Horowitz: A private business can discriminate based on a vaccine? Tell that to Christian photographers



“Oh, of course private businesses can collude with the government to ensure that you have no access to employment, goods, and services and are marginalized from society if you don’t share their values — don’t you know that?” Well, that line of thought being used against those who don’t want a shot comes as news to anyone following the courts and anti-discrimination cases for the past decade.

Those who think that private businesses can engage in the most odious form of discrimination and force dangerous products into people’s bodies as a prerequisite to even participate in society, let me introduce you to Judge Frank Geraci Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. He ruled that New York can force Emilee Carpenter of Emilee Carpenter Photography to film a gay wedding against her most sincerely held religious beliefs.

“New York has a compelling interest in ensuring that individuals, without regard to sexual orientation, have equal access to publicly available goods and services, and that the Accommodation clause is narrowly tailored, as applied to Plaintiff, to serve that interest,” Geraci wrote in a Dec. 13 ruling.

Just how strong is this “compelling interest,” according to Judge Geraci? “As a result, even if the Accommodation clause compels speech or expressive association in a manner that implicates Plaintiff’s free-speech and free-association interests, the provision survives strict scrutiny,” concluded the judge in dismissing Carpenter’s lawsuit against the New York state government.

In other words, there is such an amazingly compelling state interest in ensuring that one out of 100 photographers doesn’t refuse service for a gay wedding that a state can downright compel you to engage in speech and activities that violate your conscience. Yet at the same time, we are told that a red state cannot tell private businesses “what not to do” by ordering them not to discriminate against workers or customers who decline to take the jab. Not only is this gross hypocrisy, but there are numerous differences that make the double standard of the court system all the more appalling.

  1. In the cases of the florists, photographers, and bakers who decline to service a gay wedding, they are not refusing to ever serve the individual, just that particular event. Contrast this to the vaccine mandates, and they are refusing to employ or serve the individual for anything.
  2. In the case of the photographer, the owner is abiding by her religious beliefs not to participate in something she finds anathema to her conscience. No such claim can be made with the vaccines, unless we are to concede that mass vaccination has become a religion. By definition, someone’s vaccination status cannot affect another human being, given that the others can obtain that amazing protection. Moreover, the shots never stopped transmission and, with the new variant, appear to cause more transmission.
  3. In the case of wedding services, the number of those declining is a minority of a minority. The culture condones homosexuality to a point where the customers could probably get discounts and better service almost anywhere within miles. Contrast this to the vaccine wars, and people without the shot are being marginalized from every aspect of society, employment, and higher education and now have the threat of inability to access life-sustaining goods, services, and treatment – including organ transplants.
  4. In the case of the gay weddings or employment of homosexuals, nobody is requiring the individuals to engage in a specific action they find offensive, as they are with requiring a dangerous shot in one’s body. The equivalent of the jab mandate for the bakers would be for a business to say you must engage in heterosexual sex in order for me to hire you or serve you. Or explained in the opposite direction, the court mandates to service gay weddings would be the equivalent of us demanding that businesses hire a certain quota of people without the jab and service events, fundraisers, and rallies fighting the jabs.
  5. In the case of the vaccine wars, the government has fostered a discriminatory culture throughout the country with billions of dollars of funding, marketing, coercing, and absolving manufactures of liability. Thus, it is not coming from a “private” concern, but clearly from the government, even when there is no direct requirement. The equivalent dynamic with gay weddings would be if the government spent billions of dollars marketing homosexuals as dangers to society, spreading HIV and syphilis, and then, when “private” businesses respond to the calling from government, asserting that “a private business can do what they want.”

But in the end, the two mandates actually are in harmony with each other in one respect: They both reek of fascism. They both require a person to actively participate in something that is anathema to his body or spirit against his will. Notice how religious conscience loses in both directions – both when the one asserting the right is an employer and when it is an employee or customer.

Now is the time for red states to pass systemic protections for people who don’t want to risk the senseless shots that are currently made moot by Omicron. The slate is not clean when it comes to private practice and discrimination law. If we are going to indulge absurd levels of anti-discrimination law – to the point of forcing Christian photographers to film two men kissing – you better believe we are going to enforce anti-discrimination law when the discriminatory behavior is senseless, is all-encompassing to the point of apartheid, and is being systematically fueled by the federal government.

Horowitz: Omicron itself might turn out to be the real vaccine



Bizarrely, rather than focusing on the failures of the vaccine to deal with the existing, more deadly strain of coronavirus, the global governments are using the new, milder variant as a pretext for control simply because “newer” always means scarier. As such, they are pushing the vaccine more than ever, even though there is now a clear data picture showing that the virus is so mild there is no need for a vaccine, plus the vaccine actually makes it worse. So, based on their premise that Omicron is cause for panic, shouldn’t there be a downright ban on the shots based on data from multiple countries?

According to the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen, as of Dec. 13, 90.5% of all Omicron cases in Denmark, a country where the new variant is spreading rapidly, were vaccinated. Comparing the overall vaccination rates, this means that the double-jabbed are more than twice as likely to get Omicron than the unvaccinated. Put another way, Omicron represented 8% of the cases in the triple vaccinated, 5.5% in the double vaccinated, and 1.2% in the unvaccinated. Seeing a pattern?

Are the double-vaccinated now more susceptible to infection?\n\nDoes it affect the risk/benefit assessment?pic.twitter.com/u6aKRyPVot
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1639677179

The Danish experience so far harmonizes very well with a CDC analysis of the first 43 known Omicron cases in the U.S., where 80% were double-jabbed. Halfway around the world in Israel, the country’s health ministry announced as of Dec. 12 that 76% of Omicron cases are among the triple vaxxed. Although Israel has the highest share of boosters in the world, the percentage of triple vaxxed in the overall population is still just 58%. Even California Governor Gavin Newsom admitted, “The overwhelming majority [of Omicron cases] have been fully vaccinated.”

Thus, if Omicron is now the new ploy to return to March 2020-style government authoritarianism, shouldn’t governments downright ban the shots rather than promote and even mandate them? Fauci is predicting hospitals will be “overwhelmed” when Omicron becomes dominant. Mandating the shots, according to his misguided view of Omicron, is like requiring a blowtorch to “extinguish” a fire. In fact, Fauci even admitted earlier this week that South Africa, a country with a low vaccination rate, didn’t experience much critical illness from Omicron because of built immunity.

Moreover, as everyone acknowledges this version of the virus spreads very quickly, the worst thing you could do now (if you believe Omicron must be avoided) is get a shot. Studies have shown the shots initially suppress your immune system for several weeks before ramping up antibodies. Therefore, by the time you would have the theoretical protection (which seems not to work for Omicron anyway), you likely would have gotten the virus anyway. A study published earlier this year by the Statens Serum Institut found that health care workers within seven days of the first shot were more than twice as likely to get infected than those unvaccinated. That is only going to be magnified by this variant, with quicker spread taking place right as governments are ramping up the mandatory vaccination campaigns.

However, fortunately, it looks like it won’t even matter if the vaccine makes it worse or not. All the reports and data we are seeing from Omicron indicate that it is mild like a common cold and infinitely better to catch than Delta. In fact, the only reason to tell people to lock down now is not because of Omicron but to give another two weeks so that Omicron boxes out Delta!

In Israel, 60% of the estimated Omicron cases are asymptomatic. In Denmark, just like in South Africa, we are seeing no additional pressure being placed on the hospitals – a complete decoupling between cases and hospitalizations.

Today's update from Denmark.\n\nZERO hospital pressure.\n\nOmicron seems to be on its way to repeat the milder South African experience in Europe.pic.twitter.com/SuNwO8D2Ak
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1639583986

As the U.K. Telegraph reports, South Africa’s virus death rate is now one in 200 – the lowest it has been throughout the pandemic and 10 times lower than last September. The hospitalization rate per COVID case has dropped 91% relative to the Delta wave. There are currently only 509 people in the ICU – fewer than one per hospital – despite several weeks of the rapid Omicron spread. To further drive home this point, the AP reports that Orange County, Florida, officials found that nearly 100% of the SARS-CoV-2 strains in the city’s waste were Omicron. Yet, Orange County barely has anyone in the hospital, and few people have bothered to test. At least as of now, Omicron is so “dangerous” that people don’t even test for it. The reason the hospitals are still loaded in the northern states experiencing their seasonal wave is because of the existing Delta cases.

A new preprint from University of Hong Kong sheds some pathophysiological insight on the data and observations we are seeing at the clinical level. By isolating the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant in human lung tissue and comparing it to the original strain, researchers found that it barely affects the lungs and is primarily an upper respiratory infection, aka a cold.

They found that the novel Omicron variant replicates faster than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and Delta variant in the human bronchus. At 24 hours after infection, the Omicron variant replicated around 70 times higher than the Delta variant and the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. In contrast, the Omicron variant replicated less efficiently (more than 10 times lower) in the human lung tissue than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, which may suggest lower severity of disease.

What made COVID so dangerous, and the Delta variant likely enhanced by the vaccine in particular, is that it attacked the lungs and spawned an aggressive pulmonary inflammation. The fact that this variant stays higher up in the system perfectly explains why it’s so contagious through the nasal pharynx but also so mild. It would also explain why it appears that even some of those with prior infection are getting infected. After all, your body doesn’t store memory cells for a common cold.

Hence, the public health officials can’t have it both ways. Either Omicron is a de facto vaccine itself and the solution to the pandemic and should be embraced, or, if it’s somehow a harbinger of doom and gloom, the vaccines are the problem and should be banned because they are clearly spreading it.

US Army reports 98% vaccination rate among active-duty soldiers



The U.S. Army reported Thursday that 97.9% of active-duty soldiers had received at least one dose of the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine following this week's deadline; however, the Associated Press reports that more than 3,800 soldiers have outright refused the vaccine and could face removal proceedings next month.

The Army has the second-highest vaccination rate, with fewer than 1,700 soldiers seeking religious exemptions. This number is quite low in comparison to the other three branches, with 3,000 in the Marine Corps, 4,700 in the Air Force, and 2,700 in the Navy seeking religious exemptions, according to the Associated Press report.

At this time, no religious exemptions have been granted. The Army has a policy of reviewing each exemption on a case-by-case basis to determine if the request is appropriate. Medical exemptions are reviewed by health care providers, while religious exemptions require that a soldier must be interviewed by a chaplain, as well as receive recommendations from the chain of command and undergo public health and legal review, according to a statement released by the Army Thursday.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin mandated that all service members be fully vaccinated earlier this year, following the FDA's approval of the vaccine. "Our administration of safe, effective COVID-19 vaccines has produced admirable results to date, and I know the Department of Defense will come together to finish the job, with urgency, professionalism, and compassion," Austin wrote in a memo released in August.

The Pentagon has not yet decided if it will make booster shots mandatory for all service members, but is still evaluating the option, according to the Associated Press.

The Army announced Thursday that 468,459 active-duty soldiers had taken the vaccine, and those who have not will be removed from service beginning in January if they haven't received an exemption or don't have pending exemption status.

Army reports also indicate that commanders have relieved six active-duty leaders, including two battalion commanders, and have issued 2,767 general officer written reprimands to soldiers for refusing the vaccination order, according to a statement released by Army officials.

“Vaccinating our Soldiers against COVID-19 is first and foremost about Army readiness,” said Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth in an official statement Thursday.

Vaccination rates for the other three branches of service also appear to be quite high, with the Navy at an over 98% vaccination rate and the Air Force's current rate totaling 97.5%. The Marine Corps has the lowest rate of vaccination at 95%, according to numbers given to the Associated Press.

Horowitz: Barrett and Kavanaugh’s appalling hypocrisy on discrimination law and religious liberty



The federal government can’t control our bodies, but state governments and businesses can violate our bodily integrity and religious liberty or engage in senseless unscientific discrimination. That is the upshot of the principle emanating from the courts after a torrent of vaccine mandate litigation, thanks to Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joining the other liberals. In reality, under no other circumstance have the courts allowed states to violate bodily autonomy, even when they have legitimate state interests. Likewise, it comes at a time when the courts are forcing anti-discrimination laws on private businesses, even when it violates the owners’ religious conscience.

After a long winning streak in the courts against Biden’s sundry federal vaccine mandates, the pro-liberty side lost a pair of cases in the federal courts that have bearings on either state mandates or private business mandates. At SCOTUS, six justices denied emergency injunctive relief to New York health care workers who are being deprived of a religious liberty exemption to the state’s vaccine mandate. Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito would have granted the relief because of the irreparable harm incurred pending the litigation. Separately, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals declined to enjoin United Airlines from imposing a mandate on its employees.

Coupled with decisions the Supreme Court has already made this year, it’s quite evident that the mandates are here to stay in blue states, and many businesses will continue forcing them even in red states until more legislatures take action.

State powers flipped upside down

The fact that Barrett and Kavanaugh believe that a state can stop you from earning a living and impose senseless discrimination for a vaccine that does not stop spread (and might even facilitate it) – even against religious objections – is even more shocking when you examine recent court rulings on state powers, religious liberty, and asserted health care “rights.”

In June, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh declined to join the three conservatives in ruling that it's categorically unconstitutional for cities to bar adoption agencies from only delivering adopted children to families with a mother and father. So, they now believe states have a license to discriminate on behalf of the right causes.

Now consider the fact that they (along with Gorsuch) also refused to join Thomas and Alito in overturning a radical Fourth Circuit opinion forcing school districts to allow boys in girls' bathrooms. Accordingly, a state is so powerful that it has the right to force you to get an experimental injection that doesn’t work against transmission, but at the same time it does not have a legitimate vital interest in keeping boys out of girls’ bathrooms. Put another way, a person has a legitimate “right” to access the opposite sex’s bathroom, but that same person doesn’t have the right to be secure in his body against government coercion. If this is what a conservative court looks like, I’d hate to see what a liberal one is.

In May 2020, before Barrett was on the court, only Thomas and Alito wanted to hear a case to overrule a Ninth Circuit ruling declaring it cruel and unusual punishment not to provide a sex offender in prison with access to castration and transgender hormone therapy. So as it stands now in the nation’s highest court, you have the right to force a state to provide you with a castration operation at taxpayer expense and be placed in a female prison, yet you don’t have the right to have your body left alone.

When considering the backward view of the scope of state powers, let’s not forget that in 2019, the Supreme Court refused to overturn a Ninth Circuit opinion preventing the city of Boise from cleaning up homeless encampments. So while a state evidently has the power to rule over your body for a shot that does not affect anyone else’s health, it has no power to clean up its streets from crime, drugs, vagrancy, and chaos ruining city neighborhoods – a basic police power of a city and state to wield.

Businesses crushed by zealous anti-discrimination laws, except when it actually matters

Now let’s turn to the so-called private business mandates. “Well, a private business can discriminate against anyone for health concerns, right?” Dream on. This is the same court that denied an appeal from Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers, to assert the private property, free speech, and religious liberty right to decline to service a same-sex ceremony with floral arrangements. Only Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would have taken the appeal.

So once again, at a time when we are told private businesses can demand that patrons or employees cover their breathing orifices or accept an experimental injection, we are also told a private business must actively service an anathema to the proprietor's religion. A mom-and-pop shop can’t merely decline to service an event that violates the tenets of every major religion, but every major corporation in an entire industry can collaborate with government to essentially implement apartheid and box out people from all employment if they don’t get an experimental shot.

Also, unlike in Arlene’s Flowers, where the owner was asserting a religious grievance, there is no scientifically proven grievance for a business owner to force employees to get a shot. Nobody disagrees that the shots do not stop transmission or lower viral load; it’s all a question of how much personal protection they provide. If anything, the latest data seems to indicate that the vaccinated get and spread Omicron more than the unvaccinated.

The notion that 60 years into anti-discrimination laws in the workplace, all businesses can bar people for not taking an action against their bodies is absurd. Can employers force employees to take certain actions to ensure they are not more likely, in their view, to get HIV? Good luck with that. Just take the recent Bostock opinion, in which Gorsuch himself wrote that private businesses are compelled by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act not to fire any worker for coming in as a cross-dresser. Even though this can be much more harmful and potentially disruptive to a work environment than someone not getting a shot, which, by definition, cannot affect those who supposedly have the protection, it is now “the law of the land” that you cannot discriminate based on that behavior. Allowing businesses to force you to get a dangerous, ineffective, and possibly transmission-inducing shot is actually even worse because it’s the equivalent of a business forcing you to cross-dress as condition of employment.

As Judge James Ho wrote in his dissent in the Fifth Circuit case involving United Airlines, “Title VII was ‘intended to protect the same rights in private employment as the Constitution protects.’ Riley v. Bendix Corp., 464 F.2d 1113, 1116 (5th Cir. 1972) (quotations omitted). And ‘[a]t the risk of belaboring the obvious, Title VII aimed to ensure that employees would not have to sacrifice their jobs to observe their religious practices.’ Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, 721 F.3d 444, 456 (7th Cir. 2013).”

Unlike transgenderism, religious conscience is directly covered by Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of religion and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for “all aspects of” an employee’s religious beliefs, absent “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Forcing an employee to ruin his God-given immune system for a shot that absolutely will not protect the employee is the ultimate undue hardship.

The point is that decades into a very strict and increasingly intensifying anti-discrimination regime on states and the private sector – especially in the realms of health care, bodily choice, religious liberty, and privacy – it is simply appalling to greenlight the most destructive, senseless, and dangerous form of discrimination of all time. The slate on regulation of private employment and state powers is not clean – not by a long shot.

Take HIV, for example. Contracting HIV is certainly much more the fault of the infected person in 99% of cases than it is with coronavirus, which has proven unavoidable unless you stay under a rock forever. Yet a federal judge in Puerto Rico ruled in 1990 that the zoning department, under pressure from concerned citizens, could not block a permit for construction of a hospice for AIDS patients simply because people had public health concerns.

José Antonio Fusté, former chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, ruled at the time that although there is “great cause for concern” about the AIDS epidemic, “when legitimate concern is fanned by a profound misunderstanding of the causes of AIDS, the rush to panic can easily result in illegal and unjustifiable discrimination against not only the disease's victims but also against the laudable efforts of individuals working to contain the flames.” He concluded that the Puerto Rican authority, “by misguidedly succumbing to community pressure, has itself become a party to such discrimination.”

The point is that the people in the community had no greater risk of getting AIDS from the presence of the hospice people there than without them in the area. Likewise, the science is clear that no person, group of people, or business runs a greater risk of contracting the virus based on another person’s vaccination status. In fact, the argument is even stronger here precisely because, unlike with HIV, there is a vaccine that is supposedly so amazingly effective in stopping severe illness. Which makes the concern about “the other guy’s” vaccination status all the more shrill and illogical. Either it works or it doesn’t.

Also, in this case, we are talking about healthy people who test negative and have no apparent symptoms, or who often already had the virus and have greater immunity than the vaccinated without prior infection. Even though in the Puerto Rico case, the people themselves irrevocably and permanently were infected with the disease, the 1990 order called the actions taken by the people in the community “irrational” and unfounded.” “Generalized perceptions about disabilities and unfounded speculations about threats to safety are specifically rejected as grounds to justify exclusion,” wrote Judge Fusté in the 1990 opinion.

How come none of this applies today?

It’s self-evident that red states need to interpose themselves between the federal tyranny and the people. There is nothing free-market about businesses suddenly requiring ineffective shots and bizarre face diapers. It was all induced by the government in the first place. As we now know from private emails between Anthony Fauci and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, they collaborated at every stage of this fascism to censor, marginalize, and discriminate against anyone who disagreed with the government.

When a private business can deny service to a gay wedding or employment to someone for having HIV or cross-dressing, then we can discuss a private businesses’ right to enforce federal tyranny with a product endorsed, funded, and exempted from liability by the government. Until then, we expect every red state to ban these mandates and subject businesses to workplace injury liability. Equal protection under the law has to mean something, even if the judges believe some people are more equal than others.

Horowitz: It’s time for state constitutional amendments against bio-fascist government mandates



"No earthly king or president or public health official or billionaire technocrat gets to dictate what we must put into our bodies.” ~Rev. Ed Meeks, Towson, Maryland

Outside a few states, no Republican-controlled government has even repudiated the current iteration of COVID fascism, much less immunized the population from future usurpations. Over the past 20 months, the governing elites have successfully established a premise that they can shout “public health emergency” and mandate any form of restriction or action against your body, property, or movement without any due process, transparency, evidentiary standards, oversight, or democratic process. The lesson of the past year is that no such morality or science could ever necessitate such an outcome.

Undoubtedly, Republicans can run Mickey Mouse on the ballot in every state and win big in next year’s midterm elections. But on which principles are they running? Absent an effort to direct the national election towards the raging fire consuming liberty and medical freedom, we will elect the same Republicans who not only fail to put out this fire, but actually add their own lighter fluid against liberty, as most of them agree with Anthony Fauci and company and most aspects of public health tyranny. What if we pursued a national strategy of state constitutional amendments placed on the ballot in as many red states as possible prohibiting bio-medical tyranny and immunizing us from any future attempt to resurrect it?

While it’s nearly impossible to add amendments to the national Constitution, many state constitutions can be amended by some quorum of legislators, a ballot initiative, or a mixture of both. If Republicans in deep red states (and even some swing states) were forced to take a stand, it is quite achievable to successfully get an amendment on the ballot in many states affirming the right to bodily integrity, property, and freedom of movement. It’s time for voters to finally have their say on the most consequential question of our time, if not the entire existence of this country.

One great example of such an effort is Pennsylvania HB 2013, authored by Rep. Russ Diamond. The proposed state constitutional amendment, which is sponsored by 20 Republicans and already passed the relevant House committee, creates a right to medical freedom with the following language:

The right of an individual to refuse any medical procedure, treatment, injection, vaccine or prophylactic may not be questioned or interfered with in any manner. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged to any person in this Commonwealth because of the exercise of the right under this section.

This is a simple proposition we should all agree upon as a free country and indeed never had to contemplate until now. But absent an effort to promote this in as many states as possible, we literally are no longer a free people.

To be clear, this is not about creating a right to a treatment or services (such as an abortion), but freedom from government action taken against our bodies. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his famous Obergefell dissent: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”

The freedom to breathe and move without government requiring injections or that we cover our breathing holes is the most basic expression of liberty. If Republicans running for office this election cannot rally behind this simple proposition, then all their platitudes about “limited government” are meaningless. Placing such an amendment on the ballot in as many states as possible will make it hard for weaselly Republicans to dodge COVID fascism as a campaign issue and make this issue front and center in every campaign.

In Pennsylvania itself, it is not possible to get the amendment on the ballot for this election because state law requires any amendment proposal pass in two successive legislative sessions. However, Republicans control both houses in 32 states, many of them with supermajorities, that can easily be harnessed to get these amendments on the ballot for the upcoming election. Moreover, a number of states give voters the power to initiate constitutional amendment ballot questions by gathering signatures and completely bypassing the legislature. According to Ballotpedia, the list includes:

  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Illinois
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregon
  • South Dakota

Also, even in the states where there is no viable path to a legislative or initiative-based constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot, several states do allow a right to initiate a ballot question that is a statutory change. They include Alaska, Idaho, and Maine. It’s still important to codify into statute that no government can take away your life, liberty, and property or freedom of movement for a declared emergency.

The Pennsylvania legislature will convene for three days in December, and it’s important for House majority leader Kerry Benninghoff to schedule a vote on this matter immediately. This is the most effective way to bypass the Democrat governor, take the issue directly to the people, and define the election around the most meaningful messaging and policy.

It is shocking that 20 months into the most deadly and devastating form of fascism ever in American history, numerous Republican states still have not lifted a finger to fight COVID fascism, despite enjoying supermajorities. With 39-11 and 71-29 majorities in the Senate and House respectively, Indiana Republicans couldn’t even end the unlawful emergency declaration from RINO Gov. Eric Holcomb, much less pass any protections against mandates, during last week’s special session.

Sadly, we should not even need constitutional amendments to affirm bare-bones human rights during a time of a declared emergency. As the great Justice Robert Jackson said in the landmark Youngstown case of 1952, “Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis.”

“They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation,” wrote Jackson. “We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies.”

Justice Jackson, aside from being the lead dissenter in the Japanese internment case, was the lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial. The time has come for a political party and movement to arise that will rekindle the liberty, due process, and anti-fascism that successfully punished the perpetrators of bio-medical experimentation at Nuremberg and harness them once again in our time.

Horowitz: Are elites planning a COVID repeat ... with smallpox?



Those who watched Glenn Beck's special presentation Wednesday night on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 now understand that people like Bill Gates spent over a decade both funding coronavirus gain-of-function research and, curiously, warning about the coming of a coronavirus pandemic. So with Bill Gates insinuating that there might be a smallpox pandemic — an idea we would have laughed off as the ultimate conspiracy theory a few years ago — we should pay close attention.

What is the likelihood that less than two weeks after the most notorious global financier of vaccine research warns about an outbreak of the long-extinct smallpox virus, questionable smallpox vials would show up in a Merck lab? Well, this is the world we now live in, or perhaps the world our globalist overlords have now created.

During a Policy Exchange think tank interview with the chair of the U.K. parliament's Health and Social Care Select Committee and former U.K. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Bill Gates randomly and shockingly warned of a smallpox bioterror attack. "You say, OK, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports? You know, how would the world respond to that?" asked Gates rhetorically in the creepy Nov. 4 interview with Hunt. "There's naturally caused epidemics and bioterrorism-caused epidemics that could even be way worse than what we experienced today."

There's no evidence of any terrorist organization even focusing on this issue, which was more of a concern among our counterterrorism community during the previous decade.

Fast-forward to Monday night outside Philadelphia, and Yahoo News reported that the CDC is quarantining and the FBI is investigating 15 "questionable vials"that were found in a Merck lab freezer in North Wales, Pa., with 10 labeled as "Vaccinia" and the remaining five labeled as deadly "Smallpox."

As Yahoo reported: "The frozen vials labeled 'Smallpox' were incidentally discovered by a laboratory worker while cleaning out a freezer in a facility that conducts vaccine research in Pennsylvania," the CDC said in a statement to Yahoo News. "CDC, its Administration partners, and law enforcement are investigating the matter and the vials' contents appear intact. The laboratory worker who discovered the vials was wearing gloves and a face mask. We will provide further details as they are available."

"Vaccinia" is related to the pathogen that causes smallpox and was used as the foundation to create the vaccine for smallpox. In fact, the etymology of the word vaccine dates back to the late 18th century when cowpox was used as a precursor to smallpox vaccines. "Cow" in Latin is "vacca."

It is well known that it's illegal for Merck to hold such a vial in a freezer. What is Merck's explanation for having this in its freezer in a random storage locker?

In normal times, we'd dismiss these concerns, but the discovery of a labeled pathogen and at least the symbolism of the antidote beside it – following a warning by the vaccine pope of the world – actually mimics the lead-up to COVID almost perfectly.

A brief history of how we got here: coronavirus and vaccines

For two decades, there was a seamless web of people like Fauci, Gates, Peter Daszak, and Ralph Baric working on coronavirus gain-of-function research, pursuing coronavirus vaccines, and warning about the imminence of an outbreak. So we should take these people seriously when they warn of other outbreaks, because evidently they are "in the know."

Here is just a small segment of the history behind the virus:

  • In January 2010, Bill Gates predicted we'd be ushering in the "decade of vaccines."
  • In 2012, the NIH partnered with Moderna, an obscure start-up company, to create mRNA vaccines. They are still fighting over the patent rights to this day.
  • On Sept. 9, 2013, Ralph Baric, the doctor behind the coronavirus gain-of-function research at UNC Chapel Hill in cooperation with the Wuhan lab, announced a $10 million grant from Fauci's NIAID "to study the pathogenic activity of viruses including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), Ebola, highly pathogenic influenza and herpesvirus HHV8," which will help "identify novel targets for therapeutic intervention and improve strategies for vaccine design."
  • In November 2015, Baric and company publish their discovery in Nature magazine on cracking the code of transferring coronavirus from bats into mice with human lung tissue that is now pathogenic and can create an epidemic. Last month, the NIH finally admitted in a letter to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that the agency indeed did fund EcoHealth's support of Baric, together with the Wuhan lab that succeeded in enhancing a bat coronavirus to become more infectious to humans. The NIH blamed EcoHealth and called the breakthrough research "an unexpected result."

Now consider the fact that on Jan. 10, 2017, Fauci delivered a speech at Georgetown University's conference on "Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration" and warned that there "definitely" would be another pandemic. He ended his speech (around the 38:25 minute mark) warning "the administration that is going to come in in the next few days" is going to have to deal with a pandemic. After listing some potential pandemics, he boldly predicted, "What is for sure that no matter what, history has told us definitively that it will happen." He added, "The thing we are extraordinarily confident about is that we will see this in the next few years."

It's one thing to say you always have to be ready for an unprecedented pandemic, but to predict definitively with extraordinary confidence that it will happen within a "few years," most certainly falling within the term of the next president? That is downright creepy, given his funding of the very research that likely created the virus.

But perhaps his comments could be dismissed as doomsday prophecy from a man steeped in infectious diseases … if not for a germ war game the Obama administration played with the Trump transition team just three days later, accompanied by an ominous policy change Trump was certainly unaware of. Last March, Obama's homeland security and counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco revealed in "Foreign Affairs" that on Jan. 13, 2017, Obama national security officials held a pandemic war game exercise with transition team members from the incoming Trump administration. She described the scenario as follows: "A new virus was spreading with alarming speed, causing global transportation stoppages, supply-chain disruptions, and plunging stock prices. With a vaccine many months away, U.S. health-care infrastructure was severely strained."

However, what she does not reveal, but what Peter Breggin pointed out in his book, "COVID-19 and the Global Predators," is that on that very same day in 2017, the FDA placed a new regulation in the Federal Register that "enhances FDA's authority" to shepherd through policies and products in the event of a "pandemic influenza." Specifically, the regulation "Permit[s] FDA to waive otherwise applicable current good manufacturing practice requirements (e.g., storage or handling) to accommodate emergency response needs" and allows CDC "to create and issue "emergency use instructions" concerning the FDA-approved conditions of use for eligible products."

The "medical products" affected by these changes, which are referred to as "medical countermeasures" (MCMs)," include "drugs (e.g., antivirals and antidotes), biological products (e.g., vaccines, blood products, and biological therapeutics), and devices (e.g., in vitro diagnostics and personal protective equipment)."

There are many more interconnected webs, but fast-forward to October 18, 2019, supposedly two months before the pandemic, and the Gates Foundation, in conjunction with Johns Hopkins University and the World Economic Forum – the three major players in this escapade – held "Event 201," which simulated "an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic."

What is the nature of the pathogen? "The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms."

What was the purpose of the simulation? Among other things, "Governments, international organizations, and businesses should plan now for how essential corporate capabilities will be utilized during a large-scale pandemic."

And as they say, the rest is history.

Other important dates and documents in the timeline of the cover-up can be found here.

Deja vu with smallpox?

So when Bill Gates is warning about smallpox right before vials of smallpox are discovered, and in the same week a Maryland woman tests positive for monkeypox, we should pay attention.

But that is not even the punch line. Just like with coronavirus, they were already working on a "cure." On June 4, the CDC randomly approved a smallpox drug, Tembexa (brincidofovir), because "there have been longstanding concerns that the virus that causes smallpox, the variola virus, could be used as a bioweapon."

It is well known that no pharma company will spend hundreds of millions developing a drug for an eradicated disease, on which there is no way to earn billions in profit. Now, even if this drug was around before and they are repurposing it for smallpox, it still costs millions to go through the process. Why?

And speaking of this history of this drug, it sounds eerily similar to the drugs they have approved for COVID, including remdesivir. It turns out that like Gilead's remdesivir and Merck's molnupiravir, brincidofovir was a failed repurposed drug with safety concerns. Its maker, Chimerix, conducted three failed Phase 3 trials for the indication of adenovirus, and it flopped! It also comes with an FDA "black box" warning for use for smallpox, for increased mortality after taking more than just two doses, based on those same failed studies!

So just like remdesivir, the drug they plan to use is an expensive, on-patent drug, although repurposed. But unlike ivermectin, which was extraordinarily safe and effective for its original use – yet is vociferously opposed by the cabal – these drugs failed miserably in their original indications. Just like the other two failed COVID drugs approved by the FDA – baricitinib and tofacitinib – this smallpox drug comes with an FDA black box warning!

Shockingly, the FDA notes in its June 4 approval letter that it did not conduct any human trials for safety and relied on the "Animal Rule," "which allows findings from adequate and well-controlled animal efficacy studies to serve as the basis of an approval when it is not feasible or ethical to conduct efficacy trials in humans." But that is only when it is proven from previous approved indications to be safe and effective so that it can be repurposed for a secondary indication in its same formulation based on animal studies … you know, like perhaps something like ivermectin being used for antiviral after approval for parasites because it was so safe and effective. But this drug was proven unsafe and ineffective to the point that it never got approval for its primary indication and is now being used for a secondary indication without a human study!

Typically, the cure is created after the illness, but in this case perhaps the illness is coming to "cure" what they perceive to be an ailment among we the people. And perhaps the proposed "cures" will look a lot like ailments, just as we have seen with the shots, remdesivir, baricitinib, and tofacitinib – and most likely will see with Merck and Pfizer's new COVID drugs.