Mar 5, 2026 3-5pm ET
Thursday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Hour 1
Special Guest: Jonathan Emord
For the past 37 years, Jonathan W. Emord has litigated against the federal bureaucracy, winning over and over again. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “an expert in constitutional theory and history” and “an expert litigator with a long string of legal victories over the federal bureaucracy.” George Noory calls him “a Knight in Shining Armor” and “a warrior out to save our rights.” Congressmen Dan Burton and John Doolittle describe him as “an intellectual warrior for the rights and freedoms of people in America.” Jonathan has a unique, detailed knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, the deep state. He knows how to defeat it. Jonathan graduated from the University of Illinois (BA, political science and history, 1982) and DePaul University College of Law (JD, 1985). He served as an attorney in the Federal Communications Commission during the Reagan administration. A leading constitutional law and litigation expert, he is the author of five critically acclaimed books. He has won more cases against the Food and Drug Administration in federal court than any other attorney in American history, earning him the nickname “FDA Dragon Slayer.” He is a columnist for Townhall.com, PJ Media.com, Americangreatness.com, and the U.S.A. Today Magazine. He frequently appears on national radio and television programs. He is married to Sheryl Emord, and they have two children, twins Justice and Angelica. They reside in Clifton, Virginia.
Operation Epic Fury survives Senate challenge as Republicans close ranks behind Trump The Senate rejected Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) war powers resolution on March 4, 2026, which aimed to limit President Donald Trump’s military actions in Iran under Operation Epic Fury, with only Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supporting it among Republicans and Sen. Jon Fetterman (D-Pa.) as the lone Democrat in favor, allowing continued U.S. strikes that have targeted over 2,000 sites focused on Iran’s air defenses and missile capacity since February 28, 2026, resulting in six U.S. service member deaths, nearly 50 Iranian leader casualties, and Iranian claims of 1,045 total deaths. Democrats argued Trump’s actions violated congressional authority under the War Powers Act, lacked a clear strategy, broke campaign promises, and risked escalation including ground troops, with Kaine and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) emphasizing the need for accountability and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) highlighting shifting administration goals as evidence of absent planning. Republicans defended the president’s constitutional commander-in-chief powers, deeming the War Powers Act unconstitutional and noting Congress’s funding oversight, with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) arguing against the resolution, though Hawley noted ground troops would require congressional approval. The administration lobbied extensively, briefing senators with officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan “Raizin” Caine, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, asserting compliance with the War Powers Act despite viewing it as unconstitutional and explaining the preemptive strikes to minimize casualties amid Israel’s intended actions. GOP fatigue with Kaine’s repeated resolutions—his fifth since Trump’s return, comprising nearly half of historical uses—and private discussions solidified support, with Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso criticizing Kaine’s selective application compared to prior administrations. The rejection represents a victory for Trump, enabling ongoing operations while underscoring partisan divides on war powers and U.S. Middle East involvement, with Rubio describing Iran’s leadership as “lunatics” and defending the strikes as the right decision
Supermajority of American Voters Support Health and Medical Freedom, New Poll Reveals A national poll conducted by FabrizioWard for MAHA Action and released in early 2026 demonstrates overwhelming public support for health and medical freedom principles, with a supermajority of likely voters—approximately 68% overall—favoring policies that prioritize individual choice, parental rights in medical decisions for children, informed consent without coercion, and reduced government or institutional mandates on personal health matters including vaccination, reproductive care, and treatment options. The survey of 1,000 likely voters found particularly strong backing across party lines for ending liability protections for vaccine manufacturers (62% support repeal of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act carve-out), requiring explicit parental consent for COVID-19 vaccination of minors (74% approval), prohibiting school or workplace mandates for medical interventions (67%), and shifting federal vaccine recommendations from universal to risk-stratified or shared decision-making models (59%). Support remained robust even when presented with counterarguments emphasizing public health protection and herd immunity, dropping only marginally to 61% on core freedom principles. The poll revealed high crossover appeal, with 71% of independents, 54% of Democrats, and 78% of Republicans endorsing greater medical autonomy, while demographic breakdowns showed especially strong sentiment among parents of young children (69%), suburban women (64%), and voters under 45 (66%), groups pivotal to electoral outcomes. Respondents ranked restoring manufacturer accountability (68% priority), protecting parental rights (65%), and ensuring transparent risk-benefit disclosure (62%) as top health policy concerns, outranking traditional partisan issues in perceived importance for rebuilding trust in institutions. MAHA Action President Tony Lyons described the results as evidence that medical freedom has become a unifying, majority position transcending ideology, driven by pandemic-era experiences of mandates, perceived lack of transparency, and growing awareness of potential vaccine-related harms documented in adverse event systems and independent research. The poll underscores a broad demand for policies that treat health decisions as personal rather than collective obligations, rejecting coercive frameworks in favor of voluntary, informed participation. Critics of broad freedom measures argue that unrestricted choice could undermine herd immunity and increase preventable disease risks, particularly for vulnerable populations, but the data indicate most voters perceive individual rights and safety concerns as outweighing population-level mandates in current circumstances. The findings position health and medical freedom as a potent electoral issue for the 2026 midterms, with potential to mobilize low-propensity voters and attract moderates disillusioned with both major parties’ approaches to pandemic policy and chronic disease management. The article frames the poll as a clear public mandate for reform, urging lawmakers to align with voter priorities by advancing legislation that strengthens informed consent, removes liability shields that reduce manufacturer incentives for safety, and refocuses federal health policy on prevention, transparency, and personal autonomy rather than top-down control.
Michigan Republican Lawmakers Introduce Vaccination Rights Bills Republican lawmakers in the Michigan House and Senate introduced a package of bills on March 4, 2026, aimed at strengthening parental rights and individual medical freedom regarding vaccinations, prohibiting school districts, employers, and state agencies from imposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates or conditioning access to education, employment, public benefits, or services on vaccination status, while also banning discrimination based on vaccination choice in housing, healthcare, and public accommodations. The primary bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Carra (R-Three Rivers) and co-sponsored by several Republican colleagues, would prohibit any Michigan school district, charter school, or private school receiving public funds from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination for enrollment or attendance, overriding any prior local policies or executive orders that imposed such requirements during the pandemic. Companion legislation in the Senate, led by Sen. Ruth Johnson (R-Holly), extends similar protections to workplaces by prohibiting employers from mandating COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment or offering differential benefits or penalties based on vaccination status, with exemptions only for federally mandated positions such as certain healthcare workers under CMS rules. Additional bills in the package seek to prevent state agencies from using COVID-19 vaccination status as a criterion for licensing, permitting, or accessing public programs, and prohibit discrimination in rental housing or public accommodations on the basis of vaccination history. Sponsors argue the measures are necessary to safeguard personal liberty, bodily autonomy, and parental rights following what they describe as unconstitutional overreach during the COVID-19 emergency, when vaccine mandates led to job losses, school exclusions, and social divisions. Rep. Carra stated, “Michiganders should never again face coercion to inject a medical product against their will or lose their livelihoods over personal health choices,” while Sen. Johnson emphasized protecting families from government intrusion into private medical decisions. Democrats and public health advocates have criticized the bills as unnecessary and potentially harmful, arguing that removing school vaccine requirements—particularly for highly contagious diseases—could reduce coverage below herd immunity thresholds and increase outbreak risks, citing recent pertussis and measles cases in under-vaccinated communities. Opponents also note that the bills target COVID-19 vaccines specifically while preserving existing mandates for diseases like measles, mumps, and polio, creating inconsistent policy. The legislation faces uncertain prospects in a divided Legislature, where Republicans hold slim majorities in both chambers but lack veto-proof supermajorities, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has previously vetoed similar health freedom measures. If passed, the bills would take effect 90 days after enactment and apply prospectively to future mandates, with no retroactive relief for those previously terminated or excluded. The package aligns with broader national efforts in Republican-led states to roll back pandemic-era vaccine policies and restore individual choice amid declining public trust in federal health agencies and ongoing debates over vaccine safety, efficacy, and mandates.
Supreme Court Blocks California’s School Gender Secrecy Policy in Victory for Parental Rights The U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency injunction on March 3, 2026, blocking enforcement of California’s AB 1955 “Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth” (SAFETY) Act, which prohibits schools from notifying parents if their child requests to use different pronouns, change gender identity markers, or access gender-affirming facilities or counseling without the student’s explicit consent, granting a significant victory for parental rights advocates who argued the law unconstitutionally infringes on fundamental parental authority to direct the upbringing and medical care of their minor children. The 6-3 decision, with the conservative majority prevailing, halts implementation of the law—signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July 2024 and set to take effect January 1, 2026—pending full review of a challenge brought by Chino Valley Unified School District, several other districts, and parental rights groups asserting violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause protecting parental rights, the First Amendment’s free speech and free exercise protections, and the right to family integrity. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, emphasized that “parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children,” citing landmark precedents such as Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), and Troxel v. Granville (2000), and found that the state’s interest in student privacy and safety does not justify blanket secrecy from parents absent evidence of imminent abuse or neglect, which the law does not require. The Court rejected California’s argument that the policy protects vulnerable LGBTQ+ students from potential parental rejection or harm, stating that such generalized concerns cannot override the constitutional presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests, and that schools may not substitute their judgment for parental authority in matters of identity and medical decision-making for minors. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing the injunction prematurely disrupts a state law designed to shield students from unsupportive home environments and that parental rights are not absolute when balanced against child welfare. The ruling allows districts that previously adopted parental notification policies to continue them while litigation proceeds in the Ninth Circuit, potentially setting a nationwide precedent if the Court ultimately grants certiorari and affirms the injunction on the merits. Parental rights groups celebrated the decision as a major check on state overreach into family life, while LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations expressed alarm that it could endanger transgender and gender-nonconforming youth by forcing disclosure to potentially unsupportive or abusive parents. The case highlights ongoing cultural and legal battles over parental authority, student privacy, and gender identity policies in schools, with implications for similar laws in other blue states and potential federal legislation addressing parental notification rights.
British-Iranian actress asks: Where are college campuses protesting Iranian regime? British-Iranian actress and human rights activist Nazanin Boniadi sharply questioned the absence of significant campus protests targeting the Iranian regime’s widespread human rights abuses during a March 4, 2026, appearance on Fox News, contrasting the intense, sustained pro-Palestinian demonstrations on U.S. college campuses with the near-total silence surrounding Iran’s documented repression, including mass executions, torture, sexual violence against detainees, suppression of women’s rights, and sponsorship of terrorist groups across the Middle East. Boniadi, known for her roles in The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power and Homeland, and her longstanding activism against the Islamic Republic since the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising triggered by Mahsa Amini’s death in morality police custody, highlighted the regime’s record of over 800 executions in 2025 alone, routine use of rape as torture, forced confessions under duress, public hangings, and brutal crackdowns on ethnic minorities, journalists, and protesters demanding basic freedoms. She expressed profound disappointment that many of the same student activists who organized encampments, disrupted classes, and demanded divestment over Israel’s actions in Gaza have remained largely silent on Iran’s role as the leading state sponsor of terrorism—funding and arming Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis responsible for regional attacks and civilian casualties—while Iranian women and girls continue risking imprisonment, torture, or death for defying mandatory hijab laws or protesting gender apartheid. Boniadi argued that genuine progressive activism should oppose all authoritarian regimes and oppression universally, regardless of geopolitical alignments or ideological convenience, and criticized Western academics and students for what she sees as selective outrage that romanticizes or ignores brutality when perpetrated by anti-Western governments. She called for renewed global solidarity with Iran’s internal opposition, stronger sanctions on the regime, diplomatic isolation, and amplified support for dissidents rather than appeasement, emphasizing that true human rights advocacy cannot be applied inconsistently without losing moral credibility. The interview occurred amid heightened U.S.-Iran tensions following recent Israeli strikes on Iranian military targets and the Trump administration’s hardline stance against Tehran, with Boniadi urging greater consistency in condemning oppression wherever it occurs. Her comments resonated with conservative commentators who have frequently accused campus progressives of hypocrisy in championing certain causes while ignoring or downplaying abuses by regimes hostile to Western interests, and drew criticism from pro-Palestinian activists who accused her of deflecting attention from Israel’s policies and whitewashing U.S. complicity in regional conflicts. The segment underscores deepening cultural and political divides over selective application of human rights principles, free speech boundaries on campuses, and the prioritization of various global injustices within activist movements.Hour 2
Better Messaging in Public Health Public health communication has suffered from a credibility crisis stemming from inconsistent, authoritarian, and often misleading messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic, where officials repeatedly shifted guidance on masks, transmission, vaccine efficacy, natural immunity, and risk stratification without transparent explanation or acknowledgment of uncertainty, eroding trust to historic lows and fueling widespread skepticism toward institutions like the CDC, FDA, and WHO that persists into 2026. The article argues that restoring confidence requires a fundamental shift toward humble, evidence-based, transparent, and non-coercive communication that respects individual autonomy, acknowledges legitimate scientific debate, admits limitations and errors, and prioritizes informed consent over compliance. Key principles for better messaging include clearly distinguishing between correlation and causation when presenting data, avoiding absolute claims about efficacy or safety when evidence is preliminary or observational, presenting absolute rather than relative risk reductions to avoid exaggeration (e.g., a 95% relative reduction in severe outcomes may translate to a tiny absolute benefit in low-risk groups), and openly discussing trade-offs such as potential adverse events, waning immunity, and opportunity costs of lockdowns or mandates. The piece criticizes past practices of labeling dissent as misinformation, censoring qualified experts, and framing vaccination as the only acceptable path to normalcy, which alienated large segments of the population and hardened opposition rather than fostering dialogue. Instead, communicators should adopt a posture of epistemic humility—admitting what is known, what remains uncertain, and what has changed with new data—while using plain language free of jargon and condescension. Examples of improved approaches include acknowledging breakthrough infections as expected with non-sterilizing vaccines, highlighting natural immunity’s robust protection in recovered individuals rather than dismissing it, and tailoring recommendations to individual risk profiles instead of one-size-fits-all mandates. The article calls for public health agencies to prioritize long-term trust-building over short-term compliance, suggesting regular transparent updates, inclusion of dissenting but credentialed voices in advisory processes, and explicit rejection of coercive tactics that undermine voluntary participation. It warns that continued top-down, fear-based messaging will deepen polarization and reduce future cooperation during genuine emergencies, while a return to classical public health values—education, persuasion, and respect for personal choice—offers the best path to rebuild credibility and effectiveness. The author concludes that the pandemic exposed deep flaws in institutional communication culture, but the current window of policy reevaluation presents an opportunity to adopt principles of openness, accountability, and humility that could restore faith in science and public health for generations.
Origin of deadly cancer affecting young adults revealed in alarming report A new comprehensive report from the American Cancer Society and published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians reveals that colorectal cancer rates among adults under age 50 have surged dramatically over the past three decades, rising by approximately 2% annually since 1994, making it the leading cause of cancer death in men under 50 and the second-leading cause in women under 50, surpassing breast cancer in younger females and signaling an alarming shift in a disease once considered primarily an older-adult condition. The analysis, drawing from the most recent SEER data through 2022 and mortality statistics through 2023, attributes the increase largely to environmental and lifestyle factors rather than genetic predisposition alone, with early-onset cases showing distinct molecular profiles including higher rates of microsatellite instability, BRAF mutations, and serrated pathway cancers compared to traditional late-onset disease. Key drivers identified include the Western diet’s high intake of ultra-processed foods, red and processed meats, refined sugars, and low fiber; sedentary behavior exacerbated by screen time and remote work; rising obesity rates with visceral fat promoting chronic inflammation and insulin resistance; alterations in the gut microbiome from antibiotics, low-fiber diets, and emulsifiers; and potential exposure to environmental toxins such as PFAS, glyphosate, and microplastics that may disrupt hormonal signaling, induce DNA damage, or promote chronic inflammation in the colorectal epithelium. The report notes that while smoking and alcohol use have declined in younger cohorts, these protective trends are outweighed by escalating obesity and dietary shifts beginning in childhood, with generational changes suggesting exposures during early life or adolescence may initiate carcinogenesis years before diagnosis. Symptoms in young adults—often dismissed as benign issues like hemorrhoids or IBS—include rectal bleeding, changes in bowel habits, abdominal pain, unexplained weight loss, and fatigue, leading to later-stage diagnoses and poorer prognosis compared to older patients who typically present earlier due to screening. The ACS recommends lowering the colorectal cancer screening age from 50 to 45 for average-risk individuals, with earlier initiation (as young as 40 or upon symptoms) for those with family history, inflammatory bowel disease, or other risk factors, and emphasizes lifestyle interventions including high-fiber plant-based diets, regular physical activity, weight management, limiting processed meats and alcohol, and avoiding smoking to mitigate risk. The alarming rise underscores the need for heightened awareness among young adults and primary care providers, improved access to colonoscopy and non-invasive screening tests like stool-based DNA assays, and urgent research into modifiable environmental exposures contributing to this generational shift in disease burden. The report warns that without aggressive prevention and early detection efforts, early-onset colorectal cancer could continue to climb, imposing significant long-term costs on healthcare systems and quality of life for younger populations increasingly affected by what was once considered a disease of aging.
Iatrogenic Dependence and Addiction Modern medicine has inadvertently created widespread iatrogenic dependence and addiction through overprescribing of pharmaceuticals that alter brain chemistry, induce tolerance, and produce severe withdrawal syndromes, turning patients into lifelong consumers of drugs originally intended for short-term symptom relief while rarely addressing underlying causes of illness, resulting in a public health crisis where millions suffer chronic physical and psychological dependence on substances prescribed by trusted providers. The article examines how classes of medications—particularly opioids, benzodiazepines, SSRIs/SNRIs, stimulants like Adderall, and proton pump inhibitors—generate dependence far beyond their therapeutic intent, with opioids and benzodiazepines causing classic addiction syndromes involving tolerance, escalating doses, and life-threatening withdrawal, while SSRIs produce discontinuation syndromes mislabeled as relapse that include brain zaps, akathisia, emotional blunting, sexual dysfunction, and suicidal ideation persisting months or years after cessation. The author argues that iatrogenic harm arises from a biomedical model that treats symptoms as diseases, ignores root causes such as diet, stress, trauma, environmental toxins, and nutrient deficiencies, and prioritizes patented drugs over lifestyle interventions or non-pharmaceutical therapies that lack profit potential. Pharmaceutical marketing, direct-to-consumer advertising, and financial ties between industry and medical education foster a culture where doctors overprescribe and patients demand quick fixes, while regulatory capture ensures minimal scrutiny of long-term dependence risks during approval processes focused on short-term efficacy trials. Withdrawal from these medications is often more severe than from illicit substances due to abrupt receptor changes and lack of tapering protocols, with many patients trapped in polypharmacy cycles where additional drugs are prescribed to manage withdrawal effects, creating cascading dependence. The piece highlights how the opioid epidemic—fueled by aggressive marketing of OxyContin as non-addictive—serves as a paradigm for iatrogenic addiction, with similar patterns emerging in antidepressant and ADHD medication use, where millions of children and adults face lifelong reliance or debilitating withdrawal. Solutions proposed include mandatory informed consent disclosing dependence and withdrawal risks, stricter prescribing guidelines with tapering plans, independent research into long-term outcomes free of industry funding, greater emphasis on root-cause medicine through functional and lifestyle approaches, and legal reforms to hold prescribers and manufacturers accountable for foreseeable harm. The article frames iatrogenic dependence as a silent epidemic perpetuated by a profit-driven healthcare system that profits from chronic management rather than genuine healing, urging patients, providers, and policymakers to recognize and resist the cycle of pharmaceutical entrapment that masquerades as standard care.
Vitamin & Mineral Supplement Could Tame Teen Irritability A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry demonstrated that a daily broad-spectrum micronutrient supplement significantly reduced irritability, anger outbursts, emotional dysregulation, and aggressive behavior in adolescents aged 12–18 years with moderate to severe symptoms, providing a promising non-pharmacological option for managing mood instability during a developmental stage often marked by hormonal changes, academic pressure, social challenges, and poor dietary habits. The study randomized 136 teenagers meeting clinical criteria for elevated irritability on validated scales to receive either the active supplement—containing therapeutic but safe doses of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, B12, C, D, E, zinc, magnesium, iron, selenium, manganese, chromium, and other trace elements—or an identical placebo for 12 weeks. Parent-rated and self-reported measures showed the active group experienced a 42% greater reduction in primary irritability scores compared to placebo (p < 0.001), with secondary benefits including fewer aggressive incidents, improved emotional control, better sleep quality, enhanced school functioning, and reduced overall distress, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large (Cohen’s d = 0.6–1.1). Clinician assessments using standardized tools corroborated these improvements, and blood biomarker analysis confirmed correction of multiple nutrient deficiencies in the treatment arm without safety concerns beyond mild transient gastrointestinal discomfort in a few participants. The researchers propose that addressing subclinical or overt deficiencies—common in teens due to high consumption of ultra-processed foods, selective eating, rapid growth demands, and inadequate intake of nutrient-dense whole foods—supports critical neurobiological processes including neurotransmitter synthesis (B vitamins for serotonin and dopamine), stress hormone regulation (magnesium for HPA axis modulation), antioxidant defense (selenium, vitamin E), and synaptic plasticity (zinc, iron), thereby reducing inflammation, oxidative stress, and excitotoxicity that contribute to mood dysregulation. Subgroup analyses revealed larger benefits among participants with baseline deficiencies or more severe baseline symptoms, suggesting the intervention is particularly effective when correcting genuine nutritional gaps rather than applied universally. The formula used was a commercially available broad-spectrum product previously studied in adults for mood and stress resilience, with adolescent-appropriate dosing and safety margins well below established tolerable upper intake levels. While the results are encouraging and consistent with prior smaller trials showing micronutrient benefits for ADHD, aggression, and emotional dysregulation in youth, the authors call for larger, longer-duration studies to confirm persistence of effects, identify optimal formulations, and evaluate efficacy in diverse populations including those with diagnosed mood or behavioral disorders. They stress that the approach does not replace evidence-based psychotherapy or psychopharmacology when clinically warranted but offers a safe, accessible adjunct or initial strategy for irritability potentially driven by nutritional imbalances rather than primary psychiatric pathology. The study highlights the underappreciated role of diet and micronutrients in adolescent mental health, advocating for routine nutritional screening in teens presenting with mood instability and greater emphasis on whole-food sources supplemented by targeted formulas when deficiencies are identified. Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
