything but a “delicate exercise” of this “extraordinary power.”

 

Quite the opposite, rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly “grave danger” the Mandate purports to address.

Accordingly, wrote the judge:

On November 6, 2021, we agreed to stay the Mandate pending briefing and expedited judicial review. Having conducted that expedited review, we reaffirm our initial stay.

Good for the circuit’s three-judge panel! Two of them are Trump appointees and the third was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. It does matter whether the Constitution means what its Founders meant it to say, or whether it can be “flexed” to meet “current exigencies.” Biden Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy says the constitution must “flex”: “What we know very clearly is that when people get vaccinated … the more lives we can ultimately save.”

Even if it takes an unconstitutional mandate to force everyone to get the jab.

The Story of “Navy SEAL 1,” One of 23 Plaintiffs in Complaint Against Biden Over Vax Mandate

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, November 12, 2021:

In another lawsuit filed against President Biden, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, 23 plaintiffs complained to the Middle District Court of Florida that their requests for religious exemptions from Biden’s vaccine mandate were denied, thus violating their First Amendment rights, among others.

The plaintiffs included Navy SEAL 1 and 2, two Lieutenant Colonels, an Army Ranger, a National Guardsman, and several federal civilian contractors, among others.

No names were provided in the lawsuit, but the backgrounds of each were provided in the 120-page lawsuit. The story of “Navy SEAL 1” reveals the character and integrity each possesses, along with the courage needed to “buck the system” with this lawsuit.

Liberty Counsel represents them and noted in its lawsuit that

Plaintiffs are United States Armed Forces servicemembers, federal employees, and federal civilian contractors who face a deadline under [Biden’s] Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate … that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, and have been refused any religious exemptions or accommodation.

They are facing

pressure and abuse … and disciplinary actions have already commenced for some….

 

Defendants are threatening these military heroes with dishonorable discharge for even requesting a religious exemption from COVID-19 shots.

 

Dishonorable discharge is worse that a criminal conviction for these service members because it is a badge of disgrace that follows them for the rest of their lives.

The lawsuit declared

Having sacrificed everything to defend America and its citizenry — and while carrying the images and sounds of war with them throughout their lives — America, the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” would betray them with the worst punishment of dishonorable discharge. And for what cause?

 

Simply because they seek an accommodation from the COVID-19 shots on account of their sincerely held religious beliefs. [Emphasis in original.]

Navy SEAL 1 serves well as an example of the 23 individuals willing to risk it all to challenge the vaccine mandate:

Plaintiff NAVY SEAL 1, United States Navy, is a citizen of the State of California currently stationed at a United States Naval facility in California.

 

NAVY SEAL 1 has requested an exemption and accommodation of his sincerely held religious objections to the Secretary’s mandate that all United States Armed Forces personnel accept and receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of remaining in their sworn posts.

 

NAVY SEAL 1’s request for a religious exemption and accommodation was denied, and he was immediately removed from his position in the United States Navy.

Liberty Counsel provided the court with his background and achievements while serving:

Special Operations Chief NAVY SEAL 1 enlisted in the Navy in 2009 and wanted to serve his country to the best of his ability.

 

NAVY SEAL 1 sought to and became a Navy SEAL. He received training from 2009 starting and finishing BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL) and SQT (SEAL Qualification Training) with class 278.

 

He deployed to Afghanistan from December 2011 to September 2012, and received a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a combat “V” (valor) for his actions during deployment, along with a combat action ribbon.

 

NAVY SEAL 1’s second tour was to the Philippines in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, working under Joint Special Operations Task Force (JSOTF), and receiving an Army Commendation medal.

 

For his third tour, which was outside of his usual deployment cycle and thus 100% voluntary, NAVY SEAL 1 volunteered to augment SEAL Team Seven during the height of the Mosul, Iraq clearance from February to April 2017.

 

During NAVY SEAL 1’s fourth tour, in Iraq from August 2017 to March 2018, NAVY SEAL 1 was the acting assault lead, putting him in charge of a platoon level force to execute the tactical direction of the platoon chief, and he earned a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal and a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a “C” (Combat).

 

His most recent tour was to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from March to September 2020. For his leadership setting up, organizing, and executing a large joint close air support (CAS) and combat search and rescue (CSAR) exercise, NAVY SEAL 1 received a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal. This robust exercise included units from 5 different countries and over 15 assets.

 

NAVY SEAL 1 also received awards for his time spent at training commands. His first tour was at TRADET-1 as the SOUC (Special Operations Urban Combat) Lead Petty Officer from December 2014 to June 2016. He received a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Award for his efforts there.

 

His second training command tour was as the Lead Chief Petty Officer of the Navy’s only Joint Close Air Support school. For his efforts in synchronizing joint assets and providing mission critical qualification training for creating Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) he received a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Award.

Navy SEAL 1 is also a Christian. As Liberty Counsel explained,

Plaintiffs [including Navy SEAL 1] sincerely hold religious beliefs that their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that they are to glorify God with their bodies lays the foundation for everything they do, consume, or inject into their bodies.

 

From this foundation they make studied and reasonable decisions about what is good and what is not good or may not be good for their bodies.

 

To knowingly abuse their bodies by engaging in a dishonorable act, or consuming or injecting a substance that will or may produce adverse consequences, is a sin against God.

 

This belief and other sincerely held religious beliefs are foundational to all their decisions and actions and are not limited to aborted fetal cell lines.

 

Plaintiffs [including Navy SEAL 1] have sincerely held religious beliefs that the Holy Spirit — through prayer and the revelation of Scripture — guide them in all decisions they make in life.

 

Plaintiffs [including Navy SEAL 1] have sincerely held religious beliefs that Jesus Christ came to this earth, died on the cross for their sins, was resurrected three days later, and that when He ascended to Heaven, He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell His believers and to guide them in all aspects of their lives.

This is anathema to Navy SEAL 1’s commanding officers, as Liberty Counsel explained:

On September 7, 2021, NAVY SEAL 1 submitted to the United States Navy a request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs.

 

NAVY SEAL 1 articulated to his commander that he has and exercises sincerely held religious beliefs that compel him to abstain from receiving any of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines.

 

NAVY SEAL 1 met with his unit’s Chaplain, who reviewed his request for a religious exemption and accommodation and found that NAVY SEAL 1’s request was sincere.

 

NAVY SEAL 1’s Chaplain forwarded NAVY SEAL 1’s request to the command.

 

After review, NAVY SEAL 1’s request for a religious exemption and accommodation was denied, and he was preemptively removed from his position as Platoon Chief.

 

NAVY SEAL 1 faces potential court martial, dishonorable discharge, and other life altering disciplinary measures for exercising and seeking accommodation of his sincerely held religious beliefs against COVID-19 vaccination.

As a result of the denial, Navy SEAL 1 and the other plaintiffs “face the unconscionable choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or facing court martial and dishonorable discharge from their faithful service to the nation,” according to the lawsuit.

They are “suffering irreparable injury,” claims the lawsuit,

By being prohibited in their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to the free exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs….

 

By being forced to choose between maintaining the ability to feed their families and the free exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs….

 

By being stripped of their rights to equal protection of the law and being subjected to disfavored class status in the United States Armed Forces….

 

[and by facing] the prospect of irreparable medical injury as a result of the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate.

The plaintiffs demand that the court issue a temporary restraining order and that Biden and the other named defendants “immediately comply … so that each individual has the option to accept or refuse administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.” Biden and the others “will immediately cease in their refusal to consider, evaluate, or accept Plaintiffs’ requests for exemption and accommodation for their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Time is running out. Navy and Marine Corps servicemembers have until November 28 to become fully vaccinated, or suffer the consequences.

Unless the court intervenes.

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2021 Bob Adelmann