The Rutherford Institute | August 5, 2022
HOUSTON, Tex. — The Rutherford Institute is denouncing as unconstitutional an attempt by Texas officials to muzzle political viewpoints expressed in the form of boycotts and protests.
Weighing in before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in A&R Engineering and Testing, Inc. v. Paxton, Rutherford Institute attorneys are challenging a Texas anti-boycott law that prohibits the government from doing business with companies that boycott or criticize Israel. Approximately 33 states have adopted laws that seek to punish those who criticize Israel by denying them government contracts.
“Boycotts are a protected part of the American tradition of political protest that dates back to the American Revolution, when early Americans expressed their outrage over Britain’s oppressive taxes and military occupation by staging boycotts of British goods and organizing public protests, mass meetings, parades, and other demonstrations,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Anti-boycott laws are a thinly disguised plot to muzzle dissent, silence those who would challenge government authority, and undermine our First Amendment rights, which assure us of the right to free speech, expressive activities, protest, and the right to criticize the government.”
Anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) laws, which have gained traction across the country, restrict government funds being paid to persons or entities who boycott Israel or take any action intended to penalize or inflict economic harm on Israel, such as by giving speeches or sponsoring protests against Israel. Anti-BDS laws have arisen in response to a political movement that seeks to apply international, nonviolent pressure on Israel so long as it occupies the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and further seeks to achieve full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel. The state of Texas, which has been actively courting business with Israel for the past few years, first enacted an anti-BDS Law in 2017, which prohibits government agencies from doing business with companies that boycott Israel.
A&R Engineering and Testing has contracted with the city of Houston for 17 years and provided more than $2 million worth of services to the city. However, A&R’s owner Rasmy Hassouna has attended protests in support of Palestinian rights and personally boycotts Israel over its occupation of Palestine (he also boycotts Venezuela). As a result of the state’s anti-BDS law, A&R Engineering was unable to renew its government contract. A&R Engineering filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas against the City of Houston and the Texas Attorney General challenging the anti-BDS law as an unconstitutional attempt by the government to force Hassouna to relinquish his right to political expression. The court found that Hassouna’s pro-Palestinian political views are protected by the First Amendment and issued an injunction to stop the government from enforcing the law and requiring the clause in A&R’s contract. The Attorney General appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In support of A&R’s right to political expression, The Rutherford Institute has asked that the injunction be upheld and argued in favor of its being expanded beyond this particular case.
John S. Friend of Friend Law P.S.C. advanced the arguments in the A&R Engineering and Testing, Inc. v. Paxton amicus brief.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
By James Bovard | Future of Freedom | July 2022
Joe Biden won the 2020 election as a result of 43,000 votes in three states. The election was far closer than the media has usually admitted. There were plenty of dubious factors that could have tipped the scales for a Biden victory, including machinations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The long history of FBI abuse
Though the media usually portray the FBI as the ultimate good guys, the bureau has long history of intervening in presidential elections. Shortly after taking office after Franklin Roosevelt’s death, President Harry Truman commented in his diary: “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail… This must stop.” But FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover outfoxed Truman and every subsequent president.
In the 1948 presidential campaign, Hoover brazenly championed Republican candidate Thomas Dewey, leaking allegations that Truman was part of a corrupt Kansas City political machine. In 1952, Hoover sought to undermine Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson by spreading rumors that he was a closet homosexual.
In 1964, the FBI illegally wiretapped Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s presidential headquarters and plane and conducted background checks on his campaign staff for evidence of homosexual activity. The FBI also conducted an extensive surveillance operation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention to prevent embarrassing challenges to President Lyndon Johnson.
In 2016, the FBI whitewashed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, protecting her despite her various crimes regarding handling of classified information and destruction of emails and other evidence from her time as secretary of state. An Inspector General report revealed in 2018 that the key FBI agents in the investigations were raving partisans. “We’ll stop” Donald Trump from becoming president, lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok texted his mistress/girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, in August 2016. One FBI agent labeled Trump supporters as “retarded” and declared “I’m with her” [Hillary Clinton]. Another FBI employee texted that “Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” The FBI failed to make any audio or video recordings of its interviews with Clinton aides and staffers. It also delayed speaking to Clinton until the end of the investigation and planned to absolve her “absent a confession from Clinton,” the Inspector General noted.
The FBI failed to stop Trump from winning in 2016, but FBI officials devoted themselves to crippling his presidency with fabricated evidence implying that Russia had illicitly intervened in the presidential election. One top FBI lawyer was convicted for falsifying evidence to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to target Trump campaign officials. FBI chief James Comey leaked official memos to friendly reporters, thereby spurring the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Trump. Mueller’s investigation generated endless allegations and controversies and helped Democrats capture control of the House of Representatives in 2018 prior to admitting in 2019 that there was no such Russian conspiracy. Not one FBI official has spent a single day in jail for the abuses.
The ongoing Hunter Biden laptop scandal
In December 2019, FBI agents came into possession of a laptop that Hunter Biden had abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop. That laptop was a treasure trove of crimes, including evidence that Hunter and other Bidens had collected millions in payments from foreign sources for providing access in Washington and other favors. That laptop provided ample documentation that Joe Biden could be compromised by foreign powers.
When news finally leaked out about the laptop in October 2020, 50 former intelligence officials effectively torpedoed the story by claiming that the laptop was a Russian disinformation ploy. The FBI knew that the laptop was bona fide but said nothing to undercut the falsehoods by the former spooks. The Justice Department commenced an investigation of Hunter Biden in 2019, but Attorney General William Barr made sure that information did not surface publicly before the 2020 election. (The investigation is ongoing.)
The FBI has continued its pro-Democrat campaigns
The FBI’s most brazen intervention in the 2020 election consisted of fabricating a ludicrous plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, one of Biden’s favorite governors. Michigan was a swing state in the election. Whitmer enraged many Michiganders by placing the entire state under house arrest after the outbreak of COVID-19. Anyone who left their home to visit family or friends risked a $1,000 fine, and business owners faced three years in prison for refusing to close their stores. Unemployment soared to 24 percent statewide, but Whitmer’s policies failed to prevent more than 2 million Michiganers from contracting COVID.
The FBI exploited the anger against Whitmer to try to add some scalps to their collection. A few weeks before the 2020 election, the FBI announced the arrests of individuals who had been lured by FBI informants and undercover agents to talk about capturing Whitmer and putting her on trial. After the arrests were announced, Whitmer speedily denounced Trump for inciting “domestic terrorism” and declared, “When our leaders meet with, encourage, and or fraternize with domestic terrorists, they legitimize their actions. They are complicit.”
Joe Biden claimed that the arrests showed President Trump’s “tolerance of hate, vengeance, and lawlessness to plots such as this one.” Former FBI official Frank Figluzzi told MSNBC that Trump should be investigated for “aiding and abetting” the Michigan plot. Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe announced on CNN: “The person most responsible for fomenting this kind of unrest, this sort of division, this sort of violence in this country right now is the president of the United States.” Law professor Jonathan Turley noted:
The media went into a frenzy, declaring that the case proved that: ‘Trump’s rhetoric and policies have unleashed a second pandemic in the form of far-right domestic terrorism.’ The breathless accounts of this plot by three ‘Boogaloo’ militiamen fit like a glove with the narrative just before the election.
There was plenty of reason to doubt the plot from the start. As I noted in an American Institute for Economic Research article on the day after the arrests were announced, “The alleged Michigan plot is almost too idiotic to believe.”
A Michigan jury in April effectively concluded that the plotters had been entrapped in an FBI-fabricated plot. There were as many FBI informants and undercover agents involved in the plot as private citizens. From the start, the FBI steered the participants into saying and doing things that would supposedly seal their legal doom. Stephen Robeson, an FBI informant with a list of felonies and other crimes, organized key events to build the movement. Dan Chapel, another FBI informant who was paid $54,000, became second-in-command and masterminded the military training for the group, even as he helped the feds wiretap their messages.
FBI operatives took the participants, who prattled idiotically about stealing a Blackhawk helicopter, for drives near Whitmer’s vacation home, which supposedly proved they were going to nab the governor and unleash havoc. Shortly before that excursion, an FBI agent texted instructions to Chapel: “Mission is to kill the governor specifically.”
The conspiracy began unraveling even before the trial began in March. Robert Trask, the lead FBI agent and “the public face” of the kidnapping case, was fired after he was arrested for “beating his wife during an argument over an orgy that the two had attended at a hotel in Kalamazoo, Mich.,” the New York Times reported. Two other key FBI agents were sidelined from the case for misconduct (including creating a side hustle with their own cybersecurity firm).
Thanks to Supreme Court rulings minimizing entrapment defenses, federal Judge Robert Jonker blocked defense attorneys from informing the jury of almost all the evidence of federal misconduct in the Whitmer case.
As BuzzFeed’s Ken Bensinger reported, the jury refused to convict “despite the government’s extraordinary efforts to muzzle the defense… Prosecutors went to extraordinary lengths to exclude evidence and witnesses that might undermine their arguments, while winning the right to bring in almost anything favorable to their own side.” BuzzFeed also noted that the judge “ruled that defendants could not inquire about the past conduct of several FBI agents, though the government would be allowed to question the defendants about episodes in their own past.”
The jury saw enough to smell a federal rat. As Turley wrote:
The Whitmer conspiracy was a production written, funded, and largely populated by FBI agents and informants. At every point, FBI literally drove the conspirators and controlled their actions. That is worthy of investigation by Congress, but neither house seems even marginally interested.
The Michigan jury verdict spurred plenty of howls by the friends of Leviathan. Former Justice Department lawyer Barbara McQuade lamented, “This verdict concerns me because it could embolden other anti-government extremists to engage in dangerous conduct in the name of vigilante justice. In a time when we see a growing number of threats of violence against public officials, it is important to hold such conduct accountable.” But the establishment media has perennially disregarded holding government officials accountable for violating Americans’ rights.
The ongoing FBI threat to liberty
Shortly before the Michigan trial began, the New York Times noted that it was “being closely watched as one of the most significant recent domestic terrorism cases, a test of Washington’s commitment in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol to pursue far-right groups who seek to kindle a violent, anti-government insurgency or even a new civil war.” FBI chief Christopher Wray told Congress last year that the FBI has 2,000 ongoing domestic terrorism investigations. How many additional crimes or conspiracies is the FBI fomenting at this moment? Will Americans ever learn what role, if any, the FBI had in goading some of those arrested in the Jan. 6 Capitol clash into committing a crime? And what about Team Biden’s efforts to continually expand the definition of “dangerous extremist” to sanctify its power? Last June, the Biden administration revealed that guys who can’t get laid may be terrorist threats due to “involuntary celibate–violent extremism.” No wonder the terrorist watch list is expanding at breakneck pace.
The Founding Fathers wisely did not create a national police force, but federal law-enforcement agencies have multiplied like mushrooms. Almost 100 years ago, the American Civil Liberties Union warned that the FBI had become “a secret police system of a political character.” Neither Congress nor federal courts have since effectively reined in the most powerful domestic federal agency. What mischief will the FBI commit to influence future elections? And what are the odds that Americans will know about it before the polling booths close?
Fireworks in French Parliament as the government’s proposed legislation to extend vaccine passports and other covid restrictions was rejected by the Assembly
Resisting the Intellectual Illiteratti | July 31, 2022
The government’s Covid bill was brought to the lower house on Monday July 11th and the stormy debates started right away, lasting into late Tuesday night, amidst interrupted sessions and even a motion of censure against the government (which, sadly, fell short of the necessary votes to be successful).
The Macron government’s main aim with the Covid bill was/is to extend the use of so-called health passes for all travelers coming into and out of France, creating a sort of “border pass.” What’s interesting is that on that Monday evening, I think it was, a motion was introduced by an opposition party to cut out the entire article dealing with this provision. The article in question, Article 2, would require anyone coming into or leaving France, regardless of nationality, to show either a negative PCR test, proof of recovery or proof of injection at the border. It would also make it possible to require children (between 12 and 18, I think) to use a health/border pass for travel as well.
Unfortunately, this bold move to scrap article 2 right out of the gate fell short of the necessary votes (by only 14 votes), and the debates raged on. It was a blow to all of us, especially those of us present at the protest next to the Assemblée on the 11th, because we were all hoping that the new lot of parliamentarians would do the right thing immediately.
But then, to everyone’s surprise, just a day later the newly elected députés ended up doing just that, when Article 2 was taken out of the bill by a majority of parliamentarians in the opposition who were able to set aside their differences on this crucial issue. In subsequent votes, another article was removed, and the bill ended up passing with only the first article intact. But it is now a watered down version of what the government wanted.
As things presently stand, the state of emergency and the dictatorial powers it has conferred on the executive for the last 2.5 years will come to an end on the 31st of July 2022. In addition, health passes (rebranded as border passes) cannot be brought back for travel at the border or for any other reason. For anyone.
So not only will lockdowns, curfews and business/school closures be off the table (at least not without the parliament passing a new law), but the government won’t be allowed to issue mask mandates or set capacity limits on businesses. Those are the very positive outcomes of the vote.
On the downside, medically meaningless and invasive testing and contact tracing will continue, with the intolerable and absurd obligations and restrictions they entail becoming more and more normalized. So even if the positive developments are not to be scoffed at, the nightmare is far from over and the battle is in no way won.
The bill is now before the Senate — whose composition, unlike the lower house, has not changed — where the majority right-wing Les Républicains, who lent their support to just about every totalitarian measure that has come before them since 2020, could easily vote the 2nd article back into the bill. The text is currently being studied by a Constitutional Law Committee (about which little has been reported) and tomorrow, Wednesday July 20th, it will be debated in the Senate, with the session open to the public, so broadcast.
It has been reported on a government website that amendments have been introduced by Senators, perhaps providing for some limited return of mask mandates or the health/border pass, but what these are exactly won’t be known until tomorrow, when the debates are held.
The Macron government was up in arms over the lower house’s amputation of the second article from its precious bill and has vowed to use all legal means and pressures to get the evil parts put back in by the sénateurs. Whatever the outcome in the senate, the bill will be the subject of further discussion and another vote in the lower house, which has the final say in the legislative process. A possible wild card that the government could still use would be to claim an unacceptable deadlock between the two houses and call for the creation of a joint parliamentary committee to find some compromise.
Even if this were to happen, the lower house will still have the final word in the legislative process. However, the wheeling and dealing that takes place in such drawn-out situations tends to favor the government.
Our hope is that the momentum created from the small victory over article 2 will gather force and prove to be unstoppable. Perhaps the efforts of the heroic groups of scientists, researchers, and doctors (and the alternative media that have given them a platform) who have spoken out over the past year and challenged the official narrative have made a difference. Even the most obtuse of the parliamentarians will know by now that the injections don’t prevent transmission or infection, or that a positive PCR test is not a “case,” at least not in the way that word was used up until long-established principles of public health and basic scientific facts were subverted in 2020.
The one thing I can’t quite understand in connection with this covid bill is how the government is still getting away with maintaining the suspension of the several thousand nurses and doctors who refused to take the experimental injection last September as part of their new Orwellian conditions of employment.
Of the 15,000 who have been prevented from earning a living in the healthcare professions for the last 10 months, it is believed that perhaps up to 5,000 have pivoted to other jobs or sectors, and may never return to healthcare. But it seems that the majority of those whom the government suspended do not want to do anything else and desperately would like to return to work to help sick and injured people get better.
During a time of chronic shortages in the healthcare system in France, and in light of the aforementioned reality that the injections don’t protect patients from infection from hospital staff, one would think the government would cede ground on this critical issue and allow the sorely needed personnel to go back to work. But not only is the Macron government continuing to refuse to allow thousands of experienced doctors, nurses and orderlies back to work, it continues to get away with saying that the so-called vaccinations are necessary to protect patients.
It is maintaining this delirious position not only amidst increasingly vociferous and vehement calls by the opposition parties in the lower house to reinstate the thousands of healthcare workers but also in light of the fact, now well documented and part of the public record, that the Macron gouvernement has reduced public hospital capacity by something like 18 thousand beds over the past 5 years and that perhaps 5 thousand of these were closed during the worst months of the pandemic. At the same time the government and the MSM are working hard to ramp up fear again, warning of a coming 7th or 8th wave (I’ve lost track), once again in complete contradiction to publicly available epidemiological data. The cognitive dissonance is unprecedented.
What I’m not clear about is how Macron, through his Prime Minister and Health Minister, will be able to keep healthcare workers suspended from their jobs after the state of emergency ends on the 31st of July. I would have thought the Parliament could find some way to legislate the healthcare workers back to their jobs either before or after this date.
If an absolute majority of lawmakers from several very different parties who are usually at each other’s throats (socialists, far-leftists, right and far-right) can agree that health/border passes must not be brought back, the same people can surely agree that over 10,000 healthcare workers vital to the health of the nation should have their right to earn a living restored to them, along with their right be free from medical coercion.
Although many have spoken out publicly against this continued outrage, what is missing, in my view, is for some high-profile dissident or attorney to publicly make the argument (for which it seems there is no shortage of evidence) that the Macron government has committed, in some form, reckless endangerment to human life by reducing hospital capacity and suspending thousands of health care workers during a so-called public health emergency. How wonderful would it be if someone just floated the idea.
Yet even during the most polite and thoughtful discussions between government officials and dissident academics, or during the more bold and humorous exchanges between critical media hosts and their guests, I have never heard it respectfully submitted — with all the careful wording and gentle tones that could be used to soften the accusation — that the closing of hospital beds and the suspension of healthcare workers, both by the thousands, in the middle of a pandemic must be considered a criminal act and should therefore be prosecuted as such. There must be some mathematical modeler on our side up to the challenge of estimating how many lives may have been lost due to these irrational and reckless actions taken by the government.
It’s maddening to see that after all the headway made in bringing certain basic facts to public attention (in this case, facts having to do with the uselessness of the injections for healthcare workers), the livelihoods of thousands of doctors and nurses essential to the health of the nation remain in the hands of Macron’s Prime Minister, who has once again said, peremptorily, that letting them return to work “is not on the agenda.” Such arbitrary, arrogant power would have been unthinkable a few years ago. It continues to be extremely worrying.
Prior posts from this author:
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | July 30, 2022
New Democratic Party member of parliament Brian Masse said that ArriveCAN, which is mandatory for entry into Canada, is not about safety, it is about tracking. Despite pushback from the opposition, the public, and industry experts, the Liberal Trudeau government insists on the continued use of the app.
“I always fight for safety 1st, ArriveCAN is not that. It’s being used as a back door to permanently track all border crossing,” Masse wrote on Twitter.
“MPs need to speak up now or it will destroy our tourism industry, frustrate & create longer line ups when the technology fails.”
Speaking to the Windsor Star, Masse said he had been urging the government to remove the requirement for about a month. He argued that the app delays traffic and does not improve public safety because testing results can be input 72 hours before arrival, which is enough time for someone to get infected.
He further argued that the app is outdated because it only covers the first two doses; it does not cover the boosters.
Masse also said that the app is harming Canada’s tourism.
“Branding is now becoming an issue,” said Masse. “All border MPs know this. We are basically watching the destruction of our tourism industry…People are just going to stay away.”
Despite all these concerns, the government insists on the continued use of the app, saying that the pandemic is not over.
The government also recently announced that the app can be used for customs and immigration declarations, leading to speculations that ArriveCAN might become permanent.
Samizdat | July 30, 2022
Kiev has ordered mandatory evacuations from the parts of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) that remain under the control of Ukrainian forces. Deputy Prime Minister Irina Vereshchuk explained on Saturday the decision by saying that it would be impossible to provide the region’s residents with heating in the cold months.
Speaking during a national TV marathon, Vereshchuk, who also heads up what Ukraine calls the ‘Ministry for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories’, said that given the complete lack of gas supplies and widespread electricity outages, “there will be no heat in Donetsk region in the winter period,” and therefore about 200,000-220,000 residents will have to leave their homes.
“There is absolutely no gas supply in the Donetsk region, all the gas pipelines that could be repaired were repaired, but, unfortunately, the enemy destroys again and again everything that would help to warm people in winter,” she claimed.
Even before Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine, the DPR had been accusing Ukraine of targeting civilian infrastructure. With the launch of the operation, the bombings only escalated, as have the accusations from both sides.
Vereshchuk emphasized that the evacuation of households is “the duty of every adult member of the family.”
“For example, there are 52,000 of our children in the Donetsk region. They must be evacuated, they cannot be exposed to danger if left without heat and light in the winter,” the minister stressed.
Vereshchuk emphasized that mandatory evacuations are permitted under Ukrainian law and said that those who refuse to leave will have to sign a document confirming that they understand the consequences of their decision and take full responsibility for it.
Zaporozhye Region, 65% of the territory of which is without gas supply, may be the next to be evacuated, Vereshchuk added.
According to the minister, the authorities have taken all of the necessary measures to provide evacuees with accommodation and proper social services.
“There is an understanding of where these people will be resettled, in which regions, where their children will study,” she said.
On Friday, the government supported her ministry’s initiative to create a coordination center, which will supervise the evacuation from Donbass.
“Donetsk is now on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. Active hostilities continue there, the infrastructure is destroyed. People are not only at risk of coming under fire every second – it will not be easy to survive in the absence of light, heat, medicine and food in winter. The solution – evacuation,” the government said in a statement.
Liberty Counsel | July 29, 2022
Today, Liberty Counsel settled the nation’s first classwide lawsuit for health care workers over a COVID shot mandate, for more than $10.3 million. The class action settlement against NorthShore University HealthSystem is on behalf of more than 500 current and former health care workers who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate. The agreed upon settlement was filed today in the federal Northern District Court of Illinois.
As a result of the settlement, NorthShore will pay $10,337,500 to compensate these health care employees who were victims of religious discrimination, and who were punished for their religious beliefs against taking an injection associated with aborted fetal cells.
This is a historic, first-of-its-kind class action settlement against a private employer who unlawfully denied hundreds of religious exemption requests to COVID-19 shots.
The settlement must be approved by the federal District Court. Employees of NorthShore who were denied religious exemptions will receive notice of the settlement, and will have an opportunity to comment, object, request to opt out, or submit a claim form for payment out of the settlement fund, all in accordance with deadlines that will be set by the court.
As part of the settlement agreement, NorthShore will also change its unlawful “no religious accommodations” policy to make it consistent with the law, and to provide religious accommodations in every position across its numerous facilities. No position in any NorthShore facility will be considered off limits to unvaccinated employees with approved religious exemptions.
In addition, employees who were terminated because of their religious refusal of the COVID shots will be eligible for rehire if they apply within 90 days of final settlement approval by the court, and they will retain their previous seniority level.
The amount of individual payments from the settlement fund will depend on how many valid and timely claim forms are submitted during the claims process. If the settlement is approved by the court and all or nearly all of the affected employees file valid and timely claims, it is estimated that employees who were terminated or resigned because of their religious refusal of a COVID shot will receive approximately $25,000 each, and employees who were forced to accept a COVID shot against their religious beliefs to keep their jobs will receive approximately $3,000 each.
The 13 health care workers who are lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit will receive an additional approximate payment of $20,000 each for their important role in bringing this lawsuit and representing the class of NorthShore health care workers.
Liberty Counsel will receive 20 percent of the settlement sum, which equals $2,061,500, as payment for the significant attorney’s fees and costs it has required to undertake to sue NorthShore and hold it accountable for its actions. This amount is far less than the typical 33 percent usually requested by attorneys in class action litigation.
In October 2021, Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to NorthShore on behalf of numerous health care workers who had sincere religious objections to NorthShore’s “Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.” If NorthShore had agreed then to follow the law and grant religious exemptions, the matter would have been quickly resolved and it would have cost it nothing. But, when NorthShore refused to follow the law, and instead denied all religious exemption and accommodation requests for employees working in its facilities, Liberty Counsel filed a class action lawsuit, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction.
Liberty Counsel Vice President of Legal Affairs and Chief Litigation Counsel Horatio G. Mihet said, “We are very pleased with the historic, $10 million settlement achieved in our class action lawsuit against NorthShore University HealthSystem. The drastic policy change and substantial monetary relief required by the settlement will bring a strong measure of justice to NorthShore’s employees who were callously forced to choose between their conscience and their jobs. This settlement should also serve as a strong warning to employers across the nation that they cannot refuse to accommodate those with sincere religious objections to forced vaccination mandates.”
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel said: “This classwide settlement providing compensation and the opportunity to return to work is the first of its kind in the nation involving COVID shot mandates. This settlement should be a wake-up call to every employer that did not accommodate or exempt employees who opposed the COVID shots for religious reasons. Let this case be a warning to employers that violated Title VII. It is especially significant and gratifying that this first classwide COVID settlement protects health care workers. Health care workers are heroes who daily give their lives to protect and treat their patients. They are needed now more than ever.”
MEMO | July 29, 2022
In a victory for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, a US judge has thrown out bogus anti-Semitism claims against a professor at Pittsburgh university in a lawsuit based on the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Jewish racism.
Pro-Israel groups have been advocating IHRA’s adoption for several years saying that the non-binding definition will not stifle free speech on Israel. Critics, however, have consistently warned that not only will the IHRA have a chilling effect on free speech, but it will also give ammunition to radicalised Zionist groups to pursue malicious lawsuits against critics of the Apartheid State.
Robert Ross, who teaches literary arts and social justice studies at Point Park University appears to have been the victim of such spurious and malicious lawsuits which are designed to intimidate critics of Israel as much as to instil fear in anyone advocating for Palestinian rights.
The lawsuit against Ross was filed in 2019 by Channa Newman, a professor at the university. Newman claimed that she was a target of anti-Semitism due to her Zionist beliefs. According to the Electronic Intifada, Newman’s lawsuit alleged Ross used his position to foster “a militant version” of the BDS movement and “hateful views against Israel” that “are anti-Semitic.”
Newman, who made her case using the US State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism which has very similar wording to the IHRA, further alleged that the political views of Ross, and those of his students, led to a hostile work environment for her. As is the case with the IHRA, the State Department definition includes claims that it is anti-Semitic to say Israel’s foundation was a “racist endeavour” or to apply “double standards” to Israel by requiring from it “behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
In his ruling, the judge asserted that if the court accepted Newman’s allegations, it would “invalidate” on its face and on civil rights grounds “an entire academic and public debate” and that it would give Newman “a veto over others engaging in that same debate.” The judge further added that Newman was effectively seeking to “compel” the speech and views of others to be consistent with hers.
“I am relieved and thrilled,” Ross told the Electronic Intifada. “The judge took the time to articulate why he’s not granting this work environment claim and that there’s nothing inherently hostile with [advocating for] BDS. In these times, we’ll take what we can get. I think it’s a victory,” he explained.
“The judge, to me, made it clear that there’s nothing legally wrong with teaching BDS, participating in BDS, or advocating for it,” Ross added. The dismissal of the hostile work environment claims, Ross added, “should be empowering, it should be a green light for other folks to engage in this movement.”
By Ramin Mazaheri | Press TV | July 29, 2022
Paris – The censorship of Russian media outlet, Russia Today, in Europe has been widely denounced as hypocritical. Despite that, the European Union’s General Court has denied an appeal by Russia’s RT France to uphold liberty of the press for all nations. Ramin Mazaheri reports from Paris.
In a major blow to freedom of the press, European Union’s second highest court has upheld the ban on Russian media outlet RT France for alleged “disinformation”.
Launched in 2017 with a €20 million budget and well over 100 employees, RT France burst on the scene with reporting that the billionaire-dominated French mainstream media refused to touch. Their coverage of the Yellow Vest social revolt won widespread praise, and – like PressTV – they rejected the total Western media blackout on the movement which began in June 2019.
It was no surprise that President Emmanuel Macron was the first leader to call for a Europe-wide ban on Russian state media. The French government then orchestrated the rapid implementation of the ban – less than a week after Russia started its military operation in Ukraine.
The fact that freedom of the press is granted to far-right media such as the Islamophobic Charlie Hebdo magazine but denied to the Russian people has already left its impression: the citizens of France and Europe have not been allowed to hear both sides of the long-running conflict in Ukraine.
This one-sided media domination has allowed European elite to whip up Russophobia and war hysteria unopposed, and provided them with the opportunity to impose unprecedented economic and diplomatic pressure on Moscow.
Upon relinquishing the EU’s rotating presidency in June, Macron was criticized for saying that the Ukraine war ‘accelerated’ the bloc’s collective agenda. Many said the EU was, once again, not relying on democratic means to achieve political ends.
A final appeal by RT France to the European Court of Justice is expected to fail as well.
In 2012, on the orders of the European Commission, Press TV was removed by top European satellite provider Eutelsat. Last year the Presstv.com domain was seized and shut down by the United States federal government.
Free West Media | July 29, 2022
Sweden’s Minister of Social Affairs Lena Hallengren traveled to the US at the beginning of June to meet globalist politicians and vaccine companies, as well as to attend the Bilderberg Group meeting in Washington DC. The whole thing became an expensive trip for Swedish taxpayers. Hallengren not only chose to fly business class on all flights, but she also stayed in several different luxury hotels.
The bill of over SEK 50 000 was sent to taxpayers. Swedish weekly Nya Tider has obtained important documents and can now provide a unique insight into the Swedish government’s participation in the infamous globalist lobby organization the Bilderberg Group. On its website, the government chose to omit all information about Hallengren’s participation in the Bilderberg meeting. The government also marks large parts of the participant list as confidential for the media – even though the Bilderberg group themselves made it public.
The globalist Bilderberg group’s infamous meetings took a break in 2020 and 2021, meaning this year’s meeting in Washington DC was the first in three years.
Nya Tider can now offer a unique insight into Hallengren’s trip to the US and the parts that both the government and the rest of the establishment are discussing behind the backs of their voters.
The government tried to hide their involvement
On May 25, the government published a press release with the title “Lena Hallengren visits New York and Washington DC”. The purpose of the trip was said to be to “strengthen Sweden’s relationship with the United States linked to global health issues”. The government chose to publish a “selection” from her schedule for the first three days.
On May 31, she met with Amina J. Mohammed, UN Deputy Secretary-General, to discuss the 2030 Agenda. She also met with George Bickerstad, president of the International Vaccine Institute (IVI), Pfizer’s head of research Mikael Dolsten “for talks on future pandemic management”, and New York’s health commissioner for “exchange of experiences after the pandemic and talks about measures now being taken to prevent and detect infection earlier”.
Meetings were held in secrecy where the participants were not allowed to tell who said what.
On June 1-2, she met, among others, Andrea Palm, deputy health minister in the US, to “discuss the WHO’s upcoming pandemic treaty”. She also met with several US health authorities.
After that, the information on the government’s website about Hallengren’s trip dried up, and the reader gets the impression that there were no further engagements. What the government chose to cover up was that Hallengren had several more days booked in the US. After her official schedule ended in Washington DC on June 2nd, she immediately headed to the Bilderberg Group meeting which began that evening and continued for three more days, until June 5.
‘PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL’
Nya Tider requested all email correspondence between the Swedish government and the Bilderberg group, which showed how the contact between the parties proceeded. The Bilderberg Group is very keen that the discussions are kept secret. However, thanks to Swedish public policy, we have been able to bypass their wishes and have taken part in the conversation.
On March 11, the invitation came from the Bilderberg group to the government. “Sensitivity: Confidential”, it said in the classification of the email, which was sent to government official Sara Båging from “Secretariat Bilderberg Meetings”.
“PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL”, read the first words of the message.
“Dear Mrs Hallengren, attached you will find an invitation from Co-chairs Victor Halberstadt and Marie-Josée Kravis for the Bilderberg meeting 2022”.
Hallengren was asked to respond by March 25 at the latest. The message ends with a text stating that it is confidential and “intended exclusively for the recipient”. The content may not be passed on to third parties.
Swedish oligarch decided that Hallengren should be invited
The invitation itself was attached to the email as a separate file. It was signed by Victor Halberstadt. The latter has been in contact with Sweden’s leading businessman, SEB chairman Marcus Wallenberg, who has been called a Swedish oligarch by critics because of the enormous influence he had and has over Sweden’s government.
It also turns out that Marcus Wallenberg was involved in deciding to invite Lena Hallengren.
The email to Lena Hallengren
“As kindly agreed with Marcus Wallenberg, we are very pleased to invite you to our meeting in Washington, DC, from noon on Thursday, June 2 to noon on Sunday, June 5”.
Marcus Wallenberg sits on the Bilderberg group’s steering committee, a kind of management body. His position there is also confirmed by the information in the list of participants, where everyone who is part of the committee has a star next to their name.
The fear of the information reaching the public is palpable in the communication. Participants are requested to treat the invitation, location and dates as confidential.
In addition, it is required that all participants are “fully vaccinated” and that they can also present a negative PCR test when they arrive at the Bilderberg Group’s designated hotel.
Brief program
Although the meeting runs over four days, from June 2 to June 5, the schedule is brief, almost rudimentary. It appears that the meeting begins on Thursday, June 2, 7 pm with “drinks and dinner”. On Friday and Saturday, talks take place in plenary from 8.00 am to 7.00 pm, then dinner both days. On Sunday 5 June, talks in plenary continue until 11.30, followed by lunch. The topics to be discussed can be found on one page:
● Geopolitical shifts
● NATO challenges
● China
● Indian Ocean
● Sino-US tech competition
● Russia
● Continuity of government and economy
● Disruption of the global financial system
● Disinformation
● Energy security and sustainability
● Post-pandemic health
● Fragmentation of democratic societies
● Trade and globalization
● Ukraine
Soft power
The Bilderberg Group provides all participants with guidelines on how the meeting will take place. Everyone must follow the rules set by the group. A participant’s official position is irrelevant. “Participants participate in a private role, regardless of their official position,” the rules state.
The purpose of the discussions is to have “an exchange of views on the topics that are on the agenda, based on this the participants can draw their own conclusions”.
The nature of the meeting is, if the document is to be believed, completely informal. It is clear that the Bilderberg group chooses “soft power” as a strategy for influence. The term was coined in 1990 by the Harvard professor Joseph Nye, but it is only in recent years that the term has really caught on, not least in analyzes of foreign policy.
The basics of soft power are influencing someone through attraction, and not through financial rewards, persuasion or coercion. The idea is that a country, organization or person is inclined to think and act like the person one is attracted to. The Bilderberg group creates its attractiveness by offering an exclusive context where politicians, business leaders, journalists and academics can meet each other.
It is clear from the invitation that it is a relaxed meeting being held. “No proposals are put forward, no votes are taken and no policy decisions are made,” the invitation states. The participants are given the feeling that they are special, and that it is an exclusive club of friends that meets.
“The Bilderberg group meetings offer fruitful discussions in an atmosphere of mutual trust where participants can express themselves freely. The aim is better understanding of trends and new developments among leading and emerging individuals in politics, business, work, media and academia.”
It is strictly forbidden to record anything from the meeting. The media is not allowed to participate, except for the trusted journalists and editors who have been invited, and who are not allowed to write anything about the meeting. They are there to be informed – some say it is more about being instructed – and not on behalf of their readers or viewers.
“All discussions are private and off-the-record, no recordings are made and the media is excluded from the meeting,” reads the information. The meetings are held according to the “Chatham house rule”, which means that one could divulge the information received, but never the source.
It is forbidden for participants to bring personal secretaries with them. Lena Hallengren traveled with her press secretary Elin Aarflot, who was with Hallengren on the entire trip but was not allowed to participate in the Bilderberg meeting itself.
“Personal staff may not attend the session or eat at the same table as the invitees. Family members are not allowed to come along either.”
It is also Aarflot that wrote the press release on the government’s website about Hallengren’s trip to the US, where all information about the Bilderberg meeting is omitted. Nya Tider has tried to contact Aarflot to ask why it was done that way, but she has not responded.
Book an exclusive hotel
The Bilderberg Group have themselves booked an entire hotel exclusively for the participants, who are not allowed to stay anywhere else but at the intended hotel. Room bookings are not made through the hotel but through the Bilderberg group’s secretariat. However, the cost of the luxury hotel, 460 dollars per night, must be borne by the participants. In Lena Hallengren’s case, it was the Swedish taxpayers who were left with the bill
“Minimum stay is three nights. Room bookings are arranged by the secretariat”, the invitation stated. They also added that the entire hotel had been booked for the group and that only accredited personnel have access there. Very high security would be guaranteed inside and outside the hotel.
The Bilderberg group also provided a special car service that picked up the participants after arrival in Washington DC. “Transportation between the airport or train station and the hotel will be provided. All participants will be met in the arrival hall by a VIP Service Assistant holding a sign that reads DC2022, not your name.”
The contact information that participants receive for the meeting, washington2022@bilderbergmeetings.org and the phone number +1 202 787 6932 “will only be active until Sunday June 5”.
Nya Tider has scrutinized the list of around 150 participants which was sent out to all those attending. While the Swedish government chose to mark many names as confidential, the entire list was published on the Bilderbergs’ official website bilderbergmeetings.org.
Some of the famous and influential participants are:
Peter Thiel, venture capitalist
Anne Applebaum, author
José Manuel Barroso, former president of the European Commission, now president of the global major bank Goldman Sachs
Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer
William Burns, head of the CIA
Ben van Beurden, CEO of Shell
Mustafa Suleyman, Google’s head of artificial intelligence
Charles Michel, chairman of the EU Council of Ministers
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO chief
Mark Rutte, Dutch prime minister
Sanna Marin, Finnish prime minister
Yuriy Vitrenko, CEO of Ukraine’s largest oil and gas company Naftogaz
Sweden had an unusually large delegation of three people. In addition to Hallengren and Wallenberg, Martin Lundstedt, CEO of Volvo, also participated. The government confirmed that they did not incur any costs for Wallenberg’s and Lundstedt’s participation.
Confidential communication
Hallengren’s secretary Theodora Jönsson informed the Bilderberg group secretariat that Hallengren was already in Washington the day before the meeting, and therefore wondered if Hallengren could be picked up from her hotel when she checks out. She also requested transportation to the Bilderberg meeting.
Hallengren flew business class and stayed in expensive luxury hotels on the taxpayers’ buck. “In addition, her international flight home to Sweden departs at 1:37 p.m. from Washington Ronald Reagan National. Therefore, it is very important that she arrives at the airport by 11.30 at the latest. Is it possible to get private transport to the airport? Thanks in advance!”
Both of these requests were heeded by the Bilderberg group.
“Everything is possible. We arrange pick-up from the Georgetown Hotel and transport to the airport in good time,” Marlies ter Haar assured the secretary.
Before the meeting, all participants had to upload vaccination certificates to the Bilderberg group. “Dear Mrs. Hallengren, attached you will find information about the Bilderberg meeting 2022 as well as the link to upload your vaccination certificate,” writes secretary Ter Haar to Hallengren.
No one reported on the meeting
Social Affairs Minister Lena Hallengren’s participation in the meeting went unnoticed in the Swedish mainstream media. Nya Tider was the only media to pick up on the event despite the fact that no less than five editors of well-known newspapers such as the British The Economist were present. They chose not to write a word about the matter, let alone review the trip, for example how it rhymes with the principle of publicity to use tax money to stay in luxury hotels while the discussions are kept secret and the list of participants is censored for the public by Swedish authorities.
No member of the opposition in the Riksdag has yet asked Hallengren or the government about the purpose of the meeting.
Consortium News | July 27, 2022
Scott Ritter was among those blacklisted by a Ukrainian government agency that appears to be funded by the United States. Ritter has written the following letter to his representatives in Congress.
Senator Charles Schumer
Leo W. O’Brien Federal Office Building
11A Clinton Avenue, Room 827
Albany, NY 12207
Senator Christine Gillibrand
Leo W. O’Brien Federal Office Building
11A Clinton Avenue, Room 821
Albany, NY 12207
Representative Paul Tonko
19 Dove Street, Unit 302
Albany, NY 12210
July 27, 2022
Dear Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, and Congressman Tonko,
My name is Scott Ritter. I am a New York State resident, currently residing in the Town of Bethlehem, in Albany County. My family and I have lived at our current address since July 2000.
I am writing to you in your collective role as my elected representatives in the United States Congress, specifically regarding H.R. 7691, the Additional Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022, which became Public Law 117-128 on May 21, 2022, which each of you voted in favor of.
I draw your attention to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically the following language: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
By enacting Public Law 117-128, you appear to have abrogated your Constitutional responsibilities in so far as you may have, in fact, made a law which both abridges the freedom of speech and a free press by enabling the Government of Ukraine, through the use of US taxpayer dollars appropriated under Public Law 117-128, to publish a “blacklist” singling out US citizens as “Russian propagandists” for exercising their Constitutional rights pertaining to free speech and a free press.
The “blacklist” in question was published on July 14, 2022, by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation, and consists of a list of politicians, academics, and activists who the Center claims promote “Russian propaganda.” Many on this list are citizens of the United States, some of whom, like me, have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
While the specific criterion used by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation for selecting persons for inclusion on this “blacklist” is not known, in my case the Ukrainian government appears to have taken umbrage against my articulation of Ukraine as a NATO base of operations, my analysis of the Bucha Massacre in early March which assigns responsibility to Ukrainian security services, and my description of the current Ukraine-Russian conflict as a “proxy conflict” being waged on behalf of the United States.
Whether one agrees with my positions on these and other matters pertaining to Ukraine is not the point; by articulating my views, I am exercising my rights under the Constitution of the United States. While the Government of Ukraine is free to express its opinions regarding my viewpoints as it sees fit, the Government of the United States, by using funds appropriated by the United States Congress, should not facilitate the actions of the Government of Ukraine in this regard.
I draw your attention to Section 507(a) of Public Law 117-128, which directs that “[f]unds made available by this title under the heading Economic Support Fund may be made available for direct financial support for the Government of Ukraine.”
Public Law 117-128 makes available $8,766,000,000 for assistance for Ukraine under the heading “Economic Support Fund.”
On July 12, 2022, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) issued a press release in which it announced that $1.7 billion in direct budgetary aid was provided to Ukraine under Public Law 117-128, which allowed the Government of Ukraine, among other things, to pay the salaries of Ukrainian civil servants. This would logically include the salaries of the employees of the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation.
As a constituent whose name has appeared on a so-called “blacklist” published by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation, my personal and professional life has been, and continues to be, detrimentally impacted by the chilling effect of being labeled a “Russian propagandist” for simply exercising the right to free speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Moreover, Ukraine has a history of converting “blacklists” of this nature into “kill lists”, where those who speak out against the policies of the Ukrainian government are being murdered or threatened with violence. I am certain you agree with me that Congress cannot be in a position where, through its actions, foreign governments are provided the means to intimidate citizens of the United States from exercising their Constitutionally protected rights regarding free speech.
As such, I respectfully request that each of you investigate what role, if any, funds authorized by you under Public Law 117-128, have been used to underwrite the actions of the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation, and more specifically, if any funds appropriated under Public Law 117-128 have been used to pay the salaries of Ukrainian civil servants employed by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation involved in the preparation and dissemination of this so-called “blacklist”.
Under Section 507(d) of Public Law 117-128, Congress directs that “[t]he Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, as appropriate, shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the uses of any funds provided for direct financial support to the Government of Ukraine pursuant to subsection (a) and the results achieved, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act and every 90 days thereafter until September 30, 2025,” and that such a report “shall also include the metrics established to measure such results.”
I request that each of you become personally involved in preparing the appropriate questions to be asked of either the Secretary of State or the Administrator of USAID when they next appear before Congress to carry out their mandated reports regarding the use of funds provided for the direct financial support of the Government of Ukraine. The specific metric of interest here is whether any of these funds were used to pay the salaries of civil servants employed by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation involved in the preparation and dissemination of the aforementioned “blacklist”.
If funds were, in fact, used in this manner, I would respectfully request that you, in your status as my elected representatives to the United States Congress, take the appropriate action necessary to ensure that funds appropriated by the United States Congress are not used to suppress the free speech rights afforded to citizens of the United States, including myself, by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Moreover, I would insist that you take the appropriate action to guarantee that the Government of Ukraine immediately cease and desist in all activity designed to threaten and intimidate citizens of the United States. You are duty bound to protect the interests of the United States and its citizens rather than facilitate the actions of a foreign power that are, by design, intended to accomplish just the opposite.
Congress cannot be allowed to bypass Constitutionally imposed constraints on its actions by allowing a foreign government to do that which would not be permitted here in the United States. By paying the salaries of the civil servants employed by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation, who have prepared and disseminated the so-called “blacklist”, you and your fellow Senators and Representatives appear to be doing just that—allowing the Government of Ukraine to suppress the right of free speech guaranteed to United States citizens under the Constitution.
I look forward to hearing back from each of you as to how you propose to proceed in this matter.
Sincerely,
Scott Ritter
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Judith Curry | Climate Etc. | November 5, 2013
Groupthink: A pattern of thought charaterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.
Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets, by Roland Benabou, published in the Review of Economic Studies. Benabou also has a talk (ppt slides) on this subject.
First, a definition of groupthink (from the ppt slides):
Janis (1972)’s eight symptoms [of groupthink]:
Sound like any groups that we know? … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 