Justice Samuel Alito’s Words of Warning on Religious Freedom

Justice Samuel Alito recently delivered the keynote speech at Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Summit in Rome.

The justice’s participation in the conference came as a surprise to many, since his speaker role had not been announced in advance.

He is one of the present Supreme Court’s most fervent advocates of religious freedom.

As a member of the highest court in the land and as a Catholic Christian himself, he has firsthand knowledge of the importance of faith in a higher power and the freedom to express it, both to the individual and to the greater society at large.

The justice used the occasion of his Rome summit appearance to express his concern over potential effects that may result from a “growing hostility to religion.”

In addition to the highly publicized Roe reversal, the Supreme Court upheld religious rights in a number of rulings in which Justice Alito was with the majority.

Kennedy v. Bremerton protected the right of a high school football coach to lead students in prayer at games.

– Carson v. Makin determined that the state of Maine cannot discriminate in the funding of tuition at religious schools.

Morrissey v. Beru held that anti-discrimination laws cannot force religious schools to ignore incompatible beliefs of teachers.

– Shurtleff v. Boston ruled that Boston’s City Hall was not entitled to maintain a policy disallowing religious flags.

During his speech, Justice Alito expressed concern that as the world becomes more secular in nature, people will no longer understand the vital role that religion plays in society.

Additionally, if there is a growth of secularism in society and a simultaneous reduction of religious involvement, the free exercise of religion will be in jeopardy.

Emphasizing that the decline of faith in the Western world has contributed to an antagonism toward religious traditions, which conflict with the trending moral relativism held by a sizable segment of society, Justice Alito stated the following:

“The problem that looms is not just indifference to religion, it’s not just ignorance about religion. There’s also growing hostility to religion, or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors.”

He remarked that religious liberty is “under attack” by those who seek complete power.

The drive to obtain power over others is in direct opposition to the values that religious beliefs instill, which presents an enormous obstacle for those who seek to achieve such power.

He also pointed out that Christians have been persecuted for centuries. He listed examples from history in which faith-filled individuals endured horrific torture, such as that which occurred at the Colosseum.

He reminded audience members, too, about Nero’s purported macabre use of Christians “as human torches.”

Moving forward in history, Justice Alito stated that despite the persecution of the past “more Christians are killed for their faith in our time than in the bloody days of the Roman Empire.”

He discussed the current challenge for religious liberty in the United States and Europe, where large percentages of the population have abandoned religion and are therefore no longer interested in safeguarding it.

“Unless the people can be convinced that robust religious liberty is worth protecting, it will not endure,” he warned.

He also included in his talk the tragic treatment of people of various other faiths, including the victims of the Holocaust, the slaughter of Yazidi in Iraq by Isis, and China’s “unspeakable treatment” of the Uyghurs.

Justice Alito has been an integral member of the Supreme Court since 2006. He has authored majority opinions in numerous landmark cases, including the one that is now most familiar to the public, the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

As an assistant solicitor general in the 1980s, he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, winning 10 of them.

Recognized as an ardent seeker of justice, after an FBI agent was shot in the line of duty in 1988, Justice Alito assigned himself to the case and secured the shooter’s conviction by personally handling the trial.

During the same year, he sought the re-hearing of extradition proceedings against two foreign nationals who were accused of being terrorist assassins. He had uncovered that death threats the prosecutor had received were actually sent to her by herself.

In the recent keynote speech in Rome, he raised the hackles of the compromised press and left-wing social media, when he made some humorous remarks about foreign leaders who had suddenly become legal analysts of the Dobbs opinion.

The objects of his lighthearted barbs included outgoing UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Prince Harry, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“I had the honor this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law,” Justice Alito said, adding, “One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price.”

As the audience broke into applause and laughter, he quipped, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right?” a reference to the logical fallacy that creates a questionable causal relationship between two events that follow each other in time.

The justice kidded about a speech that Prince Harry gave at the United Nations in which the royal tried to give a lecture on American jurisprudence and described the Supreme Court’s decision overruling Roe as a “rolling back of constitutional rights” in the U.S.

“What really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision, whose name may not be spoken, with the Russian attack on Ukraine,” he said.

The reaction of many leftists to Justice Alito’s speech suggests that the reason hostility against him continues may be because he remains delightfully unfazed by their hate campaign. In fact, he consistently projects a personal optimism and professional demeanor.

One theme of his speech that truly stands out was meant to inform and/or remind people of how fragile religious freedom really is.

“We can’t assume that the religious liberty we enjoy today will always endure,” he said.

He encouraged us all to be bold in our advocacy of freedom of religion, and in closing gave us the following scriptural reference to cling to:

“The champions of religious liberty who go out as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves can expect to find hearts that are open to their message.”

Words to live by and to share.

Domestic Terrorism Waged Against Pregnancy Centers and Houses of Worship

Ever since a leaked draft opinion went public, which indicated that the U.S. Supreme Court was about to overturn Roe v. Wade, vicious attacks began to be carried out against facilities that offer women health care, counseling, financial assistance, and multiple alternatives to the pregnancy-ending option of abortion.

In addition to the centers, houses of worship have been the target of similar kinds of assaults, including destruction of property and physical harm to individuals. Dozens of church campuses and parish facilities across the country have been firebombed, burned, looted, and vandalized by abortion-advocating extremists.

In many cases, culprits leave behind the ugliest of trademarks, which oftentimes include spray-painted graffiti with rallying cries the likes of “If abortion ain’t safe, you ain’t safe.”

A pro-abortion organization, which identifies itself as “Jane’s Revenge,” is taking credit for many of the attacks. The group issued a public communication earlier on, declaring “open season” on what it called “anti-choice” groups and demanding that all pro-life organizations disband.

According to NBC News, pro-abortion vandals are utilizing a map created by two University of Georgia professors to target centers that provide assistance other than abortion to pregnant women. The map discloses centers’ addresses from across the nation.

A radical group from the state of Washington posted a link to the aforementioned map, along with instructions on how to go about pinpointing the locations of pro-life pregnancy centers.

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act states that a person engages in domestic terrorism if said individual engages in “an act ‘dangerous to human life’ that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population…”

The FBI is succinct in its definition of domestic terrorism, identifying it as follows: “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”

The above-described acts in question were preceded by public messages that telegraphed political intent and specifically targeted religious groups. The acts were also carried out by those seeking to intimidate the public and to further ideological goals.

It should be called exactly what it is – domestic terrorism.

The manner in which attacks on chiefly faith-based facilities have been conducted emphasizes the heinousness of crimes committed.

One center in Colorado was torched. One in Virginia was defaced and had its windows smashed. And another in Oregon was vandalized.

In Los Angeles, California, one protestor reportedly aimed a flame thrower at a police officer, who ended up being one of four officers injured. The assailant is being charged with attempted murder.

Another group of demonstrators shut down a main highway, blocking cars and beating with sticks those who failed to stop.

In Nashville, Tennessee, a Molotov cocktail was thrown through the first-floor window of a pregnancy center. The message “Jane’s Revenge” was spray-painted on the side of the building.

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee had an appropriate reaction to the crime. “This is terrorism and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Gov. Lee posted in a tweet.

Pregnancy centers across the nation provide millions of dollars worth of free services and material assistance to women who choose life over death for their unborn babies.

One of TV’s most beloved sitcom stars, “Everybody Loves Raymond”’s Patricia Heaton, helps run one of the facilities. Heaton is one of a handful of Hollywood A-listers who is willing to stand up for the pre-born and their mamas-in-waiting.

“Our medical pregnancy clinic serves client families for five years, providing superior services for anyone who asks. We raised $250K for a mobile medical clinic for underserved areas, treating everyone,” the actress recently tweeted.

Heaton used her social media account to respond to Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) after an inflammatory statement was posted about pregnancy centers at a most dangerous time for the facilities.

Sen. Warren falsely claimed that these centers “mislead and deceive patients seeking abortion care,” and added that it is “more important than ever” that a “crack down” on the clinics occurs.

Heaton responded to the senator’s remark, pointing out that such incendiary language made facilities, such as the one with which she herself is affiliated, less safe.

“Because of people like @SenWarren we now have to hire armed security,” she tweeted.

Heaton has gone public with her pro-life views in the past, sharing the following: “I find it impossible to subscribe to a philosophy that believes that the destruction of human life is a legitimate solution to a problem that is mostly social, economic and psychological.”

She summarized her thoughts in one sweet sentence.

“Women who experience unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.”

Thumbs-up from grateful babies in the womb.

Hollywood in Major Uproar over Roe v. Wade Reversal

Following the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2022, to return to the states the power to determine the legality of abortion, Americans now find themselves in a post-Roe v. Wade world.

What’s it like? In a word, awesome. But not for everyone.

Folks are still in disagreement with one another, perhaps more intensely than ever before.

We can’t even seem to come to terms with the premise that – there is no constitutional right to abortion but there is a fundamental right to life. So demonstrably obvious and yet so seemingly elusive.

Alongside the tragedy of abortion itself is the fact that we have fallen woefully short in bridging this divide.

Hollywood isn’t helping.

Celebrities of the pro-choice persuasion are using over-the-top language while simultaneously attempting to virtue-signal to the max. It’s occurring largely through social media.

Here’s a small sampling.

– Barbara Streisand tossed a mean tweet at the Supreme Court, re-labeling the revered judicial institution as the “American Taliban.”

– Aisha Tyler called the Roe v. Wade ruling a “terrible tragedy” and seemingly took a page from fellow past-and-present leftists in designating it as “a dark day in American history.”

– Halle Berry let it be known in writing that she was “outraged” and used the vulgar version of animal excrement to express her opinion on the Supreme Court decision.

– Alyssa Milano posted that the ruling would have “deadly consequences” and would be “hardest on people of color.”

– Patricia Arquette called the High Court decision an “absolute disaster.”

– Elizabeth Banks characterized the ruling as “devastating news.”

– Taylor Swift shared that she is “absolutely terrified.”

The melodrama wasn’t confined to Hollywood stars. Entertainment industry labor and trade organizations raged against the ruling as well.

– SAG-AFTRA, the union that represents actors, announcers, broadcast journalists, and other media professionals, called the Roe v. Wade reversal “archaic and dangerous.” Issuing a statement, the union suggested that the Supreme Court’s ruling allows states to enact “draconian restrictions” on health care and that it will “destroy lives.”

Like other Hollywood organizations and companies, the union is providing money for employees to travel to the nearest location where they can obtain termination of pregnancy services, if they reside in states that have restrictions.

– The Directors Guild of America (DGA) “strongly condemned” the High Court’s ruling, calling it a “travesty.” In a statement, the DGA president opined that the ruling is putting “women’s lives at risk.”

The DGA also approved a new policy that provides financial assistance to DGA members who need to travel out of state in order to obtain abortion-related procedures.

– The Producers Guild of America, a nonprofit trade organization, issued a statement that characterized the Supreme Court decision as “deeply dangerous” and suggested that it would cause “untold harm.”

– Actors’ Equity Association, which represents actors and stage managers in live theater, called the ruling “a catastrophic step backwards for human rights.”

– The Board of Directors of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) West and the Council of the WGA East said in a joint statement that the decision will lead to “injury, death and the denial of basic human rights.”

– The American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents singers, dancers and staging staff in opera, ballet and concert dance, released a statement indicating that the “system is broken” and went so far as to urge that “the legitimacy of the Supreme Court must be reevaluated.”

– IATSE, the union that represents behind-the-scenes film and television workers, called the Supreme Court’s ruling “one of the worst contractions of freedoms in modern U.S. history.”

The fact of the matter is six jurists, who comprised the majority in the ruling, courageously upheld the law, despite the intimidation tactics of the left in protesting in front of justices’ homes and even the apparent assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The coercive efforts began with the strategic leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in May 2022. The stalwart six stood firm, and the Supreme Court as an institution gained strength.

On a positive note, there are still a sizable number of prominent and influential Hollywood stars, who have fought the good fight in defense of our babies and their right to live.

Included in this brave bunch are Patricia Heaton, Kelsey Grammer, Mel Gibson, James Caviezel, Chuck Norris, Celine Dion, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, Kirk Cameron, Candace Cameron Bure, Kanye West, and Justin Bieber.

In the initial Roe v. Wade ruling, Justice Byron White wrote in his dissent that the decision was an “exercise of raw judicial power.”

It was.

The majority in that fateful case actually created out of whole cloth a constitutional right to abortion that didn’t exist in American common law and wasn’t present anywhere in the text of the Constitution.

When the raging of the left is long forgotten, the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which has now thankfully resulted in the reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, will be recognized as the High Court ruling that rectified one of the most egregious injustices in our nation’s history.

There is a time for every purpose under heaven.

Now, after almost fifty years have passed, a time for healing has begun.

Lessons from the Left Coast Primaries

On the minds of Left Coast voters are some major concerns, which happened to be revealed in California’s recent primary elections.

It’s been said, “As California goes, so goes the nation,” so it may be that California’s primaries are also a foreshadowing of things to come in November’s general midterm elections.

Democratic Party turnout in the Golden State was dismal this time around. It may be an indication that liberal and even moderate Dems are experiencing a lack of enthusiasm.

At the same time, the primary election results showed that Republicans and Independents are deeply concerned over rising crime rates, exorbitant gas prices, and soaring food and housing costs.

Two of the Left Coast’s largest cities let their electoral voices be heard loud and clear.

In San Francisco, a far-left prosecutor was actually recalled. The electoral earthquake occurred when voters overwhelmingly chose to terminate District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s job right in the middle of his first term.

Boudin, a public defender-turned-district attorney was fired via a recall election, primarily for his policies of non-prosecution of criminal activity, lenient sentencing of criminals, and abolishment of cash bail, all of which resulted in a horrific spike in violent crime.

The ousting of Boudin should serve as a warning signal for politicians and government officials, apart from political affiliations. Those who promote, pursue, and implement policies that de-fund law enforcement agencies, reduce sentences of convicted felons, release back into society those who have not yet completed their prison time, eliminate cash bail, and abuse prosecutorial discretion may be in for a day of reckoning.

Boudin’s removal may also be a predictor for another elected official, one in Los Angeles County. A campaign is underway to recall District Attorney George Gascón, who appears to be cut from the same left-leaning political cloth as the aforementioned San Francisco prosecutor.

Before Gascón set his sights on destroying the criminal justice system in Los Angeles, he was Boudin’s predecessor as the district attorney of San Francisco.

The primary elections in Los Angeles were illuminating, particularly when it came to the mayoral race. Real estate developer Rick Caruso, a former Republican, came in first, with Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass finishing second. The two are set to face one another in November, and right now Caruso appears to have an edge in the upcoming race.

Caruso left the Republican Party in 2019 and registered as a Democrat in 2022. He ran a campaign that emphasized a tough on crime position and a determination to address the homeless crisis.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who survived a recall vote in 2021, was able to avoid any serious competition in the recent primary election, partially due to the unusual manner in which the state currently conducts its primaries. This November, Newsom will face the second-place primary election finisher, GOP state lawmaker Brian Dahle.

A whole lot of voters who participated in the Golden State’s primary were understandably confused by the ballot. What they saw, in addition to the incumbent Newsom’s name, was a dizzying array of 27 gubernatorial candidates, 14 of which were labeled as Republicans. Those who, prior to casting their votes, researched the candidates’ qualifications and positions on issues had quite a difficult and time-consuming challenge.

It wasn’t always like this. Years ago, via a ballot initiative, voters eliminated conventional closed primaries and replaced them with a so-called blanket primary system. Consequently, all candidates appeared on the same ballot in the form of a list. The top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election.

The Supreme Court actually struck down this system, saying that it violated a political party’s First Amendment right of association. However, with a push from then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California voters passed a new electoral initiative for something called the “top-two” open primary system.

In this system, all candidates on the list from all political parties, along with non-affiliated candidates, appear on the same ballot, with the top two finishers, regardless of party, advancing to the November general election.

This system and other types of open primaries frequently have unintended consequences that seriously undermine the main purpose of primary elections – to afford political parties the opportunity to pick their own candidates.

The conventional closed primary limits participation strictly to those who are designated party members. This concept relates to the previously mentioned right of free association contained in the Constitution.

Open primary laws violate the freedom of association of a political party, because they force a party to allow outsiders to select its candidates, a patently unfair and non-representative construct. Such primaries enable members of opposing political parties to subvert the nominating process.

Additionally, the California top-two primary system and similar designs oftentimes create circumstances that are disturbingly disenfranchising to voters.

In 2016, listed on the primary ballot in a run for U.S. Senate were 34 candidates. The top two finishers ended up being members of the same Democratic Party.

The top two vote-getters happened to be Loretta Sanchez and the now-Vice President Kamala Harris. Both emerged from the Senate primary as the lone candidates listed on the general election ballot. Their political parties, ideological positions, and policy proposals were, for the most part, identical.

This left voters with no real choice. However, Harris had the party backing, and she ended up winning the senate seat in a low turnout election.

The top-two primary system hasn’t delivered the increase in voter turnout that its proponents promised either. Since 2012, when the top-two rules took effect, turnout in primaries has averaged just 37.6% of registered voters.

In the recent primary, only 16% of the roughly 22 million mail-in ballots sent to voters were cast, and based on the count thus far experts believe the final turnout will be a record low.

Conversely, in a conventional closed primary system the top vote-getter from each partymoves on to the general election, thereby giving voters a bona fide choice.

This is what a functioning republic looks like.

Maybe it’s time for another visit to the Supreme Court.

A Convenient Scapegoat for the Surging Crime Rate

The recent spate of mass shootings is serving an unseemly purpose for those who wish to strip each individual within our nation of a fundamental constitutionally secured right – the right to defend life itself.

Those with this ill-intent are attempting to shift public attention away from the crime wave that has been plaguing cities and towns across our land.

Look over here at this inanimate weapon is the current rallying cry being used to turn heads in another direction, understanding that the minds contained within, particularly those under duress, will frequently follow.

Due to the exponential rise of violent crime, especially in so-called progressive-leaning cities, the fast-approaching midterm elections seem to be creating a high degree of discomfort in a sizable segment of the current ruling class.

With voters increasingly concerned about their personal safety and that of their families, political elites and their media allies are seeking to change the subject in hopes of saving their electoral skins.

The same people who embraced the de-funding of our police officers and have been serving as cheerleaders for the George Soros-funded assault on the criminal justice system are now using the wretched results of their destructive policies to propose even more devastating “solutions.”

Those inclined to exploit the tragic occurrences of mass shootings are simultaneously seizing a concurrent opportunity to duck responsibility for the massive rise in crime.

How are they accomplishing such a feat? By conditioning the public to jump onboard the “gun reform” bandwagon, which at its core is just more gun-grabbing by the government.

Those who live in urban areas of the country have already experienced the lack of law enforcement presence and decline of justice in the form of criminal prosecution.

Images of lawlessness resulting in the dreadful loss of life, limb, and property have left scars on many a mind and body as a result of an Orwellian “re-imagining” of law enforcement by far-left radicals, a previously fringe portion of the population that somehow managed to consolidate power in the past few years.

Adding to the insidious mix are the numerous jurisdictions across the country that are now saddled with partisan prosecutors who refuse to pursue cases involving egregious crimes.

Then there are the district attorneys across the nation who secured their offices via the political and financial support of Soros, the one-sided left-wing donor who altered the criminal justice landscape in heretofore unimaginable ways.

Currently, there are about two dozen local prosecutors who are running for re-election. They were initially placed into office via financing from Soros-connected entities.

Policies that these seemingly sham prosecutors have employed include the crime-inducing practices of extinguishing cash bail, de-criminalizing violations, reducing sentences, and frequently abusing prosecutorial discretion, all of which have resulted in dangerous criminals winding up back on the streets. Such policies directly correlate with the spike in crime rates experienced across our great land.

Elites of all economic and political persuasions are not immune to the devastating fallout.

For instance, in Los Angeles, California, a category of misdeeds has emerged that specifically targets wealthy individuals. Law enforcement has given the label of “follow-home” robberies to the crimes. Perpetrators seek out finely attired folks at upscale restaurants, hotels, and various other exclusive venues, people who happen to be wearing pricier jewelry and driving more luxurious vehicles.

In a malevolent calculated ambush, carloads of multiple armed suspects pursue victims to their homes and proceed to engage in brutal attacks. Social media users have posted descriptions, photos, videos, and the like, providing graphic examples of these and other cold-blooded criminal activities.

Back to the effort on the part of those who are practiced at the art of deception, i.e., those who in this case are trying to frame the crime rise problem as a public safety issue in need of gun regulation attention.

The right to defend oneself through means of gun ownership is an inherent natural right – popularly, historically, and religiously designated as a God-given right.

God-given rights are a substantive building block of America’s foundation. The Declaration of Independence unequivocally states the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These words are based on a belief that every individual is under a protective umbrella of “natural law,” which supersedes any conceptual legal design of human origin.

Another way of saying this?

The State is not allowed to mess around in these sacrosanct areas.

WHO’s In Charge?

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently requested that governments from around the globe send in their input on what should be included in a new international agreement, which is currently being drafted.

The new document is being referred to as “the pandemic treaty.” By obtaining political commitments from potential signer-nations, the WHO is evidently seeking to bolster support for the latest addition to an already sizable body of existing global law.

Concerns are being raised by organizations and informed citizens about the sovereignty of established nations, as well as the public health care systems located within their purviews.

In a simultaneous unfolding of events, another international agreement is undergoing a substantial revision. It’s called the International Health Regulations (IHR), and it has been around for more than five decades. However, the United States didn’t sign on to it until 2005.

The purported role of the IHR is to provide public health guidance to the governments of nations throughout the world.

This past January the Biden administration submitted new amendments to the IHR, which will likely be subsumed within the proposed pandemic treaty. This would result in a global governance apparatus that would be tailor-made for the WHO.

Back in December 2021something called an “intergovernmental negotiating body” was established, the purpose of which was to draft and negotiate the pandemic treaty that is currently being designed.

The WHO’s primary funder is Bill Gates. Gates is reportedly forming a pandemic response team made up of thousands of disease experts who would work with the WHO.

The United States had withdrawn from the WHO under the Trump administration, due to the organization’s failed leadership and loss of trust in parts of the world, especially with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Biden administration rejoined the WHO and is now looking to strengthen the organization’s ability to direct health-related decisions internationally.

Despite the fact that the final text of the treaty has not yet been completed, documents from groups that are working on the international agreement indicate a significant expansion of the term “pandemic.” The WHO had already transformed the word’s definition to an “epidemic of a disease” that affects the world population, without requirements of high morbidity.

The treaty’s drafters are seeking to broaden the categorization of what would constitute a “pandemic.” If they succeed, it would allow the WHO to classify just about any potential malady as a “pandemic,” in effect granting the organization the power to direct the administration of health care responses worldwide.

Proposed amendments from the United States to the IHR would allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern, without having to obtain agreement from the government of an affected country.

Former WHO legal consultant Silvia Behrendt, along with University College Dublin law lecturer Amrei Müller, criticized the Biden administration’s proposals.

“The proposed US amendments to Article 12 IHR will both considerably extend the executive powers of the WHO Director-General to declare global emergency-like situations and centralize this power further by removing the need to consult and find agreement with the respective state party,” the authors wrote.

The World Health Assembly (WHA) is meeting to vote on the IHR amendments, with the apparent hopes of making them an established part of international law.

The authors of the above referenced article call upon the members of the WHA to carefully consider the implications of the U.S.’s proposed amendments before endorsing and adopting them.

The following rhetorical question was posed by Behrendt and Müller:

“Have technocratic, biomedical approaches, developed and implemented from the top down primarily through executive action, worked well in response to Covid-19, justifying a further extension and centralization of global emergency powers at WHO?”

The authors also asked whether mechanisms need to be set up to ensure that the WHO complies with its “responsibilities for human rights that derive from international human rights law.”

The ultimate goal of the WHO and WHA appears to be a desire to make the proposed pandemic treaty enforceable in the United States and throughout the entire planet.

The Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, spells out the process by which a treaty becomes domestic law. The primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other nations is the president. The agreements become binding federal laws after they have been ratified by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate.

Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2, grants to ratified treaties the status of being the equivalent of duly passed statutes, i.e., the “supreme law of the land.”

The most compelling issue for the American people right now can be summed up in two questions:

Do you want an alphabet of international agencies controlling your personal health care destiny? Or do you want to control your own?

Better look both ways before crossing this street.

The Targeting of Supreme Court Justices

The United States Supreme Court has just suffered an unprecedented attack on its fundamental integrity. A draft opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito and relating to the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health case, has been made public.

An investigation is currently underway to try and determine the individual or individuals who are responsible for the leaking of the document, which was intended to be held in confidentiality, as it historically has always been, until an official ruling has been reached.

What has taken place is so egregious that words seem to be an inadequate means of conveying the gravity involved. The breach of the High Court’s deliberations is unparalleled. So, too, will likely be the ramifications of the leak as well as the aftermath of violent protests that are being fomented.

The High Court’s ultimate ruling in the case, which is still presently unknown, is expected to be finalized shortly and will likely be released at the end of the Court’s term.

The past few days have seen even more vitriolic speech and vile behavior piled on top of the dung heap. A group called Ruth Sent Us published six Supreme Court justices’ home addresses, accompanied by a map that outlined the locations of personal residences.

The group scheduled protests in the form of a “walk-by” outside homes of Justices Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Protestors have already staged demonstrations in front of the homes of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh.

Ruth Sent Us is named for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who actually took the position that Roe vs. Wade was ill-reasoned law.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki initially failed to condemn the targeting of Supreme Court justices and their families and homes. When asked specifically for the White House’s reaction to the release of justices’ addresses for the purposes of supposed protest events, Psaki failed to denounce the tactic and went as far as making statements to minimize the ploy.

When the press secretary finally made reference to the Oval Office, she said, “I think the president’s view is there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across the country about what they saw in that document.”

The fact of the matter is interference with the administration of justice in the manner in which it has recently been occurring is illegal.

Federal statute 18 U.S.C. 1507 states that whoever has the intent of “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,” or “influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” and “pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer,” may be fined and/or may receive a prison sentence of up to one year.

Pro-abortion protests have already gotten violent. Protestors in front of the federal courthouse in Los Angeles, California recently clashed with the police, and at least one officer was injured.

A fire at a pro-life organization’s office in Madison, Wisconsin, is being investigated as an arson case. Found inside the building was an un-ignited Molotov cocktail.

For people of the Roman Catholic Christian faith, things have become more deeply disturbing. Ruth Sent Us has called for the desecration of the most sacred doctrine and personhood of the Catholic Church itself – the physical presence of Jesus Christ in the form of the transubstantiated Eucharist.

Over the weekend protestors descended upon the iconic Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral in New York City. As reported by Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review, pro-abortion activists proceeded to block the front doors of the church, where Catholic believers had gathered together to celebrate Mass.

As they have for the past fourteen years, some of the attendees at the conclusion of the Mass make their way toward a Planned Parenthood clinic, where they engage in a separate sacred practice involving prayers recited with the use of Rosary sacramentals. On this day, however, police officers advised against the visit to the clinic for their own safety and protection. Despite the warning, a number of the devoted pro-lifers managed to keep the vigil.

Parishioners at Boulder, Colorado’s Sacred Heart of Mary Church arrived at morning Mass only to find that the church windows had been smashed, and the front entry doors had been spray-painted with the words “MY BODY, MY CHOICE.”

Ruth Sent Us states on its website that it is targeting “six extremist Catholics” who voted against Roe vs. Wade.

The organization spurred on disruptions of Catholic Church services with a posting of a video that depicts its own group members interfering with a Catholic Mass, while dressed in costumes worn on a fictional streaming series.

What the group is calling for is, in fact, criminal behavior.

Federal law, 18 U.S. Code § 247 states that anyone who “intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force…any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs” at a place devoted to religious worship, has committed a federal crime.

CatholicVote, a Catholic advocacy group, issued a statement demanding that elected Catholic leaders publicly condemn the group’s supposed protest methods and has asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce the law and protect churches from threats.

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote, called the group’s plans “religious bigotry of the worst kind.”

In what many are saying is too little, too late, following the past turbulent weekend Psaki released a statement via Twitter that read as follows:

“@POTUS strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.”

The administration has yet to explicitly and directly address the attempts to influence the deliberative process, the doxxing of Supreme Court Justices, the targeting of houses of worship, the interference with the free exercise of religion, and the efforts to intimidate those with opposing viewpoints through the use of fear tactics.

All are an egregious affront to the Constitution.

And one more affirmation that liberty itself is in freefall.