Pavlogonchar/Getty Images

Horowitz: Every GOP governor except DeSantis ordered COVID jabs for babies. Why?

It is incontrovertibly clear at this point that some degree of injury and death will result from babies and toddlers getting the COVID shots. It is also undeniably clear that there is zero benefit to that cohort, for this variant, at this juncture. That makes the decision of every department of health besides Florida to order these shots, pending their imminent “emergency” approval, tantamount to Republican governors inviting Planned Parenthood into their states. They must be made to answer for their deeds.

On the same day the FDA advisory committee approved Pfizer’s and Moderna’s shots for babies over 6 months old, Dr. Fauci tested positive for COVID after having had four shots. Yet no amount of facts, science, and logic can derail this inexorable obsession with sacrificing kids to the Moloch of pharma.

NBC reported on Wednesday that the Florida Department of Health was the only state health agency not to order a batch of shots for children under 5 from the federal government.

The agency said in a statement it "has made it clear to the federal government that states do not need to be involved in the convoluted vaccine distribution process, especially when the federal government has a track record of developing inconsistent and unsustainable COVID-19 policies."

"It is also no surprise we chose not to participate in distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine when the Department does not recommend it for all children," the agency added.

Where are the other GOP governors? Many European and Asian countries banned Moderna’s shot for those under 30 even when COVID was more of an emergency, due to the risks of myocarditis. Yet these governors are actively requesting a mega-dose 25 mcg shot for 15-pound babies at a time like this – after everything we know about the shots?

To drive home this point, Dr. William Gruber, senior vice president of Pfizer Vaccine Clinical Research and Development, highlighted during the meeting the fact that "the dose of 3 mcg was carefully selected to minimize adverse effects" (at 2:39:06). Putting aside the fact that this in itself is a self-indictment that when given with a proper dose that could possibly work, the shot is dangerous, what does this say about Moderna? At the same meeting, they approved Moderna’s shot, which is eight times more mRNA per pound than Pfizer’s, and potentially six times greater concentration in a 6-month-old than their adult shot in a 20-year-old male!

CDC researchers in JAMA admitted that the 45,000 cases of myocarditis reported to VAERS are “likely” underreported, and the FDA noted last year in its approval of Comirnaty that a prior study on a smallpox vaccine “suggested an incidence of possible subclinical myocarditis 60-times higher than the incidence rate of overt clinical myocarditis.” How could anyone with a sense of ethics, compassion, and intelligence support this?

As one of the committee members, Dr. Jay Portnoy, said during the meeting, there are “so many parents who are absolutely desperate to get this vaccine,” and he thinks the committee “owes it to them to give them the choice.”

“I know that the death rate from COVID and young children may not be extremely high,” said Dr. Jay Portnoy, professor of pediatrics at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. “It’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick.”

Wow, that sounds real “sciencey.”

“Sure there are issues with this shot and no emergency need for it, but parents don’t want their kids sick.” Never mind the fact that it has become increasingly clear over the past year that these shots don’t prevent anyone from getting sick, and even according to the companies’ dubious claims, only sometimes potentially prevent a level of real critical illness in adults that kids don’t get.

At a press conference in Miami-Dade County on Thursday, DeSantis mocked this committee member’s new science of “parental fear” in approving novel therapies. “Why would they be frightened about it? It's because of media hysteria. It's because of a lot of misinformation. That's why they're scared. But to do an emergency use for a 6-month-old or a 1-year-old, simply to placate anxiety, that's not the standard when you're doing this. The standard is, is this something that's safe and effective?”

DeSantis made it clear that the state’s policy is not tantamount to a ban, because doctors and hospitals can still access the shots from the federal government; it’s just that the state will not be participating in vaccinating babies and recommends against it.

It’s quite evident by the fact that all these committee votes are unanimous that facts don’t matter any more. Even the ones who voiced concerns about approving the shots directly contradicted themselves and voted for it. Less than two months ago, Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, wrote in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine that booster shots should not be targeted to kids, noting the concern of myocarditis and the theoretical problem of original antigenic sin, “a decreased ability to respond to a new immunogen because the immune system has locked onto the original immunogen.” He added: “An example of this phenomenon can be found in a study of nonhuman primates showing that boosting with an omicron-specific variant did not result in higher titers of omicron-specific neutralizing antibodies than did boosting with the ancestral strain. This potential problem could limit our ability to respond to a new variant.”

Yet on Wednesday, Offit voted to give three doses to babies for the original Wuhan strain right off the bat and then even suggested they might need a fourth – even as Fauci got COVID after his fourth shot. No regard for myocarditis, original antigenic sin, or any of the thousands of other maladies now documented in an endless stream of academic literature (even with all the censorship).

The doctors on the committee consistently reiterated that despite the cloddish trials and backwards risk-benefit matrix, they wanted to provide parents with a “choice.” It’s interesting that the “pro-choice” sentiment was never expressed when it came to the right to optionally use long-standing, safe, fully FDA-approved drugs when there were no treatment options. However, when it comes to novel emergency-use therapies already associated with millions of adverse events and negative efficacy, they become supportive of choice. Moreover, we all know that once these products are approved for babies, they will be placed on the childhood vaccination schedule for all kids, leading to mandates in schools and many pediatricians expelling patients who don’t get them. They are the ones who have consistently opposed choice.

Perhaps, the committee members have other conflicts of interest:

Either way, it’s time we fight power with power and force with force. Every red-state legislature needs to immediately convene and ban the state departments of health from distributing these shots. They should submit a list of questions for Pfizer and Moderna, and absent satisfactory approval, they must be disapproved.

It’s time to abide by the Nuremberg Code once again.

Horowitz: The need for states to thwart federal persecution of political opponents



If COVID was the pretext to criminalize our bodies, then January 6 was the ploy to criminalize our social and political views. The regime is now arresting people for merely protesting regime policies without committing an actionable crime simply because they are political opponents. Meanwhile, regime supporters can directly call for violence, have their supporters follow up and attempt to assassinate a Supreme Court justice, and the regime will continue to praise the protesters and even insinuate the coming of a “mini-revolution.” The past week’s events have made it clear we need a national divorce and cannot live harmoniously with these people. As such, it’s time for red-state governors to protect the civil rights of political dissidents with as much vigor as the regime has for violating them.

On Thursday, a team of FBI stormtroopers raided the Michigan home of Ryan Kelley, one of the leading GOP candidates for governor. His crime? Being at the protest outside the Capitol. The Feds accused him of “gesturing” to protesters to storm the Capitol and used some comments he made during the heat of the protest to incriminate him; however, the proof being in the pudding, Kelly never entered the Capitol at all. Using this as the threshold for arrest, millions of BLM protesters should be sitting in jail, when in fact even those who burned, beat, looted, and vandalized were never cited, much less punished. Oh, and he was arrested by the same Michigan FBI office that was engaged in entrapment and basically concocted the kidnapping plot against Governor Whitmer. As Julie Kelly reported, “More than a dozen FBI undercover agents and informants were involved in the kidnapping caper; Dan Chappel, the lead informant, was compensated at least $60,000 by the FBI for six months’ work, paid in cash for services rendered, and reimbursement for expenses.”

Obviously, the arrest of Ryan Kelley coincides with the Hollywood documentary-style January 6 committee hearings and is a day after Biden promised Jimmy Kimmel he would send his political opponents to jail for not playing by the rules. In a sadistic twist of irony, in that same interview, he “predicted’ a “mini-revolution” if Roe is overturned, even though the day before, a young man was arrested for an attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh for potentially overturning Roe.

So here are the rules of the game. Democrats can directly call for violence, have their supporters take up the call, and they are not held politically accountable and even double down on their comments. Yet for any individual involved in a protest or – in the case of Peter Navarro and law professor John Eastman – merely giving a legal opinion on something that was associated with violent acts of a selected few individuals (encouraged by FBI agents like Ray Epps) – their legal and political opinions or forms of protest are now deemed criminal acts.

Remember Chuck Schumer’s comments about releasing a “whirlwind” against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?

\u201c\u201cNow go peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard\u201d\n\n\u201cYou have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won\u2019t know what hit you.\u201d\n\nGuess which one of these quotes led to a media meltdown, impeachment, and over a year\u2019s worth of congressional inquisitions.\u201d
— Sean Davis (@Sean Davis) 1654719982

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Schumer, who was then minority leader, said at the time. "You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Keep in mind, there are no elections for Supreme Court, so there is no way he could have meant these words figuratively, about an election, in the heat of political debate. There is only one thing he could have meant, and now we have ubiquitous protests outside their homes and one individual as an alleged assassin. I’m not suggesting we head down the slippery slope of criminalizing Schumer’s words, but the government is criminalizing any opinion even if there is no violence inherent in the words.

We constantly hear the left wax poetic about the degree of violence on January 6, the damage, and the threat to slaughter thousands of people, even though, interestingly enough, all of the videos only seem to show violence outside, but those in the Capitol either did nothing or goofed off. Some even exchanged friendly words with officers in the Senate chamber.

\u201cI\u2019m sorry but this is still one of the funniest videos\u201d
— Ashley St. Clair (@Ashley St. Clair) 1654821954

Yet these same people seem to forget that dozens of Secret Service agents were injured in a BLM riot at the White House in May 2020. What about the broader scope of the BLM riots?

According to a report by the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA):

  • There were 574 riots in the U.S. and Canada between May 25 and July 31, 2020, stemming from about 8,700 protest events.
  • More than 2,000 officers were injured in those riots.
  • 72% of major city law enforcement agencies had officers harmed during the protests.
  • More than half of major city law enforcement agencies (56%) experienced arson incidents.

In Minneapolis alone, rioters burned down more than 1,500 businesses, as well as police stations and schools, and caused over $500 million in damages. Nationwide, there was between $1 and $2 billion in insurance claims for damages from the riots. Yet not only did no Democrat condemn the violence, as every conservative condemned the violence on January 6, Democrats praised it, encouraged it, joined it, declared it a new civil rights movement, and dedicated memorials and ostensibly a new national holiday to it. Across the nation, even those who committed the worst forms of arson got off with a slap on the wrist, and most of the extremely violent rioters in Portland had their charges dropped. Oh, and unlike January 6, they didn’t need FBI agent provocateurs to get violent, they did it on their own.

According to the Oregonian, out of 974 criminal cases stemming from the Portland riots over the past several months, 666 were dropped by Multnomah District Attorney Mike Schmidt. Moreover, only seven out of the 39 arrests for assaulting police officers resulted in charges being filed. The outlet even found 18 individuals who were arrested three or more times throughout the rioting since May. Nearly all the charges have been dropped.

The Oregonian further found that even some of the cases that were initially listed as having criminal charges lodged against the defendant were later dropped. "But court records show prosecutors have subsequently decided to drop all charges in at least 22 of these cases, some that have included allegations of riot, burglary and unlawful use of a weapon."

This is not a mere double standard; this is a systematic persecution in the most grotesque form of anarcho-tyranny. It’s quite evident that Democrats will work assiduously to protect their political supporters, even those who commit the most heinous acts. Isn’t it time for Republican governors to protect our political supporters, especially those who never committed a violent act or any criminal act?

Many red states are contemplating a “Second Amendment sanctuary,” but there is an even more urgent need to establish a First Amendment sanctuary. All GOP governors, backed by their respective legislatures, should announce in press conferences that state troopers will prohibit the entry of federal agents to arrest any political opponent where there is no evidence the target has committed an act of violence. They should also refuse to work with the FBI on any other issue until this crisis is resolved.

One such bill has been introduced in Oklahoma by state Senator Nathan Dahm. SB 1166, the “Prohibition on Political Prisoners in Oklahoma Act,” would prohibit the federal government from transporting any January 6 prisoner through the state if they are not being charged with a felony.

If Democrat states can become sanctuaries to protect illegal alien sex offenders from ICE, then you better believe red states should become sanctuaries for Americans targeted by the regime simply because of their political opposition.

Horowitz: Who will be the first governor to block the Pfizer injection for babies?



The perception in the body politic is that the Democrats want an off-ramp from COVID and that many people have realized the existing failures were a catastrophic mistake. However, just as we were confronted with some of the worst battles seemingly at the end of WWII – the Bulge and Okinawa, for example – we are now facing the most immoral and unscientific COVID measure of all. Originally, the FDA planned to approve the now expired vaccines for infants, toddlers, and babies yet to be born. They have since delayed the authorization, but that just gives us a few weeks to put the nail in the coffin of this immoral experiment.

Our babies are now lab rats. After Fauci himself has admitted the emergency part of the pandemic is over, they plan to use an emergency authorization to approve the shot for a population for which there never was an emergency. But facts, laws, and morality no longer matter when Pfi$er comes for its fair share. And evidently, $54 billion in revenue is not enough.

Originally, Pfizer planned to submit its EUA application for kids 6 months to 4 years old to the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee on Tuesday. On Friday, the company announced it would wait until the trial on three doses for children is finished, rather than going ahead with the two-dose application, which failed to show any improved immunity. However, the company still plans a three-dose submission for some time in April.

Pfizer’s own trial thus far found no benefit for those children, and even the most conservative estimate of adverse events renders this endeavor all risk and no return. And of course, there is no trial on the current variant. Yet our government was already distributing the vials. We call that a violation of the Nuremberg Code.

What could possibly be the motivation to pursue this authorization so quickly when the emergency has passed and the virus circulating seems to have a greater affinity for vaccine-mediated antibodies? Israel, with the most boosters in the world, is experiencing its worst death curve precisely now, even with the mildest variant. In some U.K. age groups, the triple-vaxxed have over a 2.7-fold greater case rate than the unvaxxed.

Meanwhile, Pfizer is trying to find data showing three doses do “something” for children, when we already know from the past 12 months with adults that even if they offer some antibodies, they wane and run the risk of causing enhancement and negative efficacy. Yet Pfizer will cleverly just show two or so months of the trial before the waning kicks in, just as with the adult trials.

Is there not one righteous man left in Sodom who has any degree of curiosity as to why this is happening? It’s one thing for older people to use this experiment with informed consent during the height of the pandemic. One could conceivably say they will turn a blind eye to all adverse events because of the perceived short-term benefit. But nobody can articulate any benefit for this group of kids at this time for this variant with these shots, and we sure have a lot of known and unknown safety signals about short-term and long-term consequences. This was so rushed that they even merged three phases all into one phase.

There’s only one plausible explanation for this maniacal alacrity to shoot up the babies, and it can’t just be about money alone. They want to destroy the one remaining demographic control group in this country that remains untarnished by this great human experiment. As we begin to witness the reproductive, cardiovascular, neurological, and immune system damage, the media and the medical system will seek to blame the death and destruction on everything but the shots. In order to succeed, they cannot allow a single age group to evade the reach of the great experiment.

Last week, the European Medicines Agency announced it will investigate reports of "heavy menstrual bleeding and absence of menstruation" after mRNA COVID shots. We have known about these safety signals from day one, yet the global health entities chose to ignore them until after all of the young women and even children got the shots. How could someone in good conscience allow this shot to now enter the arms of babies and toddlers before this safety signal is fully investigated?

Now imagine if the federal government began distributing Planned Parenthood abortion centers throughout all the red states. Do you think the governors would sit idly and say, “Well, at least there is no mandate to get an abortion, it’s simply optional”? Hell no! They would ban that distribution throughout the state. Well, this is an even bigger pro-life issue, because it will affect exponentially more children. It’s no longer enough for governors to remain neutral on the shots. They must pledge to ban them in the states, and that begins with babies and toddlers. Pro-life means so much more than just fighting abortion.

Horowitz: Thousands of Afghans coming to a red-state community near you



Our communities are being flooded with the most unvetted “refugees” of all time from the most volatile part of the world. And there is no resistance whatsoever among Republicans in state governments. As thousands of Afghans are moved from military bases to our communities, we are about to pay for the worst form of social transformation without representation.

In October, Zabihullah Mohmand, a new arrival from Afghanistan, was charged with raping a woman in a Missoula, Montana, hotel. The Department of Homeland Security, in response to outcries from the Montana governor, insisted that the 19-year-old Afghan went through a “rigorous and multi-layered” vetting process. The problem is that they are right. Most of these people have gone through a vetting process — a process with no data! We rushed in over 100,000 Afghans within a matter of days. These people came from the darkest corners of the Afghan mountains. What sort of criminal history are you going to find, especially on a 19-year-old?

Moreover, they are making our point. How do you vet people for a violent ideology or anti-women values when those views are shared by the overwhelming majority of the people in Afghanistan? The stone-cold truth is that the views of the average Afghan — at least a large number of them — are indistinguishable from those of the Taliban.

In 2013, Pew Research Center published a poll surveying the sentiments of people in 39 Muslim countries, and the data on Afghanistan is quite disturbing. Here are some of the highlights:

  • 99% support making Sharia the official law of the land, more than in any other country surveyed. 61% say that Sharia should be imposed upon non-Muslim citizens.
  • 79% support the death penalty for those who leave Islam.
  • 82% say religious leaders should have some or a lot of influence over politics, more than in any other Muslim country surveyed.
  • 39% believe suicide bombings can be justified, more than anyone else except for the Palestinians.
  • Only 30% believe women should be allowed to decide whether to wear a veil, less than in all but one country surveyed. 94% believe wives must always obey their husbands, more than anywhere else except Malaysia.
  • 96% believe converting non-Muslims is a religious duty, more than in any other country.

At the time of the alleged rape in Montana, Rep. Matt Rosendale pointed out that during the initial court hearing, Mohmand’s attorney claimed that “cultural and language barriers” may have led to the rape. Well, no kidding! A group of Afghan evacuees allegedly assaulted a female service member at Fort Bliss while they were staying on the base. Do we really need to rehash the lessons of Europe and irresponsible refugee policies over the past generation to realize we are following in those self-immolating footsteps?

What is particularly jarring is that the Biden State Department, HHS, and private taxpayer-funded resettlement contractors appear to be targeting red states like Montana, Nebraska, Indiana, and Oklahoma for this social transformation. The Grand Island Independent reports that 469 Afghans have already been resettled in Nebraska and another 635 are on the way. “Because of the rush of evacuations, a lot of the Afghans of working age are coming without the employment documents that most refugees have when they arrive,” reports the central Nebraska media outlet. “So they will need financial help for longer than the usually expected three months until they can start working.”

So, who is paying for this? The feds have set a deadline for Feb. 12, 2022, to get all of the Afghans off the military bases, which means the pace of resettlement in our communities will accelerate in the coming days.

One would think every GOP governor and legislator would immediately raise Cain over this and pledge to block any resettlement within the states. How is this in any way in the interests of their constituents from public safety, financial, and cultural standpoints? Instead, nearly every GOP governor has partnered with Biden to screw their constituents. Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb is practically begging the feds to seed as many Afghans as possible in Indiana, while he controls his own people with COVID fascism and refuses to take action against domestic crime. There were thousands of refugees at Camp Atterbury in southern Indiana who are now being released into communities at a rate of hundreds per week. One thing is clear: Biden and Holcomb won’t force injection mandates on their prized Afghans.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who never saw a domestic criminal he didn’t want to release from jail, announced in Sept. he was “excited” that Oklahoma would be getting the third largest number of Afghans of any state.

As a close second to the priority of fighting federal COVID mandates, any Republican running for state office needs to pledge to block federal social transformation of our communities. Republicans just supplied the requisite votes to pass the current budget continuing resolution, which contains an extra $7 billion in taxpayer funding for Afghans. This will induce transformation of our communities at the behest of international officials, unelected State Department and HHS bureaucrats, and parasitic contractors who have everything to gain and nothing to lose by endangering the communities and saddling them with a fiscal burden.

We fought a war over no taxation without representation. Shouldn’t states at least hold their ground on a banner of “no social transformation without representation”?

Horowitz: Even Arkansas Republicans refuse to protect bare-bones individual liberty in the face of shot mandates



Who would have thought that nearly a month after Joe Biden declared martial law and forced a vaccine mandate upon many workers in all 50 states, not a single red state has effectively combated it yet? To this day, thousands of people have been forced to either get the experimental shots against their will or lose their livelihoods, despite the failing efficacy of the shots accelerating every day. A perfect example of this dynamic is playing out in the state of Arkansas.

Arkansas Republicans cannot even support a degree of a compromise on the totalitarian vaccine mandate that would limit the mandate to the degree that New York was pushing just a few weeks ago! One would think opposing any vaccine mandate in a state like Arkansas with a supermajority trifecta would be a slam dunk. Any "private" business mandate is being done at the behest and cajoling of government and cannot be chalked up to free market activity. Yet the same RINO governor who had no problem placing mandates on "the private sector" to shut down businesses and fine them last year is suddenly concerned about their "right" to force employees to violate their bodies.

"Employers have the freedom to protect the health of their workplace, and government should not interfere with the employee/employer relationship," Asa Hutchinson said in a statement released by his office after supporting fines on businesses all last year for NOT engaging in COVID fascism. Freedom is a one-way street in his book.

Because of Hutchinson's unflinching grip on many RINOs in the legislature, full opposition to workplace jab mandates was out of the question for conservatives in the legislature. As such, they opted for a watered-down bill (SB 739) allowing for an exemption for those with antibodies and an opt-out to get PCR-tested once a week. This bill would essentially bring Arkansas back to where New York was just a few weeks ago, yet still a number of Hutchinson allies in the Senate opposed it.

On Tuesday, the House voted 68-23 to pass the bill. But even though it also passed the Senate on Monday, it failed to achieve the two-thirds support it needs to be implemented immediately. Pursuant to Arkansas law, for a bill to be implemented right away without the 90-day layover period, it must pass as an emergency declaration, which requires 24 votes in the Senate. Yet even though Republicans have 27 senators, four of them defected and declined to declare it an emergency: Cecile Bledsoe, Lance Eads, Jonathan Dismang, and none other than Senate president pro tempore Jimmy Hickey.

Now, why would the GOP Senate president vote against immediately implementing a watered-down bill to allow a testing exemption that even New York was allowing until recently? People are being forced to make life-altering decisions right now and cannot afford to wait 90 days. Many have already been forced to get the shot or lose their jobs without any relief from the legislature.

Many of these Republicans hide behind concerns about "regulating" businesses, but they never seemed to be concerned when the businesses were regulated into bankruptcy during the shutdown.

Ultimately, SB 739 will become law in Arkansas, after it's already too late for many workers, but it's a shame they couldn't pass a clear restriction on vaccine mandates. S. 732 would have done just that, but failed to get two-thirds' support in the Senate and was blocked by the House committee on public health. SB 730, which would have authorized unemployment benefits for those who lost their jobs due to mandates, passed the Senate but was thrown out on procedural grounds by House speaker Matthew Shepherd. It's amazing how GOP leaders in red-state legislatures tend to elevate alleged concerns over procedure over basic human rights during an unprecedented time of suspension of civil liberties.

Throughout this entire ordeal, presumptive front-runner for governor next year Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been awfully quiet. Conservatives who want a change from Asa Hutchinson could sure use a voice who is not bought out by Walmart and Tysons.

When looking for gubernatorial candidates, conservatives need to take their cues from Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin, who is not only promising to ban all COVID mandates outright in her challenge to Governor Brad Little, but for the second time, she used Little's absence to temporarily bar mandates while serving as acting governor. On Tuesday, McGeachin barred all businesses from requiring vaccine passports and also called up the Idaho National Guard to potentially deploy to the southern border. The last time Little was out of state, McGeachin used her power as acting governor to bar mask mandates. While Little will countermand this order as he did her last one, McGeachin is demonstrating what red-state leadership looks like. Where are the other leaders?

Throughout the next few weeks, a number of states will be meeting to redraw the election maps. This is a perfect time to address the coercive mandates and other emergent issues that are of even greater urgency than reapportionment. Alabama conservatives, for example, have introduced a very important bill that can be used as a model in other states. HB 31 would subject employers to liability for injury if they require their workers to get the shots. This was the original position of OSHA and is in line with current law regarding workplace injury.

On Aug. 1, 1776, just a few weeks after signing the Declaration of Independence, Sam Adams spoke before a large audience at the State House in Philadelphia, beseeching them to fight for their independence. During the speech, he warned the public that "our contest is 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."

Two hundred forty-five years later, the COVID great reset has essentially ensured that there is no asylum left for civil and religious liberty anywhere in the world, including the United States. Our contest today is whether there will remain a few states in this country where we can exercise those liberties that Adams and his fellow patriots once secured for all of these United States.

Horowitz: Where is the red-state sanctuary for American constitutional rights?



If blue states were able to successfully serve as sanctuaries for illegal alien sex offenders from federal law enforcement during Trump's presidency, why can't red states serve as a constitutional sanctuary for Americans losing their most basic human rights?

Americans in all 50 states are losing their livelihoods for not getting injected with a very questionable shot that no longer works; they are being refused proper treatment for a virus they didn't create; the federal government is hunting down anyone who was within earshot of the Capitol on Jan. 6; and the FBI are now threatening to treat anyone who protests critical race theory at school board meetings as terrorists.

On the other hand, Republicans control 23 trifectas, 19 of them with supermajorities in the legislatures. Where are they during this time of peril, and why have those states not become sanctuaries for Americans fleeing this era of totalitarianism? Why are red-state governors and legislatures completely missing in action during these dangerous times when our federal government, which controls corporate America, seems to have devolved back to pre-enlightenment governing principles? Why are they not holding one emergency session after another to redress our urgent grievances? Why are Texas-based companies like Southwest Airlines able to violate the Nuremberg Code with their inhumane mandates without the much-vaunted Texas GOP apparatus outlawing mandates or at least subjecting them to liability? Is anyone home? What is the breaking point that will actually draw a meaningful response from the so-called opposition?

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Monday that he is directing the FBI and federal prosecutors to meet with state and local law enforcement on how to combat what he referred to as "threats of violence" against school board officials by protesters of critical race theory.

"The Justice Department will also create specialized training and guidance for local school boards and school administrators," said Garland in a DOJ press release. "This training will help school board members and other potential victims understand the type of behavior that constitutes threats, how to report threatening conduct to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, and how to capture and preserve evidence of threatening conduct to aid in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes."

First, it's important to note that our adversaries are telling us exactly what they fear. They understand that the lynchpin to us winning back our freedom is by taking back our local governments, such as school boards. Which should motivate us even more to focus on the policies and elections at the local level more than congressional and presidential elections.

It's also noteworthy that the same people who couldn't care less about BLM burning down dozens of cities, illegal aliens organizing a stalking campaign against Senator Kyrsten Sinema, and violent cartels crashing our border are suddenly fearful of moms and dads protesting the teaching of racism in their schools.

However, the most important question we should all be asking is: Where are the GOP governors? This order should be dead on arrival in every red state. Within 24 hours of this announcement, every GOP governor should have issued an order barring all law enforcement from working with the feds to target First Amendment rights and peaceful Americans, especially at a time when this same administration is advocating the de-incarceration of violent criminals.

It's time conservatives demand more from their supposedly Republican officials. Every GOP governor, attorney general, and state legislative leadership team should coordinate across state lines to push back against federal tyranny on a myriad of issues. This is a more effective check and balance on this administration's behavior than Republicans winning back Congress, even if real Republicans actually secured positions of leadership. States are sovereign units of government and have the ability to stave off federal usurpations, especially when backed by the culture on the ground among the people. Just ask Trump how successful he was fighting California on sanctuary cities. Well, if it's good enough for illegal aliens, it should be good enough for Americans.

Horowitz: Beware the fine print on the ending of mask mandates



"I apologize for ever imposing such an illogical, illegal, and inhumane mandate on the public. We now recognize that there is zero correlation between mask-wearing and reduced spread and that criminalizing human breathing is beyond the scope of governmental power anyway. We are therefore going to follow the law and the science henceforth and bar all schools and establishments from discriminating against people who choose to breathe freely."

That is the speech you have not and will not hear from even the better Republican governors pretending to lift their mask mandates.

A tyrannical edict that was never law to begin with, but that was deeply embedded into society through vociferous shame will not dissipate once the edict is lifted – even if categorically rescinded. After all, it is just as much the law of the land now as it was before. However, if you listen carefully, these governors are not even fully lifting the mandates.

When you read between the lines of some of these orders, it becomes clear that these governors still believe they have the right to regulate a human being's breathing, that the rising and falling of cases somehow depends upon these ritualistic sacraments rather than natural phenomena, and that they reserve the right to reinstitute mask mandates in the future. As such, don't be surprised if a number of more liberal localities and school superintendents continue to mandate it on our children. I'm receiving a lot of complaints from my podcast listeners in Texas that their school districts continue to obdurately stand behind the forcible masking of children.

For example, the Frisco Independent School District, which is just north of Dallas, announced "that the District will continue to require face coverings for students, staff and visitors, as has been the case all school year." I suspect this will happen all over the state and country.

It's even worse in Mississippi.

"Today, I signed what I expect will be one of my last executive orders regarding COVID-19," said Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves on Tuesday. "Our hospitalizations have plummeted, and our case numbers have fallen dramatically as well. In fact, our case numbers have fallen to the point where no county meets the original criteria for a mask mandate."

Thus, he still buys into the myth that masks help against the spread; he merely concedes that they are not necessary at this point. As the Associated Press reports, "Reeves said he is encouraging people to wear face coverings in public, but is not requiring it." That, in conjunction with the fact that the order still recommends business follow CDC guidance, makes it clear that the culture in the private sector will very much be influenced by the mask cult.

Worst of all, Reeves is still requiring masks for schoolchildren! These are the first people who should be exempted from a mask mandate, even if masks worked. Children are not in danger from the virus, and reams of data from school reopenings have proven that schools are not extra vectors of spread in the community. To exempt an adult from wearing a mask in a store for 20 minutes, but require children to wear masks and somehow learn and properly interact with each other for seven hours per day is insane. Heck, maybe Biden is right about Reeves being a Neanderthal; he just didn't realize it.

The reality is that most of these governors simply saw the writing on the wall — that the legislatures were about to clip their wings and the peasants were getting antsy. This is why they are not ceding any legal or intellectual point, and most of them are continuing the mask mandate in some form.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey joined most GOP governors in removing restrictions on businesses, but he is not flinching from the mask mandate one iota. Ditto for Wyoming's Mark Gordon. West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, even while easing some restrictions, contended that some other governors need to "be a little more prudent." They are acclimating us to tyranny to the point that we now think a little reprieve is a magnanimous act rather than one of tyranny. This is occurring in some of the reddest states.

Conservatives must push state legislatures to permanently ban governors from making such edicts ever again. Time is short, as many state legislatures will adjourn in a matter of weeks. The best time to fight tyranny is when it's on the run and on defense. If we've learned anything these past 12 months, it's that liberty cannot be taken for granted.