Actress Evangeline Lilly stands in solidarity with anti-vaccine mandate protesters



Actress Evangeline Lilly, a pro-choice Democrat, spoke out against vaccine mandates Thursday in an Instagram post that stirred online controversy.

The "Ant-Man" and "Lost" star revealed that she attended a protest against vaccine mandates in Washington D.C. last weekend, calling the mandates "not safe."

"I was in DC this weekend to support bodily sovereignty while Canadian truckers were rallying for their cross-country, peaceful convoy in support of the same thing," Lilly announced, referencing the ongoing Freedom Convoy in Canada traveling from Vancouver to Ottawa in protest of the country's vaccine mandates.

She was one of thousands of people rallying in D.C. on Sunday. Crowds gathered on the National Mall chanted "no more mandates" and called on the government to end the mass firing of workers who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

A look around the Defeat the Mandates rally taking place at the Lincoln Memorial.pic.twitter.com/u8oMkD0iLD
— Alejandro Alvarez (@Alejandro Alvarez) 1642963995

"I believe nobody should ever be forced to inject their body with anything, against their will ... under any threat whatsoever," the 42-year-old actress wrote after the protest.

"This is not the way. This is not safe. This is not healthy. This is not love. I understand the world is in fear, but I don't believe that answering fear with force will fix our problems," she continued.

"I was pro-choice before COVID and I am still pro-choice today," she said.

The reaction to her post was unkind.

"This is pro ignorance. Ugh, this comes from a highly privileged white woman who think she's being woke when the reality is just that she hasn't read enough," one commenter wrote on her post.

"This goes beyond personal choice- it is about caring for others (especially those who are immune-compromised) during a pandemic. It is selfish to remain unvaccinated," another said.

Many people on social media interpreted Lilly's post as a stance against the COVID-19 vaccines, but that's not what she wrote. Lilly said she was against vaccine mandates, and the first picture in her post features a protester with a sign that reads, "Vaxxed Democrat for Medical Freedom."

This is not the first time the movie star has caused controversy with an Instagram post on COVID-19. In March 2020, Lilly wrote a post that she would not self-quarantine because she valued her freedom.

"Where we are right now feels a lot too close to Marshall Law for my comfort already, all in the name of a respiratory flu," she said at the time. "It's unnerving ... Let's be vigilant right now. And kind. Watchful and gracious — keeping a close eye on our leaders, making sure they don't abuse this moment to steal away more freedoms and grab more power."

But after widespread backlash to her comments, Lilly apologized for showing "insensitivity" to those that had suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also stated that she began social distancing like everyone else two days after her controversial post.

Germany to lock down unvaccinated people with sweeping restrictions



Germany will impose sweeping new restrictions against unvaccinated people in response to rising coronavirus cases, authorities said Thursday.

Outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel and her successor, Olaf Scholz, announced that unvaccinated people will be prohibited from entering public places like theaters, cinemas, and restaurants unless they've recently recovered from COVID-19. Private gatherings that include unvaccinated people who have not recently recovered from the disease will be restricted to one household and a maximum of two individuals from a different household.

“Culture and leisure nationwide will be open only to those who have been vaccinated or recovered,” Merkel said. "We have understood that the situation is very serious and that we want to take further measures in addition to those already taken.”

Large events will also face new restrictions. The number of spectators who attend an indoor event cannot exceed 5,000, while outdoor events will be capped at 10,000 people. Only vaccinated people will be allowed to attend these events, Politico reported Wednesday.

In areas of the country that report more than 350 new infections per 100,000 people over seven days, indoor nightclubs will be forced to close and mask mandates will be put into effect in schools for students of all ages.

Merkel also said that a nationwide vaccine mandate could be imposed in February 2022, once Parliament votes to approve such a measure.

She added that vaccinated people will lose their vaccination status nine months after getting their last shot, in an apparent attempt to force people to take booster shots.

The restrictions come as coronavirus cases are surging in Germany. On Thursday, Germany reported 73,000 new COVID-19 cases and 388 deaths. The day before, health officials reported 67,186 new infections and 446 deaths — the highest number of daily deaths reported in nine months.

Currently, 68.7% of the country's population is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, short of the government's goal of 75%.

Merkel described the new restrictions as an "act of national solidarity" that will "get the infection rate down and take the pressure off our health system."

"The number of infections has stabilized, but on a far too high a level," she said.

Several European countries are adopting vaccine mandates, including Austria and Greece, and the European Union is considering a bloc-wide mandate.

European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday the EU should "potentially think about mandatory vaccination" as concerns grow over the Omicron variant discovered in South Africa last week.

"Two or three years ago, I would never have thought to witness what we see right now, that we have this horrible pandemic, we have the vaccines, the life-saving vaccines, but they are not being used adequately everywhere," von der Leyen told reporters.

"How we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union, this needs discussion. This needs a common approach, but it is a discussion that I think has to be led," she added.

Horowitz: The medical field's immoral war on children



"The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment." —Nuremberg Code

Wanted: a pediatrician who actually believes in science and not child abuse.

My children are months overdue for their checkups because they are distraught about having to wear masks. The baby, who doesn't yet have to cover her breathing orifices, was traumatized at her recent visit by seeing everyone dressed like a mummy. How can it be that the doctors responsible most for the health of children can't read simple data and studies showing clearly that children are more at risk from the trauma of the response to COVID than from the virus?

Scientists from University College London and the Universities of York, Bristol, and Liverpool studied the data from all pediatric COVID-19 infections in the U.K. and found that just 25 children under 18 likely died from the virus in a country with over 12 million children. Only six of those children had no known serious underlying conditions, although the authors caution that they could not confirm that all of them were indeed healthy. The rest of the fatalities were among those with the sorts of conditions that cause people to die every year from other endemic respiratory viruses for which we never disrupt society or force masking and experimental injections.

"During the same time period studied there were 124 deaths from suicide and 268 deaths from trauma, emphasizing COVID-19 is rarely fatal in CYP," concluded the U.K. scientists.

According to this data, healthy children under 18 have a 1 in 2 million chance of dying of COVID in the U.K. over the course of a year. According to the CDC, in the U.S., every person has a 1 in 500,000 chance of being struck by lightening in a given year. In other words, there is more math and science behind destroying the lives of children and forcing them to wear a protective suit or stay inside for a year because of lightening than because of COVID.

The forced masking and vaccination of children is likely the biggest scandal of all time. For pediatrician offices to continue focusing their regulations on COVID when every other ailment is a bigger threat to children is global malpractice that will leave an indelible stain on a profession that now follows voodoo rituals over science. There is simply no way a pediatrician can possibly think it's humane to pressure children to get the experimental injections, even if the risk factors are as low as they believe.

Even if we are to trust Pfizer's own trial data (p. 27) and allow the foxes of profit from guarding the academic henhouse, there is a 1 in 333 risk for a serious adverse event (SAE) from the vaccine. Pfizer's trial resulted in 5 SAEs out of 1,127 12- to 15-year-olds in the vaccine group, as opposed to 1 in the 1,127 of the placebo group. That was the number of serious adverse events in just 30 days. If this excess absolute risk of 0.003 (0.3%) for SAEs holds up, that means for every 333 children 12-15 years old who are vaccinated, there would be one serious adverse event.

So, let's assume that somehow the vaccine is 100% effective in stopping the one in 2 million pediatric deaths. On the way to that 2 million pediatric vaccination number, over 6,000 children would suffer serious adverse effects, including life-altering disabilities and deaths. But that is from Pfizer's untrustworthy data. A detailed analysis from Israel's Hadassah Medical Center found that the rate of just one serious side effect – myocarditis – was as high as 1 in every 3,000-6,000 among young men.

The cruel irony is that most of the children in the trial did develop mild side effects. Within a few days after the second injunction, 66% of the 12- to 15-year-olds developed fatigue, 65% developed headaches, and 42% developed chills. This is the upper bounds of serious illness that children would get from the virus itself, assuming they are even symptomatic. Worse, 13% developed moderate or serious muscle pain, a much greater share than those who develop it from the virus. Thus, they have swapped out a front-loaded guarantee of afflicting children with these symptoms for a chance of perhaps avoiding those same symptoms for some, while creating an exponentially greater chance of serious, immutable side effects. Yet they have now taken their show down the road to get approval for injections for those younger than 12!

Another important finding of this British study is that initial estimates of pediatric COVID deaths were overestimated by 61%. If we were to extrapolate that number to the U.S., it would mean there were only 133 COVID deaths (out of 331 reported), which fits in proportionately given that the U.K. is one-fifth the population of the U.S. and reported 25 pediatric deaths. This would mean that fewer kids died of COVID than in almost every flu season this past decade.

Pediatric Flu/COVID comp https://t.co/Tz69zFQWoK

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1625766117.0

Yet the CDC is shockingly requiring children who don't get the experimental shots to wear masks all day in school this fall. Mind you, children are far more protected unvaccinated than adults are with a vaccine, even assuming it's 97% effective.

Reminder: Even if vaccines are 97% effective, mortality risk for *unvaccinated* children is lower than vaccinated a… https://t.co/JKYLg7aZJT

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1625845289.0

Once we have proven mathematically that the medical "experts" are lying to us about the threat of COVID to children, there is no reason to believe they are not lying about every other premise of the virus: treatment, non-pharmaceutical interventions, and vaccines. Why aren't the state legislatures in red states holding hearings and auditing everything their respective state departments of health are doing about COVID and revisiting those policies? Everything that is being done regarding treatment, vaccines, natural immunity, and most certainly children is based on false science and needs an immediate course correction.

At a minimum, state legislatures should ban all doctors and other venues from ever masking children and immediately cease and desist from marketing the experimental vaccines. Until children can see a doctor while breathing properly, there is not a single state that is truly free of COVID fascism.

Horowitz: New study shows mask-wearing children at risk for ‘unacceptable’ CO2 levels, cautions against the practice



We've spent over a year debating nonexistent evidence that masks effectively protect against the spread of viruses. However, there has been little debate and few published studies on potential harms of mask-wearing, a reality that has allowed zealous maskers to aggressively push their mandate as harmless, with no downside. Well, now we have a randomized controlled trial published in JAMA that raises serious concerns about this practice.

Researchers from Germany conducted a blinded randomized controlled trial of 45 children wearing masks and measured the baseline carbon dioxide levels during inhalation and exhalation behind various masks as compared to the levels of unmasked children. The results are very concerning:

We measured means (SDs) between 13 120 (384) and 13 910 (374) ppm of carbon dioxide in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) masks, which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6. This was a value reached after 3 minutes of measurement. Children under normal conditions in schools wear such masks for a mean of 270 (interquartile range, 120-390) minutes. The Figure shows that the value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was 3-fold greater than the limit of 0.2 % by volume. The youngest children had the highest values, with one 7-year-old child's carbon dioxide level measured at 25 000 ppm. (Emphasis added.)

Why has nobody in our government bothered to study this before experimenting on children for a virus that doesn't affect them?

The German researchers conclude that there is a concern of mask-wearing causing hypercapnia, and as such, children should not be forced to wear masks: "This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia. A recent review concluded that there was ample evidence for adverse effects of wearing such masks. We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks."

While it might seem like the mask mandates are over, they are still largely in place in many workplaces, including an impervious mandate for health care workers who often work 10-hour shifts. The mandate is still in place for 2-year-olds on six-hour flights. The facts that the only RCT studying carbon dioxide effects shows reason for concern, that the only RCT on mask efficacy shows no evidence of meaningful effectiveness, and that children rarely get sick from this virus make the continued mask mandates senseless.

The public health fascists are already attempting to mischaracterize COVID variants in order to reinstitute masking, a trend that has already started in California. CNN had a doctor on the air this week suggesting that masks need to be a part of a new dress code.

Potential carbon dioxide poisoning is but one side effect that needs to be studied. Last month, a group of Alachua County, Florida, parents had their children's masks cultured in a lab and found dangerous pathogens growing on them. Where are the studies on microbiological harms?

The findings of this survey support what we already know to exist in terms of side effects from mask-wearing. A published survey of over 25,000 parents of German schoolchildren found that 68% reported impairments caused by masks. The impairments included: "irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%), and drowsiness or fatigue (37%)."

Until now, one could have dismissed this as unscientific hearsay. However, with this degree of carbon dioxide increase from just a few minutes of mask-wearing, it makes sense that so many children would feel lethargy and malaise after an entire school day.

Masks increase the volume of dead space, which facilitates carbon dioxide retention, according Megan Mansell, a hazardous environs PPE expert. "An area covered in the study is dead space increase, where not only is there an accumulation of rejected respiratory emissions, but a pathogenic concentration of rejected bodily waste and pathogen picked up from pulling airborne microbes, in addition to periodontal bacterial contributions, which thrive in low-oxygen, warm, moist areas," warned Mansell, who recently spoke against the mask mandate at an Alachua County School Board meeting.

Many parents likely ignored the concerns about mask-wearing and carbon dioxide poisoning because they didn't see their kids faint or any immediate severe effects. But Mansell, who is a former district education director for children with disabilities and special needs, believes that there are potential long-term impacts every moment a child's breathing is restricted by masks.

"Deoxygenation and hypercapnia can have permanent impacts on human growth and development, and we can anticipate profoundly incapacitating conditions such as cerebral palsy, in addition to far lower birth rates, as stillbirth rates have increased fourfold in mandating regions," asserted the PPE expert and child advocate. "This has an impact on all lives, even the unborn."

The obvious question is why would there be any difference for adults if the implication of this study is that masks increase carbon dioxide levels across the board? The concerns definitely apply to everyone, but Mansell contends the mask mandates are especially dangerous for children. "Child masks are unregulated garbage with no efficacy or safety standards, and no two are alike, so while one child may breathe freely and have no visible signs of distress, another child could have a similar-looking but far more restrictive apparatus on, and no one would be any the wiser."

Ultimately, this comes down to medical consent. We are just beginning to learn about the corners cut in the development of the vaccines and the side effects the public was not warned about. However, when it comes to masks, until now, nobody has bothered to even capture the reported side effects. Have human beings, including children, become the new lab rats for scientific experimentation?

Horowitz: Leftist judge attacks US Marshals for not disclosing vaccination status, holds them in contempt



Are the U.S. Marshals nothing but slaves to the federal judges they guard? Are there no limits to the power of a judge in a courtroom? These are the questions from a most bizarre blowup in a South Dakota federal court.

The Washington Post reports that on May 10, U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann of South Dakota, a Clinton appointee, randomly asked a deputy marshal who was guarding his court if she was vaccinated. Aside from this being an extremely inappropriate question, every marshal has been wearing a mask in court, and we are told that masks are effective. The female officer refused to answer the question, and the ungrateful judge summarily ordered her to leave the court. Then, the marshals present in the court allegedly took the three defendants who were scheduled for hearings that day and removed them from the courtroom.

Fast-forward to Monday, and Kornmann unilaterally charged three marshals with conspiracy to obstruct justice and contempt of court. He went on an hour-long rant accusing the marshals of "kidnapping" the defendants. He further asked the U.S. attorney from South Dakota to prosecute the case against them and set a trial date for Sept. 13.

In a May 19 order, this pompous judge charged that the marshals "could well be the most dangerous people in the courtroom in a given case."

"I do not know the answer to that as I have no information since deputies, with the encouragement and full support of their supervisors, are refusing to tell me whether they have been vaccinated or not," wrote Kornmann following the incident in May.

The three accused of contempt are John Kilgallon, chief of staff for the U.S. Marshals Service in Washington, D.C., Daniel Mosteller, the marshal for the District of South Dakota, and Stephen Houghtaling, the chief deputy for that district. Last month, Mosteller wrote in a letter to Kornmann, "Compelling individuals to be vaccinated or delving into their rationale/reasoning for not being vaccinated is very problematic."

But who judges the judge? How can a judge act so inappropriately to those protecting him and then seek to prosecute them without a prosecutor when he doesn't like their response? Can others in the courtroom ask whether the judge has engaged in unprotected sex before or whether he has syphilis, AIDS, or herpes? Maybe he is a threat to others in the courtroom. The point is he has no right to insult members of a separate branch of government and then complain about reprisal.

People often forget that federal judges have no police force. Both the prosecutor and the U.S. Marshals (who are the police force, in part, for the judiciary) are members of the federal executive branch, not the judiciary. The same Judiciary Act of 1789 that created the federal judiciary also created the U.S. Marshals within the executive branch. Thus, the Marshals are as old as they are independent from control of the judiciary. They work for the president at the behest of congressional statutes, not for the federal judges. Rule 4.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically designates the U.S. Marshals as responsible for processing an order committing a person for civil contempt. Consequently, if the president or his designated officers disagree with such an order, he can direct the Marshals to stand down.

This is exactly what Alexander Hamilton meant when he stated in Federalist #78 that judges have "neither force nor will" and that the court must "ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." This is a feature, not a bug, of the system.

Our founders understood the power of a judicial order and wanted to ensure that the force behind its implementation was left in the hands of a separate branch of government. A president is elected by the people through the states, and Congress is governed by 535 individuals in a bicameral arrangement. They all stand for election. Federal judges are life-tenured and do not stand for re-election. The founders didn't want a single unelected federal judge to simply rule by fiat, which is why the U.S. Marshals, a part of the executive branch, ultimately serve as the police force for the judiciary. When a judge is out of line, it's up to the attorney general, and ultimately the president, to decide whether to give effect to a judicial order.

Our founders designed the system that way on purpose. Because judges are unelected and life-tenured, to provide them with any enforcement power would have been antithetical to the principles of republicanism. The founders gave the power of enforcement to the executive branch and the power of the purse to the legislative branch to check the judicial power, the same way the power to decide individual cases under the law was given to the judicial branch to check the other branches.

In this case, we have a judge who violates privacy rights, as well as the plain meaning of the Emergency Use Authorization statute, which ensures that experimental medical devices or drugs must remain optional. Last month, the judge ordered that all unvaccinated marshals must wear N-95s in his courthouse all day. But this is not his courthouse, and the marshals don't technically work for him. Out of courtesy, over the years, they have deferred to the local judge for guidance on logistical matters, but ultimately they answer to the president and Congress. A federal judge does not have the power to dehumanize those who protect him and make them work under inhumane conditions.

Somehow, these pompous judges think they can wield political power as unelected officials that no single elected official holds. Kornmann has already publicly criticized Governor Kristi Noem for doing "little, if anything, to curtail the spread of the virus." But the twisted irony of his vaccine obsession is that a vaccine doesn't hinge upon public orders to be effective. If his vaccine is so efficacious that it's worth humiliating those who protect him in order to mandate it, then that means it truly is very effective and will protect him or anyone else vaccinated, regardless of the vaccination status of others.

If Kornmann wants to get involved in the politics of COVID, then why not run for office in South Dakota? Challenge the governor or one of the senators if you wish to mandate vaccines. But he knows that he could never get elected as a leftist Democrat in South Dakota, so he seeks to circumvent the democratic process.

The question now is whether President Biden will stand up for a respected branch of his own administration and actually show this rogue judge who is boss. It would be a terrific bipartisan opportunity for Congress to get together and impeach this judge and take a stand for our marshals who risk their lives every day for these judges. It's amazing how the same people who are so truculent in wielding their stick of power over helpless citizens suddenly become impotent to check the power of unelected judges who lack any stick whatsoever.

Horowitz: Florida appeals court rules mask mandate is unconstitutional



In April, I wrote a column outlining the constitutional violations of mask mandates and asking why the courts have failed to abide by the line of Supreme Court cases protecting the right to bodily integrity. Well, on Friday a Florida appeals court did exactly that, perhaps in more emphatic language than a Kentucky judge last week.

Although Florida has been largely free of state-based COVID restrictions and never had a mask mandate, several counties, such as Alachua, zealously instituted unconstitutional regulations until fairly recently. In a landmark ruling on Friday, Florida's First District Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court had erred in tossing out the lawsuit against Alachua County's mask mandate because it should be held as presumptively unconstitutional.

"Based on what the supreme court has told us about the scope of article I, section 23, Green (and anyone else in Alachua County) reasonably could expect autonomy over his body, including his face, which means that he was correct to claim an entitlement to be let alone and free from intrusion by Alachua County's commission chairman," Judge Adam Scott Tanenbaum, an appointee of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), wrote. "The mask mandate, then, implicated the right of privacy. According to Gainesville Woman Care, the mask mandate was presumptively unconstitutional as a result."

This language is very significant because it's the first time a judge is using the principle of bodily autonomy to affirm a constitutional right not to have one's breathing restricted. The lawsuit was originally brought last May by Justin Green, a Gainesville business owner, but he was denied an injunction against the mandate by Eighth Judicial Circuit Judge Donna Keim.

There are several very striking elements about this ruling, which will reverberate throughout the country even as the mask mandates officially expire. Defendants had argued that the mandate is now moot given the orders of the governor requiring all counties to end their mandates. However, the judge noted in a footnote, "Because of the nature of the various emergency orders that we have seen and the county's continued commitment to public mask wearing, we are not convinced that this is the last that we will see of this issue."

In other words, you can't have a gross violation of the most fundamental rights hanging over our heads at any time and somehow suggest that we have no recourse to eliminate it. "We conclude, then, that this case fits within the exception to the mootness doctrine, which is for controversies that are capable of repetition, yet evading review," presciently observed Judge Tanenbaum.

The judge also recognized that the pretext for these "fiats" and "diktats" is rooted in abuse of emergency powers, which can be repeated at any moment:

It would behoove the trial court also to consider that while article I, section 23 "was not intended to provide an absolute guarantee against all governmental intrusion into the private life of an individual," Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re Applicant, 443 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 1983), "even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten." Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68 (2020). And there is this warning from William Pitt the Younger, roughly paraphrasing a similar sentiment in John Milton's Paradise Lost: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom."

Drawing on precedent from the state's supreme court, the judge ruled that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right. What this means is that the starting point for any mask mandate must begin with the government proving that masks absolutely work and are necessary to achieve a vital state interest. "The supreme court in Gainesville Woman Care told us multiple times what this special approach means for the evidentiary burden at a temporary injunction hearing: A plaintiff does not bear a threshold evidentiary burden to establish that a law intrudes on his privacy right, and have it subjected to strict scrutiny, 'if it is evident on the face of the law that it implicates this right.'"

Also notable in this opinion is how the judge believes that the harm to plaintiffs is not just the threat of fines or denial of service.

Another consequence was being subjected to whispering informants, impelled by county-designed publicity like the following proposed signage encouraging citizens to inform on their disobedient neighbors.

The judge warned, "The threat of government-sponsored shaming was not an idle one. The chairman who issued the original mask mandate stated publicly that 'masks are the only outwardly visible signal that you are contributing to the solution.'"

In other words, this line of reasoning will give plaintiffs throughout the country a continued cause of action to fight both the mask mandate and the vaccine mandate. Both of them violate bodily autonomy and use public shaming to coerce people to violate their autonomy. According to this ruling, any edict requiring masking for those not vaccinated would also violate the Constitution.

The next step for those seeking judicial relief would be a victory in federal court. It happens that the only lawsuit against the CDC mask mandate on public transportation, including airplanes, is in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Lucas Wall, a plaintiff from D.C., is suing the TSA, the CDC, and other federal agencies in federal court because he was prevented from traveling without a mask and is now stuck in Florida. The well-written and researched complaint accuses the government of violating fundamental rights, usurping legislative power, and providing no data that any of the policies are effective.

It's also possible that Gov. Ron DeSantis' lawsuit (also brought in the Middle District of Florida) against the CDC's mandates on cruise liners could result in the collapse of the entire federal mandate, including on airplanes. During oral arguments last Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Steven Merryday observed that the CDC's own study showed that masks were "barely statistically significant" in stopping the spread of COVID-19. "Where does this mask efficacy theory come from?" Merryday said. "We've had masking and social distancing for a long time and we had a pandemic in the middle of it."

Throughout the hearing, the judge seemed to oppose the entire premise that non-pharmaceutical interventions work against the virus, possibly opening the door for a very broad ruling against mask mandates, a ruling he promised "soon."

At this pace, perhaps it's a good thing for some of the mandates to remain in place just long enough to get standing to sue against them. For if we fail to destroy this ill-gotten government power while it's unpopular, it will surely rear its ugly head next flu season.

Horowitz: KY judge rules Gov. Beshear’s COVID, mask orders unconstitutional in breakthrough lawsuit



It took 15 months for a judge to finally apply the Constitution against the most severe and arbitrary violations of our most basic civil liberties, but it's better late than never.

On Tuesday, Boone County, Kentucky, Circuit Judge Richard A. Brueggemann issued a permanent injunction against all of Gov. Andy Beshear's COVID restrictions, including the mask mandate. Unlike the few judicial victories for civil liberties over the past year, this one was broad and sweeping, as it declared these mandates unconstitutional. In granting declaratory relief to a store owner who didn't want to enforce masks on customers, Judge Brueggemann ruled that "all emergency orders imposed by said Defendants, or that are being continued by said Defendants, are unconstitutional, void and without any legal effect."

Although Gov. Beshear planned to let the mask mandate expire on Friday anyway, this ruling is still significant because it finally lays down the marker that such mandates are unconstitutional headed forward. The problem champions of civil liberties have had in recent weeks is that, with expiring mandates, many of the lawsuits were dismissed as moot, denying them the opportunity to prevent such restrictions form being implemented in the future, say, for the flu season.

It was somewhat defensible for judges to give leeway for the 15 days or so of the pandemic last March, but shortly thereafter, it became apparent that the situation was no longer emergent and that the restrictions netted absolutely no results in slowing the pandemic. As such, at some point, judges should have held hearings on the facts and evidence behind mask mandates and other restrictions and subjected them to an interest balancing test against the fundamental rights those restrictions infringed upon. The rights to bodily integrity and free movement have long been held as the most grounded fundamental rights that require strict scrutiny of any attempted state-imposed restriction on them.

Judge Brueggemann has done just that. In this lawsuit, a restaurant owner, backed by state legislators and the state's attorney general, claimed that the mask mandate, social distancing, capacity limitations, and time limitations for serving customers served absolutely no purpose but harming the businesses without keeping anyone safer. They also claimed that the governor violated newly passed legislation (enacted over the governor's veto), which limited his emergency powers to 30 days and prevented him from placing restrictions on businesses. For the first time, this judge actually listened to expert testimony showing that non-pharmaceutical interventions netted zero results in stopping the virus, and he ruled accordingly.

The defendants presented evidence from senior certified industrial hygienist Stephen Petty, one of the top experts in the country on exposure to hazardous materials, who served as an expert witness in approximately 400 cases relating to toxic or infectious exposure. Petty first made his national foray into the COVID mask debate on my podcast three months ago.

"He testified that both the six-foot-distancing rule, and mask mandates, are wholly ineffective at reducing the spread of this virus," wrote Judge Brueggemann in summing up Petty's testimony. "Masks are worthless, he explained, because they are not capable of filtering anything as small as Covid-19 aerosols. In addition, masks are not respirators and lack the limited protections that respirators can provide."

"The Court finds the opinions expressed by Mr. Petty firmly established in logic," concluded the judge. "The inescapable conclusion from his testimony is that ordering masks to stop Covid-19 is like putting up chain-link fencing to keep out mosquitos. The six-foot-distancing requirements fare no better."

Moreover, the judge ruled that all of the data from neighboring states with fewer restrictions demonstrate that none of these restrictions have made a difference in the natural progression of the virus, and therefore, "the data comparison demonstrate there to be no emergency justification for continuing Governor Beshear's orders."

The judge also questioned the use of PCR testing as the primary means for denying people their liberties, especially given that the CDC now has a different standard of cycle thresholds for those who are vaccinated.

This invites many questions, such as why Ct values in Covid tests should differ based upon whether or not the individual being tested has been vaccinated; and, why a federal government agency has ordered labs to 'not include Ct values on laboratory reports . . . to inform patient management,' even though the CDC indicates that PCR Ct values should be ≤28. These are important questions. Case counts have been the poster child for the need to deprive people of their liberty.

While much of the lawsuit stemmed from the fact that the governor ignored specific bills passed by the legislature, and some states did not pass these laws, this ruling still creates the foundation for broad constitutional lawsuits against the remaining federal mandates on airplanes. This ruling establishes the fact that mask mandates can no longer withstand even a rational basis test, much less intermediate or strict scrutiny.

Aside from constitutional challenges, this ruling also forms a solid foundation for challenging these edicts – both at the federal and state levels – on grounds that they are circumventing the legislative process. The judge noted that "what has been ordered by the Governor's emergency decrees constitute Legislation," a charge that really applies to both the CDC and state governments.

Dr. Stack's testimony demonstrates that he and others engage in a process of collaboration and review of CDC guidelines and other documents, the purpose of which is to impose rules on persons and businesses in Kentucky, and that in formulating these rules they tailor them to apply uniformly across the Commonwealth. This is formulating policy. He further testified that they have repeatedly amended and revised their orders, thus showing they deem to have the power to make laws and alter them at discretion. Indeed, he described the orders imposed as having a "breathtaking scope."

It is obvious from even a cursory review that the orders issued over the past fifteen months "attempt to control" and seek "to form and determine future rights and duties" of Kentucky citizens.

Judge Brueggemann then addresses the unilateral imposition of a mask mandate by the executive branch:

These are, undeniably, attempts to control, set policy, and determine rights and duties of the citizenry. Except in those instances where the federal courts have stepped in, Defendants assert authority to modify or re-impose these orders at their sole discretion. Consider, for example, the recent modification of the mask mandate. It orders persons who did not get vaccinated for Covid-19 to wear masks but lifts that requirement for others. That is setting policy and determining future rights and duties.

Again, this charge should apply to the CDC and TSA requiring such a draconian change to one's life without Congress enacting it (even if it were constitutional).

The lawsuit is also important in setting the standard for suing against the vaccine mandates or requirement that people wear masks unless they are vaccinated. The notion that one who is not vaccinated is a threat to one who is vaccinated is even more illogical and could not pass even a rational basis test.

We cannot afford to shy away from lawsuits and let the issue become moot even if the airplane mask mandate and vaccine mandates were ultimately dropped. The genie of wielding executive power over bodily integrity under the guise of emergency powers will not be placed back into the bottle. CNN already published an article yesterday warning without any evidence of a "doozy" of a flu season this year and how mask-wearing will help to stop it. Fauci and others have hinted at mask-wearing for the flu becoming commonplace. We must learn the lessons of the past 15 months today and begin inoculating ourselves against future tyranny now.

What the people have endured over the past fifteen months—to borrow a phrase from United States District Judge Justin R. Walker —"is something this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel," concluded Judge Brueggemann. "Yet, Defendants contend that the Governor's rule by mere emergency decree must continue indefinitely, and independent of legislative limits. In effect, Defendants seek declaratory judgment that the Constitution provides this broad power so long as he utters the word, "emergency." It does not. For this Court to accept Defendant's position would not be honoring its oath to support the Constitution; it would be tantamount to a coup d 'état against it.

Horowitz: A ‘never again’ law to prevent future public health fascism



With the momentum on our side, now is not the time to breathe a sigh of relief. It's the time to go on offense against COVID fascism. Yes, we appear to be healing from the ailment of COVID fascism, but now is the time to inoculate ourselves against future usurpations while we still have the chance.

Unlike with the virus, there is no natural immunity against government tyranny under the guise of public health. This is the essence of what Ronald Reagan meant when he warned, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." We can always lose our freedom, and once it is given up, we seldom reclaim it. Part of the reason why is because every time we beat back an assault on our freedoms, we just move on to the next issue and fail to vaccinate ourselves against future usurpations. This time must be different. It's time for every state and county to pass a resolution prohibiting any of these actions from ever being taken again. Preferably, they should be codified into state constitutions.

It's not like the various federal and state agencies have admitted that lockdowns and masking are ineffective and harmful. They are just finally conceding that the measures are no longer necessary this round. Thus, we might have temporarily gotten our breathing back, but we did not reclaim our freedom, because it is always subject to infringement at the flick of the pen of a governor or mayor. In fact, Fauci has already hinted at masking becoming the new baseline for the flu season, and we all know that at the first sign of another virus (or a different emergency), these same actors will pull out this yet-to-be-repudiated playbook. Which is why we must repudiate it, burn the blueprint, and break the mold, so that it can never be used again.

The following is my proposal for a "never again" resolution that will permanently reclaim these lost rights from the clutches of public health tyrants.

Declaration of American rights and principles for an American sanctuary

Whereas what distinguishes this country from other supposed democracies is that our rights come from God, not from government, those rights are fully sustained in times of war as well as peace, times of sickness as well as wellness, times of scarcity as well as prosperity.

Whereas Justice Robert Jackson observed the same thing about the provisions of the federal Constitution and that the Founders deliberately omitted emergency exceptions to fundamental rights because they "knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation."

Whereas the state power to quarantine is only on the sick, not on the healthy, and that the Supreme Court has ruled that no effort to quarantine may be done in an "arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public."

Whereas all the measures taken to stop the spread of a recent virus have proven ineffective in their stated goal yet devastating in their collateral damage to society as a whole.

Whereas federal law prohibits anyone from using "law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom" to deprive any person of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution" (U.S. Code Title 18, Sec 242).

Whereas shutting down businesses without offering full and complete compensation violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

Whereas Sam Adams said the American Revolution was a contest over "not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth, for civil and religious liberty."

Whereas even during the Articles of Confederation government, states lacked the authority to block citizens from traveling freely across state lines.

Whereas the Supreme Court has held, "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law" (Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford (1891)). And that the right of a human being to breathe freely through his or her nose and mouth is the clearest manifestation of that right to bodily integrity:

Be it Resolved, that this legislative body recognizes the state/county of _____to be an American sanctuary, an asylum on earth for the following liberties during any declared public health emergency:

  • The right of every citizen to move freely without being restrained or forcibly masked in violation of his bodily integrity.
  • The right of every citizen to responsibly open their businesses without government deciding which ones are essential.
  • The right of every citizen to worship freely during a declared emergency.
  • The right of every American child to attend school without physical and psychological abuse.
  • The right of every citizen to be shielded from government monitoring of his privacy.
  • The right of citizens to have their state governments shield them from any federal usurpations of inalienable rights.
  • The right of every citizen of this republic to travel freely across state lines.

Therefore, as the duly elected legislative body of this state, we commit to the principle that during a declared emergency – for health or other reasons – individuals absolutely retain the right to be free and independent and maintain their inalienable and fundamental right of self-determination to make their own health and personal safety decisions including, but not limited to, the right to refuse any of the following health-related countermeasures:

  • The wearing of masks or other medical devices.
  • Vaccination.
  • Testing or any physical examination.
  • Participation in contact tracing.
  • The involuntary sharing of personal data or medical information.
  • Forced quarantine of any individual who has not been infected with an actual disease that has been proven deadly and has not already proliferated through large portions of the population. The case fatality rate must exceed 1.5% in order to trigger any forced isolation of individuals.

Even in the case of a legitimate quarantine, it shall be implemented in the least restrictive means possible to prevent the spread of the toxic agent or disease; shall include reasonable notice and due process; shall protect the right of the individual to remain in his or her home and live with family members, friends, and significant others at all times. An individual's quarantine or isolation shall not remove or alter the individual's legal or medical custody of another individual. A minor child shall not be forcibly removed from his or her parent or legal guardian or home in order to enforce an individual's quarantine or isolation.

In addition to respecting individual rights to bodily integrity and personal autonomy, during any declared emergency by the governor or any public health order issued by a government entity, a government entity shall not infringe upon the rights of business owners. No government official may revoke a business license, occupational or professional license, or liquor license because such business remains open. No government entity may fine, sanction, or seize funds or assets of a business because such business remains open. No government entity may force a business to close, to reduce its hours, to alter its manner of business operations, or to otherwise restrict such business in its manner of operation, including with respect to access by employees, customers, suppliers, consultants, or contractors.

Any violation of personal or business rights during a declared emergency will result in the immediate termination of the declared emergency or public health order and create an immediate cause of action against said government officials by any citizen. Any violator is guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000,
or by imprisonment for not more than 180 days.

Further, any executive order issued by an executive agency, department, or head of agency or department is to be treated as advisory for private citizens. Only with a two-thirds vote from the governing legislative body can public health orders affect the conduct of private citizens and must still be in accordance with the aforementioned limitations. An exception to those limitations can only become effective following a public hearing on the matter and a three-fourths vote to suspend the standing rules of declared public health emergencies. Such suspensions cannot last for more than 30 days.

Horowitz: SC and FL governors lead on unmasking and unshackling our children



We often hear that half the states no longer criminalize human breath and have ditched their mask mandates, but it's simply not true. The most immoral and scientifically indefensible aspect of the mask mandate is the masking of schoolchildren for seven hours a day. That is continuing in nearly every county of most red states, with few of the governors even attempting to rein in local school boards. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has now provided a blueprint for how to actually enforce the termination of the mask mandate on local school districts.

On Tuesday, Gov. McMaster ordered the state's Department of Health and Environmental Control and the state's Department of Education to distribute waiver forms to all parents, which will allow them to opt out of any mask mandate in their district's public school. This will ensure that all children will be allowed in school without their face covered if their parent signs the document.

"We have known for months that our schools are some of the safest places when it comes to COVID-19," McMaster said in a press release. "With every adult in our state having the opportunity to receive a vaccine, it goes against all logic to continue to force our children – especially our youngest children – to wear masks against their parents' wishes. Whether a child wears a mask in school is a decision that should be left only to a student's parents."

Here is a copy of the waiver in the Spartanburg school district.

Notice that school districts are asserting that Biden's executive order still requires masking on buses. There is no reason there should not be a lawsuit in every school district on the grounds that the president not only violated the civil rights of children but also overstepped his authority because these buses do not cross state lines.

McMaster's Executive Order 2021-23 also declares any local mask mandate based on original emergency orders to be pre-empted and invalid. The order further prohibits any local government entity from requiring proof of vaccination to obtain services.

It has become clear that we will have to pry the mask obsession out of these local governments with as much force as we can apply. We cannot rely on simply terminating mandates in word only, but must repeal them with as much force as they were implemented. Requiring school districts to mail out consent forms is a good first step, which will also create a clear legal cause of action against those districts that violate the policy.

To the south in Florida, Gov. DeSantis has already superseded local mandates and signed a bill banning requirement of vaccines in schools. The Florida Department of Education already announced guidelines to end the school mask mandates for the next academic year. Also this week, Florida State University announced that masks will no longer be required on campus.

On Tuesday, DeSantis called on schools to return to complete normalcy. "These kids do not need to be wearing masks, OK? I'm sorry, they don't," DeSantis said Tuesday at a Jacksonville high school. "We need to be able to let them be kids and let them act normally, and that's what should be the case in the fall (and) throughout the school year."

Either way, the governors will have to use their control over the state departments of education and health to hold localities accountable and make sure the mask craze actually comes to an end. The mask has become to the left what guns are to the right. Just as Charlton Heston said, you will have to pry the gun "from my cold, dead hands," so too we will have to pry the masks from the warm, moist, bacteria-filled faces of the COVID cultists. That will require an indefatigable grassroots pressure campaign that must include lawsuits, naming and shaming county and state bureaucrats, and a sustained focus on local elections.

Horowitz: The indefensible rush to experiment on children



Riddle me this: If the COVID vaccine for adults is so impervious and miraculous that it justifies emergency and immediate use for children after just a few months of trials, then, by definition, there is no need for children to take the vaccine. It can only potentially cause harm, since the virus doesn't affect them, when we already know that any adult has had access to the vaccine for quite some time. If it really works, there should be no concern of unvaccinated children spreading it to vaccinated adults, especially when children's transmission rates are so low to begin with. So what is motivating this frantic rush to experiment on children?

Nobody can justify an emergency use authorization for a novel mRNA vaccine on children because the risks far outweigh any potential benefits. Even if we are to trust Pfizer's own trial data (p. 27) and allow the foxes of profit to guard the academic henhouse, there is a 1-in-333 risk for a serious adverse event (SEA) from the vaccine. Their trial resulted in 5 SEAs out of 1,127 12- to 15-year-olds in the vaccine group, as opposed to 1 in the 1,127 of the placebo group. That was the number of serious adverse events in just 30 days. If this excess absolute risk of 0.003 (0.3%) for SAEs holds up, that means for each 333 children 12-15 years old who are vaccinated, there would be one serious adverse event.

One in 333 doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a lot more than zero, and it's their own biased data. Plus, we have zero trials longer than just one month, so we have no idea about the long-term effects.

So, what are the benefits? There is no data on children, but we know from Israeli data on the Pfizer vaccine for adults published in the New England Journal of Medicine (p.22), that the "needed to treat" number of vaccines to save a life from COVID is 27,778. Their study showed 19 fewer deaths in the vaccine group over the placebo group out of 526,877 people. That is 1/0.00036, which is 27,778.

As Dr. Andy Bostom of Brown University points out, if children 12-15, on average, suffer a serious adverse event every 333 doses, that would add up to about 84 SAEs before you get to one life saved at roughly 27,700 doses.

1/Israeli Pfizer mRNA data from >1M 16+yos revealed # needed to treat to prevent 1 C19 death ~28K. Pfizer US 12-15y… https://t.co/b7aE7vN892

— Andrew Bostom, MD, MS (@andrewbostom) 1620738150.0

But the risk vs. return is likely much worse than an 84:1 spread. Remember, the Israeli data covered vaccination for adults only. Now that adults already have access to the vaccine and anyone who is vulnerable is protected, there is zero benefit to going a step farther from the current baseline and vaccinating children. They are exponentially less likely to get seriously ill from the virus and are also much less likely to spread it. And again, any adult who is vulnerable is already vaccinated, so there is no value add to vaccinating kids. Thus, the number needed to treat to save a life at this point for children in a universe of vaccinated adults is likely much higher.

According to statute (21 U.S.C. §360bbb–3(c)(2)(B)), a medical product can only be offered under emergency use if "the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product." There is simply no way this condition can be fulfilled with kids.

Remember, the vaccine companies are absolved of all liability. The entire justification for such a move is that the need for a vaccine is so compelling that we must override all norms related to research, development, and liability. How can anyone possibly say that the risk to children justifies the use of a truncated study period?

Now riddle me this: Why is it that they are rushing an experimental, never-before-used, mRNA on children who don't get critically ill from this virus, yet the government refuses to approve the use of ivermectin, which has been dispensed 3.7 billion times, even for seniors on ventilators with zero options? It takes a court order just to get hospitals to comply.

The answer is that they have to shut down all alternative treatments in order to approve the vaccine. The same statute ((c)(3)) states that the treatment, in this case the vaccine, can only be approved under emergency use if "there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition." Were people to know that there are numerous early, middle, and late-stage treatments, it would nuke the market for the vaccines. As such, they must judge the early therapeutics, including those used regularly for other ailments, with an impossible standard, while rushing through the vaccines at all costs.

Haven't we used children enough to assuage our guilt the past year? Can we just leave them alone?