‘Conservative’ Supreme Court Sides With Liberal Courts on Transgender Prison Surgery, Criminal Release

In a matter of a week, the much-vaunted “conservative” Supreme Court sided with two lower court decisions in separate cases to force the state of Idaho to offer a castration “operation” to a male inmate who thinks he’s a female and to release 837 criminals in Ohio. Meanwhile, the court refuse to intervene on behalf of our inalienable rights being trampled every day by state governments. If this is what a conservative Supreme Court is all about, I’d hate to see what a liberal court looks like.

It’s truly hard to conjure up a more extreme ruling from a court than one suggesting that it’s cruel and unusual punishment NOT to offer a castration to a male inmate in prison requesting one. Yet that is exactly what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did when three judges issued an order in August requiring Idaho’s Department of Corrections to fund “gender confirmation surgery” for Adree Edmo.

Unfortunately, none of us are shocked by the depravity from the Ninth Circuit any more. What is shocking, however, is the fact that the Supreme Court refused to stay the ruling last Thursday. One would have expected the high court that is supposedly conservative to easily overturn this decision at the first opportunity. In Estelle v. Gamble (1976), the Supreme Court already set the standard of an Eighth Amendment violation for denying medical care to prisoners as “only medical care so unconscionable as to fall below society’s minimum standards of decency.” Moreover, a First Circuit ruling in 2014 and a Fifth Circuit ruling in March 2019 stated the exact opposite of the Ninth Circuit.

Yet on May 21, the Supreme Court denied the motion from Idaho to stay the Ninth Circuit’s order. According to the court’s order, only Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted the application for stay from the state. How the other three GOP appointees, especially Roberts and Kavanaugh who seem to worship precedent, could allow a ruling like this to stand is stupefying.

This is the second time in recent months that the “conservative” Supreme Court has denied a stay to Idaho in the face of an unprecedented Ninth Circuit ruling creating radical phantom rights centered on twisting the Eighth Amendment. In September, the high court denied a stay of a Ninth Circuit ruling creating an Eighth Amendment right to camp out on Boise’s city streets. The city issued a public health and safety ordinance to clear out these encampments, but the Ninth Circuit ruled that it would be tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment to do so – just like denying the “right” to a castration procedure.

Now let’s move on to the Ohio prison case, because it appears that criminals are the only ones with rights these days. On April 22, a federal judge in Ohio ordered the Bureau of Prisons to release 837 federal inmates in one Ohio facility into home confinement for fear of the coronavirus. Courts all over the country have already mandated the release of state prisoners. In total, 67,000 have been released from state prisons and jails at a very painful cost to public safety. This is the first fight over the federal prison system. Yesterday, the court voted 6-3 to deny a request for a stay, at least for now. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted the stay.

It’s truly shocking to watch how the virus can be used as a pretext to eliminate the entire Bill of Rights for peaceful Americans without due process. However, these same courts have no problem using the virus to override the very generous due process that resulted in incarceration of dangerous criminals. The Ohio judge said that anyone deemed at risk from the virus must be released, regardless of his threat level or how much time he has served.

As I’ve observed before, the virus has already spread far and wide in prisons, and there is no point in mass releases now. The death rate in prisons is remarkably low, most cases are asymptomatic, and there is therefore no reason why prisoners should have a greater right to avoid the virus than the general population. In fact, by releasing these criminals, not only would the federal government endanger public safety, but it would be releasing younger people into the general population, where they would be more likely to spread the virus. The BOP has already taken more precautions to quarantine in the facilities than the prisoners would abide by were they released.

Isn’t it interesting how some of these same allegedly conservative justices refuse to side with individual rights when it comes to states shutting down businesses, infringing upon individual movements, and mandatory mask requirements, yet they suddenly discover individual liberty for criminals, including the “right” to a taxpayer-funded castration, the right to criminal release, and the right to homeless encampments on city streets?

Hey, phony conservative justices: If you are so into transmogrifying the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Bill of Rights – even against public safety goals of a state – shouldn’t that apply to the lockdowns and unprecedented assaults against our rights? Or is the Bill of Rights only for criminals?

If the “my body, my choice” mantra applies to murdering the unborn and requesting us to pay for castration, then it should apply to our own bodily integrity not to wear masks and not to be spied on by the corona fascists. (For more from the author of “‘Conservative’ Supreme Court Sides With Liberal Courts on Transgender Prison Surgery, Criminal Release” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Chinese Scientists Say Wuhan Market Isn’t Where Coronavirus Began

Chinese scientists say the coronavirus didn’t originate at a live animal market or a laboratory in Wuhan, pushing back against US officials over where the pandemic began, according to a report.

China’s top epidemiologist, Gao Fu, said samples taken from the wholesale market — where the deadly virus was reportedly first passed to humans — failed to show links between animals sold there and the pathogen, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“It now turns out that the market is one of the victims,” Gao told state-run media Tuesday.

The director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Wang Yanyi, also shot down accusations that the facility had unleashed the virus during a lab accident. (Read more from “Chinese Scientists Say Wuhan Market Isn’t Where Coronavirus Began” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

What U.S. Leaving Open Skies Treaty Means for U.S.-Russia Relations

When making foreign policy decisions, one must be careful not to view the world prescriptively (the way we want it to be), but rather to view it descriptively (the harsh reality of what is).

That’s easier said than done.

After President Donald Trump announced May 21 that the United States would withdraw from the 1992 Treaty on Open Skies, many jumped to accuse the president of taking another step to dismantle a stable world order where relationships with U.S. adversaries are fine and dandy, and any international security agreement has independent value.

Fortunately, the Trump administration identified the harsh reality: While Open Skies can indeed benefit the United States by enabling imagery intelligence collection on relatively short order and by easing information-sharing with allies, regrettably, years of Russian violations and abuse of the treaty have become too grave to continue turning a blind eye.

Russia has denied the United States and its allies observation flights over key military sites, which not only violates the treaty, but also defeats its very purpose of instilling confidence and security among parties to the treaty.

Russia has also exploited the treaty for its own hostile and revisionist purposes, including to collect information to target U.S. civilian infrastructure and to justify its regional aggression against the sovereign states of Ukraine and Georgia.

After years of Russian violations of not only Open Skies, but nearly every other international agreement to which Russia has been a party, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Trump administration is correct to finally take a stand and show Russia and the world that such behavior will have consequences.

So, what does this mean for U.S.-Russian relations?

Far from the notion that withdrawing from Open Skies begins a retreat to a spiraling arms race, the decision can place the United States on stronger footing for future arms control negotiations.

It’s first worth noting that the administration has made clear that should Russia return to full compliance with the Open Skies Treaty, the United States might reconsider withdrawal. After all, trust- and confidence-building agreements like Open Skies can indeed be stabilizing—when all parties comply.

But more significantly, withdrawing from Open Skies can strengthen the U.S. position in renegotiating the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, an agreement that limits U.S. and Russian deployed nuclear warheads and delivery systems and which is set to expire in February 2021.

In initial discussions with his Russian counterpart, special presidential envoy Marshall Billingslea has begun to highlight U.S. concerns with New START.

Russia has taken advantage of New START’s flaws by developing a robust capacity to upload more nuclear warheads to its missile arsenal, growing its unconstrained stockpile of nuclear weapons to use on the battlefield, and developing new delivery systems not covered by New START.

While the State Department has reported Russian compliance with New START, its exploitation of weak treaty rules is no different from its exploitation of Open Skies.

Trump has also made it clear that the next arms control agreement must include China, which has been pursuing freely an unconstrained nuclear triad and warhead arsenal.

Withdrawing from Open Skies in response to Russian noncompliance and abuse demonstrates the very real fact that the United States will walk away from New START negotiations if we do not get what we want, which includes help from the Russians in bringing China into a trilateral arms control agreement.

Considering that the Russians have repeatedly offered to extend New START, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the United States can gain the upper hand in negotiations.

But to reap the benefits of a strengthened negotiating posture, the United States needs to do two things.

First, we can expect Russia to ramp up anti-U.S. propaganda in the coming weeks that blames the United States for the demise of Open Skies, but the U.S. government, the American public, and our NATO allies and partners cannot buy into it.

Russia has become adept at rampantly spreading misinformation that accuses the United States of breaking down arms control agreements, even though viewing the world descriptively reveals Russia’s penchant to cheat and exploit.

Republicans and Democrats alike should unite around the correct narrative depicting that behavior.

Second, the United States must stick to its nuclear modernization plan.

Any cuts to nuclear recapitalization programs such as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent or plutonium pit production would hinder U.S. leverage and help ease Russian and Chinese worries about U.S. capabilities that induce them to negotiate in the first place.

By taking real action against Russian violations and abuse of international security agreements, the Trump administration has demonstrated that it does not view the world through rose-colored glasses.

All can agree on the goal of forming verifiable confidence-building agreements, but doing so requires negotiating from a position of strength.

Hopefully, an exit from Open Skies, if necessary, will prove to Russia, China, and the rest of the world that when it comes to effective arms control and other security agreements, the United States means business. (For more from the author of “What U.S. Leaving Open Skies Treaty Means for U.S.-Russia Relations” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Army Must Protect Chaplains Fighting Through the Coronavirus

No one has been immune to the coronavirus’s effects, including our military. But as I learned in the Marine Corps, threats to freedom never take a day off. Our service members must remain at their posts, even as COVID-19 ravages the nation.

During such times of uncertainty and anxiety, faith serves as an invaluable ally. Whether in combat against flesh and blood or against an “invisible enemy” such as this virus, faith has always been a major force multiplier for our military. That is why it is particularly egregious to see those who defend us and our freedom needlessly being deprived of the very freedom they defend: religious freedom.

In an immediate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Department of Defense installation chapels were ordered closed. Many service members, veterans, and their dependents were left without a place to worship. Because the role of the military chaplain is to carry out the constitutional mandate to provide for service members’ free exercise of religion, many chaplains sought creative and alternative means of providing for the spiritual needs of the communities they serve. While some chaplains livestreamed their messages via the internet, others used social media — and often with very positive responses. Such efforts to “bring God to the soldier” should be commended and encouraged.

Sadly, one organization saw the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to advance its agenda of an unconstitutional religious cleansing of the military.

The Orwellian-monikered Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which once demanded 400 trials by courts-martial for service members who dared to exercise their First Amendment rights, recently embarked on a campaign of assaults against religious freedom within the military. (Read more from “The Army Must Protect Chaplains Fighting Through the Coronavirus” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Attorney General Barr Has Become Trump’s Religious Liberty Enforcer

When President Trump announced Friday that he would “override” governors who did not adopt his new guidelines for the reopening of churches, critics were quick to question if he had that authority.

Reporters in the White House pressroom hammered press secretary Kayleigh McEnany about whether or not Trump could legally act upon his threats. McEnany appeared to walk back the president’s words, suggesting that Trump would only “strongly encourage” governors to comply. It seemed to work: Over Memorial Day weekend, California, Minnesota, and Vermont, three of the five states still upholding complete bans on church services, relaxed their restrictions.

These results were a needed win for Trump, whose approval rating with many faith groups has slipped in the past month, partly because of his inconsistent attitude on churches remaining open during the coronavirus pandemic. And it’s a win Trump wouldn’t have scored without his dedicated enforcer on religious liberty issues: Attorney General William Barr.

Even before churches began suing states for alleged First Amendment violations, Barr was already sensing the coming fight over church closures. While Trump urged people to stay home for Easter, Barr said he was “very concerned” that churches were being given the short shrift in the rush to lock down the country. (Read more from “Attorney General Barr Has Become Trump’s Religious Liberty Enforcer” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

DISGUSTING: Comprehensive Sex Ed Proponents Admit Teaching Children Sexual ‘Pleasure’ Is a Primary Goal

May is being touted as #SexEdForAll month on social media platforms, and a look at many posts using the hashtag shows teaching children about sexual “pleasure” is now included in the language of “medically accurate” sex ed.

Cathy Ruse, senior fellow and director of human dignity at Family Research Council, wrote, “The ‘facts of life’ have not changed, but ‘inclusivity’ and ‘sex positivity’ and other popular buzz-word concepts have changed sex education.”

Ruse is the author of a new brochure titled, “Sex Education in Public Schools: Sexualization of Children and LGBT Indoctrination.”

She observed that while many studies have demonstrated comprehensive sex education “fails to achieve its stated goals and results in increased student sexual activity, school systems are devoting up to 70 hours of classroom time per child to sex education,” with many of those hours now spent on “the concept of ‘sexual rights’ and radical sexual ideology for youth.”

(Read more from “DISGUSTING: Comprehensive Sex Ed Proponents Admit Teaching Children Sexual ‘Pleasure’ Is a Primary Goal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dweeb Andrew Napolitano: I’ll ‘Defend to the Death’ Twitter’s Right to Fact Check Trump (VIDEO)

Appearing Wednesday on the Fox News Channel, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said he will “defend to the death” Twitter’s right to fact check President Donald Trump.

(Read more from “Andrew Napolitano: I’ll ‘Defend to the Death’ Twitter’s Right to Fact Check Trump (VIDEO)” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Man With ‘Trump’ on His Car ATTACKED by Protesters; Video: Protesters Shut Down Los Angeles Freeway Over George Floyd’s Death

By The Blaze. The second day of protests in Minneapolis over the death of a black man, George Floyd — who died after a white police officer held him down with a knee to his neck for several minutes during detainment — erupted into looting and vandalism, and a man who appeared to be a Trump supporter was beaten by activists.

Reporter Karen Scullin of KMSP-TV was at the scene of the demonstration for several hours on Wednesday, and live-tweeted what she witnessed. She noted that the crowd continued to build throughout the day despite the official protest not starting until 5:00 p.m.

Scullin wrote that protestors were trying to break into the Minneapolis Police Department’s 3rd precinct, and officers fired rubber bullets in an effort to push back the crowd which she described at that time to be “not huge but very vocal and angry.” . . .

Scullin included footage of looting and acts of vandalism before reporting, “protestors destroying a car that says Trump on it. Driver out walking around. After taking a few punches he was helped to his smashed up vehicle and drove off with people still throwing things.” (Read more from “Man With ‘Trump’ on His Car ATTACKED by Protesters” HERE)


Video: Protesters Shut Down Los Angeles Freeway Over George Floyd’s Death

By Breitbart. Protesters on Wednesday shut down traffic on the 101 Freeway near Union Station as demonstrators took to downtown Los Angeles over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, according to local reports.

Some of the protesters could be seen on video hitting the windows and hood of a CHP cruiser as it attempted to slowly drive away from the crowd. As the cruiser accelerated, a few protesters could be seen on the hood of the vehicle.

(Read more from “Video: Protesters Shut Down Los Angeles Freeway Over George Floyd’s Death” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

BOMBSHELL STUDY: Could Half the Uninfected Population Already Be Partially Immune? (VIDEO)

Could nearly half the population not already infected with SARS-CoV-2 be immune to it from having already contracted other forms of coronavirus in recent years?

That is one implication of a major study conducted by over a dozen researchers from several microbiology and immunology institutions in the U.S.

The purveyors of panic are warning of a second wave of the virus and that even if we are correct in asserting that the general fatality rate is extremely low for most people, it will still result in millions of deaths worldwide if we need 70 percent of the population to get the virus in order to achieve herd immunity. Putting aside the fact that their strategy of lockdown doesn’t provide a solution to this hypothetical problem either, even as it kills more people from the collateral damage, there is now promising evidence that more people might already be immune to the virus.

The study is built upon the principle that T cells play a central role in destroying viruses and providing immunity. Not only were these cells discovered in all the blood samples of confirmed recovered COVID-19 patients, but they were also found in 6 of the 11 blood samples from 2015-2018, before those individual donors could possibly have contracted the virus.

Until now, the assumption was that only those with IgG or IgM antibodies can be immune because they are the ones who have already contracted the disease. However, this study examined the cellular defenses that are created in the body and have been proven to serve as a defense against SARS-CoV-2, then discovered them among 40%-60% of their samples not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

In order to prove the efficacy of these T cells developed in the recovered population, the researchers exposed immune cells from 10 recovered patients to the virus. They found those cells effectively fight the virus. 100% of the samples of 20 donors contained “helper” T cells, known as CD4+, and 70 percent contained killer T cells, known as CD8+, which directly kill the viral cells. Then they discovered “SARS-CoV-2−reactive CD4+ T cells in ∼40-60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.”

The hypothesis is that numerous common colds are forms of coronavirus and that a significant percentage of the population that has already contracted those forms of coronavirus have cross-immunity to COVID-19. It’s unclear to what degree these people are immune, but it might help explain why some people in certain areas react so violently to COVID-19, whereas so many others are asymptomatic. In other words, it’s possible that people with cross-immunity could still catch the virus, but their reaction to it will either never present symptoms or present very mildly due to the pre-existing T cells working for them.

The authors note that more time and cell numbers are needed to study identification of the cross-reactive chains of cells.

A similar T cell study published April 22 by German immunologist Andreas Thiel found that 34% of 68 blood samples from people not infected with SARS-CoV-2 hosted helper T cells that nevertheless recognized the novel coronavirus.

The authors of the newer study posit that the concept of “crossreactive memory T cell responses might have been one factor contributing to the lesser severity of the H1N1 flu pandemic.” There is still no way of proving whether those T cells discovered in non-infected individuals are definitively effective in warding off the virus or blunting its symptoms, but the theory might explain some enigmatic behaviors of this virus.

On the one hand, this virus seems to be extremely contagious and transmissible. On the other hand, it appears to have been around for a while, possibly in December, and didn’t kill too many people until super-spreading events in March.

On the one hand, the virus seems to kill a lot of vulnerable people for several weeks. But then it peaks after six weeks or so and nearly disappears a month or so later. We’ve seen the same curve in every country, almost as if it hits a brick wall and then runs out of steam.

But why is that the case? Most antibody tests show no more than 10%-15% of the population contain antibodies in a given area – 25% in the most extreme case of New York City. Why would the virus not continue cutting through the population like butter, as it did the first number of people who contracted the virus? The theory of a more ubiquitous cross-immunity from other coronaviruses would answer those questions and explain that invisible brick wall.

A theory of partial immunity, at least from helper T cells (if not killer T cells) could also explain why, on the one hand, once the virus gets into prisons, most test positive for it, but on the other hand, nearly all of them seem asymptomatic. The outcome of prisons as a fully confined and defined population could be a harbinger of what would theoretically happen if the entire world were exposed to the virus after it had already targeted the most vulnerable population. It’s possible that upwards of 95% would be asymptomatic, just like we are seeing in prisons.

Perhaps, it could also explain why there appears to be a massive gap in severity of the virus in Asia vs. Western countries. Asian countries are regularly exposed to coronaviruses.

Professor Karol Sikora, founder of University of Buckingham Medical Schools, has a short video explaining in layman’s terms the significance of this T cell study and cross-immunity.

Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford, is also a strong believer in the likelihood of cross-immunity. “We may also be able to fend off the virus with pre-existing responses against other coronaviruses, which I think is very likely to play a role in protection, specifically against severity of the disease,” said Professor Gupta in a recent interview with a British media outlet.

“In almost every context we’ve seen the epidemic grow, turn around and die away — almost like clockwork. Different countries have had different lockdown policies, and yet what we’ve observed is almost a uniform pattern of behavior which is highly consistent with the SIR model. To me that suggests that much of the driving force here was due to the build-up of immunity.”

Stanford professor of epidemiology John P.A. Ioannidis has also posited the existence of cross-immunity and the idea that many people’s bodies are using innate cellular immunity to ward off the virus.

This theory might also explain why Sweden believes it reached herd immunity with just 20 percent infected and why some studies suggest a similar ratio could be achieved elsewhere.

To be clear, these are all unproven theories at this point. But if our government and media were willing to run with unproven theories of doom and gloom even as the facts on the ground refuted them, shouldn’t they at least examine some good news when the fact pattern of the virus itself seems to harmonize with the theory?

Why are American politicians immune to good news as if it were the plague? (For more from the author of “Bombshell Study: Could Half the Uninfected Population Already Be Partially Immune?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Secretary of State Pompeo Officially Declares That Hong Kong Is No Longer Autonomous

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Wednesday that Hong Kong is officially no longer autonomous from China following Beijing’s decision to impose a new national security law that outlaws “foreign interference” and pro-democracy demonstrations in the city.

“Beijing’s disastrous decision [to impose the law] is only the latest in a series of actions that fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms and China’s own promises to the Hong Kong people under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a U.N.-filed international treaty,” Pompeo said in a statement.

“No reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China, given facts on the ground,” he added.

Pompeo noted that it is the State Department’s responsibility under the Hong Kong Policy Act to assess the territory’s autonomy and that, given the latest developments, he certified to Congress the department’s position.

(Read more from “Secretary of State Pompeo Officially Declares That Hong Kong Is No Longer Autonomous” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE