On why and how globalists, allied with communists, are fomenting federalist conflicts in America.
They aim to block American Christians and Constitutionalists from working together to protect individual human liberty to freely discern and work the will of God.
Part 1 - Analysis of recent developments in federal courts (below)
Part 2 - Court case timeline with further analysis
Part 1 - Recent developments and commentary
On June 4, 2022, Jeffrey Tucker posted an essay at Brownstone Institute: Elections Won’t Fix This, about the rise of the unaccountable, permanent administrative State, which now vastly overpowers elected legislatures and the citizen voters who elect representatives to those bodies. Tucker cited Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a Supreme Court case from 1984, as a key turning point. I’ve added it to the main judicial timeline first posted on 05/19/2022.
In the last few days, Jeff Childers at Coffee and Covid, and America’s Frontline Doctors both reported on the US Supreme Court’s May 23, 2022 denial of certiorari (constitutional review) in a New York State Court of Appeals case: F.F. v. New York, brought by parents of New York schoolchildren subjected to school vaccine mandates without recourse to religious exemptions, which the New York legislature revoked in June 2019.
People, I’ve said it a million times and I’ll say it again: Constitutional rights are only as good as what a court will enforce. It’s not magic. We cannot depend on the Constitution to save us, especially if we lose the courts.
I posted a short comment at Childers site, and expand on the same issues below.
The federal courts have been offline for Constitutional issues related to government’s Covid mitigation measures since May 2020, when SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts used his opinion in South Bay Pentecostal v. Newsom (590 US__2020) to direct federal judges to refuse to review executive and legislative acts undertaken in the context of the declared public emergency. The federal judges have complied, including multiple instances of SCOTUS justices refusing appeals of constitutional cases without explanation.
In other words, federal courts in America have already fallen to the globalists. Many state courts are still holding on, thanks be to God and courageous state judges.
In his weekly Sunday pay-walled post, Childers wrote about Peter Navarro’s arrest at the direction of the Democratic party’s J6 committee, and about a Newsweek op-ed titled “Davos: The Left Didn’t Eat the Rich. The Rich Ate the Left.”
The editorial reminded Childers of the Davos protests at the World Economic Forum in September 2000, and prompted him to write:
So the question I’m still thinking about is: how’d they do it? How did the WEF capture the populist Left? And now that they have it, what are they doing with it? Is this why the WEF’s global influence feels so outsized, because it now has no significant opposition?
This is an excellent question.
As a young couple with a toddler back in 2000, living in Tucson, Arizona, my husband and I put our son into a backpack carrier and marched with other protesters at anti-elite-corporate-globalism, anti-WEF, anti-World Trade Organization, anti-International Monetary Fund demonstrations.
Those anti-corporate-globalism protests were organized by the same progressive, left-wing political cohort that had popped into global public awareness a year earlier, with the 1999 Battle of Seattle, and before that, the alliance of blue-collar factory workers, labor organizers, farmers, farm workers and environmentalists in Mexico, Canada and the United States that fought the North American Free Trade Alliance (NAFTA) passed in 1994.
A year later, having moved to New York City, we were on the streets, with our son in a stroller, demonstrating against the planned invasion of Afghanistan just after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
A year-and-a-half after that, in March 2003, we were on the streets of Manhattan again, marching against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the other neocons’ planned invasion of Iraq on the false pretext of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and the coerced, partial fig-leaf of United Nations Security Council endorsement, exposed by whistleblower Katharine Gun.
At that last protest, in early 2003, we had the terrifying experience of kettling by the police, in which demonstrators are pushed with barricades into smaller, more densely packed areas of the street. Our son was four at the time; we left the protest and went home.
We haven’t attended many street protests since then, because of the kettling (street protesting endangered us and our kids); because the legacy media successfully suppressed the size and ideological diversity of the protests (street protesting was an ineffective form of political speech); and because we were busy raising young children and working within local politics (hoping it would prove more effective).
Among other things, I worked for several years at the local level with the rights-based organizing model pioneered by Attorney Thomas Linzey and Richard Grossman, through the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund they founded in 1995.
The model is designed to empower individuals to fight against legalized Corporate-State predation using local government structures and principles of self-government and personal sovereignty, instead of dead-end regulatory challenges conducted through the captured administrative State.
I posted a short comment on Jeff Childers post:
My working hypothesis, strongly informed by Malachi Martin’s analysis in The Keys of This Blood (1990) is that the globalists captured the populist left by forming an alliance of convenience between transnational capital (the banksters) and Marxist social justice/secular materialist warriors, using money (George Soros et al funding the Black Lives Matter groups and color revolutions of the world) alongside ideological persuasion that their joint Enemy No. 1 is Christian Constitutionalists with a commitment to individual liberty and federalism as a means of securing it.
I think the Davos crowd captured the populist right in the same way — by coopting the 2009 Tea Party movement — at least until Trump came along.
The globalists did this for two main reasons.
They realized that the 2009 Tea Party movement and the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement were converging on a geopolitical analysis in which conservative Christian Constitutional populists angry at government overreach could join forces with progressive populists angry at the corporate predation by financial elites, to unite against the two-headed, single-beast of the Corporate-State jointly controlled by globalists and Marxists.
And they had the money to buy off the leaders of the key organizing groups.
Globalists, allied with communists, have been using the American administrative State as one major front in the war on humanity, as outlined in the American Domestic Bioterrorism Program overview post and related legal reporting.
They have a second major front.
They’re using the federal courts to erode Constitutional jurisprudence, individual rights and the federalist system: the system set up by the Founders to control tyranny.
Constitutional federalism — imperfect though it is, as a compromise between the elitist Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and the plain folk Jeffersonians — places real limits on centralized federal authority through the separation of powers among three co-equal legislative, judicial and executive branches; the Bill of Rights explicitly denying certain powers to the federal government; and the 10th Amendment reservation of all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government, to the states and to the People as individual human beings.
For communists following the ideological lead of Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci and their intellectual descendants, the individual exists for the benefit of the collective, and specifically for the people who occupy the top tier of the communist political organizations in each country.
For globalists, it’s the same story, except the individual exists for the benefit of the elite people who serve as stand-ins or placeholders for the idea of the collective as a whole.
In both cases, the purpose of the collective to which the individual is subordinate, is the promotion of this-world material wellbeing in terms of more goods and longer longevity for the primary beneficiaries: the political elites in the Party, or the financial elites within the global economic system.
From that viewpoint, any conflict or tension between the individual human being and the human society in which he lives, is resolved by destroying the individual and any governing principle — such as Constitutional rule of law — that protects the individual from society and from government.
For Christians and Constitutionalists, on the other hand, society exists for the benefit and wholesome moral development of individuals as created beings moving closer to our Creator God in this-life and this-world and — if we discern, pray, love and work well here — heaven for eternity.
From that viewpoint, any conflict between individual and society must be addressed by reforming or replacing disordered governments that disrupt wholesome moral development, to restore and strengthen the natural order that supports the individual’s approach to God.
Along these lines and particularly relevant to the Covid-19 context, Pope Pius XII addressed moral limits on what doctors may do to a patient, what a patient may allow doctors to do to his or her body and mind, and what experimenters may do to human subjects, in his 1952 speech On the Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment.
…A man cannot perform on himself or allow doctors to perform acts of a physical or somatic nature which doubtless relieve heavy physical or psychic burdens or infirmities, but which bring about at the same time permanent abolition or considerable and durable diminution of his freedom, that is, of his human personality in its typical and characteristic function.
Such an act degrades a man to the level of a being reacting only to acquired reflexes or to a living automation. The moral law does not allow such a reversal of values.
Pope Pius XII also addressed head-on the relationship between the individual and society in the medical treatment and experimentation context:
“Insofar as the moral justification of the experiments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordination of the individual to the community, of the individual’s welfare to the common welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to usefulness to society.
On the contrary, the community exists for man.”
Catholic writer Malachi Martin wrote a great deal about the deadening structuralism of mid-century modernity between 1939 and 1978, with American culture leading the way, in Three Popes and the Cardinal.
He published the book in 1972, writing about the men who launched, led and then began the implementation of the dramatic Vatican II transformation of the Roman Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Augustin Bea.
Early in the book, Martin describes history as an “unfolding drama whose plot has God as its playwright.” (p. 46)
He wrote that Christianity, somewhat settled after the persecutions of the second and third centuries, began to shape Mediterranean culture in profound, far-reaching ways.
Among other things, Christians transformed concepts of the person and the family:
“Persona, originally a mask worn by an actor, and then used to denote a character in a play, was used to describe one of the two fundamental Christian contributions to ancient thought. No ancient language has a word corresponding to our word person. The concept was alien both to Greco-Roman and to Semitic thought. Neither the Jewish Bible nor Greek philosophy nor Roman law ever conceived of a human being as a person in our modern sense. Judaism early adopted the Christian idea, as did the Roman lawgivers of the fifth and sixth centuries.”
The second fundamentally and peculiarly Christian contribution was the transmutation of the Roman word familia. In its Christian sense, it meant the nuclear family as we understand the term today: a man, his wife and their children. Again, neither in Greco-Roman nor in Christian Jewish thought was there ever a word for or a clear concept of the nuclear family. This was a Christian concept and it brought the Roman term familia to mean just that.” (p. 81)
Martin wrote, of the American Catholic layman post-Nagasaki and Hiroshima:
All felt increasingly the pressure of structuralism throughout their lives as citizens and as individuals. All experienced more and more the need…for compassion, for relief from the fear of being submerged as individuals, for a reassurance that, under further dissection at the hands of structuralist society and the impersonal reach of government, they would not cease to be the men they were or lose the hope of being the men they planned to be… (p. 154)
From 1945 onwards, the life of Western man was spent in the penumbra of fear that a nuclear war would end him completely; and his daily life was increasingly invaded by a structuralism which effectively blotted out any brilliance of the glory because of the intricate network of complex living systems to be coped with, if life was to continue.
Reminders that he should fear the power or admire the glory seemed, more and more, to be willful distractions from the job of mere survival, mere palliatives for his problem of remaining at least human. (p. 165)
Martin continued developing the idea of structuralism as a key driver of modern man’s moral and societal predicaments in another book: The Keys of This Blood, published in 1990 just after the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, and just before the formal adoption of the legal and financial instruments that created the European Union through the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, another step on the road to globalization.
Martin describes Pope John Paul II’s definition of the Christian meaning of human morality:
…the meaning and the drive and the power of morality cannot be eradicated in the lives of men and women. For human morality derives from one most basic fact: Because God created man in his own image and likeness by endowing him with an indestructible principle of being — a principle of being called a soul — in all that mankind does, the important dimension is spiritual, is a thing of man’s soul and its spiritual values…
What is morally good, says this Pope in one voice with all the popes who have preceded him, respects those laws of God about the family unity of mankind and about individual rights. What is morally bad breaks those laws, and is called sin. (pp. 156-157)
Martin then set the Christian concept of human morality within the emerging global geopolitical and georeligious/theopolitical context:
As Christians and Roman Catholics, [Pope John Paul II] insists, we not only can but must speak of ‘sinful structures’ when we find that such structures are created by men and women who are inspired uniquely by economic, financial, political or ideological gain. For in acting out of such motives alone, the builders of such structures violate at least the First Commandment, which forbids the worship of false gods.
When money, ideology, class or technological development dictates exclusively how we behave, then we are in effect worshipping idols, just as surely as if we were to set up a golden calf in the Sinai of our world, ascribe omnipotence to it, and give it our obeisance and adoration.
In that sort of situation, at least one and probably two sinful intentions are operative: an all-consuming desire for profit; and the thirst for power. In fact, as these human attitudes and propensities are built into the structures of our society, they are not merely operative; they quickly become absolutized. They dominate our thoughts, our intentions and our actions. They become the household gods on the mantels of our structures.
The structures themselves, therefore, are rooted in the personal sins linked to the choices and the concrete acts of the individuals to design and introduce those structures, consolidate them, promote them, build their lives on them, define success in their terms, and make those structures difficult to remove.
As such structures grow stronger and spread farther, they become the source of other personal sins. They influence the behavior of increasing numbers of individuals, leading them in turn to violate God’s moral law and thus to commit sin.
The originators of those structures have, in other words, introduced into the everyday world of men and women influences and obstacles that last far beyond the actions and brief life span of any individual. The structures are the vehicles of their sins, and can aptly and accurately be described as ‘sinful structures.’ (pp. 158-159)
Pope John Paul II, in Martin’s account of his worldview and work as of 1990, found widespread concurrence with his view that “this world system — this newly minted and all-encompassing interdependence that is coming into existence — includes economic, political, cultural and sectarian elements.”
Somewhat surprisingly, he also found widespread agreement with “what he is certain is the most basic fact of all: the fact that interdependence among nations must be based upon some common agreement as to moral good and moral evil in modern life. And further, that if such common agreement cannot be reached as a working basis of globalism, then all attempts at establishing a new world order will end only in disaster.” (p. 159)
Part 2 Preview/Orientation
Part 2 will be a judicial timeline highlighting some of the Covid-predicated cases through which the Supreme Court has been destroying constitutional government in the United States for the last two years, and in the process, promoting moral evil and suppressing moral good.
The justices’ silence on constitutional issues is the primary tell.
Despite multiple opportunities to block further federal government abuse — under false public health pretenses — of schoolchildren, teachers and school staff, university students, faculty and staff, nurses, doctors and other health care workers, members of religious congregations, military personnel, county government officials, and business owners, they haven’t done it.
The timeline will include two cases that I plan to write about in more detail in the next few weeks.
Through Robert v. Austin, I think the Department of Defense, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and a SCOTUS majority will try to put another judicial nail in the coffin of bodily integrity rights of human beings who serve in the US military.
Through Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, I think a SCOTUS majority — perhaps under duress, perhaps not — is preparing to end the special moral and legal status of human beings as living creatures endowed by our Creator with inalienable personal rights, while setting up conditions for equal protection challenges to the ensuing disparate, patchwork state regulation of abortion so that human dignity, conscience and bodily integrity principles can be undermined uniformly nationwide.
One key point to keep in mind while thinking about the recent case law: the fight between individual liberty and government tyranny is very much alive.
Within the list of relevant Supreme Court precedents, many of them do recognize human rights to individual liberty, personal privacy and bodily integrity against government violation, including Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Botsford (1891), Schloendoerff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914), Snyder v. Massachusetts (1934) and Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990).
The globalists and the communists want the world’s people to believe that these matters are settled, or will be settled in the next little while; that tyranny and totalitarianism are inevitable, have decisively won already; and that resistance is therefore futile.
They would like us to be so effectively “conditioned to expect pain, suffering, or discomfort without a way to escape it” that we “stop trying to avoid the pain at all—even if there is an opportunity to truly escape it.”
The political and governmental chaos through which we are all clearly living begs to differ.
The globalists and communists have made lots of evil plans.
They’ve made considerable headway for the last century or so.
To this day, they’re vigorously continuing to pursue their evil designs.
But nothing is settled.
There have been four broad categories of civil lawsuits challenging Covid-19 acts since Spring 2020:
Claims challenging violation of Constitutionally-protected human rights by local, state and federal governments, including school districts.
Claims challenging violation of Constitutionally-protected human rights by private businesses.
Claims challenging federal, state and local Covid-19 acts on grounds other than unconstitutionality, such as procedural, regulatory or fraud claims.
Claims challenging withholding of information from the public, by governments and private businesses.
Some federal cases have made it through the first level review by US District Courts and the second level review by circuit courts of appeal, to the Supreme Court of the United States. Some state cases have made it to the highest appellate court in their states, and gone on to the Supreme Court seeking constitutional review.
The rest are still working their way through the lower state and federal courts.
Of the cases I’m aware of, that have made it to the Supreme Court, most have been rejected for review without explanation, leaving the circuit court or state court rulings to stand.
Most of the federal and state court rulings I’ve seen, have avoided addressing constitutional issues, focusing instead on procedural or regulatory elements of the controversies.
Next week’s post will lay out some of these cases in more detail, including summaries of initial filings, lower court rulings, intermediate court rulings, and Supreme Court disposition, if any.
Claims challenging violation of Constitutionally-protected human rights by local, state and federal governments, including school districts and public universities.
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom - California, religious organization challenging Governor’s emergency orders
Butler v. Wolf - Pennsylvania, business owners and county governments challenging Governor’s emergency orders
Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University - university students challenging public university pharmaceutical product injection mandate
Keil v. City of New York and Kane v. DeBlasio - public school employees challenging public school district pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
FF v. New York - public school children and parents challenging public school district pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
Missouri v. Biden and Louisiana v. Biden - health care workers and state governments challenging federal government pharmaceutical product injection mandate through US Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Griner v. Biden - doctor challenging federal government pharmaceutical product injection mandate through CMS.
Robert v. Austin - military personnel challenging US Department of Defense pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
Navy Seal 1 v. Biden - military personnel challenging US Department of Defense pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
Doster v. Kendall - military personnel challenging US Department of Defense pharmaceutical product injection mandate
Costin v. Biden - federal employees challenging Biden’s Executive Order pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
Church v. Biden - federal employees challenging Biden’s Executive Order pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden - federal employees challenging Biden’s Executive Order pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
National Federation of Independent Businesses v Department of Labor Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and Ohio v. Department of Labor - state governments and business owners challenging OSHA’s pharmaceutical product injection mandate
Federal Civilian Contractor Employer v. Austin - federal contract workers challenging Biden’s Executive Order pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
Federal Civilian Contractor Employer v. Carnahan - federal contract workers challenging Biden’s Executive Order pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
Claims challenging violation of Constitutionally-protected human rights by private businesses.
Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital - health care workers challenging private employer pharmaceutical product injection mandate.
Claims challenging federal, state and local Covid-19 acts on grounds other than unconstitutionality, such as procedural, regulatory or fraud claims.
Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden - Airline employees and passengers challenging HHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) public transportation medical device/mask mandate under Administrative Procedures Act.
Jackson v. Ventavia - Private citizen whistleblower challenging federal government contracting procedures under False Claims Act.
Ealy v. Redfield - Oregon state legislators and private citizens challenging federal government policies under Administrative Procedures Act
America’s Frontline Doctors v. Becerra - Challenge to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) procedures for medical devices and pharmaceutical products, including injections.
Children’s Health Defense Fund v. Woodcock and FDA - Challenge to FDA licensing procedures for medical devices and pharmaceutical products, including injections.
Claims challenging withholding of information from the public, by governments and private businesses
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. Food and Drug Administration
Changizi v. Health and Human Services
Empower Oversight v. National Institutes of Health