The ACLU Actually Supports Civil Rights

On Thursday, Just the News posted the following:

Last week, attorneys for the ACLU wrote a letter to Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York objecting to the court declining to unseal the search warrant application and related judicial documents filed in connection to the raid of the home of investigative journalist James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas.

In November, federal prosecutors obtained and executed warrants to raid the homes of three Project Veritas journalists, including O’Keefe, and seize their electronic devices. O’Keefe was handcuffed by FBI agents during the search of his home and required to stand in the public hallway of his apartment building dressed in his underwear, according to court documents.

In December, the magistrate judge assisting Torres in the case declined requests to unseal the search warrant materials, arguing the government’s stated interest in protecting both the integrity of an ongoing grand jury investigation into Project Veritas and the privacy of uncharged individuals named in the documents outweighed the public’s interest in accessing the information.

The magistrate judge’s opinion led the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) to file a motion calling on the court to unseal the materials.

The ACLU’s new letter expresses support for the RCFP’s objection, noting that a significant amount of information about the government’s investigation has been made public since the magistrate judge issued her order.

If you remember, the FBI search of the home of James O’Keefe happened about the time it became known that James O’Keefe had been offered a copy of Ashley Biden’s diary (see story here). The raid on James O’keefe at his home appeared to be another example of the federal government attacking someone they perceived as a possible enemy or person who might release negative information about people (or relatives of people) in the Biden administration.

The article at Just the News concludes:

Through the Microsoft search warrants, which were unsealed in March, the government seized nearly 200,000 Project Veritas emails and other files, many of which were unrelated to the Justice Department’s purported reason for initiating the warrants.

The Justice Department has contended there’s probable cause to believe Project Veritas was involved in stealing the diary and transporting it — a claim denied by the sources, who have consistently said it was abandoned at the Florida house, and O’Keefe’s legal team.

Calli (O’Keefe’s attorney, Paul Calli,) has accused the FBI and Justice Department of a witch hunt targeting a media organization openly critical of the Biden administration, arguing the government is violating the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Privacy Protection Act.

“The ACLU has taken a righteous and principled stance regarding the government’s desecration of the First Amendment,” Calli told Just the News. “Project Veritas is grateful for the support of the ACLU and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.”

Calli added, “Sadly, partisan political activists like those at the New York Times, and others in the for-profit, credentialed, cloistered, legacy media, as well as blogs like the Columbia Journalism Review, have not woken to the threat to all journalists.”

Calli has previously told Just the News that the government doesn’t want to unseal the search warrant materials for Project Veritas because federal prosecutors and FBI agents lied and misled in them to obtain warrants from judges.

The Justice Department declined to comment for this story.

The politicization of the Justice Department in America will eventually become a problem for both political parties. It is good to see the ACLU getting involved in this case.

The Trial Begins

Just the News posted an article today about the trial of 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann. It is a long, detailed article, so please follow the link and read the entire article. I will try to hit some of the high points.

The article reports:

An FBI agent testifying Tuesday in the trial for 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann discredited evidence Sussmann gave the agency that attempted to connect the Trump Organization with Russia’s Alfa Bank, a purportedly hotline to the Kremlin.

FBI special agent Scott Hellman said the conclusion of the authors of the white paper analysis of the internet data between the email server of the Trump Organization and the Russian Alfa Bank was “not objective” and “far-reaching,” and their conclusion of a secret communications channel “didn’t ring true at all.”

Special counsel John Durham last year charged Sussmann with lying to the FBI when he allegedly told then-FBI general counsel James Baker that he was not working on behalf of any client while providing him with since-debunked collusion allegations.

Sussmann is pleading not guilty to the charge. If convicted, he faces up to five years in prison.  

Hellman, in the second day of the trial, was the prosecution’s second witness and had examined the data on the thumb drives that Sussmann had given to Baker in their meeting – weeks before the presidential election.

Hellman also said that he was frustrated that he didn’t know the source of the data. 

Hellman said he disagreed with the white paper from the thumb drive that explained the Domain Name System data as being a secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank. He also said that he felt that whoever wrote the white paper jumped to conclusions not supported by the technical data and that the methodology of their analysis was questionable. 

The agent noted the lack of logic in the charges:

The FBI agent also said the overall conclusion of the connection between Trump and Russia from the data didn’t make any sense because a presidential candidate would not likely put their own name in a domain name that was easily connected to their organization and Russia if it’s supposedly for secret communication.

“Didn’t ring true at all,” Hellman said. He said the analysis of the data was done “inside of a day,” then given for further analysis to theFBI Chicago division, which later agreed with his assessment. 

Hellman added that he found it conveniently coincidental that someone was looking for suspicious activity between the Trump and Russian servers and found it just three weeks after it began. 

It has become very obvious that this was an effort to neuter the candidacy and presidency of President Trump by the Clinton cartel and their friends in the government bureaucracy. Unfortunately, there are still some in the media who are still parroting the original charges as if they were legitimate. Hopefully there will be enough reporting on this trial to show Americans how they were misled by the media and how badly President Trump was treated. I can’t imagine how much President Trump would have accomplished had not the Clinton cartel, their bureaucratic allies, and their media allies attempted to cripple his presidency from the beginning.

Don’t Mess With Ron DeSantis!

On Friday, Just the News reported that Florida Governor Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed a bill that will strip Walt Disney World of its special tax and administrative status after the company opposed a parental rights bill the state passed in late March. I have very mixed emotions about this. The head of a corporation should be free to express opposition to a law without the state government penalizing the corporation. It is quite possible that it was time for the ‘Disney deal’ to end, but I am uncomfortable with it being in response to a political stand.

The article reports:

The Reedy Creek Improvement District, a special administrative unit under Disney control will cease to exist under the measure, according to CBS News.

After Florida passed a parental rights bill, derided by critics as a “Don’t Say Gay” measure, the company organized opposition to the law and vowed to see it repealed. The company’s stance earned sharp rebuke from Florida Republicans, who quickly moved to revoke the company’s tax privileges.

In late March, DeSantis signed into law the Parental Rights in Education bill which limited discussion of sexual topics in the classroom by grade levels and restricted inappropriate material.

Disney stock fell 2.79% on Friday, according to Google Finance. Company stock has fallen 31.25% in the past 6 months and trades for $118.27 per share as of press time.

I believe that the Parental Rights in Education bill was a good bill and that Governor DeSantis was correct in signing it. I also believe that a lot of what was reported about the bill was inaccurate and designed to create opposition to the bill. However, I am sincerely concerned about the way the Disney situation was handled. Would conservatives be celebrating if the shoe were on the other foot?

To Mask Or Not To Mask

On Tuesday, Just the News reported that the Biden administration intends to appeal the court decision that mask mandates were unconstitutional. The statement is shrouded in ‘wiggle words,’ but that is the general direction the administration is going.

The article reports:

The Department of Justice on Tuesday announced that if the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines masks to be necessary, it will appeal the Florida judge’s decision striking down the Biden administration’s COVID-19 mask mandate on transportation.

So the administration will blame the CDC if it decides to appeal.

Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog also posted an article about mask mandates on Thursday.

The article at Power Line Blog notes:

Speaking of maskaholism, former New York Times science writer John Tierney reviews the record in the outstanding City Journal column “Maskaholics.” Tierney includes the graph below with his column. It was created by data analyst Ian Miller. Tierney comments that the graph should be required viewing for everyone still wearing a mask and every public official or journalist who still insists that mask mandates “control the spread[,]” such as Mr. Playbook above.

Tierney explains:

The graph tracks the results of a natural experiment that occurred nationwide during the pandemic. Eleven states never mandated masks, while the other 39 states enforced mandates. The mandates typically began early in the pandemic in 2020 and remained until at least the summer of 2021, with some extending into 2022. The black line on the graph shows the weekly rate of Covid cases in all the states with mask mandates that week, while the orange line shows the rate in all the states without mandates.

As you can see from the lines’ similar trajectories, the mask mandates hardly controlled the virus. By the time the mandates were introduced in New York and other states in the spring of 2020 (at the left side of the graph), infections had already been declining in those states, and the mandates didn’t prevent a surge later that year, when cases rose and fell in nearly identical trajectories regardless of states’ mask policies. The pandemic’s second year saw slight deviations in both directions, but those reflected the seasonality of the virus and the geography of mask mandates, which remained more common in northern states. Cases were higher in the non-mandate states last summer, when the seasonal surge in the South disproportionately hit Republican states without mandates, but those states went on to have fewer cases during the winter, when the seasonal surge in the North hit more Democratic states with mandates.

If you add up all the numbers on those two lines, you find that the mask mandates made zero difference. The cumulative rate of infection over the course of the pandemic was about 24 percent in the mandate states as well as in the non-mandate states. Their cumulative rates of Covid mortality were virtually identical, too (in fact, there were slightly more deaths per capita in the states with mask mandates).

Please follow the links to both articles for further information and insight into the significance of masks.

The Cost Of The Biden Presidency

If inflation is a tax, Americans have just received one of the biggest tax increases in history courtesy of the Biden administration.

On April 13th, Just the News posted an article about the latest inflation numbers.

The article reports:

Wholesale prices leapt 1.4% in march from the February figures to hit a record 11.2% annual increase as inflation continues to smack the U.S. economy.

The newly released numbers follow the news Tuesday of an 8.5% annual rise in consumer prices – the highest figure on record since December of 1981.

The Producer Price Index, which is also put out by the Department of Labor, measures the price of goods and services that businesses pay each other.

A significant portion of the wholesale price increase in March was due to the jump in energy prices brought about by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

While outsized factors like the war in Ukraine, and the supply chain issues brought about by the pandemic, continue to impact inflation numbers, some economists are gesturing toward the federal government’s ongoing fiscal response to the pandemic as a driver of the issue.

Hoover Institution economist John H. Cochrane wrote in a beginning-of-year message that “n response to the disruptions of COVID-19, the U.S. government created about $3 trillion of new bank reserves, equivalent to cash, and sent checks to people and businesses. Mechanically, the Treasury issued $3 trillion of new debt, which the Fed quickly bought in return for $3 trillion of new reserves. The Treasury sent out checks, transferring the reserves to people’s banks. The Treasury then borrowed another $2 trillion or so, and sent more checks. Overall, federal debt rose nearly 30 percent. Is it at all a surprise that a year later inflation breaks out?”

The Biden administration has searched left, right, and center for a scapegoat for the inflation issue that is hurting the wallets of so many Americans ahead of the critical midterm election. Thus far, blaming Big Oil companies for price-gauging and Vladimir Putin for escalating gas prices has done little to divert attention of the American people from what they view as failing policies of the administration.

For a little historical perspective on inflation, here is a chart from The U.S. Inflation Calculator:

As you can see from the chart, the inflation rate was beginning to climb before Putin invaded Ukraine. The Biden administration’s spending and energy policies paved the way for the inflation we are now seeing. The best way to deal with the current inflation is to vote out of office anyone in Congress who continues to vote for massive spending bills and to vote President Biden out of office in 2024.

Bringing Back The Swamp

One of the things that the Trump administration attempted to do was drain the Washington swamp. That’s why the inside-Washington types hated him so much. As we go through year two of the Biden administration, President Trump’s attempts to drain the swamp are become more obvious because of the contrast between the two administrations.

On Friday, Just the News posted an article illustrating the Biden administration’s efforts to bring back some of the swamp President Trump had attempted to drain.

The article reports:

The Biden administration quickly rehired senior officials fired for serious security and financial lapses in the waning days of the Trump administration, according to documents reviewed by Just the News.

Why are we not surprised?

The article continues:

The U.S. Agency for Global Media, home to the Voice of America and funder of nonprofit broadcasters targeting Europe, Asia and the Middle East, also rehired an official who resigned shortly before his investigation was complete.

The media portrayed them as whistleblowers protecting journalistic integrity from political appointees who wanted to dictate their coverage. Official summaries of their investigations by an outside law firm, recently entered into the Congressional Record, complicate that narrative.

Many alleged violations were related to the agency’s continued performance of background investigations on workers — often foreign nationals — for several years after it lost its “delegated authority” from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

The rehired officials were also granted their security clearances during that time, investigators from McGuireWoods law firm wrote in Dec. 9, 2020 memos. McGuireWoods was the law firm retained to perform an investigation into mismanagement or worse at USAGM.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It details some of the people and actions that caused the firings by President Trump. There is no way these people should have been rehired unless you were seeking individuals who would follow orders regardless of any ethics involved.

Does Breaking The Law Actually Have Consequences?

On Friday, The Western Journal posted an article confirming something almost all of us already knew.

The article reports:

Former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell said the FBI absolutely broke the law with its surveillance of Donald Trump both when he was a candidate and after he became president.

In an interview with Just the News’ John Solomon published on Wednesday, Grenell agreed that leadership at the bureau and the Department of Justice must have known ahead of time that evidence that Trump somehow “colluded” with Russia to affect the outcome of the 2016 election was false.

“Political appointees and the leaders of the FBI and DOJ purposefully manipulated the truth,” he told Solomon.

Grenell also said he has spoken with FBI operatives who knew the investigation into Trump was faulty.

“The people in the middle management, I’ve talked to them. I’ve talked to FBI agents. They knew that this was a phony exercise,” he said.

The people who chose to break the law to further a political agenda need to be in jail. They lied to the courts to get permission to spy on the Trump campaign and later on the President. If this is the kind of activity the FBI and the DOJ choose to engage in, they we either need to eliminate these departments totally or fire everyone in them and start from scratch.

Please read the entire article for details on who has been indicted so far and what the consequences have been for those people.

Important–A Little Late, But Important

On Thursday, Just the News posted a list of twenty significant problems with the 2020 election. I realize that this does not seem current, but in view of the fact that we have an election coming up in November, we need to correct these problems. I am posting half of that list. Please follow the link to the entire article to read the rest of the list and the details.

The article lists the problems:

1. A Foreign Intrusion. Federal authorities have confirmed that two Iranian nationals successfully hacked into a state computer election system, stole 100,000 voter registrations and used the data to carry out a cyber-intimidation campaign that targeted GOP members of Congress, Trump campaign officials and Democratic voters in the November 2020 election in one of the largest foreign intrusions in U.S. election history.

2. Alleged Bribery. The former state Supreme Court justice appointed by the Wisconsin Legislature to investigate the 2020 election concluded that millions of dollars in donations to election administrators in five Democrat-heavy municipalities from the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life violated state anti-bribery laws and corrupted election practices by turning public election authorities into liberal get-out-the-vote activists.

3. Illegal ballot harvesting in Wisconsin. Gableman also exposed an extensive vote collection operation, known as ballot harvesting, in nursing homes in which third-party activists illegally collected the ballots of vulnerable residents, some of whom lacked the mental or physical capacity to vote or were forbidden from voting by guardianship agreements.

4. Ballot harvesting probe in the Peach State. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has announced he has opened a criminal investigation into allegations that liberal activists engaged in illegal ballot harvesting, collecting ballots from voters and delivering them in violation of state law. Raffensperger said he is planning to issue subpoenas to identify a whistleblower who admitted he engaged in the operation, and there could be prosecutions.

5. Bad voter signatures? A review of Maricopa County’s mail-in ballots in Arizona’s 2020 presidential election estimated that more than 200,000 ballots with signatures that did not match voter files were counted without being reviewed, more than eight times the number the county acknowledged.

6. 50,000 Arizona ballots called into question. An extensive audit by Arizona’s Senate officially called into question more than 50,000 ballots cast in the 2020 election, including voters who cast ballots from residences they had left.

7. Illegal ballot drop boxes. A Wisconsin judge has ruled the widespread use of ballot drop boxes in 2020 was unlawful, and the state Supreme Court let that ruling stand

8. Foreign voters found on Texas rolls. An audit of Texas voter rolls identified nearly 12,000 noncitizens suspected of illegally registering to vote and nearly 600 cases in which ballots may have been cast in the name of a dead resident or by a voter who may also have voted in another state.

9. Foreign voters found on Georgia  rolls. An audit by Georgia’s Secretary of State has identified more than 2,000 suspected foreigners who tried to register to vote in the state, though none reached the point of casting ballots. 

10. Unconstitutional mail-in voting. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has concluded the state law that opened the door to no-excuse mail-in voting in 2020 was unconstitutional and that mail-in voting can only be enacted by a constitutional amendment.

The article also includes links to further information on the subject including  indictments and court decisions.

Ranked Choice Voting

On Wednesday, Just the News reported that a legislative committee in California is about to hear a proposal to ban ranked choice voting in the state.

Fair vote has posted a map showing where ranked choice voting is in use in America:

The Heritage Foundation has one of the best explanations for Ranked Choice Voting that I have heard:

Think about what ranked choice voting destroys. It destroys your clear and knowing choices as a political consumer. Let us call it the supermarket contemplation. In reality, you are choosing one elected official to represent you, just like you might choose one type of steak sauce to buy when you are splurging for steaks. At the supermarket you ponder whether to buy A1, Heinz 57, HP, or the really cheap generic brand you have never tried.

In the real world, you compare price, taste, mood, and maybe even the size of the bottle and then decide on your steak sauce. You know nothing about the generic brand, so you rank it last among your choices, while A1 is ranked a distant third. In your mind, it comes down to Heinz or HP, and you choose the Heinz. You buy that bottle and head home to the grill.

Now imagine if, instead, you had to rank-order all the steak sauces—even the ones you dislike—and at checkout the cashier swaps out your bottle of Heinz 57 with the cheap generic you ranked dead last. Why? Well, the majority of shoppers also down-voted it, but there was no clear front-runner, so the generic snuck up from behind with enough down ballot picks to win. In fact, in this ranked choice supermarket, you might even have helped the lousy generic brand win.

Just the News reports:

The proposal (to end Ranked Choice Voting), contained in Assembly Bill 2808, would prohibit ranked choice voting in state and local elections. A ranked choice voting system allows voters to rank candidates based on preference, having voters indicate their first choice, second choice and so on.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell, said in a statement that ranked choice voting “allows an election to be gamed.”

“Our democracy and our recent elections may be under heightened stress and scrutiny right now, but our long-established voting system is strong,” O’Donnell said. “We are a model for the world. We must not abandon our voting principles to chase the election flavor of the month.”

If passed, the proposal would shift how elections are completed in several areas across the state. Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro and San Francisco adopted a ranked-voting system in the early 2000s and have used it for more than a decade to elect city officials, according to Fair Vote, an advocate of ranked choice voting. Additionally, Albany, Eureka and Palm Desert were set to begin using a ranked-voting system for local elections starting in November 2022.

…This bill is not the first time lawmakers have backed measures to prohibit ranked choice voting. Tennessee recently moved forward with its own ban on ranked choice voting earlier this week. Gov. Bill Lee signed legislation on Monday prohibiting the system from being used in state and local elections.

O’Donnell’s bill could be heard in committee on March 21, according to the state’s legislative tracker.

This is something to keep an eye on. We do not want ranked choice voting to become a national fad.

The Deep State Crosses Party Lines

In June I posted an article based on a post in The Conservative Treehouse about the appointment of Merrick Garland to the post of Attorney General.

The article in The Conservative Treehouse included the following:

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 53-44 to approve Jackson’s (Ketanji Brown Jackson) nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. All those in opposition were Republicans, with three voting with Democrats to approve the nomination.

Biden nominated Jackson, a Washington-based U.S. district judge, to the D.C. Circuit to replace Attorney General Merrick Garland on the bench. That appellate court has served as a springboard to the Supreme Court in the past, including for current Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. (read more)

On Friday, President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Breyer.

On Friday, Just the News reported:

Jackson, 51, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and if confirmed by the Senate would become the first black female justice appointed to the nine-member high court. During earlier parts of her career, Jackson served as a clerk for Justice Breyer as well as a public defender, which made her resume appealing to Biden, who has voiced a desire to put more public defenders on the federal bench.

According to CNN, Jackson, received and accepted the offer from President Biden on Thursday night.

A decision Friday by the president would mark exactly two years since then-presidential candidate Biden promised to appoint the first black female justice to the court.

Biden said he would share his choice by late February. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said there would absolutely be a public announcement before March 1.

On Friday, The Washington Examiner reported:

The connection between Jackson and Ryan (former House Speaker Paul Ryan) is complex, as Jackson’s husband has a twin brother who is married to Ryan’s sister-in-law.

Ryan has also supported Jackson through previous nomination processes. When former President Barack Obama nominated her to a spot on the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit in 2012, Ryan testified on her behalf at the confirmation hearing and spoke highly of her qualifications, urging his fellow GOP colleagues to confirm her.

Jackson, 51, was known to be on a short list of contenders the White House considered for the role and exhibits a unique background, having been a federal trial court judge for eight years without experience as a prosecutor or major corporate lawyer. She also sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals bench, where notably Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh served as judges before their promotions.

It will be interesting to see exactly what her impact on the Supreme Court will be if she is confirmed.

Sunlight Is Always A Good Thing

Yesterday Just the News reported that U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg is considering whether to release a sealed report by a computer security expert who reviewed Dominion Voting Systems equipment after Georgia’s top election official and its governor urged action. The report would be released with redactions, but it still needs to be released.

The article reports:

The report was conducted by University of Michigan computer security expert J. Alex Halderman and was filed last summer under seal in a federal court case that alleges hackers had “the capability” and “easy access” to voting machines in Georgia, according to the Epoch Times.

Little has been released in public about the report though the Atlanta Constitution-Journal has reported it found hackers could change votes if they penetrated the machines.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a defendant in the lawsuit, announced last week he now supports the public release of the report to dispel “misleading media articles about the Dominion voting equipment used in Georgia.”

“The public deserves to know the context of J. Alex Halderman’s claims and his testimony regarding the 2020 election,” Raffensperger said.

The article concludes:

Dominion CEO John Poulosi said the report did not consider all “procedural and technical safeguards” in the machines but his firm supports any transparency that will give voters confidence in election counting.

“Dominion supports all efforts to bring real facts and evidence forward to defend the integrity of our machines and the credibility of Georgia’s elections,” Poulosi said in a statement released by Raffensperger’s office.

Stay tuned.

The Numbers Are In

On Tuesday, Just the News posted an article about the first year of the coronavirus pandemic.

The article reports:

COVID-19 was less lethal across nearly every age group in its first full year than previously thought, according to an updated review of global research from Stanford University’s Meta-Research Innovation Center (METRIC).

Between summer and Christmas 2021, METRIC’s estimates of deaths from infection fell by half in multiple age groups, including young people, and less sharply in others.

The international estimates, which have not been peer-reviewed, are not substantially different from the CDC’s own “best estimate” of COVID mortality in the U.S., last updated in March. They use different age ranges, making exact comparisons difficult.

The findings raise questions about ongoing COVID restrictions and mandates, particularly for schoolchildren and college students, who remain at the lowest overall risk from infection. 

The risk-benefit ratio of vaccine boosters is also under scrutiny, with international authorities souring on their wide deployment and a new Israeli study finding that a fourth dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines doesn’t stop the Omicron variant.

The article includes the following screenshot:

I don’t mean to be flip, and I say this as someone who is over 70, but your chances of dying from almost anything increase after age 70, and that’s not news.

The article also notes something that our government and its medical tyrants have chosen to overlook:

Using medical claims records from Change Healthcare and a study population “fully vaccinated” last spring, the researchers found subsequent hospitalization least likely for Moderna and highest for Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients.

But hospitalization was 50% lower and risk of death 75% lower among those with natural immunity “independent of age, sex, comorbidities, and vaccine type,” the study found.

Natural immunity is the best protection. If Omicron is a mild coronavirus and provides us that protection, then we are done with the pandemic.

Just a note–someone I know who is involved with a large organization told me that the organization currently has 85 coronavirus cases–5 of those are unvaccinated. None or those 85 cases required hospitalization.

Irony At Its Best

Remember the uproar when President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord? Do you also remember that after that withdrawal America was successful in lowering its greenhouse gas emissions (part of that was due to the pandemic, and part of that was due to an increased reliance on natural gas)? Well, President Biden signed an executive order on his first day in office rejoining the Paris Climate Accord. So how is that working out?

On Monday, Just the News reported:

A new report finds U.S. carbon emissions increased at a faster rate than the overall U.S. economy in 2021 largely due to a jump in coal use.

Analysts anticipated a significant rebound in emissions in 2021, following the anomalous pandemic year that was 2020. However, according to the report from nonpartisan climate consulting firm the Rhodium Group, growth still managed to outpace expectations, which presents a challenge to the Biden administration’s oft-stated goal of cutting fossil fuel emissions, from 2005, in half by 2030.

Despite significant rebounds, U.S. emission rates in 2021 were still 5% below what they were during the pre-pandemic year of 2019. The report indicates that the single largest source of emissions was from the transportation sector, spurred primarily by an increase in demand for consumer goods that keep freight trucks on the roads.

The second leading cause of emissions, the electric power sector, saw a “sharp rise” in coal generation – the first annual increase since 2014.

The Rhodium Group explains that, in part, coal mounted a comeback because of market conditions. Natural gas prices doubled their 2020 rate because of lower production levels brought about by the pandemic. However, according to the report, for the first time, renewable energy sources comprised 20% of U.S. electricity generation in 2021.

Even the European Union is waking up to the fact that green energy is not the total solution to carbon emissions (see article here). Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel and its increased use will definitely reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear energy with the proper safety precautions is also useful in lowering America’s carbon footprint.

It is ironic that the President who withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord was more successful in curbing America’s carbon emissions than the President who rejoined the Accord.

How To Make Voter Fraud Easy

On Thursday, Just the News posted an article about one aspect of the ‘voter rights’ bill the Democrats want to pass. Rather than protecting voting rights, the bill makes it very easy for a fraudulent vote to cancel out the vote of a legitimate voter.

The article reports:

A state “may not deny a voter a ballot or the opportunity to cast it on the grounds that the voter does not possess a current and valid driver’s license number or a social security number,” the proposed bill says.

Voting rules legislation that Democrats are moving forward in the 50-50 Senate would prohibit states from imposing an identification requirement in order to obtain an absentee ballot ahead of an election.

Now why would they do that? Almost any activity involving banking, traveling, buying or selling in America requires an id or a social security number. Try opening a bank account without identification or a social security number. Don’t most Americans have bank accounts?

The article continues:

Phillip Kline, former Kansas attorney general, disagrees with those provisions of the Freedom to Vote Act that would create one-size-fits-all federal rules for absentee and mail-in ballots.

Not requiring ID or Social Security numbers to obtain mail-in ballots could lead to illegal ballot harvesting, Kline argued.

“There are commonsense protections that are placed on an absentee ballot because you do not have trained election officials to make sure that the voter is not misled or coerced or intimidated to vote a certain way and to make sure it was the actual voter who completed the ballot,” he said. “They’re eliminating all of those commonsense protections.”

In the 2020 election cycle, many states cited the coronavirus pandemic as the reason to loosen requirements for obtaining an absentee ballot. Kline said that it was wrong to change election law with regard to mail-in ballots during the pandemic.

“It never made sense to eliminate commonsense protections for the integrity of the election and for the inclusion of everybody in the counting center” or to have “government put their thumb on the scale and turn out certain voters,” Kline said. “It never made sense to do that under COVID or in any election, and now they’re trying to write it into law.

The article concludes:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on Tuesday that the Democrat-led Senate would move forward with votes on the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

If the GOP blocks the legislation from advancing, Schumer said, the Democrats would vote on some sort of rule change to allow floor debate on certain pieces of legislation dealing with issues prioritized by Democrats. 

This bill is nothing more than license to cheat in future elections. It needs to be stopped.

Sad News For Those Of Us Who Grew Up Watching Football

On Tuesday, Just the News reported that Pro-Football Hall of Fame coach John Madden has died. Many of us grew up watching him do play-by-play of football games with a white board and a marker. He made the game interesting and shared a lot of the strategy of the game.

The article notes:

“We all know him as the Hall of Fame coach of the Oakland Raiders and broadcaster who worked for every major network, but more than anything, he was a devoted husband, father and grandfather,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said, adding that he sends his condolences to Madden’s family.

“Nobody loved football more than Coach. He was football. He was an incredible sounding board to me and so many others. There will never be another John Madden, and we will forever be indebted to him for all he did to make football and the NFL what it is today,” Goodell concluded.

“The game of football has lost a legendary figure,” the NFL stated. The league plans to provide more information shortly.

As head coach of the Oakland Raiders, Madden won Super Bowl XI in 1977. He is remembered for lending his name to the popular popular “Madden NFL” video game series.

One of the things I remember about John Madden was the fact that he refused to fly. He traveled in a luxury SUV during the football season. The SUV included a satellite contact which allowed him to stay in constant contact with the outside world while he traveled. He was an amazing man and will be missed.

Setting Up A Supreme Court Case

Before I go into the details of this Appeals Court ruling on vaccine mandates, I want to mention a few things about how our government is supposed to work.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The vaccine mandates in question are not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, nor has Congress passed any laws regarding the vaccine mandates. So the mandates are not law. Who in the government is making these mandates? Are the people making the mandates elected officials? Where do they get their right to make laws or mandates? If they are President Biden’s mandates, the President does not have the authority to make laws. OSHA does not have the authority to make laws. Does the federal government have the right to interfere in the business of a private company without a law being passed? Does a company have the right to know the health records of its employees?

Meanwhile, on Friday, Just the News reported the following:

A federal appeals court on Friday night reinstated President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private companies with more than 100 workers, reversing lower court rulings and setting up a likely showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration had the authority to Impose the mandate due to take effect Jan. 4.

“Given OSHA’s clear and exercised authority to regulate viruses, OSHA necessarily has the authority to regulate infectious diseases that are not unique to the workplace,” the court conckuddd in its majority opinion.

Within an hour of the decision, the small business group Job Creators Network filed an appeal to the high court, saying the appeals judges “irresponsibly upheld an illegal rule.”

“This mandate adds an incredible burden on small business owners who are still suffering negative effects of the pandemic,” the group said. “This mandate will make it even harder for small business owners to find and keep employees.”

The ruling came after several challenges from GOP-led states and conservative and business groups were consolidated before the Cincinnati-based 6th circuit.

The article continues:

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge told The Associated Press she would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court.

“The Sixth Circuit’s decision is extremely disappointing for Arkansans because it will force them to get the shot or lose their jobs,” she said.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, tweeted he was confident the mandate would be blocked by the justices.

“We will go immediately to the Supreme Court- the highest court in the land- to fight this unconstitutional and illegal mandate,” he said. “The law must be followed and federal abuse of power stopped.”

Stay tuned.

This Might Easily Backfire

On Sunday, Just the News posted an article about a law recently proposed by Democratic Representatives Hank Johnson (Ga.) and Jamie Raskin (Md.).

The article reports:

Democratic Reps. Hank Johnson (Ga.) and Jamie Raskin (Md.) on Wednesday reintroduced the Bivens Act, which would allow citizens to recover damages for constitutional violations committed against them by federal law enforcement officials.

The bill, which the lawmakers first introduced last year, seeks “to provide a civil remedy for an individual whose rights have been violated by a person acting under federal authority.” It would do this by adding five words — “of the United States or” — to a longstanding provision enacted in 1871, known as Section 1983, which gives individuals the right to sue state or local officials who violate their civil and constitutional rights. The additional words would include federal officials in the statute.

The FBI, Justice Department, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and federal prison officials are among the law enforcement entities that would be held accountable under the legislation.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced a companion bill in the Senate this week.

Supporters of the legislation argue that no statute, including Section 1983, currently gives individuals the right to sue federal officials who violate the Constitution. Johnson and Raskin said as much in a press release, pointing to the former Trump administration as reason to pass their bill.

Obviously if this bill is passed, there are many possibilities for its abuse, but it also might open the path to justice for some of the January 6th defendants.

The article notes:

Several Jan. 6 prisoners allege the FBI, Justice Department, and federal prison officials under the Biden administration have violated their civil and constitutional rights.

Thomas Caldwell, 66, for example, says he was arrested at his Virginia farm in January and interrogated for hours without being told what he was being charged with. Caldwell, a military veteran, never entered the Capitol building on Jan. 6 but spent well over a month in solitary confinement.

George Tanios, 40, says he had a similar experience at his West Virginia home in March, claiming federal agents wouldn’t answer him when he asked why they were arresting him. He was imprisoned on charges related to the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick and remained in jail for months, despite the District of Columbia’s chief medical examiner concluding Sicknick died of unrelated natural causes. According to Tanios, his business was devastated as a result of his arrest and imprisonment.

Christopher Worrell was also arrested and imprisoned for his involvement in the Capitol riot despite never entering the building. In October, a federal judge found D.C. Jail Warden Wanda Patten and D.C. Department of Corrections Director Quincy Booth in contempt of court for refusing to turn over records related to the care of Worrell, who suffers from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and had a broken hand. The judge referred the matter to the attorney general “for appropriate inquiry into potential civil rights violations of Jan. 6 defendants, as exemplified in this case.”

Worrell’s lawyer said his client was subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” in the jail that houses most of the Jan. 6 prisoners. The D.C. jail has come under heightened scrutiny in recent weeks over its conditions and treatment of inmates.

The U.S. attorney for D.C. is the federal official primarily leading the prosecution of Jan. 6 defendants. The position is appointed by the president.

It’s unclear whether Johnson, Raskins, or Whitehouse were aware their bills would potentially provide legal recourse for Jan. 6 prisoners. Raskins’s office had no comment when asked whether he’d considered this possibility before cosponsoring the legislation and whether he had any problem with the prospect of Jan. 6 prisoners using his bill as a way to sue the Biden administration for alleged mistreatment.

Stay tuned.

Does Corruption Matter?

On Friday, Just the News posted an article about Miranda Devine’s new book, “Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide.” It seems as if a lot of things President Biden has said about his son’s business dealings are simply not true.

The article reports:

President Biden “lied” on the campaign trail “when he said that he knew nothing about his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings,” alleges Miranda Devine, author of “Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide.”

Biden “met Hunter’s business partners from overseas multiple times” when he was vice president, including “Mexicans and Ukrainians and Russians and Chinese and Kazakhstanis,” Devine told the John Solomon Reports podcast on Thursday.

He met some of them in Beijing, others at Cafe Milano and the Naval Observatory, the vice presidential residence, in Washington, D.C.

Miranda Devine also stated:

“I think all you need to know about Burisma is that when Joe Biden stopped being vice president, Burisma cut Hunter Biden’s salary in half,” she added.

…She explained that Hunter Biden’s laptop, abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop, shows how much his and his father’s finances were intertwined, how they know “everything about each other’s business,” have “joint bank accounts, shared debit cards,” and how Hunter paid “for at least some of Joe’s sort of household bills — maintenance on his Delaware mansion.”

“[T]here are emails,” she continued, “where there are these overdue bills for Joe Biden’s Delaware mansion — whether it’s sort of fixing a retaining wall or painting a fence or fixing the shutters or replacing the air conditioning — you know, several thousand dollars for each bill from local Delaware contractors.

Contrast the lack of reporting on these scandals with the over-the-top reporting on imaginary Trump scandals. The media lost their interest in investigative reporting and objectivity long ago. Let’s hope they get enough of their focus back to at least report on how Joe Biden and his son Hunter managed to get rich on a Congressman’s pay.

Let The Awakening Begin

On Thursday, Just the News reported that Victor Jimenez, a former spokesperson for Washington, D.C., Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser, has switched to the Republican party because of the policies of the Biden administration.

The article reports:

Victor Jimenez told Fox News host Tucker Carlson that until recently he “lead public information officer at [Bowser’s] office for community affairs” and worked prior to that in a similar role for Latino outreach.

“The reason I switched parties is because of everything that’s going on in the country right now,” Jimenez, an Afro-Dominican immigrant, told Carlson. “We see immigration through the roof right now, and that is affecting a lot of Hispanic families in my home state of Virginia. And those are people who are already struggling with making ends meet.”

Jimenez cited immigration issues as the major reason for leaving the Democratic Party, including what the considers party leaders’ unsuccessful efforts to get control of the record number of migrants attempting to cross the southern U.S. border.

“If you look at the southern border, we have thousands of people who are just waiting there,” he said. “And I’m not saying we have good people try to come into the country with good intentions, but we also have bad people coming into the country with bad intentions. People with illegal guns and drugs and people who are running from their law enforcement in their own country.

“Being Hispanic and Black, I should be Democrat by default. But I am going against their narrative and I feel like right now everything is crumbling for the Democrats.”

Mr. Jimenez stated that he voted for Glenn Youngkin in Virginia’s gubernatorial election.

The article notes:

Jimenez called the defeat of former Virginia Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe by Youngkin, a first-time politician and former businessman, “the beginning of the end” for the Democrats, and precursor for what could be a very painful 2022 election cycle for the party currently in power in D.C.

I doubt that we will ever see the ‘end’ for the Democrats, but I would celebrate the end of some of their policies.

Letting Even Non-citizens Vote

Just the News is reporting today that New York City lawmakers are set to vote on a measure that would amend the city’s charter and allow green card holders and those with work authorizations visas to vote in citywide elections.

The article reports:

Mayor-elect Eric Adams, a Democrat, supported the idea and campaigned on it during his election earlier this year.

“We cannot be a beacon to the world and continue to attract the global talent, energy and entrepreneurship that has allowed our city to thrive for centuries if we do not give immigrants a vote in how this city is run and what are priorities are for the future,” he said while on the campaign trail.

However, Mayor Bill de Blasio, also a Democrat, feels differently.

“I don’t believe it is legal. Our law department is very clear on this,” he said during an interview on “The Brian Lehrer Show.” Adding that the second issue with the proposal is that it undermines efforts to get immigrants to become citizens.

“I think there’s a real set of mixed feelings it generates in me about what’s the right way to approach this issue,” he also said.

The bill stipulates that residents must be living in the city for at least 30 days prior to an election and will apply exclusively to municipal elections, not any state or federal ballot questions.

Anyone willing to make a wager as to how long it will be before the thousands of illegal immigrants streaming into our country will be given some sort of status that allows them to vote in local elections. Even if they can’t vote in federal elections, the true power is in local elections–the local candidates who win their primary elections are the ‘farm team’ for Congress and the Presidency. Laws like this will dramatically change our country from a Constitutional Republic to a place where people who may not understand either our history or how our government is supposed to work are in charge.

A New Level Of Chutzpah

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about some recent rather questionable activities by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). There has been some criticism that the FBI has been politicized under the Biden administration. There recent actions do nothing to dispel that idea.

The article reports:

Even as the Department of Justice Inspector General released a report this week criticizing the politicization of the department, the FBI on Tuesday raided the homes of a Republican election official and several of her associates in Mesa County, Colo., in connection with a dispute about efforts to preserve 2020 election files.

In collaboration with state and county law enforcement, the FBI raided the homes of Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters, Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert’s former campaign manager Sherronna Bishop, and two others.

The FBI operations targeting skeptics of the 2020 election results follow the bureau’s raids earlier this month on the homes of conservative guerrilla journalist James O’Keefe and several of his associates with Project Veritas.

Numerous elected officials, reporters, and the American Civil Liberties Union have voiced their concerns about potential infringement of press freedom by the FBI and Justice Department in the O’Keefe raid. These fears were exacerbated when information collected in the raid was published in the New York Times, which has been defending itself against a lawsuit filed by Project Veritas.

The DOJ’s inspector general released a report this week rebuking the department for straying from its own policies on avoiding the appearance of political bias.

The article concludes:

The secretary of state alleges that Peters lied about having the unauthorized person involved in the voting system update as she attempted to expose alleged election irregularities.

Peters said in August at a news conference, “The Mesa County Clerk and Recorder’s office directed her staff to turn off the video surveillance of the voting equipment,” CBS 4 Denver reported.

Peters explained that she had copied files on the voting machines for security before the update was made.

“I was concerned they were going to delete important election files, I did a backup image before and after they did that,” Peters told the news outlet.

She alleges that the images showed numerous voter files were removed during the update and her job was to supervise the files.

In October, Peters was prohibited by a Mesa County judge from overseeing the county’s election in a ruling on a lawsuit filed by Griswold, according to Colorado Politics.

If you don’t see a pattern by now, you probably never will. It seems that ordinary Americans who are trying to do their jobs conscientiously and who happen to support President Trump are being investigated, and intimidated while having their civil rights ignored by the current Justice Department. I have no idea how we clean this mess up, but it definitely needs to be scrubbed thoroughly.

The Problems With The Lack Of Border Enforcement

Just the News recently reported (updated yesterday) that the Biden administration has lost track of 40% of the more than 114,000 unaccompanied children who entered the U.S. illegally. Great. Yesterday Breitbart reported that more than 16,000 migrants who tested positive for COVID-19 while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody were released into the United States.

Just the News reports:

So far this year, unaccompanied minors arriving at the border have hit record numbers.  In June, there were 15,234 encounters with unaccompanied children, in July, 18,958 encounters, and in August, there were 18,847 encounters, according to Customs and Border Patrol data.

Once processed by Border Patrol, unaccompanied minors fall under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families. The agency reportedly works with a network of 200 shelters in roughly 24 states, according to a report by the Associated Press. Shelters are often set up inside military bases, stadiums and convention centers, referred to as “emergency intake sites.”

At its peak, HHS had 20,339 children in its care in April, with an average shelter occupancy rate of 76%.

…”The Biden administration wasn’t prepared,” Judd (Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd) wrote in a Fox News op-ed, and agents were “forced to hold a good number of these children long past what the law allowed. Instead of creating a long-term solution, the Biden administration merely cut back on the vetting process of the sponsors to whom children were being released.”

The decision to weaken the vetting process contributed, in part, to the Biden administration’s loss of contact with 40% of the more than 114,000 unaccompanied children who entered the U.S. illegally, according to a report by Axios. The report is based on data received through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The article at Just the News concludes:

According to Bloomberg Law, illegal alien teens were allegedly trafficked to agricultural or poultry processing facilities in Alabama and Oregon. DOJ’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit said it was aware of labor exploitation and/or potential labor trafficking of unaccompanied minors in several jurisdictions and was investigating with others in law enforcement.

But even before then, by April, reports of sexual abuse and violence against children were reported at two facilities in El Paso and San Antonio, Texas, prompting Gov. Greg Abbott to call on the Biden administration to close the facilities.

Abbott sent a letter to Biden demanding answers about the treatment of the children, and directed Texas state troopers and rangers to intervene where possible. “The Biden administration  is presiding over the abuse of children,” he said.

Abbott never received a response from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. 

Breitbart reports:

More than 16,000 migrants who tested positive for COVID-19 while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody were released into the United States, according to an agency law enforcement source. The Biden administration did not mandate any of the migrants to be vaccinated before their release. The source informs Breitbart Texas that the figures only include those migrants who were tested by ICE.

I think we need a President who will protect the American people both from human trafficking and from people entering the country carrying the coronavirus.

 

Blocking The Truth

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about some of the politics in the medical profession regarding the coronavirus.

The article reports:

Medical professionals are facing threats to their careers and livelihoods for challenging COVID-19 orthodoxy, while an oft-censored Harvard Medical School professor is facing his latest Big Tech kerfuffle.

The University of California put psychiatrist and bioethics professor Aaron Kheriaty on “investigatory leave” after he sued the university system for refusing to recognize natural immunity such as his among exemptions to its COVID vaccine mandate.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Kheriaty had previously invoked the post-Nazi Nuremberg code in urging universities to abandon their mandates.

In his personal newsletter Wednesday, Kheriaty said he’ll lose half his income while on so-called paid leave, because he’s banned from “seeing my patients, supervising resident clinics, and engaging in weekend and holiday on-call duties.” 

His contract also bans him from working as a physician outside the UC system to recoup his revenue loss. “The University may be hoping this pressure will lead me to resign ‘voluntarily,’ which would remove grounds for my lawsuit,” Kheriaty wrote.

UC’s action came a day after a court refused to issue a preliminary injunction, functionally declaring a draw between each party’s scientific arguments about different forms of immunity and what risk vaccination poses for the recovered.

The article concludes:

Harvard Med’s Martin Kulldorff, a pioneer in vaccine safety and coauthor of the year-old Great Barrington Declaration, had his second tangle with LinkedIn over an article he wrote.

The Microsoft-owned professional social network removed two of his posts this summer as misinformation. He had said mandates feed vaccine hesitancy and noted Iceland’s top epidemiologist recommended natural immunity to complement vaccination.

This time LinkedIn removed posts that shared Kulldorff’s most recent article on why hospitals should welcome nurses with natural immunity rather than firing them, according to the Brownstone Institute, which published the article. Kulldorff’s own posts also disappeared.

After a few hours, the network allegedly shifted to removing the preview image, headline and description of the Oct. 1 article, so that only the URL remained, likely reducing reader engagement. 

Just the News confirmed Wednesday the link is still bare when shared on LinkedIn, with the disclaimer: “Cannot display preview. You can post as is, or try another link.” LinkedIn didn’t respond when asked why it continues throttling Kulldorff’s new article.

…Kulldorff initially moved over to LinkedIn because of a monthlong Twitter suspension for questioning the protective power of masks. He previously told Just the News he is more guarded on Twitter for that reason.

At one point you have to wonder who has the power to silence these doctors and why they are doing this. I am sure money plays a role in this, but I suspect there is a deeper root cause.

Expect To See More Of This

Whether or not you choose to get the Covid vaccine should not be anyone else’s business. If the vaccine protects you, why do you care if I am vaccinated? Does any natural immunity I have because I recovered from Covid count? If we are going to require people to get a vaccine to keep them healthy, when are we going to require people to lose weight, stop smoking, exercise, eat healthy food, etc? The government shouldn’t have the power to require you to do those things. They are good things, but even your mother doesn’t have the power to require you to do those things once you move out of her house! As various industries and groups mandate the vaccine, some people are wondering why there is so much pressure. That alone creates a reluctance to get the vaccine.

Just the News reported  yesterday that according to a union official, dozens of Massachusetts state troopers have submitted their resignation papers as a result of the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The article reports:

The state is requiring all executive department employees to show proof of vaccination by Oct. 17 or risk losing their jobs, according to a CBS-TV affiliate in Boston.

Roughly 20% of state police employees are not vaccinated, said an attorney for the union, the State Police Association of Massachusetts.

Last week, a judge denied a request from the union to put a hold on Democratic Gov. Charlie Baker’s vaccine mandate for troopers.

The union said following the judge’s decision that troopers are asking that a COVID-related illness be treated as a “line of duty injury,” as other state agencies have done for their workers and suggested alternatives to the vaccine including mask wearing and mandatory testing.

“To date, dozens of troopers have already submitted their resignation paperwork, some of whom plan to return to other departments offering reasonable alternatives such as mask wearing and regular testing.

New York is experiencing the same thing with healthcare workers. The vaccine mandates will eventually cost people their lives because of the resignations that will follow. The government should not have the power to force people to submit to medical treatment they do not want.

 

Courage

This article is probably going to get me in trouble with some of my military friends, but there are two sides to every story. I realize that when you join the military you give up some of your individual rights. However, I don’t believe that you are required to give up your religious convictions. I don’t necessarily agree with their reasoning, but I think their religious objections should be taken into consideration.

Just the News reported yesterday that several hundred Navy SEALS will be blocked from being deployed because they have refused their Covid vaccines.

The article reports:

The number involved in the dispute with the Pentagon amounts to as many as a quarter or more of all active duty SEALs, a loss that could impact military readiness since SEAL teams play an outsized role in modern military operations, their advocates told Just the News. Some SEALS were given a deadline this week for the vaccine and have sought a religious exemption.

“My clients include several Navy SEALs who are a small part of a large group of SEALs and other military members who are being asked to choose between their faith and their ability to serve our nation,” said R. Davis Younts, a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force reserves and a JAG lawyer who is representing several of the special operators as a private lawyer. “They have been told that if they seek a religious accommodation, they likely will no longer be able to serve our country as Navy SEALs and been given an arbitrary deadline to comply with the vaccine mandate.

“My clients need time, and we are seeking at least a 90-day extension to vaccine mandate compliance deadline they have been given.

The article concludes:

Durbin (Pastor Jeff Durbin) runs the large evangelical Apologia Church in the Phoenix area and is best known for his ardent opposition to abortion. In 2017, he stirred criticism when he suggested abortion be treated the same as murder, which under some state laws is punishable by the death penalty. His position on abortion as a crime, however, got recent support when Pope Francis declared earlier this month that “abortion is murder.”

Durbin told Just the News he began ministering to Navy SEALs and other military members in recent weeks as they wrestled with the decision of whether to get the COVID-19 vaccine as mandated by the Pentagon. He said those he has counseled have a religious objection, are unable to speak publicly because of their allegiance to military discipline and know that even if they get a religious exemption they will be ending their SEAL careers if they refuse the shot under the current military position.

“These Navy SEALs are men of faith in Jesus Christ,” he said. “They feel as though they are being pushed to a decision between their faith in Christ, their commitments to God’s Law, and their desire to love their neighbors and uphold the principle of the preservation of human life versus their careers as Navy SEALs.”

He said the SEALs he is ministering to “are the epitome of silent professionals and they do not desire to nor can they speak for themselves.”

Do those serving in the military have the right to oppose getting the vaccine on religious grounds? That is an interesting question.