Historic Defiance of an Order and Discharge of Members of the Armed Forces

Earlier this week, we learned that the Air Force had terminated 27 airmen for defying the order to take experimental injections. 

Whatever you think of the "vaccines", you should at least respect these airmen for following through on their moral convictions.  I find it as pathetic as it is predictable that the relatively few press outlets who covered this story failed to acknowledge the moral courage of these men, but rather sought to diminish their importance by quoting only Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said "all of them were in their first term of enlistment, so they were younger, lower-ranking personnel." In other words, their life's dream was to serve in the Air Force and they had to give it up for the convictions not long after they joined. .  

The Hammer and Syringe Emblem

Even worse is the transparently dishonest characterization of this purge as normal by comparing these heroes to common order violators.

It is not unusual for members of the military to be thrown out of the service for disobeying an order; discipline is a key tenet of the armed services. As a comparison, Stefanek said that in the first three quarters of 2021, about 1,800 airmen were discharged for failure to follow orders.

Of those 1,800, how many involved a group of airmen being discharged for refusing to follow an order out of moral conviction? Comparing these courageous airmen to those who are discharged for common order violations strikes me as spiteful and inappropriate.

In 1968, 43 soldiers from Fort Hood refused to be deployed to repress peace demonstrations at home. 

I am no military history buff and I don't know if there have been other similar events.  I think it is pretty safe to guess however, that we will soon be eclipsing the 43 order-refusers of 1968 in a mass defiance of orders event that will eventually lead to the largest discharge of soldiers in modern times.

Federal Vaccine Mandates: Three Iced, Two In Effect. Don't forget to pray for members of the Military and Federal Employees

There has been a lot of great news about the blocking of three federal mandates (OSHA, CMS, and federal contractors). But, the orders requiring servicemembers and federal employees have not yet been blocked.

 Please pray for the members of the military and the federal civilian employees,  and especially for the spiritual and physical health of those who took the injections because of the mandates.

Whose "Community Standards"?

A group of federal employees who reject the mandated injections recently had their thriving Facebook group disabled.  According to Mr. Zuckerberg's Company, "Feds 4 Medical Freedom goes against our Community Standards on misinformation that could cause physical harm." Facebook claims that it encourages free expression, but doesn't allow false information about COVID-19 that could contribute to physical harm.

So, you are free to talk on Zuckerberg's platform, just so long as what you say isn't false. That is, you are free to talk, as long as what you say agrees with Zuckerberg. You can get away with contradicting Zuckerbergian shibboleths until Zuckerberg's monitors notice that you are getting too many views, likes, reposts, and new members. At that point, you might be a danger to yourself and others.

I would not have such a problem with that if Mr. Zuckerberg were more upfront about it. The terms and conditions should be clear: "You are not allowed to disagree with the orthodoxy and shibboleths of your betters on this platform." Instead, he claims that this is part of "our Community Standards."

I have lived in various states and regions of America. I think that I understand the community standards of most American communities. Based on all of my experience, I don't recognize the Community Standard. It is foreign to me.

American Community Standards involve accepting that a man has the right to open his mouth and be proved an idiot. American Community Standards involve the right to exclaim that the Emperor has no vaccine.

The "Community Standards" of Mr. Zuckerberg's company is simply the standard of an insecure elite that  knows it cannot compete in the free flow of ideas and information. 

Since we are now communicating over the Internet, Americans had better do something to make sure that their Internet communications are governed by American Community Standards.  And we'd better do it fast. In 2017, you were probably not planning how you would find ways to speak freely about your opinions in the event of a health emergency, but at that time, Big Pharma was making plans to partner with Big Tech to muzzle you. 

If you want to understand what is happening, you need to read RFK's book and follow the citations for yourself. The prescience of the scenario from the 2017, The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028, a Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators, is unsettling. 

 

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: How might using social media partners to silence and deplatform critics ensure that Americans have access to information that is as free, safe, and effective as the vaccine?

A Good Question Raised by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty noted and asked in his order yesterday in Louisiana v. Becerra the following:

The CMS Mandate does not yet require boosters to the COVID-19 vaccines. However, the CDC recently recommended boosters.  If boosters are needed six months after being “fully vaccinated,” then how good are the COVID-19 vaccines, and why is it necessary to mandate them?

Judge Doughty's question is spot-on and apparently had not been answered to his satisfaction. Indeed, how could it have been? This is one of the worst conundrums of arbitrariness that the President faces. The drug companies and the federal agencies admit that the injections lose protections after six months, but the mandates grants employment privileges to those who took them a year ago, while banishing those who decline. Makes no sense.

The Administration's only way out of this Bermuda Triangle of logic is to require booster shots, which would have happened had that FDA advisory panel not rejected the booster application in September. Until boosters are mandated, the mandate makes absolutely no sense as anything but a political loyalty test.

Federal Vaccine Mandates Found Not Immune to Challenges- Roundup

Lots of good stuff has been happening on in the courts in the last couple of weeks.

5th Circuit's order in BTS Holding v. OSHA on 11-12, enjoining the OSHA mandate.

Judge Winsor's order on 11-12, rejecting the claim rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine.

Judge Merryday's order on 11-22, requiring the military branches to provide information about exception grants on a schedule to prove the exception grant process is not "a ruse."

Biden Administration's kicking of  the can on the federal employee mandate out until January.

Judge Schelp's order on 11-29, enjoining the federal healthcare worker mandate in 10 states. 

Judge Doughty's order on 11-30, enjoining the federal healthcare worker mandate in all other states.

Judge Tatenhove's order on 11-30, enjoining the federal contractor mandate in 3 states.

Hopefully one of the challenges to the federal employee mandate turns the corner soon. I am aware of 12. 

1. Brnovich v. Biden, filed by Attorney General of Arizona, on 9-14, No. 21-1568 (D. Ariz.) ("Defendants’ imposition of vaccine mandates on U.S. citizens and lawfully employed aliens, but not on unauthorized aliens at the border or already present in the United States, constitutes discrimination on the basis of national origin and alienage in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.") See his 10-22 motion for TRO ; Order granting leave to file amended complaint and new motion for preliminary injunction 11-10; Amended Complaint;  Motion for Preliminary Injunction 11-19; 
2. GREGG COSTIN, et al. v. Biden filed by Michael Yoder on 9-23 (D.C.), 1:21-cv-02484
3. Foley v. Biden, filed by David Foley and Daniel Flickinger on 9-29 (Northern District of Texas)  4:21-cv-01098-O, See Defendant's Response, the Judge's Order, and Plaintiff's Response to that Order, and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion; Plaintiff's second motion to amend and draft amended complaint; Defendant's request for extension of time to file answer to original complaint in light of potential amendment 11-22;  Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's request for extension 11-23; Defendant's Reply re extension of time 11-24; Order granting motion for extension in part 11-29
4. Navy Seal, et al v. Biden filed by Liberty Counsel on 10-15 (Middle District of Florida) 8:21-cv-02429; Order denying prelim injunction, deferring judgment in part (military only), and ordering information about exemption requests provided on schedule (military only); Defendant opposition to class certification and exhibits 12-3
5. ALTSCHULD ET AL v. RAIMONDO et al  (D.C.) filed by the Federal Practice Group on 10-19,   1:2021cv02779, Defendant Response to motion for preliminary injunction ;exhibits11-3; Order denying preliminary injunction 11-8
6. Rydie et al v. Biden et al Employee A v. Biden, filed by Jonathan Bolls on October 19, 2021 (Maryland) 8:2021cv02696, see motion for TRO; Biden response in opposition 11-12; Plaintiff Reply; Order Denying TRO 11-19
7. Church v. Biden, filed filed by Michael Yoder on 10-24 (D.C.)1:21-cv-02815, as reported by Under Cover DC; Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order;  opposition from the Defendants; Plaintiff's Response 11-3; Memorandum Order denying preliminary injunction 11-8
8. Smith v Biden, 1:21-cv-19457-CPO-SAK filed 10-29 (NJ); brief in support motion for injunction with exhibits; opposition to motion for injunction 11-5; Reply to motion in opposition 11-6;  Order denying injunction 11-8; 
9. AFGE Local 501 et al v. Biden et al filed by Mark Berkowitz on behalf of AFGE Local 501 and Council of Prison Locals CPL 33 on 10-30 (Southern Florida) 1:21-cv-23828-JAL, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order denying preliminary injunction (11-15) 
10.  James Joseph Rodden, et al. v. Dr. Anthony Fauci, et al. filed by John J. Vecchione, Jenin Younes, and Harriet Hageman of New Civil Liberties Alliance and Robert Henneke of Texas Public Policy Foundation on November 5, 2021 (Southern District of Texas) 3:21-cv-00317; Defendant's response in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, exhibits; Plaintiff's reply and exhibit; Order denying injunction 11-27-21
11. Payne v. Biden, filed by Reed Rubinstein for America First Legal Foundation on November 22, 2021 (D.C.)  1:21-cv-03077; Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment (Nov 24); Memo in support of motion for summary judgment
12.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS 33 and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2018 v. DIRECTOR KIRAN AHUJA, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Attorney General MERRICK B. GARLAND and LLOYD AUSTIN, filed by Bruce L. Castor, Jr. Michael T. van der Veen on behalf of Council 33 and Local 2018 on November 23, 2021 (E.D. Pa) 2:2021cv05172

I keep the list updated here: https://laborrelated.blogspot.com/2021/10/list-of-law-suits-filed-by-federal.html