Twitter Blocked Hunter Laptop Story After Intelligence Officials Shared Hack ‘Rumors’

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/09/15/twitter-blocked-hunter-laptop-story-after-intelligence-officials-shared-hack-rumors/
Twitter blocked a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop after U.S. intelligence officials shared “rumors” that Biden would be the target of a hack, an executive with the social media company told the Federal Election Commission. Yoel Roth, the head of Twitter’s Site Integrity Team, cited the information from U.S. intelligence officials to justify Twitter’s decision…

Science Denied: The Biden Vaccine Mandate | ZeroHedge | Truth2Freedom’s Blog

https://truth4freedom.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/science-denied-the-biden-vaccine-mandate-zerohedge/

In a maniacal move of wild desperation – or as an excuse to try out the most extreme powers of his office – he is using every weapon that he believes he has to assure compliance with his dream of injecting as many arms as possible. Only then will we crush the virus, all thanks to his leadership, all the complaints about “freedom” be damned – and never mind that the realization of his dream did not work in Israel or the UK.

What are the immediate problems here? At least five:

1. The Biden mandate pretends that the only immunity is injected, not natural. And so it has been from the beginning of this pandemic, even though all science for at least a year – actually you can say centuries – contradicts that. Indeed, we’ve known about natural immunity since 400 B.C when Thucydides first wrote of the great Athens plague that revealed that “they knew the course of the disease and were themselves free from apprehension.” Biden’s mandate could affect 80 million people but far more than that have likely been exposed and gained robust immunity regardless of vaccination status.

— Read on

Satanic Temple Attacks Texas Abortion Law, Argues That it Violates Their ‘Religious Freedom’ to ‘Abortion Rituals’ – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/09/06/satanic-temple-attacks-texas-abortion-law-argues-that-it-violates-their-religious-freedom-to-abortion-rituals/

Source:

The Satanic Temple is trying to fight the new abortion laws in Texas by arguing that it violates their “religious freedom” to “abortion rituals.”

Lucien Greaves, the Temple’s spokesman and cofounder, argued in a letter to the Food and Drug Administration that access to abortion drugs Misoprostol and Mifepristone must be allowed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to be used for their “Abortion Rituals.”

“I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about Religious Liberty issues in other states — will be proud to see that Texas’s robust Religious Liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion,” Greaves wrote in the letter.

The Satanic Temple spokesman went on to say that “the battle for abortion rights is largely a battle of competing religious viewpoints, and our viewpoint that the nonviable fetus is part of the impregnated host is fortunately protected under Religious Liberty laws.”

The temple previously attempted to use religious freedom to fight abortion laws in Missouri, but failed.

In a press release sent to the Gateway Pundit by a spokesperson last year, the Satanic Temple said that “Satanists are exempt from these regulations if they undergo first-trimester abortions in accordance with TST’s religious ritual. The satanic abortion ritual involves the recitation of TST’s Third and Fifth Tenets, which celebrate bodily autonomy and the adherence to best scientific practices, along with a personal affirmation that is ceremoniously intertwined with the abortion.”

Their latest move is unlikely to work based on the decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even if used during part of a religious ritual.

The case ultimately set the precedent that states are allowed to accommodate illegal acts if they are performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, but they are not required to do so.

Australian Court Overturns Dismissal Of Anti-Israeli Professor – JONATHAN TURLEY

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/05/australian-court-overturns-dismissal-of-anti-israeli-professor/

Facebook

There is an important ruling on academic freedom out of Australia where one of the most controversial academic figures in the country secured a ruling from a federal court to overturn his dismissal by Sidney University. Professor Tim Anderson was fired after inserting a swastika in the middle of an Israeli flag and posting a picture of a lunch in which one of the guests wore badges that said “Death to Israel” and “Curse the Jews” written in Arabic. The lower court found that the academic freedom promised Anderson upon his hiring was unenforceable and largely aspirational. The ruling (below) found an enforceable standard, though this does not end the long controversy over Anderson’s status.

Anderson, a political economist, is an extremist voice in Australian political debates. He has criticized for pro-Iranian and anti-Israeli statements as well as remarks deemed anti-Semitic. He appears to have a tolerance for some of the most blood-soaked authoritarian regimes in the world with controversial visits to places like Syria and North Korea.

Anderson has been repeatedly accused to violent crimes in support of his views. In 1979, he was convicted and sentenced to 16 years for an alleged conspiracy to bomb the house of a far-right political figure as part of Ananda Marga, a socio-spiritual organization. After seven years in prison, he was released and later pardoned. In 1989, he was arrested again and convicted of three counts of murder for planning the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing. However, that conviction was overturned on appeal in 1991.Despite his radical and allegedly violent past, Sidney University hired Anderson and, as part of the “Enterprise Agreement,” the university agreed to Clause 317 to “uphold the principle and practice of intellectual freedom in accordance with the highest ethical, professional and legal standards.”

That brings us to Anderson’s latest controversy. Anderson caused an outrage when he posted an image that included an Israeli flag with a swastika over it. It is a deeply offensive and disgraceful image. Anderson deserved to be roundly condemned for the posting but the Court correctly noted that this is still the expression of his view Israeli policies:

“Consider the PowerPoint presentation in more detail. It is the Israeli flag superimposed with the swastika which is the issue. Everything else in the PowerPoint presentation involves the expression of a legitimate view, open to debate, about the relative morality of the actions of Israel and Palestinian people. Dr Anderson is making a public comment asserting that the concept of moral equivalence between Israel and Palestinian people who attack Israel is false, in part, because of an asserted higher number of deaths of civilian Palestinians in Gaza from purportedly “precision attacks” by Israel compared to an asserted far lower number of deaths of people in Israel from purportedly “indiscriminate” attacks by Palestinians. He is including Israel within a long history of colonial exploitation by one political entity over another weaker entity or people. It does not matter whether this comparison may be considered by some or many people to be offensive or insensitive or wrong. As discussed, offence and insensitivity cannot be relevant criteria for deciding if conduct does or does not constitute the exercise of the right of intellectual freedom in accordance with cll 315 and 317.”

What is most notable for American civil libertarians is the references to academic freedom rather than free speech. In the United States, this would be viewed as a free speech question, particularly if committed by a state school. However, the construct is due to the contractual promise of academic or intellectual freedom afforded to faculty. That leaves an issue for renewed litigation as made clear by how the court addressed the lunch issue:

“277 The contrary submissions for the appellants are not persuasive. Insofar as the issue is one of connection to employment, it does not matter that Dr Anderson was not under any duty to post photographs or anything else on social media. He chose to do so in the described circumstances which create the sufficient connection to his employment. It does not matter that the posting of a social event does not “obviously” constitute public debate. The photo was made public and includes Mr Tharappel, an academic colleague of Dr Anderson’s at the University (see J [17]), wearing a jacket with the badge saying, in Arabic, “Death to Israel”, “Curse the Jews” and “Victory to all Islam”: J [220]. These are political comments connected with Dr Anderson’s academic work as an employee of the University. It does not matter that Dr Anderson was on leave or on about to be on sabbatical. He was still an employee of the University. It does not matter that the lunch photo was not captioned. The badge worn by Mr Tharappel spoke for itself. It does not matter that Dr Anderson made no comment about the badge. Dr Anderson chose to post the lunch photo on his Facebook account. It does not matter that in attending the lunch and posting the lunch photo Dr Anderson was engaging in a personal social activity. A person can be both engaging in a personal social activity and conduct themselves in a manner connected to their employment.

278 The question whether the University gave Dr Anderson a lawful and reasonable direction to remove the lunch photo depends on whether the lunch photo in fact constituted misconduct or serious misconduct which the primary judge did not decide. If it was in fact misconduct or serious misconduct to post the lunch photo, the University’s direction to remove the lunch photo was lawful and reasonable. If it was not misconduct or serious misconduct to post the lunch photo, the University’s direction to remove the lunch photo was unlawful and unreasonable.”

While condemning Anderson’s views, academic groups have rallied behind the case as an exercise of academic freedom. The ruling is a major win in that regard given the lower court’s view that this guarantee is effectively unenforceable. Yet, the court is sending the case back to define the limits of academic freedom. The notion that a professor could be canned for posting a picture of a third party wearing an anti-Israel badge is breathtaking. The picture can be seen in the opinion below.

Many however condemned not just Anderson but his use of free speech. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Ron Porat is quoted as saying Anderson is a mouthpiece for Iran and he and others are “exploiting the right to freedom of speech in this country, the Al-Tajamu network promotes support for murderous regimes and terrorists, and in some cases, also disseminates antisemitic tropes.”

This is not exploiting free speech. It is the essence of free speech. We do not need free speech protections for popular speech. It is a protection that guarantees that even the least popular among us will be allowed to speak. Anderson is the price we pay for free speech. His views and conduct are often repellent and hurtful. However, the same rights protect Porat and others in condemning his views and associations. Ironically, Anderson is enjoying not just free speech but due process that is utterly absent in places like North Korea and Iran. Yet, we do not protect Anderson because we agree with him. We protect him despite our disagreement with him in order to defend this fundamental right.

I am admittedly a free speech dinosaur. I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Anderson was engaged in public discourse over his views of Israel and other matters. Such viewpoint expression must be protected if we are to maintain the needed bright line rule that protects us all. We are living in an age of rage where people often spend more time trying to silence opposing voices than responding to them. In this case, a court was willing to reduce academic freedom itself to a mere aspirational consideration for universities in yielding to campaigns for termination. While the continued litigation brings continued concerns over how speech could be curtailed in this case, this was a major victory for Australian academics despite their overwhelming disapproval of the views of Professor Anderson.

While condemning Anderson’s views, academic groups have rallied behind the case as an exercise of academic freedom. The ruling is a major win in that regard given the lower court’s view that this guarantee is effectively unenforceable. Yet, the court is sending the case back to define the limits of academic freedom. The notion that a professor could be canned for posting a picture of a third party wearing an anti-Israel badge is breathtaking. The picture can be seen in the opinion below.

Many however condemned not just Anderson but his use of free speech. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Ron Porat is quoted as sayingAnderson is a mouthpiece for Iran and he and others are “exploiting the right to freedom of speech in this country, the Al-Tajamu network promotes support for murderous regimes and terrorists, and in some cases, also disseminates antisemitic tropes.”

This is not exploiting free speech. It is the essence of free speech. We do not need free speech protections for popular speech. It is a protection that guarantees that even the least popular among us will be allowed to speak. Anderson is the price we pay for free speech. His views and conduct are often repellent and hurtful. However, the same rights protect Porat and others in condemning his views and associations. Ironically, Anderson is enjoying not just free speech but due process that is utterly absent in places like North Korea and Iran. Yet, we do not protect Anderson because we agree with him. We protect him despite our disagreement with him in order to defend this fundamental right.

I am admittedly a free speech dinosaur. I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Anderson was engaged in public discourse over his views of Israel and other matters. Such viewpoint expression must be protected if we are to maintain the needed bright line rule that protects us all. We are living in an age of rage where people often spend more time trying to silence opposing voices than responding to them. In this case, a court was willing to reduce academic freedom itself to a mere aspirational consideration for universities in yielding to campaigns for termination. While the continued litigation brings continued concerns over how speech could be curtailed in this case, this was a major victory for Australian academics despite their overwhelming disapproval of the views of Professor Anderson.

Here is the opinion: NTEU and Anderson v University of Sydney [2021] FCAFC 159.

The complications from sex reassignment surgery are horrific – but in today’s trans-activist world, we can’t talk about this — RT Op-ed

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/533792-gender-reassignment-surgery-gruesome/

A culture of silence and fear stops people learning what really
can happen when you undergo ‘sex change’ operations. The trans lobby
tries to portray it as easy and straightforward – yet it’s anything
but…
There is an unspoken price
being paid for the fashionable transgender theories of our day. There
are unseen victims, invisible, though in plain sight. They are hidden
because their supporters believe too blindly, and their detractors write
them off, and their misery is facilitated by a lack of open discussion
and a censorship of the facts.

These victims get overshadowed by
the concerns of the general public who are caught in a culture war, by
the parents who lose children to this strange and manufactured dogma,
and by the disinterested innocents subjected to bewildering
pronoun-usage and terrible Netflix adaptations.



Also on rt.com
Parents shouldn’t have a ‘veto’ on children’s trans medical decisions? Should we let the kids smoke and drink too?

These hidden victims are the young transgenders
themselves, who are led to believe so strongly that they can ‘change
their sex’ that they undergo sex-reassignment surgery, only to find
themselves not just disappointed by the result, but horrified.

These
are true victims, in the sense that many of them suffer horrific and
irreversible physical damage and pain, which often leads to them
committing suicide.

You
may have heard of these high rates of suicide among transgender people.
What many people are not aware of is that this suicide problem is not
predominantly due to social rejection, bullying, or self-doubt. It is
due to the complex, unnatural, and somewhat shady nature of the surgery
involved in ‘sex changes,’ and its after-effects. I will focus in this
article on the male-to-female cases, as the list of complications in
these operations is long and harrowing.

It should go without
saying at this point that a person cannot really change their sex; it
comprises your genetic make-up at the molecular level (XX/XY genes). A
man who seeks to become a woman will never have a baby. The surgeon’s
knife is not a ‘magical’ transformation, it is a complicated cosmetic
operation, changing one’s outward appearance. It is a complex, fraught
rearranging of flesh.

Many young people today believe (and are
being taught) that they can elect their sex like they choose an item of
clothing, and go through with ‘surgery’ that will wholly transform them.
Often the result leads to disappointment, and there are many stories of
regret, and of (too late) reticence just before committing to the
operation. These stories are unfashionable to the ears of gender-theory
enthusiasts, who wish to forever believe that sex is a fluid and
insubstantial thing, and can be easily changed.

With male-to-female surgeries, post operative complications occur
at a rate of 32.5% (that is a one-in-three chance of complication),
and there is a re-operation rate of 21.7%. This is insanely high for any
kind of medical procedure, let alone considering this is an elective
surgery, and one that is performed, generally, on healthy, functioning
bodies. They now call it ‘gender affirmation surgery’ so that even the
language is deceptively adapted to sound positive and non-threatening.

In this sense, medical ethics and genuine concern (not virtue signalling) for these young people appears to be out the window.

GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING

It
is not often discussed (likely because it is not a topic for the
squeamish) exactly what are the common complications resulting from
modern sex-change surgeries. If you can bear it, I will attempt to
elucidate a few of the male-to-female complications, while seeking not
to be overly graphic. Those who are faint of heart may wish to stop
reading here.

The patient’s “neovagina” is partly constructed
from an inverted scrotum and penis, therefore any hair-bearing skin used
for the “neo-urethra” can cause
chronic infection and obstruction. In vaginoplasty, failure to perform
preoperative or intraoperative hair removal can lead to inaccessible
hair deep within the vagina. This can result in a hairball, which can be
a nidus for debris and infection.Infections are common and known to be
incredibly painful, according to sufferer accounts.

There
is no natural lubrication for a neovagina. In a procedure called
colovaginoplasty, a lubricant is sourced by opening up the abdomen and
using part of the colon to join the gap and make the vagina. The
lubrication comes from the bowel, and is constant (not based on
arousal). Post-op patient questions vary from, ‘Is it dangerous for my
partner to ingest this lubricant?’, to ‘Will I need to wear a pad
forever?’ (Often, yes).

Another complication
is known as a Rectoneovaginal Fistula, which is an ‘abnormal connection
between the rectum and neovagina’. The result is that the neovagina
begins to secrete fecal matter, resulting in permanent diaper-wearing.
There are many difficulties that can arise when you decide to open a new
hole in your pelvis that was not there naturally.

Sufferers have
complained about ‘never being able to have sex again’ – in some ways an
odd complaint after making the decision to castrate yourself. Another
common complaint is the necrotising of the neovagina, where the
constructed vagina (or portions of it) simply dies off.

The
surgery in general requires perpetual clinical follow-up and post-op
monitoring, as well as a lifetime reliance on estrogen and other
medication.

The wider trans community and the wealthy trans lobby
do not want any such negative information about transgenderism to get
out. They maintain that it is impossible to tell the difference between a
vagina and a negovagina, but this is not true. Many who undergo the
procedure learn the hard way that they have caused irreversible damage
to themselves, and their suicide rates are astronomical. There are many
stories of chronic pain and tissue necrosis that are either too graphic
to relay, and there is too much fear of censorship and legal threats
from the trans lobby for sufferers to speak out.



Also on rt.com
Tyrannical trans activists are trampling on free speech and democracy… and losing support in the process

The sad result of this is that many confused kids, often
encouraged by virtue-signalling parents and teachers, are being led down
the path that leads to these horrors. Nobody seems to care about the
realities that await them, that there is a very high chance their lives
will be ruined and they will suffer great pain and remorse. Yet the
gender theory activists still pretend that you can easily change your
sex with surgery.

These people require rigorous mental health
treatment, real role models, and a society which does not encourage them
to mutilate themselves.

‘Like remote-controlling your arm against you’: Snowden says Apple WON’T DECIDE what it scans the phones for – governments will — RT World News

https://www.rt.com/news/533763-snowden-interview-apple-governments-scanning/

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has dissected Apple’s
phone-scanning plan, saying it not only blurs the line between what is
and isn’t private, but will eventually enable governments to meddle into
intimate details of one’s life.
Snowden has been among
vocal critics of Apple’s plan to scan content on all iPhones for
criminal evidence. The tech giant says it wants to identify child
pornography stored on devices, but skeptics see it as the latest
corporate move to encroach of people’s privacy under the guise of
protecting children. It goes one step further from what many companies
already do when they scan files that users store in cloud storage on the
providers’ servers.

“Fundamentally, the distinction here is
they are taking away that separation between what they own and what you
own. And now they are telling your device what to look for,” Snowden said on Thursday in an interview with Russian media.



Also on rt.com
Apple’s new ‘child-safety’ features face fresh challenge over censorship & privacy from over 90 rights groups

Critics of the plan say that if such an invasion of privacy is
accepted and implemented, it would further erode protections for
everyone, first and foremost from government snooping. In the end, Tim
Cook’s company would not be the one making decisions on which content
will be searched for, Snowden argued.

“Can Apple say ‘no’ to
the United States government? Can they say ‘no’ to the Russian
government? Can they say ‘no’ to the Chinese government?” he asked rhetorically. “Of course the answer is ‘no,’ not if they want to keep selling their products in these countries.”

“Once
Apple breaks down this barrier between their servers and your phone,
and they start on your phone, they can scan for anything. They can scan
for political criticism, financial records, really anything,” Snowden said, adding that it’s really irrelevant whether one trusts Apple’s professed commitment to privacy or not.

Once
Apple has established the precedent, once they’ve done it for the first
time, this type of scanning, they lose the ability to say what it will
and won’t be used for. Once it’s proven possible, it’s no longer a
question for Apple, it’s a question for the governments, it’s a question
for the lawmakers, and they can use it in any way they want.

What
data constitutes a red flag may vary dramatically depending on the
government. While in one jurisdiction it’s images of sexual abuse of
children, it could well be political cartoons in another. The company
doing the scanning would simply be fed “digital fingerprints” to look for by some agency, Snowden predicted.



Also on rt.com
‘It will never happen’: Snowden laughs off suggestion Julian Assange or himself would ever get Nobel Peace Prize

The invasion of privacy this practice would lead to can already
be witnessed in the burgeoning market for targeted phone hacking, in
which governments are the primary clients. The Israeli firm NSO received
a lot of bad press recently after allegations that its spy tool Pegasus
has been aimed in some countries at dissidents, investigative
journalists and other people, whose privacy in some cases is a literal
question of life and death.

Considering how big a role phones now
play in people’s lives, any vulnerability in the security of the device
is hard to underestimate, Snowden believes.

“Wherever you go,
your phone goes. It knows what you’ve bought, it knows who you talk to,
it knows what you’re interested in and has seen every photograph that
you’ve had. These are intensely personal, intensely private things,” he said.



Also on rt.com
Journos, ministers,
Khashoggi’s son & a ruler’s family on list of 50,000 possible
targets for Israeli spyware Pegasus – reports

Having a phone hacked is “like you’ve paid someone $10 million and they give you the ability to remote-control someone’s arm, and use it against” that person.

Snowden,
who became world-famous after exposing illegal mass surveillance by the
US and its allies during the Obama era, was speaking in an interview
filmed for the New Knowledge educational “marathon.” The online
event, this time marking the beginning of the academic year in Russia,
previously featured such celebrity speakers as Elon Musk.

Snowden
has been living in Russia since 2013, forced to stay in the country by
the US after his transit trip via Moscow was cut short by Washington’s
move to revoke his passport in the wake of explosive revelations. He was
eventually granted political asylum and resides somewhere in Moscow
with his wife and child.

Thousands of Doctors and Health Professionals Sue the Biden Administration Over New Gender Transition Policy – JONATHAN TURLEY

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/01/thousands-of-doctors-and-health-professionals-sue-the-biden-administration-over-new-gender-transition-policy/

There is an interesting constitutional challenge brewing in Tennessee where 3,000 physicians and health care professionals are suing the Biden Administration over the mandate for doctors to perform gender transition procedures. One of the first changes ordered by the Biden Administration was redefine the discrimination laws to include the denial of such gender transition procedures. The case could force courts to address a direct conflict between anti-discrimination laws and religious values–a medical version of cases like Masterpiece Cake shop.. The Defendants include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Office for Civil Rights of the HHS, including Xavier Becerra, the secretary of the HHS, and Robinsue Frohboese, acting director and principal deputy of the Office for Civil Rights of the HHS.

Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provide that an individual shall not be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the grounds prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One of the earliest acts of President Biden to sign an executive order upon entering office that required Section 1557 and Title IX be interpreted to include gender identity as a protected trait.

Title IX also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), age or disability in covered health programs or activities.

These medical experts challenge the government’s authority to effectively order them to perform gender transition procedures, prescribe hormones or puberty blockers. Additionally, they claim the Biden Administration is forcing them conform their speech to gender identity, rather than biological sex, regardless of their medical judgment or conscientious objections.

Notably, the first claim in the Complaint below is brought under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which has proven repeatedly successful in challenges to the unilateral actions of the Biden Administration.

The second claim is brought under both the First and Fifth Amendments in raising claims of free speech and free association:

“Plaintiffs oppose the gender identity mandate’s requirements of, and restrictions on, their speech including: having to offer and refer for gender interventions; the use of pronouns; medical screening questions; medical coding and record keeping; referrals; policies governing speech and information at their medical practices; assurances of compliance with Section 1557; and mandatory notices of compliance with Section 1557.”

The third claim is under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, unless the government demonstrates that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a): “The gender identity mandate substantially burdens the Religious Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion by requiring them to engage in the objectionable practices in violation of their beliefs.”

The fourth claim is based on the First and Fifth Amendments in the alleged denial of freedom of religion. Notably, this claim reveals a division among plaintiffs, which the Complaint addresses by creating a subset of claims:

“All Plaintiffs bring this Free Exercise Clause claim except the nonreligious members of ACPeds. CMA asserts the claim on behalf of its members, and ACPeds brings it on behalf of its religious members. Dr. Dassow brings the claim on behalf of herself. Collectively, these are referred to as the Religious Plaintiffs.”

The fifth and final claim is based on federalism that the order on gender identity exceeds Congress’s Article I enumerated powers and transgresses on the reserved powers of the State under the federal constitution’s structural principles of federalism and the Tenth Amendment.

Some of these claims like the federalism challenge will be difficult to maintain since the government maintains national medical rules tied to federal programs. However, this is a major challenge that could force a ruling on whether physicians retain the right to decline procedures or practices based on religious objections.

Here is the complaint: American College of Pediatricians v. Becerra

China orders crackdown on independent journalists that criticize financial policy – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/08/29/china-orders-crackdown-on-independent-journalists-that-criticize-financial-policy/

Independent journalists are being maligned all over the world. But, while in the West social media platforms have taken it upon themselves to boost mainstream outlets at the expense of independent journalists, in China the suppression of citizen journalists is mandated by the government.

Beijing has tightened restrictions on internet content yet again with a campaign to condemn citizen journalists who counter the mainstream narratives and “misinterpret economic policies and forecast doom and gloom in financial markets.”…

“Who Watches The Watchmen?” Infowars Case Raises Difficult Question For Both The Biden Admin & The Media

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/08/26/who-watches-the-watchmen-infowars-case-raises-difficult-question-for-both-the-biden-admin-the-media/
“Who Watches The Watchmen?” Infowars Case Raises Difficult Question For Both The Biden Admin & The Media Authored by Jonathan Turley, “Who watches the watchmen”? That question from a federal judge this week came in a confrontation with the Justice Department over its targeting or charging journalists. At issue is the prosecution of a controversial […]

%d bloggers like this: