Tommy Tuberville and colleagues concerned about government using corporations to censor Americans
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) joined Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in introducing the Free Speech Protection Act to prohibit federal employees and contractors from using their positions to censor and otherwise attack speech protected by the First Amendment. The bill will impose severe penalties for individuals violating this rule. “Our government should actively protect our First Amendment rights, not promote censorship,” Tuberville said on Twitter. “I am proud to join @SenRandPaul in the Free Speech Protection Act.” Sen. Paul is the Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “Americans are free people and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. The time has come for resistance and to reclaim our God-given right to free expression,” said Dr. Paul. “Under my Free Speech Protection Act the government will no longer be able to cloak itself in secrecy to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans.” Rep. Jordan is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “Censorship is a major threat to freedom today,” said Chairman Jim Jordan. “It is clear that Big Government must be more transparent and that bureaucrats must be held accountable for censorship. The Free Speech Protection Act accomplishes that and gives individuals remedies for censorship to protect vital First Amendment freedoms.” The bill is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), and Mike Braun (R-Indiana). In addition to protecting Americans’ First Amendment rights, the bill would mandate frequent publicly accessible reports from the heads of executive branch agencies detailing the communications between an executive branch agency and a content provider, as well as prevent agencies from employing any FOIA exemption to prevent disclosure of prohibited communications. The legislation also ensures that federal grant money is not received by any entity that seeks to label media organizations as sources of misinformation or disinformation. The legislation has been endorsed by the Heritage Foundation. “Recent revelations have exposed the lengths to which the Biden administration continues to take to censor the online speech of Americans who speak out against the Left’s agenda,” said Acting Director of Heritage Action Ryan Walker. “When federal employees make content moderation requests, the administration is effectively using the coercive power of the federal government to turn Big Tech companies into enforcement arms of their censorship policies. While the courts may eventually rule that this type of behavior is unconstitutional, Congress should codify these prohibitions into federal law by passing legislation like Senator Paul’s to ensure the long-term protection of Americans’ right to free speech online.” U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty ruled that the federal government was using its relationships with private corporations, including Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, to censor Americans who hold views that the government does not like. Judge Doughty also issued a sweeping preliminary injunction barring numerous federal officials and agencies — including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and all employees of the Justice Department and FBI — from having any contact with social media firms for the purpose of discouraging or removing First Amendment-protected speech. The Biden Administration is appealing the ruling. Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and HELP Committees. Tuberville was elected in 2020 after a successful forty-year career as an educator, coach, and sports broadcaster. A native of Arkansas, Tuberville was the head football coach at Ole Miss, Auburn, Texas Tech, and Cincinnati. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com
Daniel Sutter: COVID Lab leak misinformation
The U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic will hold a hearing on July 11 on “Investigating the Proximal Origin of a Cover Up.” The recent Federal District Court injunction against government censorship of social media increases this hearing’s significance. The hearing will not decide if a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) started the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The hearing will examine the backstory of the March 2020 Nature Medicine paper, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” In this paper, five leading virologists concluded, “We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” “Proximal Origin” was one of the most cited scientific papers of 2020. Dr. Anthony Fauci and many others dismissed the lab leak hypothesis for almost two years by referencing this paper. One potential response could be that real-time prognostication is frequently wrong. Law professor Richard Epstein in March 2020, predicted no more than 50,000 deaths worldwide from SARS-CoV-2, which was off by two orders of magnitude. But thanks to numerous Freedom of Information requests, we know that three “Proximal Origin” authors thought that the lab leak was a 50-50 proposition or better. The WIV was collecting coronaviruses from bats across China to identify potentially deadly viruses before they might begin infecting humans. This research necessarily made a leak a possibility, made more likely since much of WIV’s coronavirus research was being done in a Level 2 Biosecurity lab rather than a Level 4 area. But it gets worse. The authors were aware of a furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, never previously observed in any coronavirus. This was the key to infection: “Without this feature, SARS-CoV-2 would not have posed a pandemic threat.” WIV and EcoHealth Alliance had sought funding from DARPA to insert a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus. This proposal was not funded, but the research might still have been conducted, making a lab leak a leading candidate when such a coronavirus emerged in Wuhan. Four of the five authors of Proximal Origins were on a phone call on February 1, 2020, with Dr. Fauci, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, and Wellcome Trust’s Jeremy Farrar. Somehow none of their concerns made it into the paper. As Roger Pielke Jr. summarizes the case: “A group of scientists, ‘prompted’ by government officials and ‘shepherded’ by Farrar … chose to misrepresent in a ‘scientific’ article published in a major journal, what they knew and believed, as expressed in private emails.” The case sheds light on government censorship of social media. The expert assessment justified deplatforming lab leak proponents from Twitter and Facebook. Censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story proceeded similarly, with 51 intelligence experts claiming the story was Russian disinformation. Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi dub what their excellent reporting, beginning with the Twitter files, has uncovered the “Censorship Industrial Complex.” A lawsuit by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri led to this week’s injunction from Federal Judge Terry Doughty, who wrote, “If the allegations made by the Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Americans must push back against this censorship. I will consider only the tiny sliver posed by “Proximal Origin.” Here’s a potential response: permanently ban the paper’s authors from future Federal research funding. We the people and taxpayers invest in research to make our lives better. Only scientists adhering to the highest standards can advance knowledge. Scientists willing to lie in such a publication have zero credibility to conduct honest research. The “Proximal Origin” authors are not the only blameworthy parties here. Dr. Fauci, who was funding research at WIV through NIAID, appears particularly culpable. I would support punishment for this, but Dr. Fauci has since retired. The Federal government justifies social media censorship to combat misinformation. We still do not know whether Covid-19 emerged from the WIV. But discrediting the lab leak hypothesis represents pure government misinformation. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Permanent order blocking Joe Biden’s mask, vaccine mandate for Head Start could be appealed
With a permanent injunction issued in a case against President Joe Biden’s mask and vaccine mandate for Head Start child care centers, the only question is whether federal officials will appeal the ruling. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty struck down the mandate on Wednesday, finding the edict poses a “substantial threat of irreparable injury” to the two dozen states that sued. He granted a permanent injunction against federal agencies enforcing the mandate, which required masks for toddlers and staff, as well as a requirement for a COVID vaccination or weekly tests for adults. Any appeal would be filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which handles cases from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. “I am grateful Judge Doughty applied the law and blocked this federal overreach from burdening some of our neighbors most in need,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said. “As I said when we first filed suit, masking two-year-olds and force vaccinating teachers in our underserved communities would impede child development and cost jobs; fortunately, this attack has been thwarted.” Doughty found the Head Start teachers and 24 states that sued over the mandate would face a “substantial threat of irreparable injury” if it wasn’t struck down. “Plaintiff States will incur the increased cost of training and of enforcing the Head Start Mandate, will be unable to enforce their laws, and will have their police power encroached. The Court finds that this would be an irreparable injury,” Doughty wrote. “The Plaintiff States’ citizens will suffer irreparable injury by having a substantial burden placed on their liberty interests because they will have to choose between losing their jobs or taking the vaccine.” The lead plaintiff in the case, Louisiana preschool teacher Sandy Brick, was represented by the Pelican Institute and the Liberty Justice Center. “Louisiana teacher Sandy Brick has been serving her students through adversity and uncertainty for the last two years. Today, this decision vindicates her right to teach without sacrificing her freedom,” Sarah Harbison, an attorney with the Pelican Institute, said Wednesday. Liberty Justice Center attorney Daniel Suhr vowed to “continue to fight for teachers like Sandy and the low-income students they serve until every illegal and unjustified mandate is wiped from the books.” “Today’s decision is a significant step toward undoing the injustice perpetrated against everyday Americans throughout the COVID-19 crisis,” he said in a Wednesday release. Doughty, who previously struck down the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, explained the Head Start ruling boils down to a balance between the public interest and individual liberty. “Although vaccines arguably serve the public interest, the liberty interests of individuals mandated to take the COVID-19 vaccine outweigh any interest generated by the mandatory administration of vaccines,” he wrote. Doughty’s permanent injunction applies to Head Start programs in Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Judge issues permanent injunction on Biden administration ban on new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, waters
A federal judge sided with Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and 12 other plaintiff states in a Louisiana-led lawsuit, issuing a permanent injunction against the Biden administration’s moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal lands and water. U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty issued the permanent injunction, declaring that the president exceeded his authority when halting oil and gas leasing and drilling permits. “I am pleased the Court recognized that the President stepped outside his authority,” Landry said in a statement. “Biden’s energy policies have crushed American families with higher energy bills for their homes and vehicles.” Doughty ruled that Joe Biden’s executive order issued on January 27, 2021, violated the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and was “beyond the authority of the President of the United States. Even the President cannot make significant changes to the OCSLA and/or the MLA that Congress did not delegate.” The order implemented a moratorium on new development of oil and gas fields on federal lands just days after the U.S. Interior Department also imposed restrictions on existing leases. Also, under Biden’s directive, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Land Management halted long-planned lease sales, which the lawsuit argued violated federal law and the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Landry said his office “will continue to ensure that American energy policy is crafted by the Legislative Branch, not the Judiciary or Executive. We must keep fighting and winning to bring relief to American consumers.” The permanent injunction was issued more than a year after Doughty issued a preliminary injunction on June 15, 2021. The Biden administration appealed the decision, arguing the president has the authority to halt leasing. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and sent the case back to Doughty, which resulted in him issuing a permanent injunction. Neighboring Gulf state Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who joined the multi-state lawsuit, said the president’s moratorium was “an all-out assault against oil and natural gas production [and] would have killed good-paying jobs and increased consumer energy costs, all while decreasing funds that could be used for the restoration of state coastlines.” The states joining Louisiana and Texas in the lawsuit were Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia. “Joe Biden may have declared war on American energy independence, but we’re fighting back, and we’re winning in court,” Paxton said in a statement. “The executive order was a clear example of unconstitutional federal overreach, and I’m pleased to see the court make the right decision in issuing a permanent injunction to prevent it from taking effect.” In his 43-page ruling, Doughty said, “Millions and possibly billions of dollars are at stake. Local government funding, jobs for Plaintiff States’ workers, and funds for the restoration of . . . Coastline[s] are at stake. Plaintiff States have a reliance interest in the proceeds derived from offshore and onshore oil and gas lease sales. Additionally, the public interest is served when the law is followed. The public will be served if Government Defendants are enjoined from taking actions contrary to law. In a time of high gas and oil prices, draining of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and looking to other nations to supply the United States’ oil and gas needs, the public interest would be served by a permanent injunction.” The administration hasn’t yet issued a statement on the ruling, and another appeal to the Fifth Circuit is expected to be unsuccessful. While Texas leads the U.S. in oil and natural gas production, Louisiana accounts for nearly one-fifth of America’s refining capacity and can process about 3.2 million barrels of crude oil a day. Louisiana has the third-highest natural gas production and reserves in the U.S. and consistently ranks among the top in both crude oil reserves and crude oil production. U.S. Gulf of Mexico energy producers supply nearly 15% of the U.S. oil production and over 2% of natural gas production. Offshore oil and natural gas development supports over 350,000 jobs nationwide and contributes billions to the economy and local, state, and federal coffers. Gulf oil and gas revenues also fund 60% of federal energy revenue that support numerous conservation projects. The ruling came after the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association urged the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to ensure that the Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program include all 10 of the proposed lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the proposed sale for the Cook Inlet in Alaska. It expressed concern that the agency potentially “Leaving open the option to hold zero future lease sales puts U.S. energy security at risk and compromises U.S. producers’ ability to provide affordable, reliable energy to the American people.” “Independent analysis shows that oil and natural gas are going to play an important role in fulfilling U.S. energy needs for the foreseeable future,” Mike Moncla, president of the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association,” said. “The question is whether the oil and gas will come from here in the U.S., where it is produced under some of the strictest environmental standards in the world, or if the U.S. will cede our position as global energy leaders and instead become reliant on foreign sources to supply our energy needs.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Judge blocks COVID vaccine mandate for Head Start program
President Joe Biden cannot require teachers in the Head Start early education program to be vaccinated against COVID-19, a Louisiana federal judge ruled Saturday, handing a victory to 24 states that had sued the federal government. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty wrote that the Biden administration unlawfully bypassed Congress when ordering that workers in Head Start programs be vaccinated by Jan. 31 and that students 2 years or older be masked when indoors or when in close contact outdoors. Head Start is a federally funded program that promotes education for children under the age of 6 who are from low-income families. Doughty, an appointee of then-President Donald Trump, wrote that the separation of powers is crucial to the country’s founding and quoted former President Ronald Reagan, who said, “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” “If the Executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the Legislative branch to make laws, then this country is no longer a democracy — it is a monarchy,” Doughty wrote. Republican attorneys general who were among the 24 states involved in the lawsuit praised Doughty’s decision. “This victory will help ensure that numerous Head Start programs will continue to operate rather than have to fire teachers and cut back services to children,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a news release. “And this win will forestall the nonsensical and damaging practice of forcing masks on two-year-olds.” It was not immediately clear whether the federal government would appeal the decision to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Doughty’s ruling is similar to a Friday ruling in which a federal judge also blocked the Head Start mandate in Texas. Saturday’s ruling affects Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, and West Virginia.
