Connect with us

COVID-19

Program for Low-Income Families in 25 States Sue Biden Over Mask Mandates for Kids

Published

on

Kid Mask

Twenty-five states are suing the Biden administration over mandatory mask wearing for children over the age of two, as well as vaccine requirements for staff. The lawsuit has been brought by federally funded Head Start Programs which are designed to prepare children up to five years old for school while also providing services and support to low-income families with children.

“Like all of his other unlawful attempts to impose medical decisions on Americans, Biden’s overreaching orders to mask two-year-olds and force vaccinate teachers in our underserved communities will cost jobs and impede child development,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said in a statement Tuesday. “If enacted, Biden’s authoritarianism will cut funding, programs, and childcare that working families, single mothers, and elderly raising grandchildren rely on desperately.”

Joining Louisiana in the effort are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and West Virginia.

Fox News reports “The lawsuit comes in response to a set of new rules issued by the Biden administration last month that require children over two years old in Head Start programs to wear masks, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is requiring staff, contractors and volunteers in the program to be vaccinated by the end of January.”

The states claim the new rules exceed the administration’s authority and violates the Congressional Review Act and the Tenth Amendment. “Our Nation’s children have faced enough setbacks and difficulties during the last two years; they cannot afford another government attack on their development,” Landry said. “My office has had great success in blocking Biden’s mandates on many hard-working Americans, and we will work tirelessly to achieve the same victories for toddlers and teachers.”

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. B A Potgieter

    December 25, 2021 at 8:22 am

    A MANDATE is NOT an ORDER to comply with.! It is a QUESTION whether you agree to such an Idea.!! Say NO to this Mandate so it can not be signed into law. Where is Allan Dershowitz to point this out to the People.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

COVID-19

Internal docs show Amazon censored books on vaccinations due to pressure from Biden White House

Published

on

Vaccine

Recently released internal Amazon emails reveal the company caved to pressure from the Biden White House to suppress available vaccine information.

Provided to the House Judiciary Committee, the emails light on the extent of the Biden White House’s influence over the retail giant regarding vaccine-related content. The emails disclose a concerning narrative of pressure from government officials to suppress information deemed unfavorable to their agenda.

Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio took to Twitter to disclose the findings, stating that the emails reveal direct pressure from the White House on Amazon to censor books expressing views contrary to those endorsed by the administration. One email, albeit redacted, explicitly poses the question of whether the administration requested the removal of certain books, to which the answer was affirmative.

National Review highlights the successful efforts of the Biden administration in persuading Amazon to limit the visibility of titles skeptical of vaccine efficacy. White House senior adviser for Covid-19 response, Andrew Slavitt, expressed concerns about Amazon’s role in propagating what he termed as “misinformation” regarding vaccines. His emails illustrate a push for action to address what he perceived as a proliferation of dissenting views.

In response to Slavitt’s inquiries, Amazon initially hesitated to take overt action, fearing backlash from conservative media outlets. The company’s internal deliberations reflect a concern for public perception and the potential amplification of the issue if intervention were too conspicuous.

Despite initially refraining from manual intervention, Amazon eventually succumbed to pressure, engaging in discussions with White House officials. The company’s internal documents reveal deliberations on whether the administration sought outright book bans or alterations to search results. Amazon’s stance, as expressed in their meeting with the White House, emphasized the provision of diverse viewpoints and the distinction between online retail and social media platforms.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending