Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
World Affairs Brief, October 14, 2022 — Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com).
Juries can really be stupid, especially when the judge is so biased she rigged the trial against defendant Alex Jones. The jury in Waterbury, Connecticut decided that Infowars host Alex Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, should pay nearly a billion dollars for spreading a conspiracy theory that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School never happened. It was a mistake I warned Alex about, and he later changed sides and admitted it was real (though instigated by government for gun control purposes).
Mainstream and alternative media often make mistakes but they are never sued with defamation, especially when they don’t name names. But the Plaintiffs distorted defamation law and the judge refused to allow Jones his first amendment defense. Continue reading “Skousen: Alex Jones Ordered to Pay $965 Million — “The Plaintiffs distorted defamation law and the judge refused to allow Jones his First Amendment defense””
Floyd was saying he couldn’t breathe before any physical pressure was applied.
Hennepin County medical examiner concluded the knee caused it.
“..if you go back a couple years and do the research you can see that the Villages get rid of the drunks and problem children. It’s called Banning and they do it quite frequently. Just think. Your Banned from you booze free village and come to Anchorage and there is booze on almost every street corner. Like going to heaven and we the people are paying them to be here, What a shame.”
‘https://icalliances.org/alaska-communities-dashboard filtering out all data except for ANCHORAGE, AK states that Anchorage homeless clients self-identified as:
– American Indian/Alaska Native/Indigenous at 45% and
– identified themselves as White at 38% (A snapshot in time for 2022-sure to change daily, weekly, yearly). They can identify as more than one race (i.e. mixed race AK Native/White) and get counted in each.
Importance of being humble, willing to admit when we’re wrong.
‘Rolling Stones’ founder, Jann Wenner doesn’t excel in humility, so seriously lacks wisdom — even doing a hit-piece on Rogan, when Joe used the Covid treatments that work, including vitamin D, and hardly got sick at all.
Daren Beattie, a former Trump adviser, said that the $965 million jury award in the Sandy Hook case against Alex Jones sets a dangerous legal precedent that has a chilling effect of silencing people speaking out against the regime. He said that Americans should be allowed to question national tragedies with political implications, especially when politicians use a significant event to pass extreme legislation such as gun control. Beattie said that Alex Jones was only recently targeted for financial destruction following his support fro Trump and the 2016 election. He added that it is cynical to use grieving families to silence political opposition. He warned against feelings being used to rewrite the Constitution. – G. Edward Griffin
Darren Beattie: Freedom of Speech Has Had a Price Set That Americans Must Pay
TimcastIRL Published October 13, 2022
1:05:00 A lady quoted from this list, saying “Studies show that exposure to sexually explicit material may:”
A recent Florida lawsuit seeks to apply a broad new claim by many Jewish groups that legal abortion is necessary for the practice of their religion.
(LifeSiteNews) — In an apparent new strategy seeking to maintain the decriminalization of preborn child killing, a south Florida synagogue filed a lawsuit against the State of Florida’s new 15-week abortion ban arguing that it violates the “religious freedom” of Jews. Continue reading “Jewish groups adopt same strategy as Satanists, demand legal abortion based on ‘religious freedom’”
“They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” Thomas wrote. …
..most COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, including those from Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer – were tested, developed and/or produced using cell lines created from aborted babies, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. … Continue reading “Justice Clarence Thomas Confirms Some COVID Vaccines “Developed Using Cell Lines From Aborted Children””
From: The Times of Israel
What occurs inside a woman’s uterus is nobody’s business other than the woman who owns her own body. We all need to do what ever is possible to stop the United States from turning into “The Republic of Gilead”.
According to Jewish law if a fetus is a danger to the life of a woman (emotionally, psychologically and or physically), she is required to have an abortion. According to Jewish law, a fetus is not considered a living being until it comes out of a woman’s uterus. By not allowing Jewish women to have abortions, you are violating her civil rights to practice her faith. Continue reading “Being Anti-Abortion is being Antisemitic — According to Jewish law, a fetus is not considered a living being until it comes out of a woman’s uterus. By not allowing Jewish women to have abortions, you are violating her civil rights to practice her faith”
Being Anti-Abortion is being Antisemitic — According to Jewish law, a fetus is not considered a living being until it comes out of a woman’s uterus. By not allowing Jewish women to have abortions, you are violating her civil rights to practice her faith
Scott Kendall says here: “the Jewish faith at times actually encourages abortion up until the moment when the child takes his or her first breath.” This is because modern day Judaism considers the Talmud as higher than the Old Testament, as did the Pharisees who persecuted Jesus. And when they site the Torah as their source, that includes the Talmud, which they revere as higher than the first five books of the Bible.
45:45 “In Russia, you only have religious freedom if you belong to the Orthodox Church. If you are any other denomination, you have to register, and you cannot proselytize outside your church. In Ukraine, there is 100% religious liberty, no restrictions at all.” – Trevor Loudon
OUTSTANDING, and shockingly true, gutsy end!
Except, warning about the BlueBlocks commercial. *Alaskans need blue light* in winter to overcome SAD — which we’ve know for how many decades now.
Just like with face masks, how we didn’t use them for decades until now, because…? Though higher-in-the-sky sun might be different.
OUTSTANDING from JP!!!!!!!!!!!!
Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe appeared on “Hannity” for his first interview since the FBI raided his home on Saturday morning as part of a federal investigation into the missing diary of President Biden‘s daughter, Ashley Biden.
“I woke up to a pre-dawn raid,” O’Keefe told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Monday. “Banging on my door, I went to my door to answer the door and there were ten FBI agents with a battering ram, white blinding lights, they turned me around, handcuffed me and threw me against the hallway. I was partially clothed in front of my neighbors. They confiscated my phone. They raided my apartment. On my phone were many of my reporters’ notes. A lot of my sources unrelated to this story and a lot of confidential donor information to our news organization.”
Please ignore the bra (trying to reach the ‘woke’)
2:52 Why they’re trying to ban God — VERY GOOD!
4:10 2nd Amendment — Why Australia/Canada…
5:55 Excellent “I Will Not Comply” segment!
Sixteen unvaccinated athletes won another round in their legal battle to play sports, despite Western Michigan University’s mandate that all of its inter-collegiate athletes get the COVID-19 vaccination shot.
In a unanimous published decision issued Oct. 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio, held that the university violated the athletes’ First Amendment rights.
All 16 athletes had filed for religious exemptions, which, according to the court, the university “ignored or denied.”
The court stated: “The university put plaintiffs to the choice: Get vaccinated, or stop fully participating in intercollegiate sports. By conditioning the privilege of playing sports on plaintiffs’ willingness to abandon their sincere religious beliefs, the university burdened their free exercise rights.” … Continue reading “Court Sides With Unvaccinated Michigan Athletes in Mandate Case — “First Amendment, as incorporated through the 14th Amendment, prevents a state from ‘prohibiting the free exercise’ of religion””
The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one’s beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith.
The “nontheistic” organization joins the fray with a last-ditch legal maneuver to save abortion rights in Texas
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 4, 2021
As pro-choice and reproductive health groups are scrambling to make sense of Texas’ new, near-total abortion ban that went into effect this week….
The Supreme Court on Wednesday night allowed the state to implement a ban on the procedures after six weeks….
Enter The Satanic Temple.
The “nontheistic” organization, which is headquartered in Salem, Massachusetts, joined the legal fray this week by sending a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration demanding access to abortion pills for its members. The group has established an “abortion ritual,” and is attempting to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which was created to allow Native Americans access to peyote for religious rituals) to argue that its members should be allowed access to abortion drugs like Misoprostol and Mifepristone for religious purposes. Continue reading “SICK! Salon: “Why Satanists may be the last, best hope to save abortion rights in Texas” — “prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted””
The woke love NPR instead of talk radio, where people can question what’s being said. NPR can shove anything they want down listener’s throats, true or completely false and treasonous.
Trump betrayed us! Pushed multi-billion dollar, no liability, experimental vaccines, then threatened doctors with fines who tell the truth about vitamin D3, etc. for Covid!
So this is why Dr. Mercola took down his articles on natural treatments for Covid that have been proven to work. Ugh!
Donald Trump signed the ‘COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act’ last December that makes it illegal for anyone to promote non-pharmaceutical products as treatments for COVID-19. The law threatens doctors with $10,000 fines for each violation if they tell you the science about how vitamins and minerals can help with COVID. The Department of Justice is pursuing a case against a Missouri chiropractor for “deceptive marketing” of COVID treatments after he publicly stated that a vitamin-D and zinc supplement could prevent or effectively treat COVID—claims that are well-supported in the scientific literature. – G. Edward Griffin Continue reading “COVID Natural Remedies BANNED as DOJ Silences Doctors Promoting Vitamin D, Zinc, etc.”
And outstanding acting by JP Sears!
“Here’s my apology video to Facebook after they threatened to ban me for violating their community guidelines. With censorship, fact checkers, and the threat to be deplatformed, I now realize that speaking truth and empowering people is a direct violation of their community guidelines. I couldn’t be more sorry.”
November 27, 2020
The following is a full text of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, in which the court struck down the governor’s Covid restrictions targeting church services
Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis. At a minimum, that Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities, unless they are pursuing a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means available. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993). Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.
Today’s case supplies just the latest example. New York’s Governor has asserted the power to assign different color codes to different parts of the State and govern each by executive decree. In “red zones,” houses of worship are all but closed—limited to a maximum of 10 people. In the Orthodox Jewish community that limit might operate to exclude all women, considering 10 men are necessary to establish a minyan, or a quorum.
At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians.In “orange zones,” it’s not much different. Churches and synagogues are limited to a maximum of 25 people. These restrictions apply even to the largest cathedrals and synagogues, which ordinarily hold hundreds. And the restrictions apply no matter the precautions taken, including social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.
Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?
As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squaring the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amendment rules is no easy task. People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundromats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides.
The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids.
Nor is the problem an isolated one. In recent months, certain other Governors have issued similar edicts. At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples. See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting).
In far too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears.
What could justify so radical a departure from the First Amendment’s terms and long-settled rules about its application? Our colleagues offer two possible answers. Initially, some point to a solo concurrence in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages based on the newness of the emergency and how little was then known about the disease. Post, at 5 (opinion of BREYER, J.). At that time, COVID had been with us, in earnest, for just three months. Now, as we round out 2020 and face the prospect of entering a second calendar year living in the pandemic’s shadow, that rationale has expired according to its own terms.
Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical. Rather than apply a nonbinding and expired concurrence from South Bay, courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause. Today, a majority of the Court makes this plain. Not only did the South Bay concurrence address different circumstances than we now face, that opinion was mistaken from the start.
To justify its result, the concurrence reached back 100 years in the U. S. Reports to grab hold of our decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905). But Jacobson hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic. That decision involved an entirely different mode of analysis, an entirely different right, and an entirely different kind of restriction.
Start with the mode of analysis. Although Jacobson predated the modern tiers of scrutiny, this Court essentially applied rational basis review to Henning Jacobson’s challenge to a state law that, in light of an ongoing smallpox pandemic, required individuals to take a vaccine, pay a $5 fine, or establish that they qualified for an exemption. Id., at 25 (asking whether the State’s scheme was “reasonable”); id., at 27 (same); id., at 28 (same). Rational basis review is the test this Court normally applies to Fourteenth Amendment challenges, so long as they do not involve suspect classifications based on race or some other ground, or a claim of fundamental right.
Put differently, Jacobson didn’t seek to depart from normal legal rules during a pandemic, and it supplies no precedent for doing so. Instead, Jacobson applied what would become the traditional legal test associated with the right at issue—exactly what the Court does today. Here, that means strict scrutiny: The First Amendment traditionally requires a State to treat religious exercises at least as well as comparable secular activities unless it can meet the demands of strict scrutiny—showing it has employed the most narrowly tailored means available to satisfy a compelling state interest. Church of Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546.
Next, consider the right asserted. Mr. Jacobson claimed that he possessed an implied “substantive due process” right to “bodily integrity” that emanated from the Fourteenth Amendment and allowed him to avoid not only the vaccine but also the $5 fine (about $140 today) and the need to show he qualified for an exemption. 197 U. S., at 13–14. This Court disagreed. But what does that have to do with our circumstances? Even if judges may impose emergency restrictions on rights that some of them have found hiding in the Constitution’s penumbras, it does not follow that the same fate should befall the textually explicit right to religious exercise.
Finally, consider the different nature of the restriction. In Jacobson, individuals could accept the vaccine, pay the fine, or identify a basis for exemption. Id., at 12, 14. The imposition on Mr. Jacobson’s claimed right to bodily integrity, thus, was avoidable and relatively modest. It easily survived rational basis review, and might even have survived strict scrutiny, given the opt-outs available to certain objectors. Id., at 36, 38–39.
Here, by contrast, the State has effectively sought to ban all traditional forms of worship in affected “zones” whenever the Governor decrees and for as long as he chooses. Nothing in Jacobson purported to address, let alone approve, such serious and long-lasting intrusions into settled constitutional rights. In fact, Jacobson explained that the challenged law survived only because it did not “contravene the Constitution of the United States” or “infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.” Id., at 25.
Tellingly no Justice now disputes any of these points. Nor does any Justice seek to explain why anything other than our usual constitutional standards should apply during the current pandemic.
In fact, today the author of the South Bay concurrence even downplays the relevance of Jacobson for cases like the one before us. Post, at 2 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.). All this is surely a welcome development. But it would require a serious rewriting of history to suggest, as THE CHIEF JUSTICE does, that the South Bay concurrence never really relied in significant measure on Jacobson. That was the first case South Bay cited on the substantive legal question before the Court, it was the only case cited involving a pandemic, and many lower courts quite understandably read its invocation as inviting them to slacken their enforcement of constitutional liberties while COVID lingers. See, e.g., Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, 962 F. 3d 341, 347 (CA7 2020); Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ (NM 2020).
Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic? In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis. But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do.
That leaves my colleagues to their second line of argument. Maybe precedent does not support the Governor’s actions. Maybe those actions do violate the Constitution. But, they say, we should stay our hand all the same. Even if the churches and synagogues before us have been subject to unconstitutional restrictions for months, it is no matter because, just the other day, the Governor changed his color code for Brooklyn and Queens where the plaintiffs are located. Now those regions are “yellow zones” and the challenged restrictions on worship associated with “orange” and “red zones” do not apply. So, the reasoning goes, we should send the plaintiffs home with an invitation to return later if need be.
To my mind, this reply only advances the case for intervention. It has taken weeks for the plaintiffs to work their way through the judicial system and bring their case to us. During all this time, they were subject to unconstitutional restrictions. Now, just as this Court was preparing to act on their applications, the Governor loosened his restrictions, all while continuing to assert the power to tighten them again anytime as conditions warrant. So if we dismissed this case, nothing would prevent the Governor from reinstating the challenged restrictions tomorrow. And by the time a new challenge might work its way to us, he could just change them again.
The Governor has fought this case at every step of the way. To turn away religious leaders bringing meritorious claims just because the Governor decided to hit the “off ” switch in the shadow of our review would be, in my view, just another sacrifice of fundamental rights in the name of judicial modesty. Even our dissenting colleagues do not suggest this case is moot or otherwise outside our power to decide. They counsel delay only because “the disease-related circumstances [are] rapidly changing.” Post, at 5 (opinion of BREYER, J.).
But look at what those “rapidly changing” circumstances suggest. Both Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio have “indicated it’s only a matter of time before [all] five boroughs” of New York City are flipped from yellow to orange. J. Skolnik, D. Goldiner, & D. Slattery, Staten Island Goes ‘Orange’ As Cuomo Urges Coronavirus ‘Reality Check’ Ahead of Thanksgiving, N. Y. Daily News (Nov. 23, 2020), https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronaviruscuomo-thanksgiving-20201123-yyhxfo3kzbdinbfbsqos3tvrk u-story-html.
On anyone’s account, then, it seems inevitable this dispute will require the Court’s attention. It is easy enough to say it would be a small thing to require the parties to “refile their applications” later. Post, at 3 (opinion of BREYER, J.). But none of us are rabbis wondering whether future services will be disrupted as the High Holy Days were, or priests preparing for Christmas. Nor may we discount the burden on the faithful who have lived for months under New York’s unconstitutional regime unable to attend religious services.
Whether this Court could decide a renewed application promptly is beside the point. The parties before us have already shown their entitlement to relief. Saying so now will establish clear legal rules and enable both sides to put their energy to productive use, rather than devoting it to endless emergency litigation. Saying so now will dispel, as well, misconceptions about the role of the Constitution in times of crisis, which have already been permitted to persist for too long. It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.