Posted in: History. Tagged: Australia, Bible, Christianity, Faith, Free, Free Indeed, Free Men, Free Press, Free Society, free speech, Free Thought, Freedom, Freedom for Faith, freedom of Movement, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Thought, Freedom to meet, Freedoms, Germany, History, Liberty/Freedom, Life, Medical Freedom, News, Political, Politics, religion, religious freedom, Russia, Science, Soviet Russia, truth, Truth/Lies, UK/England, USA, war, Wars, World History. Leave a comment
I don’t know anything about the movie but the Muslims won the night by getting it cancelled! Another win for the Islamists! Hmm, I wonder if this was a film that Christians were protesting what would be the outcome?
The Great Reset is the baby of the World Economic Forum to which our governments in the West bow. Former Australian politician George Christensen explains more at https://nationfirst.substack.com/p/setting-up-the-great-reset?r=pbjs4&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
‘Liberty Counsel filed a response asking federal Judge Steve Merryday to deny the Department of Defense’s (DOD) motion to dismiss the case of Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin. The DOD raised the same arguments the court has previously rejected. The DOD added a new argument that each of the plaintiffs and the class should be separately litigated in different courts around the country. However, venue is proper in Tampa because some of the Plaintiffs reside in the Tampa district. The courts are unanimous that a lawsuit may be brought in a court district where some of the plaintiffs or defendants reside. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges a cause of action common to all members of the class – namely, that the DOD and the military branches have unlawfully denied the religious accommodation requests of the service members under both the First Amendment and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Liberty Counsel represents many military plaintiffs and is seeking class certification for all six branches of the military who have been unlawfully denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate.
Previous injunctions granted by the Court have already determined that the Plaintiffs’ free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) have been violated. This in addition to the irreparable harm of being discharged and, for some, having to pay back education and training costs. As a result of the pressure, some service members have committed suicide.
After Judge Merryday ordered each branch of the military to file a detailed report regarding religious exemptions from the COVID-19 shot every 14 days beginning Friday, January 7, 2022, the filings prove the DOD is committing blatant religious discrimination. Out of thousands of thousands of requests received, only a few were granted and those service members were already scheduled to leave the military. However, at least 3,449 medical exemptions have been granted. The reports confirm the military continues to deny religious exemptions while granting medical exemptions.
Liberty Counsel presented testimony and several critical documents before federal Judge Steven Merryday during a preliminary injunction for a U.S. Air Force Academy Cadet who faced immediate discipline after being denied his appeal for a religious accommodation from the COVID shot mandate.
During one of the hearings, Liberty Counsel also presented evidence that on January 6, 2022, Brigadier General Paul Moga, a one-star general and commandant of the Air Force Academy, announced to the cadets at a lunch meeting regarding the Omicron variant that “there is very little danger to the force.”
In Congressional testimony on February 17, 2021, Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Director for Operations, Maj. Gen. Jeff Taliaferro, a two-star general, said the military was “fully capable of operating in a COVID environment before vaccinations were available.” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee, asked: “So I take that to mean yes, they’re deployable even if they have not been vaccinated?” Maj. Gen. Taliaferro responded: “Yes, Sir.”
Evidence presented during the hearing included March 2022 memos from Major General Richard D. Burke (Two-Star General), Deputy Principal Cyber Advisor to the Secretary of Defense and Senior Military Advisor for Cyber, and Lieutenant General Michael Howard (Three-Star General), who oversees the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) as Deputy Commander, regarding the approval of mission critical travel for unvaccinated service members who have “no discernable negative impact” on military readiness.
The memo dated March 5, 2022, from Maj. Gen. Burke requested certain “unvaccinated” service members be approved for “mission essential” travel and deployment. He wrote, “Assessed risk to force for co-mingling vaccinated and unvaccinated personnel is low.” In a second memo written the same day, Maj. Gen. Burke wrote: “Headquarters and Headquarters’ Battalion (HHBN), V Corps is 97% fully vaccinated. Assessed risk to force for comingling vaccinated and unvaccinated personnel is low.”
On March 6, 2022, Lt. Gen. Michael Howard’s response to Maj. Gen. Burke’s request regarding “unvaccinated” service members for “mission essential” deployments, wrote “The request…is approved.”
Liberty Counsel also introduced evidence regarding a new change by the Marine Corps for “Quarantine and Isolation” (Q&I). Based on the data, the Marine Corps no longer requires COVID-positive Marines to Q&I from healthy Marines. Now, they are in the same barracks as Marines who do not have COVID and there is no longer any testing required.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The evidence is clear that these courageous service members have a strong case and are being used as part of a purging of our military members who love God and love America. There is no other logical or scientific explanation for the Department of Defense’s continued insistence on the shot mandate. We will continue to fight for every service member.”’https://theiowastandard.com/dods-desperate-attempt-to-dismiss-navy-seal-1-case/
‘It is hard to overstate just how sinister the Online Safety Bill is. The gravest threat to freedom of speech since section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalised “insulting words and behaviour”? That scarcely does it justice. Let’s settle on the most serious threat since the proposal to force state regulation on the press in the aftermath of Levison.
The Online Safety Bill, which has already had its second reading in the House of Commons, is intended to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online. If you think “safest” is code for “most heavily regulated” you’re not far wrong.
The Bill will empower Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, to fine social media companies up to 10 per cent of their global turnover if they fail to remove harmful content — and not just harmful to children, which is hard to argue with, but to adults as well.
What does the Government mean by “harmful”? The only definition the Bill offers is in clause 150, where it sets out the details of a new Harmful Communications Offence, punishable by up to two years in jail: “‘harm’ means psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress.”
But, confusingly, it won’t just be harmful content that meets this definition that the bill will force social media companies to remove. After all, this relates to a new criminal offence — and content that meets the threshold for prosecution under this new law will, by definition, be illegal. Notoriously, the Bill will also force social media companies to remove “legal but harmful” content — and exactly what that is, is anyone’s guess. I’m sure political activists and lobby groups claiming to speak on behalf of various victim groups will have a lot to say about it.
The bottom line is that stuff it is perfectly legal to say and write offline will be prohibited online. And not just mildly prohibited — YouTube or Twitter or Facebook could be fined of up to 10 per cent of their annual global turnover for a transgression — so in Facebook’s case $11.7 billion, based on its 2021 revenue.
That’s a powerful incentive for social media companies to remove anything remotely contentious — and they hardly need much encouragement. Facebook deleted 26.9 million pieces of content for violating its Community Standards on “hate speech” in the first quarter of 2020, 17 times as many as the 1.6 million instances of deleted “hate speech” in the last quarter of 2017.
More than 97 per cent of Facebook’s purged “hate speech” in the last three months of 2020 was identified by an algorithm and removed automatically. It’s a safe bet that the sensitivity dials on the algorithms social media companies use to censor questionable content will be turned up to 11 if this Bill ever becomes law.’ More of this article at https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/june-2022/why-i-fear-this-censors-charter/
‘Emory University has removed the name of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar from prestigious law professorships because he owned slaves and served in the Confederate Army.
The university declined to be moved by the fact that Lamar supported the 14th Amendment as well as compromise and reconciliation with the North after the Civil War.’ More of this article at https://www.thecollegefix.com/emory-removes-name-of-supreme-court-justice-from-1800s-because-he-owned-slaves/