Naval Special Warfare Command, which includes Navy SEALs, celebrates Pride with rainbow-hued post — and gets excoriated

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/naval-special-warfare-command-which-includes-navy-seals-celebrates-pride-with-rainbow-hued-post-and-gets-excoriated.jpg?id=52368858&width=2000&height=1500&coordinates=133,0,133,0 crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//www.theblaze.com/media-library/naval-special-warfare-command-which-includes-navy-seals-celebrates-pride-with-rainbow-hued-post-and-gets-excoriated.jpg%3Fid%3D52368858%26width%3D2000%26height%3D1500%26coordinates%3D133%2C0%2C133%2C0%22%7D" expand=1]

The United States Naval Special Warfare Command — which includes Navy SEALs —celebrated the first day of Pride Month with rainbow-hued message on its Facebook page.

The June 1 post includes the NSWC logo backed with horizontal bars colored red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple — along with the words "NSW, Dignity, Service, Respect, Equality, Pride." As you might expect, there was a just a little bit of backlash against the post.

'So glad I got out before this bulls**t took over.'

Sara Gonzales — host of BlazeTV's "Sara Gonzales Unfiltered" — told Blaze News that it's "truly terrifying that at a time when our own administration is drumming up conflict across the globe, seemingly chomping at the bit for World War III, they’re also stacking our military with diversity hires. The military is one of the most important places to recruit based on merit and strength, both physically and mentally, rather than who you choose to sleep with. If conflict does come our way, we’re screwed."

A number of commenters on the NSW Facebook post appeared equally disturbed:

  • "So glad I got out before this bulls**t took over," one commenter wrote.
  • "Fix yourself," another user said. "This is a disgrace."
  • "This emboldens our enemies almost as much as a Joe Biden gaffe," another commenter declared.
  • "Someone has lost the plot here," another user observed.
  • "Man this woke sh.. is like a cancer and needs to be handled and [dealt] with as a threat to national security," another commenter stated. "Gone way too far."

Anything else?

The Department of Defense on Saturday night posted the following on X:

— (@)

Fox News said the DoD earlier Saturday "appeared to mix up" Pride Month and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Awareness Month, as a now-deleted X post included the above "Celebrate Pride Month 2024" image with a Progress Pride Flag graphic along with the following message: "June is PTSD Awareness Month, and the DoD is committed to supporting service members and veterans affected by PTSD."

The U.S. government first recognized PTSD Awareness Month in June 2014, one year before June was declared Pride Month, the cable news network added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Blaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker pleads not guilty to 4 misdemeanor charges over his Jan. 6 reporting

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/image.png?id=51922243&width=1200&height=600&coordinates=0,136,0,1 crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//www.theblaze.com/media-library/image.png%3Fid%3D51922243%26width%3D1200%26height%3D600%26coordinates%3D0%2C136%2C0%2C1%22%7D" expand=1]



Blaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker on Wednesday pleaded not guilty to the four non-violent misdemeanor charges the Justice Department brought against him in connection with his reporting at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

What's the background?

Baker has been searching for the truth about what went on behind the scenes in relation to January 6 and believes the U.S. government has been targeting him for it.

Well, after receiving instructions from the FBI, Baker on March 1 arrived at the agency's field office in Dallas and turned himself in — after which, he was arrested, handcuffed, and charged.

The charges against him are:

  • Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority
  • Disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds
  • Disorderly conduct in a capitol building
  • Parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a capitol building

Baker and others have blasted the charges. U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) himself sounded off with an op-ed last month asking, "Where is the outrage over Steve Baker’s prosecution?"

What's more, shortly after Baker's arrest, Blaze Media released never-before-seen video showing Baker's movements in and around the U.S. Capitol on January 6, which appears to stand in stark contrast to the narrative the federal government has been floating about him.

The 47-minute video includes Baker's cellphone camera documentation of what went on inside the Capitol building alongside newly released footage from the Capitol's CCTV cameras that BlazeTV obtained primarily through Loudermilk's efforts. He and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have made providing access to January 6 videos a priority.

Here's the unfiltered video showing Baker just before he entered the Capitol that day, his movements inside the building, and after he left. Content warning: Language:

Steve Baker Inside the Capitol on January 6 youtu.be

Baker discussed his legal saga in a pair of October commentary pieces for Blaze News (here and here), detailing the ins and outs of the federal investigation he's been under following his independent journalistic work on January 6, which took place prior to him joining Blaze News.

What happened at Wednesday's hearing?

Baker told Blaze News that Wednesday's virtual hearing was his first time before the Washington, D.C., federal judge presiding over the case — Christopher R. Cooper — who last week ordered Baker to "comply" with the conditions of his release, although Baker has maintained he's been in compliance all along.

Baker told Blaze News there was "quite a bit of discussion" at the hearing about pretrial restrictions on him, which relate to Cooper's order to comply.

Baker previously told Blaze News that among his restrictions are that he's not allowed to possess a firearm, and he has to report every contact he has with law enforcement to his pretrial services officer. But this presents two problems for Baker: He told Blaze News he carries a gun as a means of self-defense due to online threats he's received, and part of his job with Blaze News is speaking to law enforcement personnel — and doing so confidentially.

An upbeat Baker on Thursday told Blaze News that despite apparent previous glitches in communication between pretrial services officers in D.C. and in his home state of North Carolina — which seem to have contributed to Cooper's order to comply, which Baker saw as unnecessary — the hearing showed him things now appear to be headed in the right direction:

"Frankly, I’m quite surprised and pleased by the cooperative nature the government has shown toward my pretrial release conditions and their willingness to modify language due to my unique circumstances as a working journalist. Unlike all other J6 defendants, I have no travel restrictions — even to D.C. or internationally — and the government is working with my attorneys to modify the language of certain restrictions that would interfere with my ongoing investigations … even those about certain governmental agencies’ corruption.

"I can only conjecture that they do not want to engage in these fights, knowing I will go public with every ruling, and more eyeballs will likely see these wranglings than any other J6 case. Both Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Dreher and Judge Cooper seem very amenable to both parties simply 'working it out' without having to litigate each issue. This has to do with not only my pretrial conditions but also matters of discovery that are normally under the Court’s protective order, to which I may have already had access and permission from Congress to release publicly as a result of my ongoing investigations.

"The most interesting moment in yesterday’s hearing came when my attorney addressed the discovery, protective order issues, and my unique access to all this information through congressional committees. Judge Cooper asked, 'What does Mr. Baker do for a living?' My attorney William Shipley replied, 'He’s a journalist with Blaze Media.' Cooper seemed genuinely surprised to learn that, and I was genuinely surprised that the government had not already informed him of my occupation."

Baker said his next hearing is scheduled for June 3.

What has Baker uncovered so far?

Baker began his investigative reporting for Blaze News last fall. His first Jan. 6 analysis for Blaze News came last October following countless hours in a House subcommittee office looking at frame after frame of January 6 closed-circuit video — and it had him wondering: Did Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus perjure himself in the Oath Keepers trial?

Baker's investigative efforts also resulted in two additional analyses, both focusing on Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn: "January 6 and the N-word that wasn't" and "Harry Dunn's account of January 6 does not add up. At all."

In December, Baker alleged that he uncovered major irregularities involving Dunn, the Capitol Police, the press, and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland).

In January, Baker asserted that newly released U.S. Capitol closed-circuit TV video clips from Jan. 6 show Lazarus gave false testimony in the Oath Keepers trial.

Proof of Perjury | The Truth About January 6 youtu.be

Also in January, Baker and others were asking what the U.S. government has to hide in regard to the pipe bomb found on Jan. 6 at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Baker in February wrote another analysis titled "Capitol Police diverted all CCTV cameras away from DNC pipe bomb investigation — except one" and later that month asked why Kamala Harris was at the DNC and not the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Rep. Loudermilk — who chairs the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight — last month told Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck the reason the FBI and the Justice Department may be going after Baker over his January 6 coverage is because "he's onto something" the federal government wants kept under wraps.

In addition, GOP House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan last month opened an investigation into the DOJ over its treatment of Baker. In a scathing March 12 letter to Matthew Graves, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jordan outlined "serious concerns" about the DOJ's "selective prosecution" concerning Baker's arrest "as well as the Department's commitments to the First Amendment rights of journalists."

In his letter, Jordan demanded that Graves produce the following no later than 5 p.m. March 26:

  • All documents and communications regarding Baker's arrest;
  • All documents and communications regarding any investigation, prosecution, and arrest of any other journalist covering Jan. 6;
  • All documents and communications related to the DOJ's determination to request pretrial detention of defendants charged in connection with Jan. 6 — plus those who are now or who have been in pretrial detention related to Jan. 6.

Jordan's letter concludes by reminding Graves that the Judiciary Committee has "jurisdiction to oversee" the DOJ regarding matters "related to civil liberties."

Baker on Thursday told Blaze News that according to his contacts on the Judiciary Committee, Jordan's demands have yet to be met.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Congress passes last-minute stopgap bill to avert government shutdown without Ukraine aid, Biden attacks 'extreme House Republicans'

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy80NzQ2OTcwNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTczMzA0MzEyNH0.OMlLsZO0-D2OzG52LlY8OqXJZgimpemqwFHwoH5WMkY/img.jpg?width=1245&height=700&coordinates=0,53,0,54 crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy80NzQ2OTcwNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTczMzA0MzEyNH0.OMlLsZO0-D2OzG52LlY8OqXJZgimpemqwFHwoH5WMkY/img.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1245%26height%3D700%26coordinates%3D0%2C53%2C0%2C54%22%7D" expand=1]

Congress passed a last-minute stopgap bill to avert a government shutdown. Notably, the funding package does not include aid for Ukraine – a demand that Democrats had rallied around.

Within just hours of the midnight deadline, the Senate passed a temporary measure to avoid a government shutdown. The bill funds the federal government at current 2023 levels through Nov. 17.

The package was approved on Saturday afternoon by the House by a vote 335-91. The Senate passed on Saturday night with an 88-9 vote.

The bill will next go to President Joe Biden to sign into law.

The bill includes an additional $16 billion in natural disaster aid. However, the bill does not include any Ukraine aid.

Biden blamed "extreme House Republicans" for the "manufactured crisis."

"Just a few months ago, Speaker McCarthy and I reached a budget agreement to avoid precisely this type of manufactured crisis," the White House said in a statement. "For weeks, extreme House Republicans tried to walk away from that deal by demanding drastic cuts that would have been devastating for millions of Americans. They failed."

The Biden administration warned against not providing more American tax dollars to the Ukraine war effort.

"While the Speaker and the overwhelming majority of Congress have been steadfast in their support for Ukraine, there is no new funding in this agreement to continue that support," the White House stated. "We cannot under any circumstances allow American support for Ukraine to be interrupted."

President Joe Biden said he fully expects McCarthy "will keep his commitment to the people of Ukraine and secure passage of the support needed to help Ukraine at this critical moment."

The U.S. has already provided an estimated $75 billion in aid to Ukraine.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) blamed "MAGA extremists" for the potential government shutdown.

"Today, MAGA extremists have failed, bipartisanship has prevailed, and both parties have come together to avert a shutdown," Schumer tweeted.

"After trying to take our government hostage, MAGA Republicans won nothing," he added. "We funded the government and avoided all of the extreme, nasty, harmful cuts MAGA Republicans wanted."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Strange sighting captured on cellphone VIDEO leaves conservative host with questions

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8zMjAyNDYwMS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MjUwODg5Mn0.swvfsK8BmsYtBQddhZnEKz1fBqc1lyJ7DpxGqEHCVOI/img.png?width=1245&height=700&coordinates=0,19,0,173 crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8zMjAyNDYwMS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MjUwODg5Mn0.swvfsK8BmsYtBQddhZnEKz1fBqc1lyJ7DpxGqEHCVOI/img.png%3Fwidth%3D1245%26height%3D700%26coordinates%3D0%2C19%2C0%2C173%22%7D" expand=1]

In this episode of "The Chad Prather Show," Chad observed a newfound openness to UFO sightings that did not exist fifty years ago. In his monologue, Chad recalled UFO sightings that were typically reported by individuals considered less than credible. However, today, the United States government has admitted that UFOs do exist.

Late at night when you've shaken off the dust of this weary old world and you're lying in the backyard staring up at the stars, there is a burning question that permeates your being. It's a question that is somehow bigger than your capacity to contain it. More voluminous than the parts of speech it takes to form it. It's a question that mankind has been asking himself perhaps since he shared the earth with the roving beasts of a bygone era. Here's the question: Is there any tequila left? If you thought that question was going to be 'are we alone in the universe,' well you haven't been watching this show long enough and you need to catch up ... I keep it important.

Chad believes humanity has reached a point where "curiosity is on its deathbed." Here's why:

When I was a kid, if you had given me the proof of existence for life from the other worlds that we have today, I would have lost my mind. And if you're anywhere near my age, 50, you know you would have too. Now, when I was a kid, the only people who ever talked about seeing UFOs were the kind of people you thought you would see: rednecks. Back-water people with pedigrees forming a broad ancestral circle. Wide-eyed coal miners who would doubtless have been able to pick up radio stations with their fillings in their teeth.

Now, we are washed anew in testimony from credible, often military, sources. Every few months, it seems [there are] sightings of craft flying in the air or gliding underwater at speeds beyond anything we've been able to dream up.

Crafts have appeared and then disappeared in the blink of an eye, have jammed radar seemingly at will and as if on purpose. Maybe it's an E.T. coming back to do a second movie. It could be some foreign country testing out new technology to see if it can get past ours. It could be us testing out new technology; I think that could be as likely as anything else.

Chad later shared a cellphone video he believed to be a comet's tail.

Download the podcast here.

Want more from Chad Prather?

To enjoy more of Chad's comedy, craziness, and common sense, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Horowitz: 4.9 million reasons we no longer need a federal government



With the federal government not only failing to do its job but being complicit in the war on national sovereignty, why then should we suffer the internal tyranny it is imposing upon us? At this point, isn’t the federal government all pain and no gain?

Our founders never envisioned the federal government would have so many policing entities with the technology, resources, and manpower it has today. Because the police power was left to the states, Madison actually feared the states would be the more likely culprit in usurpations than the federal government, which is why he originally wanted to give Congress veto power over state legislatures. Now, we not only have the DHS, FBI, ATF, and DEA, which are larger than the standing army the founders envisioned, but even the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Labor, and Department of Education have tactical response teams.

According to a 2015 CRS report, out of the (only) 13 agencies that responded to their questionnaire, there were a total of 271 federal tactical teams across the different offices and departments. There are now 200,000 federal employees (outside the Department of Defense) with firearms along with their badges, larger than the size of the U.S. Marines.

Almost none of it is used upon enemies of the country and to protect our liberties. It is all used to monitor, record, surveil, and now apprehend political dissidents. Thus, if we have given up our freedom to such a behemoth, what have we gotten in return?

At its core, the most important job of the federal government is to protect us against external enemies. That begins at our border. There have now been a total of 4.9 million known border incursions since Biden took office, nearly the population of Ireland. These comprise roughly 3.9 million apprehensions and close to a million gotaways (which is probably lowballing it). Our government has not only abrogated its most important responsibility to the states – protecting against invasion – but it has been complicit in the smuggling and criminal conspiracy that has brought over sex trafficking, drugs, and dangerous criminals.

Our founders didn’t fear this degree of federal government not only because it was not supposed to have all these federal police agencies, statutes, and executive authority over every aspect of our lives (including breathing without masks!), but because it was supposed to be busy working on external affairs. In one of the most important descriptions of the federalist arrangement, Madison laid out the design in Federalist #45 as follows:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the Federal Government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State Governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State Governments will here enjoy another advantage over the Federal Government.

So why did he not fear federal tyranny so long as his design was followed?

The more adequate indeed the federal powers may be rendered to the national defence, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favour their ascendency over the governments of the particular States.

Well, given that we now have record numbers of DHS and DOJ law enforcement agents with zero regard for protecting our national border, they have all the resources imaginable to focus on you and me.

Perhaps we need the federal government for the military, you might say. Really? A woke and broke military that only exists for critical race theory, transgenderism, and nation-building for every other border but our own? Again, once a federal force is no longer used for its proper purpose, it can only serve as a menace to our liberties in the long run.

So now that we have uniform weights, measures, and currency, why exactly do we need a federal government to abrogate its core defense responsibilities just to prevent the states from securing the border? All other activities were supposed to be done by the states. Founder Tench Coxe, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress, listed in a 1788 essay the following as off-limits to the federal government:

They cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals; the making or regulation of roads, except post roads; building bridges; erecting ferries; establishment of state seminaries of learning; libraries; literary, religious, trading or manufacturing societies; erecting or regulating the police of cities, towns or boroughs; creating new state offices; building light houses, public wharves, county gaols, markets, or other public buildings; making sale of state lands, and other state property; receiving or appropriating the incomes of state buildings and property; executing the state laws; altering the criminal law; nor can they do any other matter or thing appertaining to the internal affairs of any state, whether legislative, executive or judicial, civil or ecclesiastical.

Rather than just railing against the FBI and making this all about Trump, conservatives must compel a broader discussion in red-state legislatures and among the governors about how we return to this original design. They need to cut off the spigot of federal funding for all of the aforementioned functions, along with its accompanying officious litany of regulations, and with it, the police power to capriciously enforce nebulous (or even phantom) laws against political opponents.

Contrary to Mike Pence’s sentiments, dismantling these agencies is not akin to abolishing the police. Our founders envisioned state and local police and a national military – not dozens of national police forces larger than a military. Police power is the bluntest instrument of government, and it needs the scrutiny of local politics inherent in elections for sheriff, mayor, and county legislative and executive positions. When Madison warned during the Constitutional Convention, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he certainly never envisioned this degree of an executive branch with this number of paramilitary organizations.

The purpose of forming a federal union was to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” for things that states were inherently incapable of doing. Yet what we have today is a government that engages in the antithesis of justice by fanning and fomenting true violence and framing its opponents, gutting our military, empowering the cartels to control our border, and creating monopolies for transhumanist World Economic Forum types at the expense of the general welfare and liberties of the people.

Rather than protecting the ideals spelled out in the preamble of the Constitution, the federal government abrogates every one of them and prevents others from upholding them. Nowhere is this more evident than at the border. If you simply abolished the federal government, then the states could have a fighting chance to secure the border. Yet now, Fox’s Bill Melugin is reporting that while the Texas Guardsmen close the gates to illegal aliens, Border Patrol comes and opens them!

\u201cThis was the moment Border Patrol arrived with the key and let the migrants in. The landowner allows both TX DPS/National Guard and Border Patrol to work here. The gate has always been left open in the past. TX is now closing it, & migrants have to wait for BP to be let in.\u201d
— Bill Melugin (@Bill Melugin) 1660758167

Which leads us back to the original question: At this juncture in time, if our desideratum as a civilization is justice, tranquility, the common defense, general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty, why even have a federal government? I can sure think of a lot of revolting activities of the federal government we can live without. Now, can you think of one we must live with?

Photo by Ronen Tivony/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images (left); Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images (right)

CNN tweet says CDC is 'giving limited freedoms' to fully vaccinated people — and a blistering backlash follows



CNN announced on Twitter Monday that the Centers for Disease Control released new guidelines "giving limited freedoms" to people fully vaccinated against COVID-19:

The CDC releases guidelines giving limited freedoms to people fully vaccinated against Covid-19. Here are the rules… https://t.co/GoNTlLijPV
— CNN Breaking News (@CNN Breaking News)1615219435.0

What was the reaction?

More than a few folks didn't take too kindly to CNN's tweet, which has been getting decidedly ratioed — attracting twice as many comments as likes as of Tuesday morning. And it's clear from a cursory look at the comments that CNN's use of the phrase "giving limited freedoms" isn't appreciated:

  • "The CDC does not have the authority to give me my freedom," one commenter offered. "You f***ing jackasses at CNN and the rest of you idiot liberal s**t heads need to learn ... the government doesn't give you freedom... God did."
  • "Little thing called the Bill of Rights says the CDC holds no authority over me," one user added. "You morons ought to take a glance at some of those amendments and articles from time to time to keep from looking so godawful stupid."
  • "Our freedoms — including assembly — do not come from the f***ing CDC, you ignorant buffoons," another user pointed out. "Go to hell, you wannabe Stalins."
  • "Since when is the CDC in charge of freedom?" another commenter asked.
  • "I can't fault the CDC for how CNN words its tweets, but it's alarming if a news organization believes an unelected government agency is in the business of 'giving ... freedoms,' limited or not," one commenter wrote.
  • "Last time we read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we found nothing to suggest or even hint that our freedoms are granted by the U.S. government or any agency thereof," another user noted. "The CDC and its sycophants in the media might want to do a little remedial reading."
  • "Giving limited freedoms. Oh F off we should have all our freedoms back," another user declared. "I can't believe so many people were OK with all of this."
  • One commenter responded with the following: ""1. The CDC doesn't have authority to give/take freedom. 2. My freedom is inherent in my existence. Vaccines have nothing to do with it. 3. There's no role for the CDC to define rules which private citizens must follow. Authoritarian creep keeps on creeping, with CNN leading."
  • "This is unconstitutional on its face. My freedom is not granted by a government organization," another user wrote.

Anything else?

Interestingly, the CNN story that the tweet points to doesn't mention "giving limited freedoms" — in fact, the word "freedom" doesn't appear in the headline or body of the story.

Rather, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky used the word "recommendations" in saying that those fully vaccinated against COVID-19 can now safely visit with other vaccinated people and small groups of unvaccinated people in some circumstances, according to the CNN article.

In a related development, CNN's Fareed Zakaria hosted a Sunday segment featuring a New York University medical ethics professor who said coronavirus "vaccine passports" are coming to America — and will provide bearers "freedom," "mobility," and access to "certain jobs."