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

‘Treason If True’: Trump Lashes Out At Gen Milley Over Claims Of China Dealings “Behind The President’s Back”

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/09/14/treason-if-true-trump-lashes-out-at-gen-milley-over-claims-of-china-dealings-behind-the-presidents-back/
‘Treason If True’: Trump Lashes Out At Gen Milley Over Claims Of China Dealings “Behind The President’s Back” Update (1906ET): President Trump has responded to claims that Milley had a back-channel with his Chinese counterparts and would warn them of any impending attacks. “If the story of “Dumbass” General Mark Milley…is true, then I assume…

NSW Supreme Court hears mandatory COVID-19 vaccine challenges – ABC News

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-09/supreme-court-hears-covid-order-challenges/100445878

Barrister Jason Harkess, acting for the plaintiffs in
one matter, revealed there would be “extensive arguments” about the
interpretation of the section of the Public Health Act under which Mr
Hazzard made orders.

“The presumption that the
Parliament would not have intended to give the Minister the power to
breach the right to bodily integrity without clear legislative authority
is likely to be the primary argument advanced by all three plaintiffs,”
he said…

Dr Harkess said two international experts, an immunologist and vaccinologist, would compile reports, making the “safety, efficacy and ultimate
reasonableness of compulsory vaccines” a central issue…

Deadly bat caves & humanized mice tests: Released docs describe ‘HIGHEST RISK’ involved in US-funded coronavirus research in Wuhan — RT World News

https://www.rt.com/news/534175-wuhan-lab-coronavirus-research-risks/

Documents obtained by The Intercept reveal that the US
government funded studies into coronavirus in bats in Wuhan long before
the pandemic, with the proposal showing it was aware of the risk that
researchers would be infected.
More than 900 pages of material related to this research were published on
the non-profit media company’s website on Tuesday. The documents were
acquired as part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation by
The Intercept against the National Institutes of Health.

The
documents detail the work of EcoHealth Alliance, a US-based organization
specializing in protection against infectious diseases, and its work
with Chinese partners on coronaviruses, specifically those originating
in bats.



Also on rt.com
Deadlier than Covid-19, but less contagious: What we know about Nipah bat-borne virus threatening to become new scourge in India

The papers detail that EcoHealth Alliance was granted a total of
$3.1 million by the federal government, with $599,000 of that going to
the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The funding received in Wuhan was used
in part to identify and genetically alter bat coronaviruses that might
infect humans.

EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak led one
of the studies, titled ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus
Emergence’, which screened thousands of bats for novel coronaviruses.
The research also involved the screening of people who work with live
animals.

However, the released documents include a recognition of the potential risks posed by the project. “Fieldwork
involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs while
working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for
fecal dust to be inhaled,” the grant application reads.



Also on rt.com
Biden’s latest ‘lab leak’ report tells us nothing… but it won’t stop the US blaming China for Covid

“In this proposal, they actually point out that they
know how risky this work is. They keep talking about people potentially
getting bitten – and they kept records of everyone who got bitten,” Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute, in the US, told The Intercept in response to the release.

Another
revelation was that experimental work with humanized mice (that is,
with functioning human genes, cells, tissues, and/or organs) was
conducted at the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, a
biosafety level-three lab, and not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,
mainland China’s first biosafety level-four lab, as originally thought.

The
program ran from 2014 to 2019, and was renewed in 2019, only for former
US president Donald Trump to cancel it. Robert Kessler, communications
manager at EcoHealth Alliance, maintained there wasn’t a lot to say on
the matter. “We applied for grants to conduct research. The relevant agencies deemed that to be important research, and thus funded it,” he noted.



Also on rt.com
Russia building ‘sanitary
shield’ network of labs working with dangerous viruses, to understand
pathogens & develop new vaccines

While the US has blasted China for not releasing all the relevant
information on Covid-19, The Intercept said it had requested the
recently released documents back in September 2020.

Although they
don’t provide conclusive evidence to support the theory that Covid-19
was leaked from a Chinese lab, it does highlight the fact that risky
research into bat coronaviruses was being undertaken in the years
leading up the pandemic, and the US was not only well aware of that, but
also funded it. Bats have been identified as a possible zoonotic source
for the virus.

World Health Organization experts spent around a
month in China from January this year. Their report suggested that cases
identified in Wuhan in 2019 were believed to have been acquired from “a zoonotic source, as many [of those initially infected] reported visiting or working in the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market.”



Also on rt.com
‘Scapegoating China cannot whitewash the US’: Beijing blasts Washington ahead of American report into Covid-19 origins

Beijing has refused to take part in a second probe, rejecting the
lab leak theory while, in turn, calling for an investigation into
US-based laboratories.

Department of Commerce says it will stop surveilling citizens’ social media accounts for census “disinformation” – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/09/06/department-of-commerce-says-it-will-stop-surveilling-citizens-social-media-accounts-for-census-disinformation/

After finding it didn’t have “adequate legal authority.”

Source: Ken Macon

The Department of Commerce has announced it will end an internal security division after an investigation concluded that it abused its powers by launching criminal investigations into US citizens and employees in the department.

An investigation into the Investigations and Threat Management Service (ITMS), a division of the Commerce Department, by the department’s Office of General Counsel, said that the division did not have “adequate legal authority” to perform any criminal investigations.

The ITMS’ activities were brought into question following a report by the Washington Post. The division was then investigated by the Senate’s Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, led by Sen. Roger Wicker who released a memo claiming that the ITMS “surveilled social media activity on Twitter to monitor accounts that posted commentary critical of processes used to conduct the US Census.”

The memo added that the ITMS surveillance of social media was an effort to prove its “intelligence-gathering capabilities by linking those account holders – members of the general public – to disinformation campaigns orchestrated by foreign governments.”

But the ITMS never found any evidence of efforts to discredit the census.

The congressional investigation claimed that the questionable activities of the ITMS began in the mid-2000s. The department, during its announcement of the disbanding of the division, said that only two of ITMS’ investigations ended up in criminal charges.

The Office of General Counsel recommended the elimination of the ITMS within 90 days, suggesting the distribution of its other security duties to other divisions within the department.

Saying it would accept the recommendations of the General Counsel, the Department of Commerce, on Friday, said: “Our most important priority is creating an environment at the Department of Commerce where employees feel safe and respected. We are committed to maintaining our security, but also equally committed to protecting the privacy and civil liberties of our employees and the public.”

The investigation’s report said that the ITMS, while poorly managed, had “not found any firsthand or documentary evidence that racial, ethnic, or national origin bias motivated any specific cases,” as some had alleged.

The investigation also recommended the department to “discontinue the criminal law enforcement function that was part of ITMS’s mission, clarify that the Department does not possess the authority to conduct counterintelligence activities, and redistribute other remaining functions of ITMS to other offices.”

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.

Did The Biden Administration Commit to a Knowingly Unconstitutional Act? New Evidence Surfaces on the Presumed Invalidity of the Farm Debt Relief Provision – JONATHAN TURLEY

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/06/did-the-biden-administration-commit-to-a-knowingly-unconstitutional-act-new-evidence-surfaces-on-the-presumed-invalidity-of-the-farm-debt-relief-provision/

We have been discussing a growing list of losses of the Biden Administration in court, a record that began soon after inauguration. Most concerning is the litigation of legal claims that most legal experts viewed as unsustainable given recent Supreme Court precedent. In one such case on the eviction moratorium, President Biden admitted that his own White House counsel and their favorite legal experts all told him that the moratorium would clearly fail but he listened to Professor Laurence Tribe at the urging of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Despite the pledge to return to a respect for the “rule of law,” Biden openly suggested that they could use the litigation to get as much money out of the door as possible before being barred by the courts. They lost as many of us predicted. Now however there is a new email that suggests that the Biden Administration may have pushed another program that it viewed as presumptively unconstitutional under controlling precedent: the exclusion of white farmers under the debt relief program during the pandemic.

As we discussed earlier, the exclusion has been struck down by judges in various states as racially discriminatory. However, now a document has surfaced as part of discovery by the Bader Family Foundation in its lawsuit against the Agriculture Department. The June 2 emailfrom Lawrence Lucas of Justice for Black Farmers Group ends with an intriguing statement “Please remember it was the Biden/Harris transition team that you headed up that told us that debt relief for Black farmers was ‘unconstitutional.’” That agriculture transition team was headed by now Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

However, Vilsack then proceeded to add the provision to the law while critics were denounced as effective racists. He claimed that the racial preference was “one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in decades.” The media also heralded the legislation without even addressing the obvious constitutional concerns over its racial classifications. Federal courts later declared it as racial discrimination.

The legislation included a loan-forgiveness program for farmers and ranchers under Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). The program pays up to 120% of direct or guaranteed farm loan balances for Black, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian American or Pacific Islander farmers.

As part of the ARPA, Congress appropriated “such sums as may be necessary” to pay for the cost of loan modifications and payments to “socially disadvantaged” farmers and ranchers. § 1005(a)(1). The term “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” is defined under 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a). § 1005(b)(3) as a farmer or rancher who is a member of a “socially disadvantaged group.” § 2279(a)(5).

“Socially disadvantaged group” is then defined as “a group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” § 2279(a)(6).

The Biden Administration defines “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” to include individuals “who are one or more of the following: Black/African American, American Indian, Alaskan native, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, or Pacific Islander.” American Rescue Plan Debt Payments, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, available at https://www.farmers.gov/americanrescueplan.

The lawsuit was previously criticized as baseless or, as NBC reported, part of a “war against equity” by Trump supporters.

Nevertheless, the court found that the program was unambiguously discriminatory since “the only consideration in determining whether a farmer or rancher’s loans should be completely forgiven is the person’s race or national origin.” As such, “Plaintiffs are excluded from the program based on their race and are thus experiencing discrimination at the hands of their government.”

A federal judge in Wisconsin found on the required compelling interest that the Administration failed to state a case:

Here, Defendants lack a compelling interest for the racial classifications. Defendants assert that ‘Congress targeted the debt payments in Section 1005 to the minority groups that it determined had suffered discrimination in the USDA programs and that had been largely left out of recent agricultural funding and pandemic relief.’ But Defendants have not established that the loan-forgiveness program targets a specific episode of past or present discrimination. Defendants point to statistical and anecdotal evidence of a history of discrimination within the agricultural industry. But Defendants cannot rely on a ‘generalized assertion that there has been past discrimination in an entire industry’ to establish a compelling interest. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. at 498; see also Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 731 (plurality opinion) (‘remedying past societal discrimination does not justify race-conscious government action’). Defendants’ evidence of more recent discrimination includes assertions that the vast majority of funding from more recent agriculture subsidies and pandemic relief efforts did not reach minority farmers and statistical disparities.

According to this email, that may also have been the conclusion of the Biden transition team before the Administration introduced the provision and declared it to be “one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in decades.”

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.

Updated: Freedom from mandatory shots applies for all, including the troops – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/09/04/updated-freedom-from-mandatory-shots-applies-for-all-including-the-troops/

Source: Chad Groening

First Liberty Institute reports it has recently been “inundated” with requests for legal help about the legality of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The legal group also acknowledges that obedience to orders is essential for a functional military – and that with COVID-19, the order to “get the shot” enjoys the presumption of legality. A service member disobeying a lawful order supposedly does so at his or her peril.

Still, according to attorney Mike Berry of First Liberty Institute, a court-martial may not necessarily await service members with a sincere religious objection to these vaccinations.

“The government has an obligation to protect religious freedom for both people serving in uniform and people who are not serving in the military,” he explains to American Family News. “But I think it becomes especially important for those who serve in uniform to defend our freedoms that we ensure that they don’t lose those same freedoms.”

Berry adds that the mere fact there is a pandemic or a Delta variant shouldn’t change how the Constitution applies.

“… If it wants to force somebody against their religious convictions to get a vaccine, then the government is going to have to meet a pretty high legal standard in order to do that – and I suspect that in a court of law, they’re not going to be able to do that,” he states.

First Liberty argues that the DoD’s only option when a religious objection is cited to a mandatory vaccination is to prove that ordering the shots is the method least restrictive to the service member’s religious exercise – and that’s a “high burden,” the legal group says.

Approximately 80% of the 1.3 million on active duty are fully vaccinated, according to the Department of Defense – leaving about a quarter-million service members unvaccinated.

Whoops, She Did It Again | Centinel2012

https://centinel2012.com/2021/09/04/whoops-she-did-it-again/

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on September 3, 2021 | Sundance | 201 Comments

The COVID madness has created a most unusual dynamic for the residents down-under and the painfully monitored Australian media who have to be careful not to run afoul of the government COVID compliance watchers.

Once a nation creates an alternate reality of itself, in this case a totalitarian reality based on government needing to create an irrational illusion of fear that becomes part of the accepted national identity, how can a media outlet call attention to the outcomes without finding themselves in front of the governmental board of inquisition? That is the current challenge for media in Australia trying to report on their reality and yet avoid the ire from the national board of COVID compliance who have successfully brainwashed the audience.

One Australian media personality, Sky News host Rita Panahi, seems to have found a way. Ms Panahi continues to highlight broadcasts from around the world and articles in publications such as The Atlantic and The Times of London. The articles are commenting on the freedoms Australians had lost throughout the pandemic. Rita Panahi avoids the COVID Compliance censors by reporting on how the world is viewing Australian news. It is weird, and yet it is a perfect example of how bizarre the world has become over COVID. WATCH:

Publications around the world, which previously did not pay much attention to Australia, are wondering what sort of a dystopian nightmare we have turned into,” Panahi says. Later following with “we are not like the rest of the world. Australia and New Zealand stand alone in enforcing some of the most draconian restrictions on what are supposed to be free people.” Which is precisely the point.

I commend the strategy of Sky News and Rita Panahi for reporting behind enemy lines, to allies within her own nation, in such as manner as the enemy controlling the broadcast signal cannot remove her voice.